(Data) State of the Game: 02/20/2011

[Deck Knight]

Hello again refs, battlers, and lurkers of the CAP ASB Forum. It's been a full week since the initial release and what a busy week it has been.

Here's a few statistics as of this writing;

Number of players with approved teams: 45

Forum Posts: 1,428

Number of active or completed battles: 48

Not bad for the first week. Every week I will try and put up one of these State of the Game threads where I will inform you of any rules changes and reasoning and ask you to comment on how your games are going. Remember for the latest updates or any quick Qs you can always go to our official IRC channel, #capasb.

Rules Changes:

When you enter a battle of 3vs3 or less, you PM 3 Pokemon, not the maximum number. This is to give the player who attacks second a real advantage in 1vs1 and 2vs2 since they no longer have to guess their opponents Pokemon correctly. This rule is up for further consideration and discussion since as the game progresses it will be harder and harder to select 3 Pokemon to face your opponents squad that you are locked into. A possible suggestion would be to change the rule to 3 Minimum and Match Limit + 1 (e.g. PMing 4 Pokemon for a 3vs3 or 5 for a 4vs4) for Maximum.

Remember that the Pokemon used in the match are the Pokemon sent as they are at the time of the PM. So if you're going to upgrade your Pokemon, do it before sending a PM to the ref.

While not an explicit rule change, it is possible to get Egg Moves from any generation, not just the 5th when getting new Pokemon or initially registering.

Mechanics Changes:

Consecutively used attacks now cause significant additional energy drain (Adding +4 to each consecutive use e.g. a move has its normal Energy Cost on the first use, then EC + 4 on the second and EC+8 on the third.). Because the ASB is so offense oriented, often the best move in any battle has been to SPAM the most powerful attack in the Pokemon's possession against the opponent. This curbs that by making such attack spamming a very quick way to drain energy. While this will at best probably lead to alternating powerful attacks, it does blunt the sheer force of most offense.

Psychic Attacks have been clarified. An additional paragraph has been added to the description and more has been added to the summary. Psychic attacks have always been notorious in every ASB for their usage in incredbly odd, almost godlike ways. These changes make it clear that Psychic attacks do have limits to what they can do and should be treated like any other attack. Psychic attacks do still have obvious advantages like range and they do not generally require the Pokemon to see the opponent as much as know where it is.

Several attacks have been editted because they had effects inconsistent with similar effects or based on pre-release versions of stat system. Specifically these attacks are Mud Sport, Charge, and a few other minor language or Base Power fixes.

Player Questions:

Every SotG I will ask some questions about how the game is going. Please provide me feedback so I can continually improve the system.

1. Is the game currently too offense oriented?

The goal I'm shooting for is that the average battle lasts 3-5 Rounds. This is substantially faster than most other ASBs out there. I am however concerned it can go too far which is why I implemented the consecutive attacks rule.

2. Are the rules too complicated?

I have tried to make the system complex and deep, but not confusing. Is it too difficult to understand some of the instructions in the registration thread? Is it too hard to keep track of data? Too convoluted to obtain prizes?

The system has a lot of elements that go into it and our currency system is worlds apart from what other systems use. The progressive move/evolution/dream ability system combined with Trainer Counters is supposed to balance out the tendency to get new Pokemon vs. training current ones.

Looking forward:

Role Playing elements are still works in progress. Once we get a few up and running they will accelerate the ability to get prizes and grow Pokemon a little bit. Please be patient as my focus with the Role-Playing threads is to make them substantially different from the main player vs. player engine. I'm asking for feedback on that engine now since it forms the backbone of most activity and it is difficult to balance.

I will eventually be adding approval staff and updating threads like the reffing grounds with a better hierarchy. Some refs are better than others and deserve to be notced and rewarded. For now though please be patient as there are always a ton of minor fixes in a game this complex and these have eaten up most of my time.

Please provide input, I'm trying to build a system like no other and the only way I can do it is with your help. Feel free to opine on what you like or don't like about the systems as well as make suggestions.

Thank you,

~Deck Knight, CAP ASB Developer.

Here are the results of this State of the Game:

New/updated mechanics:

4x Weaknesses/Resistances have been buffed to 2.25x (4x weak) and 0.44x (1/4 resist). 2x weak/resistant attacks are unchanged. A new calculatior will be released with these updates.

Chills will be increased to 12% Energy Recovery. This recovers enough energy to enable 1.5 UnSTABbed 12 Base Attack Power moves, and increases the standard amount of Energy Recovery (5 chills) in a battle from 50% to 60%. This will be reassesed at next week's SotG.

Pokemon that do not have access to any TMs may select up to 3 Tutor and Special Moves from any generation. This applies retroactively, and anyone who has such a Pokemon may apportion and use moves they would have selected if this rule were initially active. Use the Prize Claiming Thread to make these changes.


