TLR and combination moves

[zarator]

Provisionally approved by Texas Cloverleaf (i.e. he reserves the right to shut this down if the OP is "half assed" - his wording^^)


Before getting to the actual issue, I want to lay down... let's call it a "philosophical principle" which, in my opinion, should not be under discussion by anyone here but still must be kept in mind when we debate over this issue. Still, if you disagree with it or with how it is worded, feel free to reply.

A challenge, no matter how hard, must be defeatable in some way that doesn't rely on highly unrealistic or situational conditions.

In other words, assuming the challenger brings the best possible team, no major hax is involved, and neither the challenger nor the referee make any mistakes, the challenger should have a good chance at succeeding.

Note, this is different from saying that "you just need to bring the right mons and you automatically win". Far from it. In fact, "not making any mistakes" may be easier said than done. However, the concept in itself should be easily understandable and highly agreed on.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that this premise is out of the way, let's get down to the actual business. It is often said that Legend Runs are one of the hardest if not the hardest challenges of whole ASB. And for good reason, since legendaries are perhaps the most sought-after concrete rewards an ASB player could imagine. Why would we put them (or the Master Balls useful to catch them) as rewards for our most prestigious tournaments, otherwise?

However, no matter how hard, they are still challenges. And therefore, they must be beatable - quoting myself here, "in some way that doesn't rely on highly unrealistic or situational conditions". In TLR, these "unrealistic/situational conditions" can be summed up as: (1) RNG, or (2) a TLR ref making mistakes throughout the run. If a TLR relies on either of those elements to be defeatable by a challenger that brings the best possible team you can conceive (or as close to this ideal as imagineable) and makes no actual mistakes during the run, then it means the TLR was not well designed. Period (I'm still assuming you agree on the bolded principle above, ofc).

Now, are TLRs beatable? Some certainly are. Mysterious Cove and Enchanted Meadow are undisputably defeatable (note: we are not concerned with the level of difficulty here. We are just concerned with whether a certain challenge can be defeated or not, regardless of how easy or difficult it is to do so). But is the same true of Legendary and Uber TLRs? I see little evidence of it. To my memory, no Uber Run has ever been completed successfully (legend captured) in these years, and several Legendary Runs are still undefeated too.

Before continuing, I'd like to point out that I think a large part of the fault here belongs to the developers and their sloppiness in playtesting extensively their dungeons. Or rather, they were probably so worried about the legendaries being "trophies" and the TLRs intended to be "Nintendo Hard", making sure no given combination of Pokemon/items could single-handedly defeat the TLR in question - that they forgot to check if ANY combination at all could realistically defeat it. I've been assured that playtesting happened or will happen for these runs. But on one hand, if actual playtesting really happened in the past, I would not be here, posting a topic like this. On the other hand, I have good reason to be skeptical about the mindset of these playtests at the current time, especially given the TLRs that have been more recently under development (yes, I'm hinting to Planet's Fury).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the problem is outlined, so we can come to what, in my opinion, is the main culprit: combination moves. All readers will probably be familiar with them, given how influential have been in ASB since their inception. Yet, I feel they are largely unhealthy to the TLR environment, for several reasons:

1) While both the challenger and the TLR ref can use them, only the latter has a real gain from their use. Combination moves are incredibly costly, from 10-15 energy to over 25. Given how long a TLR is, most players simply cannot afford to use combination moves in most battles, even when they're ordering second. The TLR referee, on the other hand, keeps getting 100 energy mons at every new battle, and as the TLR proceeds, the opportunity to use combination moves increase drastically (see the point below).
2) Combination moves ensure an almost granted kill on Guardians, and can consistently keep the momentum on the referee's side throughout the Boss battle. The referee gets to always order second on Guardians. Which means that it has a very easy time using combination moves without any retaliation from the challenger, once substitutions have been circumvented. And while the Guardians of training TLRs are generally too weak (read: not always) to focus and kill a healthy mon, things change in Legendary and Uber TLRs. For example, the Guardians of Planet's Fury are either of the two: Hydreigon + Haxorus and Kingdra + Goodra. Now, can you give me an example of any Pokemon reasonably healthy who can survive a focused assault from these beasts with Hyper Beam based combinations and what not? If you can, please show actual calculations in the process.
Naturally, this issue is even more aggravated on the boss battle. Ordering second every time, the boss can and will punch major holes in a team that will reasonably be all but healthy at that point.
3) Combination focused attacks are very hard to stop. This is perhaps the biggest problem. Even if everyone and their mother can see a gang-up assault coming in these scenarios, what can you do to stop them? Any countermeasure you can think of requires a proper sub, and a proper sub requires a proper condition to be triggered. Such proper conditions often require to be highly specific to be of any efficacy (ex: "If targetted by a damaging Flying-type combo, use Protect"), and for every sub you use to cover yourself this way, you're leaving yourself open to Taunt, Hypnosis, Thunder Wave and other moves. Moreover, a lot of the usual "countermeasures" to these moves are not effective in TLRs (ex: Counter/Mirror Coat cost too much energy and still don't prevent the damage taken).



For these reasons (and others which I guess will emerge during the discussion), I'm proposing to ban combination moves from TLRs completely - both for the challenger and for the TLR ref. If you feel this would make some TLRs too easy, we can always revise them to update their difficulty as such (and playtest them). But I feel we'll never get around making reasonably beatable TLRs without getting combinations out of the way.

Do you still doubt my words? Do you feel it is not true that combinations ensure kills easily for the TLR ref? Here are some examples through history:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...r-pikachu-black-sulfur-caldera.3475891/page-2 : on Guardians battle, only a really lucky flinch prevented Engineer Pikachu from eating a combination attack from Camerupt (although it could be argued that Camerupt and Gigalith would have been better off just focusing Tentacruel or Revenankh rather than a wide-ranging attack that would not have killed anything, but I digress)

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/the-legend-run-windswept-meadow-the-wanderer.3479329/ : A good sample of how devastating can combo moves be - Wanderer loses a mon to a combo gang from Guardians, then Shaymin executes the rest of the squad with a sequence of combination moves.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...44-maxim-ruined-eden-completed.3479263/page-2 : Guardians use combination moves on round 1 to mop the floor with Dogfish44's team.

 

[Gerard]

As one of the biggest abusers of combos in TLR I can confirm everythibg Zara said, when I'm using any mon on TLR as ref all I think is that red shirts are disposable, the legend is all that matters.

