Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk IV

[Its_A_Random]

MODERATED THREAD PLEASE TAKE THIS THREAD AND ALL POSTS SERIOUSLY DON'T SHITPOST ETC.

This is the main thread for communication with Council Members outside of IRC. This is the spiritual successor to the old State of the Game, and is accessible to any player.

Ground Rules:

• Be respectful. Posts that are found insulting, demeaning, or otherwise fail to contribute to a respectful dialog will be deleted. Repeat offenders WILL be infracted.
• Minimise the amount of time spent off-topic. If there are several active proposals, it would help if those proposals were concluded.
• Before bringing up an issue, please look through the rest of the thread to make sure that your suggestion hasn't been made earlier or your issue has not already been addressed. Also ensure that you are not simply asking a question - we have a Simple Question, Simple Answer thread or the IRC for that.
• This is not a thread for shitposting. This is a serious thread and everything shall be treated as such.

Now then, as for the actual proposal of ideas. When you have an idea, you'll want to post it. Give it a short name, and describe the proposal concisely. An example could be:

Aqua Ring

I believe that Aqua Ring is underpowered at the moment. I propose that we make the duration infinite.

That is it. Any user can make a proposal, and the proposal can be either be vague (There is something wrong with X, can we please fix it somehow?), an open discussion (I believe that we can fix Y with either A or B, can we discuss?) or a full proposal (I think that we should implement Z).

A council member can open discussion on the topic if they feel it is warranted - the council member will post a link to this new discussion in a post in feedback. A council member can also create a discussion thread without going through feedback, if they so desire.

Please note that when a proposal is moved through, the discussion might not inherently focus on that single proposal, but the entire aspect of the problem the proposal wishes to solve.

If an idea ever has a discussion thread created for it, it will go through the voting process eventually.

Current Council Members:
Exclaimer
FMD
Maxim
Mowtom
Ooraloo
smashlloyd20
Someoneelse

Roleplay Committee:
Dogfish44
Exclaimer
Maxim

Gym Committee:
deadfox081
Dogfish44
Birkal
Texas Cloverleaf

Previous Threads
ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk I
ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk II
ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk III

 

[Its_A_Random]

Constitution implemented as of 3rd of June 2014.

The ASB Constitution:

The aim of the Anime Style Battling Council is to rationally, quickly and efficiently judge and implement proposed for ASB by the larger ASB Community. It aims to build upon, not revert, the existing spirit of ASB by approving proposals that strengthens the mechanics of the game. The ASB Council recognises that changes are made only to fix an existing flaw in existing mechanics, or to make incremental improvements by way of small inclusions.

CHAPTER I: Selecting the Council

1. All council members are selected by a vote by the eligible ASB community, and
   • The eligible ASB community is defined as the users who have had no less than one month experience in ASB.
   • The vote is public, and will be conducted in the Policy Center subforum by a forum moderator.
   • This voting will take place every three months, which will be the term of a council, and there are no restrictions on any user serving on consecutive councils.
   • The seven people who have achieved the most amount of votes from the community will be selected to be seated on the council.
2. There will be seven council members elected, and
   • They may step down voluntarily at any point during their term.
   • If at any time there are less than seven active users in the council, the council will decide among themselves via a vote who the replacement user will be, and the decision will be carried out in an efficient and timely manner.
3. At any time, a member of the council may call a vote of no confidence (or of inactivity) regarding a fellow council member, and the active members of the council will engage a private vote regarding the member’s involvement in the council, and if only if there are no votes cast for keeping the council member, that user is ejected from the council. The period of inactivity must be a minimum of 2 weeks without doing anything ASB related.

CHAPTER II: System Changes

1. If a proposed change to the ASB system gains considerable support on the Feedback thread, the council may make a decision on its implementation, under the following guidelines:
   • After a proposal is posted, people may like the post. Alternatively, the post may be quoted, and another user may provide feedback towards the proposal to help garner attention and support.
     
   • Assuming a proposal garners the required support to discuss (being "liked" and/or quoted 5 times or more), a discussion is then opened. Discussion will last until such time that the discussion has either become inactive or gotten out of hand (at the discretion of the council).
     
