Data State of the Game - 4/22/2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anybody currently feel that they are having trouble raising their Pokemon right now in terms of ECs, MCs, and hell, DCs? To be perfectly honest, I'm not. I work to get KO counters if i want to evolve something faster, which leads to me winning battles, which leads to having more fun in the long run in my opinion.
Honestly, not as it pertains to EC or DC (I feel that the growth rate there is fine), but I always seem to find myself starved for more MC. I think that SDS' 2 MC per match might be a good idea. I know that I certainly wouldn't want to have to do two whole battles (if we assume my Pokemon doesn't get any KOs) in order to get one little TM move.


At least, that's how I see it. I'm completely in favor of SDS proposal. Plus, I'd like to suggest for Pokémon which doesn't need DC/EC (Fully evolved Pokémon, Single Stage mons, Unlocked or absent dream world abilities) to have those counters commuted into GC, to be spent elsewhere (mostly as MC). This would help already fully evolved Pokémon to achieve the full movepools in a reasonable amount of time.
I also really like this idea. My Vibrava/Flygon and Kecleon, for instance, could certainly use the extra MCs, since both lack DW abilities and have an enormous egg/3rd/4th gen tutor movepool that contains the fast majority of their better moves. My Kecleon's gonna be earning nothing from his battles but one single MC, why shouldn't he benefit as much as other mons who get their DC and EC raised with every battle? Pokemon like this get the short end of the stick with the current system so I'd support Zarator's suggestion.
 
Venser, while growing is fun and all, I think that as of now the growth rate is way too slow, especially as far as moves go. I played since February, and I'm still far from having complete movepool even on my starting Pokémon despite the fact I've reffed TONS of matches. It shouldn't take almost a year to get a complete Pokémon in my opinion.
What was your starting team, Zarator? I'm fairly confident that I've reffed less than you have, (and probably battled less) but already have at least 3-4 Pokemon who I'd be comfortable with leaving untouched in terms of movepool.

Plus, you must consider two other factors. For once, the upcoming Battle Subway, tournaments, Gyms, and other facilities from the RP thread (like - I hope - my Raid Zone) will shift the focus from slow growth to a diversified battling experience. This is typical of most RPGs as they evolve.
Plus, this give newcomers a better chance to not be endlessly outmatched by veterans (which is not something we should encourage). The point is not that a certain time span of growth shouldn't be there. The point is that it shouldn't be indefinitely long - it should be only long enough to give newcomers the chance to learn the game before getting to play with fully evolved teams.
If that's the case, then this should probably be discussed after the implementation of gyms, tourneys, etc. We're getting a hint of what's to come with the Dojo, but besides that, I don't think we know enough to change the rewards system this drastically yet.
Regarding point 2: Guys, don't be douches and accept new player's challenges with your fully-evolved team. (I am guilty of doing so, once, but it's like a 6-person melee and i was too lazy to check everyone's team.) But I see what you're saying here, but I'm personally having more fun trying to raise my mons to that stage than it is to battle with my hihidaruma and arghonaut killing everything.

At least, that's how I see it. I'm completely in favor of SDS proposal. Plus, I'd like to suggest for Pokémon which doesn't need DC/EC (Fully evolved Pokémon, Single Stage mons, Unlocked or absent dream world abilities) to have those counters commuted into GC, to be spent elsewhere (mostly as MC). This would help already fully evolved Pokémon to achieve the full movepools in a reasonable amount of time.
Definitely agree with this one. I'd much prefer this was implemented before (not necessarily instead of) SDS's proposal.
 
Whole-heartfelt agree with zarators addendum, as well as the 2 mc per battle, but I don't like to gc idea. Remember when we changed the req EC count? It was 4 and 3/6 iirc. By giving a gc on top of an EC and koc, were moving evolution back to that exact same rate, actually faster if you don't get koc. Mc buff yes, no EC/dc buff yes, but gc no.
 
I am alos in favour of more MC, and agree very much so about weather's duration. I haven't seen rain or sun yet but sandstorm just seems to last for-fucking-ever, which is infuriating when they have a Gible or something like that.
 
Probably my last post here, so I'll try not to get it deleted. First off, I have read the Data Audit thread three times and have put over 200 hours into ASB, starting in December. I know a little bit about game mechanics and how they were intended to work.

