-
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
Of the proposals that IAR has listed as "needing votes and shit", I support Arena Trap, Baton Pass, Counter-farming! (which imo should be called counter counter-farming since we're countering counter-farming), and Change Training Items!, and believe that those do not require discussion. I also support the Auto-Learn Universal TM's! and Critical Hits! proposals, but believe that these require further discussion.
Gotta play the naysayer here, unfortunately.
1) Arena Trap and Baton Pass Shenanigans should get the rocket docket towards voting, as I can't see anything wrong with them.
2) I am strongly opposed to CounterCounterFarming measures. Who are you to say I can't battle a Fire Arceus with Sunkern? How do you intend to handle battles with Magikarp? They all will be, to some degree counterfarming. Also If you just block blatant counterfarming, you are just being silly. It's like saying you can counterfarm as long as you are discreet. Worse, if the mods have power to block a match where one of the players played severely worse, you will just push away most newbies, as you can't expect them to always bring their A-Game on their first matches.
I think this needs to be ironed well. Giving a mod power to veto a match is opening a huge can of worms. In the end, it will be up to the mod's discretion and again: who are you to say who I can or cannot battle?
3) Also against auto learn TMs. I don't see the point of them. If you say that "it takes too many matches for a pokemon to be good" then I must point out that the moves you chose won't help much. Frustation, Return, Round and Snore aren't used pretty much at all, except for some normal types and even then its rare. Rest and Sleep Talk are hardly effective when you don't have 4 good moves to choose from (and since you want to boost the young mons, you will hardly ever get 4 good moves to choose form in this situation). Finally Protect and Substitute...well...aren't they the reason every poke gets 3 TM moves to choose from?
At least a discussion is necessary even if it is to choose different moves.
4) Also against the change on training items on the grounds of it being hilarious. Aside from Amulet Coin, the pokemon I want to train are usually the weaker mons, the ones that hardly ever get a KO (specially in singles). The change you are proposing is like saying: "use your training item on your strongest mon if you want to see results", which is IMO hilarious, as the whole point of training items (again, aside from Amulet Coin) is to speed up the growth of weaker mons.
Also regarding the "ingame" argument, if you want to keep going on that route, you will need to abolish EC, MC and DC and stick only with KOC (and change the prizes rules quite a bit), since ingame the mon only gets any kind of experience (aside from day care and stuff like that) when an opposing mon is KOed.
5) Finally regarding the critical hits proposal, I think it needs to be a little while more on discussion. I agree that the problem is real, but I really don't think the proposed solution is...how should I put it..."user-friendly".
my 2 cents.
1) Arena Trap and Baton Pass Shenanigans should get the rocket docket towards voting, as I can't see anything wrong with them.
2) I am strongly opposed to CounterCounterFarming measures. Who are you to say I can't battle a Fire Arceus with Sunkern? How do you intend to handle battles with Magikarp? They all will be, to some degree counterfarming. Also If you just block blatant counterfarming, you are just being silly. It's like saying you can counterfarm as long as you are discreet. Worse, if the mods have power to block a match where one of the players played severely worse, you will just push away most newbies, as you can't expect them to always bring their A-Game on their first matches.
I think this needs to be ironed well. Giving a mod power to veto a match is opening a huge can of worms. In the end, it will be up to the mod's discretion and again: who are you to say who I can or cannot battle?
3) Also against auto learn TMs. I don't see the point of them. If you say that "it takes too many matches for a pokemon to be good" then I must point out that the moves you chose won't help much. Frustation, Return, Round and Snore aren't used pretty much at all, except for some normal types and even then its rare. Rest and Sleep Talk are hardly effective when you don't have 4 good moves to choose from (and since you want to boost the young mons, you will hardly ever get 4 good moves to choose form in this situation). Finally Protect and Substitute...well...aren't they the reason every poke gets 3 TM moves to choose from?
At least a discussion is necessary even if it is to choose different moves.