The reason for this is simple really, baby pokemon can't scratch FE pokemon with their regular moves, that is unless they overcompensate with the BP of their moves (which more often than not means, you guessed it, a combo), it's not just about spamming combos, it's that is the only thibg we can do to try to take down FE pokemon (though it depends on wheter you think a LC mon should be a piece of cake or should have a fighting chance).

IMO banning combinations sounds pretty good, stopping the easy kills with the uninterrupted spamming of high powered combinations. (If this is confusing blame the lack of sleep x.x)

 

[Its_A_Random]

There goes that Helioturn Soak + Surf > Parabolic Charge combination that I based the Amperage Stream Guardians around... :|

In all seriousness I am not opposed to this. I feel like the aforementioned Guardian duo was an example of how combinations are used to not KO the opponents but to facilitate a powerful, creative strategy that while beatable and predictable, can certainly smash someone unprepared (like Arcanite was... to be fair he did not exactly have an idea what was coming). It is strategies like that which can make combinations a healthy aspect of TLR but I am afraid that even I have to admit that it is a mere diamond in the rough when it comes to combinations in TLR's (even if you would call it that). There is no denying that combination spamming is a very powerful tactic when used right. There are a lot of opportunities for a referee to use such combinations to try and put the opponent on the back foot and while some successes may only prove to be a minor inconvenience, some can also be a game-changer. Maybe a nerf on combinations in TLR (Or even a ban) will be necessary looking forward. All I can say is that banning combinations will make TLR's generally easier but not by much. Some encounters will be more affected by the ban like the aforementioned Amperage Stream Guardians but that is beside the point. The point is that if you are expecting TLR's to be far easier without combinations, think again.

Also I would not like to say that TLR's like Heaven's Ascent and The Planet's Fury are impossible; there is no proof to prove that they are. By the same margin, there is no proof to say they are not impossible either. Had I not forfeited my Heaven's Ascent run I reckon I would have had a good shot at making the bosses but only barely because of what the mechanics were like at the time (one substitution, luck-based capture). The only TLR that could be considered close to impossible is old Tower of Ash (close to if only because there was a full recovery reward for winning a particular battle) but that is completely irrelevant considering it is awaiting a revamp. Perhaps banning combinations could be the magic bullet that makes HA and TPF as beatable as envisioned (Very difficult without proper preparation, difficult with proper preparation).

That said if anyone wants to help play-test a TLR for fun, I or dogfish will consider it. Just take note that there will be no rewards in doing so and that the play-test will most likely happen in private. I will be looking for play-testers for a revamped Molten Lake when I get around to finishing it. It still needs a lot of work done on it and even once first draft done it will probably be reviewed. Just be aware that the TLR is themed towards a generally high power level primarily because Entei now learns Sacred Fire and if someone wants to get that move sketched for their Smeargle/Necturna... ×.×

 

[Frosty]

Okay I am completely and utterly against this so let's roll...

Combinations are only part of the game. So if TLRs are hard this isnt because of combos but because they are hard as a whole.

It is 100% silly to blame combos for how hard tlrs are. If the designer didn't consider combos as for as difficulty goes, then they need to remember that this is ASB and combos are a big part in this game. In other words it is because the TLR wasn't well designed.

Also, this:

The reason for this is simple really, baby pokemon can't scratch FE pokemon with their regular moves, that is unless they overcompensate with the BP of their moves (which more often than not means, you guessed it, a combo), it's not just about spamming combos, it's that is the only thibg we can do to try to take down FE pokemon (though it depends on wheter you think a LC mon should be a piece of cake or should have a fighting chance).

Is the core of the reasons why I feel that combos are necessary in TLR. A Good team can completely demolish Lackeys and Guardians alltogether assuming combos are out. And now that TLR is open-source, this is incredibly easy to do.

I don't want to have what is supposed to be the hardest RP here being decided mostly on teambuilding. Not only it is dull and boring, but also it is way too easy and removes the greatest charm about TLRs: the surprise factor. We removed part of that factor when we decided to make it public (which was good) and now we decide to remove another huge chunk by taking away what can probably is the only choice most lackeys/guardians have at dealing some kind of damage.

If you want to put a limitation, then go with the overall policy and ban combos that result in ENKO as it makes sense. But to ban combos as a whole is like trying to fix a broken wall by putting a curtain on it. You won't fix the problem really. Especially when you consider that the TLRs will just be designed with other weapons.

I honestly can't see the merit in any of the arguments brought here. To be specific:

1) In all RPs the ref has nothing to lose and still we never even considered banning combos on halls, subways or pikes. Hell they are probably the only thing that give a fighting chance to most mons used on those rps (imagine hall without combos, it would be easy as fuck and don't get me started on using crappy-movepool Scolipede to fight an Infernape without combos on subway). Of all RPs, TLRs are supposed to be the hardest, then why the fuck are we even considering a nerf that wasn't ever considered in other RPs?

2) I answer that question with a question of my own: what do you think Guardians are there for? Guardians are the only battle where the challenger goes first. The only time the TLR has to actually damage stuff is on the Guardians (and some traps, but mostly guardians). So if you say that they get an almost granted kill my answers are: a) Go look at all guardians battle. In many of them the player managed to get away without losing any of the strong pokemon they brought. So if that is "granted" then our TLR refs are, no offense, horrible players, and they arent. So this is more overreacting (it is not granted...while it may help a lot, it still required an opening by the challenger) then a true problem with combos; b) Hell yeah good that it happens. I mean, you can use up to 7 pokemon (6 on balls + 1 revive) on a run and now that it is open sourced, the real opportunities to bring causalities to a team are really rare, so if guardians, which is the very best opportunity to deal damage in TLR, have a good chance at taking down a mon, then great, as they are filling their job properly. If you don't want guardians to be able to take down a mon, then I really question the role you think they have, other than giving you counters and good fodders for captures.

3) It would be true if the mons on TLR had Taunt, Thunder Wave, Torment, Encore, Destiny Bond and many good attacking options (most of the time they have one or the other, making combos predictable). But guess what: they don't. Movepools of Guardians are iffy. Also, this (being "hard" to counter) goes with combos in every single part of ASB, from tourneys to gyms to RPs (look at Pwnemon vs Rediamond take 2 for example), and we are not banning them alltogether because of that. And, I don't mean this as an offense, but if you waste a sub to prevent paralysis and keep your guard wide open against a combo that can ko one of your mons, then you fucking deserve to lose that mon. Subbing is all about choosing the 2 most threatening things your opponent can do to you and prepare for it, so if you feel that Thunder Wave>Combo, then...well...you deserve the consequences. Also, this is triples, which means that you have 6 subs to work with. Thanks to moves like Fake Out, Torment, Disable, Imprison and fucking passed Protect, you only need 1 sub (from 6) to block combo attempts. If you use 3, then, again, you deserve to feel the consequences.


