Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread (New Proposal Handling System in OP)

[Engineer Pikachu]

I like the Baton Pass idea.

For Arena Trap, the only thing we really need to do is change the description so that it matches that of Shadow Tag, except that it doesn't affect airborne Pokemon. There's really not much else to add.

 

[Objection]

I like the Baton Pass idea.

For Arena Trap, the only thing we really need to do is change the description so that it matches that of Shadow Tag, except that it doesn't affect airborne Pokemon. There's really not much else to add.

Pretty much this, although I still think that the "pass" version of Baton Pass could use a little buff like, say, locking in the passed stat boosts/drops so they don't decay at the end of the round Baton Pass was used on. I don't know whether that buff should be applied to the "switch" version as well though since switching out is already pretty useful.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Okay so there was this big long pointless argument about counterfarming on irc.

Counterfarming in this case is matches done solely for the purpose of achieving counters, that is to say not battling in the spirit of ASB

A recent example of this is the series of Burn the Bellsprout matches.


I proposed a generally accepted solution among irc members to resolve this solution.

Project Mods have the power to veto blatant counter farming matches. Should a PC approver think a match is counter farming, they may check with a project mod and then render a veto verdict.


Honestly this is a dumb problem, and counterfarming shouldn't happen often. When it does, it is usually blatant and common sense can easily be used to determine whether something is counterfarming or not.


I expect little opposition on this matter, its just common sense.

 

[Woodchuck]

agreeing, i was one of the members of the long pointless argument x.x
anyway I think texas's proposal is more efficient than any other solution we came up with and avoids overly slowing down battles or risking restricting "legitimate" battles
project mod / approver discretion is the best tool to fix this here.

 

[Objection]

agreeing, i was one of the members of the long pointless argument x.x
anyway I think texas's proposal is more efficient than any other solution we came up with and avoids overly slowing down battles or risking restricting "legitimate" battles
project mod / approver discretion is the best tool to fix this here.

Considering what the other solutions were, I would have to agree with this. For better or for worse, there is no objective way to determine whether or not a match is counter farming. Like love, it's one of those things where you just know, and who would know better than the guys who got jobs as proj mods and approvers in ASB?

 

[Deck Knight]

I was more struck by the argument that it takes mons far too many matches to be good. I was talking in IRC and came up with a solution to that, so that new players can jump in with at least some semblance of a tool box. When I think of "good" or "battle-ready" Pokemon, I think of Pokemon that have the proper defensive skillset to evade or mitigate incoming attacks that have at least a few options against if put to Sleep or Disabled.

Basically the proposal is to add a portion of the "always available" BW TMs and Tutors to the starting moveset of each Pokemon (provided they learn the attacks). This list would consist of the following:

Near-Universal BW TMs:
Double Team
Frustration
Protect
Return
Round
Substitute

Near-Universal BW Tutors:
Sleep Talk
Snore

For reference the following moves have been excluded:

Facade: Extremely easy to abuse for several Pokemon.
Hidden Power: The idea behind this proposal is to give a basic skeleton of fallback attacks. Hidden Power is an integral coverage move and would bias towards special attackers a great deal.
Rest: Combined with Sleep Talk on every Pokemon would prolong a great deal of matches. You can certainly use Rest as a starting selected TM for the combo.
Swagger: While a minor status, it is also sufficiently powerful and disruptive.
Toxic: Major status, very powerful.

Attached to this I might also change the Rarity Cost of anything that doesn't get these TMs/Tutors from two (2) to one (1) to compensate, and also increase the power of Sleep because pretty much every Pokemon will be able to attack during it to some extent, but those are not yet resolved, I want feedback on this.

 

[rickheg]

I support Deck's idea, as well as Texas' proposal.

 

[Orcinus Duo]

Objection has stated on IRC that http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3465774 this battle would be considered counter farming had it not taken place outside of tourney

Needless to say I think this is dumb

Here is what you can call counter farming
a battle where two players bring agreed upon mons in which there is a distinct type advantage

here is what you cannot call counter farming
a battle where two players fight with no prior communication about their teams, and where one player curbstomps the other

 

[Objection]

Objection has stated on IRC that http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3465774 this battle would be considered counter farming had it not taken place outside of tourney

Needless to say I think this is dumb

Orcinus, look at the move counts of the pokemon. There is more to a counter farmy battle than evo stage and type matchup.

