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

[jas61292]

While I don't agree on this specifically, I can see where you are coming from. Sure 100 Energy is arbitrary, but it is balanced and equally arbitrary for all Pokemon. That being said, the making any number a "golden" number is detrimental to game balance. It supports an arbitrary limit without any consideration for how it affects specific Pokemon. If there is any sort of cap it should be based on difference, not hard stats. If we want a cap so that you can't simply boost a stat to win a damage race, the cap should be that that power gets worse when you have a stat X higher than the opponent, not simply higher than the arbitrary number of 5.

While I personally, prefer the lack of any cap whatsoever, what you want would be better achieved by putting a limit on the difference. for example, if we consider 3 the average defense and 6 to be the most we want to be able to hit 3 normally, we would institute a difference cap of 3 meaning that for a difference of 3 or less, you get x1.5, and for more than three it is x1. This achieves the logical sense of 6v4 == 5v3, and it also keeps it so that the reward gets less for having a higher difference. It would be a damage cap very much like we have now, but affecting all Pokemon equally, rather than arbitrarily discriminating against pokemon with naturally high stats. In a system like this, extending stats beyond a point will likely be less valuable than before that point, but in a situation where things should logically be the same, they actually are.

Regardless of if you want the cap or not though, the current system simply makes no sense.

(Oh god, I've gone all CAP mode on this. I'm never this argumentative in ASB. Hell, I've even had to forcibly stop myself from capitalizing "cap" each time I typed it. What is wrong with me, lol)

[Its_A_Random]

@jas61292: That was me making a c/p fail about the For Each Rank thing. This is now fixed. Good catch!

@Orcinus Duo: While it is true that making a consistent 1.5 gap between ranks can potentially orientate the game more towards offence, if it was that big of a problem, it can be simply solved, as jas said, by reducing the rank gap to something like, say, 1. One issue I see with that, though, is that it could orientate the game more towards Stall, but slightly. But if there is anything I do not like, it is the inconsistency in the increment between ranks. Well, it is consistently shrinking, but w/e.
One of the goals of the proposal is to remove this inconsistency, & I hate inconsistencies. This achieves this, & it also achieves the goal to reduce complexity in the calcs, & simplify Rank Difference calculations. Additionally, as jas said, this also removes the discriminations placed on Pokemon with a really rank in one stat. Admittedly this proposal has the potential to shake up the ASB "metagame" as we know it, but what I cannot understand is why Rank 6 vs. Rank 4 is smaller gap than Rank 5 vs. Rank 3. Additionally, the fact that Rank 1 vs. Rank 0 has the same gap as Rank 6 vs. Rank 4 is quite plainly, wtf? This proposal fixes this.

That said, I have two questions for the community regarding this:

1. Would you support a consistent point increment between Ranks over the current Rank Difference System?
2. If so, what would be a better increment to use between Ranks: 1 or 1.5?

EDIT: Okay, some discussion on IRC has given a consensus that the -1 Bonus for mons with Rank 0 Stats has to go. Now the issue here is this: What do we do with the R5 Cap?

[deadfox081]

I am personally in favour of keeping the 1.5 Rank Difference cut off at Rank 5 as it is now. I thoroughly enjoy the versatility it encourages in the system. Unlike playing on Showdown or whatnot ASB isn't filled with mons who simply boost their highest stat with nature. The system as it is has been set up exactly to make Rank 5 a golden number, but this was an intentional move I believe. It makes those Pokemon with a natural 120 in any given stat inherently better as they can then spend their nature choice elsewhere whereas those without this stat are more inclined to make efforts to reach it.

[Objection]

Originally Posted by Fat jas61292

While I personally, prefer the lack of any cap whatsoever, what you want would be better achieved by putting a limit on the difference. for example, if we consider 3 the average defense and 6 to be the most we want to be able to hit 3 normally, we would institute a difference cap of 3 meaning that for a difference of 3 or less, you get x1.5, and for more than three it is x1. This achieves the logical sense of 6v4 == 5v3, and it also keeps it so that the reward gets less for having a higher difference. It would be a damage cap very much like we have now, but affecting all Pokemon equally, rather than arbitrarily discriminating against pokemon with naturally high stats. In a system like this, extending stats beyond a point will likely be less valuable than before that point, but in a situation where things should logically be the same, they actually are.

