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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uh no

I declare my team to my opponent in 1v1s to guarantee a fair matchup

And sometimes we have stuff like Mr. Mime vs Mr. Mime to see who's the better Mr. Mime so tell me how that's counter farming

I want to have the ability to say "hey lets fight your X vs my X that's a fair matchup" or "hey I want to sketch soak", 1v1s are too commonly decided by type matchup (luck) so I want to be able to decide what the battle is

And evolution stage is dumb, eviolite exists and some NFEs are pretty strong like uh CLAMPERL MAYBE?

Opposing but lets discuss maybe we can take that out
 

Its_A_Random

A distant memory
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
"[21:56:21] <~Onion_Bubs> I give objectifying counter-farming a 0 out of 10 right now."

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on this whole counter-farming issue 2.0: Pointless. The more time has passed, the more I have pretty much grown to hate the idea of moderators vetoing matches deemed as counter-farming. I mean, like what orcinus said above me, what the fuck is wrong with bringing an Eviolite Porygon2/Rhydon/Scratchet/Trapinch or something similar to an FE match, especially if they are well developed, or fulfil a viable niche that the team needs? Also, as much as I like to see the idea of posting what you are using in tower banned, ehhh... Who really cares now... As for a debate, which seems almost certain, I think it is a bad idea as well. Basically, take the UC debate of a couple of months ago. I reckon it will descend into a far worse mess than that thread went, & as a result, I can honestly see nothing coming from it. As I have always said, stop trying to objectify a subjective issue. This applies here as well, & to be quite honest, I would rather us proj-mods no longer had this power, than defining the rules of this when we were clearly told to only reserve it for extreme cases.

There is a reason why I did not vote on the vote to introduce veto powers. As much as we were informed that it was reserved for extreme cases, I knew something bad was going to happen, & a no, well, we would be going on about other ways to go around it or something, not that a no vote would have counted. Of course, my fears were realised. We had to overturn a veto because of a silly draw which then caused an argument to blow up on IRC.

Opposing without discussion needed.
 
Agree completely with IAR and Orcinus.

1) I like to post my teams with challenges so I don't have to PM them later (yeah I am lazy). Also, it informs my opponent who I will use so it prevents me from being accused of Counterfarming.

2) Until recently I used an Eviolite Dusclops (arguably as good as dusknoir) on every FE match I could find. I doubt any of them would be considered counterfarming (as I won most). Also, Rhydon vs Butterfree can be considered counterfarming depending on the circunstances.

3) What is the matter with putting DQ in hours? AFAIK, Counter-farm=/=flash match.

4) I talk to someone on IRC and say I'll train my Exeggcute and ask for them to use Scyther. The challenge on Battle Tower is (seemly) normal and we battle. I command Barrage*3 and my opponent uses Bug Bite*3 and wins. In this situation, none of the rules were broken, but it can be considered counterfarming.


Opposing without discussion
 
First 5 votes on the CF proposal were Obj, ED, Subway, Pwn and Orc, with 3/5 wanting discussion (And the other two wanting it automatically w/o discussion). Council will decide what to do.

Will tally up other votes once I've got a bit more time...
 
21:13 orci i'm currently keeping a list of rational council members
21:13 orci IAR can be on it now
Congratulations IAR for being #3.

Can I motion to overturn the previous counterfarming ruling I've always hated that shit

Makes me feel like I'm being watched by big brother

And given that one big brother would rather jump off a cliff than have messy hair I don't really feel comfortable with that Seriously though.

Especially given that to be honest counter farming was REALLY never a big an issue as all this debate warrants
 

Engineer Pikachu

Good morning, you bastards!
is a Contributor Alumnus
opposing, yes to discussion

I realize that I may have overstepped my bounds in my recent disapproval (even though it was supported by a second person) given the grounds that the power was passed in the first place. That being said, though, committing suicide is not exactly what we should be encouraging so I'd like to discuss and get some things ironed out.

I disagree with using evolutionary stages as a measure of power because we all know that that's completely inaccurate and Eviolite further messes with the balance. The idea of not posting Pokemon in the battle tower is something I fully agree with, however, and hence I feel that discussion is warranted.
 
Opposing, Discuss

Tbqh the simplest option is to restrict the ability to deny counter for counterfarming to blatant cases of it, i.e. "Burn the Bellsprout." This wouldn't be something where you would see and say, "hmm, I don't know about that, it looks pretty unfair," but rather, "whoa, whoa, whoa, what is that bullshit."

