Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk II

[Objection]

Yeah, considering that we recently changed the mid-battle evolution rules so that you had to have the requisite counters at the start of the battle, I'm pretty sure we can remove the italibolderlined part. If no-one objects within the next 24 hours, I'll erase it myself.

 

[LouisCyphre]

Currently, Egg Bomb (learned by Exeggutor, Blissey, and Mew only) reads thusly:

Egg Bomb: The Pokemon chucks an energized egg that explodes on contact. The Pokemon can also leave the egg on the ground where it will explode by itself at the beginning of the next round. The blast radius is about 8 feet.

Attack Power: 10 | Accuracy: 75% | Energy Cost: 7 | Attack Type: Physical | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: No | Typing: Normal | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive

I'm asking permission to give it a Future Sight-style submove, Egg Bomb (Trap):

Egg Bomb: This move has multiple functions.
Egg Bomb (Regular): The Pokemon chucks an energized egg that explodes on contact.
Egg Bomb (Trap): The user lays an explosive trap that detonates at the end of the first action of the next round. The attack uses any stat boosts/drops the Pokemon had at the time the move was initially called, as well as the Attack of the original user. The damage is considered residual, and will faint a Pokemon using Endure. This version has perfect accuracy instead of 75%.

Attack Power: 10 | Accuracy: 75% | Energy Cost: 7 | Attack Type: Physical | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: No | Typing: Normal | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive

Less likely, but I feel that it'd be neat to put something like this in the hands of mons that learn Seed Bomb, as well.
Attack Power: 10 | Accuracy: 75% | Energy Cost: 7 | Attack Type: Physical | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: No | Typing: Normal | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive

 

[Geodude6]

Supporting Lou's proposal, but I think that'd require approval from Deck as it's a buff.

 

[LouisCyphre]

18:40Deck_KnightYeah sure whatever. It's not as if Egg Bomb is gonna get used over Return otherwise.

eggcellent

 

[Objection]

So I'm looking at the rules for stat boost decay, and I've got a few questions.

Here's the RAW for reference.

• Boosts only ever reset +1 or -1 toward 0 at the end of a round.
• Boosts will always reset towards 0 at the end of a round, unless a boosting/lowering move was used, depending on when the final instance of said move was used. This is as follows:
  • A move that raises/lowers a single stat by 1 stage will always lock the stat change in for the round.
  • A move that raises/lowers more than one stat by 1 stage only locks the stat change in for the round if the last use of that move in that round was not on the first action.
  • A move that raises/lowers at least one stat by 2 or more stages only locks the stat change in for the round if the last use of that move in that round was on the last action of a round.

Firstly, suppose a Scizor uses Swords Dance on action 1, and then a Slowbro uses Growl on it on action 2. As per the current wording of the rules, the Growl would reduce Scizor's attack stage to +1 and prevent it from decaying to 0 that round. Should this be the case, or should the Growl not prevent decay?

Secondly, suppose instead of Slowbro, the Scizor is facing a Salamence, who intimidates him at the start of the round (reducing his attack stage to -1), and then Scizor uses Swords Dance on action 1 (bringing his attack stage up to +1). From that point on, assuming no more attack-boosting and attack-dropping effects happen, should the Scizor's attack decay towards 0 (meaning it will decay that round and that's it), decay towards -1 (meaning it will decay that round and the next round, thus following Intimidate's description where it says the drop is maintained at the end of each round), or not decay at all?

Thirdly, suppose the Scizor is facing something else in round 1 and it uses Swords Dance on action 3, and then the Salamence switches in at the start of round 2, intimidating Scizor and reducing its attack stage from +2 to +1. Again, from that point on, should Scizor's attack stage decay towards 0, towards -1, or not at all?

Note that I've asked "Should it be this way or that way?", not "Is it this way or that way?", because I'm sensing an oversight in the rules that needs to be patched up somehow.

 

[Its_A_Random]

So I'm looking at the rules for stat boost decay, and I've got a few questions.

