Data State of the Game - January 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
let's post!
1) How do you feel about the Z-Moves mechanic and why?
I haven't really seen them used at all; that's probably because they are underwhelming. One use for +10 damage is completely destroyed by even stuff like Mystic Water. Z-Moves are amazing imo, and ASB should reflect this.
2) Should Salazzle have a Signature Item and why? If so, what attributes of Salazzle would you feel like would be good for a Signature Item for Salazzle and why?
yes please #salazzledazzle I think we should add something that reflects its speed, like "This Pokémon gets one Emergency Exit counter every time it poisons a Pokémon." idk just my $0.02

3) What are your opinions on the abilities that were buffed or nerfed by the generational change and why?
I can't really speak from a neutral perspective on this because I hate both Mega Kangaskhan and Talonflame, so I won't touch this.

4) How should we handle the distribution of Ultra Beasts with regards to RP's in ASB and why?
quickly. Let me get my Kartana please

5) How do you feel about Legendary Pokémon being brought to Gyms, whether it be by the Leader, or by the Challenger and why?
There should be like 1 per gym by the leader; however, I don't know about the challenger. It kind of depends on which legendary you're bringing.

6) For users who are new to the game: How are you finding ASB?
Registration was fun
IRC is fun (except for the arguments)
Battles are ok, I can actually use stuff I want to
Mega Gardevoir is stupid
ASBot is rigged
Halls are great
7) Are there any 1.5× boosts ingame that are currently not treated as +3 boosts in ASB? In a similar vein, are there any WC-based moves that need to be looked at due to BAP discrepancies relative to in-game like Storm Throw was?
Not really. I hate having to look up WC-based moves and then the Pokémon's weight, though, although it makes sense.
 
So I'd like to add a new topic, just for clarification purpose towards said topic and, by proxy, to introduce newer ASBers to the mechanic: Mid-battle evolutions.
Battle Tower OP said:
Evolution Counter: Each time a Pokemon enters battle, their Evolution Counter goes up by one (1). For 3 Stage Pokemon, they can evolve to their second form once their Evolution Counter reaches four (4) and then their final evolution when it reaches nine (9).

......

Dream Ability Counter: Each Pokemon's Dream World Hidden Ability is sealed to start with. Each time a Pokemon enters battle, its Dream Ability Counter goes up by one (1). Once they have reached 5, they may voluntarily unlock their Dream World Hidden Ability.
Keyword: enters
Handbook when you Ctrl+F " counters" said:
EC, ... MC and AC are awarded at the end of a battle to all Pokemon that participated in that battle.
Keyword: end
Hadbook when you Ctrl+F "Mid-battle Evo" said:
If a Pokemon is at the appropriate EC threshold at the start of a battle then it can potentially evolve in the middle of that battle
Keyword: start

This was contested in Toon's Reffing 202. I wasn't salty enough free back then so I didn't bring it up, but when I trawled through the Mid-battle Evolution Discussion and the subsequent Voting, no where did it explicitly state that I cannot send in an 8 EC Grotle that had battled prior, get that 1 EC, and evolve mid-battle. In fact, I would say the opposite was implied.

Now I might have forgotten that the rules changed while I wasn't paying attention, but what now? Do mods change the Tower OP / Handbook post to reflect the correct interpretation?
 
Last edited:
So I'd like to add a new topic, just for clarification purpose towards said topic and, by proxy, to introduce newer ASBers to the mechanic: Mid-battle evolutions.
Keyword: entersKeyword: end
This was contested in Toon's Reffing 202. I wasn't salty enough free back then so I didn't bring it up, but when I trawled through the Mid-battle Evolution Discussion and the subsequent Voting, no where did it explicitly state that I cannot send in an 8 EC Grotle that had battled prior, get that 1 EC, and evolve mid-battle. In fact, I would say the opposite was implied.

Now I might have forgotten that the rules changed while I wasn't paying attention, but what now? Do mods change the Tower OP / Handbook post to reflect the correct interpretation? Do we discuss it here and see if it warrants a change, in and out of either direction?

Or we can just get rid of it not do it

EDIT: Probably best to just edit the Battle Tower OP since the Handbook is more, let's say 'updated' than the BT something like "Pokemon get Evolution Counters and the end of the battle"
 
Last edited:
Responding since I'm the contesting party from that 202:

Handbook quote for Mid-Battle Evolution with a relevant bold word: If a Pokemon is at the appropriate EC threshold at the start of a battle then it can potentially evolve in the middle of that battle, as long as doing so doesn't violate any rules on what evolutionary stage the Pokemon in the battle are allowed to be.

