Well, it depends on what niche do people this is more important. If telepathy causes you to ignore your friends attacks then in doubles your partner can use non-spread water or electric attacks without it's partner absorbing it. On the other hand you have Plasmanta benefiting from spread attacks but still redirecting friendly attacks to itself.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III
- Thread starter Dogfish44
- Start date
- Status
Since this is about Plasmanta, how can a Pokémon avoid an attack that it draws in?
Sleep Talk priority clarification is implemented.
Point B is easily resolvable through this cannot be used alongside xyz yes.
Point C is not really "wrong". Do we apply variable EN Cost for moves blocked by Quick or Wide Guard too? Mat Block is consistent with other team block moves (well team block on first use) that it does not cost extra energy to block attacks.
Point D is a reasonable point especially given only Skill Frog learns the move. It is indeed a deviation from in-game and the argument is whether the current subsequent effect of only affecting the user is too good or not, especially when the only Pokémon with said move is a relevant ASB threat. I personally do not see why the current effect is too good to warrant changing however and onus is on those who think it is too good to prove it.
The counter-argument for Point A is that all protective moves target one Pokémon whether it be the user or the user's ally. The other part is that all Protective Moves have a priority above 0. Mat Block works at 0 priority and it does not target the user initially. Mat Block lacks the variable energy cost that other protective moves have. The only suitable point you can make for Mat Block for protective / evasive is that King's Shield—who is mostly consistent with other Protective Moves—only blocks damaging moves (or for King's Shield to be removed from it).
Point B is easily resolvable through this cannot be used alongside xyz yes.
Point C is not really "wrong". Do we apply variable EN Cost for moves blocked by Quick or Wide Guard too? Mat Block is consistent with other team block moves (well team block on first use) that it does not cost extra energy to block attacks.
Point D is a reasonable point especially given only Skill Frog learns the move. It is indeed a deviation from in-game and the argument is whether the current subsequent effect of only affecting the user is too good or not, especially when the only Pokémon with said move is a relevant ASB threat. I personally do not see why the current effect is too good to warrant changing however and onus is on those who think it is too good to prove it.
Personally I feel it should be protective simply because greninja is fast and the possibility of a Mat Block being used like Protect is quite high. In many situations it can easily be used to screw over a p/e sub.
As for D it is a matter of personal preferance. It is not like it breaks Greninja. It just opens a can of worms as far as subs go. I see potential for abuse (emphasis on potential because Greninja has so many other tricks that using mat block at all isn't common, let alone use it more than once). But I suppose we can wait on that regard.
Regarding Mat Block - Protect - Mat Block, do other people feel it shouldn't be allowed? at least mat block after the first use shouldn't be allowed after p/e (or p/e after it).
As for D it is a matter of personal preferance. It is not like it breaks Greninja. It just opens a can of worms as far as subs go. I see potential for abuse (emphasis on potential because Greninja has so many other tricks that using mat block at all isn't common, let alone use it more than once). But I suppose we can wait on that regard.
Regarding Mat Block - Protect - Mat Block, do other people feel it shouldn't be allowed? at least mat block after the first use shouldn't be allowed after p/e (or p/e after it).
IMO Mat Block working after Protect makes sense in doubles+ but Mat Block working more than once is silly. Also Mat Block not being P/E makes perfect sense, seeing as most things that you want to sub for P/E (such as doubles+ single-target moves and Taunt) either aren't blocked by Mat Block or Mat Block makes your redirection pointless. The only exception to this I can think of is combos but that's just a bad idea in general.
Unrelated but the EN cost for Sky Drop is lower than it should be no matter how you look at it. Both Psychic and Sky Drop have a BAP of 6+(Target Weight Class/2), but Psychic's EN cost is 5+(Target WC/2), which makes it in line with the standard EN cost, such as if a mon has is WC 4, Psychic is a 10 BAP/ 7 EN move like all the other 10 BAP moves, while Sky Drop's EN cost is 4+(Target WC/2), making it lower than normal for no apparent reason.