Personally, as much as this system might make more logical sense than the current system, I feel that it is more convoluted and complicated than the current system and would actually prefer the current handling of ranks (with the change to rank 0) to this way of doing things.

[Engineer Pikachu]

Yeah, the Rank 0 thing makes no sense.

That being said, I actually like the Rank 5 cutoff mainly for deadfox's reasons above. It's true that R5 seems arbitrarily chosen, but it makes more sense than R4 or R6. If the cutoff is supposed to be the "prime" stat to be at, R4 is much too low, considering the plethora of Pokemon that have a natural R4 stat and others that have natural stats above that. R6, on the other hand, is too high, considering there are roughly twelve non-legendary Pokemon with a natural R6 or higher stat, which pretty much completely defeats the point of having a cutoff. So if you think about it, it's not only not that arbitrary but also not so senseless as you might perceive it to be.

The cutoff itself, like deadfox said, encourages versatility with your choosing natures as well as actually going mixed; the +1 instead of +1.5 if you actually do have a natural R5 stat is a good incentive to do something else instead of blindly boosting whatever highest stat you have.

Originally Posted by Fat jas61292

While I don't agree on this specifically, I can see where you are coming from. Sure 100 Energy is arbitrary, but it is balanced and equally arbitrary for all Pokemon.

I don't get what you mean by equally arbitrary. We're not saying "Haxorus has a cutoff at Rank 3, while Shuckle has a cutoff of Rank 8." The cutoff is equal for all Pokemon...?

[ZhengTann]

Originally Posted by Fat Engineer Pikachu

... That being said, I actually like the Rank 5 cutoff mainly for deadfox's reasons above. It's true that R5 seems arbitrarily chosen, but it makes more sense than R4 or R6. If the cutoff is supposed to be the "prime" stat to be at, R4 is much too low, considering the plethora of Pokemon that have a natural R4 stat and others that have natural stats above that. R6, on the other hand, is too high, considering there are roughly twelve non-legendary Pokemon with a natural R6 or higher stat, which pretty much completely defeats the point of having a cutoff. So if you think about it, it's not only not that arbitrary but also not so senseless as you might perceive it to be.

The cutoff itself, like deadfox said, encourages versatility with your choosing natures as well as actually going mixed; the +1 instead of +1.5 if you actually do have a natural R5 stat is a good incentive to do something else instead of blindly boosting whatever highest stat you have.

I'm leaning towards the other side, here. Capping off at R5 only provides better options for ASB Pokemons that want to go mixed and are capable of doing so because they have natural R5. Granted, any higher (R6) or lower (R4) seriously throws the game off balance, and is a drastic change that is less preferred. But having a cap on R5 - or having a cap at all - doesn't provide an incentive for us to use Pokemons with a higher stat in ASB (prime example: Haxorus). Which is pretty saddening (I know I speak thus because I love Haxorus, sorry).

I believe each Pokemon should be allowed to achieve as high a potential it can as possible, no matter its choices - whether mixed capabilities or raw power. And to be frank, ASB-ers who blindly do anything are bound to lose - Going "lol R7 CB Haxorus eat this" will only net you so many victories. Removing the cap off ranks doesn't promote mindless nature boosting - rather, I think it offers those with a higher natural Rank to reconsider their options and be able to walk more freely down their chosen path, instead of being inhibited just because they are "a cut above the rest".

[Orcinus Duo]

Since we seem to be in a mood to make radical changes, challenge mechanism for gym leaders:

If a challenger beats a gym leader in a gym battle with ONLY pokemon of the gym type, they may rechallenge the gym leader in a battle (other rules of their choice) in the ASB Arena, where both battlers bench the same amount of pokemon.

