Battle Tower Queue

OK, name me something quintessentially British, makes perfect sense to anyone, and is used in every major section of ASB outside of the Battle Tower? If you guessed a queue, you can go home. If not, stay behind after class.

Our current system is chaos - matches can be drowned away from the eyes of refs. So, what's the proposed solution?

Now then, the idea is to streamline all matches in the BT, making it easier for refs to see how the queue is. It would probably look something like:

[box]

• Birkal v Engineer Pikachu (2v2 Doubles, LINK)
• Flamestrike v Pwnemon (6v6 Triples, LINK)
• LadySalamence v MK Ultra (20v20 Brawl, LINK)
• Pwnemon v ??? (3v3 Singles, LINK)

[/box]

Now then, there are a few rules that people have been going over, these seem like a good example:

• The LINK must link to a post which contains all the information for a match, if the match has been accepted (Otherwise a link to the original battle request if not accepted)
• Whenever a match is accepted by a ref, it is removed from the queue.
• Refs must take the first item on the queue that they are capable of handling.

This has been discussed a lot, but we could do with talking to refine stuff here. Indeed, most people like it, but counterarguments haven't even been seen yet, which might be important.

===

I would like to emphasise here that whilst this came about as a topic of helping refs, THIS THREAD IS NOT TO BE USED TO DISCUSS REF PAYMENT. That is all - Discuss!

Hell, it doesn't even have to be a queue, with refs being forced to take the match on top. Any constantly updating list of battles that need to be taken is fine with me.

I mean, the forced taking of the battle on top of the queue is literally the only disputable point (unless you somehow enjoy every other 4th post being "this battle from 3 pages ago is still not taken"

Edit: On flashmatches, while I don't think they're nearly as horrible as people are saying, but they are really unfair at a time where the BT is like this. When there are one or two matches waiting for a ref, having three people on IRC bang out a match in two hours is perfectly fine imo. However, when people are commonly waiting for a few days to get a ref for something as simple as a 1v1 or 2v2, three people are IRC getting together and screwing over everyone else... Yeah. Stop that shit.

The only problem I have with this is that I, as a reasonably new ASBer, find it quite hard to ref double or triple battles and I often don't even have the time to do so even if I had the knowledge. This directs me to take single battles rather than the other two. I feel that this is a good idea, but referees should have a few ways around it. Not a lot but some way that if the battle on top is somehow impossible for you to take, you can take the second or the third.

Loveable idea. I just disagree with the "refs are forced to take the first battle listed" part.

Or else a 20vs20 Brawl would be a crapload of trouble to deal with... It pays poorly is a lot of work and only a crazy person/Quagsires is willing to ref that. The same applies with battles with crazy arenas or long battles. Even if it just takes a little while more than usual to be accepted, it will slow everything down, as the number of battles starting everyday is huge to be delayed by a match that no one wants to take.

A simple battle list will do imo for now. If needs be we can tweak it. Organize the queues by type of match/number of pokemon, or make the first option lock the queue only if more than a week has passed or something along those lines.

Frosty said:

Loveable idea. I just disagree with the "refs are forced to take the first battle listed" part.

Click to expand...

"that they are capable of handling". That line would stop that right in it's tracks.

An alternative would be a multi-queue system for formats (Singles/Dubs/Trips/Brawl), or something similar. I'll agree that even a simple list would be nice though.

The idea proposed in IRC was more specifically the following:
1) Two queues; a singles queue and a doubles+ queue. Top match in either queue would have top priority, you don't have to bother with the other queue if you don't want to. This solves Unitas's problem; newer refs can stick to the singles queue until they feel comfortable with doubles+.
2) Refs aren't forced to take the top match; they can take the highest match that they feel comfortable taking. For example, if a 6v6 singles is at the top of the singles queue, but I don't feel like I can make the time commitment required for a match of that size, I can take the 3v3 that comes next in the queue. However, I can't skip three matches and take the other 6v6 that's fourth in the queue.

I feel like this is a good starting point for the queue. I also agree that, if a queue is deemed unfeasible (and while I like the idea I do have some doubts that it can be constantly maintained), a constantly updated list of battles that need refs would be really helpful as well, and we should at least try to do that much.

I thought when you said "they are capable of handling" you meant "they are allowed to take". In theory the ref can take any battle other than his own. Also there may be people who want to ref one specific battle/person and will be discouraged to do so.

Thinking more on the subject I like the following alternative system: If a complete match (with all battlers decided) isn't taken after 7 days, no new battle can be reffed before someone takes it. If more than one match is in that situation, they will both lock the queue and the older one gets preferance.

