Can I Beat Sidney with Every Pokemon in Hoenn?

[@emeraldbeedrill]

Are we going to tell him that Azurill is not an Water-type?

[@pokephenomenal]

B...but it's blue! Lmao I have no actual excuse here, I always forget about azurill being normal and for some reason didn't confirm it before writing the script 😳 Kind of embarrassing, but I guess azurill gets to keep its honorary lil' guy title for now!

[@WeirdMagnus]

@@pokephenomenalhonestly who doesn’t?

[@SonOfLeBron]

Ngl your not the only one i just realized its not after watching this vid@@pokephenomenal

[@evanschoepke6375]

i thought it was frome gen 4

[@KainaX122]

@@pokephenomenalto be fair, it would make ABSOLUTE sense that Azurill is Water type I mean, _IT LEARNS BUBBLE AND WATER GUN THROUGH LEVEL UP!!_

[@Brainee1]

For the level cap question, you could simply tally up the experience required for the enemy trainer's Pokémon to reach their current level and apply it to the Pokémon you're using. Sydney in Emerald, for example, needed a total of 523,455 experience to train his team. If you gave this experience to a Wurmple, it would be level 80. Giving it to a Beldum, however, makes it only level 74. Could make things a bit less one-sided, and accurately represents time actually spent training the 'mon in-game. (Bruno's team is worth 757,028 experience using this system. Yeah, he's about 50% more experienced than Sydney.)

[@conchadeconchos]

This is definitely the way to do it. Seeing lvl 98 on all things is not it😂 yea my typloshion ran through HGSS like 98% of these mon. That’s what being double the level in opponent usually does

[@StaticWords]

Yeah this one sounds the most reasonable

[@billiamswartz2355]

I like this idea

[@zekalwe]

Most good

[@eduardozappi9]

Please do this. I really liked the video idea but when it got to the lvl 98 part I lost interest

[@RahidenChan]

I think a Lv100 cap is fine. BUT I think that the number of attempts per Pokémon is important. For example, since Pichu took 3 attempts, it would count as 0.33 rather than 1. That way, the end result is “What’s the likelihood of beating Sidney using a random Pokemon”.

[@reebro]

Feel like you should also make it so anything that take 10 attempts and above just equals 0

[@weir9996]

@@reebroYeah, I think knocking .1 off the score for each loss (thus bringing it to zero after 10 losses) is better than OP's approach. Dividing by the total number of attempts is pretty harsh in a game that is as luck-based as Pokemon, especially when it might take time to figure out a good strategy

[@ManoDraugas]

This!!

[@NPP_1]

Eh, this challenge is more about whether it is possible or not

[@Isabelle-mp8rk]

while it's a cool idea, it could end up being more a showing on how quickly he can find the optimal moves/ev spread and also be affected by human error and lucky first attempt clears

[@alexanderhoak]

Essay Time. I think to answer the level cap question, we have to first ask what the ultimate goal here is. Are you simply trying to see how many Pokémon you can solo bosses with, or are you trying to get practical data that could potentially be used in a legitimate run? For the former, going in with the boosted level cap is the obvious answer, but for the latter, most Pokémon could probably sweep most bosses while only being 10 lvls over, so overleveling could skew data. Or is the goal simply to rank the bosses from easiest to hardest, in which case, the method is irrelevant as long as it remains consistent, which then brings us to level cap modifier. The main problem I see there, is that 2x level cap will not work for consistency since the game has a hard cap at 100. You would be going into Phoebe (LVL 51) and Cynthia (LVL 66) with the exact same level. The highest level boss (excluding rematches) I believe is currently Sada/Turo at 67, which coincidently gives us a near perfect 1.5 (1.493) multiplier to hit 100. I like the idea of having a variant multiplier based on the number of trainers the boss has, so I would propose that we start with no modifier for a 1v1 and then add .1 for each additional Pokémon (1.1x for 2, 1.2x for 3, ... , 1.5x for 6)* However, regardless of the level cap decision, I think the bigger elephant in the room is an attempt cap. As we somewhat saw with Wurmple, anything is possible if you throw it at a brick wall enough times. There is a world out there where you crit every attack and all it takes to count as a win is enough attempts to find that fight. I would propose that there should be a cap to the number of attempts allowed in order to provide more accurate data, though I don't have any math here to suggest one, so it should probably be determined by what feels best. Maybe 10, maybe 20, plus it might save you some time over fighting until you win or give up. I apologize if I am overstepping a bit, but I really like the idea of this series and I want it to be the best it can be, and I am a bit of a researchaholic so I tend to go a bit overboard with this kind of thing. It is ultimately your series, and you know better than any of us how you want it to play out. Best Regards *Credit to @jhvavier4711 a few comments down for inspiring this idea

[@jhvavier4711]

I think in regards to the multiplier you could apply to the opponent's ace to calculate ypur level cap, you could base it off the specific number of Pokemon in each team. For example, maybe +0.2x the level cap for each Pokemon. So like, 2 Pokemon would set the level cap to 1 + 0.2 = 1.2x the enemy ace. And 5 Pokemon would set the level cap to 1 + 0.8 = 1.8x the enemy ace

[@mateobonavento3939]

This is exactly what I wanted to suggest, but I had trouble wording it because English is not my native language, so thank you for doing it better than I could.

[@Maria-chan5863]

I was literally typing the same thing until I scrolled down and saw your comment.

[@zohasthoughts4207]

I think this method is the way to go, but using this formula may be unfair against early a game trainer who's using unelovled Pokémons. The multiplier should change depending on the evolutionary stages of the Pokémon

[@DankaMemes]

I had the same idea, it would be amazing. Also more fair against earlier trainers famous to be kinda hard to beat as long as you don't use overleveled Pokémon. Let's say Whitney from Johto, with her infamous Miltank. In HeartGold/SoulSilver her ace is level 19, with 2 pokémon in her team that would put the level cap at 19*1.2= 22 or 23 That's the type of hard challenge that would put the BQ to the test, I bet even the best pokémon could have a hard time.

[@syro33]

Could you do Whitney next? it'd be interesting seeing a lower-leveled challenge, and she certainly has a reputation

[@resurrekt7114]

Chikorita and Bayleef clearly beat her no problem, I'd love to see more people acknowledging this amazing Chiko W

[@RM-um9xx]

I second this bc I'm firmly within team "Whitney isn't hard, it's just that you were a button-mashing kid the first time you played (H)G(S)S" and want to be vindicated

[@ONLY_RR7]

@@RM-um9xxso true

[@Quinntessentialskill]

@@RM-um9xx I think that's kinda the point. Every other opponent you can beat by mashing, but not Whitney. Isn't that, under those circumstances, hard? Golden Owl's video on the topic was great. I recommend watching that.

[@TaismoFanBoy]

@@RM-um9xx "it was never the miltank"

[@kylefullerton2536]

Wondering if level scaling could also be dependent on the Pokemon's base stat total. Like for this challenge Rayquaza at level 49 is more interesting of a battle than at level 98. Whereas, the baby pokemon, wurmple, silcoon, etc definitely needed the level help to have a fighting chance.

[@theschnozzler]

Great idea. Kinda like the randbats system

[@zio4590]

I'm not a fan of this system. While it makes sense for competitive battles to make it more fair, the idea behind those videos is to test the strength of Pokemon against an NPC. Rayquaza is strong so it's supposed to destroy Sydney.

