Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[tavok]

Also, am I the only one who tends to get haxed when he self-refs? -.-
Ok, just so this isn't spam or something:

[...] and it helps to close the gap between rewards between players. [...]

You keep saying this, and I don't get why. Why is it a bad thing that the one person that does the most work gets a bigger reward? Like IAR said:

Yes and the imbalance is because one player just twiddles their thumbs and orders while the other orders and referees; you earn what you get. I personally feel the system is fair and the generally shorter timeframe makes up for it but that is just me; who knows if anyone else shares my views. This also probably ties into the how much UC to award debate from a page or two back.

 

[S0L1D G0LD]

IAR's point that you quote is moot, to me, sheerly because in a "regular" (read as: non self reffed) match, (I will repeat myself, at the risk of sounding even more infuriating) both non refereeing players "twiddle their thumbs and order" while the referee referees the battle, BUT still receive KOC. This isn't about "you earn what you get", it's about players earning less then a regular match for the same amount of effort (granted, with the ref's duties adopted by one of the players, but I'm sure most people would love to get the UC in addition to the battling prizes, so I'm not too concerned about that as a factor). Although I have brought it up before, fixing a match seems a small issue, given that the self-referee program has an entire white-listing program before accepting candidates, and furthermore if it does prove to be too much of an issue, surely it wouldn't be hard to necessitate self-referees to make rolls (assuming an irc connection) in full view of the other players online.

 

[Its_A_Random]

So what if you earn less for being self-reffed? The generally quicker speed makes up for it. If you do not want to partake in a self-refereed flash then don't. It is that simple. My point is not moot.

The lack of a KOC on board quashes any chances of any incentivised match-fixing at any rate.

 

[ZhengTann]

Wait we're on a new page already so I'm gonna do that thing again. And then go wrap up some Discussion threads.

Combo illegality: Personally I agree with IAR's whole post. Whatever he wants here is okay, since so far it will not change anything other than the wording of subs in the future.

Stage boosts/drops: Dogfish is dapper and has moved it to Discussion.

Struggle Protean: SQSA.

KOC on self-reffed matches: Please stop going circular on this. For 5 times (yes I've counted), both camps have been throwing the very same arguments at each other. Personally I am biased against self-reffing as a whole, and while Gold's argument on effort is sound, opposing camps have pointed out that time (spending 2 hours waiting for a reff to show up, or self-reffed it within 40 minutes) is the countering factor.

 

[Its_A_Random]

A debate has recently blown up on #capasb on an uncodified ruling with no one knowing the proper ruling. A tournament match hinges on it (well the outcome does not but it will make a difference in the grand scheme of things) so I have resorted to coming here.

So Mon A orders a substitution telling it to do something on the use of a specific move and push actions back.

Mon B decides to use said move on an action Mon A is unable to act due to something like Cooldown or Freeze.

What happens? Does the substitution trigger and Mon B has to Struggle or something the next action or does it just not trigger at all? I thought it was the latter but several users arguing the former has cast doubt into my mind and there is no ruling in the handbook.

It would be nice to have this resolved ASAP.

 

[Frosty]

we did changes so "and not taunted" "and not tormented" "and not disabled" "and not imprisoned" "and *insert other way of saying its illegal*" didn't need to be used on every single substitution. If we are to replace it with "and not under cooldown" "and not asleep" "and opponent isn't asleep" "and opponent isn't under cooldown" "and not frozen" "and opponent isn't frozen", then we might as well shoot ourselves out of frustration. Or is it just me?

Seriously, if you look at battles, the sole use of having the sub activate on those situations is sub abuse. I have never ever saw a legitimate use of having that kind of sub activate on a turn one of the parties involved are on cooldown or asleep or frozen or whatever. Should we even consider let this kind of thing stay? For the sake of the allmighty pedantry -_-?

 

[Dogfish44]

My thought on the matter, and more general things:

• If I have a substitution to "Use A if X", and my opponent's orders are "Y + Z ~ Cooldown (X) ~ N", the substitution shouldn't activate. They're not using X, they're using the 'move' Cooldown.
• However, if I have a Substitution that says "IF X, THEN Y AND Push Back", then the substitution should activate as much as is possible. That's to say, if I use A + B ~ Cooldown (C) ~ D, and my opponent uses X A2, my orders should become A + B ~ Cooldown (Y) ~ C.
• On a semi-related note, I'd also like to see "Cooldown" be interpreted as "Cooldown (Struggle)" in general terms. This means "Cooldown (Flamethrower) would be interpreted as "Flamethrower" for the sake of pushbacks, but unspecified struggles.

These are not currently rulings however - but just a quick summary of my thought =\

 

[Its_A_Random]

Does anyone object to me making the stat boost durations of the items: Absorb Bulb, Cell Battery, Luminous Moss, Snowball, and Berserk Gene permanent until switch-out? The basis for this is simply:

[14:09:23] Its_A_Random 9 actions is basically infinite
[14:09:47] Its_A_Random and there is no difference
[14:09:54] Its_A_Random whether permanent or 9 actions

It also conflicts with the whole premise of stat boosting moves by putting a finite duration on the stat boost having complexities that we do not want to have in our system; a relic of an old decay system. Basically updating them to modern conventions with stat boosters and whatnot.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Does anyone object to me making the stat boost durations of the items: Absorb Bulb, Cell Battery, Luminous Moss, Snowball, and Berserk Gene permanent until switch-out? The basis for this is simply:

[14:09:23] Its_A_Random 9 actions is basically infinite
[14:09:47] Its_A_Random and there is no difference
[14:09:54] Its_A_Random whether permanent or 9 actions

It also conflicts with the whole premise of stat boosting moves by putting a finite duration on the stat boost having complexities that we do not want to have in our system; a relic of an old decay system. Basically updating them to modern conventions with stat boosters and whatnot.

