Ref Compensation Readjustment

So this got brought up in IRC.

The short version: Basically there's some contention that the current payment for refs is lacking, especially with Training Items.

Proposal: Increase UC and add CC to ref compensation to brink it to parity with battler rewards.

Log

We can go over the details in this thread.

[04:11] <Namington> there are 3 [proposed] ways to go about this that work imo: 1) to increase the KOC [or other counters] gained by battlers in 4v4+
[04:11] <Namington> 2) to increase ref uc payment
[04:11] <Namington> 3) to give a cc bonus to refs

Yeah, that summarizes it pretty well. Each has their own flaws, which I may edit into this post later.

Giving refs CC as well as UC for their reffings is really the best way to go about this. Increasing the UC payout for refs is not how we want to do this, because as it already stands people that have time to ref and ref regularly can get ahead of people who can only battle fairly easily. I understand the plight of the refs, when you spend 5 hours reffing a battle and get half the counters of the battlers who took 1 hour making orders, but at the same time battlers are limited by the three slot rule. When you increase the UC refs get, the biggest difference will be that the people that ref a lot will pull far ahead of everyone else, as they'll have all the UC they need to just max or near-max all of their Pokemon, while battlers are stuck having their three battles, getting usually at most 5 MC at a time.

This is where the CC bonus comes in; it allows refs to be compensated on par with battlers, while still making sure that reffing like crazy doesn't allow one to simply completely stack their team. Refs will have a huge advantage in buying items and new Pokemon, but this isn't nearly as important as moves. Players who can only battle will still be able to keep up enough to stay competitive with the busier refs, and the refs will feel like they're getting paid what they're worth, which will hopefully convince more people to ref and get more battles going, making everyone happier in the process.

Okay, back to business. UN's first point is a bit confusing (KO bonus is in UC for referees, giving extra KOC to battlers is too roundabout way to do that). But I support his second and third options as potentially productive.

Objective: We want to resolve the following issue:

[03:47] <Birkal> in our reality, we always have two people who wanna battle
[03:47] <Birkal> and they have to beg around until they can get someone who has enough free time to ref

Click to expand...

Counter-objective: It's not the wisest way if we ended this discussion with these sentiments:

<Flamestrike> i dunno, i've just always hated that the people who have time to ref can max mons and have ridiculous movepools with relative ease, while the people who can't have to battle forever and still aren't able to get close to that

Click to expand...

So yeah, after being ninja'ed, I'm proposing this.

Solution (?):

• Referees retain their UC payout under the current system, including KO bonuses for larger matches, DQ compensation, etc. etc.
• Brawl and Melee caps are raised to 25 (6v6 is probably the largest size most sane players will go, so brawls and melees should pay about the amount a 6v6 Singles can pay - feel free to change or remove the cap if you have more convincing arguments)
• In addition to their regular UC payouts, referees are also compensated with CC equal to number of mons sent out, divided by 2 (eg. 3v3 means +3 CC, 6v6 DQ with total 4 mons sent out gives +2 CC, 20-man Melee gives 10 CC)

Click to expand...

Reasoning:
Read Flame's post above. My addendums are:

• Raising cap for Brawl and Melees is a slight encouragement for refereees to pick up larger matches. Under a cap of 25, referees could potentially reff a 10v10 Brawl or a Melee about the size of 12 participants, which is large enough for an insane referee.
• Certain special battles (such as the US) will have to be given special allowance though - I am leaving this headache to the Council / RP Committee / user Deck Knight.

Ideally per action payout is the best course, since it accurately represents the amount of work spent by referees on each match. If anyone would voice strong support over it, then I guess we could reopen that can and endure ourselves trying to clean out the worms.

I honestly don't think we need to adjust the UC scale; the last time we changed it already accounted for the existence of training items. Besides, if the main reason for increasing UC payout is to encourage users that don't normally ref to start reffing, I don't think it's really going to do anything. At this point, most users willing to ref are already reffing, and those who don't simply have no interest in reffing or no time to do so. At the end of the day, the only change that increasing UC will bring about is making the current active referees (that may already be at their limit) try to ref more, which won't really do anything since a limit really is a limit.

