• 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.
Geodude6 said:
since we buffed fur coat can we also buff fluffy
Click to expand...
Exactly what kind of buff are you looking for? Actually suggest something with a possible solution and convince us that it needs it (See Storm Throw above) instead of asking for something without telling us why. Also, Fur Coat getting buffed bewears zero relevance on whether or not Fluffy should get buffed.

Anyway, here's the thing.

Ingame, if I use Flare Blitz on a Bewear, or any other Fire-typed contact move, the BP of the move remains at 120; the drop from being contact and the raise from being Fire-typed cancel each other out. I would rather keep this dynamic in ASB to remain true to ingame, which comes to the reason why contact/fire-type raise/drop is at three (3) initially, balance. If I put it at like five (5) sure it becomes mighty at taking contacts, but then the opponent can just abuse it and spam Fire-type attacks for strong neutral attacks for when they don't have a Fighting/Psychic/Flying/Fairy-type attack to use. If I double/halve BP then the Fire-type issue can become more annoying. Make it an SE/Resistance shift? ehhh, I don't know and cannot really think through completely, but still, yay a weakness to Fire-type attacks.

You also need to consider that this is Bewear we are talking about, a Pokémon with 120/3/2 bulk (which is well above average), a mighty Rank 5 Attack stat, access to Pain Split and some pretty good coverage, and... yeah. Something that can have a place in serious play, but it isn't going to make waves really. I don't know whether it needs one or not, but the thing I stipulate is that if Flare Blitz deals normal damage to something with Fluffy ingame, then it should deal normal damage to something with Fluffy in ASB.

---

And RE: Birkal, it might be because there hasn't been any opposition that has made their voice known, and I am not someone who is opposed to the change to Doubles. Speaking of, if there is anyone opposed to 2 APR Doubles, please make your voice known now.
 
For Doubles being 2A or 3A: If there aren't any objections to doing so, I'll put up a Voting thread for it within 24-48 hours. At the moment I don't see the need for discussion since there seems to be universal approval, but I can make one if there are any arguments about it.
 
Oh crap this is actually going fast so: I don't prefer 3pr for Doubles, for personal reasons obviously. Wall of text incoming because I'm thinking while I type.
I agree that unlike Singles, you have a near-guarantee of scoring a KO in R1 alone. However, by personal experience, I find that going down that route usually ends up with you scoring a KO while you:
  1. Have a member of your team severely crippled, forcing you to switch out while your opponent replaces a fainted mon, turning the tables on them instead, or
  2. Have both active mons of your team at moderate health, allowing your opponent the possibility to KO you by A2 of the following round.
So does it confer a lot of advantage to the battler ordering second at R1? Yes, it does, because both battlers are trading mons every round and the battler who first loses a mon usually ends up being the first to lose the whole team. But is it any different from Singles in this regard? No, not really.

Moving on, say we're in the middle of a battle. And then this happens. One battler gets an early KO, netting 6 actions to her opponent's 3 (or 2 because I saw Paralysis proc'ed A1), and proceeds to gain unstoppable momentum unless she played poorly later in the match (which she didn't, props to her for that). But is this possible on R1? No, I think not (feel free to prove me wrong). Any battler who wants this turning point will need to work for it - crippling with Paralysis, reducing to KO range during the round prior, as was shown in the example battle above.

Unless I misunderstood Frosty, whom I'm basing the above paragraphs on, I do not think it is possible to score a KO that comes along with more than 2 extra actions at R1 of a Doubles battle unless the match-up is horribly lopsided. As to later rounds, that incredible advantage is not a given - you'd actually have to work towards it, just as I was taught to when I'm playing Singles with a non-meta team.
So here I am, saying 3apr Doubles' strength lies in its volatility. We haven't found a meta team with Doubles yet, and I doubt we will, because it has the options that come with having more than 1 mon active on the field while not being limited by 2apr as with Triples. Every team will be non-meta, and every battler will have to actively attempt to create that win condition while bereaving their opponents of the chance to do the same. Is it fun? Here I disagree with Birks - I do think it is fun, as much as I am sore when losing.

That said, I do agree that 2apr does not break Doubles at all. If anything, it makes Doubles "tamer" - easier to predict, easier to work with and win, and therefore easier to learn perhaps. But I will remain, unless convinced in the future, that 3pr Doubles is as good as it is. It may be volatile, it may not appease to a lot of players, but it is not "broken".

Side note: Expect 13th Council to vote on this if it comes to be, not the 12th.
 
