UC Rewards Leveling

Its_A_Random You were slightly off on the lengths for various singles matches.
1v1 is around 3, 2v2 around 6 (Doubles around 3), 3v3 around 11 (Doubles around 5, Triples around 4), 4v4 around 12 (Doubles around 6, Triples around 5), 5v5 around 14 (Doubles or Triples around 7), 6v6 around 18 (Doubles or Triples around 8, Brawl around 5).

Also, if we do 1 UC per pokemon per round, that would inflate UC significantly (1v1s would now pay around 6 instead of 3; either 2v2 would pay around 12 instead of 6, etc.). This would make an 8v8 or 9v9 Brawl give 32 or 36 UC, respectively.


I think I like the voting slate, but we should probably add an option for extra pay for flavor (with options for no extra pay and whatever ideas we come up with, of course).
 
IAR's estimates are better than yours, Mulan. It usually takes around 6 hits to KO a pokemon. Keeping that in mind, a 1v1 will usually take 2 rounds (4 UC), a 2v2 will usually take 5 rounds (10 UC), a 2v2 doubles will usually take 2 or 3 rounds, with pokemon being KOed partway through (7-12 UC), etc. And Brawls rarely last 3 rounds, and almost NEVER 5. (Where are you getting 6v6 brawls taking 5 rounds from? O.o)
The simple solution to UC inflation is, IMO, to have it be .75 or .6 or something UC per pokemon per round.

And we have already talked about bonus UC for flavor, and decided it's too subjective to work.
 
Actually, I've been collecting data on battle lengths since then. I don't want to quite reveal the spreadsheet yet, because I still have some more things I want to do with it, but I probably have more reliable data than an estimate at least up to 4v4, maybe even 5v5 (but I'm no statistician, so I could be wrong). And I have that 6v6 Brawls take 5 rounds because there was a 6v6 brawl that happened, probably quite a while ago by now, that lasted for 5 rounds, and I haven't seen any others.
 
Actually, I've been collecting data on battle lengths since then. I don't want to quite reveal the spreadsheet yet, because I still have some more things I want to do with it, but I probably have more reliable data than an estimate at least up to 4v4, maybe even 5v5 (but I'm no statistician, so I could be wrong). And I have that 6v6 Brawls take 5 rounds because there was a 6v6 brawl that happened, probably quite a while ago by now, that lasted for 5 rounds, and I haven't seen any others.
If you have proof, show proof. Refusal to show proof sounds more like NA-NA YOU UGLY SO THERE!
 
If you have proof, show proof. Refusal to show proof sounds more like NA-NA YOU UGLY SO THERE!
My proof (minus the parts of the spreadsheet that I am working on and do not want to show) can be found here. I hope you guys can understand it, but this is what I have (and you will have to trust me that I am not putting in random numbers).
 

Its_A_Random

A distant memory
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Mulan15262 can we please not be so pedantic about round length; who really cares?

My numbers were rough estimates that were made for the sake of example. Of course they might be a little bit off and I even made a disclaimer at the bottom of my post yet you still decided to go and split hairs over it... -.-'
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Slate for the first voting:

Question: What should be done for the UC Formula for normal battles?

Change UC Formula to another fixed formula based only on the number of pokemon per side
Change UC Formula to one based mostly on the length of battle
Keep the current UC Formula and add some kind of bonus and/or penalty
Keep the current UC Formula
I don't like the UC formula but neither of those options appeal to me. So let's return to the drawing board.
not loving it but eh. I accept suggestions.

After this voting we go here and crunch numbers.

48h before booth.
 
Last edited:
How about add another option for going back to this thread to come up with a new idea? I've seen a few others (like the brawl penalty) posted that aren't listed here, and I could think of a few other ideas.
 

