Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[Rainman Legends]

If your attack stat has been lowered, use Fire Punch that action.

Would this translate to "if your attack stat has been lowered this action" or "if your atk stat is below stage0"

 

[FMD]

I would say it would be, "If your Atk stage has been lowered this round", actually.

 

[JJayyFeather]

I want to propose buffing pinch abilities (Blaze, Overgrow, Swarm, Torrent) to +3 BP, instead of +2, for two reasons:

1) Other abilities which give a +50% boost in-game (such as Mega Launcher or Strong Jaw) give +3 BP in ASB, not +2
2) Pinch abilities are pretty mediocre atm, giving only a very minor boost and, most importantly, only for a couple actions at most. Buffing it at +3 would likely not even make them that much good, let alone broken.

Given the support and barring any objections/proposed alternatives I'll push through my proposal re: binding band and zara's proposal re: pinch abilities on thursday

Can we make this happen?

 

[Toon]

Can we put what happens when you do:
Switch-forcing vs Switch-Forcing
Switch-Forcing vs Self-Switching
And Self-Switching vs Self-switching

In the handbook so we can get a complete understanding on how they work and not ask around getting different interpretations?

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

Can we put what happens when you do:
Switch-forcing vs Switch-Forcing
Switch-Forcing vs Self-Switching
And Self-Switching vs Self-switching

In the handbook so we can get a complete understanding on how they work and not ask around getting different interpretations?

Even better, but it in the moves themselves. It could be something as simple as "If both sides use a switch-affecting move, the [second?] player to use the move orders first next round (with corresponding implications)."

the brackets and question mark are because i'm still not sure lol

 

[Its_A_Random]

No it should go in the handbook. Anyway, the interpretation should be:

Switch-Forcing vs Switch-Forcing

This one is easy. "The trainer that orders a phazing move yields second order to their opponent in the following round." This means if I use this move, I forfeit second move advantage, so both Pokémon get switched out for a random Pokémon, and whoever used their phazing move last, their trainer will order first the next round.

Switch-Forcing vs Self-Switching

This one is interesting, especially if the Pokémon that used U-Turn and the Pokémon that was hit by Roar is the same. In this case, like the above, it depends on what happened last. If I was hit by Roar after I used U-Turn, then my Pokémon gets replaced by a random Pokémon and my opponent orders first (Roar nullifies U-Turn). If I used U-Turn after I was hit by Roar, then I get to send in whatever I want, but I order first next round (U-Turn nullifies Roar).

Self-Switching vs Self-Switching

"... however the trainer that commanded U-turn must attack first." Again, this translates to the above "if I use this move, I forfeit second move advantage". So what happens depends on who uses U-Turn last, where the turn order becomes: First U-Turn user sends out > Second U-Turn user sends out and orders > First U-Turn user orders. This is also consistent with in-game where if both Pokémon use U-Turn, the first user sends their replacement first and then the second user sends their replacement last.

---

The general rule for all this is: "What happens last dictates what happens and the turn order for the next round." Logical and consistent in all scenarios.

 

[Frosty]

No it should go in the handbook. Anyway, the interpretation should be:

Switch-Forcing vs Switch-Forcing

This one is easy. "The trainer that orders a phazing move yields second order to their opponent in the following round." This means if I use this move, I forfeit second move advantage, so both Pokémon get switched out for a random Pokémon, and whoever used their phazing move last, their trainer will order first the next round.

Switch-Forcing vs Self-Switching

This one is interesting, especially if the Pokémon that used U-Turn and the Pokémon that was hit by Roar is the same. In this case, like the above, it depends on what happened last. If I was hit by Roar after I used U-Turn, then my Pokémon gets replaced by a random Pokémon and my opponent orders first (Roar nullifies U-Turn). If I used U-Turn after I was hit by Roar, then I get to send in whatever I want, but I order first next round (U-Turn nullifies Roar).