If you feel that TLRs are too hard, then redesign them not to be as such. I have no problems with that. I do have a huge problem in removing combos since:
a) This is still ASB and combos are a big part of it. As ASB's supposed-to-be hardest RP, it is only logical that the TLR uses everything ASB has to offer. Especially if you consider that other supposed-to-be-easier RPs have combos normally (and raids have then banned for the challenger making it even harder);
b) Most Lackeys have little chance at beating or dealing some kind of damage to well-built teams (something we will see more and more thanks to open source) without combos. If you remove them without boosting the difficulty or making adjustments to movepools, you will end up with a RP decided mostly by teambuilding, which sucks;
c) TLRs are all about surprise factor. We lost a lot of that with open source and this proposal makes us lose a lot more. You can't expect surprise factor to be suficient when the only source of it is the MC alocation that allows you have a unstabbed maybe super-effective attack on a mediocre mon that is weak against your pokemon. You will still lose and lose BADLY. Its like this as far as element of surprise goes.
d) Abra is probably the trap mon that has collected the most KOs against strong mons on MC, so let's remove it? Also, Coil Eelektrik + Psych Up Metang is a pair that many have falled against, so down it goes too by that logic. The same with critical hits as it stopped at least 2 legendaries captures to be finished. They are all factors of the game, pieces of the entire thing. You need to see the forest and not just the trees. It doesn't matter that you remove the broken pipe if the entire water circuit is broken. The same way, you can't hope to fix TLRs but removing one thing when many other things are also broken.
e) Combos are not the main culprit and banning them will not fix TLR. I mean, take Mystic Marsh, even without combos I lost 2 pokemon to a trap simply because of poor (aka hard) design. The main culprit, if there is any, is that the designer didn't consider combos (which is a mechanic that must be considered) and other stuff in the overall difficulty of the TLR. The TLR is hard because it is hard, not because combos are a thing. If you remove combos while keeping the standards of TLRs the same, the designer will simply find a different way to create a challenge. You need to change the standards and not the mechanics. Let TLR still be fucking ASB with everything it has to offer and simply advocate a decrease in difficulty.

Finally, just to make one information clear: afaik there were a grand total of 2 Completed Uber TLR serious runs: Galladiator's Windswept Meadow (ended before Shaymin due to Galladiator being Galladiator <_<) and The Wanderer's Windswept Meadow (got to Shaymin and it is really rare to have capture on the first attempt that got to the boss on pre-open-source era). So saying that "no uber tlr ended in capture" is like saying that you are the smartest of the three stooges...


And now I am late to work. Thank you >_<;.

 

[zarator]

Ok, I'll try and tackle Frosty's points one by one

1) Combos are a part of ASB, therefore they must be a part of TLR as well

This is really not an argument at all. ASB mechanics were not designed with TLRs in mind. If a given mechanic is broken in a certain RP, one way or the other, you simply ban it. End of story. Do you really think, for example, that raids would have worked if I did not ban a bazillon of moves or if I did not give bosses an incredible array of resistances/immunities? Sure, we try as hard as we can to keep a certain element within the game. For example, I nerfed Water Gun in raids (otherwise it'd have been utterly broken), but I didn't ban it altogether. Same with Leech Seed, status moves, and so on. The same concept applies to TLR.

2) Combos aren't overpowered in Battle Hall, Battle Subway or Battle Pike, therefore they are not overpowered in TLR either

How is this a sensible comparison? In Battle Hall and Subway, your mons get healed after every battle, the challenger always orders second except against the boss, and even then, the boss only orders second the first round and every two rounds after that. In the Battle Pike, your mons do not get healed like on TLR (unless you get lucky with doors), however you still get to order first almost always - and most importantly, battles are always Singles. If you read my argument carefully, I claim comboes are broken in Guardians and Boss battles, where not only you order first but you face two or more Pokemon (one Pokemon alone is unlikely to kill another with combinations if you subbed decently, but two Pokemon - especially if FE - have all the power they need to obliterate any Pokemon of your squad they want out of their way).

3) Banning combos won't fix the difficulty of TLRs

This is true, but as a critique to my OP it really misses the point. I never claimed that we just need to ban combos to fix TLRs. Only a fool would think such a thing. What I'm trying to say is that, without combos out of the picture, it is simply impossible to fix TLR unless, I dunno, we vastly improve the size of all backpacks. But making TLRs once again more CC consuming doesn't seem the best choice to me.

In short, one thing is to say that banning combos is sufficient to fix TLRs, another is to say that banning combos is necessary to fix TLRs. You attack me on the former, but what I'm really claiming is the latter.

4) A Good team can completely demolish Lackeys and Guardians altogether assuming combos are out

As IAR pointed out as well, if we take combos out of the window, we may have to re-tune some of the TLRs we designed. I'm the first to admit it, and I don't find it to be a problem. But, once again, it is not a critique to my point. As I explained in reply to point (3), my claim is not that all we need to do is banning combos and call it a day. Rather, the first step we ought to take if we are to fix TLRs is to ban combos, then we can work out whatever comes next.

And about the "baby Pokemon", have you ever taken a look at the Legendary/Uber Guardians? Are they "baby Pokemon"? Frankly, judging from some of your comments ("this is more overreacting (it is not granted...while it may help a lot, it still required an opening by the challenger) then a true problem with combos"), you seem to make a thinly veiled reference to my own TLR run that you are reffing. Well, flash news. None of my critiques is aimed at EM or training TLRs in general. Quoting from my own OP,

Mysterious Cove and Enchanted Meadow are undisputably defeatable

My main issue is with how combos can be gamebreaking when they come not from, say, Eelektrik or Tropius, but from beasts like Hydreigon or Goodra. Not only the latter two pack a lot more power, but their arsenal of coverage moves is so deep that it makes it really impossible for the challenge to cover every possible combo - let alone non-combo chicanery.

And, to close my rant about point (4), why are you even talking about Lackeys? Lackeys have zero chance to actually abuse combinations, since they order first and, as you said, they're generally too weak to pose a challenge with or without combos to any team that has a reasonable chance to reach the Boss. So why are you even bringing them up?

5) Without combos, the surprise factor goes out of the window.

