Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I figure this is as good a place as any to bring this up, assuming I'm not making an idiot out of myself, so:

According to Bulbapedia, Inkay gets a move called Happy Hour as part of a giveaway.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, since I can't find any other sources confirming this, but I thought that I would mention it in case it turns out to be real or is confirmed by another source.

If it is real, then we should probably find a way to implement it, given that it's a move that (I assume) we didn't notice, seeing as it isn't currently in the NDA, in addition to finding a way to balance it for ASB in comparison to its ingame effect, as I'm not particularly sure how many people would want a move that allows someone to earn double the CC that they would normally earn with no extra effort required if we did decide to copy the ingame effect of doubling prize money earned. Also, a way of clarifying/figuring out the interactions between it and Pay Day/Amulet Coin would probably be necessary.

If it isn't real, ignore this post. Also, sorry if I put this in the wrong place.
 
I think this would be the best spot to post some stuff.

I'd add this to Disable in New Data Audit (feel free to reword it, especially the last part):

"If the target is commanded to use the disabled move consecutively, it will be forced to use Struggle on the action after the first time being disabled."

Well, that's what the players told me what should happen anyway. I first made all the disabled move's attempts all null because that's what the description implies to say.
 
that scenario (and similar ones) is covered in the players' handbook, under "move restriction:" If it tries to use any such prohibited moves on the action when they become prohibited, it fails but doesn't expend any energy. Any attempts on any other actions while the condition is in effect result in the Pokemon using Struggle.

basically what we did is split it so that nda is data and players' handbook is rulings; they're no longer in the same thread so you might need to consult both.
 
Flora said:
I think this would be the best spot to post some stuff.

I'd add this to Disable in New Data Audit (feel free to reword it, especially the last part):

"If the target is commanded to use the disabled move consecutively, it will be forced to use Struggle on the action after the first time being disabled."

Well, that's what the players told me what should happen anyway. I first made all the disabled move's attempts all null because that's what the description implies to say.
Click to expand...
Handbook said:
In case of Illegal orders/subs

Any time a Pokemon is told to do something it cannot (such as using Toxic while taunted, using Rock Slide when there are no rocks, or using Electro Ball when it doesn't have the move in its movepool), what happens depends on where it occurs in the orders. If it is in the main set of orders, the Pokemon will use Struggle on that action instead of the ordered move, unless the effect that prevents the move from being used starts on that action, in which case it simply fails without expending energy. If the move is the result of a substitution, the substitution is ignored and the Pokemon uses whatever it was going to use in the first place.
Click to expand...

Quoted from the NDA's Disable descroption: If the Pokemon was ordered to use the sealed attack on the same action it is Disabled, the move will fail. If it is ordered to use the attack at any time after that while it is still sealed, the Pokemon will Struggle instead.

Looks covered to my eyes? If it still seems unclear I'll figure out a way to reword it.
 
To be fair, the bit that Texas Cloverleaf is quoting from the NDA was just added by me a little while ago. But yes, that is how things like Disable and Taunt and Torment work.
 
We're talking about this on IRC right now, but it'd be great to get some sort of final ruling on flimsy substitutions. Specifically: "If my actions are illegal, I reserve the right to reorder." Personally, I'm fine with allowing a third substitution for illegal actions, but those should provide an alternative means of attack. Any action that requests the right to reorder should be illegal, in my opinion. Reorders are given by referees.
 
Birkal ninja'd me

Official Ruling: No player may "reserve the right to reorder" within a substitution. Players are expected to take every course of action to determine the outcome and legality of their actions. In cases where the interaction of a mechanic is dubious, such as when different mechanics interact or when the validity of a combo is in question, the player may provide an additional set of orders conditional on the legality of the mechanic called into question. If the contested mechanic is listed or clarified in either the NDA or Player's Handbook, the alternative order set is null and void

Kind of wordy but hopefully covers everything relevant.

If there's any problems with this bring them up and we'll look at altering it to fix them.
 
Last edited:
No I don't like that ruling and here's why "right to reorder" subs should stay (but not count to the two-sub limit):

it is a GIANT BITCH to get rulings on some obscure game mechanics. You could be waiting a week+ in a LOT of cases, which would really hold up your match. And I'd wait the week, every time, unless it was a friendly. Because under texas's solution, if you do end up having some mechanic wrong when you ordered, you are suddenly entirely subless. Unless we add two entirely new subs to the second order set texas is proposing—in which case, i'm perfectly ok with the solution, as long as you don't mind people taking twice as long to order sometimes.

edit: also texas could you STOP being deck knight you aren't allowed to give official rulings on your own without the council :|
 
Please tell me there are no substitutions which actually state "I reserve a right to re-order."

You can't make a demand on the ref in your substitutions. My suggestion would be if you really question something, either ask for clarification in the battle independent of your actions, or, if you don't want your opponent to know your killer move, PM the ref, or Texas to get a clarification and post a hold on the thread indicating you are getting verification on the legality of actions to come.
 
