Phase 3: Loose Ends

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Discussion So Far
Stat Changes
Ability and Item Tenets Discussion
Items | Abilities

Phase 3!

This thread will be our final thread between now and the beginning of our The Isle of Armor Omnibus Thread. The goal here is to discuss about any other changes that we feel need to be made in this update.

The only topics that I can assure will not be included in changes going forward are:
- Call Moves and their interactions with Substitutions
- Potentially implementing D/G-Max into our system
----Both of these topics have run into design problems that we feel is better to address after we see the effects of everything else that we are currently changing.

That being said, discussion will begin below with my post including starting topics.
 

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Weaknesses and Resistances
We're heavily in favor currently of a change to modify the resistance/weakness multipliers:
- 0x: 0
- 1/8x: 0.25
- 1/4x: 0.5
- 1/2x: 0.75
- 1x: 1
- 2x: 1.5
- 4x: 2
- 8x: 2.5

The big things to note here are 4x and 1/2x. 4x weaknesses would be more forgiving under this change, and Protean and co abuse is slightly less punishing with this new 1/2x multiplier. Huge fan overall.

Knock Off
We're also heavily in favor of removing the bonus BAP that Knock Off gets when removing an item. We don't think Knock Off actually needs that damage. It does plenty without it, especially considering the effect at hand.

Perish Song
Instant KO -> -30 HP.

This is to reduce how volatile the move really can be sometimes and to prevent cases that just scream inevitable doom.
EDIT: This one is going through. We'll open discussion on reworks/alternative changes to the move again likely around DLC2.

==========

Feel free to either comment on the proposals above or add your own topic proposals to the discussion.
 
Last edited:

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
More loose ends

Item Bundling
Have yet to set a proper price point on these bundles yet. But if we can compile a list of items that would be bundled together into various categories, that would be great. It'll give us a point to start from in terms of what the current cost is.

Different Move Combinations
No don't worry, this isn't suggesting removing them. This is about bringing their EN cost into line with the Same-Move Combinations. There's a handful of other things that are just plain weird to me (acc^2 vs (acc1+acc2)/2 as a primary example), but I'm not looking to adjust the actual power balance of these combinations. I just think they straight up have never costed enough for how much value they often bring to the table. I'm okay with them being somewhat cheaper, but not to the degree that they are currently.

Proposing changing the EN Cost to: ((Move 1's EN Cost + Move 2's EN Cost)/2 + 2) * 3

It closer mimicks the Same-Move Combination EN Cost this way. For a quick read of it, its the Same-Move Combination EN Cost formula, where Move's EN Cost is just replaced with the average EN cost between the two moves of this combination.
 
Item Bundling
Have yet to set a proper price point on these bundles yet. But if we can compile a list of items that would be bundled together into various categories, that would be great. It'll give us a point to start from in terms of what the current cost is.
I'll just put the list here from the Item thread, with one addition. Sans the Power Items idea because that was a terrible idea.

Rotom Applicances (5 items) -> Rotom Catalog
Pikachu Costumes (5 items) -> Costume Closet
Silvally Memories (18 items) -> Disk Drive
Genesect Drives (4 items) -> Genesect Cassette
Arceus Plates (18 items) -> Mystic Plates
Type Gems (18 items) -> Gem Collection
Natural Gift Berries (11 items) -> Natural Gifts (expand to all 18 types)
Type Resist Berries (18 items) -> Resist Berries
 
Some other less clear cut bundles I think could work:
Z-Crystal Bundle
Terrain Seeds
Weather Rocks

I'd also like to just bring up a few inconsistencies in energy costs that I've noticed that I feel should probably be addressed somehow:
Electro Ball (9EN) vs Gyro Ball (7EN). For being functionally the same move for fast vs slow mons I feel like these should probably have their energies line up.
Glare (6EN) vs Stun Spore/Thunder Wave (7EN). Minor but these should probably be the same energy.
Seismic Toss (6EN) vs Night Shade/Psywave/Dragon Rage/Sonic Boom (5EN). Also minor but Seismic Toss being more energy while also having a WC restriction seems odd.
Lovely Kiss/Sing (6EN) vs Hypnosis/Sleep Powder (7EN) vs Grass Whistle (5EN). I think I'd propose that these should have EN proportional to their accuracy (considering spore is more expensive than all of them). I'd say Sleep Powder/Lovely Kiss should be 7EN, maybe Hypnosis too due to its powerful combos. ANd then Grass Whistle and Sing should be either 5 or 6 but not one of one and one of another.
Spider Web (8EN) vs Block/Fairy Lock/Mean Look (6EN). Likely a relic of when Spider Web stopped contact attacks but this should probably get brought in line.


Other than these there are some changes that were discussed on discord that I think people were pretty set with but I just wanted to put them in the thread so that they don't get forgotten

Reworking Strength Sap, definitely needs a change with new ranks.
Changing Fairy Lock damage another move that scales off of ranks and should be changed
 

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I'll just put the list here from the Item thread, with one addition. Sans the Power Items idea because that was a terrible idea.

Rotom Applicances (5 items) -> Rotom Catalog
Pikachu Costumes (5 items) -> Costume Closet
Silvally Memories (18 items) -> Disk Drive
Genesect Drives (4 items) -> Genesect Cassette
Arceus Plates (18 items) -> Mystic Plates
Type Gems (18 items) -> Gem Collection
Natural Gift Berries (11 items) -> Natural Gifts (expand to all 18 types)
Type Resist Berries (18 items) -> Resist Berries
Z-Crystal Bundle
Terrain Seeds
Weather Rocks
Outside of the fact that the Drives actually aren't purchaseable :p, this is a fine list.

Electro Ball (9EN) vs Gyro Ball (7EN). For being functionally the same move for fast vs slow mons I feel like these should probably have their energies line up.
Glare (6EN) vs Stun Spore/Thunder Wave (7EN). Minor but these should probably be the same energy.
Seismic Toss (6EN) vs Night Shade/Psywave/Dragon Rage/Sonic Boom (5EN). Also minor but Seismic Toss being more energy while also having a WC restriction seems odd.
Lovely Kiss/Sing (6EN) vs Hypnosis/Sleep Powder (7EN) vs Grass Whistle (5EN). I think I'd propose that these should have EN proportional to their accuracy (considering spore is more expensive than all of them). I'd say Sleep Powder/Lovely Kiss should be 7EN, maybe Hypnosis too due to its powerful combos. ANd then Grass Whistle and Sing should be either 5 or 6 but not one of one and one of another.
Spider Web (8EN) vs Block/Fairy Lock/Mean Look (6EN). Likely a relic of when Spider Web stopped contact attacks but this should probably get brought in line.
I feel like I remember Electro Ball vs Gyro Ball being intentional. One of them rewards being fast, and the other rewards being slow. In terms of a damage race, being faster is generally better. So it wouldn't surprise me if the costs were differentiated based on that.

