Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Engineer Pikachu said:
In IRV, not listing all options indicates that you don't care about the choices afterwards. When all the listed options get voted down, it's true that their vote no longer counts; however, this isn't an issue at all because they've already indicated they don't care what happens with the voting result at that point.

For example, if you're voting on an activity to pursue and your choices are "torture," "death," "eating," and "sleeping," your ballot may look like "eating > sleeping." If both eating and sleeping are knocked out of the poll, you don't care about whether you should be tortured or die. Is there an issue with this? I don't see one.
Click to expand...
... If a vote is discounted like in your example, there is a chance that there can be a vote where neither option after the IRV has a majority (Majority being at least 5 votes for the current council), which either means Deck tiebreaker, or a re-vote. The council should be as efficient as possible, & by continuing to keep this system around, then it will be inevitable that one of these situations will pop up & people will probably be complaining. It does not matter if you "do not care" what happens next. If you are on the council, you are expected to read all the options closely, & you are expected to care about what happens with each issue by considering each option.

Think of this as a pre-emptive fix, a fix so we do not have people complaining in the future when for example, everyone in an IRV poll votes for one option only, & no majority is reached.
 
You don't need the majority of the council; you need the majority of the votes. There's almost always no difference unless the proposals are extremely different. In the Mega Punch case, for example, where three of nine people left at least two choices out, no vote was thrown out; even if everyone had deleted the last two options on their ballots no vote would have been thrown out. To clarify, this is to say that, if two people have their votes nullified because their voted options have been eliminated, four votes in favor of some option would be a majority since there are only seven votes left.

It's like an abstention in that your vote count towards neither an option nor the total number of votes, except you actually have voted; the only options you care about have just been eliminated, that's all. Considering that you're only looking for the majority of the votes (assuming everyone votes so please don't pull the "if you're the first person to vote that's the majority of the votes" line) there probably won't be a tiebreaker or re-vote necessary.

edit at below: I'm not sure if that rule is ever mentioned in ASB, but most everything I can find online in general terms defines a majority to be more than half of votes cast; the CEIL(council members / 2) would apparently refer to an absolute majority, which as far as I can tell is not what we're doing. The wiki article does a good job explaining!
 
The rule is, first to CEIL(number of council members / 2) reaches majority, not first to CEIL(number of voters / 2) reaches majority. So an abstain vote technically does count towards the total number of votes.
 
I agree with Engineer that this isn't an issue. It's such a non-issue that I don't even care if we do it. It certainly doesn't need to be voted on. Either let it be or make a part of policy that all council members have to list all options.

From a personal perspective if I'm leaving something off the ballot its because I hate that proposal so much I refuse to vote for it.

And the last option listed in an irv vote is literally worthless so there's that too, it can literally never affect the outcome of the vote since at that point all other options are eliminated.
 
you guys need to google how irv works, engi is right

edit: obj's tie scenario is more unlikely than deck voting for obama, seriously stop it with the stupid
 
Razor Fang's normal effect currently does not match up with the in-game effect.

DAT said:
Razor Fang: Raises the critical hit stage of the Pokemon by one (1) and the Base Attack Power of moves containing the words "Fang", "Crunch", "Razor", "Bite", "Blade", or "Sword" is increased by three (3). If held by Gligar or Gliscor, it increases the Pokemon's Attack by one (1) rank.
Click to expand...

In-game Razor Fang increases flinch chance like King's Rock, I don't know if this change is intentional or not.
 
So we all know that you can't order a faster Pokemon to go slower than its opponent, because the opponent can correspondingly slow itself down.

Here's a more interesting twist on the situation:

Your opponent has say a Ninjask and a Shuckle out in a 2v2 doubles match. You have a Garchomp and a Salamence. All of them have neutral speed natures(so in terms of speed, Ninjask > Garchomp > Salamence > Shuckle). Is it legal to order Garchomp to move after Salamence? On the face of it, it seems logically sound.

If this illegal, why?
 
Pwnemon said:
you guys need to google how irv works, engi is right

edit: obj's tie scenario is more unlikely than deck voting for obama, seriously stop it with the stupid
Click to expand...

*sigh*

If something is possible when it should not be possible, that's bad.
If something is not possible when it should be possible, that's bad.
If something is not possible when it should not be possible, that's good.
If something is possible when it should be possible, that's when I give a crap about words like "unlikely".

LockDown said:
Razor Fang's normal effect currently does not match up with the in-game effect.



In-game Razor Fang increases flinch chance like King's Rock, I don't know if this change is intentional or not.
Click to expand...

