Talk:List of modified moves

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search

this page is linked from only three other pages, all of wich are user pages... how are people supposed to get here in the first place? --Ipergorilla 18:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I added links on all the relevant move pages, I think thats what you wanted, true?User:Dion24 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Great! --Ipergorilla 06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

New page: moves that changed in accuracy

I have an idea. A lot of moves have changed in accuracy between generations. I think there should be a page that lists those changes, like this one. I would be happy to create the page myself. Litnin200 03:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, 100%. Eliza 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You are a bit late. This page has already been created and is has been suggested to be merged with this page in the section below. --SnorlaxMonster 12:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Moves that changed between generations

There's this page, and the page for moves whose accuracy changed, but none yet for moves whose effects changed (e.g. Wrap lasts 4/5 turns in Gen V, but 2-5 turns previously). That's just as important a category, yet there's no page for them yet. Indeed, I think there should be actual categories for altered moves (maybe one each for power/accuracy/effect changes), but that's not quite the point of my comment.

My point is that I think this page should be merged with the accuracy one, and then add in the various other changed moves as well, and call the whole thing something like "List of moves that changed". The page layout will be the same as it currently is, but replacing the last two columns with a "what changed" column instead that briefly describes it. Opinions? ~ Serial Colour 02:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

While you have a good idea, most moves change a little every Generation. Power and Accuracy are rarely changed, whereas the effect is expanded on most of the time. --SnorlaxMonster 02:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, which is why I suggest not listing moves whose effects were only added to, and instead only listing moves whose existing effects had been altered (e.g. Wrap as mentioned above, but not Stomp). In the case of effect probabilities going from 9.8% to 10% etc. between Gens I and II (I know there's a lot of those), they can be footnoted rather than including them all, and the same goes for certain other cases too.
In any event, I still think moves with changed effects(/types) should be listed somewhere, to go along with power/accuracy changes. I suggested merging them all into a single page because I thought it'd be tidier that way. ~ Serial Colour 02:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, merging this page with list of moves that changed in accuracy would be a good idea. i can see your suggestion working out. --SnorlaxMonster 02:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, even if changes are usually explained on move's page, I think we still need to catalogue them. I think a page "List of moves that changes between generations", listing all changes (Base power, accuracy, added effects, chances for them and so on) would be the best solution.--ЫъГЬ 07:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Try setting up that page in your userspace. I think it would end up too large, and have most moves on it. --SnorlaxMonster 08:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


There have been moves that had their PP modified such as Drain Punch; should that be added here as well? ht14 22:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. They likely aren't listed at the moment because this page was initially two pages about power and accuracy changes, and no-one's thought to add them since the merge. Werdnae (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Damgage category?

Bite between Gens I and II and multiple others during the physical/special split. Worth noting?--MisterE13 16:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also Heal Bell which was a Sound move in Gens III and IV then lost that property. Notable?--MisterE13 19:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it is. --SnorlaxMonster 02:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Priority changes table

Anyone know why the figures in the priority change tables on the page are in tiny letters? I don't think they read that well on the eyes anyway. I'd change them back to regular size, but I'll wait for an explanation. Haxorus 06:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy Changes within Generation 1

Why does the column for the Japanese Yellow mention Coliseum 2?--Ditto51/Tom (My Talk Page) 12:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably because Blizzard's freeze chance does differ there in the Japanese versions. However, I cannot find any evidence that Blizzard's accuracy differs among the Gen I games, and the claim that Blizzard has 70% accuracy in international RB contradicts move data dumps, so I have removed it. --SnorlaxMonster 16:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

List needs to be updated for ORAS.

I think Thief had power 40 in XY but power 60 in ORAS. Same with Covet. Someone ought to double check on this (as my X save data is corrupt and I can't access it to double-check) Your Buddy Bill (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have a look at the Thief and Covet pages, these have already been noted in the Generation VI section. Same with this article (in the differences between generations section (between Generation V and Generation VI)). ht14 03:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Effect differences

There is one thing missing in this article, that is the effect changes between generations. Like Waterfall added a flinch chance, Thunder modified paralysis chance, and Crunch lowers Defense instead of Special Defense. Pkmnwww411 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy "100" vs. "—"

Generation III is apparently very unreliable regarding "100" vs. "—" in its summary screen accuracy display (even if the target isn't self). I really don't know what accuracy changes we want to show here:

  1. the ones the summary screen display suggests, even if that's irrelevant/ignored/incorrect in-battle
  2. the ones that are actually true, even if the display suggests otherwise
  3. only the ones where both display and reality are the same?

For now, I went with option 3 here, and also adjusted the individual moves' infoboxes with the actual "values" where necessary (even if they contradict the display). Anyone has more sophisticated ideas? (Do we maybe want to use background colors or something for these?) Nescientist (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Which are the cases in which a move has its accuracy changed between Gen III and IV, but Gen III does not properly distinguish between "100" and "—"? (i.e. For which moves in Case 2 a relevant distinction?) --SnorlaxMonster 15:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Block/Mean Look/Spider Web, Mimic, Pain Split, Role Play, Skill Swap, Yawn, and Vital Throw (which also has no accuracy check in Gen II). And just to avoid confusion, the display changes between III and IV, the actual accuracy does not. Apparently, they have some display "100" that are better described as "—". Nescientist (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I meant to ask, for which moves does the display not change but the effect actually does change (which is what Case 2 suggests). As I understood it, all of those examples fit Case 1. --SnorlaxMonster 16:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite understand!? Those are meant to be options on how to handle those kind of contradictions. I'm not aware of any accuracy display changing erroneously, if that's what you're asking. Nescientist (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The display does not change where it should for Mimic and Pain Split (from II to III), and it is introduced badly for the others. Nescientist (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to understand if there was a distinction between Case 2 and Case 3. I guess Mimic and Pain Split between Gen II and III are the answer. Personally, I think this page should list actual functional changes, regardless of how they are displayed. --SnorlaxMonster 16:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I think I finally got it: yes, if we decide to switch to option 2, we'd have to include Mimic and Pain Split here. I think either way is fine, and maybe option 2 is more consistent to the individual move pages anyway. Nescientist (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Minimum Accuracy determinations

I removed Guillotine, Fissure and Horn Drill as their in-game displays are 30, same as Sheer Cold (though the move page seems to be at odds depending on whether the user is an Ice-type or not as of Gen 7). Another reason is that at a bare minimum, from what I can interpret these moves would have a bare minimum of an accuracy of thirty, it can only go higher, not lower. --Spriteit (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, if you're gonna say that it should say "30%" here for OHKO moves, that's fine. I guess it's fine even if you have it hidden here, but it's still a technical change, that's what I'm saying. We've been listing technical changes here (that coincide with display changes if it's GenIV+).
As for the minimum part: I think the important part is that you get to see "30" in-game, and you argue that it's not fundamentally wrong or misleading so Bulbapedia should display just that, much like Eruption's 150 power isn't wrong so we display that (which is a maximum, so quite the opposite)!? I see that and I agree (..but I also kinda think it's irrelevant when it's about a change before you get to see accuracies).
All in all, based on the plan you outlined on your talk page, I suppose we hide the OHKO's functional changes here? That way, we would not have a change that displays "from 30% to 30%" and confuse readers. Nescientist (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)