Resource Game Issues and Feedback Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that the new CAP's process is close to completion, I thought I would mention the possibility of giving it Discharge and Acid Armor as special "Event" moves. Both moves were present and usable in its early Showdown! release, but neither one appears in the final movepool.

I don't see this in the handbook is there somewhere else with this info
The accuracy and evasion modifiers are listed with the Speed modifiers in the first post of the Handbook; specifically, they can be found under the "[Status]" header and "[Combat Changes]" subheader. If you still can't find the table, I've reproduced it in this post.
Code:
Stage    Speed        Accuracy    Evasion
+6        * 5.5       * 3         / 3
+5        * 4.75      * 2.76      / 2.76
+4        * 4         * 2.33      / 2.33
+3        * 3.25      * 2         / 2
+2        * 2.5       * 1.67      / 1.67
+1        * 1.75      * 1.33      / 1.33
0         * 1         * 1         * 1
-1        / 1.75      / 1.33      * 1.33
-2        / 2.5       / 1.67      * 1.67
-3        / 3.25      / 2         * 2
-4        / 4         / 2.33      * 2.33
-5        / 4.75      / 2.76      * 2.76
-6        / 5.5       / 3         * 3
 
Given that the new CAP's process is close to completion, I thought I would mention the possibility of giving it Discharge and Acid Armor as special "Event" moves. Both moves were present and usable in its early Showdown! release, but neither one appears in the final movepool.


The accuracy and evasion modifiers are listed with the Speed modifiers in the first post of the Handbook; specifically, they can be found under the "[Status]" header and "[Combat Changes]" subheader. If you still can't find the table, I've reproduced it in this post.
Code:
Stage    Speed        Accuracy    Evasion
+6        * 5.5       * 3         / 3
+5        * 4.75      * 2.76      / 2.76
+4        * 4         * 2.33      / 2.33
+3        * 3.25      * 2         / 2
+2        * 2.5       * 1.67      / 1.67
+1        * 1.75      * 1.33      / 1.33
0         * 1         * 1         * 1
-1        / 1.75      / 1.33      * 1.33
-2        / 2.5       / 1.67      * 1.67
-3        / 3.25      / 2         * 2
-4        / 4         / 2.33      * 2.33
-5        / 4.75      / 2.76      * 2.76
-6        / 5.5       / 3         * 3
This doesn't help since Sand Veil's evasion boost isn't a combat stage. What I mean is that there should be somewhere around there where to add Sand Veil's evasion boost
 

nightblitz42

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
This doesn't help since Sand Veil's evasion boost isn't a combat stage. What I mean is that there should be somewhere around there where to add Sand Veil's evasion boost
Check the most recent post in the Mechanical Ruling Compendium (Policy Center), where it is now written that: unless otherwise specified, multiplication happens before addition.
 
I see a slight issue with the recent ruling that Illusion cannot disguise its user's Item. When using the Ability to imitate a teammate that was already sent out, the simple substitution "[Check at Start of Action] IF NOT [disguise] holds [disguise's Item] a1, begin the action set..." nullifies Illusion's advantage.
 
I see a few issues with sub rules as written, mostly with regard to parts that are not actually written down right now.

First, and this is something I didn't expect to be an issue but I've seen a couple subs written like this so I figure it should be brought up, is what happens when a sub is written to check at multiple times. Specifically, I'm referring to subs with a CASOA attached that also include language like "when you are to act" (which has always been interpreted as equivalent to CASOT). The answer I got when I brought this up on discord from nightblitz was "I guess it's an illegal sub?" which is not a very definitive response, nor do I think it is the best way to address subs like this. I would suggest having subs like this check every time one of these points comes up until the sub is met at one of them, and if the sub is illegal if it checks at one of these points it is just ignored. So in the case of a sub with both CASOA and CASOT, it would first check at the start of the action, and either trigger or not. If it triggers, then it triggers that action. If it does not, then it checks again at start of turn. If the sub is illegal to check at start of turn (e.g. it calls Protect when you're using a 0 prio move) then this check is skipped, otherwise, it can either trigger or not at this point.

