Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Wait okay, hang on. With how Stall is being described (Last regardless of priority bracket, including charge up phase), that is all of the Pros and none of the cons of the original Lagging Tail.
Can completely avoid Counter/Mirror Coat/Metal Burst, by moving after them. Minor thing on Sableye, who's immune to CounterCoat, but it's a discussion about how Stall is too much.
Focus Punch and other charge-up moves are uninterruptable.
Metal Burst OP that's been run up and down the thread before I chipped in.
"Also known as attraction, this status effect causes works almost the same as confusion. The only differences are that, instead of hurting itself, an infatuated Pokemon has a 50% chance of simply not doing anything for no energy - this causes the Pokemon's attraction counter to decrease by 2 instead of 1 that action - and attraction can only be inflicted by a male Pokemon on a female Pokemon or vice versa. Additionally, if the Pokemon takes at least 16 damage from a single attack, the attraction counter decreases by 1. Infatuation has 1/3 chance of lasting 2 (Slight), 3 (Severe) or 4 (Intense) actions."
Although to be fair I edited that in some days ago.
Wait okay, hang on. With how Stall is being described (Last regardless of priority bracket, including charge up phase), that is all of the Pros and none of the cons of the original Lagging Tail.
Can completely avoid Counter/Mirror Coat/Metal Burst, by moving after them. Minor thing on Sableye, who's immune to CounterCoat, but it's a discussion about how Stall is too much.
Focus Punch and other charge-up moves are uninterruptable.
Metal Burst OP that's been run up and down the thread before I chipped in.
focus punch's first hit still moves at +6 if you were worried. Yes, countercoat is avoided with stall but since LITERALLY ONLY SABLEYE GETS THE ABILITY... metal burst isn't op at all since it only reflects x1.25 the damage and is easily subbed for. Honestly, stall's only uses are 1) free metal burst 2) payback hits at 10 bp 3) always hit after damaging evasives. As someone who bought a sableye thinking it'd be the best thing since sliced bread, it's not. Stall is good but not overpowered
It still bugs me that Stall doesn't match in-game, but there's no reason to change it based on balance issues; if Sableye/Mega Sableye is broken (and they probably aren't) it's in no way shape or form because of Stall, and changing Stall won't change that. I'd still like to see it changed to match in-game just because there's no need for the extra buff, but whatever works for everyone else.
"Also known as attraction, this status effect causes works almost the same as confusion. The only differences are that, instead of hurting itself, an infatuated Pokemon has a 50% chance of simply not doing anything for no energy - this causes the Pokemon's attraction counter to decrease by 2 instead of 1 that action - and attraction can only be inflicted by a male Pokemon on a female Pokemon or vice versa. Additionally, if the Pokemon takes at least 16 damage from a single attack, the attraction counter decreases by 1. Infatuation has 1/3 chance of lasting 2 (Slight), 3 (Severe) or 4 (Intense) actions."
Although to be fair I edited that in some days ago.
Infatuation's duration was 3/4/5 (it was higher than Confusion to account for the gender restriction)
Also, can we raise Infatuation and Confusion reduction damage to 18? it would be the same as Rest, and 16 damage is very easy to do against the average pokemon (even weak coverage can do that without a boosting item)
Infatuation's duration was 3/4/5 (it was higher than Confusion to account for the gender restriction)
Also, can we raise Infatuation and Confusion reduction damage to 18? it would be the same as Rest, and 16 damage is very easy to do against the average pokemon (even weak coverage can do that without a boosting item)
Attraction
When Attracted, a Pokemon has a 50% chance not to attack. Infatuation will also make using particularly cruel or devious attacks difficult, with the exception of Dark-type Pokemon who find such trickery a form of flattery. Attraction can only occur between Pokemon of different genders. Each Attraction level has a 1/3rd chance of being selected when it is inflicted. Attract has three levels of severity.
Attraction Stage lowers by 1 at the beginning of the Pokemon's action until it hits 0. When a Pokemon receives 16 or more damage from a single attack, its Attraction stage is lowered. Attract is removed if the Pokemon is switched out. If a Pokemon loses an action to Attract, its Attract counter goes down by 1. No energy is expended.
