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.

Data State of the Game - 4/22/2011

Discussion in 'ASB' started by Seven Deadly Sins, Apr 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    Firstly, this is the first State of the Game run by the committee, so props to everyone that came out and voted. Hopefully, this will streamline things more, and make the rulemaking a bit more agile.

    If you'd like to participate in the discussion in real-time, come to #capasb on irc.synirc.net. There's always an active crowd here chatting about the finer points of ASB, and we'd love to have your participation.

    Next, I’d like to note that none of the changes in this State of the Game apply to current battles. All changes will be implemented at the start of any new battles, but rule changes are not applied retroactively.

    That said, let’s see just what got voted on, shall we?

    The New Stat System

    The new stat chart looks like this:

    0-25: * 80 HP
    26-60: ** 90 HP
    61-95: *** 100 HP
    96-120: **** 110 HP
    121-140: ***** 120 HP
    141-160: ***** (+1) 125 HP
    161-180: ***** (+2) 130 HP
    181-200: ***** (+3) 135 HP
    201+: ***** (+4) 140 HP

    Any trainer with a Pokemon affected by this change (both lower and upper level changes) has ONE FREE NATURE CHANGE, which they can have approved in the prize approval thread. This only applies to Pokemon who have their stats altered by this change, and only applies to the Pokemon’s nature, nothing else.

    Move Counter Costs

    The new Move Counter costs will be as follows:

    1 MC: Level-Up Moves from any Pokemon at or below the current Evolution stage, Pledge Moves.
    2 MC: BW TMs, BW Tutors.
    3 MC: Egg Moves, Event Moves, Past Gen TMs, Past Gen Tutors

    You may now use the new rates in your Prize Approval posts.

    Burn Mechanics

    Burn now behaves with the following rules:

    Burn Mechanics (open)
    Burns are external injuries that can be inflicted on body parts or the whole body in three degrees of severity. A 1st Degree Burn can be compounded into a 2nd Degree Burn, otherwise there is no progression to or from burn states.

    1st Degree Burn - reduces the damage done by a Pokemon's physical attacks using an affected body part by two (2).

    In addition, the Pokemon suffers two (2) HP of damage per action.

    Inflicted by: All 10% burn chance attacks (Flamethrower, Fire Punch, Tri Attack, etc.)

    2nd Degree Burn - reduces the damage done by a Pokemon's physical attacks using an affected body part by three (3) points.

    In addition, the Pokemon suffers two (2) HP of damage per action.

    Inflicted by: Will-O-Wisp, Scald, Lava Plume, Fire Blast

    3rd Degree Burn - a grievous burn that affects a Pokemon's entire body, reducing the damage done by all of a Pokemon's physical attacks by three (3) points.

    In addition, the Pokemon suffers three (3) HP of damage per action.

    Inflicted by: Ice Burn, Inferno, Blue Flare, Sacred Fire, Searing Shot


    Confusion Mechanics

    Confusion now lasts 2/3/4 turns instead of 1/2/3 turns.

    Speed Mechanics

    Speed natures work exactly the same, but Speed now affects the following:

    Command: Dodge - Reduces an incoming attack’s accuracy by (User’s Speed - Opponent’s Speed) / 5. In Trick Room, the effect is reversed- An incoming attack’s accuracy is reduced by ((User’s Speed - Opponent’s Speed) * -1) / 5. This command costs 5 Energy.



    Now that’s all well and good, but where to now?

    Well, there’s a couple things that have been raised. First and foremost:

    1: Speed Modifying Natures

    During the last period there were some questions about the power of speed modifying natures, and the general consensus was that the effect should be doubled to +10 accuracy for speed boosting natures and -10% evasion for speed reducing natures. Is this the best way to go?

    2: Critical Hits for multi-hit moves

    I was talking to dogfish44 about this, and it seemed like an interesting idea. Basically, to more accurately mirror how multi-hit moves act in regards to Critical Hits in-game, we thought that Multi-hit moves should, instead of having one critical hit roll and a flat +3 damage, it should have one critical hit roll for each hit of the move, and each hit critical should add a flat +1 damage instead. This accurately mirrors the “increased critical hit chance” of multi-hit moves. Their base power will work the same- that is, only applying STAB once and treating the base power as base x number of hits, just the critical hit formula will be altered.