Here is what you can call counter farming
a battle where two players bring agreed upon mons in which there is a distinct type advantage

here is what you cannot call counter farming
a battle where two players fight with no prior communication about their teams, and where one player curbstomps the other

This is why I believe some form of prior communication about teams should be compulsory. Not necessarily to the point where you name the mons you are using, but certainly to the point where you eliminate all mons that do not fulfil certain criteria such as evo stage and movepool size.

Bottom line: all battles are either fair, counter farming or the product of the participants' stupidity and/or attempted exploitation. It is my opinion that the only kinds of battles that should exist are fair ones.

 

[Orcinus Duo]

well i'm glad you edited the line where you said "all battles are either fair or counter farming"

now explain to me why df vs galladiator is counter farming rather than "participants' stupidity" please

BTW: what is your opinion of counter farming in training battles

I mean they're called "training battle" for a reason right

 

[Objection]

Well, I said that some form of prior communication about team strength should be a requirement, so the claim that DF vs Galladiator would be counter farming outside the tournament is based on such prior communication existing in the form of a line in the challenge post specifying evo stage and movepool range (type advantage is too tricky to pin, which is why, when determining whether or not a match is counter farming, it would only ever be the final nail in the coffin). Had DF been the challenge issuer, he would have specified 35-95 move FEs (or whatever was the movepool size of the mon with the fewest moves), and Galladiator would not be stupid enough to overlook that information, so why would he send in a team of decidedly weaker NFEs if not for the sole purpose of getting counters for them? That is counter farming. Alternatively, had Galladiator issued the challenge, he would specify 20-30 move FEs and so DF sending in that particular team of strongmons would fall under the attempted exploitation (you know, like challenging a total newbie and using FEs), which might not be the same as counter farming but certainly warrants the same treatment so any further distinction between counter farming and attempted exploitation is irrelevant.

If there is no line in the challenge post that specifies evo stage and movepool range (which, come on, at the very worst you could just use a range and set of evo stages that covers literally all of your pokemon), then determining whether or not a match is counter farming is trickier and would most likely have to be determined by a recurring pattern of similar matches rather than looking at the isolated case. This is another reason why I believe such lines should be mandatory - it helps to make the job of determining what is and is not counter farming a bit easier.

EDIT: Literally the only difference (seriously, look it up) between a training battle and a non-training battle is that it is more acceptable to leave the training battle out of your W/L/T, which a lot of people already don't give a crap about and ASB has nothing based on. Effectively, training battles and non-training battles are identical and rules and judgements that apply to one apply to the other.

 

[Its_A_Random]

You two, can you try & not hog the thread, & bury other issues in the dust? Anyhow, in my opinion, the whole point of this counter-farming proposal is to stop blatantly obvious attempts at counter-farming through shit like "Crush the Combee", or "Burn the Bellsprout", where the idea is to deliberately throw away a match just to gain counters for your Pokémon (Well, most of the time). There is no way in the entire world that you can arbitrarily decide if someone is counter-farming or not. All it requires is some "common sense" as to what can be seen as counter-farming or not. As long as we are only stopping shit like what I mentioned, then I support. There is no need to open a gigantic can of worms, just to fully define such, as all this discussion is going to go is nowhere, & nothing will be done as a result. End of story.

---
In other news, I do not mind Deck's proposal as it stands, but I have a a couple of questions, namely:

1. Do Pokémon already bought that do not have any said moves gain the moves automatically?
2. Will Pokémon like Magikarp & Tynamo get said moves automatically when they evolve into a Pokémon that can learn said moves?
3. Will the Pokémon that already have the moves be refunded MC?

---
Finally, with the feedback from Baton Pass & Arena Trap, what people seem to want with either move is...

Arena Trap

Arena Trap:

Type: Innate

This Pokemon has great knowledge of the field and can always remain close to an earthbound foe no matter where it runs. All Pokemon that are not of the Flying-Type, or possess the Levitate Ability, may not be switched out of battle while this Pokemon is on the field. This Pokemon may still switch out of battle as normal, unless there is another Pokemon on the field with Arena Trap.

Pokemon with this ability: Diglett, Dugtrio, Trapinch.

