Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread (New Proposal Handling System in OP)

[nyttyn]

Why don't we let Smeargle and Necturna owners sketch any move for a certain # of MC, or sketch another player's pokemon's move if giving Necturna Shadow Force is a concern? There seems to be no reason to keep the current system of having to either buy a brand new pokemon or specifically rigging a match just to get a specific Sketch move if one of your pokemon does not possess it. It would be a minor QoL change that would make things easier and hell, less of a pain in the ass for Smeargle and Necturna owners.

 

[Aweshucks]

yeah, I understand, but I think it's a bit unnecessarily complicated

 

[Athenodoros]

Storm Drain looks weird to me:

Storm Drain:

Type: Innate

This Pokemon lures all water attacks to itself, altering their course away from partner Pokemon. It absorbs the water and increases its Special Attack by one (1) stage. A boost gained this way by an opponent's attack will be maintained at the end of each round. Self-targeted attacks do not maintain boosts.

Pokemon with this ability: Lileep, Cradilly, Shellos, Gastrodon, Finneon, Lumineon, Maractus, Colosshale.

It seems to me that it shouldn't cover all water-type moves, but rather Hydro Pump, Bubble Beam and friends where it actually makes sense for it to be diverted. Something like Aqua Jet doesn't make sense in being diverted. It should be like levitate: a blanket effect in-game which is narrowed down in ASB depending on mechanics.

 

[Leethoof]

I don't really see the need to do this. For hitting past Storm Drain, there is Surf and Muddy Water already. And, your suggestion is mildly confusing. Does the pokemon retain the water immunity vs Aqua Jet and Waterfall? Or does it just not divert those?

 

[Athenodoros]

I would have said that the immunity stays, because it can still absorb the water which is the main part of the attack. But it doesn't make much sense flavour-wise for them to divert them, at least in my head.

 

[Gerard]

It seems to me that it shouldn't cover all water-type moves, but rather Hydro Pump, Bubble Beam and friends where it actually makes sense for it to be diverted. Something like Aqua Jet doesn't make sense in being diverted. It should be like levitate: a blanket effect in-game which is narrowed down in ASB depending on mechanics.

I asked about that in IRC months ago, and when I asked I was told that the ability in itself is the absorption on the energy of the attack rather than a literal absorption of it (the reason herbivore can absorb Horn Leach or Leaf Blade without actually eating the appendages of the Pokemon), so Blaze Kicks energy in absorbed and is enough to outheal the potential damage of just the kick itself, by absorbing the water surrounding Waterfall and Aqua Jet you're able to steal most of the energy out of it so it's just a week hit that you already healed for, and so on

Still, Yes, I think it does little sense that Thunder Fang and Razor Shell are redirected to another Pokemon like they are magnet, and yet, Magnet Pull can't just attract stuff like Gyro Ball or Gear Grind (attract the attacks, not the user), but this is still one of the best abilities for team support so I really think it's something worth loosing up on logics

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

I've got some propositions regarding referee payout. It's a bit tl;dr, so if you're too lazy, just read the bolded parts.

Proposition 1: Change referee payout for regular matches.

[box]Current Payout

1vs1 Single Battle: 3 UC

2vs2 Single Battle: 5 UC
2vs2 Double Battle: 5 UC

3vs3 Single Battle: 7 UC
3vs3 Double Battle: 7 UC
3vs3 Triple Battle: 7 UC

4vs4 Single Battle: 11 UC
4vs4 Double Battle: 9 UC
4vs4 Triple Battle: 9 UC

5vs5 Single Battle: 13 UC
5vs5 Double Battle: 11 UC
5vs5 Triple Battle: 11 UC

6vs6 Single Battle: 15 UC
6vs6 Double Battle: 13 UC
6vs6 Triple Battle: 13 UC

Melee Battles: 1 UC per Pokemon per participant + 2 (e.g. 3 participants in a 3vs3 Melee is 11 UC)
Multiple Melee Battles: Don't be sadistic.[/box]
[box]Envisioned Payout

A "Battle" is defined to be Singles, Doubles, or Triples.

