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

[C$FP]

I remember when rewards for reffing 1v1 and 2v2 battles were exactly the way they are in Engineer's proposal, and there was no problem whatsoever. Then, one day, the rewards for every match were increased by 1 UC for reasons I am unaware of. Now that things are being modified back a bit, it's a hassle. I think there's a name for that... anyway, I don't think 1v1's being put back down to 2 UC should be a terribly big deal, and I think Dummy and Elevator Music have good points. I personally would absolutely enter more big matches if people were more willing to ref them and do so at the same rate that people tend to ref small matches. Unfortunately, I am forced to resort to small matches to get any sort of training done at a bearable rate, even though they are generally less enjoyable than long, committed matches. I've lost my train of thought because I've been switching my focus back and forth between this post and other things, but I hope I've provided some insight one way or another.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

Alright, I don't want to have to make this type of post, but the passive aggressiveness is getting on my nerves. Specifically, I'm talking this (last part), this (last part), and anything else so far that has been said about Raids.

Regarding Raids: if you really want to know, I've spent over two hours on a round before during the middle, which is supposed to be one of the easier parts. I realize that it's hard to stomach, considering all you see are the calculations, but drop it. Pwnemon and anybody else that wants to talk to me about this, shoot me up on IRC when I'm around and I'll happily respond regarding this; I can't divulge the specific mechanics, but I can give you a general sense of what I need to do. Just shut up about it here. It's irrelevant.

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)

I feel the need to respond to this one in particular. As someone who started reffing in a long period where 1v1 Singles was worth 1 RC, you might expect that I'd be arguing for higher limits. Stop using ad hominem as an argument against this proposal. It doesn't matter that I'm a raid referee. It doesn't matter that I ref facilities. The only thing that does matter is that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a 1v1 Singles should be worth so much more in comparison to the other battle formats. Same goes for 2v2s in comparison to larger fights. If that's not reason enough for you, I recommend rereading—or reading, I suspect in some cases—my post.

Proposition Four (which will be edited in with the other ones): 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 Anything, 3v3 Triples
2 CC: 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. I will admit that the new system, unlike my previous revisions, is actually somewhat more complicated, but I think it's for the better in this case.

 

[rickheg]

I fully support Engineer Pikachu's proposal, every bit of it. It all makes sense. Honestly, we really don't need to pump that many counters into the system so quickly anymore. I think I've only ever been in one match where I sent in more than 4 pokemon, because I know finding a ref is almost impossible. The majority of us have more pokemon than we know what to do with, and yet almost every match is a 2v2, or a 1v1. So, if this can get bigger matches going, I am all for it.

Also, in regards to dodge, its a completely useless command. Why would I leave it to chance that I can still get hit when for 2 more energy I can use Agilidodge? I honestly don't see any way to change it to where it's worth using, we might as well keep pretending it doesn't exist, or get rid of it all together.

 

[nyttyn]

My largest concern about nerfing the CC system is that it doesn't take into consideration that new players don't, in fact, have more pokemon then they know what to do with. I can understand the desire to slow down how fast people get rewards, but if you want CC sinks we have the 30 CC items for that shit. So I have to say, opposed to cutting down rewards, simply because why. Sure, it buffs how many CC you get for ludicrously large matches, but, well, doubling the amount of matches a new player has to do in order to get a full team isn't exactly the best way to go about things I feel. Plus, it just seems spiteful. "RWAR SHORTER MATCHES REWARD MORE ON AVERAGE!? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! GLORY TO LONGER MATCHES!"


Also holy fuck it takes a while to ref things and throw down flavor so I'm also opposed to ref CC changes. The current rewards, I feel, are adequate. If the concern is that the smaller formats are rewarding more, boost the rewards for the larger formats! Don't just chop up the rewards for the smaller formats. That's just spiteful and all it results in is discouraging people from trying to start easy, which winds up with them biting off way more then they can chew.


p.s. would be nice to know for comparison how much raids reward in comparsion to other formats because I have to admit, hearing stores of how one round of raid outrewards reffing a entire singles match really causes me to doubt if singles rewards are really too much.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Weighing in on all of this...

Also, in regards to dodge, its a completely useless command. Why would I leave it to chance that I can still get hit when for 2 more energy I can use Agilidodge? I honestly don't see any way to change it to where it's worth using, we might as well keep pretending it doesn't exist, or get rid of it all together.

Not every Pokemon has Agility/Teleport. Dodge was designed as a universal command that all Pokemon can use. I think it is balanced, & I personally do not have really anything against raising/removing the cap, but the problem with doing that is balance, since if the cap is too high/removed, Dodge can become too OP on some Pokemon like Accelgor, who alreasy has a 50% Dodge rate. The question is: Where do you draw the line?

