State of the Game: 02/27/2011

[Deck Knight]

It's the beginning of the third week of CAP ASB, so it's time for another state of the game.

Number of Players with approved teams: 65

Forum Posts: 2,854

Number of active or completed battles: 89

It'd time for another state of the game. We picked up another 20 members and saw a huge increase in the number of battles, good job everyone, the ASB only runs because of players like you. Remember for the latest updates or any quick Qs you can always go to our official IRC channel, #capasb.

Rules Changes:

Trainer Tokens have been more fleshed out and now list specifically how they increase based on battle complexity.

Mechanics Changes:

Attract, Sleep, and Confusion have been nerfed generally and the intensity of each stage has been halved. They now last 1/2/3 actions in severity and Sleep in particular is resisted on the second chance to send a pokemon to sleep, reducing its rolled severity by one.

There have also been minor updates and elaborations such as paralysis degredation and changes in move energy costs, specifically Magic Coat and Taunt which are now both 10 EC.

Player questions:

1. How are the new buffs to 4x weaknesses impacting the game?

Are they so powerful as to be insurmountable or is there an expectation that a Pokemon should fall quickly to a 4x effective attack?

2. There are very few Item Enabled battles. What are the reasons for this hesitancy?

I added items to flesh out attacks like Natural Gift, Knock Off, and the various anti-Berry attacks to give them a purpose outside of damage. However items do not seem to be very popular. Are they considered too powerful or do they have too much of an impact? Is it just the extra layer of complexity is too daunting? Please offer feedback.

3. Chills were buffed to 12% Energy after the last SotG. Are there still complaints about energy cost/healing or has the increase made enough of an impact?

I am hesitant to expand Chills any further since they already alot for an extra 60% energy for each mon. I do however want feedback on this slight change and how it has impacted any of your battles.

4. Evolution and Single Stage Rarity Cost were greatly extended in the last SotG. Are you pleased with the new evolution/capture pace of these changes?

The primary arguments supporting the change is it made Evolution feel more like something that is earned rather than being too easy. Please offer feedback after experience a week of these changes.

Proposals:

A new section I've added because I am forgetful. Basically these will be initial proposals on mechanics changes that are not yet implemented.

Change Triple Battles to Two Actions per Pokemon:

Double Battles are somewhat managable when selecting 6 actions at a time for your opponent to consider. Triple Battles are outright unbalanced with 9 actions per side. In a singles battle 9 Super-effective actions can net a KO. Combine that with the inherent advantage of going second and entering a 3v3 is a nightmare for both the first player and the referee who has to ref the massacre and it gets out of hand easily.

Instead Triple Battles will have 3 Pokemon issuing 2 actions each. This will still allow for combination attacks on a Pokemon but will not turn the entire battle into a massacre. This also has the effect of diminishing the value of field effects and damaging statuses by only having 2 actions to activate per round. Triple Battles will still be fairly quick, however they will be less one-sided and attacks will have to be more targetted. As far as other impacts, Truant Pokemon will just attack on the first action.

Looking forward:

I've placed assistants in the approval towers and prize claiming threads in order to affoed more time to work on other elements. I have since made a Team Creation Guide as promised in the last SotG. I am still working on the roleplaying elements and hope to have at least one of them up next week. We already have some good ideas coming in. The time for sorting out the beter refs and establishing a hierarchy is also on the way.

If you have any other concerns over game mechanics, certain moves, or any other changes please voice your concerns and I will try to address them.

Thank you,

~Deck Knight, CAP ASB Developer

 

[Rolf]

1) A lot better than before
2) I'm pretty sure people just don't want to deal with the longer battles at the moment.
3) same as #1
4) same as #1 and #3

My one point that I don't really like is the 1/2/3 -> 0/1/2 -> 0/0/1 of sleep and such now (I assume that's how it works). I think it should be 1/2/3 -> 1/2 -> 1. It seems crazy to punish sleep this much to the point where its really not worth playing unless you want to cancel one move. If you wanted to do that you could just go with the 100% never fail Protect. Ensuring that for the first three times you use it you'll actually get "something" from it makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[Cartoons!]

Regarding items, I think it's also a case of Trainer points still being something of a rare commodity, hard earned, and not flowing in regularly. One could spend two TP on a new Pokemon that'll last forever, or a couple of berries or herbs that, if used, will last only one or two matches.

