Data State of the Game (07/04/14)

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are currently talks on IRC about bringing back the referee training/tutoring program. You really want newbies to start reffing? Have someone who knows what they are doing help them out. Practicing reffing will only get you so far. Especially when you have not a clue what you are doing.

Many times I have seen newbies calculate multi-hit moves like this:
Rock Blast with a roll for 3 hits for example
(3 + 4.5 - 3) * 1.5 = 6.75
(3 + 3 + 4.5 - 3) * 1.5 = 11.25
(3 + 4.5 - 3) * 1.5 = 6.75
Damage: 24.75

If you are not told that is not how you do it, you are going to keep practicing doing it that way.


I have two questions not listed in the OP that stems from this discussion:

If you could ref your own battles, would you start reffing?

Would you be more likely to ref other people's battles if you could ref your own battles?
 
Basically: how legal are precedent rulings overriding something in the NDA
I'm not sure what scenarios you're referring to, but the NDA will usually hold firm. If a precedent is brought up that has clear and sound logic that would suggest the NDA is in an oversight missing that info, then the precedent takes hold. 90% of the time it will be me/dogfish/IAR making such a ruling and I think your problem comes when respected players like Objection or Frsoty make such a ruling. Second opinions are always available in the form of the moderators, but in general the NDA should hold strong.

So to answer your original question, strong but not airtight. If a precedent is brought up that has sound logic behind it, it may overrule and rewrite the NDA.
 
I really like a lot of the ideas to speed up reffing, but it seems that practical matters will cause some snags and have been brought up. I just want to point out that we can always just go with the least extreme options first. The community reffing option seems less extreme than self-reffing, self-reffing small training matches seems less extreme than all matches and restricting self-reffing from beginners or having refs retain a supervising/approval role also seems less extreme.
I just don't want people to get hung up on "well not every part of the idea will implement perfectly." If it comes down to it, the least extreme options being offered(not forced) as an alternative could still turn out to be an improvement.


I'd like to second this and say that at some point my arguments for community reffing morphed into arguments for self-reffing.

I would be less hesitant to enact some sort of "Approved Ref" in a system similar to how we have Prize Claim Approvers now. Once someone has reffed a few matches with minimal mistakes, they could get a edited onto a list somewhere and given permission to go into any thread that is ready for reffing and write up a reffing post. We could offer a small UC payout for this service (I'm thinking 1 UC for Singles. 2 for Doubles or Triples, 3 for anything bigger than Triples). In the end, the actual ref (He-Who-Started-the-Topic) would be expected to check these Community Reffings and catch any errors. This would allow the actual ref to still be entitled to the majority of the UC (my gut says give them all of it and hold them accountable for any mistakes in community reffings, but something similar to the reduction for subreffing might work...)

Actually, the other option that just dawned on me would be basically treating everyone like a subref, but giving the round up to the original ref...

Just some ideas for those with more experience to kick around.
 
Texas, akela, and I had a lengthy discussion about this on IRC just now. We ironed out a few kinks in the system (by no means all of them) and came up with a system that we find agreeable. If we were to introduce self-refereeing, it could look something like this:

1. Referee Training Program for new referees is set up. Traditionally they ref three regular battles under tutelage from a tutor referee who shows them the ropes. Will likely include an array of matches (Items = On / Switch = OK / Obscure Arenas / etc).
2. A whitelist of users approved for self-refereeing is created based on general competency and game understanding.
3. Go through the program to get whitelisted.
4. Upon completion of the program, users get a free Exp. Share and are whitelisted.
5. Limit self-referring to 1v1 and 2v2 matches.
6. Program is run by head(s) and is updated frequently (like any other facility).
7. All other forms of refereeing and battling still remain.
The idea here is to bring new users into the folds of reffing as quickly as possible. Once given experience with a variety of matches, they're given a free Exp. Share to further their training in ASB. Self-reffing then becomes available to these users, who can use this to generate powerful Pokemon in a much quicker time span. This, in turn, will allow them to participate in the more "fun" things ASB has to over (TLR / Gym / Tourney / etc).

Still a rough draft, but interested in hearing any feedback now.
 
