Data State of the Game (07/04/14)

[starwarsfan]

Couldn't you simply make it so that, when a ref makes a placeholder, no one else can make a placeholder or ref the match for the next hour, and make the ref edit the reffing into the placeholder (and, if the ref fails to ref it on time and gets beaten to reffing it, he/she must delete the placeholder post)? That way, the refs have the time to produce a quality reffing, and the thread will not fill up with postcount++ posts.

Reffing takes longer than an hour for some refs.

I personally echo the concerns of IAR, feel like this is a good idea in theory but simply falls apart in practice.

 

[ff7hero]

However I want to talk about this. This is imo an excellent first step into speeding up reffing and reducing some of the duties of the referee. If we can reduce a referee's roles from what Frosty has outline above to purely running the RNG, doing calcs, and writing flavour, then the speed of ASB will automatically increase. I don't think its important for the players to post the calculations, but at least forcing them to post their Pokemon's current status, perhaps also those of the Pokemon switching in in a given scenario is an excellent idea. This also provides an opportunity to standardize a summarized Pokemon format.

I would like to speak up and point out one downside to this. Long story short, I get a lot of my Ordering/Switching posts done on my old iPhone on break at work or just out and about. Posting anything much more complex than Orders+Subs would just about require me to at home on the computer, which I think could slow down the game.

Also, Mulan, I think the general worry is that people won't follow the rules. Seems totally impossible, huh? (is </sarcasm> still funny?)

 

[akela]

Couldn't you simply make it so that, when a ref makes a placeholder, no one else can make a placeholder or ref the match for the next hour, and make the ref edit the reffing into the placeholder (and, if the ref fails to ref it on time and gets beaten to reffing it, he/she must delete the placeholder post)? That way, the refs have the time to produce a quality reffing, and the thread will not fill up with postcount++ posts.

How do you stop people from posting within 0.01 seconds of each other with placeholders?

This has happened before in the battle tower with agreeing to ref and take battles.

 

[Mulan15262]

Reffing takes longer than an hour for some refs.

I personally echo the concerns of IAR, feel like this is a good idea in theory but simply falls apart in practice.

In that case, we can find a time that it is reasonable to expect someone to ref a round in (the time would be different for singles, doubles, triples, and brawls) and use that time instead.

I feel that this idea could work, but it would require a lot of effort (hopefully less effort than it is worth).

How do you stop people from posting within 0.01 seconds of each other with placeholders?

This has happened before in the battle tower with agreeing to ref and take battles.

The best idea I can think of is to make the indicator that someone beat you to posting in that thread reliable.

 

[Stratos]

Yo akela it takes literally two seconds to delete a post; if you have other objections to community reffing feel free to bring them up but the one you're chasing is a total non-issue. I'd be willing to personally delete every extraneous placeholder if it comes down to it; it wouldn't take two minutes of my time a day.

 

[Dogfish44]

Community Reffing? I'm inclined to say "No" to that one, many reasons have been brought up in thread - even if it's faster than a single ref, I'm seeing it devolving into "more haste, less speed". I'll list a larger number of concerns at some stage, but it's going to take a lot of convincing to make me want to allow it, even if it is optional for players to select at the start of a match. Also, I'd be inclined to outright ban it from any RP - especially ones in which the referee is the player who orders, since not all RP refs might be able to pick up on the strategy that a previous ref is attempting to use.

 

[Mulan15262]

I agree that, in facilities where the ref also orders for the opponent (aka every facility I can think of), the community reffing should not happen. That would be because the ref might be using a strategy that isn't apparent, only to be interrupted by a random Joe Schmo, or even someone like how I was 3 months ago (eager to learn the game, and ref, and all that, but bad at battling itself).

 

[ZhengTann]

I'd just like to echo opinions from IAR that "we already have implemented community reffing in the form of the subreferee system". Take the two following scenario:

• Referee 1 starts reffing, but couldn't make it at Round 3.
  
• As soon as, or before, DQ kicks in, Referee 2 is 2 minutes faster than Referee 3, so he/she hits Round 3.
• At Round 6, DQ kicks in again, and Referee 4 picks up the ball as soon as he/she sees it in the main forum.
  
• Rinse and repeat until end of match, where Referee 7 calculates compensation for reffing by the round.

