"A better way to calculate "percent perfection""

#PokemonGO: TL;DRPercent perfection (PP) isn't great for making power-up/transfer decisions because the CP formula doesn't resemble how we calculate PP. A large part of this shortcoming is that PP doesn't account for base stats. I propose calculating percent perfection by isolating the terms in the CP formula that are a function of IVs (and base stats) and scaling them to that quantity's min-max range. This way, PP would be directly interpretable as, "If I powered up these two pokemon with different PPs to the same level, which would have a higher CP?"Percent PerfectionThe "precent perfection" of a pokemon is basically a rough way of aggregating it's three separate IV scores into a single number to allow players to quickly compare pokemon. Every calculator I've seen calculates this asPP(A,D,S) = 100 * (A + D + S)/45where A, D and S are the attack, defense and stamina IVs, respectively.Personally, my main purpose in considering percent perfection is to roughly compare pokemon of the same species to determine which should have the highest max CP. To this end, the current percent perfection falls short.CPThe CP formula is (essentially):CP = 0.0018 * L * (A+a) * sqrt((D+d)*(S+s))where L is the pokemon level, and a, d, and s are the pokemon species' base stats. The first two terms are constant with respect to IVs, so we can focus on the rest, which we will call Q. For a given pokemon species, a, d and s are constant, so we can formulate Q as:Q(A,D,S) = (A+a) * sqrt((D+d)*(S+s))To concretize the relationship between CP and Q, we can rewrite the CP formula as:CP = 0.0018 * L *Q(A,D,S).My proposal: CP PerfectionWhat I would really like to see from IV calculators would be percent perfection scored relative to Q. Here's what I propose:min_Q = Q(0,0,0)max_Q = Q(15,15,15)PP_Q(A,D,S) = 100*(Q(A,D,S) - min_Q)/(max_Q-min_Q)This formula "normalizes" the Q score to the 0-100 range, where 0 means lowest possible CP and 100 CP means max possible CP (for that species at a given level).Let's look at some examples to compare the current percent perfection with this "Q" version. To keep it simple, I'm just going to show you a bunch of Vaporeon with different IVs, all at the same level (25).(If you have trouble reading the table below, you are probably browsing reddit on a mobile app that doesn't properly parse reddit markdown. Open this post in a browser window to see the table below)pokemonivAivDivSPPPP_QCP (LV25)Vaporeon1515151001002029Vaporeon1515986922006Vaporeon15121286902001Vaporeon12121586831982Vaporeon9151586781968Vaporeon1510566761964Vaporeon10101066651933Vaporeon5101566541901Vaporeon0151566451877Vaporeon150033501890Vaporeon105033431870Vaporeon510033351849Vaporeon015033271825Vaporeon051033211808Vaporeon000001749Notice how when using the old method, for a given percent perfection there can be quite a range in CP. If you were relying on percent perfection to compare pokemon to determine which to powerup, with your goal being to maximize CP, this approach is clearly sub-optimal.The alternative I propose is not subject to this problem and allows a perfect method of comparison if the goal is to maximize CP. Granted, CP is not the only formula that use IVs, but I think it makes a lot of sense to connect percent perfection calculations to the CP formula as I've described. via /r/TheSilphRoad http://ift.tt/2dkXwvX