Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk II

[Stratos]

birkal you have a lot of problems and i bet i am pretty low on that list

 

[Birkal]

busted

 

[chifii]

This seems like close enough to the right place.

I notice that there is next to no data on Rotation Battle in any location that a new player interested in such things (like myself) would look. Could someone add data about Rotation battles and how to fight them in the Player's Handbook or something?

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Rotation battles were attempted once, in Maxim's Normal Gym.

In short, they're a pain in the ass to manage and far more trouble than they're worth. Talk to Maxim if you're still interested though.

 

[Frosty]

Actually they aren't very common because people didn't use its perks. Check Maxim vs Engineer or Maxim vs Smash and you will notice that people stopped rotating after a while.

It is not that hard to manage and it is certainly easier than, say, triples. But the difference between it and normal modes is very small.

 

[Mulan15262]

Can the rules be modified slightly for UC awards for reffing a pokemon battle between multiple teams? I just reffed a 1v1v1 battle, and I was not given any more UC than I would have gotten if I reffed a 1v1 battle.

For the formula, I would suggest changing it to floor((x+1)(x+2)/2), where x is half the total number of pokemon that participate from all sides (and not floored). That way, a battle between only 2 trainers would be unchanged, and a battle between 3+ trainers would give you slightly move. This would only be a slight change, as only odd numbers of pokemon per side would be changed. The noticeable effect is that for 1v1v1, you get an extra UC over 1v1, and other odd numbers give slightly more numbers.

 

[Pallas Athena]

While well intentioned and viable at small scales, that formula devolves into absolute chaos at higher numbers. For instance, a 4v4v4 would have 12 Pokemon, the same as a 6 v 6. It would also pay 97 UC under the formula, which would be cut off at 50 due to the cap but is still far, far above the pay for a match the same size for no discernible reason. It would be better if the total number of Pokemon were converted into a singles match (possibly rounded up in size) and paid from that imo.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I personally see nothing wrong with IAR's ruling. 1v1v1 is the only one where it is "arguably" underpaid, and every other melee format hits a reasonable payout format.

 

[Mulan15262]

According to IAR's ruling, the 4v4v4 still gives the ref UC like a 6v6. My idea would just cause the formula to determine the number plugged into the formula to not be floored, just the end UC result (so 1v1v1 gives 4 instead of 3, 3v3v3 gives 17 instead of 15, 1v1v1v1v1 gives 7 instead of 6, and other similar slight changes). It would only really noticeably affect 1v1v1, which would now give 1 more UC than 1v1, with other odd-numbered XvXvX battles giving a tiny bit more, and with even-numbered XvXvX battles having no change.

The bonus UC is just slight, with 51v51v51 only giving an extra 4 UC with my new formula (before the cap is factored in).

 

[akela]

As more and more information about Generation 6 comes to light, it appears as though we need to discuss how to implement some of the changes.

It once was that only Stomp and Steamroller received double BAP against Minimized targets. But now with Generation 6, Body Slam, Phantom Force, Dragon Rush, and Flying Press also receive double BAP against Minimized targets. Normally this would not be an issue, however, the way Stomp, Steamroller, and Body Slam's BAP are calculated (by weight) differs from Dragon Rush, Flying Press, and Phantom Force's BAP calculation (a fixed BAP). We seem to have already implemented Phantom Force, but not Dragon Rush and Flying Press. Before we go any further, I feel that we need to discuss the most appropriate manner to implement the increased BAP against Minimized targets. Mainly, do we go with two (2) more BAP against Minimized targets for all 6 moves, Doubled BAP against Minimized targets for all 6 moves, or a combination of the two (+2 BAP for weight based moves and doubled BAP for non weight based moves)?

While reading through Bulbapedia's movelist, it seems as though double BAP is not the only thing changed. Those six moves, apparently, gain perfect accuracy against minimized targets. Should we implement this or not?

Smogon has little to no information (from what I've been able to locate. I am sure, though, that someone will post several threads worth of information soon in this thread and call me blind) on gen 6 move changes. Should we wait for Smogon's information or go with Bulbapedia and Veekun's information?

