Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[ZhengTann]

Keeping track of stuff....

Move classification: This is gonna be a project that requires a lot of commitment, if we want to go down the road. If we want to do it, I would suggest someone outside of Council to take the helm (unless a Council member wants to do so himself). Maybe get IAR's approval, since he's the Data Mod?

Weak Armour: IIRC the consensus was if there's enough Council members for it we'll take it up to Discussion. But since we've been sitting at this for so long, I'm gonna say it's either going to sit a while longer, or a long while longer.

King's Rock: So far, only tavok liked Gold's post bothered enough to come up with discussion materials. Personally I'm not a fan of doing it because there are a lot of underwhelming Sig Items like Water Stone for Starmie/Cloyster that was shot down last time. Also because one thing could lead to another and before you know it seven Items will be buffed. But if there's some really overwhelming support then we'll go for a Discussion (at least 5 likes, people). For now it's being sat on.

Consumable Items: Same with King's Rock at the moment. Personally I like it because of all things, it eases approvers' workload (Okay fine TLR referees too), and all we have to do is to ramp up the CC cost. However, it does mess with RPs that give these items as rewards, so something to think about there. In the meantime, it'll sit in Feedback until there's enough support.

 

[zarator]

Can we discus Consumable Items? They're woefully lacking in enforcement of profile deductions etc., and with the release of Weakness Policy we now have an infinite use consumable item. I'd like to discus extending this to berries and other consumables =\

I can see an argument for berries and such working like Weakness Policy, but the real issue is with TLR items - which are obviously meant to be consummables.

 

[Dogfish44]

TLRs, being a narrow section of ASB, are already fairly solid in their enforcement of consumable items - we wouldn't want to impact RPs. The issue for me definitely boils down to Berries etc.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I'm definitely guilty of forgetting to alter my consumable berry numbers (hello enigma) and I've thought about this a couple times. The first question that needs to be answered is: is there a point to enforcing consumables which leads to the question: "do we want consumables to be consumed in battle terms only, or consumed in terms of your profile and greater asb."

The former is the spirit of 'consumable' while the latter makes it far easier to monitor since you need never remove things from your profile.

Again, TLR excepted since those are given as lost in the prize claim at the end of a TLR

 

[Leethoof]

Can we please make power herbs infinite i always forget to remove them and tbh i dont even know if I'm supposed to delete one if i halfway-use it (like 2/5 charges) so I just kinda buy some every once in a while but it makes me feel guilty :(

 

[Maxim]

Throwing my support behind changing consumable items. In my opinion there's little reason to make them consumable, since the items are a fair bit harder than in game. For example, if you want berries in game, you just plant them, turn the system off, and then boom, you get a lot more than five. Due to the time required to do matches in ASB [discounting flashes], you'd have to do one or two battles that may well last a week or more to get five items that are a pain to keep track of.

My suggestion would be to increase the prices, but make them all infinite use (so Power Herb would go for probably 5 CC, but would follow the same ideas as other items). Since this is inevitably going to come down to a question of retroactivity, I'd say if you have at least one Herb/Berry/Whatever then you start with one and have to purchase more? Although I think Berries should still come in multiples if only for raids. (Totally not biased there).

Overall, a good idea and I think we should do something about it.

 

[Frosty]

Should Self-Reffing give UC? Total or partial? Due to how "urgent" it is, we may end up fiating stuff, but what do you guys think about it?

 

[Dogfish44]

I don't think it should. Makes life easier =\

 

[Avnomke]

Half UC makes the most sense to me, since UC is given out for doing "community service" and with self-reffing you're doing half the community service.

No UC would work too, though.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Why introduce a new refereeing mechanic and then make it worth nothing extra for the extra work done?

 

[deadfox081]

It can easily be argued the worth of self reffing is getting your match reffed much faster and on your schedule

 

[Its_A_Random]

And that is why you do not gain any KOC for self-refereeing. Any further restriction to counters at this point feels arbitrary since counter reductions were not part of the original proposal save no KOC and as such, there needs to be a convincing argument before I can get on board with reducing counters, even if there already is an incentive in having matches done in an arguably faster time-frame.