As far as the worry about the openness of the RNG goes, I have a suggestion to make. Before I get started, I will own up to the fact that I don't really get the hype about "true randomness" so I can't speak to that aspect, but http://invisiblecastle.com/ will let you link to rolls like so.

Something from my old Play-by-Post days I thought I could share...
 
Mind if I use that bolded link in 20 battles? Most people are not going to notice the same set of numbers was used repeatedly.
"Rolled on: April 9, 2014, 3:36 p.m."

And it's still more transparent than making up four digit strings posting the results from Random.org
 
Community Reffing is a proposal that involves a revolutionary new form of reffing battles and facilities across asb. Essentially, the idea is that any registered member of ASB can step in and ref a quick round of a battle, recieve their payment, and be on their merry way. Next round, they might ref again, or a different ref can pop in for a bit and move the battle along. It continues like this at a steady pace all through the battle, as referees can work around busy schedules, both unexpected and planned leaves, and unusual time zones by passing off their duties to someone else freely. At first look, community reffing seems extremely idealistic and entirely unworkable; I am here to address these unreasonable claims and show that, with proper planning and a solid framework, this is a positive step forward for CAP ASB.

Here's quick look at some basic pros and cons, which I wil elaborate later.

Pros:
- Faster, more efficient, battles and facilities (main goal)
- Removes the dreaded subref searching
- Reduces stress on referee dq
- Lessens the need for flashmatches

Cons:
- Payout decisions
- Prize approver backlog
- Mixed formatting
- "People still won't ref"

First, I would like to stress one major point of community reffing: it is entirely optional. It is not intended to replace our tried-and-true referee system that we already have in place. It will merely provide another quick method to reffing certain matches. In my mind, community reffing is targeted at the mass of 3v3+ little cup and weakmon FE training matches that form a good portion of ASB's matches at any given time. These are basically extended flashes - their sole purpose is training for gyms and tourneys and raids, not for an epic flavorful battle in themselves. For whatever reason, these battlers have either not enough irc time or a lack of desire to participate in flashmatch spam, but obviously they must still train their Pokemon. Community reffing allows these matches, especially, to move at a more steady and regular pace.

Similarly, this format also works well for battle facilities like hall and subway because of their standardized formatting, simple rules, and especially their use of an already-approved list of capable referees. Most facility refs are all fairly equal in terms of good battling skill, so switching command halfway through is not a huge problem.

Payout decisions: the largest opposition here seems to be that “we don’t like ref payout discussions, so we are going to crush this proposal because it opens another one of those”. Frankly, ref payout discussions are silly and highly overreactive, since every ASB user has access to reffing and people who ref more will get paid more regardless of the actual UC value. A couple questions involved in this section are - What is the actual amount a community ref should get per singles/doubles/triples round? Are they paid immediately, or after the battle is concluded?

Prize Approver Backlog: With community reffing, yes, there will be more prize claiming posts, and it will be more work for approvers. This is, contrary to akela belief, not a bad thing. More prize claiming posts means more activity in general, and this a good sign of ASB flourishing and being a happy little Pokemon league. If problems do persist, perhaps prize approvers need to have their roster expanded or payout increased, but that’s a discussion far down the line.

Mixed Formatting: Referees across ASB use vastly different formatting, especially when it comes to flavor and OPs of battles, but differences exist all the way down to how calcs are displayed. I imagine referees would naturally gravitate towards formats similar to their own when selecting a battle to community ref, and eventually a more standardized format might even appear out of this! This could be interperted as either a positive or negative effect of community reffing, but I think a simple, streamlined format can help unify the forum’s look and make it simpler for players to find information in battle. Note that the leadership would not neccesarilly instill a strict format, but I believe it would happen regardless.

“People still won’t ref”: This is the question of whether community reffing will truly increase ref activity, number of refs and general, and most primarily, battling speed. Its hard to truly predict this sort of long-reaching change, but I believe it will. Community reffing makes it easier to drop-in, drop-out ref for short periods of time without worrying about “will I have the time to ref this a week from now?”. Another point of this counterargument is that people will avoid “difficult” rounds with lots of effect rolls and switches, and swoop in and steal “easy” rounds with A1 KOs. Yeah, this will happen - people eagerly ref easy matches and abhor hard matches already, the effect stays the same on a smaller scale, and community reffing could hardly exacerbate the problem. In any case, it certainly won’t hurt.
 
