• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stating that there are "larger problems with subs" is not a legitimate reason why we shouldn't disallow this strategy. This is a gaping problem, from my perspective, so we may as well fix things as they come up.

I'd agree that ordering first can be a pain, and that ordering second is a huge advantage. It's why people deny counterswitching, because they want to abuse substitutions and get momentum. I would be fine with us giving some more power to the player ordering first. But not like this. If we allow substitutions like the one I quoted before, then we're basically smiling and nodding at loopholes without our own rules. It's a steep learning curve for new users and looks like a bug in the system to me. If we do allow it in order to give more power to ordering first, then allow the type of substitution I listed (If Solar Beam, Mirror Coat. If Leaf Storm, Mirror Coat.). Because they're the exact same thing.
 
Last edited:
Birkal said:
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.
Click to expand...

The sub you've given is illegal because you're widening the scope. That is to say, there are two clauses which together cause the substitution to activate in less cases than if either was removed. Oh, and you're also giving two different end results 9.9

...

Doesn't mean I don't disagree that there's a broken bit though. I think it's something that caught up in vagueness - the aim was to allow for subs (In this case, in doubles vs opponents X and Y) like,

"IF (X uses Double Team) AND NOT (Y uses Wide Guard) AND NOT (Y uses Encore (A) on the following action) AND NOT (X uses Encore (A) on the following action) THEN Rock Slide"

Which I believe we should have - this is a complex sub, but I doubt anyone's going to claim it's unfair.

The issue, for me, is that we allow to have multiple attack clauses on the same mon's action. My proposal would be to clarify the original intent behind 'one attack clause per mon per action'

So, in a doubles, if you have your team A and B, and your opponent has X and Y out, you can make an attack clause that is along the line of "IF X uses Focus Punch AND Y uses Protect (X) AND X uses Chill on the following action, THEN". This should be legal - each 'action frame' (In this case, 'this action' and 'the following action') has at most one move sub based on any one mon.

This means that you can sub around follow-up Encores, Copycats, etc. (something direly missed from old ASB), but you can't sub for "IF (X uses Damaging Grass Attack) AND NOT (X uses Razor Leaf) THEN Mirror Coat", since you're trying to sub for two attack clauses in X's single 'action frame'.
 
Last edited:
So from what I can get from dogfish44 is that in order to have multiple AND NOTs in a thing, you need to be referring to different actions?

Edit: thats his suggestion, not the status quo
 
I'm pretty sure that I need to weigh in here, even if only because my sub started this.

I don't really have an opinion on whether what I did should be allowed or not. If we want to enact Dogfish's proposal I am totally fine with that, although I would like to point out that Birkal's "If Pain Split, Taunt. If Taunt, Pain Split." is drastically different than what I did. That sub has two different triggers and two different activations, while any sub of the form I created would do the same thing regardless of which trigger caused it. This is also true for the infamous phoenixsubs and galesubs.
 
Dogfish44 said:
The sub you've given is illegal because you're widening the scope. That is to say, there are two clauses which together cause the substitution to activate in less cases than if either was removed. Oh, and you're also giving two different end results 9.9

...

Doesn't mean I don't disagree that there's a broken bit though. I think it's something that caught up in vagueness - the aim was to allow for subs (In this case, in doubles vs opponents X and Y) like,

"IF (X uses Double Team) AND NOT (Y uses Wide Guard) AND NOT (Y uses Encore (A) on the following action) AND NOT (X uses Encore (A) on the following action) THEN Rock Slide"

Which I believe we should have - this is a complex sub, but I doubt anyone's going to claim it's unfair.

The issue, for me, is that we allow to have multiple attack clauses on the same mon's action. My proposal would be to clarify the original intent behind 'one attack clause per mon per action'

So, in a doubles, if you have your team A and B, and your opponent has X and Y out, you can make an attack clause that is along the line of "IF X uses Focus Punch AND Y uses Protect (X) AND X uses Chill on the following action, THEN". This should be legal - each 'action frame' (In this case, 'this action' and 'the following action') has at most one move sub based on any one mon.

This means that you can sub around follow-up Encores, Copycats, etc. (something direly missed from old ASB), but you can't sub for "IF (X uses Damaging Grass Attack) AND NOT (X uses Razor Leaf) THEN Mirror Coat", since you're trying to sub for two attack clauses in X's single 'action frame'.
Click to expand...
except that the main example frosty used was IF fighting move AND NOT focus blast? the doubles boon was an aside, and you get one clause per mon, INCLUDING yourself. the only even possibly unintentional thing was AND NOT AND NOT without an AND YES, but even so i don't think it's bad.
 
