Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[FMD]

Supporting the above because it was my idea because it's a good idea. Half of your HP is way too much for these moves to cost. :/

 

[Exclaimer]

Curse:

If the user is a Ghost-type, this move costs 50% of their maximum HP and 27 Energy instead of merely 6 Energy. They pay this price in order to cast a wicked and crippling affliction on the opponent. Pokemon afflicted with Ghost Curse take five (5) damage at the end of each action, and Chill and Rest only restore half as much energy or HP as normal. Such Pokemon also take an extra two (2) damage per action and lose one (1) more energy per action when affected by Nightmare. This version of Curse will fail if the user is at or below half of its maximum HP.

Can we at least make this barely usable? 15 damage a round for usually 50% HP and 27 EN is a really, really bad trade-off and would only be used if the mon used is the most potent defensive beast you could imagine. I was told that it can break Magic Guard Endure, which is a nice benefit I guess... but at the cost of 50% HP and 27 EN, the Endure user still basically wins by taking such an enormous toll on the opponent.

I am in support

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Belly Drum we have to be careful with just because it's such a powerful boost. At 12 additional DPR you need two attacks to justify the use of the move (24 damage total benefit value of the move at that point) in comparison to a standard attack and anything after that point is extra value so the cost has to be weighted around that.

I propose Drum cost 35% max HP
- 28 HP at 80
- 31.5 at 90
- 35 at 100
- 38.5 at 110
- add 3.5 per ten
- 50.75 at 145

Seems to hit a nice break point between opportunity cost and increased damage output without overcorrecting to make Drum too good.



wrt Curse make it cost 35/25 flat? The EN cost was always the bigger penalty than the HP considering to take full advantage you need to heal yourself of that HP. It's still a strong effect for a more drawn out battle so I'm cautious of nerfing the HP penalty too much.

 

[Dogfish44]

Assuming singles here. Doubles does throw things for a loop -_-'

Two attacks is nowhere near enough to justify the move, unless that gets you a very fast KO somehow. Remember that using Belly Drum not only costs HP, but it is pretty much guarenteed to give your opponent a free hit. It is very rare that a mon can't deal 11 Damage to another mon in a single hit - so if you land 3 hits (+36 DMG), it's likely that you won't have broken even in terms of HP difference. I would say that four hits is where you start to have the move feel viable - but even then it still takes a while to reach. Eh, I'll run calcs later. Worth noting that we have access to easy +4s with the updated Power Items - even if BD is stronger, it does have to justify itself much more now.

 

[JJayyFeather]

2:21:41 AMA<ASBot> Poison Sting - Poison | Physical | Adjacent Target | 4 BAP | 100% Acc | 3 EN Cost | 30% Eff% | Contact: No (distance) / Yes (direct) | 0 Prio | Combo Type: Elemental | Snatch: No | Magic Coat: No
2:21:41 AMA<ASBot> The user fires a volley of poisonous needles that inject the foe with poison. If combined with Fury Attack or Pin Missile, the attack will always hit 5 times. If combined with Horn Attack, Horn Drill, Megahorn, Poison Jab, or Twineedle, the power of the combining attack is increased by one and a half (1.5x) [e.g. 4 + (8 * 1.5) = 16] and always scores a critical hit (both hits of Twineedle).
2:21:42 AMA<ASBot> Poison Sting (Contact): The user delivers a more pinpoint contact attack, which will always score a critical hit. If the user lacks a stinger or other sharp appendange, this version of Poison Sting fails.

Alright look, I know there's not a lot of tampering with old things that Deck made, especially combo tech, but this one needs to be addressed. Poison Sting's combination tech section implies that any version of Poison Sting can be used with these moves. This leaves one of two questions in my mind: (1) Does combination tech ignore general rules for combo feasibility (ref discretion obv)? or (2) Did no one just happen to stumble across this problem?

My point here is that the moves listed for the combo boosts related to Poison Sting, don't actually combine with the common use of Poison Sting. Out of the 7 moves named, only one of them can actually combine with Poison Sting as it is in-game, and that is Pin Missile, since that is also a fired non-contact move. However, the other 6 are also named in the basic section, implying that they can be combined with the base version of Poison Sting, which is asinine since each of those 6 moves are all contact moves. So I propose that these moves either (a) be removed from the tech section [ew i'd rather not] or (b) They need to be put into their proper spots/Someone make it clear that combination tech doesn't ignore regular sub feasibility rules.