Evolution has been changed so Two Stage Pokemon require 6 EC to Evolve and Three Stage Pokemon evolve into their second form at 4 EC and their final form at 9 EC. This change applies retroactively, will devolve any Pokemon who has not reached the correct EC level, and players may reapportion all of their KO Counters and Ref Tokens put into EC if they wish. Use the Prize Claiming Thread to make these changes. They will also recover any Move Counters they used on moves the basic form of their evolved Pokemon cannot learn.

Exceptions to the above Evolution Rule: Caterpie, Weedle, and Wurmple can evolve into their second forms at 3/5 and their final forms at 5/5 EC.

Burmy can evolve to its final form at 4/4 EC.

All the other bugs and TMless mon have access to at least a few decent tutor or special moves.

Fully Evolved Single Stage Pokemon cost double (2x) their initial rarity point listing to obtain. This change is NOT retroactive and you may keep any such Pokemon you obtained this way.

Upcoming information:

A more complete Team Creation Guide will be created.

[Wikey]

I'm not sure if you were on the IRC when I brought it up but I think mons evolve too fast. It just seems pointless to have the NFEs if you can evolve them faster than you can teach them a few moves. I feel like by increasing the number of battles it takes to evolve it will make the reward of using a FE greater and it will make using NFEs feel more like part of the process instead of just a minor inconvenience before getting to use the FE monsters you really want to use.

Also, if you don't feel like evolutions come too fast the current system is good for _most_ of the monsters. But certain things seem unbalanced. The three stage bugs are pretty much useless. The final form of most two stage monsters are more powerful than the final form of bugs _AND_ you unlock them faster. While in general I want to slow evolution down. I think it would also be a good idea to speed the evolution of the Caterpie/Weedle types up by a significant amount.

[Athenodoros]

I can only answer your second question because I have just begun, but I would say that the answer is that it is not too complicated, but it is hard to get into. I think a better guide to creating a team and battling would be helpful, and it would definitely be a good idea to link to information like stats and the game mechanics pages in the OP of the sign-up thread, which does look like a logical starting place. I can remember that I could not understand where much of the information came from when I first looked at the sub-forum.

EDIT: As for the above idea, couldn't the points required to evolve be proportional to how they evolve in-game, like the other stats?

[TotalPotato]

Originally Posted by Fat Deck Knight

When you enter a battle of 3vs3 or less, you PM 3 Pokemon, not the maximum number. This is to give the player who attacks second a real advantage in 1vs1 and 2vs2 since they no longer have to guess their opponents Pokemon correctly.

I really don't understand the logic behind this, to be honest. If you have a 1v1 battle, and Player 2 has three Pokémon to choose from, they can (usually) easily give themselves a type advantage, so they've almost won already... how is that fair on Player 1?

[Rediamond]

I agree with the evolution concern. Some people are already close to evolving a Pokemon one week in. Once again, if this ASB is focused on raising individual Pokemon, this is very counterproductive. Have to leave to do something in a minute, and have minimal coverage, so I can't explain any more. When I get back, I'll go into more detail. Oh, and one last argument for additional difficulty evolving a Pokemon: we want to give new players a chance, and they really can't have that if any two-week player has a team of fully evolved Pokemon.

[smashlloyd20]

I agree about the evolution concerns. I don't think, however, that evolution should be proportional to stats; a flat requirement increase would be fine.

I also agree with TotalPotato about the Pokemon PM concern. In 1v1s, the player that attacks first will almost always win anyway because they will have a substantial Pokemon advantage over the other player. I'd say that we should stick with the blind Pokemon PM, and probably flip for attack order. Not very fair, but probably the easiest way to balance the system.

In response to the questions, I'd say the game is not too offense-oriented. With the new introduction of the attack spam restriction, it's no longer possible to spam a strong STAB attack and win. In addition, energy stall has been proven fully possible.

I'd say the system is not too complicated. It can be a little hard to get into, but it pretty much becomes second nature quickly. Some introductory guides like Athenodoros suggested might be helpful though.

[Deck Knight]

I should perhaps explain what I'm used to in order to explain the speed of the system.

Most of the other major ASB systems don't have the progressive move system. Each Pokemon beings with all its moves and the primary prizes for a battle are catching/evolving new Pokemon. Under this system the idea is that you have a choice between having a much stronger Pokemon with fewer moves or several weaker Pokemon with expanded movepools. Then there's Dream World abilities, which many people seem to have ignored investing in.

I don't really think 6 EC to get to a final form is too much to ask, but 4 might be too little for Two Stage Pokemon. Maybe if it were increased to 7 for Three Stage Pokemon (2nd stages would still be 3) and 5 for Two Stage?