I contested the evolution because at the start of that match, Grotle had 8/9 EC, so the option wasn't available.

Additionally, what Toon said. That mechanic causes more bad than good and no one bothers to use it because it isn't practically.
 
About increasing counters:

In all honesty, in all of my short ASB career, I've never thought once that training a mon was too much time/work. I feel it's fine as it is, it's not too long that it discourages us to train them (but maybe that's just me), but it's not so short it feels pointless.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to increasing counter gain. It's not like flashes (that constitutes a major part of many trainers' training) where you spam basic orders like Scald*3 require much thought anyway, so reducing their amount wouldn't hurt anything imo. It is blatant counter farming, so why not I guess.

Also, that does tie in a bit with the previous discussions of TLR length: afaik, training mons participates to those RPs length, and reducing the necessary time to train them would in turn lower the amount of effort you need to provide before actually even challenging said RP, which I think could work as a motivating factor for some players to try their hand at TLRs and such.
 
Things misguided dictator Texas would do:
- move to Discord
- double (x2) all counter rewards

Considering feedback from our newest users I think we need to implement option 2 and I definitively think it needs to be a significant increase.

About increasing counters:

In all honesty, in all of my short ASB career, I've never thought once that training a mon was too much time/work. I feel it's fine as it is, it's not too long that it discourages us to train them (but maybe that's just me), but it's not so short it feels pointless.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to increasing counter gain. It's not like flashes (that constitutes a major part of many trainers' training) where you spam basic orders like Scald*3 require much thought anyway, so reducing their amount wouldn't hurt anything imo. It is blatant counter farming, so why not I guess.

Also, that does tie in a bit with the previous discussions of TLR length: afaik, training mons participates to those RPs length, and reducing the necessary time to train them would in turn lower the amount of effort you need to provide before actually even challenging said RP, which I think could work as a motivating factor for some players to try their hand at TLRs and such.

I think TorterraX second paragraph really puts it into perspective, and exactly confirms my feelings for Texas' desire. We just do pointless farming anyways, why not just cut that in half (Or more for MC? idk) and help move people in the direction of being able to take the game seriously not just doing flashes all the time. Also, with TLR's, I think reducing the time to train, it would be so much easier to justify the attempts, on top of reducing ref load with some sort of "legislation"
 
Of course, this might sound biased because I flash and self ref a lot, and max my pokemon whenever possible, but I'd vote for double counters. Plus, it means getting to a TLR, my favorite roleplay, would be easier so I can do more of them.

Some other effects I predict would happen because of double counters:
- More people would participate in gym quals
- More non-rental tournaments and more players in those tournaments
- More of the metagame would be explored
 
Mid-Battle Evolutions - what happened?
As of the time of posting, Battle Tower OP was created by IAR in 3rd of January 2013, which IIRC predates the forum migration into XenForo. Last edited in 9th of May, 2015. No previous edit history accessible even to me with forum mod privileges. Handbook is created mid-June, 2016 by Dogfish. The "Mid-battle Evolution" and "How counters are awarded" sections were edited into its current position by IAR in late November, 2016. Nothing changed in that section since then.

I did a search on Policy Center with the keyword "counter". None of the threads that resulted from the search had titles that hinted we were discussing changes to when exactly are EC/AC rewarded - i.e. when it was sent in, or at the completion of the battle. Call me someone paranoid with too much time on my hands and chasing things I shouldn't, but either there was some honest misinterpretation in the rewording, or this is a conspiracy to bypass the Council process and fiating changes to mid-battle evolutions and who-knows-what-else.

Yes, I am pointing fingers at the authors of Handbook here. What happened back then that changed the wording inconsistent to Tower's OP?

* * * * * * *​

More counters per battle
Let's stop for a moment. Why aren't we going for the full nine yards? Every fresh mon should come with a full pool of all the moves it can obtain in-cartridge / in-anime / in-manga. You should only need 1 EC to evolve to the next stage, and 1 AC to unlock the Hidden Ability. Keep the maxxed movepool bonus CC - that way, every Tower battle you fight in earns you enough to claim a handful of new mons. You shouldn't even need to battle once per Evolution Stage to be able to evolve - just dump UC.

Approvers only need to check once per evolution stage, then. No more counter-farming. New peeps can jump straight into the higher echelons of competitive battling - Gyms and qualifiers, non-rental Tournaments, exploring the metagame, you name it. All they need to do is to register and finish the Starting ASB 101 course to unlock the "full movepool" claim thingamajig. Shorter, faster learning curve. Now all that separates you from other ASBers is your skill and your participation commitment. Why should counters even be there - that game mechanic is the base obstacle that keeps us from having the best-quality games!

