Resource Union Street - Casual Discussion Thread

[Keriel]

me, game design talk is always fun.

 

[Dylando]

me!!! (has never played pike before)

 

[cityscapes]

give mow your realgam design submissions NOW

Floating this possible Circuit tiebreaker for Feb onward, for feedback before I go to bed:

Current

Proposed

If one player has at least 36 more Battle Hours than their opponent, that player wins. This is the "Hour Gap" tiebreaker rule. Then, if that's a tie, the team whose Pokemon are missing the smallest percentage of their HP is declared the winner. This is the "Missing HP" rule. Example: If one Pokemon on a team is missing 50% of their HP, and the other Pokemon on that team is missing 80% of their HP, then that team is considered to be missing 130% HP. Then, if that's a tie, the player with the most remaining Battle Hours is the winner. This is the "Precise Hour" tiebreaker rule. Then, if that's a tie, the player that posted least recently wins. Woe betide us if we should ever make it to this tiebreaker.

Each player is scored as follows: For each of their Pokemon, they are scored a number of points equal to their HP percent rounded down. (A Pokemon with 100% remaining HP is worth 100 points. A Pokemon with 36 / 85 HP remaining is worth 42.3% ~ 42 points.) They are scored points equal to twice their remaining Battle Hours. Then, the tie is broken as follows: The player with the highest score wins. With the same score, the player with more Battle Hours wins. With the same score and Battle Hours, the player with the most Round Hours wins. All else the same, the player who posted most recently wins.

these are changes are intended to combat scenarios where it's optimal to refrain from posting at the end of the match timer, so evaluate them through that lens

there will surely still be SOME scenario where it's correct, but treating battle hours as "another HP bar" will make that decision more weightful. hopefully, encouraging gameplay over metagameplay.

the next circuit is only a couple of days away, so sound off whether you'd like to see this included or workshopped further

i am of the opinion that all time based tiebreaks are bad and it’s a matter of choosing the least bad one. my main issue with this one is that it’s incredibly annoying to calculate ahead of time and plan around, i think i honestly would prefer the current version

 

[Keriel]

Inspired by Unown discussion on discord -
I think Unown's design is in a pretty fun place rn if a little weak. I know many people disagree with me on this HeliosAflame and also think it's unfun to play against.
So, this is more "a direction we could take Unown that isn't a total nerf" and less "a change I actively want"; I like Unown as it is, but if we want to change it this is a thing that local Unown enjoyer thinks would still be fun.

The idea of nerfing Unown only when it has second order has come up a lot and I don't really like it primarily because, well, it's a nerf.
But this idea came to me recently:

- Unown with first order works exactly as it does now, letters minigame and all.
- Unown with second order can only use Hidden Power - with fanfic effects similar to gen 8 Hidden Powers, but much stronger (think the Eevee/Zuki moves).
- Therefore, Unown with second order doesn't expend letters, and its limited lifespan is much less of a thing.
I think the contrast of "a thousand moves" vs "less than 20 moves" would be interesting, and it's probably possible to create a set of Hidden Powers that offers agency to the Unown player and makes it cool.

Drawbacks, worth stating explicitly:
- These probably can't all just be "6 bap attack with a type and an on-hit", while remaining interesting, so arguably that makes it more "some fanfic moves" and less "Hidden Power". Though like... that's still a probably, if the on-hits are sufficiently nuts maybe you can. I just feel like Unown is so fragile that letting people just click their Plan As into a pokemon that doesn't have protect or substitute with those stats will just end the game in one round and never let it do its cool thing.
- Lot of creative work to make this exist. Increases the Unown rule overhead even more.

 

[Mowtom]

I would like to participate in the February event! However, I know the hidden information. This means I cannot fairly pick a Pokemon for myself, and if I tried to anyway everyone would assume that I chose something optimal for the secret battle as well.

Therefore, I am looking for a non-mod player to partner with, who will pick my Pokemon for me. Message me on discord (or the forum) if you're interested!

EDIT: So Lou says that I'm allowed to just pick a LC that I want to use and don't need to worry about the integrity of a temporary event. Huh. Feel free to ignore the above then.

 

[TMan87]

And she partners up with me so that, you know, the collusion is total and all.
Now it'll be reaaaaaal embarrassing if we actually fumble this.

 

[Rextreff]

Let's take down the Little Leaders let's go!!!!!