I'm not too keen on altering Pokemon Evolution based on how quickly they evolve in-game. You can, after all, have a Level 1 Arcanine with a Fire Stone. There's also the raw fact that a few Pokemon that evolve early on a level basis have much stronger movepools than many of their counterparts, especially the Generation 1 Pokemon.

I might consider a shortened evolution tree for the weaking bugs, something like 3 for the second stage and 5 for the final stage. The funny thing is that Caterpie and Weedle are technically stronger than their evolved counterparts.

As far as the registration, I think if I expand the sample to include 3 Pokemon it will be easier to understand. Sandshrew is probably a bad starting example. I'm not sure how to make the guide any better, but I'll put up a few links to the data auditing thread.

EDIT: The sample has now been updated with a Sunkern and Magnemite to cover what to do with -Spe Natures and Genderless Pokemon.

[DarkSlay]

I am extremely pleased with how CAP ASB has grown so rapidly in the span of just about a week. We still have a lot of areas to explore, and once the areas you can visit open up, like my Dojo, this project should be going in full force pretty soon.

I have two minor issues I wanted to discuss. I've already talked to Deck about these, but I wanted more feedback from the community:

1. STAB Bonus is too high. I don't like how the fact that a 1.5x SE STAB Surf does the exact same damage as a 2x SE Ice Beam to a Gligar. This is mainly because of the STAB bonus in the equation. If we were to reduce the STAB bonus to 2 more damage instead of 3, this would be a lot better, and more realistic.
2. Boosts need to be fixed. There currently is no big incentive damage-wise in going to +2, since a +1 boost is just one damage counter lower (+1 is 2 more damage, while +2 is 3 more damage). While +2 boosts do have a degenerative feature (+2 eventually becomes +1 after three turns), I think that this might be a little off. It might not, though, since of the degeneration.

Let's keep this project strong!

[mewtwo15026]

How are Caterpie and Weedle stronger than their evolved counterparts? Does it have to do with String Shot?

I was up last night on the ASB forums and was thinking about Evolution. I think it would be more fun to incorporate the different Evolution Methods as long as they are balanced. To that end, I devised all sorts of systems with which this could be done.

Please note that these systems are entirely theoretical and that it's ultimately Deck Knight's decision whether or not to use them or any part of them.

Ideas on Levels and Level-based Evolution

---

I like the idea of making Pokemon evolve faster based on the level necessary to do so. Among other things, this balances the Pseudo-Legendaries with everything else; Deino should NOT become Hydreigon as quickly as Wurmple can become Dustox.

After trying to work something out based on the EXP algorithms, I decided that 1 EC per 5 Levels, rounded up as necessary, would make sense. However, a Pokemon must have gained at least 1 Counter in its present form in order to evolve. This prevents the skipping of evolutionary stages, notably Metapod, Kakuna, Silcoon, and Cascoon, which would all evolve at the same Level as their previous stages.

EXAMPLE:
Gible evolves at Level 24. Rounded up to the nearest 5, that's 25, so Gible requires 5 Level Counters to Evolve.
Gible's next form, Gabite, evolves at Level 48. Rounded up to the nearest 5, that's 50, so Gabite requires 10 Level Counters to Evolve.
Therefore, to get a Garchomp, Gible has get at least 5 Level Counters, Evolve, and then get the rest as a Gabite. If Gible picked up all 10 Level Counters, it can't evolve directly into Garchomp; it must gain 1 more as a Gabite before it can evolve.

Ideas on Level-Up Moves and Move-based Evolutions

---

A Level system could also help to balance Move-Based Evolutions. The Pokemon start with moves up to Lv.25, and it doesn't learn any new Level-Up moves until it gets its 6th Level Counters. Then it gets (for free or at a minimal cost) any additional moves it learns up to Lv. 30. For every additional Level Counter it gets, the Pokemon learns in this way whatever moves it gets in the next 5 Levels.

The problem with this is: what happens with Piloswine, who gets its Evo Move at Lv. 0 and therefore can evolve instantly? Well, it could be that the Evo Move needs to deal a KO before the Pokemon could evolve. This could make Bonsly and Mime Jr. VERY interesting, as it adds a great deal of strategy regarding the use of Mimic.

EXAMPLE:
Lickitung gets all its moves up to Lv. 25 to start: Lick, Defense Curl, Supersonic, Knock Off, Wrap, Stomp, and Disable, plus 3 each of Egg Moves and 5th Gen TMs.
Lickitung earns its 6th Level Counter, effectively reaching Lv. 30. Since it learns Slam at Lv. 29, Slam is added to its movepool. Lickitung battles again and gets its 7th Counter--it's Lv. 35 now--and gets Rollout, its Evo Move, which it learns at Lv. 33.
Lickitung battles a Butterfree and KOs it with Rollout. Either directly after the KO or after the battle is complete, Lickitung may evolve into Lickilicky. Lickitung/Lickilicky also gets its 8th Level Counter, granting it Little by Little.