Here's the RAW for reference.

• Boosts only ever reset +1 or -1 toward 0 at the end of a round.
• Boosts will always reset towards 0 at the end of a round, unless a boosting/lowering move was used, depending on when the final instance of said move was used. This is as follows:
  • A move that raises/lowers a single stat by 1 stage will always lock the stat change in for the round.
  • A move that raises/lowers more than one stat by 1 stage only locks the stat change in for the round if the last use of that move in that round was not on the first action.
  • A move that raises/lowers at least one stat by 2 or more stages only locks the stat change in for the round if the last use of that move in that round was on the last action of a round.

Firstly, suppose a Scizor uses Swords Dance on action 1, and then a Slowbro uses Growl on it on action 2. As per the current wording of the rules, the Growl would reduce Scizor's attack stage to +1 and prevent it from decaying to 0 that round. Should this be the case, or should the Growl not prevent decay?

Secondly, suppose instead of Slowbro, the Scizor is facing a Salamence, who intimidates him at the start of the round (reducing his attack stage to -1), and then Scizor uses Swords Dance on action 1 (bringing his attack stage up to +1). From that point on, assuming no more attack-boosting and attack-dropping effects happen, should the Scizor's attack decay towards 0 (meaning it will decay that round and that's it), decay towards -1 (meaning it will decay that round and the next round, thus following Intimidate's description where it says the drop is maintained at the end of each round), or not decay at all?

Thirdly, suppose the Scizor is facing something else in round 1 and it uses Swords Dance on action 3, and then the Salamence switches in at the start of round 2, intimidating Scizor and reducing its attack stage from +2 to +1. Again, from that point on, should Scizor's attack stage decay towards 0, towards -1, or not at all?

Note that I've asked "Should it be this way or that way?", not "Is it this way or that way?", because I'm sensing an oversight in the rules that needs to be patched up somehow.

The Toxicroak/Zangoose examples in the DAT -should- answer most of your questions, but...

Firstly, suppose a Scizor uses Swords Dance on action 1, and then a Slowbro uses Growl on it on action 2. As per the current wording of the rules, the Growl would reduce Scizor's attack stage to +1 and prevent it from decaying to 0 that round. Should this be the case, or should the Growl not prevent decay?

If a stat change is locked, then it is locked, so in your example, Scizor would still have +1 Attack at the end of the round, because Growl locks the changed stat period.

Secondly, suppose instead of Slowbro, the Scizor is facing a Salamence, who intimidates him at the start of the round (reducing his attack stage to -1), and then Scizor uses Swords Dance on action 1 (bringing his attack stage up to +1). From that point on, assuming no more attack-boosting and attack-dropping effects happen, should the Scizor's attack decay towards 0 (meaning it will decay that round and that's it), decay towards -1 (meaning it will decay that round and the next round, thus following Intimidate's description where it says the drop is maintained at the end of each round), or not decay at all?

"Maintained at the end of each round" means instead of resetting towards 0, it should, in your example, be resetting towards -1. Intimidate does not lock as per this "discrepancy" (which kinda needs to be clarified) a few lines above the quoted RAW:

A move that raises/lowers a single stat by 1 stage will always lock the stat change in for the round.

Intimidating on send-out is technically not a "move", so... gogogogo fix discrepancies.

Thirdly, suppose the Scizor is facing something else in round 1 and it uses Swords Dance on action 3, and then the Salamence switches in at the start of round 2, intimidating Scizor and reducing its attack stage from +2 to +1. Again, from that point on, should Scizor's attack stage decay towards 0, towards -1, or not at all?

As I said before, "maintained at the end of each round" means instead of resetting towards 0, it should, in your example, be resetting towards -1.

Note that I've asked "Should it be this way or that way?", not "Is it this way or that way?", because I'm sensing an oversight in the rules that needs to be patched up somehow.

Not really an oversight, but there is "contradictory" information in the rules how it first says "Moves that", then goes "Boosts that".