4) Also against the change on training items on the grounds of it being hilarious. Aside from Amulet Coin, the pokemon I want to train are usually the weaker mons, the ones that hardly ever get a KO (specially in singles). The change you are proposing is like saying: "use your training item on your strongest mon if you want to see results", which is IMO hilarious, as the whole point of training items (again, aside from Amulet Coin) is to speed up the growth of weaker mons.
Also regarding the "ingame" argument, if you want to keep going on that route, you will need to abolish EC, MC and DC and stick only with KOC (and change the prizes rules quite a bit), since ingame the mon only gets any kind of experience (aside from day care and stuff like that) when an opposing mon is KOed.
5) Finally regarding the critical hits proposal, I think it needs to be a little while more on discussion. I agree that the problem is real, but I really don't think the proposed solution is...how should I put it..."user-friendly".
my 2 cents.
I have an idea that I have talked a little over irc with Objection. While looking over the move, Block, I had a random thought: Why is it only a pokemon's WC? Shouldn't it involve a pokemon's SC as well?
My reasoning for even proposing such a change is this:
Just because you are heavy, does not mean you are a good blocker. You will need size to make that happen. It's much harder to get past a Blocking Snorlax than to get past a Blocking Boldor.
This is all fine and dandy, but using this formula, Groudon, the heaviest pokemon at SC 12, only deals a mere 24 damage. If a Groudon blocked you using it's weight alone, you'd expect more, right? Yea, that's what I thought. I propose the following change:
In this senario, we will watch as Groudon uses Block against a Scyther attempting to use an Agility (Evasive):
Flavor-wise, this makes sense. A big and heavy pokemon like Groudon should be able to deal a lot of damage to a much smaller pokemon like Scyther. If we were to reverse the situation, Scyther's Block would only deal 10 damage (Yes, Scyther cannot learn Block, but this is an example).
My reasoning for even proposing such a change is this:
Just because you are heavy, does not mean you are a good blocker. You will need size to make that happen. It's much harder to get past a Blocking Snorlax than to get past a Blocking Boldor.
Dat's Original Block said:
This is all fine and dandy, but using this formula, Groudon, the heaviest pokemon at SC 12, only deals a mere 24 damage. If a Groudon blocked you using it's weight alone, you'd expect more, right? Yea, that's what I thought. I propose the following change:
New Block said:
In this senario, we will watch as Groudon uses Block against a Scyther attempting to use an Agility (Evasive):
Damage Calcs said:
Flavor-wise, this makes sense. A big and heavy pokemon like Groudon should be able to deal a lot of damage to a much smaller pokemon like Scyther. If we were to reverse the situation, Scyther's Block would only deal 10 damage (Yes, Scyther cannot learn Block, but this is an example).
Regarding Baton Pass: I think it should be passed without discussion.
I agree with everything IAR said in the above post, except for training items.
Training items should not be changed, because that will completely remove the purpose of training items, which is to make weakmons stronger. With the proposal, they don't really work if your weakmon loses because it's a weakmon. No vote.
EDIT: Mother of ninjas... When I posted IAR's was the most recent post.
Anyways: Supporting KS without discussion, unless somebody feels that the multiplier should be changed.
I agree with everything IAR said in the above post, except for training items.
Training items should not be changed, because that will completely remove the purpose of training items, which is to make weakmons stronger. With the proposal, they don't really work if your weakmon loses because it's a weakmon. No vote.
EDIT: Mother of ninjas... When I posted IAR's was the most recent post.
Anyways: Supporting KS without discussion, unless somebody feels that the multiplier should be changed.
The point of battling is supposed to be, y'know, to win. Even in training battles. Deliberately setting up or participating in a battle that you know full well that you are going to lose (such as Fire Arceus vs Sunkern) is counter farming because why else would you participate in a battle that you already know you are going to lose before you even send in teams? Counters in ASB are supposed to be things that are earned, which is why counter farming is considered a bad thing. We've had other methods of counter farming being used before such as 1v1 doubles (in which you enter the same mon twice so it gets twice as many counters) and we've already put the kibosh on those blatant methods. However, matches like Burn the Bellsprout and Crush the Combee haven't had the kibosh put on them when they really need to if we are to do something about counter farming.