What argument is there for reducing UC?

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

And that is why you do not gain any KOC for self-refereeing. Any further restriction to counters at this point feels arbitrary since counter reductions were not part of the original proposal save no KOC and as such, there needs to be a convincing argument before I can get on board with reducing counters, even if there already is an incentive in having matches done in an arguably faster time-frame.

What argument is there for reducing UC?

Just mentioning an argument to contribute to the discussion.

Argument:

White listed Folks would stop reffing battles between other folks?

[I know it is a negative exaggerated argument, but bear with me]

For example: If I am a while listed ref and I can get my own battles reffed (which I don't mind losing = No KOC), then my incentive to ref battles between other folks drops a bit.

Affected Battles: Tower Battles and Flash battles between two people, who are not White Listed.

Points in favor of Same UC:
1) There is already a reduction of "No KOC".
2) If folks miss-out on getting their battles reffed, they would apply to get white listed themselves, which increases the quality of reffing and the quantity of overall refs.

Points in favor of lower UC:
1) KOC reduction affects both the ref and the other player and is a reduction (per say) for a quicker battle.
2) Too many applicants for White Listed Refs.
3) New player's battles might be stuck in the Battle Tower queue, as White Listed refs may be busy / exhausted after reffing each other's battles through IRC or PMs/VMs.

Observance:
There is no incentive for a white listed ref (who is looking to train his pokemon = indifferent to KOC) to ref other folks' battles, if he is getting the same UC, EC, MC and AC as he would get, if he had reffed someones battle, and got his battle reffed. Aka no Three way flashes anymore.

Although, it is always better for a white listed ref to self ref their battle (For UC and regular counters); it is not necessary that they would do so. For example: Folks may just want some UC and may not have a need to train one of their pokemon.

Pondering:
Would a reduction in UC be an incentive for a white listed ref to consider reffing other folks battles? I don't think so. If refs want to ref your battle, they would do so irrespective of one more/less UC.

But playing devil's advocate for the sake of balance. As in, if a ref would get 2 UC instead of 3, and wouldn't get a KOC, then they might prefer to ref a battle between two folks, rather than opting to self-ref. Although with 3 UC and no KOC, the chances are minimal. This again, extrapolates on higher formats (2 KOC in case of 2v2).

Conclusion:
But the limitations that are laid on the White Listed refs, and the trust that we have on the folks leading the program.

Folks incharge

Mentoring Program Leader: Frosty
Reffing Program Manager: Akela
White Listed refs: Avnomke, TSRD, Rainman Legends, Dogfish44, Ragnarokalex, tavok, ZhengTann, Birkal, akela.

Makes me believe that, we would not have any abuse with the system. Or if one arises, then it will be fixed accordingly.

My suggestion:
Let it be regular UC payment for now, and we can address it later (if needed).

 

[Its_A_Random]

Of course White-Listed referees will still referee matches between two other people, saying they will not is just hyperbole. Same thing for "three-way" flashes. Yes there might be less incentive but what if both players still want KOC or an impartial body? You are jumping to baseless conclusions with regards to this path we have started to head down. I mean come on, it has only been six to seven hours since self-refereeing became official; give it some time before we change things around.

Give it a week or two before we consider making changes this new mechanic.

 

[Frosty]

I wanted feedback with urgency because I thought it was an omission. But I suppose if no special rules are there, then it means that the standard rules apply.

In other words, Self-Reffing gives UC as usual. We ca readdress the matter later if necessary.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Guys, I was thinking about something and here it is:

A new clause for substitutions called the "Specificity / Variation Clause": [Name can be changed]

What we do at present:
If you want to have a substitution like "If Opp uses Substitute". Currently you can do only one action to a generic type of substitute or one action to a specific type of substitute.

Eg:
1) IF Opp uses substitute, THEN Encore.
2) IF Opp has a substitute of 25 HP, THEN use Explosion.