ZhengTann

Nargacuga
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
How about add another option for going back to this thread to come up with a new idea? I've seen a few others (like the brawl penalty) posted that aren't listed here, and I could think of a few other ideas.
Sorry if I come across wrongly, and that I posted this after Frosty put up the Voting thread, but if you see/have ideas that aren't posted here, then why not post them here now? Or why not post them earlier? The whole reason for a Discussion thread is to debate the merits of ideas, and then flesh them out. If you have abstract ideas, then make them numeric and concrete. If you don't like the numbers from other people's proposals, even though you'd agree with their general idea, then provide feedback, ask them if they'd be willing to change, or put forth your own if they won't.

If you have no proposal to put forth that can change the issue at hand for the better, I would think it means that you don't care enough about this issue to augment and fix it, even if you did provide thoughts on how you'd think about the issue itself. Then I would ask that you refrain from commenting that "there are still ideas out there", because it is obvious that nobody cared enough to put it forward as a viable alternative to the situation currently at hand. I honestly think that going to Voting, only to achieve nothing and having to "return to the drawing board", is a waste of everybody's time. There's a reason why Council members always put a "last 24-hour" warning, even when they had a preliminary slate. It is a last call, to see who is willing to put forth other ideas (that can be implemented straight away if consensus is reached). This is not just directed at this Discussion - it should apply across every debate we have.

I feel like I sound mini-modding, so mods please delete / ask me to delete if I do.
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
The winner option was: Keep the current UC Formula and add some kind of bonus and/or penalty

So the current formula stays for simplicity sake and we add something.

I suggest we have two things: a Bonus for length and a Penalty for really small length or for Brawls.

So you pick the number of rounds you expect a 1vs1 or 2vs2 match to have and give a bonus if it passes that.

Something like [Number of Rounds]-([Number of Expected Rounds]/[number of mons out]). Or [Number of Round]-(3*[Pokemon per side]/[Pokemon per side out])

Let's say we define that 1vs1 is to last 3 rounds. If it ends up lasting 5 rounds, the ref would get bonus 2UC. If it lasted less, then awesome.

If we define a 2vs2 is to last 6 rounds, a 2vs2 doubles is to last 3 rounds. If it lasted 4, then the ref would get 1 extra UC.

I am aware that the bonus isn't equivalent to the work done as the round has the same price for singles, doubles etc. But I am suggesting that way because it is a reward for the time commitment, not the work done (that is being rewarded by the main prize). Also it would be simpler....somewhat.

One other option is reviving the KO Bonus.

Anyway, any suggestions?
 
So I was thinking about including format, duration and Pokemon per side out and I came up with this formula:

Our current UC payout: (Pokemon per side + 1)*([Pokemon per side+2]/2)
Bonus: + FLOOR({[Total Rounds - 3*(Pokemon per side/Format)]*(1+[(Pokemon per side-1)/Pokemon per side])}*[Total Pokemon sent out/(Pokemon per side*2)])
so [Total Rounds - 3*(Pokemon per side/Format)] gives us the number of rounds past the expected number of rounds.

aka Bonus Giving Rounds (BGR)
Eg.
If a 3v3 Singles battle was completed in 11 Rounds, this factor would be 2. [11-9]
If a 4v4 Doubles battle was completed in 6 Rounds, this factor would be 0. as we are expecting 4v4 Singles battle to complete in 12 Rounds.
BGR is then Multiplied with 1+[(Pokemon per side-1)/Pokemon per side], this would differentiate a 1v1 Singles battle with a 2v2 Singles battle in the long run.

aka Format over Duration Modifier (FDM)
Eg.
If a 1v1 Singles battle goes for 10 Rounds the total payout would be 10 UC
Whereas, If a 2v2 Singles battle goes for 10 Rounds the total payout would be 12 UC instead of 10 UC.
The FDM can be toned down if it seems a little high.

Then we Multiply the product of BGR and FDM with [Total Pokemon sent out / (Pokemon per side*2)], this will take into account the extent of completion of the battle.

aka Extent of Battle (EB)
Eg.
If a 4v4 Singles battle was completed in 16 Rounds and the number of pokemon sent out were 6 instead of 8. Then the ref would be paid 20 UC instead of 22 UC as per the bonus formula.
so the Bonus Formula is BGR x FDM x EB

Note: The bonus accounts for the format, duration and Pokemon per side out but it doesn't alter the Base Pay which is decided by the existing formula. So if the number of rounds were the expected number of rounds and below, then the bonus shouldn't be added. I haven't given much thought about the drawbacks of this formula so feel free to point out all its drawbacks. My intention is just to help out in someway if possible.
 