I see no problem with that link, at first. You can always do the entire format, see how many rolls you will need and just make the link do 1083 10000 rolls and you are set.

Didn't check it much further though.
 
Regarding community reffing- What if, instead of doing a per-round payout, we did a per-action payout?
This would mean that if you went and reffed a Sneasel finishing off a Ralts with Ice Shard, then you only get a fraction of a UC, but if you ref a full triples round, then you get a few UC. I think that if we actually did community reffing, this would help get the tougher rounds done faster. We should also make all refs get paid at the end of a battle, so that somebody doesn't claim 4 or 5 times from a single battle.
I think that the payout for each action should be .2 UC or so, so that each round of singles gives 1.2 UC, each round of doubles gives 2.4 UC, and each round of triples also gives 2.4 UC, assuming no KOs. And we should up the approver payment as a result of the increased load, maybe to .2 UC/claim or so?
 
don't rly like community reffing but mb can be convinced but i just thought i'd post my reaction to reproposing per action payouts

20:51 Texas NOT THE BY ACTION/BY ROUND PAYOUT PROPOSALS
20:51 Texas AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
20:51 Texas vetoes community reffing
20:52 Texas asdjfhasdjg
20:52 Texas not actually
20:52 Texas but
20:52 Texas askfdajfga
20:52 Texas i want to strangle per round payouts already
20:53 Texas i'll take a bloody minigun to per action
 
As much as I like the ideas of streamlining the reffing process, I'm still not convinced that they will work in practice.

Community Reffing

I'll start here because it sounds like a fantastic idea in theory, but in practice the inconsistencies between refs in terms of both quality and style are too great. If we were to run a whitelist for community referees (which would likely be based on the Referee Training Grounds), it would become harder for new users to start reffing as their tutoring matches may get interrupted. Additional concerns include that when mistakes are made (which can happen to semicompetent refs fairly easily if they miss a STAB effect, ability, or Arena effect) the match will be halted until a that round's referee corrects it or a mod steps in. These are much less of an issue if a match has a single consistent ref. The matter of compensation is also of great concern.

If this is to be implemented or tested at all I'd recommend that in addition to a whitelist, the battle's original ref (or designated subref) must be over DQ for community refs to step in (unless specifically stated otherwise).

Self Reffing

This I'm much more optimistic about, but my concerns about the RNG still stand and even if we need a link/image of the generator in action it can still be just as falsified (eg generating numbers until a favorable outcome is generated).
In terms of RNG integrity, I don't think it's a huge issue. Why? Hardly anyone cares about WL ratios of normal matches. If you're serious about ASB, the wins you care about are gyms, TLR, facilities, and tournaments. If you really want to cheat on a freaking flashmatch, then go for it, in my opinion..
KOC
The only way for cheating in self reffed matches to not matter is if self reffed matches don't award KOC and ignore Pay Day/Happy Hour or to eliminate the need for an RNG. That or a system for reporting abuse, but I despise that plan. I would much rather this community remove the motivation to cheat than to have to investigate and take action in response to reports of cheating. I bring this up because some individuals on IRC are using this a their main reason to oppose Self Reffing, and I understand their concerns.

Otherwise Birkal's proposal for how to get approved for self reffing works well in my opinion as there are certainly users that need the lessons for how to ref well (I might be one of them) and this is an incentive for all players to learn how to ref properly (not to mention the Exp. Share will really speed up a newbie's progress). I suggest that even if we don't implement self reffing, we keep the referee training grounds and provide the 'graduation' prize.

Partial Self Reffing

This is the category for the idea that battlers hold more responsibility for preparing a round to be reffed. I see no possible way to enforce it. It'd just be a polite thing to do to communicate with your ref any calculations you may have done or to prepare formatted mons for the referee's post. Personally I'm going to add pre-formatted ref-profiles to each of mons for refs to just copy and paste into their posts.