The second issue is what happens when a sub gets its necessary conditions fulfilled after it has already checked. In most cases, what happens here is obvious: the sub is ignored because the pokemon in question has already acted, and you can't change an action that already happened. However, there are other cases where it is not so obvious, like in the case of subs of the form "IF you miss THEN push back actions." RAW, this would check at start of turn before you've even used your move, so you don't know if it misses, and then never check again until next action, at which point the "IF you miss" is referring to next action (where you haven't acted yet). This means that sub will never trigger unless you preface it with CA end of turn or something like that. This also has issues with checking to see if you hit yourself in confusion or are fully paralyzed, because right now the PHB says that CASOT subs check before confusion self-hit and paralysis are rolled. I think I remember Jay making a ruling on the latter case on discord at some point, but I don't remember what it was and can't find it right now, so that doesn't help very much. This is also relevant for things like using a sub to use an Emergency Exit counter.

Third, RAW there are no restrictions on when subs can check, and I'm not sure if this is intentional or not. The only case I can think of where this is relevant is with Emergency Exit, because other than the use of an Emergency Exit counter the only things that subs can change are what you do during your turn. However, there is no restriction forcing the use of an Emergency Exit counter to happen only during your turn, so this means subs like "[Check immediately before pivoting effects resolve] IF you have an Emergency Exit counter THEN use an Emergency Exit counter, effect 1" are legal. This lack of restriction on the use of Emergency Exit counters also lends itself to the question, is it legal to, in your main orders, write "[Action 1 move], [Action 2 move], [Action 3 move], Always use an Emergency Exit counter (effect 1) immediately before phasing effects resolve." This will clearly be illegal if you do not have an EE counter, but since using an EE counter without one available is not an action that can be replaced with Struggle, it will just be ignored, much like saying to use a Gem when you aren't holding one. This, if legal, is effectively a way to use an EE counter if you have it no matter what that doesn't cost a sub.

On a note completely unrelated to subs, does anyone else find it weird that EE effect 1 doesn't change turn order? This seems like a random unnecessary nerf to it, since if you use it when you have first order then unless you're pivoting to an already mega evolved Mega Gengar your opponent, as a result of having first order next round, can just switch in response to your pivot, a relatively major downside that no other pivoting effect has.
 
I noticed some significant flaws with Big Root when looking at the Data Audit recently, and I would like to propose a change on the following grounds:
  1. Leech Seed is technically unaffected by Big Root despite its presence in the Item's description; because Leech Seed already restores 100% of the damage it inflicts, Big Root's inbuilt HP ceiling prevents its own effect from working properly.
  2. Big Root incentivizes the use of draining moves but does not do so more meaningfully than do traditional, damage-boosting Items. Considering the metagame average of a two-Rank difference in favor of the attacker, a Big Root-boosted 8 BAP draining move deals 20 damage on a supereffective hit and heals 10 HP, making the Item worth 5 HP per action. However, the same draining move boosted by a Silk Scarf-esque Item deals 24 damage and heals 5 HP, KO'ing an average 90-HP defender one action sooner at the cost of 1 HP per action. Furthermore, the change in Item carries the added advantages of affecting more Moves in the holder's movepool, making a player's strategy less predictable and reducing the impact of factors such as Imprison, Disable/Cursed Body, Counter/Mirror Coat, Liquid Ooze, and the consecutive use penalty; and allows a holder to inflict 30 damage per action with Moves that share a draining move's Type, such as Close Combat, Solar Beam, and Megahorn, when needed.
  3. Unlike its on-cartridge counterpart, Big Root does not affect Aqua Ring, Ingrain, and Strength Sap.
My suggestion is as follows.
Big Root (New) said:
HP gained from the moves Absorb, Leech Life, Mega Drain, Giga Drain, Leech Seed, Drain Punch, Dream Eater, Horn Leech, Draining Kiss, Oblivion Wing, Parabolic Charge, Aqua Ring, Ingrain, and Strength Sap is increased by 20% (rounded up), with no maximum healing for those moves.
Against an average, 8-Attack/6-Defense opponent, this new Big Root offers 24-HP Leech Seeds, 30-HP Aqua Rings, and 20-HP Strength Saps while adding 8 HP per action to the value of draining moves. While this is a large boost for draining moves, many Pokemon are either only capable of learning one such move or limited to one such move in a given matchup due to their rare overlap in type-effectiveness, reducing the overall effectiveness of a strategy centered around these moves due to the factors I mentioned in my justification. Also noteworthy is Power Weight's superiority in buffing Aqua Ring, Ingrain, and Strength Sap, as it means that this Big Root would not outclass other Items in plans involving these moves.
 

