• 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 (New Proposal Handling System in OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
General Approvers' Proposal] [LIST] [*]The term "General Approver" refers to users on the ASB forums that have the right and responsibility to approve ASB profile registrations and Prize Claims. [LIST] [*][B]What about Trades as well? Other than that said:
I am reminded of something that came up a while ago about the energy expenditure of charge-up and damaging evasive moves. There are no official rules governing when the energy cost of such moves is paid and, while this doesn't make a difference in 99% of cases, it does make a difference if using the move results in EN KO. During discussions on the topic, it was not agreed upon whether the energy cost should be paid at the start of the move or at the end.

Therefore, I propose this solution: the energy cost is divided equally between all phases of the move. This means, for example, that a non-STAB user of Dig would pay 5 energy on the evasive phase and 5 energy on the hit phase for a total of 10 energy. A STAB user of Dig would pay 4.5 energy at each phase.
Click to expand...
Objection said:
Its_A_Random said:
EDIT: Also, what I am trying to imply there is that all en is expended on the hit, which is what I thought was the current rule.
Click to expand...

The issue that caused me to bring up my proposal in the first place was that I and some others (I forget who) thought the current rule was it was expended at the start of the attack. I seem to recall it was a Focus Punch combo causing an EN KO that brought the subject up.

Anyway, after some discussion on IRC, I would like to change my proposal around quite a bit. Firstly, I'm only making it apply to damaging evasive moves - for charge-up moves, we'll go with the rule IAR has given in the quote above. Secondly, the energy cost for damaging evasive moves (outside of combos) is split up like this: 6 energy expended for the evasive component (affected by STAB only); the remainder expended on the hit (affected by consecutive use penalty, Pressure, etc. but not STAB). Thirdly, the energy cost for combos involving damaging evasive moves is split up like this: base energy cost expended on the evasive component (affected by STAB only); the remainder expended on the hit (affected by consecutive use penalty, Pressure, etc. but not STAB).

For those wondering, 6 was chosen because that's the energy cost for suspending a Dig, and STAB applies to that part because Ground-types get the STAB EN cost reduction on suspended Digs. The reason everything else to do with energy applies only to the hit is because, in the event that you managed to Dig or Fly or whatever but got hit by a move that disrupted the strike ... well, it's bad enough that you expended 6 energy on something that didn't evade every move that came your way and you got disrupted from landing the hit; making it cost 10 energy the next time would be just plain mean.
Click to expand...
I am bumping this proposal given the lack of votes it got last time around before it got buried in other random proposals. Also, the Static Proposal, & the Morning Sun/Moonlight proposal last page needs more votes.

On the other things over the past few pages, here is what is likely to happen with some of the proposals that got clogged up:

In-Game Error Moves: Not enough votes to warrant a discussion, but could be either vote/discussion/veto, depending on what other council members have to say. I am thinking Veto, dogfish is thinking discussion, idk who else.
Endeavour/Helping Hand: This will pretty much go to a vote, between Current, CT: None, & Must Have Enough EN.
Iron Barbs/Rough Skin: This is likely to be Vetoed. No one wants a discussion, not many support the changes, but there is some demand to iron it out more. Depends on what the rest of the council thinks.
Splash: This will prolly be moved to a discussion, but it is up to the other council members.
Electrode & Discharge: This is being Vetoed. No support, no one wants to discuss, need I say more?
Colour Change: There is enough demand to move to a discussion, but it is up to the other council members.

I already put up a support w/ discussion for Morning Sun/Moonlight, but as for the Static Proposal, I oppose the proposed changes, but yeah, it can do with a discussion.
 
It has recently come to my attention that one cannot use Role-play actions in a Roleplay.

I personally do not know how this makes any logical sense. Because Roleplays (Battle Hall, Battle Pike, TLR, etc) are so popular, it becomes a haven for new players to attempt one. Since Role-play actions are seemingly banned, the new player fails to learn to be creative. The refs of these Roleplays are also more limited when they battle.

My proposal is to allow role-play actions in Roleplays. It is just a simple thing, and most players aren't going to take advantage of it anyway. However, a select few will, and is it fair to squander their creativity? Is it fair to have people read their battles and not come up with ideas for themselves?

Proposal said:
Roleplay actions are allowed in Roleplays. This does not extend to Raids because that is much to specialized and complicated to add this to it as well.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, the above is false to a point.

Many RPs (ASB Hunger Games, the old Labyrinth) were extremely heavy on RP actions. However, to be blunt, whether or not the orders in a battle can be RP Heavy or not is not up to the title, but the facility itself - and it's their right to choose. Most facilities have the RP section in another manner anyhow.

