1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

Discussion Referee Payment

Discussion in 'Policy Center' started by Dogfish44, Jan 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dogfish44

    Dogfish44 Banned from 22 Casinos
    is a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,000
    This thread will be moderated to keep discussion focused.

    Referee Payment

    Our current system is controversial to say the least. Let's toss it up:

    [box]Referees will be compensated for their time based on the complexity of the battle. A battle must be fought to completion for any rewards to be claimed. Even though Double and Triple battles ostensibly end sooner, they require much more skill and time to ref, as they are taking into account 12 or 18 Actions each round.

    Compensation for standard battles:

    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 [Cap - 15]: 1 UC for each Pokemon in the match + 2
    Multiple Melee Battles [Cap - 15]: 1 UC for each Pokemon in the match + 2

    The ref is compensated an additional UC for each individual Pokemon KO'd, divided by the match format for battles above a 3v3. Some examples are shown below:

    6vs6 Singles with 10 Mons KO'd: 14 + 10/1 = 24 UC.
    6vs6 Doubles with 10 Mons KO'd: 14 + 10/2 = 19 UC
    6vs6 Triples with 10 Mons KO'd: 14 + 10/3 = 17.33 (17) UC
    6vs6 Brawl with 10 Mons KO'd: 12 + 2 + 10/6 = 15.66 (16) UC [15 Capped]

    Compensation for battles that end in Disqualification:

    A referee shall be compensated for a match ending is disqualification based on the cumulative number of Pokemon knocked out in battle. Below is a chart:

    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.
    The referee still receives the KO bonus if the match was above a 3vs3 fight.

    Rotation Battles count as a Singles Battle. A Disqualification can only occur after the first two Rounds of a battle have been reffed. If two Rounds have not been reffed, the battle is cancelled and no Counters are distributed.

    Compensation for battles that are Subreffed:

    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) + KO Bonus if applicable)

    Once again, the KO Bonus only applies to battles above a 3vs3. Only the last referee receives the bonus for being dedicated.[/box]

    The largest issue here is with compensation for matches which end in disqualification, which is seriously underpaying. There is also a general concern that referee UC does not accurately represent work done in cases of matches involving Shuckle (Underpaid), or matches such as Cyclohm v Magikarp (Overpaid). There is a large number of solutions that have been presented, so I won't list them here - repost them if you feel they are suitable alongside arguments.

    Discussion here should focus on:
    • How to fix issues with referee payment in the case of Player DQ
    • Is representation of battle length feasible?

    A large number of people want a total overhaul of the system. If you are proposing a new system, make sure that the way it solves the current issue of referee payment in the case of player DQ is made clear. If the system doesn't solve that, then it is fundamentally flawed and should be reviewed.
  2. Texas Cloverleaf

    Texas Cloverleaf meh
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Server Moderatoris a Contributor Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,626
    Our current system is fine as is, bar referee compensation in case of dq which is sufficiently distinct from regular compensation to not require a complete overhaul of the system.

    Moderation is the best policy here, lets focus simply on the issue of ref dq payouts and not overhaul the entire system.
  3. Rediamond

    Rediamond

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,168
    Agreeing with Texas here. Most of the proposals flying around wouldn't be worse, and might even be slightly better, but I really think we're making a mountain out of a molehill and then calling in the army to level it.

    The system we have has worked fairly consistently with minor adjustments since the league was founded. An arbitrary formula might be equally solid. It probably wouldn't. I see no need to overhaul a system that (mostly) works for minor percieved benefits.
  4. Complications

    Complications

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    I agree; the only thing I feel needs fixing is DQ payouts.
  5. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    Why change the system? Because it's complicated and doesn't work especially well.

    A couple of us (Dogfish, Objection, Engineer) got together and talked about a different system, much simpler.

