Resource BBP Bug and Feedback Thread - Generation 9 Edition!

[Hyjack]

Feedback

I have two pokemon @ Level 2.2 (2 Total EXP). I was considering where to put them in a realgam. Logic takes me to the new fast b3p2 vs Mustard, worth 8 EXP. My matchup of Dhelmise and Escavalier vs most of Mustard being unfavored, I realized how risky it was to queue into this guy at all. Realgams are never walks in the park, and I gotta fully defeat this trainer for max rewards. Max rewards being 8 EXP which, as mentioned in earlier posts and discussions, is at the 4 exp per KO'd pokemon ration, the same as other, arguably easier trainers. I have some other level 2.2s awaiting their claim that just smacked Shauna, and even considering them and their alternate matchups, I think I always queue into another trainer. When the maximum reward requires a complete victory, it's like these B3P2's are a boast in themselves, but with no bonus payout.

Being in a position where I feel I should queue into Mustard, but don't, I felt compelled to give feedback, as I now have experience deciding against taking this realgam. From what I understand the allure of these b3p2 trainers are speed. But... If my goal is 8 EXP, and I get KO'd at 5 or 6 EXP progress, it takes longer for me to post prize claim, re-queue, and go through the facility again. If my goal is not EXP, then it's for a boast, which then makes this a EXP Record farming sim? Like get a guaranteed matchup and queue vs Brock/Mustard/Guzma w/ 6/8/10 boasts over and over, and I don't think that is the intended purpose.

I've reffed Mustard. It's fun to play (rapid strike go brrr) and the extra item system adds to the fun. However as a player I don't see why I would risk tis for the EXP. Part of this reason is the highest stake on the line is time. If I do 1 realgam a month, it aint gonna be Mustard, especially if its iffy and I HAVE to win. Even for boast farming, its just inefficient when there's one realgam at a time. I support the existence of these sims, and attest that they're fun to run, but as a player seeking a simulation Mustard at least is out of place.

EDIT: It'd be cool if Realgam sims adopted the "Victory Reward" of Raids, as a way to add more EXP potential but making it deserved rather than guaranteed. If Brock/Mustard/Guzma had Victory EXP I think that helps people want to take it, without unbalancing the existing EXP system.

 

[HeliosAflame]

I think they could just give 6xp per pokemon.
Defeating 1 pokemon vs brock gives you 6 * 2 = 12 xp.
Defeating 1 pokemon vs Treavor gives you 4 * 3 = 12 xp.
That puts them on the same efficiency per kill, making it a choice between wanting to bring 2 mon vs wanting to bring 3 mon.

 

[Mowtom]

I have read, understood, and decided what I want to do about all of the complaints about the way current Realgam is structured. I would appreciate if people only bring this issue up if they have something genuinely new to contribute.

Thank you for caring about making the system better, but at this point the marginal effect is to overwhelm me with people listing out all of its problems.

 

[LouisCyphre]

not to piggyback from the above, but i'd like users to make an effort to focus their feedback on problems and symptoms.

especially, stop deciding for yourselves what steps the moderators will or should take. it's presumptuous, at best.

 

[Doduodrio]

After a player is awarded their prize, if their Reward Record now has four (4) wins in it. That player will have to accumulate victories anew in order to pursue another prize from the 4 Victories column.

This sentence looks incomplete. Probably was going to say something about resetting the Reward Record. The thing is, I believe Reward Record resetting was already mentioned earlier in the Rewards per Victory section.

(Link to post)

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

From my understanding, Infatuation is currently extremely bad against phazing moves. If you cause infatuation against your opponent, and they use a phazing move, both of you get phazed, but you have both first send AND first order.

Combined with the fact that some mons passively create infatuation via cute charm (so we can't just say don't use attract), this feels like an incredibly negative effect for the user.
In particular, against cute charm you can force yourself into having second order next round by using whirlwind.

I think, even more generally speaking, I am not a fan of the double whirlwind interaction where the slower mon will have to be both first send and first order.

 

[LouisCyphre]

this has been a known interaction for some months. i haven't prioritized infatuation work over other work.

