/vp/ - Pokémon » Thread #48051681

[13 / 1 / ?]

4MiB, 5611x6417, 1627063333209.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 22:58:37 No.48051681 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>48052237 >>48052559 >>48052616 >>48054458

How do you feel about attacks with less than 100 accuracy?

The attached depiction of my boyfriend is unrelated

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:00:28 No.48051692 Report

Quoted By:

Sometimes they miss

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:00:38 No.48051693 Report

Quoted By: >>48052714

>95% = 85%
>90% = 80%
>80% = 75%
>75% = 50%
>65% = 40%
>50% = 20%

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:57:04 No.48052159 Report

Quoted By: >>48052167

What if missing attacks didn't drain PP, except on type immunities

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 28 Aug 2021 23:58:22 No.48052167 Report

Quoted By:

>>48052159
Then I'd spam moves like fire blast

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:07:49 No.48052237 Report

Quoted By:

>>48051681
The game doesn't lie about their hit chance, right? If 80% is genuinely 80%, then a move with that amount of accuracy has a pretty decent chance to miss which is cool because accuracy feels like a barely impactful mechanic in many JRPGs, but Pokemon has a lot of moves with shaky accuracy.
Cute boyfriend btw

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:49:11 No.48052559 Report

Quoted By: >>48052698

>>48051681
There's no way in fucking hell that Fly is 95% accuracy. I swear that move is cursed. It misses half the time I use it. Half. It's complete bullshit and I refuse to believe the actual accuracy is 95%

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 00:59:29 No.48052616 Report

Quoted By:

>>48051681
Anything less than 100% might as well be 50%.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 01:13:30 No.48052698 Report

Quoted By: >>48053236

>>48052559
I missed three 93% chance-to-hit attacks in a row once when I was playing Fire Emblem 5, a game which displays your hit chance honestly. From FE6 onwards, the displayed chance to hit was no longer the actual chance to hit, so the game would say you have 80% accuracy but really it'd be more like 90%.
I think they did this because people just tend to think an 80-90% chance to succeed at something is more reliable than it actually is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 01:15:27 No.48052714 Report

Quoted By:

>>48051693
this

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 02:25:25 No.48053236 Report

Quoted By:

>>48052698
>From FE6 onwards, the displayed chance to hit was no longer the actual chance to hit, so the game would say you have 80% accuracy but really it'd be more like 90%.
I'd have thought the opposite. In Fates it seems like <85% = miss every time

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Aug 2021 05:59:13 No.48054458 Report

Quoted By:

>>48051681
avoid at all costs unless there is no viable alternative

Cyndaquil enjoyer

Cyndaquil enjoyer Sun 29 Aug 2021 06:04:57 No.48054476 Report

Quoted By:

>Mfw 100%=80-90% and <90%= -99.9999%
(Also, what is the pokemon in the pic? I can't remember their name for some reason)

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches