-
The leader of this forum is LouisCyphre. The moderators of this forum are JJayyFeather, Mowtom, nightblitz42, and TMan87.
-
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.
Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread (New Proposal Handling System in OP)
- Thread starter Seven Deadly Sins
- Start date
- Status
And just another thing...
Official petition to stop TLR locking
Smashlloyd
Veemon
Ranger
Official petition to stop TLR locking
Smashlloyd
Veemon
Ranger
Starting a petition to ban petitions
Good luck convincing DK, because the odds of that happening are nigh on 0.
Signing Texas Cloverleaf's petition. I wish Elevator Music had one for me to sign.
I think the magazine would need to be less frequent than monthly. Honestly, not that much happens in a month to warrant extensive coverage. Two to three months might be better, and I'd be willing to help out with it.
I think the magazine would need to be less frequent than monthly. Honestly, not that much happens in a month to warrant extensive coverage. Two to three months might be better, and I'd be willing to help out with it.
signing texas' petition
9.9
I'd like to get discussion going on something that we don't really have codified but probably should: a formula for accuracy. There are so many accuracy modifiers in ASB, yet there is nothing that tells you the correct order to apply them. For instance, should the accuracy boost from a +Spe nature (and evasion drop from a -Spe nature) be applied before stage boosts/drops to accuracy/evasion, or afterwards? Where should the evasion boost from Sand Veil/Snow Cloak be applied? Compoundeyes? Should some items be applied at different times? The description for Choice Scarf states it modifies base accuracy, but Wide Lens and Zoom Lens just say increases accuracy by X.
I can draw up a potential formula (or someone else can), but before I do so I'm interesting in seeing what other people think first.
I'd like to get discussion going on something that we don't really have codified but probably should: a formula for accuracy. There are so many accuracy modifiers in ASB, yet there is nothing that tells you the correct order to apply them. For instance, should the accuracy boost from a +Spe nature (and evasion drop from a -Spe nature) be applied before stage boosts/drops to accuracy/evasion, or afterwards? Where should the evasion boost from Sand Veil/Snow Cloak be applied? Compoundeyes? Should some items be applied at different times? The description for Choice Scarf states it modifies base accuracy, but Wide Lens and Zoom Lens just say increases accuracy by X.
I can draw up a potential formula (or someone else can), but before I do so I'm interesting in seeing what other people think first.
I always thought of the accuracy formula as...
[BOX]Base Accuracy × (Multiplicative Accuracy Modifiers, like Accuracy/Evasion Stage, Compoundeyes, Sand Veil/Snow Cloak, etc.) + (Additive/Flat Accuracy Modifiers, like +Speed Accuracy Boost, -Speed Evasion Drop, Dodge Formula, etc.)[/BOX]
This formula makes sense, since it does follow a PEDMAS style operations, where you always multiply/divide before you add/subtract. Also, it would not make sense if you did additive operations before Multiplicative operations, since the accuracy, for example, +Speed Accuracy Boost before Compoundeyes, you are not getting a true flat accuracy boost, which is what things like +Speed Accuracy Boost is - flat.
[BOX]Base Accuracy × (Multiplicative Accuracy Modifiers, like Accuracy/Evasion Stage, Compoundeyes, Sand Veil/Snow Cloak, etc.) + (Additive/Flat Accuracy Modifiers, like +Speed Accuracy Boost, -Speed Evasion Drop, Dodge Formula, etc.)[/BOX]
This formula makes sense, since it does follow a PEDMAS style operations, where you always multiply/divide before you add/subtract. Also, it would not make sense if you did additive operations before Multiplicative operations, since the accuracy, for example, +Speed Accuracy Boost before Compoundeyes, you are not getting a true flat accuracy boost, which is what things like +Speed Accuracy Boost is - flat.
I'm going to piggyback off of what somebody earlier said and suggest reverting most Traits to Innate abilities.
First, some definitions:
Over a short period of time, we've moved a fair number of Innate Abilities to be categorized as Traits - Plus, Minus, Stench, and Iron Fist - with an argument that can be applied to literally every other Innate Ability out there. The argument of "it doesn't hurt the game because the ability's effect isn't that strong" doesn't hold any water either; there's not only a necessity for the person(s) advocating change to prove that change will better the status quo but also a direct contradiction in that Iron Fist is supposedly a Trait. There's no reason in my mind as to why these abilities were actually moved to Traits since there's no one facet that makes these abilities more worthy of being Traits than the other Innate Abilities.
That being said, I see the reasoning in the post in which Traits were first introduced, an ASB codification to ensuring that one couldn't get rid of Slow Start and Truant by means of choosing a different ability in a single ability fight, and that Pokemon with Levitate would be slightly less disadvantaged in all ability fights with Skill Swap and Role Play. You cannot possibly say - with conviction - that abilities such as Iron Fist or even Cloud Nine would reach the level of necessity that created Traits in the first place.
With all of that done, here is what I believe a better distinction between Traits and Innate Abilities to be.
I look forward to seeing what other people think of this; most people I've asked or discussed this with agree, and a few of those that haven't have had that opinion - jokingly or not, I don't know - because "it benefits my Pokemon!"
First, some definitions:
innate - inborn; natural
trait - a genetically determined characteristic
So when we take the phrase "Innate Ability" it means exactly what "Trait" does. If this is the case, why are we drawing a distinction between Innate Abilities and Traits? (For those not too clear with English, inborn means existing from birth, which essentially means it's genetically determined)trait - a genetically determined characteristic
Over a short period of time, we've moved a fair number of Innate Abilities to be categorized as Traits - Plus, Minus, Stench, and Iron Fist - with an argument that can be applied to literally every other Innate Ability out there. The argument of "it doesn't hurt the game because the ability's effect isn't that strong" doesn't hold any water either; there's not only a necessity for the person(s) advocating change to prove that change will better the status quo but also a direct contradiction in that Iron Fist is supposedly a Trait. There's no reason in my mind as to why these abilities were actually moved to Traits since there's no one facet that makes these abilities more worthy of being Traits than the other Innate Abilities.
That being said, I see the reasoning in the post in which Traits were first introduced, an ASB codification to ensuring that one couldn't get rid of Slow Start and Truant by means of choosing a different ability in a single ability fight, and that Pokemon with Levitate would be slightly less disadvantaged in all ability fights with Skill Swap and Role Play. You cannot possibly say - with conviction - that abilities such as Iron Fist or even Cloud Nine would reach the level of necessity that created Traits in the first place.
With all of that done, here is what I believe a better distinction between Traits and Innate Abilities to be.
Traits
Truant / Slow Start - One of the main reasons Traits were created.
Wonder Guard - Shedinja doesn't have a choice for an ability anyways, but this reinforce's WG's in-game code of "you can't Skill Swap it."
Defeatist - Same reason as Truant and Slow Start.
Traits or Innate AbilitiesWonder Guard - Shedinja doesn't have a choice for an ability anyways, but this reinforce's WG's in-game code of "you can't Skill Swap it."
Defeatist - Same reason as Truant and Slow Start.
Levitate - I can see the original argument of Traits working, but honestly it seems like one of those "deal with it" things to me; some mons get shafted in their movepool, others get shafted in abilities. Something else that might push it towards "Trait" is to justify granting it to Pokemon that don't explicitly have it, since then it's not really an ability in ASB. It doesn't really matter to me if it's a Trait, though.
Innate AbilitiesEverything else. From what I said above, there's no reason that other abilities that have been turned into Traits should remain traits; they simply don't fit in and we're just reaching a slippery slope of every Innate Ability falling into the category of Traits.
Traits that should be Innate: Plus, Minus, Stench, Heavy Metal, Light Metal, Iron Fist, Cloud Nine
I may have missed some, but this is enough to get my point across.
Traits that should be Innate: Plus, Minus, Stench, Heavy Metal, Light Metal, Iron Fist, Cloud Nine
I may have missed some, but this is enough to get my point across.
Also throwing my support behind Engineer. It is a slippery slope indeed with abilities; if more and more abilities are converted to traits, where do we stop?
Granted, there could be a little more discussion with the Levitate ability, since I see it as both an ability and a less potent trait. But that's a different matter altogether.
Granted, there could be a little more discussion with the Levitate ability, since I see it as both an ability and a less potent trait. But that's a different matter altogether.
Proposing that Low Sweep and Low Kick do not affect Flying or Levitating mons
It makes sense
It makes sense
You only missed Huge/Pure Power, I don't fully support to change all the Traits to be reverted to Innate Abilities, that's because I'm pretty sure the genetic argument fills Plusle and Minus like a glove (unless it's stated that they get it like a trait instead of innate) but I do think that the fact that Iron Fist became a Trait it's too much, while Cloud Nine it's such a powerful ability that the Pokemon having it can easily get over it (I'll refrain to talk about heavy/light metal)
Levitate in the other hand I think should remain as a trait, while that could make a slippery slope so that eventually every ability with only one member/family would become a trait (Mummy, Forecast, Color Change, etc...), I think making it a trait is different in that every member in their family gets it, so it's logically ingrained in their DNA (or whatever pokemon have), it's something that they do in every way (even in anime Heatproof Bronzong is shown floating instead of being stuck in the ground), so naturally all members of those families are bound to get it, consider this is arguably the weakest immunity of all blocking under half of all Ground attacks (even through the important ones are) and is made nullified by other means, namely gravity and smash down, and to boot many other Pokemon have it without technically having it, so I find it less scary that making other ones such as Dry Skin Traits
Levitate in the other hand I think should remain as a trait, while that could make a slippery slope so that eventually every ability with only one member/family would become a trait (Mummy, Forecast, Color Change, etc...), I think making it a trait is different in that every member in their family gets it, so it's logically ingrained in their DNA (or whatever pokemon have), it's something that they do in every way (even in anime Heatproof Bronzong is shown floating instead of being stuck in the ground), so naturally all members of those families are bound to get it, consider this is arguably the weakest immunity of all blocking under half of all Ground attacks (even through the important ones are) and is made nullified by other means, namely gravity and smash down, and to boot many other Pokemon have it without technically having it, so I find it less scary that making other ones such as Dry Skin Traits
Supporting Engineer's post. Whether or not Levitate is a trait or not doesn't really matter to me, but if we make it an ability what are we going to do with all the Pokemon that got the Levitate command?
...
<imanalt|phone> Hmmm
<imanalt|phone> True
<imanalt|phone> Unless I punctuated it really weirdly
<imanalt|phone> Anyways how would I get myself a bot, idk
<%Engineer> aaah http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4385081&postcount=685
<orcinus> wait how do i word this
<%Engineer> not this again
* Veemon (Mibbit@2F712997.625DED74.A079D094.IP) has joined #capasb
<orcinus> IF U-turn, use protect/dragontail alternating for consecutive uses, and pushback
<orcinus> because that just looks really convoluted to me
<orcinus> IF U-turn, alternate Protect and Dragon Tail for consecutive uses, and pushback
<orcinus> ?
<imanalt|phone> Yeah
<imanalt|phone> I was trying to type that
<imanalt|phone> And failing
<Zt> Not much difference.
<imanalt|phone> :(
<%Engineer> IF (U-turn) THEN (protect first and third times, dragon tail second)
<%Engineer> unless you'd want to use (protect - X - protect)
<Zt> *dragon tail 2nd and 4th?
<%Engineer> three actions per round
<%Engineer> >_>
<orcinus> wtf 4th action lol
<imanalt|phone> Lol
<orcinus> nah my actions are
<orcinus> Dragon Tail-Fire Punch-Payback
<orcinus> IF U-turn, alternate Protect and Dragon Tail for consecutive uses, and pushback
<imanalt|phone> Does rest cure confusion in asb?
<%Engineer> no
<imanalt|phone> Fuck
<orcinus> if you can hit yourself in confusion using sleep talk
<orcinus> i would imagine not
<imanalt|phone> The dat says "all negative status" so I was hoping, but infant it doesn't so I wasn't sure
<orcinus> wait engi
<orcinus> but with your sub
<imanalt|phone> WTF why does my phone not think I is a word
* +Rediamond (~rediamond@synIRC-C0A0CD58.hsd1.in.comcast.net) Quit (Quit: Good bye)
<orcinus> u-turn-something-u-turn
<imanalt|phone> It keeps autocorrecting to u...
<orcinus> would result in me using protect-something-dragon tail
<orcinus> instead of protect-something-protect
<orcinus> because the u-turn on the third action is technically the second time that it was used
<%Engineer> yeah
<%Engineer> 19:07 Engineer unless you'd want to use (protect - X - protect)
<orcinus> yeah i do
<orcinus> IF U-turn, use Protect (alternating with dragon tail for consecutive uses), and pushback
<orcinus> ?
<imanalt|phone> Yeah I guess
<imanalt|phone> It's awkward but gets the point across
<orcinus> engi that legal?
<orcinus> it is awkward lol
<%IAR> Engineer, that sub is badly worded
<orcinus> IAR, is my sub worded okay?
<%Engineer> oh also
<%Engineer> if (x) then (y) pushing actions back if (z) is illegal right
<%Engineer> well, two subs
<imanalt|phone> Y
<orcinus> a second if is illegal
* smashlloyd20 (~chatzilla@synIRC-4CB546CA.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net) Quit (Ping timeout)
<%Engineer> ok
<imanalt|phone> A second if is a second sub
<imanalt|phone> Not illegal
<orcinus> you want to word that as
<%IAR> again, poorly worded
<imanalt|phone> ./end nitpick
<orcinus> IF x AND z then Y push actions back
<%IAR> IF X, THEN Y, pushing actions back upon Z's Substitution
<orcinus> IAR…IF U-turn, use Protect (alternating with dragon tail for consecutive uses), and pushback
<%IAR> or when Z is replaced
<orcinus> is that okay?
<orcinus> oh and yeah CMFP did used IAR's version of that sub i think
<%Engineer> iar that's still two subs though
<CMFP> yeah, I c/p'd from IAR using it
<orcinus> all right CMFP ordered
<orcinus> what
<%IAR> no, it is a conditional
<orcinus> that's two subs?
<%Engineer> that's a second if
<orcinus> oh wait
<%Engineer> you're saying if (x) then (y)
<orcinus> yeah engi's right
<orcinus> o.o
<%Engineer> with actions pushing
<%Engineer> HOWEVER
<%Engineer> if (z) then don't push
<%IAR> Engineer: WORDING
<%IAR> it is like the Unless controversy
<%Engineer> which turned out to be two subs
<%Engineer> >_>
<orcinus> unless is not a legit word
<%IAR> ^
<imanalt|phone> Doesn't matter how you word it, if you're putting in something that is essentially a second if, it's a second sub
<orcinus> because unless splits into two sets
<orcinus> ugh
<orcinus> can we compile a list of usable terms
<orcinus> in subs
<%IAR> Unless is not legal syntax
<orcinus> yeah
<orcinus> ergo, upon pushback is also illegal
<orcinus> (i'm fine with this because i abused CMFP's sub anyways lol)
<imanalt|phone> Unless should be legal syntax but just create a second sub
<%IAR> IF X, THEN Y
<CMFP> hmmmm dragon tail
<CMFP> interesting
<%IAR> AND/NOT are the only operators allowed before THEN
<orcinus> so you're not allowed another operator
<orcinus> before the AND pushback at the end?
<%IAR> AND is a clause that limits the sub'
<%IAR> you can say AND pushback
<orcinus> hang on wait IAR i'm going to pm you a sub, if you could determine the legality that'll be cool
<%Engineer> but "AND pushing actions back IF blahblah was subbed"
<%Engineer> is two
<%Engineer> well
<%IAR> Engineer: WORDING
<%Engineer> "...AND stuff above"
<%Engineer> that argument isn't making any sense
<%IAR> you need to learn to word correctly
<%Engineer> convince me that subs of that form are 1 sub
<%Engineer> since you seem to be vehemently opposed to mine that it's 2
<%IAR> brb
* IAR is now known as IAFKR
<%Engineer> 9.9
<CMFP> lol
<CMFP> orcinus, I wasn't gonna say anything but it doesn't seem to matter now so wynautw
<orcinus> wait
<CMFP> *wynaut
<orcinus> CMFP i'm deleting my actions
...
<imanalt|phone> Hmmm
<imanalt|phone> True
<imanalt|phone> Unless I punctuated it really weirdly
<imanalt|phone> Anyways how would I get myself a bot, idk
<%Engineer> aaah http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4385081&postcount=685
<orcinus> wait how do i word this
<%Engineer> not this again
* Veemon (Mibbit@2F712997.625DED74.A079D094.IP) has joined #capasb
<orcinus> IF U-turn, use protect/dragontail alternating for consecutive uses, and pushback
<orcinus> because that just looks really convoluted to me
<orcinus> IF U-turn, alternate Protect and Dragon Tail for consecutive uses, and pushback
<orcinus> ?
<imanalt|phone> Yeah
<imanalt|phone> I was trying to type that
<imanalt|phone> And failing
<Zt> Not much difference.
<imanalt|phone> :(
<%Engineer> IF (U-turn) THEN (protect first and third times, dragon tail second)
<%Engineer> unless you'd want to use (protect - X - protect)
<Zt> *dragon tail 2nd and 4th?
<%Engineer> three actions per round
<%Engineer> >_>
<orcinus> wtf 4th action lol
<imanalt|phone> Lol
<orcinus> nah my actions are
<orcinus> Dragon Tail-Fire Punch-Payback
<orcinus> IF U-turn, alternate Protect and Dragon Tail for consecutive uses, and pushback
<imanalt|phone> Does rest cure confusion in asb?
<%Engineer> no
<imanalt|phone> Fuck
<orcinus> if you can hit yourself in confusion using sleep talk
<orcinus> i would imagine not
<imanalt|phone> The dat says "all negative status" so I was hoping, but infant it doesn't so I wasn't sure
<orcinus> wait engi
<orcinus> but with your sub
<imanalt|phone> WTF why does my phone not think I is a word
* +Rediamond (~rediamond@synIRC-C0A0CD58.hsd1.in.comcast.net) Quit (Quit: Good bye)
<orcinus> u-turn-something-u-turn
<imanalt|phone> It keeps autocorrecting to u...
<orcinus> would result in me using protect-something-dragon tail
<orcinus> instead of protect-something-protect
<orcinus> because the u-turn on the third action is technically the second time that it was used
<%Engineer> yeah
<%Engineer> 19:07 Engineer unless you'd want to use (protect - X - protect)
<orcinus> yeah i do
<orcinus> IF U-turn, use Protect (alternating with dragon tail for consecutive uses), and pushback
<orcinus> ?
<imanalt|phone> Yeah I guess
<imanalt|phone> It's awkward but gets the point across
<orcinus> engi that legal?
<orcinus> it is awkward lol
<%IAR> Engineer, that sub is badly worded
<orcinus> IAR, is my sub worded okay?
<%Engineer> oh also
<%Engineer> if (x) then (y) pushing actions back if (z) is illegal right
<%Engineer> well, two subs
<imanalt|phone> Y
<orcinus> a second if is illegal
* smashlloyd20 (~chatzilla@synIRC-4CB546CA.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net) Quit (Ping timeout)
<%Engineer> ok
<imanalt|phone> A second if is a second sub
<imanalt|phone> Not illegal
<orcinus> you want to word that as
<%IAR> again, poorly worded
<imanalt|phone> ./end nitpick
<orcinus> IF x AND z then Y push actions back
<%IAR> IF X, THEN Y, pushing actions back upon Z's Substitution
<orcinus> IAR…IF U-turn, use Protect (alternating with dragon tail for consecutive uses), and pushback
<%IAR> or when Z is replaced
<orcinus> is that okay?
<orcinus> oh and yeah CMFP did used IAR's version of that sub i think
<%Engineer> iar that's still two subs though
<CMFP> yeah, I c/p'd from IAR using it
<orcinus> all right CMFP ordered
<orcinus> what
<%IAR> no, it is a conditional
<orcinus> that's two subs?
<%Engineer> that's a second if
<orcinus> oh wait
<%Engineer> you're saying if (x) then (y)
<orcinus> yeah engi's right
<orcinus> o.o
<%Engineer> with actions pushing
<%Engineer> HOWEVER
<%Engineer> if (z) then don't push
<%IAR> Engineer: WORDING
<%IAR> it is like the Unless controversy
<%Engineer> which turned out to be two subs
<%Engineer> >_>
<orcinus> unless is not a legit word
<%IAR> ^
<imanalt|phone> Doesn't matter how you word it, if you're putting in something that is essentially a second if, it's a second sub
<orcinus> because unless splits into two sets
<orcinus> ugh
<orcinus> can we compile a list of usable terms
<orcinus> in subs
<%IAR> Unless is not legal syntax
<orcinus> yeah
<orcinus> ergo, upon pushback is also illegal
<orcinus> (i'm fine with this because i abused CMFP's sub anyways lol)
<imanalt|phone> Unless should be legal syntax but just create a second sub
<%IAR> IF X, THEN Y
<CMFP> hmmmm dragon tail
<CMFP> interesting
<%IAR> AND/NOT are the only operators allowed before THEN
<orcinus> so you're not allowed another operator
<orcinus> before the AND pushback at the end?
<%IAR> AND is a clause that limits the sub'
<%IAR> you can say AND pushback
<orcinus> hang on wait IAR i'm going to pm you a sub, if you could determine the legality that'll be cool
<%Engineer> but "AND pushing actions back IF blahblah was subbed"
<%Engineer> is two
<%Engineer> well
<%IAR> Engineer: WORDING
<%Engineer> "...AND stuff above"
<%Engineer> that argument isn't making any sense
<%IAR> you need to learn to word correctly
<%Engineer> convince me that subs of that form are 1 sub
<%Engineer> since you seem to be vehemently opposed to mine that it's 2
<%IAR> brb
* IAR is now known as IAFKR
<%Engineer> 9.9
<CMFP> lol
<CMFP> orcinus, I wasn't gonna say anything but it doesn't seem to matter now so wynautw
<orcinus> wait
<CMFP> *wynaut
<orcinus> CMFP i'm deleting my actions
...
Opinions? How should we codify? How many subs is a push-back upon a move's substitution? etc.
I think that would properly have to be written as:
IF U-turn, AND protect was not used last action, Protect and pushback
IF U-turn, AND protect was used last action, Dragon Tail and pushback
In either case, pushback is nbd, the problem with that sub is the bit with protect/dragontail
IF U-turn, AND protect was not used last action, Protect and pushback
IF U-turn, AND protect was used last action, Dragon Tail and pushback
In either case, pushback is nbd, the problem with that sub is the bit with protect/dragontail
I would say that technically, yes it is two subs since you're splitting the sub into two different scenarios. However, since it seems to be the norm to use "alternate", it should be modified to be allowed...
Let's see...
Legality is judged by whether or not it is allowed as part of one sub.
AND: Always allowed
AND NOT/NOT: Always allowed
IF: Only one allowed at the beginning of the sub
THEN: Only one allowed in the middle of the sub
UNLESS: Not legal
UPON/WHEN: Not legal (as in pushback upon replacement of dragon tail)
(note: ONLY has been excluded since it can be replaced entirely by AND, as in [play only once]=[AND has not been played yet])
imo upon/when should be ruled as allowed only once in the sub, since otherwise subs are far too abusable.
IF (condition a) AND (condition b, etc.), THEN (action)
Let's see...
Legality is judged by whether or not it is allowed as part of one sub.
AND: Always allowed
AND NOT/NOT: Always allowed
IF: Only one allowed at the beginning of the sub
THEN: Only one allowed in the middle of the sub
UNLESS: Not legal
UPON/WHEN: Not legal (as in pushback upon replacement of dragon tail)
(note: ONLY has been excluded since it can be replaced entirely by AND, as in [play only once]=[AND has not been played yet])
imo upon/when should be ruled as allowed only once in the sub, since otherwise subs are far too abusable.
IF (condition a) AND (condition b, etc.), THEN (action)
Properly worded, I think that's: "IF U-Turn, Protect the first time, Dragon Tail the second, and Protect the third, pushing actions back every time."
That's an entirely legal substitution.
"And push moves back" is a vital part of substitutions. We can't make it cost more subs just to clarify what you mean.
That's an entirely legal substitution.
"And push moves back" is a vital part of substitutions. We can't make it cost more subs just to clarify what you mean.
I don't think pushing actions back was the contention here, it was more subbing for different responses to a move depending on the number of uses.
Push back is definitely legal, but I do agree that being able to use one substitution for multiple possible results is a grey area.
Push back is definitely legal, but I do agree that being able to use one substitution for multiple possible results is a grey area.
Big proposal incoming... Beware
Proposal: Signature Moves
I believe that in ASB, we should be allowed to create "signature moves" for our pokemon. Obviously as the name entails, a signature move would be a new move that ONLY your pokemon can use. This would encourage creativity and add another level to competition. Lots of fun could be had making up your own move also possibly giving a pokemon a chance to differentiate itself from others of its species
Making Moves
To make a "Signature Move" you would obviously first have to make up the basic details of the move
Examples:
I'd like to make this the move for my Magnezone!
