Hold Hands should have an energy cost of 1, to put it the same as Celebrate.
-
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
Hey is it possible to go clarify the state of Smack Down vs. Magnet Rise and Levitate command since it is kinda a grey area. That is, what happens when a mon under Smack Down uses Magnet Rise and vice versa? Does one dominate the other by preventing the other effect from happening or are they opposites and using either move negates the effects of the other (Magnet Rise cancels Smack Down and the other way around)?
I already use that for all my CAP pokemon stuff since its so much easier to look at. I definitely would not object to it
Done. With people suggested CT's and EC's.
This is done
09:32 elevator_music o right plz lets nerf para
09:32 elevator_music srsly its way too strong
09:33 Frosty bring it up
09:33 Frosty on the feedback
09:33 Frosty and mention freeze too since we have got around to nerfing it
09:33 Redew just outplay the coinflip'
09:33 elevator_music but then "im just butthurt" and nothing ends up getting done
09:33 Redew nah emma
09:33 Redew dw
09:33 elevator_music some1 else do it
09:33 Redew that's how swagger got a nerf i think
09:33 elevator_music also im at work
09:32 elevator_music srsly its way too strong
09:33 Frosty bring it up
09:33 Frosty on the feedback
09:33 Frosty and mention freeze too since we have got around to nerfing it
09:33 Redew just outplay the coinflip'
09:33 elevator_music but then "im just butthurt" and nothing ends up getting done
09:33 Redew nah emma
09:33 Redew dw
09:33 elevator_music some1 else do it
09:33 Redew that's how swagger got a nerf i think
09:33 elevator_music also im at work
Considering Para is already nerfed from normal mons, as is freeze, I don't really know what more one would want done. I mean people complain about not being able to act but that's part of the game, just like every other random aspect.
If there is something unfair happening here then that's fine, please bring it to light but if it's just a "man I hate when I get unlucky and get frozen" then I kinda don't have any sympathy for the argument.
If there is something unfair happening here then that's fine, please bring it to light but if it's just a "man I hate when I get unlucky and get frozen" then I kinda don't have any sympathy for the argument.
0 fucks given about freeze. That said, making it only last 1a no matter what might be appropriate if people decide to do that.
My gripe with paralysis is that relative to the other statuses in ASB, paralysis is far better; 25% PAR is brutal. With 25% PAR, there's a ~58% chance of being fully paralyzed over 3 actions (~44% for 2 actions). With 20%, it's ~49% chance over 3 actions, and with 15% it's still pretty annoying at ~39%. Haven't (but will when I have comp access) done the full calculations out yet, but basically the point is you're very likely to lose more than one action to Thunder Wave and co. Which, even by itself is above the level of our other similarly disruptive statuses (sleep and freeze) despite being much more widespread and easier to reliably inflict AND having an additional effect (which in its own right is far from shabby). However, the real kicker here is the uncertainty of when (or if) you'll lose actions. Yes, you can sub around it to some degree, but that doesn't do enough to mitigate just how deeply this uncertainty can fuck you over.
Solution: Make paralysis decay 10%(/15%) when full paralysis occurs. This brings its action-stopping chance down to more appropriate levels.
Solution 2: Make it so that full paralysis can only happen on one action of a round. This doesn't completely remove the uncertainty of para, but does help curb what are probably the most obnoxious scenarios.
My gripe with paralysis is that relative to the other statuses in ASB, paralysis is far better; 25% PAR is brutal. With 25% PAR, there's a ~58% chance of being fully paralyzed over 3 actions (~44% for 2 actions). With 20%, it's ~49% chance over 3 actions, and with 15% it's still pretty annoying at ~39%. Haven't (but will when I have comp access) done the full calculations out yet, but basically the point is you're very likely to lose more than one action to Thunder Wave and co. Which, even by itself is above the level of our other similarly disruptive statuses (sleep and freeze) despite being much more widespread and easier to reliably inflict AND having an additional effect (which in its own right is far from shabby). However, the real kicker here is the uncertainty of when (or if) you'll lose actions. Yes, you can sub around it to some degree, but that doesn't do enough to mitigate just how deeply this uncertainty can fuck you over.
Solution: Make paralysis decay 10%(/15%) when full paralysis occurs. This brings its action-stopping chance down to more appropriate levels.
Solution 2: Make it so that full paralysis can only happen on one action of a round. This doesn't completely remove the uncertainty of para, but does help curb what are probably the most obnoxious scenarios.
Freeze should always be 1a because losing 2a for zero opportunity cost is beyond uncompetitive
[18:25:11] <Texas> i dont think paralysis is too strong but i have zero problem with dropping it 10% on full para
[18:25:20] <Texas> i've always felt it decayed too slowly on that trigger
[18:25:11] <Texas> i dont think paralysis is too strong but i have zero problem with dropping it 10% on full para
[18:25:20] <Texas> i've always felt it decayed too slowly on that trigger
This topic strikes too close to the discussions that call for things like the removal of crits in normal mons (and all the similar threads like it) for me to be in favor of it.
