Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Block: Unless you revive Deck, we're not going to trace the intent behind its design, so it'll have to be revised/clarified. Moving to Discussion.

Recoil: IAR agreed to it, so expect a fiat and a DAT edit soon.
 
Block: Should say 'removes the evasive properties of entering the evasive stage' or similar. The intent I'm sure was to give slow heavy mons like Snorlax a way to not be utterly screwed by D/E moves.

FMD raised a thingy on IRC - Recoil and Comboes.

Same-Move said:
If the move causes the Pokemon to take recoil damage, the recoil percentage is multiplied by 1.5 in the combo.
Click to expand...

This isn't needed, put bluntly.

DIfferent-Move said:
If one move causes the Pokemon to take recoil damage, the recoil percentage is halved in the combo. If both moves inflict recoil damage, the recoil percentages are added together.
Click to expand...

This is silly. Double-Edge + Giga Impact should not have 1/6th Recoil, when DE + Volt Taackle has 2/3rds Recoil. This screams 'Reffing 202 Bait', and is more forgotten than my gym's sub rules. More appropriate here would be 'If any move in the combination causes the Pokemon to take recoil damage, the recoil is equal to the largest recoil %' or words to that effect.
 
Last edited:
Following the change to recoils, here's some other percent values that need a change----

Reflect/Light Screen/Aurora Veil: 33% reduction doesn't equal a 1/3 reduction (see: The Doubles+ sharing effect). Petitioning to have it changed to say "(FILL) Attacks targeting a Pokemon behind (SCREEN) have their BAP halved [÷2], or have their BAP divided by 1.5 [÷1.5] if multiple allies are sharing a (SCREEN)"
Reasoning for /1.5: /1.5 is the equivalent for 2/3, which is the in-game effective damage after the 1/3 adjustment downwards.

Gravity: Gravity's accuracy change is ×5/3, not 1.67×
 
Block's original purpose as an anti-D/E move was to utilize the fact most of the mons with Block are slow fatasses, and therefore Block becomes a viable move (especially in doubles+ formats by negating evasion) that damages the target first. I went with fixed damage based on Weight Class since it made the move roughly as good as a priority Seismic Toss, more in the case of extremely fat things like Snorlax. The effect is designed to win a damage exchange against almost any Fly/Dig/Dive user given the Pokemon that have access to Block are usually physically defensive Pokemon.

But I'm not Word of God anymore so have at it. I don't know how often the effect is even used or if it's been particularly valuable, but I thought it was a good flavor addition that somewhat balanced the extreme buff Dig/Dive/Fly have compared to cartridge/console games, especially against slower Pokemon.
 
zarator said:
I want to propose buffing pinch abilities (Blaze, Overgrow, Swarm, Torrent) to +3 BP, instead of +2, for two reasons:

1) Other abilities which give a +50% boost in-game (such as Mega Launcher or Strong Jaw) give +3 BP in ASB, not +2
2) Pinch abilities are pretty mediocre atm, giving only a very minor boost and, most importantly, only for a couple actions at most. Buffing it at +3 would likely not even make them that much good, let alone broken.
Click to expand...
Texas Cloverleaf said:
Given the support and barring any objections/proposed alternatives I'll push through my proposal re: binding band and zara's proposal re: pinch abilities on thursday
Click to expand...
JJayyFeather said:
Can we make this happen?
Click to expand...

Lol what happened to this
 
Why would we push something through if there's significant opposition lol

You're not wrong about the cost, but that's not the issue for me

Buying a new pokemon represents a "fresh" mon, a starter mon joining a team. For me, it makes most sense from a flavour perspective that it would only know basically moves from the time it was "conceived". Advanced techniques, like old gen moves, require greater training.

This is one of the last flavour things that I don't think there's any reason to remove
 
Not to mention Tutors you can pull from any generation you want in the case of Gen VI and earlier Genderless Pokémon, but that's more of a special case, especially in first-game-of-generation eras like we are in now (As in, the Current Gen Tutor Pool being restricted to Pledges/FWG Hyper Beams/Draco Meteor/Dragon Ascent/etc).