Concerning Counter proposals, I am 100% for it. There is nothing that shits me more (Other than placeholders) than seeing reffings purely composed of numbers, sprites, & names of attacks. The quality of Tower Reffings, in my opinion, are considerably lower than they were this time last year, & back then, the rewards for reffing were considerably lower; I think it was 1 UC for a 1v1 singles. Yet, most of us back then did not complain, & longer battles were played more often as well. I mean, what is wrong with spending a few minutes of your life to write a paragraph's worth of reffing? Absolutely nothing.
There is seriously nothing wrong with this proposal, & I am not saying this just because I am a certified TLR, Subway, & Pike Ref, but I love matches that are typically for the long haul. I have played in many, & there is something about them that makes me want to play them more often, but sadly, such matches are in danger of becoming extinct, because "Why ref a 6v6 Singles when you can ref 6 1v1 Singles which earn you more UC faster?" One concern I have about the CC payout, however, is that it is harder for newer players to develop their team/buy new Pokemon as fast, especially those who start out with 2 Pokemon like I once did. But then again, that is why players have 3 battle slots...

All in all, I agree with these proposals, Dodge is balanced, & people whinging about the CC/UC proposal need to realise that the "reduced" quality of reffings resulting in people not spending the time to write flavour, coupled with the fact that roughly 80% of active ASB players are "allergic" to long matches, make up some of the primary reasons as to why Engineer's CC/UC proposal has been proposed in the first place.

EDIT:

My largest concern about nerfing the CC system is that it doesn't take into consideration that new players don't, in fact, have more pokemon then they know what to do with. I can understand the desire to slow down how fast people get rewards, but if you want CC sinks we have the 30 CC items for that shit. So I have to say, opposed to cutting down rewards, simply because why. Sure, it buffs how many CC you get for ludicrously large matches, but, well, doubling the amount of matches a new player has to do in order to get a full team isn't exactly the best way to go about things I feel. Plus, it just seems spiteful. "RWAR SHORTER MATCHES REWARD MORE ON AVERAGE!? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! GLORY TO LONGER MATCHES!"

Remember, players have THREE battle slots. True, this is a concern I have, but seriously, Long Matches are "Endangered Species", because "No one will ref them". The majority of matches played today are either 1v1 Singles or 2v2 Doubles, because they are "easy to ref". One of the selling points of this proposal is to reduce this "battle centralisation" towards 1v1 Singles & spread them more out evenly.

Also holy fuck it takes a while to ref things and throw down flavor so I'm also opposed to ref CC changes. The current rewards, I feel, are adequate. If the concern is that the smaller formats are rewarding more, boost the rewards for the larger formats! Don't just chop up the rewards for the smaller formats. That's just spiteful and all it results in is discouraging people from trying to start easy, which winds up with them biting off way more then they can chew.

No one complained when referees were earning 1 UC for a 1v1 Singles a year earlier. The increase in rewards is nice, but the fact that the majority of refs omit flavour for speed is downright ludicrous; Not only is it reducing reffing quality as a whole, but it also defeats one of the main points of CAP ASB: To have fun & be creative. Users need to remember that CAP ASB is not a simulator.

p.s. would be nice to know for comparison how much raids reward in comparsion to other formats because I have to admit, hearing stores of how one round of raid outrewards reffing a entire singles match really causes me to doubt if singles rewards are really too much.

Please avoid delving into Raids. From what I have heard about raid reffing, the UC payout is justified. Seriously, the majority of us, including me, have no idea how to ref a raid, & how the AI works. I repeat, avoid delving into this. Thank you.

 

[nyttyn]

Concerning Counter proposals, I am 100% for it. There is nothing that shits me more (Other than placeholders) than seeing reffings purely composed of numbers, sprites, & names of attacks. The quality of Tower Reffings, in my opinion, are considerably lower than they were this time last year, & back then, the rewards for reffing were considerably lower; I think it was 1 UC for a 1v1 singles. Yet, most of us back then did not complain, & longer battles were played more often as well. I mean, what is wrong with spending a few minutes of your life to write a paragraph's worth of reffing? Absolutely nothing.
There is seriously nothing wrong with this proposal, & I am not saying this just because I am a certified TLR, Subway, & Pike Ref, but I love matches that are typically for the long haul. I have played in many, & there is something about them that makes me want to play them more often, but sadly, such matches are in danger of becoming extinct, because "Why ref a 6v6 Singles when you can ref 6 1v1 Singles which earn you more UC faster?" One concern I have about the CC payout, however, is that it is harder for newer players to develop their team/buy new Pokemon as fast, especially those who start out with 2 Pokemon like I once did. But then again, that is why players have 3 battle slots...

