Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[Its_A_Random]

I really thought we never needed to do this again, but we need to do something with Greninja. Again. The rationale behind this is that every time I go on IRC, I hear endless complaints from new users AND experienced users that Greninja is OP/broken and needs a nerf. When I ask why it needs a nerf, people bring up the following factors to it:

• "Impossible" to order first against / no reliable counters.
• Protean + Rare Candy.
• A blistering Speed stat.
• A wide array of coverage that gives it the tools it needs to deal with most targets as well as provide strong defensive capabilities.
• A very good array of supportive / disruptive moves.

And that it is a combination of the above five factors that in the eyes of quite a few users here, arguably pushes it over the edge and is seen as some as a degenerative force in the metagame (Its usage in AOT3 R1 isn't high for no reason). Out of these, the only thing we can really feasibly nerf are Protean and/or Rare Candy and it is probably in the best interests of the game to do so to nerf Greninja and put it in line (The most common suggested nerf being to make it so it does not get +5 BAP on everything).

No one is saying we are going to murder Greninja to the depths of unviability with this. Heck, after the nerf, I still forsee it getting plenty of usage because even without Protean Greninja is still plenty viable. Also before people bring up Sableye et al and why Greninja is such a special snowflake, bear in mind that Sableye et al at least have reliable answers to them, you really cannot say this with Greninja because of its ability to change typing at will and ability to screw over any first order-set with ease, and this is why people have been complaining about Greninja as opposed to Sableye or Mega Gardevoir.

tl;dr, Greninja even after Mat Block nerf is still seen as an issue and we have to look at it again.

 

[Dogfish44]

The only one of those I think we can justify tackling is "Protean + Rare Candy". The first is self-fixing (It's not impossible to order first vs., but it's a pain that's more limiting than other mons), the 3rd is literally unfixable, the 4th is similar, the 5th we tried and it didn't work.

Main things to avoid are hurting other type changers (Kecleon, Castform), whilst at the same time unbreaking Gren & co. Easiest fix would be in Rare Candy - change it to boost just original STABs, leaving Everstone as is. Probably something less clunky though?

 

[Frosty]

If we want to nerf only greninja we just need to put a nerf on protean and remove it if protean is with color change. Like "If this pokemon changes typing due to protean, the item-based STAB bonuses will occur only to the original STAB. If Protean is combined with Color Change, item-based STAB bonuses will occur to the typing the pokemon was changed to". Only with a better phrasing and all.


just 2 cents.

 

[Leethoof]

copy+paste morning suns non-fluff description to moonlights, removing all extraneous references to the moon
leave extra moony weather to be specified in arena effects, therefore removing all possible confusion

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

If we want to nerf only greninja we just need to put a nerf on protean and remove it if protean is with color change. Like "If this pokemon changes typing due to protean, the item-based STAB bonuses will occur only to the original STAB. If Protean is combined with Color Change, item-based STAB bonuses will occur to the typing the pokemon was changed to". Only with a better phrasing and all.


just 2 cents.

Well castform and kecleon benefit from everstone not candy though, so making RC (but not everstone) only affect original STABs effectively does the same thing.
Both solutions work, but the RC one gives stuff like soak a little more power, turns camouflage into ever more shit, makes.. reflect type into shit...? lol
Also resolves dogfish's question about Forest's Curse and Trick or Treat from 1 post before IAR's ninjastorm
The protean thing just solves this current issue, and affects nothing else, being no collateral damage to anything else.

^ is trying to debate both sides of the point. I think the RC version affects a few more things, which can be good or bad, depending. I'm thinking better overall because of the niche side changes. The protean thing looks like a huge mouthful to word, and honestly I feel like we should put "greninja line" there rather than anything else more cumbersome.

edit: LINK TO GRENINJA THREAD HERE

Yes click that ^

 

[Its_A_Random]

copy+paste morning suns non-fluff description to moonlights, removing all extraneous references to the moon
leave extra moony weather to be specified in arena effects, therefore removing all possible confusion

Even better:

"The Pokémon absorbs moonlight to restore health. Moonlight restores 35 HP in strong sunlight or moonlight, 25 HP in normal weather, and 15 HP in other weather or a poorly lit indoors arena. This move uses up one of the user's available recovery moves in a battle."

