Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread (New Proposal Handling System in OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really do have to contest part of this change. Due to so many pokes having access to a phasing move in some form (whether it be Roar, Whirlwind, etc.), that whenever Ditto is coming out, its practically spending 19 EN (including STAB on Transform) to be able to attack at all, as well as giving the opponent a free turn to nail Ditto with a combo or set up for an easy victory in a large percentage of possible matchups. From the few experiences I've had with Ditto, you quickly learn that, unless you're majorly outplaying an opponent with their own mon, once someone gains a one-action advantage, they've pretty much just won the battle.

Because of that, I really think that clause 2 should be removed completely, although I find clauses 1, 3, and 4 fair.

A compromise might be to make Imposter last the first round in Switch=KO, where Transform itself lasts 6 actions. Transform would also bring Ditto out of Taunted status (which could be made explicit for example). So Ditto would have at least one round where it couldn't be phazed back down and set up its defenses, and if you phazed it, it could transform again un-Taunted (though phazing itself removes Taunt, so).
 
that sounds like a pretty good (if slightly complicated) option to me, will keep phazing moves a powerful options against ditto, but not completely shut it out
 
What about making Transform less energy? There doesn't seem to be any particular reason to keep it like that. I think the lost turn is bad enough without also having to spend inordinate amounts of energy every 6 actions.
 
I actually believe that Deck's proposed compromise is quite fair, actually, as you're gaurenteed the transformation for at leadt 3 actions, where you can get off a Taunt, get a good hot off, whatever. While Transform's EN cost is quite high, it does give you 2 full rounds of protection. Although, maybe lower it to, say, 7 or 8 EN, so its still quite high of an EN cost, but its not going to turn Ditto into a total EN whore either?
 
[17:07:36] <elevator_music> deck, does dodge really cap acc reduction at 50 in asb?
[17:09:40] <~Deck_Knight> Yes, mostly to balance out speed boosts being pretty good
[17:10:56] <~Deck_Knight> There are other moves that guarantee damage reduction, Dodge exists to be the medium between high risk low energy and low risk high energy.

I didn't have time so say anything to you on IRC when I asked, but I really think Dodge should be changed. Either the cap should be raised, or it should just be removed entirely (or it should just be revamped altogether), because the way it is now makes Dodge pretty unusable. It is currently:

[box]Dodge: The Pokemon uses its innate speed and evasiveness to dodge an opponent's attack. The Pokemon's Size Class determines their Base Dodge. Then Dodge reduces an incoming attack’s accuracy by (User’s Speed - Opponent’s Speed) / 5. The accuracy boost from a +Spe nature is added directly to the Dodge command's accuracy reduction (e.g. +20 accuracy will result in dodge adding +20 to its oncoming accuracy reduction.) In Trick Room, these effects are reversed; an incoming attack’s accuracy is reduced by ((User’s Speed - Opponent’s Speed) * -1) / 5, and the accuracy boost is subtracted from Base Dodge rather than added. If a move's accuracy would be increased by the Dodge command, the Dodge command instead simply fails and the move has normal accuracy. Dodge can evade any attack except for attacks that do not have an accuracy check (this includes Thunder in Rain and Blizzard in Hail) or are influenced by Lagging Tail, Lock-On, No Guard, Mind Reader, or Telekinesis. This command fails if used consecutively, or after Protect, Detect, Agility (Evasive), or Teleport (Evasive).

The formula is structured:

Base Dodge + Dodge Formula +/- Nature effects

The complete formula under normal conditions is:

Base Dodge + ((User's Speed - Opponent's Speed) / 5) + Accuracy boosting value from user's +Spe Nature / - 10EVA drop from -Spe Nature

The complete formula under Trick Room conditions is:


Base Dodge + (((User's Speed - Opponent's Speed) *-1) / 5)) - Accuracy boosting value from a +Spe Nature / + 10EVA drop from -Spe Nature

Command Type: Universal | Accuracy: -- | Energy Cost: 5 | Priority: 4 | CT: None[/box]

[box]Dodge and Size Class:

Size Class affects the Base Dodge of a Pokemon. The Base Dodge is the reduction in an oncoming attack's Base Accuracy before any speed differences are calculated. The Base Dodge of the Size Classes is illustrated below:

SC 1: 40
SC 2: 20
SC 3: 10
SC 4: 5
SC 5: 2.5
SC 6: 1
SC 7: 0

When calculating a Dodge, the result of the Dodge Formula is added to the Base Dodge to determine the final reduction in Base Accuracy. (e.g. if a Pokemon is Class Size 1, it would have 40 Base Dodge and if the Dodge Formula results in -15, Dodge will lower the Base Accuracy of an incoming attack by 25.) Then percentage accuracy modifiers such as Compoundeyes or Accuracy/Evasion Stage Boosts are applied. Modifiers that affect Base Accuracy, such as an activated Klutz, are applied before any percentage modifiers.[/box]
Basically, its a 5 energy priority 4 attack that caps at a 50% acc reduction (though is usually much less unless you're +Speed). It can also [possibly, the description is unclear] avoid multi-target attacks (though I'm really unsure and the general consensus is it cannot).

Why would you ever use this? If you're faster than your opponent (pretty much the only time you'll get a dodge chance worth using Dodge for), then at best its a 50% acc reduction for 5 energy. However, Double Team can create a single clone for 4 energy, which essentially does the same thing. The only things Double Team can't help you against that Dodge potentially can is priority attacks and multi-target attacks. However, in all other cases, if the opponent misses your clone stays up, while if they miss you using Dodge you are back to square one, so it is generally a better move for 1 less energy. Not to mention that Dodge can't be used consecutively, while Double Team can...

If you're slower than your opponent, then your Dodge chance is probably absolutely terrible unless your size class is 1, which is probably pretty rare and even then it's at best less than a 40% acc reduction. In those cases, you're much better off using Agility/Teleport to dodge the attack for sure (if you have access to those moves), or even just Protect due to how low the Dodge chance is.

So basically, you would only use it when:
- you want to have a shot at avoiding a multi-target attack for 5 en
- you want to have a shot at avoiding a priority move for 5 en
- you're slower than your opponent and lack agility/teleport/possibly protect

EDIT: I have to stress that "shot" is code for really poor chance and generally a waste of an action, and that in the last case the dodge chance will be absolutely terrible (which is better than 0, but still usually a waste of an action).

I guess just fundamentally I don't agree that Dodge can be the medium that you want it to be -- we already have Double Team, which gives a fairly vast spectrum of risk vs. energy. I don't really know how to change/fix Dodge to provide any benefits that Double Team already doesn't. But my opinion of it is that if we don't fundamentally change the way Dodge works, the cap in accuracy reduction should just be removed, because otherwise it's just so terrible there's virtually no reason to use it. I don't think Speed boosts being too good is an issue, because they really aren't :S
 
If you're slower than your opponent, then your Dodge chance is probably absolutely terrible unless your size class is 1, which is probably pretty rare and even then it's at best less than a 40% acc reduction. In those cases, you're much better off using Agility/Teleport to dodge the attack for sure (if you have access to those moves), or even just Protect due to how low the Dodge chance is.

Actually if you're slower you can't even Dodge (unless under TR), which makes your argument even more effective as you can only use it when faster and, like Double Team, doesn't even work while taunted nor can it be chained to protect/agility
 
Minor nitpick:
Dodge's description in DAT said:
Dodge can evade any attack except for attacks that do not have an accuracy check (this includes Thunder in Rain and Blizzard in Hail) or are influenced by Lagging Tail, Lock-On, No Guard, Mind Reader, or Telekinesis.
Dodge can evade multi-target moves like Earthquake. The only moves it can't avoid are ones that have perfect accuracy (either innately or as a result of one of the above effects).
 
And now, here's a fun fact about KOC brought to you by Objection:
If, all in the same action, a Krilowatt burns a Stratagem with Scald, then an Ampharos hits it with Discharge, and then at the end of the action, Stratagem is KO'd by the burn, the KOC goes to Ampharos despite the burn from Krilowatt's attack being the cause of KO.​
Now think about that for one moment.

That does not make sense! Why would the pokemon whose effect caused Stratagem to faint not get the KOC, while a pokemon that merely came close would?