But, we are not able to make adjustments based on the specific HP of the substitute. Yes we can work around it like, "If Opp's substitute has a remaining HP greater than 15 THEN use Explosion." However, This will still not fulfill the requirement of subbing for the exact situation.

What the new clause would do:
IF opp uses Substitute (15) then use Flamethrower, Or Substitute (20) then use Fire Blast, Or Substitute (25) then use Explosion.

This only works in case the move that is subbed for, has a specific variation. Like Double Team Clones, Poison Sting Contact, Clear Smog (Fog), Agility (Boost / Evasive), etc...

How big a change is this:
We already do it in another form at present, like "If D/E move, and not suspended" This however makes for one specific variation of the move again. But with this new clause, you could sub for D/E move, under suspension and not under suspension.

Pros and Cons:
- The first order becomes a bit easier.
- The problem we face with a limit of two substitutions would be solved to an extent.
- We still sub for a particular move, but we can cover all variants of it. Thus not having to use two substitutions for the same move.
- It still wouldn't impact the second order as much, because only one move would be subbed for this way. Usually the player with second order has different ways to lay the hurt.
- This would reduce sub abuse due to small overlook and wouldn't take much away from the second order either. (Just the fact that second order wouldn't completely obliterate first order with a sub abuse).

Cons:
- This is a considerable change and would need to be tested a bit.
- This would still not completely equalize a first order and a second order. (Although that can't possibly be done I guess).
- Obviously the new clause will have limitations and cons that I didn't notice, so please fire away at the topic so we can work something out.

 

[Its_A_Random]

I am going to say no to this for one reason:

Slowking: Endure ~ Light Screen ~ Earthquake
Swampert: Earthquake ~ Bulldoze ~ Earthquake

IF Krilowatt uses Toxic (Slowking) {
Before Slowking uses Endure, Slowking uses Evasive Teleport A1 or A2 and Protect A3 and Swampert uses Earth Power (Krilowatt) in the place of any Earthquake or Bulldoze
After Slowking uses Endure
}
IF Krilowatt uses Imprison (Earthquake) {
A1 or A2, change the rest of Swampert's actions to Bulldoze => Earth Power => Bulldoze, always starting from bulldoze, unless one of the other subs says otherwise
A3, change Swampert to Earth Power (Krilowatt) unless one of the other subs says otherwise
}
IF Lanturn uses HP Grass {
IF it is at Swampert in A1 and Krillowatt targets Swampert the same action, Slowking moves all actions and subs along and uses Earthquake
IF There are three or more HP Grasses aimed at Pert in A1 or A2 and Lanturn attacks last or Krilowatt doesn't use Protect A3, and Krilowatt doesn't use Torment A1, use Bide A1
OTHERWISE IF there are two Hidden Power Grasses aimed at Swampert in an action, Swampert uses Protect unless it is A3 and Swampert used Protect A2
OTHERWISE IF Imprison and not Torment from Krilowatt, use Swampert uses Earthquake until Imprison and the Bulldoze, except for above HP Grass subs
OTHERWISE IF Torment and not Imprison, Earthquake until Torment and then alternate Bulldoze ~ Earthquake, unless it is A1 or one of the above HP Grass subs activates for Swampert
OTHERWISE IF neither Torment or Imprison, use Earthquake * 3 except for above HP Grass subs
OTHERWISE IF Torment and Imprison, use Earthquake until Torment or Imprison and then alternate Earth Power ~ Bulldoze, unless Torment is A1, in which case Earthquake ~ Bulldoze ~ Earth Power, with this taking priority over all but the above HP Grass subs
IF Counter by Krilowatt, replace and Earthquake or Bulldoze with Mirror Coat (Lanturn) if it uses HP Grass that action and Earth Power (Krilowatt) otherwise, with this taking priority over other subs except the first three HP Grass subs
IF there are at least two HP Grasses/Thunderbolts/Volt Switche/Discharges at Slowking A2 or A3, Lanturn lands the last blow, Krilowatt does not use Torment at Slowking, Endure worked A1 and Toxic is not used at Slowking, Slowking uses Bide A2
}

And we all know how well that went.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

IAR, that sub of Athenodorous is outrageously ridiculous. The variation clause doesn't work like Athenodorous's cascading w/e that was. It is more like, just one substitution for a move that has a variant. If the move doesn't have a variant like Tackle, Toxic or HP Grass then there would be no available variation clause. Imo, we need some more discussion on this. Just bear with me for an open discussion. It may be a way for us to stop increasing substitution limit.

