Resource Game Issues and Feedback Thread

[epicdrill]

The only way I see to actually fully fix that is to remove the "subs can only activate if the result is legally usable" rule, which would mean that those subs turn into Struggle instead of activating. However, that was the case in the past, and it would be worth looking at why that was changed in the first place (I don't actually remember the rationale) to see if the cure might be worse than the disease.

Either way, I think the rule Mow quoted should probably be removed. It's not really doing anything to help us deal with what it's supposed to, and outside of what it's supposed to deal with it seems like an arbitrary restriction that just blocks subs that really should be legal.

 

[Mowtom]

The cure would be worse that the disease, I really don't want to have to add "and you are not taunted" to every sub that calls for a status move.

 

[Dogfish44]

• Clauses that use an inequality related to any quantity associated with a Pokemon. Quantity is defined by something numeric, such as current HP or EN, or the current combat stage of a stat.
• The above includes inequalities that compare quantities of Pokemon, such as if the difference between two Pokemon's HP is more than 25.
• Clauses that check for the existence of an Ability(ies) or Type(s) on a Pokemon.
• Clauses that check for the existence of a status condition on a Pokemon. Status conditions are as defined in the Status section of the Handbook, whether it is Major or Minor.
• Clauses that check for the existence of an effect on the Battlefield, such as screens (Reflect, Light Screen, Aurora Veil) and hazards (Stealth Rock, Spikes, etc)
• Clauses that check for the result of a move, such as whether or not the move landed a Critical Hit or if the move hit/missed.
• Any clauses that mentions a successful use of a move (moves can succeed even if they miss) is both a Chance Clause and a Attack Clause
• Clauses that check for being in-between phases of any Damaging Evasive Move is both a Chance Clause and a Attack Clause

Chance Clauses need a minor update so that they can check for "Move Effects" - as it stands in a technical sense, it is not possible to substitute around Cursed Body (Since 'Disabled' is listed as a Move Effect, and not as a "Major or Minor Status Effect").

In addition... a shitton of things technically need to be moved to the same tab to allow for stuff to be technically subbed for? Stuff like "If you are Tormented" currently isn't legal (you can sub for the successful use of Torment, but that's an entirely different substitution in some cases).

 

[TMan87]

Hear, hear!
This thread is a nice tool for players to point out things that need examination and perhaps change, but posts might be stranded and forgotten here, only brought to light again the day Lou unearths them.
This is not an optimal way to function, to say the least.

As such, we would like to designate a Feedback Head to help us in this task, in the same way a Head Approver exists.
The roles of that person would be to gather what has been posted (say, over the course of a month), curate it, order it in nice little bullet points and send that to the mod team (and particularly Lou/Jay) for an easier time resolving each issue. This is very administrative work (essentailly sorting and filing complaints), so be wary that it's probably not glamorous.

If you are interested in the role please shoot a DM or ping on Discord!

 

[Ooraloo]

I know Detect + Double Team is dying in Gen 9 because we're killing Double Team, but I still think we should change Detect's combo class so that it can't be comboed with Teleport.

 

[P2X7]

Hot take: the Detect + Double Team combo is the only aspect of either move that can be fairly considered "busted." We shouldn't sacrifice a unique defensive option to remedy this issue, especially as part of an update focused on encouraging strategies other than brute force damage races; instead of reducing Double Team to an Evasion stage boost, let's give it a Combo Type of "None."

 

[LouisCyphre]

counter hot take: SC/VI are out in less than a month and BBP will update shortly after. not much point in making a patch for a version of a game whose lifespan is less than a typical match.

also, one of the largest points of the update was to bring in more large haymaker effects to replace the ones we've killed over the years.

 

[P2X7]

The counter-take's fair enough, but I shall note that the recent ideas can still be considered for a post-update BBP.

I don't know what "large haymaker" is supposed to mean, but I'm not sure that you're talking to me, either.

 

[LouisCyphre]

while I'm writing the following rules section:

Excerpt from the new handbook

I'd like to hear everyone's biggest formatting pet peeves. Move lists, reffing formats, or whatever. Things outside of the gameplay elements, that make interpreting a battle thread a pain in the ass.

if enough people don't like something, we might consider outlawing it. and even if only some people don't like something, we might caution against it in the handbook.

 

[Mowtom]

Can move lists please be sorted in a sensible manner? Alphabetically, by category, by level of acquisition all sound fine to me, but currently a player is allowed to send their moves through a list randomizer which would make it hell to read through. And it shouldn't be allowed to be in nested hide tags, either.

How would people feel about a rule "reposting profiles must be done as part of another post, not a post of its own"? This is definitely a pet peeve of mine, it makes my facility threads longer and less elegant.