   • Once this point has been reached, council members will hold a public vote, using single vote for polls with 2 options and IRV for polls with more than 2 options. The options shall consist of the current system (ie, no change), the original proposal and any amended proposals with decent support.
   • If the vote passes, the change is considered implemented in any way the council decrees, so long as there is no veto present from a relevant power.
2. Proposals that lie within the council’s control include changes to specific moves, abilities, items, minor changes to game mechanics, and any major change to the game’s mechanics must also obtain a public approval from Deck Knight, such major proposals including but not limited to,
   • Changes to how damage is calculated, or to the concept of the battle system as a whole.
   • Inclusion of a mechanic that lies outside of the existing spirit and rule-set of ASB.
3. Any decision passed by majority vote of the council that directly alters or amends powers given to the ASB Council, that is to say anything not initially agreed upon as to their role and power, is considered to be in effect unless it grants a power or powers that would violate section II.2.
4. Voting takes place through the following process:
   • Satisfying guidelines for a proposal, a member of the council creates two new threads in the Policy Center subforum for the proposal, one titled DISCUSSION and the other VOTING, outlining the proposal in the Original Post of both threads, in the Council Social Group.
   • The council may discuss among themselves on IRC (#capasb) or on the discussion thread in the Council Social Group, at all times taking into account feedback from non-Council members.
   • The council will in due time publicly vote in the voting thread created for that proposal.
   • If the proposed change receives a majority vote from the council, it is considered implemented and the change announced in all relevant areas.

Constitution - obsolete amendments

From Mk I, by IAR in the OP.

The ASB Constitution:

The aim of the Anime Style Battling Council is to rationally, quickly and efficiently judge and implement proposed for ASB by the larger ASB Community. It aims to build upon, not revert, the existing spirit of ASB by approving proposals that strengthens the mechanics of the game. The ASB Council recognises that changes are made only to fix an existing flaw in existing mechanics, or to make incremental improvements by way of small inclusions.

CHAPTER I: Selecting the Council

1. All council members are selected by a vote by the eligible ASB community, and
   • The eligible ASB community is defined as the users who have had no less than one month experience in ASB.
   • The vote is private, and will be sent to a standing member on the council via PM.
   • This voting will take place every six months, which will be the term of a council, and there are no restrictions on any user serving on consecutive councils.
   • The seven people who have achieved the most amount of votes from the community will be selected to be seated on the council.
2. There will be seven council members elected, and
   • They may step down voluntarily at any point during their term.
   • If at any time there are less than seven active users in the council, the council will decide among themselves via a vote who the replacement user will be, and the decision will be carried out in an efficient and timely manner.
3. Council members have a moderated but public social group that consists of the seven council members.
4. At any time, a member of the council may call a vote of no confidence (or of inactivity) regarding a fellow council member, and the active members of the council will engage a private vote regarding the member’s involvement in the council, and if only if there are no votes cast for keeping the council member, that user is ejected from the council. The period of inactivity must be a minimum of 2 weeks without doing anything ASB related.

CHAPTER II: System Changes

1. If a proposed change to the ASB system gains considerable support, be it on IRC or the Feedback thread, the council may make a decision on its implementation, under the following guidelines:
   • The proposal must be at least a week old before the council begins council discussion and voting on the proposal, so as to give all users a chance to respond to the proposal.
   • After the time has passed and the community response to the proposed change is still positive, the council may begin private discussion and voting process.
   • If the vote passes, the change is considered implemented in any way the council decrees, so long as there is no veto present from a relevant power.
2. Proposals that lie within the council’s control include changes to specific moves, abilities, items, minor changes to game mechanics, and any major change to the game’s mechanics must also obtain a public approval from Deck Knight, such major proposals including but not limited to,
   • Changes to how damage is calculated, or to the concept of the battle system as a whole.
   • Inclusion of a mechanic that lies outside of the existing spirit and rule-set of ASB.
3. In cases where a motion has been passed for a decision that directly alters or amends powers given to the ASB Council, that is to say anything not initially agreed upon as to their role and power, a decision towards the motion regarding the powers granted to the ASB Council must be dictated by Deck Knight, the only authority greater than the ASB Council and thus outside the conflict of interest.
4. Voting takes place through the following process:
   • Satisfying guidelines for a proposal, a member of the council creates two new threads in the Council Social Group (ASB council plans) for the proposal, one titled DISCUSSION and the other VOTING, outlining the proposal in the Original Post of both threads, in the Council Social Group.
   • The council may discuss among themselves on IRC (#ASBCouncil) or on the discussion thread in the Council Social Group, at all times taking into account feedback from non-Council members.
   • The council will in due time publicly vote in the voting thread created for that proposal.
   • If the proposed change receives a majority vote from the council, it is considered implemented and the change announced in all relevant areas.

