Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[Gemini Taurus]

If widening our choices is what people want, I've been tinkering with an idea for an effect for the contest scarves.

Because each colour of scarf corresponds to a contest attribute (Beauty, Cool, Cute, Smart, Tough) and each attribute corresponds to a certain type of nature (+SpA, Atk, Speed, Def, SpD respectively). I was thinking they could have an effect something like this. (Blue Scarf used as an example)

Blue Scarf | Item Type: Held | Cost: XX CC | Affected Pokemon: All pokemon who have a +Special Attack nature |
Enhances nature to increase Special Attack by two (2) ranks instead of one (1). Negates negative effect of nature (ie. Negates evasion and speed reduction of a -Speed nature).

And then one of two other discussed effects, those being:

1) Increases the BAP of all "Beauty" moves by one (1).
2) Confers <Beauty related ability> to pokemon if they do not get it naturally.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first effect seems very tame and I'd maybe boost it to 2 BAP or add -1EN depending on people's thoughts. The second however is more different, but I think not too crazy.

The current abilities I would propose would be Clear Body for Beauty, Moxie for Cool, Cute Charm for Cute, Analytic for Smart and Tough Claws for tough.

This allows the generally lesser used natures (+Def and +SpD) to have a boost with their generally stronger abilities, while still allowing for everything to remain flavourful. I think this would allow for more diversity in both items and natures if these were introduced, while not being so centralizing that they would take over the game.

Just an idea I've been working with if we do want to go the route of adding new items.

tldr: Scarves - boost nature, remove negative part of nature, either boost contest moves bap or confer flavour ability.

EDIT: if we were to go with this, I believe the logical way to go for pink scarf would be to enhance the speed and accuracy boost to the same as a +nature moody boost

EDIT TWO: just a note, those were just quick abilities thought up, others would probably work better, but they were just put there for an idea

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

Imo we need a sub hotfix (ikr more sub stuff eww) to make chance clauses regarding a mon's type to be limited to 3 type clauses per sub.

Otherwise stuff like "IF kecleon is flying type OR IF kecleon is grass type, OR IF kecleon is ground type OR IF kecleon is dragon type, THEN blizzard" is legally 1 sub by anti-pedant.
The reworded legal version being listing AND NOT for the other 14 types.

Also just because nothing was said beforehand and "why didnt i say anything when we were fixing stuff" doesn't mean this isn't a necessary fix right now.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Please demonstrate how substitutions like that are bad enough to warrant a hotfix. Is it because it is way too long for most people to comprehend (Anti-Pedant clause says nay)? Is it because it restricts the Protean user too much?

If you want my opinion, the fact that you can do that is actually not bad for anything; people have often complained whenever they have had to order first against a Protean Pokémon and being able to catch-all for specific types helps promote competitiveness and makes these Pokémon much easier to deal with from a first-order perspective since you can now react accordingly.

Maybe it might shift the advantage too far in favour of the user ordering first vs. a Protean Pokémon but you should also consider what is good about the status quo, especially when the only two FE Pokémon with the ability that are on the receiving end of these substitutions are top tier threats.

 

[Birkal]

What is up with "gym practice test" that the committee is now assigning? If a gym leader has proven that they're capable of running a gym through qualifiers, they should be able to start being a gym leader immediately. It seems like more red tape and months of waiting to have a gym leader wait for a regular BT match to be completed twice -- that's like half a year of waiting. The gym committee is already approving the arena, so why not just let them fight? What is the hold up?

It'd be one thing if the gym leader requested it, but to actively force it on someone who earned the gym through qualifiers AND now has to get it approved seems pointless.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I'll preface by saying I wasn't involved in that decision.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to say "hey you made some decisions that could have been better, and all that was needed to realize that was a little more experience with your guys."

It's functionally no different then a leader choosing to delay the opening of their gym voluntarily to do a couple matches.

edit:
[18:28:50] <Frosty> it was less of "you must do this to survive" and more "we highly suggest you do this to survive"
[18:29:21] <Frosty> if zt were to firmly disagree with that, then we (rather: I at least) would probably let him fall for himself.

 

[Frosty]

If the answer were to be only yay or nay we would say no to many things for the smallest reasons and that would slow down the process way more.