All in all, I agree with these proposals, Dodge is balanced, & people whinging about the CC/UC proposal need to realise that the "reduced" quality of reffings resulting in people not spending the time to write flavour, coupled with the fact that roughly 80% of active ASB players are "allergic" to long matches, make up some of the primary reasons as to why Engineer's CC/UC proposal has been proposed in the first place.

EDIT:
Remember, players have THREE battle slots. True, this is a concern I have, but seriously, Long Matches are "Endangered Species", because "No one will ref them". The majority of matches played today are either 1v1 Singles or 2v2 Doubles, because they are "easy to ref". One of the selling points of this proposal is to reduce this "battle centralisation" towards 1v1 Singles & spread them more out evenly.

I can't ref them because nobody's doing them. Trust me, I'd love to ref a six on six clusterfuck but nobody's throwing down with them. So go ahead, make a huge mclarge battle, I desire to ref one. What's wrong with this proposal is that it's just cutting down on rewards, rather then increasing them all around which is quite silly because there's so many possible pokemon and items (which cost shitloads of UC mind you) to purchase, not to mention TLR runs, that there is no shortage of stuff to spend CC on. It's not going to fix the current "CC excess" problem, because that's a failing of the system to provide proper CC sinks, not a failure of too many rewards. It's not going to remove the shit already in the system, so all this will do is make it harder for new players to start off.

Singles might be overplayed, but at 1 CC, new players will just try to launch straight into doubles and triples with no idea what the hell they are doing. Because, once again, of rewards. Please, think through the other wise of the picture. Not everyone has time to use up all their slots at once. Why shouldn't we just boost rewards to match singles, rather then knock singles down?

No one complained when referees were earning 1 UC for a 1v1 Singles a year earlier. The increase in rewards is nice, but the fact that the majority of refs omit flavour for speed is downright ludicrous; Not only is it reducing reffing quality as a whole, but it also defeats one of the main points of CAP ASB: To have fun & be creative. Users need to remember that CAP ASB is not a simulator.

Please avoid delving into Raids. From what I have heard about raid reffing, the UC payout is justified. Seriously, the majority of us, including me, have no idea how to ref a raid, & how the AI works. I repeat, avoid delving into this. Thank you.

No, that's stupid. It may be justified, it may not be justified, but I'm delving into this because without solid numbers I have no idea if they ARE Justified or not. All we have are the words of the raid refs and approve raid ref payouts, and it's all shrouded in secrecy. Which is quite frankly tauros shit. They can't claim other matches are overpaid without putting their UC where their mouth is. Unless I get a solid comparison of time investment of raids vs singles, I will be forced to call burden of proof.

No one complained when referees were earning 1 UC for a 1v1 Singles a year earlier. The increase in rewards is nice, but the fact that the majority of refs omit flavour for speed is downright ludicrous; Not only is it reducing reffing quality as a whole, but it also defeats one of the main points of CAP ASB: To have fun & be creative. Users need to remember that CAP ASB is not a simulator.

Then penalize the people without flavor, don't punish the people who are throwing down flavor. Decreasing rewards down to 1 UC is not going to magically fix the flavor issue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it might even compound it. Remember that CAP ASB is not a simulator, and we don't need to have tighly constrained rewards. Let the UC and CC flow, it's still going to take people a decent chunk of time investment to bring any pokemon up to torunament level, then they have to outfit their team with items (the best of which cost 30 CC), then you have your TLRs and their high fees to try and snag a legendary...

 

[Athenodoros]

No, that's stupid. It may be justified, it may not be justified, but I'm delving into this because without solid numbers I have no idea if they ARE Justified or not. All we have are the words of the raid refs and approve raid ref payouts, and it's all shrouded in secrecy. Which is quite frankly tauros shit. They can't claim other matches are overpaid without putting their UC where their mouth is. Unless I get a solid comparison of time investment of raids vs singles, I will be forced to call burden of proof.

I feel like I could offer some insight here. I tried Raid reffing once, back when I reffed a lot (facilities and outside), and it's a bitch. It is completely autonomous, and could be done reasonably quickly once practised, but the Raid ref payout is justified. There are so many things which need to be done, especially the way Eng and zar do things, because of the annoying AI, the difficulties of large combat and boss and lackey abilities. It doesn't need to be changed.

Also calm down.

 

[Destiny Warrior]

As a person who has actually reffed a raid(just a round, but I believe that qualifies me to comment), raids deserve their payout. I am kind of annoyed how often this comes up. The AI and threat mechanics require a lot of effort to handle, and the refs very much deserve the payout they get.

Seriously guys, stop dissing raids...

EDIT: ZARATOR YOU BETTER REWARD ME, I USED MY 3K ON THIS...

