(Discussion) Stat Boosts

[Gerard]

I think +/- 3 per stage after damage might suffice, this is equal to a 2x SE hit before multiplier and good enough to help mons without SE attacks overcome the difference, also, maybe do so only negative stats boost decay? Though this might get complicated when using a negative boosting move when you're at +2 or something. I rather like the x actions solution though since it's about as complicated as now since you have to count actions either way, that and the fact most mons only use boost once should keep it fairly simple.

[Its_A_Random]

Okay, apparently this is going on forever. Let us change that.

If things continue the way things are, the voting slate will be this:

What should the ± increment number for Attack/Defense/Special Attack/Special Defense Boosts be?
1.75 DMG
2 DMG
2.5 DMG
3 DMG
1 Rank

What should we do in terms of the Speed stat & how the Speed Stage affects Speed?
Retain the current speed boosting system
Implement Engineer Pikachu's speed boosting system

Where should the Stage Difference part of the Damage Formula be located?
Before the SE/Resistance Multiplier
After the SE/Resistance Multiplier

What should we do about decay in terms of stat boosters?
Retain the current decay system
Implement Its_A_Random's decay system
Implement Leethoof's decay system
Remove the decay system altogether

And anything else I missed. For specific proposals, go search the thread to see what they do & stuff, but otherwise, time to bring this discussion to an eventual close.

This thread will stay open for a maximum of 48 hours, or less if nobody has anything else to add within 24 hours. If nobody has anything else to add, this will be the slate that the council will vote on.

[Dogfish44]

I dislike that slate personally - My views on the damage value we use will vary depending upon whether or not we manage to get boosts before or after SE.

Also, any thoughts on Acc/Eva, or other speed boosters before the deadline are welcome folks!

[Engineer Pikachu]

I have about thirty seconds to make this post.

Decay Systems: As I've already mentioned above I like keeping the decay system. However, I don't particularly like either Leethoof's or IAR's proposal over the current one we have now; Leethoof's seems overcomplicated since it creates a need to track a counter on every stat boost, not just a net stat boost per stat. IAR's is slightly better, though I feel as if it leaves details out—such as the distinction between +1 with damage and +1 without damage which should have different effects as their "goodness" is very different—that the old one doesn't for the sake of simplicity. I personally feel as if in this case simplicity shouldn't go over thoroughness.

Speed System: I've been going over my logic and I remembered something Deck said about scaling speed up to more closely match IVs and EVs in-game (and also the +5 in the formula). Given this, I've been considering replacing each positive boost giving a boost of 1/2 base Speed with each boost giving a boost of 3/4 base Speed. Thoughts on this?

Voting Slate: We shouldn't do this all at once. See DF's post above.

In general: Please remember that Singles is not the only format that exists. Many of the proposals given here are okay in Singles, but might explode in Triples or even Doubles. Considering we want to balance these moves from being underpowered, we'll have failed miserably if we end up making them overpowered in a different format.

[Objection]

Originally Posted by Fat Engineer Pikachu

In general: Please remember that Singles is not the only format that exists. Many of the proposals given here are okay in Singles, but might explode in Triples or even Doubles. Considering we want to balance these moves from being underpowered, we'll have failed miserably if we end up making them overpowered in a different format.

Regarding this, could we possibly have a spread damage multiplier apply to stat boosts on multi-target moves in the same way we have a spread damage multiplier on the BAP of those moves?

[Gerard]

Originally Posted by Fat Engineer Pikachu

In general: Please remember that Singles is not the only format that exists. Many of the proposals given here are okay in Singles, but might explode in Triples or even Doubles. Considering we want to balance these moves from being underpowered, we'll have failed miserably if we end up making them overpowered in a different format.

This is pretty important to understand one key distinction, offensive boosts would be pretty good in doubles+ but defensive boosts not so much, since you're many times taking damage from two mons, Nasty Plot & Sword Dance are better than Calm Mind and Coil because at best you cover one defense and at least with the second do more damage that what you could possibly block with the other (though at least barrier and co. have an interesting niche there), also setting up is way harder in doubles and the like when disrupting moves are a lot more powerful

[Dogfish44]

I personally believe this should be split into three separate slates:

What should we do about decay in terms of stat boosters?