I appreciate your concern in timeliness, but our concern on having a nice gym up is kinda more important. Mind you, those "practice matches" are less of a demand and more a "strong suggestion". If ZhengTann (who is being tagged so this is clear) were to highly disagree with the need of said matches, or insist on having one only, we would probably just let him fall for himself.

 

[ZhengTann]

Holy smocks getting tagged in Policy is not the most pleasant surprise Uhm, if it helps, I promise to do all I can to speed up the process, even if it does involve showcase practice matches.

 

[Its_A_Random]

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.

 

[deadfox081]

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.

 

[YellowAdminSilver]

Speaking of.

Items are too expensive. Like, there's a reason that people tend to get a shitton of mons, and that's because for the cost of 1 Expert Belt you could get 3 Fire/Water/Grass starter sets, and an Eevee to boot.

Can we consider cutting prices down a lot? Like, 50%?

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?

 

[JJayyFeather]

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.

Also bringing up something that is starting to come up mainly due to ASS and TLRs: I think we need to apply a formula to the way that CC is doled out. Reason being is that while the chart has worked, how do you give CC properly for the Guardian fight of Mysterious Cove (3v2 "Triples") when its average mon on the field count is actually less than the standard amount for its format? Or the magikarp trainer that is 4v6 Mixed with 1v3 fighting? There needs to be a more standard way to calculate CC just as there is for UC.
Possible solution: CC = CEILING([Total Mons Brought]/[Maximum Mons on one side of the field])
I dunno, I'm spitballing with the formula, but I feel like there should be one.

 

[Frosty]

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.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Frosty please go ahead and implement this post as no one has expressed opposition

Also can we start a discussion on the subpoints in that post, namely regarding dropping Memento's EN cost to really low and forcing all Self-KO moves to require full energy. Or just implement. Post if you oppose, like if you support to determine need for discussion.

 

[Dogfish44]

