Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[Mulan15262]

Can it be clarified whether never-miss moves can hit foes in the evasive stage of a damaging evasive move? The NDA seems to imply yes (but never straight-out says anything), but in-game precedent says no.

The user focuses their chakra into a powerful sphere that tracks the opponents energy when released, making it impossible to miss.

Aura Sphere inflicts damage and is unaffected by modifications to the accuracy stat and evasion stat. It will not hit a Pokémon during the semi-invulnerable turn of moves such as Dig, Dive, and Fly.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Just use common sense...

To make this a non one-liner, there is no point to this, especially given those that hit something through a damaging evasive move will explicitly state it in that move and/or the edm's description. Never miss just means never miss in normal circumstances. No need to make descriptions longer just for some somewhat redundant information.

Heck "impossible to miss" is just flavour text anyway since -- Accuracy has the same effect as ignoring modifications to accuracy and evasion (and by extension, the same as impossible to miss).

 

[Mowtom]

As shown in this SIC(K) match, there is an issue with Imprisoning fewer than three moves at once. Psyco_Josho got a ruling from IRC here, but that IRC ruling from nameless people was never officialized. Can we change Imprison in the NDA so that up to three moves can be imprisoned?

 

[Dogfish44]

*sigh*

Who gave that ruling :|

Imprison targets 3 Moves, no more and no less. If in doubt, the user can imprison "useless" moves in the event of a move being mimiced or opponents having the move.

When we say "3 Moves", last I checked we meant it. Much like Metronome needs 10 moves, not 10 or less, and Sleep Talk needs 4 moves, not 4 or less.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I'm actually going to disagree there Dogfish44

If e consider how imprison works in game, it seals off all the moves that the holder knows, taking GCN XD as an example the Dusclops seals Ice beam, Ice punch and protect. However, there are cases where a pokemon knows fewer than four moves, such as the tauros in ogre colosseum. Therefore it can reasonably be followed that in the case where a pokemon with imprison has only three total moves that Imprison will only seal two moves.

This is not applicable as precedent to metronome or sleep talk either, as from a purely competitive standpoint there is only a downside to the user by imprisoning fewer moves.

Food for thought.

 

[Dogfish44]

Eh, we can change it to mimic in-game imprison slightly more later on. And we probably should.

However, as it stands, Imprison explicitly states 3 Moves. Whether or not it's currently legal to select less should, in my honest opinion, be a ruling called directly from the NDA before we consider in-game precedent.

 

[zarator]

There are reasons for why Sleep Talk and Metronome don't say "up to X moves" - if so, they would be completely broken. The same cannot be said about Imprison, honestly. Imprisoning only 1 move is not as ridiculous as, say, Metronome (1 move only) or Sleep Talk (1 move only). So you can't use the latter two as comparisons.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

I think it's already implied that one can Imprison fewer than three moves: if I only share one or two moves with my target, it's not like I can't use Imprison on them, right?

 

[Dogfish44]

I think it's already implied that one can Imprison fewer than three moves: if I only share one or two moves with my target, it's not like I can't use Imprison on them, right?

Imprison self-targets, and influences all opponents. Imprison does not need to call moves that the opponent(s) do not know.

There are reasons for why Sleep Talk and Metronome don't say "up to X moves" - if so, they would be completely broken. The same cannot be said about Imprison, honestly. Imprisoning only 1 move is not as ridiculous as, say, Metronome (1 move only) or Sleep Talk (1 move only). So you can't use the latter two as comparisons.

Just an example - we don't have Sleep Talk users using more than 4 moves in their selection pool - same principle applies here. I can use them as examples of ASB being strict on the number of moves you can call at any rate, even if the situations are somewhat different.

----------

Again, we should consider changing the wording later on through council votes, if that's what people desire. in the short term (Current battles), we should be applying the NDA as written for related rulings, surely?

 

[deadfox081]

I am completely in support of Imprison needing to call 3 moves providing that it is made explicit that these moves need only be learned by the user of Imprison and whether current opponents know the moves makes no difference. I have previously had it refereed against me that I could not use Imprison targeting moves no current opponents knew, which makes zero sense since Imprison is a self targeted move.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

right i forgot about that

agreeing with deadfox then

 

[Mulan15262]

What would Imprison do if the pokemon knew less than three moves? Or are we not going to worry since that would require a Smeargle to have only Sketched Imprison and try to use it?

I agree with three moves exactly for all other situations, but think that Imprison should be forced to use every move the user knows if it knows 3 or fewer moves (because it will imprison the moves the user does know, even if it is 3 or fewer, in-game, and no reason to make it different here).

 

[Gerard]

It would fail, as simple as that. While I agree we should change imprison to reflect in-game where you may imprison less that 3 moves, right now the pokemon has to have 3 moves in common with the opponent.