Also, I understand that there can be an argument of this clause being unnecessary. But mostly this clause benefits the folks who are new to ASB and who do not have the time to cook up a complex substitution.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Yeah sure, thinking about it more, it might not really be game changing and maybe my head is clouded because I played in the era where people were treating complex subs like the Athenosub as legal. I just do not want to open up that can of worms again. Like:

"IF Damaging Fighting Move, THEN Counter if Low Kick, Force Palm if Focus Punch."
"IF Braviary uses Sky Drop, THEN Gravity if Aromatisse was targeted, Thunder Wave (Braviary) if you were targeted, Gravity if Arceus was targeted."
"IF Protect was used, THEN use Earth Power (Heatran) unless Protect (Heatran) was used, in which case, Ice Beam (Shaymin) instead."

The last time we allowed complex subs, it was ridiculous and your proposed clause opens up things like that (unless I am missing the point which I probably am). Sure it could be heavily restricted but then it could become a pointless mechanic no one would use; a waste of a mechanic. As such I do not see the merit in going ahead with this. Or maybe I am just paranoid and am exaggerating and people actually want this proposal implemented. I do not really know.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

"IF Damaging Fighting Move, THEN Counter if Low Kick, Force Palm if Focus Punch."
"IF Braviary uses Sky Drop, THEN Gravity if Aromatisse was targeted, Thunder Wave (Braviary) if you were targeted, Gravity if Arceus was targeted."
"IF Protect was used, THEN use Earth Power (Heatran) unless Protect (Heatran) was used, in which case, Ice Beam (Shaymin) instead."

Hmm let me try explaining with your examples.

"IF Damaging Fighting Move, THEN Counter if Low Kick, Force Palm if Focus Punch."

Is not valid because there is one generic Attack Clause and two specific attack moves that do not have a specific variant to them. The above sub reads like three independent subs. Subs of this nature would not occur with the Variation clause.

"IF Braviary uses Sky Drop, THEN Gravity if Aromatisse was targeted, Thunder Wave (Braviary) if you were targeted, Gravity if Arceus was targeted."

Yes, this becomes possible as targeting two different pokemon is a variation for all moves. Allowing this would make ordering first in doubles+ battles easier than it actually is right now; and it doesn't impact the second order as much, as they would only be restricted to using the move while activating the sub or not using the move.

"IF Protect was used, THEN use Earth Power (Heatran) unless Protect (Heatran) was used, in which case, Ice Beam (Shaymin) instead."

Yes this is possible and it is already possible (in a limited way) but with complex substitutions like.

1) IF your target is under the effects of a P/E move then redirect to the next target in a defined target list (Pokemon A -> Pokemon B -> Pokemon C).

2) If Heatran uses protect, AND it is not passed to Shaymin, AND this subsitution was not triggered the previous action, THEN use Ice Beam (Shaymin) that action instead.

3) If either opp uses protect, AND Shaymin is under the effects of a P/E move, AND Heatran is not under the effects of a P/E move, THEN use Earth Power (Heatran) that action instead.

But with the new clause it would be like:
IF Heatran is under the effects of P/E then Ice Beam (Shaymin)
Or Shaymin is under the effects of P/E then Earth Power (Heatran)
Or Both are under the effects of P/E then Substitute (15 HP).

Now this will limit the second order to triggering the sub in order to use the move and the ability to abuse the sub would be considerably limited. This somewhat fixes the difference between first order and second order in doubles+, makes it easier for new players to get into doubles+, and doesn't deviate much from our existing rules of substitutions.

