-
The leader of this forum is LouisCyphre. The moderators of this forum are JJayyFeather, Mowtom, nightblitz42, and TMan87.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III
- Thread starter Dogfish44
- Start date
- Status
Fiating Lati@site and fiating (or rather, making it EXPLICIT) that it's total mons / 2 irrespective of how many players there are in a match.
Yay for me bringing up more obscure stuff nobody cares about -_-
21:23 Mowtom @asbmove Hyperspace Fury
21:23 ASBot Hyperspace Fury - Dark | Special | Adjacent Target | 10 BAP | --% Acc | 7 EN Cost | -- Eff% | Contact: No | 0 Prio | Combo Type: Set | Snatch: No | Magic Coat: No
21:24 phoenix !data hyperspace fury
21:24 TIBot Hyperspace Fury - Dark | Physical | Power: 100 | Accuracy: --% | PP: 5 (8) | Hoopa-U: Lowers user's Def. by 1; breaks protection.
Hyperspace Fury should be listed as a physical move
21:23 Mowtom @asbmove Hyperspace Fury
21:23 ASBot Hyperspace Fury - Dark | Special | Adjacent Target | 10 BAP | --% Acc | 7 EN Cost | -- Eff% | Contact: No | 0 Prio | Combo Type: Set | Snatch: No | Magic Coat: No
21:24 phoenix !data hyperspace fury
21:24 TIBot Hyperspace Fury - Dark | Physical | Power: 100 | Accuracy: --% | PP: 5 (8) | Hoopa-U: Lowers user's Def. by 1; breaks protection.
Hyperspace Fury should be listed as a physical move
*sigh* One of these says there will be no flaws in the NDA and everyone will be satisfied with its contents...
Fixed. Also whichever editor thought it was a good idea to unmerge a crapton of cells and make the moves section unreadable, I will find you and castrate you.
Fixed. Also whichever editor thought it was a good idea to unmerge a crapton of cells and make the moves section unreadable, I will find you and castrate you.
Pretty new to Smogon and decided ASB looked interesting enough to check out. Got rather excited thinking of a potential pokemon who could benefit hugely from these mechanics. Finally, I had my hopes dashed after finding the ability and skill lists. Admittedly what I was seeking could be termed an exploit, but why do pressure and spite have to have their potential cut so short? It seemed like a cool and unexpected strategy, but now looks more like an accomplishment than anything efficient.
Hope the feedback thread is an ok place for an outsider to leave an opinion. Not sure I'll join, but this all looks pretty cool (other than making my dreams more a ghost than they were).
Hope the feedback thread is an ok place for an outsider to leave an opinion. Not sure I'll join, but this all looks pretty cool (other than making my dreams more a ghost than they were).
10:37:44 AM <ASBot_> This may be activated whenever by the player without using an action. When activated, this item is consumed and the Pokemon gains a one (1) rank bonus to Attack, Defense, Special Attack, and Special Defense and a 25% (x1.25) bonus to Speed, rounded up, for three (3) actions or until switched out
free buff to everything forever is totally not op.
Imo 6a instead of forever
RCB is an interesting case. It's weaker than a lot of consumables, but it's the strongest which can be easily activated by all mons. It obviously pairs brilliantly with Thief/Covet.
My issue with making it perma is that when the RCB user would be that in a last mon scenario, most people would say that a +1/+1/+1/+1/*1.25 is better than all other items, since you wouldn't end up losing that boost. I'd say that 6a is plenty.
---
Childish: Hi, welcome to CAPASB! A lot of the stalling-style abilities in ASB tend to feel weaker than in-game, but that's by design. We've seen a lot of other ASB systems result in endless stall wars - which tend to be tedious for all parties. It makes us a faster and more competitive system than other ASBs, whilst still leaving the options there. I think Dusknoir is notable in it's ability to combine it's bulk and Pressure to stall in such a manner - and Spite can be a way to break weakened opponents, used by a wide variety of mons.
My issue with making it perma is that when the RCB user would be that in a last mon scenario, most people would say that a +1/+1/+1/+1/*1.25 is better than all other items, since you wouldn't end up losing that boost. I'd say that 6a is plenty.
