So I was staring at my Haxorus earlier today when I had a spontaneous idea that seemed to be pretty good. We talked it over on irc some to explore the concept and though it wasn't fully supported the conceptual basis seemed to be worthwhile to explore in greater detail.
Let's start with a question. Why aren't Outrage, Thrash, and Petal Dance used more? They are 12 BAP moves that almost unanimously receive STAB from their users, surely that would be something of value? The answer to that question is simple: action economy. Under current mechanics, these three moves lock you into themselves for 3 actions without possibility of switching. Despite these moves power, the action locking effect allows an opponent to have significant options available for counterplay, counterplay that is easily achieved. As a result, these moves only ever see use when ordering second, and even then almost only ever on the first action as a result of the locking effect preventing the user of the move from switching out until the move is complete.
Why is this the case? These three moves were chosen to differ from in-game convention's 2/3a duration by Deck Knight at ASBs conception and were locked in flat at 3 action duration. The idea I came up with looks to more closely mirror the effects of Outrage/Thrash/Petal Dance with their in-game counterparts while maintaining a balance in tactics and overall power. The idea is as follows:
Outrage, Thrash, and Petal Dance may have two different move durations, one of which will be selected as at the first action.
a) The user of the move will rage for two (2) actions uncontrollably, becoming disoriented and confused at the conclusion of the move.
b) The user of the move will rage for three (3) actions uncontrollably, but maintains control and awareness upon calming down.
This proposed change would more closely align these moves with their in-game counterparts by allowing for the 2/3 actions split, while providing benefits to the potential utility of tactics associated with the moves.
This change provides the individual with a choice: do I want to improve my action economy but at the penalty of becoming confused as a result vs. do I want to provide my opponent with easier counterplay but be guaranteed of my move choice at the conclusion of the move. Currently these three moves see use only in one situation due to their significant associated penalty: ordering second, and almost exclusively on first order. This proposed change would maintain that current use, possibly increasing the frequency due to the removal of 3a confusion, while also allowing for the potential of use on second action while ordering second, and with the rare possibility of use ordering first, for example in the instance that the opponent has been Encored. The key tactical utility that is introduced from the 2a duration+confusion is the ability to use the move on second action ordering second and then switch out at the end of the round.
I believe this proposal is effective at two things: making a move more closely aligned with its in-game counterparts and increasing the effectiveness of a move that current seems very limited use due to its poor utility. For these reasons I think it would be a good change to implement and I encourage discussion and feedback on the idea.
Below I'll leave some excerpts from the irc discussion regarding some possible counterarguments
One final comment: some people will be concerned about possible 'buff culture' which, while valid, I respond as follows: these moves were created as such at the beginning of ASB unilaterally and for a vastly different metagame than today. The moves have empirically been proven to be net poor choices. This suggestion would result in a buff, yes, but please first evaluate the results of the buff and consider whether they buff the moves beyond reason or simply increase the chance that they'll ever be used.
Let's start with a question. Why aren't Outrage, Thrash, and Petal Dance used more? They are 12 BAP moves that almost unanimously receive STAB from their users, surely that would be something of value? The answer to that question is simple: action economy. Under current mechanics, these three moves lock you into themselves for 3 actions without possibility of switching. Despite these moves power, the action locking effect allows an opponent to have significant options available for counterplay, counterplay that is easily achieved. As a result, these moves only ever see use when ordering second, and even then almost only ever on the first action as a result of the locking effect preventing the user of the move from switching out until the move is complete.
Why is this the case? These three moves were chosen to differ from in-game convention's 2/3a duration by Deck Knight at ASBs conception and were locked in flat at 3 action duration. The idea I came up with looks to more closely mirror the effects of Outrage/Thrash/Petal Dance with their in-game counterparts while maintaining a balance in tactics and overall power. The idea is as follows:
Outrage, Thrash, and Petal Dance may have two different move durations, one of which will be selected as at the first action.
a) The user of the move will rage for two (2) actions uncontrollably, becoming disoriented and confused at the conclusion of the move.
b) The user of the move will rage for three (3) actions uncontrollably, but maintains control and awareness upon calming down.
This proposed change would more closely align these moves with their in-game counterparts by allowing for the 2/3 actions split, while providing benefits to the potential utility of tactics associated with the moves.
