Resource Game Issues and Feedback Thread

On-cartridge, Embargo prevents an afflicted Pokemon from benefitting from Bag Items used by its trainer. Can we replicate that effect here? Planning for certain Realgam Tower scenarios can be somewhat difficult due to the presence of 1-2 Super Potions, and it would would be nice to have some sort of counterplay.
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Uncertain. Those bag items are meant to strengthen the trainers in the face of their teams being public and counter-teamable. The counterplay as it currently exists is to take advantage of the turn spent not attacking to continue applying pressure.

Any questions on them should probably be run by Mowtom, the current Realgam Leader, since her facility is the only one open now that allows bag items at all.
 
Uncertain. Those bag items are meant to strengthen the trainers in the face of their teams being public and counter-teamable. The counterplay as it currently exists is to take advantage of the turn spent not attacking to continue applying pressure.
That's a fair point. However, the act of using Embargo in this capacity still involves sacrificing an action that could be used on the counterplay you mention, which often amounts to slightly more value then Embargo offers when weighed against from a Bag Item's effect, so it's not exactly a free win. Moreover, because Embargo does not persist through switches, a ref is still free to use these Items on a benched Pokemon.

LouisCyphre said:
Any questions on them should probably be run by Mowtom, the current Realgam Leader, since her facility is the only one open now that allows bag items at all.
Hmm. I could've sworn that there were once discussions of a Legend Gauntlet arena that used Bag Items; otherwise, I definitely would have contacted Realgam's management directly.
 
I was going through the Data Audit when I noticed that Prismatic Laser is the only move with the "Light" combo class and Jump Kick is the only move to have the "Kick" subclass- is this intentional?
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
my badge allows me to double post outside of battle

1657105472890.png


Where would players want us mods to air ideas that, usually, get scraped or otherwise never see the light of day just so we can gauge people's opinions on them?
 
Where would players want us mods to air ideas that, usually, get scraped or otherwise never see the light of day just so we can gauge people's opinions on them?
I suppose this could be implemented as a suggestions thread since there doesn't seem to be anything of the sort at the moment. What did you mean by "double post outside of battle"?
 
I see both positives and downsides to having each of a thread here and a place on discord for it tbh. The most notable downside of having it here is people tend to not be very responsive to ideas/policy changes floated here, at least compared to on discord, so I expect you would get a lot more feedback having things on discord. On the other hand, not everyone here is on discord, so putting it on discord would prevent them from giving feedback, and in addition things get lost a lot more easily on discord so you'd effectively restrict the feedback to being from people who are online at the time you're asking. Additionally, discord is not great for providing super in-depth feedback the way you can through a forum post. I think the best solution might be a combination of both tbh, you can use discord to get people's initial impressions and if people have more in-depth feedback that they don't want to vanish into a massive backlog of chatting that gives them the opportunity to bring it up on the forum.
 

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Where would players want us mods to air ideas that, usually, get scraped or otherwise never see the light of day just so we can gauge people's opinions on them?
wait this means im gonna have to start explaining the thoughts that i have privately and inevitably rid myself of? ight bet

As for where I think it should go, this thread is probably the most apt place for it. No need to create additional threads, this is the Feedback thread after all. No one said that we can't also post just our own thoughts here and/or use it to fish for more easily trackable opinions on hot topics either internally or personally.
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
okay I know this question gets asked about once every three times it comes up, but when does a charge move like Solar Blade expend EN, at the start? It's not in the PHB (at least not when I searched "charge")
To clarify this: A multi-part move expends energy only when the move is actually executed. Interrupted charge moves, or other moves prevented from executing (such as flinching) currently don't spend Energy unless they specifically say otherwise.
 
I'm not sure where this goes since technically people could change this if they want, but it's about what's currently viewed as default, so I guess I'll put it here?

There are significant problems with how subs work in doubles+ matches. Most of these problems arise from subs mostly being designed around singles, but I also think it would be worth considering increasing the default substitution limit in doubles in general. My rationale for this is simple: in singles, you have 3 subs applied to one mon to deal with one pokemon's movepool. In doubles, each pokemon gets 3 subs, but you have two movepools to deal with. And while you could argue that the number of subs doubles (in that you now get 6 subs total), the fact that you have to split these subs as 3 to each pokemon means that's not effectively true, since any threats you want to sub for often need to be subbed for twice, once by each pokemon. In addition, sub eaters in doubles are much more common than sub eaters in singles, by virtue of the fact that the best strategy in doubles is usually to focus down one pokemon, meaning Protect goes from spending a bunch of EN to nullify a single action to an automatic +1 turn and therefore a mandatory sub for both pokemon in most cases.

