1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Discussion Critical Hits for Multi-Hit Moves

Discussion in 'Policy Center' started by zarator, Jan 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. zarator

    zarator Credits to Mos-Quitoxe for the cute sprite^^
    is a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,977
    This thread will be moderated to keep discussion focused.

    Critical Hits for Multi-Hit Moves

    Basically, there is some unrealism as to Critical Hits for Multi-Hit Moves & how they interact with Screens, Stat Boosts, Burns, etc. zarator outlined the issue & has proposed a solution here:
    There has been overwhelming support to move this to a discussion, & so, we are here to discuss Critical Hits for Multi-Hit Moves.

    Discussion should focus around the following questions:

    • Is the current issue with how Critical Hits from Multi-Hit Moves interacting with Screens, etc., big enough to warrant a change?
    • Is the proposed "pierce" method seen as a viable way to fix this problems?
      • Could it be more user user friendly?
    • Are there better alternatives to the proposed pierce solution?
    • Are there any other issues with how Critical Hits from Multi-Hit Moves interacting with Screens, etc., that can be raised?
    At any rate, have at ye! Time to discuss this issue.
  2. Its_A_Random

    Its_A_Random The imitated
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,336
    Hi, I undeleted this thread & made the OP as the base post for the discussion. Remember to try & keep things civil & on-topic. Otherwise, time to discuss the issues outlined in the OP.

    Cheers!
    Its_A_Random
  3. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    The first thing I am going to do is post the workaround formula for zarator's proposal:

    • X = (BAP reduction from screens + BAP reduction from burn + (Damage reduction from stat boosts and drops / type effectiveness multiplier))
    • IF X > Pierce damage THEN use pierce method
    • ELSE use old method

    The thing about that workaround is that having to divide by a decimal for non-neutral moves that have their damage reduced by stat boosts/drops is almost guaranteed to yield yucky decimals.

    Because of this, I believe that the Pierce method should not be implemented unless the damage from stat boosts/drops is moved to before the type effectiveness multiplier. This would mean the workaround formula would become the all-additive (BAP reduction from screens + BAP reduction from burn + Damage reduction from stat boosts and drops).

    ---

    The second thing I am going to do is propose an alternative, for those who aren't worried about yucky decimals.

    If a multi-hit move lands any critical hits, the damage reductions from screens, burn and stat boosts/drops are multiplied by (number of non-critical hits / number of hits).​

    This alternative is extremely simple in principle, but I know a lot of ASBers seem to hate decimals and, given that 1/3 and 2/3 are possible numbers you'd have to multiply by with this method, I wouldn't be too surprised if people opposed it.

    However, for those who do not like the Pierce method or the Fractional method, you could pick and choose the aspects of each that you like and use them (plus maybe a little of your own innovation) to come up with a third idea.
  4. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,158
    First, to answer some questions:
    Aside from Cinccino (I need not elaborate, now do I?), multi-hit moves do not have enough competitive distribution, in my opinion (You don’t exactly see Cloyster with as much usage stats in ASB as you do in OU). Also, the fact that a single critical hit happens in an attack 6.25% of the time means multiple crits on multi-hit moves are close to non-existent (Let's say hitting 3 times and critting even 2 of them on Icicle Spear - that sort of miracle only happens 0.011% of the time). But having a single crit able to disrupt the whole package of stall strategy a player has been carefully orchestrating – well, it centralizes the game on offensive damage races and make stalling less viable as a strategy.

    For that very reason alone (To make Stall a more viable strategy in ASB), I’d put my support behind the Critical Piercing proposal, and I doubt I can come up with another proposal that is able to supplant Zarator’s. However, it is mutually agreed that having to do both calcs (just to make sure which version does less damage) is not user-friendly.

    To remedy that, I propose that we simply adopt the Pierce proposal for all contingencies and situations. As illustrated above, multiple crits on multi-hit moves are extremely rare unless you spend an action using Focus Energy, so we might as well just adopt a single calculation formula for every situation. Not that Obj's remedy-proposals aren't valid (sorry Obj), but if nothing, the whole reff-payout revamp fiasco taught us that we don't have much liking for decimals, even though our reasons may be varied. That's why I suggest that we simply use one formula for everything.

