Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk IV

[Gale Wing Srock]

4) The gym leader in question is an upstanding member of the community.​

I like the idea, but how do we identify upstanding member? Like a Moderator?

Should more arrive in time, the dual gym leader will step down from one gym.

But, I don't like this stepping down idea for the following reasons:
a) What if the Gym Leader likes both gyms
b) Gym Leader is a Fighting Gym Leader and likes Water Gym.

- Then a new aspirant for Water Gym comes up, but the Gym Leader wants to retain Water Gym and wouldn't mind giving up Fighting Gym.
- Due to prior high level experience and our current method of judging Gym Leader aspirants, the existing Dual Gym Leader has an advantage.​

If we can address how to deal with conflicts of interest which may / may not arise between Dual Gym Leaders and new Aspirants, then this idea has merit.

 

[Complications]

There's been talk on IRC circulating about gym leaders being allowed to run two gyms. I think it's a good idea, provided the following criteria:

1) There are less that 18 active gym leaders / applicants at the time. Should more arrive in time, the dual gym leader will step down from one gym.
2) The gym leader in question has been active in the community for three years.
3) The gym leader in question has fought over 20 battles as a gym leader.
4) The gym leader in question is an upstanding member of the community.
5) The proposed second gym offers a significant variety in competition compared to their first gym.​

I don't want to put too much red tape on this, but I think some ground rules will help keep the quality of gyms up. I hope the benefits of this would be obvious: more open gyms. It also gives another thing for "late-game" ASBers to do. Thoughts?

Though I don't have an opinion I'm willing to defend yet on allowing trainers to run multiple gyms, if the motion moves forwards I don't think we should apply a "time played" based constraint on qualification. First off, I feel like any number we come up with will be arbitrary. I doubt anyone would argue that Jayy isn't qualified to run two gyms at once, despite being a member of the community for about two years, for example. I do, however, agree with the other points. The decision should be exclusively merit-based. Though point 3 also demands an arbitrary number, I feel as though it is a reasonable evaluation of a leader's commitment to their leadership. Point 4 should go without staying, as it applies to players seeking their first gym. I don't really know how I feel about point five yet, but for now it seems reasonable. I'll edit my post if my opinion changes.

EDIT: in the event that all 18 gyms are operational by less than 18 people and a player who doesn't already run a gym wishes to apply for leadership, will the secondary/tertiary/etc. gyms of multi-gym leaders be forfeit, should the candidate be capable and wishes to run said gym?

 

[JJayyFeather]

Chiming in on this.

Firstly, I'm honored that I'm the example in the above. :D That example also points to what might be my biggest problem with this suggestion. Time in the community is not representative of anything except a bias towards older players. I like to think, and I think people will agree, that I can at least hold my own in a battle versus users older than myself. Time in the community wasn't a part of the requirements to picking up a gym in the first place, it shouldn't have anything to do with getting a second gym.

Secondly, I'd align point 3 with the discussion about maintaining a gym's badge. 10 battles as a gym leader is sufficient time as a gym leader and it would allow us to avoid the "problem" that there was a hissy fit about in the past regarding players trying to change gyms, even if it isn't purely badge based. A gym leader feels locked into their gym up until 10, and provided the option, the gym leader would leave at say 15 and just run the one new gym rather than actually wait for a number beyond that to maintain both gyms. Hell, I know if someone would've asked me to hold Fairy for another 8 matches and then I could also run Dark alongside it, I would've declined the offer and still just went for the simple switch from Fairy to Dark.

Point 5 just doesn't make sense, because every type is different, and even if types have overlaps in their rosters, it's still a different gym.
Point 4 definitely goes without saying.

Point 1 draws another thought from me. If we're going to do extra gyms for a leader, the leader does need to have the decision for themselves as to which gym is the one they are 'temp leading,' even if that gym is their first gym. It's highly likely that a gym leader which reach for this option because of an interest in another type, not just to fill the space. And as such, they should get final decision on which gym they intend to make their 'main' gym.

 

[Birkal]

I don't care about the minute details of this. Change the stipulations I brought up, ditch them entirely, I don't care. I just think this is something that should exist, and should exist soon. Lots of the points you raise make a lot of sense (e.g. labeling one as a 'temp lead'), so put those into place and move forward on this.

 

[JJayyFeather]

Well, that's the other thing. That's not on us. That's on gymcom.

deadfox081 Elevator Music smashlloyd20

 

[JJayyFeather]

Double posting bc two different thoughts:

Can we clarify the ability description to Disguise?

