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

[Ragnarokalex]

I have to agree, this looks like a lot of thought was put into it, but i worry that its too much. I think we need to just address the simple problem of DQ, lest we scare away new refs from an over-complicated UC formula.

[Objection]

I'm going to focus mainly on this bit:

Originally Posted by Fat Its_A_Random

1 UC per 10 Posts Approved =/= 0.1 UC per Approved post. Just like how you only gain 1 UC for every four TLR Scenarios reffed, not 0.25 UC per TLR Scenario. There is a reason why you always see me say "x claims approved gives me y/10 Claims Approved." This is why I do not like the idea of leaving UC unrounded, & there is no such thing as claiming "Half a CC", or "Half a (X)C." Why should UC be any different? Which also leads to my initial stance on truncating UC in my proposal, not for consistency, but I have always been against the idea of claiming half UC's & treating half a UC as 0 UC, which also lead to my argument with Frosty over an unapproved claim. It was also a measure for lower pay, but that is beside the point.

Just because fractional UC technically don't exist, doesn't mean that they can't exist. Let's suppose that all UC rewards as they currently are were multiplied by 10 and there was a rule that the conversion rate for UC to any other counter was 10 UC -> 1 of the other counter. Or, if that's too convoluted, let's say that all payouts of all kinds were multiplied by 10, but so were the costs for things (so a pokemon would need 10 MC to learn a level up move and 50 DC to unlock its DW ability and buying a Murkrow would cost 30 CC, but participating in a 3v3 battle and completing it would yield 20 CC for you and 10 EC, 20 MC and 10 DC for each pokemon, etc.) In such a system, you would essentially be arguing that all UC payouts should be rounded down to the nearest 10, which, given that people are quite capable of dealing with integers that don't divide perfectly by 10, would be stupid. How is claiming 0.1 of a UC any different? Or do you just have a phobia of decimals?

Furthermore, you keep saying that this is for consistency, but I'm not sure what truncating UC payouts for tower matches is consistent with. If it's RP payouts, you do realise that any change whatsoever to the UC payouts for tower matches will require the RP payouts to be revised. Speaking of which, apparently you get 2 UC for reffing one round of a raid. That sounds like a rip off.

Speaking of rip off, why in the name of all that is holy does pay need to be lowered? Surely if you want more people reffing stuff, the best thing to do is to raise the payout!

[Dogfish44]

Here's a radical solution:

Compensation for battles that end in Disqualification:

A referee shall be compensated for a match ending is disqualification based on the cumulative number of Pokemon sent out in battle. To calculate UC gain, input into the standard formula [Above] the average number of Pokemon send out by each team. In a match where KO bonus would be included - including a match which did not last long enough to normally warrent KO bonus - the bonus is applied as normal.

Standard Formula from Ref Resources, for reference:

XvsX Battle:
X≤6: 0.5 * (5X - 1), rounded down.
X>6: 2X + 3

[Objection]

As a fix to the problem of battles that end in DQ, I think Dogfish44's proposal will work nicely.

[Its_A_Random]

Well, admittedly this might have gone a bit overboard, but if you guys are looking for a simple fix, Engineer did suggest something in council:

Originally Posted by Fat Engineer Pikachu

Take the total amount of HP deducted in the match. Divide by 200. Stick it into the XvX equation. Round.

Basically what this does is figure out roughly how many Pokemon's worth of HP has been taken off in the course of a match and fits it into a standard battle with equal Pokemon on each side. Objection's proposal might be good as well, but I'd guess that this could work in the meantime while he's still tinkering around with it.

Any thoughts on that fix to DQ?

Also, Obj, I am not afraid of decimals, I do not feel like arguing over that atm. Also, this proposal could replicate similar payouts, but tends to be lower on average.

Also, dogfish's proposal also works nicely for this sort of job as well, if we are after a small fix.

