2,613
edits
Talk:Protect (move): Difference between revisions
→Question about the erratic success table after the fourth consecutive use: new section
ArcToraphim (talk | contribs) m (→Really?) |
Blueapple128 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
Can you alternate between detect and protect for infinite protection?[[User:Wishindo|Wishindo]] ([[User talk:Wishindo|talk]]) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | Can you alternate between detect and protect for infinite protection?[[User:Wishindo|Wishindo]] ([[User talk:Wishindo|talk]]) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
:No. Please read the article before asking on the talk page, this is answered in the article. <span class="sc">[[User:Werdnae|<span style="color:#2D4B98;">Werdnae</span>]]</span> <small>[[User talk:Werdnae|<span style="color:#009000;">(talk)</span>]]</small> 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | :No. Please read the article before asking on the talk page, this is answered in the article. <span class="sc">[[User:Werdnae|<span style="color:#2D4B98;">Werdnae</span>]]</span> <small>[[User talk:Werdnae|<span style="color:#009000;">(talk)</span>]]</small> 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Question about the erratic success table after the fourth consecutive use == | |||
I'm surprised that such an effect would occur in Generation III, which fixed a lot of move oddities present in the previous Generations. UPokeCenter's description [http://www.upokecenter.com/dex/?lang=en&move=182 here] gives the following excerpt: | |||
"A variable, X, starts at 0, and resets to 0 if the last move called for the user is not Detect, Endure, or Protect as user uses this attack or if this attack fails, and is raised by 1 (up to 3) each time this attack is successful. This attack has a 50% chance of failing if X is 1, a 75% chance if X is 2, and an 87.5% chance if X is 3." | |||
I'm wondering if the table in the article is actually a relation between the success rate and '''X''', rather than a relation between the success rate and the number of times used. According to UPokeCenter's description, the value of X is capped at 3 (the fourth consecutive use), so even if you used Protect and succeeded ten times in a row, X would still be 3. | |||
I believe the success table would have been ripped straight from the game data, which would make all values beyond the fourth cell actually garbage data relating to something other than the move Protect. | |||
This could perhaps be verified by having someone load up a Gen III game in an emulator, spam savestates until Protect succeeds four times in a row, and then reload to see approximately how often the fifth Protect succeeds. If the X-value theory is correct, then Protect should work 1 in 8 times. If the table is correct, then Protect should only work 1 in ~555 times. [[User:Blueapple128|Blueapple128]] ([[User talk:Blueapple128|talk]]) 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||