[@drood100]

I had the same thought, and after dicking around with some numbers came up with a simple formula. It has flaws but works well overall i think: Pokemon level = (1/pokemon bst) x 720 x ace level cap For an ace of lvl 50, a pokemon with bst 780 would be lvl 46, a pokemon with bst of 180 would be lvl 100 (anything 100+ defaults to 100) and a bst of 480 is lvl 75.

[@nacligang]

I like this idea, but that sounds like it would take an extremely long time to set up unless you have a team that takes care of that for you

[@CKEternity]

I really like the idea of the veriable level multiplier (1.5 or 2x depending on team size), and personally I would keep the ruleset of moves as it is right now. Yes, Return is good but its also normal type, which as opposed to ice beam or flamethrower is only 7 more power and with no chance to hit super effectively. And personally, I would really like to see Sabrina, Whitney, or a Ghost type gym leader next. Great video!

[@dee7352]

26:14 "...three lucky heads in a row. And if there's anything im good at, it's luckily getting head" is my kind of humor lol

[@HelloHello-vx7le]

I think the BQ should somehow be affected if some pokemon have to do multiple attempts since im pretty sure any pokemon can win anything with enough luck and attempts

[@WitchSupreme]

I agree but I think this should also adjust for strategy changes in some way

[@BeforeThePast]

It would take a little more work, but you could start every mon at 10 lvls higher than the ace and increase by 5 or 10 for every failed attempt. Then at the end, you would average the final lvls for a numerical score. More work, but it gives you stats on the performance of the individual mons AND the trainer in question.

[@renownerd.276]

For cacturne and silicoon, start with one or two harden pp left may help. Maybe with leftovers instead of choice band.

[@HRXK-pd5hz]

it has been a month. but. Choice band allows for 1 hit KOs. Leftovers won't make a dent.

[@youtube-kit9450]

Imma guess you mean Cascoon, not Cacturne.

[@renownerd.276]

Woops, indeed I did!@@youtube-kit9450

[@nathanlamberth7631]

I think you should use the lowest level that you can. Pick a cap and go until a Pokémon can’t win, and then up the level and try at a higher level. That way you can judge a trainer with a percent of Pokémon that could win, but if two trainers both get a 100% then you compare the level you had to be at to win.

[@pingpongmaestros]

I'm not sure if anyone in the comments already sayed this idea but i got the solution! Since the high level is because the opponent have so many (in this case 5 Pokemon) your level should be decided by 2 things. Like now the opponets level and 2 how many pokemon he/she has. So 5/6 Pokemon gives your pokemon a ×2 as high level as your enemies ace.. 4 pokemon gives a ×1,75. 3 gives ×1,5 2 and gives ×1.25. Here is a way to make it fair through all the games not juste the elite 4😊

[@silver_was_found]

lol, I like how you call the it "grock" type. Also, the fighting-type section... really caught me off guard. Well done.

[@Blackadder125]

I like the idea of having the level cap depend on the number of pokémon the opponent has, though I would break it into three groups myself. 1x their ace's level if they have 1 or 2 pokémon, 1.5x if they have 3 or 4 pokémon, 2x if they have 5 or 6 pokémon.

[@alexanderdavidson-church147]

I’d say the best Balancing Change you could make is to give Stage 1 Pokémon a level cap of 2x the trainer your facing and then start decreasing it by 0.25% so a Stage 1 Pokémon gets a 2x level cap, a Stage 2 gets a 1.75x cap, Stage 3 gets a 1.5x cap, and Legendaries and Mythicals Get a 1.25x cap and make it so that you only get 1 try per Pokémon that would make it more interesting seeing as if you give yourself infinite tries you will always win or at least limit the tries to 3 per Pokémon or something but otherwise great video I really admire the amount of time you put into this and hope to see this series succeed!

[@HRXK-pd5hz]

EV/IV training the entire dex, or at least theory crafting it is so much dedication. this is Incredible.

[@lyonnaismatt]

Okay very quick suggestion To make it easier on you, if you beat an opponent with an NFE, you don't have to actually beat him with the evolved form, as well. That is, if Sandshrew can beat the boss, you don't actually need to test Sandslash. This should cut down the monotony considerably

[@lyonnaismatt]

You also don't need to tell us that you're doing that lmao

[@gojo3ygo]

Okay so your multiplication is cool and all but I want to add onto that. Level Muliplier: 1 Pokemon = 1x multiplier 2 Pokemon = 1.2x multiplier 3 Pokemon = 1.4x multiplier 4 Pokemon = 1.6x Multiplier 5 Pokemon = 1.8x Multiplier 6 Pokemon = 2x Mutliplyer The level would be rounded up. Seems fair to me.

[@zeemgeem]

Just my take, the best way to handle levels would probably be figuring out an estimate of how much EXP the Pokémon would have in a typical playthrough if you had only used it up to the point of that fight, skipping out of the way optional trainers, and then use that value for their EXP. Some Pokémon have slower EXP rates to account for their power level in a playthrough so one fixed level isn't a perfectly realistic solution. Every game has a different level curve and ceiling by the elite four, so just doubling their ace's level runs into an obstacle in the very next gen when you can't go past 100.

[@aero7glass621]

This series has so much great potential, I have to see more !!! Can I suggest level 95. Or doing 15 levels above strongest pokemon, only rule is no healing items during battle? Love the hard work!!

[@QweaklyForgotten]

I really like the concept of the BQ in a nutshell, and although I had some grips with it throughout the video, most of them you mentionned as well at the end of the video as possible points of improvement, and it's perfectly okay for it not to be perfect when the BQ is yet so young. So I have to say I really like enjoy the work and thought you put into all of this ^^ Now for the few thoughts I had that might be on topic: First of, a level cap of 2 times the ace just feels like overkill. As funny the meme of beating Bruno and Sidney with Caterpie and Wurmple is, I believe forcing a level cap that makes it possible will hurt the BQ overall. If every trainer has a BQ between 90% and 100%, a lot of accuracy is lost, and every trainer at 100% is indistinguishable from one another. As shit as he is, Bruno is not on the level of the Fisherman with 5 Magikarps. I actually think a BQ over 90% with the hard level cap of the ace would be much more of a disgrace to Bruno as losing to a lvl 100 Caterpie all things considered To be fair, my actual fear with this point is that with 2 times level cap, even a trainer like Cynthia would have a BQ as high as 90%, but this can't be decided before testing, so as you suggested, I think trying the BQ on one of the biggest guns in the series would be a great learning experience I believe one way to do the level cap would be to have a level cap of times 1.X the level of the ace, where the X is the size of the team -1. This would give a 1 for 1 in the rare 1v1s which feels the most fair, and go up to 1.4 and 1.5 for elite four members and champions, which still feels a bit high to me, but also justified and still simple Finally for the banned moves: I don't think Return that you mentioned is a problem, just a symptom of the problematic level cap itself. Close the level cap and Return will stop being a free win. About Hidden Power, I actually like banning it this specific context. In a vaccuum, I believe it is an interesting option without being that overpowered. In theory, it helps pass one or maybe two pokemons, but not an entire fight. However, as most of the toughest trainers in the series have monotype teams, most of them could be too easily trivialized by using the right Hidden Power and nothing else from the pokemon (Additional footnote: how would you handle Red's insane level cap? For any option besides the hardest, it goes over 100. So just 100 and take the squewed BQ as just a sign of the actual challenge that is reaching said level cap in the first place? Or hack in level 120 or 160 pokemons? Or something else, I dunno. Both options have pros and cons)

[@mitchellsirois3083]

Really enjoyed the video. I think it would be interesting to continue the trend of going after the weakest/easiest elite 4s, but do like the idea that people of have but forward of doing the most difficult gym leaders instead (seen a lot o whitney, sabrina, etc.) On the topic of levels I think that something of a middle ground between the extreme of having to win at both 1.5x and 2x for every pokemon and then doing the averaging scores would be to try it a few times at the lower level cap (say 5 to 20 runs), then if that doesn't seem feasable just go to 2x and continue attempts from there. Then at the end you have the normal BQ of how many pokemon won, and then just put up a % of how many were able to do it at 1.5 instead of 2x. I suggest this because I do like the idea of seeing how easy it is to full clear at different levels caps, but also recognize that doing too many attempts at 1.5 could be a huge time waster, especially in the case of things like early game bugs were it is already a huge time investment at even 2x.