Slight Attraction: Lasts for two (2) actions.
Severe Attraction: Lasts for three (3) actions.
Intense Attraction: Lasts for four (4) actions.
Tortferngatr: As someone who used Sableye very often - yes, Sableye can win a surprising amount of damage races. And yes, Sableye completely rapes those Pokemon that rely on disruptive tactics as opposed to brute force (priority Imprison is absolutely evil). However, Sableye also has unexpected holes. For example, once the opponent subs against Pain Split and perhaps Metal Burst, there's nearly nothing Sableye can do to prevent him from battering the Ghost-type with special attacks. GL trying to outdamage any competent special-oriented Fire-type, for example (well, except Chandelure and Delphox I suppose?).
Sableye IS good, of course. And against the right opponents, it really makes you feel like "I can do jack swat against this little bugger". But a lot of Pokemon work the same way, and in NO way is Stall the reason for this. Heck, in my Gym I NEVER use Stall as an ability, and Sableye still rocks. Sableye's real strength is Prankster, and all the tools it has to go along with that ability.
I'm hardly arguing that reffing an 8v8 brawl round is simple, but do we really need to be awarding more than a whole TLRs worth of counters for 1-2 hours work in these 2 round, flavouless matches? Didn't we used to have a brawl cap for referees for a reason?
I agree with Deadfox on this. On one hand, a large part of a referee's worth is perseverance - you are paid because you regularly did your job over a relevant span of time. If you get a ton of UCs for only a couple hours of work, something goes amiss here.
On the other hand, it is a matter of balance. I'm all for seeing referees earning 30-50 UCs when they deserve it. But if they can earn them overnight, this could be... how can I say? Unbalanced? You get the idea.
Zarator brought a very valid point that I think deserves to be considered: Time and perseverance. Refs are paid for the actual job and for their willingness to keep on reffing until the end. That is why if the guy is subreffed, he gets no counters even considering the work already done.
If you compare a 8vs8 Brawl with a 8vs8 Singles, the perseverance needed for the latter is MUCH MUCH MUCH higher than for the former. Even if we consider that both use roughly the same ammounts of rolls (that is a wrong premisse, for the reasons stated here), the brawls will take from you much less time and will need of you less commitment to the deadlines and all than a singles. Same thing goes with triples vs singles, so it isn't necessarily a problem with brawls, but with the UC system as a whole.
One other argument passes through the types of battles we want to promote here. If a 8vs8 Brawl and 8vs8 singles end up with the same counters (and they do) and one ends in 5 hours and other in 3 months (at least hahaha), which one will you take (as a ref or as a battler)? That is the reason why we had a gazillion 8vs8 brawls begin and finish over the past weeks, while we only have 3 13vs13 (no 8vs8 mind you) singles still going. Sure, for that last question the answer is pretty subjective. If the community wants to emphasize brawls or wants people to train their mons really fast then it is doing the job for it, I guess?
In the other hand, there is always the problem involving the time needed to train a mon through the more...usual ways. Without fast tracks like Brawls and Flash Matches, a team for a Gym will need quite some time to be done from scratch. Which isn't necessarily bad, but something to be considered. Although, TBH, the ones using the brawls are the ones that can afford to be more patient. The quality of their teams and their needs don't bring any kind of urgency to training the mons (and of course I include myself here).
If you are talking strictly about "fairness" then yeah I agree that giving the same ammount of counters for a 8vs8 brawl and for a 8vs8 singles is absurd. There is a reason why we had KO Bonus divided by the number of pokemon per side. We lost that with the new rules and I think we shouldn't have as it gives a nice bonus to the people that are willing to undertake a commitment to be active on the next 3 or 4 months (which is probably the hardest part in reffing). BUT it is worth mentioning that a nerf to brawls probably should come with the actual implementation of self-reffing or other "fast track" (maybe not as "fast" as those brawls) for training. So all needs are covered somewhat.
