Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[TSRD]

Mostly because it doesn't work as it logically should and has issues that don't exist in-game because of ASB mechanics.
But whatever, I've let it go, I really don't need another "But these mons are too good" discussion to go with all the others I've seen so far in my relatively short time on this forum.
As I'm the only one who brought it up, just ignore it (and stall for that matter...).

 

[Frosty]

Thanks Zt

Let's see if we can work something out:

Meditate: Inclined to fiat df44's proposal. Although I would include like doubling the attack boost from meditate or having it boost SpA too, since 2/3 of the attacks are special (and the other is force palm -_-), which means that the end-result is...well it sucks. Also, is there any other ki-based move other than the ones listed by dogfish?

Stall: uh. TBH I didn't catch the discussion much. Seems like a matter of semantics (affects priority or has a totally different effect alltogether?) and a matter of semantics is better dealt with by ruling/fiat than a voting. Although I don't have any opinion regarding the matter.

Fling: I'd like to fiat it at 2EN. Mostly because we changed splash not too long ago to have the niche role of being the only 1en move. While losing the item is bad, having Fling cost 1en too will outclass splash on its sole purpose. While it wouldn't affect the metagame in the slightest, I guess I feel bad for splash? Either way, if any disagrees let me know I will set up a voting.

Illusion mons and equipping: Worth moving to the discussion simply because it deviates from in-game. While I agree with Emma, we should probably know well when we are creating exceptions to the follow ingame rule, warranting discussions.

Dawn Stone: Fiated.

Combo with phazes: The ruling was given yeah, but it was brought up a need for a change. Could use a discussion.

Spider Web: Am I the only one that doesn't mind Spider Web as it is? Sure, the anti-contact thinge may be a tad overpowered, but I don't mind everything else. Although IMO the cutting/burning down part only makes sense if we keep the anti-contact thinge (and vice versa). If we remove the anti-contact, it would just be a mean look with weaknesses (and with shitty combos <_<). Since there are a lot of factors involved (ingame effect, extra effects, extra combo effects etc), I would much rather have a discussion on this than fiating so many changes (while on meditate and fling, we just changed one thing about the move, not the entire thing -_-).



Gonna do the discussions on Illusion, combo and spider web. Discuss/Object to the others.

- - - - -

Also, something else: Reffing. While I don't think it is justifiable to change UC payment rules again (seriously, don't mention it), we are suffering from a severe ref shortage. Personally I feel that we always had that, but now we are suffering also from the lack of that one insane dude (akela, me, orcinus, avnomke, viraj and other examples) that picked dozens of matches to ref. Since insanity is unreliable, we may want to discuss the matter and find solutions other than bitching at me for taking long to white-list people -_-. What do you guys think about it?

 

[TSRD]

Regarding Reffing: Sorry about that Frosty.
I've been kinda holding off on picking up many reffings recently due to my Dark Qualifier starting. Once that's over I'll ref more than I currently am.

Though the issue in general (how to maintain a steady supply of refs) is one I don't know if I have any real insight for.

 

[Frosty]

One person won't change the ref situation. If we are relying on a single person, we are doing it wrong. So don't worry about it.


Can someone from the council create the other threads? really can't do it now.

 

[Dogfish44]

Meditate: I only found 'Force Palm' as a Ki-Based move, and added Focus Blast / Aura Sphere since they seemed close enough. Either we could whip together some obscenity involving Force Palm, or...

The Pokemon sits on the ground and meditates. When the meditation is complete, the Pokemon's outline glows white, and its Attack is raised by one (1) stage. Meditate can be combined with ki-based attacks (Aura Sphere, Focus Blast, Force Palm), multiplying the BAP of the move by 1.5, increasing the Effect Chance of the combination to 100%, and increasing the user's Special Attack by one (1) stage.

If I don't get any objections to this (And one of the other nice mod persons gives me the go-ahead), I'd like to fiat this one in soon.

Fling: Agreed with fiat. If anyone disagrees, Fling a throwing rock at them.

