96% threshold for maxing out?
A long time ago, trainers were often advised to only max out highly relevant Pokemon with 96% or higher IVs. I rarely see such advice nowadays. Considering how much the game has changed, should this threshold be adjusted or is an IV threshold no longer relevant?
Personally, I have only maxed out a perfect Machamp, a 98% Machamp and a 96% Blissey. My best relevant legendary is a 93% Groudon, my best Tyranitar is 93% and my best Dragonite is 91%. Sitting on a 98% Machop, a 96% female Kirlia, a 98% Magikarp and a 98% Alolan Exeggutor.
Answers
For offense many people focus on the attack IV above all else. For me, there's a sort of inverse relationship between overall IV and level caught at that I'm willing to sink dust into something. High level (L30+) / average overall IV with 13-15a is dust worthy in my opinion. An example of this is a 15/8/6 Machop I caught at level 35. I was willing to drop some dust to hit the highest Tyranitar breakpoint on it. Had that Machop been less than level 30 it would have been trashed instantly.
On the flip side, I've been extremely selective with research encounters. Level 15 to 40 is a lot of resources, I don't even like keeping them unless they're upper 90% IV. The only things below level 10 I've powered up are a shiny CD Charizard (14a), shiny CD Tyranitar(13a), and I'm holding a 100% Beldum (level 5 or 6) to be saved for an inevitable CD.
I have maxed out 91% shadow claw Gengar, 96 and 93% machamp, 98% makuhita and venusaur with solar bean, several 100% relevant/not so relevant mons (Charizard, Victreebel, Golem, gyarados). 80% body slam Snorlax (when it was legacy, ha!). 93 and 89% Blissey... It's really up to the usefulness/fun of the mon for you.
There's a new dimension added with lucky pokemon. I would relax the IV threshold below 90% if I could save a lot of stardust.
I feel like that's more elitism than anything. Drop your pokemon into Pokebattler and add your potential 'mon, then look at a relevant raid. 9 times out of 10 you'll discover that the difference between an 80% 15a and a 100% is just a few seconds of clear time.
13/13/13 compared to 15/15/15 seems like a lot in direct comparison, but in cases where 'mons have 200+ in their base stats, the actual difference is just a few percentage. Just make sure that you have enough attack to hit your breakpoints!
Hitting a breakpoint gives you +1 point on your fast attack, which is nice (and a big deal if the fast attack has a low damage number, like Fury Cutter, where going from 3 to 4 is a 33% increase).
However, hitting a bulk point lets you get an additional charged attack off a lot of the time, which is a lot more damage than the 4-12 points a breakpoint can earn you. And even if you miss the charged attack, a single fast attack will net you as much as a bump in the breakpoint.
Seems to me that most people on this board overvalue attack and undervalue defense. I'll take a 14/14/14 or a 13/15/15 (ads) over a 15/10/10 any day of the week. IMO, Atttack is a little more important than defense, and both are a fair amount more important than stamina, but they all matter some, and all pale in comparison to species, level, and moveset.
Bulkpoints are somewhat more theoretical than breakpoints though. Specifically they determine the amount of fast moves to be survived after one charge move from the boss. It sounds nice in theory, but if the boss has a multi-bar charge move it can make a bigger difference how long you survive. Bosses don't always use their charge move when they're ready, other times they're able to spam it more frequently than their fast move.
Breakpoints and attack IV in general are targeted more because they're much more tangible: Lugia with 15a will ALWAYS deal more damage per ES against a Machamp raid at level 31.5 than it will at 30 and below. It doesn't sound like much in words but over the course of a battle dealing that extra point of damage can really add up.
In the end you're right though; species, level, and moves matter much more than IVs. Only in extreme select cases does having lower IVs negate a Pokemon's viability (Golem in a Ho-Oh trio and Gengar vs Confusion Alakazam come to mind).
I'm with you that I think a lot of people overvalue a high attack IV but you're kind of mixing DPS and TDO here. Bulkpoints only help with DPS in specific situations where they allow you to survive long enough to use a crucial charge move, like Gengar against Alakazam/Mewtwo. On the other hand, breakpoints always improve your DPS and while both are important, DPS is generally more important.
Also no one has ever been able to conclusively prove that defense is more important than stamina. Bulkpoints depend on both.
The question needs to be adjusted.
1) Do you "Max Out" (to Level 40) Lower IV Pokémon?