    3: CounterCoat and Metal Burst

    Again, from dogfish44. He suggested that CounterCoat and Metal Burst should be redefined so that instead of acting on the final damage, they should act on the base power instead. They would also have their original typing: Counter would be Fighting-type, Mirror Coat would be Psychic-type, and Metal Burst would be Steel.

    Effectively, the moves would look like this:

    Counter (open)
    Counter: The Pokemon prepares itself for a physical assault with a strong brownish-red aura. The power of a physical attack that hits the aura is absorbed and released back at 1.5 times its original strength.

    Attack Power: Incoming Attack’s Power x 1.5 | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: 6 + Attack Cost/2 | Effect Chance: --


    Mirror Coat (open)
    Mirror Coat: The Pokémon becomes covered in a glowing, reflective aura that reflects Special attacks back at the opponent. The power is equivalent to 1.5x the incoming move’s power.

    Attack Power: Incoming Attack’s Power x 1.5 | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: 6 + Attack Cost/2 | Effect Chance: --


    Metal Burst (open)
    Metal Burst: The Pokémon’s body glows white as a silvery orb appears and grows bigger in front of it. The orb absorbs all damage taken, then is fired at the opponent, striking with 1.25x the power of the original move. Deals physical damage against physical attacks and special damage against special attacks.

    Attack Power: Incoming Attack’s Power x 1.25 | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: 6 + Attack Cost/2 | Effect Chance: --


    For example: if a physical move with 8 base power is used, Counter would be a 12 power physical Fighting move and Metal Burst would be a 10 power physical Steel move. If a special move with 8 power is used, Mirror Coat would be a 12 power special Psychic move and Metal Burst would be a 10 power special Steel move.

    Possible tweaks to this would be:

    - Altering the modifier numbers
    - Altering the energy cost
    - Basing the “user’s attack” stat on the opponent’s stat similar to the move Foul Play

    4: Removing the STAB Move Energy Cost decrease

    There’s been a bit of talk about the issue of the “press the attack button” mentality that some people tend to have, and ways to encourage more creative play. I’ve come to think that one of the major contributing factors is that STAB attacking moves simply cost a laughable amount of energy for their damage output, and it’s too easy to just blast off mid-level attacks. An unSTAB high-power attack like Psychic versus a STAB Round is always going to go in favor of the Round since it costs nearly half of what Psychic costs for the same effect, simply through a combination of STAB and the energy reduction. Personally, I think the first step should be to remove the energy decrease on offensive STAB moves, and honestly, to replace them with an *increase* of 1 Energy to match. It’d make it more costly to just spam STAB moves, but said STAB moves would still be the most efficient and most effective for general use.

    5: Substitutions

    It seems like right now, substitutions are being taken a bit overboard, and I think we need more rigid guidelines for just when/how you can use substitutions. While we realize that Substitutions are an important way for normalizing the natural deficit between the person that orders first and the person that orders second, it's being used to the extreme in some cases, since Substitution has no real cost. Something I was kicking around was making move-based substitution cost more and make the effect of substituted moves less potent, since the Pokemon has less time to prepare its attack and so must rush it, expending more energy and getting less results. The rule would look something like this:

    Any move where a substitution is ordered costs 25% more energy. In addition, if the move is an attacking move, it does 25% less damage. If the move inflicts status, that status' severity is one stage lower than it would normally be- temporary status such as Taunt has a shorter duration, while permanent status such as Burn has a 1 stage lower effect than it would normally have.

    6: Combo Moves

    While I love combo moves, there are a few things that need to be ironed out for them. There are 3 main guidelines that I would hope to establish for combo moves.