EXAMPLE 2: Pokemon that learn different moves after Evolution (Disregard if there's already a way to handle this.)
Mudkip evolves into Marshtomp at Level 16, or after 4 Level Counters. However, if it does, it misses out on Whirlpool and Hydro Pump. To learn those moves, Mudkip must be kept from evolving until its 9th Evo Counter, or Lv. 45, since Mudkip gets Hydro Pump at 42. Once it evolves, Marshtomp gets all the moves it normally learns up to Lv. 45 PLUS whatever it knew when it evolved.

Ideas on Happiness Evolution

---

Happiness Evolution could go two ways. It could either be based on Level (4 to 6 Counters for Basics and 7 or 8 for Stage 1s seems reasonable, though it should probably depend on the Pokemon; I doubt Munchlax should evolve at Lv. 20) or on KO Counters (3 in whatever form requires them to evolve).

EXAMPLE (Level System)
Eevee gets its 6th Level Counter. It may now evolve into an Espeon or an Umbreon; as time zones and real-life activity make the time requirement unwieldy, Eevee's Trainer decides which of the two Eevee becomes.

EXAMPLE (KO System)
Zubat gets its 5th Level Counter, which lets it Evolve into Golbat. Golbat must now score 3 KOs before it can Evolve into Crobat.

Item-based Evolutions

---

For Stone- and Held Item-based Evolutions, couldn't we base that on Trainer Counters to get the items and, say, 5 Level Counters or X number KO Counters before the item can take effect?

A Stone would be used outside of battle. A Held Item would have to be brought into battle but could be used after scoring a KO, whether it stayed on the Pokemon or not. Either way, the item used in the Evolution would be destroyed.

EXAMPLE: Stone-Based Evolution
A Pikachu gets its 5th Level Counter. Pikachu's Trainer purchases a ThunderStone for X Trainer Counters (or obtains it in some other way) and uses it on Pikachu outside of battle. Pikachu evolves into Raichu, and the Thunderstone disappears.

EXAMPLE: Held Item-based Evolution
A Happiny has 5 Level Counters. It brings an Oval Stone into a battle with a Buneary, which Switcheroos the item away from Buneary. However, Happiny scores the KO. Either immediately after the KO or after the battle, Happiny evolves into Chansey, and the Oval Stone disappears.

Ideas on Trade Evolution: WITH Trading

---

The KO Counter system mentioned in the Happiness Evolution and Item Evolution sections would work for Trade Evolutions, with or without items. The catch? The recipient may have to do some of the training.

A Pokemon would have to have at least 5 Level Counters and 2 total KO Counters in the Evo Stage that has to be traded. Without an Item, one of these KO Counters must have been scored after being traded. With an Item, after being traded WHILE HOLDING THE ITEM, the Pokemon would have to score one of the KOs while holding the item, just like in a normal Held Item Evolution.

Shelmet and Karrablast, once traded, would require 1 KO Counter to evolve.

EXAMPLE (Itemless)
Ash has a Gastly with 5 Level Counters, so he evolves it into Haunter. Haunter gets a KO. Ash trades his Haunter for Misty's Seadra, and Misty scores a KO using Haunter. Haunter has 2 KO Counters, one of which was scored after the trade. Haunter may now evolve as normal into Gengar.

EXAMPLE (Item)
Misty has a Seadra and KOs something with it. She gives it a Dragon Scale and trades it for Ash's Haunter. Ash leaves the Scale on Seadra as he challenges a Sneasel with it. Sneasel uses Thief and takes the Dragon Scale, but Seadra eventually KO's it. Either immediately after the KO or after the battle, Seadra evolves into Kingdra, and the Dragon Scale disappears.

Ideas on Trade Evolution: WITHOUT Trading

---

If no Trading system is instated, we could treat Itemless Trade Evos like Level Evolutions that evolve with 8 Level Counters (most Trade Evo Pokemon evolve from their Basic stage by 5 or 6 Counters) and Trade w/ Item Evos like Held Item Evos (score a KO while holding the necessary Item after amassing 5 Level Counters).

Shelmet and Karrablast would have to get the standard 6 Level Counters with no other prerequisites.

EXAMPLE (Itemless)
Boldore gets its 8th Level Counter. It may now evolve into Gigalith as normal.

EXAMPLE (Item)
Clamperl has 5 Level Counters and a DeepSeaTooth. It enters a battle with a Syclar and wins. Immediately after the KO or at any time after the battle, Clamperl may evolve into Huntail, and the DeepSeaTooth disappears.

Ideas on Locational Evolutions

---

For a Locational Evolution, the Pokemon must have 3 KO Counters, one of which was scored in a field with the following conditions present in its description:

LEAFEON: The field must be in a heavily wooded area.
GLACEON: The field must be in a snowy area.
PROBOPASS & MAGNEZONE: The field must have a large magnet or something that conducts or produces electricity.