Second thing to bring up here came up during a discussion in IRC about this, and it's actually the bigger problem with the way the moves that have boosted combinations with Poison Sting are listed. Given the current listing, a combination like Poison Sting + Poison Jab can be used. Sure, you can say that it's Poison Sting [Contact], and now the whole combination makes sense, but it's not labeled as such, and you cannot make that assumption either. It's the same logic in how we say using Teleport (Evasive) has to mention the Evasive part, otherwise it's just base Teleport, and same goes for Agility, Baton Pass, and any other moves of the sort. We also established that for Poison Sting as an attack, so why would using it in combinations be any different. If you intend to use Poison Sting [Contact] + Poison Jab, you should have to mention that it is Poison Sting [Contact] + Poison Jab, not Poison Sting + Poison Jab, because the latter is an immediate red flag for an infeasible combination.

TL;DR
- Poison Sting tech implies that Poison String (Non-Contact) can be combined with moves like Poison Jab and Megahorn, which shouldn't be allowed.
- Does combination tech supercede general sub feasibility rules as established by the ref?

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

Alright look, I know there's not a lot of tampering with old things that Deck made, especially combo tech, but this one needs to be addressed. Poison Sting's combination tech section implies that any version of Poison Sting can be used with these moves. This leaves one of two questions in my mind: (1) Does combination tech ignore general rules for combo feasibility (ref discretion obv)? or (2) Did no one just happen to stumble across this problem?

My point here is that the moves listed for the combo boosts related to Poison Sting, don't actually combine with the common use of Poison Sting. Out of the 7 moves named, only one of them can actually combine with Poison Sting as it is in-game, and that is Pin Missile, since that is also a fired non-contact move. However, the other 6 are also named in the basic section, implying that they can be combined with the base version of Poison Sting, which is asinine since each of those 6 moves are all contact moves. So I propose that these moves either (a) be removed from the tech section [ew i'd rather not] or (b) They need to be put into their proper spots/Someone make it clear that combination tech doesn't ignore regular sub feasibility rules.

Second thing to bring up here came up during a discussion in IRC about this, and it's actually the bigger problem with the way the moves that have boosted combinations with Poison Sting are listed. Given the current listing, a combination like Poison Sting + Poison Jab can be used. Sure, you can say that it's Poison Sting [Contact], and now the whole combination makes sense, but it's not labeled as such, and you cannot make that assumption either. It's the same logic in how we say using Teleport (Evasive) has to mention the Evasive part, otherwise it's just base Teleport, and same goes for Agility, Baton Pass, and any other moves of the sort. We also established that for Poison Sting as an attack, so why would using it in combinations be any different. If you intend to use Poison Sting [Contact] + Poison Jab, you should have to mention that it is Poison Sting [Contact] + Poison Jab, not Poison Sting + Poison Jab, because the latter is an immediate red flag for an infeasible combination.

TL;DR
- Poison Sting tech implies that Poison String (Non-Contact) can be combined with moves like Poison Jab and Megahorn, which shouldn't be allowed.
- Does combination tech supercede general sub feasibility rules as established by the ref?

i mean
simple logic bypasses implications imo
thus: COMBO CONTACT WITH CONTACT AND NONCONTACT WITH NONCONTACT

ez

 

[ZhengTann]

Okay, let's do a recap of recent issues.

AGN's reminder about weakmons' extra MC: You're absolutely right, we need to find some mods to haul ass and change it. I think it's in the PCT and Handbook OPs? If someone can track them down and let me know I'll gladly edit by Thursday.

Deadfox's Suspended DE Sub Clause interaction: I agree... And hey, so does Maxim! That's 3 Council members and 2 pmods (if I got my math right). I'll run by Frosty and the other mods, since I think it could follow this thread.

Curse and Belly Drum: I'll open up a thread. But first, let me throw this out - since this will essentially be a buff culture thread, tell me why you want to fix buff these two moves by crunching your numbers right. And please, no begging the question or circular arguments on things like "matchup control" and "player skill". We can all agree to disagree on that beforehand.