CHAPTER III: Regarding Other Entities

1. The Gym committee and the Roleplay committee hold complete sovereignty from the ASB Council; however, if either committee is overly inactive or otherwise incompetent, the council may take any actions deemed necessary to expedite the duties of the committee, be it through selecting replacements or by taking charge of the committee entirely.
2. Deck Knight holds ultimate veto power over any action that the Council takes, and continues to operate as Word of God.

Proposal for how proposals are done (amended):

Feedback thread is redone. A proposal is posted, and rather than debate the proposal in the thread people quote the post and say either "I support this proposal and wish to move this to a discussion", or "I disagree with this proposal and wish to move it to discussion". Alternatively, a person can respond with "I agree with this proposal but do not believe this proposal should go to discussion" or "I disagree with this proposal and believe it should not be slated for discussion". The first five votes will be counted.

If in the five votes on a proposal, at least two say to not move to debate, the council members can amongst themselves through private chats/IRC take any option:

• Instantly vote to implement the proposal
• Move proposal to discussion
• Ignore the proposal entirely

If fewer than two of the first five votes say to not move to debate, the council will default to moving the proposal to discussion. Whichever course of action the council decides on will be posted in the feedback thread.

Assumming a proposal garners the required support to discuss, a discussion is then opened. Discussion will last until such time that the discussion has either become inactive or gotten out of hand (at the discretion of the council). Once this point has been reached, council members will hold a public vote, using single vote for polls with 2 options and IRV for polls with more than 2 options. The options shall consist of the current system (ie, no change), the original proposal and any amended proposals with decent support. If, after all council members have voted, the vote is tied or otherwise in deadlock, Deck Knight reserves the right to cast a tiebreaking vote. If this still results in a tie in a poll that uses IRV, there will be another vote between the remaining options in that poll.

In the event that a proposal does not get five votes on it within 25 posts of its inception, the proposal may be bumped by making a post containing a link to the proposal and additional links to all votes cast on the proposal with the stances being mentioned in the post. This process may be repeated as necessary every 25 posts after each bump; however, if a proposal ends up with four votes on it twice in a row, the council may make a decision to veto, discuss or implement the proposal based on the votes so far.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Okay you can post now. Please behave.

 

[Its_A_Random]

I'll get the ball rolling with two topics I was meant to deal with months ago but forgot about. Good thing I remembered to have the thing posted in a Notepad.

[14:28:43] Texas that being said
[14:28:49] Texas IAR we should implement two things
[14:28:55] Texas the first being the thing stratos suggested
[14:28:59] Texas wrt synthesis+solarbeam
[14:29:04] Texas any healing at priority from a combo
[14:29:06] Texas gts havled
[14:29:13] Texas same as priority combo BAO
[14:29:15] Texas BAP*
[14:29:49] Its_A_Random okay
[14:29:53] Its_A_Random and the other
[14:30:09] Its_A_Random I'll cp this into a notepad so I dont forget
[14:30:16] Texas second thing should be allowances to make minor alterations to combo properties when combining the moves if necessary (i.e. the combo being non-contact when a component is contact if the use of the combo would be in a non-contact manner)
[14:30:31] Its_A_Random agree
[14:30:37] Texas i.e. contacting the ground to make a big boom
[14:31:19] Its_A_Random that rule should be loose imo

Basically:

Issue #1: Healing Move + Damaging Move in a combo. Basically a balance issue, the idea being that Synthesis + Solar Beam as an example can be a very strong combination, if not unbalanced. What is your stance on this? Should we have the recovery in such a combo like how priority moves have half BAP in a combo or not? Why?

