Anti-Grinding Measures in ASB

[Its_A_Random]

Moderated Discussion, etc.​

Along with the item thing, what do people think about the following:

• Making Pokémon that do not have any prevolutions or evolutions cost 4 CC for people starting and after starting.
• Making all non Level-up moves cost 2 MC or if you are feeling drastic, 1 MC.

Former is a relic of an old era and seems pointlessly arbitrary and discriminatory; why should it cost 4 CC for one group and 7 CC for another? Yeah I get it no EC but at this point it is a pointless restriction and keeping it at 7 CC encourages too much grinding.

Latter is an idea floated on IRC for some time and is designed to make MC costs less arbitrary and make the whole grinding for good Pokémon less tedious. Basically makes things cheaper in general so we reduce grind times and help people be ready "faster".

Thoughts? I am mainly floating ideas to reduce grind times and gauge to see if reducing grind times sit well among the community.

I'll throw my support behind both of these proposals. Dropping the whole "+3 CC for one stagers if it isn't your starter" seems like a no brainer. I'd also pretty much have no problem with going as far as making all moves cost 1 MC.

Speaking of.

If we're trying to cut down on the effort needed to get good mons, wouldn't it make sense to allow people to have good items too? Or did this idea lose steam already?

Going with the above: Yeah having good items is very important, but sadly is even more overpriced than having movepools on these mons. Especially when you look and see that some of the more expensive items like Scope Lens and Razor Claw are very niche items that do not need to cost that much.

Making moves cost 1MC all will make getting maxed mons too easy, which will make them more...expendable. I don't know you, but I feel that one of the main perks of ASB in comparison with in game is that we train our mons and it takes some time and effort to get a good mon out of this. Which affects metagame and all. Maxing a mon in one go with less than 50UC seems unnatural and IMO should be treated as such.

I understand lowering costs and I would mind lowering to 2MC per move tops. But 1 I should is going too far and will end up being harmful. Not to mention that, while grinding is not at all good, it IS our main source of refpower. If we lower the need for UC by a third like that, we will possibly lower our refpower by a similar percentage and I don't think I need to tell you of the possible implications.


As for items, we are discussing it on the Mod's Lounge. Since it is buff culture through and through, it needs to be approved by the mods before any discussion starts, let alone anything is implemented. Sorry for the red tape, but balance is an unstable thing.

Basically the main points of discussion are:

• The +3 CC cost for buying Pokémon like Sableye when you are not starting out in ASB, Drop or not?
• MC costs to buy moves: Should we make them cheaper or not and how much cheaper?
• And if we ever get around to it, item costs but we should wait on that first.

Discuss.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

imo move MC cost should be:

1 MC: Level up
2 MC: All gen TMs / All gen Tutors
3 MC: Eggs / Events

Reasoning: it looks nice

 

[Dogfish44]

Tex's looks good. I'd consider dropping everything at 3 MC to 2 MC, but that's just an idea.

Drop the +3 CC, make the data look nicer and give me less headaches.

Items want their own thread I'd make a guess. I'm in favour of roughly halving costs for everything (Except maybe the training items?)

 

[YellowAdminSilver]

Items want their own thread I'd make a guess. I'm in favour of roughly halving costs for everything (Except maybe the training items?)

Seconding Doggie here, mainly because I have much stronger opinions on item costs than move costs.

Also, just so this post isn't mindless bandwagoning: I'd be in favor of keeping Event/Anime/Other moves at 3MC, as a way to separate them from moves that mons are able to learn normally (which I'd assume was the original intention behind the increased cost?). Plus you're not gonna be faced with that particular situation too often so not much harm done.

Egg moves I'm more on the fence about. On one hand they're either really important moves that you'd be willing to pay 3MC for or moves that you're only buying to finally max that Gallade, which is something that I think should take an effort. On the other hand, having to pay 3MC for shit like Tickle and Bestow is super dum ¬¬

 

[Eternal Drifter]

I'm with Texas for the move costs. Why? Currently, when we shift generations, move costs shift as well, with tutors becoming more expensive (for a time, at least). This way, the costs are the same for generation to generation, so there is less confusion and people don't dump UC in a panic just before the generational shift.