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
If I'm reminded I'll provide a full mathematical explanation for this when I'm less busy, but I'm entirely against buffing Big Root in any way, shape, or form. The item already gets enough value related to other items in the game, and in a fashion that already can hinge on oppressive for the same reasons I had to nerf Draining Moves as a category in the first place. The quickest thing that I can point out about your math in this comparison is that it fails to adequately represent the strength of healing on bulkier Pokemon (the targeted audience of recovery itemization) as well as the fact that there are plenty of commonly used Pokemon above 90 HP who thus don't have a kill time difference based on item there. Raw DPS increasing items are supposed to have different optimal use cases than recovery/defensive/etc items, and that is currently fulfilled already.

I will, however, trim the fat from the description and remove Leech Seed as it is no longer supposed to be affected by the item, and as said above, I see no reason to buff this item at all.

----------------

Specifically, I'm referring to subs with a CASOA attached that also include language like "when you are to act" (which has always been interpreted as equivalent to CASOT).
I'm going to rule that these subs are entirely illegal. It's an unfriendly ruling, but I think it's better than having unintuitive writing solving out to a desirable outcome. A person on the outside should be able to read that without needing a ruling clarification that says "ignore one of these clauses," and to achieve that end, cases of conflicting clauses should just end in "illegal." This also keeps everything in line with the state of the anti-pedant clause, which is to say that ruling otherwise would imply that there are okay writings for logically inequivalent statements. That just should never be the case.

To be clear: Using CASOA/CASOT is fine. Using both (or equivalent terminology) together is not. If a substitution has ambiguity in its trigger timing, it simply will not trigger.

--------------

The second issue is what happens when a sub gets its necessary conditions fulfilled after it has already checked. In most cases, what happens here is obvious: the sub is ignored because the Pokemon in question has already acted, and you can't change an action that already happened. However, there are other cases where it is not so obvious, like in the case of subs of the form "IF you miss THEN push back actions."
This is actually a very good hole in the substitution rules that I'm surprised hasn't been noticed sooner. Simply put, this type of case does require some new writing. I'll drop a tentative new rule to add to the Chance Clauses section (seems correctly fitting, checking for the result of your own actions). There is already a rule there for checking the result of actions, it just needs to be modified slightly.

If a Pokemon's substitution checks for the result of its own turn that action, that substitution is checked following their turn.
-------------

The only case I can think of where this is relevant is with Emergency Exit, because other than the use of an Emergency Exit counter the only things that subs can change are what you do during your turn. However, there is no restriction forcing the use of an Emergency Exit counter to happen only during your turn
This issue actually rises not from the issue with the rule about substitution trigger timing, as that is intentional, but rather from the fact that Emergency Exit's effect was sloppily copied from the writing of Eject Button. As such, it's actually missing the trigger timing control that is present in Eject Button, and I will be adding that to the ability.

For reference:
Commanded - [Upon being hit by insert move or insert opponent or Any Move THEN Activate Eject Button, Effect 1 or 2]
This above command format can be done without consuming a substitution slot.
 
I'd like to suggest changing the combo classes of a couple of moves.

1. Sucker Punch: Currently, this move is categorized as "Body, Cunning - Arm," likely due to the presence of the word "punch" in its name. However, the attack is learned by many Pokemon that have no feasible method of punching, such as Stunfisk, Honchkrow, and Dugtrio, and its Japanese name simply means "surprise attack." Therefore, I think that Sucker Punch should be given the "All" Combo Subclass to better reflect the various anatomies of its users.
2. Grudge: The fact that Grudge cannot be combined with Destiny Bond, a thematically and mechanically similar move with which it shares a Type, a trigger condition, a Category, a Z-Move Effect, and an on-cartridge PP number is unusual. Adding the "Witchcraft" Combo Class to Grudge would solve this issue nicely.
 

nightblitz42

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I'd like to suggest changing the combo classes of a couple of moves.

1. Sucker Punch: Currently, this move is categorized as "Body, Cunning - Arm," likely due to the presence of the word "punch" in its name. However, the attack is learned by many Pokemon that have no feasible method of punching, such as Stunfisk, Honchkrow, and Dugtrio, and its Japanese name simply means "surprise attack." Therefore, I think that Sucker Punch should be given the "All" Combo Subclass to better reflect the various anatomies of its users.
2. Grudge: The fact that Grudge cannot be combined with Destiny Bond, a thematically and mechanically similar move with which it shares a Type, a trigger condition, a Category, a Z-Move Effect, and an on-cartridge PP number is unusual. Adding the "Witchcraft" Combo Class to Grudge would solve this issue nicely.
1. I carefully considered the Combo Classes for Sucker Punch when I first made the table. It is true that according to the Japanese source material, it is a generic sneak attack. However, BBP is played in English, where having feasible Combos like [Sucker Punch + Low Kick] just looks really bad. I'm not a fan of expanding the Combo Classes for that one.
2. Great catch. Cursing subclass was intended to be linked to Witchcraft class, this appears to be an oversight. I will update it shortly.
 