[Rediamond]

In support of the above, but I would also limit it to the leader must have completed 5+ matches and have a losing gym record.

[C$FP]

I agree with Engineer and deadfox on the Rank thing, and go see their posts if you want to know my opinion. I would agree with jas' system of Rank difference over Rank size, but it would just complicate things, at the very least, for newer people. The only thing I would say is that maybe if a mon gets a natural stat over Rank 5, that natural Rank is multiplied by 1.5, and the nature increase (or decrease) would be 1 (for example, Adamant Haxorus gets 10 for its Attack in calcs, Adamant Conkeldurr still gets 8.5, Timid Chandelure gets 9). But honestly, even this small change is kinda complicated, and sticking with the current system is probably best.

[jas61292]

Originally Posted by Fat Engineer Pikachu

I don't get what you mean by equally arbitrary. We're not saying "Haxorus has a cutoff at Rank 3, while Shuckle has a cutoff of Rank 8." The cutoff is equal for all Pokemon...?

What I mean is that while with energy, there is an arbitrary number of 100, every single Pokemon has 100. All Pokemon have exactly the same thing to work with, and none are advantaged or disadvantaged because of it. With the current stat system on the other hand, the "golden 5" is just as arbitrary, however, unlike energy, it does not affect all Pokemon equally. A Pokemon with Rank 6 does less damage to a Pokemon with a defensive rank of 4 than one with a offensive rank of 5 does to a rank of 3.

But, lets give an even more extreme example: a battle of Legends, Impish Jirachi (4 Atk, 5 Def) vs Naughty Deoxys-A (8 Atk, 1 Def). Now, as you can clearly see, The difference between each Pokemons attack and the opponents defense is 3. If this game was either logical or balanced, that would mean that their attack would receive equal bonuses from their stats when attacking their opponents. However, under the current system, simply due to the fact that both stats are higher when Deoxys attacks, Deoxys does less damage. 1.5 less damage for every neutral hitting attack. For what reason? It is not preventing high attackers from winning damage races. It is forcing them, all else equal, to lose.

And as for the claim that the current system helps encourage versatility, if anything, all it encourages is mindless selection of natures when you have a high stat. Take Salamence for example. It has rank 5 Atk and rank 4 SpA. In the current system, it would be idiotic to boost attack over special attack. That is not thinking about your options and choosing versatility, that is simply going with the obviously superior option. If such a cap is removed, suddenly ability choice is not such a no-brainer. 5/5 offenses is still amazing, but 6/4 now also has benefits. Being able to go mixed does not suddenly become worse, it just forces people to actually think about their choices. I don't know where people get the idea that allowing a boost of a high stat somehow makes boosting other stats less valuable. Big movepools and the ability to use it are what make someone good in ASB. A .5 damage boost for those who naturally deserve it will not suddenly change that.

[Objection]

After some discussion on IRC, I would like to propose the following amendments/additions to jas' proposal:

• The base stat range for rank 6 is 141-180 and the base stat range for rank 7 is 181+ (i.e. outside of items and abilities, everything that was rank 6 and 7 is now rank 6, and everything that was rank 8 and 9 is now rank 7).
• There will be a rank beyond which further bonuses are only 1, but this rank will be rank 8. In other words, ranks where the only way to reach them is via items and abilities (probably with skill swap shenanigans (TM) for the latter) will give further bonuses of only 1, whereas ranks 8 and below would give the 1.5 bonus
• For HP, rank 6 becomes 130 HP and rank 7 becomes 140 HP.
• If the proposal is implemented, every pokemon that was claimed prior to its implementation gets one free nature change. This does not stack with any unused free nature changes from previous adjustments to the stat system.

Quick note: with these changes, under jas' proposal, the new rank 7 would be as good as the current rank 8, while the new rank 8 would be 0.5 better than the current rank 9.