I'm not really invested in this issue, but I am personally not opposed to doing this.
 
Staryu cannot have egg moves in any game due to its genderless nature, yet it has to be claimed with 3 Egg moves because it had an egg move list in Gen-II (that it couldn't legally have access to by any means). What's allowed and what's required with regards to claiming fresh Pokemon isn't really very consistent nor sensible in some aspects, just saying.
 
FMD said:
Staryu cannot have egg moves in any game due to its genderless nature, yet it has to be claimed with 3 Egg moves because it had an egg move list in Gen-II (that it couldn't legally have access to by any means). What's allowed and what's required with regards to claiming fresh Pokemon isn't really very consistent nor sensible in some aspects, just saying.
Click to expand...
Staryu honestly shouldn't really be used as an argument for or against wrt this proposal (nor is it very relevant) tbh since it's an exception to the rule. Maybe I should have not explicitly used "genderless", but you know what I mean; Pokémon with no starting Egg Moves.

Even then, Staryu is consistent with the general rule of Egg Moves > Tutors > Events > TM's which is in action because Staryu only gets three Egg Moves to pick from, meaning two free tutors. Read:

Some Pokemon, however, will not have enough such moves to choose from, particularly if they are genderless or have a small movepool. In the event that a Pokemon does not have enough egg moves to choose from, it starts with all the egg moves it has and then any spare egg move slots are filled with moves the Pokemon learns via move tutor in any generation. For example, Staryu only has access to three egg moves, so a newly-bought Staryu will start with the three egg moves it learns and two tutor moves of the player's choice from any generation. The same applies if the Pokemon does not have access to enough current generation TM/HM moves.

In the event that, even after tutor moves have been added, the Pokemon still has spare egg move or TM/HM move slots to fill, these are filled with event moves, and then if there are still egg move slots remaining, those can be filled with TM and HM moves from any generation.
Click to expand...

wait tm's from any generation if you dont have enough eggs/tutors/events what is this
 
There's also the issue of more work for the approvers as they'll have to check on every gen now as opposed to only one for the moves for every new mon claimed. Considering there are shortages as it is I think it's more trouble than it's worth.
 
To Gerard's point: No. It is not more work, since Veekun already makes the past gen process super easy.

My 2 cents here: Why are we bothering to change it? Call it a handicap for not having a trained pokemon and leave it at that. Blah blah cost and w/e you still end up getting all the moves anyways.
 
Its_A_Random said:
Staryu honestly shouldn't really be used as an argument for or against wrt this proposal (nor is it very relevant) tbh since it's an exception to the rule. Maybe I should have not explicitly used "genderless", but you know what I mean; Pokémon with no starting Egg Moves.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that was more in reply to this:
Buying a new pokemon represents a "fresh" mon, a starter mon joining a team. For me, it makes most sense from a flavour perspective that it would only know basically moves from the time it was "conceived". Advanced techniques, like old gen moves, require greater training.
Click to expand...

IAR EDIT: It's fine, I thought you were replying to me given where your post was hahaha.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can we get rid of the dumb self-taunt on Belly Drum already? No one likes it, and it's been brought up several times over the years and every time someone proposes this it gets a lot of agreement but nothing is ever done

EDIT: Also, Take Down and Double-Edge have the same energy cost. Thinking we should lower the former's.
 
Last edited:
Erm, I'd post this on the Fake Out Voting Thread, but it's locked, so I'll have to put this issue here.

In this thread, a vote was carried out, and Option A was chosen (I don't have mod powers to confirm for certain that Matezoide voted A the first time around, but Zt's post seems to suggest so) to relabel Fake Out a contact move. This is fine and good, however before the issue was implemented, and more than 2 weeks later mind you, Matezoide changed his vote to C. The problem I have with this is that this vote was not changed within the 36 hours and no like was given to Zt's post as shown there, even if it was changed, it was put in as Option D within the specified timeframe, and only changed to option C today. However, for some reason the Implementation thread states that Option C won, nullifying the results of the first vote.