 

[Leethoof]

Hi. In lieu of the signature items discussion, I would like to propose a thing. The signature item Moon Stone has several benefits and is generally a pretty cool item. However, some Pokemon do not gain the full benefit from it. It is kind of silly that for some of the users, it is nothing more than a glorified Rare Candy. Therefore, the following effect should be added to Moon Stone

Increases the Base Attack Power of Normal and Psychic-type moves by two (2), and prevents damage from recoil on all moves. Moonlight will always heal for its highest possible HP value. Increases the Pokemon's highest true base stat (e.g. 130 Atk) of Attack, Defense, Special Attack, and Special Defense by one (1) Rank. If the highest true base stat is tied, each Rank is raised.

Ignoring the straightforward BAP buff and rank-raising, which are pretty standard for sig items, the recoil only affects a few Moon Stone Pokemon. Delcatty is the primary user, while Wigglytuff and the Nidos get other minor benefits from it. Clefable and Musharna gain nothing from this effect, as the former has Magic Guard already and the latter doesn't even learn recoil moves. This moonlight clause would provide a unique, flavorful, and good effect to these two Pokemon.


Also, as there seems to be no way to make it "moony" outside and buff the hp gain [unlike counterparts Synthesis and Morning Sun], I propose a secondary use of the move Moonlight, making it nighttime for a reduced energy cost.

EDIT: Also can Protector not suck??

 

[Birkal]

Hi there! I'm part of the council now. As part of my six month Birkacare™ Health Plan, I'd like to work with the ASB community towards updating key leadership positions and enable processes that allow for smooth transitions in leadership across the game, from heads of macro-areas to updating specific referee lists. The first issue I'd like to tackle is central to ASB: Prize Claim. Let me list the current policy on updating the state of approvals (you can find the vote here):

Approver Policy

• If the council or the playerbase thinks action needs to be taken to speed up approvals, a council member will post a (Discussion) thread called Approver Nominations. In this thread, people will throw out the names of those who they believe will best use Approver status, preferably with justification. After a week has passed, a vote will be put up that has all the names mentioned in the thread and also the option "No new approvers needed." The council will vote by IRV indefinitely, picking new approvers from this slate and culling the winner until the "No New Approvers" option is chosen.
• If the council or the playerbase thinks a certain user should be an approver, not necessarily because things are slow but because they're a cool guy, Council will go straight into a yes/no vote as to whether this user should be granted approver status.
• If an approver goes two months without making an approval for anyone other than themselves, their approver status will be removed (this doesn't mean they can never be an approver in the future).
• If council or playerbase feels a certain user isn't doing a good job of being an approver (approving many bad prize claims or barely skirting around the above rule), they can instantly go to a yes/no vote to remove said user's approver status.

I'd like to tackle two issues here. The first is the current state of leadership among approvers. According to the OP of the Prize Claim thread, Deck Knight and SevenDeadlySins are the head approvers for all of ASB. I'll try not to be rude here, but neither of these users are active in the ASB community. SDS hasn't played a match in over a year. Deck Knight is active, but his time is often devoted to updating other aspects of the game. In my opinion, the former should be removed entirely and the latter should receive some supporting, active head approvers.

Which begs the question: do we need head approvers? What is their job? That's something that could easily be discussed in a policy review thread. In my opinion, it's important to have some active approvers in charge to check quality and get feedback on the pacing of Prize Claim throughout the community. But it could go either way. Regardless, I think it's important for us to review the state of this leadership position, since it is very central to how ASB functions.


The second issue would be to ask whether or not we need to instate more approvers. I spent a good chunk of yesterday checking the activity of all listed prize claimers (something that the head approvers should be doing, in my opinion). Objection has only made one prize claim within the past two months, which is grounds for inactivity and removal. Engineer Pikachu was also removed due to his inactivity (he should be added to the list of inactive prize claimers). And while the rest of the approvers have done some work, it's plain that there are approvers who are truly the heavy lifters of Prize Claim (hint: it's akela and IAR).