[Engineer Pikachu]

Responding to jas' post here:

Originally Posted by Fat Deck Knight

The system was originally designed and formatted as it was because my intention was to only have five ranks for stats that would represent the abilities of all Pokemon.

The compromise was to make extreme stats still be factored in, but count for less than anything within the the initial five ranks. The compromise is also the reason I didn't feel uncomfortable with the upper level brackets being in segments of 20, since they represented less overall power than the first five ranks.

Moreover, I still fail to see how your "applies equally" phrase is relevant here. The stat system says that if your stat is above five it counts for one; in what world does that not apply equally to all Pokemon? All it does is make more extreme stats not as extreme as they would be, as quoted above.

Originally Posted by Fat Objection

There will be a rank beyond which further bonuses are only 1, but this rank will be rank 8. In other words, ranks where the only way to reach them is via items and abilities (probably with skill swap shenanigans (TM) for the latter) will give further bonuses of only 1, whereas ranks 8 and below would give the 1.5 bonus

If your entire argument is based against having certain ranks be worth more than others, isn't it just a bit hypocritical to change the rank system for the reason of eliminating "inconsistencies" and then introduce them again, albeit at a different rank...?

[Objection]

Originally Posted by Fat Engineer Pikachu

If your entire argument is based against having certain ranks be worth more than others, isn't it just a bit hypocritical to change the rank system for the reason of eliminating "inconsistencies" and then introduce them again, albeit at a different rank...?

Who says that my stance has remained exactly the same?

[SubwayJ]

New Proposal:

Have DeepSeaTooth and DeepSeaScale apply to Huntail and Gorebyss respectively.

Don't worry, don't worry, we won't break them. With this proposal Huntail gets 90/4/4/3/6/52 (Neutral with DST) and Gorebyss goes to 90/3/4/4/3/52 (Neutral with DSS). Huntail becomes a great mixed attacker statwise but has a not great movepool, Gorebyss gets formidable defensive stats and doesnt have a good movepool either. I don't think it'd break either, and since there are a grand total of 3 mons from the clamperl family, it might allow a new set of useble mons! (Please support if you did on IRC :P)

[Deck Knight]

Might I suggest a compromise on Ranks where differences UP TO 5 Ranks increase by 1.5, with each additional superior (or inferior) Rank counting for 1?

Eg. Say you had Rank 7 Haxorus attacking a Rank 2 mon with Outrage.

It's be 12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 3 (STAB) = 22.5 (23). DMG

If that same Rank 7 Haxorus attacked a Rank 1 mon it'd be 12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 1(additional difference) + 3 = 23.5 (24) DMG

This kind of setup thus really only comes into play for Defense (where you have Steelix/Regirock/Regice/Shuckle sitting at Rank 8/9 without boosts) and if something is using Choice Band/Specs, at which point they gain the bonus up to 5 and then are curbed from going nuts by this limit.

Using the same Rank 1 example, but with a CB Haxorus (Rank 11 Atk):

12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 5 (additional difference) + 3 = 27.5 (28) DMG.

Originally Posted by Fat SubwayJ

New Proposal:

Have DeepSeaTooth and DeepSeaScale apply to Huntail and Gorebyss respectively.

Don't worry, don't worry, we won't break them. With this proposal Huntail gets 90/4/4/3/6/52 (Neutral with DST) and Gorebyss goes to 90/3/4/4/3/52 (Neutral with DSS). Huntail becomes a great mixed attacker statwise but has a not great movepool, Gorebyss gets formidable defensive stats and doesnt have a good movepool either. I don't think it'd break either, and since there are a grand total of 3 mons from the clamperl family, it might allow a new set of useble mons! (Please support if you did on IRC :P)

I just did this. Huntail and Gorebyss didn't have unique items. I also made Dubious Disk apply to P2.

[Objection]

Originally Posted by Fat SubwayJ

New Proposal:

Have DeepSeaTooth and DeepSeaScale apply to Huntail and Gorebyss respectively.