Poison Sting being contact or not in combos: Fort's hotfix idea has exceptions, namely Feint. So here I propose another hotfix, below. Basically we move the "Horn Attack / Poison Jab" combo tech part to be solely under the contact version of Poison Sting. This way, we only need to fix combo interaction concerning Poison Sting instead of the whole contact mechanic, and the only mon (possibly) affected will be Smeargle. So like this post only if you think the hotfix does its job.

The user fires a volley of poisonous needles that inject the foe with poison. If combined with Fury Attack or Pin Missile, the attack will always hit 5 times.

Poison Sting (Contact): The user delivers a more pinpoint contact attack, which will always score a critical hit. If the user lacks a stinger or other sharp appendange, this version of Poison Sting fails. If combined with Horn Attack, Horn Drill, Megahorn, Poison Jab, or Twineedle, the power of the combining attack is increased by one and a half (1.5x) [e.g. 4 + (8 * 1.5) = 16] and always scores a critical hit (both hits of Twineedle).

 

[JJayyFeather]

Today's Topic: Download

Download | Type: Passive | Mold Breaker-affected: No
At the beginning of the match, the Pokemon analy es the opponent and downloads data that lets it deal more damage. This Pokemon receives a one (1) stage boost (adjusting the natural stage as well) on the offense that strikes an opponent's weaker defense stat. (e.g. does more damage with special attacks when facing Aggron, which has higher Defense, and attack when facing Hypno, which has higher Special Defense. For ties, Special Attack is raised.) If this Pokemon is sent out vs 2 or more Pokemon, combine the Defense of all opponents and the Special Defense of all opponents to determine which stat is boosted.

Alright, let's discuss how Download is written, and hopefully this is just a typo. Either:
(a) Download is an ability that changes its boost based on the current opponent, even if it hasn't been resent out. [Passive]
(b) Download does a check against an entire enemy lineup at the start of the match and gains a permanent buff. [Trigger: Beginning of the match]
(c) Download works like in game. [Trigger: Sent Out]

This has been brought up due to this match. It occurs here that the odd writing of Download is brought up, especially when there are 3 different types of influence on the user implied due to the description and ability type.

So, most importantly:
(1) Which effect is Download supposed to have in ASB?
(2) Which effect is Download going to have in the battle I linked?

 

[ZhengTann]

Today's Topic: Download

First personal thoughts: must everything be "concise" / "consistent" / "verbatim" these days >_>

I am too lazy to filter out chat logs, but basically Dogfish, Rain and myself agreed that Download only procs once on send-out, similar to how Intimidate/Trace works on its first time. So if we were to follow that line of reasoning, Skill Swapping or Role Playing the Ability does nothing, unless you somehow can retain Download after you switch out and switch back in.

Mind you, this is just an opinion. I want to bug Frosty first, but I personally think a Council vote without Discussion, or a straight hotfix to clarify the wording, would do.

 

[Frosty]

1) the phrase "at the begining of a match" means "at the begining of a matchup". yeah yeah words pedantism etc, but ingame is like that, we always played like that and seriously I never ever saw someone reading "match" as "entire pokemon battle". Match is the word picked because it can't be round or action (the other temporal word we have here) and it isn't technically upon sent out, as the analysis isn't done upon send out, but right after it (keep it in mind that the first phrase is flavor. The pokemon doesn't drop to the ground from the ball analysing whatever, it does that afterwards).
2) If the ability is to have a special effect if skill swapped or received through any means, it is to be clearly stated on the NDA. That happens for example with Pure/Huge Power and Intimidate: they specify what happens if the ability is skill swaped or if a new pokemon is sent out. Given that nothing of the sort is on download's description, the easy conclusion is that download doesn't have anything special going. So it is like zhengtann well said: nothing happens in that battle.
3) The main difference between a passive and a trigger ability is that the latter can be commanded to be activated, whereas the former can't. Considering Download can't be commanded to be activated, it is correctly a passive ability. Seriously, read the handbook. It says: "Trigger - these abilities have to be manually activated by ordering the right command. Most Trigger abilities also activate immediately when the Pokemon enters play. Using the command to activate these abilities costs energy, and sometimes the automatic activation when the Pokemon enters play costs energy too.". If you happen to do a ctrl+f on the NDA, you will notice that all trigger abilities have a "command" possibility. Whereas no passive abilities have that (including download). Finally, the NDA states the following about passive abilities: "Passive - these abilities are always on unless it's a no abilities match or it's a one ability match and a different ability was chosen. Some Passive abilities' effects only kick in under certain circumstances while others are always active. Most abilities in ASB are Passive.". So as the short answer to the post above we have:
a) Download is correctly Passive.
b) Read the handbook.