I don't really care if you want to or how you would objectify that into writing but I think its pretty common sense among forum goers what would constitute a "bullshit" match.



Alternatively, give me final authority over counterfarming. If you think a match is coutnerfarming contact me and I'll judge its legitimacy. I think I'm a pretty level headed judge x)

edit: or any trustworthy group of people who can have this power delegated to christ pwnemon this isnt a goddamn power grab -.-
 

Deck Knight

Tornadic Cyclohm
is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
Thought I'd bring this up.

Updating the Roleplaying Committee:

So I just checked the RP Approval Thread and Alchemator's profile. Alchemator hasn't logged in since Christmas Eve of last year.

This means at a bare minimum the RP Committee is one member short, however it's also true that new RP proposals have kind of fallen into the ether.

I would propose that we update the RP Committee including duties and members, and get to work on streamlining that process.
 
yes yes yes ^

Leethoof's proposed duties list for the roleplay committee, as Roleplaying is dead atm.

Approving Roleplays: As the Roleplay Committee does now, they shall still be the final word on whether or not a suggestion shall make the great path from idea to full-fledged forum thread. This shall not change.
Updating Roleplays: The Roleplay Committee must also make a conscious effort to update old/dying roleplays. They should take a more active stance on improving the roleplay situation. They need to actually discuss questions such as "Could Acklow's Berry Farm be streamlined and updated to work in the current form of ASB? Can ASM work without Rediamond? What went wrong with Pokechess?". We should not cycle through roleplays; we must add them to our growing library. Adding on to this point...
Creating New Roleplays: The Roleplay committee is/will be chosen for their previous successful Roleplays and/or excellent ideas and creativity. Thus, they are certainly among the most qualified members of ASB to create new Roleplays. - with the only problem of likely being very busy with their own roleplays, lives, and extended committee duties. However, they absolutely must take be active in the construction of roleplays; instead of only approving/disapproving with a condescending "Try again next time!". I'm aware they do help new roleplays get off the ground already, but I'm discussing a more full-on approach: proposing ideas themselves, delegating these ideas to suitable interested candidates for Roleplay management, working directly on rulesets, etc.

With a more active (perhaps even expanded, given the more strenuous duties) Roleplay Committee, we can push forward this wonderfully vital portion of our little forum.
 

Deck Knight

Tornadic Cyclohm
is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
Here's the warning message I gave to Orcinus regarding the proposal he posted:

Deck Knight said:
I might have considered this as a proposal if you didn't turn it into a huge idiotic story.

Might have.

As it stands, Attract is based on biological procreative attraction. I see no reason to further confuse refs and alter game mechanics - nor introduce the kind of power creep that comes with bi orientation Pokemon.

Keep politics the fuck out of ASB.
 
Leethoof's RP Committee Proposal: Yeah, Leethoof has got the right idea. There have been some ideas that have been approved, yet they couldn't take off due to lack of collaboration, teamwork, and simple manpower. A good example of that is PZA (which I /still/ want to get up), and the Labyrinths. A RP committee that has more responsibility to help the "ideas" become "RPs", and keep them going strong, is what we need, and what ASB needs so that RPs arent just limited to Battle Hall and TLR (i know they arent the only RPs, but they're the most popular, and they define ASB RPs). Also, as DK said, Alchemator has been gone for a while now, leaving only Engineer and Zarator RP committee members. I think the RP committee needs to be rejuvenated, with a revision of their duties, and maybe elect one or two more people into committee. Supporting.
 
In Regards to Leethoof's RP Committe Proposal:
I agree with Glacier Knight in that Leethoof has the right idea. Several times, I've considered tallying up the RP Proposals, and putting approval status of them on the thread, with the hope that I could get one of my proposals through a little quicker (Poke'mon Center fell though because I couldn't get approval from all three, so I eventually gave up). Of course, with Alchemenator gone, there is no way at the moment that any RP can be approved, with the way the council currently works, if my understanding is correct.

Granted, there will likely be some discussion needed, with possible kinks needed to be ironed out, so, I Support, but request discussion.
 
Illegal Orders:

The rules on these are still retarded as fuck, and there is anime precedent and enough common dislike for these to warrant a removal. I don't care what they get replaced with, but let's kill this one.

---

"Action Locks":

i.e. posting to prevent the opponent from editing. Let's make the following a rule:

[box]No editing your actions unless any of the following...

