sarav
commented
7 years ago I've always had the same concern when we discussed the mIV before it was first added. I didn't think of this solution back then. I like this idea, except having to rename all my Pokemon now. Another option is to just list the CP reduction from max CP as multiples of 10. Because that's really what I care in the end. That'll still fit in 2 digits without losing much precision. So if you lost 134 CP due to IV, you could like it as 13.
Edit: Accidental comment removed
I think the current %mIV measure is a great single-number way to show how good a Pokemon is compared to the rest of is species, but its flaw is that it doesn't vary enough to be useful. As I understand it, it's calculated as CP/MaxCP, which means that even a 0/0/0 Pokemon could have a %mCP of 80 or so. Since the measure rounds to two digits, the user loses a lot of precision. I would prefer a scaled version of this measure: (CP -MinCP)/(MaxCP-MinCP). This gives more variation when rounded.
Another advantage is that the user would now have two reference points, 0 and 100. Since the user doesn't know the minimum value of %mIV for every Pokemon, they only have one reference point. The original measure compares against the best possible Pokemon of that species, but the scaled version compares it to both the best and worst possible versions.
Am I missing any drawbacks here?