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. Geodude6

    Geodude6

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    244
    Double post b/c I'm a baaaad man.

    Why do we keep threads like Battle Tower MkI, Arcade signups MkI, etc that are closed; in the Network Center? All they do is take up space. We should set them adrift on an iceberg a la referee training grounds with links in the new threads in case anyone wants to go back and look at w/e. I see the point in keeping things like Gym threatlist that are still a handy reference, but I see no point in keeping Battle Tower MkI in the Network Center.

    Also, alternative Iron Barbs proposal:
    Proposed changes:
    Added recoil became flat damage
    Minor flavor for Iron Barbs (not relevant whatsoever)
  2. Texas Cloverleaf

    Texas Cloverleaf meh
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,643
    Opposing on principle, no discussion

    Edit: re: RS/IB
  3. Yarnus of Bethany

    Yarnus of Bethany

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,065
    Supporting, no discussion.
  4. Dogfish44

    Dogfish44 Banned from 22 Casinos
    is a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Controversy: IB/RS too weak. Proposal: Nerf them.

    Oppossed, no discussion.
  5. waterwarrior

    waterwarrior

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,529
    Same thing dogfish said

    No support/ no Discussion

    Can you just count that as a no support, no doscussion vote on any proposed Iron Barbs/Rough Skin proposal? I still think nothing is wrong with them.
  6. Geodude6

    Geodude6

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    244
    What if we buff it to 7 damage?
  7. UllarWarlord

    UllarWarlord

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,655
    What if we just don't change it at all, because there's nothing wrong with it?

    No support, no discussion
  8. Elevator Music

    Elevator Music
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    7,742
    [13:54:08] <akela> random idea for those that wish to change Iron Barbs and Rough Skin: Have it be 25% of the BAP of the move used, instead of some kind of fixed damage.

    I don't think there is anything wrong with Iron Barbs/Rough Skin per se, but something like this is an interesting idea, because what Simon brought up about how Fire Punch returns less recoil than Ice Punch on a Druddigon does seem silly to me. It does fail to account for things like Counter and Bide, but it's a good starting point. It could also be a different %, like 50%, 75%, 69.696969696969%, 0.01%, or whatever people find reasonable.
  9. Gerard

    Gerard

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,370
    I don't think there's a way to change Iron Barbs / Rough Skin without it being either nerfed against SE attacks or overpowered against regular ones, for reference most contact SE attacks right now do around 6 dmg back every time you get attacked, this being mainly Fighting attacks and the Elemental Punches
  10. GemOftheDay

    GemOftheDay

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,010
    Static

    I proposed this on IRC, and it gained considerable support. Anyways, here we are.

    Now this version of static is okay, but I honestly think that it could be a little more realistic. For example, an "effects on" mechanic for it that allows the pokemon with static to paralyze the opponent. I think that this follows the flavor text of the ability, as contact paralyzes the attacker. So why not allow it to paralyze the defender? Static's field charge should also empower electrical moves by 1 BAP, due to the electrical charge. Also, I think that it should have an energy drain to use these extra effects to empower the attacks, to counteract the buffs we may give it.
    Any questions?
  11. UllarWarlord

    UllarWarlord

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,655
    Hm...I'm on the fence.

    Supporting, but feeling discussion is warranted
  12. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    I oppose the Static proposal and feel that it needs discussion.

    Why? (open)
    To be honest, this seems like trying to make Static similar to Poison Point. If that's the idea, then I think a better way to do it would be like this:

    [box]Static:

    Type: Can be Disabled

    This Pokemon’s body is surrounded by an electric field that has a 30% chance of paralyzing opponents that use contact moves on this Pokemon. When disabled, all of this Pokemon’s Electric-type attacks that inflict paralysis will inflict 25% paralysis (with the same chance of effect).