[Frosty]

Out of sheer curiosity, why is the number of pokemon sent out a factor? I mean, essentially reffing is calculating each action, change the respective HP and write some flavor about it. The number of pokemon sent out only change the number of actions the battle is expected to have and, aside from being no 100% safe way of measuring the work done, that is already covered by the "IA" variable, making it rather redundant.

What I am saying is: why don't just do X*Number of Actions and be done with it? Maybe add a small base UC for setting up the thread, notifying players about DQ, postings prizes and what-not, but I don't see the point of rewarding more for a 6vs6 than a 3vs3 just because it is 6vs6 when the "number of actions" variable already does that in a more certain way (rewards the job effectively done and not the job one would expect the battle to cause).

- - -

EDIT: If you just want to encourage the ref to take a bigger match, you don't need to do it in a single formula. If you do so, you will have to work with two variables on the same equation, which means you will have to tweak numbers until they don't mess with or overpower each other, making the formula more complicated than it should. Just work with both of them separately.

Let me elaborate on a counter-proposal.

UC: X*(Number of actions reffed) + Bonus for Bigger Matches.

X = A random number we will come up with. Probably 0.2 or something like that.
Number of Actions Reffed = Number of individual actions reffed by the ref/subref/subbed-ref on a completed match or one that ends in DQ.

Bonus for Bigger Matches= Bonus to encourage refs to gets bigger matches, something like +0.5UC for 3vs3, +1UC for 4vs4, +1.5 for 5VS5, +2.0 for 6vs6 and so on. The complete formula would be ((Pokemon Per Side)-2)*0.5.

Its a simple formula and it works for all situations. Refs that are subbed get UC from the actions they reffed. The Subrefs get from the actions they reffed + the bonus UC for sticking around. The fact that the match was completed or ended in DQ will reflect on the number of actions, so it doesn't need a different formula. Also, since we want refs to take bigger matches, whether they end or not is irrelevant, so we don't need to change the bonus if you get a DQ.

I don't mind a complicated formula if it has to be complicated to achieve what we need. My problem is that the proposed formula is IMO more complicated than we need it to be.

[Texas Cloverleaf]

So as I see it dogfish's proposal is x number of mons sent out /2

I like it. Its simple. It works.

Let's do it.




n.b. to frosty, let's not destroy the entire system that already works fine, k? (same response i gave to every other 'proposal')

[Rediamond]

Originally Posted by Fat Texas Cloverleaf

So as I see it dogfish's proposal is x number of mons sent out /2

I like it. Its simple. It works.

Let's do it.




n.b. to frosty, let's not destroy the entire system that already works fine, k? (same response i gave to every other 'proposal')

My thoughts exactly.

[Dogfish44]

Council would also like a lot of external thoughts on this one.

Cheers!

[Complications]

Originally Posted by Fat Texas Cloverleaf

n.b. to frosty, let's not destroy the entire system that already works fine, k? (same response i gave to every other 'proposal')

The problem is that it doesn't work fine, and that's the reason why there's debate over it in the first place. People are unhappy. I think Frosty's proposal is the most logical; the amount of effort put into a battle is displayed by the number of rounds reffed, not the number of Pokemon sent out.

[Dogfish44]

Originally Posted by Fat Complications

The problem is that it doesn't work fine, and that's the reason why there's debate over it in the first place. People are unhappy. I think Frosty's proposal is the most logical; the amount of effort put into a battle is displayed by the number of rounds reffed, not the number of Pokemon sent out.

There is nobody unhappy apart from refs being shelled out by Battler DQ - this is why there is a debate. Work done can be attributed to number of actions reffed, but in most scenarios the number of mons sent out is more than enough to be equivalent.

Frosty's formula also fails in regards to larger match formats unless we make X change by match type - reffing a Rock Slide in triples+ is not a definition of fun, let me assure you.