    1: Combo moves cost as much energy and as many actions as the moves that are combined. For example: Surf + Twister to create a waterspout-like effect would cost 10 energy (7 for Surf and 3 for Twister) and take up two move actions.
    2: Combo moves are largely at the discretion of the referee of that match as to the result of the move. There can definitely be an "intended effect", but combo moves are not guaranteed to work if the referee doesn't think the combo would or should work.
    3: Combo moves cannot be used to "sneak in" an extra attack during the last round of a Pokemon's life. For example: if a faster Pokemon with 1 HP is going to be KOed next turn, it cannot use a Combo Move to combine two actions in order to gain an advantage and use two actions when it would normally faint after one.

    I've also been kicking around the idea of attaching a "cost" to Combo Moves, something like 2-3 energy on top of the combined energy cost, since it can result in some very powerful results based on what the user can put together.

    I’m sure there’s things I missed, but feel free to discuss them. The next State of the Game will be up in about 2 weeks, posted by DarkSlay. Again, you can come discuss these changes in real-time on IRC in the channel #capasb on irc.synirc.net.
  2. Lord Jesseus

    Lord Jesseus

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,005
    With the nature changes, there may be a problem in that many people selected natures with the final evolution in mind. This could be problematic because the current form may not be affected by the changes while the final form is. So if the final form would now require a Nature change, it is prevented by the fact its pervious form is unchanged.
    I'm not sure if I'm being clear, do you see what I mean?
    Also, what was the previous stat system, just for reference?

    On a side note I hate this, two of my Pokemon have lost stats while not a single one has gained any...
  3. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    If the final form is affected by the changes they are still eligible for a nature modification.
  4. zarator

    zarator Credits to Mos-Quitoxe for the cute sprite^^
    is a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,975
    I agree with points 1, 2 and 3. On point 4 I'm a bit skeptical about going so far for punishing offensive moves. I realize where you come from, but if we make offense too unviable, we won't get a "creative match" necessarily. Probably we'll get a match full of Thunder Wave/Double Team/Substitute etc, which makes for an even more boring game than offensive onslaughts imo.

    Really, I think, like some others, that the real issue lies in the Singles format. The way it is built will inevitably produce "boring battles", aside from really creative arenas, for a simple reason. Let' say X Pokémon is facing Y Pokémon. X Pokémon has to choose actions 1-2-3. No matter which bans and rules you enforce, there will always be a certain combo which is superior to others. And logic dictates that, most times, the best thing to do will be repeat that combo every round (or maybe varying it a bit with standard countermeasures for the opponent's moves). That's in the nature of Singles, and no matter how byzantines rules can become, you'll never change it.

    That's why I think Doubles should become the official format. Not only it promotes more strategy, because the involved variables are much more numerous, it opens up to several more viable courses of action, and it makes slightly harder to see the better one each time. Plus, Doubles matches tend to last less time than Singles, which is another plus. Not to say we should disallow Singles at all, but rather than we should promote Doubles more (for example, making it the format for Gym battles and tournaments). Whether it should be 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 is up for debate, but the main point is that I don't think we'll get out of dullness as long as we stick to Singles.

    I totally agree with Substitutions, although with a conditional. When a trainer says, "if the opponent does X do Y instead", if the opponent is slower, you should not be able to make the substitution, save giving up the speed advantage for that action. You cannot foresee the opponent's actions.

    About Combo moves, again, I agree with your proposals.
  5. Athenodoros

    Athenodoros Official Smogon Know-It-All

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    4,936
    1: Speed Modifying Natures

    I'm not sure why it is necessary to change the nature mechanics, but 10% does sounds more reasonable considering the relatively small role of speed in ASB

    2: Critical Hits for multi-hit moves

    I think this would only fit if STAB and such was added to each move individually. Given it doesn't, and that they would be instantly broken if it were, I don't think this is a good idea.


    3: CounterCoat and Metal Burst

    These do need to be down-graded. I think that the suggested changes are a good idea, and that it might even be that more sever changes need to be put into place. I definitely support this though.


    4: Removing the STAB Move Energy Cost decrease

    I think this is a bad idea. It doesn't fit flavour-wise (Pokemon would find it easier to handle their own element) and I don't think it will solve the problem it is trying to fix. It needs to be tackled differently.