Baton Pass

Baton Pass: The Pokemon focuses all of its energies into a white aura that maintains its current state. This energy holds all of the information on the Pokemon's stat increases and decreases as well as whether it is in a state of confusion or other temporary ailments. This move has two distinctive uses:

Baton Pass [Switch] (Switch=OK Only): The user is sent back to its trainer's Poke Ball at the end of the round. The Pokemon that is switched in to replace the user is chosen by the player from their remaining Pokemon, however the trainer that commanded Baton Pass [Switch] must attack first the next round. The replacement gains the same temporary status changes (Such as stat boosts/drops, confusion, etc.) that the user had upon entry. All stat boosts/drops have their value locked in during the round this is used.

Baton Pass [Pass] (Doubles+ Only): The user can pass on all its temporary status changes (Such as stat boosts/drops, confusion, etc.) to an active teammate. The teammate will gain all temporary status changes that the user had, and all temporary status changes the user had are removed. All stat boosts/drops have their value locked in during the round this is used.

Attack Power: -- | Accuracy: -- | Energy Cost: 10 | Attack Type: Other | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: N/A | Typing: Normal | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive

Any more thoughts/anything needing to be better worded?

 

[Objection]

You two, can you try & not hog the thread, & bury other issues in the dust? Anyhow, in my opinion, the whole point of this counter-farming proposal is to stop blatantly obvious attempts at counter-farming through shit like "Crush the Combee", or "Burn the Bellsprout", where the idea is to deliberately throw away a match just to gain counters for your Pokémon (Well, most of the time). There is no way in the entire world that you can arbitrarily decide if someone is counter-farming or not. All it requires is some "common sense" as to what can be seen as counter-farming or not. As long as we are only stopping shit like what I mentioned, then I support. There is no need to open a gigantic can of worms, just to fully define such, as all this discussion is going to go is nowhere, & nothing will be done as a result. End of story.

Look, all I'm saying is, there is never any good reason in a tower battle for one side to have twice as many moves as the other side. If it can't be covered by the counter counter farming proposal, it'll have to be covered by some other proposal ... but I'll work on said other proposal some other time. Right now, I'm more interested in Deck Knight's post.

Allowing pokemon to start with those moves seems fine to me. The non-damaging ones are generically useful moves that every pokemon can benefit from while most pokemon would not use any of the listed damaging ones when they have access to STAB and coverage moves of similar power. I do wonder about the same things IAR wonders about, and I would guess that these moves would, to all other intents and purposes, be treated as pre-level-25 moves, meaning that the answers to IAR's first two questions would be yes. I don't know about the third one however, since the refund policy for B2W2 moves was hardly any.

As for that little bit at the end of Deck's post (making sleep more powerful), it's fairly common knowledge that sleep is considered to be a weak status effect because, although you prevent the opponent from doing anything for an action, you have to use an action to do nothing but inflict sleep to get the effect (unless you're using Secret Power in the right arena and are feeling lucky). As a result, 2/3 of the time you use a sleep-inducing move (assuming the move hits), you're actually no better off in terms of how far through your plan you have gotten. At least with freeze and flinch, you're doing damage at the same time as freezing or flinching. There are two ways I can think of to improve sleep: either change the duration to 1, 2, or 3 actions (or 0, 1 or 2 for Early Bird mons) with each one having a 1/3 chance of happening, or make the duration always 2 turns (or 1 turn for Early Bird mons). Of these methods, I prefer the latter since 3-turn sleep seems a little excessive to me, but either one could potentially work and I am sure there are other valid possibilities too.

 

[Dogfish44]

Going to avoid the above chaos until I familiarise myself with it. Although this is on a similar note...
Totally not stolen from EO

The idea is that Training Items do not give an original base boost to any rewards given out. Instead, whenever a Pokémon equipped with such a training item gains a KOC, it gains an additional counter, coinciding with whatever item is held. This not only makes sense (The item does't automatically train you for simply having it exist, you still have to work for it), but it limits the potential of flash matches such as Burn The Bellspout etc., since you do need to KO to gain counters from the items, which also encourages competitiveness.