Ideas on Special Evolutions

---

Mantyke may evolve into Mantine after scoring 4 Level Counters ONLY IF there is a Remoraid in the party.

Feebas may evolve into Milotic EITHER through the implementation of a method to raise Beauty OR via Trade-Item Evolution involving a Clean Scale and 4 Level Counters.

Nincada's evolution produces both a Ninjask AND a Shedinja. Ninjask gets the appropriate Level-Up moves added to its pool, then Shedinja takes Ninjask's pool and ads its own Level-Up moves. Both Ninjask and Shedinja retain the nature of the Nincada.

Female Burmy evolve into Wormadam as normal. The desired Cloak is freely chosen by the Trainer.

Tyrogue evolves into Hitmonlee, Hitmonchan, or Hitmontop based on the free choice of its trainer.

Wurmple evolves into Silcoon or Cascoon based on the free choice of its Trainer.

[Venser]

The thing about 1v1 is that when somebody posts asking for a 1v1, they're most likely asking for a battle for the main purpose of getting counters quickly in exchange for a loss on their record. I personally think this is fair, but I'd like to hear others' opinions on this.

[smashlloyd20]

I'd say that when people post for a 1v1, they want a short, intense match. Nobody posts to ask for a battle with the explicit intention of getting a loss on your record. I still think that 1v1s are too unbalanced. See my earlier post.

[DarkSlay]

Not all 1 v 1's are as unbalanced as others. There are some instances where a Pokemon sent out first does well against the opponent's entire team. There are other instances where while there is an uneven match on paper, smart playing will result in a win. Type match-ups aren't nearly as consequential as in the game, except in extreme circumstances (ie Weedle v. Breezi). Not to mention that as of right now, some people don't have great Pokemon due to using pre-evolutions. A Caterpie that has a huge disadvantage in a 1 v 1 probably has a disadvantage in almost all circumstances anyway. Wait until we have fully evolved, strong Pokemon in 1 v 1's, and see what happens from there.

It's definitely a lot more complicated than just knowing what your opponent sends out. In every single match I've been in and currently been in, I've always gotten off to a great start since I know what attacks my opponent does. A counter-attack is almost always more important than throwing out the first attacks in the game.

All in all, because of this, 1 v 1's seem pretty balanced to me. There's advantages and disadvantages of being the challenger or the acceptor.

[Deck Knight]

Mewtwo15026:

It's a function of how Metapod and Kakuna actually lose attack from Caterpie and Weedle. It's just a quirk of the way stats are set up.

As far as your suggestions, I think I've made enough counters to keep track of already without adding a fifth, even more convoluted one. I'd rather make one or two exceptions than make the entire system more complicated for everyone.

Originally Posted by Fat DarkSlay

I am extremely pleased with how CAP ASB has grown so rapidly in the span of just about a week. We still have a lot of areas to explore, and once the areas you can visit open up, like my Dojo, this project should be going in full force pretty soon.

I have two minor issues I wanted to discuss. I've already talked to Deck about these, but I wanted more feedback from the community:

1. STAB Bonus is too high. I don't like how the fact that a 1.5x SE STAB Surf does the exact same damage as a 2x SE Ice Beam to a Gligar. This is mainly because of the STAB bonus in the equation. If we were to reduce the STAB bonus to 2 more damage instead of 3, this would be a lot better, and more realistic.
2. Boosts need to be fixed. There currently is no big incentive damage-wise in going to +2, since a +1 boost is just one damage counter lower (+1 is 2 more damage, while +2 is 3 more damage). While +2 boosts do have a degenerative feature (+2 eventually becomes +1 after three turns), I think that this might be a little off. It might not, though, since of the degeneration.

Let's keep this project strong!

As far as STAB goes, I'm open to lowering it from 3 down to 2, but nonetheless in actual catridge mechanics a 2x STAB Surf does do less damage than a 4x unSTAB Ice Beam. That isn't really abnormal to Pokemon and your suggestion would bring the calculations somewhat closer to their in-game counterparts.

Here's a Calc on STAB Surf vs. UnSTAB IBeam to Gligar (we'll assume no star differential:

Surf: 10 + 3 (STAB) * 1.5 (2x effectiveness) = 19.50.

Ice Beam: 10 * 2 (4x effectiveness) = 20

These numbers look the same and if rounded will be the same, but Ice Beam is higher. It changes however when other effects are added in. Here's the same Calc with 1 star difference.

Surf: 10 + 3 + 1.5 *1.5 = 21.75

Ice Beam: 10 + 1.5 * 2 = 23

Again it's a small difference, but since most boosts are additive before weakness and resistance (boosts aren't because they are way too powerful before W/R), Ice Beam only gets more of an advantage. People shouldn't automatically round up when they see a 0.5 appended somewhere, they should consider the other damage in the round and then adjust the ending HP total accordingly.

