• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

OU DPP OU Ladder Achievements

claiming platinum knowledge
1749142730591.png
 
After far, far too long, I can finally claim Platinum Brave. And Gold Knowledge, I suppose. I might go for Platinum there, too, but I'll claim these before giving that a shot.
It feels a bit cheap to hit rank 1 without also reaching 1700 considering how often that's where #1 has been over the past months, but an achievement is an achievement, and I can't say I'm not pleased and proud—especially given the volatility and weaknesses of my team (and my complete refusal to use T-tar or Jirachi).

1000029203.jpg
1000029205.jpg


Update: Well, my luck ran out with a Draco Misseor on the game that would have given the last few points for 1700, so RIP that goal. This team is now officially retired after peaking at 1687, so everyone can go back to never having to play around scarfed HP Flying Zapdos.
 
Last edited:
Chabharya said:
After far, far too long, I can finally claim Platinum Brave. And Gold Knowledge, I suppose. I might go for Platinum there, too, but I'll claim these before giving that a shot.
It feels a bit cheap to hit rank 1 without also reaching 1700 considering how often that's where #1 has been over the past months, but an achievement is a achievement, and I can't say I'm not pleased and proud—especially given the volatility and weaknesses of my team (and my complete refusal to use T-tar or Jirachi).View attachment 763535View attachment 763539
Update: Well, my luck ran out with a Draco Misseor on the game that would have given the last few points for 1700, so RIP that goal. This team is now officially retired after peaking at 1687, so everyone can go back to never having to play around scarfed HP Flying Zapdos.
Click to expand...
I'm telling you, cracking the 1700 is hard but so satisfying once u get it
 
Idea for an achievement - Probability achievement:

Kind of a different achievement but I think it can be interesting. Basically in a Showdown match show a set of consecutive turns that resulted in low odds for the player. For example I just had this occur in my match:

Screenshot 2025-08-29 at 2.15.15 PM.png



Which results in a 1/1000 (0.1%) odds of occuring. I was thinking of this achievement since in many of my matches I have some action that makes me think "Wow that was an insane probability of occuring". Unsure of how the requirements of the Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum would be ranked at the moment, but there would definitely be a record.

Oftentimes I view Showdown as a probability generator, as well as a way to play Pokemon.

Edit: Actually upon thinking of it there might not be a need for Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum, instead just a record.
Edit2: Also I believe three Overheat misses in a row is beaten by 14 Iron Head flinches in a row after doing the calculation.
 
Last edited:
mackie said:
Idea for a achievement - Probability achievement:

Kind of a different achievement but I think it can be interesting. Basically in a Showdown match show a set of consecutive turns that resulted in low odds for the player. For example I just had this occur in my match:

View attachment 767589


Which results in a 1/1000 odds of occuring. I was thinking of this achievement since in many of my matches I have some action that makes me think "Wow that was an insane probability of occuring". Unsure of how the requirements of the Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum would be ranked at the moment, but there would definitely be a record.

Oftentimes I view Showdown as a probability generator, as well as a way to play Pokemon.

Edit: Actually upon thinking of it there might not be a need for Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum, instead just a record.
Click to expand...
It's a cool idea but it runs the risk of the probability being calculated incorrectly in some circumstances. Also, if you restrict it to these clear cut scenarios like the one you gave as an example, then you will miss a lot of low odd scenarios where people might feel they deserve the achievement but can't get it due to policy.
It's an interesting idea but I think it will be too hard to execute.
 
Oatmon said:
It's a cool idea but it runs the risk of the probability being calculated incorrectly in some circumstances. Also, if you restrict it to these clear cut scenarios like the one you gave as an example, then you will miss a lot of low odd scenarios where people might feel they deserve the achievement but can't get it due to policy.
It's an interesting idea but I think it will be too hard to execute.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be too hard to execute. Just have the player submit what they believe has a chance for the record in a replay, then the moderator can analyze it, do the math, and then determine if it takes the record.

The conditions could be:
1. Has to occur on consecutive turns
2. Has to involve a secondary effect, miss, or critical hit
3. Can link different secondary effects, misses, or crits, as long as they are on consecutive turns.
4. If both players experience odds in one turn, the odds are compounded and it counts to both players.