    Pay per round:

    Singles: 1 UC / Round
    Doubles: 2 UC / Round
    Triples: 2.5 UC / Round

    It takes about 10-30 seconds to tally up the number of rounds reffed in a battle (or you can keep track while you're reffing, like how approvers do). It also solves the following issues with the current system:

    1: Having to memorize or double-check the payout amounts. I reffed for a long time and still have to go back for it.
    2: Ref DQ is easy to compute now. This is an issue that has plagued the payout system ever since DQ became a thing.
    3: A singles battle lasting 4 rounds will get 4 UC and one that lasts 1 round will get 1 UC, which is much more fair. Same for battles across the board, which tend to have high variance.
    4: Easier to unify normal battle and Roleplay battle pay. This is a weird issue at this moment.

    This is not "change for the sake of change" and I'll be moderating any post that suggests that it is.

    EDIT: Along the lines of the last comment, I'll also say that "the current system is better because I don't like change" is not a legitimate argument. We should be striving for the better system at all times, so if you want to make an argument, make an argument on the merits of the system, and its status as the current system in place does not count as one of its merits.
  6. Elevator Music

    Elevator Music
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Site Staff Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    7,742
    I actually do like a system like the above. It's simple, fair for match length, and does solve the DQ issue well.

    I know some people will probably raise concerns over the actual numbers/payout is too high, and perhaps they are somewhat high at the moment, but they can be toned down pretty easily. Another minor concern is that some rounds don't last a whole three(/two) actions, so it might be odd to pay a UC for that round. One thing we could do that fixes both of these is to award UC per action (note: by action I don't mean each individual Pokemon move, I mean the collection of Pokemon moves that happen in an action), maybe something like this:

    Singles: 0.25 UC / Action
    Doubles: 0.5 UC / Action
    Triples: 1 UC / Action

    I don't know, I literally just made those numbers up on the spot, but I'm sure you guys get the point.
  7. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    Ratios like that would be significant underpay compared to the current, and also counting rounds is much simpler than counting actions.
  8. Its_A_Random

    Its_A_Random Solves issues recursively
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,289
    ...on the other hand, counting by actions is a far more accurate way to pay in terms of measuring effort as opposed to counting by rounds, especially when some rounds can last exactly one move, resulting in artificially overpaying yourself. I mentioned this in feedback, & I am still yet to see how this will be covered. Also, I have played several 3v3 Triples matches lasting in excess of 5 rounds, so if it comes down to 1 Pokémon left on either side, 2.5 UC for just 4 individual actions is ridiculous overpay, though "pays too much" is not a completely valid reason.

    Furthermore, your payout fails to cover brawls & melees of any size, which means it is not a complete system, & thus, it still needs work. I did put a proposal here which uses moves as a measure. It still needs tinkering (i.e. Fix underpay), but it is virtually a complete package, covering situations other proposed time-based payouts fail to cover. Things can be explained better, but w/e.

    That said, that is if we go down the overhaul route. Should we go down the simple fix route, there are a few viable suggestions, like these:
    That said, I can see this going through two votes: The first being which route do we go down from either the simple fix or the UC overhaul, then which proposal to adopt.
  9. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    Rounds is simpler and in 100% of situations I'd rather overpay than underpay.

    Brawls and Melees are... a dumbfuck can of worms to be honest. If a pay-per-round proposition goes through I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the current payout for Large Scale Battles. It's simple, not hard to break the cap, and better than jumping through hoops to determine an amount per round.
  10. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,158
    As IAR said, this thread currently has 2 layers in question:

    1. Should we simply find a new formula to fix the referee DQ compensation, or should we strive for a better, overall referee compensation system?
    2. Assuming our answer to question 1 is the latter option, how do we achieve it?
    But we cannot answer the 2nd without deciding the first, so I'm putting my support behind revamping the referee compensation system. To repeat myself and some whom I agree with, the current trend favours short, one-sided, flavourless matches, which do us no good. One method we can do to help remedy this is to compensate referees fairly for their effort. It might not take a simple solution (in fact, I imagine the new system might be more convoluted in numbers as we need to take quite a factors into account), but at least it strives to be fair. And that fairness is what the current system lacks, period.