When this Pokémon is initially sent out in a match, it hides behind a disguise. This disguise will block direct damage from one damaging move (if the attack is a multi-hit move, it will absorb one hit from the move) before fading. This ability cannot be removed from the Pokémon or copied by any means.

Does absorbing 1 hit mean it reduces the damage by a percentage? Or just the BAP by however much that one hit would've done?

Effectively, if a Cinccino uses Bullet Seed against a Mimikyu, is it:
1) 4*4+1.5 = 17.5 DMG
OR
2) (4*5+1.5)*0.8 = 17.2 DMG?

 

[Elevator Music]

Well, that's the other thing. That's not on us. That's on gymcom.

deadfox081 Elevator Music smashlloyd20

Cant speak for the other two, but I welcome discussion on this subject before we make any decision. We can move the discussion to the gym concerns thread if necessary.

Double posting bc two different thoughts:

Can we clarify the ability description to Disguise?

Does absorbing 1 hit mean it reduces the damage by a percentage? Or just the BAP by however much that one hit would've done?

Effectively, if a Cinccino uses Bullet Seed against a Mimikyu, is it:
1) 4*4+1.5 = 17.5 DMG
OR
2) (4*5+1.5)*0.8 = 17.2 DMG?

its clearly not codified but i'd probably go with the former. or just make disguise block the whole move because w/e. should probably just vote on this

 

[TMan87]

Double posting bc two different thoughts:

Can we clarify the ability description to Disguise?

Does absorbing 1 hit mean it reduces the damage by a percentage? Or just the BAP by however much that one hit would've done?

Effectively, if a Cinccino uses Bullet Seed against a Mimikyu, is it:
1) 4*4+1.5 = 17.5 DMG
OR
2) (4*5+1.5)*0.8 = 17.2 DMG?

Gotta reply to this, as I believe the first attack to hit Disguise is meant to just "vanish" (additional effects notwithstanding), so I'd go with the former too.

 

[Toon]

Can we revert RCB back to 3a or something?

I don’t have a proper reason other than It’s taking over the meta but ig that’s not a proper argument.

people always talk about it in discord but we never do/say anything about it on here

 

[Elevator Music]

lower the cc -> uc conversionrate to like 5 cc = 1 uc or 4 cc = 1 uc. 8 seems like too much given the adjustments we've made to payouts recently

this got lots of likes last time so im likefarming with it again

but srsly this plzz

 

[JJayyFeather]

The above is now implemented, as 3 council members have given it their support.

 

[Agender Nerd]

I've run into a bit of an issue in figuring out the consecutive energy cost of failed charge moves.

Because of how their damage is calculated, the damage dealt by multi-hit moves is likely to be less than the damage dealt by the single-hit move of a Pokemon's choice. However, there are a couple of advantages multi-hit moves have. The first is that they disrupt the powerful charge-up attacks like Sky Attack, causing such moves to fail if they hit between the Charge and the Strike.

Sometimes, a Pokemon will be perfectly capable of attempting a move, but the conditions of the battle will make the move fail. Using Sucker Punch on an opponent that uses Swords Dance, for example, or Toxic on a Pokemon under the effects of Safeguard. In such cases, the Pokemon expends the energy required for the move, but the move's effect does not occur.

As tempting as it may be to find your Pokemon's most powerful move and use it every action, doing so is a surefire way to drain your Pokemon's energy. When a Pokemon uses the same move on consecutive actions, the energy cost of that move increases by 4. This energy cost increase is cumulative and carries over from one round to the next. Outside of switching, the only way to reset this penalty is to use a different move or somehow fail to act. However, Combination cooldowns do not reset the consecutive use penalty, nor does using a combination of two different moves.

It looks like the failed move will still expend energy, but because it failed the consecutive energy cost will be reset. Is this true, or am I missing something?

 

[JJayyFeather]

Resolved in Discord: No cost because it did not reach the damaging phase, reset consecutive en because it was not executed

 

[Elevator Music]

Can we revert RCB back to 3a or something?

I don’t have a proper reason other than It’s taking over the meta but ig that’s not a proper argument.

people always talk about it in discord but we never do/say anything about it on here

So there are a couple things we can do about this, but I agree we should do something.

Shortening the duration probably works. I'm fine with 3a (I never had a problem with the item back when it was 3a), although I also like 4a since that's got some potential to make the use more tactical.

Jayy also floated the idea of having it only boost certain stats (I think his suggestion was to have it not boost defenses). There's plenty of other variations we could go with here as well.