I'm not even sure as to what this point is supposed to mean. I guess what you mean is that, without combinations, it is too simple to order first against Guardians/Boss and sub for every possible countermove they may pack. If this is what you mean (please enlighten me otherwise), I cannot really agree with. MC pools can be increased. Even NFE mons, given they pack enough MC, generally come with enough moves to pose more than 1/2 challenges to a team (Kirlia is perhaps the most obvious example). But in the end, this is just a rewording of point (4) - that is, without combos, Lackeys/Guardians are too easy to defeat. I've discussed why this is misguided at length above so I won't repeat myself here.

6)

It would be true if the mons on TLR had Taunt, Thunder Wave, Torment, Encore, Destiny Bond and many good attacking options (most of the time they have one or the other, making combos predictable). But guess what: they don't. Movepools of Guardians are iffy. Also, this (being "hard" to counter) goes with combos in every single part of ASB, from tourneys to gyms to RPs (look at Pwnemon vs Rediamond take 2 for example), and we are not banning them alltogether because of that. And, I don't mean this as an offense, but if you waste a sub to prevent paralysis and keep your guard wide open against a combo that can ko one of your mons, then you fucking deserve to lose that mon. Subbing is all about choosing the 2 most threatening things your opponent can do to you and prepare for it, so if you feel that Thunder Wave>Combo, then...well...you deserve the consequences. Also, this is triples, which means that you have 6 subs to work with. Thanks to moves like Fake Out, Torment, Disable, Imprison and fucking passed Protect, you only need 1 sub (from 6) to block combo attempts. If you use 3, then, again, you deserve to feel the consequences.

This point really deserved to be quoted fully because... I don't even know where to begin. How can you even believe that, with 1 sub, you can block "all" combo attempts? As far as I know, the only clause that we really have to stop combinations is:

Damaging [Type] Combinations: All combinations that are of [Type] will activate the substitution. NOTE: A damaging [Type] combination activates a substitution for damaging [Type] moves.

This basically means that, for every type that can hurt one of your team mate badly, you need 1 substitution. Unless all your Pokemon share the same type, and said type has few weaknesses (like, say, 3 pure Fairy-types in Planet's Fury), you generally need to sub for 2, 3, sometimes even 4 types of substitutions. Even then, what are you going to do if said Pokemon do resort to combinations and activate your sub?

Fake Out has a sharply limited distribution, and is limited to a few Normal-, Psychic-, Dark-types and little else. Torment and Disable don't stop combinations used on the 1st round (where it matters the most). Imprison has a limited distribution and, most importantly, it relies on your Pokemon knowing the attacking moves it needs to block - and in most cases except for Ghost-types, Pokemon generally don't learn many of the attacking moves they're weak to. Protect is really the only reliable, widespread answer to combination moves. However, one single use of Protect against a combination drains generally around 20 energy from the Protect user, which is a lot considering you still have to defeat the aforementioned Guardians/Bosses too. Finally, using so many substitutions opens you wide to all sort of abuse. In the best case, the Guardians will be able to completely avoid any sort of damage (which can be acceptable but is still a major energy drain for the team to withstand). In the worst, they'll be able to wreak all sort of havoc - Taunt, Encore, even sheer damage that hasn't been subbed for because it'd have required a different answer than the respective combinated attack. When you are forced to spend so many subs for so little gain, it's kinda awkward to say "you deserve to feel the consequences".

In short, as I explained well in my OP, combinations are generally very hard to stop because it is hard to substitute effectively against them - even when you know they are coming your way. When I read "if you feel that Thunder Wave>Combo, then...well...you deserve the consequences", I wonder if you really read what I've been saying so far.

7) What do you think Guardians are there for? If you don't want guardians to be able to take down a mon, then I really question the role you think they have, other than giving you counters and good fodders for captures?

They should be able to take down a mon, yes. Like traps, like hordes, like rare encounters etc. But they should not be granted to take down a Pokemon (while still roughing down the others) - not when the aforementioned traps/hordes/rare encounters are also very likely to take one or more Pokemon out (especially after the Guardian match), and any decent Pokemon you can capture during the TLR (especially when the captured Pokemon will come with around 60 HP and 70 Energy, assuming you captured it with Heal Ball). And don't tell me stall, because any Pokemon can deny stalls just by battering the team with combos, using Taunt/Encore or just energy exhausting themselves and deny them the time to recover forces.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is basically all I had to say about Frosty's remarks. I'm sorry if I had to be this verbose, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and prejudice around here, therefore I need to be as accurate and clear as possible in exposing my reasons. But if you are too lazy and need just a direct, short answer, here comes your tl;dr reply:

The main culprit, if there is any, is that the designer didn't consider combos (which is a mechanic that must be considered) and other stuff in the overall difficulty of the TLR. The TLR is hard because it is hard, not because combos are a thing. If you remove combos while keeping the standards of TLRs the same, the designer will simply find a different way to create a challenge. You need to change the standards and not the mechanics. Let TLR still be fucking ASB with everything it has to offer and simply advocate a decrease in difficulty.

Designers may have or not have considered combos (I doubt they didn't, given what IAR said). But hard as it is, TLRs just can't be anything other than impossible with combos unless you use NFE mons all over the place or super-sized backpacks. I totally agree that "if you remove combos while keeping the standards of TLRs the same, the designer will simply find a different way to create a challenge", but without combos it is much easier to scale challenges accurately, because of the reduced randomness. Standards cannot be changed as much as they need to if we don't change mechanics first, just like Raids. Let TLR be fucking TLR while ASB stays fucking ASB, thank you (or are raids not ASB anymore? Or is this even a problem?).

 

[Frosty]

You know I really liked those huge wall-of-text debates back in the day. Dunno why.

Also "back in the day" makes me sound old.

anyway, let's try to answer this:

1) Combos weren't made with TLR in mind and if a mechanic breaks any RP then it should be banned: I don't really like that line of thought to be honest here. TLR were never made to be intriscically different from other matches or RPs. It is simply a set of triples matches with Switch=KO rules. It was made that way. Raids weren't made to follow that standard and neither were say Adventure Battles or Labyrinth or some other buried away RPs. If ASB mechanics weren't made with TLR in mind (unless Deck had that idea all along), the same can't be said about the opposite. In other words: TLR were made with ASB Mechanics in mind. What you are suggesting goes completely against logic itself. Instead of changing the TLR to be adjusted to the ASB Mechanics we change the Mechanics to be adjusted to TLR. It is an unnecessary approach and is only worth the trouble if you can't make things work at all using the mechanics as we know. The examples you brought were all pre-revamps (that are still ongoing) so your argument that combos make TLR impossible to be balanced (more on that later) is 100% unbased theorymon, simply because we haven't really seen how adjusted TLRs work to even begin to draw conclusions. You are simply jumping the gun here.