    And as much as I support this, can all of us first agree upon overhauling the whole system (i.e. discuss the merits of the current system or the potential new proposals) before going statistical into actually implementing the overhaul? Because there still is opposition towards the change, no matter how some people may choose to ignore it.
  11. Engineer Pikachu

    Engineer Pikachu Good morning, you bastards!
    is a Contributor to Smogon

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,592
    There's no question that referee payout favors matches without flavor, but short of implementing a flavor criterion there's nothing about keeping or revamping the system that will address the issue. I don't agree with the fact that it favors short matches, though; in terms of the rounds-to-UC ratio things are roughly even between a short match and a slightly longer one, not looking at the UC bonus, if you ignore blatantly ridiculous ones like Abomasnow vs Camerupt. The only reasons the 1v1s we see seem to be better are a) those matches tend to be unbalanced purposely, and b) those matches tend to be done in a shorter amount of time than you would expect.

    As the person who came up with the revision we have now, I'll say that when I constructed it all I wanted to do was make sure referee payout between differently-sized battles weren't anomalous and then I scaled the DQ payout. It was the old system with new numbers, which means the issues were still issues and the non-issues were still non-issues. I, along with some others, don't feel as if the system we have now for non-DQ battles is a problem; instead, the only real problem lies in DQ.

    The simplest way to remedy that without throwing an overhaul in is with Dogfish's proposal here, which does have the possibility of introducing some overpay; however, considering that in most cases a Pokemon that's been in a fight for at least one round will have probably sustained significant damage and at this point we might as well put simplicity first (considering the feedback the more complicated proposals received) I think it shouldn't be too big of an issue.

    To put this post in a sentence: I like Dogfish's solution because it's simple and fixes the problem we have.
  12. Eternal Drifter

    Eternal Drifter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    I am currently in favor of an overhaul of the current system of referee payment. As mentioned before, there have recently been a rash of quick, one-sided matches that focus on getting counters fast for the participants, which promotes fast, flavor-less reffing. In example, there's a Burn the Bellsprout series of matchs that had the sole purpose of getting the Bellsprout defeated in one round, for quick counters for both participants and the ref. I will confess to partaking in a few attempts at these kinds of matches, and while everyone got their counters, it left me... unfilfilled, now that I think about it.

    There are also matches on near the other side of the spectrum, that aren't just about counters, but also about the story within the battle. In such matches, flavor isn't just important, its required. I think the Icy Forest will go down in history in ASB as one such match, with one of my bigger regrets for it is potentially not awarding enough counters to participants and myself (and this has been going on since SEPTEMBER, for Arceus's sake!).

    I am in favor of Elevator Music's current system, since it encourages refs to stick around longer matches and see the match towards completion. I would like to make a couple of recommendations, though:

    "Action Per Active Trainer Poke'mon" is key here. If a Poke'mon is knocked out before it can act in an action, the ref doesn't get the UC for that Poke'mon that action or the rest of the round. If the Poke'mon "idles" (as was possible in the Melee of History and is possible in the Ultimate Showdown), the ref doesn't get any UC for that Poke'mon that round.

    What about combos? With the editations I've made, if a Poke'mon uses a combo, then the ref only gets paid for the action the combo is done, and not for that action and the cooldown action. I suggest multiplying the combo action's payout by 2 (so 0.5 for the action in Singles, 1 for the action in Doubles, etc.) IF THE COMBO IS SUCCESSFUL (EX: failing to use a Selfdestruct Combo because of energy drainage only grants the normal payout), so that the refs get paid up front for the combo, AND still get the ammount they would have in the cooldown phase if it had occured normally (or get paid anyway in case the user of the Combo is KOed next action). This reflects on the additional effort one must go through to calculate the effects of the combo (and time, in case for complicated combos where one has to double-check the IRC for approval of the combo).

    Referee controlled Poke'mon, like in the case of the Icy Forest battle or in the Gliscor's Peak arena, should also increase the number of counters gained, but because the referee is controlling them with their actions, should be gained at a slower ammount. Perhaps halving the counters gained from such Poke'mon would work.

    Finally, in order to encourage referees to complete the battle, a 1 or 2 UC bonus for completion is an option.