Combos:

I firmly believe that combo moves can not be justified by the rules. I have not checked today, but as of yesterday's rules, there are just a few mechanics and interpretations that hopelessly muddy the water surrounding the issue. The first is the very definition of how a round progresses. There are a few basic rules to the game, and a set of more complicated ones. The most basic one is that there are three actions in a round. The second is the damage formula, and the third is that a move is an action. Combos infringe upon all three of them to the point where a serious question must be asked about thier validity.

Three actions in a round and a move as an action: Combos, by definition, are the use of two moves at the same time to create a new effect. In other words, they are two moves used in the same round with a recharge. A round is made up of three actions consisting of every Pokemon making a move. While, suprisingly, no one ever saw the need to clarify this in the Data Audit thread, I am fairly certain that in the Game Design thread Deck made this clear. Now, there is a clear problem here. If a Pokemon uses two actions in one round, then they have just skewed the turn order, so that there are not three "exchanges of blows," but rather two, as in effect both Pokemon move twice and then the other moves (combo, action one+recharge action). This creates what is in effect two actions: but one is just really long. In addition, since a combo is used as a single attack, only two actions are being used by that Pokemon in a round, bending the rule. Confused? Yeah, it was difficult to explain that rationally, as since combos don't have a definition (try are not technically legal), it's difficut to argue against them, as people make up thier own definition. But anyways, moving on...

Damage Calculator: First off, part of the reason we have a head ref is to reduce the variation in what would be tolerated by different refs. And then combos come along. There is no good way to calculate this damage as there is no formula, or even an official recognition they exist and a means of handling them. They are the kind of thing that made people want to standardize reffings and get a head ref in the first place. Also, we made the Attack List for a reason. It was so every attack in the game (even the legendary ones) would have a nice, clear defintion of it's power and what it does to make the game more statistical than others. And now that precedent has been rocked to the core, along with all of the game's core mechanics.

In other words, there is a nasty choce ahead. Do we formally legalize combo moves and essentially state that the most basic fundamentals of the game are less important than "creativity," or will combo moves become illegal in more than theory, setting a precendeny that the game matters more than individual ref's interpretations? These are questions that will plague the next version, manifested by combos. But for now, this is most likely my final opinion on ASB. I hope you take the time to at least consider the fact that we have made a huge paradigm shift in policy, woithout anything ever becoming legal and with no vote.
 
Thanks Rediamond for this post. Quite frankly, I always felt that way towards combos. For some reason people argue they have a positive effect in the metagame - i.e. encouraging creativity. But as you put it, it's the kind of creativity which defies the fundamental basis of the game, to the point people don't even know under which rule they are playing, which options are available to their opponents and so on. The entire thing is degenerating into a risky "everything goes" which is unhealthy for the game. Even moreso since many reffers don't even take the time to consult other ones (or at least Flora) and makes debatable decisions on a whim.

If it were me, I would ban combo moves altogether. It's not like we would lack options in our movepools otherwise. But apparently other ones love them somehow, despite their cons.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Posting briefly since I'm on lunch break:

The primary basis for combos in the Anime are contests, most of which revolved entirely around the use of move combinations to generate a different effect. There are also some passing references in battles than can be employed like that "countershield" fad in the Sinnoh league and various uses of Aqua Jet to counteract Ice Beam with Ash's Buizel. Even Orange Island Challenges had moves put to rather unorthodox uses.

The vulnerability after a combo turn is no less an action than a chill is (and chills also have no in-game basis, nor do they have a basis in the anime. They are a part of the game solely because Energy balances out the spamming of high BP attacks or very powerful effects like Taunt, Weather, etc). It's basically saying "Focus Punch here for critical damage!" Or "Protect here to pick up an unhindered action." A Combo's best uses are generally "suicide" moves or attempts to pick up a finishing blow before the opponent, but generally speaking since a move can't combo with itself, and the fact a combo only receives STAB once instead of twice, most combinations are actually weaker than using the two moves separately.

Moreover not every action used in battle is an Attack. Chills are Commands, and a good player can integrate Commands into their battling techniques to maximize their chances of winning.

Now I do agree some of the combinations are sketchier than others, like combing Sand Attack with a Slashing move to give it a Ground element, but if it helps we can make combinations more codified and create a guide. Attacks themselves can have different uses. I for one like using Poison Sting as a direct jab into the opponent to enhance the poison chance rather than the anime version where poisonous spears are shot at the opponent (this only works for Pokemon with actual stores of Poison in their body to draw from).
 