I guess one other thing we could do (although im nt a huge fan) is limit how items can be stolen after RCB is consumed. But if we do this I still want Magician/Pickpocket to have good niches :<

As an aside, could we clarify/change when the speed boost is applied for RCB on the action it is activated? It feels easiest for the boost to happen before actions start for that turn (and thus the updated speed is used to determine speed order). But I can see the argument for having the original speed be what is used during the action its activated. At the very least we should clarify this in the NDA description and handbook -- its a bit fuzzy right now


probsies should make a separate discussion thread but lol im lazy

 

[Elevator Music]

can we nerf houndoominite lol?

 

[Toon]

no

 

[Un passant ordinaire]

I don't know if someone already asked for it (as I'm too lazy to read 7 pages) but: Could we have a 4th battle slot but for flash battles only ? This way we could train our underleveled Pokémon when our slots are full, and we could always have something to do even if our slots are taken.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

I don't know if someone already asked for it (as I'm too lazy to read 7 pages) but: Could we have a 4th battle slot but for flash battles only ? This way we could train our underleveled Pokémon when our slots are full, and we could always have something to do even if our slots are taken.

iirc last time it was brought up there was just a fairly big debate

some points against:

1) what constitutes the definition of a flash (a 4v4 singles match that happens within 3 hours? a 1v1 that takes 2 weeks? etc etc)
2) does that make approving take longer
3) self-control and slot saving, young padawan (you can set the same for yourself with 2 slots)
4) there's things to do in ASB anyways (sim, pike, ass, hall, take a reffing etc)

the most important one is probably #3 tbh


I'm not going to bother to list points for since I think its pretty self-evident and you probably have the picture from the fact that you proposed this idea

 

[Un passant ordinaire]

4) there's things to do in ASB anyways (sim, pike, ass, hall, take a reffing etc)

Excuse you, I'm already reffing a fair amount of battle >:(

More seriously, I understand why it wasn't implemented. I guess I'll have to save a slot next time for flashes and quick battles.

 

[Granny Pie]

Has there been a past precedent set for using Combinations, especially Same-move Combinations, while under the effects of a Choice Lock?

Example:
Weedle @ Choice Specs
Poison Sting --> Poison Sting + Poison Sting --> Cooldown

Would this orderset be legal?
And if it was deemed illegal, how would a referee interpret such orders in a battle? i.e. Would Weedle Struggle, or just use Poison Sting by itself?

 

[Exclaimer]

It should be illegal to use poison sting with a choice specs weedle

 

[S0L1D G0LD]

Has there been a past precedent set for using Combinations, especially Same-move Combinations, while under the effects of a Choice Lock?

Example:
Weedle @ Choice Specs
Poison Sting --> Poison Sting + Poison Sting --> Cooldown

Would this orderset be legal?
And if it was deemed illegal, how would a referee interpret such orders in a battle? i.e. Would Weedle Struggle, or just use Poison Sting by itself?

I see no harm in allowing choiced pokemon to use such combinations; it's not like choice items are particularly useful anyway, and this certainly wouldn't break them. However, if it was illegal, I would follow standard combo protocol and referee it as a single Poison Sting on actions two and three.

 

[Elevator Music]

I'm proposing a buff to Inversion Charm because it actually actively harms Malamar. Swagger is a universal TM that inflicts confusion and reduces malamar's Attack stage by 4. Malamar is basically useless after one Swagger. a /flat reduction/ of 8 damage per hit and a 33% chance to just not move is absolutely bonkers.

Proposing that Inversion Charm gives Malamar an immunity to Swagger. Seriously, Malamar is worse than useless, and this wouldn't even make it that good. It'll make it slightly usable.




Discord chat says that a buff of "Contrary only affects moves that decreases stats" is more appropriate, so that's an option.

So...

How opposed would people be to the following change for Inversion Charm:

Inversion Charm - Item Type: Signature | Item Cost: 8 CC | Effect: Raises the Base Attack Power of moves containing the words "Cut", "Cross", "Claw", "Scissor", "Scratch", "Swipe", or "Slash" is increased by three (3). Confers the ability Simple to the holder. Increases the holder's Attack by one (1) rank. Contrary only affects move which decrease stats.| Affected Pokemon: Inkay, Malamar

Personally, I'd rather keep Simple and remove one of the other effects. However, apparently we don't want to buff Malamar too much (lmao at the hypocrisy of this NERF HOUNDOOMINITE)? So this seems appropriate as a compromise

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

how about:
get rid of the razor claw, keep simple, toggling contrary on/off now works like eating RCB in terms of priority level (and ability to do it ordering second)

 

[Complications]

I would not be opposed to Exclaimer's post above. Another suggestion I made earlier in discord would be allowing Malamar to target itself with Topsy-Turvy. I do however think the razor claw effect should remain, as Malamar is still awful in situations where it can't abuse superpower.