JJayyFeather said:
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 5 + WC/3

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.
Click to expand...
So your reason for the nerf isn't "its broken" but "its better than it is ingame"?

Apologies if we decided to stop bringing this up (I missed whatever post that might have been in). This does seem to have nigh-universal disapproval though.
 
[18:44:41] <Its_A_Random> anyone mind if I just close feedback and tell people to wait for sotg which it totally organised in its creation process
......
[19:38:46] <Its_A_Random> zt you did not answer my question
[19:38:57] <Its_A_Random> i.e. do I kill feedback
I've expressed ITC before that I'd love it if 13th Council starts with a clean slate, and jump straight into State of the Game in lieu of Gen 7 releases and live play-testing. And then IAR got uh, slightly less festive at the Policy backlog and me being slow to announce 13th Council. So here's what I'm gonna do - I'll close this thread temporarily, and wait on either:
  1. IAR (or his delegate, if any) to create a State of the Game discussion thread, or
  2. Any other moderator who deemed this locking inappropriate and unlock it again.
At worst, I've locked this thread for no reason except shits and gigs, and you're welcome to crap me over VMs for that. At best, State of the Game comes live and we kickstart everything as if this thread lock hadn't happened at all. Either way, 13th will already need to go over the past page or two and sort out whatever backlog there is. Happy New Year!
 
Frosty Its_A_Random ZhengTann

The "it's broken" carries a different meaning out of content on the forum rather than on irc. I wasn't being literal when I claimed that.

Rather, my proposal was pointing out an inconsistency in a move from how we usually handle WC based moves and intended to rectify that. The inconsistency being that we usually attempt to standardize the "average" bap around the in-game equivalent (see: psychic, body slam, giga impact, etc). In the case of storm throw, the current formula results in the in game equivalent (60 bp) never being realized.

IRC logs can confirm that this isn't a "omg broken pls nerf" but rather a "hey this is different from other things like it for no apparent reason"
 
I shouldn't post in locked threads, but...

Texas Cloverleaf said:
Frosty Its_A_Random ZhengTann

The "it's broken" carries a different meaning out of content on the forum rather than on irc. I wasn't being literal when I claimed that.

Rather, my proposal was pointing out an inconsistency in a move from how we usually handle WC based moves and intended to rectify that. The inconsistency being that we usually attempt to standardize the "average" bap around the in-game equivalent (see: psychic, body slam, giga impact, etc). In the case of storm throw, the current formula results in the in game equivalent (60 bp) never being realized.

IRC logs can confirm that this isn't a "omg broken pls nerf" but rather a "hey this is different from other things like it for no apparent reason"
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: No matter how much spin you put on it, you are advocating for a 2 BAP drop to a niche move only three fully-evolved Pokémon get (Rev doesn't get it), of which none are making anything close to a wave in the ASB metagame, with the justification being to "fix" an inconsistency. Moves should ideally be weakened on the basis of an ingame generational nerf or some competitive implication in ASB, not to sate one's desire for consistency amongst moves. The fact that it's different from other moves like it for no other reason than probably "Deck" means nothing.
 
Its_A_Random said:
I shouldn't post in locked threads, but...



Here's the thing: No matter how much spin you put on it, you are advocating for a 2 BAP drop to a niche move only three fully-evolved Pokémon get (Rev doesn't get it), of which none are making anything close to a wave in the ASB metagame, with the justification being to "fix" an inconsistency. Moves should ideally be weakened on the basis of an ingame generational nerf or some competitive implication in ASB, not to sate one's desire for consistency amongst moves. The fact that it's different from other moves like it for no other reason than probably "Deck" means nothing.
Click to expand...
I really don't appreciate your attitude. I'm not trying to "spin" anything. Go read the irc logs, 'broken' was blatantly tongue in cheek. And how can you seriously say that we don't make changes for internal consistency when that's been the basis for half the policy threads in the past two months (e.g. boosting 1.5x to +3 across the board)?

I'm actually struggling to understand how you're this misguided, nothing you've said is consistent with the common practice we've adhered to over time.

Moreover it's irrelevant to any discussion what the distribution of a move is. All that does is obscure the issue.

I really don't understand the general opposition to this.

Pros: standardizing a move with others that act similarly

Cons: nothing in particular?
 
Texas Cloverleaf said:
I really don't appreciate your attitude. I'm not trying to "spin" anything. Go read the irc logs, 'broken' was blatantly tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...
We heard you the first time. Nowhere in the post you quoted did I say that you were claiming it to be broken. First post maybe, but we didn't know you were joking.