Other than that, the rest of these should probably be united. In all cases except the fixed damage move, I'm inclined to unite them upwards. Maybe a middle ground for Spider Web and the other Switch-Preventing Moves.

Reworking Strength Sap, definitely needs a change with new ranks.
Changing Fairy Lock damage another move that scales off of ranks and should be changed
Tentative changes:
Strength Sap: Recovers (Target's Attack Rank + Target's Attack Stage) × 2, but no more than 25.
Fairy Lock: Deals [User's Special Attack Rank] × 2 fixed damage

Strength Sap is a weird one to change, I'll probably play with this number a couple of times before it ships. Fairy Lock's change is one I remember suggesting the last time this came up in Discord, and it keeps Klefki's damage the same if I remember correctly. I was going to add Powder to this list, but its formula ages well since it also factors in a defensive stat.
======
Damaging Evasive Moves
Proposing to remove the (Suspend) option from these moves altogether. Their flexibility contributes highly to both their power level and the sub-writing difficulty imposed on the opponent, and it really doesn't need all that.
======
This is less of a proposal and just more of a thing that I'll start working on soon. I'm going to slow crawl through the Data Audit for straggling poorly written descriptions and leftover flavor effects that either had their associated effects (most WC/SC restrictions for example) removed from other moves and I just missed these, or would have most likely been removed sooner than this if I knew the effect was poorly written/codified. This is primarily a cleanup exercise, if I see things that feel less like either category but should have been removed, I'll make a more visible note about it. There will be a compiled list of all things that will likely get changed after I'm done combing through.
 
Maybe a middle ground for Spider Web and the other Switch-Preventing Moves.
That seems good. Roar/Whirlwind are 7 EN each, so it'd make sense if these moves that have a somewhat related purpose (matchup control) cost the same amount of EN.

On that note, though, why do Roar and Whirlwind cost more EN than the damaging phazing moves? (Circle Throw/Dragon Tail are 5 EN each.) Is it because the damaging ones don't get stopped by substitute and have 100% acc? If so, that makes sense, but Circle Throw/Dragon Tail also have Taunt immunity in addition to damaging the opponent, so I still think they shouldn't be cheaper. We should make them equal, I think (I'd prefer bringing Roar/Whirlwind down to 5.)

Proposing to remove the (Suspend) option from these moves altogether. Their flexibility contributes highly to both their power level and the sub-writing difficulty imposed on the opponent, and it really doesn't need all that.
Yes, please. They eat enough subs even without suspending, and when paired with other potent sub-eaters, they can make it difficult, if not impossible, to successfully order first in some unfortunate matchups.
 

nightblitz42

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I'm in favor of removing the D/E (Suspend) option for two reasons:
Firstly, I've disliked the complexity of D/E move descriptions for a long time, and I feel this is a good way to "trim the fat" off them without overly reducing their power levels.
Secondly, I believe that Suspended D/E moves dodge combos too easily. If I justify the above-average viability of D/E moves by pointing at Combos as a potential answer to them, then Suspended D/E undermines that justification because combos lose to suspended D/E. And I think we see that reasoning in action as players constantly end up spending 2 subs to deal with D/E moves. Essentially this change would drop the potential configurations of D/E attacks from approximately 6 (Suspend outside D/E, suspend after D/E, attack outside D/E, attack during D/E, attack outside D/E in combo, attack after D/E in combo) to a much more manageable but still potent 2 (D/E outside combo, D/E inside combo).

Also, I would like to suggest giving Damaging Draining Moves (Giga Drain, Draining Kiss, Drain Punch, etc) the #recovery tag. On a conceptual level, I feel that they should have it because they are moves that heal. But on a mechanical level, draining moves that hit Super-Effectively often have the potential to heal for more than half as much as a non-damaging healing move, carry almost no risk (they trade evenly against or beat CounterCoat), and even have their healing boosted indirectly by Abilities and held items that boost damage. And even at 12EN, the cost doesn't make much difference so long as the user alternates attacks. The #recovery tag would add some degree of "risk" to these moves by limiting their max uses per mon without mitigating their potency.
 
Last edited:

nightblitz42

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Copying over some stuff from Discord discussion:

[Items]

Grip Claw (rework): The opponent cannot leave battle through the effects of moves, Abilities, and items while under the effect of the holder's Partial Trapping moves.

Binding Band (rework): The holder's Partial Trapping moves deal double (2x) damage at the end of each of the target's actions.

(Personal notes: the rationale for the above changes is nerfing the initial BAP contribution of these items. However, subsequently Grip Claw becomes terrible, hence the new Grip Claw effect. I think these are good changes so long as we also make sure to nerf Perish Song.)

---

[Moves]

Absorb, Drain Punch, Giga Drain, Horn Leech, Leech Life, Mega Drain, Parabolic Charge: Heal the user for 50% of damage dealt (Max. 5hp).

Draining Kiss: Heal the user for 75% of damage dealt (Max. 7hp).

Dream Eater and Oblivion Wing: leave as-is.

Big Root: double draining cap??? Idk

(Personal notes: D/E moves aren't quite oppressive enough to centralize BBP yet, but at the same time their amount of healing is definitely far beyond what would be expected of a decently damaging move. Capping the healing gives opponents more room to outplay mons that use them for basic STAB damage, but probably won't affect mons that use draining moves as coverage.)

Doom Desire, Egg Bomb (Delay), and Future Sight: CT: None.

(Personal notes: Delayed combos impose ridiculous sub pressure, and even more so as we plan to expand the scope of Special Combo feasibility.)
 
Last edited:

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Adding more things from Discord discussion that should be logged:

[Natures]

Natures that boost Defense and Special Defense will now give +2 to Defense/Special Defense instead of +1. All other stat changes based on nature will remain unaffected.

(Personal notes: This is to compensate for the uptime sacrifice made by not choosing a +Atk/SpA/Spe nature. This doesn't change too much about Pokemon that already would have made the decision to boost a defensive stat, but it does make it a more appealing option for Pokemon that previously just erred on the side of uptime.)

[Moves]

Feint - CT: None
Phantom Force, Shadow Force - New line added: "When used in a combination, the attack cannot nullify the effects of any Protective/Evasive Moves active on the target.

(Personal notes: Similar to the delayed damage moves, this is to remove the immense amount of substitution pressure)
 
Damage Multipliers pt. I: Weaknesses:

Completely agreed. 4x weaknesses are probably the most volatile attribute of a Pokemon's design, and, compared to cartridge formats, BBP's slow-paced metagame puts Pokemon with such type combinations at nigh-insurmountable disadvantages due to their inability to hit back for comparable damage. I doubt much benefit will come from this change, but I support any effort to mitigate these flaws.

pt. II: Resistances:

I wouldn't have called for a nerf to resistances, but I'm intrigued by the idea. Although I don't care for the specific goal of nerfing Protean/Libero, I'm looking forward to seeing how mono-attacking beatsticks adapt to the change, and whether new strategies will emerge around them.

