Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

[YellowAdminSilver]

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

I dislike playing against Mega Mawile and Mega Gardevoir. Let's nerf Mega Gardevoir too, because I'm currently playing against one in my AOT match, and let's nerf whatever I face next round too. ¬¬

Rash Kecleon has 90/3/3/3/6/40 stats with Everstone. For reference, that's the same Attack stat as Ninetales and the same Special Attack as special nuke Colossoil.

Kecleon is good and all, but it's not broken, and it's certainly not good enough to redo a whole sig item just because you're having a hard time vs jay's.

 

[Ooraloo]

Can we codify the effects of Bug STAB on multi-hit moves? It's currently somewhat vague on how to implement it, whether the 2-hit option is removed entirely, or you just add 1 to the result. [/salt]

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Fwiw I think kecleon could well be the strongest Mon in asb and is definitely stronger than Greninja. Fighting Birkal's Kec is borderline impossible, Kec's movepool is so large, diverse, and effective finding a true answer is exceedingly difficult.

 

[acidphoenix]

honestly that complaint about kecleon wasn't supposed to be "this is broken please nerf" but rather "i don't see how greninja warranted a nerf if this doesn't" considering that sheer movepool and actual bulk against special attackers make up for its slightly weaker special offense and speed quite well

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Gren was partially a product of being literally unable to sub for under the previous rules, with Protean more easily subbable the rest of its movepool can't compensate as well. Unlike Kecleon which has tricks and types out the Ass and can do whatever it goddamn pleases

 

[FortColors]

Can we codify the effects of Bug STAB on multi-hit moves? It's currently somewhat vague on how to implement it, whether the 2-hit option is removed entirely, or you just add 1 to the result. [/salt]

10:53:15 AM <ASBot> Bug STAB; Adds an additional guaranteed attack on all multi-hit moves (does not include two hit moves) with a total hit cap of five (5).

seems pretty clear (to me anyhow) that you add 1 to the result. I mean, it says "adds one."

 

[Someoneelse]

10:53:15 AM <ASBot> Bug STAB; Adds an additional guaranteed attack on all multi-hit moves (does not include two hit moves) with a total hit cap of five (5).

seems pretty clear (to me anyhow) that you add 1 to the result. I mean, it says "adds one."

I believe this thread illustrates the confusion here. On the other hand, I think Frosty's the only person I've ever seen who rolls it that way. I certainly add one to each (barring the 5), so it's a 1/3 chance of 3, 4, and 5. I'm not completely sure why it would be interpreted to remove the two-hit option, to be perfectly honest.

 

[ZhengTann]

^ If we're coming up with two interpretations of the ruling, then yeah, I support clarifying the ruling. (sorry Frosty, I rolled 1/3 chance of 3/4/5 hits too)

 

[Mowtom]

Fwiw I always interpreted it as 1/3 chance of each as well and I don't really see the logic behind the other interpretation

 

[Frosty]

Well it made more sense back when the probabilities were 3/8, 3/8, 1/8, 1/8. simply adding +1 to the result would mean 3/8 of 3, 3/8 of 4 and 2/8 of 5. Which I never ever saw being done. And I thought higher chance of 4+ was too good for a stab effect. People rolled out of 3 or 4 like if the probabilities were the same.

I read "guaranteed hit" as "minimum number of hits". So normal mons get 2 guaranteed hits out of 5 and bug get 3 out of 5. After that you use the usual probabilities. Yeah, not the obvious interpretation, but it was the one I saw more fitting power-wise, since 2/3 of 12+ bap seems too good for a stab bonus (whereas my interpretation gave 1/2 of minimum and 1/2 or more, which seemed more in tandem with the game's probabilities).


Don't get me wrong, I use Syclant a lot and this equal interpretation would benefit me greatly, so I don't mind the clarification. Just be aware that this wasn't just the product of an arbitrary twisted mind.