"The Pokémon looks up to the sun to restore health. Morning Sun restores 35 HP of maximum health in strong sunlight, 25 HP in normal weather, and 15 HP in other weather or a poorly lit indoors arena. This move uses up one of the user's available recovery moves in a battle."

Basically removed the half HP thing together while leaving moonlight open to arenas that want to invent a moonlight weather effect.

(These changes are done btw to stop these headaches)

 

[acidphoenix]

http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...-glacier-knight-vs-acidphoenix.3554223/page-2

...yeah

Generally consensus seems to be 'flavor has its place, just not in important(read: tourney/gym) matches' i.e. the best i've gotten from the other side is 'nowhere says you can't'

Also: apparently glacier submitted something in PMs to ooraloo that she accepted, so this isn't me just saying 'it's a problem that this can be a joke'
I'm saying 'It's a problem that this can be put into a match, taken seriously, and allowing a player to win a match that would otherwise be a 100% win even if they had a --% accuracy 500 BAP move with 0 EN and no negative effects.'

Other problems include the fact that glacier is currently using ref-assisted locking of my actions- he has actions in the thread but ooraloo isn't reffing on the grounds that she rejected those flavor actions.

edit: apparently the actions glacier got approved won't cause him a win. points still stand.

 

[Maxim]

http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...-glacier-knight-vs-acidphoenix.3554223/page-2

...yeah

Generally consensus seems to be 'flavor has its place, just not in important(read: tourney/gym) matches' i.e. the best i've gotten from the other side is 'nowhere says you can't'

Also: apparently glacier submitted something in PMs to ooraloo that she accepted, so this isn't me just saying 'it's a problem that this can be a joke'
I'm saying 'It's a problem that this can be put into a match, taken seriously, and allowing a player to win a match that would otherwise be a 100% win even if they had a --% accuracy 500 BAP move with 0 EN and no negative effects.'

Other problems include the fact that glacier is currently using ref-assisted locking of my actions- he has actions in the thread but ooraloo isn't reffing on the grounds that she rejected those flavor actions.

edit: apparently the actions glacier got approved won't cause him a win. points still stand.

This seems like a thing that needs to be addressed.

In my opinion, the easiest fix would be to just add a Flavor Actions=Yes/No to our list of battle conditions (similar to Switch=Yes/No). Each roleplay and tournament would just have this as part of their ruleset, and Gyms would generally assume it to be No. If nobody specifies the default is No.

Another option would be to try and get some roleplay actions codified so there are less "no win" situations in the game, but that's my crazy half talking.

 

[Geodude6]

Gust, Thunder, and Twister should have double BAP when used against a target in the middle of Fly, Sky Drop, or Bounce because they deal double damage ingame.

 

[Dogfish44]

Gust, Thunder, and Twister should have double BAP when used against a target in the middle of Fly, Sky Drop, or Bounce because they deal double damage ingame.

Twister and Gust have had this since the start of ASB. Thunder and Hurricane should probably be added (Hurricane still needs a note in the NDA that it breaks through Fly and co -.-)

 

[Its_A_Random]

I added the doubled thing to Hurricane and Thunder, and Bounce et al already note that Hurricane breaks it.

 

[Chinchou111]

petition to make giga impact and hyper beam ct deferring to make them more comboable

 

[YellowAdminSilver]

Also, there's apparently a question of how Fairy STAB interacts with consecutive EN penalty wrt same-move combos. The issue at hand is here (even if it's not a real issue at all because Aroma would have fainted either way). Still, it might be nice to get some clarification for future reference.

 

[acidphoenix]

I know I already told this to Frosty on IRC, but for the Mentoring Program there should be Strategy 202 - a program for players who know how to play and have already joined, but need help with complex subs / complex orders / strategy

maybe three battles, a 3v3 singles/4v4 doubles/5v5 triples, and function like the battling 101 battles but the tutor uses really (intentionally) complicated subs and possibly 'gotcha' illegal ones

 

[tavok]

So, I think we need to solve something.

I see many people who stockpile UC in decimals, when the handbook and almost all formulas everywhere else say to round down when calcing UC. Will decimal UC be allowed? If so, then the handbook should be edited accordingly.

Oh, and it contradicts itself already. In the Bonuc UC calcing example, it says that you round normally, while in a paragraph below that it says that it is rounded down.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Are you sure these people aren't approvers?

 

[tavok]

Are you sure these people aren't approvers?