2) Halls are Halls, Subway is Subway and Pike is Pike. This is sparta TLR and things work differently: Well, no. The problem you are stating here (which is indeed a problem, I will give you that) is the problem involving ordering last, which is augmented in doubles and triples, but is also there in singles. So every single facility/gym/BTMatch etc that have "order-last" mechanics (read: anything not called Raids) have that exact same problem. And guess what: it can be fixed! You can put healing items on TLRs, you can limit movepool so combos are predictable or you can put a mixture of both. If you determine that guardians battle deal more damage than you would want to, then you simply include a Revive or a Potion (depending on how much damage we are talking about) after that and problem solved, without having to change the bloody mechanics. The situation is much worse on, say, gym matches where a bad round on doubles against a player that orders last = defeat pure and simple. You are facing doubles yeah, but you have more mons, you know which opponents you will face when teambuilding, your opponents will have shitty movepools and you have the option of going to Healing items later (if none are available then you can argue about it being a problem with design).

I have that exact same problem on Pike. Pike is singles, yeah it is, but on Pike if you lose one pokemon you will lose against Lucy unless you pull a miracle out of your ass (or unless your ref is drunk); while on TLR you can get the capture with 2 mons (especially considering that you will know beforehand who you will face and it is not exactly hard to counterteam. So the KO result is much worse on Pike than it is on the TLR, which balance it all somewhat. In the end I had to include healings after ill doors and am considering doing other stuff so that there isn't that much problem with order-last situations and last-ditch actions. Without changing the bloody mechanics, since it isn't necessary. If we change the mechanics everytime a RP or facility has problems, then we will end up with a crapload of different games here. Unless your intention was to create something different (see: raids, adventure battles etc), the facilities should follow the same set of rules.

3) Banning Combos is necessary to fix TLR: I severely doubt that. The TLR revamps are still in motion and still we haven't seen any specific changed aimed to fix a specific TLR with combos. You are jumping the gun here big time basing yourself solely on theorymon. As I said, you don't need to make backpacks ridiculous: just include healing items on the way. Also, the capture mechanics help a lot in that regard (fodders) so there is a lot of a work that can be done on that. Dude at least try to keep the bloody mechanics and fix the TLR through other means. Even if you remove combos, you will still have to adjust all the other stuff, so from an efficiency point of view, it isn't the best option available. Such a drastic measure must be reserved for when it is needed, not just wanted. And IMO right now, especially considering that the revamp process isn't anywhere near finished, it is only wanted, not needed.

4) Baby pokemon and other stuff: Well there are a lot of points here, so I will just list my answers:
- Lackeys are important because if you remove combos to one, you will remove to all. And without combos, the odds that lackeys ever do stuff is minimal against a well-thought team. Again: a drastic measure can only be used if there is a real need to do so. A change like that affects every single opponent mon here so every single one of them must be brought to the table;
- Actually that comment was based on my own TLRs. I went by two TLRs: Windswept Meadow and Mystic Marsh. On Windswept Meadow I lost a full health Chandelure to an Endeavor combo (one sub = madness) vs a Swellow and on Mystic Marsh I lost...well...nothing. If it were "granted" I would have lost a pokemon in Mystic Marsh, since the ref there is a very good one, but I didn't. So it is simply an overreaction to specific events where combos made the difference. As I said and you quoted "it is not granted...while it may help a lot, it still required an opening by the challenger". If you go and throw around the word "granted" like that, you are assuming that any decent ref will be able to take down a mon, and that is simply not true.
- No I wasn't considering Planet Fury Guardians and if you want me to sign anywhere, I will sign stating that nobody deserves to face Hydreigon and Goodra on a huge TLR like that. But the same can't be said about Heracross and Lanturn (lousy synergy) or Bolderdash and Armaldo or other guardians combinations around. Again: you don't need to change mechanics to make Hydreigon + Goodra viable as opponents: You need to change the opponents so it is doable. If you intend to fix PF's or *insert specific TLR here*'s problems banning combos from TLRs as a whole, you are trying to kill a pidgeon with an atomic bomb. As I said before and will say again: a drastic measure like that can only be used if you need to do so (read: if no other measure proved to be effective enough).

5) Surprise Factor: I feel that TLRs can't be predictable. Not that being predictable is bad (raids are meant to be predictable but the real fun is in devising a team and strategy to defeat it), but TLR wasn't made to be predictable. The fun in TLR, IMO, comes in choosing the team you feel has the biggest probability in standing a change and having to handle anything that they throw at you. It is as fun as big is the variety of things that be thrown, to continue with that analogy. If you limit the options like that, you place a bigger importance on teambuilding instead of the actual run which I don't feel is the intention and I don't feel is necessary. That is what I trying to say (hopefully it is clearer).

MC allocation only goes so far. You only need 4 or 5 extra moves to counter specific threats or to make a certain strategy happen, so giving more won't do much. Also, you will have to readjust a crapload of stuff after combos are banned (without the necessity of said measure being proved), which means that this option maybe isn't the best one or the most efficient one.

Other stuff were discussed above.

6) Stopping combos: You can't expect to be able to go all-out and then hope that the substitutions will cover all your bases. You will need to have main actions already covering some of the bases and to use the ubs to cover the others that deserve to be covered.

As far as combos goes there are three kinds of really damaging combos:
a) combos that rely on a strong move to supply BAP (Hyper Beam, Giga Impact, Double-Edge, Focus Punch etc);
b) Same-move combos
c) Combos with Thundershock, Ember and Water Gun.

"A" can be beaten with Imprison, since everybody and their mother gets Hyper Beam, Giga Impact and Double Edge and most of the time you will see only one with real possibility of being used, so you can Imprison that one and cover other bases with it.

"A" (Focus Punch) is beaten with the main actions. Since you are at a 3vs2, it is highly unlikely that the opponent will be able to focus punch without paying a huge sacrifice

"B" can be beaten by Torment.

"C" usually don't deal enough damage to be a problem and the possible typings are like 4 or so, so it isn't that big of a deal. This is where Fake Out, Protect etc go.

And Disable can be used against combinations on the second action and onwards.

And there is also dig/taunt/protect/Healing Moves/combos of your own (kill them before they do so)/substitute and many other moves with wide-distribution that can be used to handle combos.

