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

[Frosty]

Flavor-wise I can't see why not allow shift.

But Flavor-wise I can't see how positioning can be off (Pokemons must be somewhere). If we consider positioning = off as "the pokemon are so close or in a way that their positions don't matter", changing said positions also won't matter. Ally Switch, being something fast and unexpected, can be justified flavorwise in position=off matches as "pokemon got surprised". In the other hand, to say that the pokemon is so stupid as to not notice the pokemon moving around is silly if we disregard positions (even if we don't it is dubious, but justifiable somewhat).

So I Support this without discussion. TBH I feel that we should try positions = on more, as I don't remember any battle being in that format. But that is the topic for another discussion in some other occasion. In the current situation, since we disregard positioning completely, it would be highly weird to suddenly regard it for Shift then forgeting about it again as the battle goes on.

 

[Destiny Warrior]

Excerpt from the DAT(under Effect Priority):

Beginning of action:
Speed Tie Flip (if moves are similar speed/complexity. Otherwise simpler moves like Water Gun beat more complicated moves like Surf)

This complexity rule isn't used at all today, so I'd like to propose that it be removed entirely.

 

[ZhengTann]

On in-game precedent Sheer Force: Suppport without discussion, at least until we find out that doing so breaks something.

On IAR's Switch Command and DW's Speed Tie Flip: Support with discussion. Apparently there are quite some stuff in DAT that either needs enforcing, or should be abolished altogether to avoid confusion. So I think we could just open up a Discussion thread to combine both proposals, where everyone can dig through parts of DAT, bring the tidbits up, and discuss whether we should implement, modify, or discard.

 

[Gerard]

How do you say which move is more complicated though, energy cost I guess. I honestly really like the idea of having something to avoid having to win or lose a Speed Tie so I would like if more people were aware of it

 

[Frosty]

I agree with Gerard. I actually find that rule interesting. I think something should be done to make it more public, but it should stay as it makes some sense.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Supporting the global audit of the DAT for clarification and enforcing.removal of tidbits/rules.

 

[a fairy]

So, I'm looking for feedback. Lots of it.

I'm worried that I'm missing tons of details/stuff, which is partially why I am asking for feedback, and what the community thinks.

Yes I realize people will have reservations on the idea, or that fact that I'm suggesting it, or that we won't have enough refs: I know. This is an idea, and I want to see if it is possible.

---

Hiya. I'm here to propose the ASB Premier League.

As some of you may know, there's a trend for the tiers in the Smogon Metagames forum to have Premier Leagues. I'm suggesting ASB have the same.

If you don't know, these things are when a group of teams play each other in a variety of tiers. Here's an example from the UUPL:

The Ecruteak Kimono Girls (4) vs The Goldenrod City Gamblers (3)

BW: Reachzero vs. PsYch071c
BW: jonathanrp vs. TPO3
BW: Blue Eon vs. .Robert
DPP: JabbaTheGriffin vs. SilentVerse
DPP: Kennen vs. DracoMalfoy
ADV: Heist vs. Hantsuki
Manager: LonelyNess vs. PK Gaming

Naturally, we do not have 'DPP ASB' or similar concepts, but we have an even larger variety of possibilities, from the # of Pokémon, to the arenas, to even more basic rules, like Substitutions and Items. There is an insane amount of combinations possible.

Remember, this is a idea. At the will of the community, or the mods, things can change. What is being proposed here may be completely different to what will actually be played.

I am proposing to run an ASBPL, where 6 or so teams would fight it out, SPL-style. The community would have a large (if not complete) portion in picking the 'metagames' to be played, aside the standard Singles/Doubles/Triples lineup.

Rewards:
The normal rewards for the battles would pass over to the tournament battles, unless approval for a different setup.

'Battle Slots'
(what 'tiers' get played)
Up to the community, I am certain that the tour would be better accepted by the community if the community picked the tournament details

 

[Orcinus Duo]

Great idea!

EDIT: also ASB does not and will never have distinct metagames aside from singles/dubs/trips

 

[a fairy]

If you are implying the idea I have proposed is similar to the Team Tournament, it isn't. The team tournament were teams made up on the spot, and of 3 people. This tournament would be at least double, if not (and probably will be) more than that, and the teams would be made via an auction.

Yes I realize about the Singles/Doubles/Triples, but that doesn't mean something like Babymons shouldn't be included.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

So what you're saying is its going to be bigger, longer and more difficult to run.

Well since the last one turned out so well...

 

[Stratos]

Besides the fact that each battle lasts on the order of weeks instead of minutes

 

[Deck Knight]

Silph Co Salamis would be a pretty cool SPLASB team name.

And yes, the SPLASB would be complicated to set up but would be kind of like a "professional" league outside the Gym or the regular battle system. That it would take place over a longer period of time is fairly immaterial in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if we have the userbase / refbase to support it, but I don't oppose it as an idea.