No Support, No Discussion.
 
Alright, time to put in my two cents regarding King_Serperior and his Role Playing Proposal.

I was on IRC at the time KS first discovered that you can't use Role Playing moves in the Battle Hall. He was reffing a hall challenge, and was using some string shot shenanigans. He had fully reffed the round when I pointed out that you cannot use Role-Playing actions in the Battle Hall (then I went on to add that you can't really use Role-Playing actions in most all RPs). King Serperior was a little more than distraught, need I remind myself of the outburst that was so unlike him.

It seems as though KS has proposed his proposal on an angry whim, and so it was easily disregarded by our friendly neighborhood dogfish. It will probably be shirked off by everyone else, so I thought it best for me to try and keep it afloat (let's see if I'm competent enough~).

Everyone knows that i'm all for Role Playing and Flavor actions, that's just a god given. To me it makes ASB more enjoyable, and it gives the individual more creative rights, which leads to interesting game play. I'm not here to blabber on about how ASB needs to have more flavor actions, and how the game right now is dull and boring (because that's the kind of stuff that gets ignored; you have to use the right words and reel in the audience). Let's talk about Role-Playing in Role Plays- but not all of them. Let's start with Battle Hall.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3456501

If you click on the link, all you have to do is scroll down to post ten. The link is my first Battle Hall challenge, and being a silly new kid, I was getting ruthless accuracy haxxed by a smokscreening Cyndaquil. I tried to get my Shellder to Blizzard away the smoke, so it could see again. Flavor wise that makes sense, eh? A large gale of cold wind should be enough to blow away the wind. However, I had no idea even then you could not use flavor actions in the Battle Hall, or really any other RP.

Why is that? Why does the Battle Hall disallow the use of Role Playing moves (flavor actions)? Some people might argue that everything is subjective, and that it takes forever to debate if a set of flavor actions would work or not (and this is sometimes true. Just ask Myself/Rediamond/Engineer about the first ever bug gym battle. Engi and I had many arguments dealing with the RP actions). However, there have been many successful uses of flavor actions. Most of the battles during ASB's toddler years serve as good example (i'd say Feb 2011-May 2011), as trainers used their moves and creativity, and the Ref served as median.

Hmmm getting a bit off topic, am I? My point is, Flavor can be successful and unbothersom, and It should be a viable option for trainers in the Battle Hall, to be honest. The objective of the Hall is to test the trainer's skill and to see how far they can take their pokemon. Why should we then limit the trainer's options? (To be frank, not many people would use flavor actions if we allowed them anyway. Sadly there are only a few people who truly love the flavor aspect, and would be prone to use them on a daily. Why then should we be afraid?)

As King Serperior stated, a good number of new people use the Battle Hall. Heck, pretty sure the Battle Hall was the first ASB battle Yarnus of Bethany ever did. No one can deny the Battle Hall's huge popularity and success. Everyone does it, and it'll only die down when ASB itself does. So, why not let Flavor actions be allowed in it? It could get people just a bit farther, maybe to their goal tier (I know I always try to get to at least 5 battles)? Trainers should get their reward if they use their brain power in another way besides the regular strategy of codified moves. And, what's to say that the Refs can't use flavor actions as well? KS was the ref in his example, and he wanted to deter the trainer from using moves that required use of the mouth (bite, fangs, etc). I think its great because it gives people experience to be wary of Flavor Actions, and encourages them to use it themselves, to counter act it.

So, please do not let this die. I think it's time once and for all to figure out what the heck to do about flavor actions. Let's start with the Battle Hall. Maybe we can then talk about other RPs (The Legend Runs are SO much better suited for Flavor actions, I mean hell they give you detailed and interesting areas to work with- you aren't stuck in a building like the Hall.), and then maybe Flavor as a whole in ASB. But for now, let's stay small. I support Flavor actions and RP actions to be allowed in the Battle Hall, as it will promote creativity and use of different tactics and strategies (for both the trainer and the ref). Please, I beg of everyone, let's at least discuss this. If we talk and eventually it isn't implemented, I will at least be somewhat content, because we gave the discussion a try. Shutting this down right now is just killing me.
___________________________________________________

GlacierEdit:

18:29 MK_Ultra i have always allowed flavour actions in hall
18:29 MK_Ultra and have always said this

Pretty sure that solves everything. Talked with MK, and he will be adding a little section to the Hall OP that makes sure people know you CAN use flavor actions in the Hall. You all can ignore all the previously above said (Although Maybe soon we could discuss flavor actions in TLR...~)
 
Alright, i got a Proposal.