Perhaps they would be more used if an item you purchase could be 'assigned' to a Pokemon forever. Say I buy two Cheri Berries, and 'assign' them to my Zigzagoon. They are hers permanently, even if I use them twice in a match, I can assign them to her again in another battle. At the beginning of an item match, the player simply chooses from the list of assigned items to equip.

As people's rosters of Pokemon grow, so will the need to purchase items that will be permanently associated with their Pokemon. With a little tweaking (say, increasing the price of Lums), it could be a way of introducing greater value to buying choices as purchases will have longer lasting impacts.

By the way, I'm enjoying the format of these updates.

 

[smashlloyd20]

1. good
2. i guess they're just a bit too complex. we don't want to deal with yet another thing to ref right now.
3. good
4. good

have a nice day.

 

[Deck Knight]

1) A lot better than before
2) I'm pretty sure people just don't want to deal with the longer battles at the moment.
3) same as #1
4) same as #1 and #3

My one point that I don't really like is the 1/2/3 -> 0/1/2 -> 0/0/1 of sleep and such now (I assume that's how it works). I think it should be 1/2/3 -> 1/2 -> 1. It seems crazy to punish sleep this much to the point where its really not worth playing unless you want to cancel one move. If you wanted to do that you could just go with the 100% never fail Protect. Ensuring that for the first three times you use it you'll actually get "something" from it makes a lot more sense to me.

As it's currently worded it's a randomized 1/2/3 then 0/1/2, then 1/2/3 again since a Pokemon can only be put to sleep 3 times maximum in a match.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

1. I wasn't too active during this week, but I wanted this last week, so I'll say it's good.
2. I'd be daunted by having to ref berry-enabled items. One reason I haven't been wanting to have an item-enabled battle is that the rewards for having an item-enabled battle and an item-disabled are identical, and berries get used up, which means I have to spend my earned Trainer Counters on getting the berries back. It just seems more complicated with less gain, although having berries in your battle could be fun.
3. see #1
4. see #1

Also, I'd be willing to help with anything you need help with.

EDIT: A question: What exactly happens if a ref goes over the dq time?

 

[Venser]

Player questions:

1. How are the new buffs to 4x weaknesses impacting the game?

2. There are very few Item Enabled battles. What are the reasons for this hesitancy?


3. Chills were buffed to 12% Energy after the last SotG. Are there still complaints about energy cost/healing or has the increase made enough of an impact?

4. Evolution and Single Stage Rarity Cost were greatly extended in the last SotG. Are you pleased with the new evolution/capture pace of these changes?

1: I don't feel like the impact is that different than what i initially expected 4x weaknesses to be like. Honestly 4x weaknesses should be crippling and are, which i think is good. It's less incentive to use certain Pokemon *coughdragonscough*, which balances out other parts of them, similar to in the cartridge games.

2: I'm still at the 4 battle mark, I want to make sure I can understand and be good at regular battles before adding other levels of complexity. Pretty sure a lot of people feel like this.

3: Haven't noticed this at all :|

4: Personally I'm frustrated, but I understand how it's better for the game.

 

[DarkSlay]

Not a big fan of the nerf to Sleep/Confusion moves. At all. Not only is there currently a way to prevent Sleep moves (hint: get Protect), which completely discourages the usage of KO counters to Move counters in an attempt to get moves like Dig, Protect, Dive, Detect, etc. to prevent Sleep, but now sleep is essentially useless. One hit from a 10 power move will essentially wake it up immediately. You're really going to put a Pokemon to sleep or confuse it for one turn? It basically just prevents one hit then. You'd get the same results from using Protect. The 2 / 4 / 6 system is completely fair, especially since most moves used against Pokemon decrease the sleep/confusion counter over time. This is a bad move, in my opinion, and a lot of Pokemon will be losing a valuable item in Sleep because of it.

I would be okay in the "degenerative" idea if it were 2 / 4 / 6, and then 1 / 2 / 3 for the second sleep. But not as 1 / 2 / 3 being the primary Sleeping/Confusion rule. I'd be more supportive of just adding an extra Energy Cost to Sleeping moves, and maybe confusion moves (although, confusion isn't nearly as good as Sleep in general)

Everything else seems okay. Still kind of on the fence with the whole Evolution counters increase, since I've been noticing a lot of people are just applying almost all their KO and Ref counters to Evolution, which pretty much still results in fast evolutions but really detracts from putting any incentive in getting moves / Dream World abilities.