Wouldn't (x+1)(x+2)/y+z, where x is the number of pokemon per side, z is the number of rounds it lasted, and y is some constant (or maybe has something to do with the format) be simpler and less of a change from what we already have.

If we go with the y being related to the format, then 2*(format/3) could work as it gives the normal rewards for triples, less for brawls, and more for singles/doubles.
 

ZhengTann

Nargacuga
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Here to provide feedback...

I really like Frosty's here:
...I suggest we have two things: a Bonus for length and a Penalty for really small length or for Brawls.

So you pick the number of rounds you expect a 1vs1 or 2vs2 match to have and give a bonus if it passes that.
Something like [Number of Rounds]-([Number of Expected Rounds]/[number of mons out]). Or [Number of Round]-(3*[Pokemon per side]/[Pokemon per side out])

Let's say we define that 1vs1 is to last 3 rounds. If it ends up lasting 5 rounds, the ref would get bonus 2UC. If it lasted less, then awesome.
If we define a 2vs2 is to last 6 rounds, a 2vs2 doubles is to last 3 rounds. If it lasted 4, then the ref would get 1 extra UC.

I am aware that the bonus isn't equivalent to the work done as the round has the same price for singles, doubles etc. But I am suggesting that way because it is a reward for the time commitment, not the work done...
We already have a base formula that accounts for Pokemon per side. I don't really think biasing against formats is necessary, as Brawls and Triples are a big hassle to reff compared to Singles. So the bonus as a reward for long-term commitment is one that I'd side with.

* * * * *​

To Srock: Your FDM (Format over Duration) and EB (Extent of Battle) modifiers are already present in the current system, where the base pay already differentiates between matches with different team sizes, and where the DQ system mandates that in the event of player DQ, the referee is only compensated for the number of Pokemons already sent out in the match (so a 7v7 with only 10 Pokemons sent out is counted as a 5v5).

If you're okay with leaving only your BGR (Bonus Giving Round modifier), cutting off the other two abbreviations, then I suppose it complements Frosty's idea very nicely, and it serves as a pretty decent baseline. It's best if we leave the base formula as it is, and add only some form of bonus/penalty.

Vote for BGR!! :P

* * * * *​

To Mulan:
Err, I think your 2nd paragraph is misleading?
2*(Singles/3) = 2*(1/3) = 2/3
2*(Triples/3) = 2*(3/3) = 2
2*(6-mon-Brawl/3) = 2*(6/3) = 4
Which is more rewarding for larger formats, not less.
 
I like Frosty's Idea too ~_~

Frosty said:
Something like [Number of Rounds]-([Number of Expected Rounds]/[number of mons out]). Or [Number of Round]-(3*[Pokemon per side]/[Pokemon per side out])
Infact BGR, is just an upgrade from Frosty's idea.

... everytime I look at my formula, I feel something is missing... lol.
 

Its_A_Random

A distant memory
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I still support that brawl penalty (an increasing divisor that cuts the pay to the point where a 20v20 brawl is only worth ~35 UC) thing for obvious reasons that I mentioned in an earlier post, i.e. to make brawl payouts sane.

Initial thoughts. If you want to increase rewards for longer matches then go for it. The issue is that while the incentive is already there for the referees from an efficiency standpoint (The least efficient standard format from a referee standpoint is 3v3 Singles), the same cannot be said for the battlers (6v6 Singles is the least efficient standard format for the battlers).
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
The increased rewards for referees are for matches that are longer than usual. Regardless of the format.