 

[LouisCyphre]

why aren't any of you reffing raid.

i'm getting half "i'm glad it's automated, but it's a lot of info" and half "it's over fast, but i don't get to play".

the fix will depend on what's popular about them.

edit: if the fix for raid ref burnout ends up being "less actions per round", it'll likely be paired with a matching boss HP increase—since it would take the boss longer to KO you, they'd need to be given the chance to try.

that has repercussions throughout the raid queue (less frequent signups), and progression in general (albeit alleviated by looming releases)

 

[HeliosAflame]

For me personally I think they are a lot of work and do not give comiserate rewards, + I actively enjoy the playing of realgams.
I find the amount of reffing work in raids is higher and more involved than in p3 casuals, which give the same rewards. This is due to having more pokemon in play and more different moves typed per action, involving lots of checking of types, stats, abilities, moves.

Related, if I am not able to fill my jc needs with realgams, the raids I would be most happy to ref would be masticator invader and silvalley, and the raid I do not intend to ever take again is loyal 3, after I subreffed a few rounds of it once.

 

[Hyjack]

Continued from Discord:

My experience reffing raids is:
Sporeverlord 3+ times
Ninjas 3+ times
Loyal 3 once maybe

As a ref, my favorite players are the players that are calculated and know when to go for the OHKO (eve/epic). It's also entertaining to see someone struggle. I was reffing gaboswampert's sporeverlord and it was fun as the ref to see what they were going to do each post, because it was far less calculated and much more "Oh no Brave Bird AG"

Sporeverlord is easy to run and play. Its 3v1 and the 1 usually gets KO'd early. Then 3v3 and as the ref my rolls are easy (6d2). And the last 3v1 is back to simplicity again.

Ninjas has many more moving parts but is made easier because they make less rolls (Greninja is 1d7) and KOs are usually quick. I remember getting irritated at Fort's raid because a miss meant greninja lived on 6 and there was 1 more round to post.

Loyal 3 I reffed once I think and it was entertaining because I was a new player and got to learn what withdraw was. Also, I wanted to play this facility, and being apart of someone's successful run helped me learn what to do for my own planning.

 

[Hyjack]

EDIT that turned into its own post: Referee QoL is important for raids.
Sporeverlord QoL comes in the form of weak boss and quick transitions, making it feel somewhat fresh and like progress is being made. Rolls are most consistent: Amoonguss rolls Xd3 except for move 4 targetting. All the minions have fixed targets and roll 2d3. Brute Bonnett rolls only d3 for targetting and moves. In my opinion Sporeverlord has good QoL for referees, regardless of how well the player is doing. There aren't enough moving parts (effect spore, reflect type, spotlight, mycotoxin)... ok actually, the moving parts don't happen at the same time, and that helps it not get overwhelming. Effect spore happens once if ever, and then the player usually safeguards, or switch moves. The minions are refreshing in a way, and usually get got in 3-4 rounds. Mycotoxin comes in late and is an easy -2*5 on HP, no calcs needed.

Ninjas QoL comes in the form of weak minions and not having to calculate shedinja's HP. Switching up each mon was annoying at first, but then I premade their profiles and it was a non-issue. Some of them having different die rolls is kind of annoying (Shedinja/Ninask d4s, Weezing d3s, Drapion d3+d5 for some reason, Golisopod blessed 3d3 but is always dead before it acts, greninja d7) but also the ref just has to roll the least common denominator and do the math, so this may be a problem with how I'm doing it. At a point, with hazards up, there's a "going through the motions" that makes reffing this feel bad, however this is inevitable with any reffing, and this is not the worst going through the motions raid. Ninjas QoL is medium, not my favorite but could be worse. Bland.

Loyal 3 QoL comes from them all having 3d3 moves, and the capability of the player to eliminate work from the ref (by going for safeguard/misty terrain and/or mist). My only experience reffing this was with someone who knew what they were doing (epicdrill) and made the ref's life easy. Rolling was consistently d3 in both targetting and move selection, and that adds an unsung ease to reffing. Loyal 3 QoL is player dependent but can be good/high if the player knows what they're doing, and bad/low otherwise. If they don't, then I gotta keep track of SPA drops, Toxic Chain, Round count for spites, Taunt counters, etc. It's kind of cool; if I have to calc all of these things, the player probably isnt doing great, and If I don't have to calc these things, the player is doing what they're supposed to, so how well the player is doing decides how well the ref is doing.