  • Less than 10 minutes have passed and your opponent has not yet posted full actions.
  • Your opponent [ordering first] or ref [ordering second] is not on IRC or on the forums.
  • You have express permission from the other player, or have confirmed with the ref that they are not reffing at the moment.
[/box]

Editing your actions can be controversial, and this ties in well with the above proposal I reckon. Again, I don't care how we deal with this, but it's something I believe needs to be done.

And yes, I DO want to move both of these to discussion.
 
Illegal Orders:

The rules on these are still retarded as fuck, and there is anime precedent and enough common dislike for these to warrant a removal. I don't care what they get replaced with, but let's kill this one.
To be honest, I think this is part of a larger problem, namely the way we handle what happens when a pokemon can't act is hard to understand. I propose that, any time a pokemon is unable to use the move it was told to use and not as the result of something like flinch or full paralysis, it uses Struggle instead.

And, like Dogfish44, I feel that discussion regarding these two things is needed.
 
No and no

The first no is because you haven't proposed a solution

The second no: how about you can always edit your orders UNLESS the opposing player or the ref actions locks you

That makes much more logical sense
 
No and no

The first no is because you haven't proposed a solution

The second no: how about you can always edit your orders UNLESS the opposing player or the ref actions locks you

That makes much more logical sense
Agreeing with both of these.

We should discuss your first proposal.

Your second proposal is dumb and you should be able to edit your post until your opponent posts or until 10 minutes have passed (edit time), whichever is later.
 
1) No without discussion.

I don't know if I am minority here, but I really like the illegal order = reorder rule. It prevents games from being won/lost due to stupid mistakes (like forgeting that your mon doesn't have bide or typing Detect instead of Protect or even forgetting one of the effects of an arena). Also, in-game if you try to do something you can't (throw a pokeball on a trainer's pokemon, use non-attacking move on the turn after being taunted, ordering a move disabled on the previous turn) you are informed of the mistake and you don't lose a turn. Why should it be any different here? We are humans, we make mistakes. It is silly to lose a match just because of a mistype.

2) No with discussion.

I am not a fan of action locks. AND as a ref I am in constant fear of what would happen if a player edits action when I am in the middle of a reffing.

I feel there should be some rules (or at least recomendations) regarding that. BUT the proposed ones are too harsh (10 minutes? c'mon!)
 

ZhengTann

Nargacuga
is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
Regarding the Roleplaying Committee: Agree without need for discussion. I think all Council needs to do to help here would be putting up a thread in Network Center for RP Committee nominations, then a voting thread, then installation of the new Committee member.

Regarding Illegal Orders: Disagree without need for discussion. I may be the reff that sprang onto mind, given that I scalded Faylion during his factory match versus SS for editing orders (if that came out too extreme, then I apologise), but still I like the current trend as it stands, and I stand by Frosty as per the above post in his reasoning.

Regarding Action Locking: Disagree without need for discussion. I stand by Frosty as per above, again. Of course, we could discuss and lay down some guidelines, but personally, I believe there isn't much we could add, and there isn't any we need to change at the moment. Lurking around the forum would've give a new player some pretty clear ideas on the community's norms, and what or what not to do around these parts.
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
Illegal Orders: Disagree, let's discuss

[08:09am] Pwnemon: if a pokemon is stopped from doing its action on the turn it does it, it does nothing
[08:09am] Pwnemon: if a pokemon is stopped from doing its action sometime before the turn it does it, but is forced into it anyway, it uses Struggle
[08:09am] Pwnemon: if a pokemon is told to do an action it knows it can't, and has other options, it has to reselect its move

this is how it works in-game this is how it should work in-asb


Action Locks: We're fine as is. Disagree, no discussion
 
Thought I'd bring this up.

Updating the Roleplaying Committee:

So I just checked the RP Approval Thread and Alchemator's profile. Alchemator hasn't logged in since Christmas Eve of last year.

This means at a bare minimum the RP Committee is one member short, however it's also true that new RP proposals have kind of fallen into the ether.

I would propose that we update the RP Committee including duties and members, and get to work on streamlining that process.
yes yes yes ^

Leethoof's proposed duties list for the roleplay committee, as Roleplaying is dead atm.