Self-Switching vs Self-Switching

"... however the trainer that commanded U-turn must attack first." Again, this translates to the above "if I use this move, I forfeit second move advantage". So what happens depends on who uses U-Turn last, where the turn order becomes: First U-Turn user sends out > Second U-Turn user sends out and orders > First U-Turn user orders. This is also consistent with in-game where if both Pokémon use U-Turn, the first user sends their replacement first and then the second user sends their replacement last.

---

The general rule for all this is: "What happens last dictates what happens and the turn order for the next round." Logical and consistent in all scenarios.

I'd like to have an official, word-of-god, binding etc ruling to this. So if the other mods could confirm/contradict this interpretation it would be great. Self-switching and switch-forcing are very useful moves and they must be crystal-clear.

so

deadfox081
ZhengTann
zarator
Texas Cloverleaf
Dogfish44

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

What iar posted is how I've always understood it. Last move used is the important effect

 

[deadfox081]

I concur. Last move used decides turn order.

 

[Frosty]

No it should go in the handbook. Anyway, the interpretation should be:

Switch-Forcing vs Switch-Forcing

This one is easy. "The trainer that orders a phazing move yields second order to their opponent in the following round." This means if I use this move, I forfeit second move advantage, so both Pokémon get switched out for a random Pokémon, and whoever used their phazing move last, their trainer will order first the next round.

Switch-Forcing vs Self-Switching

This one is interesting, especially if the Pokémon that used U-Turn and the Pokémon that was hit by Roar is the same. In this case, like the above, it depends on what happened last. If I was hit by Roar after I used U-Turn, then my Pokémon gets replaced by a random Pokémon and my opponent orders first (Roar nullifies U-Turn). If I used U-Turn after I was hit by Roar, then I get to send in whatever I want, but I order first next round (U-Turn nullifies Roar).

Self-Switching vs Self-Switching

"... however the trainer that commanded U-turn must attack first." Again, this translates to the above "if I use this move, I forfeit second move advantage". So what happens depends on who uses U-Turn last, where the turn order becomes: First U-Turn user sends out > Second U-Turn user sends out and orders > First U-Turn user orders. This is also consistent with in-game where if both Pokémon use U-Turn, the first user sends their replacement first and then the second user sends their replacement last.

---

The general rule for all this is: "What happens last dictates what happens and the turn order for the next round." Logical and consistent in all scenarios.

4 of the 6 mods ruled in favor of this, so I will consider this WoG.

Can anyone include it on handbook? floating WoG isn't nice.

 

[FMD]

Rock Smash Combo: This got a few likes, so I'm putting up a discussion thread later today regarding it.


And... apparently, that's the only thing left unresolved. Figured there would have been more issues unaddressed, honestly.

 

[Elevator Music]

Can we revise the moves Snore can combo with? I guess I get why Bug Buzz isn't listed as a combo option, but maybe some of the newer sounds moves (Boomburst, Disarming Voice) should be listed?

 

[Dogfish44]

Can we revise the moves Snore can combo with? I guess I get why Bug Buzz isn't listed as a combo option, but maybe some of the newer sounds moves (Boomburst, Disarming Voice) should be listed?

Agreeing with this, although tbh I'd just expand it to combine with all the Sound-Based moves (With the exception of Snore because that sort of thing breaks things like Rock Smash is showing aaa)

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

Since apparently this causes confusion amongst a certain individual, can we clarify that the whole free-edit time was because actions are automatically locked afterwards? This was the entire purpose of
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/action-locking.3570205/
It was extremely clearly stated in early posts, and was never refuted or argued against. It just got dropped from the wording at some point.
Some places where people talked about this:

Furthermore, I think that this action locking should occur without the need for anyone to post an action lock.

I don't think the second order should be able to freely change orders (this would give them a new advantage they don't even need most of the time).