In short, I'd prefer it if the original ruling was upheld and changed to Option A as we originally voted on. There is a precedent for this when somebody tried to change their vote, but it was denied for this exact reason. (I just wish I could dig it up...).
 
Maxim said:
Erm, I'd post this on the Fake Out Voting Thread, but it's locked, so I'll have to put this issue here.

In this thread, a vote was carried out, and Option A was chosen (I don't have mod powers to confirm for certain that Matezoide voted A the first time around, but Zt's post seems to suggest so) to relabel Fake Out a contact move. This is fine and good, however before the issue was implemented, and more than 2 weeks later mind you, Matezoide changed his vote to C. The problem I have with this is that this vote was not changed within the 36 hours and no like was given to Zt's post as shown there, even if it was changed, it was put in as Option D within the specified timeframe, and only changed to option C today. However, for some reason the Implementation thread states that Option C won, nullifying the results of the first vote.

In short, I'd prefer it if the original ruling was upheld and changed to Option A as we originally voted on. There is a precedent for this when somebody tried to change their vote, but it was denied for this exact reason. (I just wish I could dig it up...).
Click to expand...
I believe the link Maxim is referring to is here.
 
Maxim said:
Erm, I'd post this on the Fake Out Voting Thread, but it's locked, so I'll have to put this issue here.

In this thread, a vote was carried out, and Option A was chosen (I don't have mod powers to confirm for certain that Matezoide voted A the first time around, but Zt's post seems to suggest so) to relabel Fake Out a contact move. This is fine and good, however before the issue was implemented, and more than 2 weeks later mind you, Matezoide changed his vote to C. The problem I have with this is that this vote was not changed within the 36 hours and no like was given to Zt's post as shown there, even if it was changed, it was put in as Option D within the specified timeframe, and only changed to option C today. However, for some reason the Implementation thread states that Option C won, nullifying the results of the first vote.

In short, I'd prefer it if the original ruling was upheld and changed to Option A as we originally voted on. There is a precedent for this when somebody tried to change their vote, but it was denied for this exact reason. (I just wish I could dig it up...).
Click to expand...

Not true.

I changed my vote to D once this became an option, but then nobody realized what had happened.

Once Zt caught on, he told me the end result became a tie since I was the only one to change my vote, so i had to repick between A and C. Zt is the one that edited my post today in order to accommodate my final option.

I did not have a proper opnion on Fake Out, which is why i changed to D as soon as it became available. I had assumed everyone saw my new vote, but it didn't change the end result, which is why i did not say anything.

If everyone wants to ignore my vote and leave the original Fake Out result, so be it, i still don't have a real opnion on Fake Out, but my new vote was perfectly legal.
 
first vote
fakeout1.JPG

second vote (D is not an option)
fakeout2.JPG

edit history: 3rd Dec for first vote, 4th Dec for revote, then 22nd Dec was his final vote (the one where he told me via PM and I mod-edit in)
fakeout3.JPG
What Mate said above is truthful. He's only re-voting (both times) because I said it was possible. So the blame is on me for operating behind closed doors.

Lesson learned: Gotta need Council consensus to act. That's the whole point of Council - so Policy any mod need not take the fiat.
Corrective action: Get Council consensus on whether retain C), retain A), or revote for good.

I am sorry for doing what I did without keeping the whole Council in the loop. So I will try my best not to step out of the line again in the future. EDIT: Also, please feedback on any preventive actions to avoid fiascoes like this.
 
The whole thing just felt like mis-communication. I, too, made a mistake and should have tried to inform myself earlier on the vote's situation instead of assuming everyone knew about it.
 
That voting was very wrong. There was no "do nothing" option and it can't become an option after the voting started. Nor it did officially.

Also, casting a "whatever" vote on such a crucial matter rubs me the wrong way in so many level, but oh well.

Given how often fake out is used, I strongly suggest a revote. And for the future: if you feel like changing the conditions of the voting (slate or how it is done), redo the entire thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top