    That's my thoughts and recommendations. What you make of them is up to you.
  13. DFrog

    DFrog

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,172
    I have been tinkering with this idea of mine since this topic was posted and after reading several other posts, this idea of mine has since been changed. Although it still has not been fully thought out in terms of a quantifiable payout it seems to be a median point between an overhaul and a update of the current system.

    Before I get to my idea, I'd like to acknowledge Elevator Music's post wherein the referee would be paid per action per pokemon, because essentially this is my idea with another bit tacked on before it. The commision earned for each action as proposed by Elevator Music has been quoted for reference. (mainly for my self)
    The main change to Elevator Music's proposal is that referee's have a flat rate which is derived from the absolute minimum pokemon on the field for that battle type so: 2 (singles), 4 (doubles), 6 (triples) and 8 (anything else). Having a flat rate like this may lead to overpayment in some occasions but ensures that a referee would not be underpaid in comparison to the old system.

    I'd also like to support Eternal Drifter's idea of a completion bonus however to a lesser payout, possibly only 0.5 UC as to prevent slight overpayment.

    An example of a payout for a 6 round 4v4 doubles match that has a sub-ref come at the beginning of round 3, using my proposal:
    [box]Original Ref:
    4 (flat rate) + 24*0.5 (24 actions calculated) = 16UC
    Sub-Ref:
    4 (flat rate) + 48*0.5 (48 actions calculated)+ 0.5 (finishing bonus) = 28.5UC[/box]

    Upon seeing this it seems like the divisor of the calculated actions could be increased to lower the payout, alternatively it could be left unaltered to be an incentive to increase the amount of active referee's.

    Feel free to support/modify/criticize this proposal :)
  14. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,158
    The current system is what we've been using for a long time, and thus its simple due to the familiarity - any regular ref worth salt would've been able to work his own UC payout in mind. So, to mitigate the problems anyone would have with a new, fairer (yes I had to keep stressing this) formula, I propose that we program a simple calculator in the event that a new system is implemented, then share it out on the Referee Resource Thread. From what I gather, there isn't that many variables that a new formula would be dependent on, mainly the following:

    • Match length (whether its counted in individual actions or collective rounds)
    • Match size (number of Pokemon in battle per team)
    • Match format (Singles, Doubles, Melees, etc.)
    • Roleplay factor (matches that went above and beyond, or even currently approved Roleplays such as Hall and TLR)
    This "Referee Payout Calculator" I proposed would be much simpler to write compared to, say, SDS's ASB Damage calc. Heck, I could probably get one up and running within an afternoon (of course, I only learned Stone-Age C++, so its very likely that my product will be a Stone-Age, Command-Prompt-UI calculator) but I'm sure that this is the solution that we could use so to help newer refs and older ones who would have to undergo the transition (in the event of overhaul). That's one of the cons of the overhaul option nullified.
  15. Its_A_Random

    Its_A_Random Solves issues recursively
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,289
    Okay, so the Icy Forest Battle is now finished, & the sheer effort put into such a match, only to be able to gain an absolute maximum of 15 UC under the current pay means that more than ever, an overhaul of the payout is effectively necessary. That is one case, though. Think Glacier Knight, & his Ultimate Showdown. That is only worth 15 UC as well.

    Anyhow, I tinkered around with my proposed formula, & decided that lowering the divisor in my proposal to 25 from 50 would help in attempting to mimic similar pays based on the current system, as well as attempt to increase the pay on average. It may be found in here:
    IAR's UC Proposal (tl;dr) (open)
    [BOX]Overview
    Referees will be compensated for time reffing a standard battle based on how long the referee has reffed a battle, measured by individual actions. Battles must have been played to completion before any rewards can be claimed, whether it be through the natural end of a battle, a player DQ, or a Draw by mutual agreement. This formula can be used for any battle of any length & any size, able to be used for brawls, melees, & any other type of battle you could think of, as well as being able to handle cases of sub-refs, DQ's, & Draws by Mutual Agreement.

