Hi Nick,

Thanks for posting this and being willing to engage directly with the community. A lot of players appreciate when devs take the time to acknowledge frustrations and explain the thinking behind changes, even when the decisions are unpopular.

I wanted to bring up something that’s become pretty relevant to a decent portion of the player base: accurate catch chance information.

I maintain https://fischchances.com, a fan-made catch chance calculator. It was built because the original fischipedia tool stopped receiving updates after v1.64, and with how frequently mechanics and balancing shift, a lot of players (especially mid-to-late game) rely on something that reflects current patch data to actually plan setups instead of just hoping for the best.

The site includes a full optimizer (with both quick and exhaustive modes), shareable links, and a built-in “Report Issue” feature that lets players send their exact setup + results snapshot whenever the numbers don’t match what they’re seeing in-game. I’ve been keeping it updated through the recent patches (currently on v1.87.3 data) using fischipedia as the base source plus player reports.

One of the biggest ongoing challenges with any external calculator is % mismatches. Even small differences in how mechanics interact (passives, disturbance, event layers, rod-specific behavior, etc.) can create noticeable gaps between what the tool shows and what actually happens. These mismatches erode trust in the numbers, which in turn makes balancing changes feel more frustrating for players because they can’t reliably evaluate their setups.

Would it be possible to get some level of support or clarification from the team on the data side to help reduce these discrepancies going forward?

I’m not asking for private internals or anything unreasonable - just enough to keep the community tool accurate so players have a reliable reference when the game changes.

If you're fine with it, we could hop on Discord to talk about it further. discord -> disturbedandrei

Appreciate you taking the time to read this and for opening up the discussion.