Issue #2: Clarifying Contact + Non-Contact combo to allow the user to specify contact or not. This allows for greater flexibility in the combination system and allows some things like Giga Impact + Earthquake to be used as a Non-Contact or as a Contact. Helps aid with referee discretion.

 

[JJayyFeather]

Issue #1: No. Those combos should honestly be banned as a whole, rather than just mitigated, given just how accessible it makes the healing, not to mention they still get the damage. If we are going to continue allowing that, both the healing and the damage need to be halved. Notice I said the damage, not the BAP.

Issue #2: In agreement there, since Giga Impact + Earthquake in sensible flavor-wise, but should not have a contact flag.
-------------------------
Also, I have an important question (and it's kinda why I posted about the lack of a Feedback thread).

http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...-candidate-gerard.3588930/page-2#post-7200834
What is the type of the combination in the following cases?:

a) Poison Jab + Comet Punch (Move + Multi-Hit where the Move's BAP can be either higher or lower than the BAP of the Multi-Hit, dependent on hit count)
b) Poison Sting + Pin Missile (Move + Multi-Hit where the Move's BAP is higher than the per hit BAP, but will never be higher than the actual BAP of the Multi-Hit move)​

EDIT: Texas found a quote from the handbook to answer this.
"If one move is a multi-hit move, calculate that move's Base Attack Power by determining the number of hits, then add it to the Base Attack Power of the other move. If both moves are multi-hit, add the two powers per hit together and then the number of hits is that of whichever move hits more times."

We can discuss practicality later, I needed an answer ASAP though.

 

[Dogfish44]

Healing + Damaging: More relevant is that we allow the healing to go in the Charge phase - without codifying anything on when combos like that should work. Like, if I were to use, let's say, Razor Wind + Whirlwind, I would never expect the Whirlwind to happen in the charge phase - always in the attack phase. On the other hand, Focus Punch + Focus Energy is something where the combo from the charge makes sense. I think there's value in discussing where ref discretion applies here?

(Oh, and I don't think you really need to nerf Synthesis + Solar Beam, but again, my 2c)

Contact + Non-Contact: This makes sense. It also helps with Poison Sting comboes... which leads us onto...

Multi-Hit: My gut simply wants to compare the BAP assuming one hit on each move - randomness I can deal with in most places, but randomness in type feels broken, for a lack of better word.

 

[Exclaimer]

Issue #1: Healing Move + Damaging Move in a combo. Basically a balance issue, the idea being that Synthesis + Solar Beam as an example can be a very strong combination, if not unbalanced. What is your stance on this? Should we have the recovery in such a combo like how priority moves have half BAP in a combo or not? Why?

Issue #2: Clarifying Contact + Non-Contact combo to allow the user to specify contact or not. This allows for greater flexibility in the combination system and allows some things like Giga Impact + Earthquake to be used as a Non-Contact or as a Contact. Helps aid with referee discretion.

#1: If we do nerf this, I propose we just delay the healing to the attack portion of Solar Beam. I think the issue is purely with having priority healing, which is pretty powerful (even though nobody has ever cried out over Prankster Recover).

#2: I 100% agree with this. I don't have much to add onto this for now.

 

[JJayyFeather]

Replying to Dogfish44 here: Ref discretion applies there insofar as to make sense of the combination. If Solar Beam + Synthesis were to happen at the same priority, there's no way it should be allowed since that is literally performing 2 different actions at once. Razor Wind + Whirlwind is different honestly since at least you can logically just release one wind to achieve both goals at once.

 

[Frosty]

Speaking on combos, there is an issue that used to have one interpretation and lately another one is emerging and it would be best to solve it.

Take a "IF Damaging-Fire Move THEN etc".

If I do a combo involving a damaging Fire-Move, but the end result isn't Fire-Typed, should the sub be triggered or not?

It used to be considered as triggered in the past. But lately some refs are considering as not triggered and I can't call that "wrong" (or"right", really) since the rules aren't clear on that regard.

Can we get a ruling on the matter?

