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

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Memento is a (weak) self-KO move. Even at 1 EN I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

As I understand some users (pwnemon) are dissatisfied with certain things the council is able to vote upon, I am introducing the following motion, a motion that is really just a logical extension of power:

In cases where a motion has been passed for a decision that directly alters or amends powers given to the ASB Council, that is to say anything not initially agreed upon as to their role and power, a decision towards the motion regarding the powers granted to the ASB Council must be dictated by Deck Knight, the only authority greater than the ASB Council and thus outside the conflict of interest.

Simple enough, and a logical step for reasonability and rational limitation of the Council.

 

[Stratos]

The above looks good, it's the ASB council, not the ASB congress

 

[Its_A_Random]

RE Memento:

Yeah Memento is an exception to the EC thing, but idk. I suppose you could bake it consistent with other suicide moves, but honestly, who really cares? It is not as if adding an EC would break the thing, so I recommend just asking Deck about it. I am neutral on this.

RE Not letting the ASB Council give themselves Powers:

Support w/o discussion. I mean, why are people so power hungry these days? The whole counter-farming power thing was an absolute mess which caused it to go under review, & I seriously think we should have learned something from that whole saga. This needs to go through ASAP imo.

 

[Elevator Music]

Two things.

1) Crits ignoring burn in ASB

The DAT used to mention crits ignoring burn in ASB. They don't have this effect ingame, but were given it in ASB for some reason. I guess this description was randomly taken out and this (combined with the fact that it wasn't a well-known ASB mechanic in the first place) has caused a lot of confusion. Can we make up our mind regarding this mechanic and stick with it?

My personal preference is to make crits not ignore burn, because that's how they work ingame and there isn't a good reason I know of to change that mechanic.

2) Dodge cap

Can we please just remove this? Dodge is terrible, especially now with CT=None. I know a few people object to it because it's not included in the substitution class for evasive moves, but we can change that if we decide to remove the cap (or we can do it anyways because it makes sense to include it even though Dodge currently sucks). For those that care about nomenclature, we can change the substitution class to evasive actions or something too if necessary.

There might be other things to bring up regarding Dodge, but I can't think of any and just want to get discussion of it on the table. Perhaps raising the energy cost if we do remove the cap, idk.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

In cases where a motion has been passed for a decision that directly alters or amends powers given to the ASB Council, that is to say anything not initially agreed upon as to their role and power, a decision towards the motion regarding the powers granted to the ASB Council must be dictated by Deck Knight, the only authority greater than the ASB Council and thus outside the conflict of interest.

1) Crits ignoring burn in ASB

2) Dodge cap

support to all three

also dodge really should be in the evasive class so even if the cap is maintained we should move it

 

[Leethoof]

Leethoof's random pile of usually crappy ideas:
Power Swap/Guard Swap/Heart Swap should function in the crazy way that skill swap does.
We should fix chesto/lum/hydra/leaf guard rest before malaconda gets here. Perhaps reduced healing (say down to 20), so it functions as a refresh + recover in the right situation0
Froxbite pls
Engi needs a new gym arena.
Electrode learns discharge

 

[ZhengTann]

Regarding Texas' proposal about the Council: Support without need for discussion, although having the grassroost masses deciding the rights and powers of the Council would work in a similar vein when Deck is incapacitated- err, I mean unavailable.

Regarding interaction between crits and burns: Support with discussion. Myself, I reffed critical hits to ignore burns, and I honestly don't see why "in-catridge precedence" should be the sole reason people support critical hits that cannot bypass burns. On the other side, "why not?" is the only justification I can provide for burn-bypassing crits... Anyway, I doubt it would matter that much in the end, given that critical hits seldom happen (unless you run Focus Energy every match you play). Also, I think it's not just the interaction between crits and burns - we might want to revise the interaction between multi-hit moves and combos, crits and stage boosts, etc. etc. just so that we can update the DAT on these mechanics.

Regarding Dodge: Support without need for discussion. IIRC the reason Dodge isn't in the Evasive moves Substitution class is because of its unreliability - some people might want to just go through with the attack and hope for a hit, for example. But I definitely support the removal of Dodge cap - even though some people might say "here we go let's make some moves more viable again".

 

[Orcinus Duo]

IIRC the reason Dodge isn't in the Evasive moves Substitution class is because of its unreliability - some people might want to just go through with the attack and hope for a hit, for example.

Just like how Fissure isn't included in damaging ground type moves?

also dodge really should be in the evasive class so even if the cap is maintained we should move it

Thank you. Fuck that move, and the person who didn't put dodge in evasive.

 

[Its_A_Random]

RE Dodge:

By that same logic, then why are Quick Guard & Wide Guard not covered as Protective Moves in the substitutions class? This is probably because they are situationally protective, just like how Dodge is situationally evasive. So if you are going to consider something situational like Dodge to be evasive, then why not also consider Quick Guard & Wide Guard to be protective moves as well? Just throwing it out there. Also, remember that Dodge is considered a command, & not a move (And yes, there is a difference between a move & a command).