The enacted policy clearly states that we're to add approvers based on the nominations of the community through a policy thread called (Discussion) Approver Nominations. Frosty was recently added as an approver. While I don't doubt his intelligence or ability to do the job, that process wasn't used to add him. I don't think we should reverse that decision or chastise the moderators who did it. Rather, I think we should move forward and refrain from adding approvers in that sort of a manner in the future. Our policy dictates that we the people will nominate our approvers and the council will vote.


What I'd like to propose is that we have an approver nomination thread. In it, I'd like to see two sorts of nominations. The first would be nominations for Head Approver. The qualifications for this position will be explicitly listed in the OP and the council will vote on the nominations until the option "No new head approvers" is reached (as is policy). Concurrently, I'd like to see a normal round of approver nominations. If the need is great enough to add a few more active approvers, then the council will likely vote them in. If it's deemed that we're good at the moment, then the votes will indicate this. I don't think there's anything to lose from running this policy thread, so let's get to it!

 

[Geodude6]

Hi. In lieu of the signature items discussion, I would like to propose a thing. The signature item Moon Stone has several benefits and is generally a pretty cool item. However, some Pokemon do not gain the full benefit from it. It is kind of silly that for some of the users, it is nothing more than a glorified Rare Candy. Therefore, the following effect should be added to Moon Stone:

Ignoring the straightforward BAP buff and rank-raising, which are pretty standard for sig items, the recoil only affects a few Moon Stone Pokemon. Delcatty is the primary user, while Wigglytuff and the Nidos get other minor benefits from it. Clefable and Musharna gain nothing from this effect, as the former has Magic Guard already and the latter doesn't even learn recoil moves. This moonlight clause would provide a unique, flavorful, and good effect to these two Pokemon.

Nidoqueen also gets Moonlight, but Nidoqueen could do with a buff anyway. I support.

Also, as there seems to be no way to make it "moony" outside and buff the hp gain [unlike counterparts Synthesis and Morning Sun], I propose a secondary use of the move Moonlight, making it nighttime for a reduced energy cost.

I say that we should make it so that Moonlight heals its maximum in Sunny Day, and normal heal in clear weather, following in-game precedent.

EDIT: Also can Protector not suck??

I propose it grants Solid Rock to Rhydon and Sturdy to Rhyperior. The wording, I imagine, would be something like this:

Protector: If this item is held by a fully evolved Pokemon, reduces the Base Attack Power of all incoming attacks by one (1). This effect is amplified on OHKO moves, which are reduced by ten (10). If this item is held by a Pokemon that is not fully evolved, reduces the Base Attack Power of incoming super-effective moves by two (2).

Cost: 8 CC | Affected Pokemon: Rhydon, Rhyperior

It's a nice buff, and gives good competition with Eviolite with regards to Rhydon.

-snip-

Looks fine, I object to nothing in this proposal. Methinks SDS should be removed of approver status entirely, due to inactivity. Even though Deck is kinda inactive, he should still be a head approver because he's, well, Deck.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

As more and more information about Generation 6 comes to light, it appears as though we need to discuss how to implement some of the changes.

It once was that only Stomp and Steamroller received double BAP against Minimized targets. But now with Generation 6, Body Slam, Phantom Force, Dragon Rush, and Flying Press also receive double BAP against Minimized targets. Normally this would not be an issue, however, the way Stomp, Steamroller, and Body Slam's BAP are calculated (by weight) differs from Dragon Rush, Flying Press, and Phantom Force's BAP calculation (a fixed BAP). We seem to have already implemented Phantom Force, but not Dragon Rush and Flying Press. Before we go any further, I feel that we need to discuss the most appropriate manner to implement the increased BAP against Minimized targets. Mainly, do we go with two (2) more BAP against Minimized targets for all 6 moves, Doubled BAP against Minimized targets for all 6 moves, or a combination of the two (+2 BAP for weight based moves and doubled BAP for non weight based moves)?

While reading through Bulbapedia's movelist, it seems as though double BAP is not the only thing changed. Those six moves, apparently, gain perfect accuracy against minimized targets. Should we implement this or not?