EDIT: ftr

Dogfish44: my 2c on damaging [type]: It should activate (Consider IF Thunder Wave THEN Magic Coat ; Discharge + Thunder Wave), since the sub class itself is only special in that it's very large. there's a case to be made for needing a 3rd sub class (damaging [type] moves, damaging [type] combo, damaging [type] 'action'), but that's not a thing atm

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Those have always been considered as cases where the sub triggers and there's vast precedence supporting that since that sub class was first introduced.

And if it's not the case I need to reorder in AOT

 

[JJayyFeather]

Given it's current wording: The substitution should activate.

Now to explain why it really should not work like that:

Typing, unlike a move, is 1 quality of a move. You can break a Thunder Wave sub with a combo involving Thunder Wave because Thunder Wave just lends its properties to the combination. But if the combination does not take on the typing of a move in the combination, then the combination should not trigger.

Think of it this way: Moves blend all their other qualities in a combination, so Discharge + Thunder Wave still is Thunder Wave since it is guaranteed to Paralyze. But Typing isn't blended, it's one dominates the other.

So in the 'fallout' of this decision, we should probably adjust the rules to make it known that Move Type subs do not consider the components.

Also: For the love of god can there be a place where these rulings are stored? Whether it be in it's own thread or edited into the handbook, there seem to be a lot of these discussions that never get placed anywhere, leaving a lot of floating judgment out there. Because honestly, if this has been ruled in the past as such, then it feels like there should be a note about it somewhere.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

I think of the "move" being used as the combination with 2 other moves inside, but the final "move" used is still the combo.
It just doesn't make sense that if you use a fire-typed attack with 24 bap (hyper beam + flamethrower), it triggers a sub for normal type moves.

Edit: even if we rule that texas is right there and he gets his sub abuse, that still should be changed for future battles. As noted, it's not optimal logic.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

relevant handbook passage

[14:02:33] <Texas> while the attributes of a different-move combo are equal to the attributes of one move added to the attributes of the other.

digging through old feedbacks and sotgs to find where damaging combo sub class was first created to as to find a reference point for where battles may have started using diff typed combos that were subbed for

relevant policy threads
feedback 1: http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...d-new-proposal-handling-system-in-op.3462106/
feedback 2: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/asb-feedback-game-issues-thread-mk-ii.3483451/
sub 1: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/substitutions-overhaul.3487268/
sub 2: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/substitutions-overhaul.3519902/
sub 3: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/substitution-rules-re-re-re-re-re-re-wegetit-visited.3558985/
feedback 3: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/asb-feedback-game-issues-thread-mk-iii.3506310/
2014 sotg: http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/state-of-the-game-07-04-14.3504022/
2011 sotg: http://www.smogon.com/forums/posts/3721435/
earlier 2011 stog: http://www.smogon.com/forums/thread...-huge-stat-announcement.3451107/#post-3658466

 

[Complications]

It's come to my attention that Grass Pelt probably needs a tweak in reference to our recent consistency tweak regarding 50% stat increases:

While Grassy Terrain is active, the Defense of the Pokémon with this Ability is increased by 50%.

This Pokemon thrives on environments with Grass Arena type or under the Grassy Terrain effect, reducing the damage from incoming physical attacks by two (2) BAP.

I feel that one a few simple changes could suffice:
1. Increase the damage reduction by 3 BAP to fall in line with other 50% modifiers such as Swarm
2. Increase the damage reduction to 5 to fall in line with Fur Coat, a similar ability
3. Change the value from damage reduction to a 1.5x increase to the Pokemon's armor, rounded up, to fall in line with items such as Choice Specs and Choice Band

It is important to note that, if this gets looked at however, Grass Pelt is slightly different from any of the analogous abilities I listed in that:
1. This modifier tends to apply to offensive damage modifiers
2. Fur Coat's ability description on Bulbapedia states that it halves all incoming physical damage, whereas Grass Pelt's description states that it increases Defense by 50%, which, while similar, can be different in niche ways both ingame and in ASB.
3. This modifier only applies to the items listed above, as far as I know

 

[Frosty]

Hi

I wanna change how white-listing is done for something along the lines of:

1) PM the examiner all the matches you are currently reffing or that you reffed (without being subreffed) and finished in the past 2 months. PM ALL. If you sugarpick them, it is an automatic Rejection.
2) If there are enough matches done (parameter is 10-15 matches total - with some leeway for and against depending on the situation), examiner will check if the reffing done is minimally acceptable
3) To allow white-listing, the examiner should be convinced that:
a) The candidate pulls his share of reffing work here (benchmark is 8-10 3vs3 BT casual matches in 2 months. If you do primarily flashes, you will probably need more, but you can get the license doing only flashes (since they are a significant contribution to the training of the respective players). If you do primarily serious reffings (TLR, Raid, Gym and Tourney basically) you might get it with less. Self-reffed matches (except for the facilities where you play opponent and ref) won't count here).
b) The candidate can ref well enough to ref reliably casual 1vs1 or 2vs2
c) The candidate is not a john. While he can be DQ'd once or twice in the matches linked (or more if there is a reason), if he passes DQ constantly, he may be rejected under those grounds.
4) If the examiner is convinced, he gives a WhiteList license that is valid for 6 months. To renew the license, the candidate will need to repeat the process nearing the end of the period
5) If the examiner isn't convinced, he will reject the candidate, explaining his reasons. The candidate can apply again in one month.

So basically any ref that refs enough stuff and isn't incompetent can get white-listed.

The numbers can be tweaked if necessary, it is just a general idea.

If there is enough support, I'd really like if this got a separated thread, so it isn't buried here btw :>

 

[nightblitz42]

I just transferred my Zoroark over to Sun and Moon and whenever it uses a Z-Move, its Illusion wears off right before the fancy animation begins. I suggest that the Illusion ability in ASB should be updated to match its in-game effect. Something along the lines of:

Whenever you send this Pokemon out, it can feign the appearance of another member on your squad. If the disguised Pokémon uses a Z-Move, the Illusion ceases right before the attack. If this Pokemon is damaged by a direct attack, the Illusion will cease at the end of the round. Direct damage is any attack that does damage to the Pokemon's HP. Attacks that are evaded, blocked via Protect, or damage a Substitute are not considered direct damage. It will retain the typing and moveset of the Pokemon with Illusion. [Usage Note: PM the ref if you are sending out a Pokemon with Illusion with the info on said Pokemon and one of your squad members in a Switch=KO battle. You must use that squad member later in the battle though.]

 

[JJayyFeather]

Addressing Complication's point about Grass Pelt.

The appropriate response would be to make it increase Defense rank by two (2). This provides the effective +3 to the defensive stat that would be associated with x1.5 increase, while allowing it to affect a move such as Psyshock, which targets the Defense stat.

see: This is my suggested change.
----------
Also, if we're going back to this stuff, why was none of the stuff that was mentioned in SotG even remotely discussed?

SC/WC Moves: Sky Drop (average 3 higher than it should be)
x1.5 Inconsistencies: Sniper, Marvel Scale, Plus, Minus. All of these were overlooked in the mass change.

Sniper, Plus, and Minus are all x1.5 effects in-game, but only +2 here. Proposing to bump this to +3.
Marvel Scale I'm proposing to give it the exact same treatment as Grass Pelt, since they both do the exact same thing, but with different conditions.

Sky Drop: Using WC 3 as the average (same as from original Weight-based move discussion and from Storm Throw), Sky Drop gets 9 BAP on average in ASB, which is 3 BAP higher than what it is supposed to have. Its in-game BP is only 60, which means we should be aiming for a 6 BAP Sky Drop on average. With this in mind, I have a proposal for how to change Sky Drop.
BAP: From 6+WC to 4+WC/2, which while lowering the move to a point below the average, prevents the move from scaling upwards ridiculously. Alternatively we can just drop it to 3+WC, but that's still got a very high end to it.
EN: From 5+WC/2 to 4+WC/2, just because I don't think the move should cost the same if we are removing 3 BAP from it.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Sky Drop: Using WC 3 as the average (same as from original Weight-based move discussion and from Storm Throw), Sky Drop gets 9 BAP on average in ASB, which is 3 BAP higher than what it is supposed to have. Its in-game BP is only 60, which means we should be aiming for a 6 BAP Sky Drop on average. With this in mind, I have a proposal for how to change Sky Drop.
BAP: From 6+WC to 4+WC/2, which while lowering the move to a point below the average, prevents the move from scaling upwards ridiculously. Alternatively we can just drop it to 3+WC, but that's still got a very high end to it.
EN: From 5+WC/2 to 4+WC/2, just because I don't think the move should cost the same if we are removing 3 BAP from it.