Don't worry, don't worry, we won't break them. With this proposal Huntail gets 90/4/4/3/6/52 (Neutral with DST) and Gorebyss goes to 90/3/4/4/3/52 (Neutral with DSS). Huntail becomes a great mixed attacker statwise but has a not great movepool, Gorebyss gets formidable defensive stats and doesnt have a good movepool either. I don't think it'd break either, and since there are a grand total of 3 mons from the clamperl family, it might allow a new set of useble mons! (Please support if you did on IRC :P)

You know from what I've said on IRC that I support this.

Originally Posted by Fat Deck Knight

Might I suggest a compromise on Ranks where differences UP TO 5 Ranks increase by 1.5, with each additional superior (or inferior) Rank counting for 1?

Eg. Say you had Rank 7 Haxorus attacking a Rank 2 mon with Outrage.

It's be 12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 3 (STAB) = 22.5 (23). DMG

If that same Rank 7 Haxorus attacked a Rank 1 mon it'd be 12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 1(additional difference) + 3 = 23.5 (24) DMG

This kind of setup thus really only comes into play for Defense (where you have Steelix/Regirock/Regice/Shuckle sitting at Rank 8/9 without boosts) and if something is using Choice Band/Specs, at which point they gain the bonus up to 5 and then are curbed from going nuts by this limit.

Using the same Rank 1 example, but with a CB Haxorus (Rank 11 Atk):

12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 5 (additional difference) + 3 = 27.5 (28) DMG.

This was proposed earlier. Personally, I still think it's a more complicated and convoluted solution than the current system.

[waterwarrior]

Rivalry sucks. I mean, it really, REALLY sucks.

To somewhat fix this, I have a new proposal

Change Rivalry to a "Can be Disabled" ability

We all know that the majority of the sucky abilities are pretty passable in ASB (Defeatist lowers the EN cost of everything, Honey Gather is a free Evasion drop, etc.), so why is Rivalry the take-all or lose-all like it is in-cartridge?

The reason its not a "Can be Enabled" ability is more of a flavor thing to me. The way I see it, since the ability is essentially "Hey, this asshole is going to steal all of the guys/girls from me, so I better beat the crap out of him/her" or "Hey, this guy/girl is really hot, I better not beat the crap out of them too hard," so they would be more calmed down and convinced it isn't competition to originally not finding it to be competition, then beginning the rivalry.

Thoughts?

[Gerard]

You would only activate Rivalry against pokemon of the same gender and deactivate it against ones of the opposite, why would you activate it anytime it would be bad and not do it when it's good, idk, I think that the ability being a double sword it's how it's supposed to be, maybe making the Rivalry pokemon immune to infautuation in order to make it less detrimental?

[C$FP]

yeah, having an automatic Expert Belt/Iron Fist/Sheer Force/etc. without the stipulation is too good, especially on the Nidos and whatnot. I think +2 against same gender and -1 against opposite gender might be better, but there's probably a better solution somehow.

[Yarnus of Bethany]

Deck Knight's and Objection's both seem great. Let's just pick one and move on.

[Its_A_Random]

I suppose I should weigh in, given I brought up the Rank Difference arguments/proposals.

Originally Posted by Fat Objection

After some discussion on IRC, I would like to propose the following amendments/additions to jas' proposal:

• The base stat range for rank 6 is 141-180 and the base stat range for rank 7 is 181+ (i.e. outside of items and abilities, everything that was rank 6 and 7 is now rank 6, and everything that was rank 8 and 9 is now rank 7).
• There will be a rank beyond which further bonuses are only 1, but this rank will be rank 8. In other words, ranks where the only way to reach them is via items and abilities (probably with skill swap shenanigans (TM) for the latter) will give further bonuses of only 1, whereas ranks 8 and below would give the 1.5 bonus
• For HP, rank 6 becomes 130 HP and rank 7 becomes 140 HP.
• If the proposal is implemented, every pokemon that was claimed prior to its implementation gets one free nature change. This does not stack with any unused free nature changes from previous adjustments to the stat system.