Also, I would like to recommend that we increase the cost of the Pledges to be more in line with the rest of the tutors, since that tends to trip a lot of people up, either trying to pay extra or nearly accidentally rejecting claims.

Agree with dropping the extra cost of 3 CC for single stagers, and agree with moving to a thread to work on item cost reductions.

 

[Mowtom]

I'm with Texas for the move costs. Why? Currently, when we shift generations, move costs shift as well, with tutors becoming more expensive (for a time, at least). This way, the costs are the same for generation to generation, so there is less confusion and people don't dump UC in a panic just before the generational shift.

Also, I would like to recommend that we increase the cost of the Pledges to be more in line with the rest of the tutors, since that tends to trip a lot of people up, either trying to pay extra or nearly accidentally rejecting claims.

Agree with dropping the extra cost of 3 CC for single stagers, and agree with moving to a thread to work on item cost reductions.

All of this applies to me as well.

 

[Frosty]

items will get their own thread as soon as Dogfish44 comments on a certain mod lounge conversation.


As far as MC goes, I am in favor of going texas's route. I don't like the idea of making it "too easy". Reasoning is that if we put everything at like 2mc or something like that we might better rather live with rentals. Our metagame has some improvisation going because going with a team from scratch all the time is hard, so people usually try to make do with what they've got. I personally really like this aspect of the metagame and I feel that too much "anti-grinding" will have a harmful effect overall. But that is me. Either way, texas's proposal (and reasoning) is logical and TM/Tutors already provide you with the necessary tools for most opponents while the LU allow you at least do something. Only completionists will go for egg moves (as usually 5 will be enough to get the necessary stuff) or event moves on most mons and those can go enjoy the harder challenge seriously.

 

[ZhengTann]

Minor addition: I was just reminded from IRC that currently Nature changes cost 7 CC on the premise that "it becomes a new mon".

Proposing to lower it to whatever cost buying a fresh FE will be. Or even lower.

 

[zarator]

I agree with Frosty that we should not drop the MC expenditures too much, lest we risk basically having no real difference between people's rosters (we might as well play ASB Showdown, if you get my drift). I do agree with Texas proposal, though, especially because it eliminates the whole annoying "generation shift" as Dogfish pointed out.

As for the 3 CC extra for non-evolving Pokemon (and nature change), I agree. For people with several maxxed mons it makes little difference anyway (at that point, you're generating a huge amount of CC whenever you go in battle). IMO it's a rule that penalizes newer people the most, and really, do we need more rules to penalize newbies than what we have already?

 

[Its_A_Random]

Why not just go to 2 MC for all non level-up moves as opposed to Texas' idea? The thing is, there's no real difference between the two when you take the five Egg's for free into account. On most Pokémon, it's like 7-10 MC less under flat 2 relative to Texas' proposal and up to 20 MC at most (Pikachu/Raichu and their bajillion event moves) since the overwhelming majority of 3 MC moves for most Pokémon are past gen TM's and Tutors; 10 MC less relative to the currently popular proposed is not going to suddenly make everything expendable, isn't it?

Also ZhengTann's idea is solid and I have no objections.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

It doesn't look as pretty

 

[deadfox081]

I'd probably echo IAR's version of LU = 1 MC, everything else = 2 MC. Honestly Texas' proposed shift does very little to lessen MC investment in the majority of Pokemon and having everything but LU at 2 UC streamlines beautifully.

I also agree with all suggesting that the +3cc for non starter FE mons should be removed, as well as the 7 CC for nature changes reduced. If we implement cheaper nature changes then cheaper Hidden Power typing changes might be on the cards too, since they are the same cost at the moment.

 

[Mowtom]

I'd probably echo IAR's version of LU = 1 MC, everything else = 2 MC. Honestly Texas' proposed shift does very little to lessen MC investment in the majority of Pokemon and having everything but LU at 2 UC streamlines beautifully.

I also agree with all suggesting that the +3cc for non starter FE mons should be removed, as well as the 7 CC for nature changes reduced. If we implement cheaper nature changes then cheaper Hidden Power typing changes might be on the cards too, since they are the same cost at the moment.