-3 BAP while -1 EN seems unbalanced?

If we consider WC to be 3 as average then EN should be 2 + WC/2 or 1 + WC to make it match with 6 BAP moves which have 4 EN, no?

BAP: 3 + WC, EN: 1 + WC would work in this case.

However, I don't think WC: 3 should be taken as an average. Because it would favor the lesser weight mons.
If Sky Drop has to be normalized then 6 BAP, 4 EN should be the norm imo.

Example of less weight viable mons: Kecleon, Sylveon, Aromatisse, Salazzle, Lycanrocs, Amoonguss, Mismagius, Rotom, Weezing, Minior-C, Mimikyu, Wormadams.

Other than this there are obtained legends that fall under 1 or 2 WC, For Eg: Meloetta-P (and Meloetta-A), Shaymin, Victini, Diancie, Azelf, Floette-E, Phione.

 

[P2X7]

I would like to point out the fact that Sky Drop's BAP essentially has a "soft" cap thanks to this line:

The Pokemon grabs the opponent in its talons, and drops them from a great height. While in midair, the target of Sky Drop has its attack redirected to the user, and can only hit the user with its attacks (and cannot use Evasive Damaging Moves). Gust, Hurricane, Sky Uppercut, Smack Down, Thunder, Twister, and Whirlwind cannot miss against either Pokemon in the evasive stage of Sky Drop. If the user of Sky Drop is hit by Smack down while in the evasive stage, it crashes to the ground and takes (2 * Weight Class + 4) damage while the target lands unharmed. If Gravity is used, both Pokemon take this crash damage. Sky Drop fails when used on a Substitute, or if the target's Weight Class is equal to or greater than the user's Weight Class + 3. If used on a Flying-type Pokemon, it will deal no damage but the attack will still lift the target into the air as normal.

Because of this limitation, Sky Drop's power is currently unlikely to breach 10, unless used by Tomohawk, Hawlucha, or Dragonite. Also, I would like to call to attention the facts that the heaviest Pokemon capable of learning Sky Drop, Dragonite, rests at WC 6, that only three Pokemon have a WC greater than or equal to six and a weakness to Flying-type attacks, and that only nine Pokemon of WC five or higher are weak to Flying-type attacks; furthermore, most Pokemon heavy enough to lift neutral opponents of such Weight Classes would prefer using moves that provide super-effective coverage or that gain STAB. This means that, without nerfs, Sky Drop, a move primarily used in higher formats due to its secondary effect, not its power, has a BAP that is most commonly <10, which is comparable to the STAB moves frequently used by other Pokemon.

If we decide to modify Sky Drop, I think that BAP=3 + WC is the most reasonable solution. This change reins in the move's power to a level that is close to that of its on-cartridge counterpart, while still rewarding Sky Drop's use against heavier foes, which I feel is a desirable element due to the variety it adds to a Pokemon's movepool.

 

[akela]

This is probably the best place to bring this up again. When it comes to abilities, there needs to be a hierarchy in terms of order in which they occur on a Pokemon. While yes, this is more likely to occur in certain arenas, there are a number of moves (Entrainment, Role Play, Skill Swap) and abilities (Power of Alchemy, Receiver, Trace) that enable pokemon to gain access to a multitude of conflicting abilities. It has already been codified the interaction between abilities like Refrigerate and Aerilate, but it has not been codified how they interact with Normalize or Protean.

For instance, let's say a Pokemon that naturally has access to Aerilate has been Skill Swapped Normalize as well. In this situation, does one ability occur before the other or do they occur simultaneously? Or, even, does one ability overwrite the other? Would a Pokemon with Aerilate and Normalize have a Normal/Flying Dual-Typed attack, a Normal Typed Attack, or a Flying-Type Attack?