Smogon has little to no information (from what I've been able to locate. I am sure, though, that someone will post several threads worth of information soon in this thread and call me blind) on gen 6 move changes. Should we wait for Smogon's information or go with Bulbapedia and Veekun's information?

Support the update, send to discussion thread

Leethoof and Geodude6 I'm not outright opposed to the Moonlight thing, much leerier on Protector. All I'll say right now is be very careful with what you end up proposing (cough cough geodude). We all know what happened the last time there was a buff culture around.

 

[Gerard]

It's a nice buff, and gives good competition with Eviolite with regards to Rhydon.

Actually, it's completely outclassed by Eviolite if Rhydon is +SpD (as most rhydon are) and even without the reduction to all SE Special moves is still 1.5 vs 2 while also reducing the power of all Special moves (physical reduction is 3.5 vs 2)

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Big post, my comments in bold below each paragraph (oops they're sometimes addressed to the community and not addressed solely to birkal)

Hi there! I'm part of the council now. As part of my six month Birkacare™ Health Plan, I'd like to work with the ASB community towards updating key leadership positions and enable processes that allow for smooth transitions in leadership across the game, from heads of macro-areas to updating specific referee lists. The first issue I'd like to tackle is central to ASB: Prize Claim. Let me list the current policy on updating the state of approvals (you can find the vote here):

You know I support such initiatives, where necessary.

Approver Policy

• If the council or the playerbase thinks action needs to be taken to speed up approvals, a council member will post a (Discussion) thread called Approver Nominations. In this thread, people will throw out the names of those who they believe will best use Approver status, preferably with justification. After a week has passed, a vote will be put up that has all the names mentioned in the thread and also the option "No new approvers needed." The council will vote by IRV indefinitely, picking new approvers from this slate and culling the winner until the "No New Approvers" option is chosen.
• If the council or the playerbase thinks a certain user should be an approver, not necessarily because things are slow but because they're a cool guy, Council will go straight into a yes/no vote as to whether this user should be granted approver status.
• If an approver goes two months without making an approval for anyone other than themselves, their approver status will be removed (this doesn't mean they can never be an approver in the future).
• If council or playerbase feels a certain user isn't doing a good job of being an approver (approving many bad prize claims or barely skirting around the above rule), they can instantly go to a yes/no vote to remove said user's approver status.

I'd like to tackle two issues here. The first is the current state of leadership among approvers. According to the OP of the Prize Claim thread, Deck Knight and SevenDeadlySins are the head approvers for all of ASB. I'll try not to be rude here, but neither of these users are active in the ASB community. SDS hasn't played a match in over a year. Deck Knight is active, but his time is often devoted to updating other aspects of the game. In my opinion, the former should be removed entirely and the latter should receive some supporting, active head approvers.

Which begs the question: do we need head approvers? What is their job? That's something that could easily be discussed in a policy review thread. In my opinion, it's important to have some active approvers in charge to check quality and get feedback on the pacing of Prize Claim throughout the community. But it could go either way. Regardless, I think it's important for us to review the state of this leadership position, since it is very central to how ASB functions.

As I said when we discussed this earlier, Head Approver has been an empty title for a long time. There hasn't been a need for any sort of oversight of the approval process as long as it was moving at a reasonable pace (up to roughly once a day from the once a week it was at 7 months ago). We could potentially create powers and rules for the Head Approver position but if it goes anything beyond monitoring and updating approver lists I'm of the opinion that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy.

The second issue would be to ask whether or not we need to instate more approvers. I spent a good chunk of yesterday checking the activity of all listed prize claimers (something that the head approvers should be doing, in my opinion). Objection has only made one prize claim within the past two months, which is grounds for inactivity and removal. Engineer Pikachu was also removed due to his inactivity (he should be added to the list of inactive prize claimers). And while the rest of the approvers have done some work, it's plain that there are approvers who are truly the heavy lifters of Prize Claim (hint: it's akela and IAR).