 

[P2X7]

Sorry to whomever I kicked from this month's League Circuit; I was too busy to sign up earlier in that week, so I wasn't watching the player counts very closely.

 

[LouisCyphre]

i tried to find an answer i like and failed previously. i'd like to boil down the following templating (for Intimidate and friends) into an intuitive keyphrase:

"When the user enters play, or gains this ability, or transforms to a Forme with this ability: [effect]"​

​

any takers? i want to bring this closer to what players expect to have happen.

 

[P2X7]

Are you open to introducing new terminology to the handbook's Ability page? Roughly speaking, we could do something like this:

PHB Section 5.3c (Abilities) Addendum: Manifesting Abilities
When a Pokemon enters play, it manifests all of its Abilities that have been selected according to the match's Ability limit rule. Moreover, if a Pokemon's Abilities change by any means, it immediately manifests any new Ability it gained. Many Abilities have effects that are perpetually active or that activate as a consequence of a player's orders, but others have effects that activate only upon manifestation.

Then we could define your keyphrase as follows:

"When the user manifests this Ability: [effect]"

 

[LouisCyphre]

i would like more keyword suggestions. p2 has the right idea as to how it'd be used: as a stand-in that represents all three triggers.

it would be added to 3.3a Effect Shorthand Phrases, though. so a short recognizable phrase would work just as well.

 

[Maxim]

So uh. Hyjack won their battle with Shauna in this thread while taking on a Boast. Problem is, I'm stupid and forgot that he had the No Switching Boast on, and thus allowed him to counterswitch to Marowak partway through the match. How do I resolve the boast?

 

[LouisCyphre]

Well, he also forgot and proceeded with the switch, so it's his fault too. Just void the boast and treat it as a normal Shauna clear, I suppose.

edit: since users are already trying to plan to "abandon" boasts partway through their future challenges: know that this is a one-time courtesy for an honest mistake.

the intent of boasts being "boasts" is that you should undertake them only if you are confident in your success.

 

[P2X7]

On the topic of keywords, I could also suggest "displays," "demonstrates," "reveals," or "announces."

 

[Dylando]

Random question occured to me:
What's your favorite/best mon to play of each type and why? (In a BBP-context of course)

 

[epicdrill]

Normal: This one is tough, the only 2 normals I really play that much are Ursaluna and Drampa and I really like both of them.
Fire: I don't really use my Fire-types much, I guess the best answer here is probably Heatran? Although Mollux and Pyroak are both up there.
Water: There are lots of water-types I like to use, but I think my answer here has to be Swampert? It's just such a good pivot that it's hard to argue for anything else that I don't use as much.
Grass: This one is a bit of a toss-up between Roserade, Pyroak, Tsareena, and Necturna. I haven't really used any of those as much as I'd like which makes it hard to determine between them.
Electric: I'm probably gonna have to go with Zapdos here? Zekrom is fun but it costing a tech heavily constrains teambuilding, and I don't really use my Vikavolt as much as I should.
Ice: I guess technically the answer to this one is Cetitan, but I've never actually sent an Ice-type to anything super serious, so I'm not sure.
Fighting: The only one I really use is Gallade, so I'm gonna have to go with that.
Poison: I haven't really used poison types much outside of Realgams/Raids, but I think my answer for this right now has to be Roserade. I suspect Munkidori will take that spot once I get it to 4 and start using it though.
Ground: Ursaluna might technically be stronger, but Swampert is one of my favourite mons in the game to play, so I'm gonna go Swampert for this one.
Flying: Zapdos is the only flying mon I use, so this one is obvious, although there's a chance it'll change to Celesteela when I get more play with that.
Psychic: This one is a bit of a toss-up between Gallade and Metagross.
Bug: There are lots of good bugs but I haven't really spent time playing much with a lot of them? I think I'll probably say Aurumoth for this one, although Golisopod is also a very strong contender and I suspect once I play with it more Slither Wing will also be up there.
Rock: I only really play one Rock-type regularly, so this one is gonna have to be Mega Tyranitar :p
Ghost: I should use the Ghosts I have more, a lot of them seem fun. I've only really used Gengar and Necturna though, and even those I haven't used that much, so I'm not sure between them.
Dragon: I have lots of good dragons, but my go-to tends to be Dragonite, although I haven't really had cause to send it to much since the Multiscale changes, so I'm not entirely sure how it performs now.
Dark: Mega Tyranitar again here, mostly for the same reason.
Steel: Probably Metagross? Although this one is harder, Naviathan is also a strong contender and I expect Celesteela to be a good contender as well once I've used it more.
Fairy: Probably Clefable here? I don't really play with fairies much because the ones I like are all kind of shit in this game, but at least my Clefable is level 4.