Maybe recreating some kind of KO bonus (or KO penalty haha) instead of just putting a cap will solve the problem (assuming there is one)? I mean, even if we lower the cap to 25, people will still have 6vs6 brawls like the crazy community that we are.
As someone who just refereed three 8v8 brawls in the past three days, there is no denying that they are a ton of work. It takes two hours at minimum to do the first round. Once all is said and done, it takes around three to four hours to referee one of these puppies. They are certainly worth 45UC, so there is no issue there. However, Frosty is right that putting a cap on them won't solve anything. People hunting for counters (me) will find the next highest bidder and spam it to strengthen our Pokemon. There is no way to stop this. People in ASB raise their Pokemon competitively, so if they have the freetime, they will find a way to utilize it to get counters.
If we want to "fix" this, my case has always been that we need to emphasize what's important in ASB and make those our "highest bidders" in terms of both counters and referee payout. Getting under 50UC for a TLR run over months is ridiculous when I can do the crunch in one night (on my own time) and get the same results. I don't think it's unreasonable to make a TLR worth around 100UC. The referees are adding flavor, doing varied updates, (often) making new TLRs, and expected to battle as top-class battlers. It can be exhausting work that is really worth more than it is getting paid. Hall, Arcade, Pike, Gym, and Tournament refereeing should all see an increase in pricing, since those are our most important events, in my opinion.
I s'pose it depends where you want the referees looking to strengthen their team go. If you don't care, I will spam 8v8s or whatever variant to get my UC. There's no need to putz around here; let's entice the referees to work on our most highlighted events with suitable prizes.
Also yes, can we please get self-refereeing going? It's been quite some time since my proposal was implemented, akela. If you're too busy, I wouldn't mind taking the program into my own hands.
Yeah, I more or less agree with everything Birkal said; the issue here isn't the amount of rewards that Brawls get, and capping them somehow won't really help. The issue is that the UC payment system as it stands only looks at the number of Pokemon, and completely ignores how long the match takes. If you have a 3v3, it doesn't matter if it goes for two rounds or ten, you still get 10 UC, which is a fair number for a 3v3 Triples but feels really low for a 3v3 Singles which, while less work per round, will go on for much longer. In the time it took that ref to ref those ten rounds of singles, he could have had at least 5 1v1 flashmatches for 15 UC, and possibly more than that. I feel like the ideal UC payout system would be a function of number of Pokemon per side (a round of triples should certainly be worth more than a round of singles, and a round of a brawl should certainly be worth a fair bit) and the number of rounds in the match. My first thought was 2 UC per round of singles, 4 per round of doubles, 6 per round of triples, going on up to 16 per round for an 8v8 brawl. Numbers probably need to be tweaked, but I would like to see what people think of a system like this, while we're talking about UC payout (again).
Personally I am all for it (it = payment per round with a "round is only considered a round if there are at least X non-chill actions" rule so dedication is rewarded as well as work itself without it being so prone to abuse), but it involves reviving a heated discussion over a matter that will probably never bring something 100% acceptable, so continue at your own peril.
That aside, I agree with part of what Birkal said. Referees (and players) will all go towards what pays them better, that is logical and natural and won't ever change. So there will always be a "hey there are too many *insert type of battle here* around!" comment. The matter at hand is changing what that battle is. Personally I wouldn't mind if 6vs6 singles are everywhere. Or TLRs. Or Gyms. Definitely not Brawls as their competitive value is iffy <_<;.
The issue here is defining how much work is necessary to be granted 45 (any number really) UC. There is no right answer here, but only a majority's opinion or guideline. Personally I don't think that a 8vs8 brawl is worth 45 UC considering the value of the UC in our current system, simply because it is more than twice the UC from a 5vs5 singles and you can bet that it is easier (or more desireable) to ref a brawl than a 5vs5 singles, considering all factors involved (mostly dedication and staying on DQ regardless of weather and patience with battlers that take too long to order).