[ZhengTann]

Wow, for a few weeks this issue was tossed into the lumber yard, now throw in a new equation and suddenly we have lotsa responses. Is it just the New Year frenzy, or do people need solid maths to know what they'll get? And Texas did say he signed up for reffings not maths class... j/k

Well, I cannot agree exactly that the current compensation system is doing the best thing, that DQ compensation is the only thing we need to discuss. A lot of people might say "So what, Zt - its flawed anyway, since everyone's gonna complain no matter which way we tweak it , might as well just leave it be." But I'd like to just say it out loud what referees are supposed to do when they sign-up as refs:

Originally Posted by Fat Korski from a long time ago

Referees are critical to maintaining the speed and quality of ASB. To be a successful ref requires time, dedication, organization, and the ability to describe action over distances effectively.

With the advent of allowing just about your passerby ASB-er to apply for Tower refs, a lot of people reap no small measure of benefit, including myself. But not ASB itself - no, instead we now have an "upper class gents club" of sorts in the form of Raids, TLRs, Gyms and what-have-you, while Tower matches are relegated to "oh that place where people go to counter-farm and flash each other". Need I say that Tower matches are actually what most visitors look at in ASB? And how does that reflect its quality? And amongst oh-so-many factors, dare I say that referees play a crucial role to maintain not just the outlook, but the real-deal, solid-gold quality of the whole forum. Now, the current compensation system rewards speed over quality. Does that mean we might as well run flash matches all day, since you can get 2 UC in LESS THAN TWO HOURS rather than 15 UC over the course of TWO FRIGGIN' WEEKS? Don't even bother doing the math, you tell me which one you'll pick.

As IAR and Obj highlighted, a new system that rewards the total amount of effort refs put into each match is fairer - a 2v2 Singles that lasts 15 rounds (or 80+ individual actions) should compensate more than a 2v2 Singles lasting 3 rounds (or less 20 individual actions, however you decide to look at it). Dogfish and Frosty also highlighted 2 facets of Tower matches that needs attention - Size and Format, where matches with more #Pokemon per side is encouraged, while referees at least take solace in knowing that reffing Icy Wind + Blizzard in Triples against Texas is not equal to spamming STAB Eruption at Glacier's Bellsprout. So in total, I believe there are very valid reasons for us to revise the whole Tower referee payouts:

• Consistency: One formula to rule them all, one formula to find them, one formula to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. Okay, maybe not that morbid.
• Fairness: To be able to reward reffings consistently proportional with the effort put into it, rather than WYSIWYG-style where we estimate how long this X-sized Y-format match will be, then dole out the pay (I know ref flavour is subjective and cannot be taken into account, but we can, at least, compensate referees for their time).

IAR and Frosty have already proposed valid equations, and I think Obj has one in the makings that we can continue debate and compare on. Please, some of you may say this is asking for change just for the sake of change itself, but I say if we can turn from fixing a clogged pipe to renovating the whole water supply system, then why not just push on and keep the snowball rolling?

[Its_A_Random]

Ummm yeah, reffing is basically a maths class in a way, so it is not as if reffing is that beginner friendly to begin with. Also, a UC overhaul will be unlikely to kill ASB, lol. It is true though, that we should not be trying to fix something that is not broken, but DQ Payouts are universally agreed to be broken at the moment, especially when you can ref 7 rounds of a match...& only get 1 UC from it! If it is universally agreed that there needs to be a shift to a time-based payment in order to cover the whole problem, as well as other issues (which is what this issue has effectively snowballed into), then we will overhaul UC Payments as such. If it is universally agreed that we just need to fix DQ Compensation (which is the main reason why this whole UC debacle has shown its ugly head again), then we will just fix DQ Compensation, & throw every other issue the current system might have onto the back-burner. The bottom line is that we all want a fix to the compensation rules that will be able to last the test of time. While it is true that how this will be fixed ultimately lies with the ASB Council/Deck Knight, you guys can help us in making the ultimate decision easier for the Council, but plain bitching will get us nowhere. There are a variety of viable proposals we can choose for each side.