 

[YellowAdminSilver]

Okay, unpopular opinion time. I've been thinking about this reffing shortage, and the only remotely viable option that I can think of is to establish a sort of reffing quota among players. More specifically, implementing a monthly one- or two-battle quota for white-listed players. I'm thinking of something along the lines of what goes on with approvers in the Registration Center, where you get to self-approve as long as you approve other people's claims, and go into a sort of probation if you miss the quota for a month. Now, is this an ideal solution? No. Does this suck balls for white-listed people? Yes, yes it does. But I'm not thinking of something overwhelming; it's not like people have to ref a 13v13 every day to stay whitelisted. We currently have nine white-listed refs, at least seven of which are significantly active. If each of those seven took two battles a month (again, most tower battles are 2v2's), that would amount to 14 less battles on the tower, or four less battles every week. And I don't think it's ludicrous to ask people to ref one battle every two to four weeks.

Now, I know that people have paid their dues to get white-listed, and I know that people have lives outside of ASB. But I'd like to see what people think about this idea before settling for "Hey, nobody plays this thing anymore because we can't find refs for casual matches (which, for people who are just starting out, are all matches)". So... thoughts?

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

YellowAdminSilver,

The problem with that is some tower battles don't end in a month, or two even. Also, other than tower battles there are Gyms, Role Plays, Tourneys, TLRs, Raids that need refs. Encouraging new players to take tower battles is better because casual games means they can learn and get better at reffing at their own pace.

The problem is not that existing active players are not taking up more reffing. The problem is that, not many people get into reffing in the first place. Like there are a lot of players who only participate in battles, but don't ref them for reasons of their own.

There are also people who can ref, but don't do that for their own reasons.

The question we should be asking is what should be the motivation to make people who don't ref battles to ref them. And not look for how to motivate an active player to ref more.

Other than this, I feel UC is not a sufficient motivation beyond a certain point. Since, if people who need some UCs to get some moves and stuff, would hop on IRC and offer to ref a flash, rather than pick a battle that is on queue. Because when they can get stuff quickly, why would they ref some battles that take 2 - 4 weeks?

Since we give same UCs to Flash battles and Tower battles, the folks who don't regularly ref would just ref a flash and fulfill their UC needs.

 

[TSRD]

Kay so lets talk about something that actually is very important and affects everyone, unlike Illusion, Spider Web, Stall, ect...

Why is ordering an illegal move to abuse subs still a thing (or at least it's not clear if it is/isn't a thing)? Here is a clear example of the problem.
Why is this still something that happens? Regardless of if it works this way or not, why should we allow it to continue doing so/not strongly correct this issue?
I can't see any argument that this brings value to the game, whether you define that value as skill, fun, whatever.
It simply adds busy work (making people put "And not Taunted" and "And not asleep" and "And not on cooldown").
This isn't a new issue, and it's been brought up before by many people.

 

[Frosty]

Let's do this:

I want some volunteers (PM or VM me) to become a group in charge of setting up new substitution rules. Yes, new from the scratch. Stratos suggested this a long time ago and I was a fool to try and band-aid the rules further.

The substitution rules are a mess, hard to learn, subject in many places is unreliable. I applaud the new people that stick around even after being screwed by them.

The reason I think the only answer is to have new rules alltogether is because we are still stuck on the mentality in which the old rules were created. Even if we tweak the rules, they will be read and considered using the old standards (this is a problem mostly due to the attack/chance substitution types and its limitations...it doesn't matter how much we tweak them, attack subs will be abusable due to they being based on what is ordered and chance will be abused due to its time-limitations).

So yeah, looking for around 4 people to create a group with me of possible substitution rules. New rules. We discuss rules in two weeks and then open them for public discussion and then voting via council. I just want to discuss this matter on different grounds other than the rules we already have. In case you haven't noticed I hate them.

For reference this is what Stratos proposed. It has merit.

readme

Sub Rules should start fresh with one major premise:

1) Each substitution can only have two outcomes: being triggered and not.

If to this we add:

2) Substitution classes are all-or-nothing. If a sub calls a sub class, it must trigger on every move in that class.