 

[Objection]

If that's the case, it sounds like we need a new name for this concept where stat boosts and drops may decay to a stage other than 0. I've edited in some possible phrasing into the stat boost rules and into the moves Shell Smash and Shift Gear, but I'm holding off on abilities at the moment in case anyone has a better idea.

 

[Frosty]

Checking if my concern is shared with anyone else.

I believe that Helping Hand is still borked. To be more specific, I feel that being able to use helping hand on a combo with no drawbacks is ridiculous.

I won't say anything, merely post examples of my own battles:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/battle-subway-challenge-frosty.3450880/page-7: Subway doubles. On all battles, a mon fell (or close to that) due to a helping handed combo. On one battle the opposing team was defeated from 100 to 0 in two actions.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/battle-arcade-challenge-frosty.3477405/page-5 Arcade triples. On all normal battles a mon fell on the first round due to helping handed combo. On some rounds, 2 fell this way. On a round with 2 actions.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/not-another-6v6-frosty-vs-gerard.3484399/ Triples vs Gerard. On every round I ordered last, one mon fell with little effort.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/electric-leader-dogfish44-vs-challenger-frosty.3483951/ Two mons (pretty much) defeated with a lovely Helping Hand on Fissure + Earthquake.

etc.

Trust me on this: anyone ordering last can defeat any kind of pokemon with helping hand and a combo. It is ridiculous.

My suggestion would be to make Helping Hand work only on a single move. If used on a combo, the player has to choose one move of it to double.

 

[LouisCyphre]

I support this; it would do loads to make Doubles a competitively viable format. Right now, you can guarantee that one or more of your Pokemon will die if you are ordering first. There's nothing you can do about it except Imprison (Helping Hand), and that's a very rare capability.

 

[Gerard]

I also support this, I've always seen the ability to use Helping Hand combos as detrimental to the strategy of doubles, Imprisoning Helping Hand wouldn't even work if they are used on the same turn due to the higher priority of Helping Hand, the boost is way too much and the ability to do anything in the next turn, makes it incredibly powerful (basically you're doing TWO combos while suffering none of the drawbacks for the second one (the energy cost is a lot less than most combos, and being able to use a move afterward is huge), this makes many double matches into "whoever goes second wins". I think limiting the BP increase on combinations (1.5 instead of 2 or maybe other number) or making it s that helping hand isn't able to be used on combinations or that the helping hand mon has to suffer a cooldown too when using it over a combo (too harsh IMO but it would retain it's power while having more serious drawbacks) would make it easier to deal with

 

[Objection]

Looking at Gerard's post, I am thinking perhaps that "too harsh" solution might just work. The only thing is, how would a HH+HH combo on another combo work? Two cooldown turns?

Either way, I think there is some discussion to be had on this, so I'll put up a thread shortly I've put up a discussion thread.

 

[Geodude6]

I'd like to propose a new signature item: the Odd Keystone.

Odd Keystone

Odd Keystone: Increases the energy cost of incoming attacks by two (2). Reduces the type effectiveness of Fairy-type attacks to the next level of resistance (2x weak becomes neutral, neutral becomes resistance, etc.)

Cost: 8 | Affected Pokemon: Spiritomb

Partial credit to Objection for effect. CC cost is up for discussion.

 

[Eternal Drifter]

I'd like to propose a new signature item: the Odd Keystone.

Odd Keystone: Reduces the type effectiveness of Fairy-type attacks to the next level of resistance (2x weak becomes neutral, neutral becomes resistance, etc.)

Cost: 8 | Affected Pokemon: Spiritomb

Credit to Objection for effect. CC cost is up for discussion.

I like the idea, but feel like it could be a little more powerful, to be honest. How about increasing energy cost of attacks that target the Spiritomb by 1 or 2, like Dusclops's and Duskinor's item, the Reaper Cloth? The Reaper Cloth effectively doubles Pressure and grants Levitate to its users, in reference.