1vs1 Battle: 2 UC
2vs2 Battle: 4 UC
3vs3 Battle: 7 UC
4vs4 Battle: 9 UC
5vs5 Battle: 12 UC
6vs6 Battle: 14 UC

XvsX Battle:
X≤6: 0.5 * (5X - 1), rounded down.
X>6: 2X + 3

A "Melee" is defined to be a battle with more than two (2) trainers and/or a match whose format is above Triples.

Melee Battles: 1 UC for each Pokemon in the match + 2
Multiple Melee Battles: 1 UC for each Pokemon in the match + 2[/box]
This does a number of things which I think it healthy for ASB.

1. It is much more intuitive than the current system. Something that has never made sense to me if why reffing a 1v1 Singles awards 3 UC while a 2v2 Singles awards 5 UC; a 2v2 Singles invariably takes more than twice the time a 1v1 Singles does, yet the referee is rewarded less than twice a 1v1 Singles. This problem is still somewhat present in the new system, but the effect it has is much much less.
2. Rewards referee dedication. We all enjoy having dedicated referees, and there's a reason why battle facilities award referees extra tokens. Our ASB rewards good, dedicated referees with more tokens. There is absolutely no reason why reffing four 1v1 Singles should give more than a 5v5 Triples. With the current system, we are discouraging referees from being dedicated to a larger match, which contradicts the fact that we are supposed to be encouraging them to be dedicated.
3. Removes obfuscation for battle formats. Initially, for higher Pokemon-per-side battles, Doubles and Triples were rewarded more because they "took more skill." Then, Singles were rewarded more because they "took more time." This is pretty confusing, and I don't see any reason why we should change payout based on formats. More complex formats take more time per round but less rounds to ref due to their complexity, while less complex ones take less time per round more rounds to ref. It seems to me like they balance each other out; if they do, why bother rewarding one more than the other? The new system does this, and as you can see from the chart, it's much easier and clearer. The only exception to this is brawls, since they often end extremely one-sided and so it wouldn't be quite fair to award the referees for work that they didn't do.

As a plus, this new system also provides an intuitive codification to multiple melee battles, as well as simple formulas to use for matches with more Pokemon in them. You may ask why the formula for X≤6 seems so complicated, but it's really simple; all it does is give 1 UC per Pokemon, as well as a small bonus that increases as the number of Pokemon grow. For the three reasons above, I believe that this new system provides many more benefits than the old one, and as such should be implemented ASAP.

Proposition 2: Change referee payout for matches ending in DQ.

[box]Current System

0-1 Pokemon knocked out: 3 Universal Counters
2-3 Pokemon knocked out: 4 UC
4-5 Pokemon knocked out: 6 UC
6-7 Pokemon knocked out: 8 UC
8-9 Pokemon knocked out: 10 UC
10 Pokemon knocked out: 12 UC[/box]
[box]Envisioned System

0-1 Pokemon knocked out: 1 UC
2-3 Pokemon knocked out: 2 UC
4-5 Pokemon knocked out: 4 UC
6-7 Pokemon knocked out: 7 UC
8-9 Pokemon knocked out: 9 UC
10-11 Pokemon knocked out: 12 UC

X Pokemon knocked out:

1. Take the largest even number less than or equal to X.
2. Divide your result from Step 1 by two.
3. Plug your result from Step 2 into the XvsX equation found above.

[/box]
What this basically does is keep the DQ rewards system in line with my envisioned standard referee payout above. It really doesn't make any sense for the two to not be synchronized, since you're reffing it either way. Again, this has all the same benefits listed in the three bullet points in the above section, all of which I think are important. Using KOs is a better way than using rounds since, as stated above, rounds are not accurate as to how much work is actually done; Triples take much more work than Singles, for example.

Proposition 3: Changing referee payout for subreffings.

The subref system right now is also kind of messy. An elegant solution to this is to split standard payout directly proportional to the rounds reffed. If a standard match would be worth 9 UC, the first ref reffed six rounds, and the second reffed the last three, the first ref would get 6 UC and the second would get 3 UC. It's extremely intuitive. In the event that the rewards don't split evenly, the last referee's compensation has a ceiling applied, while all others have a floor applied. This makes sure that everybody's rewards come out to be integers, while also giving a little slap on the wrist to those who were subreffed out. What this offers over the KO system we have now is that while KOs are not indicative of work in this case. Rounds, however, actually are in this case, since you split it proportionally and not according to some chart. Here's a c/p version that could go into the Referee thread.

