itch.io

This is so valid. I was originally avoiding offering answers like "this question can't apply to me", because I was worried people would skip questions just because they "didn't seem likely" without really considering it, but I'm seeing now that I've just been fully leaving some people out, and that sucks.

I have some physical limitations as well, and it takes me a while to do things, but when I finally have the energy to give this a proper update, adding more inclusive options (or at least a generally available "skip question" option) is going to be my #1 priority.

*GASP!* An empty personality, how distressing!

In all seriousness, I think I have a sense of what went wrong here, hopefully I will be able to fix it in a future update - thank you so much for bringing this to my attention! :)

This is definitely a part of it, but I also think that a lot of it is selection bias. You gotta consider the overlap of people who are really into Pokemon, and also choose to take in-depth personality quizzes - lotta Fairy-type energy in there!

Someday, when this test is common in higher academia, maybe I'll have a more accurate sense of these things...

This is absolutely wonderful! I'm so glad you picked the ones that best resonated with you, that is exactly what I was hoping folks would do!

Thank you for taking the time to take the test and read the descriptions, and also for your kind words, I really appreciate it :)

This is so freaking cute, and such a clever idea, it's amazing how invested you can get with such a short amount of dialogue!

Hey hey, first off, I'm glad you had fun with this! And I love so much that you read and enjoyed the methodology section, it warms my heart so greatly.

These are some really good answer suggestions, and written in such a helpful/stylish way, no less! I especially like the ones for Q36 (that is a great new angle!) and Q29 (this is one of those answers that I myself would probably choose). Your suggestions are realistically nuanced (and also quite sweet, imho) and they make a great case for why there should be a mechanic where you can select multiple options for each question.

I did indeed have plans to implement that multiple-answer mechanic, but other life things have taken priority (AKA I sadly need to focus on my job and health) and it's unlikely that I'll have the space to get it done any time soon.

Anyway, thank you again for the amazing comment and the kind words! I hope you have a lovely day :)

First off, thank you so much! It did indeed take a lot of work, and I'm so happy that you feel it's paid off :)

I think sharing my dataset is a really good idea! When it comes to the final attributes, the type breakdowns, and the parameters for assigning attributes to Pokedex entries, that's totally something I can do, and I would like to do that! It would take some time/effort to clean up all the old versions and unused data, but I could definitely make something legible from all of it.

When it comes to sharing the aggregates of Pokedex entries (the parts that look like the Oddish example in the 'Methodology' section) it's unfortunately WAY trickier, and that is nobody's fault but my own. 

(I'm so sorry, I know you didn't ask for this explanation, but I haven't shared it before and I would like to!)

For starters, the Pokedex aggregates are split up by type across multiple documents, because having pictures helped me focus, but having too many pictures in one document made my 2013 laptop cry. That only makes it slightly more annoying than the other doable things that I listed earlier, so it's not a huge problem.

The REAL issue is that I kept redefining the parameters for attributes (to make them as relevant/accurate as possible) which meant I kept having to re-evaluate the entries, and at a certain point, I just stopped updating the entries themselves, and would simply make a note of what had to change (e.g. +3 to Fire-Primary "Powerful Attack" or whatevs).

And I did that a whole bunch of times, so now there's a bunch of scattered documents (mostly digital, mercifully!) with notes about my alterations, and new rules/parameters, and it's all just a real mess.

So the Pokedex entry aggregates/analyses themselves (which would obviously be most important to the project you're describing) are no longer accurate, and they are littered with references to attributes which were either removed due to a lack of relevance, or got folded into other stuff to make them more universal. (R.I.P. "Hierarchical", "Discerning (Food/Objects)", "Clique-ish", "Nocturnal", "Intelligent", "Giving", "Protective", and so many more attributes that sadly weren't common enough to test for on their own).

Long story short: It would take a buttload of editing, but since you've brought it up, I do really like this idea! - it would be good closure for me to just make all my data available/legible for whoever wants it, and I would very much like to do that when I have some free time.

Thank you again for the kind words, the good idea, and the opportunity to complain about my own horrible bookkeeping - I didn't realize how much I was holding onto that :)

I'm genuinely sorry to hear you don't like your new results as much, that's a real bummer. As you say, it could indeed be that you and your friends are all a little similar, and it could be that you're seeing a "what you want vs. what you are" situation, but also -- and it's not fun saying this -- it could just be that the test needs to be more thoroughly re-balanced after the huge influx of new answers in the latest update.

There's another pretty big answer update in the works (including a few from this comment - stay tuned!) so I'll do a more rigorous balance check after I put those in.

