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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Take the largest even number less than or equal to X.
- Divide your result from Step 1 by two.
- 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.