I know it is silly and unecessary, but at worst, it will be just veto-ed without discussion.

It is simple really, lets give Flareon acess to SolarBeam.

I know we shouldnt be giving moves to pokemons like this, but this is just a completely asinine case. Flareon is the only FE Fire type that can not get this move and for no good reason.

Lets be honest here, Flareon is a really poor pokemon and this wont break it. As i said, we cant go giving moves to mons just because we feel it makes sense, but i feel this case is too extreme. Is it really impossible to make an exception? Probably, but i just wanted to share my proposal because.......hey, whats the worst that could happen?

So feel free to veto the crap out of this.

And sorry for the gramatical mistakes :/
 
Seriously, what's with the "let's give x Pokemon y move" proposals? Outside of Kecleon with Camouflage with Color Change (which was only brought up because the move is in the ability description without the Pokemon actually receiving the move), these are just really silly, and it sucks that a mon doesn't get a move, but its just too damn bad.

No support, no discussion

However, I am in full support of adding RP actions in RP facilities. As long as people don't go overboard (and by that I'm talking "Pikachu, the horn!" overboard), it puts Roleplay back in the Roleplaying of ASB, so why the hell NOT do it?
 
Regarding Damaging Evasive / Charge moves Energy cost: Support without need for discussion. Objection pretty much exhausted the contingencies with his proposal, and it is solidly constructed to be an improvement over the current ambiguous trend.

Regarding In-game Error Moves: Disagree without need for discussion, for reasons of canon. And don't say ASB needs all those extra moves - creativity is about doing the best with what you got, not moaning for more than what you already have.

Regarding Flareon gets Solarbeam: Disagree without need for discussion. Repeating my stance on In-game Error Moves Proposal.

Regarding Role-playing Actions in Roleplay Facilities: Disagree, because dogfish said it well enough that its up to each facility and its leaders to decide. But let's discuss this, just so future RP Approval Committees get it crystal-clear.

Also do remember my Approvers' Proposal please :x
 
no support no discussion to error moves, solarbeam proposal, and rp actions

error moves and solarbeam: error moves are called error for a reason, why are pokemon getting moves they don't get

rp actions: first it should be up to the rp leader to determine whether they want to allow them in their rp or not. second who determines whether an rp actions succeeds, given that your opponent is also the ref; even if you're going to assign a percent chance for the action to be successful, there is no measure of objectively determining how successful it might be. the only real way to get rid of this issue is to get a third party to determine the degree to which it's successful at which point it's just too much of a hassle. also you're going to get both parties complaining and arguing over whether "does action xxx work" or "does rp action yyy beat the effects of rp action zzz" or "does rp action xxx deserve an added en cost or dmg penalty" or whatever.
 
Since Power Creep in inevitable in ASB, here is a proposal we were mulling over on #capasb.

Proposal:
+HP and -HP Natures.

HP is one of the most critical stats in ASB. While it has been heavily normalized, its impact on the game between abilities that lower damage like Sturdy and Attacks that use lost HP as fuel like Bide, Counter, Mirror Coat, and Metal Bust are iconic. Some Pokemon are avoided solely because they have a low HP and no effective way to make up for it with another nature.

What this proposal would do is use the 5 existing no-effect natures, then add 6 additional natures to create +HP and -HP natures, as well as a new neutral nature.

What will make HP natures different? Well, because HP is so powerful, acting as fuel for attacks and as two effective defenses, other Ranks will increase or decrease their effects more sharply.

Here is a listing of what the HP Natures would do:

HP Boosting Natures:
Hardy: +HP, -Atk - Increases HP by One Rank, Decreases Attack by Two Ranks.
Docile: +HP, -Def - Increases HP by One Rank, Decreases Defense by Two Ranks.
Serious: +HP, -SpA - Increases HP by One Rank, Decreases SpA by Two Ranks.
Bashful: +HP, -SpD - Increases HP by One Rank, Decreases SpD by Two Ranks.
Quirky: +HP, -Spe - Increases HP by One Rank, Base Speed/1.3 (Rounded Down), -20 EVA.