Another example could be like paralysis, like considering two Pokemon had the paralysis status:

Turn 1:
Pokemon A was fully paralyzed
Pokemon B was fully paralyzed

Turn 2:
Pokemon A was fully paralyzed
Pokemon B was fully paralyzed

Turn 3:
Pokemon A was fully paralyzed
Pokemon B was fully paralyzed

Turn 4:
Pokemon A used Earthquake
Pokemon B was fully paralyzed

Turn 5:
Pokemon A used Earthquake
Pokemon B used Recover

How would we measure this? My thought would be:

Turns 1 through 4:
(0.25)(0.25)(0.25)(0.25)(0.25)(0.25) = 0.00024414062
which results in 0.024414062%

So both players will have experienced 0.024414062% odds, however we then go to Turn 5:

The player of Pokemon B experiences another paralysis so we have
(0.25)(0.00024414062) = 0.00006103515 which results in

0.006103515%

So assuming this was the lowest percent the Pokemon B player would take the record.
 
Last edited:
mackie said:
I don't think it would be too hard to execute. Just have the player submit what they believe has a chance for the record in a replay, then the moderator can analyze it, do the math, and then determine if it takes the record.

The conditions could be:
1. Has to occur on consecutive turns
2. Has to involve a secondary effect, miss, or critical hit
3. Can link different secondary effects, misses, or crits, as long as they are on consecutive turns.
4. If both players experience odds in one turn, the odds are compounded and it counts to both players.

Another example could be like paralysis, like considering two Pokemon had the paralysis status:

Turn 1:
Pokemon A was fully paralyzed
Pokemon B was fully paralyzed

Turn 2:
Pokemon A was fully paralyzed
Pokemon B was fully paralyzed

Turn 3:
Pokemon A was fully paralyzed
Pokemon B was fully paralyzed

Turn 4:
Pokemon A used Earthquake
Pokemon B was fully paralyzed

Turn 5:
Pokemon A used Earthquake
Pokemon B used Recover

How would we measure this? My thought would be:

Turns 1 through 4:
(0.25)(0.25)(0.25)(0.25)(0.25)(0.25) = 0.00024414062
which results in 0.024414062%

So both players will have experienced 0.024414062% odds, however we then go to Turn 5:

The player of Pokemon B experiences another paralysis so we have
(0.25)(0.00024414062) = 0.00006103515 which results in

0.006103515%

So assuming this was the lowest percent the Pokemon B player would take the record.
Click to expand...
I think your example is a good one to illustrate the difficulty.

First of all, your labeling of the turns can cause some confusion since you call the events which occur on turn 1, turn 2, and turn 3 as 'Turns 1 through 4'. How will other users communicate when some people use 'Turns 1 through 4' to mean turns 1 to 4 including 4, and other people like yourself have it mean turn 1 to 4 not including 4?

Secondly, and more importantly, your calculation for turn 4, which you call turn 5, is not an accurate estimate of the probability of that situation occurring. You make two mistakes here:
  • You didn't take into account the probability that one of the two players on turn 4 is not paralyzed.
  • You consider a scenario where on the last turn, one of two players is paralyzed, but you only look at the odds of one way in which one of two players can be paralyzed, when you should look at both ways one of two players can be paralyzed.
The correct calculation for turn 4 (as a stand alone turn) should be 0.25*0.75+0.75*0.25, which represents player A being paralyzed and player B not being paralyzed, or player A not being paralyzed while player B is paralyzed.

Thirdly, if we simply multiply everything together as you tried to do in your example, we calculate the probability of that exact sequence of events occurring. But we do not calculate the probability of those events occurring in any particular order.
Some people might consider the chances of player A and B being paralyzed at the same time on turn 1, followed by player A being not paralyzed and player B being paralyzed on turn 2, followed by two more turns where both players are paralyzed, as the same type of scenario as the one in your example. Then the question becomes, should we calculate the odds of any scenario like the one you listed when looking at these situations, or should we be more specific and calculate the odds of that exact situation occurring? The answers are not the same for these two ways to categorize things.

T.L.D.R. The quoted example already contained a mistake, ambiguous terminology, and there were different ways to interpret the situation which would give different answers.
 
Oatmon said:
I think your example is a good one to illustrate the difficulty.