Retain the current decay system
Implement Its_A_Random's decay system
Implement Leethoof's decay system
Remove the decay system on any non-Accuracy/Evasion boosts and drops
Remove the decay system altogether

This is by far the most overreaching of the proposals - I will be basing what power I call for etc. based on this, and I suspect that most others are. Also included no decay w/o Acc and Eva here.

Where should the Stage Difference part of the Damage Formula be located?

Before the SE/Resistance Multiplier
After the SE/Resistance Multiplier

This is also important, and whilst I don't personally think my response to this will vary dependant on the decay system I suspect others might.

What should the ± increment number for Attack/Defense/Special Attack/Special Defense Boosts be?

1.75 DMG
2 DMG
2.5 DMG
3 DMG
1 Rank

What should we do in terms of the Speed stat & how the Speed Stage affects Speed?

Retain the current speed boosting system
Implement Engineer Pikachu's speed boosting system

There isn't much to add here, although I will say that we should remove "+1 Rank" if we decide on stat boosts outside of the SE multiplier.

This can all be done in one thread - I take it nobody has objections to this? The alternative is to have people voting based on different conclusions, but if people are worried about timescale and can see a faster slate speak up!

[Objection]

Well something has happened that might speed up the process in more ways than one:

<~Deck_Knight> Oh, and I might end up vetoing the stat boosts thing on before/after SE on account of it makes things like Tail Glow Volbeat/Syclant + Giga Drain out of control. Fortunately there's no BD + Drain Punch Pokemon, but there are Swords Dance + Drain Punchers.

[ZhengTann]

Before I say anything else, I should probably voice my support for dogfish's slating methods, if I could - the reason it comes so late is that I have nothing more to say around the time it was proposed (March 20th to be exact). But now, I do.

This is a test match between IAR and Deck, which is basically another standard ASB 2v2 Singles except that:

• Stage boosts are scaled up to 2 extra damage per boost.
• There is no decay in the boosts/nerfs.

Raw Number Crunches

---

• IAR's Ludicolo was the only one to take the full 52 damage on his team (Volbeat only spent 26 EN), while Deck's team is completely wiped out after taking 190 damage (total HP of Clyadol and Flygon).
• IAR's Volbeat dealt 18.75 damage to Deck's Claydol, out of which 12 damage (64%) is contributed by a +6 SpA boost.
• IAR's Ludicolo dealt a total of 163.5 damage to Deck's team over the course of 4 attacks, out of which 48 damage (29.4%) is contributed by the +6 SpA boost.
• Under the current system (+- 1.75 with decay), the damage contribution from a single Power Lens Tail Glow would only cap at 38.5 damage instead of 60 (from both Volbeat and Ludicolo, 5 attacks in total).
• Even with the +-2 with decay system, the damage contribution from a single Power Lens Tail Glow would only cap at 44 damage instead of 60.
• Had the +2 per stage boost is being factored within typing effectiveness, Ludicolo's Double Blizzard combo would've dealt [(12*2.25)+(6-3)+(6*2)]*2.25 = 94.5 damage, or 27 raw damage due to boosts within typing effectiveness alone.

So being the referee of that match, I'll reiterate my standing upon the issue:

I now agree with IAR that sometimes, we cannot just ignore the minority by saying "majority wins". He tried to point that out with Volbeat, one of the currently underused mons that will benefit hugely from a no-decay system. Granted, Deck did lack some crucial moves that could help him turn the tide, but I can imagine the ASB metagame centralising on Tail Glow/Sword Dance mons under a system without decay. Supporting decay within the system, as long as we get a simple one. Inertia helps, if I may add.

When I did a few comparisons, however, I am reminded again of the appeal for scaling up the damage output per stage boost. It makes the whole boosting strategy more viable, though the extent of it depends largely upon decay and typing effectiveness. As for Speed and Accuracy stats, I have no ideas for improvement, I do not believe they are improper as they are right now, and it might be best if we leave them be.

[Dogfish44]

Looking at that match, the first thing I'm thinking is "How much did no decay matter"?