    Formula for UC Payout
    Referee's will be compensated with UC for a match which follows the following formula:
    [BOX]UC = #IA × (0.1 + ((#PPS - 1) ÷ 25))[/BOX]
    Where #IA represents the total number of Individual Actions that the referee reffed throughout the battle, & #PPS represents the maximum #Pokémon one player can use for the match, for example, if the match was a 4v4 Singles, then #PPS would be 4 (#PPS is capped at 6 so to ensure larger battles do not have ridiculous payouts). The final pay for the UC is rounded normally. If the formula would amount to 0 UC, then the UC compensation is rounded up to a minimum of 1 UC. Referees are expected to show full workings when showing how much UC they get in the prize section for convenience of approvers.

    Individual Actions
    An Individual Action is defined to be where a Pokémon completes its action in full for the action, whether it be through attacking another Pokémon with a move, inflicting status on another Pokémon, or failing to act due to Sleep, Freeze, Confusion, Attraction, Combo Cooldown, or anything else other than being KOed. In plain English, this equates to under normal circumstances, 2 Individual Actions per action in Singles, 4 in Doubles, 6 in Triples, etc. An example will be given later.

    Pokémon Per Side
    As mentioned before, Pokémon Per Side is a simple thing to grasp. Pokémon Per Side is represented as the agreed maximum number of Pokémon that either player can use in any particular match. For example, if the match was a 1v1 Singles, irrespective of the number of Pokémon a user brings to the battle, the player can only use one Pokémon in the battle, & hence the number of Pokémon per side is 1. Pokémon Per Side is Another example will be given later. It should be noted that with matches that are 7v7 or higher, Pokémon Per Side will be treated as 6 Pokémon Per Side, otherwise, if this was uncapped, the pay for anything larger would be ridiculous...

    An example of how to work out the UC you get From a match
    [BOX]Match that this example was taken from
    The example match is a 4v4 Doubles, & despite one user bringing 6 Pokémon (This is a Gym Match, but for the purposes of this example, this is treated as a standard match), that user can only use 4 Pokémon for the battle, so #PPS in our Formula is set at 4.

    Round One sees 4 Actions completed Action One (One was a self-hit, but still counts), another 4 completed Action Two, & another 4 completed Action Three (Even though one Pokémon failed to act due to Torment). In total, 4+4+4=12 Individual Actions were recorded Round One.

    Round Two sees 4 Actions completed Action One (Combo Cooldown still counts as an individual action), another 4 Actions completed Action Two (Fly still counts as 1 Individual Action, & the KOed Pokémon already acted that action), & 3 Actions completed Action Three, since the other Pokémon is not in the battle any more. In total, 4+4+3=11 Individual Actions were recorded Round Two.

    Round Three sees 3 Actions completed Action One (The other Pokémon was KOed before it could act, & its action, whatever it was, does not count as an Individual Action), another 3 Actions completed Action Two, & another 3 Actions completed Acton Three (The KOed Pokémon had already acted). In total, 3+3+3=9 Individual Actions were recorded Round Three.

    Round Four sees 4 Actions completed Action One, another 4 Actions completed Action Two (The KOed Pokémon had already acted), & only 2 Actions completed Action Three (The other Pokémon was KOed before it could act). In total, 4+4+2=10 Individual Actions were recorded Round Four.

    Round Five sees 3 Actions completed Action One (One trainer only had 1 Pokémon left, & Sky Attack counts as 1 Individual Action), & 2 Actions completed Action Two (Sky Attack must be fully executed for it to count as an Individual Action, & the battle ends with the last Pokémon from one side KOed). No Actions were completed Action Three, since one side had no Pokémon left. This also marks the end of the match. The Final Round saw 3+2=5 Actions Completed.

    At this point, the match is over, & it is time to claim. #PPS as we worked out earlier is 4, & #IA is equal to the total number of Individual Actions that the referee reffed throughout the battle. This is the aggregate number of actions reffed across the 5 Rounds the battle raged for, which means in total, the battle lasted 12+11+9+10+5=47 Individual Actions. Therefore, #IA in our formula is set at 47.