    5: Substitutions

    I mentioned this last time, and I think I came up with this idea of increased energy for substitutions. Fully support it.


    6: Combo Moves

    Combo moves are a big part of ASB, but those guidlines do seem necessary. I don't think an extra cost for combo moves is a good idea, because I think they are used at the right frequency anyway, and that it isn't necessary, although I can definitely see the logic. The only thing I disagree with is the inability to use up an action you wouldn't otherwise have. I think that this should be done, as a kind of final all-out attack before dying. Think DBZ.
  6. Rediamond

    Rediamond

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,168
    As this is run by the PRC, I'm not entirely sure I can even post here anymore. If I'm not supposed to post, I'll delete this. Anyways,
    1) Once again, having a +Speed Nature benifits Shuckle more than Ninjask like that. A +Att Nature, for example, is normally a better idea on Machamp than Blissey. Therefore, having a flat increase regardless of speed makes no sense at all. If we do alter natures, Deck's Proposal did seem to partially fix that, but that got voted down so....

    Also, I'm going to put this here: Evasion is dead. The last SotG voted for a proposal for a "Dodge command" that was my formula for passive evasion. As a passive evasion command, it was a negligible boost, a 5% chance was the average reduction in most scenarios. Now, I can tell my Nuzleaf to "Dodge " a Flamethrower, giving it a 3% chance to do so at the cost of five energy. I would be fine with this, if we didn't also day that Quick Attack and the like can't be used for evasion. Now, I'm pretty much forced to play by the standard flow of a match (Att, Att2, Att; maybe a stat booster or taunt in there), as Evasiveness has died. Seriously, either boost dodge a lot or let other moves (not just four) dodge.

    2) Why weren't we already doing this? It's a great idea.

    3) No real complaints with this. It's still kinda broken, and energy should be raised a lot, but much better than it was.

    4) I have no opinion. It hurts STAB, but that is already really good. Once again, no real opinion.

    5) I like this idea. It encourages more creative play and countering what the opponent does more than attack spamming. Gives it a feel more like day one.

    6) Thats a really good idea, and I can't think of how to explain it more.

    Overall, those were good proposals, and my only real complaint is the death of evasion unless you have speed over 150 or have Dig, Agility, Bounce, or Dive.
  7. zarator

    zarator Credits to Mos-Quitoxe for the cute sprite^^
    is a Community Contributoris a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2008
    Messages:
    4,975
    @Rediamond: About dodge, I'd like to note that every Pokémon in the game can learn Protect. People really need to use Protect more...
  8. Its_A_Random

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

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,309
    1) Evasion is dead, somewhat...But I'm indifferent on this matter.
    2) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Multi-Hit moves as it stands are far from broken imo. Why change it?
    3) I agree with this idea, Countercoat & Metal Burst are too overpowered at the moment, especially considering the current meta is one where users "Hit the Attack Button"
    4) No. I disagree. Pokemon using moves of the same type as them shouldn't have any trouble using it, so wouldn't it make sense for the energy reduction for using a STAB Move?
    5) Agree with the +5 Energy for subs, as they are fairly broken at the moment, being one of the biggest abusers of this rule. I support this.
    6) Agree. I personally think combo moves should take up two actions, only if it's one Pokemon performing the combo.

    Also, Rediamond, Protect/Detect & Evasion increasing abilities say hi.

    EDIT:
    Here you go!
    0-25: * 80 HP
    26-55: ** 90 HP
    56-95: *** 100 HP
    96-125: **** 110 HP
    126-155: ***** 120 HP
    156-185: *****(+1) 125 HP
    186-215: ***** (+2) 130 HP
    216-245: ***** (+3) 135 HP
    246+: ***** (+4) 140 HP
  9. Rediamond

    Rediamond

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,168
    Energy would like to have a word with you. Seriously, Protect is good, but it isn't energy efficient. That, and almost nothing gets Protect from level up, making Protect a necessary investment for anything that wants to dodge an attack. I'm sorry, but that's a lot of centralization on one move.
  10. smashlloyd20

    smashlloyd20

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,307
    Hi, it's the guy nobody cares about.