3) An exception to rule #1 is that a substitution can have a different result each TIME it is triggered (if x then y the first time, z the second time) <- if you think about it this was always combining two different subs "if x and first time" and "if x and second time." Tbh im ambivalent on keeping this rule but i lean in favor of stronger subs.

4) Substitution triggers cannot be broadened with additional clauses such as "or" clauses. Additional clauses may only be used to narrow the circumstances of activation.

5) Substitutions based on knowing something can only trigger after that thing is known. (e.g if the opponent crits a2 then counter that action is legal if you were already going to move second a2, but illegal otherwise). (If you know something, your Pokemon knows it).

That's basically all I can think of that we need, though obviously if someone thinks we need more then feel free to challenge me. The perscriptiveness in Engineer's rules means you're always going to have weird buggy shit. See me vs em with Protect substitutions in BoB. Or another example (which bugs me to hell) is that "if gallade uses drain punch and encore the next action" or "if gallade uses drain punch and not encore the next action" or "if gallade uses drain punch and togekiss uses encore" aren't legal when they always used to be and it makes it a lot harder to make sound subs.

We can obviously vote on the non-#1 rules based on what specifically we want to allow but the bottom line is we can't just bandaid the broken rules we have.

 

[TSRD]

Sure, I mean if I'm going to trigger this then I'm surely going to volunteer for the work.
I'm not sure if we couldn't have fixed this without a total redo, nor that the new version won't have abuses as well, but if this is what we're going with then I'll do my part.

 

[Stratos]

im down to help (wow what? yes really, and i wont even flake out)

 

[Frosty]

Alright. Dogfish44, Me, Stratos, Tavok and TSRD will try to come up with something. Those were the first the volunteered and I like them so there you have it. Watch this subforum.

 

[Frosty]

While we check subs, I am considering fiating this rule change:

"For all intentions and purposes related to substitutions, if the pokemon is under cooldown, asleep or under bide, the order will be read as "cooldown", "asleep" or "holding" regardless of what is actually written, unless the pokemon in question is asleep and using sleep talk or snore."

Stuff like Cooldown (move) won't be affected, since the move in question will only be called if the mon isn't under cooldown after all.

Also this does not affect if the user of the substitution is under cooldown (you will still need to include that part on your subs <_<). There was a decision of the council on the matter and I don't intend to overrule it.

If you ask me why I am doing this by fiat my answer is: I got sick of it. It would be a temporary thing until we handle the entire thing.

Lemme know if there is a problem with that. Its late and I am tired and pissed so I may be doing something not recommended.

EDIT: Also, it would be valid to all ongoing battles. consider it a hotfix.

 

[Mowtom]

While we check subs, I am considering fiating this rule change:

"For all intentions and purposes related to substitutions, if the pokemon is under cooldown, asleep or under bide, the order will be read as "cooldown", "asleep" or "holding" regardless of what is actually written, unless the pokemon in question is asleep and using sleep talk or snore."

Stuff like Cooldown (move) won't be affected, since the move in question will only be called if the mon isn't under cooldown after all.

Also this does not affect if the user of the substitution is under cooldown (you will still need to include that part on your subs <_<). There was a decision of the council on the matter and I don't intend to overrule it.

If you ask me why I am doing this by fiat my answer is: I got sick of it. It would be a temporary thing until we handle the entire thing.

Lemme know if there is a problem with that. Its late and I am tired and pissed so I may be doing something not recommended.

EDIT: Also, it would be valid to all ongoing battles. consider it a hotfix.

Maybe also add frozen to that?

 

[TSRD]

Rather than naming every condition and situation (for example suspended D/E moves could conceivably work for this abuse as does the condition Taunt) would it not be simpler to say something about how subs only trigger if the move actually can happen? Or that ordering a move that's overridden by a condition or status is considered ordering that condition or status and does not trigger substitutions? Or if those don't work then yeah you could add a few more conditions to the list.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

When does substitutions check happen for Attack Clauses? Are these checks made regularly during the course of the round? Please mention it in terms of The 'Effect Timing' section of the Handbook.

Afa I can understand, the checks should happen corresponding to the effect timing, and shouldn't be repeated even if the event that triggered the substitution in the first place is altered during the course of the round.