Quick note: with these changes, under jas' proposal, the new rank 7 would be as good as the current rank 8, while the new rank 8 would be 0.5 better than the current rank 9.

+Defence/Sp. Defence Shuckle, & +Defence Steelix & Regirock, & +Sp. Defence Regice say hi in terms of reaching a Rank 8 Stat under this proposal. That aside, I personally think this is rather radical solution. It does prevent things like Haxorus from being disadvantaged for boosting their strongest stat. However, I feel that this does not completely solve the earlier identified issue of things like Haxorus becoming stronger. At least CB Haxorus is not as bad, but the inconsistency is still there, as Engineer stated. Even if it is at a higher rank, there is still some level of discrimination present for running +Defence/Sp. Defence Shuckle, & +Defence Steelix & Regirock, & +Sp. Defence Regice.

I feel that this proposal could be better in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Fat Deck Knight

Might I suggest a compromise on Ranks where differences UP TO 5 Ranks increase by 1.5, with each additional superior (or inferior) Rank counting for 1?

Eg. Say you had Rank 7 Haxorus attacking a Rank 2 mon with Outrage.

It's be 12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 3 (STAB) = 22.5 (23). DMG

If that same Rank 7 Haxorus attacked a Rank 1 mon it'd be 12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 1(additional difference) + 3 = 23.5 (24) DMG

This kind of setup thus really only comes into play for Defense (where you have Steelix/Regirock/Regice/Shuckle sitting at Rank 8/9 without boosts) and if something is using Choice Band/Specs, at which point they gain the bonus up to 5 and then are curbed from going nuts by this limit.

Using the same Rank 1 example, but with a CB Haxorus (Rank 11 Atk):

12 + 1.5*5 (7.5) + 5 (additional difference) + 3 = 27.5 (28) DMG.

As with Objection, I feel there are some issues with complexity, but I kinda like this set-up in a way. I personally think it is somewhat better than the current system in the way that it fulfils the problem with "raising a stat above Rank 5". But how is it any less complex than the current system? I suppose you can interpret this in the legend as...

Attack/Defense Rank Bonus: Pokemon deal more damage based on the relevant Attack stat, and take less damage based on the relevant Defense stat. When calculating the difference between two ranks, if the difference is less than or equal to 5, then calculate the Attack/Defense Rank Bonus as Difference × 1.5. Otherwise, calculate it as 7.5 + Difference - 5.

e.g. Rank 7 Attack vs. Rank 2 Defense, Attack/Defense Rank Bonus = (7 - 2) × 1.5 = 7.5.
e.g. Rank 8 Attack vs. Rank 2 Defense, Attack/Defense Rank Bonus = 7.5 + (8 - 2) - 5 = 8.5.

But I am not 100% sure if this is a simpler way to calculate Rank Difference without causing the power creep that most users are afraid of.

Reading through, it seems like I just do not know what is the right way to handle the Rank difference thing. You could leave it as it is, but you still have the rather complex system that we have that tends to catch newer refs out & "discriminate" the top end Pokemon. You could make the gap uniform & simplify calcs, but increase paranoia over the top end Pokemon. You could do what DK suggested, but I have concerns that it is just as complex as, if not more complex than the current system. There must be some way to change it so that the simplicity in calcs is achieved, the "discrimination" is gone, & there is no real paranoia about top end Pokemon...Where do you draw the line?

EDIT: Also, do not take this as me implying we should change the current system. While I do not really mind the current system, in my opinion, I think it could do with an "improvement", but the question is, how?

Also, we all agree that the -1 Bonus to Rank 0 should be scrapped, but w/e.

[Orcinus Duo]

So keep it as is? That seems the obvious answer.

[Objection]

Originally Posted by Fat Its_A_Random

I suppose I should weigh in, given I brought up the Rank Difference arguments/proposals.

