Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Substitute 15hp and substitute 20hp are more different from each other than defense curl and harden. Why should I allow complex subs for one and not for the other? Same goes with teleport or dig or other moves. Heck, many damaging moves from the same typing have pretty much the same effects, but one bap more/less and end up having a smaller difference from each other than sub 15 and sub 20.

I am not fond of this. Opens up a can of worms I prefer to leave closed. If I start to allow stuff like this, then subs will get even less user-friendly than they already are, and I'd much rather have subs=4 matches than have our system become even more complicated.


On a sidenote:

IAR: Have some tact, you are not akela, for hell's sake. Stop attacking the poster instead of the post.
Gale: Stop going "oh sorry I will never do this again. Forgive me!!" everytime someone disagrees with you. It can gets irritating.

-Texedit
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to see this given a chance and looked at in greater detail. I like the premise specifically because it's always bothered me that you can sub for Dig and still get screwed over if they choose to suspend it despite it being the same move you've subbed for. His premise of moves with specific variables considered is similarly not flawed nor open to interpretation the way IAR assumed.

There is a logical base from which this can be explored, it should be done so and the merits considered through their own integrity, not through pedantry.
 
Who said I was attacking Gale lol. Maybe that last line was since I was tired but I apologise if it was taken the wrong way which it obviously was... Maybe I should stop posting when I am tired.

Anyhow, I get the intent behind the sub class and I did point out unrealistic flaws since users need to consider ramifications and close those holes. My issue is basically what Frosty said. I mean suspended EDM's are probably the only real practical means for this. Just limit it to different uses of the move as in Gale's intent and it is fine. I am probably just paranoid more than anything since I played in those days... -.-'
 
Sorry I had camp and then concert and then concert post-mortem and IAR is mad at me in both my LLAMA reffings but I still gotta keep track. Anything I mentioned in the previous page will stay there, with the exception of Consummable Items since it was moved to Discussion.

Self-Reffing: Fiat by Frosty.

Variation Clause: Council can move this to Discussion if necessary. Personally I'm not very fond of the idea since it looks similar to "only one OR AND NOT clause" suggested a while back, and the problem it is trying to solve can be solved simply by shifting the metagame to 3++ Substitutions (like seriously if you guys would only use Dnite and Sableye and MeGardevoir then just do this). Also, it took me about 10 minutes to skim through the posts so I might be misinformed, sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
Adding the following to the handbook under the combinations section in bolded letters:
Combinations that are deemed unfeasible by ref discretion are not considered to be illegal under normal circumstances.
Click to expand...
Because people do not seem to get that two moves cannot be feasibly combined by ref discretion =/= illegal, especially when there is a codified way of dealing with such. If one ref says yes and another says no, it does not mean that a combo is illegal, just that the latter does not think that the two moves can be feasibly combined. Your mileage may vary. If you want to sub for two moves not being combinable, sub for X and Y would not be feasibly combined. This is just making it explicit.

Yes this might be pedantry and the intent might be the same but technically a combination cannot be illegal yet people sub for combinations being illegal anyway... >_>

Maybe we might have to deal with codifying these sort of substitutions in the future since I do not recall there being something in the handbook about it (and I should get around to adding something because people are certainly fine with x and y would not be feasibly combined subs) but this is a bit of a fix and making something that is implicit explicit.
 
In theory this should be a nice simple flowchart. However, when you look at it, there are so many stupidities it's crazy.

Take a Pokemon who starts the round at +1 SpA. They use Tail Glow A1, whilst their opponent uses Confide A1. Now by the current logic, the Confide would lock in the stat at +3 - this is actually just as bad as if they hadn't used Confide at all.

The system as it stands works, but it's needlessly complex. A smaller stat boost and permanency might make sense here?
 
Honestly, stat boosts (outside of tail glow/swoobat) are kinda iffy even without decay. I wouldn't be opposed to just keeping them as-is but without decay.

texedit: also evasion
 
Making boosts permanent and lowering the boost from them is counterproductive given the point is to make the moves simple to understand and not useless in battle save specific niche abusers.