On a side note, the ASB Black Belt Dojo will be up and running this week, so expect the topic post very soon. We will be having a "Four Turn Brawl" tournament, which the winners will receive a "job" at the dojo as Dojo Apprentices.

 

[mewtwo15026]

1. Well, my Bagon just ate a Ferroseed with Fire Fang, so I'm pretty cool with it. XD
Seriously, though, 4x weaknesses are and should be painful. The only possible issue is that, with Pokemon able to access their entire movepools, it's easier to hit Pokemon 4x effectively.

2. I don't really know. Maybe it's because the only readily available Items are consumed in battle AND game-slowing healing items. Why don't we make Items prizes for winning battles? If you have X Trainer Counters after a battle, you can get X Item for free. I dunno.

3. It seems all right to me. One thing I've noticed, though, is that unless a Pokemon can heal its HP, the extra Energy goes unused. Other than that, I think it's a sufficient amount to recover (it's more Energy than is needed for pretty much any attack) and it balances high-Energy moves very nicely.

4. Seems OK to me. Neither has gotten in my way yet, so I'm chill. I don't think that already-evolved Pokemon should have been devolved, though, but eh.

Something else I noticed...
There's a lot of 1v1 and 2v2 battles going on. I think part of it's due to them giving as many Trainer Counters as 3v3 battles. (At least, as far as I know...)

Also, how come 1 6v6 battle is worth less than 6 1v1 battles? It confuses me...

 

[Tortferngatr]

Player questions:

1. How are the new buffs to 4x weaknesses impacting the game?

I already had figured out that if you're going to run a lot of 4x weaks, you had best cover them somehow before this. That being said, the fact we have such expanded movepools means you have a greater chance to be hit on a weakness.

2. There are very few Item Enabled battles. What are the reasons for this hesitancy?

Reason 1: They aren't infinite, and Trainer Counters are better spent on Pokemon. Why buy one-use items that recover 10 Hp or cure a single status when you can buy a mon that can cover your back for many battles for approximately the same cost? If you want us to use items more, decrease the opportunity cost to using them. A possibility would be to allow players to buy "berry trees" that allow for an infinite amount of each berry in the player's backpack.

Reason 2: Things like Life Orb and Choice Band do not exist-items that have a significant impact on battling are nowhere to be found. Type resist berries? Bah, I'll just alternate attacks until your berry is gone! Increase the effect of items as well. If need be, implement some of the more competitive items.

Reason 3: Is anyone going to keep track of an item? The game is already complex-and items are a one-time thing.

So basically, items do too little and cost too much. Oh, and they're inconvenient to keep track of.

3. Chills were buffed to 12% Energy after the last SotG. Are there still complaints about energy cost/healing or has the increase made enough of an impact?

None of my battles have really lasted long enough for chills to actually be needed. It seems like everything dies/faints before reaching 0-in spite of abusing high-power moves like Blizzard.

4. Evolution and Single Stage Rarity Cost were greatly extended in the last SotG. Are you pleased with the new evolution/capture pace of these changes?

Don't really care about the evolution requirements. Given the fact most evolutions have better movepools than their pre-evolutions (some being critical to beating other types), it still means that the optimal course for most mons is evolution counter investment until evolution is obtained.

I would reduce the costs for single stage rarity, though-it's still fairly easy to evolve multi-stage Pokemon and passively get move counters/a Dream World ability the whole time, while it requires 5 brief battles to buy a Revenankh with no move counters and no Dream World ability.

 

[Pallas Athena]

1) I think it is very realistic atm. In the future when full movepools are unlocked, this should be reconsidered.
2) In one word: complexity. It makes things too complex, and people just don't want to deal with it.
3) The meta is still really offensive, so I can't tell yet. I think it helped, but it is hard to tell.
4) YES!!! If we had the old rules, we could be seeing fully evolved squads right now. I am very glad that this is not reality.

 

[ck49]

1. I dont know, I dont have anything with a 4x weakness and haven't faced one yet.
2. i thinks it because it is way to easy to loose your item. Many pokemon learn bug bite or pluck, including 2 of mine, which means you lose your item when you battle and gain nothing. Whats the point then?
3. I haven't gotten to the point of needing chills in my battle.
4. While the Data thread hasn't been updated, I think stuff like delibird is vastly overpriced. As for evolution, I think that something like beldum should have a low evolution amount to get to metang, but just as high as other pokemon to get to metagross.