But if you take the number "45UC" and consider only it, well, the conclusion is that it is not THAT many UC. With the ridiculous power creep we have got into (result of 3 years of training maxing lots of mons from older people and other people running to catch up to them), a pokemon is only somewhat useful (or that is the message we pass at least) after 50 relevant moves, and that costs around 100UC or so (a bit less, but not much less) and if you are going for a gym, chances are that you are going for the maxed or almost-maxed status, since hey, that is where the leader is! Same goes with everything other than Raids and maaaaybe TLRs to some extent. Sure many people try gyms with less moves and are successful, but that is becoming rarer and rarer.
This power creep means that the value given to the UC is really really smaller than it was a couple years ago. Back when I left, in 2012, 40UC was a shitload of UC. Now it is something many spend on everyday claims. People need much more UC today to compete in the "high level" battles we have here. In that perspective, then 8vs8 Brawls maybe are indeed worth 45UC....and other battles are worth much more than that!
But again if we upgrade the payment system as a whole, we will risk reaching the "boiling point" sooner. By boiling point you read: the point where people have the pokemon they want with all the moves they want. And when we reach that point, we will either focus solely on high level matches (and become more elitist towards newbs) or we will leave. So it isn't just a matter of "raising everything up to fill in our needs". Maybe our major need is to learn to be patient <_<;. Or making the system more...friendly to patient trainers?
...all the above is way too confusing for my own good. Even I can't understand it @.@ . But the point is: the issue with payment won't go away until we, as a community, estabilish what we want for it. What do we want to emphasize? What kind of game do we want in the future? Is it acceptable the time needed to train a high level team today? Will Self-Ref aid in that regard? Until we have that settled (or until we stop avoiding that discussion), we will continue to simple patch up the problem with "temporary" solutions and hear complaints about payment from time to time.
Also in a 8vs8 singles today each player gets up to 45 counters (minimum is 28), while the ref always gets 45. To give some perspective (first column is maximum per player, second is ref):
(do note that it is the absolute maximum, that requires all mons to have training items and all KOC available to be achieved.
We know that bigger matches pay better because it was supposed to be that way...it was "by design". But why is that?
Iirc, back on the KO bonus era, the reason was so people take bigger matches as much as the smaller ones. The (correct) argument is that, if 2 1vs1 net you the same UC as 1 2vs2, it is best to ref 1 1vs1 and then another, then to ref 1 2vs2, as you will end up with the same amount of UC, but with half of it before the end. I assume that reasoning is still valid
In other words, it is to prevent the "time" factor from making one kind of battle always superior.
The problem is: since we have no specific rules for doubles or triples or quartets or brawls or whatever, time factor is still making one kind of battle preferable. If you can ref (same goes for players) a 8vs8 brawl and a 8vs8 singles and in a brawl you finish earlier (even if you work at the exact same pace, you will wait less for the battlers and the battle will have less "dead time" so you will finish it earlier), and both give the same amount of counters which one will you prefer?
If we want a "balanced" game in the sense that all kinds of battle have similar cost-benefit (obviously one will have better cost-benefit as said above, but at least we can make the gap not so big), then we need to account for time. Longer battles need to be rewarded more than shorter battles, even if the work put into both is the same, as work isn't everything.
If this means that brawl should be rewarded less or that big singles should be rewarded more, I don't know (I would prefer if something like the KO Bonus is implemented once more). It is up to whoever holds the power to decide (as it is more of an opinion then a matter or right or wrong answer, as seen in the bananas hide tag). But the proportions are borked if we consider the intentions behind the system implemented. IIRC and IMO, obviously.
I guess you can say that these referees of such matches got... brawled out!
Lame puns aside, with regards to TLR UC I have a proposal up in another thread that increases payout but given no one has got any real objection to it I should probably implement it sometime soon.
I still support that "Brawl Penalty" I brought up in one of those discussions though I am not going to go further on the issue.
Birkal, self-refereeing will occur once the referee training program is implemented. The referee training program would be implemented faster if there was more than a single solitary individual working on it.
