Data State of the Game - 4/22/2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
I completely and whole-heartedly agree with SDS about rain and sun. Not only do they enable Pokemon to deal ridiculous amounts of damage, they also boost certain abilities and weather-oriented attacks as well. A flat +3 attack boost would solve the problem. Perhaps we could also have various stages of rain/sun as well (which may depend on the arena and current weather the Pokemon is in) where a higher stage would enable the weather to last longer at the cost of more energy.
 
I remember my first encounter with sun was when I was reffing the melee. Definitely thought it was op, which is why i picked up sunny day on my emboar >:) But I do think it's way too much of a multiplier in a game with no other multipliers. We might want to consider a base -3 drop for water type attacks also instead of halving their damage? Same with Rain - +3/-3.
 
Weather is overpowered as it is (consider a lot of pokes like tangrowth or excadrill gain several effects because of weather for their several abilities and you really see how powerful weather can be), I think infinite weather is kind of dumb considering this is not in-game (and because unless the arena makes it a reason to be it should dissapear like any other climatic condition), I would say something like making drizzle a rain dance that doesn't take an action, or a sandstrom that doesn't take it (but still lasting the 5 rounds and costing energy every time you set it)

PS: another form is that the permanet weather is permanent while the summoner is on the field, but as soon as it goes (because of KO or Swich) the weather has a number of turns remaining (like the 5 rounds i mentioned earlier), if they come back they have to pay energy again to set the weather again
 
Honestly, I'd be content with just "make Rain/Sun fixed alterations to BP."

As for Gerard's proposal, it seems to remove a large amount of point to running Pokemon with weather effects. As a Snover user, I am inherently opposed to this proposal.
 
As far as I can tell, permanent weather isn't the problem. Very few people even use Politoed and Ninetails (I've seen a few Ninetails but no Politoed, someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and I don't think anyone has a problem with sand or hail right now. The main problem with rain and sun is the massive boost they give water and fire moves respectively. Hydro Pump, for example, jumps from 12 to a whopping 18 base power in rain. I agree that the boosts should be made flat amounts of +2/-2 or +3/-3, but I don't think any other changes need to be made right away.
 
That's basically what SDS was saying, Flamestrike. Since abilities like Sand Rush and Swift Swim are much more underwhelming than they are in the cartridge games, yeah, the damage is the only real problem. And I agree with the both of youse, yes.

Gerard gave me an idea in the Battle Tower... He suggested what is essentially a 'noob battle tower'; I don't think this is a particularly good solution to the problem of noobs frequently getting matched with more experienced players, so I'm wondering if maybe we should enforce a sort of Rank system based on how many battles a player has been in and won VS lost, where a noob is Rank 1, and other battlers are higher and whatnot. This might give the noobs a better idea of whose challenges they should be accepting and who they should be seeking out for player-specific challenges and whatnot. :0 Any thoughts on that? (I hope no one minds that I change the subject; we all seem to be in agreement on the weather subject.)
 
I disagree with ranking trainers - It will simply cause arguments. After all, some people have taken on harder challenges, and will have a lower w/l ratio. I think anyone new can simply ask for a match vs either non-evolved mons, or for a new battler to go against.
 
RE: Rain and Sun:

Weather was initially designed to be balanced by the fact that there's no 4mss system and being naturally expensive (10 Energy each) and field limited there would not be many issues. Rain Dance and Sunny Day also don't have localized applications like Sandstorm and Hail do.

However I agree since we've generally eschewed multipliers then they should be balanced. Hail and Sandstorm rack up 30 unblockable damage if they are used on the first or last damage of a match and aren't changed over their duration, so they are ponderously slow but very powerful over time.

So Rain and Sun should be similarly powerful, though I suppose 1.5 on the BAP was overkill. They can be changed to +3/-3 BAP on their boosted/diminished types respectively.

Damage Calculator:

This recently came up so I'm posting here for clarity.

The system was originally designed and formatted as it was because my intention was to only have five ranks for stats that would represent the abilities of all Pokemon. Obviously such a list shafts several Pokemon that would not receive benefits of what should rightfully be a much, much bigger defensive stat. Steelix should take far less physical damage than Gliscor for example.

The compromise was to make extreme stats still be factored in, but count for less than anything within the the initial five ranks. The method by which this was done was built into the calculator as a separate VLookup function that always accounted for these differences, and why the inputs for it have always been Base Stats. This is why there have only ever been five *'s but that extreme stats had a positive or negative one as their notation. This became confusing once people started getting evolved Pokemon. The compromise is also the reason I didn't feel uncomfortable with the upper level brackets being in segments of 20, since they represented less overall power than the first five ranks. It's the same reason why Pokemon in each upper rank only get 5 more HP instead of 10, since it was the same principle.