    (God I just checked veekun and am immensely thankful that Cinccino does not learn Focus Energy.)
  5. zarator

    zarator Credits to Mos-Quitoxe for the cute sprite^^
    is a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,977
    Zheng, as I explained multiple times, you don't have to do "2 calculations". Just keep adding Pierce Damage until the Pierce bonus becomes higher than the damage reductions (most of them are additive, luckily), then scrap it and go with the old formula. Besides, as you said, the chance for it is rare.

    However, I wouldn't be so sure about Focus Energy being a non-issue, as well as Multi-hit moves being not so widespread. Virtually any Pokemon with Technician, as well as any Bug-type, is a good candidate for multi-hit moves. Syclant learns Focus Energy. Beedrill learns Focus Energy. Any Pokemon with Hone Claws and a Multi-hit move is a good candidate. A good number of these also can learn Focus Energy. So it's not a pointless issue, you see. However, a Focus Energy mon would crit with ALL attacks... it becomes pretty easy that, at that point, you would not apply the Pierce method. Really, the chances of an unclear instance (around 2-3 crits over 5 hits) is less likely than Halley comet crushing the earth in the next 1000 years....
  6. Engineer Pikachu

    Engineer Pikachu Good morning, you bastards!
    is a Contributor to Smogon

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,592
    I'd rather not adopt Pierce for everything. Consider any user of a multi-hit move that also has access to Focus Energy; on average, a multi-hit attack (e.g. Icicle Spear, not Triple Kick) will hit 3.1 times, which results in approximately a +12 Pierce bonus. The damage reduction from screens (4.65 DMG in Singles and less in other formats) is pretty negligible compared to this; in fact, to be evened out the attacking Pokemon would need to have to go through screens, be burned, and be at +1 Atk to even come close.

    The only qualm I have about this proposal is that it mitigates of the "oh crap" factor of critical hits, but it covers the issue nicely.
  7. Texas Cloverleaf

    Texas Cloverleaf meh
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,694
    I have no issue with the 'disruptive potential' of crits in a multi hit move and their interaction with screens and burn et al and do not feel it warrants a change.
  8. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    From my understanding of the pierce method, there is a sort of cap on the pierce damage equal to the damage reduction from screens, burn and stat boosts/drops. So, in your Focus Energy example, if the only damage reduction was from screens, the pierce damage would be capped at the amount of damage reduction provided by screens.

    EDIT: Oh, you were talking about using pierce method even when it did more than old method. Yeah, we don't want to do that.
  9. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    OK, there has been some call for zarator's proposal to be simplified. Here is my attempt at it:

    For the purposes of this proposal, "damage reduction" refers to the damage-altering effects of Reflect/Light Screen, burn, and boosts/drops to attack, defence, special attack and special defence. At present, the formula for damage reduction is (screens + burn + (stat stages / type effectiveness)). However, if we change stat boosts such that, in the damage formula, they come before type effectiveness, the formula simplifies to (screens + burn + stat stages).

    Every time a multi-hit move scores any critical hits, the move bypasses X amount of damage reduction per crit, where X is equal to crit damage boost + 1. This so-called "pierce" damage is capped at the amount of damage reduction there currently is.

    For example, if the only damage reduction is from singles Reflect and the multi-hit move has a total of 12 BAP (say, Rock Blast hitting 4 times), the damage reduction is 6. Therefore, the maximum possible "pierce" damage is 6. Assuming no Sniper, Rock Blast adds 1 damage per critical hit. Therefore, each critical hit adds 2 to the "pierce" damage. Therefore:
    • 1 crit = 2 pierce damage
    • 2 crits = 4 pierce damage
    • 3 crits = 6 pierce damage
    • 4 crits = 6 pierce damage

    However, if that 4-hits Rock Blast was super effective and the user was on -2 attack and singles Reflect was up, then the damage reduction would be equal to (6+(3.5/1.5))=8.33... However, since Rock Blast can only crit up to 4 times (since it only got 4 hits), the pierce damage can only get up to 8 (or 4*(1+1)).