---
Childish: Hi, welcome to CAPASB! A lot of the stalling-style abilities in ASB tend to feel weaker than in-game, but that's by design. We've seen a lot of other ASB systems result in endless stall wars - which tend to be tedious for all parties. It makes us a faster and more competitive system than other ASBs, whilst still leaving the options there. I think Dusknoir is notable in it's ability to combine it's bulk and Pressure to stall in such a manner - and Spite can be a way to break weakened opponents, used by a wide variety of mons.
Although pressure buffs are likely too good due to it being a passive effect I'd be interested in exploring spite's viability due to it requiring active use justifying a potentially stronger effect
Rage Candy Bar will be dealt with internally as to whether or not a buff will go ahead, watch this space.
As for Spite, I do not have much of an issue with being able to select more than one move at a time (up to three) but ehhh... It will probably go to an internal vote if there is more discussion here though, but not yet.
As for Spite, I do not have much of an issue with being able to select more than one move at a time (up to three) but ehhh... It will probably go to an internal vote if there is more discussion here though, but not yet.
^ Basically telling us to discuss in here.
Ok so pressure rn is pretty much just a better spite, which makes sense since its an ability. BUT spite takes up an action, making spite just a weaker version of torment (except in conjunction with encore for the purposes of abusing a sub where torment would make the sub not trigger).
Spite should be able to target more moves because rn its only good functions are:
1: to top off the pressure cake on dusknoir etc
2: in extremely niche conjunction with encore, which torment still does better unless you are abusing a sub.
3: to try and finish off a weakened mon (which in all probability just ko'd one of your mons sooo... ye)
Thanks for the welcome! So spite effects three moves of your choice at once? Skill description wasn't quite clear on it all being at once. Also, just wondering. If a person can burn down an opponent's energy fast as health, but in doing so would sacrifice the moves which help it stall, is that really encouraging slower play? Of course, the only pokemon truly able to use this strategy seems to be dusclops/dusknoir...
Also, a question. Apparently dodge is a command. Does the manner in which it dodges increase the chance of the pokemon not getting hit? For example, a ghost which sinks into the ground (or fades into another plane of existance? How do poke-ghosts work?) or bird that takes flight.
Probably won't be actually joining any time soon due to other activities, but if ya'll don't mind, hanging out and asking questions on forum is pretty fun.
Also, a question. Apparently dodge is a command. Does the manner in which it dodges increase the chance of the pokemon not getting hit? For example, a ghost which sinks into the ground (or fades into another plane of existance? How do poke-ghosts work?) or bird that takes flight.
Probably won't be actually joining any time soon due to other activities, but if ya'll don't mind, hanging out and asking questions on forum is pretty fun.
Dodge (Command) merely reduces the Accuracy of the next attack targeted at the user, assuming that it is faster than its assailant.
There are Damaging/Evasive moves in here though (Phantom Force, Dig, Dive) that do more of what you seemed to have thought up
There are Damaging/Evasive moves in here though (Phantom Force, Dig, Dive) that do more of what you seemed to have thought up
No, this is where we are discussing changing spite to affect 3 moves. As of right now, it only affects 1.
And no, flavor actions like sinking into a ground are a thing of the past (and of Adventure Battles)
Dodge has a set formula, which changes based on variables in the formula.
NDA said:
That is the current text of the newly modified Dragon Scale. It needs the "if there is a tie part" to be fully clear, especially since all of Kingdra's stats are the same.
Also, the stats changed section of the NDA needs to be updated for the new changes in sig items
No.
The fact that you are only allowed to self referee matches three times in a 24 hour span (which makes it not as abuse-able as you make it out to be) and the fact that Frosty can revoke privileges at the drop of a hat makes this completely unnecessary.
--------------------
Also mods are okay with a Rage Candy Bar buff so yeah. Go nuts.
IAR do you mean you have fiated a Rage Candy Bar buff or just given the okay to discuss it?
also no before anyone asks we won't be using an updated Rage Candy Bar for LC tournament since all the teams are in already
also no before anyone asks we won't be using an updated Rage Candy Bar for LC tournament since all the teams are in already
It's pretty reasonable to make RCB 6a I think, because that's how long a lot of things last (screens, focus energy) are just one example.
It makes it better than the current 3a, while not being overboard like the "forever until switch" that was said earlier.
It makes it better than the current 3a, while not being overboard like the "forever until switch" that was said earlier.