We can do that and have different queues divided by formats/number of mons. So after 7 days the battle locks its own queue and after maybe 14 days it locks all the queues. Brawls not included in that since nobody can be forced to ref one of those.

I mean, aside from the chaos itself (which is solved by a "simple" battle list), the problem is having a battle without a ref for a long time. I believe this solves the problem for the most part without being too restrictive. IMO.

ok, have to head to work in a minute so cant post much, but i think keeping an updated list of whos matches are up in the Battle Tower is a pretty good idea. Its a small amount of work that makes things easier to decipher. However, I cannot stress enough how violently opposed to the idea of forcine people to take some matches is. Its incredibly short-sighted and is just a TERRIBLE idea. once i get back from work i will go into detail about the million reasons that this is just WRONG.

I hate the idea of a queue- a long queue basically shits over flashmatches.

That being said a listings of the battles that need refs would be glorious- more than a couple of times I have wanted to ref a smallish match but didn't bother looking through the Tower and finding a good one!

Flashmatches are bad, in my opinion. They completely ruin the spirit of ASB by making the entire idea of ASB is getting zarator-level Pokémon, when it should be about enjoying the battles. Flashmatches are 'i dont care about this battle, I want the mc/dc/ec to make my 'mon the best'.

Lady Salamence said:

Flashmatches are bad, in my opinion. They completely ruin the spirit of ASB by making the entire idea of ASB is getting zarator-level Pokémon, when it should be about enjoying the battles. Flashmatches are 'i dont care about this battle, I want the mc/dc/ec to make my 'mon the best'.

Click to expand...

Let's save debate on an unrelated topic for another time- I was merely pointing out an issue I had with a forced queue

Lady Salamence said:

Flashmatches are bad, in my opinion. They completely ruin the spirit of ASB by making the entire idea of ASB is getting zarator-level Pokémon, when it should be about enjoying the battles. Flashmatches are 'i dont care about this battle, I want the mc/dc/ec to make my 'mon the best'.

Click to expand...

I use matches to feel out my battling pokemon. If I'm spamming my Cacturne in flashmatches, I'm making sure I have a feel for how you properly use her in a battle.

ANYWAY

Keeping a list of matches to be taken is good! It keeps matches in the spotlight and it's already done in all of our other facilities.

But what happens when someone takes a match out of order, say skipping a 6v6 for a flash? "Hey, Lou, how dare you? You can totally take a 6v6, get over there!" I can't imagine that to be any good for anyone. Are we prepared to deal with a game of referee chicken; circling the tower waiting for someone else to take the matches they don't want?

Honestly, as long as you're helping to clear the queue there shouldn't be a problem. If something's been left without a ref for too long, address it then.

I doubt that any matches will go too long without someone taking them unless they're obscene, though. Matches get ignored when people lose sight of them, and the habit of posting a list of untaken matches every time you take one will alleviate this almost entirely.

LouisCyphre said:

But what happens when someone takes a match out of order, say skipping a 6v6 for a flash? "Hey, Lou, how dare you? You can totally take a 6v6, get over there!" I can't imagine that to be any good for anyone. Are we prepared to deal with a game of referee chicken; circling the tower waiting for someone else to take the matches they don't want?

Click to expand...

The idea would be that you can totally skip the 6v6 that's sitting at the top of the queue if you don't feel like you're up for reffing a 6v6; but if you feel like you can ref a 1v1 then you should be reffing the first 1v1 in the queue. Yes, this does more or less eliminate flashmatches unless there's no queue. I don't feel like this is a particularly huge loss mainly because they're barely even matches half the time; each side just spams their strongest moves against each other without trying and the ref makes the calcs with no flavor and barely any status updates. Obviously not all of them are like this, but a lot are. And yes, I know I've done my fair share of flashmatches recently, but if the system's there to abuse you might as well abuse it, and I would not mind them being gone.