As far as stat boosters, I look at them from an energy efficiency perspective. Using a +2 booster on your first action is the most inefficient thing you can do, but here's what it does from a damage/energy use perspective:

Round 1: Damage+0(Stat Up), Damage +3, Damage +3: Total damage +6.
Round 2: Damage +1.5, Damage +1.5, Damage +1.5 Total damage +4.5.

Total damage = 10.5. Energy Cost; 7. As it so happens, this most inefficient use of a +2 booster is slightly more efficient than the standard 10 Base Attack Power Move (10 BAP, 7 Energy Cost.)

Using a Stat Booster where it's most efficient results in:

Round 1: Damage +0, Damage+0(Stat Booster), Damage +3 Total Damage +3
Round 2: Damage +3, Damage +3, Damage +3 Total Damage +9
Round 3: Damage +1.5, Damage +1.5, Damage +1.5. Total Damage +4.5.

Total Damage = 16.5. Energy Cost: 7. This is far and away more efficient than any attacking move, and you get the effects of weaker damaging tactical attacks as well. On the whole I think +2 boosters are very well balanced.

Granted all this would have required you to attack with the boosted attack stat for every action, but nonetheless I feel the numbers speak for themselves.

+1/+1 Boosters are a different story though. Those are indeed very inefficient when used on the first action of a round. About the only use might be Claw Sharpen since at least then you get an extra strike on a multi-hit attack guaranteed. Used on the second or third action I think they justify themselves. Used most efficiently you'll end up with 6 more damage, and either take less damage or force your opponent into using attacks off their weaker stat or weaker Base Attack Powers.

Those few attacks that are just +1 boosts are balanced by the fact the boost is maintained at the end of the round. This makes them slow, but they can be used repeatedly to weaken foes over time.

[Ice-eyes]

STAB bonuses are actually a lot lower on most moves than they are in the games. If anything, that Surf vs. Ice Beam differential is mostly due to the different weakness / resistance applied in our ASB.

[Engineer Pikachu]

Originally Posted by Fat DarkSlay

I am extremely pleased with how CAP ASB has grown so rapidly in the span of just about a week. We still have a lot of areas to explore, and once the areas you can visit open up, like my Dojo, this project should be going in full force pretty soon.

I have two minor issues I wanted to discuss. I've already talked to Deck about these, but I wanted more feedback from the community:

1. STAB Bonus is too high. I don't like how the fact that a 1.5x SE STAB Surf does the exact same damage as a 2x SE Ice Beam to a Gligar. This is mainly because of the STAB bonus in the equation. If we were to reduce the STAB bonus to 2 more damage instead of 3, this would be a lot better, and more realistic.
2. Boosts need to be fixed. There currently is no big incentive damage-wise in going to +2, since a +1 boost is just one damage counter lower (+1 is 2 more damage, while +2 is 3 more damage). While +2 boosts do have a degenerative feature (+2 eventually becomes +1 after three turns), I think that this might be a little off. It might not, though, since of the degeneration.

Let's keep this project strong!

STAB Bonus: I agree with these two points. However, the STAB Bonus in ASB is even lower ratio-wise than the cartridge games, so I don't think STAB is the problem. Personally, I'd say the problem lies in the super-effective modifier. Take Quagsire as an example. Its main weakness lies in the 4x weakness to Grass, since it takes other hits neutrally (with the exception of Steel, Fire, Electric). It gets boosted by a lot with the super-effective modifier we currently have in place. We currently have this:

4x Weak = 2.0 damage modifier
2x Weak = 1.5 damage modifier
1x Neutral = 1.0 damage modifier
1/2x Resist = 0.67 damage modifier
1/4x Resist = 0.5 damage modifier

I'd recommend this:

4x Weak = 3.0 damage modifier
2x Weak = 1.67 damage modifier
1x Neutral = 1.0 damage modifier
1/2x Resist = 0.60 damage modifier
1/4x Resist = 0.33 damage modifier

While it is true that this makes calculating damage a little bit more difficult, it makes typing a bit more important than it is right now, which IMO is a step in the right direction. Something to be noted about my recommended modifier spread is that a 4x weak * 1/4x resist = 1, and the same goes for 2x and 1/2x. I'm not quite sure why I did this, but it just seems to fit.

Boosting System: This also needs to be fixed. There is almost absolutely no reason to use a boosting move in ASB instead of just attacking; you get more damage with less energy if you avoid boosting moves. The only exception I see to this would be +3 moves like Tail Glow, since you get 9 extra damage the first round, 9 the second, and 4 the third, which is a good bonus. For +2 boosts, you get 6 the first and 4 the next, which isn't very much considering the fact that any STAB move with 7 power will deal that much damage. I have a solution for this as well, though it might be too complicated.