 

[Its_A_Random]

I can't ref them because nobody's doing them. Trust me, I'd love to ref a six on six clusterfuck but nobody's throwing down with them. So go ahead, make a huge mclarge battle, I desire to ref one. What's wrong with this proposal is that it's just cutting down on rewards, rather then increasing them all around which is quite silly because there's so many possible pokemon and items (which cost shitloads of UC mind you) to purchase, not to mention TLR runs, that there is no shortage of stuff to spend CC on. It's not going to fix the current "CC excess" problem, because that's a failing of the system to provide proper CC sinks, not a failure of too many rewards. It's not going to remove the shit already in the system, so all this will do is make it harder for new players to start off.

Honestly, I think you lack patience. Just because you are new, does not mean that you can suddenly go from new to one of the best just like that. I've been playing since the beginning & it has taken me more than a years worth of dedication to get where I am now. That aside, the fact is, you are opposed to this, simply because "Rewards for some formats are being reduced". There are actual CC Sinks as well; It is called TLR, Buying new Pokemon, Buying Items, Changing Natures/Hidden Power Types, there are many ways to spend CC, so this "CC excess" problem you are talking about is nonexistant. True, it makes it harder for new players to develop, but as much as I hate to say this, the problem is this: 1v1 Singles, as it stands, is borderline "broken", as far as raising counters is concerned.
The point is, 1v1 Singles is convenient. You gain 2 CC. The ref gains 3 UC. It does not mean much, but 6 1v1 Singles is 12 CC, 18 UC, which is significantly higher than 4 CC, 15 UC for a 6v6 Singles. Under the proposed System, 6 1v1 Singles is 6 CC, 12 UC, & a 6v6 Singles is 4 CC, 14 UC. This is far more balanced than it is now, apart from counters for Pokemon, but that is beside the point. Think about it; It makes longer battles more viable, which I like.
Also, if you want to ref a large battle, go ahead; no one will stop you.

Singles might be overplayed, but at 1 CC, new players will just try to launch straight into doubles and triples with no idea what the hell they are doing. Because, once again, of rewards. Please, think through the other wise of the picture. Not everyone has time to use up all their slots at once. Why shouldn't we just boost rewards to match singles, rather then knock singles down?

Incorrect. Singles will always be played more than Doubles or Triples, because of how easy it is to ref a singles match compared to a Doubles+ match. Besides, if this proposal went through, give it a week or two & no one will be whinging about it, because counters are counters.

No, that's stupid. It may be justified, it may not be justified, but I'm delving into this because without solid numbers I have no idea if they ARE Justified or not. All we have are the words of the raid refs and approve raid ref payouts, and it's all shrouded in secrecy. Which is quite frankly tauros shit. They can't claim other matches are overpaid without putting their UC where their mouth is. Unless I get a solid comparison of time investment of raids vs singles, I will be forced to call burden of proof.

What Atheno & DW said. You are simply whining over virtually nothing. Raid Refs get 2 UC a round for Normal Mode, & you fail to see why. Just ask zarator or Engineer, they will tell you why Raid refs are paid so high.

Then penalize the people without flavor, don't punish the people who are throwing down flavor. Decreasing rewards down to 1 UC is not going to magically fix the flavor issue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it might even compound it. Remember that CAP ASB is not a simulator, and we don't need to have tighly constrained rewards. Let the UC and CC flow, it's still going to take people a decent chunk of time investment to bring any pokemon up to torunament level, then they have to outfit their team with items (the best of which cost 30 CC), then you have your TLRs and their high fees to try and snag a legendary...

Items at most cost 20 CC. Flashmatches will always occur no matter what, Lazy refs will always be lazy refs. Whether they get penalised or not for not including flavour is at the discretion of the staff.

 

[Pallas Athena]

Alright, I tend to stay quiet in Policy debates nowadays as I'm not nearly as active on irc as I used to be and I wasn't particularly good when I was. But while about five topics are on the table...

As one of the largest fans of long battles, I feel as if I can say that refs are usually completely unattainable unless one agreed from the start to ref it via irc. Also, the chances of a ref going inactive are incredibly high (belive me, I have yet to be in a 5 v 5+ singles where the ref didn't go inactive). This means that the chances of the battle getting bogged down and it taking up a slot for longer are also high. People need to consider that these sorts of battles need a lot of rewards to make them worth it. I have a long standing hatred of 1 v 1 because I feel as if they require less skill and people are way too eager to abuse them for counters. While the skill thing is debatable, any player who is actually willing to consider it will see that there is something that could be defined as "abuse" or even "counter farming" by the way some 1 v 1 refs and participants work. Reducing the counters will make the choice between playing 10 1 v1 singles and 1 6 v 6 singles a bit harder to make, and I support any of the proposals given so far completely.

And quit complaining about facility reffing. I've never been on a raid, but I can tell from being a frequent lurker that they are beyond any time commitment the average person would be willing to make. It's not that others can't ref them, it's that they're so complicated with numerous factors to consider with every action that only a madman would realistically want to put the time in. Other facilities have the same thing going to a lesser degree, and tend to get backlogged, which is why they pay a bit more in some cases.

