# Talk:Damage

## Decimals and integers?[edit]

I'm not really clear on what is meant by the mathematical terms integers and decimals. Could this perhaps also be explained on the page in plainer English? Zixor (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

- It's pretty clear, actually. Despite the fact that only numbers like 25% or 37% show up on-screen, the game actually calculates the damage with numbers like 25.3% or 36.8% and just shows rounded numbers. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 20:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we would all like an explanation on how this is known, and why it is relevant. -and thanks for explaining this on the actual page. Zixor (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

- How do we know? Lucario's pummel is an excellent example. He zaps 'em with Aura, right? But it takes more than one hit to do 1% damage. But this would be impossible if the smallest increment it can measure is 1%. Therefore it
use smaller units. Q.E.D. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 03:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)**must**- I understand that reasoning. However, in that example, the game could simply calculate the number of hits that would be needed to raise the damage up by a percent and raise it that much each time the requisite number of hits has been applied. I'll try some experiments on this. For the time being however, I'd leave that info off as it is an induction for a specific case applied to all elements of a like set, and therefore not a fully grounded theory. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Zixor (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

- Your point on Lucario's pummel is true, I've seen it, and then messed around with it, (what I did also proved that Lucario gets stronger as he takes more damage) I've seen that with some attacks he doesn't take a full 1% of damage. Try this, start from zero health, pummel once so hims health isn't 1% then heal, this will determine who is right. Learner4 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

## What the numbers mean.[edit]

I have a theory concerning the "arbitrary" meanings of the numbers. At first the inclusion of a "percent" symbol seems fairly stupid, considering there is no apparent effect for going OVER 100. However, is it possible that a character's damage meter determines HOW MUCH of an attack's knockback they suffer? That is to say, a character with 10% damage will take 10% of the knockback distance when hit, while a character will 200% will take double the knockback. This would make damage percentage a knockback multiplier. Is there a way to test this via hacking?

- "there is no apparent effect for going OVER 100" What about it going OVER 9000!!!

- Well, it's not that simple, though that theory seems OK. We don't have any numbers for the amount of knockback, AFAIK. And even if we do, how much is, for instance, 700 points of knockback? One hop or the entire length of New Pork City? There's no
*good*way to test it. {*Espyo*^{T}} 17:24, May 6, 2010 (UTC) - The game contains no numerical data for knockback? I find that odd. There has to be SOME number assigned to it. How else could stale-move negation work? You are correct about not having any number-to-distance translation, though. Not sure how one would fix that. There's also the question of fixed knockback, and of taking knockback at zero damage. Theoretically, you'd be unable to do anything but flinch at 0%.
- I always had the thought that when the damage meter reaches 100%, that's more of a cue to stop focusing on racking damage and to start trying to actually KO the opponent, as it becomes much easier for many characters to do so starting at around 100%. It's not actually anything technical, it's just supposed to put the player into a different mindset. b2jammer (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2015 (EDT)