I can't see the example in his post. Link? (Note: I was the person who (along with many hour plus long chats with Stratos) wrote the wretched rules.)

Here's an except from the original conversations set up where we discussed rule 9;

Dogfish44 said:
1) Seems sensible. KO Subs are a subset of Chance Subs, but the split makes sense atm.
3) That seems fine.

2) Rule 9 is a way to ensure 'NOT Move' is workable. Easiest to explain with examples.

Example 1 [Singles]:
Drain Punch ~ Close Combat ~ Drain Punch
IF Protective/Evasive Action AND following action is NOT Encore, THEN Swords Dance AND Push Back

This would be legal - in each action the sub checks only one Attack Clause is used.

Example 2 [Doubles]:

Hyper Voice ~ Dazzling Gleam ~ Hyper Voice
IF X uses a Protective Action AND Y uses Light Screen THEN Snatch

This would be legal - Rule 9 states that you get one attack clause per action per enemy per substitution.

Example 3 [Singles]:

Earth Power ~ Mud Bomb ~ Earth Power
IF NOT Counter AND NOT Protective/Evasive action THEN Earthquake

This would be illegal, since there are two 'attack' clauses for the same single opponent for the same action

If you need more examples or somethin' lemme know, I'm literally about to go sleep now so my brain isn't at full power.
Click to expand...

tavok said:
I think that's a very good way to deal with "NOT" clauses .-.

IMO, just make it so you have 1 attack clause per Pokémon on the field. Not "number of Pokémon on the field", as that would get people saying they get 4 attack clauses in doubles and using them to sub for a single mon.

Everything else looks good to me.
Click to expand...

(Emphasis mine)

Frosty said:
Dogfish44

I don't get this part: "you still can't have 'NOT Protective/Evasive AND NOT Damaging/Evasive' together". Heck, how we deal with attack classes is not in the rules I think. The normal rules is that one attack class = one attack clause (or at least I assume that) and on that assumption I can't see why the above wouldn't be allowed (unless you mean a "IF NOT Protective/Evasive AND NOT Damaging/Evasive" sub which would fall under rule 4) unless I am missing something here. Can you please explain?
Click to expand...

Dogfish44 said:
Frosty: "IF NOT Protective/Evasive AND NOT Damaging/Evasive", under Rule 4 alone, would be legal - because both "NOT Protective/Evasive" and "NOT Damaging/Evasive" narrow the scope of the substitution - they both cause the substitution to activate in less situations. Rule 9 actually handles that by making it illegal.
Click to expand...

Note the running theme: We wanted attack clauses to not have more than one per mon per action per sub. I'd argue that this means that a shit-ton of people have been making subs which are basically illegal, and at some point they've just been accepted as legal - and a lot of us have less time to dedicate to ASB, so probably forgot the original intent (Or just mentally switched? iunno). My stance would be to re-establlish the intended rules, and probably update the 9 rules's wording - those were practically just a skeleton, and they were vague as sin.
 
Can we just get the old rules back and fix them so that shit that should have been accepted but wasn't is

Because fuck these new sub rules, combined with the inherent matchup advantage, being able to construct complex and backwards sub rules (i..e where your most likely orders are in the sub) is now rewarded with an actual advantage for ordering first. Sub rules are broken in a bad way. At least before they were broken in an intelligible way. Let's fix the intelligibly broken and forget this garbage.
 
I can't go into detail here on mobile but I'm with dogfish in thinking that more than anything here we have begun treating subs that are intended illegal as legal. Mowtoms sub (not singling you out its just a good example) had two NOT attack clauses, my understanding of the intention of the rules was to only allow one not per attack clause. Basically IF damaging fighting move AND NOT Focus Blast THEN Counter is legal but you can't say AND NOT Aura Sphere as well
 
deadfox081 said:
I can't go into detail here on mobile but I'm with dogfish in thinking that more than anything here we have begun treating subs that are intended illegal as legal. Mowtoms sub (not singling you out its just a good example) had two NOT attack clauses, my understanding of the intention of the rules was to only allow one not per attack clause. Basically IF damaging fighting move AND NOT Focus Blast THEN Counter is legal but you can't say AND NOT Aura Sphere as well
Click to expand...
Technically, it's two action clauses including without the NOT clause, which is why.

I'd say it might be best to change it to "maximum NOTs on attack clauses is total mons out minus one," which keeps that example while removing things that go against the intention.

I really don't see how dogf's proposal would be helpful overall, other than as a general nerf;
 
IAR deleted Leet's salt, but 'we should probably open a thread for this' is true. Councilperson, go do so! Last post on the matter tonight.