As it stands, and as the primary user of Spiritomb in ASB, I can see little use of this item. I'd probably purchase it and only bring it out for either story purposes, or to prevent Trick users from benefiting from Everstone. Granted, I could be underestimating the power of completely negating a weakness...

 

[Geodude6]

I originally had a double pressure drain effect in the first draft of this, and somehow it got removed. I'll add it back in.

 

[Gerard]

I originally had a double pressure drain effect in the first draft of this, and somehow it got removed. I'll add it back in.

I would suggest the item too boost Spiritomb's defenses to Rank 5 (the same as rare candy), though the pressure effect is also a nice touche

 

[Objection]

I would suggest the item too boost Spiritomb's defenses to Rank 5 (the same as rare candy), though the pressure effect is also a nice touche

You mean Everstone.

Speaking of which, remember that as much as this will be competing with Everstone, Everstone will be competing with this, so I would advise against duplicating Everstone's effects.

 

[Gerard]

You mean Everstone.

Speaking of which, remember that as much as this will be competing with Everstone, Everstone will be competing with this, so I would advise against duplicating Everstone's effects.

Well, I was thinking most Signature Items like Incenses and stones already give a better boost that Rare Candy/Everstone, though it would be good too to make it do a different effect entirely in order to let the player choose instead of giving it a straigh-up upgrade

PS: oh yeah, it's everstone, my mistake, thanks for pointing it

 

[Frosty]

Perhaps increase an offensive stat? I agree that removing one weakness is a very...eh...effect for a signature item.

 

[Objection]

I am thinking this Odd Keystone talk should probably go to a discussion thread, so I'll make one in a moment I've taken the liberty of making one. However, I have another issue I wish to bring up:

Can we handle KOC with common sense?

As far as I know, the current system is still the last Pokemon to deal direct damage gets the KOC. Although there was at one point some discussion on implementing a system where passive damage can score KOC, such a system has not actually been implemented to my knowledge. I am thinking this should be changed as otherwise passive damage gets shafted. Do not worry about how we will decide in which order the passive damage effects occur - check near the bottom of this post and you will know.

This has had a small amount of discussion on IRC and, in that time, an idea was put forward that passive damage should not always be eligible for KOC. As a result, the following ideas have been proposed:

• Allowing passive damage to score KOC unless the effect that caused passive damage has been on for a long time
• Allowing passive damage to score KOC unless the Pokemon that gets KO'd by the effect faints at least one round after the Pokemon that caused the effect faints

However, these ideas might overcomplicate the system, so the idea that all passive damage should be able to score KOC is still up.

 

[Stratos]

koc were changed back before we had a council system

you know, we had that one huge megathread where we'd all make suggestions and then deck would ignore them and implement some new items out of the blue? back then

em brought this up like a while ago and i showed him the post but i can't find that thread anymore; it's all good tho just trust me

 

[Objection]

If that is the case, then all that needs to be answered is, is the idea of limiting what passive damage can actually get KOC needlessly complicating the system? If it is, then perhaps an announcement in the forum that passive damage does net KOC should be made just so everyone knows. If it isn't, then we should discuss what limitations should be put in place.

 

[Stratos]

I already edited the players handbook to say any type of damage inflicted by an opponent counts for it, so if anyone disagrees they should speak up.

 

[Box]

RE: Power-Up Punch used in combinations involving Multi-hit Moves (a.k.a. MultiPUP)

Obviously, we know that by nature of Mega Kanghaskan's ability, he is able to get PUP's boost twice by using it twice. By ASB logic, this means that combinations such as Comet Punch + Power-Up Punch will proc the Attack boost x times, x being the hits rolled for the multi-hit move.

Needless to say, this is very powerful as it allows the user to deal damage while netting an average of 3 Attack boosts in a single action. However, I foresee this becoming stupidly broken on mons such as Mega Khan and Ambipom, both of which are able to combo PUP with their respective Multi-hit moves (Comet Punch, Tail Slap), and have abilities that allow them to boost their Attack stages sky-high (with Mega Khan potentially even able to go from -4 to +6 in a single action).