I had asked Lady Salamence to post it here because I'm quite open to new ideas, but I would never have the time to set it up properly and get a prize /reward system going for it. If it were a professional league you would have to apply and draft players, which means you would be having more high-profile battles against stronger players as the object would be maximizing your team's points.

 

[Objection]

After some discussion on IRC regarding Trace revealed that some people are still confused about how Can be Activated abilities work, and when we have abilities like Intimidate and Flash Fire being put in the same category even though there are significant differences in how they work and the fact that one has an ability-based command and the other doesn't ... we need to rework the ability category system.

The way I see it, we have six categories of ability:

1. Traits (Defeatist, Slow Start and Truant)
2. Always active or conditionally active abilities that are not traits (Flash Fire, Guts, Levitate ...)
3. Abilities that cause something to happen when the pokemon is sent out and can have this effect be caused again by spending an action and some energy (Drought, Intimidate, Trace ...)
4. Abilities with an effect that is tied to a command but does not automatically activate when the pokemon is sent out; such abilities sometimes but not always have additional ongoing effects like those of abilities in category 2 (Cloud Nine, Magnet Pull, Rebound ...)
5. Abilities with an ongoing effect that can be turned on or off; currently the category names Can be Enabled and Can be Disabled imply whether the default is on or off (Illuminate, Normalize, Sheer Force ...)
6. Abilities with two possible ongoing effects that the pokemon can switch between (Effect Spore, Poison Point, Poison Touch ...)

Currently, these categories are named as follows:

1. Trait
2. Innate
3. Innate or Can be Activated
4. Innate or Can be Activated
5. Can be Enabled or Can be Disabled
6. Can be Disabled (there are no examples of Can be Enabled abilities in this category)

The category description of Innate suggests that only abilities in category 2 in my list should be classed as Innate, while the category description of Can be Activated suggests that only one or two abilities in category 4 in my list should be classed as Can be Activated. In other words, most abilities in categories 3 and 4 are being shoehorned into categories that they don't properly fit into. Furthermore, it is weird that an ability in a category called Can be Disabled may actually have effects if it is disabled - this is more like switching the ability's effect from one thing to another rather than turning off the ability.

Therefore, I would like to propose the following ability category naming system and descriptions based on the categories of ability that I have established:

1. Trait: This ability is always in effect as a natural part of the Pokemon, even in matches where no ability is specified or in matches where one ability other than this ability is specified.
2. Passive: This ability is always in effect except in matches where no ability is specified or in matches where one ability other than this ability is specified. The ability's effect may always be active or it may be active only under certain circumstances.
3. Auto-activate: This ability's effect happens immediately when the Pokemon is sent out. By spending an action and a certain amount of energy, the Pokemon can trigger this ability's effect again later in the battle.
4. At-will activation: This ability has an effect that can only be activated by spending an action and a certain amount of energy. Abilities in this category may have other effects that work like the effects of Passive abilities.
5. At-will suppression: This ability can be switched on or off by the Pokemon. While the ability is on, its effect works like the effects of Passive abilities; while it is off, it has no effect whatsoever. Abilities in this category specify whether they are on or off by default, but the Pokemon may switch the ability on or off when it is sent out or at the start of any round in which its trainer is ordering first. Switching the ability on or off does not take up an action or cost any energy.
6. Two-effect: This ability has two possible effects that the Pokemon can choose between. Whichever effect is chosen works like the effects of Passive abilities. One effect is specified as the default, but the Pokemon may switch between effects when it is sent out or at the start of any round in which its trainer is ordering first. Switching between effects does not take up an action or cost any energy.

Thoughts guys?

 

[deadfox081]

Honestly I think you're trying to solve a problem by overcomplicating it. The categories you have set out don't really simplify it an awful lot imo.

The majority of abilities, including those in your categories 3 and 4 can be classified as innate but with an inbuilt command. Just because they have the command doesn't mean they aren't innate abilities. I do agree that there is some confusion about Can be Enabled and Disabled abilities but I don't think a major overhaul is needed to fix this. Maybe just a simple clarification of how the ability types are worded and maybe the prose within the descriptions of the abilities themselves which people find to be confusing.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I don't think Objections classifications are ideal but I definitely support the clarification and possible reclassification of abilities with discussion.

 

[ZhengTann]

About Obj's Ability Reclassification: Support with discussion. If deadfox thinks that Obj's nomenclature is a bit too complicated, then how about we redefining what we have:

1. Traits: Reserved for Defeatist, Slow Start, and Truant (or abilities that must take effect even in No Ability matches for the sake of balance).
2. Innate: For Abilities that are always in effect by default, except in No Ability matches.
3. Can Be Activated: For Abilities that can be activated and re-activated given the correct conditions. Such Abilities usually have a time of effect (such as Trace lasting 6 actions), require EN cost, and spending an action except when initially sent out.
4. Can Be Enabled/Disabled: For Abilities that work similar to Can Be Activated, except that these last until Disabled/Enabled respectively, and can only be switched ordering first, without consuming an action.