 

[Wikey]

1. I have a 4x weak mon but I haven't faced anything that went after that weakness since the buff.

2. Like coolking said. Almost everthing learns Bug Bite, Incinerate, Knock Off, etc. in Gen V. That and the fact that they aren't worth the cost.

3. The chill boost is nice. Any more and it would make battles last too long, I think.

4. I think it's going to be a long time before we figure out good numbers for evolution and purchasing mons. In one of your opening posts you said something about ASB being more focused on building individual Pokémon instead of building a team. Yet it takes a minimal effort to evolve a mon and even less to purchase two or three mons. I know we don't want to make things take too long, but I think most of us plan on being here for the long haul and so would be willing to put in more time to evolve our mons. I don't know, I may be in the minority here.

 

[MapleSandwich]

I discussed this previously on IRC, but I'm putting my thoughts here to make them easier for others to access.

1. My stance on a 4x weakness is that while it shouldn't be anything like the games (OHKO barring extraordinary circumstances), there should be little to no chance for a Pokemon with a 4x weakness to win a straight up fight, with the little being the extraordinary unbalanced circumstances. That said I haven't done a 4x weak fight yet, so I don't think I can speak authoritatively on how balanced it is, but it seems fair to me.

2. Items are being left out of my battles because I don't want to deal with the complexity when I've barely started to understand the damage formula, and they are a one-shot use thing so far. It'd be a waste to use them before I need them or understand them. Once I am more into ASB, I will consider using items.

3. I personally find the chills we have now to be fairly balanced. Enough to stop a Pokemon from outright running out of energy in case of an extended 1v1, but not enough to allow one Pokemon to rip through an opponent's entire team.

4.I haven't used evolutions at all yet. That said, I do think that they were too easy to obtain before. Now, you must work hard for your evos.

 

[Destiny Warrior]

1. I don't have any 4x weak mons, so I can't comment on that.

2. The problem is, investing in Pokemon is so much better than investing in items, especially because items are mainly one-use. Possibly, they could see more use if you put some of the lesser items in, and at fairly cheap rates(like Muscle Band etc.)

3.Chills are actually pretty uncommon, since most games are fast-paced, its only in the dregs that they are even used. I think they're good enough.

4.From a game point of view, yes, they are good, but I disagree with how Pokemon like Sigilyph become close to unbuyable if you don't pick them early on. Instead of doubling their cost, I think they should have only a 1.5x increase to their cost if not picked as a starter.

Will edit in notes about triples after I manage to put it together.

 

[Rolf]

I think I'm one of the few with an actual Pokemon with a 4x weakness (Tesshiido) and I'm going to throw my two cents in and say that at this point I like how it's handled. Creative play around 4x weaknesses can be done. Tesshiido is kind of a special circumstance because of Steel Thorns which hurts others a lot for physical fire moves (I had a 25% chance of beating a Bagon with Fire Fang and Dragon Dance) but in general I think the multiplier is right where it needs to be. I had trouble making up for the weakness and it hurt me a lot having it, but I could still do decent damage and not be deadweight because of it.

I say that but I believe that as asb progresses and movepools increase (especially on normal types and others with giant movepools) it might have to be dumbed down a bit in order to account for almost everything having a move of every important 4x weak type (Fire, Rock, Ground, and Grass generally).

 

[Kaxtar]

One big issue that Deck has left out is that of tripe battles. So far, there as only been one ( http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86717 ), but it was clear that there were some major balance issues with the current system. DW, alch and myself are all in agreement that something has to be changed, because to put it quite frankly, the battle was extremely lopsided and was practically decided from Turn 1.

The biggest issue is that the first player to give orders is at a severe disadvantage, and it is almost impossible to overcome this in battle. Because the first player has to give orders blindly, the second can counter all of his opponents moves, all 9 of them. From there, it is extremely easy for the second player to work around these first nine moves, and even easier to KO or nearly KO a pokemon turn one (in the battle, Monozu lost about 60 HP in the first round alone). After this, the battle will soon become 3v2 or 2v1 in favor of the second player, and it is clear that from here the battle will go to the second player. While the huge boon of who goes second changes each round, the fact of the matter is that after one round of being countered and attacked by nine actions, it becomes nearly impossible to take full advantage of this again.