Approving Roleplays: As the Roleplay Committee does now, they shall still be the final word on whether or not a suggestion shall make the great path from idea to full-fledged forum thread. This shall not change.
Updating Roleplays: The Roleplay Committee must also make a conscious effort to update old/dying roleplays. They should take a more active stance on improving the roleplay situation. They need to actually discuss questions such as "Could Acklow's Berry Farm be streamlined and updated to work in the current form of ASB? Can ASM work without Rediamond? What went wrong with Pokechess?". We should not cycle through roleplays; we must add them to our growing library. Adding on to this point...
Creating New Roleplays: The Roleplay committee is/will be chosen for their previous successful Roleplays and/or excellent ideas and creativity. Thus, they are certainly among the most qualified members of ASB to create new Roleplays. - with the only problem of likely being very busy with their own roleplays, lives, and extended committee duties. However, they absolutely must take be active in the construction of roleplays; instead of only approving/disapproving with a condescending "Try again next time!". I'm aware they do help new roleplays get off the ground already, but I'm discussing a more full-on approach: proposing ideas themselves, delegating these ideas to suitable interested candidates for Roleplay management, working directly on rulesets, etc.

With a more active (perhaps even expanded, given the more strenuous duties) Roleplay Committee, we can push forward this wonderfully vital portion of our little forum.
Leethoof's RP Committee Proposal: Yeah, Leethoof has got the right idea. There have been some ideas that have been approved, yet they couldn't take off due to lack of collaboration, teamwork, and simple manpower. A good example of that is PZA (which I /still/ want to get up), and the Labyrinths. A RP committee that has more responsibility to help the "ideas" become "RPs", and keep them going strong, is what we need, and what ASB needs so that RPs arent just limited to Battle Hall and TLR (i know they arent the only RPs, but they're the most popular, and they define ASB RPs). Also, as DK said, Alchemator has been gone for a while now, leaving only Engineer and Zarator RP committee members. I think the RP committee needs to be rejuvenated, with a revision of their duties, and maybe elect one or two more people into committee. Supporting.
Regarding the Roleplaying Committee: Agree without need for discussion. I think all Council needs to do to help here would be putting up a thread in Network Center for RP Committee nominations, then a voting thread, then installation of the new Committee member.
Deck Knight by IRC said:
20:22 Eternal_Drifter
Deck_Knight... I've been meaning to speak with you about ASB RPs.

20:22 Eternal_Drifter
Remember the Icy Forest? What if trainers could catch Poke'mon in it.

20:23 Deck_Knight
Sounds like an RP idea.

20:23 Deck_Knight
Btw. did we ever resolve that RP committee thing with Alchemator gone?

20:23 Eternal_Drifter
No...

20:23 Eternal_Drifter
At least, not to my knowledge.

20:24 Deck_Knight
Do you want me to fiat you into a position of power and responsibility?

20:24 Eternal_Drifter
I honestly do not know what to say to that.

20:25 Eternal_Drifter
I've only been here about a year, and have little eye for balance.

20:25 Eternal_Drifter
But if you want me to assist with something, so be it.

20:25 Deck_Knight
I simply asked because we've had that RP committee thing up for a bit and we need a third member. Since we seem to be lacking in volunteers...

20:26 Eternal_Drifter
Very well. I am nuts already. I suppose I could be a temporary RP committee member until a more permenent solution is achieved.

20:26 Deck_Knight
Go post in the feedback and updates thread and we'll see what we can do about it.
With no action being taken, I volunteer for the position of RP Committee member until a more permement solution is being taken. If no one else is willing to take on the task, I will step up to the plate. And if anyone has a better idea, now would be the time to hear it.
 
Leethoof is frozen in Siberia at the moment. Dunno when he'll thaw.

Also I'd totally volunteer or compete for a spot, but that probably wouldn't be best, seeing as I've got got showdown to worry about. But, I'd be happy to help.
 

Engineer Pikachu

Good morning, you bastards!
is a Contributor Alumnus
I already sent off a message to zarator earlier today; I'm not sure what system we're going to end up using but it's probably going to go through a general "who wants this position" thread and then a vote.
 

Dogfish44

^_^
is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
Hey, what's up with Memento's stupidly high EN cost of "--".

[box]Memento: The Pokémon leaves an imprint on the target that repeatedly reminds them that they will eventually faint. The Pokémon faints, and the opponent will suffer from a 2-stage Attack and Special Attack drop (Switch = OK: until the opponent switches out; Switch = KO: until the opponent faints).
Attack Power: -- | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: -- | Attack Type: Other | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: No | Typing: Dark | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive[/box]

Is this intentional? Or should we actually have an EN cost there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.