Now say I have an Alakazam with 27 moves... one and a half substitutions?Battle Tower OP said:
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
The leader of this forum is LouisCyphre. The moderators of this forum are JJayyFeather, Mowtom, nightblitz42, TheEver, and TMan87.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Data State of The Game (11/13/2011) - IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT IN POST #233
- Thread starter Seven Deadly Sins
- Start date
- Status
I'm confused.
How is one double team clone the "equivelant" of +3 evasion? One double team clone raises evasion... by 1.
I don't know what you're doing that makes it +3, or makes 4 clones anything like +12.DAT said:
Lord Jesseus, that is not how Double Team is reffed. The usual way of reffing Double Team is, when mon A attacks mon B and mon B has a Double Team up, mon A has X amount of targets to choose from and no reason to favour one over another, so it chooses its target randomly from mon B and all of mon B's clones. This means, if mon B has 4 clones, there is a 1 in 5 chance that mon A hits the real mon B.
We do it like that because it makes more logical sense. DAT description needs an update.
We do it like that because it makes more logical sense. DAT description needs an update.
http://veekun.com/dex/abilities/water absorb
[BOX]Water Absorb:
Type: Innate
This Pokemon absorbs water attacks and instead of taking damage from them, recovering 50% of the damage the water attack would have done. A Pokemon that attacks itself with water to heal only recieves 25% of the damage that attack would do to itself.
Pokemon with this ability: Poliwag, Poliwhirl, Poliwrath, Lapras, Vaporeon, Chinchou, Lanturn, Politoed, Wooper, Quagsire, Mantine, Suicune, Cacnea, Cacturne, Mantyke, Tympole, Palpitoad, Seismitoad, Maractus, Frillish, Jellicent.[/BOX]
Every Water Absorb Pokémon resists water. Perhaps it should ignore the type modifier in the healing calculation?
[BOX]Water Absorb:
Type: Innate
This Pokemon absorbs water attacks and instead of taking damage from them, recovering 50% of the damage the water attack would have done. A Pokemon that attacks itself with water to heal only recieves 25% of the damage that attack would do to itself.
Pokemon with this ability: Poliwag, Poliwhirl, Poliwrath, Lapras, Vaporeon, Chinchou, Lanturn, Politoed, Wooper, Quagsire, Mantine, Suicune, Cacnea, Cacturne, Mantyke, Tympole, Palpitoad, Seismitoad, Maractus, Frillish, Jellicent.[/BOX]
Every Water Absorb Pokémon resists water. Perhaps it should ignore the type modifier in the healing calculation?
In-game, Water Absorb heals a flat 25% of maximum health.
Also:
This should be made much more clear.
Also:
This should be made much more clear.
Forgive me if I am incorrect in this, but I believe I that I once heard that the primary currency of ASB is time. Throughout the game's history, numerous attempts to earn counters with artificial speed have been made, and systematically shot down. These include 1 vs 1 doubles, Street Brawls, and Pay Day matches. While this will generate intense debate, I will propose it anyways.
I would like to ban or restrict so-called "flash matches."
Before I go anywhere with this, I would like to remind people that time is the currency of ASB. Secondly, we had a match end in nine minutes today. Am I the only person who sees a problem with this?
For those unfamiliar, "flash matches" are battles that occur over one night, often less, with one hour DQ times. They are officially discouraged, but are experiencing an alarming rise in frequency, with even an ASB council member participating in one. While I was able to tolerate one, I was recently informed that a veteran with roughly the same join time as me had participated in three times as many battles. Obviously, these matches used regularly can earn tremendous amounts of counters over time for not particularly much work or time investment per battle.
For reasons other than fairness and logistics, they are unfair because they are abused regularly. For instance, multiple users do one or two a night on most nights. If this is not counter farming -attempting to earn large amounts of counters in a short time- I have no idea what is.
Even the ones that people claim meet regular standards are still usually subpar to other matches since the objective of battling shifts from "let's play to win and have a good match" to "let's play and earn counters tonight."
Even withholding those battles that users will inevitably post to support the legitimacy of flash matches, there are a healthy amount of users who do just what I described and are never punished in any way. Officially, Deck gets on them but this has yet to be the case.
Let me clarify. As per a SotG a while ago, flash matches are officially discouraged. I would like to have them banned.
My proposal, that I fully except someone to modify, is this:
Any match that takes one round or less than twelve hours is considered an attempt at counter farming and will receive no counters.
