I have to agree, this looks like a lot of thought was put into it, but i worry that its too much. I think we need to just address the simple problem of DQ, lest we scare away new refs from an over-complicated UC formula.
Just because fractional UC technically don't exist, doesn't mean that they can't exist. Let's suppose that all UC rewards as they currently are were multiplied by 10 and there was a rule that the conversion rate for UC to any other counter was 10 UC -> 1 of the other counter. Or, if that's too convoluted, let's say that all payouts of all kinds were multiplied by 10, but so were the costs for things (so a pokemon would need 10 MC to learn a level up move and 50 DC to unlock its DW ability and buying a Murkrow would cost 30 CC, but participating in a 3v3 battle and completing it would yield 20 CC for you and 10 EC, 20 MC and 10 DC for each pokemon, etc.) In such a system, you would essentially be arguing that all UC payouts should be rounded down to the nearest 10, which, given that people are quite capable of dealing with integers that don't divide perfectly by 10, would be stupid. How is claiming 0.1 of a UC any different? Or do you just have a phobia of decimals?1 UC per 10 Posts Approved =/= 0.1 UC per Approved post. Just like how you only gain 1 UC for every four TLR Scenarios reffed, not 0.25 UC per TLR Scenario. There is a reason why you always see me say "x claims approved gives me y/10 Claims Approved." This is why I do not like the idea of leaving UC unrounded, & there is no such thing as claiming "Half a CC", or "Half a (X)C." Why should UC be any different? Which also leads to my initial stance on truncating UC in my proposal, not for consistency, but I have always been against the idea of claiming half UC's & treating half a UC as 0 UC, which also lead to my argument with Frosty over an unapproved claim. It was also a measure for lower pay, but that is beside the point.
Any thoughts on that fix to DQ?Engineer Pikachu said:Take the total amount of HP deducted in the match. Divide by 200. Stick it into the XvX equation. Round.
Basically what this does is figure out roughly how many Pokemon's worth of HP has been taken off in the course of a match and fits it into a standard battle with equal Pokemon on each side. Objection's proposal might be good as well, but I'd guess that this could work in the meantime while he's still tinkering around with it.
My thoughts exactly.So as I see it dogfish's proposal is x number of mons sent out /2
I like it. Its simple. It works.
Let's do it.
n.b. to frosty, let's not destroy the entire system that already works fine, k? (same response i gave to every other 'proposal')
The problem is that it doesn't work fine, and that's the reason why there's debate over it in the first place. People are unhappy. I think Frosty's proposal is the most logical; the amount of effort put into a battle is displayed by the number of rounds reffed, not the number of Pokemon sent out.Texas Cloverleaf said:n.b. to frosty, let's not destroy the entire system that already works fine, k? (same response i gave to every other 'proposal')
There is nobody unhappy apart from refs being shelled out by Battler DQ - this is why there is a debate. Work done can be attributed to number of actions reffed, but in most scenarios the number of mons sent out is more than enough to be equivalent.The problem is that it doesn't work fine, and that's the reason why there's debate over it in the first place. People are unhappy. I think Frosty's proposal is the most logical; the amount of effort put into a battle is displayed by the number of rounds reffed, not the number of Pokemon sent out.
With the advent of allowing just about your passerby ASB-er to apply for Tower refs, a lot of people reap no small measure of benefit, including myself. But not ASB itself - no, instead we now have an "upper class gents club" of sorts in the form of Raids, TLRs, Gyms and what-have-you, while Tower matches are relegated to "oh that place where people go to counter-farm and flash each other". Need I say that Tower matches are actually what most visitors look at in ASB? And how does that reflect its quality? And amongst oh-so-many factors, dare I say that referees play a crucial role to maintain not just the outlook, but the real-deal, solid-gold quality of the whole forum. Now, the current compensation system rewards speed over quality. Does that mean we might as well run flash matches all day, since you can get 2 UC in LESS THAN TWO HOURS rather than 15 UC over the course of TWO FRIGGIN' WEEKS? Don't even bother doing the math, you tell me which one you'll pick.Korski from a long time ago said:Referees are critical to maintaining the speed and quality of ASB. To be a successful ref requires time, dedication, organization, and the ability to describe action over distances effectively.
If you think Heat Wave and company aren't rewarded well enough, we can always change the definition of "individual action" so every individual hit count as one (so an Earthquake that hits 3 pokemon will count as 3 actions, since you will have to calc and roll rngs for every hit). Or as you said, make X change.Puppylover44 said:Frosty's formula also fails in regards to larger match formats unless we make X change by match type - reffing a Rock Slide in triples+ is not a definition of fun, let me assure you.
I think by "turning them on" he meant "choosing them as the ability in one ability matches". So the abilities would remain innate and, in all ability matches and if chosen in one ability matches, would increase the BRT, whereas in no ability matches and if not chosen in one ability matches, would not increase the BRT.But just to make it clear: do you intend to make the ability "can be disabled"? You mentioned turning them on, so I got confused a bit.
- The Council has decided to implement a change in ASB mechanics, and the said change is edited in the DAT thread.
- However, Ref Resource thread still contains description of the outdated mechanics.
- A new member ignorant to the change checks the Ref Resource thread, gets misled by the outdated statement, and causes havoc/minor annoyance/inconvenience that had to be solved by correction in the Ref Resource thread.
- In order to prevent the above scenario from happening, the Council painstakingly checks through every other thread and edits in the implementation.
This is hardly efficient and consistent. To remedy that, I put forward the following proposal:
- A ref attempts to end a Tower match.
- The said ref opens up multiple threads in order to check battlers' rewards and ref payouts.
- The ref then posts his/her claim.
- An approver opens up multiple threads again in order to confirm and approve the said claim.