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Now that I got it out of the system, time to start a "back in mah day" joke a la smash (he's the best guy I can enjoy that joke with). When Deck and co. founded the game, mons get 1 MC per battle, which means they needed 2 battles to learn a single TM. CC, UC, every type of counter - they all existed back then, but are much more tedious to obtain. I suppose under that environment, players have no choice - they had to be creative with what abysmally small movepool they've got, like using a Rock Slide to build a wall in order to block an incoming Thunderbolt.

It didn't take long for that gameplay mentality to be replaced though. As the codified and audited list of moves' BAP expanded with each new generation, players realised that they were better off just learning Thunderbolt over Thunder Shock than trying some out-of-the-box method to make Thunder Shock work. In Frosty's words, "we got more boring since then". The state of the game had shifted from thinking up unorthodox methods to amassing every possible numerical advantage so, so long ago. Guess what the title of this thread is - why isn't the fundamental game mechanics system keeping up with the players? I dunno. Maybe we're afraid to change. Maybe because people like me are in charge - those of us who, for whatever illogical, irrational reasons, didn't want to let go of the (good?) old days, or were afraid that new people will surpass and overthrow the old guard, or whatever.

I read Tex's post, went back and read every post made by new (those who joined for less than a year) peeps, and nowhere was I convinced to agree to Tex's last sentence. But what the heck, I'm just one guy, right? Adding more counters as rewards does not solve the problem - it merely mitigates it by a barely-noticeable fraction. Solve the problem by tackling it at the roots - uproot the whole counters system, and we'll never have to listen to another ASBer whining "my mon doesn't have X move" ever again. And I can quit ASB when that happens.
 
Last edited:
Just posting a general thought dump.

Training and Self-Reffing
First, let's talk about counters. Sure, in a vaccum, training one Pokemon to max EC/AC and picking up the essential moves isn't that bad. I've already done that for plenty of Pokemon myself. It's when you need to build a team from scratch for a gym qualifier, a tournament or a TLR, for example, when it starts to get rough. First you need to max the EC/AC, then you need to build up a decent movepool. And unless you have UC burning a hole in your pocket, that's quite a few training battles.

Perhaps we could standardize the amount of counters it takes for a Pokemon to evolve. As it stands, it takes 6 EC for a two-stage line and 9 EC for a three-stage line. I'd personally like to see this standardized, perhaps at 5 EC. The reason I propose this is because I don't believe there is enough of a power gap between two-stage and three-stage Pokemon to warrant having to battle up to three extra times to obtain them. Some of the best Pokemon in ASB belong to two-stage families. Even if the point of cartridge evolution methods were to be brought up, there are plenty of three-stage mons who can reach their final forms quite early (Tsareena at Level 29, Gardevoir at Level 30, trade evolutions like Golem and Conkeldurr as early as Level 25, etc.) and two-stage mons who reach their final forms quite late (Braviary and Mandibuzz at Level 54, Volcarona at Level 59, etc.), so the change wouldn't be out of place as far as flavour is concerned.

You probably noticed that I proposed to standardize evolution costs at 5 EC. This is to have EC and AC nice and even with eachother, so it would take five flashes, assuming Exp. Share, to reach max EC/AC. The point may be made that that's quite fast to get an FE, but said FE will barely scrape 40 moves, if that, at that point. With the exception of latest-gen mons who don't have tutor moves yet, that's still a lot of training before you have a super fleshed out movepool.

A seperate proposal (so only one of the lowering EC costs and this proposal would go through) would be to buff training items. Exp. Share, Lucky Egg and Amulet coin could triple their current counter gains. (+3 MC from Exp. Share for a total of 5 MC gained per battle, +3 LEC from Lucky Egg, +3 CC from Amulet coin (possibly with a change to maxed mons with this one)) and have Heart Scale double the total rewards (so you'd get 2 EC / 4 MC / 2 AC / 2 CC). This would make training go noticeably quicker, and this idea plays off the doubling all counters suggestion.

A bit of a separate thought: I am in agreement with Frosty's idea of separating self-reffing from the Reffing 202 test. Self-reffed battles are in essence, meant for training matches. You'll never see anyone reffing a gym match, or a tournament match, or a late-game RP. Unlike gyms, tournaments or TLRs, for example, that may have complicated mechanics and/or move interactions, training matches almost always have simple, hard-to-royally-screw-up orders. The issue with self-reffing lies more in the honour system, as the issue with self-reffing is that the ref could mess with the rolls to turn the battle in their favour. The issue with self-reffing is not the need to have a deep and complex understanding of any specific interaction that may occur. This is why self-reffing should be seperated from Reffing 202.