For the UC overhauls, there is my proposal on the previous page which I am naturally biased towards for obvious reasons, & is also a complete package bar some adjustments. There is Objection's, which is still a WIP. There is also Frosty's which still needs some work.

For the Simple Fix, there is Dogfish44's proposal, which turns it into a size-based, & uses the XvX equation. There is also Engineer's initial fix, which I quoted in my previous post.

If you have any ideas on how to fix the problem, overhaul or otherwise, you are more than welcome to post your ideas, they should be considered. Anything to fix this problem.

———————————————

Now, moving onto other issues, there is the Levitate issue that desperately needs input from you guys. I will probably post my thoughts in the group later, so you can all see what my view on that matter (Which is basically, keep the trait, but remove "Levitrait" from those who do not get Levitate in-game & give them the Levitate command instead).

Finally, a small "why not" proposal that there should not be any real objections to, with changes in bold:

Huge Power:

Type: Innate

This Pokemon has immense inner strength that grows with its development, raising its Attack and its Base Rank Total by one Rank for each evolution level (Baby = 1, Basic = 2, Stage 1 = 3). If Skill Swapped, the swapped Pokemon's Attack and Base Rank Total is only raised by one Rank. If this ability is not active, then this Pokemon does not have its Base Rank Total increased.

Pokemon with this ability: Marill, Azumarill, Azurill.

Pure Power:

Type: Innate

This Pokemon has immense inner strength that grows with its development, raising its Attack and its Base Rank Total by one Rank for each evolution level (Baby = 1, Basic = 2, Stage 1 = 3). If Skill Swapped, the swapped Pokemon's Attack and Base Rank Total is only raised by one Rank. If this ability is not active, then this Pokemon does not have its Base Rank Total increased.

Pokemon with this ability: Meditite, Medicham

Basically, why should the Meditite & Azurill lines be handicapped with extra BRT if they are not using either ability in One Ability or No Ability Matches? It also allows Medicham & Azumarill to hit Rank 5 Defence & Sp. Defence with a Rare Candy on while neither has said ability on, turning them into more defensive Pokémon. Thoughts?

[Yarnus of Bethany]

No objections to the Huge/Pure Power change.
I think that Levitate should keep its trait status, but, in order to prevent OPness in Battle Hall, the user is forced to chose it in a 1 ability match.

[Frosty]

The reason I believe we should change the UC formula is because it causes distortions. You don't need to look far to see battles where the ref is being punished for getting players that like to take things slowly. I can't understand how system that rewards the same way the ref of one of those "burn the bellsprout" matches and a more serious 1vs1 LC match. Today it is better to get a joke-match than a serious one, since it is quicker, specially a serious LC one, as they tend to last a bit longer.

We need to make people ref more, mainly tower battles and for that we must avoid everything that may discourage people. A formula that punishes the ref for getting players with weaker mons and defensive mons or whatever is bound to 'cause said problems.

Sure, if the majority thinks that the current formula is fine, then no problem.

Also:

Originally Posted by Fat Puppylover44

Frosty's formula also fails in regards to larger match formats unless we make X change by match type - reffing a Rock Slide in triples+ is not a definition of fun, let me assure you.

If you think Heat Wave and company aren't rewarded well enough, we can always change the definition of "individual action" so every individual hit count as one (so an Earthquake that hits 3 pokemon will count as 3 actions, since you will have to calc and roll rngs for every hit). Or as you said, make X change.

To be honest, Doubles and Triples and co have the advantage of being faster, which means that you'll get the UC sooner. "If a 3vs3 Triples nets the same UC, have the same amount of actions to ref, but is two/three times faster, why would one ref a 3vs3 singles?". I know that an Earthquake on a 12vs12 brawl earning the same amount of UC as Thunder vs Rhyperior isn't fair. But we need to draw the line somewhere.

