Acrually, can we change Stall to make the user move last in it's respective priority bracket? All this troubles raising for that ability alone (as this isn't even the first stall related question I've seen this week). And even though this all seems like a semanthics argument to me (currently stall works by what basically amounts to transforming every move into a -7 priority move), with that change alone we would, in my view, save ourselves from future headaches regarding how this ability works (or how it SHOULD do).
-
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
Making it act last in its respective priority bracket would be nerfing the ability massively (from its current position anyway).
I hardly see a reason for doing so, and a blanket and unsupported (that I've seen) generalization of "all the troubles" the abilities causes doesn't make the argument for you.
Do you have any specific examples of the "troubles" this ability is causing to warrent said nerf?
I hardly see a reason for doing so, and a blanket and unsupported (that I've seen) generalization of "all the troubles" the abilities causes doesn't make the argument for you.
Do you have any specific examples of the "troubles" this ability is causing to warrent said nerf?
Last edited:
TSRD: That is stall's in game effect. We buffed it in ASB.
How is the proposed solution any different in terms of mechanics doubts over what we have now? Always going last is pretty clear cut mechanics wise when applied so... But that is just me. I do not see how this reduces the doubts and it could be argued that it increases doubts. Care to enlighten me on what is so confusing with what we have now?
This is ASB, not ingame. I do not know if this is a pro-nerf post or not, but just because that is the ingame effect, does not mean we should revert it to its ingame effect. If we hit Stall, it will be for balance reasons, not to match ingame.
Prior to his edit, he had where he now has "from its current position anyway" "not to mention changing it from its in-game effect." I was just correcting this.
Shifting within the same priority bracket does have a few useful bonuses - it resolves the Quick Guard scenario nicely (The move is acting at +1 Prio - this is far easier to understand than 'the move is +1 Prio but acting after every other move'), and it also makes [STALL] substitutions easier to work with (Well, to a degree). I would appreciate pretty much any change to Stall.
I guess this wants a policy thread?
"+Priority while acting last" is its own thing (in my mind similar to "Spread/Multi-Targeting Move while targeting a single mon is still a Spread/Multi-Targeting move" there are plenty of people who have been hurt by that distinction), and if you want to "fix" that then whatever, but your Sub example isn't really an issue with Stall, it's an issue with negative priority/normal priority and subs. I'm expecting the issue you're referencing (but not actually providing because we wouldn't want to be clear, lets just make blanket statements) would be something like Gale's current Llama match where the initial move was Stalled but the sub was not and as such the sub was illegal because you couldn't retroactively change priority like that. That's not an issue with Stall, replace Stall with a negative priority move (or the subed move with a +priority move) and you get the same effect.
And whether Sableye is good regardless of the change isn't how we should decide nerfs. Didn't we just have this issue with Trace where people were against letting there be a "Trace Phase" because "Gardevoir is already good"? The only reason to bring Sableye into this rather than leaving the ability on its own, is if you feel Sableye is too good/broken because of Stall and that's why it must be changed, not "Well I don't like it and it wouldn't hurt Sableye much to change it so there" (not to say that's your reasoning but when you don't provide reasoning I'm left to make up your argument myself).
And whether Sableye is good regardless of the change isn't how we should decide nerfs. Didn't we just have this issue with Trace where people were against letting there be a "Trace Phase" because "Gardevoir is already good"? The only reason to bring Sableye into this rather than leaving the ability on its own, is if you feel Sableye is too good/broken because of Stall and that's why it must be changed, not "Well I don't like it and it wouldn't hurt Sableye much to change it so there" (not to say that's your reasoning but when you don't provide reasoning I'm left to make up your argument myself).
Last edited:
My apologies for making a rather quick remark on my mobile and assuming that our members are smart enough to gain information from context. Let me make my points clearer;
Stall, at the moment, breaks ASB Substitution logic. Let's use an example;
For the record, some solutions to Stall will leave the above example still illegal - such as simply moving the move to the end of it's priority bracket - but they will at least make more sense to most users, since it'd be consistent with in-game rules. If Stall interacts with Priority, it also allows us to eliminate odd issues involving multiple Stall users, which we currently have to use an awkward codification to resolve.
