1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread (New Proposal Handling System in OP)

Discussion in 'Policy Center' started by Seven Deadly Sins, Feb 10, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. C$FP

    C$FP

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    4,715
    This post. I fully support this, and some other people seemed to as well. Oh hey, look at that, here it is again! Quite frankly, I think it's ridiculous that this:
    is true. "IF fully paralyzed" is perfectly reasonable, and I simply don't see why it's illegal. I would also like to point out that I am totally against the combination of not reffing illegal actions and ignoring illegal substitutions while reffing; I think it's a ludicrous inconsistency. When I'm reffing or ordering second in a battle, I just tell people when their substitutions are illegal and have them change the sub, but I think everyone should, on the same principals for making people fix illegal actions (whatever those are; I would be fine with getting rid of the rule that forces refs to not ref illegal actions, one or the other imo).

    EDIT: words of wisdom:
    14:37 dogfish44 Chance subs should cover things that occur by... chance!

    Also, when you look at this thing, I must say that the current sub rules are just not very good. I do, however, like the somewhat recent revamp to attack subs.
  2. Leethoof

    Leethoof

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,450
    Hi. This was brought up in the SOTG, but then SOTG died before people looked at it, I think. I truly believe an ASB dex / ASB mon analyses is a beneficial thing, as it can help both new users and veterans pick out additions to their teams, expand hipsterism diversity in ASB, etc.

    And there was also Lou's idea:
    Lou (open)

    I'll propose what I thought Leethoof was originally talking about. Imagine, if you will, the following thread:

    Thread: (Data) Mon of the Week - Volcarona

    I'd finish this, but you get the idea already.


    Either way, one of these should defenitely become a part of ASB.
  3. Yarnus of Bethany

    Yarnus of Bethany

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    I like both these ideas, and would like to suggest combining them. There could be a thread where people post their articles, and then a review panel could choose one each week to sticky and to allow comments on. That would allow the articles to be both accessible and user controlled, gaining the pros of both suggestions.
  4. Yarnus of Bethany

    Yarnus of Bethany

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    No feedback on any of these three ideas?
  5. Yarnus of Bethany

    Yarnus of Bethany

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    If nobody forbids, I think I will post a new discussion thread on this topic. Is that all right?
  6. Alchemator

    Alchemator my god if you don't have an iced tea for me when i
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    No?

    Traditionally RP development takes place in social groups anyway, especially for something like that. Discuss it here or in a group, and once you've done some work to show how it'll be set out and such we can consider approving it.

    Personally I don't see the idea of a 'mon of the week' and such working: ASB isn't detailed enough to have huge discussions (What do you do against Metagross? Oh I Fiery Dance...) A database of mon reviews could be promising though.
  7. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight A Knight for the Aegis
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,523
    I was actually planning to start up a Pokemon of the Week after reading the census and choosing a fairly cool middling mon. Then I had a lot of CAP Proper drama to resolve so it kind of got shunted to the side.

    In any case, "If Fully Paralyzed aX, use Y aX+1" is perfectly reasonable as a chance sub.
  8. smashlloyd20

    smashlloyd20

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,306
    Okay, so I think it's becoming kind of clear that at the moment, even with the fixed arenas, gyms are kinda sorta very broken. Not a single leader has lost a match yet (or will lose any of their upcoming matches). Quoting Korski's post in the main gyms thread; "50% should be a goal, not a minimum." The gym system SHOULD be designed to give the challenger and the GL both a good chance of winning. The way it's set up now is basically to give as many advantages to the GL as possible. Ignoring the arenas, I think a big point here is the B8P3 advantage the GLs get. It's sound logic for normal Pokemon, but in ASB the massive variety of moves and Abilities available to each Pokemon just makes this system overkill. With 8 Pokemon that share one (possibly secondary) typing, it's easy for the GL to counterteam the challenger, not the other way around. Perhaps changing this to B6P3 or so would help alleviate challengers getting counterteamed by GLs.
  9. Alchemator

    Alchemator my god if you don't have an iced tea for me when i
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,803
    I'd agree that gyms are somewhat broken at the moment, but I'd put that more down to the arenas than the choice of Pokémon.