    If we remove Reflect from the equation and just have the -2 attack, then the damage reduction is (3.5/1.5)=2.33... so 1 crit would give 2 pierce damage, but more than 1 crit would only give 2.33... pierce damage.

    Note that, for 4 crits in the first example and 2+ crits in the third example, using pierce method with capped pierce damage and using current method give exactly the same result. This is because making the pierce damage equal to the damage reduction is equivalent to removing pierce damage and damage reduction in the calc.
  10. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,158
    You'd won me over in this. Still, generally a reff would prefer to avoid the whole possibility of having to consider unclear comparisons altogether. I, myself wouldn't mind having to do less work (though if that entails the responsibility of being a reff, then I'll do it) but may those users who dislike such complexities step forward? People might say, "disliking complex formulae is not an excuse", but we do need to consider community consensus here, and not just moving it forward to Council voting just because some people didn't vocalize their opposition.
  11. TIO

    TIO

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    742
    Sounds good to me.
  12. zarator

    zarator Credits to Mos-Quitoxe for the cute sprite^^
    is a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,977
    As I said many times, this system may (emphasis on "may") require some extra thinking in a 1/10000 cases, but in the other 9999 it is better than the other ones for reasons already explained (simpler calcs while keeping true to the idea of mitigating crit disruption). In the long run, it will make the refs' life easier, not matter how much you're psyched up over the "unclear" scenarios.
  13. Pwnemon

    Pwnemon Switching is a metagame trend
    is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    Doubles Co-Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,999
    why not just:

    the attacks affected by screens are calculated separately

    stat boosts and drops are scaled proportional to amount of non-critical hits

    burn shouldn't be negated by crits anyway, fix that


    so if a neutral tech syclant uses icicle spear, hits five times, and gets two crits, on a neutral mew with +1 def and reflect:

    [(4+4+4)*.5 + (5+5) + 3 + (4*1.5) - (4*1.5)] - (1.75*3/5) = 15.95
    --[non-crits]----[crits][STAB][Ranks]---[Ranks]----[Boosts]

    ...not that hard
  14. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    I don't know if you've noticed Pwnemon, but your suggestion is functionally identical to the Fractional method I proposed earlier in post #3, except yours (rightfully) doesn't do anything to burn. Reducing the damage reduction of screens to (damage reduction * non-crits / hits) gives the same result as applying the screen reduction only to non-crits.

    That said, I am preferring your way of working out the screens reduction.
  15. zarator

    zarator Credits to Mos-Quitoxe for the cute sprite^^
    is a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,977
    I don't get why you put (4+4) for crits, and while it may look kinda easy as it is, the calc for boosts can get kinda ugly easily. For example, if Mew had +3 Def, and Icicle Spear was 4 hits and 3 crits, then you would have had to calc something like (5.25*3/4). I endeavor you to calc easily something like this without using a calculator.

    The upside of my proposal, as opposed to the fraction method you (and others) keep proposing despite all the times I addressed its issues, is that it avoids difficult calcs and turn everything into simple additions that can be done within your mind.
  16. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    OK, I know you've gone through the flaws of the Fractional method plenty of times so I'm not going to try to convince you to support it. I can, however, explain why Pwnemon did that for the crits. It is because the crits are the hits that, in his method, do not have the *.5 from screens applied to them. That said, he did forget to include the usual crit bonus of 2 for 2 crits in his calculation.
  17. Pwnemon

    Pwnemon Switching is a metagame trend
    is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    Doubles Co-Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,999
    Yeah objection is right, i forgot the actual crit bonus, it's now 5+5, fixed

    As to your proposed "problems" with the fractional method: i find it incredibly amusing that a person who doesn't even ref with the current system can purport to know exactly how hard it is. Maybe you can do raid calculations in your head, since a) they round off and b) you've outlawed combos, but I highly doubt there's a single actual match ref who doesn't use a calculator. Unless, you know, you can do [(11*2.25)/2+3+1.5]*1.5+1.75 in your head, then add it to the 8.167 and the 12.25 from earlier in the round all in your head. So the inclusion of calculators for refs is a non-issue. Everyone already uses at least the calculator applet built in to their OS. Furthermore, a fractional system is more accurate and true to the current damage formula than the pierce system, which is a semi-arbitrarily assigned value that introduces a new factor into the damage formula. Maybe you should take everyone independently coming up with a fractional system as a sign of community support for it, instead of you being right and everyone else being wrong—especially when your only argument against a fractional system is the lack of community support.