Engineer Pikachu has been on the inactive list for a long time. If we're updating the list accurately, then we should move Objection to inactive and remove danmantincan, Flamestrike, SevenDeadlySins, and LouisCyphre entirely from the lists.

As to the need of adding more approvals, once again as referenced in our previous conversation there are several factors at work here. The first is need based. Approvals occur roughly once every day at the moment. In my opinion this is more than acceptable as a pace for approving, particularly compared to the pace we used to be at before the mod positions were instituted and there was no one with any sort of responsibility over the position.

The second is competency based. IAR, akela, and myself have been fairly consistently on the lookout for people who can be active approvers. This was in fact the case when I instituted akela as an approver. I perceived that he had the necessary qualities. And here's the thing.
Approving is not an easy job. It is the lifeblood of ASB. You must be heavily detail oriented, committed to reviewing minute details, proactive in reviewing such details, and on top of it all, both active and willing to approve claims that are not your own. There's a simple reason that more approvers have not been added, and that's because we haven't perceived anyone to have exhibited or developed all of those qualities.

As Birkal mentions, IAR and akela are currently the only two exhibiting all of those qualities. The other approvers exhibit most of them but tend to fall short in the activity column for one reason or another (life, laziness, etc). What we don't need right now is another approver who will only approve when he has a claim to make himself.

The enacted policy clearly states that we're to add approvers based on the nominations of the community through a policy thread called (Discussion) Approver Nominations. Frosty was recently added as an approver. While I don't doubt his intelligence or ability to do the job, that process wasn't used to add him. I don't think we should reverse that decision or chastise the moderators who did it. Rather, I think we should move forward and refrain from adding approvers in that sort of a manner in the future. Our policy dictates that we the people will nominate our approvers and the council will vote.

I appointed Frosty because I felt he exhibited the capabilities to effectively approve. Tbqh I forgot completely there was an established process, but I stand by my decision.

I do agree that we should move forward using the nomination system, however I have major qualms about the process used to appoint the approvers. Quite frankly, and this is not a jab at anyone, I do not believe the council (whoever they may be) is properly qualified to judge a user's capabilities as to prize claim approving. Some of the council users have never approved before, others do not have an accurate idea of what it takes to approve.

I hereby move that the policy be amended such that approver nominations are to be reviewed by some combination of moderators and Head Approvers (hypothetical scenario, IAR/akela/myself in the roles of Mod+HA/HA/Mod) who will have the necessary capabilities to accurately judge a candidates approving potential.

What I'd like to propose is that we have an approver nomination thread. In it, I'd like to see two sorts of nominations. The first would be nominations for Head Approver. The qualifications for this position will be explicitly listed in the OP and the council will vote on the nominations until the option "No new head approvers" is reached (as is policy). Concurrently, I'd like to see a normal round of approver nominations. If the need is great enough to add a few more active approvers, then the council will likely vote them in. If it's deemed that we're good at the moment, then the votes will indicate this. I don't think there's anything to lose from running this policy thread, so let's get to it!

I can get on board with this. I would like to see one or two head approvers added alongside Deck and their responsibilities to be to monitor approver activity, to determine the need of having additional approvers, to watch for new users who demonstrate potential for approver status and to nominate them, to be the first line of contact when a user has a question or concern regarding an approval, and to be the majority portion of a group of individuals whose job it is to review nominated potential approvers and decide on them as approvers or not.

Only once this process has been completed would I like to see potential approver nominations opened, so that the panel with the role of deciding on the nominees can be fully established.

tl;dr
HA means nothing, I propose some responsibilities for the position
Prize claiming is sensitive, users need to fulfill a certain set of characteristics to be effective
Move that approver nominations be decided on not by the council, but by a small panel comprised of head approvers and/or mods

 

[Frosty]

TBH, just make Head Approver = Registration Mod (aka IAR, right?) and give him power to nominate approvers. I mean, the Registration Mod is responsable for overlooking registrations and prize claiming and the Head Approver erm....too? It is silly to have two people doing the exact same stuff.