As far as move-distribution goes, I must remember you that you are creating the team. If there is a single viable pokemon that can use said moves, then there is a way.

Protect means paying 20en? yeah it does. But in return you don't have to worry about that pokemon for 2 actions. Since guardians have 4 to begin with, it is a very good trade. As far as Taunt, encore, thunder wave etc go: that is one action out of four they have to use and the consequences are minimal if compared to combos. Thunder Wave can be healed with heal bell and the like, Taunt only affects non-attacking moves and you can always get past that with 1 sub from a faster pokemon or by using damaging moves only in your strategy (suspended evasive damaging go go go). And Encore can also be fixed the exact same way as Taunt or by making sure that the possible actions you can do can't be encored or if they are, there isn't a problem. And if you mix many of the above then you waste at least 2 of the 4 actions they have to work with.

I think you understimate the possibilites of 6 subs (2 per mon). If we were talking about 1 sub rules, then you would be 100% correct, but with 2? You only need to determine the possible combos that can be used and the main targets and move accordingly. At most you will need 3 substitutions if your team share a same weakness (and at that point I must question your ability to teambuild) and the other 3 can be used against taunt and the like. You will end up losing? Hell yeah, but that is how ASB as a whole works. You minimize the damages when you order first, make the sacrifices you can make (So if you can't sub for Earthquake but you feel you can recover from it later, you don't sub and recover, even if it means stalling and stalling...but that is how it works, I guess), so you can recover and kill when you move last. Considering that it is 3vs2 (read: 6 actions + big movepool vs 4 actions + crappy movepools), it is much easier than...say...recovering from ordering first on a gym match vs Gerard.

7) Stuff:
a) It is not granted. If it were, any decent ref would always take down a pokemon on guardians and it doesn't happen that way.
b) Dude you are the king of stall in TLRs, how can you say that :(? Seriously, combos can be blocked when you are facing one mon with three of your own (can be blocked insanely easily I may add) and not many mons have taunt and the like. Stalling isn't all that hard provided that you check the data first and plan where you will recover your mons. Also encore can be seen from a mile away and you have 6 fucking subs to work with + sleep and the like.
c) 60/70 is enough for fodder. If you are afraid of moving first (and you should) then put a fodder on the main team and put your most fragile mon on the bench. Or have the fodder have low hp and use it for traps and such. Pokemon from the run aren't there to be heavy hitters: they are there to protect your heavy hitters.

8) tl;dr

Designers may have or not have considered combos (I doubt they didn't, given what IAR said). But hard as it is, TLRs just can't be anything other than impossible with combos unless you use NFE mons all over the place or super-sized backpacks. I totally agree that "if you remove combos while keeping the standards of TLRs the same, the designer will simply find a different way to create a challenge", but without combos it is much easier to scale challenges accurately, because of the reduced randomness. Standards cannot be changed as much as they need to if we don't change mechanics first, just like Raids. Let TLR be fucking TLR while ASB stays fucking ASB, thank you (or are raids not ASB anymore? Or is this even a problem?).

1) Considering that the TLRs are revamped and that that specific TLR was revamped, I doubt some did, to be honest. Most TLRs (the ones from the examples you posted mostly) came from pre-revamp era, with 1 sub and all.
2) You claim that TLRs are impossible to balance without banning combos and yet you don't ever bother to wait for the end of the revamps or to consider the possibility of trying out tweaking instead of dropping the bomb. Banning combos is a very drastic measure and there is no need for that yet. Sure if when revamps and other adjustments are over TLRs continue to be unbeatable due to combos (assuming that they are unbeatable and that it is due to combos, which I don't really agree but won't argue here), we can go back to this proposition and I will be the first to support it. But now is not that time. Not even close. No TLR started pre-revamps/open-source data/2 subs finished thus far (which is, by itself, a good sign). Let's see how they pan out before making the explosive statement that they are "beyond help" and that "banning combos" is the only option to be possible to make some kidn of adjustment. It is almost insulting (almost because they don't seem insulted haha) to the people doing the revamps that you don't trust them enough to wait for the end work before making drastic propositions.
3) TLR were made to use everything ASB has to offer and with ASB mechanics. Every single TLR was (supposed to be) geared in that regard. If you change the mechanics we will have two unwanted results: a) TLR will stray from the intentions of its creator (which may or may not be important to you, but it is to me); b) We will need to change every single TLR (even the ones that work now!) and every single scenario to adjust to that change, while otherwise we would just need to tweak the scenarios of the specific TLRs that are deemed too hard, so it won't be the most efficient option either.


My tl;dr: Banning combos is a drastic measure that can only be used if it proves to be necessary. We have had many changes in the near future, all of them geared to make TLRs manageable. It is only logical and wise to wait and see how the revamps go to analyse and conclude if TLRs are really broken and if combos really must go for them to be fixable. Going the ban route right now is jumping the gun, will result on a RP different then the enviroment it is on (without it being the intention) and probably will mean more trouble and more hassle then the other options available (tweaks and such). If all the other facilities and battles that have to deal with second-to-order advantage had to find ways to put up with that, then TLRs can and must do so as well.



Sure, if you want to discuss how huge second-to-order advantage is in ASB as a whole, it would be a discussion I would happily participate in, as I feel it is pretty ridiculous. But if you consider just TLR, there isn't anything inherently about it that makes the situation unbearable to the point of the banhammer needing to be used IMO.


PS: While I love wall-of-texts arguments, I'd advise against continuing with them, so this will be my last one. I feel I have managed to put out my arguments here, so there is no need, in my part, to keep arguing.

Also this is too time consuming, I mean jesus....

 

[starwarsfan]

I am completely against banning combinations in TLRs for one simple reason, which Frosty has covered a bit but I feel like it needs more emphasis. The banning of combinations in The Legend Run is a change that should not, cannot exist without changing the essence of The Legend Run and RPs in general.

Look at all the active RPs in ASB. Of all of them, only one has altered or banned game mechanics: Raids. This is fine, as raids were approved as an RP with mechanic changes. (I don't include Adventure Battles as they add mechanics but do not change mechanics.) When TLRs were approved there was no mention of mechanic changes. As Frosty said, they were supposed to be a series of battles with the added mechanic of captures. TLRs are designed with ASB mechanics in mind. In contrast, raids are designed with custom mechanics (altered stats, altered moves) that are based off ASB mechanics.

TLRs should mold to ASB mechanics as they are designed to do so. ASB mechanics should mold to Raids for the purpose of The Raid Zone as raids are designed as such.

The altering of game mechanics should be the absolute last step in the case of The Legend Run.

