OPEN DISCUSSION - Gym Concerns and Issues

[Texas Cloverleaf]

When you say stuff like "No to retroactivity for anything that isn't an ongoing prize I.e. tlr access" without providing reason, I feel tempted to be unpolite, sorry :>.

Was a response to IARs question, didn't warrant reasoning at the time of posting.

I don't really see any personal attack in those posts (except for the silly part and for that I apologize. I usually say that instead of "disagree" for whatever reasons). But I digress.

Recent policy stances in general, not limited to this topic

Also, Master Ball isn't changed at all (10 badges now and 10 badges on zt's proposal) so I don't really get that specific example to be honest.

See zarator's post

 

[Frosty]

I was speaking about zarator's post -_-. I don't get that specific example.

Also this is a discussion so everything needs reasoning. Giving no reason is:
a) like saying this is so obvious that don't warrant reasoning. Personally I find that a little insulting.
b) unefficient since you will be asked the reasoning later -_-''. At least in discussions.

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I was speaking about zarator's post -_-. I don't get that specific example.

Also this is a discussion so everything needs reasoning. Giving no reason is:
a) like saying this is so obvious that don't warrant reasoning. Personally I find that a little insulting.
b) unefficient since you will be asked the reasoning later -_-''. At least in discussions.

It wasn't a discussion at the time, it was a new topic asking 'what do you think'

Regardless, matter appears to be settled

 

[Its_A_Random]

I could not care less if I could not retroactively get a monetary reward or a TLR Item or even berries.

What I do give a shit about is being denied access to something I perceive to be important like back-door access to Tower of Ash or because I raid, a Heirloom because I got too many badges too early. As long as "important" shit like those are retroactive, I could not care less about the retroactivity of other prizes.

What I am saying pretty much is that brand new things that were not on the prize list before should be retroactive, especially the above.

 

[deadfox081]

I will rage if I am denied my Heirloom. That is if we decide 3 badges is enough to gain one.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Basically allow retroactive claims, with some nominal cost. That way the badge holders could prioritize their purchases too. Say 5 UC for claiming the first badge's new rewards retroactively (10 UC for second badge's and so on). Or say 5 UC and 10 CC (So those CCs get some value too).

=======

My concern for Gym Ref's rewards for DQ/Forfeit is back again. It is not fair guys, plain and simple. In the Battle tower, the current system is really good. In the Facilities, the refs are protected by Base pay and the current battle's pay. So why not some Base UC for Gym Refs?

3 UC base seems reasonable and goes well with the facilities, I don't see a point in people ignoring this question. I promise to nag this thread till I get a discussion on this one. Last time, only Mulan and me discussed about this.

If you want ref's to ref your Gym Challenges, and you want the freedom to forfeit a challenge after the first round. Then you should consider a base pay for the poor ref who decided to pick your battle and spent time and effort on your battle. I would seriously consider not taking long battles or judge the battles based on your previous record of DQ/Forfeit. And I am sure most refs would, which in turn would only make your Gym Challenges sit in the queue for long.

And while we are at this discussion, I remember Frosty tried to revisit the pay between different battles (Tournament, Gyms, Facilities). We could discuss a hike for Gym Refs too, if we see the need.

 

[Its_A_Random]

UPDATE: Also, to encourage the speedy reffing of gym battles as well as to reflect the increased challenge inherent in the better battles and more complicated arenas, refs reffing gym challenges will get an extra 0.5 UC per Pokemon (so, for example, a 4v4 doubles is 19 UC rather than 15). This also reflects the higher standard of refs and reffing required in these battles.

I could be missing the point here, but isn't this the "base" UC you are looking for?

And I do not agree with paying for retroactive new prizes, especially when there is no reasoning behind the idea provided.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

I could be missing the point here, but isn't this the "base" UC you are looking for?

IAR, that is an enhanced pay for the quality of reffing, Which is good. Although, My discussion is about DQ / Forfeit by a player before two rounds are up. In which case the Gym Refs don't get anything at present (going by the standard rules).

The standard DQ/Forfeit rules is great for the battle tower. But I think it should be revisited for Gym battles.

 

[akela]

How often do gym battles fail to last 2 rounds?

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Yeah I didn't expect them to, but there are a few battles that have gone in that way.
3 in my experience and I have just seen Red's two challenges go down that way.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Gale if it is that much of an issue then just award the aforementioned "base" UC pay should it go ahead.

However, you are the one who is bringing up the issue. You should be trying to convince us why something that happens in roughly one in fifty gym matches is a big enough issue to warrant change.

Also one of those forfeits was due to IRL complications anyway.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

Cool! I understand that it occurs once in a while. Refs usually just finish the battle and be done with it. The problem comes when refs spend some time on the battle, trying to put a decent flavor and hoping to actually ref a certain battle. When such an effort comes to naught, it is not well received.

My thinking is; doing nothing about it < doing something about it. Although, the frequency is minimal, it is definitely not negligible. (Considering the fact that some folks just want to troll the gym league)

Let us just add a line in the aforementioned para that you quoted, IAR. "Since these battles require explicit commitment and dedication of time; If a Gym battle ends in a DQ or Forfeit by one of the players, within two rounds of play, the refs would be paid a basic compensation of 3 UC."

Please reword as you would see fit. This compensation, encourages refs to pick battles of Challengers who may end up getting DQ'd or would forfeit after the first couple of rounds.