 

[Orcinus Duo]

Look, all I'm saying is, there is never any good reason in a tower battle for one side to have twice as many moves as the other side. If it can't be covered by the counter counter farming proposal, it'll have to be covered by some other proposal ... but I'll work on said other proposal some other time.

no see the problem here is that you're saying df vs galladiator would be counter farming and thus if you were given the opportunity to disallow prizes for that battle had it taken place outside of the tourney, you would

so actually from your viewpoint, the counter farming proposal would still encapsulate the lopsided battle issue since you believe that the two are the same (otherwise why would df v galladiator be counterfarming?).

There is a difference between lopsided battle and counter farming that you obviously don't grasp.

Your post explaining why df v gal is counterfarming and not stupidity is fluff. You go on a hypothetical tangent where you say "oh if only df/galladiator specified movepool size!" But they didn't. And then you said that "determining what is counterfarming in this situation is tricky"

Tricky

Huh.

But you had no problem with calling it counterfarming on irc so obviously it was only tricky for the rest of us, but wasn't tricky enough to stop the power of objection!

now could you please explain the logic your decision?

(also there is obviously no 'recurring pattern' in this case so that point is null)

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that somebody would say dogfish vs galladiator is counterfarming and I really want to hear the logic behind Objection's call because I think this is leading to a slippery slope where a curbstomp under fair conditions is going to be labeled as counterfarming.

like I said i'm okay with projmods being able to ban "burn the bellsprout" just as long as they don't do anything stupid (like uh calling df v gal cf seriously wtf)

reminding obj of his stance

[1:05pm] Objection: but given that the first round of the tourney for cruel britannia was a piece of piss
[1:05pm] Objection: i don't think it would be much of a stretch to say that
[1:05pm] orcinus: ok
[1:05pm] Objection: had those battlers not been forced to fight each other
[1:06pm] orcinus: i object to you being able to decide counter farming then
[1:06pm] Objection: ie, had they chosen that matchup of their own will
[1:06pm] Objection: it probably would be counter farming

[1:09pm] Objection: and as for that tourney battle orcinus
[1:09pm] orcinus: and…"chance to win" isn't?
[1:09pm] Objection: one team has all its mons with movepools in the 20-29 range
[1:09pm] Objection: one team has movepools within the 35-90+ range
[1:09pm] orcinus: that's counter farming.
[1:10pm] Objection: yes
[1:10pm] orcinus: oh dear.
[1:10pm] Objection: that would have been considered counter farming by me
[1:10pm] Objection: if it had not been a tourney battle

[1:11pm] orcinus: so basically if galladiator accepts df's 5v5 trips challenge
[1:11pm] orcinus: df cannot bring strongmons
[1:11pm] Objection: yes

And I've combed through these logs a bunch of times and "prior communication about team strength should be a requirement" appears first is 1:25 when you say
[1:25pm] Objection: well
[1:25pm] Objection: the thing is
[1:25pm] Objection: you say "FEs
[1:25pm] Objection: what you really mean is "strong FEs"

[1:26pm] Objection: ok
[1:26pm] Objection: well some would
[1:26pm] Objection: which is why
[1:26pm] Objection: using words like "strong" and "weak"
[1:26pm] Objection: is actually a poor idea
[1:26pm] Objection: better to specify something a little more objective
[1:26pm] Objection: like, say, 40+ moves

so seeing as your thing about "prior comm about team strength" was concocted more than 20 minutes after you said that df vs galladiator is counterfarming, this is obviously a badly written excuse and I expect better

EDIT: Honestly I think I support all the projmods except Objection being able to decide what constitutes counterfarming right now.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

In my opinion counterfarming falls under the "tanking" (intentionally losing / not battling to your ability / battling outside the spirit of ASB) for the most part.

For example Monohm vs Magikarp is not counterfarming because the Magikarp user is doing the best they can to win, despite extreme odds.


That said I also approve the enforcing of an even-field when creating and accepting challenges.

 

[Objection]

OK, I admit that I was a bit hasty in calling that battle counter farming. However, I still consider tower battles that are one-sided due to one team having significantly more overall strength* than the other to be a problem. If you have to rely on having significantly more overall strength in order to beat your opponent, you're a terrible battler. If you don't have to rely on it, then how hard can it be to ensure that you and your opponent have teams of roughly equal overall strength? If the challenger hasn't specified any indicators of the overall strength of the pokemon he is bringing (maybe because he doesn't know yet), you specify it when you accept his challenge or, if the overall strength you're looking for is not on his team, you instead issue your own challenge with your own indicators for overall strength. I find it very hard to believe that both match seeker and match accepter have no idea what mons they are going to bring by the time both of them have posted and even harder to believe that curbstomps due to differences in the mons' overall strength are acceptable, especially in light of the last two posts in this.

