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

[Gerard]

Gravity, Telekinesis, never missing moves (like Thunder/Hurricane in Rain or Blizzard in Hail) and combos with them, etc...

[Pwnemon]

niche and bad, niche and bad, niche and bad, niche and bad

[Dogfish44]

Originally Posted by Fat Gerard

Gravity, Telekinesis, never missing moves (like Thunder/Hurricane in Rain or Blizzard in Hail) and combos with them, etc...

Hey, it's that time again where I start dragging up some quotes!

Originally Posted by Fat Deck Knight

RE: Evasion in general

I hate Evasion. Period.

Originally Posted by Fat Deck Knight

If you cannot bring yourself to realize that I do not want the ASB to have a cheap, immediate way to universally dodge attacks outside of the canonical moves that do so, then there cannot be a valid discussion.

I think it might be obvious right now that there's a trend. Evasion is a BAD thing, it's unwanted.

What you are defending at the moment is that "Hax is perfectly fine." And I don't hesitate to mention that a change to Forewarn and Illuminate has a huge impact on your team.

When you defend this notion, you defend some of the most vile ideas, let me list them:

• The thought that every new Pokemon must take at least 1 way to deal with hax through abilities, even if they cannot actually do so.
• The notion that having a method to counter X doesn't make X less polarising or broken... which is the basis for the banning of many Pokemon in OU, UU, etc. which do have counters.
• That hax is perfectly fine to give someone who has spent months preparing for something, making ideal orders for a scenaio, with an nigh impossible to counter team type matchup, a loss.

CAPASB doesn't want hax - This includes users from top to bottom across the players. Promoting hax undermines any sense of competitiveness left and turns the game into a luckfest.

[Gerard]

I don't hide the fact that 3 members of my team would be affected by such a change (Starmie, Mollux & Jynx if anyone wants to know), which is a reason I would defend the use of both of them since I've use them all heavily (although I would like you to note that largely my team is composed of Pokemon that have either reduced evasion through -Spe or increased one due to +Spe (and as soon as released a No Guard one)).

Is that you can't just use it and wait for a miss, as that hardly ever happens, the effect lasts for 2 rounds and unless you're unlucky that averages 1 1/2 misses per mon (and that's assuming that you only attack) which does deter the opponent about using attacks such as Thunder unless it's raining, but has otherwise more of a physiological effect than a real one, I love Illuminate because it makes the opponent play around it while I do my thing, which is hardly any different to any other strategy, move or mayor ability, the same with Forewarn, you don't count on the miss (if you do then you're a crappy player) but it would be nice if it happened (like with oh so many moves...). The same way that Static on Cyclohm deters spamming Ice punch against him, or how Flame Body makes using Fighting moves such as Low Kick, HJK or Close Combat against Heatran a gambit, spamming any attack against Kit it's risky unless you sub for it being disabled as Cursed Body could Kick in, etc... It makes you find ways around it, or at least stall the time until it wears off, or you switch, or any of the ways to remove accuracy loses, also, with CAP4 next arrival then the ways around this treaths became even higher.

Also, would this affect Delibird or Spinda, both that had their evasion raise without in-game precedence.

[Objection]

I like this alternative for Forewarn:

<%dogfish44> 'Forewarn: Whenever Dodge is used and a move hits, the move deals half damage.'

[Dogfish44]

The current gym approval committee is inactive and preventing the opening of gyms.

MK is semi inactive, and Kaxtar hasn't been on IRC in over 2 months. I'm not sure if we should replace both, one or neither, but right now it's making the process ridiculously long for waiting leaders. IRC agrees, so...

Thoughts on what we should do?

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Being part of the irc group that agrees this needs to get done asap, and not languish, I have the following proposals:

-Void the Dark Gym
Korski quit and Lou is gone, this creates an impasse for anyone trying to become the Dark leader. Removing it as an active gym allows people to gun for it for r3 gyms.
-Restructure the Gym leadership
Kaxtar is inactive as all fuck, athenodoros is not part of the committee anymore and MK no longer plays. That said, MK has still been effective intermittently. I am of the opinion that a committee of three people is the most effective for getting things done, and that people need to be selected to fill vacancies on the gym committee.
irc believes this position should be open to gym leaders given their involvement with the process, those people being: dogfish44, Engineer, Its_A_Random, Athenodoros, CMFP, zarator and jas61292; as well as outliers Rediamond, Orcinus Duo and Objection.

My personal shortlist endorsement goes to Engineer, Rediamond and zarator.

These proposals are critical to ensure the continuing health of the gym system both with the opening of new gyms, the maintenence of inactive ones, and the progression of the gym system.. Thanks for your time.