As far as I can understand, the reason for the system as it currently is is simplicity and impossibility to abuse. However, after discussing this with Glacier Knight, I feel that this is an oversimplification that sacrifices logical sense for ease of use.

That said, ease of use is vital to any component of a system, especially in a game as complex as CAP ASB. Therefore, I would like to propose a system that strikes a balance between simplicity and sensibility.

  • If a pokemon is knocked out by damage caused by another pokemon (whether direct or passive), then the pokemon whose move caused that damage gets the KOC.
    • If a pokemon is knocked out by passive damage and, in that action, is subject to multiple forms of passive damage, calculate the passive damage on the pokemon based on in-game effect order. In the event of an effect priority tie, whichever effect was inflicted first is calculated first. Go through each form of passive damage until the pokemon faints. The last effect you reached is considered the one that knocked out the pokemon.
  • If a pokemon is knocked out by damage caused by an arena effect (including a pokemon that is only there as part of the arena) or if a pokemon knocks itself out, then treat the effect before it as the one that knocked out the pokemon.
  • If a pokemon knocks itself out before taking any damage from another pokemon's effect, that pokemon gets 1 less MC at the end of the battle.
    • If the pokemon has a maxed out movepool but does not have both a full EC and a full DC, it instead has its prizes reduced by 1 EC and 1 DC (to a minimum of 0). For this purpose, an absent EC for single-stage mons and an absent DC for mons without a DW ability count as full.
    • If the pokemon has a full EC, a full DC and a maxed out movepool, it instead does not give the usual CC bonus for having full counters and movepool (eg, a maxed out Electrode would not give its 5 CC bonus).

This would mean that, in the example I gave at the top, since Stratagem was knocked out by passive damage and the only passive damage was from the burn and the burn was caused by Krilowatt's Scald, Krilowatt would get the KOC.

In another example, let's suppose that a Honchkrow was burned by a Charizard's Fire Blast on action 1 and badly poisoned by a Tomohawk's Toxic on action 2. On action 3, Honchkrow is brought down to 3 HP by direct damage, then takes 3 damage from the combination of bad poison and burn. Since bad poison and burn have the same effect priority, we calculate them in the order that they were inflicted. Charizard burned Honchkrow first, so Honchkrow takes 2 burn damage, bringing his HP to 1 - not quite enough. Tomohawk's Toxic then brings his HP down to 0, which is enough to knock Honchkrow out, so Tomohawk gets the KOC. If Honchkrow only had 2 HP, then Charizard's Fire Blast's burn would've finished him off and Charizard would've gotten the KOC.

Alternatively, if the bad poison was the result of an arena effect rather than Tomohawk's action, then even though the bad poison would've knocked him out, there would be nobody to give the KOC to, so we look at the previous effect, which is the burn, which was caused by Charizard, so Charizard gets the KOC. If both the burn and bad poison were caused by arena effects, then the KOC would be given to whoever inflicted the last damage on Honchkrow.

The last rule is there to put people off of abusing first-turn Explosion and the like.
 
In response to Objection's little post about the KOC mechanics and whatnot, i support/agree with the changes (mainly because it was i in the first place who brought it up to him haha).

The battle where this was all brought up is right here. The situation is the first example Objection gave, with the Krilowatt's burn killing the Stratagem, but Krilowatt not receiving a KOC. Being the proud owner of said Krilo, i was shocked to see that he did not get the KOC, and that the ampharos did. I asked objection about this, and we had a long, heated debate, and the product of said debate is Objection's (and mine, i suppose) proposed KOC award change.

To me, at least, it makes full sense for a pokemon who inflicted a status to receive the KOC if the status killed the opposing pokemon. Isn't that a no brainer? if something faints a pokemon, then the inflicter/deliverer of that damage gets the KOC. In the case of Krilo/Amp/Strata, Ampharos did inflict major damage, but what cause stratagem to faint was the Burn damage.

I do not understand how we had rules that denied this common sense, but i believe the proposal will fix things in a way where everyone will be happy. People afraid of Explosion abuse and other abuse can take a deep breathe, while Trainers that use Status in Melee can rejoice with their well earned KOC.
 