[@isaacfox1874]

If feel like the level cap should be +10 of the highest level pokemon

[@sethdowns1613]

I love this series. I think if you could factor in how many attempts each Pokémon had to take in order to get their victory, it would provide a more interesting BQ. Something like every Pokémon gets 100 attempts. If they clear their first attempt, they score a full point. If they clear their 100th attempt, they score .01 of a point. If you have to put in more work as a trainer, it should factor against that Pokémon’s overall BQ. As far as level caps, I think what you’ve got now is fine. It def puts less work on you having to figure out specific level caps for every Pokémon.

[@TheEmoBimbo]

So...a theoretical option is to have the level cap be determined by two factors. Trainer Type, and number of Pokémon. Elite Four would remain 1.5×-2.0× their Ace's level...but Regular Gym leader's could be their highest level rounded up to the nearest 5, + X (X being their total amount of Pokémon -1. So if they have 1 Pokémon, X = 0. And a team of 6 is 5 extra levels. Or X can equal the Gym badge they are/appear at.) For example, if facing Brock in Pokémon Red, his highest level is Onix at level 14. Rounding up would make it 15. Since he has 2 Pokémon, your cap would instead be 16. With the other formula, the cap is still 16, since Brock is Gym 1. Using the same formulas for Whitney, your level cap would be either 21 or 23, which is a fair range.

[@AlexsGoogleAccount]

The natural progression for your multiplier might be to scale based on the number of Pokemon on the team. If we wanted 1x for a party of 1 and 2x for a party of 6 with an even distribution for values between, we would get: 1 Pokemon: 1.00x 2 Pokemon: 1.20x 3 Pokemon: 1.40x 4 Pokemon: 1.60x 5 Pokemon: 1.80x 6 Pokemon: 2.00x For a party of 5 with an ace at 49, this gives a level cap of 88. Given the lowest multiplier (for a party size of 1) and a largest multiplier (for a party size of 6), your scale of values can be found with the following formula: LOWEST + ((N - 1) * (HIGHEST - LOWEST)) / 5 ---------- The above approach somewhat resembles your proposal to cap 1-3 party members at 1.5x and 4-6 party members at 2.0x. If you wanted to cap this scale so that the *MAX* of 1-3 is 1.5x and the *MAX* of 4-6 is 2.0x, your scale would look like: 1 Pokemon: 1.17x 2 Pokemon: 1.33x 3 Pokemon: 1.50x 4 Pokemon: 1.67x 5 Pokemon: 1.83x 6 Pokemon: 2.00x For a party of 5 with an ace at 49, this gives a level cap of 90. Given the cap of the lower half (party size 1 to 3) and the cap of the higher half (party size 4 to 6), your scale of values can be found with the following formula: LOWCAP + ((N - 3) * (HIGHCAP - LOWCAP)) / 3 ---------- If instead of capping the sections you want to have the *AVERAGE* of 1-3 to be 1.5x and the *AVERAGE* of 4-6 to be 2x, then your scale would look like: 1 Pokemon: 1.33x 2 Pokemon: 1.50x 3 Pokemon: 1.67x 4 Pokemon: 1.83x 5 Pokemon: 2.00x 6 Pokemon: 2.17x For a party of 5 with an ace at 49, this gives a level cap of 98. Given the average for the lowest half (party size 1 to 3) and the average of the higher half (party size 4 to 6), your scale of values can be found with the following formula: LOWAVG + ((N - 2) * (HIGHAVG - LOWAVG)) / 3 --------- It's okay if this seems confusing at first. In each case, we have 2 known values in our list of 1 to 6 Pokemon (boundaries use points 1 and 6, maxes use points 3 and 6, averages uses points 2 and 5). Using the difference of these 2 values and the distance between them on our list, we can figure out what other values must exist in our scale.

[@Gingerbreadley]

The level should be consistent across all elite 4 so either 50 or 100.

[@fluffysamehada6072]

Loved the little montage with Drake and Josh for the fighting-type Thanks for the chuckle

[@yourlocalraccoondealer8611]

You could have added a percentage based on the gym badges as follows: Gym 1: 20% over level cap Gym 2: 30% over level cap Gym 3: 40% over level cap Gym 4: 50% over level cap Gym 5: 60% over level cap Gym 6: 70% over level cap Gym 7: 80% over level cap Gym 8: 90% over level cap Elite/Champion Member: 100% (double) level cap Could be adjusted to be 10% for gym 1, 90% for elite and then 100% for champion but the only champion that would affect would be Lance. The other thing is increasing level cap by 1.2x for each pokemon they have instead of 1.1x, which would lead closer to your other elite 4 runs.

[@hyena436]

My idea is similar in concept to jonathanhay's idea, but would play differently with the power levels of each evolution line. I suggest: - Use the pokemon at the level they would have attained if they were your only pokemon on the playthrough. Play through the game in question up until the featured trainer battle, Then check how much XP your pokemon have gained. (If you catch wild pokemon, you'll have to remember to subtract their initial xp, but running with just your starter would make that super easy) Since each pokemon has a "Leveling Rate," (starters are Medium Slow for example) you can apply that total XP to each evolution line and get the level your "solo" pokemon would be at, as well as the expected evolution stage. (Example: Running a Poochyena through roxanne might be 18 and have evolved by then, while a mudkip might be just shy of level 16) I know, complicated, would take a lot longer, and is likely a nightmare to explain at the start of a video, but would fit the theme/premise of the series SUPER well as if you were actually soloing that part of the game with one pokemon

[@Moostelle]

i think calculating Cynthia's (or another especially difficult champion's) BQ could be an interesting way to test the rules we're using, and the scale as a whole. it's also always interesting to have both ends of a scale, not to mention how curious i am as to how you'd tackle a really hard fight with like, a budew, or something.

[@strikerx9720]

I said Sidney last time so I’m happy he got to be 2nd. This time my pick is actually Clay. He’s a great case for the opposite end of the BQ with a strong, diverse team that’s also earlier in the game. Elesa would also work just as well. I proposed the 2x level cap in the last video and I stand by that here. I do like the idea of doing 1.5x for gym leaders on the weaker end. I do feel that making it 1.5x the level at two Pokemon instead of three would be better though. Just try beating Clay and Elesa and you’ll see what I mean. Really excited for what comes next!