Tortferngatr: As someone who used Sableye very often - yes, Sableye can win a surprising amount of damage races. And yes, Sableye completely rapes those Pokemon that rely on disruptive tactics as opposed to brute force (priority Imprison is absolutely evil). However, Sableye also has unexpected holes. For example, once the opponent subs against Pain Split and perhaps Metal Burst, there's nearly nothing Sableye can do to prevent him from battering the Ghost-type with special attacks. GL trying to outdamage any competent special-oriented Fire-type, for example (well, except Chandelure and Delphox I suppose?).
Sableye IS good, of course. And against the right opponents, it really makes you feel like "I can do jack swat against this little bugger". But a lot of Pokemon work the same way, and in NO way is Stall the reason for this. Heck, in my Gym I NEVER use Stall as an ability, and Sableye still rocks. Sableye's real strength is Prankster, and all the tools it has to go along with that ability.
My experience in SICK (as little as it is) has generally been that Metal Burst's strength lies more in its ability to shut out the possibility of hitting it with any sort of threatening damage types (if it's at all ahead in the damage race) by threatening a Metal Burst sub of Sableye's own.
I guess my new (salty) question is "how do you sub for Pain Split and Metal Burst when you're Taunted/Imprisoned/Tormented?"
You're exactly right Birkal, people are going to find a way to break the system for the most UC no matter what kind of rule we put in place. You very well may spend 4 hours in a night/day on an 8v8 brawl and its your prerogative to spend your free time doing so. This game has always and will always be skewed towards those with more time to gain counters and I am accepting of that. Myself I have limited free time to referee on here and chose to channel that time into reffing Tournament and Gym matches with quality over quantity as I feel these are a strong benefit to our community. Its not something I do for the UC its because I like to see these important showcase matches given the proper treatment (see: the war to actually keep flavour in ASB that I have long since given up on. Despite what Texas may post when opening up gym reffing to all that "flavour is manditory in gym matches" I still see it lacking far too often.) That said it frustrates me to watch someone rake in 20 TMs worth of UC for 2 rounds of Wide Guard - Dazzling Gleam+Dazzling Gleam while I gain 19 UC for a hard fought 16 round near 5 month gym match with complete flavour in every round (http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/poison-engineer-pikachu-vs-frosty.3500006/page-3). Something is broken in this system when I'd be tactically better off ignoring the parts of this game we should be highlighting (not that I intend to change my mindset regardless of the lack of resolution I am sure will come from this)
EDIT: By no means am I intending to single anyone out in this post. Merely responding to a comment that Birkal made which sparked my train of thought.
This is a post to say I am trying to keep track of discussion.
Pain Split: Wait, nobody put this up? Okay, I'm sorry for being late. Fractional BAP on Attacks: Let's just put this to Voting. It's a matter of preference rather than balance, IMHO? Big Root Draining Kiss: There were some IRC chatter over this, so I suppose I shall put it up too. +4 damage Fairy Item: Pink Bow sounds nice, unless we see very strong objections against it. I might move it to Voting, but if anyone can provide feedback in the meantime it would be nice too. Frisk: Moving to Discussion so we can sort things out better.
* * * * *
UC payouts (again): Personally I've long since given up on trying to fight that battle on the battleground we call Policy Center. We just have too many ideas, and in the end, like Birks said, people will simply move on to the next fastest, most efficient way to farm. I've pretty much taken the stance deadfox did - only doing long battles with good flavour because I want to do them, not because I want the UC (it partly has to do with how affluent I am, yeah).
IMO, flavourful prose is a thing thrown out the window a long time ago, when we decided to quantify rewards, and define mechanics numerically. Forgive me if I offend, but the notion that "good flavour is important in ASB" is merely an illusion clung on by people who still choose to do so. I still hope I can count myself amongst these fanciful peeps though.
So, anyone need a referee on long, thoughtful 4v4 matches and above?
I still don't see why we can't reward those longer matches though. Yes, people will still flock to the brawls and the flashmatches because they're quicker and more efficient, but but when 2-3 days of work gets you 45 UC while 5 months of dedication gets you 19 UC, I can't help but feel like something is wrong. And I still haven't seen an argument against the "2*# of Pokemon on battlefield per side*# of rounds" formula except for a somewhat weak "well what about one action rounds" argument, which has two solutions;
1) Fuck it, does a measely 2 UC really matter all that much?