Colossi (old) was "exploited" in two different ways over three raids. They all got to the same point of "going through the motions" to the extreme. What made this worse is how the ref was expected to pick moves. The actual agency wasn't the bad part, but being locked out of meaningful agency is what sucked. I had to pick 8-9 moves that didn't matter each round into Normalize and Wonder Guard. The actual raid had its own thing going on that is currently getting reworked, but as a ref it felt terrible to do the work for because nothing mattered. I also don't like having a hand in restricting rewards from a player. For example shadowpea almost got toxic stalled, and if that had happened, I would have felt bad about it. Unlike realgams, there's not gratification in victory. I would have felt like an obstacle to their fun. Colossi QoL is kind of irrelevant now, but it was bad all around.

 

[Keriel]

Eviolite Cave trek 3 has a Stardust, but that item doesn't exist in the DAT. (-> Fairy Feather?)

 

[LouisCyphre]

all good feedback to have re: raids.

The next question is tangentially-related: As more facilities open, every player will get into each queue, trying to keep their progression moving. This means that there's an expectation that whoever handles reffing, will be reffing that many challenges.

How do we best keep the number of challenges needing reffing, manageable?

• "Facility Slots", much like ASBs battle slots?
• Tighten the screws on JC?
• Queue Limits, where you can only sign up for a queue if there's "room", or if you make room?
• Something else?

This "problem" hasn't really come to a head or anything, but I'd like to be ahead of it on the chance that it does.

 

[HeliosAflame]

I would be interested in trying to tighten the screws on JC (I am sure this is shocking to anyone on the discord)
I feel like queue limits just hide the problem, where there is a hidden queue of people who will join as soon as a slot opens up.
Facilitiy limit also seems eh since restricting how much people can play reduces every incentive for them to ref things either (jc and reducing queue size).

JC seems like it is exactly the appropriate tool for balancing how much people play vs how much people choose to ref, with the caveat that many people have a glut of it already which makes it hard to see results in tightening the economy.

Maybe letting people trade in 20 jc to gain a level 2 xp records could help remove the glut and allow jc price changes to actually impact things?
It would give eve a lot of level 3's but it is not like she didn't work for them, and in the limit case if someone wants to ref 6 realgams to level up 3 pokemon instead of playing one of their own well, that seems like it is net positive for the community.

(I also really like the direction of trying to make reffing things like raids less frustrating. Even if it is possible to compensate people well enough with jc, it sucks if reffing feels like second job.)

 

[Keriel]

Agree that facility slots seem bad and that this is the job of JC, if it's at all possible to make JC do it.
Sort of disagree on queue limits being bad; the point is that if the queue is "full", the only way to get your run in is to take someone else's, so there's a direct incentive to do so. I think they're ugly but might be what we need. (There could alternately be a rule like "if you take someone else's run in the same post you sign up, you can go halfway up the queue" or something?)


HeliosAflame I like the idea of trading JC but I'd limit it to level 1 exp records only (and 20 seems too low, especially if flashes exist). I think getting level 3s out of nowhere is significantly more powerful than level 2s, and might cause a problem if some people can easily level a new team to 3 when a league circuit rule is announced.

 

[epicdrill]

I also think tightening the screws on JC is the way to go. Facility slots seem counterproductive in the way Helios described, and I also see some issues with queue limits in that they incentivize picking up runs but not finishing them. With JC tighter not only do you have to take facilities (especially if flash JC is nerfed), you also have to finish them to actually get the JC, so it encourages reffing promptly. On the other hand, with queue limits even if someone isn't intending to john it's very easy for someone to pick up a facility and then whenever real life stuff gets busy or if they picked up too much stuff by accident it's very easy to just forget about that facility and work on other things. This is especially true if the facility is something they wouldn't have otherwise picked up or wouldn't have reffed. For example, personally speaking, I hate reffing Loyal Three and I haven't tried it but I suspect I would hate reffing Silvally for the same reason: sheer action density and the amount of stuff that happens every round. No other raids really approach that level of action density aside from later stages of Turf War, but even then that's not present for most of the match. If I was forced to take one of those raids to get my raid in queue instead of waiting for something like Masticator or Ninjas then I definitely would put that raid on the backburner relative to other things I'm in, likely resulting in me taking a couple days to ref every time, and then if anything happens in real life I'm instantly over DQ because I haven't been keeping up with it. Tightening up JC, on the other hand, encourages reffing promptly because the facility needs to finish for JC to be awarded, so you can't just take something, deprioritize it, and be fine.