I'm neutral on adding CC to referee payout. It doesn't seem like it'll have that large of an impact, considering anybody who plays for a decent amount of time already has too much CC and nothing to spend it on. If we do implement it, though, I'd argue for a small increase in item costs to go along with it, with a main reason to prevent hyperinflation, which is already happening to some extent.

Also if we're raising the cap on Brawls and Melees I'd like to propose some upper limit on the size of Brawls, since something like a 12v12 Brawl is too ridiculous in payout, even accounting for the number of actions per round. Considering that most Brawls end within four rounds, getting 25 UC for it is kind of silly.

To make a very general point, Refs are truly the heart of ASB. Without refs we couldn't do much at all here in this forum. I made an attempt at reffing once and it took me ages for a 1v1 flashie. While I assume it gets faster with experience, it still is a lot of work regardless.

I believe that CC is not the best reward we could give here. If you look at some of the long time player's profiles they have more than enough CC to do whatever they need. I think that UC increases would be the way to go here, as the best part of UC is that it is exclusively awarded to referees.

I think people are trying to turn the discussion into how can we better reward the refs. About three posts ago or so it was about how UC being universally used for CC usage and to help their mons get better without battling.
We need to give them CC and not a ton of UC because as some of you have said they can have full movepools and FE mons without even battling because it is just that easy to abuse reffing currency. Maybe giving them half of the usual UC payout as CC so their mons still require actual battling and do not get OP for the non refs.

So I did a really bad job of explaining how I feel on IRC. I'll try to make this a little clearer.

Basically I feel we need to encourage more reffing, both in the Battle Tower and in Role-Playing Facilities, where the queue can get fairly substantial. There are obviously 2 ways to go about this a) make it easier to ref (impossible to do for the most part), or b) increase rewards. Process of elimination leaves increasing rewards the only plausible option.

So how to do that? Unoriginal Name had a list of 3 solutions to the problems of match distribution/reffing.

Unoriginal Name said:

[04:11] <Namington> 1) to increase the KOC [or other counters] gained by battlers in 4v4+
[04:11] <Namington> 2) to increase ref uc payment
[04:11] <Namington> 3) to give a cc bonus to refs

Click to expand...

I'll address each one of them separately.

1) I think, for the most part, this is a little irrelevant. While the Battle Tower is plagued with short matches, that is for the most part, how ASB's cookie crumbles. Very few matches are larger than 3v3, and even tournament and gym matches are often held at 3v3. I don't think we need to encourage playing in longer matches as much as we need to focus on getting more referees in general. That being said, this certainly could be implemented, and I wouldn't mind seeing it included; after all, what bad will come of it?

2) This solution could fix it, and before the additional CC suggestion was proposed, I would have supported it. However, I prefer the CC solution. As many others above me have said, the UC leads to a potential advantage for refs; while I don't think it will allow refs to get bunches of maxed FE pokemon as some people have claimed, bumping it too much will make reffing potentially too rewarding. So is there a medium? Yes!

3) The CC boost! Guess who suggested it on IRC 3-4 days ago and was ignored :O. Anyway, I feel like this is the best option. One of the weakness of UC as a payment in my opinion, is how little converting it to CC benefits a player, as compared to MC, EC, or DC. I think I've used it a couple of times as that as CC just to add that extra 1 CC I needed to get something, but otherwise I have used it entirely for the other 3 counters. That being said, I have never really needed to conserve resources for a TLR, so I have no perspective on that aspect. Anyway I feel like adding CC would be very beneficial towards refs of all levels. Earlier players would have easier access to training/competitive items, while advanced players would have an easier time buying items for TLR, but it would still require all players to train their pokemon through battling (or at least as much as they do now).

Basically a CC boost to reffing pay has my full support

To those who think that referees are paid enough as it is: You raise one point well. Most people who'd reffed for the UC are already reffing, and most people who can't reff at all would not reff it no matter how high the payout is due to time constraints, self-preservation, etc. Engi's post is pretty astute here, I'll base my answers on this.

I can agree that up-scaling UC would not necessarily solve our problems - as had been said, those who would reff are already reffing, those who wouldn't likely wouldn't even with the heightened rewards. It might bring forth another problem - that those who reffed actively will progress way faster than those who don't, which creates a rift of "hyperinflation" - quite apt, by the way, Engi - between the active referees (and long time veterans), and everyone else. (IIRC, EMma joined later than Glace but has a way better team profile due to the former's diligence in Hall reffing - sorry for calling you both out.)