I am 99.99% sure the change is deliberate. For one thing, the ASB community has a never-ending vendetta against hax, as is evidenced by the changes made to the abilities Illuminate and Forewarn in the previous term.

Destiny Warrior said:
So we all know that you can't order a faster Pokemon to go slower than its opponent, because the opponent can correspondingly slow itself down.

Here's a more interesting twist on the situation:

Your opponent has say a Ninjask and a Shuckle out in a 2v2 doubles match. You have a Garchomp and a Salamence. All of them have neutral speed natures(so in terms of speed, Ninjask > Garchomp > Salamence > Shuckle). Is it legal to order Garchomp to move after Salamence? On the face of it, it seems logically sound.

If this illegal, why?
Click to expand...

Like I said on #capasb, conceptually it looks like it should be legal. However, since we don't have a delay mechanic outside of the ability Stall, I don't think it's technically legal. But I believe we can make it so by altering the last bit of the description of the Speed stat to something like this:

[box]You cannot tell your Pokemon to perform an action slower than an opposing slower Pokemon unless you have the ability Stall. However, you can tell your Pokemon to perform an action after a slower ally if there are no opposing Pokemon who would act in between you and the ally. For instance, a Pokemon with 130 Speed cannot be told to use a move after an opposing Pokemon with 120 Speed within the same priority bracket, but it can be told to move after an allied Pokemon with 120 speed within the same priority bracket as long as there's no opposing pokemon with 120-130 speed also in that priority bracket. This makes sense because the 120 Speed opposing Pokemon can and will slow itself down to match your Pokemon, thus always going last, whereas allies are capable of co-ordinating their attacks, including altering the order in which they are executed.[/box]

Yes, that rule should be familiar. It's based on the rules for synchronising moves like Earthquake.
 
About Council's IRV issues: Personally, as long as they vote, I on't see why COuncillors need to be mandated into voting the full slate. Personally, I think Engi and Pwne are right in that we'd only need majority of the votes to pass. if it turns out that the supermajority votes total a grand number of 2, well, that merely implies that there's a problem, not with the voting system, but with the Councillors themselves.

Councillors, please, I implore, do remind yourself that your votes should represent, in part, the community consensus that you observed (as biased as that observation might be), not just your own wishes. I, for one, do not wish to have Councillors that don't participate at all in Poliy Discussions (even when they're as menial as move-buffing), then abstain from voting because "I am high and mighty and above these issues so I don't give a shit what you think". Even if you hate that proposal with a vendetta, shouldn't you, a "high and mighty" Councillor, consider it, if it is supported by a portion of the community? But that's just me. Move to Voting and maybe consult the Pantheon, please - since most people affected by it has put forth their views in Feedback already.

About DW's speed-checking in Doubles++: If we really want to codify it, then I'd suppport Obj's amendment that you can slow yourself to switch order between your ally, but only if your mons are moving consecutively. Support and move to Voting, since it's a pretty clear yes/no question?
 
I dont see a point to Destiny Warrior's suggestion, there's no precedent to it and I don't like that it can potentially open up a ton of other cans of worms we probably don't want to deal with.

No Support, no discussion.
 
dw's suggestion seems like it will really make ordering first in dubs+ simply impossible

if some other councillor wants to make a thread, they can. count me out

EDIT: zt—we will never move a proposal straight to voting. you can't debate in a voting thread. read the op
 
The decision of which pokemon goes first is a matter of reaction time. The faster pokemon isn't the one that can reach the higher speed, but the one that has the lowest reaction time.

Reactions usually occur in less than a sec or few seconds. Actions begin and end in few seconds, maybe a minute at most. The time it takes for a pokemon to process a "wait a bit" order is significant which added to the time it will wait means that it will probably lose the timing to attack on that turn. Remember all anime fights and you will see that, most of the time, pokemon shift from one move to the next in seconds.

Also, reactions are mostly intuitive, not rational. The pokemon won't take his time thinking about what he will do. He will just do it by instinct. If we add "wait" orders on the mix, most of the time the pokemon will lose the timing.

That is why I am against it on a flavor point of view. As far as mechanics ago, I agree with Texas/pwnemon that it has no precedent and will open a can of worms.
 
So. Sky Drop.