00:52:13 ~ <Lucy> "IF Scolipede is not under the effects of a P/E move, AND Scolipede is not behind a substitute, AND Scolipede doesn't have Double Team clones up, THEN use Thief on the first instance."
00:52:40 ~ <Lucy> p sure thats illegal right
00:52:40 ~ <FortColors> I think so
00:52:57 ~ <FortColors> because "not under p/e" is the only opposing move clause
00:55:06 ~ <Lucy> IAR?
00:55:24 ~ <~Its_A_Random> it's legal
00:57:02 ~ <FortColors> did we remove that thing about move clauses involving the opponent needs at least one "is using"?
00:57:02 ~ <phoenix> i'm 99% sure that's not legal because you can't have a NOT without one without not
00:57:13 ~ <FortColors> or was that just discussed and not implemented
00:57:18 ~ <phoenix> that was implemented
00:57:34 ~ <phoenix> i should know :v
00:57:41 ~ <FortColors> lol
00:58:24 ~ <&dogfish44> it's awkwardly illegal, but under current rules it's illegal.
00:58:42 ~ <@elevator_music> ok tlr is a gogogo
00:58:42 ~ <FortColors> !asbmove stealth rock
00:58:42 ~ <@elevator_music> maybe i'll have a manaphy by next september
00:58:42 ~ <FortColors> !asbmove fake out
00:59:22 ~ <FortColors> !learn alakazam, helping hand
00:59:22 ~ <TIBot> Alakazam can't learn Helping Hand.
00:59:22 ~ <FortColors> :(
00:59:55 ~ <Lucy> okay so uhh
01:02:07 ~ <Lucy> it's... legal then?
01:02:29 ~ <phoenix> it shouldn't be
01:02:41 ~ <Lucy> dangit gale
01:05:20 ~ <~Its_A_Random> it's def legal
01:05:53 ~ <~Its_A_Random> if not move and not chance and not chance
01:06:54 ~ <FortColors> i like how lucy is like ok; iar says no, ignore everyone else. Asthmerian mentality in a nutshell.
01:07:17 ~ <FortColors> im not quite sure, but im pretty sure if not move is illegal if theres no if move involved
01:07:45 ~ <phoenix> you can't have if not move
01:07:47 ~ <phoenix> without if move
01:07:47 ~ <Lucy> imean like yeah with the "without not" thingo
01:07:48 ~ <phoenix> we added that
01:07:49 ~ <Lucy> but idk
01:08:10 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I thought we legalised if not move ?_?
01:08:19 ~ <FortColors> i think it used to be illegal
01:08:21 ~ <phoenix> then we illegalised it if you don't have if move
01:08:23 ~ <FortColors> *legal
01:08:31 ~ <FortColors> subs are too confusing
01:08:37 ~ <phoenix> when everybody decided phoenixsubs were a horrible thing and to blame for everything bad in asb
01:08:43 ~ <FortColors> we should just remove them and ban kecleon/greninja
01:08:45 ~ <FortColors> and then be fine
01:09:07 ~ <~Its_A_Random> "All clauses can be appended by 'NOT'. Note that KO Clauses appended with 'NOT' become Chance clauses."
01:09:17 ~ <phoenix> it's somewhere else
01:09:28 ~ <~Its_A_Random> "If you have any attack clauses for your opponent's team, then at least one opponent's attack clause must not have a NOT clause."
01:09:28 ~ <phoenix> that it should say you can only have IF NOT MOVE if you have IF MOVE
01:09:42 ~ <~Its_A_Random> except he's only subbing for one move clause
01:09:49 ~ <phoenix> and
01:09:53 ~ <phoenix> one = any
01:10:10 ~ <~Its_A_Random> "Substitutions for effects which last either for only the action the move is used, or require constant use of a move(s) to maintain (Such as 'Under the effect of a P/E move' and 'In the evasive stage of a D/E move') are treated as both a Chance Clause and Move Clause, obeying rules for both."
01:10:22 ~ <phoenix> p/e is an attack clause
01:10:24 ~ <~Its_A_Random> sub and dt dont last the one action
01:10:30 ~ <~Its_A_Random> yes
01:10:31 ~ <phoenix> therefore he has an attack clause
01:10:42 ~ <phoenix> none of her attack clauses don't have not clauses
01:10:54 ~ <phoenix> therefore the second thing you quoted makes it illegal
01:10:56 ~ <~Its_A_Random> not p/e is the attack clause we established that
01:11:12 ~ <FortColors> yeah it has a not in front of it
01:11:29 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I mean
01:11:32 ~ <FortColors> and the second thing says if you have a move clause with a not, you also need a move clause without a not
01:11:42 ~ <~Its_A_Random> please direct me to the part where it says
01:11:45 ~ <phoenix> "If you have any attack clauses for your opponent's team, then at least one opponent's attack clause must not have a NOT clause." makes IF NOT P/E illegal unless you have IF a move
01:11:50 ~ <~Its_A_Random> you cant do this
01:11:50 ~ * LightWolf (~LightWolf@diabolic.dog.sanyi) Quit (Quit: )
01:12:11 ~ <~Its_A_Random> ._.
01:12:18 ~ <~Its_A_Random> who added that lol
01:12:24 ~ <phoenix> when everyone
01:12:28 ~ <phoenix> panicked about phoenixsubs
01:12:35 ~ <Lucy> I thought that was voted on or something idk
01:12:41 ~ <FortColors> i think the idea was against not d/e and not p/e
01:12:44 ~ <&dogfish44> People sick of 'IF NOT X THEN Y', and the surrounding culture therin
01:13:02 ~ <phoenix> there was a voting yes
01:13:03 ~ <FortColors> everything was voted on by the council lucy
01:13:10 ~ <~Its_A_Random> am I really the only person not worried about if not move or smth ._.
01:13:20 ~ <~Its_A_Random> shows how much behind the times I am
01:13:39 ~ <Lucy> illegal then, kays
01:13:49 ~ <&dogfish44> I can't stand them - mainly because you have to figure out what the actual orders are meant to be @@
01:14:46 ~ <~Its_A_Random> like why shouldnt I be allowed to earthquake my opponent if he doesnt magnet rise