 

[Ooraloo]

In addition to bolding game orders to separate it from flavor, I think we should encourage people to make sure that game orders appear at the bottom of each post. If someone posts a send-out or orders in the middle of a big flavor block, it can get a bit annoying even if they're bolded, since players/refs generally look to the bottoms of their opponents' posts when formulating orders/reffings. If it's important to have flavor after orders in your post, they should have a summary at the bottom where their orders are re-posted without flavor. This example isn't egregious or anything, but it was slightly confusing to have a benched Pokemon listed after the sent out Pokemon.

Also, reffings should be required to include benched Pokemon that have been sent out before and aren't KOed.

Agree with Mowtom that we shouldn't put non-flavor things in extra hide tags in a Pokemon's profile.

A more nitpicky thing that I'm wondering if anyone else agrees with me: I think sprites in a Pokemon's profile should be actual sprites, or at least sprite-sized. As a ref, it's nice to be able to copy/paste the sprite that the flavor provides in my reffing, but if the player provides art that's too big then it would be disruptive to include it in my reffing.

Like this "sprite" is just too big:

I'd like for everyone to use an "official-ish" sprite (which includes the sprites from the BW Smogon sprite project, CAP sprites that lost the vote, or recolors of sprites), but people like having individuality or something so I'd be happy with making sure that sprites are a reasonable size.

 

[TheEver]

Posting to state my encouragement for a "standardization" of profiles. I don't think everyone's needs to be completely identical, but there should be a general flow to profiles, regardless of who's it is. I know there are some more, uh, unique profiles out there that have been noted as more difficult to order against/approve/etc.

For move lists, I think we should either use one large list, or use an "approved categorization" system. The two categorizations that make sense to me are by Category (Physical/Special/Status) or, in Gen 9, by level learned (1/2/3/4). Additionally, within any level of categorization, move lists should always remain alphabetized. My biggest preference is just one long list, though, as it's the easiest to approve (with the current resources, this is subject to change in Gen 9 of course).

I'd like to echo support for Ooraloo's comments on sprites. I think her list should be expanded to include the official 3D models, but I otherwise agree with her take. I think there's enough options to express individuality between official sprites, official models, Smogon sprites/models (sprite project and CAP stuff), and user-edited sprites (as long as the mon is still distinct) that other types of images aren't needed.

 

[nightblitz42]

I agree with stricter move organization in profiles. I also agree with requiring complete mechanical orders to be at the bottom of each post in a battle.

While I'd like for reffing posts to stick to official sprites, I'm personally totally fine with flavor or unofficial art being inside of Pokemon profiles. I don't think there's a better place to put flavor bios than in the Profiles.

As for Profile flavor limitations: I would like to stipulate that Profile flavor should be kept entirely within a single nested hide tag in the Profile (to preserve mechanical readibility), and that images should not exceed a predetermined pixel size.

 

[LouisCyphre]

I've read the feedback here, but I wanted to narrow in on a specific part: Movepools.

Are players okay with sorting moves by Level first, then alphabetically? It would take a moment of adjustment memorizing that Bide appears in (whatever level it ends up in), but after that you'd know where to find it every time. It would also make Approvals a snap, helping to keep the Prize Claim thread moving.

 

[TheEver]

Quickly want to mention my support for only official sprites in reffings (official also capturing sprite project and CAP ofc). I could handle the April Fools sprites or similar stuff on profiles or when ordering (again, as long as it's clear what the mon is) but I don't think they should be used on reffings.

The only issue I can foresee when sorting by level is when a mon gets a move at a different level than the standard. For example, one may look for Dive in Level 3 (random number) when ordering against Cramorant, forgetting that it's actually a Level 1 move for it, proceed to not sub for D/E and then get punished for it. Otherwise it does sound like it would be a good way to go.

Editing to specify that my prefered option is still one large list.

 

[TMan87]

Bit late to the party but I want to echo nb's thoughts on profile art.
Reffing should use strictly official sprites, but let us use whatever art we want (as long as it's recognizable/not misleading) in profiles.
I could see settling for a standard image size as a reasonable option too (look I didn't know imagesize on Google was a thing when I grabbed the above Delphox sprite).

 

[Ooraloo]

I do think I'd prefer to have a single alphabetized list for moves so that I only have to look for Counter in a single list instead of four. You can say, "You'll eventually develop an intuition for which moves are where," but it still introduces another way to make a mistake when ordering. I think movelists that are divided by function like physical/special/status are ok, but even those still trip people up sometimes. ("I forgot Counter was a physical move and not a status move.")

I can see how it would make approvals smoother, but we could just do what we do now and have the full moveset at each stage for every Pokemon in the resource compendium. There's plenty of programmers here who could write a script to get those.

 

[Gemini Taurus]

I would also like to throw my support behind having a single alphabetized list in profiles. I could probably learn to live with multiple lists, but as someone who already struggles with current profiles that have a "Physical, Special, Status" organization I would definitely prefer a single alphabetized list.

