ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread (New Proposal Handling System in OP)

[Complications]

According to Dogfish he had a conversation on IRC with another project mod who said that it started the action it was used under any circumstance, but if Yarnus got an alternate ruling it could be overturned. If it is already fixed than obviously the proposal should be void, but if not I think it should be looked at.

[Objection]

Light Screen and Reflect decay on the turn of the mon that used them (or that mon's replacement if the mon that used them is nowhere to be found). This ruling came into effect the same time as Encore's duration got fixed.

[Athenodoros]

That ruling was first decided by Deck when he went through that 'Everything Decays At The End Of The Action Or Round Full Stop Thank You And Good Night No Questions' post, and was reiterated a while back.

It was more for things like Triples, where arguably helping for one action out of six isn't enough to warrant the countdown (which leads to line-drawing issues) or speed changing and allowing for extra screen time. Which are both minor considerations, but it does at least help consistency if everything decays then.

EDIT: Except sleep and friends I guess. But that's targetted rather than an arena effect, which means that it is very easy to handle.

[Dogfish44]

Let's be consistent!

There's a few in-cartridge move errors that a few people want to have implemented in the same manner as Anime-Move errors and Magna-Move errors. Let's add them at the same cost!

[UllarWarlord]

Originally Posted by Fat Dogfish44

Let's be consistent!

There's a few in-cartridge move errors that a few people want to have implemented in the same manner as Anime-Move errors and Magna-Move errors. Let's add them at the same cost!

Supporting whole-heartedly

EDIT: And just so we can all get our opinions out and fully fleshed, I'm going to say it requires discussion

[Objection]

I'm fairly certain Deck said that he wasn't implementing those for a reason, but I can't remember what that reason was. For now, therefore, I'm going to support but feel it needs discussion.

[Texas Cloverleaf]

No.

At the very least no to Ice Beam Metagross since that was a fixed error.

[Its_A_Random]

No. Do not support, no discussion.

There is a reason why Deck did not implement these error moves, & there is literally no reason to do this, other than "Hey, would it not be cool if Lanturn had Earthquake in ASB?". "But IAR, but we did it for Anime & Manga, why not in-game errors?" They are canon. In-game errors are not canon, iirc, as far as error moves are concerned. As I said, there is a reason why Deck did not implement these error moves.

[Geodude6]

IAR summed up my thoughts perfectly.

Do not support, no discussion.

[Objection]

I am reminded of something that came up a while ago about the energy expenditure of charge-up and damaging evasive moves. There are no official rules governing when the energy cost of such moves is paid and, while this doesn't make a difference in 99% of cases, it does make a difference if using the move results in EN KO. During discussions on the topic, it was not agreed upon whether the energy cost should be paid at the start of the move or at the end.

Therefore, I propose this solution: the energy cost is divided equally between all phases of the move. This means, for example, that a non-STAB user of Dig would pay 5 energy on the evasive phase and 5 energy on the hit phase for a total of 10 energy. A STAB user of Dig would pay 4.5 energy at each phase.

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by Fat Objection

Another thing to add to the list of things brought up on IRC:

There is currently no official ruling on when the energy cost for charge-up and damaging evasive moves is paid. Arguments can be made for paying it all during the first part and arguments can be made for paying it all during the second part. In fact, arguments for both sides have been made with neither side really backing down. As such, I will propose this compromise:

For charge-up moves and damaging evasive moves, 50% of the energy cost is paid during the charge-up or evasive phase and 50% of the energy cost is paid during the hit phase.

Originally Posted by Fat Pwnemon

for refs worried about this being hard: it only matters when it comes to energy koes, so 99% of the time you can ignore it :D

Originally Posted by Fat LouisCyphre

Could have sworn we implemented this already.

I hated it at first but it really does almost never matter as in you can ignore it most of the time so support without requiring discussion.

[Elevator Music]

What about with consecutive move cost? If you're using something like SolarBeam, and then you get flinched (or the attack gets stopped by a multi-hit move), and then use SolarBeam again next action, do you have to pay extra energy?

I'm for just having energy paid during the hit phase because it's the most simple... but if nobody else agrees, I guess we can do it some other way.

[Objection]

Originally Posted by Fat Elevator Music

What about with consecutive move cost? If you're using something like SolarBeam, and then you get flinched (or the attack gets stopped by a multi-hit move), and then use SolarBeam again next action, do you have to pay extra energy?

I'm for just having energy paid during the hit phase because it's the most simple... but if nobody else agrees, I guess we can do it some other way.

The main reason why I object to it being paid in the hit phase is mainly for damaging evasive moves - getting to evade for free does not sit well with me.

That said, I'm glad you brought up the consecutive move cost thing. I imagine we can simply say no to consecutive use energy payment in those scenarios. For the charge-up moves, it's bad enough that you pay half the move's energy cost and the move still doesn't do what you want it to. For damaging evasive moves, this sort of concern is limited to stuff like Twister vs Fly, in which case you're still paying half the energy cost of Fly and it's still not having the effect you wanted (except maybe triggering a substitution).

[Orcinus Duo]

can we please for th elove of god stop locking old threads

sometimes i need to quote stuff and get templates

why do we even lock them

it's actually the dumbest thing.

[Glacier Knight]

Agreeing with Orcinus, there's a certain battle i've reffed that has the perfect template i need for doubles and company. But, it's probably locked now.