Also, a drop in BAP, no matter what the reasoning, is still a drop in BAP.

Texas Cloverleaf said:
And how can you seriously say that we don't make changes for internal consistency when that's been the basis for half the policy threads in the past two months (e.g. boosting 1.5x to +3 across the board)?

I'm actually struggling to understand how you're this misguided, nothing you've said is consistent with the common practice we've adhered to over time.
Click to expand...
The buffs/nerfs done over the past two months are irrelevant to an argument over whether or not to nerf Storm Throw. Things should be decided on a case by case basis, not based on what happened two days/weeks/months/years ago.

Call me "misguided", "out of touch", whatever you want. I don't care. However, I am of the belief that precedent is a terrible argument because what happened one day should not have any bearing on what happens in the future, because the case is oftentimes different and should be looked at in the same "unprecedented" way that it was viewed when the so-called "precedent" was set.

For what it's worth, buffing an irrelevant game mechanic to make it slightly less irrelevant I don't really care about unless it makes something too good. Nerfing an irrelevant game mechanic to make it even more irrelevant is... "well you better have a real good reason for this" and your reasoning is not convincing.

Texas Cloverleaf said:
I really don't understand the general opposition to this.

Pros: standardizing a move with others that act similarly

Cons: nothing in particular?
Click to expand...
In case no one made this clear: No one is opposed to this, only people who are not convinced that this proposal should go ahead. The onus is on you to prove to us that this should be done and is not a waste of our time. In my case, you are failing, and it's because I don't think your reasoning is satisfactory enough to make me support this. Convince me, and maybe I will get on board with this.

