Move Descriptions in battle

[Bassoonian]

This PR builds off Pawkkie's #3571 implementation of TheXaman's move description branch. They cleaned it up and made it work with modern, I did the following:

• Add support for EFFECT_PLACEHOLDER's description override
• Changed the button to the L button to avoid conflicting with Mega Evolution/Z-Moves
• Replace priority with battle category (explicitly showing priority values is non-vanilla)
• Reorder to category/power/accuracy per SV
• Add an indicator that the L button can be used for move info
• Replace values of 0 with —
• Whatever else is needed (we should figure out a scope for this PR)

People who collaborated with me in this PR

@TheXaman
@Pawkkie
@ravepossum

Discord contact info

bassoonian

[AlexOn1ine]

Thoughts on extending the move desc to add all of those?

Similar to Unbound. If there is not enough space the box could be extended.

[Bassoonian]

Shouldn't we at that point completely overhaul the interface to support longer move names too? Type and PP are already in the bottom right, split is on the to-do list, and that'd only leave effectiveness which we could maybe also cram in the bottom right like Unbound.

[AlexOn1ine]

Shouldn't we at that point completely overhaul the interface to support longer move names too? Type and PP are already in the bottom right, split is on the to-do list, and that'd only leave effectiveness which we could maybe also cram in the bottom right like Unbound.

Hm, I don't know. Up to you but maybe it would be better to merge the lone move desc for now and think later about my suggestion?

[Bassoonian]

I won't be able to work on this in the foreseeable future, and I don't think the button indicator necessarily needs to be blocking. PCG provided assets on Discord, so a follow-up PR is always welcome. This is ready for review other than that (and considering it's a commonly requested feature, I think we should merge it in sooner than later).

[AlexOn1ine]

The battle debug menu uses some hack to avoid using an EWARM. Not for this PR but we should explore it at some point. Maybe we will be able to remove those. I'll open an issue once it is merged.