And dodge discussions never end well. Can we just quit now when we have a semi-reasonable command?

 

[Stratos]

i'd like to throw my hat in the ring here. (again)

I have reffed TWO 6v6 matches. Neither ended.

Why? Well, in the one, after 3 KOs, Galladiator didn't post for fifteen days and smash was getting impatient to claim his prizes in time for the team tourney, so he called DQ. In the other, it was a two day DQ, and almost immediately after Tort passed dq, IAR called it on him. I was v active for both battles. And the reason i haven't reffed any since is because i have literally not seen a single 6v6 TO ref. so don't go pinning this shit on the ref's fault

 

[Imanalt]

I think the problem with long battles is pure and simply the fact that, well, they're long. Its hard to be active every day or two for something like a month both for refs and players. I don't have a solution, but I think what we need is some way to speed up long battles if we want them to finish without someone going inactive. Part of the trouble is that reffing is inherently hard, which means you can't just do it the instant actions are posted. One thing that might help the problem (although I don't know if it could be implemented) would be a "calculator" into which the ref could enter the moves being used and by what, and it would spit out the raw numbers, which would make the ref's job nearly exclusively flavor

 

[Yarnus of Bethany]

Raids are another subject that can be left alone for now until this subject is finished. They are rare, take a long time, and don't matter much.

With that out of the way, I would like to post my agreement with nyttyn and suggest something.

Changing the UC gains down would discourage refs.
Currently, it is hard to get a ref with anything above 1v1 singles. If the UC gains are lower, even more potential refs will not give their time for something worth hardly anything. It also makes it so that people with little internet access (like me) could not get anywhere with only one or two matches at a time.
Changing the UC gains down would make it harder for new players to advance.
For example, if I were better at reffing and battling than you (nowhere close, but this is an example), I would still have to wait about two years to be able to catch up to you even if you went inacTive like some people. I think it should be only about 3/4 of a year, as ASB status should be more about skill than about time spent.

Changing the CC rates down would make roleplaying too over-powered and easy money for battlers.
When I first joined ASB, I immediately challenged the battle hall. That was a good move. I gained 10 CC and MC, and against easier mons than you would on average find in a regular battle, and without the lags from the opponent. This should not happen. ASB is Anime-style-Battling, not Anime-Style-Roleplaying. I understand that roleplaying is important and useful for diversity. But it should be taken up for the roleplaying elements and not as a cheaper way to gain counters. Lowering the CC for battles shifts this balance further away from the battles' side.

Lowering the UC payout makes facility reffing an all-too easy way to gain cheap UC.
The above principle works for refs as well. When Battle Hall, Subway, and Pike are almost exactly the same as battles with one or two extra RNG rolls thrown in, it does not make sense for them to reward so much. At the very least, if these changes take place, something must happen to bring RP rewards down with everything else. Another reason why this is bad is because facility refs are in an exclusive group with little chance of newcomers. For example, even though Waterwarrior is as good a battler as most people in ASB, including some veterans, he (or she) is not reffing any of those facilities. I could list countless other examples, but that is enough. And anyone talking about RP clog, most of it is because of the owner's refusal to accept new refs.

So there are the problems to your proposal, here is one possible solution.
Instead of lowering UC gain for small matches, raise it for large ones.
Other than being more intuitive as a way to encourage people to ref and participate in large battles, it also both satisfies the reasons you gave and solves the problems I gave.

Increasing UC payout for large battles will encourage large battles.
Pretty obvious, but I think it needs to be said. If reffing large matches garners you more rewards, people will do it more. I do have at least some experiance with Doublesbrawls at least, and they definately deserve more. Triples and doubles should also not be left out. They both require a lot more work than singles, and so should also be elevated.

Flavor will become as better as it would become under the proposal.
Frankly, I don't quite see how flavor come into this at all. I agree that there needs to be more flavor, but if anything this would make it worse. Singles matches are easier to add flavor to, and require less work for the flavor than a triples match would.

A disclaimer
When I talk about roleplaying facilities, I do not in any way include TLR, Raid, or anything of the sort.

 

[rickheg]

Although I support the counter change, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Take a look at who opposes this, and who is in favor of it. People like Engi, IAR, even me to an extent. When we first started, we were surrounded by people who were also just starting, and the only FE's were Beedrills. Whereas now, there's users like Imanalt and nyttyn struggling like madmen to catch up to where we've spent a year getting to, and suddenly all these veterans are saying we should cut down on counters for standard battles. It's kinda a kick to the balls.

Weighing in on all of this...