At the very least Sky Drop's EN cost should cost the same as Psychic's, if not 1 or 2 EN more because of it's status as a pseudo-D/E move in multi-battles
At the very least Sky Drop's EN cost should cost the same as Psychic's, if not 1 or 2 EN more because of it's status as a pseudo-D/E move in multi-battles
Last edited:
Greninja lacks an Evasive Move. If you are just spamming attacks then you only need to sub for Mat Block because Protect forces extra EN consumption which can have a big impact later on. If you are using non-damaging moves then a sub for Protect is more necessary. Playing around something with Protect and Mat Block is not as difficult as it sounds, even if said Pokémon has Protean and whatnot. People here also seem to underestimate not subbing for Protect when going all out, against Greninja in particular. Not only do you save a substitution for mon is X-type, but if they go for Protect, then they burn more energy than you do which as I mentioned, can have long term ramifications for the opponent.
Then again Singles is not the only format that exists in ASB. Would be interesting looking at Mat Block's strength in Doubles before making a complete judgement call.
doppelposte
I decided to just go ahead and make it the same as Psychic's EC for consistency. Not like anyone has used Sky Drop as of late.
In what is more of a suggestion than an issue, could we add links to the CAP Sprites to their movepool pages in the NDA?
I did post a thread here housing the sprites but if it is really warranted, we could either do the above or at the very least, link the linked thread somewhere in the NDA since it was not the most convenient of places (resolved by moving said thread into Main ASB forum).
Though if people really want cap sprites in the NDA I guess I can oblige if there is more demand.
It should not have been removed in the first place (it is in old DAT) and there lacks a place where the removal was approved. I reckon someone removed it when putting its description over multiple tabs. Fixed.
Can't we simply say that Mat Block only works the first time you use it in a battle and fails (completely) if you use it again? I feel that way it'd be a neat trick but w/o the potential of being overpowering since the Protect/Mat Block/Protect scenario would be something you only face off once per battle. And if Protect/Mat Block/Protect is broken (even as a one-time scenario), I don't see why Protect/Fake Out/Protect wouldn't.
So on my latest crusade in "why does this work like this"? I hit on a few more things I would like to bring up.
First: Protect apparently has many hidden/unclear mechanics that really should be at least mentioned in the rules. Like how the energy cost is split and payed for at different times, not as a single sum. As is the data audit says nothing of the sort, it actually says the opposite, that the energy cost is a formula and payed for at one time. And then there is Protect in a combo which apparently also gets broken up so that the "base" is Protect's flat 7 but as damage gets done it's protected against but with a multiplier for the combo added. How is anyone supposed to do that correctly if they follow the data audit's information? It's needlessly complex at least and impossible to do anyway without being told nuggest of info like this from other players (speaking as a ref trying to ref matches correctly). Oh and the "the attack does not miss" thing is misleading when dealing with moves like high jump kick (not that I'm saying that bit from personal experience or anything...).
Second: Why is there a "You can look away" thing in Mean Look's data? When compared to Block which is just as prone to "flavor" issues (like why does this blocked state last indefinitely?), it at least does not suffer from a random "flavor nerf" instead it gets a flavor effect buff in that it causes damage if they evade on that turn (which is nice for such a nitch move to have added utility). This all seems very inconsistent. I'm not against flavor effects in the rules per say but the way it is handled just seems very odd.
First: Protect apparently has many hidden/unclear mechanics that really should be at least mentioned in the rules. Like how the energy cost is split and payed for at different times, not as a single sum. As is the data audit says nothing of the sort, it actually says the opposite, that the energy cost is a formula and payed for at one time. And then there is Protect in a combo which apparently also gets broken up so that the "base" is Protect's flat 7 but as damage gets done it's protected against but with a multiplier for the combo added. How is anyone supposed to do that correctly if they follow the data audit's information? It's needlessly complex at least and impossible to do anyway without being told nuggest of info like this from other players (speaking as a ref trying to ref matches correctly). Oh and the "the attack does not miss" thing is misleading when dealing with moves like high jump kick (not that I'm saying that bit from personal experience or anything...).
Second: Why is there a "You can look away" thing in Mean Look's data? When compared to Block which is just as prone to "flavor" issues (like why does this blocked state last indefinitely?), it at least does not suffer from a random "flavor nerf" instead it gets a flavor effect buff in that it causes damage if they evade on that turn (which is nice for such a nitch move to have added utility). This all seems very inconsistent. I'm not against flavor effects in the rules per say but the way it is handled just seems very odd.
