Oh boy, I love this kind of stuff. Maybe I'll learn a few things. :3 Zarel's post Hide (Move your mouse to the hide area to reveal the content) Show Hide Hide Hide I hope this isn't bad, but I LIKE the sound of that. In fact, it's the result I'd be hoping for. In my world, I'd like if the following situations arrose: "Oh, I missed. Next one will hit for sure." "Uh oh, he used Scald. Next one will probably burn." "Two flinches in a row. My next move will get through." As I said, I prefer to lean to the side of determinism. This way, your opponent is the primary unpredictable factor. In other words, making more predictable elements allows for strategy instead of gambling. (Though Pokemon isn't that unpredictable.) The other day a friend sat me down to play dominoes with his new girlfriend (who I dislike.) It took me a few minutes to understand the rules through her accent, but after a while I got the idea of things. After the first confusing round, we started playing a sort of handicap mode for teaching purposes with hands shown up so she could point out possible moves. I started to realize that as things were, I could see the opponent's options as well as mine, much like in chess. No longer was I blindly applying pieces, but also taking into account whether I left openings for the other players, or just straight up blocking them when I had no better moves. As for the calculation, that's why we have computers. When I do pen and paper Rps, every value is single digit (double for really strong stuff), and all calculations are simple arithmetic. When I have something doing the job for me, (and quickly at that) I have no problem letting there be a bit of convolution. Apparantly it's nothing new to pokemon, and I'd say the damage a move does is about as important as whether it even hits at all. On your second point though, I've got nothing. Pokemon is what is. If I were planning it from the ground up, I'd lower the damage of criticals to 1.5x, and change misses to grazes of 0.5x so as to minimize the rewards and punishments of luck. Not my game though, so the most I can do is complain. I once sat down and planned out a fishing system in such a way that every one of the 100 fish that was spawned was kept track of until the end of the day so that while they were spawned randomly they would still exist where you found them if you returned to the areas. Every type of fish had a maximum number of times they can spawn depending on rarity. In this way, you still had the experience of looking for fish, and trying to find that really difficult one, but it was impossible to check every areas and just not find it due to sheer rarity. Of course one could make the fish less rare, but then it is easier to find. My point? I like to find ways around randomness when the player's success or enjoyment ride on it. I can't say luck is bad, because it's actually a hugely enjoyable factor in many games. It's just that I feel luck is a "casual" element, and the more competitive something gets the less I like it. The luck in board games allows for sudden, hilarious upsets, which is great when playing with my little sisters or goofing off with friends, but not so much when things get serious. I think I argued for the sake of arguing. Like I said, I just like this stuff. I'd never seriously suggest to change Pokemon's luck system (especially in a simulator) but I spend a good deal of my day theorizing how one thing or another might work differently.