1. I carefully considered the Combo Classes for Sucker Punch when I first made the table. It is true that according to the Japanese source material, it is a generic sneak attack. However, BBP is played in English, where having feasible Combos like [Sucker Punch + Low Kick] just looks really bad. I'm not a fan of expanding the Combo Classes for that one.
That's a fair point, and I'm glad to hear that such issues were given an appropriate degree of thought, but I would argue that preventing armless Pokemon from using Sucker Punch in combos because they would have to throw a punch is an equally bad optics problem. How about just adding "Head," "Mouth," and "Wing" subclasses? That would still show that the attack is performed with the upper body while making allowances for decent analogues to arms or hands for certain body types.
 

F Amadon

formerly Florina Liastacia
is a Pre-Contributor
Give us ingame writing for every move blocked by Protect/Substitute and so on. Not just "open Bulbapedia". Add it as another thing on the NDA like "Effect Chance", "Tags", "Magic Bounce/Coat". also update the bot Jay
 
If an item is removed by Sticky Barb does that count as being knocked off, or is that only with the move Knock Off? There should probably be an official ruling on this before it's actually relevant in a TLG, considering Eject Button only triggers if "the item wasn't knocked off".

Also someone should probably change Frisk's description so the example item for rank increases not being negated is something that still actually exists, like Choice Band or Choice Specs, instead of Rare Candy.
 
Last edited:
Adding onto epicdrill's point, it might be worthwhile to fold Corrosive Gas into any Knock Off-related exemptions and rulings because that move would produce identical results when used in combos.
 

Mowtom

I'm so meta, even this acronym!
is a Community Contributor
RAW, Magic Guard and Cleanse Tag do not seem to protect against Rocky Helmet damage. Also, using a recoil move into a substitute prevents recoil damage, but it seems like Rocky Helmet damage still occurs. To what extent is this intentional?
 
Could I interest anyone in buffing Jaboca Berry and Rowap Berry to return 25% of oncoming attacks' damage per use instead of inflicting a flat 5 damage? As both Berries deal the same amount of damage on-cartridge as does Rocky Helmet, a change to preserve this symmetry would be nice.
 
Could I interest anyone in buffing Jaboca Berry and Rowap Berry to return 25% of oncoming attacks' damage per use instead of inflicting a flat 5 damage? As both Berries deal the same amount of damage on-cartridge as does Rocky Helmet, a change to preserve this symmetry would be nice.
In this situation I'd actually say that I don't think I agree with this one. If we change things to have Jaboca and Rowap to be 25%, then Jaboca becomes strictly worse than Rocky Helmet. Even if the berries do less recoil damage on a good amount of attacks, I think having the flat 5 damage allows them to be used in different cases, such as countering weaker attacking options.

I wouldn't be opposed to a different buff, but I think that changing Jaboca to 25% makes it nothing but a worse Rocky Helmet which is not ideal in my eyes.
 

TMan87

We shall bow to neither master nor god
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Wouldn't Jaboca still have a niche since it triggers on any physical move and not only contact, which would allow it to deter eg Earthquake?
 
Actually I hadn't really considered that, that's very true, it would deter Earthquake and co. could be unique in that way, a Rocky Helmet with a wider scope but limited uses.
 
Yeah; TMan87 already covered the thrust of my response, but I'd like to mention that current Jaboca Berry is still a generally worse Rocky Helmet despite having a fixed damage output. Returning 50%+ of a resisted U-turn or Knock Off is really nice, but the value of a Jaboca Berry is still only 15 damage across a match. Meanwhile, Rocky Helmet is usually worth around 24 damage and is much more useful if the chip damage situations that favor Jaboca Berry are used as a tool to switch to a physically biased power hitter.
 