    With both variables set, it is time to plug our numbers into our formula, & we get:
    [BOX]47 × (0.1 + ((4 - 1) ÷ 25))=10.34 UC[/BOX]
    According to the formula, though all payouts are rounded normally, so our final pay rounds down to 10 UC. Being a Gym Match, there is an extra 4 UC added for being a 4v4 match to make it 14 UC, but let us assume this was a standard match.[/BOX]

    What happens if a match ends up having to be completed by a sub-ref?
    Same as normal, but instead, calculate payments for all refs who reffed a match. #PPS remains the same, but #IA will be different for each ref, based on the number of actions each referee reffed over the course of a match. for example, say a you sub-reffed a match. The match lasts 27 Actions, but you reffed 15 Actions to the original ref's 12 Actions. That means #IA will be set to 15 for your pay, & #IA will be set to 12 for your pay.

    What happens if a match ends in DQ or Draw by Mutual Agreement?
    Follow the normal formula, with #IA being equal to the number of Individual Actions you reffed before the match ended prematurely. Just remember that if a match has not had two rounds of reffing before being called this way, no awards are awarded.[/BOX]

    Aims of this proposal:

    • To provide an accurate time-based payout system that awards more UC the longer a battle rages: Achieved through measuring battle length through Individual Actions, arguably the most accurate form of measurement for battle length & referee effort. The more Individual Actions reffed, the more UC earned.
    • To provide a flexible UC formula that can be applied to any situation for a tower match: Because the unit of time for UC pay is Individual Actions, this can easily be achieved, & will handle sub-ref cases, DQ cases, & will be able to cover larger formats like brawls & melees far easier than what a round-based payout can achieve.
    • To be able to scale matches to award more UC for larger battles: This is handled through the scaling proportion of the UC formula (The 0.1 + ((#PPS - 1) ÷ 25) part). This equates to 0.1 UC/IA for 1v1's, 0.14 UC/IA for 2v2's, 0.18 UC/IA for 3v3's, etc. A 1v1 Singles needs to last at least 15 IA (2.5 rounds at least) for the ref to claim more than 1 UC from them, which is a plus in a way, since it can act as a deterrent from playing 1v1 Singles.
    As far as how this payout performs relative to the current payout, the example battles posted here offer 4, 4, 28, 21, 7, 7, & 20, compared to 2 (DQ), 4, 20, 18 (w/o subrefs), 4, 4, & 23 UC under the current system. Some other examples posted here featured all DQ's, & this formula offers 5, 7, 4, & 2 UC, compared to 1 UC across the board under the current system. This results in fair payments for DQ, & offers a net increase in tower payout on average.

    So yeah. It provides inflation. It provides a "scary formula" that users need to get used to. It provides scaling, which encourages longer matches...Though the big winner from this payout is almost certainly brawls.

    As for RP Payouts? They need to be revised. I could put an RP bonus to my proposal, which can be added to the 0.1 part of this proposal, with the number depending on the difficulty of reffing the RP. Other than that, there is my revised proposal. Thoughts?

    inb4 "IAR really needs to take English classes since he words his proposals so poorly."
  16. Seven Deadly Sins

    Seven Deadly Sins ~hallelujah~
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,269
    Too many numbers.

    I'd say I'm kidding, but I'm not. We don't want reffing to be scary (even though it already is to some extent), we want it to be simple. When someone cashes in a match they should be able to say "i posted 6 round updates, oh hey that means i get 6/12/15 UC". Accuracy in pay is sacrificed for ease of use, and that's fine.

    This argument is really highlighting one of the biggest problems in ASB: overanalyzing every single thing to the highest extreme. In order to even ref a round you need to haul your ass over to the thread, read the orders, parse targetting, check subs, run calcs, hit that reply button, write some stuff (preferably with flavor), doublecheck your calculations, post, fix your post when you misplaced a decimal point or a 1 or forgot a stat boost or something, and if you're a nice guy at the end of the battle you calculate the counters for each player. That last bit should be enough to offset any pay inequities from incomplete rounds due to KO.

    Quit overanalyzing things, quit pretending everything has to be exact and viable (i'm looking at you, big-ass discussion over an ability that is almost literally useless in-game), and be willing to go out on a limb. A simple pay-by-round system with 1 variable solves basically every issue with the current system, is more fair, and lacks complexity (which in this case is a positive effect).
  17. Glacier Knight

    Glacier Knight

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,445
    I didn't see anything special clauses for melees, so I reckon that means That if the melee is singles, then just go with 1UC per action.