Knock Off:

Do not nerf Knock Off. Knock Off is a viable tool for item control because it packs enough power to produce significant chip damage. This allows the user to benefit from the opponent's loss by maintaining an offensive presence on the action of removal, which is the key reason why other, gimmicky choices fail to see Knock Off's level of usage. Due to the increasing pace of BBP's metagame, and the general weaknesses of defensive items that lead players to opt for DPA-boosters, the risk of exposure while neutralizing items cannot be justified if the end result is "breaking even" on effective DPA (e.g. changing a 4HKO to a 5HKO by removing an item, but failing to produce enough damage to maintain your own presumed 4HKO) unless your opponent's item provides far greater power than our current selection allows or you would receive a significant tactical benefit from the removal. Furthermore, the low BAP and/or exploitable conditions of other Dark-type attacks in BBP makes Knock Off an important single-use tool for pressuring Psychic- and Ghost-type opponents, and reducing its power may cause an unintended negative effect on global matchup dynamics.

Perish Song:

This nerf will render Perish Song completely useless. Given the extreme difficulty in keeping a Pokemon alive for 9 actions in a hostile matchup, the value of a 30 HP payoff is negligible. Netting KO's with Perish Song requires immaculate play over three rounds, and many factors, including turn order, movepools, and HP totals can invalidate or trivialize the doomed status regardless of player orders. Additionally, Perish Song is often inferior to offensive alternatives, as these strategies can end matchups quicker and offer meaningful consolations if they are outplayed, relegating its use to desperation, ending stall, and snowballing victories. These aren't inherently unhealthy applications, especially when considering the player skill necessary to avoid exploitation

Historically, the purpose of Perish Song has been to assure a KO for three rounds of effort, which is in line with the capabilities of most offensive strategies. However, this high-value payoff is balanced by Perish Song's cumbersome execution, and widespread usage of the move is discouraged by its lack of immediate reward or guaranteed damage. In contrast, 30 HP damage is achievable in 1-2 action(s), and assigning its equivalent value to a three-round commitment is highly questionable. This version of doom is comparable to Future Sight/Doom Desire, but it is enormously less viable due to its increased delay period, energy cost, opportunity cost, ease of avoidance, and its self-imposed harm that necessitates additional planning. I understand that Perish Song is generally disliked, but I strongly advise reevaluating the magnitude of its downgrade before these changes are applied.

Damaging Recovery Nerf:

I disagree with the want to nerf damaging healing (DH) moves. Unlike recovery moves, the utility of DH attacks is inconsistent and swings largely by matchup; the recovered damage exacerbates type disadvantages, but the low baseline of DH BAP produces significantly less value when hitting for neutral damage, therefore failing to produce frequent drastic upticks in longevity. Regardless, I don't believe the solution is to cap DH drain at such small numbers, as this type of change will only cause problems as players struggle to justify higher energy costs than stronger alternative attacks of the same types. If a nerf is deemed necessary, I would be inclined to side with NB's initial suggestion, but with an important caveat: instead of categorizing DH moves as #healing, create a new tag and limit DH uses separately from traditional recovery. Lumping DH moves with recovery moves causes unnecessary competition among healing options, and the resulting devaluation among both pools inflicts too much collateral damage to be considered a practical solution. Therefore, my proposed change allows both categories to retain their current viability, but imposes tangible limitations to DH moves without neutering their efficacy. However, I would greatly prefer that we wait to change DH moves until the new metagame has shaped, as its improved speed may solve this issue for us.

Binding Band:

With all due respect, I don't think this proposal fully considers the opportunity cost of partial-trapping moves. Binding Band's current state is the result of compensation for its excessive rework, which was catalyzed by its abnormally low value prior to revision and has proved stable enough to weather several system overhauls. After receiving a substantial boost to partial-trapping BAPs and an enormous increase in passive damage, stacking effected moves allowed Binding Band to surpass popular offensive items by a large margin, forcing the reversion of its second change. If the BAP buff of this item is also lost, it will revert Binding Band to its initial form, in which state it was practically unusable because its effective value of +2DPA could not compensate for the massive loss of BAP required to utilize its effect. I'm not really sure what the point of this change is, because the metagame has not changed enough to allow Binding Band to operate without either buff, and it seems counterintuitive to re-engineer an item to expedite slow matchups while instituting global changes that almost universally speed up the game.

More thoughts later, if there's time.
 
Do not nerf Knock Off. Knock Off is a viable tool for item control because it packs enough power to produce significant chip damage. This allows the user to benefit from the opponent's loss by maintaining an offensive presence on the action of removal, which is the key reason why other, gimmicky choices fail to see Knock Off's level of usage. Due to the increasing pace of BBP's metagame, and the general weaknesses of defensive items that lead players to opt for DPA-boosters, the risk of exposure while neutralizing items cannot be justified if the end result is "breaking even" on effective DPA (e.g. changing a 4HKO to a 5HKO by removing an item, but failing to produce enough damage to maintain your own presumed 4HKO) unless your opponent's item provides far greater power than our current selection allows or you would receive a significant tactical benefit from the removal. Furthermore, the low BAP and/or exploitable conditions of other Dark-type attacks in BBP makes Knock Off an important single-use tool for pressuring Psychic- and Ghost-type opponents, and reducing its power may cause an unintended negative effect on global matchup dynamics.
I think the issue I have with this is that Knock Off isn't really "chip damage" in a large amount of interactions its used in. It is an extremely strong option that also removes an item. I would argue that our philosophy in BBP is that free net-action positives are not what we want in the game and that is exactly what Knock Off effectively is if it isn't a "breaking even" option.

As for Dark-types, I don't think that dark-types are only relying on Knock Off to pressure Ghost- and Psychic-types, most of them already have the extremely efficient Foul Play anyways. I am all for a Knock Off nerf, and I don't think that it is benefiting the metagame in its current iteration.
 

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Do not nerf Knock Off. Knock Off is a viable tool for item control because it packs enough power to produce significant chip damage. This allows the user to benefit from the opponent's loss by maintaining an offensive presence on the action of removal, which is the key reason why other, gimmicky choices fail to see Knock Off's level of usage. Due to the increasing pace of BBP's metagame, and the general weaknesses of defensive items that lead players to opt for DPA-boosters, the risk of exposure while neutralizing items cannot be justified if the end result is "breaking even" on effective DPA (e.g. changing a 4HKO to a 5HKO by removing an item, but failing to produce enough damage to maintain your own presumed 4HKO) unless your opponent's item provides far greater power than our current selection allows or you would receive a significant tactical benefit from the removal. Furthermore, the low BAP and/or exploitable conditions of other Dark-type attacks in BBP makes Knock Off an important single-use tool for pressuring Psychic- and Ghost-type opponents, and reducing its power may cause an unintended negative effect on global matchup dynamics.
I think the one thing you're understating is the damage of Knock Off itself. Now, it's not amazingly powerful or anything. But, it is still on average (pre-update stats) either a 12 DMG or 15 DMG hit, depending on offensive stat bias. With the current average value of an item being roughly 4 DPA, it only takes 3 actions of that item being gone for Knock Off to be worth more than 20 DMG, or an expected action.