    Plus, the pool of battles hasn't been great so far: they've all been against strong types with strong gym leaders. Many have challenged without due preparations, and those that had prepared have either been unlucky or played badly (e.g. Kaxtar, sorry man!).

    I'd hold out for a while yet before passing definite judgement, but I'm pretty sure the problem lies in the arenas.
  10. smashlloyd20

    smashlloyd20

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,306
    Okay, so with the advent of Atheno's new gym I have a bit more to say on the topic of gym brokenness. Basically, both sides are B8P3, the arena has some (but not overpowering) Water advantages, and the opponent's team must share one common type. While I don't exactly agree with the one common type thing (perhaps B5P3 with two shared types allowed?), this is a step in the right direction.

    I think the base disagreement here is how hard, exactly, we want gyms to be. Do we want any very good player with a strong, built-up team with a few mons effective against the gym type to be able to beat that gym? Or do we basically want only gym leaders super-effective against the gym's type, playing at the top of their game, to be able to win? Right now, the gym system is strongly tending towards the second option. Basically, the challenger has no advantages short of being able to bring whatever three Pokemon they want. But I'd argue that this may hardly matter anyway, as with the ridiculous assortment of secondary types and Abilities available to the majority of types in Pokemon, quite often the CHALLENGER can get counterteamed...not the other way around. Then there's the whole issue of the arenas, which just further the issue.

    tl;dr: How hard do we want the gyms to be?
  11. typon77

    typon77

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,490
    I could not agree with smash more. Most gym arena's themselves would be fine considering the leaders HAVE to use a monotype team, and without some boosts they would get screwed. However, B8P3 lets them respond to such a huge variety of threats that the challenger can bring. Since most Gym's do a coin toss for who sends out first, if the challenger has to send out first, the leader almost always has a good counter to that mon, and can respond quickly and gain an early advantage. This isnt saying its easy for the challenger if they order second, as they can easily judge which Pokemon of their 8 is best to take on any of a set of 3. Lowering the amount of pokemon the Gym Leaders could bring could help, but I think that letting the challengers bring more than 3 pokemon could have an even greater impact. This would prevent the challenger from getting counterteamed, as smash said, as they would have more options to respond to the variety that each leader has.
  12. Gerard

    Gerard

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,346
    Since pokes can get tutor moves from old releases, why not let them get moves that they can use in the anime but can't learn in-game

    The moves are just a few adds to a cuple of pokemon (if you saw the list you probably noticed how must stuff is useless), but it gives a couple of mons a few new tricks or coverage:

    FE list (open)

    Pinsir - Tackle
    Raticate - Jump Kick
    Venusaur - Whirlwind, Dig
    Lickilicky - Tackle
    Beedrill - Tackle
    Charizard - Tackle
    Victreebel - Tackle
    Arbok - Tackle
    Nidoking - Fury Swipes, Bite
    Raichu - Leer, Tackle
    Typhlosion - Agility
    Feraligtr - Tackle
    Wobbuffet - Bide
    Umbreon - Agility
    Poliwrath - Tackle
    Steelix - Wrap
    Parasect - Sleep Powder
    Dragonite - Whirlwind
    Crobat - SonicBoom
    Tyranitar - Harden
    Swellow - Gust
    Sableye - Lick
    Delcatty - Fury Swipes
    Dustox - Stun Spore
    Jirachi - Teleport
    Gengar - Confusion
    Rayquaza - Seismic Toss
    Staraptor - Gust
    Mothim - Supersonic
    Fearrow - Gust
    Girafarig - Bite
    Froslass - Slash
    Dusknoir - Rapid Spin
    Regigigas - Hammer Arm
    Claydol - Shock Wave
    Uxie - Teleport
    Mespirit - Teleport
    Chimecho - Sing
    Kricketune - Bullet Seed
    Unown - Psychic
    Ursaring - Pound
    Unfezant - Wing Attack
    Lunatone - Moonlight

    Using this as anime precedence it's easy to see how this pokes would be able to learn this moves
  13. EndQuote

    EndQuote

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,358
    Because of this battle, I have a suggestion.
    In a Doubles battle, when Protect is shifted to an ally, it should count as a protective move used by that ally. (Meaning the ally should not be able to immediately Protect/Detect/Evasive Agility/Evasive Teleport/Dodge the action afterward)
    Otherwise, you get ridiculous Perish Song run-out-the-clock battles, like the aforementioned one.
    When one player hasn't got a prayer of winning, no matter what they do, something is seriously wrong.