I realise that flash matches could be considered "efficient" and this is punishing efficiency, but when a nine minute battle is tolerated, I would think an issue needs to be addressed. So, the question becomes:
Where do you think the line between efficient battling and counter farming should be drawn?
This is all for now.
I would like to ban or restrict so-called "flash matches."
Before I go anywhere with this, I would like to remind people that time is the currency of ASB. Secondly, we had a match end in nine minutes today. Am I the only person who sees a problem with this?
For those unfamiliar, "flash matches" are battles that occur over one night, often less, with one hour DQ times. They are officially discouraged, but are experiencing an alarming rise in frequency, with even an ASB council member participating in one. While I was able to tolerate one, I was recently informed that a veteran with roughly the same join time as me had participated in three times as many battles. Obviously, these matches used regularly can earn tremendous amounts of counters over time for not particularly much work or time investment per battle.
For reasons other than fairness and logistics, they are unfair because they are abused regularly. For instance, multiple users do one or two a night on most nights. If this is not counter farming -attempting to earn large amounts of counters in a short time- I have no idea what is.
Even the ones that people claim meet regular standards are still usually subpar to other matches since the objective of battling shifts from "let's play to win and have a good match" to "let's play and earn counters tonight."
Even withholding those battles that users will inevitably post to support the legitimacy of flash matches, there are a healthy amount of users who do just what I described and are never punished in any way. Officially, Deck gets on them but this has yet to be the case.
Let me clarify. As per a SotG a while ago, flash matches are officially discouraged. I would like to have them banned.
My proposal, that I fully except someone to modify, is this:
Any match that takes one round or less than twelve hours is considered an attempt at counter farming and will receive no counters.
I realise that flash matches could be considered "efficient" and this is punishing efficiency, but when a nine minute battle is tolerated, I would think an issue needs to be addressed. So, the question becomes:
Where do you think the line between efficient battling and counter farming should be drawn?
This is all for now.
You are exaggerating against an exaggerated issue when there really is no problem.
First argument- Defining Efficient Play vs. Farming: As soon as quality of reffing and of competitive play drop below tower standards (e.g. flavor given, all RNG Rolls and calcs shown, no deliberate match-throwing), it is farming. A 10-minute match is efficient play on a very poor match-up. A 10-minute match where only one side used a move other than Leer is Farming.
Second argument - Flashmatches being unfair vs. multi-day matches: There's really not much difference between that takes 30 minutes with little downtime between posts and a match that takes the same 30 minutes with days between the posts - the only difference is the downtime length. Choosing referees and opponents who will be online for a long time cannot be wrong. You cannot expect demand that we choose opponents who are online at different times than we are, or to try to impose some other "minimum wait time" between posts.
Also:
Complaints directed at time-efficient matches hold no water. You can, however, direct complaints at any match with sub-par flavor or that obscures its RNG rolls and calculations.
First argument- Defining Efficient Play vs. Farming: As soon as quality of reffing and of competitive play drop below tower standards (e.g. flavor given, all RNG Rolls and calcs shown, no deliberate match-throwing), it is farming. A 10-minute match is efficient play on a very poor match-up. A 10-minute match where only one side used a move other than Leer is Farming.
Second argument - Flashmatches being unfair vs. multi-day matches: There's really not much difference between that takes 30 minutes with little downtime between posts and a match that takes the same 30 minutes with days between the posts - the only difference is the downtime length. Choosing referees and opponents who will be online for a long time cannot be wrong. You cannot expect demand that we choose opponents who are online at different times than we are, or to try to impose some other "minimum wait time" between posts.
Also:
Complaints directed at time-efficient matches hold no water. You can, however, direct complaints at any match with sub-par flavor or that obscures its RNG rolls and calculations.
A flashmatch is going on right now between LouisCyphre and MrcRanger97; do reffings like this seem subpar to anyone?
However, I would like to note that 1v1s are oddly counter efficient - for one matchup (approximately three rounds), the ref gains 3 UC, and the players (assuming fully-evolved mons) gain an average of 2 CC/.5 KOC/3 MC apiece.
However, I would like to note that 1v1s are oddly counter efficient - for one matchup (approximately three rounds), the ref gains 3 UC, and the players (assuming fully-evolved mons) gain an average of 2 CC/.5 KOC/3 MC apiece.