Saying that this is absolutely preposterous. Why is this allowed?? This is literally two substitutions written as one, but since it uses a negative, it's acceptable? This looks to be legal with the new substitution rules, but this definitely shouldn't be allowed. Alternatively, if this is something we want in the metagame, then the following substitution should also be legal as a single substitution:
If Pain Split, Taunt. If Taunt, Pain Split.
That should be legal, because that's exactly the same as that substitution (unless I'm missing something here). If someone is a new user trying to get into ASB, this is asinine to learn how to craft a proper substitution when something like Mowtom's substitution is allowed. Note that I'm not bashing him; it's a brilliant substitution and a great loophole. I bring it up not to diminish his abilities as a player, but to correct this for all future battles.
I don't have an opinion, here. Nor I intend to have one. But some food for thought: is that a bad thing? Yes, this means that subs are indeed more powerful, but is that a bad thing? The player ordering last still has the hindsight upperhand. If the player ordering first knows exactly what the player ordering last can do to throw a wrench on his plans, then why not give him the means to prevent that from happening?
The reason why I want people to think about it is simple really: subs exist to lower the insane advantage the last-to-order player has against the first-to-order player. Sometimes I see people complaining because subs are less abusable due to some recent rule changes and that that is a bad thing because the player did make a mistake and should pay etc etc. But the subs' purpose is to lower the advantage of the last player, not increase it, so the risks of using a sub should be lower because otherwise their role in our game would possibly backfire more often than we'd want (which means that as far as their purpose is concerned, it being less abusable is a good thing). This discussion follows the exact same logic: subs are supposed to give the first player tools to fight against the last player, so if the sub can do that very well, then shouldn't it be a good thing?
The question here lies upon balancing how good subs should be so the first player doesn't have a too good of an advantage (in other words: the subs shouldn't just change who has the advantage: it should only lower the gap). If you compare the old rules with the new rules, then yes the First Player is on a better position compared to before. But that was by design, because we considered that the Second Player still has a big advantage. Maybe we went too far on that. Maybe not. I don't know. Nor I intend to enter in that specific matter (the council can/should decide it honestly). But what I need to make clear is that: if your issue with the new rules is because "you can write two subs as one", then...well...that is the intention? Make subs better. That complaint will only be adequate and acceptable if you are arguing that, because of that, the boost given by subs to the player ordering first is too good. That the system is unbalanced. That should be the basis of your argument if we want to get productive here.
Regarding subs being complicated, yes they are. And I personally hate that myself as well. But the "NOT" usage isn't the most complicated thing subs have by far (it may be the newest and least explored, but not the most complicated). If you want subs to be simpler than you gotta swing your axe in many other directions to do it properly.
The reason why I want people to think about it is simple really: subs exist to lower the insane advantage the last-to-order player has against the first-to-order player. Sometimes I see people complaining because subs are less abusable due to some recent rule changes and that that is a bad thing because the player did make a mistake and should pay etc etc. But the subs' purpose is to lower the advantage of the last player, not increase it, so the risks of using a sub should be lower because otherwise their role in our game would possibly backfire more often than we'd want (which means that as far as their purpose is concerned, it being less abusable is a good thing). This discussion follows the exact same logic: subs are supposed to give the first player tools to fight against the last player, so if the sub can do that very well, then shouldn't it be a good thing?
The question here lies upon balancing how good subs should be so the first player doesn't have a too good of an advantage (in other words: the subs shouldn't just change who has the advantage: it should only lower the gap). If you compare the old rules with the new rules, then yes the First Player is on a better position compared to before. But that was by design, because we considered that the Second Player still has a big advantage. Maybe we went too far on that. Maybe not. I don't know. Nor I intend to enter in that specific matter (the council can/should decide it honestly). But what I need to make clear is that: if your issue with the new rules is because "you can write two subs as one", then...well...that is the intention? Make subs better. That complaint will only be adequate and acceptable if you are arguing that, because of that, the boost given by subs to the player ordering first is too good. That the system is unbalanced. That should be the basis of your argument if we want to get productive here.
Regarding subs being complicated, yes they are. And I personally hate that myself as well. But the "NOT" usage isn't the most complicated thing subs have by far (it may be the newest and least explored, but not the most complicated). If you want subs to be simpler than you gotta swing your axe in many other directions to do it properly.
- Status