As for me mentioning Sableye - it's not a thick idea to consider Sableye when we're considering changes to Stall, since it's the only user. Also a wee bit of tongue-in-cheek.
Finally, I've yet to see any evidence that suggests this would be a Nerf. We might change it, but continuously referring to an unspecified change as a nerf will not make it a nerf -_-'
Stall, at the moment, breaks ASB Substitution logic. Let's use an example;
This sub is, as it stands, illegal, because it attempts to turn a -4 Prio move into a 0 Prio move. ASB Chance Substitutions prevent this from working as to prevent silliness. However, the logic doesn't hold here - there's no reason that Facade [STALL] shouldn't be usable in this instance - both moves want to act at the same time. This is confusing (Especially for someone new, since it doesn't act like in-game Stall) - especially since the reverse is legal. Because we use Priority to determine when the move acts in comparison, and Stall currently outright ignores priority, we get a lot of these bizarre scenarios. We would either have to add clarifications to our substitution system to account for Stall, or change Stall so it's a non-issue.
For the record, some solutions to Stall will leave the above example still illegal - such as simply moving the move to the end of it's priority bracket - but they will at least make more sense to most users, since it'd be consistent with in-game rules. If Stall interacts with Priority, it also allows us to eliminate odd issues involving multiple Stall users, which we currently have to use an awkward codification to resolve.
As for me mentioning Sableye - it's not a thick idea to consider Sableye when we're considering changes to Stall, since it's the only user. Also a wee bit of tongue-in-cheek.
Finally, I've yet to see any evidence that suggests this would be a Nerf. We might change it, but continuously referring to an unspecified change as a nerf will not make it a nerf -_-'
Both of the people presenting "unspecified changes" (Gerard and yourself) didn't actually present "unspecified changes", both instead presented "Having Stall move last in its priority bracket" (though to be fair your response also indicated you wanted any change at all). That's both specified and pretty clearly a nerf (from it's current function). Now that doesn't actually mean that's what is/might be done/decided on (one could decide to make it Gerard's second suggestion of making the moves -8 priority for example) but it is what was primarily put forward.
For what it's worth, if people wanted to go with Gerard's second option (clearly stating that the move becomes negative priority) then that's fine with me. I'm not supporting to the whole "+Priority but going last" thing as a quality part of the rules that must be maintained. It was just something that came up in a game, that I wanted to talk about. Silly me.
Last edited:
Then consider Stall to be -whatever priority for subs and their normal priority otherwise though they still act last...
Boom, problem solved, confusions erased. Codifications are more preferable to entire mechanics changes wherever possible.
And yes you are on crack to say it is not a nerf. For example, Sableye cannot hit diggers with any old move anymore. Sableye cannot escape being encored into endure the same action it uses it. I can go on for hours about it. But that is beside the point.
Boom, problem solved, confusions erased. Codifications are more preferable to entire mechanics changes wherever possible.
And yes you are on crack to say it is not a nerf. For example, Sableye cannot hit diggers with any old move anymore. Sableye cannot escape being encored into endure the same action it uses it. I can go on for hours about it. But that is beside the point.
can we have a decisive ruling on spider web wrt to struggle? The description states non contact moves, but struggle is a contact move.
also can we clean up spider web's description? theres alot of unnecessary flavor text and it reeks of early ASB flavor
also can we clean up spider web's description? theres alot of unnecessary flavor text and it reeks of early ASB flavor
It just outright fails, just like ingame. Cannot check the NDA ATM since I am tablet posting and NDA will not properly load but I am pretty sure it follows a formula of Base Cost + half the Item BAP; take the base cost and use that (it is either 3 or 4, idr).
Welp. I just checked, the EN cost is simply half the BAP. A failed Fling should have some cost though...
can we make dawn stone more consistent with dusk stone? ie, make it boost best stat instead of this silly (read: crappy) current effect.
#buffculture
#buffculture
Just use 1 EN then; 1 EN is the minimum EN consumption for anything with regards to using a move. Alternatively I could add a flat cost of 1 EN for Fling. Turns out it was like this in the old DAT as well.