[box]Subreffing Payout - Payout for matches that had multiple referees.

IF You were not the last referee THEN Payout =

FLOOR (Standard Counters for that Match * Rounds Reffed / Total Rounds Reffed)

IF You were the last referee THEN Payout =

CEILING (Standard Counters for that Match * Rounds Reffed / Total Rounds Reffed)[/box]
Again, it's elegant, intuitive, and much more accurate than KOs since KOs invariably don't happen much in the beginning, but happen much more often at the end. While rounds by themselves aren't as accurate, using them in proportion to the number of rounds the entire match lasted are.

Proposition Four: Changing CC payout for battles.

[box]Current Payout

2 Currency Counters for each battle.
1 Additional Currency Counter: 4vs4 Singles, 4vs4 Doubles, 5vs5 Singles, 5vs5 Triples, 6vs6 Triples
2 Additional Currency Counters: 5vs5 Doubles, 6vs6 Singles, 6vs6 Doubles, Brawls.[/box]
[box]Envisioned Payout

1 CC: 1v1 Anything, 2v2 Doubles, 3v3 Triples
2 CC: 2v2 Singles, 3v3 Singles / Doubles, 4v4 Triples+
3 CC: 4v4 Singles / Doubles, 5v5 Triples+, Triples+ with 6 to 9 Pokemon per side
4 CC: 5v5 Singles / Doubles, 6v6 Singles / Doubles / Triples
5 CC: Singles / Doubles / Triples with 7+ Pokemon per side, Triples+ with 10+ Pokemon per side[/box]
I do think that the points raised about 1v1 Singles being as rewarding or perhaps even moreso than longer battles are valid, and as such this is some attempt to remedy that within my small "revamp" of sorts. What this basically does is scales CC with match size more accurately; obviously, I can't say truthfully that I've had experience with all these formats, so if anyone has feel free to speak up or shoot me a message regarding where you think they should belong. I doubt I need to justify this moreso than I already have; it's something most everyone knows about anyways.

 

[Objection]

!support Engineer Pikachu's proposals, especially proposal 3. I seem to recall a match in which one ref reffed four rounds and the other reffed two rounds, but because all the KOs happened in the last two rounds, the second ref got all the UC. Comment c'est raisonable?

 

[waterwarrior]

It seems reasonable, (although personally its gonna take forever for me to get used to ;~;) but will this apply to all current battles, or only to battles that start after this is implemented?

 

[Stratos]

!support Engineer Pikachu's proposals, especially proposal 3. I seem to recall a match in which one ref reffed four rounds and the other reffed two rounds, but because all the KOs happened in the last two rounds, the second ref got all the UC. Comment c'est raisonable?

yeah that was me. I got 5 UC for reffing two rounds, and Classy got 0 UC for reffing four. And since i've started picking up more subreffings, I've noticed yet again this problem - in most cases the initial ref gets jack shit.

At the same time, i'm not sure i support engy's proposal, since it offers less rewards for 1v1 and 2v2 formats - and let's be honest here, that's 90% of the backlog in the bt at any given time. Rewarding refs less for the by-far most common formats is a pretty terrible idea to hurry the system along (also the thought that a Raid ref would make as much UC in ONE UPDATE as I would make in an ENTIRE BATTLE which can take up to six turns is just asdfghjkl;)

 

[AOPSUser]

!support all of Engineer's proposals.

 

[Aweshucks]

I don't really see the need to do this. For hitting past Storm Drain, there is Surf and Muddy Water already. And, your suggestion is mildly confusing. Does the pokemon retain the water immunity vs Aqua Jet and Waterfall? Or does it just not divert those?

to me, surf and muddy water seem like the definitely should be attracted by storm drain. Isn't that what a storm drain is, y'know, used for?