At present, the gym challengers are highly respectful and don't do these things willingly. But having such an exception rule wouldn't hurt anyone. Cheers ^_^

 

[akela]

We should pay referees who put forth less effort than I do to ref a flash match 3 UC for posting a thread!

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

We should pay referees who put forth less effort than I do to ref a flash match 3 UC for posting a thread!

Ha ha, it is more of a work over time commitment, than total work done, Akela. It needn't be 3 UC, it could just be 1 UC or 2 UC. As long as it is not going unnoticed.

Although, as the frequency of occurrence is minimal, I don't see why it shouldn't be 3 UC. The facilities pay as much too. You could pick a Hall and DQ the challenger (if they go over DQ) without putting up a Round and be paid 3 UC (again, rare occurrence).

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Not an entirely fair comparison akela as gym refs are supposed to be providing full flavour and whatnot. If they only throw a bare hones skeleton it's easy enough to challenge their right to base compensation.

 

[Gale Wing Srock]

I agree to what Texas said, and I don't see anyone trying to abuse the compensation. A) The DQ/Forfeit before two rounds, only happens rarely. B) It is the players who get DQ'd or decide to Forfeit, the ref doesn't have any control over it.

As for the flavor part; this compensation would actually encourage refs to pay attention to their flavoring, especially in the OP. I have seen that, almost all the gym refs put some flavor in the OP and if they face this rare event, they might drop that out too. (Mainly, due to lack of motivation to do so)

 

[Elevator Music]

I don't see a problem with this. We can just make it base 2 UC so that way "it's not comparable to a flash." We should be encouraging people to take gym matches and put flavor in the OP (and also everywhere else I guess), and this does just that. Gonna give people a day or two to bitch about this some more, and then implement it if nobody has anything else to say against it.



But let's get back to discussing rewards? I agree with Frosty's post:

Bottom Line: I don't object to Texas's argument that simply giving away the new prizes retroactively is unfair. I agree with that actually. But I feel that there must be ways for a player with 10 badges to get the new prizes for the 10th and lower badges. Be that paying a prize or doing a trade or defeating a gym for the second time or any other way someone suggests. But there gotta be some way for that to happen or else it would be unfair to the players that have more badges.

#notbiased.

I'm also fine with most of Zt's latest list. I guess (some of) the prizes slotted to raids can be turned into heirlooms. I'm skeptical of almost everything past Victini though. The prizes either seem too good (14, 16?) or underwhelming (18). IDK. Other people's thoughts and suggestions?

 

[tavok]

Just a question. What would happen with people who have already obtained access to extended dungeons and then get enough badges to be able to use the backdoor? Would they get nothing?

 

[Avnomke]

I would assume that badges would be the only way to get to said dungeons.

 

[Its_A_Random]

I would assume that badges would be the only way to get to said dungeons.

Wrong. You can reach the last TLR by reaching the boss of the other TLR's first.

Universal backdoor access for all TLR's seems like a more appropriate prize or w/e.

 

[ZhengTann]

Okay feedback to feedback while I wait on Zar to unveil his Heirlooms:

• When I design the prize list, my intention is to make it progressive so that there is less incentive to claim a prize you've already claimed before. So yeah, if this does get implemented, maybe re-winning against a GL you've already won before can allow you to retro-claim prizes. I'll let Gym Comm or Council decide.
• But, even though it is not explicit, a player should be able to claim a Gym prize as he/she/it progresses further up the leaderboard. Eg. Forgoing TLR items for another pair of Heart Scales. I'll probably make explicit when I finalise the list.
  
• Okay no tournament byes even if its for penultimate prizes. I'll find something else to replace the 14th, though again it is dependent on Zar (I had to know how many Heirlooms he released before I reshuffle stuff around).
  
• If what tavok said happens, then the ASBer can hold on to the backdoor, until an Extended Dungeon is released that he/she/it wants to use on. Simple as that. Probably could even do that if the currently released Extended Dungeons does not look appealing enough. I'm not really fond of universal backdoors, TBF - a) flavour purposes though nobody really cares about it, and b) as more TLRs are released its imbalance would become more and more apparent.
• Just to clarify with EM's concern, 18th (the Champion prize) is intended to be a gag prize. Sorry for my terrible sense of humour.

 

[Gerard]

For #18 you should get a pokemon, any pokemon that you want, yes, that includes Rayquaza!

 

[Maxim]

So this has come up.

A while ago I discussed my upcoming gym arena with dogfish, and he said that you cannot outright ban moves from your arenas? Is he accurate? (I don't think so particularly because my current arena already bans two moves, albeit ones that nobody uses often).

 

[Frosty]

erm....it isn't something to be done willy nilly. But it can be done.

I mean:

- I ban fissure from my gym. Hazard don't work on them (not banning per se, but it has the same end result)
- Double Team has 0 effect on iar's gym
- Skill Swap has 0 effect on ww's gym
- many moves have 0 effect on your gym
- OHKO moves are banned on engi's gym


Depends on the moves and the circumstances I assume. But if it ends up being true, then I know for sure that I will need to completely rework my arena, for starters <_<;.

 

[zarator]

I'll find something else to replace the 14th, though again it is dependent on Zar (I had to know how many Heirlooms he released before I reshuffle stuff around)

I can put up as many as are needed, just tell me the number you require. I'd say 4 is a good minimum, but I can make twice as many if you require so.