 

[Its_A_Random]

You never said it did not apply to sub classes so do not put words in my mouth. Learn to think. Signs that this was not well thought out: confirmed. Also you have misinterpreted my third sub which would be worded as two substitutions and that unless sub is actually illegal at the moment. But that is beside the point.

Anyhow, if anything, you are discouraging players from playing multiples from a psychological standpoint because they will look in a Doubles match and see order sets that fill the entire computer screen and go "Yeah no I do not like this" because it becomes far more difficult to comprehend order-sets for the players and referees. Yeah this might be considered an emotion-based argument but you have to realise that ASB already has a steep learning curve as it is. We do not want to make it steeper by opening a can of worms with subs that take up half the screen and whatnot.

Stop trying to twist ASB just because you want to make really complex subs.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

You never said it did not apply to sub classes so do not put words in my mouth. Learn to think. Signs that this was not well thought out: confirmed. Also you have misinterpreted my third sub which would be worded as two substitutions and that unless sub is actually illegal at the moment. But that is beside the point.

Anyhow, if anything, you are discouraging players from playing multiples from a psychological standpoint because they will look in a Doubles match and see order sets that fill the entire computer screen and go "Yeah no I do not like this" because it becomes far more difficult to comprehend order-sets for the players and referees. Yeah this might be considered an emotion-based argument but you have to realise that ASB already has a steep learning curve as it is. We do not want to make it steeper by opening a can of worms with subs that take up half the screen and whatnot.

Stop trying to twist ASB just because you want to make really complex subs.

Yeah third sub is actually two substitutions but they can be worked into one with neutral orders and targeting down.

I am not sure if this is going to discourage people to play doubles+, Imo the biggest discouragement for a player is constantly losing in a format or having the feeling that they cannot possibly compete unless they spend a lot more time on their orders.

I do not want this to go through for personal reasons IAR, I don't mind if it doesn't go through. I just wanted to see if we could ease up the first order bit in doubles+ so it is not considered as difficult. Most Folks, do stay out of doubles for this reason, that they don't want to think of all the different possibilities.

And Touche, you are right. I didn't think this through and honestly, I don't think it will be passed either. But I just want to start a discussion, so we can work something out, to make first order to be a bit easier. That is all. Cheers!

 

[tavok]

If this has any chance of going through, get rid.of the "targeting is a variamt of a move" part. I mean, the original concept you proposed was intersting.

The way I see this, it would work like this:

- IF double team, metal claw if 1 clone and rock slide if 2 clones.

- IF Dig, counter if unsuspended and stealth rockthe first suspended action, curse the second and stockpile the third.

- IF Substitute, THEN Snatch if 15 hp, Focus Punch if.20 or 25 hp.

And things like that. I am on the fence here with teleport as the two variants have entirely different purposes (same with agility), so it is like blocking two moves instead of one.

I also don't know from.where did IAR get this worked with clauses seeing how the op said you only made a sub for 1 move but with all its variants.

Come on guys, let's stop insta-shooting down Gale's ideas and actually think them through. While he has shown that sometimes he doesn't think them through (no offense intended), we should not have kind of attitude.

Also, let's please stop attacking each other in these threads.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

The way I see this, it would work like this:

- IF double team, metal claw if 1 clone and rock slide if 2 clones.

- IF Dig, counter if unsuspended and stealth rockthe first suspended action, curse the second and stockpile the third.

- IF Substitute, THEN Snatch if 15 hp, Focus Punch if.20 or 25 hp.

Thank you Tavok, Those are perfect examples to what I am proposing. The targeting part actually came into picture when IAR raised those specific examples. Although keeping the targeting part out (that includes protective / evasive) is cool with me, and the main purpose of this clause was to make specificity with different variations of a move a possibility.

 

[Dogfish44]

I'm sorry, but no. Not until I see something resembling justification.

If you're suggesting something that's effectively a direct buff to something that's already doable, then it falls upon you to justify the need first.