01:14:50 ~ <phoenix> it was specifically my IF NOT under P/E AND NOT under D/E AND NOT to use Counter THEN Giga Drain the first and third instances and Power Whip the second instance
01:14:55 ~ <phoenix> and then mowtom's pushed it over the edge
01:15:36 ~ <~Its_A_Random> and yeah those two handbook things are
01:15:42 ~ <~Its_A_Random> quite contradictory
01:15:47 ~ <%Rainman> New sub rule: stop making your subs obnoxious as fuck and sucking the fun out of the game
01:16:02 ~ <&dogfish44> Like, maybe it's ingrained habit, but subs which react to things are easier to read clearly than subs which are... almost always active? Also, what rainman said
01:16:15 ~ <~Its_A_Random> it says you can append not to anything then it says no you cannot do it to attack without having an if
01:16:56 ~ <~Its_A_Random> ... why couldnt have we just kept the old sub rules lol
01:17:02 ~ <&dogfish44> Which old sub rules?
01:17:17 ~ <~Its_A_Random> the ones before the overhaul last year
01:17:20 ~ <&dogfish44> The easily abused ones, or the broken ones, or the ones so complex we would have 2 hour debates on
01:17:29 ~ <&dogfish44> oh, the latter two then @@
01:17:35 ~ <~Its_A_Random> or "overhaul" if you rather
01:17:41 ~ <Lucy> you can append not to everything, but if it's a move clause you need an "and" or smth idk w/e
01:18:15 ~ <&dogfish44> But yeah, you can append a 'NOT' to any clause type - you just can't go 'NOT' on every move clause you use.
01:18:32 ~ <phoenix> except that you can't actually append NOTs in singles
01:18:35 ~ <phoenix> because you only have one move clause
01:18:48 ~ <phoenix> except AND NOT move next action
01:19:47 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I mean why cant we just make an exception for a straight if not move condition without anything else attached to it
01:19:52 ~ <~Its_A_Random> like
01:19:58 ~ <FortColors> you could go IF NOT p/e move, AND damaging fire type move on any other action, THEN Knock Off
01:20:09 ~ <FortColors> as a syclant
01:20:09 ~ <~Its_A_Random> when if if not p/e then taunt ever going to break anything
01:20:28 ~ <~Its_A_Random> because its the same as ordering taunt then subbing for if p/e
01:20:41 ~ <FortColors> that sounds like a great idea tbh
01:20:51 ~ <FortColors> emphasis on sounds
01:21:01 ~ <FortColors> i havent thought about it at all
01:21:03 ~ <FortColors> so lol
01:21:42 ~ <~Its_A_Random> most straight if not x subs are outright bad and abusable
01:22:03 ~ <Deck_Knight> If not JUSTICE then FREEDOM
01:22:18 ~ <phoenix> because it was required for phoenixsubs
01:22:24 ~ <phoenix> therefore people wanted it gone
01:22:36 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I'm not talking about
01:22:44 ~ <phoenix> even though they were killed three times over before that
01:22:49 ~ <phoenix> *two
01:22:49 ~ <FortColors> id prefer justice over freedom actually
01:22:51 ~ <&dogfish44> I think we could probably remove that rule tbh
01:22:54 ~ <~Its_A_Random> if not move and (endless) not chance
01:23:06 ~ <&dogfish44> I can deal with the endless not-chance
01:23:13 ~ <~Its_A_Random> i'm talking about
01:23:16 ~ <~Its_A_Random> if not move
01:23:18 ~ <~Its_A_Random> nothing else
01:23:26 ~ <&dogfish44> it's the not-d/e and not-p/e and not counter and not fake out and not...
01:23:53 ~ <phoenix> you already ran out of move clause :v
01:23:54 ~ <phoenix> besides
01:24:12 ~ <phoenix> zam's proposal by ITSELF really handled them almost entirely
01:24:17 ~ <FortColors> tbh the 1 move clause per action + setting p/e and d/e as move clauses does that well enough
01:24:29 ~ <~Its_A_Random> like yeah you can have that amendment that was made god knows how long ago
01:24:31 ~ <FortColors> phoenix just wants more things to do with subs
01:24:49 ~ <&dogfish44> we basically voted on 3 different ways to kill obnoxious subs
01:25:00 ~ <~Its_A_Random> I'm just saying to make a sole exception for an if not move sub with no extra conditions
01:25:01 ~ <phoenix> that all worked by themselves pretty well too :x
01:25:05 ~ <&dogfish44> General case: Should "IF Scolipede is not under the effects of a P/E move, AND Scolipede is not behind a substitute, AND Scolipede doesn't have Double Team clones up, THEN use Thief on the first instance." be legal or illegal, in your opinions?
01:25:05 ~ * Skyla (uid131181@synIRC-2FBF67D2.brockwell.irccloud.com) Quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
01:25:14 ~ <FortColors> Oh wait
01:25:14 ~ <~Its_A_Random> because they arent broken
01:25:16 ~ <FortColors> i just realized
01:25:23 ~ <FortColors> cooldown is a move sub isnt it
01:25:26 ~ <&dogfish44> n
01:25:35 ~ <FortColors> because its a status that lasts 1 action
01:25:37 ~ <~Its_A_Random> cooldown is a debuff
01:25:45 ~ <~Its_A_Random> not a move
01:26:08 ~ <~Its_A_Random> calling cooldown a move is analogous to calling sleep a move
01:26:16 ~ <~Its_A_Random> in the context of asb
01:26:17 ~ <FortColors> ok
01:26:22 ~ <FortColors> i just reread that line
01:26:24 ~ <&dogfish44> being a 1a effect isn't the same as "Substitutions for effects which last either for only the action the move is used," :P
01:26:25 ~ <FortColors> and yeah youre rig ht
01:26:34 ~ <FortColors> yea lol
01:27:46 ~ <&dogfish44> I'm going to toss this log into feedback @@