Locking them all is meticulous, and if stopped, probably wouldnt be the end of the world.

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by Fat Orcinus Duo

why do we even lock them

ask iar

[Dogfish44]

Answering on behalf of IAR: Threads are locked to prevent necrobumping from new users / spambots. Most mods will nab formats from older posts if asked, although it's recommended you save your format in a safe location (Referee Tower, computer, etc.).

If he wants to expand on this he can - I'm undeleting the posts for now though (So this conversation makes sense).

[Its_A_Random]

Basically, the entire point of thread locking is to basically prevent unnecessary moderation from occurring, that is, having to deal with some idiot necro posting in some thread from page 100 to say something silly like "Wow, this battle was awesome!" or some other crap. It also means that a dead thread can stay dead, & well, yeah.

If the main issue with this is "Oh, I need to get a reffing format", or some other crap, then you are simply better off saving a template somewhere, or even getting a mod to help. I mean, just how hard is it to write BBCode? Honestly, stop being lazy, & get a permanent template to save somewhere so you do not have to ask again.

As I initially said, this is not a game issue, it has zero influence on anything, & quite frankly, there is absolutely nothing stopping some mod from going out of their way to unlock everything, & I do not give a shit if someone does do that. Please stick discussion to actual game issues. This is NOT a place to whine about a locked thread. This is NOT a place to whine about someone moderating. If you have a problem, take it up to the user in private, & not in this thread, or just grow up & get over it. Furthermore, keep ad hominems OUT of this thread, as all it will do is cause a flame war, & unnecessary moderation. One might think that locking is "unnecessary", but it is just as unnecessary as posting in some completed battle just to say "gg", or something.

That is all.

---

As far as the charge-up thing is concerned, I would personally prefer to just keep things as it is, tbh. I mean, I see the issue, but I just think this proposed change is kinda pointless, & there is the whole can of worms about the movespam penalty & all that. I can live either way, but yeah, paying en at both the charge & the hit seems kinda dumb, & it also has some influence concerning Energy KO's & some other stuff.

EDIT: Also, what I am trying to imply there is that all en is expended on the hit, which is what I thought was the current rule.

[Objection]

Originally Posted by Fat Its_A_Random

EDIT: Also, what I am trying to imply there is that all en is expended on the hit, which is what I thought was the current rule.

The issue that caused me to bring up my proposal in the first place was that I and some others (I forget who) thought the current rule was it was expended at the start of the attack. I seem to recall it was a Focus Punch combo causing an EN KO that brought the subject up.

Anyway, after some discussion on IRC, I would like to change my proposal around quite a bit. Firstly, I'm only making it apply to damaging evasive moves - for charge-up moves, we'll go with the rule IAR has given in the quote above. Secondly, the energy cost for damaging evasive moves (outside of combos) is split up like this: 6 energy expended for the evasive component (affected by STAB only); the remainder expended on the hit (affected by consecutive use penalty, Pressure, etc. but not STAB). Thirdly, the energy cost for combos involving damaging evasive moves is split up like this: base energy cost expended on the evasive component (affected by STAB only); the remainder expended on the hit (affected by consecutive use penalty, Pressure, etc. but not STAB).

For those wondering, 6 was chosen because that's the energy cost for suspending a Dig, and STAB applies to that part because Ground-types get the STAB EN cost reduction on suspended Digs. The reason everything else to do with energy applies only to the hit is because, in the event that you managed to Dig or Fly or whatever but got hit by a move that disrupted the strike ... well, it's bad enough that you expended 6 energy on something that didn't evade every move that came your way and you got disrupted from landing the hit; making it cost 10 energy the next time would be just plain mean.

[ZhengTann]

Not much to discuss about Obj's renewed proposal, but I think some people may have different formulae (trust me, we always have different ways of doing the same algebra) so I think I'm going to support the proposal and say that it merits discussion.

[Pwnemon]

FUCK ENDEAVOR+ENDEAVOR

First: Everyone refs it differently. In irc we had four different people calculate it and we got four different energy costs, and three different damage totals. That's just absurd ok

Second: Even IF we codified it better, endeavor+endeavor is a really cheap shot, letting you trade a low HP, high EN mon for a completely fresh one since it always does absurd amounts of damage. 130 damage in a hit on any pokemon with no setup besides luck and a second order is NOT ok.

official proposal to change endeavor's CT to none

[UllarWarlord]

Supporting ^ and feeling it needs no discussion

[Its_A_Random]

I support changing Endeavour's CT to None, & do not think it needs discussion. Calculating damage is a can of worms, calculating base energy cost is a can of worms, calculating final energy cost is a can of worms, & the ability to one shot something with little set-up is just dumb, lol (Endeavour + Endeavour combo, that is).

At the same time, I propose Helping Hand has its CT changed to None as well, mainly for the same reasons as Endeavour in terms of calculating the combo, & it just seems pretty dumb, especially when you can create the same one for one scenario as Mega Endeavour easily.

[UllarWarlord]

Originally Posted by Fat UllarWarlord

Supporting ^ and feeling it needs no discussion

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Do Not Support Endeavor Combo proposal, no discussion

Do Not Support Helping Hand Combo proposal, no discussion


This reeks to me of banning things we don't like which I do not support in any form. If you have issues with not being sure of how to calc the energy, codify it. This is unnecessary and heavy handed.