Isn't a HP typing change 2 MC, because you're basically deleting and reteaching the move? If not it totally should be.

 

[deadfox081]

I thought it was 7 CC, but I might be wrong there

EDIT: nevermind, I must have been caught on some old rule/cost

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I'd probably echo IAR's version of LU = 1 MC, everything else = 2 MC. Honestly Texas' proposed shift does very little to lessen MC investment in the majority of Pokemon and having everything but LU at 2 UC streamlines beautifully.

This is factually incorrect, past-gen TMs and Tutors are the most common 3 MC moves as things stand currently, on a Charizard for example that can result in savings upwards of 20 MC by reducing to 2 MC.

From a flavour perspective, Eggs and Events costing more is reflective of the increased difficulty to learn the moves in comparison for TMs/Tutors

I don't really care which one is picked, I think mine is neater, but please don't falsely claim that it wouldn't be effective at addressing the issue of reducing MC costs per mon.

 

[smashlloyd20]

I'm in favor of LU=1 MC/everything else=2 MC. This is largely because, echoing what zarator and others have said, it's just far too difficult for a new player to get a halfway decent team. Although I do agree with Frosty that experienced players shouldn't be able to train new mons to 50 moves in a week so...

How do people feel about giving new players more to start with? Either some UC they can use to buy moves and items, or give starting Pokemon a chunk of MC they can use to become useful more quickly than other freshmons?

(also as Texas just pointed out on IRC this problem can't be completely solved by just adjusting MC costs so I think buffing new players is worth looking into)

 

[YellowAdminSilver]

This is largely because, echoing what zarator and others have said, it's just far too difficult for a new player to get a halfway decent team.

I think other people have said this already (myself included), but I feel the biggest impediment for new players is the cost of items rather than moves. Keep in mind you can buy a fresh mon with about 15-20 moves give or take and teach it another nine moves or max its EC with the equivalent of the cost of an Expert Belt. So, it's actually about as expensive to get a 30-move Aurumoth as it is to buy a Rare Candy and an Expert Belt. Or, in other terms, you would need to ref seven 1v1 matches to earn the 20UC needed to purchase a fucking Assault Vest. This is ridiculous. You can just as well take a look at some of the matches from AOT3 R1 involving BD people. One of the reasons those matches took forever to end is because people were forced to use Amulet Coins and Exp. Shares in a tourney match instead of real items, simply because the cost of items is prohibitive beyond reason.

But, given that this isn't the thread to discuss this, I'll stop now and wait for a separate discussion to be put up. Sorry, got carried away.

 

[ZhengTann]

For what it's worth I wouldn't mind if Frosty and Zar's premonition of "Pokemon Showdown rentals for free" appears in ASB, considering that it is already a thing among veterans - I mean, look at your own profiles, the two of you! (I know, it took you a lot of dedication to afford this, sorry if you found it offensive) When mons are cheap (cheaper than they are now anyway), it levels the gap of affluence in counters and turns it into the gap of skills and experiences (which still leans towards vets when you consider experience).

Anyway, if we're intending to make grinding decent 50-move FEs relatively easy like IAR's OP said, and maybe screw over OCD movepool-maxing people along the way, we could, you know, implement this:

Claiming a freshmon still gives the traditional free moves, but as long as said Pokemon's movepool does not exceed 50 or some other arbitrary number of moves, then all moves cost 1 MC. If it is bigger than agreed-upon arbitrary number, then the cost per move scales up, either linearly or exponentially.

I floated this idea on IRC and got two "lol"s, one of them from IAR (I think). So, if I were to pop figures off the top of my head it'd be:

• Startup pre-level-26 & 5 Eggs/TMS are still free.
• Any move costs 1 MC until the 50-move mark (50 is a good number, considering we've done 40-move rental tours and teambuilding isn't super-difficult from personal experience).
• Every move thereafter costs something like "FLOOR { [Current Movepool Size] / [Biggish Arbitrary Number like 25] }", or
• "FLOOR { [Current Movepool Size] / [Smallish Arbitrary Number like 10] }"

And yeah, the joke being this proposal raises the poor new people to the working middle class, then oppresses them there while the rich old families of upper echelons remain unaffected. To be frank though the only way to cut rich old upper echelons down to size is to forcefully seize their assets (i.e. Maxmons) and distribute them among the less-affluent, which I doubt should happen at all. Thoughts?