---

EDIT: Had a convo with some users on IRC including some people who support this and reached some sort of consensus.
[21:23:20] Its_A_Random oh sorry ZtheD3 for reopening feedback
[21:23:33] Its_A_Random let's just get storm throw dealt with implement or no
[21:23:57] ZtheD3 I say yes to implement, if only for consistency with in-catridge.
[21:24:09] Its_A_Random and it would look bad if it was just me and tex having modwars in a locked thread lol
[21:24:42] Jayy is it bad that im not really sure which side to take a stance on, if nothing more for the fact that while i presented the actual change proposition, IAR brought up a good point in not just changing everything to satisfy a need for consistency
[21:24:47] Jayy im actually very torn now
[21:25:13] ZtheD3 Don't ask me, I'm fickle.
[21:25:25] FMD I am pro-consistency. No real reason for it not to be the same as others, really.
[21:25:34] ZtheD3 Only thing you'll consistently appeal to me on is "let's go with anime precedence!"
[21:25:41] Toon meh i feel like there's no point in changing the move, sure its not "consistent" with the others, but its not game breaking
[21:25:42] Jayy im usually right there with FMD, but IAR's point holds very strong
[21:25:53] Jayy and I don't want to be bull-headed against a valid point
[21:26:02] Toon you dont see pangoros spaming the move and their opponents crying to because they cant beat it
[21:26:12] Toon i would say the others but theyre not used as often
[21:26:26] Jayy you dont see any of them in use
[21:26:33] Jayy because this is a fairy / psychic meta
[21:26:42] Jayy which eats fightings for breakfast
[21:26:53] Jayy so its hard to get a true gauge on the strength of the move
[21:27:05] ZtheD3 Anyway, I've failed the only 1 upgrade rare I can afford.
[21:27:17] Toon bring your pangoro to one of your serious matches one day :P
[21:27:46] Jayy i would, if it was trained all the way
[21:27:54] Jayy its missing a few moves i need for it
[21:28:04] ZtheD3 Also crap.
[21:28:09] Jayy (that or im hallucinating and havent done a second check)
[21:28:10] ZtheD3 I cubed Butcher's Carver.
[21:28:18] ZtheD3 It's Legendary power is:
[21:28:22] Toon take it to zt's gym
[21:28:25] ZtheD3 waits for it
[21:28:32] Toon only mon with a fairy move is lunatone iirc
[21:28:36] ZtheD3 You make a Butcher's grunt everytime you attack.
[21:28:37] ZtheD3 v_v
[21:28:45] Toon rock mon with fairy move*
[21:29:03] ZtheD3 throws out a cauldron of mixed expletives and laughter
[21:29:41] Jayy lmao rip rip zt
[21:29:47] Jayy thats such a bad cube
[21:30:21] ZtheD3 My first few cubes are soooo bad.
[21:30:51] ZtheD3 Haunt of Vaxo is good, but it's cube is bugged, the clones do nothing but follow you around.
[21:30:59] Jayy !calc (9+3-5)*1.5 + 4
[21:32:33] Toon !calc 110/1.75
[21:32:37] Toon !calc 95/1.75
[21:32:42] Its_A_Random I mean it's not a ridiculous change, don't get me wrong, I just don't find the reasoning sufficient enough
[21:33:59] Toon !calc 18+15.75
[21:34:11] ZtheD3 I'll let Council decide.
[21:34:18] Toon !calc 18+11.25-22.625
[21:34:19] Its_A_Random I don't hate the proposal either
[21:34:36] Toon !calc 75-7
[21:34:51] ZtheD3 After all, this is their job.
[21:34:54] ZtheD3 :P
[21:35:02] ZtheD3 Back to farming!
[21:35:06] Toon !calc 22.5+22.625
[21:35:12] Its_A_Random I just want people to give me a really good reason why we should make a pointless nerf to a move, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
[21:35:21] FMD We can't do anything until you two are done with things. :P
[21:35:37] ZtheD3 (Come on, give me Bul'Kathos full set already @.@)
[21:35:43] Toon !calc 18+11.25+13.5-22.625
[21:36:10] Toon !calc 74-49
[21:36:57] Its_A_Random besides
[21:37:16] Its_A_Random the only mon that gets storm throw but doesnt get low kick is pinsir
[21:37:33] Its_A_Random for high wc mons you are better off low kicking
[21:37:45] Its_A_Random for lower wc mons, storm throw has merit
[21:37:50] Jayy the value in storm throw tbh is only the crit factor
[21:38:08] Its_A_Random and if you can convince me that storm throw for a lower wc is a bit too much
[21:38:14] Jayy that "bypass +def, -atk, and screens" thing is really nice for it
[21:38:36] Its_A_Random then by all means we should go aheaf
[21:38:39] Its_A_Random ahead
[21:38:45] Jayy define "a bit too much" here
[21:38:50] Toon !calc 81-25
[21:39:18] Its_A_Random I mean on a wc3 you have a 10.5 bp move effective
[21:39:38] Jayy yep, at the cost of 7.5 EN
[21:39:52] Its_A_Random !asbmove frost breath
[21:39:55] ASBot_ Frost Breath - Ice | Special | Adjacent Target | 6 BAP | 90% Acc | 6 EN Cost | -- Eff% | Contact: No | 0 Prio | Z-BAP: 12 | Combo Type: Set | Snatch: No | Magic Coat: No
[21:39:55] ASBot_ The Pokemon blows a frosty gust of wind at the opponent's weak spots. This move always scores a critical hit.
[21:39:57] Jayy which, BAP to cost wise makes sense, but thats still 1.5 BAP ahead of its closest comparison
[21:40:00] FMD That's a bit much.
[21:40:07] Jayy which i think is the point of my second post
[21:40:21] Its_A_Random ehh it's consistent with frost breath where ec = bap
[21:40:24] Its_A_Random but
[21:40:33] Its_A_Random that ec is pretty high lol
[21:40:36] Jayy I wanted to bring Storm Throw so that its damage at average WC is equal
[21:40:47] Jayy with Frost Breath that is
[21:41:45] Its_A_Random but yeah definitely drop ec if bap is going down
[21:42:46] Jayy yeah iirc my suggest is just dropping both of them down 2
[21:43:20] Its_A_Random mhm
[21:43:38] FMD Not opposed.

Basic points from log: Storm Throw has a reason to be used on each of its users for lower end WC targets with its pretty high BP against lower ends (higher ends you are either better off with Low Kick or WC restrictions stop you from using it).

Do you (and anyone can answer this) feel that Storm Throw's BAP at lower ends (factoring in auto-crit) is a bit excessive to warrant lowering its BAP (and EC) by two (2), and if so, why? If you can convince me, then I will be happy to "drop it" and let this go ahead.

For reference:

WC 1: 9.5 BAP, 6.5 EN
WC 2: 10 BAP, 7 EN
WC 3: 10.5 BAP, 7.5 EN
WC 4: 11 BAP, 8 EN
WC 5: 11.5 BAP, 8.5 EN
WC 6: 12 BAP, 9 EN
WC 7+: Use Low Kick.

---

Also just so people can actually chime in on this and this doesn't turn into two mods arguing in a locked thread, I am reopening this thread, but only for this discussion to be resolved (sorry ZhengTann). No new topics please.
 