2) If people are well and truly concerned about this, make it so only rounds that make it to A2 count
I'd like to see some actual discussion on this; while I don't care about what the brawls make, I do agree with deadfox that the long flavourful matches aren't worth nearly enough right now, and I'd like to fix it if at all possible, not because I have some misguided notion of "bringing back long and flavourful matches" but because people willing to referee such matches deserve it.
I still don't see why we can't reward those longer matches though. Yes, people will still flock to the brawls and the flashmatches because they're quicker and more efficient, but but when 2-3 days of work gets you 45 UC while 5 months of dedication gets you 19 UC, I can't help but feel like something is wrong. And I still haven't seen an argument against the "2*# of Pokemon on battlefield per side*# of rounds" formula except for a somewhat weak "well what about one action rounds" argument, which has two solutions;
1) Fuck it, does a measely 2 UC really matter all that much?
2) If people are well and truly concerned about this, make it so only rounds that make it to A2 count
I'd like to see some actual discussion on this; while I don't care about what the brawls make, I do agree with deadfox that the long flavourful matches aren't worth nearly enough right now, and I'd like to fix it if at all possible, not because I have some misguided notion of "bringing back long and flavourful matches" but because people willing to referee such matches deserve it.
Removing the *2 would make the UC pay more closely match the UC pay we have now, only off by .75 UC/round or more for 8v8 and 9v9 brawls, of all the battle types I've seen a significant amount of (8v8s give 2.5 UC/pokemon round, as I call it, and 9v9s give about 3).
I know this because I was trying to see how fair the UC payout is and have been collecting data on the lengths of almost all battles in this ASB for quite a while.
The problem with flavor (and we have had this discussion before) is you can't really reliably measure good and bad flavor. Who is gonna judge that? Based in which criteria? Where is the fine line between good and bad flavor?
For your everyday matches, it doesn't work. It may work for certain RPs or for tourneys or gym where the manager/committee can demand good flavor and judge them (since they ARE paying for that specifically) and put standard prizes assuming flavor is done (and denying said prizes for refs that don't flavor). ED does it on the Adventure Battles (somewhat) and the Gym Committee may do it if they choose to (but don't, or else I wouldn't ever get it). But for Battle Tower? In those flavor is a bonus and deciding how much it is worth or if it is good enough for said bonus is so tricky and hard that I'd much rather avoid that subject entirely.
But I (very) strongly feel that we should boost the type of matches we want to see more. We should bump up the UC gains from long singles/doubles matches (Again: revive the KO Bonus UC or something along those lines) and we should bump up the UC gains from Gym Matches and Key RPs (and demand flavor). If we are to have a kind of battle better rewarding, better make those the battles we want people to have.
I'm not necessarily trying to reward flavour, just long matches in general. Long matches tend to be more flavourful (especially Gyms), but not always. I just find it somewhat ridiculous that a 5v5 Singles match that will almost certainly go on for months is only worth 19 UC. That seems absolutely ridiculous to me, and it's no wonder people don't want to ref long matches if they pay that badly. I would much rather spend my nights reffing 1v1 flashies or 8v8 brawls than reffing a match that I won't get to claim from for a few months and that won't get me nearly as much UC overall.
Mulan, that's kind of the point; as things currently stand shorter matches are rewarded more. My formula gives similar amounts as the normal formula for shorter matches, or even less (singles flashie is 2-4 UC unless it goes past two rounds somehow, 8v8 Brawl is likely 32 UC (16 per round, two rounds), but gives a lot more for longer matches (the 5v5 Singles that deadfox mentioned that netted him a mere 19 UC would get him 32 UC with my formula). I think these numbers are relatively fair, maybe people will complain that brawls are worth less than they should be but otherwise I think everything works out okay. I'd like to have some more thoughts on this formula (or a similar formula; I know Gerard was talking about an exponential one that would actually reward longer matches more, but I think that's unnecessary; I want long matches to be rewarded equally to short matches, not more so).