 

[Mulan15262]

I was asking what we think it should do, not what it currently does.

 

[Gerard]

It should fail. Until that part gets changed.

 

[Frosty]

Imprison Voting will be made in 72h if no one has anything other to add.

a)Imprison needs 3 moves to work
b)Imprison needs up to 3 moves to work

a)Imprison must specify moves learned by the user and mons possibly affected
b)Imprison must specify moves learned only by the user

(consider melees or doubles+ here)
a) The move specified on Imprison must be shared with the user and all the possibly affected pokemon;
b) The move specified on Imprison must be shared with the user and at least one of the possibly affected pokemon

- - - -

Other issue that needs fine tuning: Guard Swap.

NDA says: The user mentally swaps defensive boosts with the opponent. Their Defense and Special Defense stats are now swapped for two rounds, taking into account any previous stat changes.

Bulbapedia says: Guard Swap switches any changes to the user's Defense stat and Special Defense stat with any changes to the target's Defense stat and Special Defense stat. The stat stage changes provided by Guard Swap may be Baton Passed.


NDA says that Stats + Boosts are exchanged. In-game only the Boosts are exchanged. There is a difference between ingame and ASB. Should it be fixed or should it remain as is?

 

[Its_A_Random]

Common sense solution: Alter Guard Swap so it only swaps stat boosts to make the description unambiguous (That is supposed to be the effect).

 

[Frosty]

I agree that that was the intended effect. But the NDA description is VERY VERY VERY misleading, hence the post. For me it is clear that it changes stats AND changes even though I know it isn't what was intended.

I would prefer if the "common sense solution" was fiated, but I don't have power for that so if you may... <_<;. Right now that is not the effect people are interpretating. Just check zara vs tavok sick match for an example...

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Frosty is right, I agree to the fact that the NDA description needs revisiting.
I am changing the Zara vs Tavok ruling to play as per the ingame effect as that was the intention.

 

[Its_A_Random]

I just went ahead and fiated the ingame version of Guard Swap. I also removed the two round duration because Power Swap does not have a duration and yeah.

 

[Mulan15262]

In-game, Phantom Force has a BP of 90 (or so says veekun). Meanwhile, in asb, it has a BAP of 12. Is there any reason for this change when none of the other d/e moves (like Dig and Dive) got a BAP increase?

 

[Avnomke]

Phantom Force has 9 BAP in ASB. Shadow Force has 12 BAP, because in-game it has 120.

 

[Mulan15262]

In the NDA, it says that Phantom Force has a BAP of 12.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

10 bucks says someone was tired when updating the recent energy changes to the moves

 

[Canis Majoris]

http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...e-speed-natures.3483411/page-180#post-5789172

This is ridiculous. The queue is larger in size than some of these claims. Not only that, the payout for approving all of that is a measly 2.2 UC. That's hardly anything. I'd rather ref a flash and I'm sure most of you would agree. We need to change not only the payout but the way claims are done so this doesn't happen as often as it does.
So, some of us in IRC talked a bit.

The convo

16:24 Canis_Majoris i'm gonna take this to policy center
16:25 Tortferngatr ty
16:27 Tortferngatr Sure there's the subjective "0.2 UC or more for big claims" but who particularly wants to use that >_>
16:29 Canis_Majoris i'd change it to 0.5/1
16:30 Canis_Majoris it gives people incentive to approve more often
16:30 Tortferngatr I don't think my claim deserves 0.5
16:30 Tortferngatr or Texas's claim
16:30 Canis_Majoris 0.3 then?
16:30 Tortferngatr I'd probably just make differences for approving different things
16:30 Canis_Majoris (0.6 for bigger ones)
16:30 Tortferngatr and do it by mon
16:30 Tortferngatr er
16:30 Tortferngatr by what's actually being approved per post
16:31 Avnomke .5 UC per new mon claim, .5 UC per evolution, .1 UC per battle
16:31 Tortferngatr ^ something like that
16:33 Tortferngatr Also 0.1 UC per updated mon other than a new mon or evolution.
16:34 Canis_Majoris hmmmm
16:34 Canis_Majoris what about reffing
16:34 Canis_Majoris 0.1?
16:34 Tortferngatr yeah
16:34 Canis_Majoris okay cool
16:34 Canis_Majoris seems good
16:34 Canis_Majoris any objections to wrapping this up in the post?
16:34 Mowtom No
16:35 Canis_Majoris cool
16:35 Tortferngatr Mon updates for gen 6: 0.5 UC per updated mon

I think you all agree, but that's why I'm making this post here:
16:36 Tortferngatr because this would also help make approving "profitable" for its own sake, it could also help actually attract new approvers for short-term approvals for their own sake