 

[LouisCyphre]

This is a feedback feeler, for entirely throwing out the match designation of "staked" (in between unstaked and competitive, currently).

This would constitute marking some set of facilities (likely the Level 1-2 stuff) as unstaked, which would permit backseating and advice-seeking from players challenging these venues.

Level 4 content, and all Boasted challenges most likely, would be moved to the higher stakes class (either now called "staked" or still called "competitive"), meaning illegal orders and similar fumbles in such venues would be illegal for comment until the game concludes.

Uncertain at this time would be the fate of Level 3 challenges, and whether the divide should be the same for all facilities, or even if it should be based on Level alone.

 

[epicdrill]

I like that idea in general, as N and Tierno definitely should not be considered the same level of match tbh. I think level 1 and 2 content is a fairly reasonable place to draw the line, although I guess I see an argument for drawing the line at all levelling content in general. I do think that any run that can reward an unpurchaseable pokemon should be in the higher stakes class, so boasts or something like Loyal Three would be an exception to that rule.

I think it's also worth considering the planning phase in these rules: people will often discuss plans for Realgams or Raids in discord, including for content like N or Colossi, and get feedback on those plans. I don't think that's a huge issue for something like N, where you still need to actually play better than the ref to win, even if you teambuild well, but for something like Raids where planning is the entire difficult part of the run then it might be worth looking at.

 

[LouisCyphre]

i'm of a mind that some unpurchaseables, like the Loyal Three, are fine to get help with. it'd be nice to get some unpurchaseables into circulation for newer players, and i think they're a good middle-power candidate. even if frisk is currently very good.

as for raids, ideally higher-stakes raids would involve more active gameplay from the challenger. at that level, being solvable in teambuilding alone isn't a feature anymore. this is a design challenge we'll just have to shoulder as authors though (and is the main hangup with colossi at the moment)

 

[HeliosAflame]

I like the idea!
Agreed with what was said in discord that boasting could also be no advice both for thematics and because you shouldn't get a zappdos by crowd sourcing your orders.
Related, I am not sure quite where the line is, but intuitively I think advice is fine including strategy advice, but "copy and past this set of main orders and subs into your realgam" is not, in terms of how much someone has to be actually playing their own game.
Personally I would put level 3 content in the same bucket as 1 and 2. I think cara liss or zuki are much closer to trevor than they are to N or elemental procession.

 

[P2X7]

Restructuring Facility designations sounds okay to me. I would classify only Pinnacle content as inherently Competitive, as they're the only type of Facility whose rewards are "special" enough to warrant a limited distribution, and classify everything else as Unstaked, with the caveat that Boasting automatically changes your run's designation to Competitive because of the associated possibility of winning valuable/unpurchaseable prizes.

The most noteworthy consequence I can find is that high-stakes runs would become exempt from patches under this system, but I can't speak to the desirability of this change.

 

[LouisCyphre]

exemption from patches is already something that's fraying at the seams.

our change to make patches effective in future rounds has been walked back first for competitive matches, and then again for long-form events. which means players are once again playing on a bunch of different game versions, which defeats the purpose of making patches effective in future rounds.

it's something i'd like to tighten back up, once we're in the planned event downtime post-april. this would involve re-evaluating the runtime of events (they're problematically long still) and having a harder look at when it's best to deploy needed patches, both big and small.

 

[LouisCyphre]

related to the above:

You can now get your #minor-adjustments in the DAT "BBP Upkeep" page, as well as in Discord.

the timestamp column uses EPOCHTODATE(), so it should (hopefully) be displayed in your local time.

for the urgency column:

• Immediate Hotfix: Self-explanatory.
• Patch Note: Typically effective in future rounds.
• Correction Only: No functional change.
• Future Rounds: Self-explanatory.
• Specially Scheduled: The update note will have to specify effectiveness.

 

[LouisCyphre]

Look at this Raid Adjustment preview.