[Orcinus Duo]

Just putting this into perspective: when the above two say IRC, they mean "fish, texas, red, and myself", which is I think hardly a large enough group to make it seem like all of ASB agrees.

That being said, I completely endorse the above two posts in their entirety. I reckon we should open this up to a vote to the public, granted that we get either overwhelming support or official endorsement.


Also Kaxtar isn't actually inactive just lazy, since he seems to be very active from the reply times i'm getting from my PMs with him regarding the melee. Which I actually find somewhat rude, since he ignores all my PMs about gyms. But yeah.

[Pwnemon]

Texas is absolutely correct though i'm not sure if Zarator can juggle the raid zone, rp approvals, and gym committee. Still, fuck the current committee (sorry mk, not sorry kax), we need more active people who are still involved with the game.

[Rediamond]

As one of the irc group who dicussed this, I also believe we need to do something.

I, personally, would not be opposed to holding less of a public vote and more of a vote among gym leaders as to if any action should be taken and what should be done if so. However, I have come to agree that we do need a three man council on the subject. Rather than a list of names, I would like to suggest that gym refs, R1 leaders, and project mods should be considered for any appointment(s) do to their experience in ASB and the gym system. Beyond this, the entire process is a bit awkward as the two current council members are still active. I suggest starting with promoting a third individual as a start, and if and when any current members wish to step down we nominate someone in their place.

But we do need to get things moving. The third round is only a few months away on the current time table, and if we make E4 promotions, I think we should at least have some experience with the R2 leaders to judge possible nominations by this time (looking at your zarator). Therefore, fast action at this time would be optimal.

[Yarnus of Bethany]

I think the new gyms definately need to open, and this seems the best way to do it.
I support this.

[ZhengTann]

Originally Posted by Fat DAT

Combination Priority:

Priority of Move 1 vs. Priority of Move 2.

Priority 0 + Priority 0: -2
Priority 3 + Priority 3: 6 (ex. Fake Out + Fake Out)
Priority 3 + Priority 2: 5 (ex. Fake Out + Feint)
Priority 3 + Priority 1: 4 (ex. Fake Out + Bullet Punch)
Priority 3 + Priority 0: 3 (ex. Fake Out + Faint Attack)
Priority 2 + Priority 2: 4 (ex. ExtremeSpeed + Feint)
Priority 2 + Priority 1: 3 (ex. ExtremeSpeed + Aqua Jet)
Priority 2 + Priority 0: 1 (ex. Feint + Crunch)
Priority 1 + Priority 1: 2 (ex. Bullet Punch + Mach Punch)
Priority 1 + Priority 0: 1 (ex. Bullet Punch + ThunderPunch)
Priority 1 + Priority -2: -1 (ex. Quick Attack + Dig [Hit])
Priority 1 + Priority -3: -3 (ex. Mach Punch + Focus Punch)
Priority 0 + Priority -1: -3 (ex. Body Slam + Bounce [Hit])
Priority 0 + Priority -2: -4 (ex. Brave Bird + Fly [Hit])
Priority 0 + Priority -3: -5 (ex. ThunderPunch + Focus Punch)
Priority 0 + Priority -4: -6 (ex. Icicle Crash + Avalanche)
Priority 0 + Priority -5: -7 (ex. Metal Burst + Counter)
Priority 0 + Priority -6: -7 (ex. Iron Tail + Dragon Tail)
Priority -1 + Priority 0: -3 (ex. Razor Wind [Hit] + Air Slash)
Priority -1 + Priority -6: -7 (ex. Vital Throw + Circle Throw)
Priority -1 + Priority -2: -5 (ex. Skull Bash [Hit] + Dig [Hit]
Priority -2 + Priority 0: -4 (ex. Dig [Hit] + Crunch)
Priority -2 + Priority -1: -5 (ex. Fly [Hit] + Sky Attack [Hit])
Priority -3 + Priority -3: -7 (ex. Focus Punch + Focus Punch)
Priority -4 + Priority -4: -7 (ex. Avalanche + Avalanche)
Priority -5 + Priority -5: -7 (ex. Mirror Coat + Mirror Coat)

Currently the algorithm is:-

Sum the priorities of both moves.
IF neither move has positive priority, THEN deduct 2 from the sum.
Maximum Priority at +6, Minimum Priority at -7.