Some of you are saying that Sandstorm and Rain last forever but they only last 5 rounds, which is tooo much, but at least they end, you have the option to "wait" for it to end, or to stall the turns until they are over, a 6-turns-weather-for-1-turn-set-up doen't seems to broken, but not ending weather that are available to almost any arena and will be possible if you chose it it's way worst since you'll end up loosing 6 life per round or a lot of power for abilities (like i said many mons have a number of those) it's really powerful (and easily abusable), it's something that could become overpowered and i thing that if the summoner goes we could the weather should go too (or at least be on e timer that last say, another 6 actions but then it's over)

PS: I say nerf weather in making it last 6 rounds (and nerfing infinite weather), but TR/Tailwind/etc... doesn't have the options of during longer (except for one poke's ability) and slowering yourself is faily flawed since you help your foe's acurracy/making yourself faster is not as good (or as dangerous) as in-game
 
...Again, this removes a large bit of point to running weather/weather mons. I know that the weathers are probably a primary reason why people actually paid TC to get those mons over other mons that might outclass them. Note that that's the main reason to use many of those mons. It's a bit too big of a nerf IMO. Nerf Sand Veil and Snow Cloak if you're that annoyed.

EDIT: Additionally, the weather effects can also be a double-edged sword.
 
Many pokes are outclassed (even in ASB), so i don't think this is so much of an issue, yes, movepool and abilities are the things that mater the most when choosing one poke here (since almost every poke has the same or faily similar stats) and in the end, the're are always things that set them apart, exampe, one of my favorite pokes (and one i'll get when i get a little more experience) persian is outclassed by ambipom (both having a similar movepool and technician), whit skill link being a best ability than Unnerve and hypnosis not justifying the lost of one extra attack, still he has a time to shyne because of the people who find him adorable and the fact that he looks so much better than that horrible monkey (wii for future contests), he is outclassed but not to the point were he is useless
 
Many pokes are outclassed (even in ASB), so i don't think this is so much of an issue, yes, movepool and abilities are the things that mater the most when choosing one poke here (since almost every poke has the same or faily similar stats) and in the end, the're are always things that set them apart, exampe, one of my favorite pokes (and one i'll get when i get a little more experience) persian is outclassed by ambipom (both having a similar movepool and technician), whit skill link being a best ability than Unnerve and hypnosis not justifying the lost of one extra attack, still he has a time to shyne because of the people who find him adorable and the fact that he looks so much better than that horrible monkey (wii for future contests), he is outclassed but not to the point were he is useless
Except in this case, you're nerfing a couple mons whose primary NICHE is their ability, which people sometimes build elements of their teams around. It's more the fact that people are already using the weather starters and would seriously not to lose that niche. My team is primarily BUILT around permanent Hail, and infinite weather is a consideration when people build their teams.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Since is the first Committee run SotG, what I'm going to do is prep the vote in two phases.

This is the preliminary slate of implementations and voting issues. There will be 24 hours to suggest any amendments or changes to the language so that a better choice can be made.

Implementations:

Implementation 1: Confusion Mechanics Revisted

Codifies the effect of a Pokemon hitting itself in confusion as the attack failing and expending 3 energy on the 4 Base Power, typeless self-damaging attack. The Energy Cost of the originally called move is ignored.

Implementation 2: Burn Mechanics Revisited

Burn will now reduce the Base Attack Power of an affected move by 2 or 3 depending on Burn severity instead of 2 or 3 final damage.

Implementation 3: Lowered Rarity counters:

Because of changes in the stat system the following Pokemon would have their TC cost lowered:

Spinda, Plusle, Minun: 3 -> 2

Delibird, Misdreavus, Pachirisu: 4 -> 3

Because of changes in the stat system the following Pokemon would have their TC cost increased:

Cranidos 2 -> 3

Implementation 4: Weather Mechanics

Sunny Day and Rain Dance will no longer boost fire and water moves by 1.5x. They will now add +3/-3 Base Attack Power to their respective buffed and debuffed attacking types.

Implementation 5: Stat Boost Changes

+1/+1 Boosts and +1 or -1 with Damage:

Whenever a move with multiple +1 boosts are used for a state of +0/+0, those boosts/drops last for 4 actions before the boosts start deteriorating instead of 2. This makes the moves more viable (or less in the case of Close Combat/Superpower) on the first and third actions.

