Damage and Energy Guide

[Negrek]

Yup

 

[Crazy Linoone]

Question: for the pokemon that evolved before the change to the new system and now has their EXP set at 0, will they count as having 0 EXP or as having the number of EXP they required to evolve for the sake of damage calculations?

 

[Adriane]

Adriane | Iii kind of dislike the new EXP-based damage system
Adriane | it is great in theory
Adriane | but seems counter-productive in practise, and still terribly biased towards experienced players
Kirucat | EXP-based damage system?
Adriane | yes
Adriane | damage is now based on EXP instead of evolution
Adriane | (in ASB)
Adriane | before, the solution was to simply ban evolved Pokémon if you're new
Kirucat | ! Since when.
res | exp-based system is unfix to anything
res | have been trying to tell negrek this!
res | in the past, the solution to evolved pokémon was to buy single-stage pokémon
Adriane | so yeah, new players are fundamentally disadvantaged by default since even unevolved Pokémon who've seen battle will do more damage

from #tcod, summing up my general thoughts; may expand after I get back from dinner

 

[Negrek]

Question: for the pokemon that evolved before the change to the new system and now has their EXP set at 0, will they count as having 0 EXP or as having the number of EXP they required to evolve for the sake of damage calculations?

Do you mean pokémon that have 0 EXP because they were from before EXP were awarded, or those that have 0 because people didn't keep up their profiles and the pokémon lost the points during the move as a result? In the former case, no, they stay at 0; in the latter case, you can get those EXP back if you're willing to track down where they came from.

Adriane | Iii kind of dislike the new EXP-based damage system
Adriane | it is great in theory
Adriane | but seems counter-productive in practise, and still terribly biased towards experienced players
Kirucat | EXP-based damage system?
Adriane | yes
Adriane | damage is now based on EXP instead of evolution
Adriane | (in ASB)
Adriane | before, the solution was to simply ban evolved Pokémon if you're new
Kirucat | ! Since when.
res | exp-based system is unfix to anything
res | have been trying to tell negrek this!
res | in the past, the solution to evolved pokémon was to buy single-stage pokémon
Adriane | so yeah, new players are fundamentally disadvantaged by default since even unevolved Pokémon who've seen battle will do more damage

from #tcod, summing up my general thoughts; may expand after I get back from dinner

I'm open to alternative suggestions, but this is not a change I'm likely to go back on.

 

[Whirlpool]

Is it still okay if our own ~special damage formulas~ still use evolution stages instead?

 

[Negrek]

Yes.

 

[1. Luftballon]

Last of all, I’m looking into making some small tweaks to my damage and energy scales, which are currently the “default” ones for the League. First of all, I’m looking to decrease energy costs across the board to reduce the number of battles that are largely determined by energy consumption rather than health concerns. Second, I’m looking at possibly considering pokémon’s base stats a little more in reffings.

This is tricky, as what makes ASB appealing (and which is far more important now that people will need to battle with lower evolutions much more often) is that “weak” pokémon are on a much more equal footing with the big boys than they are in the games. At the same time, ignoring base stats does remove some of a pokémon’s flavor. Consider that in ASB, most referees would have a shuckle’s rock slide do as much damage as one coming from a rampardos, while that shuckle would be taking as much damage from a surf as well, which is contrary to the nature of both pokémon. Shuckle, of course, is an extreme example with its crazy stat distribution, but I hope you see where I’m coming from.

The best solution I’ve come up with so far is to base statistical modifiers not on a comparison between pokémon, but rather between a pokémon's own statistics. Let’s take pidgeot as an example. It has 80 base attack, 75 base defense, and 70 each of special attack and special defense. Because attack is its highest stat, under my system pidgeot would receive a 2% damage bonus for the use of physical attacks. Its second-highest stat, defense, would confer a 1% damage reduction from physical attacks. Because special attack and special defense are tied for lowest stat, both would receive a -1% modifier. Thus, in battle, pidgeot would indeed have more power behind its physical attacks than its special ones, but it would not be any way inferior to staraptor (at least in terms of stats), which would receive the same bonus distribution.

I feel that this system would better reflect individual pokémon’s strengths and weaknesses on the battlefield without putting pokémon with low stat totals at any sort of disadvantage. Unfortunately, it does have the downside of making reffing more difficult, what with bonuses to keep track of for each pokémon. This alteration is really more of an, “In the future, look out for…” thing; I wouldn’t consider making this the standard until I had actually managed to finish the reffing calculator that I’ve been talking about for like a year and a half but you know I might actually get around to that someday. Also, I will probably be using it in my own matches, although not considering it in the approval process, so if you have any thoughts on it, feel free to voice them, though I haven’t really finished testing the system yet.

the scale evidently does not account for base stats; is this because it turned out to be a bad idea, or simply because it was too much work for not enough actual gain?

would it be acceptable to account for base stats in personal scales? how much of a change to damage/energy expenditure would be acceptable based on base stat variance?