However, I had forgotten to note down this difference in the long form even though it was represented in the calculator and always has been.

Thus why this:

Long-Form Damage Calculator:

((Base Attack Power [After Battle Effects] + STAB + Critical Hit + [After Natures Star Difference *1.5 {Up to Rank 5, Then add or subtract 1 damage for each Rank above that} ] + Ability Effects [Guts, Sheer Force, Hustle. Sturdy, etc.] + Type Effects [Special Attacks vs. Rock types in Sandstorm] - Reflect/Light Screen) * Type Effectiveness) + (Stage Boost Difference *1.5).

Is new to people who have been using the long form for their calculations.

Granted this needs to updated with Ranks, not Stars, but I digress.

So a few things: Should every rank count for its full value (which greatly helps the mons with the most extreme stats), or should someone better at math than me just rework the formula so that it makes more sense?
 
I strongly agree with Deck's reasoning and change to have stat differences up to 5 count as +1.5 each and stats beyond 5 count as +1. The whole point of the stats system is to normalize stats down a bit so that more things are usable, while still keeping with Pokemon identity. These outlier Pokemon with enormous stats should see a higher return for their stat because it's part of their identity, but it shouldn't be so much that some Pokemon take the equivalent of 6 less Base Attack Power from all attacks or do 6 greater Base Attack Power with all of their attacks. That hyper-exaggeration of their damage output or input is bad for the game, and doesn't really help with the main idea of making more Pokemon usable. I definitely want to see Deck's change stick around.
 
I think it's an unnecessary complication. The only Pokemon that reaches Rank 9 is Shuckle, and even then, it's only a difference of 2 damage versus the standardized "1.5 per stat" system. Rank 6 is only half a point of difference, and rank 7 is only 1 point of difference total, and only 2 Pokemon have more than Rank 7 in a stat - Shuckle and Steelix. Meanwhile, it complicates things by preventing the standard "atk - def x 1.5" thing that long form refs do.
 
I like Deck's reasoning, but I think that adding this in is, like SDS said, an unnecessary complication. The following non-legendary Pokemon have an unboosted stat of 6 in at least one of {Attack, Defense, Sp.A, Sp.D}:

Rampardos
Slaking
Haxorus (Ononokusu)
Shuckle
Steelix
Cloyster
Aggron
Bastiodon
Onix
Probopass
Cofagrigus (Desukan)
Chandelure (Shandera)

It's really not that many. Out of the ones listed, the majority of them have rank 6; the difference between 1 and 1.5 is 1 damage, factoring in rounding. With rank 7; the difference is 1. There's no rounding to be done. The only Pokemon that go beyond Rank 8 are Steelix (8), and Shuckle (9), where the difference is 2. It's really not too big of a difference.
 
I agree with SDS and EP, that changing the Calculator is unnecessary. It further complicates it for refs that do the calculations by hand (such as myself). It also affects such a small group of Pokemon for a minor difference.

Also, I'm thinking it might be better to have Burn reduce the Base Attack Power of physical moves, rather than the damage. Many other outside factors already do this, such as Abilities, Weather effects and Light Screen/Reflect, that it seems odd to exclude Burn. Also, if a Pokemon is dealing 25 or more damage with a SE attack, 3 damage isn't going to have a big of an effect where as 5 or 7 reduced damage would actually hamper the burnt Pokemon to a point where it can be manageable but not to the point where it is useless
 
Regarding keeping attacks/abilities consistent, should we look at how boosting abilties work?

Currently:

Adaptability is a 1.33 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Analytic is a 1.3 boost in game, and a +2 boost here (with an accuracy boost/evasion penalty)
Blaze is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Defeatist is a 0.5 drop in game, and a -3 drop here
Dry Skin is a 1.25 boost in game, and a 1.5 boost here
Flare Boost is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Flash Fire is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Flower Gift is a 1.5 boost (to two stats) in game, and a -2/+2 here
Friend Guard is a 0.75 drop in game, and a -2 drop here
Guts is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Huge Power is a 2 boost in game/1.5 when skill swapped, and a +1.5/+3/+4.5 or +1.5 when skill swapped boost here
Hustle is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +3 boost here
Iron Fist is a 1.2 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Marvel Scale is a 1.5 defence boost in game, and a -2 to incoming attacks here
Overgrow is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Plus is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Pure Power is a 2 boost in game/still 2 when skill swapped, and a +1.5/+3/+4.5 or +1.5 when skill swapped boost here
Reckless is a 1.2 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Rivalry is a 1.25 / 0.75 boost in game, and a +2 / -2 boost here
Sand Force is a 1.3 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Sheer Force is a 1.3 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Solar Power is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Solid Rock is a 0.75 drop in game, and a -3 drop here
Swarm is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Toxic Boost is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here
Torrent is a 1.5 boost in game, and a +2 boost here

Some other moves carry over exactly from the game, rather than transferring to a +/- amount; e.g. Slow Start still halves attack, Multiscale still halves damage done, Technician is still a 1.5 boost.