This is in addition to the fact that sub rules are clearly designed for singles, which is made obvious when playing doubles. It is unclear with sub rules as written if "IF X is targeted by/under the effects of Protect" is a legal sub in doubles, which if it is not would make passed protect substantially harder to sub against, as well as necessitating spending 2 subs on any other sub-eaters that both opponents have. In addition, if you want to split the targets of your moves (which is admittedly rare unless you're trying to secure an A1 KO), the fact that "redirect to the other pokemon" is not a legal action clause and "your target is to use Protect" is also of questionable legality for the same reason "IF X is targeted by/under the effects of Protect" is (there is nothing in sub rules stating what makes an action clause legal or not with regard to specifying which pokemon is using the move in question) means you need even more subs just for Protect.

While it is sometimes possible for a single thing you want to sub for to be covered by one sub from a single mon, usually this is not the case, especially if it threatens both pokemon. Thus, limiting doubles to 3 subs per pokemon instead of more (I'm not sure if 4 or 5 would be more appropriate, I'd be inclined to test with 4 first and see how that works) leaves what can be done with subs much more limited than in singles. It is possible this is fixable by reviewing sub rules to make them more doubles-friendly instead of increasing the number of subs per pokemon, and ideally that would be the first solution tried, but that is also substantially more work than just increasing the default sub limit in doubles matches.
Sub rules still suck for doubles+, can we please do something about this? I don't think subs need a major overhaul to fix the most egregious issues, I think there is only one construction that needs to be added to make doubles more playable: "IF any opponent is to use X", where X is any otherwise legal attack clause (or combined attack and chance clause, like successful use of a move). This is necessary so that we don't have to spend 2 subs per mon on sub eaters that both opponents have. This includes things like Ally Switch and, if the opponent is faster, passed Protect. Having to spend 2 subs per pokemon to defend against one move, even if both opponents have it, puts way too much pressure on first order, especially when one of the sub eaters that we're referring to here is a universal TM. Sub eaters in doubles+ already put more pressure on second order, because you need to spend the same proportion of your subs - one for each of your pokemon - but there are two pokemon to provide those sub eaters instead of just 1. Preventing opponents from essentially "doubling up" on sub eaters by using two mons with the same sub eater would alleviate this a lot, and it would mean that if an opponent wants to double up on sub eaters they'd need to find mons with two different sub eaters.

In addition, I don't think it's reasonable to have the same number of subs for singles as it is for doubles. While in theory the two pokemon to respond can answer the movepools of the two pokemon that are attacking, in practice this is not the case because a lot of moves (such as Protect, or threatening damaging combos, which are both much more important subs in doubles than in singles) take a sub from each pokemon to prevent, so that one move is eating 2 subs instead of 1, and there are still two pokemon to sub against. Some of this will be alleviated by the first change I suggested, because then the move, when present in both opponents' movepools, will eat 2 subs instead of 4, but I still don't think that alone will be enough to alleviate the excessive pressure on first order. I think the default number of subs for doubles+ should be increased to 4, so that first order will have less pressure and so that the format is less biased in favour of second order first round.

There are a few other changes that I think might be worth considering (not necessarily worth implementing), but are much less important in terms of making the format reasonable. These changes are mostly making constructions like "redirect to X", "redirect to the other opponent", and "IF your target is to use X" legal to use in subs. I'm mostly just mentioning these because they cover some of the issues I raised in my original post on this topic, and tbh the more that I think about these changes the less I support them, mostly because they have very limited use cases relative to the previous change I mentioned.
 
I wanted to bring up the fact that Sucker Punch is not a punch move, but it has the Arm Combo Subclass. I would like to request it to be changed to All or something like what happened with Brick Break (consisting of many different Combo Subclasses that could possibly fit depending on the user).
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Sub Rules for Doubles: Experimentally implemented here.
Sucker Punch: Answered here.

***

We're coming closer (but not immediately close) to a proper Pike launch. I'll be watching it closely even when it does launch for hotfixing; but I'd like to run it through a sanity check with players before I open it.

If you have the time and inclination, I'd be tickled if you'd give the thread a look-over and send me your thoughts, either by forum DM or on the Discord. For the time being, I'll also happily answer any questions pertaining to Pike in this thread, including design decisions.