    Pokemon with this ability: Pikachu, Raichu, Voltorb, Electrode, Electabuzz, Pichu, Mareep, Flaaffy, Ampharos, Elekid, Electrike, Manectric, Emolga, Stunfisk, Monohm, Duclohm, Cyclohm.[/box]

    Poison Point has situations in which you would want it enabled and situations in which you would want it disabled, depending on whether you would rather try to inflict toxic poison or catch them off guard with regular poison. This version of Static provides a similar trade-off: would you rather try to inflict 25% paralysis or catch them off guard with 20% paralysis?
  13. Orcinus Duo

    Orcinus Duo

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    Something real quick that's been bugging me because it violates common sense

    Why do people vote "no discussion" after people have posted an opposite opinion? If you have two disagreeing opinions, there must be discussion. The "no discussion" option should only be for stuff like fake out which are obvious to an extreme degree, or "guys let's give wobbufett 100 atk". If there are two differing opinions outside of the original poster's, there should always be discussion.

    So for the sake of having stuff making sense, I propose that the "no discussion" button can only be pressed when there is unanimous support or opposition.
  14. Leethoof

    Leethoof

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,450
    Opposing/No discussion to orcinus's proposal...wtf do you even mean?????
  15. EspyOwner

    EspyOwner

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,938
    To orcinus's proposal: Opposing, no discussion.

    It's come to my attention that Moonlight is currently the worst healing move in ASB, working well only in flavour arenas, and well... Sucking horribly outside of them. I propose a change to Morning Sun as well, distinctly to have them match.

    I believe that they should say something along the lines of "in strong lighting", "in non-bright weather" and "in the absense of weather and strong light sources"
    Obviously these are just examples, but I feel that they should be considered.
  16. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    I would like to propose an alternative to EspyOwner's proposal:

    This way, those who want to add day/night flavour to their arenas can do so, while the neutral arenas like the ASB arena remain neutral.

    EDIT @ Orcinus' proposal: It is perfectly fine for person A to think something should obviously be implemented (they support it and do not think there should be discussion) while person B thinks person A is a complete moron and the thing should obviously not be implemented (they do not support it and do not think there should be discussion), and person A thinks person B is a complete moron to boot. The council is quite capable of judging which of the two (if either of them) is a complete moron and making a decision accordingly. Plus, if two votes say support and three say oppose then, even if all five votes say no discussion, the council would probably go to discussion anyway.

    With that in mind, I oppose that proposal and do not feel that it needs discussion.
  17. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,158
    Regarding Morning Sun and Moonlight: Support without need for discussion. As long as the proposed codified implementation works explicitly in all contingencies (standard conditions, flavour arenas, etc.) without changing the meaning implied by the norm (I always regard those healing moves to be normal should there be no specific weather), I'm for it.

    Also, I think Feedback thread is clogging up due to the fact that we still have unresolved Discussion threads that needs attention. While I think I may know the reasons behind this backlog, I'd still implore a projmod or a Councillor to list out what's awaiting us in here, with Council's decision on certain issues that had garnered enough votes from posters.
  18. Frosty

    Frosty ._.
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    731
    I support without need for discussion every single proposition that in any way nerfs Endeavor+Endeavor, up to and including changing it to CT: None and make it like explosion in regards to energy.

    Can someone please do something about it now?
  19. Its_A_Random

    Its_A_Random Solves issues recursively
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,307
    Yeah, about that, I put up a non-CT: None proposal here that did not get enough votes because of the whole Rough Skin/Iron Barbs fiasco, which will prolly be vetoed at any rate.

    Who here supports the proposal in the link I posted?
  20. deadfox081

    deadfox081

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    4,133
    Personally I think Endeavour=CT: None is a no brainer. Also I would like to see some kind of a damage cap on it akin to what we have on Pain Split (hint: 25 is a good number)
  21. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    The proposal already has one "support with no discussion" vote from UllarWarlord in addition to those votes from Frosty and deadfox081.

    Personally, I support the changes to Endeavor and Helping Hand proposed in the link in Its_A_Random's post above, but due to the different proposals suggested for Endeavor and Helping Hand, I feel that there should be discussion.
  22. Engineer Pikachu

    Engineer Pikachu Good morning, you bastards!
    is a Contributor to Smogon

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,592
    I'd probably also vouch for a reduction in Moonlight and Morning Sun healing; to be honest 35 HP is an extremely large chunk (compared to other moves' 20 HP) and imo they should only be around 25 at best.
  23. Its_A_Random

    Its_A_Random Solves issues recursively
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,307
    imo, just bring Moonlight & Morning Sun in line with Synthesis (10/20/30 HP), & that would do.