Leaving it to mod judgement, while not a perfect solution, is the best solution to counter farming problems that has been suggested so far, and I am certain that there is no perfect solution to the problem, so we have to settle for as close to perfect as possible. If you have a solution that gets closer to perfect, suggest it. Bear in mind, "counter farming is bad" is being treated as objective fact now.
This is why you do weakmons vs weakmons, not weakmons vs strongmons. That said, it could be potentially problematic in babysitter matches (ie, ones with a mixture of weakmons and strongmons). Because of this, I am changing my stance on the training items proposal to support but feel there needs to be discussion.
Assuming you mean abolish the EC, MC and DC that get given out rather than abolish the whole concept of EC, MC and DC, this could potentially help resolve the counter farming issues.
---
I support King_Serperior's Block proposal but feel there needs to be discussion. The idea behind it is solid enough, but I'm not 100% sure about the formula.
---
After the Fake Out debacle on the last couple of pages, I am going to officially propose this version of Fake Out:
[box]Fake Out: The Pokémon strikes the opponent with immense swiftness using their hands/paws, creating a shockwave of air that pushes the opponent back, causing them to flinch. In Switch=KO, Fake Out only flinches on the Pokémon's first use of the move, even if resetting effects like Circle Throw, Dragon Tail, Roar, U-turn, Teleport, Volt Switch, or Whirlwind used by it or against it. In Switch=OK, Fake Out may only flinch if the Pokémon using the move hasn't used it since it was last sent out. Fake Out can still damage opponents after its first use since the Pokémon was sent out; it simply cannot flinch them. Fake Out is the fastest priority attack, beating out even ExtremeSpeed.
Attack Power: 4 | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: 4 | Attack Type: Physical | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: Yes | Typing: Normal | Priority: 3 | CT: Set[/box]
---
Finally, the council has made the following decisions:
- Arena Trap: VOTE
- Baton Pass: VOTE
I thought I'd leave the fixes to others, especially after that referee payment debate got out of hand (of which I must shamefully say that I contributed to getting out of hand), but I have to finally come around and act to try to stop what could be a disasterous change. Frosty has summed it up, so I'll just quote the part of the post where the argument matters to the issue I am worried about.
Yes, the proposal regarding training items. Essentially, if you change the way training items work, their usefulness will plummet. The key point of training items is to train up weaker Poke'mon, and forcing them to get near-impossible KOes at their basic state to actually benefit from the item would defeat the purpose (and useage) of the items. Not to mention, some of us play for fun, and not to win; changing the training items would make this forum more compeditive-based, which would likely drive away potential players.
I am standing with Frosty on this issue. Keep training items the way they are.
Yes, the proposal regarding training items. Essentially, if you change the way training items work, their usefulness will plummet. The key point of training items is to train up weaker Poke'mon, and forcing them to get near-impossible KOes at their basic state to actually benefit from the item would defeat the purpose (and useage) of the items. Not to mention, some of us play for fun, and not to win; changing the training items would make this forum more compeditive-based, which would likely drive away potential players.
I am standing with Frosty on this issue. Keep training items the way they are.
It's amazing so much can happen while you're asleep. Suddenly Policy Center is abuzz with activities again.
Counter Counterfarming: I'll have to agree and state that it does not require discussion. I think much of the discussion has been done in this thread, and in the end, I think we can trust in the judgement of projmods and Councillors when it comes to Frosty's question of "who are you to say who I can or cannot battle?"
Auto-learn TMs: Like Frosty said, the problem "it takes too much to be good" cannot be solve with such universal distributed moves that lack coverage. I might suggest a few other counter-proposals, though, so for now I disagree but think that it merits more discussion.