[box]Sky Drop: The Pokémon grabs the opponent in its talons, and drops them from a great height. While in midair, the opponent can only use moves that solely target the Pokemon lifting it into the air. This move can hit any single Pokemon on the field, regardless of position. Sky Drop can be used on targets with a Weight Class up to two (2) values higher than the user's.
Attack Power: 6 + Target Weight Class | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: 4 + Target Weight Class/2 | Attack Type: Physical | Effect Chance: -- | Typing: Flying | Priority: Lifting Opponent: 0, Dropping Opponent: -1 | CT: Force[/box]
Why in the everloving /fuck/ does this not allow you to use field effects or hell, even target yourself with stuff like Recover or Swords Dance? It is /nothing/ like in-game and makes very little logical sense. Unless someone gives a damn good reason for this being like this it should be fixed.

EDIT: Well, apparently in-game the target can't do anything while being dropped, I was under the impression that it could still act. I still feel like you should be able to self-target and use moves that don't target though; there's no real reason why you shouldn't be able to.
 
Word of God ruling RE: Sky Drop
[BOX][14:05:27] <imanalt|phone> Deck_Knight: is it correct that you cant use selftargetting moves while picked up by skydrop
[14:05:39] <imanalt|phone> thats how people are interpreting the dat and it is sodumb
[14:06:47] <Deck_Knight> Makes no sense.
[14:07:07] <IAR> !publicmove sky drop
[14:07:08] from(Onion_Bubs) Credit for this script goes to Charmander. Now attempting to fetch sky drop's data ...
[14:07:11] <Onion_Bubs> Sky Drop: The Pokémon grabs the opponent in its talons, and drops them from a great height. While in midair, the opponent can only use moves that solely target the Pokemon lifting it into the air. This move can hit any single Pokemon on the field, regardless of position. Sky Drop can be used on targets with a Weight Class up to two (2) values higher than the
[14:07:12] <Onion_Bubs> user's.
[14:07:12] <Onion_Bubs> Attack Power: 6 + Target Weight Class | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: 4 + Target Weight Class/2 | Attack Type: Physical | Effect Chance: -- | Typing: Flying | Priority: Lifting Opponent: 0, Dropping Opponent: -1 | CT: Force
[14:07:16] <IAR> he wants you to clarify this
[14:07:39] <IAR> like will cooldown happen if you are hit by sky drop or something
[14:07:50] <imanalt|phone> so like atm its being ruled that you couldnt use recover
[14:07:53] <imanalt|phone> while picked up
[14:08:04] <Deck_Knight> Oh. Yeah, you can only do self-targetting and sky drop targetting moves. Though I imagine it'd be exceedingly hard to Dragon Dance while suspended in mid-air.
[14:08:07] |<-- kingofburgerz has left irc.synirc.net (Quit: CGI:IRC)
[14:08:10] <imanalt|phone> or graviy which is what kicked this whole discussion off
[14:08:13] <Deck_Knight> (Meditate and Calm Mind, not so much)
[14:08:24] <IAR> self-targetting
[14:08:35] <imanalt|phone> its currently being read as saying you cant do selftargetting
[14:08:52] <Deck_Knight> Ah. Yeah Self-targetting seems legit, as well as field targetting
[14:09:05] <imanalt|phone> yeah
[14:09:10] <IAR> so basically
[14:09:23] <IAR> you can do anything but use spread damagers or something?
[14:09:29] <imanalt|phone> so basically leet just became more screwed
[14:09:33] <IAR> heck nothing
[14:09:46] <IAR> *anything
[14:09:48] <imanalt|phone> if thats how its supposed to be should someone post in his battle vs em[/BOX]
If anyone has any objections, I—or someone else—will just edit sky drop regarding the clarification from this ruling.
 
Proposal regarding the last action of a match

Forgive the Double post, but for the sake of emphasis, starting a new post is necessary.

Forgive me if I am being dumb or something, but honestly, this needs to be codified if it has not been done so already, & if it has, then show me exactly where this is situated. Anyway...

Suppose you have one Pokémon left at 1 HP & Toxic Poison afflicted. You KO your opponent's final Pokémon with some attack. You have won, right? Hold your horses right there. At this point, your mileage may vary. Why? Read on.

There appears to be some noticeable inconsistency with the end of the battle shit. Do not say there is not, because I know for certain that there is. Some referees will then apply residual damage alongside all the other end-of-action effects—or even remaining actions—after the final KO—as is normal when a round ends prematurely, but when both sides still have a Pokémon—possibly creating a draw like in the scenario posted above. Others follow what happens on the cartridge & immediately end the battle without further calculations & whatnot. This even tends to differ from roleplay to roleplay & from referee to referee, forcing the whole "Your mileage may vary" phrase that comes as a result of referee discretion to rear its head.

Basically, what I am calling for is a codification to end this lack of consistency, whichever way it goes. This codification should be universal (Applying to all Roleplays, Matches, etc), & should resolve all the inconsistencies surrounding this.