Not every Pokemon has Agility/Teleport. Dodge was designed as a universal command that all Pokemon can use. I think it is balanced, & I personally do not have really anything against raising/removing the cap, but the problem with doing that is balance, since if the cap is too high/removed, Dodge can become too OP on some Pokemon like Accelgor, who alreasy has a 50% Dodge rate. The question is: Where do you draw the line?

My issue is that I don't think I've ever seen it used since the revamp, so I honestly can't give a fair call either way to whether or not its broken.

 

[Yarnus of Bethany]

On dodge: It was used to great effect in the tournament match I reffed. Though extremely niche, it should not be removed altogether if nobody can decide how to buff it.

 

[Dummy007]

My issue is that I don't think I've ever seen it used since the revamp, so I honestly can't give a fair call either way to whether or not its broken.

If you would like to see an example of it being VERY useful, look here. I think Dodge is necessary, if only to provide those Pokemon who, like IAR said, don't have any other means of evading attacks with something to fall back on. Sure, it doesn't make a difference for 85% of Pokemon, but it's essential for the other 15% as a last resort option.

As far as drawing the line goes, I would say cap it at 70%; this makes any normally 100% accurate move behave like a OHKO move, so it's still within the bounds of reason for a Pokemon game.

 

[Engineer Pikachu]

Sorry in advance for the wall of quotes...

Singles might be overplayed, but at 1 CC, new players will just try to launch straight into doubles and triples with no idea what the hell they are doing. Because, once again, of rewards. Please, think through the other wise of the picture. Not everyone has time to use up all their slots at once. Why shouldn't we just boost rewards to match singles, rather then knock singles down?

I'm not sure you read my post at all. 3v3 Triples gives just as much CC as 1v1 Singles or 2v2 Doubles. In fact, in most small-to-mid battles, Singles gives more CC than Doubles! It's only once you get to 5v5 and 6v6 fights that they aren't the same, so I'm not sure how this is knocking Singles down.

<raid crap>

Again, I'm not sure you read my post at all. If you've still got a problem with that after you read it, talk to me.

Decreasing rewards down to 1 UC is not going to magically fix the flavor issue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it might even compound it.

...then they have to outfit their team with items (the best of which cost 30 CC), then you have your TLRs and their high fees to try and snag a legendary...

I never said it would fix the flavor issue.

First, they cost 20 CC, which is quite a bit lower than 30. I also highly doubt that people are supposed to hop into TLRs in the very beginning; they're meant more for people with experience, I'd wager, considering you kind of have to be good at battling too.

(numberings added)

1a. Changing the UC gains down would discourage refs.
Currently, it is hard to get a ref with anything above 1v1 singles. If the UC gains are lower, even more potential refs will not give their time for something worth hardly anything. It also makes it so that people with little internet access (like me) could not get anywhere with only one or two matches at a time.
1b. Changing the UC gains down would make it harder for new players to advance.
For example, if I were better at reffing and battling than you (nowhere close, but this is an example), I would still have to wait about two years to be able to catch up to you even if you went inacTive like some people. I think it should be only about 3/4 of a year, as ASB status should be more about skill than about time spent.

The underlined part in 1a proves why 1a isn't a valid point. Why would I want to ref a 2v2 Singles when I get two extra counters for reffing 2 1v1 Singles, which take less time? The itali-lined fragment is also completely untrue. Before the +1 to battle changes, there were plenty of shorter battles still being reffed, and even if the new changes did, in fact, reduce the number of reffings for shorter battles it would simply redirect that to the longer fights.

In response to 1b, that "problem" is going to be there no matter what you do. The only ways you can remedy that is to give some sort of "booster" to newer players, which causes outcries as seen with Charmander, or to give some sort of penalty to older players, which would be a horrible idea. No matter what you do, you can't give newer players increased rewards for doing the same thing the older ones are.

2. Changing the CC rates down would make roleplaying too over-powered and easy money for battlers.
When I first joined ASB, I immediately challenged the battle hall. That was a good move. I gained 10 CC and MC, and against easier mons than you would on average find in a regular battle, and without the lags from the opponent.

Lowering the CC for battles shifts this balance further away from the battles' side.

3. Lowering the UC payout makes facility reffing an all-too easy way to gain cheap UC.
When Battle Hall, Subway, and Pike are almost exactly the same as battles with one or two extra RNG rolls thrown in, it does not make sense for them to reward so much.

You do realize that these changes apply to facility matches as well, right? There's a reason, under the "Battle Format" header of most OPs, it states "1v1 Singles," "3v3 Singles," or other formats. Guess what? The changes I propose change "1v1 Singles" and "3v3 Singles" as well!