• Referee 1 starts reffing, but couldn't make it at Round 3.
• As soon as, or before, DQ kicks in, a request for a sub-referee is posted at Battle Tower.
  
• Referee 2 is 2 minutes faster than Referee 3, so he/she grabs it in Tower and hits Round 3.
  
• At Round 6, DQ kicks in again, and Referee 4 picks up the ball as soon as he/she sees the second sub-referee request at Tower.
• Rinse and repeat until end of match, where Referee 7 calculates compensation for reffing by the round.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see little difference between the two. Reffing is already being done by the community, not the mods (except if they agreed to reffing), nor the projmods (them too), nor anyone outside of ASB. Queuing for Tower is pretty much the same as queuing in the main forum itself. If battlers wanted to be strict when it comes to referee DQ, it can be handled and managed. So IMHO, there isn't any problem that the proposed community reffing fix over the current one.

EDIT: Also, Texas reminded me once that I started out, I had fun learning the game even when I'm losing. As time passes, like most people, I do look to high-tier RPs as goals to strive for, but I never forget to have fun in Tower (check my matches with Simon and Gerard - and shoutouts to you two for being extraordinary opponents ^_^ ). I've never thought of Tower as "a mere place to grind and train" - rather, it is also a place where I train myself as a battler, where even a 1v1 flash against IAR's Regirock is played for the victory, not just to evolve my Bolderdash (and yes, I did do that). I even had fun debating and arguing in Policy Centre, even though I can feel hurted when my opinions are turn down. So yeah, two years into the game, and ASB still is fun - except when I met an opponent who obviously wasn't playing it for fun, because the pessimism can be quite infectious :(

 

[Pallas Athena]

Sure, Frosty's proposal would make it harder on battlers. But that's kind of a point of it. A large part of ASB economic issues is that refs will always be in shorter supply than battlers. The proposal would discourage battling to some degree, lowering the supply of battlers, while encouraging reffing, which increases the supply of refs. This helps bring everything a little closer to equilibrium. Users who are used to quickly posting orders on a mobile device might be hindered, but surely at some point in a three day period they have the ability to log onto a computer and actually post. I see few issues with Frosty's proposal and agree with Texas that it is a much better approach than community reffing. Maybe if it got an RP test I would allow it in the mainstream, but I am inclined to disagree with any notion as potentially radical as community reffing until either a theoretical consensus had been reached or an actual, realistic test occurred.

 

[Frosty]

dunno about self-reffing, I still don't have an opinion formed.

For now I say we only allow it if there is no rng to be rolled or if the rolls don't matter (the KO will happen regardless for example).

As for my proposal, the things that take the most time from reffing is:
a) Checking stuff on the NDA (change tab, search move, change tab, search ability, search mon, change tab, search item, blah blah blah)
b) Setting up profiles, especially for switches.
c) calcs + rng, or the data writing (I do calcs with google chrome so I don't even have to switch programs/screens/whatever and it doesn't take that much time, but I think others use the calculator program or datasheets or other stuff)
d) Flavor
e) ruling (if you need to get an external ruling, that can take days)

I suggested, at first, for the player to do the calcs, but that requires knowing the formula and sometimes a sub will mean that the move will change and there are crits and a lot of factors, so it is not worth the trouble.

SO

What about if the first player to order (after switches and counterswitches and what-not) posts the profiles of the mons and the second player (after knowing which moves/items/abilities will/may be used) posts the info from NDA on a lovely hide tag for the items, abilities and moves involved (assuming they weren't posted before on that topic, or maybe copying from above).

And then you give like 1UC/CC at the end if the player did that every round. Or 1UC per pokemon per player used? not that much, but still enough to be considered as...well..."something".

And maybe give the extra UC to the player that did the data stuff AND didn't pass DQ without a LoA?

- - -

Also, regarding weight: Heavy Metal is silly. Bronzong gets like +8BAP on Heavy Slam and +4BAP on Gyro Ball. Aggron gets I think +4BAP on Heavy Slam or something like that and +3BAP on Head Smash and Double Edge (as if it needed more than that). While the weight doubling is in game, I feel that the +2BAP is something that warrants analysis in the weight revamp that may or may not happen.