CC, on the other hand, does not create as large a problem while still attempts to solve it in a manner similar to heightened UC payouts. If hyperinflation is a concern, I guess we could limit it's upper scale quite easily. Divide the number of mons in battle by (insert arbitrary number here), round normally, and reward Tower referees with that number of CC. In any case, I don't think hyperinflation is a huge problem - you certainly can buy 20 Expert Belts, but in a 4v4 you'd still only be able to equip 4 at max. You might be able to buy 10 freshmons in a go, but with the regular UC you get from reffing, they won't all be maxxed anytime soon.

As for Brawl caps, we should remember that they are much harder to reff than normal matches. Factor in action counts, speed tiers (try to arrange 24 mons according to speed, then rolling for speed ties), attack effects, multi-targeting moves, tracking KOes, etc. The result - the complexity and effort required is that much more. We shouldn't reward referees based on their postcount - we should reward referees for the effort they put in, hence Brawls actually deserve that much UC. I believe the cap is there only to avoid junk matches - say 20v20 where neither battler nor referee would bother to check the calcs and just want the battle to end quickly instead. I'm just thinking that the current 15 UC cap is not the best - it only allows for effective 6v6 Brawls and and 5-man-Brawls. If the general consensus is that it could be raised to provide more incentive for the challenge, then we could debate on whether it should be raised to 20, 25, or any arbitrary number.

ZhengTann said:

The result - the complexity and effort required is that much more. We shouldn't reward referees based on their postcount - we should reward referees for the effort they put in, hence Brawls actually deserve that much UC. I believe the cap is there only to avoid junk matches - say 20v20 where neither battler nor referee would bother to check the calcs and just want the battle to end quickly instead. I'm just thinking that the current 15 UC cap is not the best - it only allows for effective 6v6 Brawls and and 5-man-Brawls.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the underlined part perfectly describes the overwhelming majority of brawls, regardless of size; if you don't believe me, take a look at some of the past ones. The errors are often numerous, and even more often not pointed out. If we're rewarding referees for the effort we put in, we shouldn't be rewarding them with that much UC for a couple rounds of erroneous calculations. Personally I think the UC cap is more of a sanity check than anything else—anything above six mons out per side and things are really much too hectic for you to complete accurately.

Engi - you raise a point there. As our stances are logical from our own perspectives, maybe we should leave this for the moment and let others decide on how the give and take should be. I'm happy this issue got debate as it is. ^_^

Back to increasing referee payouts - I believe, that in ASB, everything can be reduced basically to statistics / probability / algebra. Like it or not, it's everywhere. So if you're voicing out support for increase in pay for referees (or even if you think that referees desere less!) could you try to propose exactly how much we could scale the rewards system? Personally, I've proposed that:

CC bonus = (Total # of Pokemons in the match) / 2
In addition to regular UC payouts

And I'm open to feedback on this. Thank you!

I really should post here; I'm a large part of the reason this thread was even created. It would be rude of me to merely complain about it on IRC and not actively participate in the discussion.

Refereeing is the heartbeat of ASB. Without it, matches would not get done and our entire infrastructure would fall. So it baffles me that such an important job is treated like dirt in terms of payout. It is always within the best interests of any ASBer to be a battler rather than a referee, from an objective point of view. There is much greater payout in being a battler (you get more counters) AND you get the experience of battling a wide variety of opposing Pokemon. I'd argue that UC is not as valuable as we prime it up to be (you can buy literally everything you would with UC with typical battle counters), so that's not worth a referee's time. It also takes more time to referee, and likely more effort to get everything 100% correct. The only saving grace that refereeing has is that one can referee countless battles theoretically, as opposed to the three battle slots that each player receives. In short, the advantages to reffing are short and minimal.

I like Zt's proposal, but I find it too weak. In a 1v1 flashmatch, you're only receiving +2 UC and +1 CC, while the battlers are receiving somewhere between 4 and 5 counters. In a 2v2 doubles match, the referee gets +5 UC and +2 CC, while the battlers are making around 10 counters each. In my estimation, the referee should receive just as many counters as the battlers, if not more. Therefore, I'd like to propose that each referee be paid a CC bonus equal to the total number of Pokemon sent out in a match (alongside the current UC payout). This has the dual purpose of a) valuing referees more and b) preventing an individual from having maxed out Pokemon because all they did was referee.