We've been concocting tools to help us reduce how many actions happen in a Raid round, while still preserving challenge and speed. What we've decided is that, in order for Bosses to do the same amount of work in fewer actions, we'll have to simply make their actions better.

Related to this, the main feedback for Pinnacle Raids is that referees struggle to motivate themselves to post hopeless orders, even if it's not "them" playing. When we reduce how many turns a Pinnacle Raid takes, we'll necessarily have to provide more options for the referee to choose from, so that they can muster some kind of resistance, and thus find motivation to post.

Examples

Old Example:

PR	Rand	Rand	Rand
Max Seed Bomb Max Crunch Max Close Combat​	Trailblaze Zen Headbutt Body Slam​	Brick Break Seed Bomb Facade​	Spore Growth Synthesis​

New Example [WIP, Feedback welcomed]:

Choose/PR [1]	Rand/Any	Choose/Any
Boss[2] Max Seed Bomb x2 [2] Boss Max Crunch x2 Boss Max Close Combat x2 Boss Max Stomping Tantrum x2​	Trailblaze +10 [2] Zen Headbutt +10 Body Slam +10 Brick Break +10 Seed Bomb +10 Facade +10​	Spore Growth, twice [3] Synthesis Substitute​

[1] Action and Target Selection

"Choose/PR" means the referee chooses which of the actions to do, but must target the Protector.​

"Rand/Any" means the referee selects an action at random, and then may choose who to target.​

"Choose/Any" means the referee selects both the action and the target.​

​

I'm not thrilled with "Action/Target" slash-notation; it's not clear what it means at first glance. Readable alternatives would be welcome.​

​

Letting the Referee choose the target of actions becomes necessary when the Boss takes fewer turns. Otherwise, some Bosses could end up wasting entire rounds based on the whim of the dice.​

[2] Attack Enhancement

Because the Boss needs to take on three raiders at once, with fewer actions, we're going to have to make those actions more impactful.​

​

The prefix "Boss" could mean essentially Z-Pierce, taking over for merely bolding an action. This prefix could become anything, really, but I had to pick something to use in the example, so I went with "Boss".​

This function is useful when we want players to react to the consequences of an action, rather than having a preventive response.​

​

(Aside here: An important hurdle Raids have been facing is that player parties aren't having to prioritize "which fires to put out"—blanket answers like Safeguard and Jaboca Berry let players deal with all of the Raid's threats at once. This is something we need to look in to as well; and "piercing" actions are a component of that solution.)​

​

"Max Crunch x2" means that the Max Crunch's damage is doubled. "x3" or higher multipliers would also certainly be possible.​

Multiplying damage also means that mitigating actions and factors, such as resistances and defense stages, are similarly multiplied. This function is useful for making mechanics that must be proactively mitigated—or "asking hard questions", as you could say. Players would have to mitigate these attacks heavily in advance, or else risk losing outright.​

​

"Trailblaze +10" means that the Trailblaze's damage is increased by 10.​

Adding flat damage is useful for ensuring a baseline level of threat. Even when the multiplied attacks are properly mitigated, the Raiders should still be taking slightly more damage than they can ignore, which added damage can provide.​

​

[3] Other Modifiers

It's possible to have other action modifiers, of course, but their utility is less immediately clear. A modifier like "twice", meaning exactly what it says on the tin, is simple enough. What's uncertain is how many "self-describing" modifiers there really are, and how helpful they would really be in Raid design.​

​

I'd like to avoid using symbols for modifying actions (e.g. "Night Slash++" or "Head Smash ★"), so any further modifiers would instead be word prefixes or suffixes. Too many modifiers, and players will have trouble memorizing them all, so we have to be selective as well.​

Based on this preview, we'd like feedback as to what seems most readable or most intuitive when it comes to reffing, piloting, or planning Raids.

We hope being asked to select a target for the Raid's random actions doesn't result in the same referee ennui as does being asked to select an action; so that we can fold this into leveling Raids as well.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

In terms of notation the target could be simplified to like

Rand(pr)
Rand(su)
Rand(ag)
Rand(ch)
Rand(d3)

choose (pr)
choose (ch)
choose (d3)
etc

(rd) for rand could work in place of d3

or maybe
pick (pr)
pick (su)
... is more concise and also maybe a world where we get like pick2 (rd)