Would banning Garchomp from standard play even solve the problem?

[Hipmonlee]

Yeah you're right MoP, generally that is the case. All the people talking about the huge threat of Dragonite dont really impress me because I know Dragonite isnt as broken as Garchomp. Dragonite will take super effective Stealth Rock damage as it switches in, so once it is in it probably will have to sweep then and there, rather than trying a hit and run move. I know its secondary stab is nigh on useless, so it wont generally threaten the pokemon it switches in on with a ohko. And I know that it isnt that fast so it probably needs to dd twice to sweep. All of this makes it easy to deal with even if I didnt have a counter. Also the fact that Dragonite isnt the single most commonly used pokemon, means that if I have a slight Dragonite weakness, I will probably be fine.

Garchomp is a pokemon that requires a counter. It is fast, it is sturdy, and it does ridiculous amounts of damage. The only reason to not use Garchomp, is because Garchomp is so everpresent people will go to extremes to counter it, and tbh, you probably should still use it anyway.. I mean there are other good sweepers, but Garchomp is simply better than all of them.

Also the difference between Heracross and Garchomp is that Gliscor counters any Heracross. You can pack Gliscor and you know you will be able to switch it in time and time again against Hera. There is no pokemon that can say that about Garchomp.

[edit] - What I think my point is here is that we all seem to agree that Garchomp is the single most broken ou pokemon, but nobody seems to agree on what is the second most. So if we were to remove Chomp and find we have the exact same problem with a different poke, wouldnt we have some idea what that poke would be? I mean the names being thrown about are Dragonite and Lucario but I would not rate them as anywhere near as dangerous as Heatran, Gyarados, Tyranitar, Machamp, Salamence or Metagross..

I mean if you were to look at advance, could you really pick one pokemon that stood out from the rest as the best sweeper the way Garchomp does in DP?

Have a nice day.

 

[Mekkah]

"oh well yeah, all your Pokemon is OHKO'd by Garchomp" but this wouldn't matter if say you had a Weavile, ScarfHeatran, Salamence, Gyarados, Gengar and something else random.

Gyarados, the Pokemon that gets OHKOed by Garchomp.

Complain about DP not being about fully countering Pokemon anymore all you want, but Garchomp is so threatening it does require a counter to it, but such a thing does not really exist.

The regular Swords Dance version isn't that bad either since it can still only hit with a non-STAB Fire Fang against Skarmory and Bronzong. It's screwed by anything that's faster and has Taunt/Encore/Sleeping move. If the opponent has Haze (which has perfect accuracy no matter what), then he loses all the boosts he just worked for and he's back to square one, making him a lot easier to take down.

"Screwed" isn't the right word. Moves cannot switch into another Pokemon. Pokemon can, but no Pokemon with these moves can switch into Garchomp reliably. He has to use Swords Dance or you have no reasons to switch these Pokemon in, unless it's Jumpluff on Earthquake or something. I know you like being unorthodox but come on, this is one step up from saying switch Thunderbolt into Gyarados.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

See, that's where I find problems with this. People argue that you NEED a counter to Garchomp, yet conceed that there is no such thing. As 'broken' as it appears to be, we know that a Garchomp user is NEVER 100% a winner, as there are plenty of teams that use Garchomp yet still get beaten by other teams, even those that DON'T use Garchomp. This means along the game, there is a situation in which the Garchomp user couldn't pull it off. Hell, I've even had my Garchomp raped because Cresselia always Ice Beamed it and they never got unlucky.

We all complain that "there are so many Garchomps its impossible to counter," but the way I see it, they only have ONE Garchomp. Honestly, is Cresselia not the counter to 75% of the Garchomps? I say 75 cause thats roughly what, 6 usable sets? Chainchomp, CBChomp, Scarfchomp, SUBSDChomp. How does Cresselia not counter at least 3 of those, and the only reason why not on the last one is cause of potential Crunch, which is just an opening for you to go right to Lucario and probably sweep them instead. There's just no logical way to argue that Garchomp should be banned.

 

[Hipmonlee]

There's just no logical way to argue that Garchomp should be banned.

Stop saying rubbish like this or I will have you removed from the forum. Fine make your points, but dont declare any potential argument illogical.

By your same argument you would also have to allow Arceus and Mewtwo and anything else. I imagine you would probably agree with that, but very few other people do.

The logical argument for banning Garchomp is: Garchomp reduces variety. It does it by being so much stronger than anything else in OU that people are almost forced to use it and to use dedicated counters.