 

[M&F]

would it be acceptable to account for base stats in personal scales?

I can think of at least two referees who currently do this, so, I suppose it's a yes.

 

[Negrek]

the scale evidently does not account for base stats; is this because it turned out to be a bad idea, or simply because it was too much work for not enough actual gain?

would it be acceptable to account for base stats in personal scales? how much of a change to damage/energy expenditure would be acceptable based on base stat variance?

This scale does not account for base stats; I wanted to keep it simple, as people already have some trouble following along as it is, and doing base stats adds a fair amount of upkeep. However, I do use them in my reffings.

Depends on how you do so. I prefer that pokémon have their base stats compared to each other, rather than to other pokémon, as I think this is more in keeping with the ASB mentality. So, no "charmander has 43 defense, so it'll take more damage from physical attacks because that's pretty low." "Charmander's defense is its lowest stat, so it will take more damage from physical attacks," though, is fine. No more than a +/- 4% swing in damage and energy combined would be best, I think.

 

[1. Luftballon]

why does energy for damaging moves skip from 1. to 3.?

 

[Negrek]

Musta removed step two and not renumbered.

 

[1. Luftballon]

how much energy would a round of nothing x3 cost?

 

[Negrek]

2%

 

[Zero Moment]

Why would doing nothing cost energy?

 

[blazheirio889]

To prevent stallwars of "nothing x3" if chills are banned, for example.

 

[allitersonance]

Is it possible to spite "do nothing"?

 

[Negrek]

No. You can only spite actual commands. Likewise you can't mimic it or encore it or mirror move it, etc.

 

[ultraviolet]

forgive me for popping in late; I only just came across this discussion!

This is to discourage all of the rare candy bartering, at least in part?

Yep.

how is it, though? the experience gained from certain candy-barterers comes from lucky eggs and so on - not necessarily from winning battles. making EXP more valuable is only going to drive up the price considerably, and EXP is still going to be hard (and time-consuming) to come across.

Not that I have an alternative, I just don't see how it's going to stop bartering. It makes sense for pokes to be stronger with more EXP, I suppose,

No more than 2% damage may be added by this modifier.

... and I guess this means we aren't going to have teams of lucky-egg-wielding monsters, which is good.

 

[1. Luftballon]

To prevent stallwars of "nothing x3" if chills are banned, for example.

brb attempting to win by stall-war of indefinite nothing x 3

No. You can only spite actual commands. Likewise you can't mimic it or encore it or mirror move it, etc.

could it be prevented by taunt?

forgive me for popping in late; I only just came across this discussion!

how is it, though? the experience gained from certain candy-barterers comes from lucky eggs and so on - not necessarily from winning battles. making EXP more valuable is only going to drive up the price considerably, and EXP is still going to be hard (and time-consuming) to come across.

Not that I have an alternative, I just don't see how it's going to stop bartering. It makes sense for pokes to be stronger with more EXP, I suppose,

... and I guess this means we aren't going to have teams of lucky-egg-wielding monsters, which is good.

negrek has admitted that it doesn't actually properly solve any problems and is basically a provisional measure until it has better idea.

also it just means I'll go with increasingly ridiculous schemes instead of direct damage. but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Negrek]

forgive me for popping in late; I only just came across this discussion!

how is it, though? the experience gained from certain candy-barterers comes from lucky eggs and so on - not necessarily from winning battles. making EXP more valuable is only going to drive up the price considerably, and EXP is still going to be hard (and time-consuming) to come across.

It's not a solution, but an interim measure. It increases the amount of time that it takes before EXP stops becoming valuable to a pokémon. Previously, EXP were useful only up until you'd evolved a pokémon up to whatever level you wanted; after that point, they did nothing, so you might as well use them to get a candy. And EXP were completely worthless on pokémon that didn't evolve at all or that evolved by happiness (disregarding the two(?) moves powered by EXP). By incorporating EXP into the damage scale, it becomes relevant to all pokémon, so if your pokémon has less than eight EXP, you're either reducing its damage output or increasing the amount of time it will take it to reach its maximum damage output, therefore making removing EXP from pokémon to make candies less desirable, unless you don't mind the large damage penalty you could face against someone who didn't do that and chose to raise their pokémon to 8 EXP instead.

I don't have a problem with rare candies being hard to find or costly; I would prefer for them to be harder to find and more costly, so I was looking to reduce supply by this measure.