 

[Mulan15262]

About community reffing: I received a PM from a user expressing interest in testing out the community battles to see if they would work. The PM said, though, that the user thinks it should not take up a battle slot since no one would get any rewards (and lacks an open battle slot to test it at the moment). Would it work to test it out to see if it works so we can decide to use it or not, and make the test not take up a battle slot since no one gets any rewards?

 

[Ute]

As for my proposal, the things that take the most time from reffing is:
a) Checking stuff on the NDA (change tab, search move, change tab, search ability, search mon, change tab, search item, blah blah blah)
b) Setting up profiles, especially for switches.
c) calcs + rng, or the data writing (I do calcs with google chrome so I don't even have to switch programs/screens/whatever and it doesn't take that much time, but I think others use the calculator program or datasheets or other stuff)
d) Flavor
e) ruling (if you need to get an external ruling, that can take days)

I suggested, at first, for the player to do the calcs, but that requires knowing the formula and sometimes a sub will mean that the move will change and there are crits and a lot of factors, so it is not worth the trouble.

SO

What about if the first player to order (after switches and counterswitches and what-not) posts the profiles of the mons and the second player (after knowing which moves/items/abilities will/may be used) posts the info from NDA on a lovely hide tag for the items, abilities and moves involved (assuming they weren't posted before on that topic, or maybe copying from above).

And then you give like 1UC/CC at the end if the player did that every round. Or 1UC per pokemon per player used? not that much, but still enough to be considered as...well..."something".

And maybe give the extra UC to the player that did the data stuff AND didn't pass DQ without a LoA?

I like it, completely optional but very helpful to the ref. I personally like the option where if a player posts DAT info/Formatting every round they get one UC. any other opinions on the matter?

dunno about self-reffing, I still don't have an opinion formed.

For now I say we only allow it if there is no rng to be rolled or if the rolls don't matter (the KO will happen regardless for example).

Crit chances make these rounds relatively rare. Why not make users who self-ref matches forfeit their right to KOC to make it so that any RNG rigging in self reffed matches becomes meaningless other than the thrill of 'winning'

 

[ff7hero]

I like it, completely optional but very helpful to the ref. I personally like the option where if a player posts DAT info/Formatting every round they get one UC. any other opinions on the matter?


Crit chances make these rounds relatively rare. Why not make users who self-ref matches forfeit their right to KOC to make it so that any RNG rigging in self reffed matches becomes meaningless other than the thrill of 'winning'

To the first point, I would be more on board with this as an optional thing. It would still increase the time it takes me to Player Post (because why would I pass up optional rewards?). I guess it comes down to quicker matches vs matches that are easier to ref, which might me quicker.

Also, as someone who has reffed a little bit, copy and pasting the Pre and Post round summaries is usually not a significant portion of the time I spend reffing. Looking up stuff in the NDA is much more time consuming, so I feel like that would be the big time saver. (Random Thought: what happens if someone posts incorrect data? Is it the Player's responsibility to to ensure they're posting accurate info, or is it the refs job to catch any mistakes?)

To the second point, I believe the intention was to allow self-reffing in cases where the crit doesn't matter (IOW, the KO would occur even w/o the crit).

 

[Mulan15262]

(Random Thought: what happens if someone posts incorrect data? Is it the Player's responsibility to to ensure they're posting accurate info, or is it the refs job to catch any mistakes?)

If the ref has to catch any mistakes in the player's given info, the players may as well not give any info. The responsibility for that should fall to both players.

 

[ff7hero]

If the ref has to catch any mistakes in the player's given info, the players may as well not give any info. The responsibility for that should fall to both players.

My thoughts too, was looking for confirmation.

 

[Mulan15262]

Akela seems to not be happy with approving almost every claim since we don't have enough approvers, and the ones we have do not approve enough claims. Would this be an OK time to try to get more approvers?

 

[ff7hero]

Akela seems to not be happy with approving almost every claim since we don't have enough approvers, and the ones we have do not approve enough claims. Would this be an OK time to try to get more approvers?

I don't know if I would be qualified, but I wouldn't mind a chance to get my hands on some of that tasty AUC help Akela out with his workload.

 

[akela]

You guys misunderstand the situation. It is not a lack of approvers. It is many approvers lacking the time to approve 15+ claims in one sitting.