I'm done arguing counter farming with you Orcinus. You win that round.

*A FE mon is generally stronger than its NFE counterpart, so evo stage is one indicator of overall strength. A mon with a higher BRT is generally stronger than a mon with lower BRT, so BRT is another indicator of overall strength. A mon with 60 moves is generally stronger than that same mon with only 20 moves, so move count is another indicator of overall strength. Type advantage is something that can only be determined in the presence of an opponent, which means it is situational, which means it is not an indicator of overall strength. Player skill, aside from being something that battles should reward, does not have any effect on the pokemon so it is not an indicator of overall strength.

 

[Orcinus Duo]

Yeah dogfish is a terrible battler for relying on stronger mons to beat galladiator I agree

Yep I'm done too I'm okay with you being able to decide counter farming but please in only the most extreme circumstance

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

I don't have much time but I'd like to get my thoughts out on this and see who agrees.

I see each case of CF falling under one of two categories, dealing with a) Pokemon sent in, and b) effort used in a match (i.e. throwing a match). These two aren't mutually exclusive, but together they encapsulate pretty much all hypothetical instances.

CAT 1: Pokemon used in battle

This stems mainly from the ambiguity that occurs in many battles; if you see a challenge that says "4v4 Doubles" you have absolutely no clue what Pokemon you should bring to have a fair match without asking them. With that in mind, I think an extra clause in the battle challenge post could easily alleviate this, with categories like "strong | normal | weak" could work; note that evolution stage is specifically not mentioned, as you can have 13 move FEs or 70 move NFEs, and that evolution stage is not indicative of strength. Ideally these categories would be split into move counts (numbers like <25 | 26-45 | >46 off the top of my head) but any person putting up a battle could easily specified their desired range, which gives no excuse for the challenger to bring overly powerful or overly weak Pokemon. This is especially true since you can easily customize the clause to be something like "two strong one weak." If you don't have the right Pokemon for a battle, accept another one or put up one of your own.

As for how the approvers can check for CF in this category, I think it's fairly simple. All we have to do is look at the specified strength of Pokemon and see if the battle acceptor stayed roughly within that range, maybe something like ±5 moves per Pokemon (again, typed a random number).
​

CAT 2: Throwing a match

Obviously this one is much, much harder to gauge since nobody can really point to a certain player in a match and say with confidence, "you! you're not trying! off with your head!" outside of the most obvious cases, which I don't even need to name. It's so incredibly difficult that I don't feel it's worth it to pursue as far as we can go; even one mistake will inevitably make the person(s) denied of rewards ask another approver and we don't need another argument exploding over IRC, especially since we as a whole are unfortunately quite good at making mountains out of molehills.

I think, for this category, we just need a bit of leniency and let anything that's not overwhelmingly blatant pass through.​

In general, I think we as approvers need to exercise a little bit of lenience if vetoing cases of CF is allowed, since what we really want to do is just crack down on the obvious matches, and what we really don't want to do is to deny rewards from people that deserved them. If someone feels cheated they can always take it up with the approvers on IRC since there are always a couple around (but I'd say that you're not allowed to ask multiple times since it'll just make everyone annoyed).

yeah this was kind of disjointed but w/e hit me up if something doesn't make sense

e: oh crap how did so many people post while i was typing this up

 

[EspyOwner]

Going to avoid the above chaos until I familiarise myself with it. Although this is on a similar note...
Totally not stolen from EO

The idea is that Training Items do not give an original base boost to any rewards given out. Instead, whenever a Pokémon equipped with such a training item gains a KOC, it gains an additional counter, coinciding with whatever item is held. This not only makes sense (The item does't automatically train you for simply having it exist, you still have to work for it), but it limits the potential of flash matches such as Burn The Bellspout etc., since you do need to KO to gain counters from the items, which also encourages competitiveness.

Totally not in complete support of said proposal.