[@BeanoNintendo]

I've seen a few comments suggesting that the number of attempts should be taken into consideration and I totally agree with this. If the point of these videos is to show how "GG EZ" certain bosses are then saying something like "I beat Bruno with just a Magikarp" feels misleading if it took you 100+ tries. Yes, I know that for a lot of these bosses it takes a few tries to develop an optimal strategy so my proposed solution is this: you count PER strategy. So, to take the Wurmple line for example, you would count the number of attempts before and after determining that investing in HP was the right call but only the latter would contribute to the BQ because that's the strategy that actually won. So once a strategy has been determined, you would use it like so: If the strategy works right away, it counts for a full point. If it takes 2 attempts, it's 0.9 points. If it takes 3, it's 0.8 and you keep going down by 0.1 points like this until you get to the tenth attempt. At this point, just keep going until you actually win. As long as a win is secured, it counts for 0.1 points. The only way to zero out is to give up entirely. Basically, a 0.1 exists to show that a win with that Pokémon is theoretically possible but very very unlikely. Doing things this way makes a lot of sense to me because, as other commenters have pointed out, you can pretty much win any fight with any Pokémon given enough time and luck but not everyone is going to have the patience to want to try soloing a boss battle with a species as statistically unlikely to win as Silcoon or Magikarp. This updated BQ tells players how much of a time sink each individual challenge will be and then adds them all together to get a much more accurate representation of the trainer's threat level given players without speed-ups, genning, or save states. It's also a more adaptable metric as you can easily raise the decimal rating of individual Pokémon if your viewers clue you in on a more optimal strategy. Maybe the scaling can be adjusted a bit to be more fair to weaker Pokémon and show their growth more (like, if both Leftovers and Choice Band Magikarp still take 10 or more attempts, the fact that the latter is the far superior strategy won't really be reflected) but I think that the basic idea has merit and would make for more interesting and accurate overall statistics.

[@dataobsessedfatguy]

I think it'd be more interesting if you give the Pokemon in these experiments the amount of experience that they would have gained via battling every trainer possible before facing an opponent. We'll treat all of the wild Pokemon as either runs or calculate the average exp gained from a normal runs most minimal amount of walking through grassy areas.

[@thewrongsorcerer]

98 level cap on all pokemon is boring. It would be more fun to have the level cap based on the Pokemon's base stat total or evolution stage or something. Or see what level you can reliably win with all pokemon as a sort of challenge to see which pokemon can win with the lowest level

[@monopolyrubix1875]

My recommendation: Set the level cap multiplier to (number of enemy pokemon/6) + 1. So a team of 6's multiplier is (6/6) + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2. A team of 3's multiplier is (3/6) + 1 = .5 + 1 = 1.5. etc. This way is still good, though! On the topic of banned moves, Scott's Thoughts does a thing I like where the double team TM is banned, but if a pokemon like Pikachu learns it by level up, it can use double team. That way if the devs deliberately designed the mon to use that move, they can, but not everything can. I think that'd be nice for DT and OHKO moves. Liked this video a lot! I still request comparing RS Steven to E Wallace to see who the true champion is.

[@theschnozzler]

Hard disagree. The challange already has luck involved for some of the weaker mons. Adding more is stupid

[@trhynosaur]

One thought I had that could work is a level cap based on the Pokémon you use. Legendaries and fully evolved Pokémon could fight at the level cap, middle stages fight at 1.5x the level cap, and baby stages fight at 2x the level cap. However, I could easily see thay getting confusing in the ranking, so it might not be the best idea.

[@judahhamilton6864]

I think the raw, adjusted, and true bq is a great idea, but if that just takes too much time then even the two different multipliers for team size would be great. Keep up the good work.

[@lollezzo]

what about using base stats totals to decide wich level the pokemon should be put at? you know,just so the weaker mons have a chance and the stronger ones dont have it too easy. of course there are other defining factors for good and bad pokemon like how the stats are spread and movepools buuut it gets really complicated to decide wich pokemon should be put at wich level at that point doesnt it? i think that this method could be it both for measuring and not making it too complicated and weird.

[@submarinodequin7047]

I was thinking the same thing, using the base stats to clasify the pokemon and with that aply the level cap or multiplier

[@Axecon1]

I think a good standard is +10 levels from the opponent's highest level Pokemon. Mostly because Red's highest in HGSS is Pikachu at Lv 88 and there's no way to do a 2X multiplier at Lv 88. This can work for all opponents regardless of their level, party, or typing. If a Pokemon is unable to beat the opponent at the +10 level, then the level is uncapped to Lv 100 but the BQ score for that Pokemon drops to 0.5 (0 if totally unable to beat the opponent at Lv 100). I think the current move & item ruleset is perfect and allowing for Hidden Power should be fine. It's pretty consistent with other Pokemon challenge channels like JRose11.

[@syro33]

ten levels is a lot though, for lower leveled gym leaders with smaller teams. This would still give an advantage to trainers from later in the game.

[@youssouflomoukoko2894]

For the level cap, you could maybe do something in the direction of increasing the level cap 20% for every opponent’s Pokémon.

[@empressmako]

i think an idea to do for level caps would be that, if the pokemon can evolve twice, it can be double the ace's level. if it can evolve once, it can be 1.5 times the ace's level. if it can't evolve, it matches the ace. alternatively, pokemon 300 bst and lower get 2x level, 301-400 get 1.5x, 401-500 get 1.25x, and 500+ gets no bonus. great video!

[@DominicDorian]

Option 3 and with the 2x level cap was definitely the right choice. It lets the BQ scores still be consistent despite the variables that would arise with each trainer. But say if for the next video, it used a 1.5x multiplier, then it would be impossible to appropriately compare it to the other 2 so I'd vote for keeping all runs at the 2x. As for a hard challenge, might as well just start with the biggest brick wall and do BDSP Cynthia to get the best data. If every Pokémon is somehow able to take her down, even if they're at 100, then reevaluating the rules would make sense.

[@Jacophilia]

I've been thinking about it, and it seems like 90% of Pokémon could fairly effortlessly defeat any member of the elite four at a high level like 98. This can make the video a bit less entertaining to watch, at least in my opinion. How about beginning at the level cap and incrementally leveling up your Pokémon after each defeat until you secure a victory? This approach would introduce more challenging battles, while also allowing for the possibility of using weaker Pokémon like Magikarp. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this idea!

[@roehend8947]

Return and hidden power should both be allowed. HP has a low base power but gives good coverage options and Return is mainly useful to hit hard with normal types since they're not super effective against anything, neither of which are game breaking and still require strategy. Having the BQ be affected by the number of attempts it takes for a pokemon to succeed would be useful since with enough luck, even a Magikarp can beat Arceus. Taking 0.1 away from the pokemon's 1 point for every failed attempt would give them 10 chances to sweep, and after those 10 attempts fail the pokemon is considered a loss. To account for team sizes, increasing the level cap by +0.2x the leader's ace for each additional member would give the early bosses a fighting chance. 1 pokemon on their team is the normal 1x level cap, 2 is 1.2x, 3 is 1.4x, 4 is 1.6x, 5 is 1.8x, and a full 6 pokemon is 2x. The next trainer I would like to see you fight is Whitney since she's notoriously difficult early game, which will give us a data point against both an early game trainer instead of Elite 4 and one that's considered hard instead of easy.

[@moralsupport3802]

1st and most importantly, great video and great series concept. That being said, the level cap is a wierd issue. My personal idea would be something along thr lines of 《Level Cap = Trainer level * (1+Number of pokemon * 0.1)》. Long story short, if Pryce has 3 pokemon, your level cap is Pryce*1.3 . That being said, yeah the discord server to actually discuss this sort of stuff would be great.