    1. This sounds like a good idea.

    2. Sounds fine, I don't think this will be broken.

    3. The suggested changes sound good. However, I feel it would make more sense if the attack ran off the opponent's attacking stat, as they launched the attack in the first place.

    4. ...No. It makes zero sense. I think the uncreative nature of battles these days is determined by the battlers above all else, as it's been proven creativity is completely possible these days and can work.

    5. I support the energy cost increase, but not the power/effectiveness decrease. That would be taking a nerf a little too far, and as stated above substitutions are made to decrease the disadvantage the first attacker has. If the move is only doing 75% of its normal damage, that's not going to deter an opponent very well.

    6. Sounds good.
  11. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    1. Neutral on this.

    2. Support on the grounds of it making more logical sense for each hit of a multi-hit move to get its own crit roll. Maybe change the crit damage modifier to +1.5?

    3. Despite having had no experience of these moves being used against me, I fully support this since, from what I can understand, CounterCoatBurst users currently out-damage non-CounterCoatBurst users.

    4. Oppose for the reasons Zarator said, plus as others have said it makes logical sense for a Fire pokemon to be able to put in less effort when using a Fire move and still get the same overall effect. Besides, there are also situations where spamming STAB moves is not the best strategy (eg, Gallade vs. Mismagius).

    5. Oppose and would like to propose something else (assuming refs don't already do this): when a pokemon uses a substitution based on an opponent's move, it moves after said opponent has made its move. For example, if an Infernape was told "If Empoleon uses Hydro Pump, use ThunderPunch, otherwise use Close Combat" and the Empoleon was told "Use Hydro Pump", then Empoleon would move first.

    6. Support on the logical sense grounds again.
  12. Kaxtar

    Kaxtar

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,103
    1/2/5/6 all sound good.

    I disagree with 4, see smash/zarator/objection's reasoning.

    3: I'm okay with the moves being nerfed, but I think they should remain typeless. Also, if we are nerfing them, I think that they need a small reduction in the energy costs. We should make them like nature power, but should cost a bit more. Nature power is "base energy of selected move+2"; counter/mirror coat/metal burst could be "energy cost of retaliated move+4" (+4 because of the increased damage).
  13. Engineer Pikachu

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

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,592
    1 sounds pretty good.
    2 also sounds good, though I think a reduced STAB bonus should be given to each one (should a 2-hit move have the same STAB bonus as a 5-hit move on a 2-5 hit scale?).
    3 sounds good, agreeing with Kaxtar.
    4 is a horrible idea in my opinion. There is absolutely no reason that something like a Nidoking has to spend the same amount of energy on Ice Beam and Earthquake. Does not compute.
    5 sounds good, but none of the extra penalties besides the energy cost.
    6 is good.
  14. Dogfish44

    Dogfish44 Banned from 22 Casinos
    is a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,009
    OK, I spent a LOT of time doing some formulae on this. On average, for non skill link mon, a multi hit move will have 0.35 crits per move on average (Compare to the average 0.1 for single hit moves). Therefore, you're critting about 3 * as often (Actually more), so having the crit damage down to 1/3rd of normal is a good idea.
  15. Objection

    Objection

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,695
    I did wonder if there was some reasoning for the crit damage being 1. Fair enough then.
  16. Limewire

    Limewire PRESS R TO WIN
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    751
    I pretty much agree on points 1, 2, 3 and 6.

    4: Removing the STAB Move Energy Cost decrease

    I can see where you are going with this, however, it does not really make any sense. There probably is a better way to encourage players to use their surroundings more often rather than spam 3 attacks continuously.

    5: Substitutions

    I'm actually thinking about a different solution, one where there is a set limit as to how many substitutions a player can make in every round/match. In addition, I believe that every substitution should have an X% of failing, where "X" depends on the amount and complexity of the substitutions issued. I feel that this is more natural because Pokemon can easily become confused if too many orders are issued at once. I wouldn't mind an increase in the cost of energy, but the power/duration of the attack should be left alone.
  17. Tortferngatr

    Tortferngatr

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,622
    1: Speed Modifying Natures

    I was ticked that this wasn't an option on the poll-it wasn't quite as radically punishing to -speed natures, and it actually does something to help +speed natures out more.