First of all, your labeling of the turns can cause some confusion since you call the events which occur on turn 1, turn 2, and turn 3 as 'Turns 1 through 4'. How will other users communicate when some people use 'Turns 1 through 4' to mean turns 1 to 4 including 4, and other people like yourself have it mean turn 1 to 4 not including 4?

Secondly, and more importantly, your calculation for turn 4, which you call turn 5, is not an accurate estimate of the probability of that situation occurring. You make two mistakes here:
  • You didn't take into account the probability that one of the two players on turn 4 is not paralyzed.
  • You consider a scenario where on the last turn, one of two players is paralyzed, but you only look at the odds of one way in which one of two players can be paralyzed, when you should look at both ways one of two players can be paralyzed.
The correct calculation for turn 4 (as a stand alone turn) should be 0.25*0.75+0.75*0.25, which represents player A being paralyzed and player B not being paralyzed, or player A not being paralyzed while player B is paralyzed.

Thirdly, if we simply multiply everything together as you tried to do in your example, we calculate the probability of that exact sequence of events occurring. But we do not calculate the probability of those events occurring in any particular order.
Some people might consider the chances of player A and B being paralyzed at the same time on turn 1, followed by player A being not paralyzed and player B being paralyzed on turn 2, followed by two more turns where both players are paralyzed, as the same type of scenario as the one in your example. Then the question becomes, should we calculate the odds of any scenario like the one you listed when looking at these situations, or should we be more specific and calculate the odds of that exact situation occurring? The answers are not the same for these two ways to categorize things.

T.L.D.R. The quoted example already contained a mistake, ambiguous terminology, and there were different ways to interpret the situation which would give different answers.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean and appreciate your breakdown. However we can make the condition that the probability can only take into account secondary effects triggering. In this case the secondary effect of paralysis is 0.25. The player not being paralyzed (the 0.75) can be stated in the conditions that it won't apply.

Although that probability does exist in the scenario, we can state in the conditions that it does not apply to the achievement.

But yea I can see how confusion can arise from people saying a probability was there. It would be up to the moderator to determine if it would count to the achievement or not.

It's also because players naturally only acknowledge "negative hax", and don't take into account "positive hax". Positive hax is like Hydro Pump hitting successfully (the 0.8), while negative hax is Hydro Pump missing (the 0.2).

Like it or not this game isn't a "perfect" game in the sense that luck is definitely involved, and the outcome of matches (wins vs losses) are definitely determined by a roll of the dice. It's not like chess where there is no luck whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
mackie said:
I see what you mean and appreciate your breakdown. However we can make the condition that the probability can only take into account secondary effects. In this case the secondary effect of paralysis is 0.25. The player not being paralyzed (the 0.75) can be in the conditions that it won't apply.

Although that probability does exist in the scenario, we can state in the conditions that it does not apply to the achievement.

But yea I can see how confusion can arise from people saying a probability was there. It would be up to the moderator to determine if it would count to the achievement or not.
Click to expand...
The trouble with this approach is that once you start ignoring probabilities to calculate your answer, the answer you calculate wont be a probability anymore. It will be something else.

To show you why, consider this. A player has a paralyzed latias, but over the course of 10 turns without switching out, it is never fully paralyzed.
The probability of that occurring is 0.75^10=0.056.
However under your scheme of ignoring the cases where a Pokemon is not fully paralyzed, the number you would get at the end would be 1. Since this doesn't agree with the true probability, this number cannot be called a probability. It cannot even be called an approximate probability since it is off by such a large amount.
 
Oatmon said:
The trouble with this approach is that once you start ignoring probabilities to calculate your answer, the answer you calculate wont be a probability anymore. It will be something else.

To show you why, consider this. A player has a paralyzed latias, but over the course of 10 turns without switching out, it is never fully paralyzed.
The probability of that occurring is 0.75^10=0.056.
However under your scheme of ignoring the cases where a Pokemon is not fully paralyzed, the number you would get at the end would be 1. Since this doesn't agree with the true probability, this number cannot be called a probability. It cannot even be called an approximate probability since it is off by such a large amount.
Click to expand...
Thanks again, but also I made some edits to my above post. "Positive hax" vs "negative hax".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top