But it is not the case, so I would like to know exactly when do the checks happen and when do these checks create loops?

Like Looping Statements only occur if the same check is made again during the course of the round. So for that to occur, there must be some sort of recheck made at the end of an action / round to see if all attack substitutions behaved in the way that they were supposed to? When is this check made as per the 'Effect Timing' section of the handbook?

I would like us to take this point into account. When are substitutions checked? what is the expiry of each of the substitution classes? and when and how are loops created because of this?

Because I currently see them as If and Else statements. But I guess it is not the case.

Then it would be better if we take it into account while building a new substitution mechanism.

 

[Frosty]

What about:

"For all intentions and purposes related to substitutions, if the pokemon is forced to use a specific attack (e.g. due to Encore, Choice Band or suspended Damaging Evasive Move) or is unable to do anything at all (e.g. due to Freeze, Bide, Sleep or Cooldown), the order will be read as the move they are forced to use or the condition they are into, regardless of what is actually written, unless the pokemon in question uses a move that exceptionally can be used during that condition (e.g. Snore and Sleep Talk during Sleep or prolonging a Suspended Damaging Evasive move or a move that thaws during Freeze."


Taunt and stuff are different things, as they don't force you to use a move. Just make some moves illegal. Think this way: illegal = struggle and forced = the move you are forced into. Also "subs only trigger if the move can actually be used" is a chance condition and will mess up rules -_-.

 

[Frosty]

Waiting for feedback on the above before making a decision.

Also

Okay, unpopular opinion time. I've been thinking about this reffing shortage, and the only remotely viable option that I can think of is to establish a sort of reffing quota among players. More specifically, implementing a monthly one- or two-battle quota for white-listed players. I'm thinking of something along the lines of what goes on with approvers in the Registration Center, where you get to self-approve as long as you approve other people's claims, and go into a sort of probation if you miss the quota for a month. Now, is this an ideal solution? No. Does this suck balls for white-listed people? Yes, yes it does. But I'm not thinking of something overwhelming; it's not like people have to ref a 13v13 every day to stay whitelisted. We currently have nine white-listed refs, at least seven of which are significantly active. If each of those seven took two battles a month (again, most tower battles are 2v2's), that would amount to 14 less battles on the tower, or four less battles every week. And I don't think it's ludicrous to ask people to ref one battle every two to four weeks.

Now, I know that people have paid their dues to get white-listed, and I know that people have lives outside of ASB. But I'd like to see what people think about this idea before settling for "Hey, nobody plays this thing anymore because we can't find refs for casual matches (which, for people who are just starting out, are all matches)". So... thoughts?

I am inclined to do something like that. Reasoning? If the ability to self-ref results in white-listed refs not taking BT battles, then the point of doing it to speed up training is kinda odd. Speeds up for some (the ref and whoever is on IRC) and not for others (the ones not on IRC that use BT).

But as Gale said there are other factors involved, so only that won't make that much difference. Still, something I am considering.

 

[Frosty]

What about:

"For all intentions and purposes related to substitutions, if the pokemon is forced to use a specific attack (e.g. due to Encore, Choice Band or suspended Damaging Evasive Move) or is unable to do anything at all (e.g. due to Freeze, Bide, Sleep or Cooldown), the order will be read as the move they are forced to use or the condition they are into, regardless of what is actually written, unless the pokemon in question uses a move that exceptionally can be used during that condition (e.g. Snore and Sleep Talk during Sleep or prolonging a Suspended Damaging Evasive move or a move that thaws during Freeze."


Taunt and stuff are different things, as they don't force you to use a move. Just make some moves illegal. Think this way: illegal = struggle and forced = the move you are forced into. Also "subs only trigger if the move can actually be used" is a chance condition and will mess up rules -_-.

This is a thing.


If you are wondering why I fiated instead of submitted to voting: "AND not under cooldown" is a chance sub. So it has time limitations (can't relate to something that already has to happen and can't result in the usage of a move with increased priority). Adding "AND not cooldown" to all subs not only is a drag, but turns all subs into chance subs and give those time limitations to all of them. In other words, for Pure Attack subs (like IF Counter THEN Flash Cannon), it fixes one problem and adds many other ways for your opponent to sub abuse. Since that is a huge flaw of the rules, I figured it warrants a hotfix.