Also your Garchomp counterless team with Gyarados would lose to a Sub Salac Chomp almost every time.

[edit] - Cress doesnt counter CB or Sub Salac Chomp. So that makes it 50%.. Also you forgot the subless swords dancer, which also isnt countered by Cresselia.

Have a nice day.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

Why doesn't Cresselia counter a SDChomp, sub or not?

 

[Jibaku]

For this to actually work and not go into an endless loop of those who support its removal or not, it is absolutely necessary that we get the absolute most clear definition for uber, as no other pokemon in the game stands as borderline as Garchomp is.

We cannot say that Garchomp is uber because it has no clear counter, because then Gengar and Lucario can go to ubers as well

We cannot say that luck is the factor that makes it uber. Because if you do, then that's like saying Gliscor is uber because all your Ice Beams missed and Gliscor managed to triple SD pass. However, we can say that Garchomp possesses the ability to abuse this kind of luck more than anything else in the game.

It is impossible to say that Garchomp is always the winner in a battle.

Overcentralization is probably the closest thing that makes him uber. Garchomp limits the options available in OU by being ultra powerful. Garchomp is the reason people sacrifice defensiveness to kill it in one hit with ice beam (Cress, Milotic). That simply means that Garchomp can EV itself differently and still cause you to lose.

Garchomp also has the tendency to end matches faster than anything, since at the simplest mistake it can SD can literally sweep a team from there. There's nothing else in the game that can be compared to this. Garchomp's counters often lack a recovery move to fix this problem, as opposed to an SD Lucario trying to punish a team with Gliscor in it. This certainly means that if Chomp is banned, nothing will get close or replace it.

If Garchomp is removed, the metagame will become less offensive, because now, you don't have to worry about the #1 offensive threat in the OU metagame. This is a mixed bag, as it might promote more stall but less quick matches. It would solve the problem of "cheap sweeps", but it wouldn't solve the problem of where it truly belongs

SD Chomp with Yache/the weird Salac spread thingy beats Modest Cress, Life Orb or Crunch SD Chomp (NOT CHAIN) beats Bold Cress and SubSD can pretty much own Cress in a sandstorm because the chances of Beam hitting is simply so ridiculous that it isn't exactly a counter anymore.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

A SD Yache/Salac Garchomp cannot 2hko a Cresselia. A Yache/Salac Garchomp will still be 2hko'd by a Cresselia. A Life Orb SD Garchomp will be able to 2hko a Cresselia, but will end up dieing to Ice Beam thanks to the recoil.

Also as easy as it is to set up Sandstorm, that's still an out side occurence, cause I can simply say it's just as easy to use a single layer of Toxic Spikes and effectively stop Garchomp from a major sweep.

 

[IggyBot]

I asked this question in the first topic, but I really didn't get much of a response. Would people really mind Garchomp as much if it didn't have Sand Veil? I'm not exactly sure how the moderators and other users in this forum would feel about including Sand Veil under evasion clause, but I imagine that Garchomp without that evasion boost would cause many people to think differently.

The whole "no counters" arguement that is brought up time and time again isn't the best reason to ban Garchomp in my opinion, however, it is more valid to use this excuse on Garchomp than any other pokemon in D/P. Gengar, a very common pokemon mentioned when bringing up the "no counters" argument has no way of boosting its SpAtk. Garchomp gets Swords Dance, immediatly doubling its 130 base Atk. Garchomp also has a 100 BP STAB attack in Earthquake, with much better type coverage, compared to Gengars Shadow Ball, an 80 BP attack with megar type coverage.

Lucarios speed sets it back a step. Garchomp has base 102 speed. There are exactly 38 (40 if you count multiple Deoxys forms) pokemon that have higher base speed than this. Including all 493 pokemon, Garchomp is faster than about 92% of them. Subtract pokemon currently in the uber tier, and Garchomp is now faster than about 94% of what is left, thanks to those extra two points of speed. Garchomp also has no speed ties with anything, thanks to having a unique base speed. Lucario is outspeed by 83 pokemon (excluding ubers). Lucario outspeeds 83% of all pokemon usable in the standard metagame. However, Lucario also risks a speed tie on the numerous amounts of other base 90 speed pokemon.

Right there are two things that set Garchomp apart from any other pokemon with no true counters. However, theorymon will only get you so far. I'm sure everyone able to post in this forum has beaten a team with Garchomp on it, which proves Garchomp isn't as invincible as it looks on paper.