My initial thought is, quite frankly, "Not Much". The damage increase isn't much, especially compared to the damage of some of the moves used - especially when you factor in the fact that the first 2 rounds are very much similar to the current system due to the decay system. That match was short due a combination of matchup (Ludicolo v Ground), and the already legal Tail Glow Baton Passing, which for the most part hasn't really changed in power.

I'll be looking over this match - chances are I'll still be supporting no decay to all but acc/eva, modifying the boost to 1.5 (I've been tilting between ±1.5 and ±2 for a while) - this actually leaves the demonstrated strategy roughly equal to it's current form for ~3 rounds. Still, I think it will be a hard match to review - much too much focus on DK's mistakes in ordering to general play and the power of stat boosts.

I might post more after some number crunching later, but for now I'll toss this onto the table.

[Objection]

OK, since the test match between IAR and Deck hasn't resulted in much being discussed, I am giving 24 hours for people to voice any objections to the slate Dogfish44 has posted, possibly with the removal of the before or after weakness/resistance vote.

[Engineer Pikachu]

I think we should just remove the second part of the vote considering Deck's comment above and other arguments presented in this thread.

I also support Objection's proposal:

Originally Posted by Fat Objection

Regarding this, could we possibly have a spread damage multiplier apply to stat boosts on multi-target moves in the same way we have a spread damage multiplier on the BAP of those moves?

Personally I think 75% works well here, just because BAP is also 75%. It slightly reduces the power of stat boosts in multiple battles which means that we don't have to worry as much about Tail Glow Struggle Bug dealing overly ridiculous amounts of damage just from the stat boosts (instead it'll only deal normal ridiculous amounts).

Also note that I've put up two proposed Speed systems—one that exactly emulates the in-game Speed structure, and one that uses increments of 75% instead of 50% to better reflect the lack of EVs and IVs in ASB. The reason both of them are up there is because I can't decide which one I like better, so I guess that's up for grabs.

and 6k i've wasted too much time in asb

[Eternal Drifter]

I feel that decay is needed. Quite frankly, if a Poke'mon manages to get up to a horrifying height of a stat, that is VERY scary for opponents. To boot, think about it this way, relating to RL: it takes effort for one to be in a heightened state of mind or improved body focus over a long period of time; if you don't focus on that, then you'll be unable to keep reaping the benefits of it.

Some Poke'mon have ways of eliminating those boosts fast, but it would either have to rely on the opponent doing something foolish or getting lucky, considering the majority of the ways to remove those boosts have a -6 priority.

That said, I don't see any objections to the slate Dogfish44 has posted. I just thought I'd make my thoughts known before I could no longer.

[Its_A_Random]

I have not been bothered to post...

Anyhow, from my view, decay actually mattered to some bit. Why? Because using Tail Glow A1 meant it started decaying from the first round normally. This meant, as you are about to see, changes in action-sets.

Round Two, I ordered Giga Drain > Grass Knot > Giga Drain.

• Under the used system w/o decay, I would have dealt 24.25+25.75+24.25 = 74.25 DMG, enough to KO Claydol without hax. (NOTE: ZhengTann calced wrong, factoring Miracle Seed before the SE multipliet, which I randomly missed for some reason, but it did not matter in the end)
• Under the used system with decay, I would have dealt 22.25+23.75+22.25 = 68.25 DMG, not enough to KO Claydol without hax.
• This meant that if I wanted to KO Claydol without hax with decay present, I would have to use Grass Knot > Grass Knot > Grass Knot. This was not a favourable action-set, though, as it meant that Deck did not necessarily have to waste an action on Heal Block.

Round Three was irrelevant, since lol Explosion, but by the end, under the normal system, Ludicolo would have only had +3 Sp. Attack.

Round Four was the Energy Ball > Hail > Blizzard + Blizzard combo.

• Under the used system w/o decay, I would have dealt 30+0+79.5 = 109.5 DMG, enough to ORKO Flygon.
• Under the used system with decay, I would have dealt 24+0+73.5 = 97.5 DMG, which is not enough to ORKO Flygon, if you do not factor in Hail Damage.
• So Decay did not matter as much, but still, I would have had to rely on Hail to KO.