Furthermore, I'm adamant that we need to be rewarding sub-refereeing much more. The current "reward" for subreffing is incredibly lame. You get your totals rounded up instead of down? It's not a memorable or sustainable reward; people in ASB subref solely because they have a conscience and want the community to prosper. I believe that clearing the queue and bringing more matches from (Ongoing) to (Completed) should be a top priority of ours. What should we reward them with? I don't know. I don't think doubling their UC payout for the match (with the current subref payout rules) is out of the realm of reason. With greater payout for subreffing, we would also need to codify the rules for when getting a subref is appropriate in terms of DQ time, but it would prevent so many of these matches from going unloved.

I think Birkal has a valid point.

Refs work way more than the battlers. How come they are payed less? I mean you will get (assuming no DQ, Fully Evolved Mons and only exp. shares available so its easier to calc):

Singles
1vs1: 2UC vs 3-4MC+1CC+0-1KOC---------- 2 x 4-6 (200-300% for the battler)
2vs2: 4UC vs 6-8MC+2CC+0-2KOC---------- 4 x 8-12 (200-300% for the battler)
3vs3: 7UC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC--------- 7 x 11-17 (157-242% for the battler)
4vs4: 13-16UC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC--- 13-16 x 15-23 (115%-143% for the battler)
5vs5: 17-21UC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC--- 17-21 x 19-29 (111%-138% for the battler)
6vs6: 20-25UC vs 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC--- 20-25 x 22-34 (110%-136% for the battler)

(please remember that for every UC added due to a KO on the winner's side, the minimum counters a battler can get is also increased by 1, so there is no way a ref gets as much as a battler)

Doubles
2vs2: 4UC vs 6-8MC+2CC+0-2KOC------------ 4 x 8-12 (200-300% for the battler)
3vs3: 7UC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC----------- 7 x 11-17 (157-242% for the battler)
4vs4: 11-12.5UC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC---- 11-12.5 x 15-23 (136-184% for the battler)
5vs5: 14.5-16.5UC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC-- 14.5-16.5 x 19-29 (131-175% for the battler)
6vs6: 17-19.5UC vs 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC---- 17-19.5 x 22-34 (129-174% for the battler)

Triples:
3vs3: 7UC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC ----------- 7 x 11-17 (157-242% for the battler)
4vs4: 10.3-11.3UC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC -- 10.3-11.3 x 15-23 (145-203% for the battler)
5vs5: 13.7-15UC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC ---- 13.7-15 x 19-29 (138-193% for the battler)
6vs6: 16-17.7UC vs 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC ---- 16-17.7 x 22-34 (137-192% for the battler)

Bottom Line: in no situation the ref gets more counters. More often than not it gets half of what the battler gets. And they work a lot more <_>;. I mean c'mon, refs are essential to this and are payed for the work done, while battlers are paid to have fun. We ask "can you please ref this, no one wants to" WAY more often than "can you please battle me, no one wants to". Engineer is right that it is a problem with the system itself and that increasing the payout won't make refs appear from nowhere. But I believe the payout is a problem in itself and should be fixed to reflect more the reality.

I think we should aim at making both gain at least the same, in average. CC is a nice way to do so since, as Birkal & co said, it prevents refs with super buff mons. I still need to think on numbers, but for the sake of making stuff clearer, here is what would happen with 1CC per mon/2 (zt) and with 1CC per mon sent out (birkal), assuming all mons are sent out:

ZhengTann Proposal​

Singles
1vs1: 2UC +1CC vs 3-4MC+1CC+0-1KOC---------- 3 x 4-6
2vs2: 4UC + 2CC vs 6-8MC+2CC+0-2KOC---------- 6 x 8-12
3vs3: 7UC + 3CC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC--------- 10 x 11-17
4vs4: 13-16UC +4CC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC--- 17-20 x 15-23
5vs5: 17-21UC +5CC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC--- 22-26 x 19-29
6vs6: 20-25UC +6CC vs 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC--- 26-31 x 22-34