All in all, more accessible self-reffing, as well as tweaks to how counters are gained and/or how many counters are needed to unlock things, should make training smoother. We shouldn't be giving out maxed Gardevoir's for free, but getting to that maxed Gardevoir should be a fun goal that takes commitment and dedication (or Toon's wallet) without it feeling too taxing on the trainer. I don't believe the current training system is bad, it just needs some sandpaper to have the rough edges smoothed out.

EDIT: I am aware that a significant buff to training items would probably cause a shift towards quick battles, so that may not end up being the best course of action. However, if a buff to training items were to be considered, middle ground may able to be reached, possibly some sort of meet in the middle buff to training items and overall counters.
 
Last edited:
Zt I don't really care about going to the root of the problem. If we want to stay somewhat close to what ASB originally was and make full end game content available within two years instead of four then I fully support that.

Double counter gain.
 
Let's not make counters super easy to access. Yes, you will have full movepools, but you will have shitheads like me who suck at battling with 100 maxed mons in 2 years complaining about the game being too hard. We need to find a balance and I am not certain the root of the problem is accessibility to counters (outside of treating ASB like a full time job).
 
That's literally not the point.

I don't give two shits if you complain about the game being too hard, I give a shit that you can access "hard" content within a reasonable timeframe after being part of the system.
 
I feel strongly enough that this is the right thing to do that if we time warped back to when I was Policy leading us through the Gen 6 changeover I would fiat doubling counter yields.

It is no longer acceptable for a new user to be required to spend six months of consistent play to begin considering being able to challenge a gym let alone a TLR. ASB today is not the ASB of old, you simply cannot compete without being able to have 50 moves on a Pokemon. My first hiatus came at a time when 40 moves was considered a well built Pokemon!

It's time we stopped catering to nostalgia and catered to player experience. There is no saturation point on training, there is no concern about movepool imbalance. Effectively maxed mons are the metagame norm and it's time to stop acting otherwise. There needs to be some training experience, no one argues that, but the scale for training to compete has grown in disproportion with the floor required by training to meet.

It is advantageous for players of all tenures to be able to experience the diverse content we offer without having to spend multiple months to meet the bare minimum required to challenge a gym, take on a raid, or go for a legend. The time investment required to participate in end game content is measured in a multiple of years and that is simply neither acceptable not realistic. Doubling counter yields brings that estimate to two years for full experience. Asking any more of that from our players to satisfy our own need to validate our past time investment is simply selfish.
 
But you are no longer the Policy Lead moderator, Tex. And you didn't spearhead this change back during Gen 6 SotG, when you were. But suppose you're still Policy Lead right now, and you fiated this. What happens two to three years or new generations into the future, when 100+ new mons are released for new players who joined at that time? Will we revisit this issue again? Tripling counter gains this time? If you step down somewhere down that road, will you use the same lines as you did above, in the attempt to send your message?

I agree with from everything your second paragraph (post above) onward, except for the second last sentence. Which is why I'm suggesting abolishing counters system altogether - I wasn't just joking, seriously. Everyone would get near-instant gratification - endgame content now accessible within weeks of joining up, not months. I even suggested in my implementation proposal that your "training experience" can come from completing the Starting ASB 101 program. What is the point of staying somewhat close to what ASB originally was, whatever-it-meant, anyway? To satisfy our own need to validate our past time investment?

You said you wanted to see new ASBers being able to explore the endgame content as soon as they are able to, to have the full game experience without spending too many years playing in the forums. Prove it - run the numbers and show that doubling the current rewards allow that to happen. Assuming that with minimal downtime waiting for approved claims and reffing, and the new player consistently spends an arbitrary amount of hours per week playing this game, he/she/it can have X number of mons capable enough to begin engaging the endgame content within less than "six months", and experience the game in full within "two years".

From the likes and the responses ITC, I'm sure there are a lot of peeps who agree with you. And I'm sure some of them would be willing to help out, to prove your point. Until we got this math'ed out, I will remain unconvinced that your suggested solution is both long-term enough to stave off future revisits to the issue, and logical/rational enough instead of just happening to simply serve the majority's immediate preferences. As with last time, I say results should be voted in by Council, not to be fiated by any single moderator.