 

[Chinchou111]

I always interpreted it as you roll number of hits, then add 1 hit, making the math work out to 1/3 chance each of 3/4/5 hits.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Official chances for multi hits are 1/3, 1/3, 1/6, 1/6 for 2, 3, 4, and 5 hits respectively according to Bulbapedia and the Handbook (eighths were valid pre-BW) so using a d6:

1-2: 2 hits
3-4: 3 hits
5: 4 hits
6: 5 hits

With Bug STAB, you add 1 hit to each multi-hit move that has a chance for 2-5 hits but it does not exceed 5 hits so you get with a d6:

1-2: 3 hits
3-4: 4 hits
5: 5 hits
6: 5 hits

This gives the effective 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 chances that others have talked about.

Of course this is not the only way to boost multi-hits as accuracy stage also has a bearing on number of hits so if you are a Bug-type and have a +1 Accuracy boost, your table should look like:

1-2: 4 hits
3-4: 5 hits
5: 5 hits
6: 5 hits

And if you do not have Bug STAB and you have -2 Accuracy, your table should look like:

1-2: 1 hit
3-4: 1 hit
5: 2 hits
6: 3 hits

This is how things should be done in ASB with regards to Multi-hit moves and regarding any additions and subtractions to the number of hits should be handled. This is also how it is defined in the Handbook:

These moves usually have a 1/3 chance of landing two hits, a 1/3 chance of landing three hits, a 1/6 chance of landing 4 hits and a 1/6 chance of landing 5 hits, so when rolling to determine the number of hits, it is often a good idea to roll out of 6, with 1-2 meaning 2 hits, 3-4 meaning 3 hits, 5 meaning 4 hits and 6 meaning 5 hits. Bug STAB increases this number by 1, while changes to the Accuracy stat change the number of hits landed by the Accuracy stage. The number of hits can be reduced to a minimum of 1 or increased to a maximum of 5 in this way.

Consider this an official clarification on the matter.

 

[Someoneelse]

IRC chat regarding Light Screen

[2:30pm] Alakazam: FortClasses: light screen’s counter seems to decay immediately after use
[2:30pm] ZtheWork: Nay, Zam.
[2:30pm] Alakazam: no?
[2:31pm] Alakazam: "If the Pokemon used Reflect, Light Screen, regular Mist, Tailwind, Lucky Chant or the second of two different Pledge moves, the remaining duration of these effects is reduced by 1 on all affected Pokemon.”
[2:31pm] Alakazam: is the handbook quote under end of turn
[2:32pm] ZtheWork: Slow screeners actually get to use that 1a last I remember :/
[2:32pm] Alakazam: well, for one it’s a fast screener
[2:32pm] Alakazam: for another, that doesn’t seem to be what’s codified
[2:32pm] Alakazam: dogfish44, can you confirm anything here?
[2:33pm] dogfish44: uh, lemme check
[2:33pm] dogfish44: are we trying to divine how the hell Light Screen works?
[2:33pm] Alakazam: yep
[2:34pm] Alakazam: does it lower the turn it is used is the question
[2:34pm] Alakazam: to which the people’s answer is “no” but the codified answer is “yes"
[2:34pm] dogfish44: !asbmove light screen
[2:35pm] ZtheWork: Emphasis on if screener is slower than its opponent(s)
[2:35pm] Alakazam: screener is faster in this case
[2:35pm] dogfish44: ooh, that's a difficult one
[2:35pm] dogfish44: "The effect lasts for six (6) actions after use." is a bastard phrase
[2:36pm] Alakazam: it is indeed
[2:36pm] Alakazam: so i did the normal thing to do
[2:36pm] ZtheWork: But really if your screen has already blocked an attack the same action it comes up, then it decays.
[2:36pm] Alakazam: and ignored it :V
[2:36pm] dogfish44: Send a PM to the mod team and we'll fix it, but until then... hmm
[2:37pm] FMD: Use a physical move on the 6th action so it doesn't matter.
[2:37pm] ZtheWork: Makes no sense to punish slow screeners with 1a less duration >_>
[2:37pm] dogfish44: Light Screen basically says 'All allied Pokemon, until they have acted 6 times after this, gain a defensive boost'
[2:37pm] dogfish44: which is really weird
[2:38pm] dogfish44: since if you quick attack you could lose screen faster -.-
[2:38pm] Alakazam: yeah that’s a bit weird
[2:38pm] Alakazam: why isn’t it something that decays at the end of action
[2:38pm] dogfish44: I think it's something that was put in to deal with Taunt?
[2:38pm] Alakazam: what
[2:39pm] dogfish44: Since Taunt was punished for being slow, and wouldn't have these shenanigans
[2:39pm] dogfish44: a lot of non-damaging stuff was moved to end-of-turn
[2:39pm] ZtheWork: Just change from End of Turn to End of Action, then?
[2:39pm] dogfish44: But then you end up punishing slower Light Screeners -_-'
[2:39pm] Alakazam: light screen and reflect as end of turn sounds dumb
[2:39pm] ZtheWork: .... Can we forgo pedantry in favour of sensibility?
[2:40pm] ZtheWork: Just for once, promise!
[2:40pm] Alakazam: i don’t even know why you’re talking about slow screeners in this case
[2:40pm] Alakazam: it’s faster
[2:40pm] dogfish44: Really what it should do in singles is decay every opponent's turn -_-
[2:40pm] dogfish44: Alakazam: General case
[2:40pm] Alakazam: yeah i know that
[2:41pm] dogfish44: If you're faster then it's for 6a since it'd be fucking daft otherwise
[2:41pm] Alakazam: yeah
[2:41pm] Alakazam: FortClasses’s a muppet who was essentially saying it should go for 7 actions
[2:42pm] dogfish44: Honestly that's not the daftest way to look at it. PM mods and I'll deal with it after sleep
[2:42pm] Alakazam: presumably because of the “six actions after use” bit