My monologued response to pwnemon cause no one was itc this morning >_>

07:48 Texas pwnegone seems to have a problem with my being the policy leader
07:48 Texas and/or didn't read the entire ruling

07:48 Texas "it is a GIANT BITCH to get rulings on some obscure game mechanics. You could be waiting a week+ in a LOT of cases, which would really hold up your match. And I'd wait the week, every time, unless it was a friendly."
07:48 Texas "In cases where the interaction of a mechanic is dubious, such as when different mechanics interact or when the validity of a combo is in question, the player may provide an additional set of orders conditional on the legality of the mechanic called into question."
07:49 Texas "If the contested mechanic is listed or clarified in either the NDA or Player's Handbook, the alternative order set is null and void"

07:49 Texas why would you ever be waiting if you can provide an alternative order set for a "LEGITIMATELY" unknown mechanic
07:50 Texas if its not a legitimately unknown mech and its in the NDA/PH than that's the fault of the orderer for being lazy and they have zero right to reorder/alt. order
07:50 Texas This ruling is very specifically for cases where mechanics are not previously known, it is not a new sub
07:50 Texas Frankly we have so many things codified this should almost never be an occurance
07:51 Texas Let me find the example I made yesterday of where a slippery slope like this can lead
07:51 Texas [04:24] <&@Texas> "If my orders would result in me accidentally KOing myself I reserve the right to reorder"
07:52 Texas [04:24] <&@Texas> no you goddamn well do not [04:24] <&@Texas> etc

07:54 Texas with regards to "me being deck" I'm the policy head, I made a judgement that this was a policy decision outside the scope of the council due to it being players attempting to game the system outside of its original intent by deck (whose mind I do actually know quite well on these matters)
07:55 Texas I make no rulings on anything regarding game balance and almost anything goes to the council
07:58 Texas this was a common sense ruling and I made a judgement call that it was necessary to fix it immediately

If anyone feels disgruntled about this situation or wants to discuss it further please feel free to contact me on irc (or forum convo if you must :p)

edit:
08:21 Texas it struck me as a problem when multiple users other than myself raised the same issue on the same day independent of myself or each other
 
Last edited:
So, you may know me as that guy who brought up Happy Hour earlier in this thread (I think on the same page), but I figured that I might as well bring it up again, seeing as the event has been available since November 22nd. Also, because I like to include as much proof as possible p, here are a few links to Serebii's and Bulbapedia's move listings for Happy Hour, as well as both Serebii's and Bulbapedia's event database listings for it.

Finally, as I stated in my last post about this:
P2X7 said:
We should probably find a way to implement it, given that it's a move that (I assume) we didn't notice, seeing as it isn't currently in the NDA, in addition to finding a way to balance it for ASB in comparison to its ingame effect, as I'm not particularly sure how many people would want a move that allows someone to earn double the CC that they would normally earn with no extra effort required if we did decide to copy the ingame effect of doubling prize money earned. Also, a way of clarifying/figuring out the interactions between it and Pay Day/Amulet Coin would probably be necessary.
Click to expand...
Discuss/ignore this, whichever you prefer.
 
P2X7 said:
So, you may know me as that guy who brought up Happy Hour earlier in this thread (I think on the same page), but I figured that I might as well bring it up again, seeing as the event has been available since November 22nd. Also, because I like to include as much proof as possible p, here are a few links to Serebii's and Bulbapedia's move listings for Happy Hour, as well as both Serebii's and Bulbapedia's event database listings for it.

Finally, as I stated in my last post about this:

Discuss/ignore this, whichever you prefer.
Click to expand...

Since only Inkay, Malamar, and Smeargle get this move, logic dictates that it has got to have something to it that doesn't just make it another Pay Day clone. Personally I'd really support the doubling CC idea, and approvers can sort out cases of obvious counterfarming on a case-by-case basis (IE: Malamar+12 maxed mons in a 13v13 brawl is borderline farming).

Then again there's not really much CC is used for anymore, at least in large amounts. So people shouldn't really need to rely on Malamar/Smeargle+12 maxed mons to get CC anyways...
 
I think doubling the baseline cc amount of counters you earn would be a good effect while keeping it simple and removing possible farming
 
Just gonna bring up Protect/Detect for a bit because someone made unannounced sweeping changes & added this to their descriptions in the Data Audit Tables:
If used in a combination attack, Detect/Protect will still be active on the cooldown action, but will have one and a half (1.5x) the Damage Evaded energy cost that action.
Click to expand...
Okay massive energy sink, yes, but being able to block two actions. Two actions. And not to mention that this is kinda relevant as the warstory battle involves a Protect combinations...

I guess I am going to bring this to the attention of everyone... But what the hell... Also it is probably balanced as well, because energy sink compensating for two actions of Protect... I do not have -that- much of an issue with it, but the lack of transparency in all of this is really annoying... -.-'

The bottom line is, if someone is going to update the tables or something with a new mechanic, can we please announce it?

Also I should bring up something about Parental Bond, but I cannot be bothered.
 
Actually, that mechanic was already on Detect. I believe it was there as a way to differentiate it from Protect, which has the transferable property, so if someone has put that combo thing on Protect as well, they should not have.

EDIT: OK, on closer inspection, it appears someone has replaced the transfer thing on Protect with the combo thing on Detect. Excuse me one moment while I reverse this.

EDIT 2: Regarding announcement of edits to the NDA, I have added a new sheet to it called "Update Log" for just that purpose.
 
Last edited:
There are 9 users with edit access according to the Google Doc

I know which email is mine, which is Lou's and which is Deck's but the others I am unsure
 
Since Deck made Rank 6 do 1.5 instead of the 1.0 it used to shouldn't we also change HP to reflect this? 10 HP is the equivalent of the 1.5 base dmg so I think it should reflect this. So Rank 6 becomes 130 and all the other ranks above get an additional 5 Hp keeping consistency with the other ranks and making rank 10 be 150 (which looks better than 145)
 
Gerard said:
Since Deck made Rank 6 do 1.5 instead of the 1.0 it used to shouldn't we also change HP to reflect this? 10 HP is the equivalent of the 1.5 base dmg so I think it should reflect this. So Rank 6 becomes 130 and all the other ranks above get an additional 5 Hp keeping consistency with the other ranks and making rank 10 be 150 (which looks better than 145)
Click to expand...
I asked Deck about this at the time and he said no to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top