For the record, I don't mind how this goes, one way or the other. But I cannot stress enough that I would like solutions to be long-term, well thought out, and quantitatively proven.
 
But you are no longer the Policy Lead moderator, Tex. And you didn't spearhead this change back during Gen 6 SotG, when you were. But suppose you're still Policy Lead right now, and you fiated this. What happens two to three years or new generations into the future, when 100+ new mons are released for new players who joined at that time? Will we revisit this issue again? Tripling counter gains this time? If you step down somewhere down that road, will you use the same lines as you did above, in the attempt to send your message?

I agree with from everything your second paragraph (post above) onward, except for the second last sentence. Which is why I'm suggesting abolishing counters system altogether - I wasn't just joking, seriously. Everyone would get near-instant gratification - endgame content now accessible within weeks of joining up, not months. I even suggested in my implementation proposal that your "training experience" can come from completing the Starting ASB 101 program. What is the point of staying somewhat close to what ASB originally was, whatever-it-meant, anyway? To satisfy our own need to validate our past time investment?

You said you wanted to see new ASBers being able to explore the endgame content as soon as they are able to, to have the full game experience without spending too many years playing in the forums. Prove it - run the numbers and show that doubling the current rewards allow that to happen. Assuming that with minimal downtime waiting for approved claims and reffing, and the new player consistently spends an arbitrary amount of hours per week playing this game, he/she/it can have X number of mons capable enough to begin engaging the endgame content within less than "six months", and experience the game in full within "two years".

From the likes and the responses ITC, I'm sure there are a lot of peeps who agree with you. And I'm sure some of them would be willing to help out, to prove your point. Until we got this math'ed out, I will remain unconvinced that your suggested solution is both long-term enough to stave off future revisits to the issue, and logical/rational enough instead of just happening to simply serve the majority's immediate preferences. As with last time, I say results should be voted in by Council, not to be fiated by any single moderator.

For the record, I don't mind how this goes, one way or the other. But I cannot stress enough that I would like solutions to be long-term, well thought out, and quantitatively proven.

Okay there are a lot of logical fallacies in this post so I'm going to start out by clearing up some of those.

False dichotomy: ZT, this is not an argument about whether we should double counters or whether we should abolish the counter system. The null hypothesis is "do nothing" and the test hypothesis is "do something". Given youre arguing to abolish counter you clearly believe we should do something and abolishing counters as a test is not reason to ignore doubling counters as a test.

Slippery Slope:
"What happens two to three years or new generations into the future, when 100+ new mons are released for new players who joined at that time? Will we revisit this issue again? Tripling counter gains this time?"
Firstly, the number of Pokemon added to a generation is entirely irrelevant on people's ability to train mons the want, mons that are meta, and niche mons. You don't see people running to max a Lurantis because "omg new!!!". Secondly, I am not arguing for a counter increase for the sake of a counter increase. I am arguing specifically because the time-to-endgame is too high from desired.

Frosty himself stated that his estimation to completion of the gym league playing almost flawlessly was four years. This is exclusive of all other training opportunities, TLRs, Raids, Tournaments, etc. Part of that is attributed to systemic factors, specifically in the case of the gym league, but a significant portion is attributed to time to training. Keep in mind, this is Frosty, a user who has been here for the entire duration of the gym league, who competed against gym leaders on equal footing at all stages.

Now consider a new user, who must train his mons from scratch, who must always compete against fully trained gym leaders in conditions vastly different from what Frosty went through. I am not willing to ask them to spend four years doing the same. Estimating that doubling the ease of access to high-end mons result in a corresponding estimation that the time-to-endgame is halved. Key word: estimation. If necessary that value can be tweaked.

Straw Man:
If you step down somewhere down that road, will you use the same lines as you did above, in the attempt to send your message?
Literally irrelevant and not whatsoever a base of argument in my post.

As for math, this is a ridiculous request. There is no possible way to account for all possible factors of influence that determine time-to-completion for users. Seriously, try to come up with a formula that encompasses match speed (dependent on ref and opponent), individual skill, learning effects (dependent on individual factors and match frequency), desire to progress, etc, etc, etc. if you want a simplistic formula based on what you've requested that can likely be done but be aware there are insane biases involved and it will almost certainly not reflect the reality of what you want.


As for specific comments;
But you are no longer the Policy Lead moderator, Tex. And you didn't spearhead this change back during Gen 6 SotG, when you were.
Obviously. Hence why I am not fiating this. Hence why I am posting to convince people.