Except for the bolded entries above. Going through the compendium of attacks, only Feint and ExtremeSpeed has +2, and Focus Punch -3 in hit phase. IMHO, there is little that can be derived of the reason behind the anomalies - Feint and ExtremeSpeed comboes are not effective compared to +1/0 comboes, Focus Punch doesn't provide the extra edge against another naked Puncher. I talked to Objection and DF44 on IRC about it, and they seemed ambivalent about adjusting the anomalies, so I'm putting this forth so that anyone else can provide feedback. I think that the change will codify the system as well as provide extra uniqueness in tactics considering the aformentioned examples, rare though they might be given their distribution.

[Dogfish44]

Due to the lack of a perfect formula I can't graph the current priorities well, however this is what the new priorities would look like with the updated system.

[Objection]

For what it's worth, I will try to get an explanation from Deck Knight regarding the seemingly anomalous data.

EDIT: Apparently Feint + Crunch is meant to be +2.

[TIO]

Originally Posted by Fat Yarnus of Bethany

I think the new gyms definately need to open, and this seems the best way to do it.
I support this.

Me too!

[C$FP]

Texas Cloverleaf's post (concerning gyms), Rediamond's post (also on gyms), and ZhengTann's post (concerning codification of combo priorities) are all just absolutely wonderful.

IMO we should probably just get 3 new members for the gym committee. This is not the first time Kaxtar has gone on a somewhat significant hiatus (I luv ya bro, but you shouldn't be on the committee), and MK has semi-quit ASB, so I see no reason to keep them as committee members. We reeeeally need to be sure that whomever is chosen for the position has not been known for prolonged absences, and has more or less been active for their whole ASB career (zarator comes to mind just because of his incredible upkeep of the Raids). btw, I think I'm gonna withdraw my name from the hat unless people reeeeally just need my excellence and amazingness on the committee, just because of my activity level.

Separate (although similarish) proposal:
[18:12] <CMFP> we really need to figure out a solid way of implementing things without deck or SDS
[18:12] <Leethoof> cmfp we get a real council going like back in the early times of ASB
[18:12] <CMFP> yeah
[18:13] <CMFP> we should talk to deck soon about an overall ASB council
[18:13] <CMFP> so that ASB can be more autonomous
[18:14] <Pwnemon> i agree cmfp
[18:15] <CMFP> the only question is who is on the committee

I strongly believe that if things can be implemented on ASB without heavily relying on a person or two (who aren't all too active in general), all sorts of good stuff that has been brought up in this thread and has been ignored could instead be brought to life. The obvious issue with this committee is who the members are. Of course most people would want to be on it, but only so many (trustworthy) people should. Thoughts?

[Athenodoros]

I couldn't keep working as gym exec over semester because my workload this time round was huge and unexpected, but now that it's holidays I'm happy to work as executive gym person until we find an actual council. I've done it before and I got the impression I was closer to the majority's views on gym difficulty and things than the others, so I'm sure the whole system won't go to the dogs in a couple of weeks. It would just be useful to get the system moving again.

As for the ASB council, I agree that we should have kept it, but a word of caution: the reason that the current lot (ie SDS) got rid of it originally was because a group of more than ~6 tends to take too long to do anything and be paralysed by arguments. In an effort to combat this, I'd suggest a new way of running the council: 2/3rds majority for major decisions (new sub rules, signature move changes, etc.) and any two council members who happen to be on agreeing on smaller changes. This keeps things moving while keeping the main benefit of the council for big decisions. Otherwise it will want to be a 3-man affair, which is a bit less helpful. Just a thought.

[ZhengTann]

I'm not here long enough to know much about the gym approval committee, but perhaps I can make a shortlist:

- Committee members went off the grid without prior information, leaving the committee in a state of vacuum.
- A committee too large (say more than 4 members) tends to wallow in back-and-forth arguments, slowing down the process.

So maybe we can retain the current 3-member committee system, but with an extra ruling involved - should any committee member be inactive for a predetermined amount of time, he is immediately replaced temporarily by a predetermined successor. This is an idea from the ref/subref system, except that the subref has already been chosen instead of being an open invitation. That way, we can perhaps choose another 3 committees-in-waiting to step in only when required, which might reduce the chances of slowing down the process due to hiatuses or arguments.

[Athenodoros]

EVERYONE READ THIS ONE

In an attempt to get gyms back up and moving, I'm going to be acting gym committee until we get a decent one back on track. If anyone has any huge problems with this, PM/VM/IRC me, but everyone on IRC at the moment thinks it is a good idea.

What this means: If you have a gym you want approved, PM it to me. In fact, to save yourself some time, cut down some stuff and then send it to me. I don't like huge advantages. Also send the link to your battle and your gym mons to save me some time.

[Its_A_Random]

Alright, proposal time, concerning calculations...