The summary on stat boosters will be changed to reflect this. This change buffs +1/+1 Stat Boosters and +1 Boosters with damage or other effects.

Implementation 6: Compensation

Ref Tokens will be increased by 1 for each stated category of battle. Street Brawls and other unlisted multiple battle formats will still follow the 1 Token per Pokemon per Side rule.

Move Counters will be increased to 2 per Pokemon release in Battle. So when a Pokemon is released, it will receive 1 EC, 2 MC, and 1 DC
.
The Compensation increases shall take effect for all battles starting on May 1st or after.

Implementation 7: Codified Switching Rules

Voluntary switches occur only during a switching phase.

A Switching phase may only be initiated by the trainer moving first that round. Instead of issuing commands, the trainer may instead initiate a switch and offer their opponent a chance to switch their Pokemon. If the opposing trainer accepts and switches their Pokemon, that trainer forfeits the advantage of moving second that round.

A Switching phase has only two possible outcomes:

1. Player A Switch > Player B Declines Switch > Player A Orders > Player B Orders.

2. Player A Switch > Player B Counterswitch and Orders > Player A Orders.

Tag Team Battles operate the same with both team members on the same team switching their Pokemon first. The team which performs the most switches in the switch phase moves first. (e.g. if both trainers on a two person tag team switch, but only one of their opponents does, their opponents still move second)

Melee battles go through each trainer next in the order. Attack Order is then determined in the reverse order of trainers who switched. (eg. Trainer A initiates switch phase. Trainer B makes a switch, Trainer C declines to switch, then Trainer D makes a switch. The attack order would now be D > B > A > C. Because D was able to see the decisions of all other players, D is punished the most for deciding to switch after B switched and C declined.

Implementation 8: Long Form Damage Calculator Clarification

As noted, the Long Form Damage Calculator had a notation error present in it. However every iteration of the damage calculator, starting with the original one, had assumed only five ranks and treated ranks above 5 as a kind of separate bonus for extreme stats. It was my original intent that there only be five official ranks and so it shall remain that way. This becomes especially important with the implementation of some items that base their effect on the ranking system.

As such, this is how the Long Form will appear after considering the changes to ranks:

((Base Attack Power + STAB + Critical Hit + [Rank Difference 1-5] *1.5 + [Rank Difference 0 or >5] * 1 + Ability Effects + Field Effects - Reflect/Light Screen - Burn Degree) * Type Effectiveness) + (Stage Boost Difference *1.5).

Legend:

Base Attack Power: The Base Attack Power of an Attack. Most attacks in ASB have Base Attack Powers equal to their game values divided by 10 and rounded up. However a floor has been implemented on most attacks, resulting in no attack having less than 4 Base Attack Power. Check the Attack List for data on specific attacks, as they can have other effects on damage.

STAB: Same Type Attack Bonus. It provides +3 Damage and -1 Energy Cost to moves a Pokemon uses that match its type.

Critical Hit: A chance all attacks have of doing additional damage. When a critical hit lands, Base Attack Power is increased by 3.

Rank Difference 1-5: Differences in Rank between 1 and 5.

As these comprise the most Pokemon they have the strongest effect, worth 1.5 damage each.

Rank Difference 0 or >5: Differences in Rank resulting in Rank 0 or Ranks greater than 5. In the case of Rank 0 Defense, they take 1 more damage from relevant attacks, and Rank 0 Attacks do 1 less damage with all relevant attacks. In the case of Defenses Rank 6 and Above, they take one less damage from all relevant attacks for each rank above 5. Attacks Ranks 6 and Above add one damage to all relevant attacks for each rank above 5.

Ability Effects: Guts, Hustle, Sturdy, and the like, applied from both Pokemon.

Field Effects: Primarily Rain, Sun, and the Sandstorm boost to rock type special defense.

Reflect/Light Screen: These attacks reduce the Base Attack Power of incoming attacks by a flat 5 damage.

Burn Degree: This is the degree of Burn, and can reduce Base Attack Power by 2 or 3 depending on severity.

Type Effectiveness: Effectiveness based on type, with the multiplies 2.25x, 1.5x, 1x, 0.67x, and 0.44x respectively for 4x weak, 2x weak, neutral, 2x resist, and 4x resist.

