10,044
edits
Bulbapedia talk:Project Moves and Abilities: Difference between revisions
Bulbapedia talk:Project Moves and Abilities (view source)
Revision as of 07:54, 17 July 2015
, 17 July 2015→Categorize attacking moves by power: new section
(→Categorize attacking moves by power: new section) |
|||
| Line 587: | Line 587: | ||
:::I also think the "5 apart" rule for PP is dumb. The PP rule should be a hard "must have exactly the same PP rule". We're far too lax with our definition of "move variations", with plenty of significantly different moves classified as variations. If the moves are similar but have different PP, we shouldn't consider them variations. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 09:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC) | :::I also think the "5 apart" rule for PP is dumb. The PP rule should be a hard "must have exactly the same PP rule". We're far too lax with our definition of "move variations", with plenty of significantly different moves classified as variations. If the moves are similar but have different PP, we shouldn't consider them variations. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 09:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
::::The problem with that is the game itself doesn't seem to have solid reasons for assigning PP. Swords Dance used to be a "variation" of Agility because they were both +2 stat modifiers with 30 PP. However, this is no longer the case in Gen VI simply because Nintendo gave it a trivial PP reduction, yet the move is still exactly the same. And of course, most people would agree that Light Screen and Reflect are variations of each other, but are simply assigned different PP values. And if we go even stricter on the PP criterion, then identical moves like Protect and Detect, Seismic Toss and Night Shade, etc would no longer be classified as variations. So although I agree being stricter on PP value would add more clarity than the 5-PP-difference rule, I think the best solution is to simply remove it since it is too trivial compared to other factors (power, accuracy, and effects). [[User:TehPerson|TehPerson]] ([[User talk:TehPerson|talk]]) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC) | ::::The problem with that is the game itself doesn't seem to have solid reasons for assigning PP. Swords Dance used to be a "variation" of Agility because they were both +2 stat modifiers with 30 PP. However, this is no longer the case in Gen VI simply because Nintendo gave it a trivial PP reduction, yet the move is still exactly the same. And of course, most people would agree that Light Screen and Reflect are variations of each other, but are simply assigned different PP values. And if we go even stricter on the PP criterion, then identical moves like Protect and Detect, Seismic Toss and Night Shade, etc would no longer be classified as variations. So although I agree being stricter on PP value would add more clarity than the 5-PP-difference rule, I think the best solution is to simply remove it since it is too trivial compared to other factors (power, accuracy, and effects). [[User:TehPerson|TehPerson]] ([[User talk:TehPerson|talk]]) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
== Categorize attacking moves by power == | |||
For any damaging move, the power is what players look at first to assess its usefulness. If a move is powerful but inaccurate (eg Focus Blast), it will be considered for competitive play; if a move is accurate but weak, it would not even be counted as viable (eg Pound). | |||
With that said, it should be obvious that moves should be categorized by their power. Fire Blast is a Fire-type counterpart for Thunder. And thus if a reader were on the article for Fire Blast, they should also be able to navigate to Thunder if they wanted to find an electric-type equivalent. The current system of "move variants" is too strict, ambiguous, and often self-contradictory for this. We could also say Fire Blast is a "move counterpart" to Thunder, like Light Screen is a "counterpart" but not a "variant" of Reflect, but then people will debate the definition over that too. | |||
Categorizing moves by their power creates no ambiguity, as the numbers are already set in stone by the games. Shadow Ball is a variant of Flash Cannon? [[:Template:Crunch|Apparently it is]]. Then again, some of the mods disagree, since they don't have the same chance for secondary effects. Regardless of "Variant" or "Counterpart" or whatever jargon is appropriate, they are both Power 80 moves and can be navigated to each other if someone wanted to find a Steel-equivalent to Shadow Ball. | |||
The only problem I see with this is that every page for damaging moves must be edited, as there is no shortcut to editing the template, as current templates also take a value for the "power" of non-damaging moves (and other string-related issues). However, that of course isn't really a good reason to neglect it. | |||
One way to do so is by simply adding <nowiki>'''[[Category: Moves with a power of XX]]'''</nowiki> to the bottom of the page. Another way is to use '''[[:Template:Power 150|these kinds of templates]]''', which would add a categorization by power and allow readers to easily navigate to equivalent moves. (The templates have been tested via "Show Preview." Of course, they have not been implemented.) | |||
In short, categorizing moves by their power is reasonable because it is what players look at first. This can all be done cleanly, as it won't change anything else but further organize the move database in an unambiguous manner. | |||
[[User:TehPerson|TehPerson]] ([[User talk:TehPerson|talk]]) 07:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC) | |||