Last edited:
from a policy perspective, imo there really wasn't a need to bring it up, but now that we have, we might as well fix it. Apathetic is closest to my opinion, with a minor lean towards "nah" just because I like strong, niche things.

lol @ akela; I have no idea what you broke but lol
IAR said:
Also just so people can actually chime in on this and this doesn't turn into two mods arguing in a locked thread, I am reopening this thread, but only for this discussion to be resolved (sorry ZhengTann). No new topics please.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah save it until SotG please. The only reason this is unlocked in the first place is to resolve Storm Throw and once that happens, it will be locked for good and a new Feedback Thread will be started after the SotG. Any future posts ITT not pertaining to Storm Throw will be deleted.
 
Consistency-boners aside, there's no reason to nerf Storm Throw. Recently, there's been an obsession with standardizing everything without any balance-related reasons. If you're buffing, then it's still a waste of time but w/e. It's nice to make more things viable. If you're nerfing something that's already balanced, then it's just a flat-out waste of time. This game is full of inconsistencies and arbitrary rules, and that's perfectly fine. It'll take years to get rid of all of them, and besides, it keeps things interesting and doesn't detract from anyone's playing experience in any way, shape, or form. Please, let's focus on things that actually matter, instead of obsessing over these little pedantic details.
 
Alright let's put that aside then.

On average, this move is a total of 10.5 BAP move that you cannot alter the damage of via the means of Reflect, Aurora Veil, or defensively beneficial stat changes. That's actually just stronger than it really needs to be. Sure, you can make the argument that against higher WC mons it won't matter, but this is a really high baseline for the move to start from.

Even more specifically, the two mons that learn this move that have STAB... also have Mold Breaker. This means the only way to avoid the crit is if you burn an action to use Lucky Chant, otherwise you are stuck getting hit with a move that very rarely dips below 10 BAP after crit against FE pokemon. Without the cost of an item, or any other actions, this move's user has a very high pressure move that can't be mitigated without means of just outright avoiding the attack, which may just leave room for the opponent to set up.

TL;DR - 10 BAP with automatic crits without items that cost an action to slightly hinder is quite strong, and that's just the bottom end of the move.
 
yeah, it is certainly quite strong. Just see the amazing impact it has on the metagame. All those throhs, Pinsirs and Pangoros floating around and winning battles while spamming that move. We can't even breathe here.

-_-

Seriously though, can someone explain to me what makes Storm Throw important to the point of discussing it on a locked thread and unlocking this thread just for it, when there are certainly issues much more important worth discussion more than this? This silly discussion represents ASB pretty well right now: the top discussion, most important thing going on on this policy subforum, the only discussion allowed to be held here is regarding a move, known only by 3 pokemon that are barely used and when they are used it isn't due to Storm Throw. We've had pedantic discussions before, but this one (and this moment in ASB's history) takes the cake.

/me signs out of Policy Center.

Don't tag me here.
 
I don't give a flying fuck how many mons get it. It's completely irrelevant. That argument evaporates the second gamefreak gives it as a tutor to half the FE pokemon in the game.

Also holy fuck cut the straw man bullshit. I wasn't the one who locked the thread without cause. I wasn't the one who decreed this was the only thing that could be discussed. I wasn't the one who decided this would hold up the next council. And none of that should ever have any bearing on any policy matter.
 
Storm Throw: Going to go ahead and throw this into voting because there's been enough discussion (And the discussion is getting a bit heated, lets not try to make it worse).

2apr Doubles: The discussion on this is going very well so we're going to open a discussion thread.

Now, lets move on to better things and try to get SotG up ASAP.
 
To Frosty: Yeah, but you didn't say any of that when the big discussion was a random buff to Fur Coat. Please. Fur Coat only applies to two mons, and yet that was a more than one month long process. Clearly the amount of affected Pokemon by a change is not a good parameter to base a decision upon. Please don't act superior for no reason, Storm Throw was probably deemed as such because there was an undiscussed proposal that would've probably gone unnoticed if we dropped this thread completely without finishing it up.

Now, can we please actually discuss the move itself, rather than complaining that the move currently only has 3 users?

If you want to argue that the move should not be changed because of it's rather high baseline BAP, then argue that, but don't waste time on an irrelevant point such as the amount of mons that actually learn the move.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, the ones which are turning the whole Storm Throw thing into a waste of time are the ones who're opposing the nerf on the grounds of "why bother?" - where "bother" means simply "go on NDA, edit out a single digit, call it a day". I'm pretty sure it takes 1 min, 2 tops. As for whether or not we should do it, well yes - consistency matters.