At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if ASB as a whole simply isn't ready for a queue system; the free-for-all that the BT currently is is simply too ingrained into the system, and it would be chaos trying to get people to adhere to a strict or even semi-strict queue. That being said, I think the list of battles awaiting acceptors/refs needs to be implemented in some way shape or form; there's nothing more annoying than posting a challenge only to have it get buried two-three pages back and having to bump it a bunch of times before you finally get a ref, only to have that ref disappear and then go through the whole process over again trying to get a subref :/

Supporting general thread consensus that having a self-updating BT queue is a great idea. Just one will do, I think - no need to have different queues for different formats or sizes. Referees should go down the queue, which is sorted by the posted time. If they found a match they wished to referee, they'll take it. New reffs will take flashies and Singles if they want to - it's fine by me, since it would be less daunting for them. As for larger, more complex matches, it is rather an encouragement for veteran reffs who are looking more for a challenge rather than an income - personally, I'd rather reff 5v5 Doubles in a Gym-complexity arena rather than a 2v2 doubles bleh Training match, as much mistakes I've made in the former.

(Heck, I've said it in my own profile - if you have a 4v4 or larger needing a reff, PM me and the pleasure is mine)

Just want to say I am completely for a kind of queue that people are forced to follow. Like Flamestrike, I think it is fine for people to pick and choose battles to ref based on format, but within a format you should go for the oldest in the queue. And I don't even mean that it has to be that format or easier, as I think it is fine to want to ref something more complex or rewarding. However, there is nothing more annoying than having a battle accepted than waiting for a few weeks while all the refs take identical matches that were posted later.

With that said, I would add a note that even within formats, it should be fine to skip to later ones IF and only if the specific rules are significantly different. While taking a later 1v1 in the asb arena over an earlier one would not be acceptable, taking a later 1v1 in the asb arena over an eariler 1v1 with 3 subs in a complex arena with lots of variables would be perfectly fine.

Obviously, this requires an amount of subjectivity, and I don't think that we would really be punishing people for interpreting differently, but we should be making it our "official policy" to take earlier battles over reasonably similar later ones.

As a side note, to add on to what Lady Salamence and Flamestrike said, flashmatches are a cancer on the game and if doing this does indeed reduce them, then that can only be a positive thing.

This alert is to finalise queue systems, for anyone with fully fledged ideas, so that a voting slate can be set up - proposals below are the current ideas written up, so if you're listed and don't want credit, or you don't like the wording, speak up!

Also can someone tell me the difference between my system and Flame's in terms of the actual match a ref will take, because both build up to "whichever you can handle".

Personally, I believe Flamestrike's proposal is the most functional one. It somehow reminds me of Pokemon ladders, where you have one for each meta. Heck, we may even have two Battle Towers - one for standard matches, and one for unconventional matches. What qualifies as standard is debatable, but some features could be one or more of the following:

- The arena is the standard ASB Arena
- The format is Singles (or maybe Doubles as well)
- The number of Pokemon involved doesn't go beyond a certain threshold (ex: 3v3 singles, 4v4 doubles, etc)

zarator said:

Personally, I believe Flamestrike's proposal is the most functional one. It somehow reminds me of Pokemon ladders, where you have one for each meta. Heck, we may even have two Battle Towers - one for standard matches, and one for unconventional matches. ...

Click to expand...

While I'm not in agreement with zar about two Battle Towers, I do stand with him that Flamestrike's proposal is the best so far. Though, if I may, I'd really like to point out that we shouldn't have too many different queues - keeping track of 2 or 3 in a thread is about the maximum any sane guy can handle at one point. Also, if we were to implement queues of any kind, we need to hammer in a locus here - Every battler must copypasta the most recent queue in their last post of Tower.

@ dogfish - I think it's Flame's just makes things slightly neater - if I want to reff Singles, I can just look at the Singles queue instead of scouring one long-ish queue for the word "Single". Yes I know there are plenty of ways to circumvent it, but well... Also Flame if I may, can you specify how many queues do you intend to put forth, if your proposal went through?

I will go ahead and give this a 48h warning before this goes to the booth.

Adjusting my proposal:

[box]
All matches join queues. When a non-brawl match with all battlers present has not been taken for 5 or more days, then no other matches from that queue can be accepted until the aforementioned match is picked up or cancelled. If 10 days has passed, the lock is extended to all queues.[/box]

Alright, here is what I suppose will pass as my official proposal for this (it feels like it's been so long since we started discussing it, I kinda forgot it was an issue haha)

[box]The Battle Tower will have two queues implemented. One queue will be for Singles matches only. The second queue will be for matches of doubles or greater. In each queue, a prospective ref would be allowed to take the first match they feel they are capable of reffing. However, this has its limits; in the Singles queue, you may not skip a match of the same size or smaller of the you end up taking, and in the Doubles+ queue, you may not skip a match of the same size or smaller that is in a format which uses the same number or less of active Pokemon on the field. For an example, here's a sample Singles queue:

deadfox081 vs. Engineer Pikachu (6v6)
Flamestrike vs. rickheg (3v3)
LouisCyphre vs. Leethoof (1v1)
Canis Majoris vs. houndoomsday (2v2)