I agree with husk and Jabba. I would also like to see a testing period on Shoddy where Garchomp isn't allowed anymore, and see the effect it has on playing style, teams and pokemon usages. Garchomp isn't normally used as a defensive counter to another pokemon, so saying a different powerhouse will step up to take Garchomps place on the top is complete bullshit, since removing Garchomp doesn't enable any other pokemon to become suddenly more effective offensivly.

Just my thoughts on the whole thing. Garchomp is undoubtedly the #1 threat of D/P at the moment, and is quite possibly overcentralizing the metagame, which would qualify its banishment to ubers.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

I'm all for testing without it and what not, but truth be told, what exactly are the 'specific' things that people put on their teams to 'counter' Garchomp? If it's Skarmory and Bronzong, I'm sure they will be used as much as they are right now. No one dislikes a good Spiker/Stealth Rocker that can Phaze/Sleep something. Was it Cresselia? People are probably still going to use it to stop some Lucarios, most Infernapes, a few Gyaradoses here and there, Salamence as well, and it's annoying as it's always is. Will Ice moves go down in usage? Probably not as Ice was one of the best offensive typed moves throughout all 4 metagames. Lack of Garchomp wouldn't make any team less "Mamoswine-weak" now would it? What was actually put in to 'stop' Garchomp that wouldn't normally get use?

 

[IggyBot]

I agree MoP. Actually, I think removing Garchomp will cause the usage of pokemon like Hippowdon, Gliscor, Skarmory and Cresselia to go up, because suddenly they become much more effective. They don't have to worry about being ripped apart by Garchomp, and can focus on other pokemon.

Garchomp beats everything listed as a potential "counter" to it without sacrificing a moveset. Other pokemon, let's use Gengar as an example again, can also beat their counters. However, a Gengar using Substitute / Focus Punch / Hypnosis may be effective against Blissey, but what is it going to do against the rest of the metagame? Sure, it beats one pokemon that normally walls it, but that's about it. Garchomp, on the other hand, beats it's potential counters without sacrificing moveslots to do so.

 

[obi]

You cannot ban Sand Veil unless you ban all Pokemon that have it as their ability, or else you ban Sand Stream Pokemon and the move Sandstorm. As soon as you make Sand Veil have no effect / remove it from the Pokemon, you cease to play Pokemon, and if you are willing to make some changes, why not make more? The whole point of a simulator is to simulate the battling experience of the actual game. A Sand Veil ban is unenforceable in-game, and thus should not be on a simulator.

 

[Hipmonlee]

If you use the Modest EVs listed in Smogon dex.
394 attack vs 339 defense, 120 power(*1.5 *1.3 *2), 389 max HP: 101.29% - 119.28%

If you use the Sleep Talkers EVs
394 attack vs 303 defense, 120 power(*1.5 *1.3 *2), 444 max HP: 99.1% - 116.67%

These EVs also dont OHKO Garchomp, even with the life orb damage.
186 attack vs 206 defense, 95 power(*4), 357 max HP: 70.31% - 82.91%

The subber will sub for a miss and 3hkos you after an SD. With Bright powder it has roughly a 53% chance that you will miss it at least twice.

[edit] - this post is in response to Mops response to my post. The others werent here when I started doing all this maths.

Have a nice day.

 

[IggyBot]

You cannot ban Sand Veil unless you ban all Pokemon that have it as their ability, or else you ban Sand Stream Pokemon and the move Sandstorm. As soon as you make Sand Veil have no effect / remove it from the Pokemon, you cease to play Pokemon, and if you are willing to make some changes, why not make more? The whole point of a simulator is to simulate the battling experience of the actual game. A Sand Veil ban is unenforceable in-game, and thus should not be on a simulator.

Yes Obi, I realize this. I didn't mean to sound like I was suggesting banning Sand Veil, but I think the fact that having it as Garchomps ability is just making people more inclined to throw it to ubers. I should have stated my opinion more clearly.

 

[Mekkah]

It would be possible to give Garchomp something lame like Pickup that doesn't do anything for it, but then we would be arguing about Gliscor or that we're not playing the true game anymore, so I don't feel it's a very relevant discussion at all. Garchomp is strong enough without Sand Veil as it is, Sand Veil just rubs more sand in the wound.

I'm for testing a Garchomp-less metagame for a month. I am not entirely sure if Garchomp's usage is in any way connected to that of Deoxys-E and Wobbuffet (I've seen Garchomp being allowed being used an argument for these two to be in), but they seem relatively unrelated so I think they can be left in for the test.