I do hope that somewhere in your top 3 results, you still got Ground, since that feels right to you. 

Anyway, onto your suggestions!

Q22: Funnily enough, I had thought that I had covered this option, but I'm now realizing that the answer I was thinking of specifically says, "that amount of people stresses me out" as opposed to the noise level. I can definitely add a new answer that reflects that distinction!

Q23: You're not wrong... this is a strange question, and I've re-written it a bunch of times to make it more workable for folks... I can't specifically comment on it right now, but I'll find some way to make it clearer, or to write some totally new question that still gets the information that I need from it.

Q24: This is a reasonable response, and I'll do my best to make room for it! (There's another not-yet-added suggestion that I'm also going to try to get in there, but I think I can fit both.)

Q42: That is indeed a little complicated. It's kind of hard to combine things there, because I'm now realizing that all of the other answers could be combined with saying "thank you"... it might be easier to simply take out the "saying thank you" part, and stick to the feelings someone might have, regardless of what actions they take. (Or it might be due for a total re-write as well....)

Anywho, thank you for the suggestions! I hope your results after the next update feel a little more accurate :)

So the way this happens is that the monotype, primary, and secondary results are all calculated separately - in analyzing Pokedex entries, I distinguished between the traits of a monotype vs. either half of a dual-type, because there seemed to be some significance in that distinction (to acknowledge whatever logic causes them to make 93% of Flying-types Flying-secondaries, for instance). There's usually a lot of overlap in traits between a type's monotype/primary/secondary varieties, but certain types (like Fairy) can be a little more spread out.  I hope that clears things up!

First off, thank you for sharing this with your friends, and for your kind words about the results, I'm so happy that you find them flavorful! I actually really like that metaphor/language, I'm gonna just marinate in that for a bit :)

I think I found a bit of a happy middleground for the stats, where they're still solely the results of the various attributes, but the attributes used have become a lot more focused, so stuff like 'Fast' became even more closely tied with the speed stat. With a more narrow focus, I think there's a lot more potential for more extreme-looking results, but without sacrificing what the stats actually mean. 

So... heads up, the next several paragraphs were written when I was misunderstanding the meaning of "what if my results were so high in categories that it went over the 450 allotment?" - my reading brain is a little off today, and I originally read that as a "what would happen then?" type of question, but after writing the full response to that, I'm only now realizing that you already understood this and were offering a suggestion for how things could be calculated. (I left my overexplanation in anyway, because there is technically some new info in there - might be interesting, feel free to take it or leave it!)

To the suggestion though, I would say that I want to avoid deliberately allowing a stat total of greater than 450, to avoid giving someone objectively "better" stats than someone else.  (Although as you'll see, it can still techically happen....)

Regardless, this project is constantly evolving (no pun intended!) so getting feedback like this is always valuable, even if I can't implement it at the moment!

OVEREXPLANATION START ---

No matter how strong one stat is, your results would still never go over 450, at least not because of one stat being particularly strong. So, the attributes feeding into stats (Fast, Coolheaded, etc) are averaged, and then that average is graded* on a scale of 1 to 10. So let's say those gradings were:

HP: 1, Atk: 1, Def: 1, S-Atk: 1, S-Def: 1, and Speed: 10 (this is absurdly unlikely, maybe even impossible, and as extreme as it can get!)

The total of those would 15, and so the Speed stat of 10 would be calculated as a percentange of 450, like so:

(10/15)*450 = 300

and then each of the other stats would be:

(1/15)*450 = 30

So then we'd get 300+30+30+30+30+30 = 450

*this grading is not just 1-to-1, and is specifically set up to draw a greater distinction between more "average" results - so for instance, the gap in between grades 5 and 6 is very small, the gap between 6 and 7 is a little bigger, the gap between 7 and 8 is even bigger, etc. The purpose of this is to make more average results a more dynamic, while reserving more extreme grades for exceptionally extreme results. 

The only way you could get a bigger or smaller stat total is through rounding, since all stats are rounded to the nearest 5. I have tried doing it without rounding, and this might be a matter of personal taste, but something about it just makes everything look more confusing/messy/unsatisfying.

So like... if the stats were 73, 73, 73, 73, 73, 85, all those 73s would get rounded up to 75, so you'd get a total 460. I figure this 440-460 range isn't a huge difference, but I just don't want to cause it on purpose.

OVEREXPLANATION END ---

On to answer stuff!