It can and most certainly will survive a slight nerf to its damage.
Damaging Recovery Nerf:

I disagree with the want to nerf damaging healing (DH) moves. Unlike recovery moves, the utility of DH attacks is inconsistent and swings largely by matchup; the recovered damage exacerbates type disadvantages, but the low baseline of DH BAP produces significantly less value when hitting for neutral damage, therefore failing to produce frequent drastic upticks in longevity. Regardless, I don't believe the solution is to cap DH drain at such small numbers, as this type of change will only cause problems as players struggle to justify higher energy costs than stronger alternative attacks of the same types. If a nerf is deemed necessary, I would be inclined to side with NB's initial suggestion, but with an important caveat: instead of categorizing DH moves as #healing, create a new tag and limit DH uses separately from traditional recovery. Lumping DH moves with recovery moves causes unnecessary competition among healing options, and the resulting devaluation among both pools inflicts too much collateral damage to be considered a practical solution. Therefore, my proposed change allows both categories to retain their current viability, but imposes tangible limitations to DH moves without neutering their efficacy. However, I would greatly prefer that we wait to change DH moves until the new metagame has shaped, as its improved speed may solve this issue for us.
Limiting uses in any form was deemed a "meh" way to deal with the moves simply because of the Pokemon that actually need some of the affected moves as their only form of coverage in that type.

In making the rest of my take on this a bit clearer, its important that I emphasize that the Draining Moves are Damaging Moves first, with a side of recovery, in terms of how they impact our game. In-game, their implementation makes perfect sense when the step in damage dealt can easily be the difference between an OHKO and a 2HKO, with the tradeoff being sustain for your Pokemon. Here, however, the difference is..... maybe you lose an action on your optimal TTK? Maybe? And unlike in-game, you aren't doubling the amount of turns you need to kill and risking a return OHKO, you maybe take 5/6 turns instead of 4/5 turns, but even that isn't guaranteed. This makes the only real cost to using these moves the Energy Cost. Which I'd argue is still in a fine place even with this nerf, maybe it comes down slightly, but I doubt it.

I'll address the rest later, just stopping by briefly.
 
I have some quick thoughts on some of the easier topics. I will probably return later to cover other points if this thread is still open.

Item Bundling:
-Suggestions:
--Wiki / Figy / Mago / Aguav / Iapapa Berries (5 Items) -> Pokéblock Ingredients
--Snowball / Cell Battery / Absorb Bulb / Luminous Moss (4 Items) -> Element Absorbers

D/E Moves:
The only "annoying" aspect of these moves I have experienced in my time playing this game is the ability to use combinations after suspending a D/E move. Therefore, I would prefer removing this function from all D/E moves than the (Suspend) option, as I believe that the pressure exerted by suspended D/E moves is not as oppressive in actual play as it seems in concept.

With that being said, I do actually support making Phantom / Shadow Force and Bounce unsuspendable. These moves have notable advantages over the other D/E moves and worked fine without the (Suspend) option before Gen VIII, so this would help even the overall power level of that category without severely impacting any such move.

Reflect / Light Screen:
These moves were preemptively tuned down because the contemporary mechanical overhaul deemphasized STAB bonuses, Items, Abilities, and Ranks in damage calculations, leaving BAP as the most significant contributor to a Pokemon's damage. Now that these other factors are important again, we can safely revert Screens to their pre-Gen VIII incarnations. Currently, Reflect and Light Screen are nearly useless and almost completely absent from play, implying that they were over-nerfed; thus, a buff would be justified in this situation.
 

JJayyFeather

Drifting~
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I will probably return later to cover other points if this thread is still open.
This thread will probably be open either until the thread has sufficiently died down or we're nearing the update (1-2 weeks away from it). So don't stress too much about not having time, it'll be open for a while.

D/E Moves:
The only "annoying" aspect of these moves I have experienced in my time playing this game is the ability to use combinations after suspending a D/E move. Therefore, I would prefer removing this function from all D/E moves than the (Suspend) option, as I believe that the pressure exerted by suspended D/E moves is not as oppressive in actual play as it seems in concept.

With that being said, I do actually support making Phantom / Shadow Force and Bounce unsuspendable. These moves have notable advantages over the other D/E moves and worked fine without the (Suspend) option before Gen VIII, so this would help even the overall power level of that category without severely impacting any such move.
Personally, I would rather keep all the D/E moves identical in function. That is to say, I lean strongly towards completely stripping suspend if we're going to do it. Alternatively, we can hardcode "tech" moves for Phantom Force and Shadow Force, since those two are the only real problems as a result of lacking any moves to penetrate them (Dive also is kinda an issue in this regard only because the things that get Dive also resist Dive/Surf, but this is fine at least there's some option available).

Now, if discussion breaks out and we decide to leave suspend in place (in either form, partially repealed or fully left alone), then I completely agree with the idea of removing combinations from the list of moves that can used while suspending a D/E move.

Reflect / Light Screen:
These moves were preemptively tuned down because the contemporary mechanical overhaul deemphasized STAB bonuses, Items, Abilities, and Ranks in damage calculations, leaving BAP as the most significant contributor to a Pokemon's damage. Now that these other factors are important again, we can safely revert Screens to their pre-Gen VIII incarnations. Currently, Reflect and Light Screen are nearly useless and almost completely absent from play, implying that they were over-nerfed; thus, a buff would be justified in this situation.
I'm going to very tentatively agree here. I don't think their absence from play is actually indicative of an over-nerf. I'm mostly sure its because a large portion of the Pokemon used in battles don't have access to Knock Off/Pain Split yet, which is commonly paired alongside Screens to greatly decelerate a matchup's timer.

That being said, I'm okay with the idea of reverting the nerf simply because we've restored the distribution of factors in the damage formula to values that aren't heavily leaned towards BAP only. I'm moreso just noting that I don't think its the nerf to the Screens that's holding it back, but rather the limited access to the matchup-slowing tools it pairs very well with.
Item Bundling:
-Suggestions:
--Wiki / Figy / Mago / Aguav / Iapapa Berries (5 Items) -> Pokéblock Ingredients
--Snowball / Cell Battery / Absorb Bulb / Luminous Moss (4 Items) -> Element Absorbers
Oh we can also bundle together the various Power items (Anklet/Band/Belt/Bracer/Lens/Weight)
Added to the shortlist (somewhere in the sky for when I CTRL+F through here).
 