Not taking action in the past is again a fallacy. Culture at the time was one that had no desire or impetus to change from the current system. Since that time we've made numerous changes to ease the training experience. Since that time weve received experiential evidence from new users describing their experience with training. I have personally been convinced of the need to make this change now based on that evidence where no such evidence existed in the past to even make me think about the issue.


I have other comments to make about the proposal to abolish counters, but they are not relevant to this discussion! The first thing we need to decide is if we should change the counter distribution or not. After that we can aruge whether doubling counters or abolishing counters is better, and have the council/community vote on that.

An additional discussion that needs to be had is the following: What is the desired time period for an average user to take between joining ASB and being able to achieve significant progression in ASB end-game content (defined as Gym League, TLRs, Major tournaments)?
 
Prove it - run the numbers and show that doubling the current rewards allow that to happen. Assuming that with minimal downtime waiting for approved claims and reffing, and the new player consistently spends an arbitrary amount of hours per week playing this game, he/she/it can have X number of mons capable enough to begin engaging the endgame content within less than "six months", and experience the game in full within "two years".

Quick estimations for example use.

Assume 8 hours/week (2h/day, 4d/week)
Assume 2 CC, Assume 6 MC, Assume 0 UC
Assume solely flash matches (no Halls etc)
Assume 1h/flash match
Assume 4 weeks/month

Therefore: 8 flash matches/week
Therefore: 16 CC, 48 MC/week

At six months: 384 CC, 1152 MC

Assume all moves cost 2 MC

576 moves available for purchase
384 CC available to use on new mons/items

Assume fresh mon starts with 20 moves

Assume 60 moves is baseline for "well-built" (averaged across high cost i.e. Snorlax and low cost)

At six months new user is capable of fielding a team of 14.4 Pokemon of any kind at 60 moves, is capable of fielding diverse options to challenge gyms, TLRs, Tournaments.

Assuming 50 moves is baseline, new user can field team of 19.2 Pokemon.

New user is capable of buying any item or Pokemon desired without concern.

All estimates are conservative, no UC is considered, no Hall training is considered, no concurrent challenges are considered, no training items are considered.
 
I'd like to say that I thoroughly agree with the sentiments in this thread. As a candidate frantically training up Pokémon for the upcoming Ground Qualifiers, there's nothing I'd like more than a way to halve the flashes or UC I have to put into training.

At the same time, though, there's a memory I have from the time I joined ASB. All I had were 3 LC Pokémon: Krabby, Rufflet, and Duskull, each bursting with flavor every time they entered a battle. If they evolved after just two or three battles and unlocked their Hidden Abilities just as quickly, then although this sounds strange, I'd feel a bit underwhelmed.

Let me use an analogy: the main series Pokémon games. You play through one for the first time, and you might take a few stops along the way, such as using Pokémon Refresh in Sun and Moon, or checking out a few buildings along the way. If you wanted to, you could trade in a Level 100 Charizard (idk) from another game and completely destroy all the trainers you come across, but you wouldn't do that, even if the Charizard didn't disregard your every order. No, you want to get the experience, the challenge.

After you beat the game, let's say you want to complete the Pokédex. So you grab that Charizard, get five freshly caught Pokémon from the PC, and head right back to the Pokémon League to evolve them. This time around, you want the challenge to go as quickly and painlessly as possible, because you've been through all this before. It's not a new experience anymore, but it is one you'll have many times in the future if you ever want a shot at completing that Pokédex.

Basically, our aim for newer players is to provide a fun challenge in training up their Pokémon in 3v3 LC Singles against other new players, but we should also try to streamline the experience for people in a hurry to get a badge or a legend.

My proposal is to make moves twice (or more) as easy to get. Here's why:

If you're training your mons through flashes, then it shouldn't be too hard to evolve your Pokémon. Assuming 3 evolution stages, in a pinch, you can use Lucky Egg to get a ~25 move FE in five flashes. Exp. Share will allow the Pokémon to have ~45 moves upon evolution. It allows new players to have many experiences with their Ralts without being stuck with Magical Leaf and Confusion in case they messed up their initial claim.

That said, maybe we could buff Heart Scale to double all counters. This would popularize Gyms (although they might not need it) but force new players to go with the original system. Another idea might be to have Heart Scales sold for, say, 50 UC. This would encourage people to ref.

Just my two cents.
 
Alright, I've delayed this enough. Posting this finally. Making this clear now: I am against altering counter payouts.

To start, I've read through everyone else's posts, and I understand your concerns and the various reasons people have for wanting to alter counter payouts. However, I think there are better ways to change the system than that.