Really though, I think it makes perfect sense while also reducing counter farming to a degree. Plus in battles where a Pokemon has greater influence (i.e. a 2v2 where the Pokemon gets both KOs) it would allow the Pokemon to gain more experience (aka counters) depending on the item held.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Just. Focus. On. Stopping. The. Blatantly. Obvious. Cases. Of. Counter. Farming. That. Is. It.

There is no way you can objectify something that is clearly subjective, so if we are going to go out of our way to fully define what can be seen as counter farming, all we are going to be doing is wasting our time. You are just simply opening a big can of worms that will simply cause never-ending arguments. For something to be classed as counter farming, imo, it has to be completely obvious. Counter Farming is basically "Hey everyone, kill my Magikarp as fast as you can!" The same 1v1 Singles where you use Magikarp, but not reveal that you are using Magikarp before the match began, cannot really be classed as such, though, since it is not your fault that your opponent just wanted to train their Monohm at the same time.

Thinking that movepool size is a measure of strength is a complete joke too, since all moves do is give you options. What if that 50 move Clefable you were using to scare everyone off had 45 non-attacking moves, none of which can block something like Taunt? Because if that Taunt got through, then suddenly, you only have 5 options to work with, not much at all. Movepool size means nothing if you can beat a team of well trained Dragons with a team of 20-move Ice-Types. It is not the size of the movepool that counts, it is the moves you actually have that count. Do you really expect that 97 Move Gliscor to use all 97 moves it has in its movepool throughout the course of a battle? No. That particular Gliscor might intimidate you with its 97 options, & tempt you to just throw in the towel & give up, but at the end of a day, it is just a Gliscor. The same 97-move Gliscor is still going to die as fast to Ice-Type moves as a Gliscor that has just the essential tools that a Gliscor needs to be competitive. Why? Because for most Pokémon in CAP ASB, roughly half the moves in that Pokémon's movepool (on average) is simply going to be useless fluff. Crappy moves that you are never going to use in 90% of your battles with that Pokémon. Generally, either useless, or too situational to be of regular use. Moves mean nothing if your Pokémon cannot get past the same Pokémon, whether your Pokémon knows 17 moves, or 97 moves.

But that is beside the point. The point is, just stop making a mountain out of a molehill with a clearly subjective issue. This proposal is designed to stop the blatantly obvious cases of Counter Farming. That is it. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts about it. There is zero need to try & crack down on less obvious cases, because if they were not as obvious, give benefit of the doubt & let it slide for all I care, because it is nigh-on impossible to prove that they deliberately farmed for counters. Stop the obvious cases, & nothing more.

That said, dogfish's proposal makes sense, since in-game, you have to win to get your bonus with Exp. Share/Lucky Egg/Amulet Coin (Hence, this proposal has in-game precedence). It also encourages more competitiveness as well too, since no longer can you just sit back & take a back seat, as your Pokémon gets a bonus counter, irrespective of what happens, you have to earn that extra counter now, which is what I like.

 

[LupusAter]

I agree with Deck's proposition, but I am unsure about one thing: would mons who already bought the moves get a MC refund? Even a token amount, like 1 per move, would be OK. I know that this would cause an approving headache, but finding out that the 6 MC you used to get DT/Protect/Sub (and any additional ones used to get the other moves) were basically wasted wouldn't be nice.

 

[zarator]

At the moment, the Critical Hit description about multi-hit moves is a bit ambigous:


Critical Hits:

A critical hit adds three (3) BAP to any attack before applying weakness and resistance. Critical hits ignore Reflect and Light Screen, ignore the Base Attack Power drop from the Burn status, and only apply stat boosts if positive boosts exceed negative boosts. Super Luck increases the Critical Hit Stage of a Pokemon by 1, and Sniper increases the damage dealt by critical hits to five (5) instead of three (3) for a one-hit move, three (3) instead of two (2) for a two-hit move, and two (2) instead of one (1) for a multi-hit move.




The main culprit, as many of you know, is: if one of the hits of a multi-hit moves crit, does the entire damage goes past screens/burn/stat changes? At the moment, if we go for the most strict interpretation of the text, it does, and it makes multi-hit moves incredibly disruptive. While this may add a layer to strategies and such, I find the disruptive potential a bit excessive. Even in-game, the best option to use against a foe behind Reflect and with multiple Defense boost could be your multi-hit move if you have a good one, but the effect is nowhere as gamebreaking as in ASB, where the difference in dmg may be incredibly steep.