So yeah, if I used Tail Glow A2, then decay would not have mattered at all, but as someone who prefers to get Tail Glow up first... w/e. Otherwise, if this were longer...

Then again, there are a few pointers that can be raised from that example, like the redundancy of Light Screen / Reflect, but that is an issue I will not bring up here. But yeah, I tried to prove decay would matter at times. It did somewhat, but not enough to be conclusive — The match was too short.

Otherwise, no real objections to slate imo — Just add 1.5 to DMG, & remove the before/after SE multiplier poll (Trust me, if it became before, ASB can possibly go out of whack in terms of balance), & it is fine.

[Deck Knight]

As far as the battle, I'll admit to not playing very well, but I essentially wanted to test out strategies for Pokemon that can't phaze or haze at the drop of a hat. That's why I was doing Acc reductions and Screens to test out their interactions. I also used Heal Block because if you look at GD's damage, you have to remember that it would also heal 6 more HP (8 at 2.5per stat boost) at a bare minimum in those scenarios regardless of opponent.

I could have used Dragon Tail on Flygon, sure - but Ludicolo could have just blocked it with a Sub, and neither of my Pokemon had a way to deal 25 Damage to Ludicolo or Volbeat for that matter. The only possible way would have been to send Flygon out against Volbeat and delay it from using Baton Pass. Essentially it's impossible to remove the boosts of a properly boosted opponent without Haze, Roar, or Whirlwind - and if the recipient in the case of Volbeat;s Tail Pass or any Pokemon on this list's Baton Pass has Taunt (and several of those mons have Taunt themselves anyway), you can't even do that.

Potential solutions would be to drastically increase the EN Cost of stat boosting moves and Baton Pass to go along with the changes (like Shell Smash and Belly Drum does since their boosts are permanent), alter Light Screen to focus on final damage rather than BAP, or a few other things.

[Its_A_Random]

Potential Final Slate (After suggested alterations)

Vote #1

What should we do about decay in terms of stat boosters?

Retain the current decay system
Implement Its_A_Random's decay system
Implement Leethoof's decay system
Remove the decay system on any non-Accuracy/Evasion boosts and drops
Remove the decay system altogether

Vote #2

What should the ± increment number for Attack/Defense/Special Attack/Special Defense Boosts be?

1.5 DMG
1.75 DMG
2 DMG
2.5 DMG
3 DMG

What should we do in terms of the Speed stat & how the Speed Stage affects Speed?

Retain the current speed boosting system
Implement Engineer Pikachu's speed boosting system (+1 = 1.5×)
Implement Engineer Pikachu's speed boosting system (+1 = 1.75×)

Changes in the slate include the veto of the before/after w/r multiplier, 1.5 being added to the damage increment to replace the Rank option (due to w/r being vetoed), & the two Engineer proposals in the speed slate.

About the w/r veto, let me put it this way. If you think my match with Deck was bad enough without decay, try it with the boosts before the w/r multiplier; the amount of damage I could have dealt would be absolutely obscene. Also, it will, or rather, may create horrible imbalance in the system, especially with damaging recovery move spammers being able to gain huge amounts of HP on SE targets—especially with a Big Root on—pretty much resulting in several typings potentially becoming an absolute liability—Most notably anything weak to Grass, specially with Serperior being one of the major stat boosting culprits. Special mentions to anything weak to Fighting as well—when you face such stat boosting strategies. Having the difference before the w/r is pretty much too stupid to even let get to a vote. Yes you can phase & shit, but by the time you get there, odds are the damage would have probably already been done, & you are probably either miles behind your opponent, or your opponent has managed to get back into the game. Yes we could nerf a bunch of shit, but that is just going to completely highlight how silly that change would be. Also, remember Deck's comments & several others as well. If the goal of this was to increase viability while keeping balance in the game, then doing something extreme like this, while making a bunch of nerfs to other things is not the way to achieve it. This is why I have cut the before/after w/r multiplier vote from the slate. If anyone thinks it should be re-slated, speak now, but it is very unlikely it will be re-slated, because of how much imbalance this can cause if it went through.