Essentially, there are problems with Light Screen (presumably Reflect too) because it decays after the setter acts rather than at the end of an action, punishing the setter if it uses a + priority move on the last action of it. Also the phrase "The effect lasts for six (6) actions after use" can be easily interpreted in different ways and would need clarification.
Also Taunt, with it saying the "following actions" and the like should be clarified, as it is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it should include the actions of a Pokemon moving later in the action in which it was Taunted. Yes, Fort Colorcastle, I am saying this just to satisfy you.

 

[FortColors]

Asking for a clarification on taunt as well, since the move specifically says "following 6 actions", which to me clearly means not including the current action because the current action is not following the current action.

People don't agree apparently, so clarification/needed changes please.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

[00:26:37] <Texas> it used to be that if you used reflect it would decay at the end of the round, even if you used it after your opponent
[00:26:42] <Texas> but that made zero sense
[00:26:54] <Texas> so it was changed so that such effects were x actions of use
[00:27:17] <Texas> this was years ago that it was changed
[00:27:32] <Texas> because why should you be penalized with 1 less action of an effect just because you're slower?
[00:27:35] <Texas> it doesnt make any sense
[00:27:54] <Texas> i dont know what the implication is for your battle
[00:28:02] <Texas> but it should be 6a worth of opponents actions
[00:28:04] <Texas> before it fades
[00:28:44] <Texas> you dont even have to take it as word of god, that's codified as the way that it works

This is the way that it has been for years, it is the most logical way it should work, and is the way it will be.

 

[Chinchou111]

why is this a problem exactly

edit: unrelated

13:23 phoenix /why/ is dig(suspend) a damaging move
13:23 Rainman its a delayed attack
13:23 Rainman but its an attack
13:25 Chinchou phoenix: it's not
13:25 Chinchou whoever reffed it as such dun goofed
13:25 phoenix yes it is :v
13:25 phoenix since frosty and dogfish
13:25 phoenix have told me so
13:25 phoenix after reffing it otherwise
13:25 phoenix :v
13:25 Chinchou that's sooper dum
13:26 FortH_W_Pile it should be imo
13:26 FortH_W_Pile because it's using a damaging attack
13:26 FortH_W_Pile to not attack
13:26 Chinchou dogfish44 this is shenanigans http://veekun.com/dex/media/pokemon/main-sprites/emerald/animated/104.gif


This makes no sense. Can we make this make sense and make Fly (suspend), Dig (suspend), and Dive (suspend) not count as damaging moves? Because they do no damage so to count them as damaging moves is pretty dumb.