 

[Maxim]

Personally I prefer facility slots to trying to tighten JC costs. The issue with tackling it via JC is that approvers generally have way more JC than non-approvers. Thus it is going to generally hurt non approvers and do nothing to approvers. Beyond that we recently buffed JC incomes because it was too tight, I think we would just come full circle at that point.

A facility limit of 2 or 3 seems far more reasonable due to hitting everyone equally and hopefully suppressing queues for less popular to ref facilities (the problem raids have now).

Queue limits I’m also against due to the “invisible queue” problem that Helios pointed out.

 

[epicdrill]

Another problem with facility slots that I just thought of is we don't really have that many facilities open. We have Realgam, Raid, and Safari rn. When we have more facilities open, it might do more, but right now saying "you get 3 facility slots" changes literally nothing because we only have 3 facilities open. It makes it tough to come up with a good threshold of facility slots that matters but isn't overly restrictive: 1 facility at a time feels very tight, 2 is only effective on people who would otherwise actively be putting in the effort to set up constant runs in every facility, and 3 does literally nothing.

 

[LouisCyphre]

mhm, it's intended that we're talking about the future where more facilities are open.

keep 'em comin'

 

[HeliosAflame]

wally challenger start template has no backpack items.
they can still be grabbed from the realgam info in the rest of the post

 

[Mowtom]

Please elaborate on the bug you are requesting me to fix?

 

[HeliosAflame]

Please elaborate on the bug you are requesting me to fix?

Huh. I am second guessing myself now, but I thought that the challenger start templates used to include all the items realgam trainers used where it says backpack item info.
It looks like now they do not and only the main post says what items the realgam trainer will bring.

 

[Mowtom]

Yes, it turns out that having the same thing written in two places makes it harder to update. So now it is written in one place.

 

[Fort Colorcastle]

I prefer the JC solution myself.
Facility slots have all the problems epic mentioned, plus issues with a facility being locked up. There's a lot of reasons that a run can be faster or slower than another, and I don't think people should be punished for their ref needing to take a break of go on vacation or just being slower than other refs.

Facility slots feel like they would be a lottery of whether you get like me flashing a raid in less than 24h vs me not reffing a realgam for a week (loa involved but also just went over DQ).

It would incentivize players to actually DQ their refs and seek subrefs, but I struggle to believe flooding queue with subref requests to be a good thing

Generally speaking, right now only your last JC matters. Opening a JC shop of some sort would make JC matter besides the last one and I think that's a good thing. I believe realgams and raids JC are roughly in a good spot right now as long as casuals stop creating it.

However, I think a potential JC shop should be limited to lo-XP records. Level 1->2 is what unlocks many mons' identities (hidden abilities + a lot of the stronger moves), and is also easier to get and less fun for the realgam ref because the lv1 sims are weak (as they should be).

 

[cityscapes]

agree with jc solution. i ref a bunch of stuff in this game cause it's fun and moves stuff along, but practically speaking there's no reason to ref anything beyond the bare minimum, your time is much more effectively spent as a player. the rc rewards are cool but you get enough rc through other sources that they aren't very necessary.

i thought of this silly idea that was like you can spend a lot of jc to get ahead of other people in queue but this is a completely terrible idea like every priority queue thing

mostly the current problem with reffing i see is that you get no interesting rewards from it. jc is inert once you build up a decent stockpile of it, it doesn't actually go anywhere. rc is ok but there are a finite amount of items in this game and purchasing doodads will inevitably get less and less interesting (see me buying silvally just to have a decent rc sink). i think refs have deserved better payment for some time now.

edit: of course the big problem is what to do for people who have like hundreds of jc built up. so any new jc sink must be able to handle large-scale jc spending without being completely useless, breaking the game in half, or entirely removing aspects of progression