Honestly, you won't find any formula that covers everything. What if the arena has more props (search for Icy Forest and you will see why that is big deal)? you would want more UC to deal with that. What about if all players use King Rock Cincinno on a mist? you would have to roll Hit, Crit and flinch for every hit of tail slap. What if the both players have Forewarn pokemon and the ref is forced to roll hit rng for every move? I believe that Subways refs will agree that rolling hit rng for every single move is a drag. etc etc etc. Again, a line must be drawn somewhere, so don't expect to get a failproof formula anytime soon <_<;.

- - - -

Regarding Levitrait. Today having it as a trait is better than as a ability, since it can be used on 1 ability matches, while Levitate users not named "Stratagem" or "Bronzong" (the 30 or so remaining ones) only have Levitate to work with. Also Levitate is a pretty huge boost to just be slapped on pokemon with no drawbacks.

I am all for turning Levitrait into Levitate Command and giving it to every single pokemon that floats or whatever (I don't know if the list of pokemon with levitate command is already this extensive). It can pass for a RP'd command, so no problemo. To be honest, nothing in ASB justifies just giving away abilities (call them traits, if you want, but those are abilities) with no drawbacks. Commands can be explained in a RP point of view and Slow Start and Truant being traits is understandable considering that no abilities is a possibility that may break the respective pokemon. But I don't see any new ASB mechanic that makes levitrait needed to fix whatever or that makes levitrait "make sense".


- - -

Regarding Huge Power and Pure Power: it is a good idea. A reason to use non-Pure Power Medicham and non-Huge Power Azumarill in 1 ability matches is always appreciated. Also, it makes more sense.

But just to make it clear: do you intend to make the ability "can be disabled"? You mentioned turning them on, so I got confused a bit.

[Objection]

Originally Posted by Fat Frosty

But just to make it clear: do you intend to make the ability "can be disabled"? You mentioned turning them on, so I got confused a bit.

I think by "turning them on" he meant "choosing them as the ability in one ability matches". So the abilities would remain innate and, in all ability matches and if chosen in one ability matches, would increase the BRT, whereas in no ability matches and if not chosen in one ability matches, would not increase the BRT.

[ZhengTann]

Frosty highlighted an improtant point - that out of 39 individual Pokemon who actually have Levitate Ability in-catridge, only 5 more than Levitate as abilities (Stratagem line, Bronzong line, THAT's IT). ASB's Levitrait list does not carve a niche for the regular Levitating mons - instead, it allows the game mechanics to lean towards a lot of mons that are already powerful by themselves simply because they can hover in anime (Eg. Volcarona). Now, I know this is Anime-Style Battling, after all - but such an alignment incites enough complains for us to doubt it's fairness.

Thus, I'd rather the following proposal:

• Remove Levitrait: Just let Levitate be Innate. No Ability matches are quite rare to me these days, and I agree that Traits are better reserved for Abilities that keeps the likes of Regigigas and Slaking in check (as in, balances the game necessarily)
• Give the Levitate command to any mon with precedence of flight/hover/not in contact with the ground: This is basically a RP command, something that we should encourage. The current Levitate command is but a poor man's Magnet Rise (3 actions instead of 6), so I think it will encourage more thought-out matches than simply Levitrait.

[Dogfish44]

Regarding the ASB Council, we need to make it more efficient. There, I said it.

Proposal for how proposals are done:

Feedback thread is redone. A proposal is posted, and rather than debate the proposal in the thread people quote the post and say either "I support this proposal and wish to move this to a discussion", or "I disagree with this proposal and wish to move it to discussion". Alternatively, a person can respond with "I agree with this proposal but do not believe this proposal should go to discussion" or "I disagree with this proposal and believe it should not be slated for discussion".