 

[Geodude6]

Also, STAB commands. They were used quite a lot until it was "ruled" (in quotes because I can't find where this actually happened) by Deck that STAB commands were not useable a la toggle or trigger abilities like Trace or Drought. This then caused usage of STAB commands to virtually cease. At times, I've forgotten they even exist, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I therefore propose that we do one of the following:
A) Make STAB commands useable for free on sendout.
B) Buff STAB commands so that people will actually use them.
C) Explode them.

Option C I'm not really a fan of, because it leaves the Fire, Grass, and Ice-type Polemon without a STAB effect beyond what they have in-game. So that leaves us with the option of making them toggleable on sendout, or buffing the commands themselves. (alongside the obvious option of leaving them as their underpowered current selves) I'm personally a fan of option A, but buffing the commands themselves wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm thinking that a possible Frost buff would be to have it triple the freeze chance as opposed to the current iteration of doubling it, given that a 30% chance is a lot better than a 20% chance and that freezing is nowhere near as powerful in ASB as it is in-game, I'd say that that's pretty good but not overpowered. Brighten could maybe temporarily activate Blaze, Flash Fire, and whatever Fire-type boosting abilities there are. No clue as for what we could do to Bloom. Store we could maybe explode if we go the "buff" route, given that Poison-types already have -- Acc Toxic and Co.

I made this proposal many moons ago, all the way back on page 11 of this thread. It got some discussion, but the thread it was discussed in was turned into a thread about STAB as a whole, and nothing was decided about STAB commands.

 

[acidphoenix]

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

i know i got attacked for the kecleon thing (although that was less "i believe kek is broken" and more "i believe that if greninja deserved this then kek def does too") but seriously it was marked "not as importantly" for a reason

 

[Leethoof]

Hi. Automated RPs like hall and sim and whatnot (not raids) have a serious consistency issue among refs. Often, refs in these RPs are faced with daunting odds of perfectly counterteamed, maxed-out strongmons or even just an insurmountable typing advantage. Its the nature of the RP, that the ref's mons are fixed, while the player is free to bring whatever they want. However, the inconsistency lies in how refs respond to these terribly lopsided matchups. Some (A) are content to spam moves without even using subs. Some (B) play reasonably well, using their strongest coverage moves and a couple tricks to do as much damage is possible before they die. Others (C) will go to the ends of the earth with haxxy, usually ineffective strategies spamming accuracy-reduction moves, low-damage flinch moves, confusion, double team, and whatever they can get their hands on to stall out the match and pray that RNG goes their way enough times that they win the otherwise unwinnable match.

Now, Option C is pretty obviously the reason I'm making this post, as mostly everyone is content with an easier victory from the first two methods. Most RPs state that refs should "play to win", and this is without a doubt, sticking true to that command. In a hopeless situation (Pidgey vs Boldore), Option C is technically the only way to play to win. So then why aren't all refs using it? It's a conflict of interests. Refs are reffing an RP to get UC, and most RPs reward the same amount for a 2-round stomp as a 7-round stallfest. Many refs do not want to waste the player's and their own time with a slim chance of victory, especially when victory is rewarded the same as defeat. They want to get their UC and move on to the next reffing. However, some refs, for reasons 10000000% unfathomable, want nothing more than to spite players and waste their own time.

Players waiting happily in the queue for their RP to be taken just have to hope they get a ref of type A or type B, or else they are in for a long, frustrating run. The point of automated RPs is to mostly normalize the difficulty and experience regardless of what ref you get, and this lack of consistency is not in line with that idea.

Not really taking a side on this beside fuk hax, just looking to promote discussion in the area. What is the 'correct' response to a hopeless matchup? How should this be enforced? Should refs be more closely monitored?

 

[JJayyFeather]

Hmm for hopeless matchups I look to the time I had to fight a Gardevoir with a Tentacruel, and I remember that a combination of both solid gameplay and a little hax is all you really need to get through this. While wasting time on a hopeless matchup sucks, it feels better to know you actually attempted to take a win.