2) Do you Evolve lower IV Pokémon who are High Level (Weather Boosted) and will hit a particular Breakpoint? (ie: you have a Level 35 Pokémon that will hit a particular Breakpoint when you evolve it, regardless of the overall IV. Hypothetically a 33% IV/ Attack 15 Pokémon)
-for many of us, "Max Out" is becoming synonymous with "Hit the last Break Point" rather than "Level 40".
3) Do you power up a low IV Pokémon who is 1-2 levels away from a Breakpoint? (the hypothetical IV 33%/Attack 15 Pokémon that is Level 33 or 34, and the last Breakpoint is level 35)
4) Repeat 1-3, but now the Pokémon is a "Lucky" Pokémon who may have Attack 10 instead of 15.
For maxing out to level 40, I'd still say only do that with IV 96+ - it's a whole lot of resources to spend, you want to make sure that it's extremely difficult to get a better Pokémon to max out in the future.
For the rest? It's going to depend entirely on the individual trainer, their needs and what they have available (in terms of what Pokémon they can catch/farm, what Pokémon they will need, and how much Stardust/Candies they have access to).
IMO, max out should only refer as to make the power up button disappear. For a L38 and above trainer is bringing pokemon to L40.
Exactly. Such a huge investment should have little chance to be outclassed by another pokemon of the same species (thus the 96+ threshold). But if you are certain that you are going to make good use of them, it's okay to relax the threshold. For example, you have an 84% blissey. It's your only one and you'll get a better one eventually but it will make a difference for you holding onto gyms. Go ahead, it's a situation of good return for your investment.
That was likely due to back at the start, it was a lot harder to get candy, buddy pokemon wasnt a thing, neither were raids/rarecandy, berrying gyms for a chance at candy, and the egg hatches were downright horrible.
Nowadays its a lot easier to get candy for those meta relevant pokemon, but I do adhere to a bit of a threshold personally but thats because I dont have the number of pokemon/candy older players do but everyone does have their own personal thresholds (mines 89% of above with max attack, and 14+ attack for anything above 91, not powering up high level, low IV ones, but thats my personal way if playing)
Buddy system started when the game wasn't even 2 months old. IV elitism actually started to spread after those times, those first two months were about evolving your highest CP Eevees to Vaporeons and fighting everything, including Vaporeon, with Vaporeon. Extremely lucky/hardcore people used Dragonite and Snorlax instead.
One could also mention that in the good old days were no TMs, I remember transferring Mons with excellent IVs but bad moves. I was very frustrated with all the Alakazams I evolved that did not get Future Sight. That's why I ended up maxing a 82% Alakazam and other suboptimal IV Mons. Nowadays I am much more picky, not even maxing up perfects if I don't really need them.
96% is and always has been an excellent indicator of power ups because the odds of getting anything better in the next catch is a meager 10/4096 combinations at best, or 1 in 400, 0.25%.
Drop to 93% and below, you will see a considerable increase in the odds. 25/4096 for 93%, and 46/4096 for 91% (you get 1 in every 100 catches, that doesn't sound rare anymore does it). It gets progressively worse for every % point you drop.
Despite these slim odds for 96% you are almost guaranteed to catch a 96% before you build up enough dust (via whatever route) to max a pokemon from level 20 to 40 (assume the 225,000 dust, that is around 1500-2000 catches, and you need 1 in 400 as I mentioned above).
The 96% rule has held me to equilibrium so far. 98% and above can save you some massive stardust but that will also mean you don't really get to power anything. But I will never go below 96% unless you really need something, or if the pokemon is legacy.
I think this statistical view on what to power up is very useful, but it needs some adjustments to reality. I totally agree that it is safe to power up a 96% Mon on the grounds you mention, but personally I would prefer to power up a 93% with 14 or 15A, and possibly also 91% or 89% Mons with 15A before a 96% with 13A. I would also prefer a 93% with 15A over a 96% with 14A.
It is also important to take the frequency of the Mons into consideration. To date I have only caught/hatched 28 beldum/metang, 12 bagon and 34 togepi/togetic. I could wait "forever" should I stick to the 96% cutoff. I will definitively evolve and power up my 93% togetic waiting for gen 4 (if moves are satisfactory). For the other two, I have not yet got any with satisfactory IV.
The last point is important, some Pokemon are so rare it can be more advantageous to take the first good one you find (whatever good means is up to the specific person). Playing since launch I've seen a whopping 3 Tangela - one from the Kanto event, one from research, and one that was traded to me and went lucky. When Tangrowth (pending how good it is) hits you bet I'm going to work on evolving/powering the lucky one.