Anyone object to this? Sure, it makes Gallade better, but Mega Gallade is still way better and it will just act like rare candy. Either way consistency is good.
So, we need an agreement. Does being phazed prevent cooldown from combos?
From the handbook:
"If the Pokemon uses a combo on the last action of a round, it is forced to cool down on the first action of the next round and cannot be switched out to prevent this unless the opponent uses a move like Roar on them; the Pokemon cannot switch out if a combo it uses on the last action of a round includes a move like U-turn."
This can be interpreted as either "can't be switched out while under cooldown, but may be phazed and cooldown when it switches in again" and "can't switch out by itself, but if phazed it can and will not be under cooldown when switching in."
From the handbook:
"If the Pokemon uses a combo on the last action of a round, it is forced to cool down on the first action of the next round and cannot be switched out to prevent this unless the opponent uses a move like Roar on them; the Pokemon cannot switch out if a combo it uses on the last action of a round includes a move like U-turn."
This can be interpreted as either "can't be switched out while under cooldown, but may be phazed and cooldown when it switches in again" and "can't switch out by itself, but if phazed it can and will not be under cooldown when switching in."
Cooldown is a punishment and should always be seen as such. So between two (or more) valid interpretations, the one that should be applied is the one that punishes the user of the combo, not the one that rewards them.
So yeah, it will need to cooldown regardless.
BTW If no one objects to Dawn Stone change I will end up fiating it eventually. So please do say something if you don't like that.
So yeah, it will need to cooldown regardless.
BTW If no one objects to Dawn Stone change I will end up fiating it eventually. So please do say something if you don't like that.
Disagreed. Current wordings imply that *if* you could switch, you'd be free of cooldown - the 'unless' is key, since it connects 'prevent this' and 'being phased'. Cooldown is also a temporary status (In that it lasts a set number of actions, and isn't permanent), which realistically means that you should be able to switch out of it.
Lord knows that ASB would benefit from being able to have some people benefit from being forced into the switch (Especially if you're as silly to phaze ordering first).
Lord knows that ASB would benefit from being able to have some people benefit from being forced into the switch (Especially if you're as silly to phaze ordering first).
The current wording wasn't voted. The current wording is just a rehash of the previous wording which is:
"but combinations used on the last action of a round require a cool down on action 1 of the next round, meaning a Pokemon that ends a round with a combination cannot switch out unless forced out by an attack that round."
Unless here refers to "cannot switch" and it only, so it is an exception to the "cannot switch" rule, not the "require a cool down" rule. If the new wording may make it seem otherwise, oh well. The wording that matter for defining the effects of whatever is the one done by someone with authority to determine how things work, which would be the DAT and not the Handbook wording.
Cooldown is a unique status in every sense of the word. The fact that it happens to be temporary doesn't change that. It still behaves in an unique manner. If we allow switches to remove cooldown we will open the doors to abuse. Cooldown were created for the sole purpose of it being an unavoidable punishment to the user (reason why it delays sleep and freeze and many other stuff) and Deck himself stated that more than once. Any kind of interpretation that deviates from that shouldn't be applied.
"but combinations used on the last action of a round require a cool down on action 1 of the next round, meaning a Pokemon that ends a round with a combination cannot switch out unless forced out by an attack that round."
Unless here refers to "cannot switch" and it only, so it is an exception to the "cannot switch" rule, not the "require a cool down" rule. If the new wording may make it seem otherwise, oh well. The wording that matter for defining the effects of whatever is the one done by someone with authority to determine how things work, which would be the DAT and not the Handbook wording.
Cooldown is a unique status in every sense of the word. The fact that it happens to be temporary doesn't change that. It still behaves in an unique manner. If we allow switches to remove cooldown we will open the doors to abuse. Cooldown were created for the sole purpose of it being an unavoidable punishment to the user (reason why it delays sleep and freeze and many other stuff) and Deck himself stated that more than once. Any kind of interpretation that deviates from that shouldn't be applied.
- Status