Data State of the Game - 5/11/2011 (UPDATE ON 5/16/2011)

[Fire Blast]

The new stat systme is great :)

Regarding #5, I was lurking around Serebii's ASB and saw this:http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthread.php?t=37638

This looks like a really good idea and I think that it is a great simple way of going through refs and possibly catching mistakes that would otherwise continue for the rest of their reffings. Flora and her appointed assistants could simply check through these rounds. I'm sure that it wouldn't be very hard because not many people would be signing up at once. Also, making the new red explain how they did everything would help them see things they could do better or things they forgot.

Also, as some people on IRC saw, I have begun creating a CAP ASB pokedex. This will included moves and their costs, types, moves, abilties, stats, easier to use damage calculator, team manager (list your pokemon, their counters, their moves), and a feature that lets you export pokemon in a fasion similar to PO, allowing ou to claim pokes without having to type the data. I will probably make a thread soon.

 

[Banryu]

Venser, it's not an "unexpected advantage" if you see that the opposing person's Pokemon has all but one of its Evolution Counters, which nearly any competent battler would notice.

My reaction in situations like that goes something like: 'Huh... they nearly have all their evolution counters. Well good for them I guess, and good thing for me they're not quite there yet. Okay, since they're still not evolved all the way, this should be a safe battle to accept.'

....LOL. And a few of us know where that thinking got me.
No, Venser is right, I'd rather not have to worry about this the possibility that an opponent that I thought was equally-matched with me has the opportunity to suddenly gain a vast advantage in terms of stats, and sometimes, movepool.

And as far as 'incompetent' battlers go, (LOL thanks for that by the way) I assume this includes inexperienced players as well as idiots like me. And it's not really fair to call an inexperienced battler 'incompetent' when they haven't had time to properly learn the game and certain aspects of it yet. While a cool concept from the anime, an opportunistic player can easily use mid-game evolution as a trap of sorts to lure in an inexperienced player to what they might have THOUGHT was a fair match, only to give the evolver an easy win. I just don't think that this should be an option if it's something that can be exploited.

 

[Rolf]

I just noticed in the Data thread it states that multi-target moves have 75% of their base power if used in doubles or higher, but I haven't seen any refs following this. Can we get an official standing on this?

 

[Dogfish44]

OK then, this was posted before, but I think needs fleshing out:

Should Pokémon with Full DC's and EC's be given more MC?

I think the general concensus on the IRC chat was that a boost of 3 MC IF both EC & DC are at there upper limits. This means that there is less waste, and would also promote use of the stronger team members.

Can I get some feedback here?

 

[Objection]

That sounds like a good idea to me dogfish.

 

[Son_of_Shadoo]

I also agree with Dogfish's proposal.

 

[Gerard]

I agree in that a ratter prefer not to have a mid-battle evolution, since you say anime precedence, How many of those mid-battle evolution resulted in an underdog victory? I prefer to wait to the end of the battle and don't have to worry about my oponent sending a magikarp and evolving it into a gyarados

 

[Dogfish44]

I'm perfectly fine with mid-battle evolution - If Wifi-Clause isn't on, then it would be like having your opponent send in a Gyarados, but with less EN. If you dislike thinking you'll be vs a Magikarp but get a Gyarados, then don't look at your opponents team. Simple, and stops you from counterteaming.

 

[Temperantia]

It's not counterteaming that's the issue. It's that it seemed like a fair match-up until the evolution (or in one case I had, evolutions).

 

[Banryu]

OK then, this was posted before, but I think needs fleshing out:

Should Pokémon with Full DC's and EC's be given more MC?

I think the general concensus on the IRC chat was that a boost of 3 MC IF both EC & DC are at there upper limits. This means that there is less waste, and would also promote use of the stronger team members.

Can I get some feedback here?

This should especially apply to single-stage mons... Kecleon, for instance, has no evolved forms and no DW ability, meaning that he can only obtain one type of counter-- the Move Counter. I definitely think it should be the case that guys like this get the opportunity to gain moves more quickly, since they have nothing else to invest in. Dx

 

[Tortferngatr]

To be honest, a lot of the rank 4 mons look like they deserve at least "above average" in their stat-Xatu, Walrein, and Gothitelle for special attack, Serperior for both defensive stats, Crustle and Sneasel for attack, and Clefable for HP. Also, note the converse-all of the 95 offense mons suddenly have to deal with 110 HP and rank 4 defense/special defense Pokemon more often.