Originally Posted by Fat Current Rules concerning Rank Differences

Attack/Defense Rank Bonus: Pokemon deal more damage based on the relevant Attack stat, and take less damage based on the relevant Defense stat. For each rank between 1 and 5, a Pokemon gets a Bonus of 1.5. For example, a Pokemon with Rank 4 Atk would get an Attack Rank Bonus of 4*1.5=6, while the defending Pokemon with Rank 2 Def would get a Defense Rank Bonus of 2*1.5=3. Exceptions to this rule are as follows:

• Pokemon with Rank 0 Atk/SpA have an Attack Rank Bonus of -1.
• Pokemon with Rank 0 Def/SpD have a Defense Rank Bonus of -1.
• Any Rank above 5 adds 1 to the Rank Bonus instead of 1.5. For example, a Pokemon with Rank 6 Atk would get an Attack Rank Bonus of (5*1.5)+1=8.5.

PROBLEMS:

• According to this, the Rank Gap between 0 & 1 is 2.5, as opposed to 1, as I always thought it would be.
• It creates a "golden aura" around Rank 5, as if Rank 5 is the optimal Rank, & boosting a nature with a natural Rank 5 stat is unnecessary, since the gap increase is smaller.
• It is complicated, especially for new refs trying to become good, & adds unnecessary complexity to the system.

Originally Posted by Fat Proposed changes to the Rank Difference Calculation

Attack/Defense Rank Bonus: Pokemon deal more damage based on the relevant Attack stat, and take less damage based on the relevant Defense stat. For each rank, a Pokemon gets a Bonus of 1.5. For example, a Pokemon with Rank 4 Atk would get an Attack Rank Bonus of 4*1.5=6, while the defending Pokemon with Rank 2 Def would get a Defense Rank Bonus of 2*1.5=3. In short, the Attack/Defense Rank Bonus is equal to the difference between the two Ranks × 1.5.

What this does is the following:

• Simplifies the Rank Difference Calculations, making it easier for refs to calculate, especially for new referees willing to become good.
• Makes things like Impish Regirock, Adamant Haxorus, Modest Chandelure, etc. more viable, & make the whole Boosting a stat above Rank 5 seem not that bad an idea.
• Makes reducing a stat below Rank 1 not as bad an idea as it looks.
• Removes the so called aura around Rank 5 being optimal.
• Makes differences in Ranks much more consistent, & quite frankly, more logical.
• Removes an unnecessary level of complexity in the calculations.

So anyone, thoughts?

[Objection]

Like I said on IRC, wtf is up with that? Yeah I support the change to rank bonuses.

[jas61292]

Yeah, as I said on IRC, I never understood the reasoning for making ranks above 5 inherently worse than other ranks. It is essentially punishing Pokemon for being naturally good, and putting some value on a certain stat level for no logical reason. There is no logical reason that a rank 6 Pokemon should do less damage to a rank 4 Pokemon than a rank 5 does to a rank 3.

Oh, and while I am assuming this was just a mistake, if this is to go through, I believe we would want to change the sentence "For each rank between 1 and 5..." to simply "For each rank...".

[Orcinus Duo]

I seem to be at odds with everyone on IRC lately.

I oppose changing the rank 5 golden aura. It encourages Pokemon to go mixed, and puts a sort of cap on damage. This prevents battles from turning into boring damage races. Otherwise you have stuff like haxorus and chandelure just smashing holes into stuff with no skill required. Consider a choice band/spec on either of those two.

[jas61292]

But why is that good? Why Rank 5? Why not put that at rank 4 instead. Would that not accomplish the goal of forcing mixed offenses even more?

The point is that it is illogical for a equal rank difference to be worse for some Pokemon than others simply because they are naturally better at it. If anything, naturally stronger Pokemon should do more damage, not less. It is a stupid, illogical system that does nothing for balance.

And really, think about it, its not like it will make Hax or Chandy broken. That is .5 damage more than now per rank. Its not like that will suddenly outclass the ability to go mixed. Oh, and as for the whole cap on damage thing, guess what, it applies to defenses too. And there is no real reason for a damage cap either other than it being what we are used to. This simply takes a system where extremes are punished for no reason and changes it to one where they are on equal footing.

[Orcinus Duo]

100 is also a very arbitrary number to set EN at. Why not 110? 120?

I see this as a balance issue. Many pokemon have 3/3 or even 4/4 defenses. The cap lets them stand up to attackers better. Likewise, pokemon with 8 attack should not be allowed to win just on a damage race. The cap allows for the damage for attacks to be more regulated--higher defense mons don't kill the opponent's ability to deal damage, higher attack mons don't win on damage output alone.