I mean, if we go simply by a "broken"/"not-broken logic", why don't we make Chatter a 10 BP move just for the giggles? It's not like Chatot would be anywhere near broken if we did. We might also want to buff Egg Bomb to 100% accuracy - after all, none of the mons which get it would be any better if we did. And the list goes on. Point is, we don't do it because, "bother" aside, it's simply stupid. Egg Bomb does NOT have 100% accuracy. Chatter is not a 10 BP move.

Back to Storm Throw, we have generally coded moves based on WC so that the move in question would have its in-game power when used by a mon with around 3 or so WC. There is really no real reason why the same shouldn't be true of Storm Throw as well. As it stands, it's just as arbitrary as a hypothetical 10 BP Chatter. You don't want to bother? Fine, just give me or somebody else edit rights over NDA and I'll do it myself overnight if it's such a hassle to you. But please don't use the bother argument, because we wouldn't even be here if you just said "uh yeah sure whatever" as you should have.

I generally don't care about policy discussions most of the time, but the stubborness over this one on part of some people really marks an all-time nadir in the common sense of this forum.
 
-_-

No, seriously, what? First of all, consistency is not an argument in and of itself. It has never been, and never will be. ASB converts things from ingame into ASB in pretty inconsistent ways, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. What is an argument, however, is actual statistics and numbers. People that are for this change have provided actual data in this thread as to why Storm Throw is too efficient at low WC values. Personally, I see the point of the people that want to make this change. I do not, however, see the point of the people who are against it...because their primary argument has been "this discussion is dumb so I am against this change". That isn't a reason to not support this change! Is Storm Throw actually important? Nope, not really. But that isn't a reason why we shouldn't discuss it. It's very difficult to say what's actually "important" in ASB policy, particularly when we ignore so many important policy topics to discuss tiny pedantic things.

A couple other things: "The Pokemon that get this aren't that good" is not a reason to make a move stronger than it should be. We're discussing the intrinsic qualities of the move and how they're better than ASB balance indicates they should be. "There's no reason to nerf it because it doesn't break ASB" is also a dumb argument. Absorb wouldn't be broken if we upped it to 6 BAP, so why not? Because it's a needless change that doesn't fit with how we translate things from ingame into ASB mechanics.

I would strongly encourage all my fellow council members to read through this thread carefully before you vote and make sure you aren't just voting because this discussion is annoying and stupid; while it definitely has been annoying and stupid, that shouldn't affect your opinion on the balancing of Storm Throw.
 
Just for closure.

WRT Storm Throw: I buy jay's case to convince me (hence the like) and I am happy to let this go ahead (well it went ahead already while I was constructing this post hahaha) knowing that efficiency at lower ends of the spectrum can be worrying enough that a nerf can be justified. Like I said: I wasn't opposed to this, I just wanted a good, sufficient reasoning as to why this should happen and the arguments for prior to jay's post were flawed (in my opinion of course) and I wasn't going to say yes to it based on flawed reasoning.

That said, I am very disappointed with how this discussion panned out since I went to sleep last night. You know, I was hoping this discussion was going to be resolved in a rational, mature manner before we closed this thread for good and bring in a new SotG where we could discuss some of the new Gen VII stuff (remembering that this thread was reopened purely so anyone but me/Texas could respond to this unresolved discussion that was initially locked to get ready for SotG). Turns out I was wrong. I was going to go and shred Frosty's post to pieces in this post but decided it wasn't worth it.

In hindsight, yes, I should have just created a discussion thread for this and ported the Feedback posts into that thread. It is a mistake that I admit to and should learn for next time. I would have appreciated if people were more constructive about the admittedly bad handling of it. Yes, Storm Throw is a minor issue, but it does not mean it is not worth having a little look at, even if it is going to have next to no impact in the ASB metagame. To dismiss a minor issue like this as a waste of time is irrational; things should be taken seriously and assessed critically with the same respect as less minor issues. Yes there was another important issue (2 APR Doubles) that was brought up but really, it wasn't something that was really opposed initially and giving it its own thread was a correct decision; I thought it was given a sufficient reasoning and so I left it alone.

---

That said, Storm Throw has been resolved and a nerf has happened thanks to the council. This thread will now be locked and we can now get ready for the next SotG. I hope to see a more rational, respectful discussion on the viewpoints that will be brought up when we actually get the thread together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top