HP Reducing Natures:
Vengeful: -HP, +Atk - Decreases HP by 10, Increases Attack by Two Ranks.
Guarded: -HP, +Def - Decreases HP by 10, Increases Defense by Two Ranks
Witty: -HP, +SpA - Decreases HP by 10, Increases SpA by Two Ranks
Mindful: -HP, +SpD - Decreases HP by 10, Increases SpD by Two Ranks
Mercurial: -HP, +Spe - Decreases HP by 10, Base Spe *1.3 (Rounded Up), ACC Boost = ((New Base^2)/Divisor [Round Normally, Apply Floor]) *1.25 (Round Normally) [Max: 30])

No Nature Change:
Ambivalent: No Nature Change

Additional Notes:

It is illegal to have a nature that would reduce a Pokemon's Rank below 0 for Atk, Def, SpA, and SpD Ranks (so no -SpA Shuckles). Speed is treated differently, as the EVA loss is doubled making the Pokemon much more susceptible to high-powered. inaccurate attacks to compensate. The HP lost from a lowering nature is also always 10 HP - you can't sacrifice 5 Krillowatt or Snorlax HP for a 2 Rank buff in something else. By a similar token, the accuracy boost is also modified. Here is a table to point out the differences:

Code: 
[B]Base Speed:[/B]
Base - S1 - S2 -    Acc1    -  Acc2
40  - 46  -  52 - 2.45[5]   - 3.11[7.5]
50  - 58  -  65 - 3.87[5]   - 4.86[7.5]
60  - 69  -  78 - 5.47[5]   - 6.99[9]
65 -  75  -  85  -6.46[6]   - 8.30[10]
70  - 81  -  91 - 7.54[8]   - 9.52[13]
80  - 92  - 104 - 9.72[10]  - 12.43[15]
90  - 104 - 117 - 12.43[12] - 15.73[20]
100 - 115 - 130 - 15.00[15] - 19.43[24]
110 - 127 - 143 -18.53[19] -  23.50[30] (cap)

As you can see from the table, the -HP, +Spe Nature caps out in accuracy usefulness at 110 initial Base Speed, while slower Pokemon like a Scizor would have +10 Acc on their attacks, and 90 Spe Pokemon like Lucario would always hit with Cross Chop (to avoid Def drops from CC) and Stone Edge, no questions asked (and outspeed a non-Speed natured Starmie)

Should this proposal go through, everyone would get a free nature change on all their Pokemon, and Pokemon with the existing neutral natures would be changed to Ambivalent until they make a claim.
 
no, no a thousand times no

there's no precedent for this and without precedent we need solid reasoning which is not forthcoming

no support, no discussion
 
Despite being told there is no precedence (which I know there isn't) I believe that this would be a positive and strategic addition to ASB which I welcome with open arms.

Support, No Discussion
 
Pwnemon said:
no, no a thousand times no

there's no precedent for this and without precedent we need solid reasoning which is not forthcoming

no support, no discussion
Click to expand...

I must concur with Pwnemon. There is no precedent for HP affecting natures. This would be disasterous, I feel, for ASB.

No support, no discussion.

At the very least, we can get this proposal dealt with so it won't come up again for a year...
 
As much as I agree that power creep is inevitable and believe that, for ASB at least, it is better than stagnation, I do not believe that this form of power creep will be an improvement to ASB.

Not supporting, no discussion
 
Engineer Pikachu said:
no support no discussion to rp actions

rp actions: first it should be up to the rp leader to determine whether they want to allow them in their rp or not. second who determines whether an rp actions succeeds, given that your opponent is also the ref; even if you're going to assign a percent chance for the action to be successful, there is no measure of objectively determining how successful it might be. the only real way to get rid of this issue is to get a third party to determine the degree to which it's successful at which point it's just too much of a hassle. also you're going to get both parties complaining and arguing over whether "does action xxx work" or "does rp action yyy beat the effects of rp action zzz" or "does rp action xxx deserve an added en cost or dmg penalty" or whatever.
Click to expand...
you.

i like you.
 
Bumping up Zt's Approver's post: Let's Discuss it, although generally speaking I Support it.

E: ±HP receives one large Veto stamp.

And a new proposal or two:

A blanket ban on proposing Pokémon X gain move Y.

I believe Zarator brought this up a while back, but it was a proposal to allow Magic Guard to block LO Recoil, and for any instance of Sheer Force negating a move's effect to also ignore the recoil. Just bringing it up now for some general thoughts?
 
RE Ban "X should learn Y": I support this without a need for discussion. I mean come on, if you are making such a proposal with the intent to see it vetoed, then why are you even proposing it? Big time waster, pretty terrible, & honestly, they will never be implemented under my watch, as well as a few other's watch. If it does not learn it, it does not learn with it. Do not expect it to change in ASB. Come on guys.