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

If you use the Modest EVs listed in Smogon dex.
394 attack vs 339 defense, 120 power(*1.5 *1.3 *2), 389 max HP: 101.29% - 119.28%

If you use the Sleep Talkers EVs
394 attack vs 303 defense, 120 power(*1.5 *1.3 *2), 444 max HP: 99.1% - 116.67%

These EVs also dont OHKO Garchomp, even with the life orb damage.
186 attack vs 206 defense, 95 power(*4), 357 max HP: 70.31% - 82.91%

The subber will sub for a miss and 3hkos you after an SD. With Bright powder it has roughly a 53% chance that you will miss it at least twice.

[edit] - this post is in response to Mops response to my post. The others werent here when I started doing all this maths.

Have a nice day.

If you use the 'standard' EVs for one Poke, you should probably use the same for the other, which shows no Adamant Garchomps that uses Swords Dance.

Obviously the Cresselia article needs a major revamp, seemingly as first of all, the Sleep Talker is the most used. And second, those are some of the worst EVs I've ever seen. But this isn't anyone's fault. To add onto my poor attempt at an argument, "no one" that is "competent" uses those EVs and most likely everyone makes their own. I know for sure that you for one sway away from whatever the articles provide.

However, you know full well that that "53%" bullshit is not in fact, 53%. That's just about as faulty as saying "if you include accuracy, Thunder only paralyzes 21% of the time." There is a 28% chance of missing per turn. That is it. There is no "you're goin to miss twice." And once again, you cannot assume that Sandstorm will always be up as easy as it is. My earlier posts have said everything excluding that there are any SR or SS or any extra shit on the field.

 

[Mekkah]

However, you know full well that that "53%" bullshit is not in fact, 53%. That's just about as faulty as saying "if you include accuracy, Thunder only paralyzes 21% of the time." There is a 28% chance of missing per turn. That is it.

The Thunder one is correct, and if Hip did his maths right, the others are too. Thunder does only paralyze 21% of the time:
30% of the time - you miss
49% of the time - you hit, you don't paralyze
21% of the time - you hit, you paralyze

I don't see what's wrong with using maths in Pokemon like this.

 

[Aldaron]

Before I get into my opinions regarding Garchomp, I'd like to question this counters argument. Essentially, does a counter have to be a counter to EVERY possible set of a Pokemon, or is defining a counter viable if it successfully counters the majority of the sets of a Pokemon?

I bring this up only because if the Garchomp-banning sect actually uses the "no counters" argument, they sure as hell better be supporting and pushing for the banning of Lucario. Just to quell any incorrect thoughts that Lucario is, in fact, counterable, I point merely to the SD Lucario, which has the option of running any of Crunch, Bullet Punch, Stone Edge and HP Ice for the fourth slot to effectively remove Cresselia/Celebi/Dusknoir, Gengar / Aerodactyl / Lunatone, Gyarados / Zapdos, and Gliscor from the potential counters list.

However, even though Lucario CLEARLY has 0 counters to EVERY set, there is absolutely no rush to ban Lucario. What does this tell me? That the "no counters" problem isn't really the big issue with Garchomp. In fact, in the future, I would prefer if this no counters argument wasn't utilized any more, as it clearly isn't the issue with Garchomp. Garchomp just might happen to have 0 100% counters to EVERY set, but Lucario is in the same boat. Unless you support both the banning of Garchomp AND Lucario, please do not mention the counters argument.

Unless...unless of course, a counter doesn't truly have to counter 100% of a Pokemon's sets. If it doesn't, then Garchomp and Lucario certainly have counters.

I'd like for people to tell me if a counter has to counter specific sets or every set on a Pokemon.

Also, just for your moment of Zen...LO Heracross with 68 SpA EVs and a Neutral Nature, meaning 133 SpA, always 2HKO's Max HP / Min SpD Neutral Nature Gliscor with Leftovers. Do we suddenly remove Gliscor from Heracross's counters list? Note, this isn't even too ridiculous. LO Heracross can run Megahorn, Close Combat, Stone Edge and HP Ice, and have more than enough EVs for Atk and Spe to make a viable difference.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Hmm.. I might actually use that HP ice Hera..

MoP, I spent a lot of time on that Subbing Garchomp Maths, it was kinda hard, but I am pretty confident it is right. This is assuming Cresselia switches in, Chomp SDs (it could sub or dragon claw too, but it is easier to explain this way) then Subs until Cress misses. Assuming Cress keeps throwing out ice beams it will more often than not die before it hits 5 times. There is a chance Chomp will be left with 1% health and no sub, but then again there is also a chance Chomp wont get hit at all.