Draining Moves:
Draining moves are not much stronger than high-end attacks of other types with 12+ BAP, which are nowhere near the level of "oppression." Draining moves simply feel stronger because they "undo" part of the work a player puts into fighting their users. Moreover, 5 HP of recovery is worthless for most practical strategies, especially when weighed against the opportunity cost of using the newly-nerfed moves. This changed would relegate draining moves to a purpose of cheesing free actions from an opponent when combined with gimmick plans like Focus Band, as their suboptimal BAP and excessive Energy cost make them unappealing for general use.

I'd also like to touch upon the current balance of draining moves. These moves' 12-EN price tags imply that they are similar in power to 16-BAP attacks; interestingly, this holds true for the top percentage of the metagame that can find a 4-rank difference or higher, but draining moves drop off in efficiency as you approach the new metagame's average match-up of "Rank 8 Attack vs Rank 6 Defense," and they become subpar choices as attacking stats continue to drop. These moves are also heavily match-up dependent. Draining moves are strongest when used to bully an opponent with an exploitable typing and low damage output; unlike the high-BAP attacks they mimic, Drain Punch and friends don't help their user score a KO any faster than would a cheaper or stronger option of the same type, so they are less appealing when fighting something that can hit the more impressive damage benchmarks in our game. The other use of draining moves involves squeezing an advantage out of a matchup in which neither Pokemon can hit its foe super-effectively, but spending ~30 Energy or more for a minor edge in a mediocre matchup is usually a terrible plan.

In essence, draining moves are already kept in check by exorbitant Energy costs and inconsistent usability. They are primarily "dominant" in match-ups that are already horrible for the losing side, and their use in neutral match-ups is hindered by the fact that most draining moves are typed such that their STAB users can be hit neutrally by the same draining move, which devolves an advantage into a waste of Energy and actions that could be used to set up for a better match-up. A nerf to these moves is simply unnecessary.

Restricted Combo Types:
I'd rather see Feint / Phantom Force / Delayed attacks receive a new combo class of "Isolating," a category whose inhabitants cannot be used in different-move combinations. This would alleviate the substitution pressure exerted by such moves while allowing physically biased Ghost-types and specially biased Psychic-types to retain a strong burst damage option.

Knock Off:
I'm not going discuss this very deeply, but Knock Off's current power level is crucial to physically biased Dark-types, as it allows them to accomplish their most intuitive role of threatening Ghost-types and Psychic-types with a quick KO without burning through 30-50% of their Energy in the process. Because the 3-5 extra points of damage obtained from a fresh Knock Off is irrelevant to other users when compared to the value of Item removal, this nerf would only further impact the viability of a part of the metagame that already sees little use due to our ubiquitous Fighting- and Fairy-types.

Duraludon:
GameFreak's shining beacon of synergistic design choices is currently playing with only half an Ability under most circumstances. Here's a suggestion:

Light Metal: The Pokemon's body is constructed of a lightweight yet durable alloy, halving its weight and adding +1 priority to its attacks with 6 or less BAP. If this Pokemon also has Heavy Metal, the unique structure of its body grants it surprising agility and poise, halving its weight again immediately before being hit by an attack. This change ends once damage has been calculated.

Heavy Metal: The Pokemon's body is constructed of a dense, powerful metal, doubling its weight. If this Pokemon also has Light Metal, the unique structure of its body allows it to place surprising surprising weight behind its attack, doubling its weight again immediately before hitting an opponent with an attack. This change ends once damage has been calculated.
 

nightblitz42

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I like your Duraldon change.

As for Knock Off, I'm doubtful about how much it actually helps Physical Dark-Types compared to how much it helps already-good mons (one move does not a good mon make, and other good physical Dark moves don't exist), but whatev. I'm personally kinda ambivalent about the Knock Off nerf anyways.

Now Draining Moves. First off: if we nerf them, we absolutely should reduce their EN costs as well to compensate. No question there. Don't expect us to nerf them and still leave them at an expensive 12en too. With that out of the way, my gripe with draining moves has nothing to do with "feel". It has to do with action economy. To demonstrate, here's some calcs:

8atk Drain Punch with STAB on a neutral 6Def target while holding Black Belt:
Dmg = 8+3+8-6+4 = 17 dmg, +8hp.

17dmg is decent for a damaging attack, but nothing special. It's the +8hp I find interesting. If the +8hp brings you from, say, a 4hko to a 5hko, you've bought yourself 1a via the move's secondary effect. With a move that already did satisfactory damage. In other words, you went +1a. My opinion is that any move that has the potential to go straight +1 in action economy without exploiting the opponent's oversights or using any RNG is worth inspection. Again, I know it's only 8hp, but that 8hp converts into 1a very very easily, and without any interaction with/from the opponent, which makes pure number analysis somewhat misleading.

But what if you hit a target super-effectively? The calc could be:

8atk Drain Punch with STAB on a SE 6Def target while holding Black Belt:
Dmg = (8+3+8-6)*1.5+4 = 23.5 dmg, +12hp.

Once again, decent damage but nothing special. +12hp might convert into +1a, which is cause for alarm maybe. If you use two Drain Punches, you could hit +24hp total. Assuming your opponent can't deal 24dmg per hit in late-game, you may have gone +2a in 2a. You certainly went at least +1a. How do we ensure the opponent can't deal 24dmg per hit in endgame though? With disruption. Drain Punch > Knock Off > Drain Punch. I understand I oversimplified many things in pursuit of cleanliness, but I think this might serve as a theory on how draining moves can be worked into a gameplan that creates action advantage.

Placing a healing cap makes it slightly more difficult to create that first +1a in certain matchups, and considerably more difficult (possibly infeasible) to generate +2a even with disruption. The ability to fudge up the opponent's first-ordering damage calcs is still there though, as is the potential to create that +1a, so I think it could still see use.
 
The action economy involved in the use of draining moves isn't that bad. In the neutral target example, although Drain Punch can convert a 4HKO to 5HKO, its middling BAP and lack of SE modifiers means this extra action alive comes at the cost of dropping its user's damage output by at least one threshold, as well. This highlights an important aspect of draining moves: they create no net action advantage under normal circumstances. Draining moves might still be the best option for certain Pokemon in certain matchups, but these cases typically involve hyper-specialized item choices and/or shallow movepools that limit said Pokemon's utility in that match as a whole.

The same idea applies to super-effective hits. Returning to the metagame-average stats matchup, we can see that a super-effective draining move is only 6 damage away from 3HKO'ing the typical opponent. The Fighting-type, alone, has an abundance of moves it can use to hit this higher threshold; Close Combat and High Jump Kick are the most immediate solutions, but Iron Fist!Hammer Arm and Superpower can be mixed in to alleviate Energy concerns, and certain matchups and statlines (Lucario) allow Revenge, Low Kick, and Focus Blast to achieve the same result. Grass- and Bug-types are capable of meeting this same benchmark, although their selection of high-power moves is more limited, and Draining Kiss's low BAP allows Fairy-types to replicate this effect with the stronger Moonblast and Dazzling Gleam.