Stage Boost Difference: The differences in Stage Boosts brought on by attacks like Swords Dance and Bulk Up.



Vote Slate:

1. Speed Modifying Natures

A YES vote would change positive speed natures to increasing accuracy equal to (New Base Speed^2/1000) and negative speed natures to decreasing evasion by a flat 10 applied to an opponent's accuracy.

A NO vote would keep speed at its current effect of flat +5 Accuracy for boosting natures and -5 Evasion for dropping natures.

2. Critical Hits for multi-hit moves.

A YES vote would change the mechanics of multi-hit moves to provide +2 damage for each critical hit on a two-hit attacks and Triple Kick and +1 damage for each critical hit on a two-five hit attacks

A NO Vote would give multi-hit moves the same one-time crit chance as other moves.

3. STAB Summary Changes

A YES vote would remove the additional energy cost reductions for non-STAB moves and replace the summaries with more terrain-oriented effects (listed here for analysis and comment).

A NO vote would keep the old summaries and descriptions.

4. Substitution Rules

A YES vote would implement the following Substitution rules:

Attack Substitution:

For each of their Pokemon, a Player acting first may create a substitution based on one specific Attack or Command the opponent can issue and substitute their called actions. This conditional can only be triggered by one of the opponent's actions, however it may apply to multiple consecutive actions for the trainer's Pokemon in that round.

Chance Substitution:

For each of their Pokemon, either player may create a substitution based on the success or failure of a previously ordered Attack or Attack effect. This conditional can only be triggered by the success or failure of a previous action, and as such cannot be applied to the first action of a round. A Player acting first can make either an Attack Substitution or a Chance Substitution, but not both.

KO Substitution:

For each of their Pokemon, either player in a multiple battle (doubles or more) may order an alternative set of actions based on a specific opponent fainting on a specific action. A KO Substitution can be ordered in addition to an Attack Substitution or a Chance Substitution.

A NO vote would push the issue off until a later proposal or codification can be implemented.

5. Combination Attacks

A YES vote would implement the following Combination rules.

  • 1. Combination attacks are largely at the discretion of the referee of that match as to the result of the move. There can definitely be an "intended effect", but combo moves are not guaranteed to work if the referee doesn't think the combo would or should work.
  • 2. Combination attacks have an energy cost equal to (Attack A's Energy Cost + Attack B's Energy Cost) * 1.2
  • 3. Combination attacks generally have the damage of both of their combined attacks, provided those attacks flow smoothly together using the same appendage (or full body assault as the case may be). Damage may be reduced slightly based on the complexity of the combo, such as comboing a multi-hit move with a stronger, more focused attack where possible.
  • 4. Some combinations may change the typing of an attack, at which point STAB is applied if relevant. The ending type of dissimilar attacks is heavily influenced by player preference, however they must explain the mechanics of the change as part of their orders, such as adding the elemental attribute of an attack before they strike or directing the energy from a full body assault into a single point or points of impact if transitioning to a fighting attack for example.
  • 5. Combination attacks combine two attacks into the original action's slot, but due to their complexity give that combination a lower priority bracket than regular attacks. The turn after a combination leaves the Pokemon entirely vulnerable. Because of this combination attacks can only be issued on the first or second action of a round.

A NO vote would require further discussion on combination and their implementation or disbanding.

6. Changing the TC Rarity Cost of certain Pokemon

A YES Vote would lower the TC Cost of every 5 TC Pokemon to 4 and change the formula for a single-stage Pokemon selected outside a starter to TC Cost + 3. This reduces the maximum TC Cost for a Pokemon from 10 to 7.

A NO Vote would retain the current TC model for single-stage Pokemon, doubling their rarity cost when selected outside of an initial team.
 
Officially add 8x resist (Spheal family) and 8x weakness (Paras family) to the formula. Just some advice.

Additionally, I propose Delibird also gets placed under the lowered rarity counters. Its 90/2/2/3/2/75 stats are only slightly better than Spinda's 90/2/2/2/2/60. Its typing is infinitely worse, having a 4x weakness and 3 2x weaknesses. Finally, this is CAP, and Delibird needs something to make it the joke of the game. Its stats are worse than those of Elekid and Magby.
 

Seven Deadly Sins

~hallelujah~
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I think there's a typo in the new speed formula. If I'm reading correctly, it should be New Speed / 1000, not New Speed / 100. That is, unless increasing Jolteon's accuracy by 225 is the intended result (which I assume it isn't).