Q33: "Warm introvert energy" REALLY speaks to me! I'm totally with you here, and that question definitely has space for another answer, so I'll put something a little more nuanced in the next answer update! :)

Q25: (The test question) Totally hearing you and marshawk on this one, and that's gonna go in the next update as well!

Thank you too for taking the time to write such thoughtful comments, it's a joy to respond to stuff like this :)

Aw bummer! Itch can be weird sometimes I guess :(

I'm glad you liked the quiz though!

What a fun response! Thank you for the suggestion, and I'll for sure put that in the next answer update :)

First off, thank you so much! I do put a lot of effort into this, and I like to think it gets better with every update, so I'm genuinely glad you're coming back to see it :)

Also thank you for sharing your results, even though you're not so into the Bug-type. Personally, I think Bug-type Pokemon are really cool, but hey - maybe next time will be different!

Thank you again :)

Thank you for the suggestions! I'm gonna go through these one by one:

Intense job question: Having a "struggles in non-intense jobs" option would be very useful information, so I can put that in the next update. As far as "I have no way of knowing" goes, that is also incredibly valid, and I'll play around with it, but I worry that so many people would jump to that option that it would completely negate the question.

Subculture question: I think I can add this one, thank you!

Test question: I think I can add this one as well!

Date question: I think most people would probably share things as they come up, and not just blurt out secrets without prompting, so I can reframe the question to make it more clear that we're talking about when something comes up, how much do you share. 

Vulgar remark question: I don't think I can help you on this one , as I don't think there's any way to make this more specific without making it exclusionary to a lot of people. This one might just need a total redo...

Ambitious project question: This an INCREDBILY relatable answer you've given, and I will 100% put that in.

Thank you again :)

Gotcha, I can add another answer to allow for more nuance - thank you for the suggestion!

Can do!

So that answer was specifically requested, and the requester made a note of how they feel like intelligence (as in math smarts) are increasingly devalued. I can see how that's just making things more confusing, so I'll change it, thank you for the suggestion!

Thank you so much! I'm so glad you liked the test, and that you liked your results, and that being a Lapras does not prevent you from using a human computer :)

I'm so glad you think so! :)

(also thank you for sharing your results! - I can't explain it, but it always warms my heart to see an absurdly long stat bar) 

What a lovely comment, both in terms of content and format! (I'm a sucker for cleanly-written paragraphs and well-placed italics.)

To answer your first question, I've actually seen this Fast/Speed discrepency several times before, but I think your results have set a new record for incongruity - congratulations! The way this happens is that the attributes ("Fast", "Coolheaded", etc) are calculated first - they're what the answers directly affect, and they're the basis for almost* all of the other results. The presence or absence of certain attributes are used to calculate the stats, and "Fast" is certainly the most heavily-weighted attribute when calculating Speed, but it's not the only one.

*there's a few specific answers you can choose that will have a more direct impact on some of the Abilities, but they're rare.

In the case of your particular Fast/Speed mismatch, the lower Speed may be the result of lower scores in attributes like "Reckless", "Shedding", or "Routine-Based", or higher scores on stuff like "Whimsical" - there's more factors, but looking at the rest your results and the answers you suggested, those would be my most likely culprits.

Alternatively, since the stats are calculated as a percentage and always add up to a stat total of 450, it could also be that the attributes feeding into the other stats were just really strong. 

As for your other question about how Abilities are chosen, the Abilities are the most direct result of the attributes - almost 1-to-1. So for instance, everyone who gets the 'Fast' attribute will get an Ability directly tied to that. In your case, you got "Swift Swim" because of your heavier Water-typing, but other possibilities could have been "Speed Boost", "Sand Rush", "Slush Rush", or "Quick Feet".

This was a total accident, but I do love that some of the Abilities can potentially explain the discrepencies between the attributes and stats, as you observed. So for instance, if I'm envisioning the Pokemon that matches the description in your results, I'm imagining something that's usually slow, but becomes lightning fast when it's raining.

I hope that answers your questions, and if not, let me know - every time I explain myself, I grow more powerful :)

And speaking of answers, thank you for the suggestions! Here's what I can do with those:

Q2: Funnily enough, I just added the largest-yet answer update (literally a few hours after you posted - rough timing!) but I think one of the new answers might cover you on this one. It's the one that goes "I maybe take a few things that look interesting, just because I like collecting cool things." It's lacking the "display" part, but would that have spoken to you as a viable answer?

Q16: I absolutely love this answer, and I love the way you wrote it! It's totally going in the next answer update, and I think I have the space to put it in your exact language.

Q28: I think this one's valid, but I might need to work it a little bit to make sure that it plays nice with the other answers and doesn't overshadow them or break the question.