I mean, reffing Pwnemon vs Rediamond Grass Gym match (4vs4 doubles) took 6 rounds. Reffing Poison Gym Engineer Pikachu vs Tavok (4vs4 singles) took 18 rounds. They both were paid the same (19UC). My proposal means that the first match = 15UC (19 with gym bonus, so no changes) and the second match would give out 21UC (25 with gym bonus) to account for the "extra work". In other words, the ref isn't stuck in an awful position just because the battlers like to stall. Also the trainers aren't pressured to end this as quickly as possible, which is also good. It is similar to what happens on the TLR and I personally find it to be a fair system.

As far as trainers go, I actually do agree that nothing favours long matches for them. I would be willing to propose a considerable CC increase on longer matches or even offer UC for those. But that is for a different discussion IMO.
 
To Mulan: Err, I think your 2nd paragraph is misleading?
2*(Singles/3) = 2*(1/3) = 2/3
2*(Triples/3) = 2*(3/3) = 2
2*(6-mon-Brawl/3) = 2*(6/3) = 4
Which is more rewarding for larger formats, not less.
It actually rewards more for smaller battles because you divide by that number. And, besides, that was just an idea, we don't have to go through with it.
 
Last edited:
Okay Frosty, this is my final submission.

I would like us to have bonuses for two situations:
  1. When number of rounds exceed a normal limit.
  2. When a battle of a specific size is completed from start to finish by the same ref.
And I would like us to have penalties for two situations:
  1. When NO flavor (little flavor still counts as flavor) is provided for battles of a specific size and above.
  2. If total rounds ref'd is lesser than a normal limit for battles of a specific size and above.
The formulas that I came up with are: (Rough thinking, please correct my mistakes so we can better it)
Code:
Bonuses and Penalties:

[Total Rounds - 3*(Pokemon per side/Format)] as bonus/penalty to be added for Bonus number 1 / Penalty number 2.

FLOOR[(Normal Rewards/5)*(1/Format)] as bonus to be added for Bonus number 2.

FLOOR[(Pokemon per side/Format)-(1/Format)] as penalty to be subtracted for Penalty number 1.
Edit:

Let me explain the formulas;
  • The first formula is the BGR previously mentioned that is a revised version of Frosty's bonus formula.
  • The second formula gives 0 UC as bonus for 1v1, 1 UC for 2v2, 2 UC for 3v3, 3 UC for 4v4 and so on.
  • The third formula takes 0 UC as penalty for 1v1 and 2v2 Doubles, 1 UC for 2v2 Singles and 3v3 Doubles etc, 2 UC for 3v3 Singles and so on ...
VM me if you guys have any questions on how the formulas would work on a particular scenario. You can post here if you find any faults with the formulas though.

The Entire Formula:
Code:
Current Formula + [Total Rounds - 3*(Pokemon per side/Format)] + FLOOR[(Normal Rewards/5)*(1/Format)] - FLOOR[(Pokemon per side/Format)-(1/Format)]
Cheers!
 
Last edited:
I think I like my idea of ((x+1)(x+2)/(2*format/3)+z)/2, where x is the number of pokemon per side and z is the number of rounds. This way, you get rewarded more for longer battles and lower formats, while punished for higher formats. I ran the numbers, and stays close to current pay for Doubles, going higher for Singles, and lower for larger formats. If we want it to stay close to current pay for Singles, and lower for larger matches, then we could divide it by 3.
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
For the record my proposal is just:

Bonus: [Number of Round]-(3*[Pokemon per team]/[Pokemon per side out]). Rounded Normally.

A Bonus for longer matches. I don't think other stuff warrant bonus and stuff yet. AND Penalties for brawls are to be dealt with further on (see long post on the previous pag).

going to the booth (sorry...no time earlier).

slate said:
As is (no changes)
Frosty Proposal
Gale Proposal
Mulan Proposal
Return to the drawing board. I don't like those proposals and I promise I will pitch in this time.
 

Frosty

=_=
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Alright, so we reached a decision for Bonus UC.

Now for the next step: Brawls.

Should Brawls net less UC than usual battles? If Positive, what kind of penalty should be given?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top