Maybe I am wrong and a Swoobat with +12 DMG and -12 DMG on the special side with no way for the stats to lower naturally is too good but that is very subjective.

I mean the only time you would see these things normally is when you are fighting a Shuckle or you are raiding but even then you are better off dealing damage in the latter case anyway.
 
This isn't the first time this issue has been brought up and it won't be the last if rejected, but I don't see any real reason to change it outside the aforementioned "its bad buff plz"
 
The thing with Swoobat, though, is that its whole strategy is shut down by Taunt, Haze, Roar, Heart Swap, Psych Up (to an extent), Imprison (most users get calm mind anyhow), Skill Swap (stealing unaware shuts down stat boosters pretty well), and the fact that it takes 3 turns to set up. Or just smashing its face in with physical moves (100/2/2 bulk isn't exactly inspiring). The main reason to change the decay rules are more because they're confusing than anything else, imo. Stat boosts becoming slightly better is a bonus.
 
Avnomke said:
The thing with Swoobat, though, is that its whole strategy is shut down by Taunt, Haze, Roar, Heart Swap, Psych Up (to an extent), Imprison (most users get calm mind anyhow), Skill Swap (stealing unaware shuts down stat boosters pretty well), and the fact that it takes 3 turns to set up. Or just smashing its face in with physical moves (100/2/2 bulk isn't exactly inspiring). The main reason to change the decay rules are more because they're confusing than anything else, imo. Stat boosts becoming slightly better is a bonus.
Click to expand...
Nitpick: Swoobat can actually counter those strategies since it itself gets Taunt, Imprison, Skill Swap, Psych Up, Magic Coat, etc, alongside its naturally high speed. Also nobody is saying you have to get it to +6/+6 to let it rip.

Yeah stat boosters can be countered through phazing etc but it is not as easy as you think in Swoobat's case lol.
 
Suggestion doesn't get countered by saying "swoobat op lololol"

Stat boosts are terrible, removing decay goes a long way towards helping them be relevant

Prove me wrong

edit:
Its A Random said:
I mean the only time you would see these things normally is when you are fighting a Shuckle or you are raiding but even then you are better off dealing damage in the latter case anyway.
Click to expand...
Precisely the point. Removing decay gives things like Smokescreen an actual reason to be used and potentially gives a valid substitution against the common Protective/Evasive move.

We need only look at Weakness Policy to see that there's some clear value from non-decaying stat boosts, even if part of that value is driven from a passive activation.
 
Would stat drops stop decaying, too? Because being at perma -1 Spe after bring hit with Bulldoze would be pretty bad, and things like Draco Meteor and Leaf Storm and the like would drop in usage, since in ASB you tend to have to hit more than once and making all your subsequent hits weaker is not a great idea.
 
tavok said:
Would stat drops stop decaying, too? Because being at perma -1 Spe after bring hit with Bulldoze would be pretty bad, and things like Draco Meteor and Leaf Storm and the like would drop in usage, since in ASB you tend to have to hit more than once and making all your subsequent hits weaker is not a great idea.
Click to expand...
Presumably yes they would stop decaying. For things like DM/LS my first thought is simply not to punish for attacks that don't deal damage. Generally those attacks shouldn't be your primary offense anyway and so making them slightly more reliable might help offset the stat drop.

edit: If there's an alternative solution that also simplifies stat boosts I'm all ears
 
Does Struggle with Protean turn the user into normal type or doesnt shift type at all. The general consensus is normal type, but the description does state typeless. Just wanted to get some clarification on this
 
Rainman Legends said:
Does Struggle with Protean turn the user into normal type or doesnt shift type at all. The general consensus is normal type, but the description does state typeless. Just wanted to get some clarification on this
Click to expand...
If you listen to Bulbapedia, Struggle is exempted from Protean's effect, ergo, the Pokémon retains its typing.
 
I would like to bring up a point about self-reffing.

Now, bear with me on this one. I know that self-reffing is still very new (and arguably experimental), but I have noticed something that stands out to me as imbalanced so far. In the current state, neither battlers obtain KOC, to ward off fixing the of the rng, and, if it does happen, this coupled with the training battle clause means it doesn't make an impact. However, the problem with this, in my eye, is that this only penalizes the player who is not refereeing the battle. The reason for this is that the UC obtained by the ref easily mitigates the lost KOC, and goes beyond the amount that would be given out in a regular fight of the same caliber.