As a result, the Ranks thing would have to be vetoed as well, since that is before the multiplier, lol. I also replaced it with 1.5 DMG to express dogfish's concerns in his latest post. Finally, Engineer is so indecisive that we have to slate both of his proposals, so... why not?

Any last opinions?

[Objection]

Firstly, I think Engineer Pikachu expressed support for the spread reduction on stat boosts that I proposed earlier, so perhaps that might be worth slating too?

Secondly, now that I've had a closer look at the battle, I'm more convinced that the problem is the combination of Prankster, Power Lens and Tail Glow (with Baton Pass only hurting the case even more), rather than how stat boosters were treated in general in that battle. I mean, under the current system, a desperate player would resort to hax like accuracy-lowering moves anyway, and the Hone Claws was just an opportunistic manoeuvre not much different from "If he uses Protect, use Bulk Up". I would be curious to see if that system proved too strong for other stat boosters from Swords Dance and Calm Mind to Contrary Leaf Storm.

But since we want to get this over with, I'm not gonna push for another test.

[Its_A_Random]

Well, if you can make an official proposal about it with an arbitrary number & stuff, then we could possibly slate it in-between decay & the damage/speed votes. I know there is something proposed, but no numbers or something other than the numbers Engineer suggested... :S

[Objection]

OK, how about this?

I propose that, whenever a move's BAP is reduced by 25% due to hitting multiple targets, the value of the damage provided by stat boosts/drops is also reduced by 25%.

[ZhengTann]

About Deck's veto on stage boosts/nerfs before typing effectiveness:
I understand that support has shifted from changing it to before typing to retaining it at after typing, (though I'm not 100% sure about that), but given that Deck only "might" veto it, shouldn't it be fair that it is included in the slate as well? Just throwing it out...

About spread nerfs for stage boosts:
I think we should keep in mind that the outcome of discussion and voting on this issue affects not only stage boosts, but stage nerfs as well. If we were to nerf boosts in spread battles (Doubles, Triples, Brawls, etc.), does that mean we have to boost nerfs in spread battles along those same lines? For example, let's say a -1 Atk Garchomp used EQ when a stage drop equals -2. What happens then, a -1.5 damage on the spread move to each of his targets? Nerfs are also the main reason I'd put my support on decay - at the very least, battlers get the chance to safely play their way out of an unwanted stage drop.

I have to agree with dogfish that the outcome of the test match isn't that heavily reliant on +12 damage per action. But Engi's concern over +36 (or some other arbitrary, agreed-upon large number) damage per action in Triples is valid, I guess - hence the middle ground.

By implementing decay, stage boosts are restricted to a timer, which nerfs them enough, IMO. At the same time stage nerfs can be mitigated over time as well. I see no solid reason for spread reduction - we are, in that way, solving one side without accounting for the other. Besides, in Doubles+, the momentum is incredibly volatile - just because you grabbed a Contrary Draco Meteor boost doesn't mean your opponent cannot disrupt it with Disable and co.

[Gerard]

Intimidate is permanent already, so decay or no decay it doesn't affect it

[Its_A_Random]

Originally Posted by Fat Objection

Secondly, now that I've had a closer look at the battle, I'm more convinced that the problem is the combination of Prankster, Power Lens and Tail Glow (with Baton Pass only hurting the case even more), rather than how stat boosters were treated in general in that battle. I mean, under the current system, a desperate player would resort to hax like accuracy-lowering moves anyway, and the Hone Claws was just an opportunistic manoeuvre not much different from "If he uses Protect, use Bulk Up". I would be curious to see if that system proved too strong for other stat boosters from Swords Dance and Calm Mind to Contrary Leaf Storm.

But since we want to get this over with, I'm not gonna push for another test.

I am glad that you now see one of the big reasons as to why I think a no decay ASB would be bad for the game. The fact that Volbeat can instantly hit +6 SpA & pass it off in a heartbeat to a bulky Special Attacker with some damaging recovery move is why you cannot let no decay into ASB (Cradily in particular comes to mind). The fact is, with the damaging recovery moves, the Pokémon can easily last long enough for decay to actually matter. This trinity, which was pretty much my brainchild, is designed to put so much pressure on the opponent to attempt to remove the boost—or the Pokémon—ASAP, since if you leave it too late, the Volbeat abuser will literally walk all over you so fast, that the phase attempt would count for nothing in the end. The trinity is balanced under the current system, imo, since decay means it will not last forever, & it means if you use it, you have to make the most of it through attacking & shit to make it worth the lost action(s). No decay will simply (be highly likely to) break this thing so hard that nerfing it to achieve balance would be a silly idea, because "We already had balance before decay was removed!"