Training Items nerf: The allure in Training Items is that they allow additional rewards beyond what offered in standard matches - that's why they cost quite little, and why they're frowned upon in serious RPs and Gym Leagues. So I'll have to go with disagree and thinks it does not merit discussion, because we'll then disregard the point in Training Items.
Block: I think the proposed damage formula is simple enough, and pretty logic, as well. Agree to it, but requires discussion to ensure community consensus.
Fake Out: Being the reff of Fake Out Triples, I can only say Agree to the change and that it needs no discussion.
Counter Counterfarming: I'll have to agree and state that it does not require discussion. I think much of the discussion has been done in this thread, and in the end, I think we can trust in the judgement of projmods and Councillors when it comes to Frosty's question of "who are you to say who I can or cannot battle?"
Auto-learn TMs: Like Frosty said, the problem "it takes too much to be good" cannot be solve with such universal distributed moves that lack coverage. I might suggest a few other counter-proposals, though, so for now I disagree but think that it merits more discussion.
Training Items nerf: The allure in Training Items is that they allow additional rewards beyond what offered in standard matches - that's why they cost quite little, and why they're frowned upon in serious RPs and Gym Leagues. So I'll have to go with disagree and thinks it does not merit discussion, because we'll then disregard the point in Training Items.
Block: I think the proposed damage formula is simple enough, and pretty logic, as well. Agree to it, but requires discussion to ensure community consensus.
Fake Out: Being the reff of Fake Out Triples, I can only say Agree to the change and that it needs no discussion.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think the training item idea is terrible. So I am now opposing w/o discussion.
As far as Fake Out,NO, STOP NERFING DELIBIRD GDI!!! Nah, just kidding. But in all seriousness, using Delibird in a Triples Match, I say support w/o discussion. Fake Out too borked.
The whole stat boosting proposals definitely needs to go to a discussion, but I support some change to them.
Not much of an opinion on Block atm, but a discussion seems necessary.
As far as Fake Out,
The whole stat boosting proposals definitely needs to go to a discussion, but I support some change to them.
Not much of an opinion on Block atm, but a discussion seems necessary.
I'm lazy. And I ran a couple calcs and KS' formula looks pretty good at a glance so I don't think it needs discussion.
I'm kind of confused by the Block proposal; given that you've made an argument for the attacker to have both SC and WC factored in, is there any specific reasoning you have for factoring in the target's SC but not its WC? Moreover I'm sort of concerned by the fact that you're saying "a mere 24 damage" since that's really nothing to laugh at especially given that by doing that your opponent has wasted an action on not damaging you as well.
Even if it goes through, though, I'd say that something that increases damage to this degree should probably cost a little more than 6 EN.
Even if it goes through, though, I'd say that something that increases damage to this degree should probably cost a little more than 6 EN.
I have been thinking of that and was thinking of changing the energy to possibly 6 + user's SC as the energy cost.
Sorry for the double post, but this needs to be brought to our attention.
Earlier in the feedback thread, we had a whole bunch of suggestions for what to do about stat-boosting moves. For your convenience, I have gathered every post containing a suggestion (partial or full) here:
Given the sheer number of proposals on the topic, it is imprudent to go straight to vote unless one proposal garners an overwhelming amount of support compared to the rest. Still, feel free to vote on the general topic of changes to stat boosts now.
Earlier in the feedback thread, we had a whole bunch of suggestions for what to do about stat-boosting moves. For your convenience, I have gathered every post containing a suggestion (partial or full) here:
Given the sheer number of proposals on the topic, it is imprudent to go straight to vote unless one proposal garners an overwhelming amount of support compared to the rest. Still, feel free to vote on the general topic of changes to stat boosts now.
I neither support or detract from any proposals and want that moved to discussion.
Damn it, I've had enough with Confusion and Sleep sucking.
We all know that both of these statuses suck, and there's really no argument about it. I believe its fixing time:
A simple fix to an obvious problem, really.