    At any rate, I support changing said moves, but I think a short, sharp discussion could be needed? idk.

    EDIT: On the topic of Endeavour, if the BEC of Endeavour + Endeavour is based on Endeavour > Endeavour (Which it should be), the HP Threshold for the combo to work is a whopping 180, with a BEC of 16+(180÷1.75^2)+((180-(180÷1.75))÷1.75^2)=~99.97 EN, dealing 180×(9÷7)=~231.43 DMG, & costing (16+((180×(9÷7))×2))×1.75=838 EN. Proof that Mega Endeavour is pretty dumb, lol.
  24. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,158
    Regarding Endeavour and Helping Hand: Support without need for discussion. Every option listed before - from Explosion-like Energy requirements, to CT:None, etc. etc. are clear cut and does not merit a Discussion thread to me - the Council can simply hold a Multiple Bold Voting or IRV to decide which facets of those two moves need be nerfed. Its not like Block, where people come up with different formulae and try to convince each other that theirs is the best - we all have one goal, and all we need is a vote on how to achieve it, since all roads lead to Rome.

    EDIT:
    Origins of the Proposal (Excerpted) (open)
    <Deck_Knight> Things shouldn't take more than 24hrs or so to be approved. If it's less than that it isn't an issue.
    <Zt> Well, by that definition, Deck... The currently earliest unapproved thread is posted approximately 23 hours, 50 minutes ago.
    <Deck_Knight> Do we have an active listing of all the approvers?
    <Deck_Knight> Mostly I'm interested in figuring out if people that were made approvers long ago are now inactive
    <Zt> If that's your question, then yes.
    <Deck_Knight> And rather than asking me I'd prefer we use the Policy Center or something to make sure we actually have a decent self-refreshing set of approvers.

    So, uh, when your lord and benefactor relegates the responsibility to you, you do your best to not screw it up?
    Fire away the votes.
  25. Texas Cloverleaf

    Texas Cloverleaf meh
    is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,643
    [box]The term "General Approver" refers to users on the ASB forums that have the right and responsibility to approve ASB profile registrations and Prize Claims.
    Sure

    The objective of this proposal is to create a self-sustaining, constantly-updating General Approvers' list, and to minimize backlog in Reg Tower and PCT.
    Sure

    The current Council will elect a single Councillor to oversee the appointment of new General Approvers, as well as the terminations of their statuses. (Similar to how MK is in charge of the Hall referees)
    Sounds good

    Existing General Approvers who are still active (it's a subjective list, but it probably includes EMma, dogfish, Obj, Engi, Ralex, etc.) may retain their status.
    03:58 Texas I think we have like 8 active approvers or something?
    03:58 Texas active meaning not dead
    03:59 Texas me, glacier, ralex, df, iar, engi, em, obj


    Projmods on the ASB forum are automatically granted the General Approver status, and are also charged to update the OP's list weekly.
    Sure. Proj mods have to be good with data.

    The General Approver status is automatically granted to every Council member, as well as members of the RP/Gym Approval Committee, but it will be revoked if the said Council/Committee Member terminates his/her term.
    Iffy on this. Future council members may not be good approvers. Also no to gym/rp approvers being able to approve claims, different beasts (yea i know in this case gym are approvers anyway)

    The General Approver status may also be temporarily granted to reliable, upstanding ASB forum users, subject to conditions and current situations.
    Sure

    A General Approver may willingly terminate his/her own status as one, as long as they nominate a suitable replacement candidate.
    Eh, terminate, but it should be up to the council member to deem if a replacement is necessary and to find one if so.

    Should a General Approver be inactive for more than 3 months (from the last approving post made), his/her status will be terminated.
    Sure, subject to other posts such as councilman inactive for one month being removed.[/box]
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

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