Drastically increasing EN cost of moves like Tail Glow, Baton Pass, etc., is not going to solve the issue either. If you do not use Volbeat—or any other passer that you designated—for the rest of the battle, since your recipient ended up demolishing your opponent, then nothing has changed, & the supposed nerf we made is not really a nerf at all. If you have another way, then do bring it up, though we should wait until the vote is over before making any judgements.

As for the other strategies, They would not be as absurd as the Volbeat strategy, but still it is an effective buff. As I said before, Swoobat can afford to be more conservative with its Calm Mind + Stored Power strategy once it starts setting up, & can sponge special attacks effectively once fully set up for an extended period of time—Which would make putting boosts before the W/R multiplier even worse, because it would make SE moves that would walk all over it become even less powerful than having the boosts after the multiplier—as well as the obvious rip everything but Dark-Types to shreds with Stored Power. Serperior's Contrary Leaf Storm strategy would remain largely unchanged, but it still would not have to use Leaf Storm over & over again to maintain the boost, even though it would still use it anyway, because of its power. Swords Dance? Yeah well, that is another story. Time to find something that could break that move, lol.

Originally Posted by Fat ZhengTann

About Deck's veto on stage boosts/nerfs before typing effectiveness:
I understand that support has shifted from changing it to before typing to retaining it at after typing, (though I'm not 100% sure about that), but given that Deck only "might" veto it, shouldn't it be fair that it is included in the slate as well? Just throwing it out...

Not exactly because of deck, but because of the aforementioned imbalance that it can cause in the game. I am not a fan of risk, but given what imbalance it can cause, I am not willing to risk ruining the balance of the game to buff stat boosters. I can give many examples, but yeah.

Potential Final Slate (After suggested alterations)

Vote #1

What should we do about decay in terms of stat boosters?

Retain the current decay system
Implement Its_A_Random's decay system
Implement Leethoof's decay system
Remove the decay system on any non-Accuracy/Evasion boosts and drops
Remove the decay system altogether

Vote #2 (Assuming this gets enough support, which is not guaranteed)

Should Spread reduction to stat boosts be applied to moves that target more than one Pokémon in a multi-battle?

Implement a 0.75× Spread reduction to stat boosts for moves that target more than one Pokémon
Do not implement a Spread reduction to stat boosts for moves that target more than one Pokémon

Vote #3

What should the ± increment number for Attack/Defense/Special Attack/Special Defense Boosts be?

1.5 DMG
1.75 DMG
2 DMG
2.5 DMG
3 DMG

What should we do in terms of the Speed stat & how the Speed Stage affects Speed?

Retain the current speed boosting system
Implement Engineer Pikachu's speed boosting system (+1 = 1.5×)
Implement Engineer Pikachu's speed boosting system (+1 = 1.75×)

As usual... Last thoughts...

[Dogfish44]

Merge votes 1 and 2 or votes 2 and 3 - I don't think it deserves it's own vote run in the interests of time. I'll be giving a "No" vote RE: Spread Move Stat Boost reduction in case anyone's interested. Probably moving onto a vote at last...

[Its_A_Random]

While spread proposals have been suggested, I am hesitant to formally slate it—Hence the conditional in the slate—because only like two or three users have voiced their support, not enough to bother voting on. I will give until I wake up tomorrow morning (Which will probably be some time before 23:00 GMT) for users who have not voiced support for spread reduction to post in here voicing their support, but otherwise, if no one else posts support, then it will not be slated. If by some miracle it got enough support, then it will merge with vote one, since it may influence the true stat increment vote.

[Its_A_Random]

No one else wants to support spread damage for stat boosters? Fine then. We will be using the slate I posted in Post #41. Discussion over, time to vote on this thing (at last).