Again, what is unfair here? The chance that you might lose two actions to the status? Is that the main thrust of the issue?
Why is losing 2a to freeze "beyond uncompetitive" Texas?
Again, what is unfair here? The chance that you might lose two actions to the status? Is that the main thrust of the issue?
Why is losing 2a to freeze "beyond uncompetitive" Texas?
Freeze is hax yes, it's a part of Pokmeon yes. That's not in question.
The difference here is between 1a or 2a freeze. Freeze being a passively inflicted status, 2 actions of freeze is far too harsh a penalty for something with zero opportunity cost. It imposes far too harsh a penalty for something that the inflicted player has no control over and something that the user sees only as a free benefit. 1a of freeze is far more reasonable insofar as still maintaining the spirit of the hax without being as incredibly debilitating as it is.
Basically I've pushed for this for balance reasons
Last edited:
There is opportunity cost, namely using a move that has a freeze chance to get the effect. Naturally that's not a harsh cost in some situations (given the quality of ice as an attacking type) but it does matter in others. Freeze also has a universally lower effect chance than nearly any other type. Flinch also removes actions (though it has a speed qualification) and it has effect chances of up to 30% on very common moves.
So for freeze to be unfair, it needs to be used when the move in question is relevant (few people use Ice beam on a water type for the freeze chance), it needs to trigger (usually off a 10%), and the random roll needs to come up 2 instead of 1. I'm sure as a Dragon user you see the situation more than most but is it truely so unfair that we should deviate even further from the actual pokemon game?
So for freeze to be unfair, it needs to be used when the move in question is relevant (few people use Ice beam on a water type for the freeze chance), it needs to trigger (usually off a 10%), and the random roll needs to come up 2 instead of 1. I'm sure as a Dragon user you see the situation more than most but is it truely so unfair that we should deviate even further from the actual pokemon game?
Except that there isn't an opportunity cost because because the freeze condition is the trigger of already using an Ice move. Theoretically you aren't using an Ice move unless it's an optimal attack either by being Super effective, STAB boosted, or a high powered neutral option at which point the freeze side effect has a zero opportunity cost.
All of the other points are true but irrelevant, as none of them disprove the notion that preventing your opponent from acting for two actions without impeding yourself is such a significant advantage as to immediately swing the course of the battle in usually debilitating fashion. Frequency of occurrence is not a valid argument against the negative effects of a phenomena (or else Vicegrip+Sucker Punch and hundreds of other things would never have been nerfed). There are numerous battles that could be found where a 2 action freeze changed the course of the match into a definitive victory for the freeze users (my loss in SICK and one of my gym losses of the top of my head).
Finally, with respect to your comment about deviation from the actual Pokemon game I don't see any parallel there at all. We've already deviated from the game in how we treat freeze. It is not a 20% chance to unfreeze because that is blatantly broken, the current state is simply 1 or 2 actions. Removing one of those options, leaving 1 action, is not a deviation from the game and does rectify what is such a massive advantage current conferred by freeze.
In summary: 2a Freeze is a luck driven, debilitatingly game-changing effect
I firmly believe that this is an uncompetitive aspect of the game, believe I have proved the validity of that statement, and have not recognized any valid opposing arguments.
Defense rests.
/lawyer
All of the other points are true but irrelevant, as none of them disprove the notion that preventing your opponent from acting for two actions without impeding yourself is such a significant advantage as to immediately swing the course of the battle in usually debilitating fashion. Frequency of occurrence is not a valid argument against the negative effects of a phenomena (or else Vicegrip+Sucker Punch and hundreds of other things would never have been nerfed). There are numerous battles that could be found where a 2 action freeze changed the course of the match into a definitive victory for the freeze users (my loss in SICK and one of my gym losses of the top of my head).
Finally, with respect to your comment about deviation from the actual Pokemon game I don't see any parallel there at all. We've already deviated from the game in how we treat freeze. It is not a 20% chance to unfreeze because that is blatantly broken, the current state is simply 1 or 2 actions. Removing one of those options, leaving 1 action, is not a deviation from the game and does rectify what is such a massive advantage current conferred by freeze.
In summary: 2a Freeze is a luck driven, debilitatingly game-changing effect
I firmly believe that this is an uncompetitive aspect of the game, believe I have proved the validity of that statement, and have not recognized any valid opposing arguments.
Defense rests.
/lawyer
*Shrug* Do as you please, I don't think these changes are necessary (and frankly after the butchering the STAB thread received I don't see why this should get changed over those, I think alot more people would be more positively effected by chancing STAB than this) but it hardly hurts me if you mange to make it happen.
Last edited:
On my phone so please reread what I said about frequency of occurrence being irrelevant to uncompetitiveness of effect
k you guys really should take the freeze/para talk to the actual discussion I set up for it now.
Can we open a discussion on the EN Cost for Suspended Damaging Evasive moves? And, heck, D/E moves in general. They're roughly as clear as mud, especially with regards to Cons EN Cost, and how we split the EN Costs (Including interactions with STAB EN in both there as well).
- Status