Battle adjustments thread.

[EcoWOLFrb]

that wouldn't help with the battles where no switching is established as a rule and agreed upon previously, which I'm sure will happen given the lack of strategy specifically for switching in PWO. I fully expect to see "B99 No Switching" on battle chat quite frequently.

 

[Nikola]

Don't know why switching would still be tabooed if it's fixed. People are still locked in the notion that switching is a bad battle etiquette, which should change, as it's being fixed IMO. Everything that's unbalanced atm is simply due to a shortcoming in an attempt to replicate that battle system.
Status shall reset once Pokemon is being switched, this is the case in the handhelds though and this way or another can't do any harm since it would be an proper update. There will be people who will switch and those ones who will not. Not really hard to find common ground. I usually battle without atk boosts excluding Metagross which is random. Pretty sure I am not the only one who will continue to battle that way. Switching in PWO can be unique due to lack of another updates such as abilities, held items and entry hazards. It's up to players to determinate if they are going to switch depending what type of battler your opponent is. Switching might take a bit time to become normal thing. Soon or later you will have to switch as your doing in proper battle system. In order to move on we have to test every part which is leading toward fully developed battle engine. Don't ignore the fact that PWO is beta and that testing is crucial in order to proceed with another update planned .

 

[Tecknician]

If they are going to spam an status move, then what's to stop you from switching? If switching is working correctly, no reason to start changing the culture and make switching OK slowly.

What's the use of people asking for it to be fixed if when it's fixed it's still not allowed/done?

 

[HOF69]

Now, if I was to get it so that when you switch pokemon stats are reset will this be good enough?

I think that would be fine. I really don't see the problem with being able to switch even if some moves are still broken and entry hazards, abilities, etc. don't exist yet. The three main features of switching that absolutely need to exist in order for it to be considered fair are 1) the opposing Pokemon is still able to use a move when you switch out, 2) all stat increases and decreases applied to a Pokemon are reset when that Pokemon switches out, and 3) status ailments like sleep and poison stay with a Pokemon even if it switches out.

Obviously the PWO battle community won't accept switching overnight, but these features would at least make switching fair and prevent Pokemon like Dragonite and Scizor from being able to boost themselves to unbeatable levels.

 

[EcoWOLFrb]

Only a part of the PWO population wants switching. I'm not saying I'm against switching, but just as the the status move update should have had other things things added before it so should switching before it becomes a part of PWO. People always want balance in PVP, moves involving switching like Entry hazards, roar, whirlwind, and baton pass help it balance itself out. Without these all we're going to create in regards to switching is another problem to complain about, and more people asking for more things to help balance it out.

 

[pokearcanine]

well,if possible to implement,priority moves could solve that problem.

 

[CheckeredZebra]

*laughs*
Welp, I've said my piece. If there is a reason basic switching would not fix the current problem of overly-boosted Pokemon or cause other major, forseeable exploits, I will gladly continue discussion on that.

Other things, such as the community accepting switching during battle, can be fixed with little effort once the basic system actually works. At least switching would FINALLY be an option available to battlers. =P And considering how many PvPers are on here discussing the change, I wouldn't doubt that a lot of them would at least play around with the system. Even better, if I'm right and it works, they might just keep on using it. If I'm wrong or it just doesn't catch on, we're still one small step ahead even with god-boosted Pokemon around. Not a bad downside imo.

 

[EcoWOLFrb]

that is true, nothing wrong with trying it out and making it an option for people. It's not like making switching more viable will prevent people from simply saying "B99 no switching". If people like it then great, if they don't they won't battle the people who do switch. Hopefully eventually most aspects of the game can be added without too much nagging by the players, and frustration by the staff. Though I'd still like other arrangements made for the sake of people who choose not to switch, meh can't have it all though .

 

[robertallan]

Umm, teck, there's a bug that happened twice or thrice, and I wonder if it will help since I believe it is caused by switching.

I am using a Steelix, about less than half its hp and is currently BURNED, and my opponent's using a Salamence - 1/4 hp remaining.
The Salamence goes first, used ember, and my steelix is about to faint (only 1 hit of any move before it faints).
My Steelix used ice fang, defeated Salamence, and burned after, so it also fainted.
Both of us have to bring out a poke, and I went first, then my opponent.
But funny thing is, the system said that my opponent's poke is unable to battle, and I am LOSING pokedollars.
we found no solution because making a move doesn't do anything but to make me lose pokedollars, and luckily, he, afraid to lose some also, decided to disconnect.

It happened before also, but it is my opponent's poke who got burned and same bug appears.

So it may be safe to assume that, the player whose poke got [burned - fainted - switches to another poke] will lose pokedollars. (sorry though, since I don't have SS for those.)

hope this helps, since it is somehow associated with the switch thing, if ever switches would be fixed and implemented/accepted.

About this topic, I believe the best possible solution is to nerf stat boosting/decreasing moves. It is because I think only few (or no one) would complain/annoyed if it is implemented. B/W2 movesets, may or may not solve the problem, since the problem mainly concerns stubbornness of players, and adding more movesets might likewise putting more oil to the fire. TMs, will just make an uber poke more uber, just like as you said. Dragonite with Agility+Outrage+(FireBlast/Thunder/AquaTail) would be impossible to beat unless you switch (or maybe even if you switch, it'd be near to impossible). Switching, I believe, should come, after all moves are fixed, and together with TMs.

Lowering the cap of status moves, Decreasing the percentage of increase in stat or a combination of both would do it. For now.