 

[zarator]

If we decide to keep combos, a lot of stuff needs to be seriously nerfed. It's absurd to think you can face two FE mons with a good BST (as Frosty noted as well) as Guardians under the current rules. And frankly, I would not like to see this turned into a "don't worry, we'll fix it eventually" kind of answer that actually takes ages to be implemented.

Maybe removing combos isn't necessary in the strict sense - as I noted myself, we could expand the backpack (or add more healing items on the way as Frosty said, which goes to the same effect) or nerf several encounters. But personally I feel that keeping combos sharply limits the freedom of TLR developers in designing encounters, because each decently powered Pokemon will be able to disintegrate a Pokemon with little effort.

And this is showed, I think, by the ridiculous behavior of the TLR refs in some respects. How many "it's not in the rules, but we don't do it out of kindness" clauses are there that we don't know of? Explosion? Knock Off? Energy exhaustion to negate stall? How many things refs don't do just to "limit themselves" and avoid to break the game? While it may not be "altering mechanics" per se, the actual effect in practice is hardly different, and makes me wonder why don't you just put such "behaviors" in the rules.

To me, this looks a lot like those Dungeon Masters in D&D who don't use their monsters to their fullest potential after they realize that the CR of the encounter they designed is too high for the adventurers -.- (I'm sure Dogfish44 will understand the metaphore)

 

[Eternal Drifter]

I am against banning combos in TLRs. Potential reasons have been stated before, so I have a suggestion of how to help challengers deal with it: give them one extra substitution, but only allow it to counter Combos, or allow the KO substitution that is traditionally given to be either used for Combos or KOs.

 

[Gerard]

A compromise could be made so that every non-essential encounter is forbidden to use combinations, that is neither Traps, Rare Encounters, etc... are allowed to use them but Lackeys, Guardians and Legend have no such limitation. Thus you don't have to worry about combos destroying your team while they're in the most vulnerable yet you have to watch out for them in those important battles.

 

[zarator]

Well Gerard, the point I tried to show is that Combos are most unbalanced exactly when used by Guardians and Bosses, so I doubt your suggestion would help at all. That being said, Eternal Drifter's suggestion could be explored, although it would be yet another mechanical change perhaps.

 

[Deck Knight]

Wow you guys make long posts.

TLR tries to balance difficulty by pitting the following mechanics against each other:

Player Advantages:
Most battles are fought with a 3-2 advantage.
Access to healing items, including revivals.
General foreknowledge of the kind of threats likely to be encountered (this is ironclad in the open-source era)

TLR Advantages:
An onslaught of available Pokemon.
Flexible MC allocations and Pokemon on random rotations to mitigate direct counterteaming.
Optimized items / strategies that are difficult to deal with even with foreknowledge, esp. Guardians and Bosses.

I will admit there are some soft rules that we follow, but I could always hardcode them. If I do though, people will still complain if I say, make Explosion only usable in a 1vs3 scenario. Rather than trepidation to use it at all, it's now basically a greenlight for the ref to BOOM and a guaranteed need to sub for with the player.

Gerard's suggestion of "combos on" and "combos off" battles is intriguing, and a way to scale difficulty and rewards. What I'd probably prefer is a more complex system, with something like the following:

Encounter Combo Rules:
All Combos (this would be the default for the standard Lackey / Guardian / Boss encounters)
Damaging Combos (Combos can only include damaging moves to be executed) [ex: Ice Beam + Hyper Beam]
Support Combos (Combos must include a support move to be executed) [e.x. Lava Plume + Will-O-Wisp]
No Combos

In this way the player will be able to know what kind of combinations to expect, and what combinations they won't have to deal with. If an encounter has Support Combos only, they could use Surf + Soak, but not follow it up with Hydro Pump + Hydro Pump. There are some ways to circumvent this (ex. Lava Plume + Inferno has the same effect as Lava Plume + Will-O-Wisp, but causes a lot more damage, is much less accurate, and costs more EN) but they are rare.

Do you think this would alleviate some concerns while not drastically decreasing TLRs difficulty?

 

[Gerard]

Another thing you could do/add would be a "Combo Countdown". That is the ref has to wait a number of rounds (1, 2, 3, etc...) in order to start using a combo. This would make combinations usable when the opponent is dragging the battle in order to heal but would avoid the round one nuke, many people see as unjust on TLR. This lets the player worry less about having to sub for combinations and instead focus on trying to defeat or capture the opponent but still having to consider how he's on a timer (like the enrage in Zarator's own Rides) so he can't abuse having so many free turns. This is what we already do anyway, though it's more of a hard suggestion than a rule so this could iron it out.

 

[zarator]

Maybe, we could just make it so that Lackeys can't use any combos for the first 2 rounds, and Guardians/Bosses can't use any combos in the first round of combat. I think it could be a good compromise.

 

[zarator]

It's been months, and STILL nothing has been done about this. If Its_A_Random and Dogfish44 still cannot reach a consensus about how to implement this, we will just go through the council. This has been gone for long enough.

 

[Its_A_Random]

I am posting to say that I want something to be done about it after demonstrating how powerful they can be again like an hour ago in Frosty's TLR but I am not convinced on what would be the best way to go about it. I like the idea of allowing but only combinations with one or more status moves to be used since AS guards blah blah. Combo countdown seems feasible as well although I do not like not being able to surf + soak my opponents in Amperage Stream R1... :(

Dogfish44 on the other hand... idk what he wants to do though the last time I heard he preferred no change? But that was a long time ago.

 

[zarator]

IAR, we could always make exceptions for specific encounters. For example, it could be stated in the arena effects that Surf+Soak is exempted (is it the right word?) from the combo countdown (if we want to implement it). This would allow you to use Surf + Soak while still preventing silly stuff such as Flail + Flail.

 

[Dogfish44]

My opinion on the matter has always tended to be more conservative here - combo spam A2 normally means the challenger loses one mon, but has a lot of easy setup on the following round, and A1 combo spam generally isn't enough to dispatch a mon.

That said, I could get behind DK's ruleset - disabling Combos in Hordes, moving most areas to only Support Combos, and leaving the boss at All Combos. This applies a generic ruleset, which can naturally be overturned by an arena if wished.

 

[zarator]

My opinion on the matter has always tended to be more conservative here - combo spam A2 normally means the challenger loses one mon, but has a lot of easy setup on the following round, and A1 combo spam generally isn't enough to dispatch a mon.