    tl;dr: 9.9
  18. zarator

    zarator Credits to Mos-Quitoxe for the cute sprite^^
    is a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,977
    Actually I never argued that the community doesn't support it, so I don't know where you got that from. However, you have a point on the current complexity of calcs in battles, for which I apologize. Maybe the use of a calculator is unavoidable, after all (although, up until [(11*2.25)/2+3+1.5]*1.5+1.75 it was still reasonable^^)
  19. zarator

    zarator Credits to Mos-Quitoxe for the cute sprite^^
    is a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,977
    Sorry for the double post, but can we reach a conclusion on this after over a month?
  20. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    I don't know about the others, but the way I go on this matter depends on what we do regarding stat boosts. I'd prefer that we reached a conclusion on those first.
  21. Dogfish44

    Dogfish44 Banned from 22 Casinos
    is a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,032
    This is going to be very blunt...

    • Is the current issue with how Critical Hits from Multi-Hit Moves interacting with Screens, etc., big enough to warrant a change?
    I don't see any issue in the current system to be frank. Multi-Hit moves are either the niche of certain users (Notably Cinccino), or are too unreliable for this to really matter.

    • Is the proposed "pierce" method seen as a viable way to fix this problems?
    This might get old after a while, but put simply "What Problem"?

    • Could it be more user user friendly?
    Distinctly - there's no way in hell I'm expecting even most veterans to understand that after one or two readthroughs, let alone people brand new.

    • Are there better alternatives to the proposed pierce solution?
    Leave as is.

    • Are there any other issues with how Critical Hits from Multi-Hit Moves interacting with Screens, etc., that can be raised?
    17:17:39 PM ~ <~Onion_Bubs> Never, not in a million years, absolutely not, no way Jose, no chance Lance, nyet, negatory, mm-mm, nuh-uh, uh-uh! And of course my own personal favourite of all time, man falling off of a cliff: NNNOOOOOOOOOoooooooo.......
    17:17:55 PM ~ <~Onion_Bubs> ... pff

    Sums it up rather well if I'm honest =\
  22. Pwnemon

    Pwnemon Switching is a metagame trend
    is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    Doubles Co-Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,999
    yea seriously who gives a fuck if one in five times a crit breaks through the screen you probably didnt set up because screens are shit anyway and NOBODY uses defensive boosters so thats really just silly
  23. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,158
    Personally I think zar has the best intentions (and I'm sure we all do, that's why we even clicked on Policy after all), and I'd still put my support behind him, for reasons stated in my (much) earlier posts. Also, Obj posted a tentative alternative proposal:
    Which I think looks much simpler, even though it really did not catch any momentum for the duration of this discussion.

    So maybe a Councillor could draft a slate and proceed to Voting. Also maybe we should find a more efficient way to control and end discussions.
  24. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    Yeah, obviously that needs to be altered to not include burn, but I would like to put that system forward again. The BAP reduction from screens is easy to work out since it is basically the sum total of the BAP of the non-crit hits multiplied by 1/2 or 1/3 depending on whether it's singles or doubles+, and if we change the stat boosts' damage per stage to a nicer number than 1.75, then multiplying that by even horrible fractions like 1/3 or 3/5 wouldn't be too taxing.

    The problem with going 1 crit = total bypass is that ... well, it just doesn't make sense, and one of the things about ASB is that we change things that don't make sense while still ensuring that what we change to is not broken. Either zarator's pierce method or this fractional method would still be balanced and the latter at least wouldn't even require much work.
  25. Dogfish44

    Dogfish44 Banned from 22 Casinos
    is a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,032
    Anything that requires more work than the current system is too much work if I'm honest here - the current system works fine, with multi-hit moves having lower crit damage, but being boosted by more regular disruption. Flavour takes a back seat to balance and time in this one, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)