 

[Chinchou111]

Leethoof irl

Leethoof it sounds like you're just upset that you lost to Falkner with a mono-rock team. Yes, hax sucks. Yes, it's frustrating when you counterteam someone and they still win because of hax. Get over it.

22:48 Skyla I mean leet, refs should be aiming to win
22:49 Skyla Otherwise the challenges are too easy

 

[FortColors]

9:50:45 PM <FMD> Hoping for hax when you're self-reffing is a bit... Yeah, don't do that.

Is my opinion on the subject. Not even because I'm accusing anyone, but because
It is impossible to prove either way.

The lack of evidence should mean nothing if a ref a fair and honest, but that's not the case. We all know hax does happen occasionally, but there's no way to prove it was real "hax". However, stally tactics (especially if refs are given bonus uc for extra rounds), especially ones that rely on hax, generate extreme resentment. And the ref's inability to prove innocence (or guilt) just adds to that.

fwiw hax is based on the word hacks, which implies manipulating rng via access to inner mechanisms. The irony: translate access to inner mechanisms into Asbian and get: self-reffing

EDIT @ BELOW: I think Leethoof is trying to say that regardless of if we allow A, B, or C, we should designate a standard form that all refs should partake of.
And then he goes back to salting and arguing against C.

 

[Leethoof]

I'm salty af, yes, but I'm trying to promote discussion on this matter, not ban haxxy strategies (though im not opposed to that whatsoever). Trust me, my main success in ASB comes from spamming Rock Slide. My sim is indeed a perfect example:
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/anime-style-simulator-challenge-thread-leethoof.3556976/

My first sim against Brock: I bring a team with huge type advantages
Emma uses super-effective coverage moves and strong STAB attacks, some support moves like Stealth rock, Protect, and Endure, and one bit of hax with sand veil + sandstorm.

My second sim against Falkner: I bring a team huge type advantages
Geodude uses super-effective coverage moves and strong STAB attacks, spams Roost to the end of the earth, and liberally uses sand-attack and mud-slap.

Emma was not playing to win. He should have used the arena-buffed rock tomb to gain a speed advantage and spam rock slide and accuracy-reduction moves. This is clearly the only way to win this matchup. Because Emma was not following the rules of reffing automated RPs, do we remove him from reffing sims, even though we all know he is one of the best players in the game and refs within DQ? Regardless of what direction this takes us (to a hellish land of more haxxy RP, or to a happy land of attack spamming), this needs to be normalized. That is the point I am making. Even if you have two otherwise identical refs who always ref within one day of your posting, one method will take a few months for a sim for a small chance at defeat and the other will take a few weeks for an almost certain victory (ie, the same end results). It is ridiculous that both the timeliness and success rate of your sim can be determined by if the ref (which you do not choose) wants to play a stalling hax game or a straightforward attacking game.

 

[Chinchou111]

23:32 Leethoof pls posts your pictures of salt in the thread

OK, I thought it was just you complaining; thanks for the clarification. I do agree with the point you're trying to make (that hax is bad), but let me ask you this: how was Pidgey supposed to be able to have a chance for a win vs Boldore? It looks to me like Geodude/Someoneelse were doing their best to try to outdamage your STAB SE moves. Yes, they could have used Hurricane spam, but 10-ish damage vs your 20+ damage per turn? Mud Slap spam was Pidgey's best bet.

edit cause I just noticed it

stuff about hax in self ref matches

Sorry Fort+FMD, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Of course it's possible to rig the RNG in a self reffed match (or any match that you're reffing). But what's the point? You don't gain anything from it. And even if such a thing were to occur, how would you know? Sorry, but I don't see your point.


Unrelated: In ASB, Parental Bond affects all damaging moves. In-game, it only affects single-hit moves that hit only one target. Parental Bond is very powerful, and so is Mega Kangaskhan because of it. Though Kangaskhan isn't really overpowering, this just feels out of place to me :|

edit2: @ below ya ik

 

[Its_A_Random]

Chinchou111: Do take into account (WRT Parental Bond) that the single target thing only applies during Doubles in-game iirc; Earthquake iirc does get the double hit in singles only, which is kinda why it affects all damaging moves in ASB.