    2: Critical Hits for multi-hit moves

    ...This is one of those things that isn't going to encounter much resistance. Just go through with it.

    3: CounterCoat and Metal Burst

    Haven't faced them yet, so no opinion.

    4: Removing the STAB Move Energy Cost decrease

    ...Again, this makes no sense whatsoever. Why the heck should it cost less energy for a Pikachu, with natural volt reserves to draw from, to fire a Thunderbolt than a Gyarados?

    5: Substitutions

    Interesting idea. I'm not sure just how this would affect things, though.

    6: Combo Moves

    ...I haven't really used combo moves that much, but this seems like a good proposal.

    However, what about multiple mons performing a combo attack? I.E. my Snover and Syclar combining their Blizzards to create a gigantic one capable of frosting over a small area? I'd like to see that answered.
  18. Engineer Pikachu

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

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,592
    I got something quite different from this.

    A Skill-Link Pokemon should have more crits per move than Pokemon without Skill Link using a multi-hit move.

    The probability that a Skill Link Pokemon will not get a critical hit is (15/16)^5. This comes out to 759375/1048576, which is approximately 72.42%. The probability that there will be a crit is 1-p, which is approximately 27.58%. So, you will get a critical hit with a multi-hit move about a quarter of the time, which is four times more than normal. (Also Dogfish, 35% is almost six times as much as the normal crit rate) The average number of crits you'll get each time you use the move...

    0 Crits: 759375/1048576
    1 Crits: 253125/1048576
    2 Crits: 33750/1048576
    3 Crits: 2250/1048576
    4 Crits: 75/1048576
    5 Crits: 1/1048576

    This comes out to 327680/1048576 crits per move on average, which is exactly 0.3125. This is extremely nice because 0.3125 is exactly 5/16, or 5 times the standard crit rate. (It also makes intuitive sense)

    On a non-Skill Link Pokemon, it becomes more complicated. There's a table with all the stuff and averages of averages and blahblahablah. Scroll to the bottom if you're not interested in this.

    2 Hits:
    0 Crits: 225/256
    1 Crits: 30/256
    2 Crits: 1/256

    Percentage Chance of getting a crit: 12.11%
    Average number of crits per move: 0.125

    3 Hits:
    0 Crits: 3375/4096
    1 Crits: 675/4096
    2 Crits: 45/4096
    3 Crits: 1/4096

    Percentage Chance of getting a crit: 17.60%
    Average number of crits per move: 0.1875

    4 Hits:
    0 Crits: 50625/65536
    1 Crits: 13500/65536
    2 Crits: 1350/65536
    3 Crits: 60/65536
    4 Crits: 1/6536

    Percentage Chance of getting a crit: 22.75%
    Average number of crits per move: 0.25

    5 Hits:
    0 Crits: 759375/1048576
    1 Crits: 253125/1048576
    2 Crits: 33750/1048576
    3 Crits: 2250/1048576
    4 Crits: 75/1048576
    5 Crits: 1/1048576

    Percentage Chance of getting a crit: 27.58%
    Average number of crits per move: 0.3125

    Now, if you weight everything based on the percentage chance (3/8ths chance for 2 and 3 hits, 1/8th chance for 4 and 5 hits), as shown below, you arrive at your estimated number of crits and your average chance of getting a crit (I realize I'm doing intermediary rounding, but the results aren't too different).

    0.375(12.11) + 0.375(17.6) + 0.125(22.75) + 0.125(27.58) = 17.4325%

    Comparing this to the standard 6.25% crit rate, you see that 17.4325 is 2.7892 times larger. Thus, your chance of getting at least one critical hit is almost three times as much as one standard move, which means 1 is probably more fair than 1.5, however much I'd like it to be 1.5.

    Now, you use the same process to find the average number of crits per move.

