Talk:Aurora Beam (move): Difference between revisions
From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Nescientist (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The Stadium description says the secondary effect has a one-in-three chance. Is that description wrong, or did the effect chance used to be that in Generation I? [[User talk:Yeyjordan|<font color="#aaa">yey</font><font color="#969">jordan</font>]] 07:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | The Stadium description says the secondary effect has a one-in-three chance. Is that description wrong, or did the effect chance used to be that in Generation I? [[User talk:Yeyjordan|<font color="#aaa">yey</font><font color="#969">jordan</font>]] 07:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
:Going through the core of Red's engine in the pokered disassembly seems to confirm that Aurora Beam does indeed have a 33.2% chance of lowering Attack. The procedure for moves with [https://github.com/pret/pokered/blob/master/engine/battle/core.asm#L7212 stat lowering as a secondary effect] compares the the [https://github.com/pret/pokered/blob/master/engine/battle/core.asm#L7762 value 0x55] (decimal 85) with a random number, which is equivalent to a 85/256 = ~33.2% chance, which has historically only been known for the move Psychic. In-game testing that I've done seems to point to this chance instead of 10%, as stated in the article. Bubble, BubbleBeam, and Constrict are all in the same situation. [[User:CunningClaymore|CunningClaymore]] ([[User talk:CunningClaymore|talk]]) 20:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | :Going through the core of Red's engine in the pokered disassembly seems to confirm that Aurora Beam does indeed have a 33.2% chance of lowering Attack. The procedure for moves with [https://github.com/pret/pokered/blob/master/engine/battle/core.asm#L7212 stat lowering as a secondary effect] compares the the [https://github.com/pret/pokered/blob/master/engine/battle/core.asm#L7762 value 0x55] (decimal 85) with a random number, which is equivalent to a 85/256 = ~33.2% chance, which has historically only been known for the move Psychic. In-game testing that I've done seems to point to this chance instead of 10%, as stated in the article. Bubble, BubbleBeam, and Constrict are all in the same situation. [[User:CunningClaymore|CunningClaymore]] ([[User talk:CunningClaymore|talk]]) 20:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
::I believe there's more than the ones you've mentioned, but I've updated those. | |||
::For Aurora Beam, however, UPC [http://upcarchive.playker.info/0/upokecenter/dex/index.html%3Flang=en&move=62.html suggests] that in Stadium, it might actually be '''''20%''''', but they're maybe not sure (they say what's in brackets is uncertain, but I've seen them use square brackets when they weren't sure elsewhere). The description ''is'' one-in-three, according to [[User:Abcboy#Text dumps|the text dump]]. I assume you didn't test in Stadium, or did you? [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 18:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:59, 22 March 2017
Chance of secondary effect
The Stadium description says the secondary effect has a one-in-three chance. Is that description wrong, or did the effect chance used to be that in Generation I? yeyjordan 07:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Going through the core of Red's engine in the pokered disassembly seems to confirm that Aurora Beam does indeed have a 33.2% chance of lowering Attack. The procedure for moves with stat lowering as a secondary effect compares the the value 0x55 (decimal 85) with a random number, which is equivalent to a 85/256 = ~33.2% chance, which has historically only been known for the move Psychic. In-game testing that I've done seems to point to this chance instead of 10%, as stated in the article. Bubble, BubbleBeam, and Constrict are all in the same situation. CunningClaymore (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I believe there's more than the ones you've mentioned, but I've updated those.
- For Aurora Beam, however, UPC suggests that in Stadium, it might actually be 20%, but they're maybe not sure (they say what's in brackets is uncertain, but I've seen them use square brackets when they weren't sure elsewhere). The description is one-in-three, according to the text dump. I assume you didn't test in Stadium, or did you? Nescientist (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
