Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, there's been some very heated discussion recently regarding battles between NFE Pokemon and FE Pokemon, and whether NFE's should be able to battle FE's. Currently, the approvers maintain the right to refuse to approve battles due to perceived one-sidedness, but this allows very large margins for approver discretion. There seems to be a common consensus that this discretion should be removed, but no clear solution on how to resolve this issue.

Current proposals:
  • Allow FE's to battle only FE's, NFE's to battle only NFE's: This is what is currently in place technically but with discretion removed. It prevents counter farming with battles such as Kirlia vs Gengar. However, it prevents NFE Pokemon that can viably battle against FE Pokemon, such as Porygon2, Rhydon, and Cosplay Pikachu from training effectively, also producing different one-sided battles as they are obliged to fight against LC Pokemon for most training instead of FE's as what would normally happen, seeing as most users do not keep many NFE's for sustained periods of time.
  • Allow FE's to battle FE's and NFE's but not LC's: This also removes discretion, and allows the aforementioned viable NFE Pokemon to train effectively in FE battles. However, it allows one-sided battles such as Kirlia vs Gengar opening the door for counter farming to occur.
  • Do nothing: Personally, I don't see this as a good option after seeing the very heated discussion on the issue (of which there have been multiple apparently), as well as the inclusion of discretion. It is viable, of course, if this is deemed to be a non-issue.
There have also been some comments about "Weakmon battles" with LC-strength FE Pokemon (think Luvdisc) which seems to be a difficult point to make objective.

Others are saying that this is something for deadfox081 to address as Head Approver, but I feel as though this should be brought up either way.


EDIT: My preference personally is option 2 as I'd like discretion to be removed but I certainly don't want to completely invalidate Porygon2 and the like.
 
Last edited:
Adding to this because Spoons (<3) missed the discussion while writing his post up and couldn't figure out what to write.
----
Additionally - Our flash regulation system regarding method of ending is currently inconsistent.
  • Case 1: Winner used a Self-KO move to win although it wasn't necessary because they definitely could have won otherwise. - Vetoed
  • Case 2: Winner used a Combo to tie even though they could have won without dying. - Allowed
Simply put, that's a dumb inconsistency, especially since people have vocalized the intention to tie in IRC before. Either allow people to tie using Self-KO moves as well, or don't allow people to tie via an unnecessary ENKO.
======
Responding to the post by Someoneelse now:

I'm personally a fan of Option 1, since that is what we are currently doing, but removing any source of discretion from the system.
 
I'm...not convinced. Mostly because some NFEs want to stay NFE and should be able to battle FE things. I'd rather do nothing than ban Rhydon/Porygon2/Cosplay Pikachu from training against equal strength mons.

Maybe make the rule regarding move count as opposed to level of evolution? That way if you want to do Kirlia v. Gengar, fine, but you'd need to have a Kirlia that probably could have evolved already.

Totally agree with jayy on self-KOing.
 
Mowtom said:
I'm...not convinced. Mostly because some NFEs want to stay NFE and should be able to battle FE things. I'd rather do nothing than ban Rhydon/Porygon2/Cosplay Pikachu from training against equal strength mons.

Maybe make the rule regarding move count as opposed to level of evolution? That way if you want to do Kirlia v. Gengar, fine, but you'd need to have a Kirlia that probably could have evolved already.

Totally agree with jayy on self-KOing.
Click to expand...
Another option would be to allow NFE's with full EC and AC to act as an FE and be able to battle other FE Pokemon, but disallow those with less than full EC/AC to. The point with counter farming is less relevant here since anyone who'd have a full EC/AC NFE intending to evolve it would do so, making the battle less one-sided.

I also agree with the Self-KO point. There may be some extra work for approvers who need to work out whether a combination is necessary to get the final KO however, or if there are some convoluted KO paths without combinations, but the idea is certainly good.
 
I'm out and on mobile but option 2 could easily be refined to be "Mons with full EC" as opposed to FE. Since any Rhydon Porygon2 or Pikachu that people are looking to use seriously will most likely have full EC.