[@2kiris]

I did like the idea of 1.5x for 1-3 and 2x for 4-6. Seems like the best solution for level cap. Having both the raw & adjusted BQs would be interesting, but if it ends up being not worth the time, that makes perfect sense.

[@frozenbonkchoy4986]

Glad to see my level cap idea go into effect, even if my comment went unseen. I think it allows for a lot of diverse pokemon to participate

[@Sailorbrown42]

I think an excellent solution to almost all of the problems that you presented is to give your Pokémon as much experience as is available at point in the game from all mandatory and optional trainers. Think about it. This would mean that since all that experience is going to one Pokémon it’s like you were doing a solo challenge run with that Pokémon the entire time. You obviously wouldn’t use the versus seeker to get infinite battles because duh. I’ll give you a lot of lead on whoever you’re fighting in almost all scenarios. And by the time you get to the end of the game you should have a pretty sizable lead without it being ridiculous. It also put your Pokémon at a reasonable level as if someone was to do a solo Pokémon run with that Pokémon, that is the level they would get to. That way the level changes based on the gym leader or boss that you’re doing proportional to where you’re at in the game

[@aschnetker]

I feel like an attempt cap would have a good effect. I'd propose that, with a given Pokemon, you can only take 50 attempts with a particular strategy. For example, in this case, when you realised that leaning on swagger for the bugs was your intent, then from that moment on you attempt 50 times. After this, if you still haven't succeeded, then you restrategise, or you give up. I feel without this, totals would always tend too high, because of really, really small probabilities. This could let you keep a high level cap of some sort, but still have some Pokemon fail if it's luck-based

[@Thunder-Sky]

Option 4: bracketed results attempt each pokemon at level cap, and those who aren't able to clear at that can move up to the next bracket. I don't know how long the attempts generally take and I don't want to push for something that takes far too long, but I'd personaly make the brackets at 1x, 1.25x, 1.5x, 2x, and 100 some of the early gym leaders have enough space for 3x, but given that there'd be no comparable bracket for E4 fights, I'd elect to just hop straight from 2x to 100 (this also saves time) edit: aaaand of course, the moment I resume playing after typing this all out it comes up as a suggestion from the last video

[@SpookyStump]

I think the best way to handle your level is by going in with the same amount of experience points as the opponent's whole team combined. For Sidney, you'd have 523,455 EXP (97,336 for a Medium Fast level 46 Mightyena + 102,810 for a Medium Slow level 48 Shiftry + 89523 for a Medium Slow level 46 Cacturne + 123,863 for a Fluctuating level 48 Crawdaunt + 109,923 for a Medium Slow level 49 Absol), which would put a Pokémon anywhere from level 72 to level 92 depending on their experience group.

[@theintrovertedbrotherandsi6254]

My preference for the level problem would be an evolution line based solution. All first forms of a three line evolution would be tier one, all second forms tier two, and legendary and third forms tier three. Then for two stage and single stage pokemon, you can use the bst average ranges of the previously sorted groups to categorize them. So scyther would be tier three, even though it is a first form since it fits with fully evolved mons in terms of stats, while something like Farfetched would be tier one. The tiers could then be given whatever multiplier, maybe 1.2x, 1.5x, 2x. That way it isnt a given that every fully evolved mon is going to win.

[@randaljr.8581]

Level cap idea: maybe choose it from a pokemons BST. so if a pokemon has 525 BST (a starter), it can be at the ace's level. anything stronger, would be increasingly lower level, and anything weaker, would be increasingly stronger. so like a level 70 feebas, but a level 41 kyogre.

[@aQrator]

I see quite a few complex rule systems being suggested and I think for the sake of content, simplicity is key. Having to explain 'yeah level cap is determined by x y z and if you lose f times it changes by b but if you use pokemon Q you only get a multiplier of s" reduces the comprehensiveness of these videos. I'm using a bit of hyperbole here but I think you get my point. For that same reason, I'd also opt against the adjusted BQ you mentioned. One run through is sufficient for the content. At 25ish minutes it's long enough imo, and for two level caps you basically have to add between 50 and 100% of that length to it, which I think can dissuade viewership and vastly increases the required effort as you mentioned. I'd say a simple universal level multiplier should be your choice, that at most can adjust based on team size or boss rank (basically, "what gym is it"). One thing you can do to estimate what's fair is calculate the damage you'd do against, say, a level 14 Cranidos at double the level and to a level 50 Dragonite at double the level with the same mon and move. If those are about on par, you'd be fine. If they're not, either lower both multipliers and see if that fixes it, or adjust just the lower one down based on team size or boss rank (e.g. gym 5 and earlier vs gym 6 and later). Once you have that pinned down, I think your system should work just fine. A universal ruleset with just one easy to understand condition

[@drowzypollinator640]

For the level cap, I think a multi-step approach would make for a better Bruno Quotient. Step 1. A given Pokémon can go in at level cap and win 100% Step 2. A given Pokémon can go in at level cap and win with

[@drowzypollinator640]

Particularly, if this challenge is to figure out how easy a trainer is, you make their level cap their highest Pokémon, and see if you can brain dead mash a move or two from a level up moveset to see if you win and start docking points for any extra work you have to put in. Start with 100 points. Did it take extra levels? Dock level worth of points. Did it take a TM or move tutor? Dock 10 points. Did it take toxic substitute strategy, dock X points. Did it take struggle strats? Dock 5 points. But at the end, you would come up with a number that says how brain dead you can be to beat the trainer, which would suggest their "easiness".

[@christykamori]

Double the ace's level feels like overkill. For endgame fights like the elite four, you're basically level 100 Plenty of pokemon solo the entire game at way lower levels! You could set the initial cap at the opponent's ace Anyone who succeeds is awarded 100 points Then anyone who struggles can try at a higher level for a lower score Every level will deduct 2 points from their score For example, a Blaziken that solos Sidney at level 49 gets a perfect 100 A weaker but capable Chimecho may win at level 60 for a score of 78 The Wurmple that needed to be level 98 gets a score of only 2 Anyone who fails to beat them period scores 0 Then the opponent would be ranked against the roster's final score An enemy with a higher number indicates more pokemon can easily solo them While an enemy with a lower score suggests a tougher challenge Pokemon was designed with overleveling in mind to ensure virtually anyone can win The first rock gym is usually meant to be defeated either super effective special attacks or a second stage starter But a player who overlevels a Rattata and mashes tackle can still win, now with a partner strong enough to carry them further! Similarly, the Elite 4 is a challenge that asks the player to bring a diverse team with clever strategies But any decent Pokemon in their 70's or higher can easily cut through them like butter! There is content to be made hard testing the question "Can every pokemon beat this trainer" But with a super high level cap, you'll mostly only ever run into "the usual suspects" • Pokemon with poor stats • Pokemon with shallow movepools • Pokemon with weird gimmicks (ditto, wobbuffet)

[@jakenbakery3540]

In option 2, it seems like a bug, rather than a feature, that trainers close in level can have wildly different caps. The BQ is about making the fight "fair," seeing what these bosses can handle. If Sidney's ace is only three levels higher than the eighth gym leader, then that's a quirk of the leveling curve that feels fair to include in the BQ calculation, imo. It's ultimately a matter of whether you want this to be an analysis of the trainers in a vacuum with the "fairest fight possible," or also an analysis of these trainers as bosses for where they are in the game.

[@adysun]

For leveling, why not do a sliding scale based off base stats? Pokemon 600+ get, say a 10% level advantage over the challenge ace, Pokemon 200- get to be double the level of the challenge ace cause of their stats, 400 is the midpoint between those two levels, and so on.