My proposal is aiming to go to what the original discussions resulted in, and removing the vagueness that resulted from it. Note that under the original discussions, "IF Damaging Fighting Move AND NOT Focus Blast THEN..." would've been Illegal, since that attempts to use two action clauses on one pokemon at the same instance. It's not a nerf as much as a vagueness fix. It also kills "IF NOT X and NOT Y THEN...", and as I've already stated, "IF NOT X THEN..." is not going to do much, since the end result is just the same. My proposal would be infinitely more effective at dealing with NOT spam than a simple -1 :u

Tex specifically, I'm not sure which rules you're referring to when you say 'old rules' - these current rules are ~80% older rules, and then modifications (Including some things I've seen complained about more recently - under older rules, "IF Greninja is not an X-Type and Greninja is not a Y-Type THEN" was legal).

Incidentally, if anyone wants to try editing the rules to deal with some of these cases... have fun!

Loopholes are a bloody nightmare.

Like, say you want to allow "NOT Attack Clause", but you also don't want people to be able to put their effective main orders into their substitutions? You could say that you must have at least one attack clause which doesn't have a 'NOT', but then you can't have "IF X is Poisoned AND NOT Rest", which is kind of important for Venoshock users. Of course, you could just say it's an acceptable loss, but that then feels arbitrary. And if you say "'NOT Attack Clause' shouldn't be a thing', then you've gone back to the weakest subs in ASB. Of course, you can put up with "orders in subs", and I do think we'd see less of them once we went back to the original intent (So you'd only be able to do one NOT Attack Clause, at which point there's no advantage to doing it in that method), but then you have people explicitly calling for them to go.

And now we see why I drink.

So, what about Chance Subs? These are even harder to deal with - especially with the aforementioned NOT X-Type AND NOT Y-Type. Like, you can't even go 'Okay, at least one chance clause must be a positive', since then congrats, you've just discovered how to write 'IF X has greater than 0.5 HP". Maybe you just accept chance clauses as being very powerful, or maybe you can only look at each "condition" once, so you can only check typing once. However, I'm sure that breaks about 20 different things. Maybe not though? Actually, do check to see if that works for that one edge case.

One thing I would like added is that you cannot put a NOT within a NOT? So, like you can't go IF NOT (NOT Burn AND NOT Para), you'd have to split that into two subs, "IF Burn OR Para".

Anyway I need sleep, the sweet embrace of.
 
less importantly, proposal to remove this part of belly drum because its a bad move. nobody uses it outside of raids.
nda said:
The user pounds its stomach with fury, whipping itself into an intense frenzy. In exchange for 1/2 of its maximum HP, the Pokemon receives a permanent rise to its maximum attack stage (+6) for the duration of the battle, even if it leaves play. The heightened aggressive state makes the Pokemon immune to Sleep and Confusion, and prevents the user from using non-damaging moves, for the next six (6) actions. Belly Drum will fail if the user is at or below half of its maximum HP.
Click to expand...

more importantly
Proposal to stop making fresh newbies wait for weeks on end before their Starting ASB Tutoring is accepted. Add more tutors, or focus more on clearing the queue every once in a while. We are frustrating or even losing fresh newbies for no reason other than people deciding other parts of ASB take priority. They don't - getting more users to play is one of the most important thing anyone can do in this game, as having more users means more battles, more refs, bigger tournaments, more feedback, livelier IRC, more RPs and programs, and generally a better ASB. So, then why the hell are we just letting those newbies rot in their very first queue of the game?
 
Leethoof said:
... more importantly
Proposal to stop making fresh newbies wait for weeks on end before their Starting ASB Tutoring is accepted. Add more tutors, or focus more on clearing the queue every once in a while. We are frustrating or even losing fresh newbies for no reason other than people deciding other parts of ASB take priority. They don't - getting more users to play is one of the most important thing anyone can do in this game, as having more users means more battles, more refs, bigger tournaments, more feedback, livelier IRC, more RPs and programs, and generally a better ASB. So, then why the hell are we just letting those newbies rot in their very first queue of the game?
Click to expand...
This is a valid concern. Pledging myself to help (honestly I'm surprised I didn't volunteer last time :x sorry)
 
uh

the answer to that proposal is simple: sign up to be a mentor.

I even think I said yes to you when you asked to become a starting 101 mentor. I might have forgotten to add you to the OP, but that is largely a detail. If you want you can want making your part as of now.

The same goes to all of you. Bug birkal or me if you want in.
 