As you can see, there's quite a lot of discrepencies. The basic rule seems to be changing everything into a flat +2 boost/drop, whether it would normally receive anything from a 1.2 bonus to a 1.5 bonus. There are a few +3/-3 outliers, semingly at random, for Hustle and Solid Rock, and making a little more sense for Defeatist whish normally has a larger 0.5 effect. The biggest difference between game and capasb is probably a skill swapped pure power, changing from a flat 2* attack boost to a mere +1.5 damage. The weirdest one is Dry Skin; not only does it remain a multiplier, unlike most other moves, but the capasb multiplier is actually higher than the in game one!

I think something should probably be done to add a little more consistency; something like 1.2 - 1.3 boosts give the +2, whereas 1.5 give the +3, maybe. And possibly bring the unchanged abilities (like Technician) into line with the rest.
 
While I agree with most of the post, I think technician is fine as is. It's Max giving a +3 boost which I'd in line with everything else and I really don't want to see it giving a +3 to everything.
 
Weather:

I disagree here. Not with damage, but duration. 5 rounds is a lot of time. in fact, it is almost the whole battle in some cases. This is sort of messed up. I propose to change every weather and trick room (and gravity) to 9 actions instead. This reduces the fact that one action can change the entire battle. If you want to complain about permanent weather, reduce it's potency to +3. Thoughts?
 
I think that all weather should be nerfed to +3, and on top of that, I agree that weather moves should be nerfed to 3 rounds maximum instead of 5.
 
Engineer Pikachu said:
It's really not that many.
Click to expand...
Notice that the 'nerf' would also affect nature-boosts on rank 5 Pokemon that put them to rank 6. It would also limit how much damage is gained from items like Choice Band and Choice Specs, since those augment the base stats as well. For these reasons, it actually impacts a huge cross-section of Pokemon, far more than you've listed.

Also, while the difference "may only be 1", it equates to 10 over 10 attacks, and more over more. This adds up incredulously fast. Pokemon like Rampardos can smash with an attack for 26 damage a hit right now against a normal rank 3 Def Pokemon before weakness and resistance is even considered or item effects: (15 [BP] + 3 [STAB] + (8-3)x1.5 [Stat Diff]) = 25.5 ~ 26. Consider this with a Choice Band: (15 [BP] + 3 [STAB] + (12-3)x1.5 [Stat Diff]) = 31.5 ~ 32. That's a neutral hit. Now consider it hitting 2x super effectively just for lols: 31.5 x 1.5 = 47. That's a 2HKO on a huge number of Pokemon. Period, and even if they pack Leftovers.

Let's take a look at how that changes with these reductions:
Hit: (15 [BP] + 3 [STAB] + (5-3)x1.5 [Stat Diff] + (8-5)X1 [>5 Stat Diff]) = 24 ~ 24
CB Hit: (15 [BP] + 3 [STAB] + (5-3)x1.5 [Stat Diff] + (12-5)X1 [>5 Stat Diff]) = 28
SE CB Hit: 28 x 1.5 = 42

You go from 141 damage over 3 actions to 126 over 3 actions for super effective hits. Still bloody strong, but much more manageable, and this is especially relevant for multi-battles. In case you decide to cry havoc that SE hits aren't that common, even for neutral hits this is a difference of 96 over 3 actions to 84 over 3 actions. We all know how big a deal 12 HP is. This gets even more ridiculous if you consider the defensive implications of not doing Deck's change with Pokemon like Shuckle, Steelix, Cloyster, etc.
Seven Deadly Sins said:
I think that all weather should be nerfed to +3, and on top of that, I agree that weather moves should be nerfed to 3 rounds maximum instead of 5.
Click to expand...
I think this is exactly what should happen to weather. I was actually shocked when designing the weather items that they lasted so long already. I figured they'd last 6 actions normally, and 9 with the items.
 
I realize it is also pointless to advocate this before a PRC that can all benifit from this in one way or another, but I just want to give a pointless (if actually somewhat legitimate) shake to the way things are.