Discuss.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

From what i made of the convo, iar wanted a special exception added so you can go "IF NOT x, THEN y" with no other clauses. Dogfish seemed fine with just removing the part about needing a not-less move clause in the sub, since other things fixed shit

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

I agree with IAR, we can have an "If NOT x, THEN y" with no other clauses and it doesn't break anything, and at the same time protects the first order from weird scenarios.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

If there's only 1 enemy in a doubles battle and no target is specified on a singletarget move, do you roll from all possible targets or just hit the one?
And same question for if there's 2 enemies on the field?

Responses I got in irc were:

Roll from enemies only in both cases
Roll from all targets (including allies) when multiple enemies, but hit the single enemy if only one.
Roll from all targets including allies in all cases.

I can reasonably see the first and third, but the second isnt consistent so ew.


EDIT:
More often, however, positioning is off, in which case all Pokemon are adjacent to each other. Some moves like Water Pulse can even target any one Pokemon, adjacent or otherwise. Either way, if there is more than one target to choose from, you must specify which Pokemon you are aiming the move at, otherwise the ref will have to use a random number generator to determine which Pokemon out of all the available targets (including allies but not the user) will be the target of the move. The first exception to this rule is if the only available targets are the user of the move and one other Pokemon, in which case it is assumed that the target is the other Pokemon unless specified otherwise. The second exception is with moves that force the user to use them on three consecutive actions like Thrash. Those moves' targets are always decided randomly from all available opponents. If you are targeting a fainted Pokemon, you still attack them—yes, this is a waste, so you can cover for it using a free KO sub, covered later.

Handbook confirms the third, nvm.

 

[Exclaimer]

Anticipation:
This Pokemon is better at sensing dangerous attacks, and reduced the Base Attack Power from super-effective attacks, Self-Destruct, and Explosion by two (2).
Mold Breaker affected: NO

Solid Rock:
This Pokemon's body is extremely solid and durable, and the Base Attack Power of incoming super-effective attacks is reduced by two (2).
Mold Breaker affected: YES


I feel like both need to be affected by Mold Breaker, as they're almost identical in function and it makes no sense for them to be different, other than in-game precedent, which I don't even think applies considering how different the effect actually is.

 

[Stary02939]

Struggle's description says "Struggle can be ordered at any time."

Struggle cannot be ordered in-game and can only be used if your mon is forced to Struggle due to lack of PP or encore + torment/disable. Because of that, I took this part of the description this to mean "Struggle can be used in your orders even when your Pokémon is not in a situation where it is forced to Struggle;" in other words, you can order Struggle just like any other move.

However, this could also mean:

To the best of my knowledge Struggle cannot be prevented under any means. This is the "Struggle can always be ordered" part of the NDA description.​

Ordered =/= used imo, but I see where deadfox is coming from. Would like to know which interpretation is correct.

 

[Mowtom]

Struggle's description says "Struggle can be ordered at any time."

Struggle cannot be ordered in-game and can only be used if your mon is forced to Struggle due to lack of PP or encore + torment/disable. Because of that, I took this part of the description this to mean "Struggle can be used in your orders even when your Pokémon is not in a situation where it is forced to Struggle;" in other words, you can order Struggle just like any other move.

However, this could also mean:


Ordered =/= used imo, but I see where deadfox is coming from. Would like to know which interpretation is correct.

It means you can order it like any other move. This is mostly because ordering an illegal move can and will result in Struggle.