In response to #3 in particular, I don't see how this would make facility reffing too overpaid. Your main argument, the underlined part, is patently false; as of now, facility reffing actually grants less than actual matches, unless the facility run ends quickly. Take a Subway that loses at Ingo, for example. (3+3+3+7) is quite obviously more than (2+2+2+2+6). Any Hall that lasts more than two battles is worth less than a string of 1v1 fights together. The only reason that facility reffing would be devalued more would be if we decided as a whole that flavor was necessary for standard battles—something I agree with. However, a quick glance at the top ten or so fights shows that the majority of them don't even have flavor; in fact, even some of the tournament matches didn't.

4a. Instead of lowering UC gain for small matches, raise it for large ones.
Other than being more intuitive as a way to encourage people to ref and participate in large battles, it also both satisfies the reasons you gave and solves the problems I gave.

4b. Increasing UC payout for large battles will encourage large battles.
Pretty obvious, but I think it needs to be said. If reffing large matches garners you more rewards, people will do it more. I do have at least some experiance with Doublesbrawls at least, and they definately deserve more. Triples and doubles should also not be left out. They both require a lot more work than singles, and so should also be elevated.

So basically you're asking for the exact same thing that I'm proposing except inflated. If that's the case, we can just scale it down, considering that CAPASB referees are already getting paid a sizable amount, much more relative to referees in some other ASBLs. I have to contest the last sentence, though; for some reason, I'm getting the vibe that you didn't quite read the entire post, but regardless, they are paid essentially the same amount in my envisioned system because while they take more time/work, they also take less rounds to do, so most everything ends up balancing out.

4c. Flavor will become as better as it would become under the proposal.
Frankly, I don't quite see how flavor come into this at all. I agree that there needs to be more flavor, but if anything this would make it worse. Singles matches are easier to add flavor to, and require less work for the flavor than a triples match would.

...what? Flavor is irrelevant. Unless we see a mandating of flavor, people are just going to skimp on it in the interest of time. That's what we're seeing now. In case you don't believe me, check on the most recent reffings yourself; you'll find that most of them have a dearth of—or more likely, no—flavor.

 

[C$FP]

I agree with Engineer on all of these points, and I would just like to emphasize a couple of things. First:

So basically you're asking for the exact same thing that I'm proposing except inflated.

The counter-solution of just raising rewards for reffing larger matches is not a good idea.

In response to #3 in particular, I don't see how this would make facility reffing too overpaid. Your main argument, the underlined part, is patently false; as of now, facility reffing actually grants less than actual matches, unless the facility run ends quickly. Take a Subway that loses at Ingo, for example. (3+3+3+7) is quite obviously more than (2+2+2+2+6). Any Hall that lasts more than two battles is worth less than a string of 1v1 fights together.

This isn't even just the opinion of a facility ref; it's math. I'm pretty sure the intent for ref payout when the Battle Facilities were being started was to reward the ref the same amount as reffing the same number of normal matches, plus 2 BT (now UC) for the dedication of sticking with the challenge the whole way. If ref rewards go back to being that way, I don't see why there would be a problem.

The one change I would make to the proposals is reward 2 CC to players in a 2v2 Singles rather than 1 CC, just so that if a new player has only two Pokemon, the trainer has an option to start building up his/her team after the first match.

 

[Yarnus of Bethany]

The counter-solution of just raising rewards for reffing larger matches is not a good idea.

This isn't even just the opinion of a facility ref; it's math. I'm pretty sure the intent for ref payout when the Battle Facilities were being started was to reward the ref the same amount as reffing the same number of normal matches, plus 2 BT (now UC) for the dedication of sticking with the challenge the whole way. If ref rewards go back to being that way, I don't see why there would be a problem.

The first sentence has no backing up here or anywhere else. I would like this adresssed at some point. Simply saying thatpeople were happy before in the Good old days does not mean that things should not change like that.
On battle facilities, it seems I was either somewhat unclear or you did not read my post fully. My main point with RP facilities is that the lack of a third person who has to post makes battle facilities about twice as quick. If the rewards are the same, those doing battle hall, pike, or subway will give twice as many counters in the same amount of time.
The other thing you didn't seem to mention is my point that the exclusivity of facility refs makes it harder for new players to gain UC, which is indeed a way to discourage new players. You seemed to imply there was no way to help solve the problem of the newer player. Here is one such way.
One more thing, before I end my random response. I think we agree about both lowering 1v1 singles UC and that flavor is irrelevant to this discussion. I just wanted to make that clear.

Edit: I also don't think #2 was addressed.
2Edit: Also, my point with 1a was that it would make there be less refs for 2v2 doubles and the sort; even if your suggestion would change the ratio of referees toward large matches, the total number of referees would still go down.