One way that we could correct this problem is to only have 2 actions issued per turn. This would make it much harder for a single pokemon to be Ko'ed in one turn, and place much less emphasis on going second, and the second player only has 6 actions to counter with. I can't really come up with other viable alternatives, so input from everyone else would be appreciated. Thanks for hearing me out.

 

[Wikey]

As far as triple battles could you have it so that player who goes first issues attacks for two of his mons and then the second player goes and then the first player gives orders for his remaining mon?

Ex:
P1 Issues commands for Bulbasaur and Squirtle.
P2 Issues commands for Snivy, Tepig, and Oshawott.
P1 Issues commands for Charmander.

 

[Destiny Warrior]

I completely agree with Kaxtar. Since I moved second, I could pick out the most dangerous of Kaxtar's Pokemon, and really wail on it(Monozu). It was a bit silly, because my strategy of removing Pokemon one by one was also utilized by Kaxtar(he went for Monohm), but since I moved second on teh first turn, I got to pick out my dodges, and when to hit exactly, and in such a fast-paced meta, it makes all the difference.

Doubles is decent in that it still retains some orderliness, and its possible to recover after turn 1, but int riples, using the strategy you saw in the link earlier, you can gain a near-insurmountable advantage turn 1 by coming very close to KOing your opponents or even KOing them in some cases. Soon, triples will become a type of battling exclusive to the "old sea-dogs", because after evolution, you *will* easily get the KO on newer people. I don't think this should happen.

As for a solution, I would suggest triples have you PMing the referee your actions, but that's your call.

 

[Its_A_Random]

1.) I do, but I've been in too little battles to see if it has any sort of impact (coughcoughlongbattlescoughcough).
2.) I've been in an item enabled battle, it doesn't make any real difference, but it does add an extra layer of strategy. Personally, I'd like to participate in more battles with items enabled, but first, I need to complete my current three, which are taking too long to complete.
3.) No real difference, it's fine the way it is.
4.) Well if I get any battles done at all...I personally welcome the changes to the EC System, but I feel the rarity cost raise should only be applied to more powerful & rare Pokemon, like Lapras, Kangaskhan, etc.

Also, I support 2 actions per Pokemon in a triples battle.

 

[MapleSandwich]

I completely agree with Kaxtar. Since I moved second, I could pick out the most dangerous of Kaxtar's Pokemon, and really wail on it(Monozu). It was a bit silly, because my strategy of removing Pokemon one by one was also utilized by Kaxtar(he went for Monohm), but since I moved second on teh first turn, I got to pick out my dodges, and when to hit exactly, and in such a fast-paced meta, it makes all the difference.

As for a solution, I would suggest triples have you PMing the referee your actions, but that's your call.

This echoes what I've stated on IRC already, and I agree with it entirely. There's no way for an action-reaction situation to be fair without making it overly complicated..and it's not like tripled isn't already complicated, PM's won't make it that much worse.

Doubles is decent in that it still retains some orderliness, and its possible to recover after turn 1, but int riples, using the strategy you saw in the link earlier, you can gain a near-insurmountable advantage turn 1 by coming very close to KOing your opponents or even KOing them in some cases. Soon, triples will become a type of battling exclusive to the "old sea-dogs", because after evolution, you *will* easily get the KO on newer people. I don't think this should happen.

To this end, we can simply implement restrictions for battles with newer people: X BST (Base Star Total) or below, perhaps.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

Also, I support 2 actions per Pokemon in a triples battle.

As do I. I don't think the amount of actions each ref has to account for should exceed a nice number like twelve. Eighteen is waaay too much.

To this end, we can simply implement restrictions for battles with newer people: X BST (Base Star Total) or below, perhaps.

Having a Star Total is ridiculous, IMO. Firstly, do you convert HP and Speed back into stars? That seems a bit of a hassle. Second, there is the problem of "high BST, bad distribution," something that plagues Arcanine in real competitive play. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's one somewhere.

Instead, could there be a tiering system implemented for finding battles (note that I don't want it implemented this week or the next, since older players haven't really had much upgrading compared to what could happen)? We could split tiers based on the number of battles each player participated in and the number of wins...?