Regardless, this is not the time or place to discuss approvers and approving. As head approver, this will be handled by myself and ASB staff.

 

[Valzy]

Can we change the second sentence of Moonlight's description to: "Moonlight heals less HP if the moon is not out." And the second sentence of Morning Sun's descriptions to: "Morning Sun heals less HP if the sun is not out."? The second sentences currently read: "If the moon/sun is not out, Moonlight/Morning Sun heals half its normal value." Which is completely inaccurate.

Sorry for posting this here, but there is no ASB Feedback and Game Issues Thread currently.

 

[Valzy]

Valzy, let me ask you a question: How do you get the moon out in ASB? Outside of creating an arena that has a moon, to my knowledge, there is no way to get a moon out.

I was objecting to the fact that it said it healed half the normal value, while the values it lists are 35, 25 and 15, none of which are half of any of the others

 

[Objection]

Actually, that's deliberate. The values of 35, 25 and 15 are for "if weather = Sunny Day", "if weather = Normal" and "if weather = Rain Dance, Sandstorm or Hail" respectively. If the moon is not out, Moonlight heals half of those values (17.5, 12.5 and 7.5 respectively). Same for Morning Sun if the sun is not out. If the sun or moon being out or not out is not specified in an arena's description, it is assumed that they are both out if the arena is an outdoors one and that neither is out if the arena is indoors.

I will reword Moonlight and Morning Sun to clarify this.

 

[SimonSays]

Whichever move's CT is higher up in the ranking is the one whose type is used to determine the combo's type. If the CTs are identical, compare the Base Attack Powers of the two moves. Whichever move has the higher power is the one that the combo uses the type of. For this purpose, non-damaging moves defer to moves that deal direct damage. If both attacks have the same CT and the same Base Attack Power but the Pokemon gets STAB on one of them, then the combo uses the move that the Pokemon gets STAB on. If both attacks have the same CT and the same Base Attack Power and the Pokemon gets STAB on both or neither of them, the combo becomes typeless. Like a typeless attack, a typeless combo is never affected by STAB, weakness, resistance or any effect keyed to typing.

I've never been very good at making proposals, because I tend to speak with passive voice, and even then I'm not good at directing how people think; I have the idea, I share it, and I let other people make their own decisions on what to do with the idea.

The idea I had was that, with the advent of Flying Press being dual-typed, and the ability to Skill Swap multiple -iate abilities on one Pokemon to have multi-typed attacks, why not open up dual-typed combination attacks? But only those that would, following the current chain of type-priority, be typeless?

 

[Objection]

I'm kinda torn on this. I guess it's a matter of do we really want most Flying-types to be mauled by Thunder Punch + Ice Punch or most Grass-types to be wiped out by Fire Punch + Ice Punch or stuff like that. Consider that there are few things hit super effectively by both Fighting and Flying, or by both Ice and Flying, or by both Ice and Fairy, so at the moment there aren't many super advantageous situations for the dual-typed moves that we have.

Maybe if the Pokemon gets STAB on both moves, it could become a dual-typed combo, but allowing it even without STAB seems like it might be a bit far.

 

[Mulan15262]

I think the move should have to be reasonable to consider (fire and ice turn to steam in a short time span if put together, which sounds like Fire/Water type combination if legal at all).

Besides, most types (though not normal or electric) have some moves that could be comboed together that the boss is weak to (Ice Beam + Solar Beam works by the same logic and nails Ground, Earth Power + Flash Cannon might work and nail Rock, Dual Chop + Ice Punch nails Dragon, etc.) so it wouldn't really unbalance much.

 

[Stratos]

Pokemon hit harder by Flying Press than by a flying or fighting type move: abomasnow, shiftry, sawsbuck, cacturne, pangoro, scrafty. (ObjEDIT: Also Malaconda)

Aside from nintendo clearly hating me this gen, it's important to note two things about the move: its ineffectiveness and its distribution. For one, nothing is weak to both fighting and flying. If i were to use ice beam + flamethrower from a dragon vs my gym this would be a very different story. Secondly, its distribution is absolutely as poor as possible, which with the potential power of the effect, I doubt one move on one pokemon being dual-type was entirely an accident.

Good idea in theory but i don't like the ramifications on game balance