What I recommend is a combination of addition and multiplication. For example, each boost either gives +2 damage or 1.2x damage (subsequent boosts go 1.4x, 1.6x, for a maximum of 2.2x or +12 damage); then, you use the operation that would give you the maximum output. This means that for attacks that deal under 10 damage, you get +2 damage. For attacks that would deal over 10 damage (factoring in screens, * differential, STAB, SE), it deals 20% more damage. For attacks that deal exactly 10 damage, it's 12 no matter what. Something nice about this system is that no matter how many stage boosts you get, the threshold is always the same so you don't have to use both operations and use the bigger one. For visualization:

Boost # | Addition | Multiplication
+1 | +2 | +20%
+2 | +4 | +40%
+3 | +6 | +60%
+x | +2x| +20x%

Re: This Question

1. Is the game currently too offense oriented?

The goal I'm shooting for is that the average battle lasts 3-5 Rounds. This is substantially faster than most other ASBs out there. I am however concerned it can go too far which is why I implemented the consecutive attacks rule.

As of right now, I think that it's taking around 4-6 rounds for the first Pokemon to be knocked out right now. There's not too much difference between 3-5 and 4-6, so I think it's going pretty fine right now. With the recommendations that I gave above, it should be around what you want. Even if you don't implement my suggestions, it's already close enough; I'm sure most players right now would be willing to wait another round for a better experience.

Some more suggestions :D
Chills: I'd like to propose having chills restore more energy. 10 energy is pretty much the energy cost of a high-power attack, and we're seeing a lot of those already (keep in mind, this is only week 1 and people are going to have more and more powerful moves as the game progresses). My suggestion would be maybe 20 energy, since you're already sacrificing a turn to attack/set-up; there really should be some significant gain.

Damage-dealing status effects: Something else I'd like to propose would be having damage-dealing status effects take damage at the end of each round instead of each action. Personally, I get a bit annoyed when I read "X took burn damage. X took poison damage. Y took leech seed damage. X healed health with leech seed" at the end of every paragraph, and I'd much rather have it pushed to the very end of the round, as it makes it easier to ref and to read. It's a really simple matter to do so as well. Just multiply the damage-per-action by 3 to get damage-per-round.

This brings me to another point. I think that Toxic is a bit too overpowered in the current system. It deals 3 damage the first round , 6 damage the second, and 9 the third, 12 the fourth, 15 the fifth, and 15 every round afterwards. This means that with no attacking at all on the opponent's side except for inflicting you with Toxic on action 1, you're dead in eight rounds*. Now assume that the opponent can deal 5 damage with each attack, and you're dead in five rounds (you survive round four with 5 HP). Remember that it's quite easy to deal more than 5 damage with each attack when STAB Bonus gives you +3 damage. If the opponent deals 9 damage per attack (6 power + STAB), you're dead in three rounds. Overpowering? I think so.

Evolution Counter Requirement

Originally Posted by Fat Athenodoros

EDIT: As for the above idea, couldn't the points required to evolve be proportional to how they evolve in-game, like the other stats?

I wholeheartedly agree with this. There's a reason Metapod evolves much earlier than Shelgon, and that's because Salamence is much better than Butterfree. It shouldn't take the same amount of work to get a Butterfree than a Shelgon. Rarity points don't really balance this, since there's an unlimited amount of money in this game; you just have to spend time acquiring it, just like in cartridge games. The difference between a Caterpie and a Dratini is 1 trainer token. You cannot possibly say that 1 trainer token is going to obstruct somebody from buying a Dratini instead of a Caterpie; I think everybody (with the exception of a Bug Catcher Chou Toshio) would rather have a Dratini than a Caterpie with an extra move. Heck, it's already hard enough to KO somebody with Caterpie/Weedle; why make it easier to get a Dragonite/Salamence than a Butterfree/Beedrill? My proposition to remedy this is a simple formula: Evolution Counter to evolve = evolution level / 5, rounded to the nearest integer. Of course, there must be minimums, so I'd propose minimums of 2, 4, and 3 for basic -> stage 1 (not final), stage 1 -> stage 2 (final), and basic -> stage 1 (final), respectively.

Thoughts on all my ideas are welcomed and appreciated. If you read this entire post, kudos to you :)

*Assumes that the Pokemon has 90 HP.

EDIT: Deck addressed some points while I was typing this ._.

[Ice-eyes]

I actually think the W/R formula as it is is fine.

[Engineer Pikachu]

Originally Posted by Fat Ice-eyes

I actually think the W/R formula as it is is fine.