If in the five votes on a proposal, at least two say to not move to debate, the council members can amongst themselves through private chats/IRC take any option:
- Instantly vote to implement the proposal
- Move proposal to discussion
- Ignore the proposal entirely

Assumming a proposal garners the required support to discuss a discussion is opened. Discussion will last for up to one week, or until 24 hours of no activity. Council members will hold a public vote, using IRV with the current system, the original proposal and any amended proposals with decent support.

Examples:

The everyone-loves-it proposal

• Bob posts a Proposal, possibly about how it's kind of unfair to reward 10 UC for a 1v1 reffing and how to fix it.
• Amy, Alex and Bill, Catherine and Charlie post in agreement, stating that it should not move to discussion.
• The council reviews the proposal.
• The council moves to directly vote on the proposal.
• The council unanimously votes to implement the proposal.
• The proposal is implemented

The controversial proposal.

• Jack posts a Proposal, possibly about how UC is too high in some cases, and how a formula could be changed to fix this.
• John and Jill post agreeing with the proposal and wanting to debate it, Kim posts disagreeing with the proposal and wanting to debate it. Liam and Lisa post disagreeing with the proposal and stating it should not be voted upon.
• The Council notes the votes against discussion and chooses the best course of action.
• The council decides to move to a discussion, and post one.
• Discussion lasts as long as needed
• Council votes
• Proposal implemented/discarded as per vote

The terrible proposal

• Fred posts a proposal, possibly about how half of all earnt income should be given to him.
• Fiona, Henry, Harry, Gertrude and Greg all post against the proposal, stating no discussion should be needed.
• The Council notes the votes against discussion and chooses the best course of action.
• The Council objects to discussion and discards the proposal

This allows silly things to be quickly removed, controversial things can move to discussion, and easy implementations can be performed within 24 hours most of the time - far more efficient than a 2 week wait.

[Its_A_Random]

I agree with dogfish's proposal. I mean, you only have to look at the Huge Power / Pure Power issue, which no one objects to, but still has to go through Discussion & Voting, even though there is nothing really there to discuss. Frankly, if there is some simple fix that no one objects to, why wait a couple of weeks when we could do it in a day?

[ZhengTann]

Assuming that dogfish's proposal follows the very procedure it attempts to set up, I say I agree with dogfish's proposal and I think that it does not require a discussion thread, for the very reasons already stated in the above two posts.

On another note. I wish to make a proposal. Currently, the ASB forum has a lot of data scattered all over multiple threads - including, but not limited to, DAT, Feedback, Ref Resource, Battle Tower, and PCT. Even with the recent layout revamp (credits to the forum moderators who made it happen) we are still faced with a few problems concerning data access, maintenance and update. Take the following two cases, for example:

• The Council has decided to implement a change in ASB mechanics, and the said change is edited in the DAT thread.
• However, Ref Resource thread still contains description of the outdated mechanics.
• A new member ignorant to the change checks the Ref Resource thread, gets misled by the outdated statement, and causes havoc/minor annoyance/inconvenience that had to be solved by correction in the Ref Resource thread.
• In order to prevent the above scenario from happening, the Council painstakingly checks through every other thread and edits in the implementation.

• A ref attempts to end a Tower match.
• The said ref opens up multiple threads in order to check battlers' rewards and ref payouts.
• The ref then posts his/her claim.
• An approver opens up multiple threads again in order to confirm and approve the said claim.

This is hardly efficient and consistent. To remedy that, I put forward the following proposal:

• A new Data Audit Thread (DAT) is created.
• Every single ounce of semi-permanent ASB data - from game mechanics and UC payouts, to approvers' list and format for profile registration - is placed within the new DAT.
• Instead of the current format, other threads (such as Tower and PCT) only contains links to the appropriate posts in DAT that contains the data needed.
• Errors and inconsistencies within the new DAT thread (such as typos) are either given feedback in the DAT thread (as per current trend) or put forward to propose for discussion here in Feedback.
• Any questions regarding the interpretation of DAT data is put forward in the (Stickied) SQSA thread, where it will be answered by more experienced players.