Battery Blast: This pokemon uses its internal electricity to send a strong burst of energy at the opponent, the resulting loss of energy causes the user's Special Attack to drop 2 (two) stages. If used when under the effects of Charge, the Special Attack drop does not happen but the user loses the effects of charge.
Attack Power: 14 | Accuracy: 90% | Energy Cost: 12 | Attack Type: Special | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: No | Typing: Electric | Priority: 0 | CT: Elemental
My signature move proposal for my Nidoking!
Battle Stance: This pokemon adopts a more tactical stance towards the opponent, raising its Defense and Accuracy 1 (one stage)
Attack Power: -- | Accuracy: -- | Energy Cost: 10 | Attack Type: Other | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: N/A | Typing: Normal | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive
These two moves both are not game-breaking however, given the right circumstances could help their respective owners out in battle.
The second part of creating a move would be the backstory. Or the explanation of HOW this pokemon learned this move.
Example:
Battery Blast-Magnezone (Double A)
When Double A was just a little Magnemite, his owner who hatched him from an egg released him into the wild. One day when he was wandering around the forest after being released, he came across a fully grown Pidgeot. He turned around as quick as he could and tried to get away. The Pidgeot chased after him, inching closer and closer. Eventually Double A was caught up to, the Pidgeot's claws were scraping on his back. When he thought he would finally succumb to hit attacker, the Pidgeot made a deep slash into his body. The cut etched deep into his metal hide. Unfortunately for the bird, the internal electricity of Double A suddenly rushed out of the cut straight towards it. After the Pidgoet was knocked unconscious, Double A got away as quickly as possible. Then I caught him. I soon found out that he could still harness his power through that gash. Battery Blast is now Double A's signature move because of that Pidgeot, all those years ago.
--------------------------------
I believe that that story is very believable for the pokemon universe. It also really helps enhance the Anime-Style part of "Anime-Style-Battling".
Implementation
I believe an easy way to implement these would be a "Signature Move Creation Thread" where people would post the new moves for their pokemon and the backstories.
In order to keep game balance, we would either have a committee of users who would approve or deny each move based on a vote, or a single person in-charge of approving or denying all the moves (nominating myself :P). This would be in order to prevent move brokenness or making one mon far too good with a certain move (i.e. no contrary mons with moves that cause -6 in everything). The approver(s) would also be able to make slight changes to the move (EN cost, minor BAP changes, secondary effect chances) in order to make a move that could be broken, un-broken, so you don't have to resubmit a move
Cost
On IRC I said a cost of 5MC-7MC would be fair per move. Another suggestion I had was to make the move cost proportional to the strength of the move (I.E. The approver(s) say "X is approved, MC cost = 7"). I am open to discussion for this (Although there is a very low chance of a fixed cost less than 5).
Overall
Overall, I think signature moves would be a very fun, exciting and unique addition to ASB. Many on IRC have said they would find it "awesome" and some have already "started making signature moves for their mons". This would hardly break the game for anything, as all moves would be balanced by a fair committee. Again this would be a very enjoyable addition to ASB and I hope we can implement it!
---------------------------------
Thoughts, questions, comments or concerns? Have at it!
EDIT: Because of the complexity and such, Sig moves CANNOT be sketched. They CANNOT be used in combinations either.
EDIT AGAIN: Since it wasn't clear I guess I am stating that there is ONLY 1 SIGNATURE MOVE PER MON
Proposal: Signature Moves
I believe that in ASB, we should be allowed to create "signature moves" for our pokemon. Obviously as the name entails, a signature move would be a new move that ONLY your pokemon can use. This would encourage creativity and add another level to competition. Lots of fun could be had making up your own move also possibly giving a pokemon a chance to differentiate itself from others of its species
Making Moves
To make a "Signature Move" you would obviously first have to make up the basic details of the move
Examples:
I'd like to make this the move for my Magnezone!
Battery Blast: This pokemon uses its internal electricity to send a strong burst of energy at the opponent, the resulting loss of energy causes the user's Special Attack to drop 2 (two) stages. If used when under the effects of Charge, the Special Attack drop does not happen but the user loses the effects of charge.
Attack Power: 14 | Accuracy: 90% | Energy Cost: 12 | Attack Type: Special | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: No | Typing: Electric | Priority: 0 | CT: Elemental
My signature move proposal for my Nidoking!