While I like a good old democracy, I feel that making the council or the people or all mods in charge of appointing approvers is not very...efficient, as you will need discussion and time for everybody to say stuff and then voting and everybody needs to vote and there goes a couple weeks without approvers. I'd much rather have one mod appointing them (so its faster) with all mods or the council (or a mixture of both) acting as a review instance, capable or overruling a decision made by that one specific mod.

But limit that power to the specific Registration Mod, please. Not that I doubt etc etc etc, but it is pointless to have mods with specific atributions if, in the end, everyone can do everyone's jobs. If you are gonna do that, then call mods just "mods" <_<;.

Regardless, once a decision is reached, I suggest it is written somewhere, so we don't forget, and it is followed.

Oh, and if you intend to continue this subject. I suggest someone make a discussion thread so it's cleaner.

 

[Its_A_Random]

The proposal brought up here (Post #197) is being fiated directly into the system without further discussion. There have been literally zero objections to it on here & on IRC, so after consultation, this is being implemented. This change is effective immediately in all new battles & challenges.

 

[Frosty]

Pointing out some stuff about item/move/stuff balance for discussion. Or not. Also, before you wave the "buff culture" flag, all three are proposed nerfs.

1) Beat Up: While for the average 3vs3, it nets a reasonable 9BAP, for higher matches the damage can be borderline ridiculous. For example, on a 13vs13 match I am having with emma, Beat Up would reach 39BAP. Texas put a cap on the match so it hits only 6 times (18BAP), which was still damn powerful, but at least less broken. The NDA doesn't mention cap and I really think it should for balance reasons. Cap it on 15 or 18, so it doesn't get ridiculous on big matches, imo.

Also, while this should be obvious, maybe it would be best to also mention what happens in BXPY matches. For example, on a B6P3 gym match, does it summon only the 3 that will be player or the 6 that were brought? While I feel that the former is the logical option, maybe it would be nice to include that on the NDA for clarity reasons.

2) No Guard: It has come to my attention that No Guard is ruled to affect also damaging evasive moves (aka always hit through them). While I am fully aware that that is how it happens in-game (since it costed me a tourney match back when I played on those), I don't feel it should be the case in ASB. Damaging Evasive moves are a huge part in ASB's strategy and to completely null that seems rather powerful. Specially when you consider that most No Guard users (not counting lagging tail because...well...I don't think any was bought ever afaik) don't have many damaging evasive moves or aren't capable of using them properly (sloooooooow), so the drawback for them is minimal if not non-existant. Imo just give all moves --- Accuracy, but still make damaging evasive evade them.

3) Endeavor: In theory, Endeavor would be a balanced version of ingame, since ingame equals hp and here we just deal a proportional damage. But in ASB, after a mon defeats another, when the replacement is sent out, chances are that the weakened mon will still be able to use Endeavor at least once. That possibility is greatly increased by how Endure works and the turn-based aspect of ASB (so if you have a weak mon with endeavor and you are ordering last, the odds are that you will manage to fire at least one of those). On a situation like that, Endeavor deals up to 50hp of damage, something that no other move (and very few combos) can muster. And if you check battles, you will see that this happens quite a lot and is enough to put the opposing player in a spot extremely difficult to come out (see deadfox081 previous subway for an example). I propose we cap the damage, like we do with Destiny Bond and Final Gambit. 30 seems like a good place to start, since it is still big enough to make a splash, but not too much.

 

[zarator]

1) About Beat Up, the logical choice would be to cap it at 18 like Texas did, since the "standard" for Pokemon squad would be 6 mons in-game. That being said, though, for the sake of balance I think a cap of 15 BP would be more appropriate IMO. Although we should also decide if this caps the "number of hits" as well, which sometimes is important to know (ex: using Beat Up on a Pokemon with Justified or Iron Barbs)
2) I don't think we should nerf No Guard in this sense, as there are still plenty of ways to abuse it. For example, you can use sleep moves such as Hypnosis, Grasswhistle, or Sing against them to great effect. Same thing with Will-O-Wisp and a lot other inaccurate moves. Not to mention that Gastro Acid and Skill Swap can neutralize No Guard. Besides, Machamp is painfully slow, Golurk is slow AND can't abuse Fly/Phantom Force with No Guard, and Aurumoth is weak to an incredible range of inaccurate moves, from Fire Blast to Stone Edge. Oh, and about Snorlax (whose item, Full Incense, works pretty much the same way), there are so many ways to remove items now that I wouldn't even count it.