Done, as well as a clear-up on natural stages in descriptions.

 

[TSRD]

I was wondering if we might get a clearer statement on what happens when a self inflicted stat altering move (Superpower, Close Combat, Draco Meteor, Power-Up Punch, ect...) is protected against.
We seem to want to follow in-game precedent and I believe in-game the moves don't alter your stats if protected against.
Thoughts? Should the boosts/penaltise happen regardless? Should they not? Should this be uniform or case by case (not a fan of case by case)?
This also leads to a question on lingering RP things. It doesn't happen often anymore but what's the stance on the old Power-Up Punching the ground trick?

 

[Gerard]

I'm sure it's been ruled since forever that those stat changes happen regardless if the attack hits or not.
While that would be up to ref discretion I would allow it considering it's just a worst Howl.

 

[TSRD]

Yes but people keep parroting at me that "X is the way it is because ASB follows in-game." I would really appreciate it if we would make up our mind on this issue. Does ASB follow in-game or does it not?

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Both

 

[Gerard]

ASB uses In-game as basis, everything (moves, abilities, interactions, etc...) that is not codified in the NDS or the Handbook (or Word of God), uses in-game as it basis to figure out how it would play. If In-game fails to deliver a satisfactory answer then ref discretion is applied.

 

[Elevator Music]

can we do something for damp jellicent like we do for other abilities?

 

[Its_A_Random]

can we do something for damp jellicent like we do for other abilities?

Damp's description explicitly states that it only nulls the opponent's explosions so if Jellicent's partner wants to boom, it can. Exactly what "unfortunate" interaction is there that makes change warranted (is there something really obvious that I am missing)?

 

[tavok]

Well, the issue I find for that is that Jeliicent can lose its Ghost typing, so Damp can actually have an effect.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Well, the issue I find for that is that Jeliicent can lose its Ghost typing, so Damp can actually have an effect.

The only move that can make a target lose part of their typing is Soak (Trick-or-Treat and Forest's Curse add typings) and Jellicent is immune to Soak thanks to Water Absorb (I am pretty sure Water Absorb blocks Soak), unless your name is Basculin.

I mean if there is a legitimate unfortunate interaction that has not been mentioned then yeah I can get behind it but I honestly cannot see anything about Damp Jellicent that screams unfortunate given what I stated two posts above.

 

[tavok]

Protean being Skill Swapped / Role Played. Same with Color Change. Also Camouflage (not sure on this one as I dunno if Jellicent gets Mimic / Metronome / Copycat). And Scrappy exists (which can be skill swapped / role played).

 

[Its_A_Random]

Protean being Skill Swapped / Role Played. Same with Color Change. Also Camouflage (not sure on this one as I dunno if Jellicent gets Mimic / Metronome / Copycat). And Scrappy exists (which can be skill swapped / role played).

Only an idiot would skill swap their Protean away to their opponent. Jellicent does not get Role Play or Camouflage. Nothing gets Scrappy Explosion or Scrappy Skill Swap. The only thing you can even think of that is even close to legitimate without requiring significant setup is Mega Glalie and its Explosion is resisted.

All just so a Jellicent can be hit by their teammate's Explosion when you could do something else instead.

What is your point?

 

[tavok]

Sure, because Skill Swap is only used in singles and you never pass abilities to your teammates.

The point is that it can happen, and therefore it can have an effect, unlike say Insomnia + Early Bird where one ability makes the other completely obsolete. As simple as that.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Sure, because Skill Swap is only used in singles and you never pass abilities to your teammates.

The point is that it can happen, and therefore it can have an effect, unlike say Insomnia + Early Bird where one ability makes the other completely obsolete. As simple as that.

Who said I was referring to singles? Of course when "exploding partner" is mentioned it is incredibly obvious I am referring to Doubles+. All you have mentioned are super uncommon scenarios in Doubles+ that have very little reward given the risk. What benefit is there to skill swapping Protean or Scrappy away just so Jellicent can be hit by its teammate's explosion? I can guarantee that the answer is "not worth the risk". Of course it can happen; I never said it could not and Skill Swap facilitates this.

At this point you are grasping at straws. Drop it. Especially given this could not be any less relevant to the topic at hand.

Now I ask again. Exactly what "unfortunate" interaction is there with regards to Damp Jellicent that makes change warranted?

 

[Elevator Music]

Err the point was that in like, 99% of scenarios, if the opponent uses Explosion then Jellicent is worse off with Damp since the opponent won't faint.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Okay so that is established.

What you are suggesting is to create an interaction between Ghost-types and Damp. Exactly what do you think would be the most desirable interaction in this circumstance? Make it so the opponent faints if the Damp Pokémon is a Ghost-type?

It seems like a simple enough fix that I would not have a problem directly implementing. Do keep in mind that this is for an incredibly specific scenario that is almost never likely to occur (If you choose to blow up on a Jellicent or a Ghost-type, you are on drugs unless you are Mega Glalie or something).

Any other possible compensations could we look at for this interaction or should we just go with the opponent fainting thing?

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I object to this. Not to the idea itself because it's one of those things that you think "oh yeah that would work, make jellicents ability do more for it" until you stop and realize that you're altering a whole ability purely for a single pokemon for reasons that have nothing to do with game balance or obvious oversight.

This is literally a change predicated on preferring something a different way and is not related to improvement of the game and so I object.

(On a personal level I'm all for it because it does make sense but from a game design standpoint nuh-uh, if the suggestion were anything more beneficial to jelli than letting the opp faint we'd be screaming buff culture)