This is not a matter for council voting, nor will the wording be adjusted if it depends on me. Let's draw a line on the pedantism for heaven's sake. The handbook by itself is enough to solve that and if we go question every single word out there, the results won't be pretty. Trust me, as a Lawyer I know pretty well what I am saying here.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Trust me, I'm a Lawyer.

hue

 

[Frosty]

Thank you for your useful and helpful post texas -_-.

anyway, catching from where zt left off:

1) Weakmons: I just updated it
2) Suspended D/E triggering Damaging-TYPE subs: I will go implement it.
3) Curse/Belly Drum: dealt with
4) Poison Sting: I personally don't mind at all the current description, simply because firing point blank is always a possibility (and because it is one of those things that hardly matter at all in the end). And yes: if the combo is mentioned on the NDA, this supercedes ref's discretion. If you want, make a thread, I suppose. I don't think it is a matter for a hotfix, given the lack of support.

 

[Frosty]

Suggestion

Move: Block
What: Make it affect also damaging-evasive moves
Why: D/E moves are strong and Block is a move common on big pokemon that usually don't have much to use against D/E. And because it affecting just Non-Damaging Evasive get us nowhere, as at least I have never ever saw it kicking in that way.

NOTE: Likes from texas regard only the above. I double-posted the below and then merged <_<;.

Another suggestion

Ability: Guts
What: Boost it from +2 to +3
Why: It is +50% in game and the abilities with such a boost we usually grant +3 (see: Hustle). Also, +3 at least makes Flame Orb on par with Life Orb.

 

[Ooraloo]

This might be a stupid idea, but what do you guys think of adding a 4th battle slot?
Some of you gripe about how ASB's become so flash-focused and that there aren't enough fun matches aside from tournaments and gyms. But I, as well as many others, feel somewhat reluctant to enter any longer matches for fear of needing those slots of training purposes. In the past, people have forfeited on me because they needed the slots for training.
This additional slot would be reserved exclusively for non-training matches that are 3v3 or more, have mandatory flavor, and forbid the use of training items, in order to add more variety and fun to ASB.

We all know that reffing takes about as much work as battling, but there aren't any arbitrary restrictions on how many battles one can ref. And even the most prolific refs *cough* jayandtoon *cough* generally remain very good with DQs.
I don't feel that it'll compromise timeliness if we allow an extra slot for more serious matches to make ASB a little less FLASH FLASH FLASH and have more fun things like the Smeargle brawl.

 

[deadfox081]

Personally I think most of the matches one would want to participate in on a serious basis already don't count towards slot limits. This includes roleplays, gyms and tournament matches. On top of that I am of the opinion that 2 slots for training is enough and nothing should really prevent someone from typing up that 3rd slot with a serious tower match, which is a reasonably rare occurrence anyway. Basically I think 3 slots is sufficient.

Also I agree with both of Frosty's suggestions, as do many others judging by the likes. Someone implement them?

 

[JJayyFeather]

I support the Frosty things (see: I liked them a while ago), and I have an addendum. Can we give the same treatment to moves related to Block and the abilities related to Guts? For example, Fairy Lock has the same thing that Block does. Also, I know Guts relates to Toxic/Flare Boost in that manner.

There are probably more abilities/moves that I'm missing, but that's just my 2 cents on that.

 

[LightningLord2]

General question: Is ASB generally meant for forums or are the rules (or a possible variant) viable for a private player group?

 

[ZhengTann]

General question: Is ASB generally meant for forums or are the rules (or a possible variant) viable for a private player group?