I would only add:

If a pokemon knocks itself out due to one of his own attacks then the pokemon that received the final blow gets the KOC, if multiple pokemon got hit by it then treat the last attack received as the one that knocked out the pokemon.

Only to add clarification to what to do if a pokemon goes with a boom (explosion, selfdestruct, etc...), or using a combo/attack that hits all pokemon in the field like Surf+Brine, or just going down with Memento/Healing Wish/etc...
 
Can we change all of the Signup threads for RPs to (Data)? Having them blend in to every challenge for every facility is annoying, and the tag is currently rather underloved. The only (Data) threads that aren't stickied are stuff like the Census.
 
In regards to (DATA), KOC, and Dodge, I Support.

~~~

Time for a fun little rant on Trading!

To put it lightly, I don't want to see trading available anymore. There is no plausible reason to have it - The only rationale for it is "I want it". If you have any actual reason to keep trading that can't ultimately be broken down into that, speak up.

My issue with trades is the fact that it is inherently Unbalanced. They allow for trainers to get very powerful pokemon with little to no training. A large number of veterans remember Charmander causing an uproar with mass trading, but it still happens on smaller scales, but recently on a similar scale. Approvers can say "No" to the more blatantly obvious cases yes, but then a line must be drawn and it can be hard to tell what's fair and what's abuse of a system that isn't needed.
 
The only rationale for it is "I want it". If you have any actual reason to keep trading that can't ultimately be broken down into that, speak up.

Sorry, DF, but I just don't follow your logic here.
The entire rationale behind literally every aspect of CAP ASB is "I want to play Pokemon"
While it's possible that maybe more stringent restrictions should be put into place regarding mass trades or balancing, I think that if two consenting trainers want to swap reasonably balanced 'mons, they should be able to.
 
My logic is that an evidently flawed system (In an ASB that supposedly prides itself on competitiveness) shouldn't be a part of CAP ASB. You don't "Want" to have a Hydreigon and get one - it should require effort.

It is 2:45 AM so I may be making logical errors here, but I still don't see where my logic is flawed.

I would agree at least with sharper restrictions, but then we'll have debate on which arbitrary numbers we use - or we can leave it up to the approvers, but then there will be arguments there as opinions differ, and what might seem rational to one is irrational to another.
 
My logic is that an evidently flawed system (In an ASB that supposedly prides itself on competitiveness) shouldn't be a part of CAP ASB. You don't "Want" to have a Hydreigon and get one - it should require effort.

It is 2:45 AM so I may be making logical errors here, but I still don't see where my logic is flawed.

I would agree at least with sharper restrictions, but then we'll have debate on which arbitrary numbers we use - or we can leave it up to the approvers, but then there will be arguments there as opinions differ, and what might seem rational to one is irrational to another.

"I want a Hydreigon, so I'll give my Volcarona, which I raised with a ton of effort."

That's good. But...

"I want a Hydreigon and I'm too lazy to train one, so I'll just give this fresh Munchlax for one."

Is not. I agree on sharper restrictions, as well as trade approvers' common sense, but not a ban on trades.
 
I'm in favour of trading with balance personally. As long as it's balanced I don't see the issue; two people have done the work but aren't happy with the result. So they trade. Suddenly you have two people who have done the work and ARE happy with the result.
YAY
It's better than having to just abondon unwanted Pokemon...
And it's not really like trading is so common that it's being abused all the time is it?
 
I agree, since I really think a brand new poke should NOT be able to be traded for something that has already evolved (look at the trading tread, it has happened a lot), unless something like a Munchlax for a Cascoon this is something that shouldn't be allowed, I think it should be a problem of looking the number of counters invested in the mon being similar in both pokes
.
 
I would only add:

If a pokemon knocks itself out due to one of his own attacks then the pokemon that received the final blow gets the KOC, if multiple pokemon got hit by it then treat the last attack received as the one that knocked out the pokemon.

Only to add clarification to what to do if a pokemon goes with a boom (explosion, selfdestruct, etc...), or using a combo/attack that hits all pokemon in the field like Surf+Brine, or just going down with Memento/Healing Wish/etc...

I already had something like that in there.