Will comment further when I'm back home

EDIT: yeah what spoons said
 
JJayyFeather said:
Adding to this because Spoons (<3) missed the discussion while writing his post up and couldn't figure out what to write.
----
Additionally - Our flash regulation system regarding method of ending is currently inconsistent.
  • Case 1: Winner used a Self-KO move to win although it wasn't necessary because they definitely could have won otherwise. - Vetoed
  • Case 2: Winner used a Combo to tie even though they could have won without dying. - Allowed
Simply put, that's a dumb inconsistency, especially since people have vocalized the intention to tie in IRC before. Either allow people to tie using Self-KO moves as well, or don't allow people to tie via an unnecessary ENKO.
======
Responding to the post by Someoneelse now:

I'm personally a fan of Option 1, since that is what we are currently doing, but removing any source of discretion from the system.
Click to expand...
i'm going to make a post about the fe vs nfe thing later since while i do respect the need to remove discretion i actually disagree (i personally think full discretion is fine, because frankly if there's a matchup that an approver could reasonably veto you should /at least/ be asking yourself whether it's a good idea, and anyway most of the matchups aren't any more counterfarmy than somebody trying to train a caterpie/ralts), and also agree with various people(aka oor/fort/ex) @ the general "why are we being sticklers on flashes no matter how much we regulate it they're still blatant counterfarming" sentiment

wait i accidentally already made it oops

and also @ self-ko: again general irc consensus is "unban the first, it isn't shortening the match, so it's not any better for 'make the match too fast' and flashes aren't play to win either way"

other than that jayy summed up the issue eloquently
 
Registration Centre Rules thread said:
Also note that approvers have the right to veto claims (with the approval of a Head Approver) if a claiming referee does a very terrible/lazy job at refereeing a match, or a claiming battler either makes excessively suicidal orders (e.g. Using Explosion at full health) in an effort to get a match done quickly, or deliberately using a LC Pokémon against a competent FE Pokémon to die quickly. Repeat offenders will risk incurring infractions.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the same argument that blew up when Engineer Pikachu did his veto in 2013 which eventually resulted in the veto being overturned and the rule being initially scrapped. When I reinstated the approver veto rule in 2015 in response to the half-assed flash "efforts" that were all the rage, I deliberately added the provision that the approver who wishes to veto a match should get the green light from a Head Approver (currently only Registration Leader deadfox081) to stop approvers from vetoing a match based on some irrelevant factor and because the Head Approver gives a second, far more experienced pair of eyes that can tell apart something that is fine and something that should be vetoed.

Take from this what you will, but this would not be happening if approvers actually read the rules thread and got a head approver to look over it before doing it like they should and if this is indeed happening without approval... disappointed would be an understatement as a former Registration Leader and the one who actually put this in place with good intentions and with the provisions to avoid a repeat of the Engineer Pikachu incident please dont give me an incentive to ask deadfox become a head approver or whatever again.
 
I agree; Talonflame was already not that good already pre-nerf and the GW nerf killed what little viability Talonflame had.
 
Geodude6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
reposting because this got buried
 
Honestly, I'd rather wait on Belly Drum until we get some sufficient data on how good it is in the new generation. Z-Belly Drum imo is a highly underrated move. You can't stop it with Taunt / Torment or force it to repeat with Encore (only Snatch can deal with it iirc), there's no competition for the Z-Crystal slot because other items tend to be better, and some of its users are either really good (ex: Azumarill, Snorlax) or are flying under the radar in this metagame (ex: Cawmodore). The only things keeping Z-Belly Drum from possibly going over the edge imo are auto-taunt and the fact that I deliberately made it recover 30% HP before using Belly Drum instead of making Z-Belly Drum cost no HP (as a balancing mechanism and keeping partially true to ingame in that it recovers HP, but I did not make it fully recover), but then again, maybe we do remove auto-taunt and make Z-Belly Drum HP cost-free and it turns out to be fine? We don't know.

I'm not saying we shouldn't remove auto-taunt, but I kinda want to see how Z-Belly Drum goes in practice as it is before randomly removing it without fully exploring the consequences as a result of this change.

Also really, don't use "No one likes it" or "it gets a lot of agreement", it's not convincing anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FMD
Proposal: change doubles to 2apr instead of the usual 3apr
Reasoning: right now doubles are decided by the initial coin-flip since 6 actions is too much of an advantage and if the player ordering last manages to get an early KO (which let's face it: is pretty easy), they can end up with twice as many actions (as well as turn-order advantage) on that round, something not even triples has. We did 2apr on some tourneys and battles and nothing was broken by it afaik.
 