[@afarrell870]

I feel that a fair way of determining the level of your Pokemon is to just have your one Pokemon have the same total amount of Exp as all of the opponents Pokemon combined. For example, Sydney's Emerald team has a total of (97,336 + 102,810 + 89,523 + 123,863 + 109,923) = 523,455 Exp. Giving one single Pokemon that amount of Exp will get your Pokemon to between Lvl.72 and Lvl.92, depending on which specific Pokemon you are using, which is large level advantage for weaker Pokemon, but more powerful Pokemon are much closer to Sydney's level, whilst still having a decent level advantage to counteract only having one Pokemon. It thus allows you a decent level advantage, somewhat self-balances for weaker Pokemon that do actually need a large level advantage, and you don't have to decide on, justify, and use an arbitrary level multiplier with it to get reasonable scaling.

[@ashbandicoochie]

I think the 2x the ace level cap is a good idea, and i like it the most out of the presented options. Personally, I'd love to see challenges of Cynthia, like most everyone, but also... Whitney! I think that would be a really interesting video

[@serisealias2834]

I'm pretty sure moves like Mirror Coat and Future Sight still hit Dark-types for this gen specifically. That's how I lost Sableye to Wally's Gardevoir in my Sapphire Nuzlocke years ago. Future Sight hit.

[@funwithcoding2818]

I'll say what I said last time, you can create an equation to calculate the bq that takes level into account and penalizes for it. That way you don't have to worry about being fair, or not being able to beat higher level trainers. The goal is to win at the lowest level possible with each Mon

[@SaerasChuu]

For Elite 4/Major Boss challenges, I definitely think making the level cap 100 is best. There is only a semantic difference between 98 and 100, at that point. The challenge is "CAN you beat X with Y", not "at how low a level can X beat Y." A person could feasibly grind up their favorite Pokemon for the battle ahead of time, so it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Elite 4 and such are meant to be endgame bosses, and, since a Pokemon can ONLY go up to level 100, it provides a natural cap of a Pokemon's strength. However, earlier bosses make it much more complicated. If you were fighting, say, gym leaders, I feel like rounding up from their ace +10 levels are probably about as fair as a person could get. No matter what system you decide on, evolved Pokemon/Pokemon with higher BST are always going to be at a massive advantage per level compared to weaker Pokemon. Rather, I think 100 should be the default, and that stronger Pokemon should be given PENALTIES to their level based on their strength or even type advantage. Legendaries -50, 3 stage Pokemon -40, 2 stage Pokemon -20, or something. The exact amounts would obviously have to be refined, but we know Rayquaza will be able to beat most anything with its diverse movepool and stats. I'm more interested in seeing how LOW something like that can go. As for banning Return, I wouldn't, though I would treat it as a move of last resort in most cases, when other moves prove not quite sufficient enough. The main reason I wouldn't is because it's essentially just banning a powerful basic move, but other types also have powerful, simple moves with great distribution as well. Flamethrower, Ice Beam, Earthquake... plenty of Pokemon can move these, but I don't want to take tools out of everyone's moveset just because they're simple and easy to use.

[@AdaVox]

✨Level cap solution! ✨ Base the level cap on the stage of evolution? First stage - 2x level Middle - 1.5x Fully evolved - 1.2x Also, maybe only allow yourself 2 tries with each mon?

[@Cappy-Bara]

Another option is sticking to the your level cap being their highest pokemom, but compensate by having an equal number of that pokemon, ie having 5 magikarp vs someone with 5 pokemon

[@4Pssf2w]

I enjoyed the video. Suggestion for improvement: be more consistent with how to show progress. Show us every line that you win with them as you go and update the counter at the 'expected' time as in after you finish explaining the stuff. You set it up so that each type is kind of like a module in the video, right, so, it feels better to have each module have the same flow. I felt a little cheated when I didn't get to see all the lines! You introducing them was really cool. Cheers, i hope you make lots more.

[@zodiakgames]

This may be my new favorite series on the interwebs

[@nutmegdoesstuff1339]

I feel like he would be a lot scarier for a lot of pokemon like feebass and such if his absol and crawduant weren't seemingly guaranteed to use swords dance turn one.

[@stephenriblet6368]

An idea: total level. Take the exp needed to get the opponents pokemon to their levels and add it together, giving it to your pokemon. Example with made up numbers. Say brocks geodude and onix need 800 and 1200 exp to reach their levels for convenience. Then your pokemon can have 2000 exp. This would make fast leveling pokemon stand a better chance, and tone slower (generally stronger) ones slower. Upside bugs better. Downside, babies of strong pokemon (larvitar and beldum) might need better strats. Also, this would naturally scale with the number of pokemon your opponents have.

[@ferichorct750]

You've already identified that the Mon's power level is inversely proportional to its entertainment value, so to me, it makes sense to adjust based on the Mon's relative strength. Alakazam vs. Elite Four members? Try level 60, then 65, then 70, etc. Sunkern? Start at 90. (I did a solo Sunkern run of Emerald that ended at level 96, so that's probably what it takes.) This is for fun, ultimately, and I think you'll get the most engaging matchups by using your discretion within a looser rule set. Plus, you get to make a tier list of the available Mon for each Dex to determine starting levels, which is some good #content.

[@Altilt]

I'm a little late to this video but will put in 2c 1. I'm not sure about Wurmple, but Silcoon/Cascoon would've almost certainly been easier using Leftovers + Harden, especially considering how many turns Sindney burns on worthless status moves. Even if you wanted to use Struggle over other attacks (likely not needed, especially with Cascoon) you could come in with 2-6 Harden PP. 2. A lot of other middling mons can probly also benefit from this type of defensive strategy. Calm Mind + Defense Curl + Thunderbolt + Rest Ralts would easily steamroll any fight with a 2x level difference. 2. A static multiplier level cap does generally create a similar level of challenge. While it's not exactly the same, the power difference between a level 5 and a level 10 is similar to a level 50 and level 100. This is verifiable using Calcs, the numbers can get fairly similar, especially when mons are uninvested (although not exactly the same). It's definitely less subjective than other methods.

[@notrelevant5582]

For the level cap, a level multiplier makes earlier fights harder while later fights are easier. I recommend adding a flat number of levels to your Pokémon over the max level of the ace Pokémon; probably around 15-20 levels.

[@gabelucente3566]

I also think a flat cap makes more sense. I would suggest matching the level of the ace, plus 2/3 levels for every additional Pokémon on the team, which would mean a max of 10/15 levels higher.

[@LycannCrimson-io7sp]

The most effective for fight sidney is fight type and bug type😅

[@Robolewa]

I recognize it's potentially more work - but using something like 50% above ace level as a starting point (maybe higher or lower based on enemy party members) could let you zero in on "reasonable" vs "unreasonable" beating. Say if you lose and dont see a path to victory, you go up by 5 / 10 levels, checking if you even see a path to victory with a battle until cap. This would be similar to how solo mon challenge runs generally do the battles, though ill freely admit theres a difference in scope. Speaking of scope, heres where it comes out as "potentially more work" - if its a clean sweep with zero issue, you could even go down by 5 / 10 levels until the mon fails to beat the trainer consistently / at all (or hit the opponent's ace level for legendaries like mewtwo that are absolutely monstrous). Perhaps more exhaustive than the premise asked, but this gives room for a finer tuned answer. E.g., the more mon need to be higher level to win, the stronger the trainer could be considered, but by less than for mons that outright cannot win.