This change provides the individual with a choice: do I want to improve my action economy but at the penalty of becoming confused as a result vs. do I want to provide my opponent with easier counterplay but be guaranteed of my move choice at the conclusion of the move. Currently these three moves see use only in one situation due to their significant associated penalty: ordering second, and almost exclusively on first order. This proposed change would maintain that current use, possibly increasing the frequency due to the removal of 3a confusion, while also allowing for the potential of use on second action while ordering second, and with the rare possibility of use ordering first, for example in the instance that the opponent has been Encored. The key tactical utility that is introduced from the 2a duration+confusion is the ability to use the move on second action ordering second and then switch out at the end of the round.
I believe this proposal is effective at two things: making a move more closely aligned with its in-game counterparts and increasing the effectiveness of a move that current seems very limited use due to its poor utility. For these reasons I think it would be a good change to implement and I encourage discussion and feedback on the idea.
Below I'll leave some excerpts from the irc discussion regarding some possible counterarguments
[11:46:54] <FMD> I assume it would be abused by something.
[11:48:02] <Texas> FMD i think the only thing that could abuse it
[11:48:05] <Texas> would be thrash dodrio
[11:48:08] <Texas> due to tangled feet
[11:48:15] <Texas> which first off: its dodrio
[11:48:18] <Texas> dodrio is bad
[11:48:36] <Texas> second off its only a 12 bap normal stab, its no world beater
[11:58:55] <FMD> By giving a choice between either ignoring the main drawback (confusion) or by using it one fewer time?
[11:59:17] <jayy> yes, because being locked into anything for 3a in ASB is essentially being Encored
[11:59:24] <jayy> and we know how bad being Encored is
[11:59:28] <jayy> or hell, being Choiced
[11:59:29] <Texas> the idea is that outrage rarely sees use because of action economy
[11:59:37] <Rainman> Also not sure if you can switch out while outraging
[11:59:39] <Texas> locking yourself into an action is opening yourself to easy counterplay
[11:59:43] <jayy> you cannot iirc
[11:59:52] <Texas> ergo you would always choose 2a over 3a of outrage all else similar
[12:00:18] <Texas> under this suggestion you can improve your action economy
[12:00:22] <Texas> at the penalty of being confused
[12:10:47] <dogfish44> Making the 3a variant non-confusing is a buff, for the record :P
[11:48:02] <Texas> FMD i think the only thing that could abuse it
[11:48:05] <Texas> would be thrash dodrio
[11:48:08] <Texas> due to tangled feet
[11:48:15] <Texas> which first off: its dodrio
[11:48:18] <Texas> dodrio is bad
[11:48:36] <Texas> second off its only a 12 bap normal stab, its no world beater
[11:58:55] <FMD> By giving a choice between either ignoring the main drawback (confusion) or by using it one fewer time?
[11:59:17] <jayy> yes, because being locked into anything for 3a in ASB is essentially being Encored
[11:59:24] <jayy> and we know how bad being Encored is
[11:59:28] <jayy> or hell, being Choiced
[11:59:29] <Texas> the idea is that outrage rarely sees use because of action economy
[11:59:37] <Rainman> Also not sure if you can switch out while outraging
[11:59:39] <Texas> locking yourself into an action is opening yourself to easy counterplay
[11:59:43] <jayy> you cannot iirc
[11:59:52] <Texas> ergo you would always choose 2a over 3a of outrage all else similar
[12:00:18] <Texas> under this suggestion you can improve your action economy
[12:00:22] <Texas> at the penalty of being confused
[12:10:47] <dogfish44> Making the 3a variant non-confusing is a buff, for the record :P
[12:09:52] <FMD> This also interferes with the current combo mechanics of those moves, so those would also need to be reworked.
[12:10:05] <Texas> it doesnt actually
[12:10:21] <Texas> current combo mechanics for those moves treats the move as a single turn action
[12:10:33] <Texas> outrage+outrage is a one turn damage, cool down, business as normal
[12:10:05] <Texas> it doesnt actually
[12:10:21] <Texas> current combo mechanics for those moves treats the move as a single turn action
[12:10:33] <Texas> outrage+outrage is a one turn damage, cool down, business as normal
[11:48:39] <FMD> Let's wait until we see what Gen VII does.
[11:48:50] <Texas> oh i'm not suggesting we do this immediately
[11:48:53] <Texas> its a spitball idea
[11:48:56] <Texas> i want to see it explored
[11:50:32] <FMD> Yeah, I don't think any major gameplay changes should happen for the rest of the year... unless something like a pseudo-legendary with Vital Spirit + Insomnia is revealed, or something.