Q29: Here's another one that sort of got addressed in yesterday's update, where I added "I'd organize based more on aesthetics than any functionality," except that I think yours actually has a new wrinkle with clearing stagnant energy - that's so evocative and feels different, and I think I'll probably add that one too!

Q33: And one more now-addressed answer, but this feels kind of different. The new one is "They'd all have experienced the same sanitized version of my personality," which feels like the same concept, but it feels like it has a different tone... would that answer speak to you, and if not, what would you say is missing?

I hope that response wasn't too long! I get very excited about these things. Thank you again for the suggestions, for the kind words, and for sharing your results - it always makes me happy to see what people get :)

That is wonderfully clarifying, thank you for responding :)

Hell yeah :)

My pleasure, I'm glad you liked it :)

Thank you so much, I'm glad you liked it! 

Normally when folks make suggestions, I go through them one-by-one and say what I can do and what I can't, but in this case, there's no need to - these are all uncomplicatedly great/original answers you've given me, and I'll add them in the next update :)

EDIT: I'm adding the latest round of answers now and I just realized that I might not have space for your response for Question 3, BUT after I do this round of questions, I'm going to start work on a new modular question system, so if I can't get it in now, I'll get it in there for sure.

I'm sorry that happened for you, it is definitely not intentional!

Outside of this one specific answer error that was resolved months ago, I haven't heard of this happening - may I ask what browser/device you're using? I know that this test can be a janky on phones and that Firefox apparently has some graphic issues with it (both of which I need to sort out) but this is a new one for me.

First off, I'm glad you liked the test!

Second, I totally hear you about the shut down options, and I can definitely add some in. I'll re-check all the questions for this, but just in case my imagination is lacking, do you remember any questions that stood out as being particularly needy on this front?

It's crazy how often folks suggest answers that I myself would pick, but somehow didn't think to include! Needless to say, this is a great response, and it's totally going in the next answer update :)

Someone's gotta be! Thanks for sharing your results :)

I love how much this screen looks like a warning (literally a red flag!) but then all the details are really sweet.

Thank you for sharing your results!

These are all great questions! I am currently working on adding a section that answers all of them, but I can do a short version here:

The reason you have three choices of results is because I feel like getting a single result from a personality test is boring and restrictive. I like having the option to dig a little deeper and make my own conclusions about myself, especially since every personality test -- including this one -- will inherently have flaws and blind spots.

Plus, people have pre-existing connections with specific pokemon types, so I wanted to provide more opportunities for users to see something that they already connected with. Conversely, if they get a result they don't like, I wanted to leave space to identify with something other than a type they already hated.

So on that note, you can ABSOLUTELY mix and match, and in fact, I think it's a great idea! Originally, I didn't even have the numbers visible, because I just wanted folks to decide for themselves based on their top 3 most likely results, but then folks wanted to see their numbers, so I put 'em in.

The numbers themselves indicate the likelihood that you're a specific type. There's a lot of attributes (46, specifically) that feed into the different type calculations, so between all those factors, it's normal for the numbers to not appear conclusive.

But that's also just pokemon in general. Like, a Mankey doesn't match up with all the most common traits of Fighting monotypes, but it's still a Fighting monotype - even outliers need a home!

Bonus Explanation: as a little side-thing, the Pokedex color changes based on the strongest association across all mono/primary/secondary types (e.g. Fairy here) and the stat bar color changes based on the second-strongest association* (e.g. Flying here). It was originally just for aesthetic reasons, so that I didn't have to design around the clashing-prone Pokedex colors, but it could also provide a little structure to mixing-and-matching, if someone wanted something a little more solid.

*this doesn't happen if your strongest association is significantly stronger than the runner-up, in which case the bars will be that strongest color as well

I guess this didn't end up being the "short version", but I hope this helps explain things! If not, let me know, that would certainly be good information to have as I'm writing up the proper explanation. (Or I might just copy+paste this, tbh)

Thank you for the great questions and also for sharing your results :)

Thanks for the suggestion, I like it a lot! I initially thought this was referring to the "friends asking to mediate" question, but this instead referring to just being asked a non-specific favor is absolutely wonderful. I think I can definitely put in something in this spirit :)

And as for moves, I was at some point planning to put them in, but I eventually dropped that in favor of Abilities, since I thought they were more descriptive and more personality-adjacent. So I'm not against the idea or anything, but I don't currently have any plans for including moves in the results.

Great suggestions!