 

[zarator]

Am I the only one who thinks Overheat and its clones are currently WAY overcosted at 10 energy? We are talking about moves with 13 BP, 90% accuracy, and a crippling drawback (-2 Sp. Attack - which in ASB is even worse than sluggish, in terms of damage racing).

To put things in comparison...
1) High Jump Kick is a 13 BP move with 90% accuracy, a relatively minor drawback (at worst, you're taking some recoil dmg if you mispredict, which is generally less harsh than -2 SpA), and it only costs 8 Energy
2) Skull Bash is a 13 BP move with 100% accuracy, a charge-up which also boosts your defense, and it only costs 8 En
3) Hyper Beam and its clones are 15 BP moves with 90% accuracy, a significant-but-not-as-bad drawback (as mentioned above) which makes them much more spammable than Overheat, and they cost 10 En
4) Eruption and Water Spout are generally around 13 BP or more the first time you use them, and have no real drawback - they even benefit from being spread moves. They only cost 8 En
5) Double-edge, Volt Tackle, Flare Blitz and other weight-based recoil moves often frequently hit 13 BP, and trade the -2 SpA for recoil damage. Not only this recoil damage is still less harmful towards a damage race (do the math over several rounds if you don't believe me), but it can often be negated by abilities or items. And of course, these moves tend to cost less than Overheat and friends.
6) Blue Flare and Bolt Strike have 13 BP, 85% accuracy, no drawbacks, a 20% burn/para chance, and they cost 9 En. You could argue they're legendary moves, but most legendary moves still tend to be consistent with other moves in terms of En cost (see for example Shadow Force)
7) Boomburst has no drawbacks to speak of, and costs 10 En at 14 BP and 100% accuracy
8) Sky Attack has a charge-up turn, a 30% flinch chance (which is seldomly used), 14 BP, 90%, and costs 10 En
9) Brine, Hex, and Venoshock have the only drawback of being at full power under certain circumstances, but when they are, they're 13 BP 100% accurate moves which only cost 8 En. And for the record, most other moves with modular costing (such as Payback, Return, and Assurance) are costed the same as other moves with the higher modular BP (for example, Assurance can hit at 6 or 12 BP, and costs 8 En like most 12 BP moves).


Bottom line - either Overheat and its clones are overcosted, or all the aforementioned examples are undercosted (or both). Also, before someone bothers about Serperior... not only would Serperior win/lose against the same stuff whether Leaf Storm costed 10 En or less, but last time I checked it wasn't very high in viability ranks - and not because of Leaf Storm's En cost.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Frosty please go ahead and implement this post as no one has expressed opposition

Also can we start a discussion on the subpoints in that post, namely regarding dropping Memento's EN cost to really low and forcing all Self-KO moves to require full energy. Or just implement. Post if you oppose, like if you support to determine need for discussion.

Does no one read this thread? Come on guys

 

[Frosty]

After some irc discussion we've revised my proposal to the following:

HP healing: 20 --> 25
EN healing: 0 --> 20
EN cost: 22 --> 15
Add clause: requires full EN to use


(side note, we should consider adding "must have enough en" to all self-ko moves possibly excluding final gambit. i think that began to be convention with explosion etc but never got extended because literally no-one uses the self-ko moves. also side note, we should drop mementos En cost to really low, considering how bad its effect is 15 is a bit silly. ALSO side note, lunar dance doesn't currently heal from status in ASB, but it does in-game, we should fix)

1) changed healing wish as above
2) included must pay en clause on hwish, memento and lunar dance
3) boosted lunar dance from 25% to 30% (since it is supposed to be a better hwish) an included heal from status
4) changed memento en to 10 for starters

Also if you want a discussion to be made, I suggest you go ahead and make it. You are on the council and you have power to do so without the need of previous pre-discussion



EDIT: I meant that because I saw something about "can we start a discussion". You can do so without the need for asking.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Well I mean I don't need to make a discussion thread for something with full approval and no opposition no?

But yea I take your point

ty

 

[deadfox081]

To zarator's post, I think it highlights pretty well that its more than just Overheat that is wrongly costed as far as energy goes. There are several moves out there that don't match up, the formulae on all the weight based moves particularly. I think an overhaul of energy costs might be a good point to go over once we are done with the item revamps currently on the table? As horrible and arduous a task as it would be