In short, while the No Guard user doesn't have to sub against damaging evasive moves, it still has to sub against all the inaccurate moves which suddenly become so good against it, not to mention all the ways in which No Guard can be removed/neutralized. I wouldn't label it as game breaking.

3) I completely agree with capping the damage of Endeavor, although I believe that in such a case we should also cap the energy cost (so that a Pokemon doesn't pay the equivalent of a 50 dmg blow in terms of energy for a 30 dmg blow)

 

[ZhengTann]

Beat Up: Agreeing with Frosty and Zar on capping BAP. I'm supporting 5-hit Beat Up (15 BAP) for the reason that it has the multihit move trait of disrupting charged attacks (also this might mean that any Bug-types with Beat Up could score 6 hits for 18 BAP).

No Guard: ... Hitting through damaging evasive moves is just wow. Agreeing with Frosty about nullifying that (How does Aurumoth's Fire Blast hit Togekiss in the middle of Fly in anime, hmm?)

Endeavor: Disagree about the cap though. For one thing, Endeavor is a niche move similar to Reversal, in that the user would have to be at a disadvantage to be able to use it effectively. If the problem is "50 damage blow in terms of energy of a 30 damage blow", then I'd rather propose tweaking the multiplier (1.75 is a cumbersome decimal anyway, why not change it to an integer like 2?)

 

[Dogfish44]

Beat Up: Cap it at 6 as an in-game team would be capped - It leaves it a strong option.

No Guard: It's fine as is. Hitting through D/E is a bonus, especially on mons who are flawed in other areas.

Endeavor: The largest problem seems to be abuse after a round of Endure, in which case I'd suggest simply giving the move the Perish Song treatment and making it -1 Priority. Either that or some arbitrary cap on the damage it can do.

 

[Gerard]

• Beat Up: Yeah, a 6 mons max seems good enough. The second question though, mostly applies to gym battles so it depends on what we want on those, a no drawback move with 3-9/12 BP or one with no drawbacks 12-18 BP move, and that's without Technician (up to 24 BP on Ambipom), I agree that only using the mons the trainer should bring is the best idea.

• No Guard: Here I don't agree, since this would make Phantom Force even more broken. Otherwise I would agree with this tbh but I don't think there's many reasons to deviate from in-game in this case. The benefits would be Dig Machamp & Fly/Phantom Force Golurk, both painfully slow anyway and both love being able to hit though phantom force and the like
  • PS: oh yeah, let's nerf Phantom Force while we're at it (not jk)

• Endeavor: Even with a -1 priority that doesn't solve the ability to be used with Endure to cause massive damage (ex. I have 13 Hp after defeating an opposing mon, another mon comes out, it's faster but it lacks encore, now I can use Endure while he can attack me or use Infestation or something like that, which will probably not kill me, now I get at least one action to do whatever I want, I doesn't even matter if I Endeavor has -1 priority since I will get to do it anyway (and now I don't even have to worry about Phantom Force or Bounce)) So I agree that a 30 dmg cap would be the ideal here (Everything else is capped like that anyway)
  • As an Add in here, could we update Infestation and co. to gen 6 mechanics? (probably 4 DPA)

 

[smashlloyd20]

Just a quick fix, in Gen VI Wide Guard (and probably quick guard) can be used on consecutive actions without lowering the chance of failure (source: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Wide_Guard_(move)) and the ASB description still uses 5th gen mechanics, so that should be fixed.

 

[Gerard]

Just a quick fix, in Gen VI Wide Guard (and probably quick guard) can be used on consecutive actions without lowering the chance of failure (source: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Wide_Guard_(move)) and the ASB description still uses 5th gen mechanics, so that should be fixed.

The same happened with Quick Guard