X = (Battles played) + (Battles won / 2)
Tier 1: 20 +
Tier 2: 15 - 20
Tier 3: 10 - 15
Tier 4: 5 - 10
Tier 5: Below 5

Of course, we could give more colorful names to the tiers, but that's trivial. Something to note about this is that you must participate in more than three battles to have a chance to advance to tier four. Thoughts?

 

[Lord Jesseus]

I think the reason people aren't using items is because they simply aren't worth it in the grand scheme of things, as others have mentioned. I'm not put off by the complexity, but it seems like a waste of TC. Perhaps rather than having just TC, there could be separate counters for items and pokemon? Some other suggestions in the thread seem alright too.

I also think there needs to be bigger rewards for bigger battles, as someone pointed out. A 3vs3 takes longer than I initially expected, depending on various factors. It seems people who blow through a series of 1v1s can just get counters up far more quickly, which seems unfair.

 

[Pallas Athena]

Instead, could there be a tiering system implemented for finding battles (note that I don't want it implemented this week or the next, since older players haven't really had much upgrading compared to what could happen)? We could split tiers based on the number of battles each player participated in and the number of wins...?

X = (Battles played) + (Battles won / 2)
Tier 1: 20 +
Tier 2: 15 - 20
Tier 3: 10 - 15
Tier 4: 5 - 10
Tier 5: Below 5

I can't express how much I agree with the basic concept behind this. We are eventually going to get some battlers who are much stronger than any normal new battler could handle. It will also be almost completely impossible to keep track of every single match and discover who is good. This naturally requires a ranking system.

I like this idea as it actually gives an incentive for winning, which actually can help create more 3vs3 than the normal 1vs1. Giving a challenge for 1vs1 is basically asking for defeat now after the rule change, but no one cares as they can get most average Pokemon after the battle, and it doesn't matter if they lose. This would actually give an incentive to issue challenges that can be won.

My one problem is that certain wins are much easier than others. For instance, some 1vs1 matches are incredibly one sided, and one party should be disgraced if they lose. On the other hand, there are also incredibly epic, even match-ups that require genuine skill and strategy to win. In short, not all wins come at the same cost.


All that said, I love this proposal.

 

[LifeAdmiral]

I have a concern with the status nerfs in general. Figure I'll bring it up here rather than bitch about it behind your back (general respect).

I can understand the Confusion nerf (as it not only cancels your attack but does self damage too 50% of the time) but I'm having serious problems swallowing it for Sleep and Attract.

Attract: Look at all the requirements that need to be fulfilled for Attract. Not only does the opposite poke need to be male if yours is female or vice versa, but they also have to be in the same egg group. To have Attract in effect for a possible 1 turn 33% of the time is unfair to those who have it simply because of the requirements. In my own personal case, I put it on my Vulpix as one of the three TM moves because it's good when you can get it to work. Cutting the effect down to 1/2/3 actions when it only stops an attack 50% of the time to begin with is just too harsh.

Sleep: This is another one that I have problems with. Compare Detect to Hypnosis. Hypnosis will stop 1 or 2 actions (50% for either) for a cost of 10 Energy and it only connects 60% of the time. Detect will stop 1 action for a cost of at least 7 Energy (possibly only 7 Energy) and it hits 100% of the time without fail. So Hypnosis (or other sleep moves) are now inferior to Detect not only with effect but also in Energy Cost.

Taunt: Moving the cost of Taunt up to 10 Energy makes no sense to me since most Pokemon faint before running out of energy anyway. Taunt effectively neuters a Pokemon's movelist and it can be spammed. Most of the time, status inflicting and stat changing moves are better than attacking moves. Continuous Taunt kills a trainer's chance to win a battle by out-thinking his opponent and now has to rely on luck from attacks.


I personally suggest moving Sleep/Attract back to 2/4/6 and changing Taunt to being allowed to be used only 1 time per enemy Pokemon. That's only my opinion and while I know that what I think means Jack Schitt, I believe that these three statuses need to be looked at more closely.


Also, answers to your questions:

1. Hasn't affected me yet offensively or defensively. That being said, my personal opinion is that if you have a Pokemon who is weak to a 4x attack and he gets hit by it, he should suffer for it.

2. Most people want to get used to battling in general. Also, you have to buy items to keep that stock up and most people right now are just concerned with fleshing their team out.

3. Chills are fine as they are. No point in changing them.

4. Yes, yes and oh god yes. Being able to evolve a 2 stage Pokemon after 2 battles is too crazy to imagine.