Edit: apparently I hadn't refreshed this page in a while. I definitely support all of engi's proposals

 

[Lord Jesseus]

Yeah idk Engi's proposal makes it seem like it would hardly be worth reffing 1v1 and 2v2 battles. It also seems-counter intuitive to try and keep refs dedicated by paying them less to ref commonly played formats.

I agree with proposition 3 completely, however.

 

[Gerard]

to me, surf and muddy water seem like the definitely should be attracted by storm drain. Isn't that what a storm drain is, y'know, used for?

Mmm... Surf and Muddy Water hit the whole field, which means while they are absorbed by storm drain (and all water absorb like abilities) they also hit your other mons on the field

PS: I also support Engi's proposal!

 

[Dummy007]

Maybe the lower payout for "commonly played formats" is a good thing. The reason people play 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 so much is BECAUSE they offer lucrative payouts for the amount of work put in. People are willing to ref them because they get a fair amount of currency for very little work; most of the reason higher-number formats aren't played as much is because no one is willing to ref them. Why? Because the payout is so pathetic relative to easy reffings. Engi's proposal won't leave the 90% hanging; it will simply relocate where the 90% comes from. I support all three parts.

 

[Elevator Music]

Battlers don't really care about how much refs get compensated to that degree. They probably would if the reward for reffing 1v1s was 0 UC (because then nobody would ref them), but bar that it really doesn't matter; the real reason 1v1s/2v2s are so commonly played is because they take a lot less time. On that note, people will still ref them even with the reduced payout (the payout is still very good to the amount of work).

I'm not sure this does enough to incentivize reffing larger formats though. I don't care that I would have to ref 7 1v1s to get the same payout as a 6v6 (singles): the 1v1s are still a lot easier (in 7 1v1s, 7 pokemon will faint. in 1 6v6, it is likely that many more than that will faint) and take a LOT less time (especially considering that the 1v1s can be reffed concurrently). Even if an active ref refs each round as soon as possible, a 6v6 will still probably take "forever." However, I don't think much can be done to encourage players to stay active over longer formats, just because even with any incentive you can throw at them its hard to expect people to stay dedicated for such a long period of time (and there's nothing you can do to stop people from constantly scraping DQ). For that reason, I think it would be better if we could reward refs more in this proposed system for reffing larger formats.

--
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I think in the case of larger formats (like the aforementioned 6v6), the type of battle does matter a lot, mainly because of the time factor. 6v6 brawls are not that bad to ref; they are not any more complex than a triples match. In fact, they usually only take a couple of rounds and are a relatively good payout. 6v6 singles, as I stated above, would be a bitch to ref if people ever chose to play them. I don't think it's a good idea to reward them equally, because [in my opinion] the singles is a lot harder. I'm fairly certain most people will agree with me here? idk though
--

Other than that I'm all for this.

--------

Anyways I would really like to bring up discussion on Dodge mechanics again. I'm not going to CP my last post or anything though since that seems unnecessary. If someone would propose a reasonable mechanic change to Dodge to make it not suck ass, they would be my hero~

 

[Lord Jesseus]

Personally I don't think dodge needs to exist.
And yeah as EM said, I think if we want to encourage refs to commit to large matches we should give them incentive to ref them, not remove incentive to ref smaller matches.

 

[Stratos]

also people are acting like larger matches die because of weakly dedicated refs while ignoring the fact that battlers are just as incentivized to go small. For starters, you get the same amount of CC for a 1v1 or a 29v29. Secondly, you get to update your pokemon more frequently instead of having to wait for the battle to end before making a massive prizedump post. third, it's easier to claim when you're not making giant CMFP or Rediamond-style claim dumps. fourth, it's a lot easier to stay loyal when the match will end in a couple days because you never know what shit's on your future that will pull you off the comp for a week. don't act like punishing refs for reffing small is the way to incentivize big matches (rather you're just gonna incentivize tower backlog). if i ref a 1v1 singles and can't even claim a single fucking tutor move, i'm not reffing it. As i said before i find it just a little unfair that under engy's proposed system he'll get for one raid update what those less fortunate will have to wait a whole week to earn, and four or five posts to boot.

 

[deadfox081]

I don't have time to weigh in fully here but any talk of raid reffing is completely out of place in this discussion. The knowledge needed to ref a raid is on a whole different scale to anything else in ASB.