APPROVER/RP TOKENS:

I do not argue that these people shouldn't get paid. I am just arguing that the pay should be less. If I ref a 9 turn 3 vs 3 singles, I will probably spend about 4.5 hours to get three tokens.

If I was on staff at the Dojo and approved 12 people with ten combos, I could earn three tokens in an hour. (Assuming thirty seconds to answer each individual combo). Obviously, this is messed up, seeing how these people can also earn counters through reffing and battling as well. If you want the calc for three tokens at approving, it should also be somewhere around 1.5 hours (assumes three minutes an approval, somewhat unlikely). THIS IS A HUGE ASSET THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS. I once again believe these people should get paid, but not to the point where it dwarfs reffing, the best form of income for the average player, to the point where any non-approver/rp staff can't keep up.
 
Rediamond said:
APPROVER/RP TOKENS:

I do not argue that these people shouldn't get paid. I am just arguing that the pay should be less. If I ref a 9 turn 3 vs 3 singles, I will probably spend about 4.5 hours to get three tokens.

If I was on staff at the Dojo and approved 12 people with ten combos, I could earn three tokens in an hour. (Assuming thirty seconds to answer each individual combo). Obviously, this is messed up, seeing how these people can also earn counters through reffing and battling as well. If you want the calc for three tokens at approving, it should also be somewhere around 1.5 hours (assumes three minutes an approval, somewhat unlikely). THIS IS A HUGE ASSET THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS. I once again believe these people should get paid, but not to the point where it dwarfs reffing, the best form of income for the average player, to the point where any non-approver/rp staff can't keep up.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. I've always seen the high pay of approvers as rather an unfair advantage over those of us who can't perform such a job even if we wanted to. :0
 
I think that we're going at this the wrong way. Instead of reducing the pay of workers, we should be increasing the pay of everyone else.

Referees should get a flat +1 increase to all ref tokens earned, so that ref tokens start at 2 for 1v1 singles instead of 1.

Battles should give 1 EC, 2 MC, 1 DC, and 1 GC (generic counter, applied to anything), as well as any KO counters that the mon may have earned. The issue right now is that battles really give very few benefits to the players, and moves still cost a monumental amount for the number of moves that many Pokemon want/need. We should be giving players the ability to advance fairly quickly so that they can get full enjoyment and advancement even if the players don't ref or work. It should be very possible for a player to get all his Pokemon advanced in a reasonable timeframe just by battling, which right now isn't possible.

I also think that allowing players to cash in Trainer Counters for Generic Counters would be a good idea, since some players don't really want to have 37 different Pokemon, and as it stands getting tons of TC only serves to buy items which aren't especially useful (since most players tend to do no-item battles for simplicity's sake) or new Pokemon (which just leaves you with MORE pokemon to try and raise up with a limited budget). The conversion rate wouldn't be 1:1, but closer to something like 2:1 or 4:1, just to give people options if they want to focus on certain mons rather than buy more mons that will take a long time to train up.

I also think bumping the number of active battles per player up to 4 wouldn't be a terrible idea. It doesn't take that much activity to stay active in a battle, and more battles means more action for each player and more experience.
 
Seven Deadly Sins said:
I think that we're going at this the wrong way. Instead of reducing the pay of workers, we should be increasing the pay of everyone else.

Referees should get a flat +1 increase to all ref tokens earned, so that ref tokens start at 2 for 1v1 singles instead of 1.

Battles should give 1 EC, 2 MC, 1 DC, and 1 GC (generic counter, applied to anything), as well as any KO counters that the mon may have earned. The issue right now is that battles really give very few benefits to the players, and moves still cost a monumental amount for the number of moves that many Pokemon want/need. We should be giving players the ability to advance fairly quickly so that they can get full enjoyment and advancement even if the players don't ref or work. It should be very possible for a player to get all his Pokemon advanced in a reasonable timeframe just by battling, which right now isn't possible.

I also think that allowing players to cash in Trainer Counters for Generic Counters would be a good idea, since some players don't really want to have 37 different Pokemon, and as it stands getting tons of TC only serves to buy items which aren't especially useful (since most players tend to do no-item battles for simplicity's sake) or new Pokemon (which just leaves you with MORE pokemon to try and raise up with a limited budget). The conversion rate wouldn't be 1:1, but closer to something like 2:1 or 4:1, just to give people options if they want to focus on certain mons rather than buy more mons that will take a long time to train up.