I support both stat changes.

Also, Dogfish has a great proposal. This helps out single-stage/fully evolved mons a lot.

 

[Lord Jesseus]

OK then, this was posted before, but I think needs fleshing out:

Should Pokémon with Full DC's and EC's be given more MC?

I think the general concensus on the IRC chat was that a boost of 3 MC IF both EC & DC are at there upper limits. This means that there is less waste, and would also promote use of the stronger team members.

Can I get some feedback here?

As a user of Rotom, who has no evolutions or Dream World Ability...
FUCK YES PLEASE.

 

[Dogfish44]

I'm against the stat changes. This puts a SERIOUS dent in sets of mons which were once equals, but now are seperated by stats. This is effectively damaging the metagame, by making things less balanced. The metagame right now is balanced,there is no reason to change the stats. There will always be things on the border, no need to move the border and hit other things.

For instance - take Armaldo and Crustle. They're pretty much equal, but by changing these stats they become shifted. Now you're making one stronger, and actually Weakening the other.

I cannot see any reason to shift the stats apart from "That looks about right". In my eyes, they'll ruin the metagame.

Also, thanks for support on the 3 MC. Here's hoping that it'll go to vote ^_^

 

[Pallas Athena]

I support the counter thing. But, if it is passed I support moving back to one MC a battle. This would be the way a mon would quickly gain a movepool, and am incentive to keep training it after evolution. That, and movepool gain would actually take some time.

 

[TEA_DEMON]

the problem with that was that it took far too long to accumulate mc. you're doing three battles for one egg move at 1 mc a battle, excluding koc, and when you take into consideration that each match could take three days or so each it just gets ridiculous.

i do think that the pokes that have no dw ability / evolution need compensation; weedle, caterpie and wurmple are exceptions with regard to ec so why can't we do this? 3 does seem like a good amount of mc for these pokes, but 4 wouldn't be overkill imo since that's your net counters per battle anyway (excluding koc).

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

I just noticed in the Data thread it states that multi-target moves have 75% of their base power if used in doubles or higher, but I haven't seen any refs following this. Can we get an official standing on this?

This is correct.

 

[Flamestrike]

Taking a quick break from reffing to pop in here and talk about Beginner Battles. Right now the rule is no evolved and single-stage mons, but there are a few mons that don't fall under either of these restrictions yet are most likely too powerful for such a battle (Scyther is the main offender IMO, mainly it's the old single-stage Pokemon that got an evolution in a later generation). I'm not entirely sure how we could ban these Pokemon from Beginner Battles aside from just flat-out saying "No Scyther/etc", maybe any Pokemon that has at one point been a single-stage Pokemon? Or maybe it's not necessary and I'm overreacting. Either way input would be nice.

 

[Objection]

Plus there are some mons like Pachirisu and Farfetch'd that are single stage mons but arguably no better than unevolved mons.

So, what I would suggest is: you can only use unevolved mons and single stage mons with a rarity rating (TC cost) of 3 or less in beginner battles. It'd deal with the Scyther problem since Scyther costs 4 TC.

 

[Tortferngatr]

the problem with that was that it took far too long to accumulate mc. you're doing three battles for one egg move at 1 mc a battle, excluding koc, and when you take into consideration that each match could take three days or so each it just gets ridiculous.

i do think that the pokes that have no dw ability / evolution need compensation; weedle, caterpie and wurmple are exceptions with regard to ec so why can't we do this? 3 does seem like a good amount of mc for these pokes, but 4 wouldn't be overkill imo since that's your net counters per battle anyway (excluding koc).

I'm a fairly slow ref, and I've participated in an absurdly slow battle. There's a reason I only had 4 mons for a while.

Also, I propose that Kricketot be changed to 1 rarity, and Burmy to 2 rarity. The reason for this is that while Kricketot has a bad movepool AND a bad evolution [as for Technician Aerial Ace, Syclant does it better for the same price], Burmy has 4 evolutions, all who have movepools just as good as Kricketune's and generally better stats to boot.

 

[Deck Knight]

A few more big issues for voting.

Implementing a Ref Apprenticeship Program:

Reffing quality is very important in ASB. With so many members now, it can be difficult to find a willing ref. Between RPs, Tournaments, and up to 3 battles each, reffing becomes exponentially harder unless a new, good quality ref is picked up for at least one out of every 3 new battlers. Therefore in order to streamline the process, an apprenticeship program is outlined below:

Reffing Levels: Head/Tutor Ref, Registered Ref, Apprentice Ref.