2. Action locking should be automated, without requiring the need for second-order players and/or the referee to post "LOCK".

and is even implied in the current version:

After your orders are posted, is it possible to edit them freely within a certain time frame. Outside Roleplay-tagged matches, The Legend Run and Raids, that time frame defaults to 1/3 of the DQ interval, unless otherwise specified on the battle rules. During that time, the player is free to edit the orders as they please, without being locked by the following player's orders of the referee's reffing. The only exception to that rule is DQ. Your "freedom to edit orders without being locked" period, should not extend your DQ time. If your DQ kicks in first, that edit-freedom is automatically nullified. It is advised that refs and players wait for the edit-free interval to end before posting their orders or reffings.

that bolded portion clearly implies that after the period ends, your actions get automagically locked.

but this still causes confusion (somehow).

The only time I actually see anything that even remotely implies that the new rule doesn't autolock after the period ends is the exclusion of what happens, in frosty's implementation post:

I didn't include what happens if the guy/gal edits after the period because, quite frankly, I didn't get it from the discussion nor the voting (the voting certainly doesn't mention it). If someone could enlighten me on that, that would be great.

I think I've shown evidence that while Frosty didn't see it, it was indeed stated.

EDIT FOR CLARITY: i am not asking for a change, i'm asking for what was already discussed and voted on to be reflected in the implementation. Or re-discussed, since there appears to be people against what happened.

 

[Elevator Music]

thats kinda dumb but w/e

edit: to make this not a shitpost, auto action lock after the action lock period just feels unnecessarily strict. also gives even more advantage to the person ordering second. and it might cause first order to wait longer than needed to post orders, slowing down matches

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

thats kinda dumb but w/e

edit: to make this not a shitpost, auto action lock after the action lock period just feels unnecessarily strict. also gives even more advantage to the person ordering second. and it might cause first order to wait longer than needed to post orders, slowing down matches

While you may be right (no real opinion here), that's what was discussed in the discussion (and supposedly voted on).

I'm not trying to add anything here, just clarifying what was already done. If we decide to change that, then we should talk about changing it and officially do it instead of just "oh uh the implementer couldn't tell when he did it, so uh let's just keep it that way!!!1!!"

and if we indeed choose to do as emma suggests, we still need to clarify things by rewording what I bolded from the handbook above.

 

[Frosty]

Since apparently this causes confusion amongst a certain individual, can we clarify that the whole free-edit time was because actions are automatically locked afterwards? This was the entire purpose of
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/action-locking.3570205/
It was extremely clearly stated in early posts, and was never refuted or argued against. It just got dropped from the wording at some point.
Some places where people talked about this:





and is even implied in the current version:


that bolded portion clearly implies that after the period ends, your actions get automagically locked.

but this still causes confusion (somehow).

The only time I actually see anything that even remotely implies that the new rule doesn't autolock after the period ends is the exclusion of what happens, in frosty's implementation post:


I think I've shown evidence that while Frosty didn't see it, it was indeed stated.

EDIT FOR CLARITY: i am not asking for a change, i'm asking for what was already discussed and voted on to be reflected in the implementation. Or re-discussed, since there appears to be people against what happened.

Fort, I implemented that tidbit on the handbook. And I put it in as a vague thinge (free against locking doesn't mean that after it it is necessarily auto lock, as it can mean that after that time the other player can lock by posting) precisely because no one discussed that matter clearly enough for me to make that call on my own. Frankly I would rather have that face an explicit voting, instead of being "assumed" (you know what they say about assuming...), but regardless that, if the people involved on that discussion were to enlighten me back then, I would include that part. But no one did. No one made that call and took that responsability: not the council as it wasn't voted upon, none of the mods as none answered my question and...well...if none of those are willing to make said call, I sure as hell wouldn't assume anything, until someone does. And said someone should be ready and willing to take responsability for the consequences.

 

[ZhengTann]

I have been raised from the depths.

When I wrote, "Action locking should be automated, without requiring the need for second-order players and/or the referee to post LOCK," I meant exactly that. If your free-edit time is up, even if nobody gloated the word "LOCK", then swallow the consequences and carry on. If you happened to edit one minute after that period and your opponent is a fickle son-of-a-bitch who raised hell and high water about it, I will kill my feelings before emotionlessly revert your edit history. If your opponent did not raise hell and high water for whatever reasons, you get a free pass.