[11:51:08] <Texas> this would be a very minor gameplay change
[11:51:21] <Texas> the moves are so infrequently used it would be a neat, niche thing
[11:51:47] <FMD> Gen VII could change that.
[11:52:39] <jayy> Can we not put all these eggs in Gen VII's basket
[11:52:51] <Texas> if its a move change then we update to the new rules as we always have, if its a mechanical issue then then we fix the broken thing, as we have
[11:53:00] <Texas> i dont think the appeal to (authority?) works here
[11:53:03] <jayy> like, new generations are revolutionary, sure, but Outrage/Thrash/etc. has always been like this since their release
[11:53:29] <FMD> If we get a Dragon type with Tangled Feet...
[11:53:46] <Texas> then we evaluate if its an issue or not, and make adjustments as necessary
[11:53:52] <jayy> Wouldn't be the worst thing that happened
[11:54:07] <Texas> that argument can be extended to any mechanical change we've made
[11:54:13] <jayy> Especially not when we have mons with Pickup and Skill Link and Technician
[11:54:14] <Texas> "what if x got y and it was broken"
[11:54:19] <jayy> ^
[11:54:22] <Texas> isnt really a good reason not to do it especially without precedent
[11:54:30] <jayy> Everything at some point /can/ be broken
[11:55:15] <Texas> i'm more curious about whether its a worthwile idea, whether the idea would be valuable and effective in practice as it is in conception
[11:55:19] <FMD> Except that we're getting a steady stream of new things released and there's really no reason to change Thrash/Petal Dance/Outrage, anyway.
[11:55:34] <Texas> there is a reason actually
[11:55:58] <Texas> the reason being that outrage etc deviates from ingame by fixing the length of outrage as opposed to the 2/3a it can be in game
[11:56:06] <Texas> this idea allows for that difference and attempts to balance it
[11:48:50] <Texas> oh i'm not suggesting we do this immediately
[11:48:53] <Texas> its a spitball idea
[11:48:56] <Texas> i want to see it explored
[11:50:32] <FMD> Yeah, I don't think any major gameplay changes should happen for the rest of the year... unless something like a pseudo-legendary with Vital Spirit + Insomnia is revealed, or something.
[11:51:08] <Texas> this would be a very minor gameplay change
[11:51:21] <Texas> the moves are so infrequently used it would be a neat, niche thing
[11:51:47] <FMD> Gen VII could change that.
[11:52:39] <jayy> Can we not put all these eggs in Gen VII's basket
[11:52:51] <Texas> if its a move change then we update to the new rules as we always have, if its a mechanical issue then then we fix the broken thing, as we have
[11:53:00] <Texas> i dont think the appeal to (authority?) works here
[11:53:03] <jayy> like, new generations are revolutionary, sure, but Outrage/Thrash/etc. has always been like this since their release
[11:53:29] <FMD> If we get a Dragon type with Tangled Feet...
[11:53:46] <Texas> then we evaluate if its an issue or not, and make adjustments as necessary
[11:53:52] <jayy> Wouldn't be the worst thing that happened
[11:54:07] <Texas> that argument can be extended to any mechanical change we've made
[11:54:13] <jayy> Especially not when we have mons with Pickup and Skill Link and Technician
[11:54:14] <Texas> "what if x got y and it was broken"
[11:54:19] <jayy> ^
[11:54:22] <Texas> isnt really a good reason not to do it especially without precedent
[11:54:30] <jayy> Everything at some point /can/ be broken
[11:55:15] <Texas> i'm more curious about whether its a worthwile idea, whether the idea would be valuable and effective in practice as it is in conception
[11:55:19] <FMD> Except that we're getting a steady stream of new things released and there's really no reason to change Thrash/Petal Dance/Outrage, anyway.
[11:55:34] <Texas> there is a reason actually
[11:55:58] <Texas> the reason being that outrage etc deviates from ingame by fixing the length of outrage as opposed to the 2/3a it can be in game
[11:56:06] <Texas> this idea allows for that difference and attempts to balance it
One final comment: some people will be concerned about possible 'buff culture' which, while valid, I respond as follows: these moves were created as such at the beginning of ASB unilaterally and for a vastly different metagame than today. The moves have empirically been proven to be net poor choices. This suggestion would result in a buff, yes, but please first evaluate the results of the buff and consider whether they buff the moves beyond reason or simply increase the chance that they'll ever be used.
