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

[Dogfish44]

Regarding Rotom:

Right now I'll be damned if anyone fully understands the mechanics of Rotom as it stands. Let's change that!

[box]Rotom:

• When Rotom is purchased, you purchase it as the standard non-appliance forme.
• Whenever you're battling with a Rotom, you send in the non-appliance Rotom information [RPs may wish to force a certain type at their own will].
• When you release Rotom for the first time in a match, you declare the forme it will be using, assumming you have the corresponding item.
• At the end of any battle involving Rotom, you maintain the appliance Rotom was sent out in, if any. Any appliance Rotom enters that isn't the one Rotom was sent out in will not be claimed.

[/box]

Basically, you can't get appliances for free from arenas, but you can still change formes if the arena allows it. It also means the appliance items you can buy make sense, and are actually usable =\

 

[Objection]

imo alter the sleep counter to 1/2/3 with early bird getting 0/1/1

getting a free action every single time from sleep is too strong imo

I would think a 33% chance of getting 2 free actions would be stronger, or at least as strong. But 1/2/2 could work.

Also, now that appliances can actually be purchased, I support Dogfish44's change to how Rotom appliances work and feel that it does not need discussion.

 

[Ullar]

Also supporting df's change to Rotom and feeling it doesn't need discussion

 

[waterwarrior]

Since when did confusion "suck"? Apart from the fact that confusion always lasts one action less than advertised, there is no escaping from its mega-disruptive potential. Furthermore, the proposed solution simply causes mega-inconsistency & does not make sense. "Oh no, that 4× Super Effective Ice Beam on my Dragonite did not stop confusion, but that Hi Jump Kick did? What is this?!" Same goes for Sleep, but the counter for it could do with a little alteration, especially if the near-universal moves proposal goes through, since everything will be able to pack Sleep Talk to abuse Sleep.

You're confusing the description of confusion with Sleep. With the current description, if you get a 4a confuse then deal 16 or more DMG to the opponent the following action, that confusion lasted for a grand total of 1 action, lasting a full round less than it should have, completely destroying any disruptive potential it really had. However, I must agree that it causes some discrepancies when factoring in weaknesses and resistances, so proposing an alternate to my original proposal:

If a sleeping Pokemon is hit with a single attack that causes 20 or more DMG, it will wake up one action sooner.

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

When a Pokemon is hit with a single attack that causes 20 or more DMG, its Confusion Stage is lowered to 0; this means that the Pokemon snaps out of confusion when it moves next.

This version of the proposal does away with "Ice Beam vs HJK" issues, but still allows the Pokemon inflicting confusion to retain offensive momentum while the opponent is confused.

Also, Pokemon can abuse Sleep with Sleep Talk? The way Sleep Talk works, the Pokemon now has a 25% chance of choosing the move it wants to use instead of 100. I wouldn't consider that abuse.

Anyways, I'm throwing my support behind changing Sleep's length to 1/2/2, but it should most likely be discussed, and df's Rotom proposal should most likely mention the Enter/Exit command somewhere, but besides that, I think it should be passed without discussion.

 

[Glacier Knight]

New body block sounds fine, rotom proposal sounds fine.

As for sleep, I'm agreeing with Texas and throwing support behind 1/2/3 sleep chance (0/1/1 for early birds). Sleep needs some help, and there are plenty of ways to get around it (every Pokemon and its mother gets sleep talk).

I fail to see how confusion sucks, in regards to WW's complaining. I think it's one of the scariest statuses, IMO at least. I think we don't need to tamper with confusion.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Actually now that I'm remembering it we talked about sleep a long time ago (months ago) and agreed that 1/2/3 was probably too good but that it definitely needed to go to 1/2/2

 

[Glacier Knight]

Eh, I still prefer 1/2/3, but 1/2/2 is better than what we have at the moment.

 

[TIO]

Supporting 1/2/2, and df's proposal.

 

[Objection]

Using the new official proposal bumping rules to bump the Fake Out proposal.

• ZhengTann says: Support and don't move to discussion
• Its_A_Random says: Support and don't move to discussion
• Texas Cloverleaf says: Support and don't move to discussion

This just needs a couple more votes in this thread before the council decides what to do about it.

 

[Glacier Knight]

Using the new official proposal bumping rules to bump the Fake Out proposal.

• ZhengTann says: Support and don't move to discussion
• Its_A_Random says: Support and don't move to discussion
• Texas Cloverleaf says: Support and don't move to discussion

This just needs a couple more votes in this thread before the council decides what to do about it.

add me to this list, I Support this and wish to not move this to discussion

 

[SimonSays]

I support Objection's Fake Out proposal and do not think it needs discussion.