As it stands, Mega Khan is already ridiculously strong in ASB, and Ambipom is no slop either in the damage department. I highly doubt we need to allow them this particular buff.

Hence, I propose the following:
- Disallow multiple PUP procs in MultiPUP entirely.

- Nerfing the boosts from 1 per hit to half (x0.5) per hit in MultiPUP, rounded up. (Eg. 2 Hits procs 1 Stage Boost, 3/4 Hits two, 5 Hits three)

- Tweaking the description/effect of PUP. For instance, perhaps having it increase natural attack stage to a maximum of 1, and boosts from PUP beyond that will decay by x number of stages at the end of each round (say, 2 or even 3). This is slightly complicated and may add unnecessary hassle to the already-complex boost system, but I feel is also an interesting approach to balancing PUP even outside of combinations (mainly stoppering Mega Khan's antics).

Thoughts?

 

[Its_A_Random]

Geez the new generation has only been live for three days & we already want to fix some stuff... -.-'

Give the new generation some time to settle in first, three days is hardly enough time. Sure there might be broken paranoia, but perhaps with time it is more balanced than we thought.

Your concerns are valid, however (personally only one boost across the entire attack is fine), but I think it is a bit too early to worry about changing things at the moment. Just give it some time.

 

[Deck Knight]

RE: Power-Up Punch used in combinations involving Multi-hit Moves (a.k.a. MultiPUP)

Obviously, we know that by nature of Mega Kanghaskan's ability, he is able to get PUP's boost twice by using it twice. By ASB logic, this means that combinations such as Comet Punch + Power-Up Punch will proc the Attack boost x times, x being the hits rolled for the multi-hit move.

Needless to say, this is very powerful as it allows the user to deal damage while netting an average of 3 Attack boosts in a single action. However, I foresee this becoming stupidly broken on mons such as Mega Khan and Ambipom, both of which are able to combo PUP with their respective Multi-hit moves (Comet Punch, Tail Slap), and have abilities that allow them to boost their Attack stages sky-high (with Mega Khan potentially even able to go from -4 to +6 in a single action).

As it stands, Mega Khan is already ridiculously strong in ASB, and Ambipom is no slop either in the damage department. I highly doubt we need to allow them this particular buff.

Hence, I propose the following:
- Disallow multiple PUP procs in MultiPUP entirely.

- Nerfing the boosts from 1 per hit to half (x0.5) per hit in MultiPUP, rounded up. (Eg. 2 Hits procs 1 Stage Boost, 3/4 Hits two, 5 Hits three)

- Tweaking the description/effect of PUP. For instance, perhaps having it increase natural attack stage to a maximum of 1, and boosts from PUP beyond that will decay by x number of stages at the end of each round (say, 2 or even 3). This is slightly complicated and may add unnecessary hassle to the already-complex boost system, but I feel is also an interesting approach to balancing PUP even outside of combinations (mainly stoppering Mega Khan's antics).

Thoughts?

Geez the new generation has only been live for three days & we already want to fix some stuff... -.-'

Give the new generation some time to settle in first, three days is hardly enough time. Sure there might be broken paranoia, but perhaps with time it is more balanced than we thought.

Your concerns are valid, however (personally only one boost across the entire attack is fine), but I think it is a bit too early to worry about changing things at the moment. Just give it some time.

As far as fixing this, I'd say that no, Skill Link mons cannot get a +5 Attack Boost from a PUP Combination.

Official Ruling: Combinations are to be considered one attack, and they check the effect of their combinant parts only once. The special property of a multi-hit move combination is primarily that it allows spillover damage on a Substitute. While Parental Bond's damage is calculated similarly, Parental Bond attacks are considered two distinct attacks for the purposes of checking effects.

I don't think this was an issue brought up last gen because one of the only few feasible problems with this was a combination of Rock Blast and Rock Slide, and whether you checked for finch once or for each attack. Since it had -2 priority, it never really came up, and Charge Beam + Rock Blast doesn't quite seem as feasible...