1) Starting ASB
This is the time at which it would probably matter most. At least 2 new Pokemon and a wealth of ambition to get into ASB, as we all were at one point or another. Many arguments say that we need to accelerate the growth of a new player into the endgame. Coming from the perspective of a person who actually was on a so-called 'accelerated' growth pattern, it really was not worth it. Like, I very quickly grew a strong and usable team, but I attribute that to the fact that I chose good mons to start and all my purchases were decently based on observing the game and its metagame, that and the fact that I joined at the height of flash culture. The reality becomes that after you grow the team, there still is the matter of learning how to actually battle with the Pokemon. My first 2 serious battles in ASB are still matches I look at to this day because they remind me where I came from in ASB, and how bad I once was. The first was a practice match with Fort, in which we both made a lot of bad plays that we've reflected on at one point or another, and my second was in AOT R1 vs Frosty of all people. That match taught me something very important, which is that there is no amount of counter-farming that can supplant developing the actual skills in battle. For more context on that, there are plenty of good battlers in ASB that don't have absurdly well trained teams. My favorite example of this is FMD, who I still don't think I've seen a Pokemon with more than 50 moves from, but she battles very well with what she has. My point here being that you can accelerate the growth all you really want, but that isn't the barrier that is keeping people from being "able" to partake in the serious "endgame" of ASB, it's the actual lack of development of the skill. Sure we have a mentoring program for that, but the tutors hold back, and even then it only teaches the very basics, while the rest of the learning can only be experienced via partaking in your own battles.

However, battling is not the only part of ASB that you should be getting involved with when you join. ASB is a community that requires the effort of all those within it in order to survive. For most users, that usually translates into reffing. This brings me to my other major point about being a starting player. People who complain about not having enough counters from what I've seen often times do not ref very much at all, even though there is always stuff to ref. Everyone here keeps talking about the difficulties that comes with raising a Pokemon solely from a battling experience, and not whilst capitalizing on all the opportunity for growth that ASB has to offer. Reffing offers UC, which can be used as any of the counter types you may need, which helps to get items or fill in some gaps in a Pokemon's movepool. Not only that, the experience of reffing familiarizes you with so many of the things in ASB that you may never discover in your own battles. For example, a large part of my growth was reffing, and I attribute whatever skill I do have in this game to the amount of battles I have reffed. You get to witness first-hand the various mistakes that are made, the ways they are punished, the way mechanics interact with one another, being forced to understand them because it is your job as a ref to properly calculate the round, and it happens multiple times per match. Those alone are very valuable teaching moments. To further facilitate this, there is a reffing mentorship program that we use to move newer players into the higher echelons of refs, seeing that you only need to pass Reffing 101 in order to get access to reffing practically everything in ASB, including gym matches or tourney matches, so that you can witness the higher levels of play.

Stepping away from both regular batting and reffing, roleplays are a massive part of ASB as well. Sure, we joke that this Algebra Style Battling instead of Anime Style Battling, but we still do have the clones of various in-game facilities and such, almost all of which are fantastic sources of counter gain. The Battle Hall is a place where you chuck any mon you have in, make it face the types it can beat with its SE STAB moves, and claim the counters from, while gaining battling experience, which should be able to yield 4 CC/6 KO on average assuming that RNG isn't a cruel mistress to you, and its accessible to the LCs that you start with. The Battle Pike, no matter how cruel the RNG just may be, still yields great rewards — CC the whole time, and standard rewards for each battle you encounter in the Pike. Anime Style Simulator has plenty of scenarios ranging from only LCs to much more massive simulations such as the Legend Trainer or Pyramid King Brandon, which means even the newer players can take their Pokemon there. Even if you aren't successful on your first or second try, you still get the training for your Pokemon and the battling experience. I know for myself that it took me until what I want to guess was my 4th Simulator Challenge to finally actually win. Sure, you would like to succeed as often as possible, but you have to take the wins with the losses, accept the experience from it (and the counters), and just prepare for the next run.