    0.375(0.125) + 0.375(0.1875) + 0.125(0.25) + 0.125(0.3125) = 0.1875, which is exactly three times as much as the normal crit rate, reinforcing the point that the crit bonus should be one instead of three to make it more fair.

    Now that all the calculations are done, I'd like to propose that there be a STAB bonus of 1 on each hit of a multi-hit move. On average, this balances out for non-Skill Link users, since .375(2) + .375(3) + .125(4) + .125(5) = 3, so no worries there. It also makes it more consistent (if we're moving crits to each hit, why not move STAB to each hit). Comments appreciated.

    Thanks for reading through all this math xD
  19. 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:
    7,543
    Administrative Notes: Given that this SotG is led by the committee, but its effects would represent the second votes of committee members, the standing committee members will be cycled out at the end and new standing
    members will be.

    Furthermore, everyone who registered their team before the stat changes in the SotG conclusion gets a nature change on their Pokemon. Too many mons have been affected. What you should do is post the Pokemon and their nature changes in your profile.


    1: Speed Modifying Natures

    During the last period there were some questions about the power of speed modifying natures, and the general consensus was that the effect should be doubled to +10 accuracy for speed boosting natures and -10% evasion for speed reducing natures. Is this the best way to go?

    The biggest argument over this was that Speed boosting natures were basically free accuracy boosts for slower mons that used it regardless of how it affected their other stats. Boosting it without taking this into account just makes the slower mons even more powerful.

    My theory is that it was shot down last time because the drawback on slow mons would have been too great. There has to be some solid middle ground here.
  20. Darkamber8828

    Darkamber8828

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,979
    Can I post here I hope I can

    Acc/eva modifiers, could the boost/nerf be based on their speed?

    Positive speed natures:

    (# of *) x (2%)=Accuracy Boost

    Negative natures

    *=-10 Evasion Nerf
    **=-8 Evasion Nerf
    ***=-6 Evasion Nerf
    ****=-4 Evasion Nerf

    etc etc

    Or something?

    Also increasing STAB energy costs is a bad idea and I vote no because that would really totally suck for my team :/
  21. Fire Blast

    Fire Blast

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    2,093
    1. This makes sense, but i think that it might make to large of an impact. 5% is enough.

    2. No opinion honestly. It doesn't really matter imo because it is so rare.

    3. CounterCoat is fine as it is, it involves either being damaged greatly by other pokemon, or expending much energy.

    4. Not really necessary. This makes sense and most people don't spam
    STAB moves. They spam SE moves.

    5. Um, this is a bad idea imo. ASB battles are based of the anime, which are done real-time. If you have watched a battle in the anime, youw ould see that trainers resopnd directly after they are attacked. Since this is not possible on the forums, substitutions allow it to become more real-time.

    6. Do not nerf combo-moves. We need as much creativity as we can get!

    New proposal time:


    I was recently in a battle where my pokemon was very low on energy. i decided to Chill, but I soon realized the energy gained was only enough to use approximately two attacks. So the simple solution would be to buff chills. However, that would cause them to become to powerful/helpful and that wouldn't be good. So I thought that they should come with a drawback. I think that there should be 3 levels of chills, the higher level you go, the more energy it heals, but you take more damage from incoming attacks. In a realistic point of view, this makes sense. For example a pokemon can chill by simply not attacking. This heals energy by the regular amount and the pokemon is alert enough in the battle to avoid taking extra damage. However, on the other end of the spectrum, if a pokemon is so exhausted that it has to lie down, it will heal more energy, but will cause more damage loss for obvious reasons.

    Levels (open)


    Level 1 / Not Attacking: Regular Chill, heals 12% of energy, no extra damage

    Level 2 / Sitting Down: Heals 18% energy, +3 damage towards an incoming attack

    Level 3 / Lying Down: Heals 25% energy, +6 damage towards an incoming attack



    i agree with this!!!! with this. Doubles allows a lot more possibles and creativity. If you don't like Doubles, it is often just two 1v1 battles not a huge difference.
  22. Banryu

    Banryu

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,740
    First thing I want to bring up is some stuff I posted in the other thread.
    Adding to this, I think it might also force sort of a fire-with-fire mentality, if you consider the repercussions of this on Flying- and Water-types which can easily fly or swim out of the range of many close-combat attacks; which would force you to fight a Flying-type with another flying type or an 'anti-air' mon of sorts, and similarly with Water-types (the same might also apply in using close-combat mons against each other, which would force grappling to occur more often; ranged-attack mons sniping each other from afar, etc etc). This could be seen as a good or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it, but I personally like the concept, as it might give battles a greater semblance of realism.