    The Ultimate Showdown is singles, so I should get 1UC per round, for reffing 35 people? that's roughly 105 actions. Let's take into account there are 19 different arenas, the time it takes to process and order everything, and also calculate all the tricks and schemes I put into it... Yeah. I didn't do this for the UC, but I would still like to get what i deserve. 1UC per round seems very weak. That means that one round of a 1vs1 singles is worth as much as myself reffing one round of 35 people (105 actions, you get the picture..). That doesn't seem too fair.

    Going back to the original referee payout, the Showdown is worth a maximum of 15UC as well. That's even worse than SDS's suggested proposal, as i can assure you, the Showdown will last more than 15 rounds (regarding his plan, 15 rounds would get me 15UC).

    IAR's plan seems most fair to huge battles like mine and Eternal_Drifter's. If i calced it right, I got 10.5UC for round 1 and 2, and it would go down as more people fainted, and less actions were sent in. This seems much nicer, and if you think 10.5UC is too much for a round, I'd be happy to show you my work. Also, the UC will go down as more people are eliminated, so it wont be a solid 10.5UC per round. IAR's Proposal seems legit, and even though the Formula is a tad complex, it provides a much fairer option to the Payout rules we have now, and other proposals. New players might be nervous and confused, but that's why we have an "Ask question, get an answer!" thread (as well as the IRC). I will take Fair and a bit more complex over Easy and 15UC for the Ultimate Showdown.

    Note: If we want to combine proposals, we could suggest IAR's Proposal for brawls, melees, and other huge things, and have SDS's proposal work for smaller things. Best of both worlds?
  18. Dogfish44

    Dogfish44 Banned from 22 Casinos
    is a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,000
    OK, I'm going to ask a question or three, I want to know people's opinions...

    If the Referee Payment in case of player DQ can be fixed now without an overhaul of the system, would you rather:

    • Implement that as soon as possible to deal with current referee scenarios.
    • Wait till a better system is fully implemented as to minimise changes.

    Instant implementation would not prevent further discussion on the issue later on.

    Do you think the referee payment system should be paid by Action, By Round, or by Number of Pokemon?

    • Actions
    • Rounds
    • Number of Pokemon
    • Other

    The current system is Number of Pokemon-based. SDS's proposal is Round-Based. IAR's proposal is primarily Action-Based. A system based on the number of Crits would be Other-Based. Etc.

    Are refs paid fairly, overpaid, or underpaid?

    • Overpaid
    • Underpaid
    • Fairly Paid
    • Other

    A lot if this would be very useful to us - and please expand on any "Other" option!
  19. Eternal Drifter

    Eternal Drifter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,604
    I would like to suggest holding off on implementing a system to deal with DQ possibilities. Best work with it in the new system that is put through (and give incentive to put it though quickly).

    I'd suggest payment by action. It seems the most fair in my mind.

    Finally, current ref payment... this is up in the air. A lot of matches recently have been quick one-sided flash matches that end in one or two rounds. I'd say that those referees got what they earned (usually 2 UC). However, there are more, and longer, matches starting to occur again, and only 2 UC seems a bit underpaid when both of the trainers are stall-happy. So, its a combination of Fairly Paid and Underpaid.
  20. Its_A_Random

    Its_A_Random Solves issues recursively
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,289
    Okay, just posting to ask you, the public, an opinion of whether the council should vote on whether to implement a temporary fix or not.

    That is all.

    For the record, my proposal (# Actions reffed, # Pokémon per side) uses as many variables as yours (# Rounds reffed, Format), & the current system (Format, KO Bonus). So the whole "too many numbers" argument is not an issue. Also, look at how much math you have to do just to get to the prizes in the first place? Finally, working out prizes does not justify rounds lasting one action. Finally, your proposal fails to solve the issue of the fact that refs get shelled out for reffing sufficiently large battles. I mean, I cannot stand to see someone like Glacier, who is reffing a 35 man 1v1 match, will only get 15 UC under the current system, AND your proposal. The same goes for Eternal Drifter's Icy Forest match, which Deck specifically stated to him on IRC, is worth every UC he can get, which is definitely more than 15 UC.