[@pkc166912]

You could possibly set your Pokémon’s level cap based on the Pokémon’s base stat total. Something like: if the Pokémon you are using has a base Stat total less than 300 it gets 2x the opponent’s max level. If the Pokémon you are using had a base stat total more than 600 it has to go in at level cap or maybe get like +10 levels. Then something for the stats in between. Just rough ideas

[@Salnax]

I’m a fan of Option 3, having a set level multiplier. I would argue AGAINST having two different multipliers based on team size though. Part of the reason a trainer can be difficult is their number of moms. This is, for example, why Surge is often considered weaker in Yellow than in Red/Blue, even though his ace is stronger. I’m fine with Hidden Power and the RNG moves being banned, but think Return should be allowed. It ultimately is not that much more powerful than stuff like Earthquake, without ever being super effective. Not to mention that its power helped compensate for the Normal type being otherwise quite weak post-GSC. As for what opponent to do next, it should be a powerhouse like Red or Cynthia. A more extreme opponent is what we need at this point in the series.

[@Gibstack]

My biggest gripe with the series so far is that Choice Band is not accessible to a normal player at the point int he game you fight the elite four. You can get egg moves, you can get your pokemon to level 98, but you're never going to be able to obtain a Choice Band without Battle Frontiering, which just seems like a step too far in prep for the idea of the series. (Same would go for anything not accessible to the player, i.e. ... I don't know, a post-game TM? I don't know if there are other real examples, lol) It's not a huge deal though. This series is still really cool LOL

[@NineTailedNaruto98]

I really like the idea of doing 2 runs and getting a raw BQ and adjusted BQ as far as banned moves I think you should ban them as needed depending on your goal like if the idea or goal is to find out can EVERY pokemon beat *insert trainer* then it truely should be anything goes but if you want to make it as challenging as possible while still seeing whats possible do the 1.5 or 2x level cap and add return to the ban list but after several attempts if it seems impossible then use hidden power or return and you can either count them as a .5 or a legitimate win at your discretion because at the end of the day its your video and you are ultimately in charge of the challenge and purpose of the challenge.

[@ulrichbrodowsky5016]

With the level cap: I think in the case of Sidney it should be 73. Here's the reason why: Let's have a look at damage calculation. It looks about like that: ATTACK * LEVEL / DEFENCE * STUFF Now ATTACK and DEFENCE grow with the level as well. This means that the attacking strength as well as the defensive damage it can take grows quadratically with the level. In total, pokemons grow in the 4th power. So if your pokemon should be as strong as 5 pokemon, it should have 5^0.25 = 1.4953487812212205 times there level. And 1.495*49 = 73.255 which you can round down to 73. For a level LEVEL and NUMBER of enemy pokemon, you get this formula: LEVEL * NUMBER ^ 0.25 Note 1: If you want, you can consider the level of every pokemon instead of only the strongest. But then the formula get's clunky and it doesn't make too much of a difference. If you want, I can write this formula down as well. Note 2: Tere are still a lot of mechanics that give you an advantage. The enemy doesn't get a batch boost and no EVs. He doesn't have max IVs and often a not optimal nature. Also at level 73, a lot of pokemon outspeed their counterparts. This means that they get to hit more often. But if you lower your level to acknowledge all these things, you'll probably find that a lot of pokemons will struggle, making the challenge less fun

[@charl2182]

32:04 Maybe you should devise a ratio, where at the highest, if the opponent has 6 Pokemon, your cap is twice their highest level, but at the lowest, and they only have 1 Pokemon (which I don't even know if that's the case for any Elite 4 member or gym leader, but I'm not super knowledgeable on Pokemon but I want to suggest this anyway), you go in equal to their level. And then you create 4 more steps in between which scale proportionally. So if they have one Pokemon, you're at 1x their level, if they have two, you're at 1.2x their highest level, if they have three, you're at 1.4x, four, you're at 1.6x, five, 1.8x, and if they have an entire team of 6, then you go in at 2x their highest level. This way, maybe it can be more consistent when comparing two opponent trainers with different team sizes on the same scale.

[@ViewtifulSam]

This is a lot of fun and I'm excited for the future of the BQ series! As for the rules, I think you could proceed with the current ones against more capable opponents and then we'll see what happens.

[@novaflareder]

Love the video! Definitely need to go watch the original now. Idea for the rule set though, setting a cap on the amount of attempts you can try with a pokemon. As if yoir strategy allows you to win once every 500 attempts, is it a lack of skill on the opponents side, or did you just get really lucky to win? Definitely looking forward to seeing more of this challenge regardless !😊

[@plushyloverowo6730]

I think it'd be interesting to do runs against elite 4 members with lv 70 pokemon That way you still have a clear power advantage, but more pokemon will fail, which makes better ones set themselves apart

[@FunkyGaming44]

One idea for Level Caps that would be interesting is to first show the Nuzlocke Level Cap. All the Pokemon who can Solo the entire E4 Member w the standard Nuzlocke rules, then proceed to show the Mons that need the extra levels to complete the said challenge, could be 10 levels higher or all the way up to Lv100. I would certainly be interested, especially for Platinum w the amount of Baby Pokemon you can obtain

[@HenryXLII]

I think your idea of doubling the level cap is a good start, but there should be a modification for what kind of Pokemon you are using. Something like. Fully Evolved/Single Stage: Same level as ace Mid Stage Pokemon: 1.5 times the level of the ace First Stage Pokemon: Double the level of the ace You could tweak it even further and maybe give a small 1.2 multiplier for non legendary single stage mons (as most of them are of a lower power level), but I think keeping it simple with three distinct categories would probably be the cleaner method, while still offering more variety in the strategies.

[@theamazingmorris]

I think the 1.5x level cap would be the best since you’re not too overleveled and it doesn’t have the same problems as the formula and obedience level cap

[@29lovvan]

The only reasonable way to approach the level cap issue is to fight each trainer twice with each pokemon. First you fight at the trainer's ace level and see if you can win that way, and if you can't, go to level 100. Stopping at the trainer's level will allow you to fight trainers at any part in the game, say for example if you wanted to fight Rival 2 in Emerald, it would make no sense to do that level 100, so trying at the ace's level would make it much more fun. I think the approach of trying to stay in the spirit of the initial video is ultimately counterproductive in the long term as it was fun in one video to beat Bruno because he is basically a meme, but it makes the rest of the videos in the series less interesting. If you only use double the level of the ace, or level 100 (rather than matching the ace level), then a huge part of the attempts will simply consist of OHKO sweeps, which will get boring after a few videos. With my suggestion you will get two BQs for each trainer, one for level-matched attempts, and one for level 100. You will definitely want to keep the rule as simple as possible, because, even though all rules are fundamentally arbitrary, the more complicated the rule is the more meaningless it feels. A multiplied level cap will not work well as it is basically only "reasonable" to use against the lvl 50-ish trainers you have fought thus far. If you were to apply a 1.5x modifier you'd still be capped at level 100 against the highest levelled trainers like Red and Emerald Steven, making the multiplier lose its purpose. And if you use it at lower levels, say vs Rival 1, you'd get rounding issues, 5x1.5 = 7.5. The difference between level 7 and level 8 in that match is non-trivial for many pokemon. Matching your opponent's level makes sense from a fairness perspective, and capping at level 100 makes sense because that is what the game allows you to do. Multiplied caps fundamentally make little sense. And yes this will make the BQ scores probably start to deviate a lot from the perfect ones you have right now, but that is only good for the series. Having everoyone end up at 100 is not going to be interesting in the long run. You don't want every video to end up being you trying to cheese a win with the early bug pokemon of that region. If you match the level cap you will still have to cheese some of the attempts, but it will be with completely different pokemon every time if you mix it up with the types of trainers you fight rather than only E4 members. Trust me, seeing struggle bugs + flail Magikarp in every video will be detrimental. Okay now I have also finished watching the video and I see that you discussed the possibility of doing one run matching the level and one at higher levels, which makes me glad, I wanted to suggest this for the last video but quite frankly forgot. Though I will also say: it's better to have two BQs rather than combinig them, since a combined score tells us very little. And the process should be to first try at matching levels and then only try at lvl 100 if you can't win. And making a discord server sounds fun, I would definitely join if you ever make one.