 

[waterwarrior]

Yarnus, the main reason facility refs are so exclusive is not because people like MK and Destiny Warrior hate letting new people in, its because the old people are working just fine, and have no need for new refs. If the queue becomes so backed up that people are getting impatient (*cough* Subway *cough*), then the creator of the RP will go look for new refs. And, like any sane person, they're going to go with the people who are known for quality, on-time reffings for months rather than the new guy who has been a ref for around a week. Plus, facility reffing isn't as 'exclusive' as you think. Take the Hall for example. How many people are Hall refs, you may ask? 26. If new people really want to be a facility ref, they take lots of matches (earning them shit-tons of UC), stick with them, get better at sticking with DQ times and have fewer and fewer mistakes, and (with enough begging), they get in. I'm not making that story up either, as that's how I got to be a Hall ref. Also, the lack of a third person, if anything, means that the ref should get more counters, saying as they're doing the work of 2 out of 3 people who would be involved were it a regular battle.

 

[C$FP]

the stuff yarnus just said

It's basically inflation (or something like that, I'm not an economist but I know it's not something to aim for); I'm honestly not feeling articulate enough right now (so I'm trying to keep this post brief) to explain why it is a flawed solution, but hopefully Engineer or someone will address it soon enough anyway.

I'm not going to bother to repeat what waterwarrior said, because he's right and I don't have really anything to say about that part that he didn't already. (although I'll emphasize that RP reffing is not as much to give players another method of UC as to get the RP's reffed for battlers)

I think Engineer addressed number 2 well enough: "You do realize that these changes apply to facility matches as well, right? There's a reason, under the "Battle Format" header of most OPs, it states "1v1 Singles," "3v3 Singles," or other formats. Guess what? The changes I propose change "1v1 Singles" and "3v3 Singles" as well!" What I think he's saying is that each facility battle will simply be treated like a regular battle as far as rewards go (bar special rewards for winning or whatever), so the power RP's have to get rewards faster than regular battle will be just as true now as they would be if the proposal goes through, so that's another discussion entirely. As far as 1a. goes, Engineer explained it well enough. I really don't think the total number of refs would go down; just because some rewards are going down a little doesn't mean people are just going to stop reffing.

Sorry if anything I said makes no sense, since it's midnight and I have a little bit of a headache, but I think I said it all well enough.

 

[Leethoof]

There seems to be a lot of counterarguments going on around here.
Couldn't get on IRC, wanted to get that out of my system.
Also, largest ASB blowup since a long time.

Sorry for unproductive post.

 

[Yarnus of Bethany]

The thing about inflation is that, just like in real life, a little bit is good, even necessary. In real life, it makes spending more useful and lessens debts. In ASB, it makes it so that new players have not so far to catch up. In any case(this is not my main point) deflation, which is what is happening here, is even worse.

I do admit my exclusivity argument has been destroyed, #2 if C$FP has explained it correctly, but 1a is simply a matter of prediction, and 1b has not been adressed since I gave two solutions for its problem.

 

[Objection]

The thing about inflation is that, just like in real life, a little bit is good, even necessary. In real life, it makes spending more useful and lessens debts. In ASB, it makes it so that new players have not so far to catch up. In any case(this is not my main point) deflation, which is what is happening here, is even worse.

Regarding the newer players not having so far to catch up, how is that beneficial to the older players? If it isn't, then it means they are getting the short end of the stick. No wonder so many of them object to your idea!

For what it's worth, I can think of a way for older players to benefit from the newer players being able to catch up more quickly, but I want to know what you can come up with.

 

[Aweshucks]

Ok, a few things I'd like to put in here:

the old people are working just fine, and have no need for new refs

I understand where you're coming from, but I think the problem here is that the rest of us don't have the chance to do it and get the UC from it. I agree that new people, such as myself, shouldn't be able to do it until they've established themselves, but I know plenty of people who've been here for a while who still aren't able to be a facility ref. just throwing that out there.

Now, I realize that raids are a touchy issue, and I don't want to cause more arguments about it, but I think the problem is that raid refs get the same amount of UC per round as a ref would get for reffing a 1v1 in the proposed system. whether this is is justified, I don't know, but I'm just putting my opinion out there, and shouldn't be told to "shut up," etc. just for expressing my opinion.

Now for bringing up another thing that I think is an issue:

I realize I'm not a very good ref. I find that I take a while to get around to it, and I don't do flavor, even though I know I should. Even though it would negatively effect me, and I have no idea how it would work, there should be a higher payout for refs that put in more effort into reffing. This could include things such as including (good) flavor, keeping up with dq (or maybe even more for reffing very quickly), and other things. Again, I have no idea how this would work. Maybe the participants of the battle rate the ref, or maybe a third party would review the thread and reward extra UC based on how they think the ref did, themselves gaining UC similar to how prize claim approvers are currently compensated. I think that not only is this more fair to the people who work hard and put a lot of effort in to their reffings, but it also might encourage people who's reffings are lacking simply because they are lazy to put more effort into it.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.