    Simplicity may be positive, but you are implying that no one can count individual actions, which in reality, is just as easy as counting rounds. The ref can also make things easier for themself under my proposal to, by simply saying at the end of each reffing post "I reffed x actions this round", making it easier to calculate. If you think my proposal is like attending a maths school, then so is reffing, since what reffing basically is surmounts to math—there is no virtual difference.

    EDIT: I changed my proposal around, so the #PPS variable in my formula is capped at 6, because if it were uncapped, 25v25 Brawls earning up to 110 UC per round is a very ridiculous prospect...
  21. Glacier Knight

    Glacier Knight

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,445
    If the Referee Payment in case of player DQ can be fixed now without an overhaul of the system, would you rather:

    • Wait till a better system is fully implemented as to minimise changes.

    Better to make the right choice first than keep changing things up, am i right?

    Do you think the referee payment system should be paid by Action, By Round, or by Number of Pokemon?

    • Actions

    It seems more fair. Besides, IAR's formula doesn't even look all that complicated.

    Are refs paid fairly, overpaid, or underpaid?

    • Fairly Paid
    I mean, I enjoyed it when you got 3UC for 1vs1 singles, but I think refs get paid fairly overall. (Except when you ref really big things. 15UC won't cut it for the Ultimate Showdown and the Icy Forest)
  22. ZhengTann

    ZhengTann Nargacuga
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,158
    If the Referee Payment in case of player DQ can be fixed now without an overhaul of the system, I would rather:

    • Implement that as soon as possible to deal with current referee scenarios.

    Of course, I am still in favour of an overhaul, but this, I think, everyone can agree on - make the step in the right direction as soon as possible.

    IMO the referee payment system should be based on number of:

    • Actions

    Refs are already algebra-in-practice, so might as well go as far as we can in terms of objectivity and fairness. Besides, we can always program our own Payout Calculator if the formula is really daunting (see Honko's Damage Calc for an example), and I believe we have the talent to do so.

    I think refs are currently:

    • Fairly Paid
    Admittedly, we are looking at very few case studies here that cannot be used as an absolute representative of the overall trend within the community. Yet, these cases cannot be ignored simply because they are the minority.
  23. Orcinus Duo

    Orcinus Duo

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    The current system is fair. And I think that I have enough experience as a ref to say that as it stands, refs are fairly paid, and "don't fix what ain't broke".

    I'm fine with whatever you guys say because I won't be reffing anymore, but I would support SDS>current>IAR (I'm not calculating the number of actions I've reffed no way. And are you seriously asking approvers to also?).

    IAR's proposal is needlessly complicated and as far as I can tell only serves to balance SDS+co's formula for larger battles. Here is my point. I was absolutely fine with getting 14 UC for this. Reffing each round takes maybe an hour max, melees are fun, and honestly if I felt underpaid, I would've just slapped myself on the head for not limiting # of chills+recs. The current system (and SDS' system) underpays melees, which I honestly feel is fine. Melees should be a special occasion anyways, and honestly, if Melees were paid more (or fairly), it would take the "spark" out of each one. I dunno. I like things the way they are.

    I would prefer if we don't change the payout system. It's fine as it stands.
  24. Its_A_Random

    Its_A_Random Solves issues recursively
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,289
    ...Yet you think it is absolutely okay that people like Glacier gets paid 15 UC for reffing a 35 man 1v1 Singles with flavour & 3 actions per round, & that people like Texas only get 1 UC for reffing 4 rounds of a 4v4 Singles that consisted sole of switching & no KO's. The reason why the compensation is being reviewed in the first place is because of the fact that referees are being unfairly duped of UC because of the DQ system. Hence the "Do not fix something that is not broken" argument is irrelevant for this issue, because DQ payouts in particular need fixing.
  25. Orcinus Duo

    Orcinus Duo

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    So only fix DQ payouts
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)