Under these clarifications, Intimidate, for instance, would probably end up as an Innate ability (all opponents of this Pokemon in battle will suffer a permanent -1 Atk unless switched out or KO'ed). Drizzle, Drought, Sand Stream and Snow Warning would then become Can Be Activated abilities. Rebound could probably be a Can Be Activated ability (lasting 6actions, similar to how Trace worked).



I could go on and on, but the main reason I support Obj's proposal is to highlight another, more ambitious one - Data threads need to undergo a look-over and tidy-up. This has been highlighted a while back (page 36), so why not put this in the soon-to-come mega-global-audit Discussion?

^_^

 

[Objection]

I'd just like to say two things.

Firstly, I picked the name "Passive" over "Innate" because trait and innate are synonymous, which I'm pretty sure caused some minor confusion once. I'll admit that other aspects of my proposed categorisation (including the names of the other categories) could use improvement.

Secondly, I support a look-over and tidy-up of the data threads and would like to see a thread for extended discussion on how we can achieve this goal.

 

[Orcinus Duo]

Ancient used Chill!
+12 EN
Aht used Encore!
Encore doesn't work on commands, dummy
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4688834&postcount=37

This is incredibly, incredibly stupid.

First off, this.

Secondly, why the fuck are people distinguishing between commands and moves they mean the same fucking thing.

 

[Dogfish44]

Ancient used Chill!
+12 EN
Aht used Encore!
Encore doesn't work on commands, dummy
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4688834&postcount=37

This is incredibly, incredibly stupid.

First off, this.

Secondly, why the fuck are people distinguishing between commands and moves they mean the same fucking thing.

Stating for the record that I asked DK about this before I reffed (Otherwise a very different situation was about to arise) - however I'll agree that there are definitely some issues surrounding this =\

 

[Eternal Drifter]

All right... a new council coming up, so I figure I might as well post this request:

Can something be done to improve the Referee Payment System? Currently, it doesn't truely take into account battles that are dragged on, like with two Poke'mon who don't have any real way of attacking (resorting to Toxic Stall), requiring more effort on the Ref to oversee more rounds.

Oh, and in the interest of not having a similar disaster like last time, I will try to avoid participating the discussion.

Seeking Discussion

 

[Houndoomsday]

I'd like to propose a small buff to Aqua Ring: It's really bad right now, as it heals 2 HP/turn for 6 turns. This is less than Recover, and is slower as well.

Possible Solutions

• Longer Duration (12 Actions would heal for 24 HP total, far from unbalanced)
• Larger Healing (3/4 HP/turn brings it to 18/24 HP respectively)

Anyway, Aqua Ring currently is an unviable move, wasting an action, healing for less than Leech Seed and Recover, and a small buff would make it comparable to other healing moves.

 

[Ragnarokalex]

I fully support Houndooms proposal even though i dont know which exactly which route we should go with it offhand, just think we should really discuss it.

 

[Gerard]

How about making it permanent as in game?
There's barely any difference in something lasting 4 rounds and being permanent in one mon since you have to avoid switching, phazing and you must survive enough to make it viable, so gaining 2 hp per turn to no end would only work to an amazing degree in really long battles with bulky mons (in which case toxic would have taken care of any of the targets), it also helps stalling which right now is not really viable when everything has something to hit you SE and can disrupt your strategy the moment they act second

 

[Its_A_Random]

RE: Revisiting the UC Payout System

I do not think now is the best time to review the system tbh. We fixed the DQ Payouts, things are seemingly going swimmingly, & let us be honest. A by-round/action/whatever payout is not going to be popular amongst the general community as realised in the original UC thread, by virtue of the whole "Signing up for a Maths Class" notion. The only real legit thing I could see with the current system is the UC cap on brawls/melees, which is in itself will be controversial. It may be a good time to raise it 6 months from now, but I personally feel it is a little too early to review UC payouts again in my opinion. Opposing this with no discussion needed.

RE: Aqua Ring

I support this notion, but feel a discussion is needed. I am a little sketchy on making it permanent as it stands, but I agree that Aqua Ring is in a little need for a bit of a buff. One good niche I can see is the ability to retain an Endure through Toxic Poison/Burn & partial trappers—And the whole "does not use a recovery move" thing—if that counts for anything (Source), but other than that, Aqua Ring is pretty much a weak move outside of raids. Let us debate on Aqua Ring.

 

[Houndoomsday]

I would not like to see permanent Aqua Ring, as that has the potential to be very abusive; If you activate it turn one on a bulky mon, that has the potential to reach nearly 20 actions with cautious play, obviously not the most exciting match.

Personally, I like the buff to 12 actions: It gives Aqua Ring a more long term feel, and eventually, if you survive, becomes a better option than recover, but at a more gradual rate. I would like to see discussion.