Q14: I LOVE this answer, and also the specific tone you've provided! That is 100% going in the next answer update.

Q31: I like this one as well, but if I included it, there's a whole can of worms that I would be opening. For instance, I could also have stuff like, "I want to feel healthier, because that makes me feel more attractive," or "I want to feel stronger, because it makes me feel healthier," both of which are how I often feel. 

Now that you mention it, it might be better if the question specifically asked about one's ultimate priority, since I think a lot of people work out for most/all of these reasons concurrently, right?

I'll play around with that one, but I think I can make it work - thank you again! :)

I'm also not sure what's going on, but I assume you were using Firefox, yes? This issue seems to be associated with the browser, but hopefully I can address it on my end!

(Also if this wasn't in Firefox, please let me know!)

Thank you so much! And it's a good thing that Pokemon has so much depth, otherwise I wouldn't have so much data to chew on.

Thank you for sharing your results as well! :)

I've said it in so many replies and devlogs, but those stupid-long stat bars absolutely give me life, and this is the biggest, silliest one I've seen yet :D

So I reckon y'all couldn't find a clear theme for the stats because my behind-the-scenes rationale was very, very bad. I've addressed and explained the new theme (as well as the stupid old one) in the latest devlog, if y'all want to check it out.

If you ever go back and find the specific-yet-unavailable answers to questions, definintely let me know, and thank you for sharing your results :)

First of all, thank you so much, I'm glad you liked it!

And great question! The short explanation of the difference is that they're all calculated differently from the ground up. When I was pulling from Pokedex entries, I looked at each type's monotype, primary, and secondary examples seperately, mostly because I felt there had to be some significance to a type being primary or secondary.  (Otherwise, why would there be so few non-secondary Flying types?)

And as for the results, the test is actually asking around "attributes" rather than types (e.g. "Helpful", "Expressive", etc) and because of how I organized things, not all attributes affect the monotype/primary/secondary of each type in the same way.

Given that process, I'm happy with how much the types tend to naturally cluster together! But yes, this does mean that, if certain specific attributes are scored high or low enough in the test, this mismatch can happen.

For instance, if you had answers that suggest a lack of reliance on physical strength, that data would support all the types visible in these results, but it wouldn't give any points to the Grass monotype. There's 46 attributes though, and both their presence and absence are relevant, so who knows what it was!

It's on my to-do-very-soon list to write out an official explanation of how the test gets/uses the attributes that define the results, but in the meantime, I hope this explains things a bit :)

These are some really interesting suggestions, and I kinda want to probe you about them a little bit - I hope these aren't too personal to ask, but you're 3 for 3 on piquing my interest!

Q28: This is a reasonable response! I don't think I can add it as an answer, since it skips the premise a bit and doesn't tell me a ton on it's own, other than that the test-taker doesn't like awful garbage trash. That said, I think it's a good idea to take the 'dating app' part of the question out altogether.  This may or may not be relevant, but in your view, what would be the ideal place/way to meet people who you date, if not a dating app?

Q35: I strongly identify with this response and I'll consider adding it! What brand of smarts do you have, and (assuming I'm interpreting your punctuation correctly) why don't you think employers would value them?

Q46: I'm for sure including some version of this! And this is actually relevant to how I might implement it: do you always carry pepper spray?

Also dang, that is one yellow results screen! Thank you for the suggestions, and also for sharing your results :)

I think this is the most requested feature, and honestly, and I want it too - even I have trouble filling this thing out! I doubt it's going to appear in the next update, but it's very much on my radar, and I'll hopefully get it in soon :)

I'm glad you liked the quiz, and that you were able to work through your panic!

Ironically, when I originally posted this, I actually did have it so that the dual-types were forced to be different. The problem was that I couldn't figure out how to make it keep whichever one had a higher match percentage, so I just had it keep the primary type and swap the secondary with the second place option, which didn't feel right when the secondary type is a much stronger match.

...as I wrote that, I realized that I'm a little more experienced now and could probably figure it out, so... maybe I will!

As for how the stats are created, I actually just did a major overhaul, which is detailed in the latest devlog post, where I also explain there how these older stats were derived. (tl;dr: they were way less thought-out than the rest of this, so I thought more about them and actually defined them!)

So if you take it again, you may not be as much of a special wall, but I hope your stats are still good.

Anywho, thank you for sharing your results, and also for your kind words, I really appreciate it :)

That's such a good answer, I can totally put that in! (It's wild how often y'all come up with answers that I would pick myself, but didn't think to include.)

Thanks for the suggestion, and for the kind words, and also for sharing your results :)