That said, I'm voting YES on everything.

EDIT: As an addendum, i'm thinking that the following might make things a little more congruous for the new Accuracy increase formula:

The first stage of a three-stage evolution should have a divisor of 400, and the second stage should have a divisor of 700. The first stage of a two-stage evolution should have a divisor of 600. This is to balance out the effect of a +speed nature for the relatively MUCH slower first and second stage Pokemon, which would get thoroughly shafted by this change right now, and would make a +Speed nature much less appealing right now for multi-stage mons.
 
I like SDS's suggestions. Also, I like everything on the voting slate and hope it all gets voted in. That said, I have a random suggestion for you to consider:
Deck Knight said:
A YES vote would change positive speed natures to increasing accuracy equal to (New Base Speed^2/100) and negative speed natures to decreasing evasion by a flat 10 applied to an opponent's accuracy.
It would be cool if this applied to current Speed, not just the new Speed stat. This way if you used Agility, you could boost move accuracy further, and so forth.
 
If the new TC Rarity Cost policy is implemented, will people be able to refund a certain number of TCs on a mon that was previously more? Like, if a player spent 10 TC on a Pokemon like Skarmory or something, could he get like a 3 TC refund?
 
Combos getting negative priority would help the situation a bit. I am slightly curious though on when these changes would be implemented. Everything else I could see any new battles being effective, but as there are no rules on combos whatsoever, would that become effective immediately?
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
RE: Changes based on absolute speed:

Natures are designed around boosts associated with Base Stats, not adjusted stats. There will be a CAP of 30 Accuracy on the Speed nature boost. SDS was correct that the divisor should be 1000. In regards to changing the formula for different evolutions, I propose the following divisors:

Fully Evolved: 1000
Second of Three: 700
First of Two: 500
First of Three: 350

Here are various sample Pokemon and how it affects them:

Dratini: (58 * 58)/350 = 9.6, which rounds up to 10. (making it the same as a +10 flat implementation would be. [Dragonair is also 10, Dragonite is 9 Acc]

Aron: (35 * 35)/350 = 3.5, which rounds up to 4 (making it weaker than the current +Spe boost, but not by much) [Lairon is 3 Acc, Aggron is 4 Acc.]

Cranidos: (67 * 67)/500 = 8.9, which rounds up to 9. (Compare Rampardos which gets a 5 Accuracy boost)

Ponyta: (104 * 104)/500 = 21.6, which rounds up to 22. (Compare Rapidash, which gets a 15 Accuracy boost)

Onix: (81 * 81)/500 = 13.1, which rounds up to 14 (Compare Steelix, which gets a laughable 2 Accuracy boost)

Scyther: (121 * 121)/500 = 29.2, which rounds up to 30 (Compare Scizor, which is slower and only gets a 6 Accuracy boost)

Charmeleon: (92 * 92)/700 = 12.1, which rounds up to 13 (Compare Charmander which gets a 16 Acc boost and Charizard, which gets a 14 Accuracy boost)

Magneton: (81 * 81)/700 = 9.4, which rounds up to 10 (Compare Magnemite which gets an 8 Acc boost and Magnezone, which is slower and only gets a 5 Accuracy boost)

Kadabra: (121 * 121)/700 = 20.9, which rounds up to 21 (Compare Abra which gets 30 (Cap) Acc boost and Alakazam, which gets a 20 Accuracy boost)

Combos getting negative priority would help the situation a bit. I am slightly curious though on when these changes would be implemented. Everything else I could see any new battles being effective, but as there are no rules on combos whatsoever, would that become effective immediately?
Based on the general support for the listed clarifications and codifications, where no rule or clarification exists you may use the ones outlined here on the basis of "author intent."

Although the staff has grown considerably, I still retain the ultimate responsibility for the quality of the game and the balance issues of its mechanics. I consider the end result to be a direct reflection on both my game design skills and leadership qualities.

None of these changes will be implemented retroactive to previous battles. When the ASB Guide is completed and we have tags I will officially announce the version update from 1.0 o 2.0. The game up to this point has been the equivalent of a beta game where we're still testing out balance issues. Once we have better organization and codification then we can consider any major changes to remain retroactive on a case-by-case basis.
 