Last edited:
You can't order a pokemon to look away (you have to have your eyes incapacitated in some sort such as if you're sleeping)
I agree oth Protect though as to it's description should be improved to include the different parts of the energy cost. The combo properties of Protect should be added to the handbook.
I agree oth Protect though as to it's description should be improved to include the different parts of the energy cost. The combo properties of Protect should be added to the handbook.
Just want to ask something with regards to Focus Band and its subjectively bad design.
Should moves that deal a fixed amount of damage such as Bide, Counter, etc be able to bypass Focus Band's effect?
The idea is that if it does not then it basically allows the holder to bypass critical moves like Bide et al that others cannot and I feel this is a powerful effect. It is not necessarily broken but I feel like it might be interesting to ask the public if allowing Focus Band mons to not give a damn about Counter (which is what the current effect implies) will really be that bad for ASB?
IMO it is just poor design and it is obvious that this was not considered before voting but I am not sure if it is too good or not. It is definitely powerful but is it broke?
Should moves that deal a fixed amount of damage such as Bide, Counter, etc be able to bypass Focus Band's effect?
The idea is that if it does not then it basically allows the holder to bypass critical moves like Bide et al that others cannot and I feel this is a powerful effect. It is not necessarily broken but I feel like it might be interesting to ask the public if allowing Focus Band mons to not give a damn about Counter (which is what the current effect implies) will really be that bad for ASB?
IMO it is just poor design and it is obvious that this was not considered before voting but I am not sure if it is too good or not. It is definitely powerful but is it broke?
Well...from a balance point of view its not like "immunity" to countercoat is that big of a deal. I don't find it broken or close to it. Not like you can abuse of it, as your opponent will be the one countering or not.
BUT, from a consistency point of view, I would much rather make fixed damage moves an exception, simply because Focus Sash (in ASB) isn't affected by them and blocking countercoat has nothing to do with the original intention of boosting the x4 weak mons.
Anyone feel it should limit countercoat?
BUT, from a consistency point of view, I would much rather make fixed damage moves an exception, simply because Focus Sash (in ASB) isn't affected by them and blocking countercoat has nothing to do with the original intention of boosting the x4 weak mons.
Anyone feel it should limit countercoat?
I think it gives it an interesting niche use over other items even on 4x mons. I don't necessarily think it should stay but I'd like to see it examined for if it breaks any mons that normally are dealt with via counter et al.
Imo let it block counter coat bide unless it proves overpowering, it's a cool untested effect
Imo let it block counter coat bide unless it proves overpowering, it's a cool untested effect
I'm leaning towards "it's broke". It doesn't just limit those moves, it basically nullifies it - no one would have ordered it against a mon with Focus Band unless said player overlooks Band by accident. There are plenty of 4x weak mons with CounterCoat, for example - and now a single item could have neutered their best (perhaps only) method of winning a damage race or score the KO in a surprise suicidal burst. Eg. How does Aurorus Mirror Coat a Flash Cannon from Focus Band Magnezone, or a Heracross Counter a Drill Peck from Focus Band Skarmory?
There's also Endeavour, Pain Split, and the like - situational moves that trade massive amounts of EN to even the HP playing field that are suddenly no longer effective. If Focus Band blocks them all, we're seeing a powerful item that has too little drawbacks - remember that while combos are not blocked, they also need a cooldown.
There's also Endeavour, Pain Split, and the like - situational moves that trade massive amounts of EN to even the HP playing field that are suddenly no longer effective. If Focus Band blocks them all, we're seeing a powerful item that has too little drawbacks - remember that while combos are not blocked, they also need a cooldown.
So what? 4x weak mons are already some of the worst in ASB precisely because they can't win damage races. I don't think Focus Band is so powerful that it now overshadows items that a more general Pokemon would use, but allowing 4x weak mons to increase their sub options doesn't seem particularly problematic to me.
And sorry but your examples are hardly relevant to the ASB metagame. Aurorus and Magnezone aren't relevant while Mega Heracross runs very close to even on a Skarmory Drill Peck. How about Focus Band Garchomp vs Krillowatt actually being able to sub for damaging evasive and the like on it's Ground STAB because it no longer has to worry about getting Countered into oblivion and can actually take a few Ice Beams.