 

[zarator]

About the proposal of putting everything at 2 MC, I'd rather keep Egg and Event moves at 3 MC - not much because these moves are generally better (once you get 5 Egg moves for free, the rest tend to suck, and event moves are rare and not always good), but because it makes harder for players to actually max that Pokemon. In my view, we should allow new players to get competitive Pokemon (with all the key moves) quickier, but I see no reason to also speed up the actual maxxing process.

As for ZT's last post... I can assure you that, despite my huge roster, I still frequently make sub-optimal choices in team building because I still lack a lot of Pokemon (Which shouldn't be surprising: I have roughly 40 FE mons, but there are hundreds in existance). My intention is to avoid a scenario in which people like me or other vets are able, 1-2 years from now, to build rosters of over 100 FE maxxed mons with ease (it may sound absurd but, if you think about it, if Texas's proposal had been implemented long ago, I may easily have 10-15 extra FE maxxed mons or more).

Which is why, back to your post, I disagree with your proposal. If anything, such mons (if they are anywhere near competitive) already offer a significant advantage in their well-rounded movepools (think Aegislash, Excadrill, or even Goodra). To allow anyone to get them basically for free - an Aegislash under your proposal would cost roughly 20 MC overall - seems largely excessive to me.

 

[Frosty]

1) I feel Texas's proposal makes more sense overall. If we are to mimic ingame, then putting eggs and events at 3 make sense. The end difference is negligible really, but at least we keep some flavor in this.
2) Sorry Zt but that proposal is bonkers. It is too complicated, doesn't account for pokemon with small movepools, nor for pokemon with precise (think aurumoth) and not precise (think clefable) movepools. If you have a formula for something as simple as move buying then you understood very little of what this proposal is about.
3) Echoing zarator here as far as roster size goes. Do you really think that Snorlax is an optimum choice for...hell, any gym? I didn't train and use a snorlax because it was optimum, but because it was efficient: got the job done in a variety of different situations. While I do have 70ish mons, most of them are due to trying out for 3 different gyms, and then personal choices and random mons for raids etc. Trust me on this, if I were to use optimal teams for each gym, you would look at vastly different teams overall. Including my own ice gym team.

While making this "ASB Showdown" isn't a bad option per se, I fail to see the point. If I want ASB Showdown I will play the actual showdown. One of the major perks for me at least is that ASB's metagame doesn't shift as ragingly fast as showdown does, and I can keep up with it. That and the whole training mon experience, finding favourites etc. If you want to go closer to a Showdown experience, then be my guest. But it will change a lot in the very foundations of this game, and you (mostly you, who play favourites) may not like the result.

 

[Mowtom]

So to sum up the non-item cost related discussion:

1. We should drop the 3 CC extra cost on buying FEs, and also drop changing natures to 4 CC.
2. All TMs/tutors for any gen should go down to 2 MC.
3. There is debate over if move prices should be further reduced.

So, with my council powers, I will propose a slate that will be sent to the voting booth in 48 hours unless someone has an objection.

Q1) Should we drop the 3 CC extra cost on buying FEs?
a) Yes
b) No, it should stay as-is.
c) No, but we should change it to ___.

Q2) Should changing natures cost 4 CC instead of 7?
a) Yes
b) No, it should stay as-is.
c) No, but we should change it to ___.

Q3) How should we deal with move costs?
a) Texas' proposal (1 LU/2 All Gen TM, Tutor/3 Egg, Event)
b) IAR's proposal (1 LU, 2 All Else)
c) Something more along the lines of what ZT suggested (complicated formula depending on current movepool size)
d) No change
e) We should change it to ___.

All good?

 

[deadfox081]

I agree we should move forward with Mowtom's slate. It is the closest to a resolution we will achieve at this point. The main conjecture remains over whether these MC changes are drastic enough but if larger cuts were decided upon there is nothing stopping them from being added on top of a result here later down the track.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Someone should post in here when the voting thread is up so I can lock this thread or whatever... ._.