Since "IF Pokemon A is under the effects of Protect" now counts as an attack clause, in doubles, does it count as an attack clause for just Pokemon A or Pokemon A and it's ally? Because both could perform an action resulting in this condition being met.
 
Stary02939 said:
Since "IF Pokemon A is under the effects of Protect" now counts as an attack clause, in doubles, does it count as an attack clause for just Pokemon A or Pokemon A and it's ally? Because both could perform an action resulting in this condition being met.
Click to expand...
As quoted by the handbook: "In larger formats, if a Pokémon is not specified as the user of a move, then the move is counted as that sub's attack clause for that action for all opponents."

This means that you can go:
"IF Protect (Dragonair-H) is used successfully, THEN use Draco Meteor (Valaun) that action."​

But you cannot go:
"IF Protect (Landorus) is used successfully, AND Hitmontop does not use Wide Guard, THEN use Origin Pulse that action."​

Because you are substituting for two action clauses for Hitmontop in one action. Well I think that is the case, but I am not exactly a genius when it comes to these new substitution rules.
 
Chinchou111 : can you provide examples of combos it will then make possible?


Also: Proposal to either make Block's hitblock equal to pursuit's (negates evasive or self-switching effects) or at least make it hit damaging-evasive too. Right now it works only against Evasive Agility and Evasive Teleport (and I think DT? But don't take my word for it), making it kinda useless since for those there are wide moves, turning a "could be good" effect into a "hahahahaha" effect.
 
Frosty said:
Chinchou111 : can you provide examples of combos it will then make possible?
Click to expand...
Hyper Beam+Aura Sphere
Giga Impact+Brick Break
Giga Impact+Cross Chop (this one's a little iffy)
Giga Impact+Feint Attack
Giga Impact+Focus Punch
Hyper Beam+Future Sight (also iffy)
Giga Impact+High Jump Kick
Giga Impact+Iron Tail
Giga Impact+Jump Kick
Giga Impact+Knock Off
Giga Impact+Low Sweep
Giga Impact+Mach Punch
Hyper Beam+Metal Burst
Giga Impact+Poison Tail
Giga Impact+Revenge
Giga Impact+Triple Kick
Giga Impact+Vital Throw (this one was under Machamp's entry in the old threat list)
 
frisk said:
9:06:31 PM <ASBot_> The Pokemon has intimate knowledge of the opponent's held item and ignores any item-based increases or decreases in damage, BAP and STAB from the opponent's item. This will not block the increase in BAP moves like Acrobatics and Knock Off that incur when an item is or isn't held. Item-Based increase in ranks (Such as from Rare Candy) are not negated by Frisk. The Pokemon will not be affected by Fling or Natural Gift.
Click to expand...
Mo(u)ld Breaker said:
9:15:49 PM <ASBot_> Whenever this Pokemon attacks, it emits an invisible, blindingly quick pulse preceding the attack that disables the opponents natural abilities. (e.g. Levitators plummet towards the ground before Earthquake hits, etc.) Attacks are still redirected by Lightningrod/Storm Drain, but damage is dealt normally. Status-immunity abilities such as Limber will remove their relevant status at the start of the victim's next action. Full List: http://pastebin.com/sMZktgbV
Click to expand...

Mo(u)ld Breaker should affect frisk because frisk is an ability that negates direct damage.
Same with overcoat's bap negation.

based on mold breaker's description, attacks made by the user should assume the opponent doesnt have defensive abilities.

Frisk makes the user immune to nat gift and fling, which should be ignored.
Overcoat is a straight bap reduction, which should be ignored.

Based on precedent, overcoat's other effects would also be ignored, with a (cured next action) attatched

More contentious (apparently someone on irc doesnt like it):
Frisk's negation of attacking items should be ignored because mold breaker's description has it disabling abilities, which should include frisk, immediately before attacking.
 
12:17phoenixcan we get rid of the rule 9 update since it's not fixing anything anymore
12:17phoenixwith the other two updates
12:18phoenixand there are way more things that are not unreasonable at all to have
12:18phoenixthan things that wouldn't necessarily make it better off
12:18phoenixwhereas i can't think of anything to break that system

also, not as importantly, why the hell doesn't the rc nerf apply to everstone, kecleon is just as stupid with its actual movepool and shit
 
Last edited:
acidphoenix said:
also, not as importantly, why the hell doesn't the rc nerf apply to everstone, kecleon is just as stupid with its actual movepool and shit
Click to expand...
Because when the RC nerf was implemented it was decided that we weren't going to hit kecleon at all because while it's strong, it's still balanced within the metagame, as opposed to Greninja (which the majority of the community thought to be game-breaking)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top