This is not an unhealthy amount of damage per action. These high BAP attacks all come with notable limitations and drawbacks: Close Combat, Superpower, and Hammer Arm hinder their users' survivability with stat drops, making the next matchup significantly more difficult; Solar Beam/Blade strike at negative priority and are vulnerable to disruption; and most of the moves are inconsistent due to compounding miss chances or matchup dependency.


Although disruption is a legitimate option to pair with draining moves, the strategy is less potent than it seems. Once again referring to the example you provided: it is important to remember that nothing is weak to both Fighting- and Dark-type moves, and that the damage drop from a stray neutral hit will add yet another action to the time required to KO the Drain Punch user's opponent. The user mitigates two actions worth of damage by reducing its own damage output to the point that the opponent is alive for two more actions than it would if the Drain Puncher had used its strongest attacks. If the opponent uses these actions to attack, the Drain Puncher will be left with comparable health to the situation above, but it will have spent considerably more energy. If the opponent instead uses these actions to set up for a better match-up, the Drain Puncher's trainer has weakened their own control over the match's pace without so much as a KO for their efforts.

Also, draining moves' energy costs significantly impact their viability in late-game scenarios. Drain Punch - Knock Off - Drain Punch, for instance, burns through nearly 30% of its user's energy and leaves the opponent with enough HP to survive the next attack, forcing a 5HKO at best. If a player frequently uses such order sets, their opponent will receive the opportunity to make up the actions "lost" to draining moves when the user of such moves must inevitably Chill or further lower its DPR by switching to cheap, weaker moves.
 

nightblitz42

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Ok, that's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought of before. Draining moves operate as +1a for the user and +1a for the opponent without substantially changing the result of the damage race. Of course, draining moves are more reliable than most high-BAP moves (Superpower/Close Combat reduce stats, messing up the damage race; and HJK/Focus Blast have crippling accuracy issues), but the gist is that they're powerful +1a/+1a moves with high EN costs. Which in my view puts them on the same benchmark as stall moves such as Roost and Protect. Ideally, if Roost or Protect are used successfully, you go +1a/+1a for a substantial EN cost. Same as a draining move.

Of course, +1a for +1a is going to be a valuable trade under certain circumstances. If the user is ordering first, trading +1a to the opponent in order to live until next round is a worthwhile trade; 1a ordering second is worth more than 1a ordering first. Likewise, if the user plans to switch out and get a better matchup later, then the trade is also worthwhile, because 1a in a good matchup is more valuable than 1a in a bad matchup. But maybe that scenario isn't as practical because a resisted Draining move usually won't grant the user +1a to live.

What is worth noting that healing moves and P/E moves have very accessible counterplay. The counterplay to P/E moves is to use any self-buffing move or set up rooms/terrains/weather/hazards. Counter healing moves with Snatch, fast Taunt, or simply raw damage -- most healing moves typically cap around 20hp, which many Pokemon can out-race. In my opinion, it's good for stall moves to have counterplay, because if they were too easy to get away with it would erode the threat of second-order. Is there a way to punish draining moves as a stall tactic, aside from niche counters of Imprison and Heal Block? I suppose fast D/E moves are as good an answer as there is. CounterCoat trades evenly, using buffing moves loses the race, Snatch and Taunt don't stop it, and even racing it with Focus Blast and co. is probably still going to trade even. So really, it seems like super-aggro mons with good offensive stats have the potential to stall more effectively than bulky mons with dedicated HP-recovery moves can. From a balance perspective, that sounds strange to me.
 
I haven't forgotten about this; I've just been busy. I'd like to continue this discussion sometime within the next 24 hours.

Also, I'm stopping here to propose making Galarian Slowpoke available through normal purchase methods rather than locking it behind tournaments like Rockruff-Dusk. This is a regional variant on regular Pokemon that breeds true for an easy supply of G-Pokes, and, if I remember correctly, it has been available to all players at no financial expense for the last few months.
 
Ok, that's an interesting perspective I hadn't thought of before. Draining moves operate as +1a for the user and +1a for the opponent without substantially changing the result of the damage race. Of course, draining moves are more reliable than most high-BAP moves (Superpower/Close Combat reduce stats, messing up the damage race; and HJK/Focus Blast have crippling accuracy issues), but the gist is that they're powerful +1a/+1a moves with high EN costs. Which in my view puts them on the same benchmark as stall moves such as Roost and Protect. Ideally, if Roost or Protect are used successfully, you go +1a/+1a for a substantial EN cost. Same as a draining move.

Of course, +1a for +1a is going to be a valuable trade under certain circumstances. If the user is ordering first, trading +1a to the opponent in order to live until next round is a worthwhile trade; 1a ordering second is worth more than 1a ordering first. Likewise, if the user plans to switch out and get a better matchup later, then the trade is also worthwhile, because 1a in a good matchup is more valuable than 1a in a bad matchup. But maybe that scenario isn't as practical because a resisted Draining move usually won't grant the user +1a to live.

What is worth noting that healing moves and P/E moves have very accessible counterplay. The counterplay to P/E moves is to use any self-buffing move or set up rooms/terrains/weather/hazards. Counter healing moves with Snatch, fast Taunt, or simply raw damage -- most healing moves typically cap around 20hp, which many Pokemon can out-race. In my opinion, it's good for stall moves to have counterplay, because if they were too easy to get away with it would erode the threat of second-order. Is there a way to punish draining moves as a stall tactic, aside from niche counters of Imprison and Heal Block? I suppose fast D/E moves are as good an answer as there is. CounterCoat trades evenly, using buffing moves loses the race, Snatch and Taunt don't stop it, and even racing it with Focus Blast and co. is probably still going to trade even. So really, it seems like super-aggro mons with good offensive stats have the potential to stall more effectively than bulky mons with dedicated HP-recovery moves can. From a balance perspective, that sounds strange to me.
The issue of draining moves and counterplay is definitely complicated; as you mentioned, draining moves have very few direct counters when compared to other stall-friendly moves (I would mention Liquid Ooze, but practically nothing metagame-viable or popular has that Ability). Nevertheless, these moves face many softer checks that help keep their power at a reasonable level.

The easiest yet least satisfying form of "counterplay" to draining moves would be to simply chicken dance into a better matchup. Draining moves are heavily dependent upon type advantage to wreck an opponent, so they struggle against anything D/E moves are an effective, albeit expensive, way to achieve this, and Speed control makes this tactic much more achievable. Moreover, a prolonged fight will quickly deplete the energy of a Pokemon using many draining moves, leaving them less able to employ crucial late game moves like Protect or Pain Split.

This also leads to the conclusion that certain type-changing moves are viable responses. Conversion (2) and Reflect Type are excellent examples, as they easily generate a resistance or immunity to a draining move's type, but Camouflage can work under favorable Arena conditions (Gyms). Of course, Protean / Libero work the best in this regard, but type-changing Abilities have the worst distribution of the type changing techniques.