With Aerilate and Refrigerate resulting in a Dual-Typed attack, if a Pokemon with that ability combination gains Protean, does it become a Flying/Ice Pokemon when it uses an originally normal-typed attack or does it become Normal-Type?

I sometimes wonder if I exist solely to give the council a headache.

 

[Frosty]

Hi

I wanna change how white-listing is done for something along the lines of:

1) PM the examiner all the matches you are currently reffing or that you reffed (without being subreffed) and finished in the past 2 months. PM ALL. If you sugarpick them, it is an automatic Rejection.
2) If there are enough matches done (parameter is 10-15 matches total - with some leeway for and against depending on the situation), examiner will check if the reffing done is minimally acceptable
3) To allow white-listing, the examiner should be convinced that:
a) The candidate pulls his share of reffing work here (benchmark is 8-10 3vs3 BT casual matches in 2 months. If you do primarily flashes, you will probably need more, but you can get the license doing only flashes (since they are a significant contribution to the training of the respective players). If you do primarily serious reffings (TLR, Raid, Gym and Tourney basically) you might get it with less. Self-reffed matches (except for the facilities where you play opponent and ref) won't count here).
b) The candidate can ref well enough to ref reliably casual 1vs1 or 2vs2
c) The candidate is not a john. While he can be DQ'd once or twice in the matches linked (or more if there is a reason), if he passes DQ constantly, he may be rejected under those grounds.
4) If the examiner is convinced, he gives a WhiteList license that is valid for 6 months. To renew the license, the candidate will need to repeat the process nearing the end of the period
5) If the examiner isn't convinced, he will reject the candidate, explaining his reasons. The candidate can apply again in one month.

So basically any ref that refs enough stuff and isn't incompetent can get white-listed.

The numbers can be tweaked if necessary, it is just a general idea.

If there is enough support, I'd really like if this got a separated thread, so it isn't buried here btw :>

I don't mean to sound impatient, but can this get a thread? I see two councilmembers and one mod liking the proposal and no one went against it. New stuff are piling on this thread and I feel this will get buried once the thread reaches page 2.

And I really wanna get this started asap, as I have no manager for Reffing 202 and I am doing everything by myself...and my free time is vanishing quite fast. I wanna solve this before I am no longer able to keep reffing 202 up. Which will happen in a month or so.

Exclaimer
FMD
Maxim
Mowtom
Ooraloo
smashlloyd20
Someoneelse

 

[smashlloyd20]

I don't mean to sound impatient, but can this get a thread? I see two councilmembers and one mod liking the proposal and no one went against it. New stuff are piling on this thread and I feel this will get buried once the thread reaches page 2.

And I really wanna get this started asap, as I have no manager for Reffing 202 and I am doing everything by myself...and my free time is vanishing quite fast. I wanna solve this before I am no longer able to keep reffing 202 up. Which will happen in a month or so.

Exclaimer
FMD
Maxim
Mowtom
Ooraloo
smashlloyd20
Someoneelse

Will make a longer post later once my wrists aren't exploding but I am strongly strongly in favor of this proposal

 

[acidphoenix]

fluffy for +5/-5. mirrors everything else, and still lets fluffy and flare blitz negate each other

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

7:40:05 PM <+Abra> can we make encore fail at the same times taunt does
7:40:09 PM <+Abra> like sleeping targets
7:40:39 PM <Fort> this makes lots of sense

the "anime" part of asb has been dying out very much lately, and being replaced by "algebra". Let's do something contrary to that imo. This doesn't really fuck anything over balance-wise (contrasted against, say, flavor actions which are hard to sub for), and adds a nice fun interaction.

Also it just makes logical sense for it to happen, since just like you can't hear taunts while sleeping, you can't hear applause/encouragement while sleeping.

X used snore!

Y used encore!

That does get blocked, but it's still not really a balance issue. There are plenty of other ways of dealing with snore, such as straight-up attacking. Snore is, after all, a 5bap move.




inb4 this prompts a discussion removing the sleep thing from taunt

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

X used snore!

Y used encore!