Back then, it was: if your opponent orders in before you can edit new orders, you swallow the consequences and carry on. Otherwise you get a free pass. See the similarities?

And yes EM, it's kinda dumb. But I think it's the smartest we can get (guess what does that say about our combined intellects huh). Either people complain because matches get bogged down, or people complain because they lose due to a single overlooked typo, or people complain that they only had practically 1-day DQ while their opponents make 34 edits over 3 days ordering second because the reff is slow. Every system I can recall off the top of my head cannot cleanly solve all the problems I've written above, and what we have right here is a compromise between them. If anyone thinks they have a better solution, raise it up and drive it ALL THE WAY to its completion - particularly the last part, because if you leave me to clean it up, I'm going to do it my way, not yours. Yes, I admit guilty to power abuse, if only because I am given the responsibility to clean up after you.

What was it that they say? "With great responsibility, comes great power"?
Time to go back to the depths - honestly, having phone data as the only reliable Internet connection is giving me too much pause.

 

[Frosty]

I have been raised from the depths.

When I wrote, "Action locking should be automated, without requiring the need for second-order players and/or the referee to post LOCK," I meant exactly that. If your free-edit time is up, even if nobody gloated the word "LOCK", then swallow the consequences and carry on. If you happened to edit one minute after that period and your opponent is a fickle son-of-a-bitch who raised hell and high water about it, I will kill my feelings before emotionlessly revert your edit history. If your opponent did not raise hell and high water for whatever reasons, you get a free pass.

Back then, it was: if your opponent orders in before you can edit new orders, you swallow the consequences and carry on. Otherwise you get a free pass. See the similarities?

And yes EM, it's kinda dumb. But I think it's the smartest we can get (guess what does that say about our combined intellects huh). Either people complain because matches get bogged down, or people complain because they lose due to a single overlooked typo, or people complain that they only had practically 1-day DQ while their opponents make 34 edits over 3 days ordering second because the reff is slow. Every system I can recall off the top of my head cannot cleanly solve all the problems I've written above, and what we have right here is a compromise between them. If anyone thinks they have a better solution, raise it up and drive it ALL THE WAY to its completion - particularly the last part, because if you leave me to clean it up, I'm going to do it my way, not yours. Yes, I admit guilty to power abuse, if only because I am given the responsibility to clean up after you.

What was it that they say? "With great responsibility, comes great power"?
Time to go back to the depths - honestly, having phone data as the only reliable Internet connection is giving me too much pause.

OK

Care to edit that into the handbook, to make it explicit? Or anyone else for that matter.

 

[FMD]

Why don't we put it to a vote?

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

Why don't we put it to a vote?

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/action-locking.3571306/
again, this entire affair is about clarifying what was already discussed + voted on, as zt confirmed. Nothing new.

Though who am I to stop you from revoting.

@ below, see ^
Also I see emma and.... you? frosty was just "let's not assume", upon which zt replied in favor of action locking.

 

[FMD]

Multiple people have called the decision dumb in this thread alone. Is that enough reason to reconsider this or not?

 

[Frosty]

From the thread OP:

A council member can open discussion on the topic if they feel it is warranted - the council member will post a link to this new discussion in a post in feedback. A council member can also create a discussion thread without going through feedback, if they so desire.

Let us not derail the feedback thread, please. thanks.

 

[smashlloyd20]

Can we make a few updates for Battling 101? Currently the program states that the pupil can do two 2v2s and a 3v3. This is...not a great way to get a sense of how ASB battling actually works. Can we change this to three 3v3s, or maybe two 3v3s and a 4v4 for doubles? Also, currently the program rules use 2 subs. No relevant battles in ASB use two subs anymore, so can we please change it to 3?

 

[Toon]

That sounds like a thing to ask the Battling/Starting ASB 101 manager Birkal but that's just an opinion