Another important point is that draining moves are especially vulnerable to item disruption, burn, screens, and other forms of BAP reduction. Because draining moves recover a percentage of damage dealt, they are effectively impacted 50% harder by routine damage mitigation strategies than every other move.

Rocky Helmet slashes most draining moves' healing effect and is easily justified if one's opponent has another strong contact attacker on their team. Even if the draining move user picks Protective Pads to counter Helmet, they still lose 4 points of damage and 6 HP of recovery without Black Belt / Miracle Seed / etc., giving the Helmet user a DPR advantage nonetheless. Rocky Helmet can be removed by Knock Off or Trick, but that simply means your opponent must add another action to their KO time, giving the Rocky Helmet user the advantage.

Finally, the fact that an opponent attempting to abuse draining moves must rely on a single attack forces them to burn substitutions to cover moves like Disable and Torment, which makes such plans easily exploitable when ordering second. Rarely, one might find the opportunity to actually use one of these moves; such a strategy would involve stalling for some time between 1 action and 1 round before crippling a draining-move-happy Pokemon, but the action cost involved in setting the trap is generally worth the effort.

---------
If I may ramble for a while: the disparity between aggressive and passive stall is not the fault of draining moves or offensive Pokemon; rather, it is a consequence of a system that despises the stall playstyle. All forms of recovery are much less potent than in regular play and recovery moves are always limited in a battle ruleset, making it difficult for a defensive Pokemon to survive long enough to effectively stall out a foe. This is exacerbated by our deviation from cartridge play's double-blind turn system, as the slightest mistake ordering first can allow a stalling player's opponent to slip out of the stall setup and regain matchup control. Passive damage is also weak in BBP, leaving stall-oriented Pokemon with little ability to wear down their foes.

Finally and most importantly, many players simply don't like playing with or against stall. Stall can seem excessively annoying due to its ability to nullify an opposing player's actions; because BBP is balanced with the intention of creating a fun and engaging game, stall tactics are thus ignored when underpowered options are discussed. Interestingly, all these factors against stall are illustrated by Perish Song. The Perish trap strategy is BBP's closest analogue to traditional stall, as both techniques revolve around careful plays to prolong a matchup while minimizing the damage the user's team receives in the process, but, as mentioned in my last paragraph, this game of attrition is significantly harder to win in BBP. As an exaggerated version of BBP's other stall tactics, Perish Song also completely destroys its user if the player can't perfectly control the following rounds. Finally, Perish Song appears to be considered unhealthy by a significant portion of our current player base, reinforcing the notion that traditional stall is kept far from dominance for the sake of BBP's longevity.
 
I'd just like to say that I'm also an advocate for draining moves remaining as they are. I think P2 has addressed a lot of good points in their posts but I want to just add on the fact that changing draining moves adds precedent that I don't really love.

We don't go and nerf Scald's burn chance because the move is too good, draining and being annoying is built into the moves themselves. I think this argument is something that is often overlooked by a lot of people in discussions on discord. We almost always take rulings from in-game except when they don't perfectly translate.

This post isn't extremely fleshed out so I may edit it in the morning but I just wanted to say I'm team keep draining moves as they are. Mostly because I don't want to set precedent for just changing moves from in game.
 
Items:

-Damage-Boosting Items:
Rare Candy and Everstone are completely absent despite being the metric for balancing the new Signature Items. Expert Belt is relegated to Normal-types alone, as any other Pokemon would be selected with the intention of using its super-effective STAB moves, and a damage-boosting Item that ignores this function is unattractive in most matches. Life Orb is solidified as the Signature Item of Pokemon with Magic Guard or Sheer Force, as it simply isn't worth using if it cannot guarantee that its user will always receive a higher benefit than the opponent will; the fact that 3 HP recoil is equivalent to a free Item boost for the LO user's for only further seals the Item's fate.

Choice Items' "buff" instead cements their status as trap options. Battles are now run with a 3-substitution standard due to an acknowledgement of the sheer difficulty of ordering first with only two subs. Why would a rational player make their own orders even more exploitable for a damage boost that would be considered mundane in any other generation? Muscle Band and Wise Glasses are faced with a similar "fix;" an extra +10% accuracy is nice, but is insufficient to make a +1 BAP Item optimal in any situation. The only Items left to fill the role of a damage booster are Silk Scarf and friends, which turn their users into monotype beatsticks that are ultimately linear, predictable, and exaggeratedly reliant upon STAB type advantage for success.

I understand that the desired Item metagame is one that emphasizes tactical choices and inpromptu adaptations that allow a player to optimize each matchup that arises in a battle, but this system is severely flawed without a reserve of strong, reliable Items as alternative choices. Remember that a player with first sendout cannot counter-pick an Item in this way, as their foe has complete control over the first matchup and can further extend this advantage by picking a specialized Item. A similar problem occurs when a player must replace a fainted Pokemon after ordering second, as an Item chosen to defeat their foe's active Pokemon quickly loses value when the foe can simply switch into a better matchup; even if the first player counter-switches, the difficulty of securing that same match-up once can leave the replacement Pokemon burdened with a sub-optimal Item for most of the match. Strong, generically useful damage boosters allow a player to circumvent these issues; without such Items, the smallest decisions can easily snowball into insurmountable advantages, further exacerbating the game's notorious focus on switching and match-up control.

Overall, it seems that every generic damage-boosting Item has been hamstrung since the start of Generation VIII with little concern for their importance the overall metagame. This raises a simple question: why can't generic damage-boosting Items be good?


-Heavy-Duty Boots:
I strongly recommend against changing Heavy-Duty Boots in this way, as the mere existence of this new version renders entry hazards virtually unusable. The idea that any Pokemon on the opposing them can remove a hazard for free on send-in removes any incentive to lay hazards until the entire team's Items have been announced, which will only occur in late-game scenarios; however, entry hazards are primarily useful in the early-game to maximize the damage payoff and are nearly useless in the late-game for similar reasons, as it is often more efficient to spend an action striking the active foe with the strongest attack bailable lie than it is to set a hazard worth ~9-24 damage total to the opponent's depleted bench, especially if that hit can KO the foe.

The "weakness" of the new Heavy-Duty Boots appears to be its inability to remove more than a single layer of hazards, but this is a non-sequitur in practice. Primarily, many Pokemon lack access to multiple hazards, meaning their setups are completely removed by HDB. Moreover, it is difficult to find more than one opportunity to lay hazards throughout a match, as most players are smart enough to avoid triggering hazard-laying substitutions more than absolutely necessary, and attempting to set multiple layers dry can cripple a Pokemon for the rest of the match. Remember that entry hazards exhibit diminishing returns; unless the user has access to Spikes and Stealth Rock, the additional 3 damage per switch from successive layers of Spikes is an awful trade when the user must stomach another 24+ damage hit in the process, leaving it at half health without even scratching its foe.