Being able to completely halt an opponents' attacking options in Doubles++ is too much.

 

[Stratos]

upon agreement to one of the following two conditions:

a) objection will not john until this is resolved
b) this will not affect ongoing matches

i will agree with the fake out proposal, no discussion necessary

 

[Dogfish44]

RE: Confusion/Sleep Damage counter reduction - Do not support, move to discussion. There could be some legitimate concerns here, but let's discuss these clearly since right now I can't see it. Also, I think it would help deal with the fact that SOME users still don't understand the timer mechanics on it.

RE: Sleep Duration - Support, move to discussion - Mainly since I want to see what numbers pop up. 1/2/2 seems likely though.

RE: Block - Oppossed, Discussion - Yeah, not entirely convinced by this. Also note that it has a continuity error.

RE: Fake Out - Support, No Discussion.

Let me tally current things...

• Stat boosts - Plenty of support for a discussion, coming up soon!
• Sleep/Confusion duration - Two to discuss, Three to not discuss [Council shall decide] | 4 Oppose change, 1 Supports
• Sleep Duration - General opinion is support without discussion [Council shall decide]
• Fake Out - No discussion wanted, council will decide whether to discuss or to vote.
• Block - 3 People wanting discussion, two more before council decides on anything

~~~~~

From now on no proposals are to be discussed in this thread.

For each proposal, state the proposal, whether or not you support it, whether or not it should move to discussion or not, and any justification you want in Hide Tags. Failure to adhere to this will have the post removed. Please do not explicitly post to argue a separate post - if warranted it will go to discussion.

Thanks​

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

So some of us were talking on irc about CC, specifically about the CC bonus and how it could occasionally be used to get huge influxes of CC very quickly. This quickly moved into a discussion of the same amount of CC being given out for high movepool mons as low movepool mons. We quickly cam to a generally accepted formula that would balance the difference between high and low movepool mons.

I would put the previous rules here but I can't find them in any thread which goes to show how well implemented they are :x

In general, maxed movepool mons currently get 5 CC as a bonus in place of EC/MC/DC. Small movepool mons get less (1-5ish gets 1 bonus; 5-11ish gets 2 bonus)

The proposal to balance the bonus CC for maxed movepool mons is as follows:

Bonus CC = [FLOOR]Total Moves/15

Some examples:

A 54 move Rotom (say) would receive: [FLOOR]54/15=3 Bonus CC per match

A 79 move Garchomp would receive: [FLOOR]79/15=5 Bonus CC per match

A 117 move Dragonite would receive 7 bonus CC per match

And so on. As most Pokemon have max movepools between 60-90 moves, this proposal nicely scales the bonus based on how much effort is put into maxing out a Pokemons movepool, giving extra benefit to those few Pokemon with extremely large movepools.


As a side conjecture, I'm sure few would object to a massive CC bonus for a maxed movepool Mew :]

 

[Dogfish44]

RE CC Bonus for Maxxed Movepool Mons:

I Support the proposal and do not believe discussion is needed.

Justification

Texas summed it up rather nicely for me, larger maxxed out movepools do inherently take longer owing to the many 3 CC past-Gen tutor moves, such as Mega Kick. This should justify more CC, with 75-89 moves acting as a good benchmark 5 CC.

 

[Objection]

I support Texas Cloverleaf's proposal and do not feel it needs to be discussed.

 

[Stratos]

sure supporting texas's proposal if he'll shut up mumble mumble

no discussion

 

[Ullar]

sure supporting texas's proposal if he'll shut up mumble mumble

no discussion

 

[Eternal Drifter]

Regarding Texas's CC Bonus Proposal:

Neither For OR Against, but feels this needs discussion.

 

[Maxim]

Texas's proposal: Support, but move to discussion.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Texas' Proposal already went to a vote, folks... 9.9

 

[Yarnus of Bethany]

I propose that Light Screen and Reflect and co. be changed to help fast and slow mons equally by making them always last an effective 6 actions.

 

[Complications]

I agree with Yarnus, upon looking at his gym match. I feel that Light Screen should last for six actions starting with the first action it has the potential to be used, rather than the action it is used. (Ie. if used first in an action, the counter starts on that action, and of used second it starts at the beginning of the action following its use.)

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I'm sure we fixed this months ago, before the council even existed (I'm certain I was bitching about it anyway)

Maybe Yarnus' ref fucked up?

 

[Stratos]

Yeah wasn't this fixed at the same time as encore? (CB/CA semis?)