This is valid on ALL matches including ongoing.

 

[deadfox081]

Two things from recent IRC discussion:

Weather setters can potentially ENKO themselves upon send out thanks to an unavoidable 10 EN weather summon. Weather setters are really not that good in ASB, we do not need to hamper them further. Also intimidate costs nothing upon sendout. The only other Trigger ability that costs EN upon sendout is Trace and that's optional. I would push for fiating a free weather summon upon sendout and retaining the energy cost to later trigger the ability via command.

Secondly, speed ties and damaging evasive moves. This one requires codification due to general confusion regarding whether to consider the entire D/E move cost or just the evasive portion when resolving speed ties. This also has potential add on effects in suspending such moves. Since the intention is not clear I think this one warrants some discussion.

 

[TSRD]

Weather is a much bigger advantage than Intimidate though. Weather is +3 BAP to the pokemon's main STAB (Charizard-Y/Ninetales/Poli) and -3 BAP to select types (including one of Charizard-Y/Ninetale's weaknesses). It also turns on alot of abilities or effects which the user can usually benefit from (Rock STAB and persistent damage for Tyranitar, ample team abilities, no charge solar beam for Char/Nine, ect...). It also fights other weather (which while not common is used on occasion).

Intimidate is a flat -2 to the final damage (not even BAP), doesn't work vs a number of abilities (Defiant, Clear Body, ect...), and of course does nothing vs Special Attackers. They really are not at all on the same level. Heck most intimidate users are weaker mons in general than the weather starters. Even the Trace comparison is fairly weak as Trace has less generally applicable advantages (though it can be stronger in some situations certainly).

IMO it certainly should cost something (with the proper stone negating the cost, as currently is the case). If you want to say 10 is too much then fine but free IMO doesn't really make sense imo.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Two things from recent IRC discussion:

Weather setters can potentially ENKO themselves upon send out thanks to an unavoidable 10 EN weather summon. Weather setters are really not that good in ASB, we do not need to hamper them further. Also intimidate costs nothing upon sendout. The only other Trigger ability that costs EN upon sendout is Trace and that's optional. I would push for fiating a free weather summon upon sendout and retaining the energy cost to later trigger the ability via command.

Secondly, speed ties and damaging evasive moves. This one requires codification due to general confusion regarding whether to consider the entire D/E move cost or just the evasive portion when resolving speed ties. This also has potential add on effects in suspending such moves. Since the intention is not clear I think this one warrants some discussion.

1) I would not be fussed if in the case that we do not make auto-weather abilities cost no energy on send-out, that we simply add a clause to them AND Trace to say that this ability cannot and will not activate on send-out if the ability holder does not have enough energy to afford the cost. It is a simple workaround I suppose.

2) Even though the moves cost 6 suspend whatever else hit, it should use the full EN cost for the purposes of speed ties. This is simply for balance reasons due to their relative power and utility. A simple codification if we want to go down that route I suppose.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Double posting but Evasive Damaging Moves wrt speed ties should be resolved/clarified ASAP whether it be through mod fiat or a council vote whether it be in favour of suspense EN cost or full EN cost. Whatever ruling made is going to affect a reasonably important match that I am refereeing so if we can get that resolved with as little delay as possible, that would be swell.

EDIT: Not so urgent now after being asked to rule the above while we wait for a vote but still.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Double posting but Evasive Damaging Moves wrt speed ties should be resolved/clarified ASAP whether it be through mod fiat or a council vote whether it be in favour of suspense EN cost or full EN cost. Whatever ruling made is going to affect a reasonably important match that I am refereeing so if we can get that resolved with as little delay as possible, that would be swell.

EDIT: Not so urgent now after being asked to rule the above while we wait for a vote but still.

I think the Full EN Cost Imo, because otherwise D/E moves get a buff in speed ties.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

It's really simple. The move has one energy cost that gets executed in two different phases. You will never not execute the full energy cost. Ergo, energy related matters follow the full EN cost.