You'll notice that I have discounted Toxic Spikes and Sticky Web so far. Sadly, these hazards are plain gimmicks: Sticky Web's potentially powerful effect is even more situational than other hazards, as it shines only in volatile matchups between powerhouses whose survivability is entirely determined by Speed order; while Toxic Spikes is worth much less damage than other hazards and is significantly less useful when used twice, as our game's emphasis on switching and match-up control effectively halves T-Spikes's damage output. The new HDB almost completely erases the last shreds of justification for these moves, as they can no longer force an opponent to spend time clearing them. Most importantly, though, Toxic Spikes grants us insight into the effects of this Heavy-Duty Boots: recognizing that T-Spikes are invalidated by the presence of a grounded Poison-type or Guts user on the opposing team, the proposed Item treats all 890 Pokemon as the grounded Poison-types to other entry hazards' Toxic Spikes.


Focus Sash:
I don't understand the point of this change. If the Item lasts for only three actions, a player can easily stall out the first round of a match-up involving Focus Sash, leaving the opposing Pokemon at a significant disadvantage without any Item to support itself. Moreover, the damage mitigation effect makes this new Focus Sash a prime target for Item control, and its holder cannot meaningfully dissuade a slower Knock Off or Corrosive Gas thanks to the Item's drawback. Either way, the Focus Sash user is unlikely to benefit from the Item's effect for more than a single action, which makes the idea of nerfing a user's damage output unnecessary.

Moves:

-Court Change:
This move is underpriced. Court Change condenses Defog, entry hazards, and Screens into a single action while costing less than all of them. Moreover, the move's sheer power means that Cinderace's presence on a player's team will prevent their opponent from using hazards and Screens until Cinderace is KO'd, by which point the moves will likely come too late to meaningfully affect the battle. With this in mind, I would consider 15 Energy a fair starting point for Court Change's cost, although I expect the move would still see use at 18 EN.

-Bolt Beak / Fishious Rend:
I think we could feasibly buff these moves to a more accurate 9/14 BAP. Although this would make the Galar fossils noticeably scarier in their good matchups, these moves are very vulnerable to tactics such as Disable, Torment, Counter/Bide/Metal Burst, Trick Room, Speed control, D/E moves, and Mud Sport (for Bolt Beak only), making them surprisingly manageable for many Pokemon. Admittedly, the issue of Speed control can be mitigated for a fossil by running Barometer, but this, in turn, makes them vulnerable to Item control. Finally, the unique prerequisite for these moves' boost prohibits them from seeing use in combinations, further restricting their power.

-Encore:
Encore is very difficult to balance properly; once the undisputed best in the game, it rarely sees use in the current system. One major problem involves the timing of the move. Because Encore only changes its target's next action, fast users have almost no reason to employ Encore; without the ability to capitalize upon the foe's next action or set up a play for the next round, these Pokemon can only use Encore as a shoddy P/E move to soak up a resisted or failed move. Thus, I would like to suggest the following change:

Encore said:
*Flavor*The user gives its opponent an encore, compelling it to repeat the last move it used.*Flavor* On the action after Encore is used, the affected Pokemon will perform the last move it used before receiving the Encore.
-Shell Side Arm:
I think it would be surprisingly easy to give this move a combo class. The physical and special variations are given different listings and different descriptions under the same header, and we intend to allow Galarian Slowbro to intentionally perform a specific version regardless of the target's defenses. Thus, I think that we could simply make the physical version "Body / Arm" class, make the special version "Pelleting" class, and add a line to the move's description that says something similar to the following text:

Shell Side Arm said:
This move has two different versions. By default, Shell Side Arm will use whichever version will deal more damage to its target, but its user may choose to perform either version. If Shell Side Arm is used in a different-move combo, the user must specify which version is being used.

*Physical Description*

*Special Description*
 
Last edited:

nightblitz42

is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Generic Damaging Items:
Generic damage-boosting items -- in fact, generic items of all kinds -- can't be good enough to be top-tier, because when the best option is generic then there's no reason to experiment with more limited options. If we leave something as generic as current Expert Belt at +4 BAP, and then we want to design a stronger but more niche item, we have to make the new item's power significantly higher than +4 BAP, at which point the numbers become too high. So lowering the power level of generic items gives us room for more dramatic item design.

Plus, if too many situations are solvable with the same set of 3-4 all-purpose items, we risk the gameplay experience becoming repetitive and stale. Snowballing is scary, yes, and equipping while sending out first may be difficult, but players also have a Data Audit with three tabs full of items they can use to deal with these situations as they arise.

Choice Items:
I'm still calling it a buff because the new version is significantly less restrictive than the old version was. Although the downside is pretty big, I won't overlook the fact that the new Choice Items are practically free when ordering second. Also, Choice Scarf is amazing in my opinion. There are very few speed-boosting items, and not only is this one generic but the fact that it boosts your speed is already enough to negate some of the opponent's options, mitigating the item's own weakness.

Heavy Duty Boots:
The weakness of the item is not its ability to remove only one layer. That was a safeguard mostly put in place to protect players who don't know about the item from getting royally screwed. Most players aren't setting multiple hazards anyways.

One weakness the item has is that it does not protect the wearer themselves from taking hazard damage (since the effect triggers after entering the field). That means if you want maximum value from the item, you still can't just equip and send in willy-nilly. Another weakness is that the item confers no combat benefits, so the wearer is likely to suffer against an opponent with a good item. Because of its design, its effect is purposefully very limited in that regard.

I will admit, though, I'm not a huge fan of this item. I don't like that it serves as a deterrent to setting hazards before it is even equipped. I also don't like that its effect can't be prevented by the opponent. But I can't exactly go with in-game Boots because now we have Magic Guard on an item (which is better), and I don't intend to completely scrap this item. I'll hear any suggestions for modification you have.

Focus Sash:
Methods to dissuade or punish P/E exist, so stalling out one Round is not always a desirable or reasonable course of action. And perhaps stalling out one Round is the sole purpose of equipping the item.

Court Change:
Yeah we can bump that up to at least 10 EN. Move's good. 15 EN seems draconian, though.

Bolt Beak / Fishious Rend:
I'm not against this. They're not all that hard to set up, which is why the full 17 BAP is out of the question, but looking at some of the powerful new moves in this DLC I'm pretty inclined to allow 14 BAP.

Encore:
Not gonna lie, I don't want Encore to be any better than it is right now because it's a time-waster. Although I will admit your implementation is pretty darn impressively balanced, at the end of the day it's still a move that soaks up actions without advancing the gamestate. And I'm hesitant to buff something like that for a forum game where matches already take weeks.

Shell Side Arm:
I agree, that does seem like a good way to do that. I overlooked that possibility (when I added the option of choosing a version manually, it was as an afterthought).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top