We all know that both of these statuses suck, and there's really no argument about it. I believe its fixing time:
Frankly, 16 DMG from a single attack is ridiculously low. One SE 10 BAP attack (Thunderbolt, Ice Beam, Flamethrower, Stone Edge, Earthquake...) with any positive rank difference completely nullifying confusion or sleep pretty much means that if you put the status on the enemy, not only does the opponent have to worry about hitting himself, but the user has to severely limit the damage output of his or her own attacks so that they don't accidentally get rid og the status they put on the opponent.Current Sleep/Confusion said:
Taking a page out of Outrage's book, with this proposal, the user of sleep move/confuse Ray/whatever can still actually deal any worthwhile damage, while really powerful moves like Overheat and combos will still instantly snap the opponent out of its confusion/sleep.Proposed Sleep/Confusion said:
A simple fix to an obvious problem, really.
I oppose the proposed fix to sleep and confusion if only because it used to be that way before but it was changed because how would Ice Beam not snap out a sleeping/confused Dragonite but Hi Jump Kick would, even though Ice Beam is clearly the more painful move to be hit by? If anything, Outrage and co should have their disruption criteria altered to be similar to those of sleep and confusion (with a different damage threshold possibly, but that's not what I'm here to talk about right now).
That said, while I think confusion is OK as it is, I think sleep needs a buff of some kind. The problem with sleep, however, is not so much that it's not hard to disrupt. The problem is it doesn't last long enough 2/3 of the time. Since Secret Power is the only damaging move that has any chance of causing sleep (and that's arena-dependent, although iirc the ASB arena gives it the sleep chance), putting someone to sleep almost always means you're sacrificing an action to prevent them from doing stuff. However, 2/3 of the time, you're only breaking even, which is really not good enough.
Therefore, I propose that the fix to sleep should be that it always lasts 2 actions (excluding Rest). If you still think 16 damage is too low a threshold for sleep and confusion, we can increase it to 18 damage, but I do not under any circumstances want it to be BAP-based because of what I said in the first paragraph.
Either way, we need to move any alterations to sleep and confusion to discussion.
That said, while I think confusion is OK as it is, I think sleep needs a buff of some kind. The problem with sleep, however, is not so much that it's not hard to disrupt. The problem is it doesn't last long enough 2/3 of the time. Since Secret Power is the only damaging move that has any chance of causing sleep (and that's arena-dependent, although iirc the ASB arena gives it the sleep chance), putting someone to sleep almost always means you're sacrificing an action to prevent them from doing stuff. However, 2/3 of the time, you're only breaking even, which is really not good enough.
Therefore, I propose that the fix to sleep should be that it always lasts 2 actions (excluding Rest). If you still think 16 damage is too low a threshold for sleep and confusion, we can increase it to 18 damage, but I do not under any circumstances want it to be BAP-based because of what I said in the first paragraph.
Either way, we need to move any alterations to sleep and confusion to discussion.
imo alter the sleep counter to 1/2/3 with early bird getting 0/1/1
getting a free action every single time from sleep is too strong imo
getting a free action every single time from sleep is too strong imo
Okay, I have fixed up the energy issue that Engi pointed out.
So, does anyone else have any comments, criticism, or any other issues about this change?
Dat's Original Block said:
New Block said:
So, does anyone else have any comments, criticism, or any other issues about this change?
Since when did confusion "suck"? Apart from the fact that confusion always lasts one action less than advertised, there is no escaping from its mega-disruptive potential. Furthermore, the proposed solution simply causes mega-inconsistency & does not make sense. "Oh no, that 4× Super Effective Ice Beam on my Dragonite did not stop confusion, but that Hi Jump Kick did? What is this?!" Same goes for Sleep, but the counter for it could do with a little alteration, especially if the near-universal moves proposal goes through, since everything will be able to pack Sleep Talk to abuse Sleep.waterwarrior said:
These proposals get a no from me as it stands, with no discussion.
- Status