2) "Mid-Game"
To start this section, I need to define what I'm talking about right now. This is probably the point at which you have about 6-9 Pokemon that are maybe around 35-45 moves at training, so maybe your 4th or 5th month of playing time. This is a conservative guesstimate, because I'm not exactly sure on how fast/slow everyone works on their teams, or when IRL comes knocking at the door. But more specifically, this is the time at which you begin to set your eyes on some of the bigger things ASB has to offer. Usually this first objective is marked as the Heart Scale, the glorified training item that really only yields 1 more MC at a time (or maybe EC/AC if you are working on evolution). Time to enter the gym league and finally begin knocking down some of gyms you keep hearing about. Hopefully you were taking time to interlace your training time with some practice matches and getting the full field experience to better understand ASB. While you are at this point in ASB, you've probably now set your eye on the higher ranks of the Battle Hall, finally clearing the Battle Pike, or taking on some of the harder Simulations from the Anime Style Simulator, such as Subway Boss Ingo, or maybe you were feeling gutsy and went for Pyramid King Brandon. You also might have finally started looking into the Raid Zone now that you have an established team, even though I believe you should have done so sooner since it's just fun at the start.

The big kicker about this phase of the game becomes what you have been training. Sometimes your team is optimal for what you want, other times it isn't, which might require 1 of 2 things: Adapting your team appropriately by training new mons or just changing your goal. For example, maybe you heard that one gym is easy to take down, but on the other hand, your team is more suited for one of the more challenging gyms: you should probably just change focuses. Sure, you run a higher risk of loss, but you should be prepared for that anyways if you plan to challenge a gym, and you shouldn't be shying away from a challenge, especially if it delays your progress.

3) "End-Game"
For the record, the only things in ASB I consider to be late-game are TLRs and non-rental tourneys. Oh, and I guess we can count the Legend Trainer Simulation due to its sheer difficulty.

TLRs: Yeah there is no work-around here, those are huge investments in the end. 33+ CC for a worthwhile legendary, not to mention months of time in-challenge, a good month or so of training out-of-challenge assuming you capitalize on the various sources of counters that are around ASB. But that's more due to the nature of how TLRs work given the need for a specialized team to deal with the challenges presented, and not so much a problem of our counter system.

Tourneys (Non-Rental): These are late game because they are hugely competitive where everyone comes to flex their overly trained Pokemon for 9+ months in hopes of snagging a powerful Legendary for themselves, but you should be prepared by now since you will have a strong team that is trained and you know how to use them.
-------------------------
TL;DR: I understand that the need for counters is prominent, but I truly do not think the members of ASB are actually taking advantage the variety of ways to get the counters, and are instead of asking for "an easy way out" with the proposal to change counter generation. I think the proper solution is for us to more wholly involve our members in ASB. Also, I failed to make this clearer in the above, but the whole "not taking advantage" thing applies to all members of ASB, not just the newer members, and the suggestions I gave in section 1 should be taken by all.
 
I don't disagree that people aren't taking advantage of all sources of training (I.e. UC) available to them but at the end of the day we've designed reffing and training to yield comparable outcomes and any reffing or rping over and above a baseline is still additional time investment that does not change the absolute counter requirements to compete.

I completely agree that we should find a way to better involve people in parts of the community (committees can have a good start) and I don't think that pursuit must be separate from the gains yielded by doubling counters.
 
Since there is a lock of anything from here becoming a discussion thread, the current major discussion thread is locked and the discussion here reached the "nowhere" point where additional opinions won't matter and we must move on to decision-making, can someone please wrap this up, so we can discuss and vote the matters brought up here on specific separated threads and do something other than pointless debate?

I mean, there are matters discussed here that weren't on the OP and as time goes more new issues will be brought up, from silvally to white-listing to ASB economy to the importance of buffing the command shift to save the aerodactyls from starvation. If we just keep this here, collecting dust and arguments, and with all other policy discussion locked we will end up with second overbloated ASB Feedback Thread and the entire point of we creating a SotG thread (Gen VII I assume) will buried under kilometers of bickering.

So, like, is it possible to either lift the lock on non-Gen VII related discussions on the policy subforum or wrap this thread up with whatever decisions will be made/considered after all this very productive discussion? Thank you.


EDIT: I mean, all the matters brought up and discussed here are extremely important. And that is precisely why I feel they sould get separated discussions. If we keep everything here with multiple parallel discussions going on (or one big one taking the entire stage), it won't get pretty at all.
 
Last edited:
Seconding Frosty's sentiments, but for an additional reason.

Without a feedback thread of any sort, there is not a place to raise discussion about the things that are currently ongoing in ASB, and have nothing to do with the game as a whole, but regarding a specific mechanic. Basically, I can't get a consistent answer to certain questions because (a) it's not specified in the handbook (b) and there is not a place to raise these questions appropriately.
 
I won't have time until this evening so you've got over 12 hours if you want to say your piece (or peace, I forget how it goes) before this gets wrapped up, provided I don't forget.
 
o0d7gNY.jpg


Looks like it's "piece" :-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top