Unless this suddenly starts overshadowing pure play items on other standard mons (i.e. Rare Candy Pyroak, Heracronite Heracross) I see this as a positive thing.
With respect to Endeavour et al, simply limit it to damaging attacks - which is already the case unless I'm mistaken. Endeavour get's limited to 20 which isn't even a problem given that it's realistic cap is somewhere around 35, while Pain Split is unaffected by Focus Band.
One or the other let's do something please
King's Rock NDA description:
Focus Band (response to Tex): Yes it may be situational, but Focus Band certainly will be better over "pure play items on other standard mons", in cases where the best (if not only) option your opponent has of damaging you are fixed damage moves. My examples were there to illustrate the point - a little extreme beyond your so-called "standard ASB metagame" I'll admit. If you want a more relevant example, trying something like Focus Band / Sea Incense Azumarill versus Haxorus.
Somebody's comment on it:
Smogon, Serebii and Bulba all stated "all attacks" without restrictions in regard. What do?
* * * * *
Focus Band (response to Tex): Yes it may be situational, but Focus Band certainly will be better over "pure play items on other standard mons", in cases where the best (if not only) option your opponent has of damaging you are fixed damage moves. My examples were there to illustrate the point - a little extreme beyond your so-called "standard ASB metagame" I'll admit. If you want a more relevant example, trying something like Focus Band / Sea Incense Azumarill versus Haxorus.
I got my answer to the questions in IRC. Keeping the post here for future reference.
Okay, side stepping a bit.
Title: Mysterious Mega Evolutions in ASB
Gist: Mega Evolutions happen at A0 of any round a pokemon is ordered to Mega Evolve. However, can a pokemon Mega Evolve on A2? If such an order is posted, is the Mega Evolution performed at A0 or the Mega Evolution is cancelled for that Round?
Story: Gerard in his Psychic Gym battle vs Frosty, wanted to make life difficult for me, by venturing into this part of Mega Evolution. So as Frosty has posted in the battle, the handbook says that a pokemon can Mega Evolve at action 0. And Gerard is claiming that, this would imply that a pokemon can choose to Mega Evolve before any action in a round. I agree with Frosty on this, that the handbook mentions a possible outcome and it doesn't have to deny all impossible outcomes (Although if there is a statement saying, 'No other option is available' or something similar on those lines, it would avoid a lot of grey areas).
But personally, I don't understand why Mega Evolution is restricted to A0. If we go with Ingame precedence, then this would be the perfect mechanics in ASB. But will things be broken, if we allow Mega Evolution before any action in a round? It does create some problems when types change after Mega Evolution, Although I am still getting used to balance in ASB.
Summary:
1) Can Mega Evolution happen on any action other than A0?
2) If a Mega Evolution is ordered on A2, is it ignored? Or the Mega Evolution is performed at A0 for the trainer?
Title: Mysterious Mega Evolutions in ASB
Gist: Mega Evolutions happen at A0 of any round a pokemon is ordered to Mega Evolve. However, can a pokemon Mega Evolve on A2? If such an order is posted, is the Mega Evolution performed at A0 or the Mega Evolution is cancelled for that Round?
Story: Gerard in his Psychic Gym battle vs Frosty, wanted to make life difficult for me, by venturing into this part of Mega Evolution. So as Frosty has posted in the battle, the handbook says that a pokemon can Mega Evolve at action 0. And Gerard is claiming that, this would imply that a pokemon can choose to Mega Evolve before any action in a round. I agree with Frosty on this, that the handbook mentions a possible outcome and it doesn't have to deny all impossible outcomes (Although if there is a statement saying, 'No other option is available' or something similar on those lines, it would avoid a lot of grey areas).
But personally, I don't understand why Mega Evolution is restricted to A0. If we go with Ingame precedence, then this would be the perfect mechanics in ASB. But will things be broken, if we allow Mega Evolution before any action in a round? It does create some problems when types change after Mega Evolution, Although I am still getting used to balance in ASB.
Summary:
1) Can Mega Evolution happen on any action other than A0?
2) If a Mega Evolution is ordered on A2, is it ignored? Or the Mega Evolution is performed at A0 for the trainer?
Last edited:
- Status