    EDIT: @Lou, Fang does know Roar. He's also Taunted. Not too much help, that.

    So, as it turns out, Volt Switch and U-Turn remove enemy-inflicted Perish Song, which is a perfectly logical way to solve the aforementioned problem.
    So ignore this post...
  14. LouisCyphre

    LouisCyphre heralds disaster.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,618
    Buy Roar for Feraligatr. You can Roar your ally to get rid of their foe-inflicted Perish Count.

    Hope that helps.
  15. Athenodoros

    Athenodoros Official Smogon Know-It-All

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    4,936
    As far as I can tell SDS's sub revamp is not in any of the main data threads. It should be.

    EDIT: Didn't see that. Although it is a weird place for it, given the players need it just as much as refs. Seems like a DAT thing to me.
  16. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    It's in the referee resource thread under the hide tag labelled "Substitution rules"

    EDIT: The DAT makes several references to two-hit and multi-hit moves with regards to things like critical hits and Technician. The way it does this suggests that two-hit and multi-hit are entirely separate classes of move, so moves like Bonemerang, Double Hit and Double Kick are not multi-hit moves. The question is, what kind of move is Triple Kick? It's a three-hit move, but there is no mention anywhere of three-hit moves, which suggests that Triple Kick is either lumped in with the two-hit moves or the multi-hit moves. Mechanically, it is more similar to the two-hit moves so it ought to be lumped in with those, except by definition it is not a two-hit move because it hits more than twice.

    To end this confusion, I propose that all non-single-hit moves fall into two categories: fixed multi-hit moves and variable multi-hit moves. Fixed multi-hit moves will be multi-hit moves that always hit the same number of times, such as Bonemerang, Double Hit, Double Kick and Triple Kick, while variable multi-hit moves will be multi-hit moves that hit different numbers of times such as Fury Attack, Rock Blast and Icicle Spear. Beat Up would probably be considered a variable multi-hit move because, though the number of times it hits isn't completely random, it isn't fixed either.

    And speaking of multi-hit moves, Technician's treatment of them is a bit inconsistent.

    If two-hit moves and multi-hit moves are distinct categories, this description suggests that:
    • Single-hit moves with BAP <= 6 have their BAP multiplied by 50% and their energy cost increased by 1
    • Two-hit moves with BAP per hit <=6 (in other words, all two-hit moves) have their BAP per hit increased by 50% (when you consider the total BAP of two-hit moves is >6, this turns out to be a lot) and their energy cost increased by 1
    • Three-hit moves with BAP her hit <=6 (in other words, all three-hit moves) have their BAP per hit increased by 50% and their energy cost unchanged
    • Multi-hit moves have their BAP per hit increased by 1 (which is the same as 50% for ones with 2 BAP per hit, but less than 50% for ones with more than that) and their energy cost increased by 2

    This means overall, two-hit moves and three-hit moves get a much better deal on the whole than single-hit and multi-hit moves, since they have their BAP increased by more than what a single-hit move could have its BAP increased by, but for less energy cost increase than multi-hit moves. This does not make sense. Why do some kinds of moves that hit more than once get better treatment than others when fundamentally all multi-hit moves are the same except for the fact that some hit different amounts of times than others (which is not even a relevant difference given the BAP of all multi-hit moves)?

    Therefore, I propose this description for Technician:

    Or, here's one using the new terminology I proposed above:

  17. LouisCyphre

    LouisCyphre heralds disaster.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,618
    [box]14:37 Lou you know what would make choice items much less shitty
    14:37 Dummy007 Take AP Pokemon
    14:37 Aweshucks dude... that would be an amazing class
    14:37 Lou if they gave you the appropriate stat boost, but forced you to move first every round
    14:37 Pwnemon what, lou
    14:37 Lou instead of locking in one move
    14:38 Dummy007 Agreed
    14:38 Pwnemon that would be actually v good
    14:38 Pwnemon ask deck about that
    14:38 Lou proposing it[/box]

    Proposed change to Choice items:

    Rather than locking a mon in to a single move, they should instead be forced to order first each round. There should also be some manner of corresponding nerf to Choice-Trick, since that would become quite overpowering, forcing a foe to order first each round.