If a pokemon is knocked out by damage caused by an arena effect (including a pokemon that is only there as part of the arena) or if a pokemon knocks itself out, then treat the effect before it as the one that knocked out the pokemon.

Also supporting the motion to change roleplay signup thread tags to (Data).

As for trading, there may be a metric by which one can tell if a trade is balanced or not. It would most likely be based on the total cost of the pokemon (its rarity rating (+3 for single-stage mons) + its EC/DC + the amount of MC spent on it) and I reckon the previously-obsolete Base Rank Total might help as well. I'm not sure what the exact formula would be, but I reckon that'd be a good place to start.
 
On trading, going with balanced trades as defined by the approvers themselves is the best way to go. I also think that it should be defined by counter investment, mainly going by moves. For example, if two people want to trade UT mons with no investment whatsoever. Bar circumstances where the trade is, say, a Regirock for a Weedle, I don't see why the trade wouldn't be fair. This is obviously different for pokes like Ditto and Unown, where most mons get ~14 or 15 more moves than it before any investment is put in it all, where a poke with minimum investment would still be a fair trade. However, when dealing with regular mons, I believe the guideline should be with 10 moves of each other, enforced loosely. For example, if one person trades an Alakazam with 45 moves and the other trades a Swampert with 34 moves, it is true that the person with the Swampert is getting the better end of the bargain, but its not like it will take intense training for the person receiving the Swampert to get it to his Alakazam's former levels.
 
Trading, in most cases, is "I don't want to spend 2 CC, so I'll give away this brand-new mon I dont like anymore to someone who does have 2 CC". Sure, there are a few sparse cases of high-for-low, but approvers can opt to simply not approve those (perhaps an IRC discussion, along with the two giving an honest reason for it).

I think any specific rules should be avoided, and approvers should look over it on case-by-case. There are just too many exceptions (would you rather have a 60 move furret or a 45 move gengar??) (brotherly love, gifts for things outside of ASB/Smogon)
 
Proposal: Increase the boost of Muscle Band and Wise Glasses to +1.5 BAP. (currently +1 BAP)

Let's have a little bit more item variety, right?

Compare:
Expert Belt (+2 BAP if super-effective)
Life Orb (+3 BAP to all moves for -2 HP/attack)
Metronome (+1 BAP per consecutive use)
Razor Claw / Fang (+3 BAP on certain 7- to 9-BAP moves)
 
It's been more or less agreed upon on IRC that Big Root as it currently stands is kinda ridiculous. Draining moves are already really good on their own, but with Big Root they become extrememly overpowering. For reference, the average draining move is 8 BAP. With STAB and a 2-rank stat difference, that's about 14 damage per attack. Normally that's 7 health returned, which is solid but can still be outmuscled by most attacks. However, add on the Big Root, and suddenly you need to do 14 damage back just to have the opponent end the turn where they started. That's in addition to the fact that they did 14 damage to you! And that's assuming they don't hit you for super-effective damage; God help you if they do, because you will not hurt them. At least not without a super-effective attack of your own, and even then you're only just barely scratching them while they're doing 20+ damage an attack. Either Big Root needs to have a significant energy increase attached to it or the healing needs to be reduced to 75% of damage done.
 
The way Torment works right now is, in my opinion, pretty flawed.

DAT said:
Torment: The Pokemon imbues itself with dark energy and torments the foe, preventing the opponent from using using the same attack twice in a row. Furthermore, it prevents the opponent from using any move during any given round that it used in the round prior for six (6) actions.

Attack Power: -- | Accuracy: 100% | Energy Cost: 10 | Attack Type: Other | Effect Chance: -- | Contact: No | Typing: Dark | Priority: 0 | CT: Passive

Not only is that confusing and vaguely worded, it also just doesn't really make much sense. you can do, say: Attack A ~ Attack B ~ Attack A while tormented, but you can't do Attack A ~ Attack B ~ Attack C one round and then Attack D ~ Attack E ~ Attack A the next round. In my opinion, it should really be changed so that you can't use attacks consecutively, or twice during one round. I think that would be perfectly fair
 
The way it works now makes it a powerful tool for stealing offensive momentum from zealous opponents. Give some thought to how some users go on the attack and it'll make sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top