In this example, a ref could take any of the first three matches. They could /not/, however, take the 2v2, since that would require them to skip the 1v1 above it, which should be as simple or simpler to ref. Now, a Doubles+ example:

Leethoof vs. cbrevan (3v3 Triples)
Flamestrike vs. Engineer Pikachu (6v6 Triples)
Elevator Music vs. Its_A_Random (6v6 Doubles)

In this example, a ref would not be able to take the 6v6 Triples because there is a smaller 3v3 Triples above it. However, they could skip both Triples and take the 6v6 Doubles because it is a smaller and less complex format.

The only exception to this rule would be if an arena is deemed complex; in that case the ref would be able to skip that match and go to the next match of the same size or smaller with a regular arena. Note that the Singles queue would have no effect on the Doubles+ queue and vice-versa. A prospective ref could take a match in the Doubles+ queue regardless of the status of the Singles queue, and vice-versa.[/box]
The only problem I'm having with this is the issue of arena complexity; obviously that's a lot more subjective, but at the same time a ref shouldn't be forced into reffing a match in a crazy-complicated arena when there's a match available of the same size that is at a simpler arena. Obviously this could probably be worded better, and there may be some issues that I'm not thinking of, but I feel like this is a solid starting point.

imo, forcing people to take a certain match is pretty annoying. Simply a chronological list of all battles in one queue will be enough to keep matches from being buried.

I, too, am in favour of a simple chronological list of challenges. From a refs perspective forcing me to take a specific match would deter me from reffing.

From a battler's perspective, though, having another's match being reffed even though yours had about the same size, complexity, and is posted earlier is undeniaby unfair. Like ww said early in this thread:

When there are one or two matches waiting for a ref, having three people on IRC bang out a match in two hours is perfectly fine IMO. However, when people are commonly waiting for a few days to get a ref for something as simple as a 1v1 or 2v2, three people are IRC getting together and screwing over everyone else... Yeah.

Click to expand...

So if let's say dogfish and IAR want to flash each other (eww) after a chat on IRC, but there's already a 1v1 Singles waiting for 2 days on BT, shouldn't any of us (who happens to be on IRC at the same time) take the match that has been there longer? While most proposals up there explicitly require referees to take the earliest matches, it is done "as long as the referee feels capable enough to handle the match he/she takes". Referees taking earlier matches are just being fair and unbiased to everyone, incuding the referees themselves (you can't just say "Ugh, I won't reff Zt's match from 3 days because he's a prick, I'll pick Glacier's from 3 minutes ago because he's my chum"), whilst referees taking matches of their pals just because they were asked on IRC... Yeah. Not fair at all, even as I admit guilty to it far too many times than I can remember.

ZhengTann said:

From a battler's perspective, though, having another's match being reffed even though yours had about the same size, complexity, and is posted earlier is undeniaby unfair. Like ww said early in this thread:
So if let's say dogfish and IAR want to flash each other (eww) after a chat on IRC, but there's already a 1v1 Singles waiting for 2 days on BT, shouldn't any of us (who happens to be on IRC at the same time) take the match that has been there longer? While most proposals up there explicitly require referees to take the earliest matches, it is done "as long as the referee feels capable enough to handle the match he/she takes". Referees taking earlier matches are just being fair and unbiased to everyone, incuding the referees themselves (you can't just say "Ugh, I won't reff Zt's match from 3 days because he's a prick, I'll pick Glacier's from 3 minutes ago because he's my chum"), whilst referees taking matches of their pals just because they were asked on IRC... Yeah. Not fair at all, even as I admit guilty to it far too many times than I can remember.

Click to expand...

unfortunately, not that simple. Mandating taking the earliest of the same complexity completely doesnt take into account time scale. I'll sign up to ref a match I'm confident will end in an hour or two; a week or two, not so much. It's not that it's less work for me and i'm lazy, it's the same work over less time, with less headache.

One thing we could do that I'd be comfortable with is having it be an honor system or a gentlemen's agreement to take the most recent match(es) of the form you want to ref. It allows people who have agreed to ref specific matches the ability to do so, "as per agreements," and still lays public pressure on people to take more recent matches.

Certainly if there are two 1v1s in the queue, or similar situation the more recent should be taken, but if, say, people are running a flashmatch with a certain ref that shouldn't be an impossibility either.