Also if Garchomp is jolly then it only needs Stealth Rock and SS up to guarantee the KOs. And it is true you may not be able rely on SR and SS but they are definitely the norm in DP so I dont know why we would ignore them. Though I guess I have been a little unfair, in that Sub SD chomp wont be able to sub the 4th time if it takes SR damage.

Uncounterability though isnt really the issue. A combination of Starmie and HP Ice Bronzong will generally counter Garchomp if you reserve them for that purpose, but it isnt really reasonable. A Life Orb Heracross will kill Gliscors, but it isnt likely to sweep from that point. I mean, Heracross is a damn good pokemon, but it is slower, has less attack, is less bulky and has a worse trait than Garchomp and it doesnt resist SS or SR. Fighting is a good a typing but so are dragon and ground. Heracross is just not as good a pokemon as Garchomp.

I mean the thing here is that Garchomp is the most used pokemon on shoddy ladder, it is all but universally agreed to be the best pokemon in DP, it certainly warrants at least a test of its removal.

Have a nice day.

 

[husk]

Lucario...Lucario

The thing about no counters is that while Gyara can only switch into SD lucario 3 times, and Specs Lucario two times, I can be sure that if I have a 100% gyara I can switch in and take down a 100% Lucario. Unless of course it has SD+LO+Stone Edge or Specs/LO+HP: Electric which is quite similar to that heracross you posted with LO+HP: Ice...

Garchomp's set does not need to vary. With the moves outrage/dclaw, eq, and fire blast/fire fang it can turn each of its counters into a "can only switch in twice" deal. It doesn't need to lose coverage anywhere to finish its "counters". Not to mention it gets STAB on a combo that only two pokemon in the game resist unlike Lucario whose steel stab is negligible and hera who has both of its STABs resisted by two types.

Plus, ohkoing Garchomp is a hell of a lot harder than ohkoing hera or lucario. Meaning that if lucario can only 2hko gliscor/gyara then it has to switch out as both can ohko it. Even though Cresslia is going to lose to SD+Crunch just before it dies it can twave Lucario and then a plethora of pokemon can come in and ohko it. If Garchomp (with its higher base atk) can 2hko its counters then they are fucked as they 2hko and sometimes 3hko it back.


@Hip: I don't quite think that's what MoP means.

 

[Jumpman16]

Hmm.. I might actually use that HP ice Hera..

MoP, I spent a lot of time on that Subbing Garchomp Maths, it was kinda hard, but I am pretty confident it is right. This is assuming Cresselia switches in, Chomp SDs (it could sub or dragon claw too, but it is easier to explain this way) then Subs until Cress misses. Assuming Cress keeps throwing out ice beams it will more often than not die before it hits 5 times. There is a chance Chomp will be left with 1% health and no sub, but then again there is also a chance Chomp wont get hit at all.

Also if Garchomp is jolly then it only needs Stealth Rock and SS up to guarantee the KOs. And it is true you may not be able rely on SR and SS but they are definitely the norm in DP so I dont know why we would ignore them. Though I guess I have been a little unfair, in that Sub SD chomp wont be able to sub the 4th time if it takes SR damage.

Uncounterability though isnt really the issue. A combination of Starmie and HP Ice Bronzong will generally counter Garchomp if you reserve them for that purpose, but it isnt really reasonable. A Life Orb Heracross will kill Gliscors, but it isnt likely to sweep from that point. I mean, Heracross is a damn good pokemon, but it is slower, has less attack, is less bulky and has a worse trait than Garchomp and it doesnt resist SS or SR. Fighting is a good a typing but so are dragon and ground. Heracross is just not as good a pokemon as Garchomp.

I mean the thing here is that Garchomp is the most used pokemon on shoddy ladder, it is all but universally agreed to be the best pokemon in DP, it certainly warrants at least a test of its removal.

Have a nice day.

That doesn't really answer the question though, Hip, and as thought out as your posts have been in this thread they have actually failed to address the topic at hand. Would banning Garchomp solve the problem or not? (And the "And why?" is assumed in this forum, I would hope.)

 

[obi]

However, you know full well that that "53%" bullshit is not in fact, 53%. That's just about as faulty as saying "if you include accuracy, Thunder only paralyzes 21% of the time." There is a 28% chance of missing per turn. That is it. There is no "you're goin to miss twice." And once again, you cannot assume that Sandstorm will always be up as easy as it is. My earlier posts have said everything excluding that there are any SR or SS or any extra shit on the field.