I think this is a major failing here: quick matches are not artificially increasing speed: it is a completely natural change which is the logical conclusion of how ASB is played. If people get matches done quickly then that should be fine.
As for this, they're actually less efficient than other matches: In all cases, Pokemon get 0.5 KOC and 3 MC apiece, but in other matches not every one needs to be KO'd, and in Doubles/Triples/More they are actually fainting more quickly. The only other difference is that they get fewer CC then the equivalent number of 1v1s.
Terrador, I even said why posting good examples wasn't a full justification.
And as per iRC debate and the fun of putting someone else into 1 vs the world, here's the obligatory "someone makes a better proposal" part of the SotG.
Losers of one round battles earn no counters.
If you lose in one turn, one of three things happened.
1) You were attack spamming to counter farm.
2) You had a bad matchup and don't know the basic rules of stall (Caterpie versus Fire type matches and Monohm versus Excadrill have lasted more than one round)
3) You were attack spamming and got countered.
Numbers two and three are unworthy of counters, and one is fairly rare. This forces people to use at least some skill in battles, and I think it prevents the worst abuses.
And as per iRC debate and the fun of putting someone else into 1 vs the world, here's the obligatory "someone makes a better proposal" part of the SotG.
Losers of one round battles earn no counters.
If you lose in one turn, one of three things happened.
1) You were attack spamming to counter farm.
2) You had a bad matchup and don't know the basic rules of stall (Caterpie versus Fire type matches and Monohm versus Excadrill have lasted more than one round)
3) You were attack spamming and got countered.
Numbers two and three are unworthy of counters, and one is fairly rare. This forces people to use at least some skill in battles, and I think it prevents the worst abuses.
alright Flashmatches in and of themselves are not a problem, people getting together and posting their actions and reffings quickly isn't abuse of the system in any way, it's mearly a good use of your time. I can agree that completely unbalanced matches that dont even last through the first round are really just pushing it, but if their is an honest effort from both sides and the reffing is done fully, as pointed out by Lou above, then there really shouldn't be anything to worry about. I mainly just think that the approvers should keep an eye on the matches they're approving and if the match is obviously one sided and has incomplete or wrong reffings, then just don't approve it.
The problem with the underlined part is that there is no way to judge how much flavor constitutes "flavor given"; how does one know when their flavor is enough for a reffing? For example, we can obviously see that this reffing has more flavor than this reffing which has more flavor than this reffing (not meaning to offend anyone by linking to reffings), but there's absolutely no way to tell somebody that "there is not enough flavor given." Obviously this is present outside of flashmatches, but it's probably something that needs to be addressed as a whole.
Changing Payout for Reffing Matches
Onto another point that I've been mulling over for a while. This is the current RC payout for reffing matches:
Code:
1vs1 Single Battle: 3 Ref Tokens
2vs2 Single Battle: 5 Ref Tokens
2vs2 Double Battle: 5 Ref Tokens
3vs3 Single Battle: 7 Ref Tokens
3vs3 Double Battle: 7 Ref Tokens
3vs3 Triple Battle: 7 Ref Tokens
4vs4 Single Battle: 11 Ref Tokens
4vs4 Double Battle: 9 Ref Tokens
4vs4 Triple Battle: 9 Ref Tokens
5vs5 Single Battle: 13 Ref Tokens
5vs5 Double Battle: 11 Ref Tokens
5vs5 Triple Battle: 11 Ref Tokens
6vs6 Single Battle: 15 Ref Tokens
6vs6 Double Battle: 13 Ref Tokens
6vs6 Triple Battle: 13 Ref Tokens
Melee Battles: Number of Pokemon + 2 Ref Tokens
Brawl Battles: Number of Pokemon + 2 Ref Tokens
Code:
1vs1 Single Battle: 2 Ref Tokens
2vs2 Single Battle: 4 Ref Tokens
2vs2 Double Battle: 4 Ref Tokens
3vs3 Single Battle: 7 Ref Tokens
3vs3 Double Battle: 8 Ref Tokens
3vs3 Triple Battle: 8 Ref Tokens
4vs4 Single Battle: 10 Ref Tokens
4vs4 Double Battle: 11 Ref Tokens
4vs4 Triple Battle: 11 Ref Tokens
5vs5 Single Battle: 13 Ref Tokens
5vs5 Double Battle: 14 Ref Tokens
5vs5 Triple Battle: 14 Ref Tokens
6vs6 Single Battle: 16 Ref Tokens
6vs6 Double Battle: 17 Ref Tokens
6vs6 Triple Battle: 17 Ref Tokens
Melee Battles: Number of Pokemon + 2 Ref Tokens
Brawl Battles: Number of Pokemon + 2 Ref TokensRE:
That's why 2v2 Dubs are the same as 2v2 Singles here; usually anything surpassing that goes past the boundary of "quick match for counters," which is why more complex formats are rewarded only after that threshold.Athenodoros said:
Thank you for addressing that, Engi. That's a bone I've been wanting to pick for a while.