Battle Stance: This pokemon adopts a more tactical stance towards the opponent, raising its Defense and Accuracy 1 (one stage)
Attack Power: -- | Accuracy: -- | Energy Cost: 10 | Attack Type: Other | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: N/A | Typing: Normal | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive
These two moves both are not game-breaking however, given the right circumstances could help their respective owners out in battle.
The second part of creating a move would be the backstory. Or the explanation of HOW this pokemon learned this move.
Example:
Battery Blast-Magnezone (Double A)
When Double A was just a little Magnemite, his owner who hatched him from an egg released him into the wild. One day when he was wandering around the forest after being released, he came across a fully grown Pidgeot. He turned around as quick as he could and tried to get away. The Pidgeot chased after him, inching closer and closer. Eventually Double A was caught up to, the Pidgeot's claws were scraping on his back. When he thought he would finally succumb to hit attacker, the Pidgeot made a deep slash into his body. The cut etched deep into his metal hide. Unfortunately for the bird, the internal electricity of Double A suddenly rushed out of the cut straight towards it. After the Pidgoet was knocked unconscious, Double A got away as quickly as possible. Then I caught him. I soon found out that he could still harness his power through that gash. Battery Blast is now Double A's signature move because of that Pidgeot, all those years ago.
--------------------------------
I believe that that story is very believable for the pokemon universe. It also really helps enhance the Anime-Style part of "Anime-Style-Battling".
Implementation
I believe an easy way to implement these would be a "Signature Move Creation Thread" where people would post the new moves for their pokemon and the backstories.
In order to keep game balance, we would either have a committee of users who would approve or deny each move based on a vote, or a single person in-charge of approving or denying all the moves (nominating myself :P). This would be in order to prevent move brokenness or making one mon far too good with a certain move (i.e. no contrary mons with moves that cause -6 in everything). The approver(s) would also be able to make slight changes to the move (EN cost, minor BAP changes, secondary effect chances) in order to make a move that could be broken, un-broken, so you don't have to resubmit a move
Cost
On IRC I said a cost of 5MC-7MC would be fair per move. Another suggestion I had was to make the move cost proportional to the strength of the move (I.E. The approver(s) say "X is approved, MC cost = 7"). I am open to discussion for this (Although there is a very low chance of a fixed cost less than 5).
Overall
Overall, I think signature moves would be a very fun, exciting and unique addition to ASB. Many on IRC have said they would find it "awesome" and some have already "started making signature moves for their mons". This would hardly break the game for anything, as all moves would be balanced by a fair committee. Again this would be a very enjoyable addition to ASB and I hope we can implement it!
---------------------------------
Thoughts, questions, comments or concerns? Have at it!
EDIT: Because of the complexity and such, Sig moves CANNOT be sketched. They CANNOT be used in combinations either.
EDIT AGAIN: Since it wasn't clear I guess I am stating that there is ONLY 1 SIGNATURE MOVE PER MON
Combinations were made to replace signature moves as the "creative move" system of ASB. These would be nearly impossible to codify and kind of go against the logical, statistics-based approach of this ASB. I kind of oppose them on principle, however cool they would be.
Maybe it's because I've been working on an RP about move customisation (so, contrary to Rediamond's post, new moves would not be nearly impossible to codify, nor would they go against the statistics-based approach of CAP ASB), but I think there is some merit to this idea, even though the work it would take to ensure that the moves are balanced and that the approval system is fair will be quite a lot.
However, I would say that any signature moves should not be possible to combo, since they already have a set of never-before-seen attributes.
However, I would say that any signature moves should not be possible to combo, since they already have a set of never-before-seen attributes.
@ Rediamond- Codifying wouldn't be very difficult. You make a move, its either approved or not, if it is, you put the move and its effect (as would be in the DAT) in its profile along with the backstory for the opponent to look over. Also since it'd have a set BAP, EN and effect(s) reffing would take place as normal, moves that don't follow standard move format, wouldn't be approved
@ Objection-I'd be very willing to help approve moves. I'd probably end up spending most on my time in ASB to help this if it were approved lol, just because I really think this would make ASB better.
@ Objection-I'd be very willing to help approve moves. I'd probably end up spending most on my time in ASB to help this if it were approved lol, just because I really think this would make ASB better.
- Status