+Defence/Sp. Defence Shuckle, & +Defence Steelix & Regirock, & +Sp. Defence Regice say hi in terms of reaching a Rank 8 Stat under this proposal. That aside, I personally think this is rather radical solution. It does prevent things like Haxorus from being disadvantaged for boosting their strongest stat. However, I feel that this does not completely solve the earlier identified issue of things like Haxorus becoming stronger. At least CB Haxorus is not as bad, but the inconsistency is still there, as Engineer stated. Even if it is at a higher rank, there is still some level of discrimination present for running +Defence/Sp. Defence Shuckle, & +Defence Steelix & Regirock, & +Sp. Defence Regice.

I feel that this proposal could be better in my opinion.

I think you misunderstood. The difference between rank 7 and rank 8 would still be 1.5. It's the difference between rank 8 and rank 9 that would be the first one to be only 1.

[jas61292]

Originally Posted by Fat Engineer Pikachu

Moreover, I still fail to see how your "applies equally" phrase is relevant here. The stat system says that if your stat is above five it counts for one; in what world does that not apply equally to all Pokemon? All it does is make more extreme stats not as extreme as they would be, as quoted above.

To just briefly respond, what you are trying to imply is that it "applies" equally because all Pokemon use the same system. This is true. What I am trying to say is that it does not apply equally because a rank is worth a rank, unless you stat is high, at which point a rank is worth 2/3 of a rank. Thus, when a pokemon with a high attack attacks a Pokemon with a high, but not as high, defense, the damage done is less than a Pokemon with a mediocre attack attacking a Pokemon with a low defense, despite the rank difference being the same. Look at this. How the hell is a difference of 3 doing different damage depending on how high your stats are at all making the system "apply equally" to all Pokemon?

If your entire argument is based against having certain ranks be worth more than others, isn't it just a bit hypocritical to change the rank system for the reason of eliminating "inconsistencies" and then introduce them again, albeit at a different rank...?

First of all, the changes to what I want were proposed by Objection, not myself. I personally want to see these inconsistencies removed completely. However, I would wholeheartedly accept these changes. Does that make me a hypocrite? Not at all. This proposed change makes it so that inconsistencies are removed in standard situations, specifically removing the issue of giving positive natures to extreme stat Pokemon. Is it perfect? No. But it is a step in the right direction. If you consider moving towards a goal without getting all the way hypocritical, then you can call it that if you want.

[ZhengTann]

Originally Posted by Fat IAR

...Reading through, it seems like I just do not know what is the right way to handle the Rank difference thing. You could leave it as it is, but you still have the rather complex system that we have that tends to catch newer refs out & "discriminate" the top end Pokemon. You could make the gap uniform & simplify calcs, but increase paranoia over the top end Pokemon. You could do what DK suggested, but I have concerns that it is just as complex as, if not more complex than the current system. There must be some way to change it so that the simplicity in calcs is achieved, the "discrimination" is gone, & there is no real paranoia about top end Pokemon...Where do you draw the line?

I'm currently leaning towards changing, be it with Objection's proposal (to adjust the cap) or DK's (capping stat difference instead of natural stats).

Now, as it were, the current system fails - to a certain extent - to achieve the 3 criteria outlined by IAR:

1. Simplicity in calculations.
2. Removal/mitigation of discrimination of Pokemon with higher natural Ranks.
3. Removal/mitigation of paranoia concerning Pokemon with higher natural Ranks.

Both proposals by DK and Obj still does not resolve the first criterion - but I suppose that cannot be done without exacerbating problems regarding criteria 2 and 3. This is where I support DK's proposal:

...a compromise on Ranks where differences UP TO 5 Ranks increase by 1.5, with each additional superior (or inferior) Rank counting for 1...

Since comparatively, it achieves both of the 2 latter criteria better by disregarding natural Ranks, looking instead at the absolute Rank differences only. Obj's proposal has its merits, but I think we don't have to revise natural stats (and maybe giving out resets to owners of those Pokemons) just to partially repair a discrepancy. As orci pointed out, we cannot find the perfect solution to our current system, but I support jas in that we should at least start a step in the right direction.