 

[EspyOwner]

The problem with secrets like Raid reffing is that people will never understand why the rewards are so great in comparison to other complicated reffings. I'm not saying that it should be public information, I'm just saying that you need to understand the concern with people's problems with things they don't have access to.

 

[deadfox081]

Well look at it this way, I can probably ref a round of singles (sans flavour) in 5-8 minutes and with no stress at all, conversely one round of a Normal Mode raid takes me half an hour on a good day. Don't even want to think about Hard Mode.

Also flavour is a whole other issue, I get very annoyed these days at the all too many referees who either neglect it entirely or do a horrible job at it.

EDIT: To clarify I left flavour out of my singles reffing time estimate not because I don't do it, but because I tend to write the same amount of flavour for one round of singles or raid so it would skew the time comparison.

 

[Stratos]

to be expected when instead you could just do a battle hall or pike or something lol. anyway, i typically ask those whom i'm reffing whether they prefer flavor or speed - not my fault they all want speed

also it's funny how the people arguing for this proposal are the ones who aren't affected by it (although i think the subreffing proposal is spot-on)

 

[EspyOwner]

Also flavour is a whole other issue, I get very annoyed these days at the all too many referees who either neglect it entirely or do a horrible job at it.

EDIT: To clarify I left flavour out of my singles reffing time estimate not because I don't do it, but because I tend to write the same amount of flavour for one round of singles or raid so it would skew the time comparison.

Yes, you're a saint and we're lucky to have you around asb. I understand why you're talking yourself up, but like you said this isn't about Raid reffing. I was pointing out the issue people may have with rewards if they couldn't possibly understand, or even have a chance to understand, the work that goes into it.

 

[deadfox081]

It's got nothing to do with talking myself up. Flavour is a required component of any ASB reffing and really it is this trend that leads me to support the reduction of prizes for so called 'easy' reffings. I just scrolled through the top 3 pages of the forum and almost all of these matches have nothing for flavour while it is the referees who take on bigger matches, or important matches like Gym or Tournament who put the time and effort into writing good prose.

I'm definitely not trying to single anyone out here but it is downright boring to scroll through a thread where referee updates are nothing but a few sprites and some hide tags. If there weren't other issues being discussed in this thread at the moment I would consider bringing up the idea of reducing or even refusing to hand out rewards to referees who do not provide flavour (again, its in the rules as a required part of every non facility refing) but that's another issue for another day.

 

[Gerard]

It's got nothing to do with talking myself up. Flavour is a required component of any ASB reffing and really it is this trend that leads me to support the reduction of prizes for so called 'easy' reffings. I just scrolled through the top 3 pages of the forum and almost all of these matches have nothing for flavour while it is the referees who take on bigger matches, or important matches like Gym or Tournament who put the time and effort into writing good prose.

I'm definitely not trying to single anyone out here but it is downright boring to scroll through a thread where referee updates are nothing but a few sprites and some hide tags. If there weren't other issues being discussed in this thread at the moment I would consider bringing up the idea of reducing or even refusing to hand out rewards to referees who do not provide flavour (again, its in the rules as a required part of every non facility refing) but that's another issue for another day.

I have to agree with this so much, I really think it's something that's becoming too common, I don't mind a couple of flavorless rounds, or even one random battle, but having matches that are just a bunch of calcs is just too far out of ASB's spirit it's not even fun, I would love to see Engi's proposal do something like halving the payment if they lack flavor since I think many refs are getting too much into quick and easy reffing without even thinking what does ASB even means, this is not supposed to be like a simulator, this should have a lot more freedom (you can use string shot to ground an electric type), so I hardly think it's a whole lot of trouble to ask someone to write 3 short paragraphs per round, I know it may be somethimes a bit exhausting, but really I rather see battles to be battles ratter than just a bunch of random numbers (see Kaxtar vs Atheno tournament battle and tell me if you can get to the second round without saying "screw this")


Regarding Doge: don't really have a lot to say, I think erase the cap or make it that you can use it after protect and co. so it gains some kind of niche, I'm leaning towards the first though