Topic: Storm Throw

12:10:12<&Texas> whoa why is storm throw broken in asb
12:10:21<&Texas> it's bap isn't 6+3 (CRIT)
12:10:31<&Texas> it's bap is 6+3(crit)+x (WC/2)
12:10:55<&Texas> that should be 4 as the base if we're doing WC

From the above: Petitioning to move the BAP of Storm Throw from 6 + WC/2 to 4 + WC/2
 
Can you give a more compelling reason other than "it's broken" with nothing to back it up other than "Oh it's 6 + 3 + (WC / 2)"? Like, tell us why it's broken at 6 + 3 + (WC / 2). Convince me.
 
Since Fluffy and Gale Wings are Gen7 stuff can we wait until SotG? I'd like to add to Storm Throw, though.
BAP Formula: 6 + (Target Weight Class / 2)
Energy Cost Formula: 6 + (Target Weight Class / 2)
BAP Formula: 6 + Target Weight Class
Energy Cost Formula: 5 + (Target Weight Class / 2)
I do not have the most current data, but based on memory back during the weight-based recoil move discussion, most FE mons have a Weight Class or 3 or 4. So Storm Throw is, most of the time, an 8 BAP auto-crit attack (so 11 BAP) that costs 8 energy. Using Psychic as a benchmark, Storm Throw deals 1 more BAP at the cost of 1 more EN, which is more-or-less the same trade you see between Surf/Flamethrower/etc and Hydro Pump/Fire Blast/etc. Of course, one can argue that there's the benefits that auto-crit provides against screens and stage boosts/nerfs, but then again, the counter-argument would be saying Brick Break has an auto screen-break and yet still has regular 6 energy cost from 8 BAP, saying Shell Armour exists, yadda yadda..... Which leads to throwing the same stuff at each other. So yeah, I'm not convinced it is broken.

Why do I predict Policy Discussion threads better than I can predict my own ASB battles SMH
 
Last edited:
It is certainly not broken. differs from ingame? sure. But fail to see it being broken when we allow much stronger moves.

"but frost breath?"

Let's remove all WC-based moves then. SC-based moves too. They all differ from ingame and from similar moves.
 
Psychic - ASB: BAP of 6 + WC, EN of 5 + WC/2 | In-Game: 90 BP
Storm Throw - ASB: BAP of 6 + WC/2, EN of 6 + WC/2 | In-Game 60 BP

The Average WC of all Pokemon in ASB is 3.024, rounding to 3 for reasonability.
This means thats Psychic averages at 9 BAP, the counterpart for Psychic in-game, but Storm Throw averages at 7.5, which is 1.5 BAP higher than how 60 BP should be converted.

Proposal: Storm Throw's BAP to 4 + WC/2, with EN to 4 + WC/2

The EN cost proposed averages equal to Frost Breath, which is due to the fact that while they are the same move in theory, Storm Throw has the option to get much stronger.

EDIT @ Toon: I mean, we just recently made a big deal for buffing an ability that only applies to 2 Pokemon, so exclusivity isn't the best argument here.
 
Last edited:
only 4 Pokémon has the move: pangoro, throh, revenankhn, and pinsir

Only 3 mons can use the move without restriction and that's pangoro, revnenakhn, and pinsir

I wouldn't mind the nerf, but i don't see the point if only 4 mons have the move if you're afraid of a smeargle or necturna sketching it and it becoming that terrorizing then restrict the move even more amek it where they can only use it if the user has the same or lower WC as the opponent
 
Last edited:
Only in ASB would they take the most important post in this thread for months, and completely ignore it in favor of discussing a niche move distributed to four Pokemon.

Frosty said:
Proposal: change doubles to 2apr instead of the usual 3apr
Reasoning: right now doubles are decided by the initial coin-flip since 6 actions is too much of an advantage and if the player ordering last manages to get an early KO (which let's face it: is pretty easy), they can end up with twice as many actions (as well as turn-order advantage) on that round, something not even triples has. We did 2apr on some tourneys and battles and nothing was broken by it afaik.
Click to expand...

Please push this forward. It might make Doubles actually fun.
 
Birkal said:
Only in ASB would they take the most important post in this thread for months, and completely ignore it in favor of discussing a niche move distributed to four Pokemon.



Please push this forward. It might make Doubles actually fun.
Click to expand...
It wasn't ignored, there's no discussion because 9 people already liked it.
 
Can we focus on things that matter? Fur Coat was time lost. Using it as argument for more time lost gotta be the silliest thing I have read here.

and I have read a lot of silly things here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top