Head/Tutor Refs: The job of a Head or Tutor Ref is to guide Apprentice refs through an apprenticeship program. There will be additional compensation for Tutor Refs as a function of helping Apprentice Refs.

Registered Ref: This is any ref that has passed the apprenticeship program. Continuous active, high quality reffings will allow a Registered Ref to apply to become a Tutor Ref. The exact process by which this will be done will be decided at a later date.

Apprentice Ref: This is a ref going through the apprenticeship program.

Apprenticeship Program:

The Apprenticeship program is very simple. It pairs a Tutor Ref with an Apprentice Ref. An Apprentice Ref takes on a battle in the Battle Tower thread, and maintains private message contact with the Tutor Ref.

Before posting the thread original post and before each round, the Apprentice Ref sends a PM to the Tutor Ref to look over. The Tutor Ref makes notes about post formatting, calculations, and any field effects added in or other circumstances of the match. Once the notes are completed, the Tutor Ref PMs the notes back to the Apprentice Ref with the original reffing. The Apprentice ref makes any necessary adjustments, and then posts the round.

An Apprentice Ref should make PMs to their tutor ref in the following format:

Player A vs. Player B (Original Post) for the initial post.
ex: Deck Knight vs. Flora (Original Post)

Once the OP is looked over, the match title should be posted:

Player A vs. Player B. (AR: <Assistant Ref>, TR: <Tutor Ref>)
ex. Deck Knight vs. Flora (AR: 1337H0FFA, TR: Its_A_Random)

The same process occurs for each round, using the following format for the PM:

Player A vs. Player B (Round 1) for the round posting.
ex: Deck Knight vs. Flora (Round 1)

The round will be looked at and audited for calculations, effects, etc. and PMed back to the Apprentice Ref. The Tutor Ref will also be looking at things like consistency in effects over rounds, any creative elements that could be added/subtracted, and generally anything else that might be important.

Implementation: Flora will be in control of the first slate of Tutor Refs. Once she determines who should be considered a Tutor, Registered, and an Apprentice, the Apprenticeship program will start.

Tutor Rewards: A Tutor shall receive a reward equal to half the RC the match gives to the Apprentice Ref for that match.

A separate issue:

Codifying Beginner Battles:

A Beginner Battle can be codified with the following ruleset:

1. Pokemon must be able to evolve
2. Pokemon with 4 rarity cannot be used.
3. Rarity Cost of Pokemon on one side of the field cannot exceed # of Pokemon + 3
4. 1 Rarity is added to the rarity of a 2nd stage Pokemon in a 3 stage line.
5. A Pokemon with full EC or full DC cannot be used in a Beginner Battle.

 

[TravelLog]

I have a question. Having just bought a beldum I realized that as it can learn no egg/TM's at its initial stage it can only get 3 tutor moves. However, that leaves 3 extra moves it should get but cannot use... So, does it (or should it, if it doesn't) get three free moves once it becomes metang?

@above: also, sign me up for the Ref tutoring program!

 

[Tortferngatr]

I have a question. Having just bought a beldum I realized that as it can learn no egg/TM's at its initial stage it can only get 3 tutor moves. However, that leaves 3 extra moves it should get but cannot use... So, does it (or should it, if it doesn't) get three free moves once it becomes metang?

@above: also, sign me up for the Ref tutoring program!

It isn't approved yet.

Also, any feedback about Kricketot/Burmy?

 

[Pallas Athena]

Discussed previously, but needs to be investigated again:

NERF WEATHER

I don't have a problem with the new mechanics, but the moves are still quite OP. It is 0.66 energy an action to suddenly gain a sizeable advantage for a long time. Therefore, I propose to bring the EC of Rain Dance, Sunny Day, Trick Room, etc up to 15 or reduce the effects to three rounds. This keeps it reasonable at one energy an action.

 

[Flamestrike]

I agree with this. In-game weather is five turns, which are usually equivalent to actions in ASB. 5 rounds is 15 actions in singles and doubles, triple that. I wouldn't call them OP, but they definitely last too long compared to most other effects that are measured in actions and not rounds.

 

[Gerard]

Just that TR doesn't have anything that helps it (just like tailwind/wonder room, etc..) and speed is not as powerful here as in-game so pelase just nerf weather if you do so (since all weathers give an actual not-speed bonus (damage, fire/water boost))