ASB has always been a forums game, played right here in Smogon. If you want to copy the rules to play in your own private player group, you're welcomed to do so, though as a community we would really hope you'd join in instead, since setting up another group splits up potentially interested players. If you want to introduce variants of the rules, you can do so in Battle Tower, where we introduce wonky arenas such as Unown Soup and Heefloot's Shop to change the rules all the time!

(Probably will move your post to the forgotten SQSA thread sometime)

 

[LightningLord2]

ASB has always been a forums game, played right here in Smogon. If you want to copy the rules to play in your own private player group, you're welcomed to do so, though as a community we would really hope you'd join in instead, since setting up another group splits up potentially interested players. If you want to introduce variants of the rules, you can do so in Battle Tower, where we introduce wonky arenas such as Unown Soup and Heefloot's Shop to change the rules all the time!

(Probably will move your post to the forgotten SQSA thread sometime)

Thing is, I highly prefer roleplay systems over direct messages, ideally with a group I'm familiar or at least willing to play, than one over a forum which tends to be either too fast or too slow for me. I had players stopping all communication with me or putting minimal effort into the play for me to trust public forum games/roleplays, particularly with the risk of run-ins botching a scene.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

Thing is, I highly prefer roleplay systems over direct messages, ideally with a group I'm familiar or at least willing to play, than one over a forum which tends to be either too fast or too slow for me. I had players stopping all communication with me or putting minimal effort into the play for me to trust public forum games/roleplays, particularly with the risk of run-ins botching a scene.

lurk through our forum a bit, and see if that's going to be an issue. Check the raids/tlrs section especially, since that seems to be what you are looking for? not sure

tbh we aren't so much a roleplay as a battling system, but elements from both are definitely present

 

[Frosty]

RE: Guts and Block

Yes, the same line of thought should be used for Fairy Lock, Toxic Boost and Flare Boost.

Either way, it won't be implemented unless:
a) I get approvals from 2 mods other than me (majority)
b) It is discussed and voted upon by council.

Consider that a new rule of thumb as far as direct implementation goes.

RE: 4th Battle slot

I am against it. I agree with deadfox081 for the reasons. We have enough sources of serious battles and general entertainment. And while I could be swayed by the argument of needing the slots for training, the notion of the amount of training needed for anything is so ridiculous right now that I would rather fight the argument of "needing slots to train" then embrace it as reason for any kind of policy change. Ever since I started seeing people with +100, +200, +300, +400 UC spamming flash matches (obviously not for "needed" training), I just gave up. People don't do long matches not because they lack slots, but simply because they prefer flashes. Why would I give people a slot for "serious matches" if they prefer to flash? Not gonna try to make people like longer battles. We tried that for 4 years or so with a gazillion different changes and they all failed. Hell, despite of them, the proportion of flashes only increased.

And trust the old geezer here: those reffing machines won't last. We had them before. They all burned out. All. Not a single one of the big refs from before is still alive and kicking. So we are permanently suscetible of ref shortage and I would rather keep things at bay as far as that is concerned.

 

[ZhengTann]

^ Well, I suppose that's my cue to open a Discussion and Voting thread. Also,

And trust the old geezer here: those reffing machines won't last. We had them before. They all burned out. All. Not a single one of the big refs from before is still alive and kicking. So we are permanently suscetible of ref shortage and I would rather keep things at bay as far as that is concerned.

As one of those machines who ran out of fuel, couldn't agree more.

 

[Matezoide]

Sooo, i was looking at Golurk and this bothered me a bit.


Klutz -

''By default, the Pokemon moves in a rare style of battling that uses an unpredictable, clumsy looking manner. The accuracy of its attacks is increased by 10% (flat). While engaging in this style it cannot use a hold item, though an item is necessary to pull it off. When toggled, there is no effect.''



Buuuut it also has No Guard, making the accuracy from Klutz useless.

Not a big fan of just buffing stuff, but having literally useless abilites has always bothered me. Should we try to change Klutz slighty so Golurk gets something from it? It would hardly be the first case.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Worth noting that the ability has a tangible effect in one ability battles

 

[Toon]

I feel like that Golurk could have a similar effect like pidgeotite has; when klutz is toggle=on and the user has the ability no guard then incoming moves towards that mon (golurk) could have it's usual accuracy