This revamp should allow us to eliminate the accumulation of inconsistencies throughout ASB history, enable easy data access within a single Audit thread, and ensure that future changes to ASB will be clean, efficient, and instant.

I am willing to put myself forward to this task (reading through, c/p-ing the stuff, organizing it into a thread) and I'm quite sure there are a lot of aspiring people within the ASB community willing to contribute as well. But we still need to reach a consensus before any individual or entity takes action.

[Yarnus of Bethany]

I agree with the above proposal and think it should be moved to discussion.
I do remember having very many episodes of confusion when trying to register and when finishing reffing my first battle. Though I am used to it now, it still gets annoying and makes ASB appear even more complex than it is.

[TIO]

I agree with both of the above proposals and think they don't need discussion.

[Dogfish44]

MY PROPOSAL IS NOT IMMEDIATELY IN EFFECT, AT THE MOMENT THIS THREAD IS STILL TO BE USED FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION OF PROPOSALS AS WELL

~DF44

[Its_A_Random]

Okay, here is an issue that needs to be resolved.

Baton Pass & Arena Trap both A. Suffer from severe vagueness, & B. Are in desperate need for an update / improvement.

At the present moment, Baton Pass & Arena Trap look like this:

Baton Pass: The Pokemon focuses all of its energies into a white aura that maintains its current state. This energy holds all of the information on the Pokemon's stat increases and decreases as well as whether it is in a state of confusion or other temporary ailments. If this Pokemon touches a teammate it can pass those bonuses and mental state onto them instantly.

Attack Power: -- | Accuracy: -- | Energy Cost: 10 | Attack Type: Other | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: N/A | Typing: Normal | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive

Arena Trap:

Type: Innate

This Pokemon has great knowledge of the field and can always remain close to an earthbound foe no matter where it runs, flying opponents and levitating Pokemon are unaffected.

Pokemon with this ability: Diglett, Dugtrio, Trapinch.

In the case of both these, they have both been effectively unchanged since the beginning of ASB, & quite frankly, no one really knows how they fully work properly. Therefore, I propose we change these two for the better. So, I want to propose two questions to you the public:

• Should we be changing Arena Trap / Baton Pass?
• If so, how do you think we should change Arena Trap / Baton Pass?

For me? I do not have any ideas for Arena Trap atm, but for Baton Pass, I am thinking somewhere along the lines of:

Baton Pass: The Pokemon focuses all of its energies into a white aura that maintains its current state. This energy holds all of the information on the Pokemon's stat increases and decreases as well as whether it is in a state of confusion or other temporary ailments. This move has two distinctive uses:

Baton Pass [Switch] (Switch=OK Only): The user is sent back to its trainer's Poke Ball at the end of the round. The Pokemon that is switched in to replace the user is chosen by the player from their remaining Pokemon, however the trainer that commanded Baton Pass [Switch] must attack first the next round. The replacement gains the same temporary status changes (Such as stat boosts/drops, confusion, etc.) that the user had upon entry.

Baton Pass [Pass] (Doubles+ Only): The user can pass on all its temporary status changes (Such as stat boosts/drops, confusion, etc.) to an active teammate. The teammate will gain all temporary status changes that the user had, and all temporary status changes the user had are removed.

Attack Power: -- | Accuracy: -- | Energy Cost: 10 | Attack Type: Other | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: N/A | Typing: Normal | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive

Basically two distinctive uses, both allow you to pass something onto a team-mate, & is in all honesty, effectively an updated version of the current Baton Pass. Have not codified for other formats yet, though.

So yeah, if you have any ideas for either Arena Trap or Baton Pass, please post them here & get feedback, etc., or at least until they make it to the discussion phase, if at all. Any thoughts?

[Yarnus of Bethany]

Arena trap should specifically state that the target cannot switch.
I think it should also stop dodge, just for flavor reasons.