Yes, I am. I'm talking about reffing UC and the like.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

So, I think we need to solve something.

I see many people who stockpile UC in decimals, when the handbook and almost all formulas everywhere else say to round down when calcing UC. Will decimal UC be allowed? If so, then the handbook should be edited accordingly.

Oh, and it contradicts itself already. In the Bonuc UC calcing example, it says that you round normally, while in a paragraph below that it says that it is rounded down.

Yes, I am. Look at Gale, for example. I think phoenix does, too, but I'm not sure. I'm talking about reffing UC and the like.

I sense a kind of a negative vibe from these posts. I don't think it is intended to be, but it is definitely giving out that vibe for me.

Anyways, here is what I think. All UC fractions that are obtained from regular reffings (usually Subreffing or DQ) are rounded down or rounded up for a reason. Rounded down to make sure that we reward refs who take up subreffing and penalize refs who end up getting their battle subreffed (among other reasons).

6) Payment for Refs and HostsRefs gets 1.5x the UC correspondent to the match (including bonus length UC), but ONLY if they ref said match from begining to the end without being subreffed. If the match gets subreffed, payment rules will obey the handbook. We value time and commitment more than anything considering how much those tournaments take.

Referees

For battle simulations, the UC payout is 1.5 × Standard counters. For battles with an asymmetric amount of Pokémon per team, assume half the total Pokémon sent out for the format. For battles with an asymmetric number of Pokémon on the field at one time, take the side with the higher amount of Pokémon on the field and assume that format for the bonus payout (e.g. 3v1 is considered Triples). The global UC cap and the Brawl/Melee UC cap does not apply here.

UC fractions obtained through multiplication factors in Tournaments and RPs, are not mentioned to be rounded down or rounded up. There is no real need to penalize a ref who has completed their reffing in a tournament, and in the same way there is no real need to give them a round up bonus either.

I don't understand the problem in keeping the payout as is. *smh*

But if this has to be resolved, then I suggest that we allow refs to round up their fractional rewards caused by the explicit multiplication factor of Tournaments or RPs for completing their reffing from start to end.

 

[Its_A_Random]

I should have been more explicit but the Sim RP UC awards are rounded normally as precedented in the beta tests and whatnot. I will make that more explicit next patch.

But yeah please do not call out people on this. On the issue, I have always hated the idea of decimal UC and refuse to put in decimals from Approval Counters and personally would not mind seeing decimal UC eradicated altogether but I do not have a strong opinion on it, especially since I cannot find a legitimate argument in favour of abolishing it.

 

[Geodude6]

Proposing a buff to Lati@site on the basis that both the base Latis and their megas have the Levitate ability and they don't gain any extra ability upon mega evolution.


Latiasite: Allows Latias to Mega-Evolve into Mega Latias. Levitate grants a complete immunity to Ground-type attacks.

Latiosite: Allows Latios to Mega-Evolve into Mega Latios. Levitate grants a complete immunity to Ground-type attacks.


edit
10:24 dogfish44 *old person grumbling*

 

[Its_A_Random]

You know, we had an ENTIRE discussion related to buffing signature items last week and only now do you decide to bring it up?

I suppose we will get back to you and discuss this internally... I mean, it is not like this whole idea of buffing a Mega ability if no new ability is unprecedented anyway... -.-'

 

[Its_A_Random]

Update: Mods are okay with the Lati@site proposal. Any objections to the proposed from the public?

 

[JJayyFeather]

None here

 

[Mowtom]

We need a crystal-clear clarification on UC payouts for battles between more than two players.

I asked about this on IRC and was told by Dogfish44 that you calc it the same as you would if there were two players, so a 1v1=1v1v1=1v1v1v1=1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1=3 UC (without bonus UC for it taking longer). acidphoenix was there and reacted with a "that's a terrible system."

Iggy Azalea asked on IRC and was told by Geodude6 and acidphoenix that you sum the total number of Pokemon and divide by two, and use the normal formula with that being the number of Pokemon per side.

Let's settle this now, once and for all, and add a sentence to the Handbook.

 

[Dogfish44]

We already have a line in the handbook, for the record.

The formula to determine how much UC the ref gets is:
(Pokemon per side + 1) * (Pokemon per side + 2) / 2

Not that I happen to like the formula when it's applied to 3+ Player matchups, but we do at least have one =\