You can actually trade a Secret Sword Keldeo to Black/White from BW2, where it'll revert to normal form but keep the move, and then transfer it to XY without it changing form.hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, but shouldn't keldeo and keldeo-resolute be tiered separately? if we're following the precedent set in-game, there's no way for base-form keld to know secret sword as far as i'm aware (i know that's not how it's implemented on ps! but that's easy enough to change, i presume), and this is a significant enough difference to merit separating them imo.
i'm asking this on the back of the basculin case, obviously, because it's an analogous case.
What happened to this suggestion ? Forgotten ? I actually agree with this, and I'll be further with this :I agree with MarioWithLasers. As to your solution, while doing graphs would definitely allow for a more complete display of common stats individually, I think it would be worse overall since there's likely no way to show more possibilities without complitcating it too much (for instance, how often does Landorus-T run 88 neutral speed? How about 168 positive?). While it would surely be nice to have alongside the spreads as listed now, I don't think it would be good as a substitution. As to drawing the line, that can be adressed later, as points can be made for both sides in some cases (he naive x hasty thing, for example, has a significant impact on damage calcs); I don't think anyone would disagree with combining two spreads that only differ in 4 Def x 4 SpDef EVs.
Now, if a player wants to know whether the most common set he will face is a physically defensive or a specially defensive set, he may think this the the physical one because 13.6+10.2+8.1 = 32% while 12.8+2.7=15.5%. But in fact, those 48% left can be all weird specially defensive sets. And those one doesn't have any 4 EV difference (which could be ignored when showing set as previoulsy said) but sometimes 44 EVs difference. So may be the indication of "Specially defensive" / "Physically defensive" / "Mixed Wall" / "Fast physical attacker" / "Bulky physical attacker" / "Bulky Fast pivot" or any combination of those things (even for instance "Specially bulky physical atacker" for a 252 Atk/252SpDef set) may be better.Rotom-Wash spreads said:Spreads |
| Bold:248/0/216/0/0/44 13.633% |
| Calm:252/0/0/4/252/0 12.826% |
| Bold:252/0/212/0/0/44 10.206% |
| Bold:252/0/252/4/0/0 8.139% |
| Timid:0/0/0/252/4/252 4.235% |
| Calm:252/0/0/0/212/44 2.757% |
| Other 48.203%|
Yes.So like, will the numbers from both defunct ladders from the past 27 days get added together in this month's stats for the new ladder?
It's on my to-do list.Can you merge "Battle Spot Doubles", "VGC 2015" and "Battle Spot Doubles (VGC 2015)" into one format, only for January? My suggestion is merge it into: VGC 2015.
Antar said:
- A brand new player, just starting out, whose rating is 1500±350 will be weighted 0.5.
- I have a mediocre OU team i sometimes play on PS under an alt. It currently has a provisional rating of 1576±105. Its weighting is 0.77.
- The person who I just demolished with that team (you have to be pretty bad...) has a provisional rating of 1394±139. Weighting is 0.223
- My good (not great) OU team has a rating of 1946±177. Weighting is 0.994
- The person at the top of the ladder right now has a rating of 2120±55. Their weighting is 1.0, for all intents and purposes.
That's because you're looking at ou-1695. 1695 glicko is very high and - to put it simple, only the best players ("top 6.2%") contribute to these stats. In ou-1500 avg weight is much closer to 50%. Monotype I assume it's because most teams do not fit into the type you're looking at so are weighted 0, which explains the low numbers.I read that but either I didn't understand or it seemed pretty strange to me. referring to this :
and seeing as, for instance, OU avg weight / team is 0.062 (which means a really bad level of play), no type in monotype metagame goes further than 0.02, and the fact that this weight is about a "player weight" and not a "team weight", I think I miss something ><
It can't be. That would suggest that players using less pokemon have higher ratings. Still, I'll take that as a confirmation that no entries get filtered out.QxC4eva Might be explained by teams with less than six Pokemon. And you're correct about monotype. What do you mean "cutoff deviation" doesn't work?
Okay, I'm remembering now--only Pokemon that get included in the moveset stats get into the json.It can't be. That would suggest that players using less pokemon have higher ratings. Still, I'll take that as a confirmation that no entries get filtered out.
Cutoff deviation is just something that's not being used. It was an idea I toyed around with at some point, but I'm not using it, and the field is just there.There's a field called "cutoff deviation" under the info header of each json. I've not seen one where the value isn't 0, so chances are it's not working. I think it's meant to show which standard deviation of the player base is being displayed (so running CDF() on it gives the average weight per team) but thinking again I might be wrong. What's it for anyway?
That would be insane. The files are ungainly large as is.So any chance to put everything in json next month?
Sure. This I can do.And more decimals for average weight?
{
"Fletchinder": {
"Abilities": {
"flamebody": 32.062900673043,
"galewings": 97.777307721119
},
...
"Raw count": 426,
...
}
But shouldn't everything be a whole number for OU-0?Imran, the values are the sum of the weights.