I think that as a whole a single alphabetized list is the most intuitive way to organize but I understand that not everyone agrees with this. I think the only three ways I can agree with though are Level (BBP level not in game), Category and strict alphabetical, and within level and category being alphabetical as well. I am strongly opposed to learn method and type being allowed.

 

[epicdrill]

Yeah I strongly support just having a single alphabetized list or having moves sorted by Category. I don't like sorting by level for the same reason Eve objected to it, I don't want to have to learn all of the exceptions to "pokemon learn X move at Y level". That just seems like an unnecessary knowledge barrier when checking movepools.

I think having one alphabetized list is easiest because I can just go through and check for moves I'm worried about, but I'm okay with sorting by Category since those lists are also pretty easy to check (assuming the lists are alphabetized ofc). I think sorting by Type or anything more granular would result in too many groups of moves and it would make the profile annoying to read.

Regardless of what sorting methods are deemed appropriate, I do think moves should be required to be sorted alphabetically within each group that they're split into. It just makes profiles so much easier to navigate.

 

[LouisCyphre]

Alright; it seems like the preference overall is a single alphabetical list. So, we'll be mandating that next Gen.

This does preclude a little design space--I can't make Sluggish allow only Level 1 moves, for example--but we can make do with other options very easily.

(Also, why is everyone saying "Cramorant makes this move Level 1" instead of "Cramorant starts with this Level 2/3 move"?? Baffling assumption.)

 

[Mowtom]

Hi, I just opened up my computer for the first time since last night, so I didn't have a chance to post before now. I would like to strongly request that we allow me to continue sorting my movepool by category rather than forcing one list.

I think I'm the only person in the game who does this. It helps me a lot when looking through the movepools of my mons, mostly when I'm searching for niche options while ordering second. I don't remember any instances off the top of my head but I'm fairly confident that it's helped me come up with plays I otherwise wouldn't have.

It looks to me like nobody was against sorting movepool by category, it just isn't preferred. Can we please not mandate one long list?

 

[F Amadon]

I also slept from 8 AM to 5 PM, and wanted to say- I would actually really prefer sorting moves by level! I think the main issues people had with it ("I have to relearn what levels moves are" and stuff) can be handled by making it easily found through ASBot or the NDA, and people will pick it up faster than they realize.

Also, yeah, this entire time, I was under the impression that for off-level moves, it would be something like:

Level 1 Cramorant:


Moves:

Level 1:
Tackle
Peck
Water Gun
You get the gist

Level 3: Dive

and basically, you would just have access to that move within its level early. I have no idea where any other idea even comes from.

 

[Ooraloo]

If you have a preferred sorting method for your own lists that isn’t a single unified list, there’s nothing stopping you from including a second movepool in hide tags in your profiles.

 

[F Amadon]

I mean, I could say the same about sorting by purely alphabetical, but I was answering the question about what preferred format we had for a mandatory sorting method, personally. The regular alphabetical list is classic, it works, but I do think that sorting by level then alphabetical has advantages that are worth at least considering if we're mandating a single one. We could even go as far as doing both, if we really were split on it.

(possible benefits were initially a paragraph but it was bulky and wordy so I'm breaking it up into bullets)

• Sorting by level opens up gameplay interactions (Lou's Sluggish example, or potentially something like Arena effects, or items).
• It also, once you know what level a move is, lets you search a shorter list for that move (searching a single level instead of the entire movepool).
• Because of already announced parts of the level movepools, we know that certain moves will get their counterplay at those levels, too (for example, Endure will be introduced at the same time that Endure-breaking moves will be, or moves such as Solar Beam or other off-priority ones will likely be introduced at the same time as D/E, or Trapping/Partial Trapping/Phazing/Pivoting/other Switching control maybe getting put into the same level) - it might help players find a Pokemon's available counterplay options more easily if they can check levels rather than entire movepools for those options (similar to the example Mow brought up of finding new tricks via her movepool sorting).

Sorting by alphabetical has benefits such as being one central area to search and, when you know the name of what you're looking for, it's easy to find. However, I think the benefits of Level-based sorting both outweigh and cover the benefits of alphabetical sorting- while it's easy to find a name you're looking for in an alphabetized list, it's easier to find a type of move (Partial Trapping, D/E, phazing) by checking that level once we as a community and playerbase learn what levels things are, which will become fairly common knowledge quickly I believe, especially due to the cooperative nature of this community.

 

[LouisCyphre]

Observing continuing feedback and updating what we'll mandate and/or allow as we go, since there's been a surge of support for segmented movepools. And lots of well-articulated upside and downside for each method. Our biggest concerns in whatever method or methods we choose to allow are simply:

1. Is it easy to approve?
2. Is it easy for opponents to reference?

Also, remember when deciding if you should give feedback: Almost no decision in BBP is final.