    For example:
    [box]Choice Band: Increases the Attack of the Pokemon by half of its current rank, rounded up. The Pokémon is greatly empowered, but requires further guidance from its trainer, necessitating that it be given orders first each round. If, in a multi-battle, only part of a team is Choiced, only those members are given orders first, with the others alternating normally. If a Choice item is moved given to an opponent of the original holder, the opponent gains a stat boost but can still order second every other round as normal[/box]

    Feel free to point stuff out; this is only a starting point.
  18. SimonSays

    SimonSays

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2010
    Messages:
    143
    The problem with that is if your opponent wants to switch, they're not able to. It also takes away from the spirit of the Choice Items: That you can only use 1 move.
  19. Pwnemon

    Pwnemon judges silently
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
    Doubles Co-Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,582
    [5:40pm] Pwnemon: since asb is so reliant on status moves, locking yourself in for a round is virtually unacceptable

    Choice items are literally never used nowadays because they suck so terrible. While it is true that the old definition is more in line with the idea of "choice item," it's not as if other items haven't been completely revamped in order to make them more applicable to this format. It wouldn't be hard to find a fix to the problem with switching; as lou said, this is only a starting point
  20. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight A Knight for the Aegis
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,523
    RE: Technician:

    Triple Kick is the only relevant move and it's a multi-hit move. Tech increases each hit by 1, so Triple Kick has 3-3-3 or 9 Total BAP, Contrasted with Double Kick's 4+4 or 8 Total BAP. So TK has 1 more BAP while DK has more Accuracy. Not that Hitmontop learns DK.

    RE: Choice Items:

    Having Attack disadvantage every round is arguably worse than being locked into one attack each round, and in any case it's immune to Disable, Imprison, Encore, etc. I'm not sure how I can improve it, save make it so that it ignores the dampening effect of Ranks above 5 for damage. That and increase Choice Scarf to 2x speed instead of 1.5x Speed to make it better than a +1 Speed Boost. I can make this more explicit though.
  21. LouisCyphre

    LouisCyphre heralds disaster.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,618
    That'd be a welcome start. The only thing that matters is that Choice Items become in some way viable. The "ignores ranks dampening" would go a long way in helping things like Choice Band Haxorus put the fear of God in the opponent, as they do in-game.

    E: So with Deck's proposed Choice Band, CB Adamant Haxorus hits 11 Attack, which is the same as it did before. However, before, it was +13.5 Damage, and now it's +16.5. Is that enough to make locking in like that worth it? It makes new CB Dragon Claw almost as good as old CB Outrage.
  22. Gerard

    Gerard

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,346
    I really thing this should not be the case, I mean you should be able to switch if you're going second, just not after the opponent has ordered, so you either call switch before orders (like after your opponent has ordered or right after the round has been reffed) or you do something like sending a PM to our ref to make him aware of the intended switch, that way you're able to switch anytime but you're not allowed to just switch to avoid you opponents actions
  23. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    Too complicated and too prone to abuse; did not implement.

    Seriously, what is stopping someone from posting a set of orders mere minutes after the reffing just to stop the other guy from switching out? And since when is this kind of "speed posting" supposed to be a strategy? Furthermore, how would you even be able to keep track of and enforce this if you have the PM option?
  24. Gerard

    Gerard

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,346
    That's the reason I wasn't to sure about the fast posting option, but the PM one is that: you Order, and then (since you were ordering first) you have a little time before the ref completes the round, so you at least have enough time for a "After this round I'll be switching Milotic" PM, this way after the round ends, if the Pokemon is still alive then the ref (at the end of the post) posts about the switching, so that the opponent doesn't post actions until it's over, remember this is after giving up being second so it's not really something very overpowered, and it's likely to only be used in battles were the Pokemon is in a very bad match up
  25. Flamestrike

    Flamestrike

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    842
    The reason why I'd prefer to keep it as-is is because right now the option to switch gives the player ordering first an advantage over the player ordering second since they have the option to either get a better Pokemon matchup or force the opponent to order first. Seeing as in every other way shape and form the player ordering second has the advantage, I think this is fair.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)