You can find the Battle Pike thread in this link.
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
current speed tie rules:
When two Pokemon have the same speed stat and both use a move in the same priority bracket, the turn order is decided based on the following rules:
  • If one move has a lower energy cost than the other, the user of the lower energy move acts first.
  • If both moves share an energy cost, but one move shares a type with its user, while the other does not, the user of the move that shares a type with its user acts first.
  • If neither of the above conditions are met, the turn order is decided randomly.
proposed speed tie rules:
When two Pokemon have the same speed stat and both use a move in the same priority bracket, the Pokemon whose orders were posted earlier will move earlier.
This proposal is off-the-cuff, but ensures that only one tie-breaking rule will *ever* be needed. After all, it's not possible (or at least, not legal) to post two Pokemon's orders "together" -- even in the same post in Doubles, one Pokemon's orders will come before the other.

If you see any possible way to abuse these, let me know. I feel like second order is still favored in speed ties even if first order is given this niche advantage.
 
Grass Knot - DAT said:
The user manipulates the grass and underbrush in an area, sending the target crashing to the ground. Heavier targets will take more damage from this attack. A Grass-type Pokemon may use their own vine, root, or leafy appendage to use this move, but other users will have to rely on any available plant-life. If there is none available, this move will fail.
Do we still care about the bolded portion of Grass Knot's description?
 

Mowtom

I'm so meta, even this acronym!
is a Community Contributor
Data Audit entry for Freeze said:
If the Pokemon uses one of the following moves, Freeze ends:
Blast Burn, Blue Flare, Eruption, Flame Charge, Flame Wheel, Flare Blitz, Fusion Flare, Inferno, Lava Plume, Magma Storm, Overheat, Sacred Fire, Scald, Searing Shot or V-Create.
Bulbapedia article for Freeze said:
A frozen Pokémon can still use the moves Flame Wheel, Sacred Fire, Flare Blitz, Fusion Flare, Scald, Steam Eruption, Burn Up, Pyro Ball, and Scorching Sands while frozen; these moves will thaw the user, then execute normally.
These lists are shockingly different from each other!

Ingame but not in BBP, Burn Up, Pyro Ball, Scorching Sands, and Steam Eruption will thaw the user.

In BBP but not ingame, Blast Burn, Blue Flare, Eruption, Flame Charge, Inferno, Lava Plume, Magma Storm, Overheat, Searing Shot, and V-Create will thaw the user.

Freeze having counterplay is good, my preferred solution to this is to add the Bulbapedia moves to BBP without taking any away. Thoughts?
 

LouisCyphre

heralds disaster.
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I'm noticing an uptick in KO subs even in singles, so as to not waste En if the enemy faints before your turn.

This seems like annoying busywork to require of players every single round. Do people want "If all of your targets are gone, then do nothing" to become the default behavior? It would rarely become optimal compared to picking the setup move of your choice, but it's probably preferred compared to doing nothing.
 

F Amadon

formerly Florina Liastacia
is a Pre-Contributor
I know you want us to actually be active in these threads, so

Yeah, let us KO sub if we want to get a free move off or something, and it's not like people are often subbing for it if they have other real things to sub for, but it is busywork.
 

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
To note that wasting an opponent's EN by KOing yourself early (saccing/Memento and co) could still have a use.
Is that use a sufficient counterargument? I doubt it, but it exists.
 

Mowtom

I'm so meta, even this acronym!
is a Community Contributor
Will I ever stop harping on this? Maybe. But not today!

The Handbook said:
If a substitution includes any Attack Clauses, at least one of them has to be "positive" (e.g. "IF Taunt AND NOT Encore next action" is legal, but not "IF (chance clauses) AND NOT Move")
The purpose of this rule is to stop players from hiding their main orders in their subs and thus getting multiple uses out of the same sub slot, as per this discord discussion:


This rule does absolutely nothing to prevent the subs it is intended to prevent, and also blocks lots of subs that would otherwise be perfectly fine.

See here and here for (recent!) examples of the first claim. Eve could sub against me using Substitute, Skill Swap, and Imprison using only two sub slots thanks to her use of chance clauses and an "If Gardevoir is to use a damaging Fairy-type move", and epic could sub against GT using Torment or Smack Down by making a sub that literally always activates.

For the second claim, consider subs like "IF you are burned AND NOT foe is to use Encore next action THEN Psycho Shift". This is clearly not trying to smuggle main orders into a sub, and yet is made illegal by the current rule.

I understand that no way of doing sub rules will be perfect, but surely we can do better than this? Please? And if we can't, maybe at least delete the rule that isn't doing anything for us?
 
Last edited:

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

Top