But yeah, I am kinda neutral on the issue of the Dodge cap. Right now, Delibird is pretty much, the only Pokémon that can actually competently dodge anything (Thanks to its auto +1 Acc/Eva, +Speed Delibird have an effective Dodge Rate of 74% against 100% Accurate moves), by removing it, a lot more Pokémon can become competent dodgers, & in terms of issues, there is no real issues I can see with removing the cap... Except for one: Ninjask. With a +Speed Nature, it gets a base 70% Dodge Rate, & after one round of speed boosting (Whee Speed Boost), its Dodge becomes effectively—for it—a 5 EN +4 Priority Agility (Evade) that even dodges multi-target moves in addition to single-targets; making it virtually impossible to sub against (Unless Dodge is moved into the Evasive Move Class), even with two subs... But then again, all that does is give an incentive to move Dodge to class it as an evasive move, especially if the cap were to be removed, lol.

RE Crits not ignoring Burns:

Support w/o discussion. This is pretty much in-game precedence, & let us be honest, at least it removes all the arguments around this... 9.9

 

[deadfox081]

Even if Ninjask's Dodge essentially becomes 100% effective it's still going to be Ninjask...

 

[Glacier Knight]

Dodge: SUPPORT w/o discussion

For the love of god get rid of that cap please please. We can classify dodge as an evasive move if we need to, doesn't matter to me.

 

[Orcinus Duo]

RE Dodge:

By that same logic, then why are Quick Guard & Wide Guard not covered as Protective Moves in the substitutions class? This is probably because they are situationally protective, just like how Dodge is situationally evasive. So if you are going to consider something situational like Dodge to be evasive, then why not also consider Quick Guard & Wide Guard to be protective moves as well? Just throwing it out there. Also, remember that Dodge is considered a command, & not a move (And yes, there is a difference between a move & a command).9

Fissure is situationally damaging.

And then semantics.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Fissure is situationally damaging.

And then semantics.

Fissure is also an attack. Dodge is a command. There is a difference.

Even if Ninjask's Dodge essentially becomes 100% effective it's still going to be Ninjask...

True, that. I was just simply pointing out that one issue—not necessarily a problem, given what other properties Ninjask has—associated with removing the dodge cap would give Ninjask a pretty powerful niche, even though it is cursed with the Bug/Flying Type, noticeable fragility, & not the best offences in the world... But then again, that just gives an incentive to make dodge the first command to be classed in a substitution, right? Not that I am really opposing or supporting the issue...

 

[Dogfish44]

RE Dodge Cap: Support, Discuss. Might be reasonable to add a much higher cap, let's figure it out (Preferably fast).

RE Dodge Sub Class: Support, Discuss. Let's open discussion on this.

RE Critical Hits: Oppose, Discuss. If only because I feel they should be actively codified to ignore burn. Although it'll be interesting to discuss crits in general.

 

[Leethoof]

but really power swap and lumrest

 

[Gerard]

Leet, you realize Rest recovers health at the end of the round right, all lumrest, hydrorest and co. would do is... make you waist 12 en for nothing (I'm way more scared about Harvest + Enigma Berry)

I support the power swap change though, since at the very least it would make it usable (not that anyone is using it anyway but maybe after the boosts change)

 

[Leethoof]

Yeah - thats how lumrest works currently, and this is bad. Its intended to be better than a regular rest - not an expensive Refresh, and we should change it to be so.

 

[waterwarrior]

RE Dodge:
Support with discussion.

I don't think Dodge should have a cap, but I think the EN cost should be changed to (Percentage chance to dodge)/10 (round down)

If pokes like Ninjask and Whimsicott can avoid anything and everything with an uncapped dodge, I don't see it being that unreasonable for it to spend 3 more EN then it would to use Agility (which won't dodge things like Heat Wave and Rock Slide)

 

[Its_A_Random]

Yeah - thats how lumrest works currently, and this is bad. Its intended to be better than a regular rest - not an expensive Refresh, and we should change it to be so.

One problem: Lum Berry already gives it a pseudo-immunity to status, so why would it need to Rest outside of recovery? I mean, you could change it to after the Pokémon acts instead of end of action, but that brings up a new plane of issues, lol.

Now, onto what I was really posting for. I would like to remind people that recreating deleted posts on Smogon is not acceptable for whatever reason, & this thread is no exception. This applies to all members, particularly one user whose post was deleted initially because it was basically a sign of aggression, before reposting effectively the same post again & again & again.

To respond to this user's repeatedly deleted #semantics post, if you seriously think there is no excuse as to why Dodge should not be an "Evasive Move", despite being a "command", tell me. Why is Growl an "Attack-Lowering Move", & why the Command: Ability (Intimidate) is not at the moment? You might find that the reason why it is not is because Ability (Intimidate) is a "Command", & Growl is a "Move". Nothing semantics about it when they have clearly got different properties, despite having virtually the same effect. By the same logic, you can see why Agility (Evade) is an Evasive Move, but Dodge is not. Hence, it is pretty clear that commands are currently exempt from substitutions classes.