Doubles
2vs2: 4UC + 2CC vs 6-8MC+2CC+0-2KOC------------ 6 x 8-12
3vs3: 7UC + 3CC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC----------- 10 x 11-17
4vs4: 11-12.5UC + 4CC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC---- 15-16.5 x 15-23
5vs5: 14.5-16.5UC + 5CC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC-- 19.5-21.5 x 19-29
6vs6: 17-19.5UC + 6CC vs 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC---- 23-25.5 x 22-34

Triples:
3vs3: 7UC+3CC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC ----------- 10 x 11-17
4vs4: 10.3-11.3UC+4CC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC -- 14.3-15.3 x 15-23
5vs5: 13.7-15UC+5CC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC ---- 18.7-20 x 19-29
6vs6: 16-17.7UC+6CC vs 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC ---- 22-23.7 x 22-34

Birkal Proposal​

Singles
1vs1: 2UC+2CC vs 3-4MC+1CC+0-1KOC---------- 4 x 4-6
2vs2: 4UC+4CC vs 6-8MC+2CC+0-2KOC---------- 8 x 8-12
3vs3: 7UC+6CC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC--------- 13 x 11-17
4vs4: 13-16UC+8CC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC--- 21-24 x 15-23
5vs5: 17-21UC+10CC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC--- 27-31 x 19-29
6vs6: 20-25UC+12CC vs 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC--- 32-37 x 22-34

Doubles
2vs2: 4UC+4CC vs 6-8MC+2CC+0-2KOC------------ 8 x 8-12
3vs3: 7UC+6CC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC----------- 13 x 11-17
4vs4: 11-12.5UC+8CC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC---- 19-20.5 x 15-23
5vs5: 14.5-16.5UC+10CC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC-- 24.5-26.5 x 19-29
6vs6: 17-19.5UC+12CC vs 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC---- 29-31.5 x 22-34

Triples:
3vs3: 7UC+6CC vs 9-12MC+2CC+0-3KOC ----------- 13 x 11-17
4vs4: 10.3-11.3UC+8CC vs 12-16MC+3CC+0-4KOC -- 18.3-19.3 x 15-23
5vs5: 13.7-15UC+10CC vs 15-20MC+4CC+0-5KOC ---- 23.7-25 x 19-29
6vs6: 16-17.7UC vs+12CC 18-24MC+4CC+0-6KOC ---- 28-29.7 x 22-34



leaning towards zt's proposal for now.

I know I don't usually comment on things like this, but some of the comments here really touch home as far as the problems I have with certain parts of ASB. Specifically, it has always bugged me the disparity between compensation for battling and reffing. Sure battlers get more stuff, and I can see how that is troublesome, but the fact is, reffing gives you UC. UC is an overpowered currency. Ok, maybe that is taking it too far, but I, more than probably most, really hate how people can, solely by reffing, get a Pokemon significantly better trained, significantly faster than anyone who just battles with it. Considering this is a battling game, that is ridiculous in my mind, and I think UC compensation in general is too high across the board.

Of course, with that said, this topic is about raising compensation, not because it is not enough, but because people think that in doing so we will get more people to ref. I think this is just blatantly false. People who want the reward are already reffing, and people who don't ref (or ref like 2 battles annually, like me) choose not to do so for reasons such as lack of time or lack of desire. Increasing payment will never get these people to ref because the payment has nothing to do with why they don't ref. However, with that said, an increase in payment may very well get people who ref some to ref more, but I don't think it will be all that significant.

Honestly, if I could have my way, rather than adding in any bonus CC, we would just switch everything to CC and make the bonus in UC, so that while the overall counters increases, we are actually reducing the spread of the overpowered currency. Now, I know no one will agree with me, and this might very well have the opposite effect of what we want here, so there is no way in hell that it will actually happen, but I feel it would overall make things more balanced between reffing and battling, and I would be remiss if I decided to post and didn't mention it. But other than that, I really don't think we should change anything. It really won't help, and it is just making the reffing vs battling compensation even more unbalanced than it is.

soooo we should probably vote on this someday.

24h Warning before ze booth. So discuss stuff, k?

proposed ballot

[box]
Ref Compensation

Keep Ref Compensation as is
In addition to current prizes, Give Refs CC = (mons sent out)/2
In addition to current prizes, Give Refs CC = (mons sent out)
[/box]

[box]
Brawls

Keep the cap at 15
Push the cap to 25[/box]

Voting thread up courtesy of Frosty.