I also think bumping the number of active battles per player up to 4 wouldn't be a terrible idea. It doesn't take that much activity to stay active in a battle, and more battles means more action for each player and more experience.
Click to expand...
I'm not on the committee but I think there's a huge issue here. (Not with the 4 battles for player, that's fun.) The issue I'm seeing is that everyone's seeking to make this like other ASBs in that they have every move available at the start and barely have to work for evolutions. I see this as a bad thing and yet CAP ASB is moving towards it. Decreased move costs are all right, because they were stupidly prohibitive in some cases. But increasing MC and giving free GCs, this is over the top.

Does anybody currently feel that they are having trouble raising their Pokemon right now in terms of ECs, MCs, and hell, DCs? To be perfectly honest, I'm not. I work to get KO counters if i want to evolve something faster, which leads to me winning battles, which leads to having more fun in the long run in my opinion.
 
I am. I'm having HUGE trouble getting the moves I want on the mons I want, mainly because I need 1 battle per TM move IF the mon gets a KO and IF I don't want to put my KO Counter into EC or DC. For Pokemon with movepools where they want a ton of TMs because their coverage isn't that great on levelup, they get severely shafted here. It takes forever to build up a decent TM movepool, which detracts from a lot of mons.
 
Venser said:
I'm not on the committee but I think there's a huge issue here. (Not with the 4 battles for player, that's fun.) The issue I'm seeing is that everyone's seeking to make this like other ASBs in that they have every move available at the start and barely have to work for evolutions. I see this as a bad thing and yet CAP ASB is moving towards it. Decreased move costs are all right, because they were stupidly prohibitive in some cases. But increasing MC and giving free GCs, this is over the top.

Does anybody currently feel that they are having trouble raising their Pokemon right now in terms of ECs, MCs, and hell, DCs? To be perfectly honest, I'm not. I work to get KO counters if i want to evolve something faster, which leads to me winning battles, which leads to having more fun in the long run in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Raising one, no. Raising a team, yes. I understand the importance of this though, and whole-heartedly agree that it shouldn't be "easy" to evolve a team and unlock every move. Unfortunately, I have nothing further to add, but I think that increasing the usefullness of TC could be helpful. Maybe 2 TC=1 GC?
 
Venser said:
I'm not on the committee but I think there's a huge issue here. (Not with the 4 battles for player, that's fun.) The issue I'm seeing is that everyone's seeking to make this like other ASBs in that they have every move available at the start and barely have to work for evolutions. I see this as a bad thing and yet CAP ASB is moving towards it. Decreased move costs are all right, because they were stupidly prohibitive in some cases. But increasing MC and giving free GCs, this is over the top.

Does anybody currently feel that they are having trouble raising their Pokemon right now in terms of ECs, MCs, and hell, DCs? To be perfectly honest, I'm not. I work to get KO counters if i want to evolve something faster, which leads to me winning battles, which leads to having more fun in the long run in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Venser, while growing is fun and all, I think that as of now the growth rate is way too slow, especially as far as moves go. I played since February, and I'm still far from having complete movepool even on my starting Pokémon despite the fact I've reffed TONS of matches. It shouldn't take almost a year to get a complete Pokémon in my opinion.

Plus, you must consider two other factors. For once, the upcoming Battle Subway, tournaments, Gyms, and other facilities from the RP thread (like - I hope - my Raid Zone) will shift the focus from slow growth to a diversified battling experience. This is typical of most RPGs as they evolve.
Plus, this give newcomers a better chance to not be endlessly outmatched by veterans (which is not something we should encourage). The point is not that a certain time span of growth shouldn't be there. The point is that it shouldn't be indefinitely long - it should be only long enough to give newcomers the chance to learn the game before getting to play with fully evolved teams.

At least, that's how I see it. I'm completely in favor of SDS proposal. Plus, I'd like to suggest for Pokémon which doesn't need DC/EC (Fully evolved Pokémon, Single Stage mons, Unlocked or absent dream world abilities) to have those counters commuted into GC, to be spent elsewhere (mostly as MC). This would help already fully evolved Pokémon to achieve the full movepools in a reasonable amount of time.
 
zarator said:
At least, that's how I see it. I'm completely in favor of SDS proposal. Plus, I'd like to suggest for Pokémon which doesn't need DC/EC (Fully evolved Pokémon, Single Stage mons, Unlocked or absent dream world abilities) to have those counters commuted into GC, to be spent elsewhere (mostly as MC). This would help already fully evolved Pokémon to achieve the full movepools in a reasonable amount of time.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly endorse this addendum... Mostly because I was about to suggest it. Damn you, Zarator!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top