The reason that was changed to be like it is now was that no one was reffing Singles matches, because they wanted the quick counters from Triples and Doubles which the old scheme, like yours, provided. Although I agree that it could be tried again now that everything is a bit more even again.
Considering you have to do at least two rounds to call a DQ I see no reason battles that can't get to two rounds are worth counters
I can see a 1vs1 battle as: "Voltorb used explosion"/"Dratini lost <25 hp"/"Battle ends" that it's an obvious farming for anyone that doesn't care about W/L/D, even for not so extreme cases, there are too few ways to get KOed in one round, even Onix vs Starmie lasted two rounds just stalling underground with dig and sandstorm
Gerard beat me to the point about Explosion. I think that ref discretion should be advised in whether counters should be gained in 1 round battles. If you got totally counterteamed and there is no evidence of discussion (for example, I want to get EC for my Caterpie, challenge someone to a 1v1, and they send in their Tyranitar like a total dick, then am I still not entitled to counters?) then I think the loser should still get the counters they normally would.
RE: Agility, Teleport
I think these should be put on the same counter as Protect and Detect; I.E. it fails when used consecutively.
I think these should be put on the same counter as Protect and Detect; I.E. it fails when used consecutively.
I agree. The purpose of both is identical to Protect and Detect, if anything Protect and Detect are worse since they cost extra energy if you're hit by an attack.
Hardly. Protect and Detect are both guaranteed to work (barring Feint), whereas there is a long list of moves which beat Agility. I haven't found Agility abuse to really be a problem, which after all is why we change things.
Agility and Teleport may be similar to Detect and Protect, but not the same.
While functioning like them in single battles, in doubles and triples and etc. their usefulness declines as they can only dodge A SINGLE ATTACK. I agree in singles they are cheap, but they are easy to counter in doubles and triples.
While functioning like them in single battles, in doubles and triples and etc. their usefulness declines as they can only dodge A SINGLE ATTACK. I agree in singles they are cheap, but they are easy to counter in doubles and triples.
MrcRanger, I think you've misunderstood Agility. They dodge any single-target attack. Meaning they're actually harder to dodge in doubles/triples because you might hit partners.
I am in no way saying that these moves are broken; I simply think they would be more balanced if they failed when used consecutively.
Of course there are ways to beat them, but that doesn't mean that -- in their current form -- they do not have a negative impact on proceedings.
Also, while Ranger is incorrect, I think his point should actually be implemented. It makes the most logical sense, anyway.
Of course there are ways to beat them, but that doesn't mean that -- in their current form -- they do not have a negative impact on proceedings.
Also, while Ranger is incorrect, I think his point should actually be implemented. It makes the most logical sense, anyway.
Why is it that "Blade"/"sword" and "slash"/"cut"/etc moves are given boosts on different razor items? It makes no sense. Leaf Blade is the most common victim of this divide, as the Pokemon that get it usually also get moves like Psycho Cut, X-Scizzor, Night Slash, et cetera, and have to choose between leaf blade and their other moves. And they're all similar anyway. The only Pokemon that uses Leaf Blade (iirc) that has other razor fang moves is Virizion, and not only is he irrelevant in ASB for the moment, his other razor fang move is Sacred Sword, something that I also think should be moved to claw. I propose that "Blade" and "Sword" moves get moved to Razor Claw, or get a boost from either item. The two really shouldn't be at odds.
If the issue is about Razor Fang not having enough moves to aid, how about "edge" moves? Double-Edge and Stone Edge getting a boost by this item will be much appreciated by Pokemon like Aerodactyl and Gliscor, among others, who actually would use the Razor Fang anyway.
If the issue is about Razor Fang not having enough moves to aid, how about "edge" moves? Double-Edge and Stone Edge getting a boost by this item will be much appreciated by Pokemon like Aerodactyl and Gliscor, among others, who actually would use the Razor Fang anyway.
- Status