Seven Deadly Sins

~hallelujah~
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Maybe we can identify some specific Pokemon, like Scyther, that are actually viable and should be considered "fully evolved" for the purpose of the Speed Formula. "Outliers", so to speak. Maybe stuff like Porygon2, Scyther, Dusclops (if Evolution Stone is going to exist then this thing actually gets pretty viable), and some other things?

Also, why does the accuracy round up? I'm pretty sure it doesn't in-game (compoundeyes Sleep Powder is still 97.5% accurate), and 12.1% boost shouldn't round to 13%.
 
Negative Nature: A 15% decrease (rounded down)

From the way we calculate speed decreasing natures, this isn't true. Dividing by 1.15 doesn't give a number that's 15% less. Look at 100 for an example:
100 / 1.15 = 86.95...
Needless to say, 15% of 100 is 15, so a 15% decrease should bring us to 85. In other words, speed-lowering natures should be multiplied by 0.85, not divided by 1.15. It's a minor change, but I feel like we may as well be accurate. If we don't want to change the math, then we should probably change the wording to better represent the actual calculation. Either way, the two don't match up and I think they should.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Negative Nature: A 15% decrease (rounded down)

From the way we calculate speed decreasing natures, this isn't true. Dividing by 1.15 doesn't give a number that's 15% less. Look at 100 for an example:
100 / 1.15 = 86.95...
Needless to say, 15% of 100 is 15, so a 15% decrease should bring us to 85. In other words, speed-lowering natures should be multiplied by 0.85, not divided by 1.15. It's a minor change, but I feel like we may as well be accurate. If we don't want to change the math, then we should probably change the wording to better represent the actual calculation. Either way, the two don't match up and I think they should.
Except that a decrease from 100 down to 85 is actually a 17.6% decrease, not a 15% decrease. Division is just multiplication in reverse. Thus if a 15% increase is X * 1.15, a 15% decrease should be X / 1.15.

The example I use to illustrate the principle is the following: 90 is 90% of 100, but if you increase 90 by 10%, you get 99, not 100. Similarly if you decrease 100 by 10%, you end up with 90.9, or 91.

What you are doing is subtracting the value of a certain percentage. The formula here is multiplying or dividing directly from the stat itself. Put succinctly, a speed drop results is the number that when increased by 15% is the original Base Stat, and a speed boost is the original base stat increased by 15%. This reduces the number of speed ties from lowered natures. enabling easier reffing.
 
...You mean "dividing by 1.1," right?

Because decreasing 100 by 10%=100-10=90, not 90.9.

Either way, I'm in favor of the accuracy changes. While not all fast Pokemon really benefit too much (most have accurate moves,) it certainly does cool things for the mons that do. This makes Thunder on Froslass have better accuracy than a neutral Fire Blast-good enough odds to justify its usage IMO. I would probably put a minimum of 5% accuracy boost for the +speed natures, though.

Incidentally, this makes me want to use Accelgor...
 

Flora

Yep, that tasted purple!
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Does anyone here think we should ensure fairness? For example, let's not enable some player with a Gengar/Salamence/Flarelm to battle someone with Shellder/Ivysaur/Charmander. IDK, I just really dislike seeing this; it angers me to see such events happen. Also for street brawls, I don't think we should allow a 15v5 to happen due to its unfairness. Perhaps a range of 3 between the average of two people's total Pokemon is fine, but just not the 15v5.

Okay, it'll be fine if it's like Charmander/Squirtle vs Ivysaur/Poliwag; that's pretty balanced (or essentially any one second stage Pokemon on a team vs a team of first stage mons). Just not when it's blown out of proportion.

This rule can be broken with the user's consent I guess.
 
Stuff like that also really bothers me, Flora. :0 I myself have been trying to think of a way to prevent things like that from happening, although I haven't really been able to come up with much outside a visual ranking system to help noobs identify more experienced players (it was immediately shot down when I suggested it in here though).

Another idea I had was setting a limit on the number of evolved Pokemon that can be brought into battle by enforcing a sort of TC/Rarity cap. In a challenge I posted here, one of the restrictions I made was 'the combined rarity of all Pokemon in the battle may not exceed 20' (for a 6v6 battle). Stuff like this, when specified by the match seeker, could help prevent relatively overpowered Pokes being used against inexperienced or new mons. Although I'm not so sure that a system like this would be the best way to go about doing that.

I'd be interested to see what other people come up with to fix this. :0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top