I kind of just wanted to adjust it away from 4x = 2x since I don't think a Moltres in ASB can shake off a Stone Edge as easily as an Aerodactyl does in cartridge games (both still die from it, though :p)

[Ice-eyes]

Well 4x is already significantly different - the extra damage is doubled, which makes it quite a factor (for example, 4x non-STAB moves will significantly outdamage neutral STAB moves used in retaliation, which 2x SE moves may not).

[Engineer Pikachu]

Originally Posted by Fat Ice-eyes

Well 4x is already significantly different - the extra damage is doubled, which makes it quite a factor (for example, 4x non-STAB moves will significantly outdamage neutral STAB moves used in retaliation, which 2x SE moves may not).

Of course a 4x non-STAB move will do more than neutral STAB moves. 4x multiplies total damage done by 2, and STAB just adds 3 to the subtotal of damage. Unless you're telling me that you're using an attack with 2 power (I think the only one is Fury Cutter?), 4x is better; the same goes for cartridge games: 4 > 1.5.
Another thing I want to change (I know, I want to change too many things): The stage boost differences aren't affected by the effectiveness. Can we put in stage boosts before effectiveness?

Also thoughts (good and bad) on my ideas four posts above would be nice. Thanks.

[Ice-eyes]

Suggestion: more emphasis on IRC activity co-ordination. Discuss, troll, find opponents, harass opponents and refs to post! What's not to like? Not enough people go on IRC; we need to get people who aren't already #dreamworld and #cap regulars to be active.

[Wikey]

Originally Posted by Fat Engineer Pikachu

I wholeheartedly agree with this. There's a reason Metapod evolves much earlier than Shelgon, and that's because Salamence is much better than Butterfree. It shouldn't take the same amount of work to get a Butterfree than a Shelgon. Rarity points don't really balance this, since there's an unlimited amount of money in this game; you just have to spend time acquiring it, just like in cartridge games. The difference between a Caterpie and a Dratini is 1 trainer token. You cannot possibly say that 1 trainer token is going to obstruct somebody from buying a Dratini instead of a Caterpie; I think everybody (with the exception of a Bug Catcher Chou Toshio) would rather have a Dratini than a Caterpie with an extra move. Heck, it's already hard enough to KO somebody with Caterpie/Weedle; why make it easier to get a Dragonite/Salamence than a Butterfree/Beedrill? My proposition to remedy this is a simple formula: Evolution Counter to evolve = evolution level / 5, rounded to the nearest integer. Of course, there must be minimums, so I'd propose minimums of 2, 4, and 3 for basic -> stage 1 (not final), stage 1 -> stage 2 (final), and basic -> stage 1 (final), respectively.

Throwing my support behind this idea. We'd have to work out what to do about non-level-up evolutions but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a system of comparisons. Say, Pokemon X evolves via trade but it's about as viable as Pokemon Y that evolves at level 32.

I also wanted to expand on my earlier point of awards being too easy to get. For any of you who play cartridge and RNG and breed and what not you know what it's like to work toward getting that perfect mon and raising him and how you get that feeling of accomplishment. You don't get that from putting numbers into Pokémon Online to make a mon. I feel like with the trainer counters for claiming mons being so low and mons evolving so early it lessens their value. Finally turning in your tokens to get that Scyther you've been saving for will be more enjoyable the more time you have to put into it (to a point, of course.) When I claimed my Privatyke after one battle it was kind of like, "Okay, who am I claiming tomorrow?"

[smashlloyd20]

Posting again to fully agree. The way the rewards system is set up, you don't really get any sense of satisfaction from raising a Pokemon. I remember in the cartridge games feverishly training my Lairon and feeling accomplished when it evoved. Now I can evolve a Lairon in two battles and move on. There's no accomplishment in that.

[Deck Knight]

Here's my proposed solution on evolution:

Rather than getting into a convoluted method of evolving different Pokemon, I will adjust upward the standard and make a few exceptions.

Two Stage Pokemon will have their EC increased to 0/6

Three Stage Pokemon will have their EC increased to 5/9 for their second form and and 9/9 for their final form.

Exceptions for Caterpie, Weedle, Wurmple:

Caterpie, Weedle, and Wurmple will have their EC requirements changed to 3/5 for their middle forms and 5/5 for their final forms.

Exception for Burmy:

Burmy will have its EC requirement changed (under the new system) to 0/4.

[Doran Dragon]

sounds good.

but we should also have the evolve with specific items aspect as well. even if its just onix with a full 6/6 EC, he cant evolve until he is holding a metal coat.

[Engineer Pikachu]

Originally Posted by Fat Doran Dragon

sounds good.

but we should also have the evolve with specific items aspect as well. even if its just onix with a full 6/6 EC, he cant evolve until he is holding a metal coat.

But then where do you acquire a Metal Coat (I thought that was for Scizor)? How about an Up-Grade? Or all the other items that aid evolution?