Not that I am saying that I do not want Dodge to not be considered an Evasive Move, but you insist on trying to repeatedly imply that commands & moves are the same thing in ASB, which clearly is a myth, since not only are commands currently exempt from being classed into substitutions by virtue of not being considered "moves" by the ASB definitions & shit, but also, you do not need to pay MC to get commands, where as you need to pay MC to get moves. As I said, there is a difference.

Now, as you can see, this is why moves & commands are two different things, & hence, why Dodge is not an Evasive Move at the moment. This is all I was trying to get across; I was not even opposing the whole Dodge->Substitution Class thing, even if my apparent stance says otherwise. Not that the user I am responding to cares, since odds are... Yeah, this is getting too far off-topic.

Both Dodge Cap & Dodge Sub Class things need a discussion, especially given the amount of clutter this thread has gotten into; the sooner these get into a discussion, the better. Remember that regular Smogon Rules still apply in this thread. That is all.

EDIT: @ Pwnemon (Below): Yeah, there is an actual command for the ability Intimidate that takes an action:
[BOX]Intimidate: The Pokemon makes an intimidating roar or battle cry that lowers the Attack of all opponents by one (1) stage. The drop is maintained at the end of each round. Intimidate can only be used the round after an opponent sends out a new Pokemon after after a KO.

Command Type: Ability Based | Accuracy: -- | Energy Cost: 5 | Priority: 0 | CT: None[/BOX]

 

[Stratos]

Why is intimidate (command) not in a sub class? Gee idk maybe because it's not an action and is instead activated on the send-out 9.9.9.9.9.9.9. <- (claydol eyeroll)

I've never been a fan of classing dodge for balance reasons, but don't shit up this thread with false analogies please. Let's discuss dodge, though

 

[Orcinus Duo]

How the fuck would you sub for intimidate

Intimidate is activated upon send out and it doesn't take up an action

What on EARTH

Edit: oh then yes intimidate should be able to be subbed for

 

[Elevator Music]

Enough. We aren't talking about Intimidate, we're talking about Dodge. If people have an issue with Intimidate command not being in the sub class, we can talk about that in a different discussion.

 

[Leethoof]

New Discussion: Intimidate should be Innate, but retain its additional action property, a la Sand Stream and co.

Defiant/contrary should counter intimidate, and anyways forgetting about it sucks and the reactivation has no en cost lol.

 

[Its_A_Random]

New Discussion: Intimidate should be Innate, but retain its additional action property, a la Sand Stream and co.

Defiant/contrary should counter intimidate, and anyways forgetting about it sucks and the reactivation has no en cost lol.

Deck already made that ninja edit a few weeks ago (Intimidate = Innate while retaining the command), lol, so... Wish granted already! ^_^

Anyhow, with Dodge finally in a discussion, time to bring back some other issues that kinda took a back seat:

Hey, what's up with Memento's stupidly high EN cost of "--".

[box]Memento: The Pokémon leaves an imprint on the target that repeatedly reminds them that they will eventually faint. The Pokémon faints, and the opponent will suffer from a 2-stage Attack and Special Attack drop (Switch = OK: until the opponent switches out; Switch = KO: until the opponent faints).
Attack Power: -- | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: -- | Attack Type: Other | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: No | Typing: Dark | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive[/box]

Is this intentional? Or should we actually have an EN cost there?

This has not really been considered much of an issue, but may need more votes.

As I understand some users (pwnemon) are dissatisfied with certain things the council is able to vote upon, I am introducing the following motion, a motion that is really just a logical extension of power:

In cases where a motion has been passed for a decision that directly alters or amends powers given to the ASB Council, that is to say anything not initially agreed upon as to their role and power, a decision towards the motion regarding the powers granted to the ASB Council must be dictated by Deck Knight, the only authority greater than the ASB Council and thus outside the conflict of interest.

Simple enough, and a logical step for reasonability and rational limitation of the Council.

This has been generally supported with no real objections, but needs more votes, like one or two more.

1) Crits ignoring burn in ASB

The DAT used to mention crits ignoring burn in ASB. They don't have this effect ingame, but were given it in ASB for some reason. I guess this description was randomly taken out and this (combined with the fact that it wasn't a well-known ASB mechanic in the first place) has caused a lot of confusion. Can we make up our mind regarding this mechanic and stick with it?

My personal preference is to make crits not ignore burn, because that's how they work ingame and there isn't a good reason I know of to change that mechanic.

Some users think a discussion may be needed but need more votes.

Leethoof's random pile of usually crappy ideas:
Power Swap/Guard Swap/Heart Swap should function in the crazy way that skill swap does.
We should fix chesto/lum/hydra/leaf guard rest before malaconda gets here. Perhaps reduced healing (say down to 20), so it functions as a refresh + recover in the right situation

Not much has been commented on either idea, though I do not think lumrest is that much of an issue, given Malaconda is already immune to status anyway with a regenerating Lum Berry. Making Power/Guard/Heart Swap work like Skill Swap, on the other hand, seems like an interesting proposition. Any comments on that?