 

[Orean]

Only a part of the PWO population wants switching. I'm not saying I'm against switching, but just as the the status move update should have had other things things added before it so should switching before it becomes a part of PWO. People always want balance in PVP, moves involving switching like Entry hazards, roar, whirlwind, and baton pass help it balance itself out. Without these all we're going to create in regards to switching is another problem to complain about, and more people asking for more things to help balance it out.

that is true, nothing wrong with trying it out and making it an option for people. It's not like making switching more viable will prevent people from simply saying "B99 no switching". If people like it then great, if they don't they won't battle the people who do switch. Hopefully eventually most aspects of the game can be added without too much nagging by the players, and frustration by the staff. Though I'd still like other arrangements made for the sake of people who choose not to switch, meh can't have it all though .

Although you mentioned in the first post why you believe this is an inopportune time to accommodate for switching, you did not really elaborate on why it is less ideal for such changes to be made as opposed to the current problems players see with the metagame (eg: a cycle of stat-raising moves until one concedes). I am still curious to ask why you believe this alternative scheme would be be worse than the current problems mentioned with the battle system trends?

Regarding the potential imbalance: as long as people regard the handheld game battle system as the conventional standard for a balanced battle system, those standards will not be sated until the battle system is developed on a full-scale, as many have already mentioned. There are differing opinions on the best route to take, depending on which is more feasible to implement than other details of the battle system, but regardless, any change that comes short of a flawlessly intricate battle system will most likely cause imbalance/dissatisfaction somewhere, especially without other features developed to complement them—which, unfortunately, is not workable to implement them all at once.

Moreover, even if changes are inherently flawed while the system is incomplete, it is still crucial to put thought into which one would promote the most balance compared to other changes that could be added before it.

 

[KaiReborn]

Out of curiosity (I'm sorry if this was mentioned earlier in this thread), would it be possible to have status effects working like on handhelds (as in paralysis affecting speed and burn affecting attack)? Also would it be possible to make haze work properly (it's a move that causes stat changes to be reset)?

 

[Tecknician]

Out of curiosity (I'm sorry if this was mentioned earlier in this thread), would it be possible to have status effects working like on handhelds (as in paralysis affecting speed and burn affecting attack)? Also would it be possible to make haze work properly (it's a move that causes stat changes to be reset)?

When I re-wrote the stat changing code this was actually one of the main reasons. So yes.

 

[andrewle]

im just giving out my humble opinion here i hope it helps. As a player myself who use these stat changing moves i can say adding TM's doesn't really help that much, i think it's because most of the TM's of a pokemon don't have stab damage most of it are different type of moves compare to type of the pokemon that can learn it. I can say this base on my experience. Example of this is charizard although it can already learn dragon claw without TM's but once i used charm or any other stat changing moves multiple time i can still boost my dragonite. And just recently i battled someone using a salamence although his salamence has fire fang but when i used memento in the salamence i still able to boost my scizor and wiped out his team another of my example is dragonite although it has aqua tail already on its move set but it is not a stab move so once i used memento on dragonite i was able to boost my shiny steelix and again wiping out all his pokemons. There might be something wrong for sure and i think i only personaly think that it is because of the computation on how the stat was boosted I am using this site to compute pokemon move damage. http://www.psypokes.com/dex/damage.php. By inputing the attack stat of my scizor 290 and input the max def stat of dragonite 233 (let say i am battling a shiny dragonite with max def and hp) by using iron head you will get this damage

now if i input 3 times stat boost in scizor i can get this damage

as you can see here scizor should not be able to take out a max hp dragonite even if scizor boosted 3 times.


but if i were manually input scizor's attack after using 3 times sword dance it will become 1080 i will get this damage

as you can see i was now able to take down a max def and hp dragonite i dont know how this happen i assume the calculation on how the pokemon should be boosted was wrong if we were after the handheld version.

 

[KaiReborn]

With tms both sala and drago could run a mixed set though which means memento wouldn't be as harmful. Some other pokemon could fit into that mixed set role with tms, which would otherwise be impossible due to current moveset limitations. Also seeing how most boosts (if not all) are centered around attack/speed maybe adding that 'extra' effect on burn/paralyzis wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[The-Predator]

even if TM´s taught on pokemon that wouldnt have stab, they would be harmful as some pokemon has x4 weaknesses against other ones, some of the pokemon doesnt need the stab but the right move to inflict damage regardless of being physical or special

 

[andrewle]

Didn't you just read my example szicor against salamence using firefang? And dragonite using aqua tail against steelix? If you don't believe I am willing to show it to you in battle

 

[The-Predator]

Didn't you just read my example szicor against salamence using firefang?

Yes, ember would KO the scizor by 2 turns maybe 1 (not sure) thats why I said. Sometimes stab isnt needed regardles of being physical or special

 

[andrewle]

I know but my opponent in my example is using firefang and I mentioned that I used memento read it again will you so it doesn't matter if a pokemon was able to learn tm once you used memento and other stat decrese it is still useless

 

[The-Predator]

I know but my opponent in my example is using firefang and I mentioned that I used memento read it again will you

Lol?? Im not directing my comments at you u made a physical example yeah u are right there nothing u can t do about it I just said stab sometimes isnt needed as some pokemon has 4x weaknesses didnt even quoted u it was just a simple opinion in general

 

[EcoWOLFrb]

Andrewele- you must be thinking of when momento was horribly broken and would reduce your attack the full 6 stages, this has been resolved. Perhaps you should give a more recent example as fire fang after 1 momento would 2-3hko scizor now. Not to mention your point being rendered moot as salamence for example learns Flamethrower through TM's which of course OHKO's scizor ~