[@Timbolus97]

I'd suggest a dynamic level cap based on base stat total of each Pokemon. With Pokemon with 450 BST or higher only get to be the level of the opponents ace, Pokemon woth BST inbetween 449 and 350 can be 1.5x the level and everything below that may be double the opponent's ace's level. For Gen one challenges I suggest reducing the BST caps by 100 to Pokemon at or above 350 BST get no additional levels, 349-250 may be 1.5x the level and everything below 250 can be leveled to double the opponent's ace's level. I believe the major advantage of this system would be a less predictable outcome. Sure, Sidney loses against a lvl 98 Combusken... but is he gonna lose to a level 73 Combusken? The system also (kind of) mimics the level a solo runner might arrive at any given opponent. Since high BST Pokemon usually gain levels more slowly and need less training than low BST Pokemon, it makes sense you would arrive at any given trainer at a lower level with a stronger Pokemon.

[@hailsaturn]

Instead of a level cap, I would propose a scoring system that scales based on how high you needed to train the Pokémon. Start by declaring a "fair" level for the trainee; e.g. if level 60 is the chosen fair level and you beat the trainer at level 60, great, you score 1 point. But if you needed to go to to a higher level, reduce the score proportional to each level over. So if you needed to get to level 80 instead of 60, then the difference is 20 levels; reduce the score by 20% and that Pokémon scores 0.8 points.

[@dozzy9984]

I'm wondering about solving the level problem (since its either overleveling strong mons or leaving underleveled weak mons if the same level is set for every mon). My idea - look at BST of the highest BST mon a trainer has, then look at BST of Pokemon you'll use, then multiply level of the ace of that trainer by the difference in BST. F.e. Kanto Brock has Onix and Geodude. Onix has better BST (around 400), so you take it. You use Caterpie, that has around 200, meaning it's 2 times the difference in Brock's favor, so you take the level of Brock's ace (lvl 14 Onix) and apply that multiplier to Caterpie, which would meant a lvl 28 Caterpie fighting Brock. Similarly, a strong Venusaur has almost 500 BST, meaning it's around 1/4 times higher BST than Onix, which would mean Venusaur gets applied a negative multiplier to level, so it would be only 3/4 times Onix level, which is 10 or 11. Also, I assume it's easier to just round it to the closest multiple of 50, otherwise there's so much math involved I don't think it would end up being pleasant to prepare. Other examples for Kanto Brock: lvl 24/25 Pidgey (around 250 BST) lvl 21 Geodude (around 300 BST) lvl 8 Mewtwo (almost 700 BST) lvl 12/13 Chansey (a little more BST than Onix, around 450) lvl 14 Kadabra (pretty much the same 400 BST) etc. That way it should make stronger mons a little more challenging (I still believe lvl 8 Mewtwo would sweep Brock), while still giving chance to weak mons. But then I don't know how to translate it for team size opponents have, because yeah, lvl 8 Mewtwo would sweep Brock, but I feel like lvl 28 Caterpie would also be able to destroy 2 mons, no matter what mons they are. Maybe like you said, if it's a trainer with 3 or less mons halve the increased levels (but only increased, I believe those mons that get lowered levels are still strong enough), otherwise I believe any overleveled mon could beat 2-3 mons with the power of Struggle and high hp stat, which probably wouldn't be a challenge, just a struggle.

[@grantgunn3531]

I understand the thought about wanting a level cap, but some pokemon will still be so strong that I don't think any cap would matter. These videos have been about cheese strats required to find a way to get it done for the weaker pokemon. And if the end goal is to measure the E4 members against each other, than you have to be consistent between methods for each trainer. Either way I have enjoyed how the approach changes against a new opponent. I like the 2x level cap and beating them once (basically the way the challenge is set up now is great) but I know I am going to enjoy the content either way! I don't think any changes would make it "worse." It would be equally entertaining for me and in a new way so do what you think is most entertaining and know that you got me watching either way!

[@mrzeloswilder]

@pokephenomenal This option might seem a bit crazy, but I believe there are pages out there that have this as information on them, but I think the best option would be is if you took a lv 5 pokemon from the start and did a solo run up till that point in the game, facing EVERY trainer and then set your pokemon's EXPERIENCE value to that amount. Which means pokemon in slower exp groups end up at lower levels. Who are usually stronger end up lower levelled. This usually less means there's a level cap and more a level 'group' based on experience groups. It also means that the challenge imo is a bit more fair. As in you are challenging these trainers with the strongest possible pokemon you would have at that point without grinding. I think THAT would be a better metric. And if the values aren't out there, it would legit take a single run for each game to find these values. (Red/blue/firered/leafgreen can all be soloed with the squirtle line for example.) Then record the values for each major gym fight. Honestly for a major fight that isn't talked about super often I would appreciate Winona or Byron if you wanted to do someone a little less obvious. Since both imo are ironically two of the bigger walls for gyms in their games.... I just noticed they're both 6th gyms lol

[@LycannCrimson-io7sp]

Someone already do challenge with solo magikarp in the past. I can literally see his struggling too😂😂😂😂😂. But he still win tho

[@joelhemphill8005]

I think it'd be perhaps a bit more fair to instead match the max-level of the gym leader, but to have a party full of the same Pokémon, with as many as there are Pokémon in the gym leader's party.

[@CursedXyster]

_they're elite four members not gym leaders_

[@alnharvey]

The way I think about it is if that it was a 1v1 you would fight the opponent at the same level. If we sat x2 is the max for 1v6 I think everything in between should be slightly scaled between x1 and x2. Just my idea. Really like the raw and adjusted bq ideas though. I think maybe could help to have limit to amount of attempts since it’s taking a lot of time!

[@NIMPAK1]

An idea could be to go in the fight at 1x the level cap, but have them gain levels after each Pokemon is defeated. Maybe increase by 0.2x the starting level for each pokemon defeated. Like you go into a battle at level 20, defeat a Pokemon and go up to level 24 and then 28 then 32, etc.

[@snowyarticuno]

I think, level cap wise, you could probably just do something simple like +5 to +20 depending on the part of the game Level 60 against Sidney, for example, but only Level 20 to Roxanne, for example (exact levels vary by Ace) And then, as part of the proposal for the 2 run thing, maybe do something like "okay, we can do another X levels, with the Pokemon that failed before". So if Level 60 Ralts but not Kirlia or Gardevoir failed Sidney, maybe do another run with just Ralts at a newer, higher level and see if that worked. And then maybe that new level could be based on the x2 level cap like you say. Gardevoir & Kirlia would have no reason to do so in this case, but it would give more data on the ones that failed and show what they would have had to do to succeed.