F Amadon

formerly Florina Liastacia
is a Pre-Contributor


I hate you



So, new players don't really have a good pipeline to getting into BBP. They do their first fight with 1*s, and then they have to do another fight with 1*s because no one owns 2*s, and then they have to do 3*s battles with very little practical experience. Adding onto this fact, most gameplay is in facilities, which new people can't ref, meaning their limited JC pool is hard to replenish; battles in the Battle Tower are rarely posted, and quickly snatched up to ref when they are posted. So there's two solutions to two problems in this post (and a bonus one in parenthesis):

(Make Battle Tower more appealing to fight in so that there's reason to do it, while nerfing self-refs so we don't just set those up on Discord for juicy Counters)

Trainer School™️ and the return of Reffing101!

First, because it's short, Reffing101 was suggested to have a truncated run through; give a few ordersets in DMs to the person taking the test, and see if they can solve them. If they can, boom, passed! They can now run facilities if they pass Reffing101 and Trainer School. Alternatively, if we get more Battle Tower matches, we could do it the old-fashioned way.

As for Trainer School, it's yet another facility, but this one is engineered to help teach new players. Rather than using their own mons, they use rental teams (as if they were a Realgam ref, but fully predetermined), and fight rental teams that are developed to teach certain mechanics against a certain team (for example, if the challenger picks Team 1: Swampert, Metagross, Cinderace, they always face team Machamp, Excadrill, Greninja these are random mons please don't hurt me); for example
  • Swampert and Machamp teach about CounterCoat, and how to get around it: Swampert can do IF Fighting-type move THEN Counter, but then Machamp can Focus Blast, while Machamp can do a similar sub but then be gotten around by similar moves.
  • Metagross can teach about combos (such as the recently displayed Rock Slide+Stealth Rocks it can do), as can Excadrill with its access to an OHKO combo (which also teaches about Cooldown for those), as well as Protect for such combos.
  • Cinderace and Greninja can teach about subbing against type-changers, such as "IF Fire-type THEN Hydro Pump". (Hey, for random Pokemon, that kinda worked out)
Give this decent rewards for the ref and a couple different teams and new players will have the ability to learn from experienced players. Give enough TC to get a team of 2*s to 3* so that new players can do 1* battle into Trainer School into the real game. Make the teams new-player-favored so that they have a good shot at winning once they figure out the important mechanics; and once they've beaten and graduated from Trainer School, they can challenge TLG/Tournaments.
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I have been assigned the task of defining moves that bypass Protect and Substitute, as well as what constitutes move failure for the purposes of Stomping Tantrum.

Protect and Substitute
At present, players are directed to the Bulbapedia lists for moves that penetrate Protect and Substitute when handling interactions with these moves. Given that these are two of the primary methods of defense in BBP at large, these interacts come up often. People have a vested interest in defeating these moves when facing them, and in these moves holding fast when they're the user.

This makes inconsistency between the Data Audit, the bot commands, and the wiki a constant source of friction that impacts every single high-stakes match in the game, every game. Even lower-stakes matches like facilities are worsened by this inconsistency. So, the decision has been reached to make a formal list of penetrating moves for each of these defenses... But which moves, and how to choose them? That's where the feedback comes in here, in deciding between the following options:

1) Defining bypassing moves with a set of rules.

This option entails defining a short list of rules that define groups of moves as ignoring Protect and Substitute when used. This already occurs on some level with the current method. For example, all moves tagged #Sound will ignore Substitute, and all full-trapping moves ignore Protect. But there are odd moves out that this method doesn't cover (such as Role Play) that this leaves out, and deciding whether to stick to pure rules-based logic or having an additional set of specifically named bypassing moves becomes messy quickly.

Moves such as these would need to be mentioned by name in the description of Protect, bloating the description unpleasantly. There are moves whose effect text states that they ignore protect, such as Phantom Force and Feint, but having a dozen situational moves carry this property without mentioning them in the effect text of Protect makes for both nasty surprises in crucial rounds of a match, and necessitates awkward find-in-page searching of the Data Audit move list to properly assess the opponent's options.

2) Maintaining a discrete list of bypassing moves.

This entails keeping a post listing all moves that bypass Protect, Substitute, or both in an official capacity somewhere. Relevant effect text on Protect and Substitute would be amended to link to these lists, and the posts would be kept current through the march of generations by moderators. This settles all disputes on the matter by putting a move's status as bypassing or non-bypassing on public display for all to see. This method ensures the possibility of full in-game accuracy as well.