I am personally in favour of following the cartridge, since basically, a win is a win. If you take something out & not die to recoil, then you should win, not let some shitty poison force a draw. It also has the potential to eliminate headaches that can arrive from being bsed into a draw in Tournaments & Gyms due to residual damage.

tl;dr Calling for an official codification for the last action of match & when the match is called. This does not seem like much of an issue, but the lack of consistency amongst reffings for this needs to stop, imo.
 
I'm supporting IAR's proposal as well. While I don't really care which way it goes this is not something where the answer should be "Well, it depends on the ref..." >_> This needs to be codified one way or another.
 
IAR's Post Action Tie Proposal: Supporting discussion by going against his stance, due to in-anime precedence. Personally, I've always reffed it happen, and flavorwise, it makes sense: "And Conk took out Cradily- but wait, Conk is down due to Toxic!". Mechanics-wise, we can argue all day everyday with neither side willing to back down - it's in-game versus in-anime all over again, anyway. But yeah, we definitely should streamline it.
 
Uhh so, here's a controversial proposal:

Cutting payments on referees that continually go over DQ:

I am not usually a proponent of anything that slights referees, because in my opinion they are too vital for ASB. However, in our current system ref DQ is clearly not a good enough incentive to keep referees from doing this responsibilities in a timely manner. Especially in RPs, where there are often only a few "active" refs, ref DQ is not even a realistic option because you'll just get thrown into an endlessly long queue. We need another incentive to make sure refs are doing their job right.

Reffing is a privilege, and in my opinion refs that continually go way over DQ do not deserve the same pay that refs who are timely do. Its far too common to see people that overextend themselves and can't ref everything they've taken timely, then burn themselves out, or to have just plain lazy refs. I completely understand that due to other commitments, it's unreasonable to expect every round to always be reffed accurately on time. That being so, I don't think the current system is fair.

My tentative proposal is as follows:

If a referee goes over DQ once (perhaps twice if people think this is not lenient enough), they suffer no payout decrease. For every additional time the ref goes over DQ, 1/10th of their final payout is deducted (perhaps some other number, 10 is easy for math). Battlers are of course free to look for a subref whenever a ref goes over DQ.

This isn't perfect and could use discussion, but I think it's a good starting point.

EDIT: [22:43:01] <Pwnemon> however i think if we do that we should make a minimum ref DQ of 2 days
this is also a good idea
 
Referee DQ Punishment:
I, shockingly, support this proposal. It does need a discussion and it does need a few things added on to it (If we are going to create a system that can punish referees, we better create a system to determine what the DQ period for referees is. Some battles have 1 hour DQ. Should a ref be punished for not reffing the 6 v 6 brawl in under 1 hour? And should people be punished for prematurely DQing the referee?) A lot of things need to be discussed in the proposal.
 
i also support emma's proposal (or at least the idea behind it—incentivizing speedy reffing). I'm sorry, but lots of refs simply go too far in their willingness to abuse the system.

getting a subref is RARELY a realistic option. For example, me and Frosty have a gym qualifier that's been going on for two months. The longest time either of us has spent between posts has been 4 days, with an average around 1. But our refs are pretty free to take however the fuck long they want to ref, because there are basically 3 prompt gym refs, and two of them are me and Frosty >.< Unfortunately, this isnt a circumstance unique to us and our qualifier. Besides, being subreffed isn't even that bad. You lose like, part of 1 UC and any KO bonus—already 0 for a 3v3 or less.

When referees are paid UC, they are paid it for doing a service. Part of the implication is that they'll do the service with the quality that is expected of them. Is regularly going a week over DQ really deserving of the same uc as reffing promptly (especially when you spend ALL FUCKING DAY ON IRC EVERY DAY)? if you said yes, go shove a pole up your ass.

edit: using my council powers of coolness to make this a thread.
 
Bodyblock for CT: None.

This needs to happen. Like, all the nonsensical combinations you can do with Bodyblock combinations, which happen to be "Deck approved" or something.

Protect (Self) + Bodyblock (Ally)
Quick Attack (Opponent) + Bodyblock (Ally)
Sucker Punch (Opponent) + Bodyblock (Ally)
The list goes on.

This should be self explanatory, & it does not really need discussion; it needs to be voted on now. Most of the guys I spoke to on IRC said this needs to happen.

Continuing to allow this is morally wrong. Time to fix this.
 
I was going to suggest another way to handle it, but then I learned that Take Cover (which is an inverse Bodyblock that's slightly nerfed) has a CT of None, so for consistency's sake I support IAR's proposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top