"A lot of easy setup" means jackshit if you lose a Pokemon every time you order second against lackeys, Guardians, or Bosses. Especially considering that against Guardians and Bosses you generally order second more than once. This on top of the fact that, barring incredible luck AND skill, you generally lose at least 1 Pokemon to the various traps through the TLR. And even in Uber runs you have only 2 Revives (1 in lower runs as far as I remember).

[/quote]That said, I could get behind DK's ruleset - disabling Combos in Hordes, moving most areas to only Support Combos, and leaving the boss at All Combos. This applies a generic ruleset, which can naturally be overturned by an arena if wished.[/quote]

Oh come on! As if support combos are any less broken... heck, one could argue they're even worse sometimes, because they get through Taunt and prevent you from shutting down status attempts etc.



Part of the reasoning here (especially the "a lot of easy setup" part -.-) seem to indicate that you somehow regard TLR like standard battling - if I damage you but then allow you to set up it's all balanced. It is not. If you burn the entire challenger's squad, that squad is going to stay burned even once the battle is over. Or I have to spend significant amounts of energy, JUST to get rid of that status. Every single fight. This is too taxing, especially in harder runs.

Personally, I propose we put both DK's and Gerard's proposal (I don't see any others with enough support) up to vote and let the ASB Council decide.

 

[Frosty]

I am posting to say that I want something to be done about it after demonstrating how powerful they can be again like an hour ago in Frosty's TLR but I am not convinced on what would be the best way to go about it. I like the idea of allowing but only combinations with one or more status moves to be used since AS guards blah blah. Combo countdown seems feasible as well although I do not like not being able to surf + soak my opponents in Amperage Stream R1... :(

Dogfish44 on the other hand... idk what he wants to do though the last time I heard he preferred no change? But that was a long time ago.

I saw the end result and I fail to see how that demonstrates anything. It is expected that you lose a pokemon on guardians and on boss. On lackeys you ordering last first means that when they do, they will be super weak (and I don't think I ever saw a KO in lackeys that wasn't result of the player playing awfully bad). Similarly for traps. Also if you spam combos A2, you are left vulnerable on the following round and it is quite easy to dispatch the mons AND get a capture going (specially when you remember that combos = big energy dunk). Replace the fainted pokemon with another AND leave the toughest battle before boss with minimal causalities. If you disagree just look at the most recent completed TLRs and you will see just that. Losses on those are result of losing on traps, not on guardians or bosses (where the combo factor would play a huge role), and since you are ordering last first on them, that is more a result of poor plays by the player than combos being broken.

You have a huge number of opportunities to get replacement mons. Just look at Emma's Rock Crag run. Losing three pokemon meant nothing if one was a guardian that was caught, the other was revived and the last one fainted but in return you managed to eliminate all the offensive power of the boss fight. Even with three losses, he had absolutely no problem in getting Regirock.

I still maintain that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. You should account for two-three losses when TLRing (and you can rather easily I must add). Simple as that.

But either way I really don't give a fuck. If this passes, the dungeons will just become harder (changing nothing), or the legendaries will be easier to get (and that benefits me as a player), so *shrugs*.

My only suggestion is that, if you are to limit combos, limit them for the player as well. At least that way the field is even and the player's advantage when ordering last first isn't that humongous.

 

[zarator]

My only suggestion is that, if you are to limit combos, limit them for the player as well. At least that way the field is even and the player's advantage when ordering last first isn't that humongous.

I don't see any problem with that, especially since generally challengers will not use combos anyway to save energy.

Also, this thread wasn't revived for your run. I talked about this issue with Dogfish some days ago as well, as he will be able to confirm. I just want something to be done about this, after all this time.

 

[Dogfish44]

Confirming.

More comments on the matter:

- Damaging combinations are problematic when TLR Mons order second, since subbing against direct damage is not feasible. This is why most combos used in TLRs are currently damaging.

- Support combinations involving status are evadable using Safeguard, unless we use an Infiltrator Crobat or something. We haven't yet, but for the most part you can sub for it with Safeguard, or Misty Terrain. Or, in a bad case, you can use Healer/Natural Cure/Heal Bell/Aromatherapy to remove the problem.

- Support combinations that inflict negative status (Example: Boomburst + Growl) are generally weak enough (Outside perhaps, say, Flash + Dazzling Gleam, which is just plain annoying)

Or, from what I can tell, Support Combos are more easily blocked, and generally need to be multi-target to have an impact.

So, one type of combo tends to be stronger than the other? And they're all problematic in the early game in each battle, not the late battle.

This leads, for me, to the following logical system, combining what I feel are the best parts from various proposals so far:

Dual Combo Timers:

In TLRs, opponents (generally) can't use combinations instantly. Instead, the longer you take, the more choice they have. They have 2 timers - one for Support Combos, and one for Damaging Combos. In an arena, you might see something like the below:

Support Combos: Round 2
Damaging Combos: Round 3

This means that Support Combos can be used starting Round 2, and Damaging Combos can be used starting Round 3.

Support Combo:
A Support Combo is defined as any type of combination which contains at least one move which non-damaging, belonging to the "Other" category as oppossed to the "Physical" or "Special" category. An example would be "Surf + Soak".

Damaging Combo:
A Damaging Combo is definied as any type of combination where 2 Damaging Moves are combined, such as "Ember + Flamethrower".

This should solve all issues. It's fine tunable, which offers a distinct amount of power to the TLR designer. It also provides a way to have tangible impacts from RP Sections if desired, as an easily changed variable. It also resolves all problems I have (Blanket timers have issues with stuff like Soak + Surf, whilst variable types alone still seem to be classed as too powerful, which while debatable could be a problem). Default values for these can also be set whilst we transition and have to edit a ton of arenas.

 

[zarator]

It seems reasonable, although it largely depends on what the real timers in TLRs are. In other words, I hope it is not going to be a large fiasco like Traps (where the use of clauses was "overturned" in most new TLRs by "ref's choice", which is dumb)

 

[Dogfish44]

Most we'll keep to a default - it's mainly a catch for encounters reliant upon a specific combo.

 

[Its_A_Random]

The above proposal I am the most likely to implement. To ensure non-stupidity like 1-1 timers, I and Dogfish will check the combination timer additions as a sanity check.

Also Frosty there are worse examples out there and while you can sugar coat the issue with things like "you are expected to lose a mon" and "set up the next turn" and "you are vulnerable to capture" and "revives exist", it is hard to deny the power levels of a combination and how devastating the ramifications of a combo nuke can be, especially if it was such an important mon that is the victim. I would expand on this but I need to go now... -_-