Thus, I have thrown together a comparison, with all of the UC earned by the battling ref poured into MC, EC, or AC, (as usually is the case for KOC in training matches, which the referees in self-reffed battles have the potential to substitute for) the aid of Exp Shares and lucky eggs, (items which every player has at least one of each) and assuming the Pokemon not to have maxed EC and AC:

Player/Ref:

Pokemon 1 (exp share)

1-4 EC

3-6 MC

1-4 AC

Player/Opponent:

Pokemon 1 (exp share)

1 EC

3 MC

1 AC

Player/Ref:

Pokemon 1 (exp share)

1-7 EC

3-9 MC

1-5 AC

Pokemon 2 (lucky egg)

1-7 EC

2-8 MC

1-5 AC

1 EC/AC

Player/Opponent:

Pokemon 1 (exp share)

1 EC

3 MC

1 AC

Pokemon 2 (lucky egg)

1 EC

2 MC

1 AC

1 AC/EC

As you can see, the lack of KOC paired with the referee's UC compensation creates a drastic unbalance in the prizes of the fight. To fix this, I would suggest at least awarding KOC as normal to the player who is not refereeing the fight. I haven't ever heard of someone fixing a game against themselves in these types of cases, and it helps to make the fight a bit more profitable for the second player.
 
Yes and the imbalance is because one player just twiddles their thumbs and orders while the other orders and referees; you earn what you get. I personally feel the system is fair and the generally shorter timeframe makes up for it but that is just me; who knows if anyone else shares my views. This also probably ties into the how much UC to award debate from a page or two back.
 
If you want the extra KOC, I have a simple solution for you: Don't let the battle be self-reffed. You are giving up the KOC for a faster battle. If you want a lightning quick battle, you need to give up something.
 
Its_A_Random said:
Yes and the imbalance is because one player just twiddles their thumbs and orders while the other orders and referees; you earn what you get. I personally feel the system is fair and the generally shorter timeframe makes up for it but that is just me; who knows if anyone else shares my views. This also probably ties into the how much UC to award debate from a page or two back.
Click to expand...
The difference is that in a normal battle, both players "twiddle their thumbs and order" AND obtain KOC. More often then not the referee in a self refereed match will be quick, yes, but they also get the have UC payout an incentive, in addition to being in the match as a player. This is paying one person 90% of the pay of two participants of the match, and giving the other one 90% of one participant's rewards. You are only earning what you get half the time, in the cases that you lose.

As for the sacrifice argument, I see no reason why the regular battler should be made to give up their KOC as well. Yes, if you choose to self ref you most certainly should be willing to giving up something, but the UC the referee is earning is making that "something" back in spades. I am entirely aware that I am in the minority here, but I will restate my opinion: the player who is not self-reffing the match should receive full KOC, if they would earn it. It is, to me, the simplest way to balance out the system without further subtracting from base compensation of a match.
 
Eh, the person who is fighting the self-reffed person is also getting his/her flash done faster, so I think the rewards are ok. The other person gets the UC because he refs the thing.

I really don't see anything wrong with this: if you want your KOC, just do the standard three-way flashes, which gets you your 3 UC for reffing and your KOC.
 
Alright, time to take a page from bugmaniacbob's page (and ask why not, rather then why aka a great method that should be used for everything >.>): what is possibly the harm in awarding KOC to the non reffing player? It doesn't affect the chances the ref will fix the match, unless they are a truly spiteful human being, and it helps to close the gap between rewards between players. Basically, I see it now as the opponent gives their "KOC" (which we all know I mean in the form of the UC) to the other player to ref, and that's not really something I think should be the case.
 
It encourages fixing the match, as if the self-ref doesn't let the opponent win (and thus reducing the net rewards), then they're being a dick. Most people (including myself probably) wouldn't intentionally reduce the rewards gotten from a match. Now, it encourages fixing the match in favor of the opponent, but that's just as bad because it doesn't encourage getting to know the pokemon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top