However, directing players to an additional reference, even one we maintain ourselves, retains an element of friction compared to looking up the details of any other move in the game. This runs the possibility of being arbitrary and difficult to remember, as difficult at least as remembering the list as it exists on an external wiki.

Move Failure, Results, and Stomping Tantrum
The move Stomping Tantrum should provide a powerful method to punish disruptive moves like Taunt, as well as a tool for use in clever ways such as after a waking Snore. Defining a list of situations that enable Stomping Tantrum's damage bonus, and a list of situations that do not, would in theory do the job of allowing players to play with the unique effect of the move.

However, attempting to create such a list quickly turns into an ever-expanding list of edge cases and exceptions. For example, missing a crash move (e.g. Jump Kick) counts as successful execution as per Smogon research and thus does not boost Stomping Tantrum, but our effect text for Stomping Tantrum itself explicitly states "failed or missed". In-game, Taunting a Taunted foe would cause the boost to occur next turn, but we have no rule in place that would cause a status move to explicitly Fail when it has no effect on the game state.

Creating a short section in the Handbook that spells out what it means to attempt a move, execute a move, for a move to succeed or fail, and so on; would allow us to clean up Stomping Tantrum and many effects like it, to something resembling the following:
Stomping Tantrum
The user stomps on the ground in rage, striking the opponent in the process. If the user's last executed move failed or missed (except if it was blocked, or if the user crashed), this move has 15 BAP instead of 8.
Fly (Evasive)
Has 4 BAP instead of 9 and costs 11 EN, but gains Damaging Evasive properties. Gust, Hurricane, Sky Uppercut, Smack Down, Thunder, Twister, and Whirlwind ignore Fly's evasive properties and cannot miss the user during the evasive phase. Smack Down and Gravity will cause the user to crash to the ground, cancelling Fly without move failure and making the user take (2 * Weight Class + 4) crash damage. Gust, Twister, and Whirlwind will make Fly miss when used during the evasive stage, but will not deal crash damage.
Protean
By default, this Pokemon switches their type upon executing a damaging attack to match the type of attack they are about to use, and keep that type until another damaging move is used or until they switch out.
Having language that clarifies if being fully paralyzed, recovering a combo that induces Cooldown, or if being Grounded during Fly counts as move failure, and whether it counts as the move being executed, can help clear up many corner cases in the rules. But this is a huge undertaking given the sheer amount of effect text in the Data Audit, and we could expect to be cleaning up "old text" for many years to come. Looping back to Stomping Tantrum, the only thing it wants from us for now is a couple bullet points in the Handbook defining move failure.

***

These two tasks are what I'll be working on after I finish up the February event and launch it. Until then, I'll be happy to hear any thoughts on them.
 
Last edited:

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
smaller one: would anyone complain if I made light metal/heavy metal flat additive WC changes

For reference, the current old and new weights:
Mon
:scizor:Scizor​
:scizor-mega:Mega Scizor​
:beldum:Beldum​
:metang:Metang​
:metagross:Metagross​
:metagross-mega:Mega Metagross​
:registeel:Registeel​
:aron:Aron​
:lairon:Lairon​
:aggron:Aggron​
:aggron-mega:Mega Aggron​
:bronzor:Bronzor​
:bronzong:Bronzong​
:duraludon:Duraludon​
:naviathan:Naviathan​
:aurumoth:Aurumoth​
Ability
Light​
Light​
Light​
Light​
Light​
Light​
Light​
Heavy​
Heavy​
Heavy​
Heavy​
Heavy​
Heavy​
Both​
Light​
Light​
Normal WC
5​
5​
4​
6​
9​
11​
6​
4​
5​
8​
8​
4​
5​
3​
9​
5​
Modified WC
4​
4​
3​
5​
7​
9​
5​
5​
6​
10​
11​
5​
8​
Special​
7​
4​
Difference
-1​
-1​
-1​
-1​
-2​
-2​
-1​
+1​
+1​
+2​
+3​
+1​
+3​
Special​
-2​
-1​

i propose Light Metal (and float stone) becomes -2 final WC, and Heavy Metal becomes +2 or +3 final WC (whichever people agree on)
 
Last edited:
I'm partial to +3 WC for Heavy Metal. Heavy Slam needs no further nerf by lightening its primary users, and—as illustrated in the chart—the Ability already amounts to a 3-WC boost in practical situations; because Aggronite is practically mandatory when using Aggron, and because no one really uses Duraludon, the likelihood of seeing a smaller boost from Heavy Metal is low.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top