RE Life Orb: Opposing this without any discussion needed. I mean, for one, do we really want to buff, perhaps, (one of) the best offensive Pokémon—Conkeldurr—in ASB at the moment? I mean, a drawback free 15 BAP 6 EN Elemental Punch is in itself, OP, & you only need to look at its other coverage as well. Not just Conk either. Darmanitan, Alakazam, Steelix, Reuniclus, Krilowatt even. Do we really want to help out all these Pokémon, which are either High or Top Tier ASB Threats, by giving them a drawback-free +3 BAP to all their moves (Or SF-boosted in the case of Sheer Force Pokémon)? Yes the recoil is negated in-game, but as someone who is generally anti-power creep, letting High/Top Tier ASB Pokémon gain access to a drawback-free +3 BAP on all/some of their moves is a bad idea.
 
"X pokemon should learn Y": Support, no discussion. Not much to say here

"Life Orb": Do not support, discussion needed. Having +3 BAP to any attack is pretty powerful, especially without recoil. What I'd propose, if we were to make any changes, they be one of the following

Magic Guard/Sheer Force mons only take 1 recoil damage instead of the usual 2
OR
Magic Guard/Sheer Force mons take no recoil, but the BAP boost is reduced to +2 BAP because no HP is being used.

(I personally like #1 the best)

This allows Magic/Sheer mons to have a good item in life orb, but still make use of other items viable as well.
 
SubwayJ said:
"X pokemon should learn Y": Support, no discussion. Not much to say here

"Life Orb": Do not support, discussion needed. Having +3 BAP to any attack is pretty powerful, especially without recoil. What I'd propose, if we were to make any changes, they be one of the following

Magic Guard/Sheer Force mons only take 1 recoil damage instead of the usual 2
OR
Magic Guard/Sheer Force mons take no recoil, but the BAP boost is reduced to +2 BAP because no HP is being used.

(I personally like #1 the best)

This allows Magic/Sheer mons to have a good item in life orb, but still make use of other items viable as well.
Click to expand...

implying that steelix, reuniclus, conkeldurr, or krilowatt need ANY kind of boost
leave as is imo
 
Whilst I'm in this sort of mood...

When this went through, I opposed it for a variety of reasons. owing to recent issues over it, now seems a good time to post this...

  • Whenever a match is posted, the Evolution Stage(s) of the team you're intending to use must be declared. Movepool limitations may also be included, but are optional. Both of these must be adhered to, and the referee can reject a sent team if it does not meet the set rules.
  • Pokémon must NEVER be posted in the Battle Tower prior to reffing.
  • DQ Times are set to a minimum of one day.
  • Approvers may no longer veto a matches counters unless the above rules have been broken.

I want to make sure that there is as little infringing on people's wishes as possible, whilst removing the blatant stuff. This is much better, I believe, than the current and very fuzzy system we have as it stands.
 
supporting, no discussion

if we're going to have stupid shit, we may as well make it as unstupid as possible
 
Dogfish44 said:
Whilst I'm in this sort of mood...

When this went through, I opposed it for a variety of reasons. owing to recent issues over it, now seems a good time to post this...

  • Whenever a match is posted, the Evolution Stage(s) of the team you're intending to use must be declared. Movepool limitations may also be included, but are optional. Both of these must be adhered to, and the referee can reject a sent team if it does not meet the set rules.
  • Pokémon must NEVER be posted in the Battle Tower prior to reffing.
  • DQ Times are set to a minimum of one day.
  • Approvers may no longer veto a matches counters unless the above rules have been broken.

I want to make sure that there is as little infringing on people's wishes as possible, whilst removing the blatant stuff. This is much better, I believe, than the current and very fuzzy system we have as it stands.
Click to expand...

Only in the obvious situations should counter-farming be an issue. I saw no problem with the current placement, and am fine as it is. The first two points above I strongly oppose.

Opposing, discussion requested.
 
Dogfish44 said:
Whilst I'm in this sort of mood...

When this went through, I opposed it for a variety of reasons. owing to recent issues over it, now seems a good time to post this...

  • Whenever a match is posted, the Evolution Stage(s) of the team you're intending to use must be declared. Movepool limitations may also be included, but are optional. Both of these must be adhered to, and the referee can reject a sent team if it does not meet the set rules.
  • Pokémon must NEVER be posted in the Battle Tower prior to reffing.
  • DQ Times are set to a minimum of one day.
  • Approvers may no longer veto a matches counters unless the above rules have been broken.

I want to make sure that there is as little infringing on people's wishes as possible, whilst removing the blatant stuff. This is much better, I believe, than the current and very fuzzy system we have as it stands.
Click to expand...

You know, I was just saying in the council's IRC channel that we could probably use a more objective method of dealing with counter farming, and this one seems to work nicely. However, it is possible that someone may have a better idea. As a result:

Support, yes to discussion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top