    I know you for one weren't a huge fan of the idea, SDS. But honestly, given all the suggestions I've been hearing for making ASB more tactical, this seems like it'd be more effective than most of the other things people are suggesting. I don't think removing the STAB energy cost will really do that, all that's gonna do is make it so spamming super-effective non-STAB moves is just as good or bad as spamming regular STAB moves against neutral targets, IMO. I think Zarator's suggestion to make Doubles the primary game type is a little silly too; not that Doubles isn't fun, but singles should still have the option of being tactical. :0 I realize that this is a pretty big change to be asking anyone to consider, but... just think about it if y'all would please.

    Now, onto the other stuff in the thread....
    3: Countercoat and Metal Burst
    I have a question about this one. :0 If, after the effects of the attack are applied, does it count as a regular attack? That is, can it be boosted by STAB, and do the Pokemon's stats in question apply to this? Or is it simply flat (BPx1.5) damage dealt? Assuming this IS the case, I'm not really sure at the moment. I don't really see CounterCoat as being that broken, mostly I think it's just Metal Burst that needs dealing with. I'll have to think on it.

    4: Removing the STAB energy move decrease
    No. For the reasons I stated earlier, I don't think this will be particularly effective in encouraging creativity-- I think it'll just be more encouraging not for Pokemon not to rely on STAB moves, which I think is also bad. I like that Pokemon rely on their STAB attacks for damage and that the energy decrease makes it more convenient to use these, and I feel as if it makes Pokemon more 'specialized' in a way toward using their STAB moves. I don't want this function gone and I don't think it would be effective.

    5: Substitutions
    I agree, substitutions are pretty overboard as it is. I don't really agree with the method you've thought of, though, although granted it does sort of make sense that a Pokemon hastily having to change its attack strategy would make said attack less effective...

    Personally I think it would be sufficient simply to disallow Substitution when a player moves second, and also to restrict the number of Substitutions in a turn to one or two or something. Another possibility is, as with recovery, chills, and now potentially dodging, let the battlers decide on a limited number of substitutions throughout the battle. If the players agree that no more than 3 Substitutions per side can be used in the entire game, for instance, I think that would be an excellent way of keeping rampant substitutions in check.

    6: Combo Moves
    I wouldn't be against putting certain restructions on them (for instance, the combined energy cost and 2-turn performance time sounds great to me), however, I think we need to be careful not to do anything that would discourage combo moves from being used outright. :0 Combo moves are a big part of creativity in the current ASB state of the game, and restricting combos might very well restrict creativity as well, so be careful of that.
  23. Charmander

    Charmander mfw i have a mane and am actually the sun
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,857
    I think the Counter/Mirror Coat/Metal Burst idea is awful. No offense to anyone, but that totally defeats the purpose. I like them the way they are. Anyone can use them, and they're total energy consumers.
  24. Rising_Dusk

    Rising_Dusk
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,806
    I don't really think they cost enough. I'd rather Counter/Mirror Coat/Metal Burst cost 6 + (Damage/2) instead of 6 + (Damage/3). You have the capacity to return a metric boatload of damage with these moves, and so you should be prepared to pay the energy price for it.
  25. Limewire

    Limewire PRESS R TO WIN
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    751
    Oh, I almost forgot to mention this: in the first SotG thread, Deck Knight mentioned that almost no one used items in matches, but I don't think that topic was brought up again. It's pretty obvious why no one likes items (they cost TC, makes matches more longer and add a layer of complexity), but I believe that items could make matches more enjoyable and fun. Does anyone have a solution for this?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

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