Now, the discussion wouldn't be complete if I didn't propose a solution to the issue, so there it is. My proposal is that, if a multi-hit move crits, one or more times, against a foe under the aforementioned conditions (burn, screens, stat changes), the move gets a damage boost called Pierce. Each crit grants a Pierce bonus damage equal to the Crit bonus + 1 (So, it would be 3 for a move like Double Kick, and 2 for a move like Pin Missile). If the Pierce damage would raise the dmg of the move at or above the level it would reach if it ignored screens/burn/stat changes, you just calculate it in the old way. Since it may seem rather strange of a mechanic, and since my wording is obviously horrible, let me give you an example:

Ex1: A Hardy Syclant with no items and Technician uses Icicle Spear against a Hardy Mew behind Reflect and with +1 Defense. Icicle Spear hits 5 times, and crits twice. Let's try to calculate the dmg with my newly proposed system:

4*5*0.67 [Base Power] + 3 [STAB] + 2 [Crit] + 4 [Pierce] - 1.75 [Stage Dif] = 20.65 damage

And now with the old system

4*5 [Base Power] + 3 [STAB] + 2 [Crit] = 25 damage

Since the "Pierce version" does less damage, you would apply it over the "old version"

Ex2: A Lonely Syclant with no items and Technician uses Icicle Spear against a Lonely Mew with +2 Defense. Icicle Spear hits 5 times, and crits 3 times. Let's try to calculate the dmg with my newly proposed system:

4*5 [Base Power] + 3 [STAB] + 3 [Stat Dif] + 3 [Crit] + 6 [Pierce] - 3.5 [Stage Dif] = 31.5 damage

And now with the old system:

4*5 [Base Power] + 3 [STAB] + 3 [Stat Dif] + 3 [Crit] = 29 damage

Since the "old version" does less damage, you would apply it over the "Pierce version"

Ex3: A Hardy Hitmonlee with no items and with Burn status uses Double Kick against a Hardy Snorlax behind Reflect. Double Kick crits 1 out of 2 times. Let's try to calculate the dmg with my newly proposed system:

(3*2*0.67 [Base Power] + 3 [STAB] + 3 [Stat Dif] - 3 [Burn] + 2 [Crit] + 3 [Pierce]) * 1.5 = 18.03 damage

And now with the old system:

(3*2 [Base Power] + 3 [STAB] + 3 [Stat Dif] + 2 [Crit]) * 1.5 = 21 damage

Since the "Pierce version" does less damage, you would apply it over the "old version".




While apparently convoluted, my proposal has the advantage of giving a partial boost to crits of multi-hit moves under burn/screen/stat change conditions, without making it gamebreaking - in the same vein with how it works in practice in-game. Thanks for your attention.

P.S.: If you can reword it in a nicer way, props for it.

EDIT: I'd like to add that, unlike what it seems, most times you wouldn't have to do two calculations every time. The above ones are just for the sake of the example. If a multi-hit move crits only once (which is the most common scenario), or even twice for a 4-5-hit move, you will always apply the "Pierce method", no need to doublecheck.

 

[Objection]

After some discussion on IRC, in which I suggested a couple of ideas of my own, I am supporting zarator's proposal.

Just in case it wasn't clear to anyone else as it wasn't to me at first, the pierce damage is equal to either number of crits * (crit boost + 1) or the total damage reduction provided by screens, burn and stat boosts/drops, whichever is less. Contrary to what I initially thought, you don't actually have to compare old final damage with new final damage.

 

[Dogfish44]

Stat boosts/drops suck. They're low power, obscenely complex and n ear always less powerful than simply attacking. Let's propose a new system!

• Atk, Def, SpA, SpD, Spe boosts and drops do not decay.
• A boost to Atk, Def, SpA, and SpD increases the corresponding rank by one. A drop lowers the corresponding rank by an equal amount.
• A boost/drop to speed multiplies speed by 1.5^(Stage), where Stage is the overall stage.
• Increases in accuracy and decreases in evasion do not decay. if a Pokémon's accuracy stage is below 0, or a Pokémon's evasion stage is above 0, at the end of a round, then move the corresponding stat one step towards 0.

Simplifies and strengthens stat boosts, whilst keeping the safety mechanism against the more hax-based moves.