No, it is, in fact, 53%. That's how probability works. No one said "you're going to miss twice". It was "The odds are very high that you will miss at least twice". That's like saying "Heracross sucks because it can't OHKO anything with Megahorn, because you can't assume it will ever hit!". You're the on with faulty logic, not Hip.

Upon checking the math, Substitute + BrightPowder Chomp can Substitute four times. The odds to never miss (and finish it off, so you need five successful hits) are
.72^5 = 19.3%
The odds to miss exactly once are
.72^5 * .28 * 6 = 32.5%
(you still need to hit 5 times, which is why it's .72^5 and not ^4)
This leaves a 51.8% chance miss at least twice (so more than half the time).

 

[Aeroblacktyl]

How is the Heracross and Thunder thing the same? Megahorn is 90% accurate, that does not mean it will hit 9 out of 10 times. Thunder hits 70% of the time, and when it does hit, 30% of the time it'll paralyze, which people like to translate to 21% paralyzing rate. Now by saying this, I'm saying that 30% of the time, when you're not hitting them, it's not a fucking 21% paralyze. It's all fun and dandy to do probability but with the random number bullshit, that is NEVER the case. Just like if I hit you 100 times that doesn't mean I'm going to CH 6 times. It's the % each turn. Each turn I use Ice Beam, there's a 72% chance I hit. That's all there is to it. It's a turn by turn thing.

Now as this isn't relevent to the general discussion of the banning of Garchomp, I'm quite sure you have nothing else better to say involving the subject at hand as my initial posts were. But keep on discussing numbers, we can all join a chat with X-Act.

 

[Aldaron]

Uncounterability though isnt really the issue.

Have a nice day.

This is kind of how I was hoping people might respond to my post, thank you Hip ^_^. Anyway, and this might be important for future controversial debate, can we really discuss the viability of the "counters" argument? Also, having "counters" is really necessary only for stall teams, as offensive and balance type teams use circumstance to win, not counters.

Anyway, as for Garchomp, I'm not exactly sure what problem Jumpman was referring to...can someone break it down for me?

Is it that Garchomp centralizes the metagame? Or that Garchomp is simply "too good" in theorymon terms...or that because Garchomp is #1 used and an offensive Pokemon it should be tested for banning?

Honestly...I've been battling competitively on Shoddy since June, and my wholly subjective take on the matter is that yes, Garchomp is the best Pokemon in OU...however...being the best is by no means grounds for banning. I guess we'll really be undergoing circular debate until we first establish an accepted definition for ubers?

 

[Hipmonlee]

Attacking teams dont rely entirely on circumstance to win. You have to have something that can effectively stop Garchomp. The circumstances that allow Garchomp to set up require unreasonable effort to avoid. And you are really cutting out a huge number of pokemon if you are going to suggest not using anything Garchomp doesnt outspeed and OHKO.

I mean, for me, I almost always have Bronzong and I always have something faster than Chomp with an ice or Dragon attack. And this is while playing all out attack. Because Chomp sets up so easily, and if it does so it will sweep you.

So yes I do think removing Chomp will solve the problem. For that reason, and because it really is a case of why wouldnt you use it.

Have a nice day.

 

[obi]

How is the Heracross and Thunder thing the same? Megahorn is 90% accurate, that does not mean it will hit 9 out of 10 times. Thunder hits 70% of the time, and when it does hit, 30% of the time it'll paralyze, which people like to translate to 21% paralyzing rate. Now by saying this, I'm saying that 30% of the time, when you're not hitting them, it's not a fucking 21% paralyze. It's all fun and dandy to do probability but with the random number bullshit, that is NEVER the case. Just like if I hit you 100 times that doesn't mean I'm going to CH 6 times. It's the % each turn. Each turn I use Ice Beam, there's a 72% chance I hit. That's all there is to it. It's a turn by turn thing.

Megahorn is 85% accurate.

Thunder has a 30% chance to paralyze such that it hits, yes. But the chance that a use of Thunder has to paralyze is 21%. That is the "real" probability of paralysis. You have three options: do nothing, do damage, or do damage and paralyze.

And of course you aren't going to CH 6 times in every 100, that's not how probability works. You have a 99.843% chance to CH at least once in 100 hits. You have a 16.5% chance to CH exactly 6 times in 100 hits, which is the highest of any number of critical hits. You have a 43.6% chance to get more than 6 CHs, and a 39.9% chance to get less than 6. You have That's how probability works. You can be given the probability that an event occurs in one turn and from that find the probability of multiple events occurring over several turns.