This conversation all started in response to users not having fun with Tower matches, and while I want these ideas to work I don't think they'll do much to treat the real problem: it is more efficient to participate in small battles (like flashmatches) to build counters than larger battles. By streamlining the reffing process we encourage more of these small battles as they become even faster and won't even need refs anymore. For grinding this is fabulous but as a way to improve the quality and creativity of Tower matches it will likely have little effect as a larger match is still a 'wasted' slot.
My proposal from page 1 is still what I believe has the best chance of encouraging better Tower matches: Introduce a fourth slot exclusively for large scale matches.
 
Last edited:
I'd be fine with abolishing KOC from self-refereed matches, sure. That solves quite a few problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ute
What I see of this whole "Community Refereeing" shebang is a mere attempt to -completely- bypass the current incentives for referees to not pass DQ, mainly, the "Substitute referees claim full UC unless the original referee called it" rule. I mean, if you really cannot referee something during the next week or whatever, what is not stopping you from just... Posting in the Battle Tower by yourself & calling for a sub-referee for the match you are reffing, even if you are within the DQ time (Heck, organise a sub-referee to take over on IRC & post for the sake of confirmation)? By the current rules, you are still expected to get the pay proportionate to the amount of rounds refereed if you do that. Sure, it -might- be a bit slower than what is being proposed, but it is still effectively the same thing as proposed. Basically, I see no reason to implement this on the basis that we can effectively do this already, as well as the fact that it is a giant middle finger to the subrefs claiming full rewards rule.

I apologise if I am completely misunderstanding this whole thing, but I honestly cannot see why we should go forward with this. I understand that this community reffing thing is optional, but I still feel like this is designed to bypass the subreffing rules, which is what I do not like about this.

Anyhow:
"How much of a role does HP play for a Pokemon? Additionally, how much of a role does Weight Class play for a Pokemon?"

HP is one of these strange mechanics. A higher HP can correlate to being more likely to win a damage race, but it is not a be all end all stat that determines whether a Pokémon is viable or not. See: Sableye. It has some influence on the power level on some mons, but that is also balanced (by those with general fixed recovery) by the fact that those recovery moves recover less percentage for more energy. Having a high HP stat can be a big boon to a Pokémon, but HP is just a statistic. It is essential to winning a match, but it does not always make a Pokémon great. Just ask Wobbuffet, a Pokémon that is virtually useless in the majority of singles matches.

I see Weight Class as more of a risk statistic, that is to say, "The bigger they hit, the harder they fall". WC is good, especially when you have moves that benefit from it. There is a reason why people grow a hate for Pokémon like Pyroak, Aggron, & Snorlax. The ability to slug the opponent with a 15+ BAP drawback-free STAB (Apart from Snorlax Double-Edge) is an incredibly powerful tactic, & also allow the Pokémon to win against lots of Pokémon one on one as well. On the other hand, their greatest strength is usually their greatest weakness. The majority of these primary WC abusers are weak to one of: Grass Knot, Sky Drop (Restricted by user), Psychic (Restricted by user), & Low Kick, which will be able to slug them for a load of damage. Though that means nothing. It does not take away from the fact that WC is a powerful tool that can be abused. I would like to see it (or some facet of it) have some sort of review at the least, perhaps alongside HP, but we need to pinpoint what needs to be hit, should we need to hit something related.

"Are you having fun in ASB? Why or why not?"

To be honest, I am kind of having fun. Not as much as when I started out all this time ago, but enough to keep me interested in the game. Probably the most fun I get from ASB is the Raid Zone & The Legend Run. The adventure, the fun from making players suffer / kicking Valaun into the next century can be very satisfying, & keep me waiting for the next part. Winning makes me more satisfied, & the joy of denying a TLR player a legend can make me feel better as a player. These endgame RP's are something I enjoy, & make me proud to be involved with either in some capacity. The Gym League is fun as well, though no challenges to my Gym of late make me sad... :(

What aspects I am not having as much fun with any more, however, are the Facility RP's. The last time I did one of those was reffing EM's super subway where he reached Ingo Matezoide. I enjoyed haxxing him out of the Subway & impersonating Matezoide with his penchant for spamming pony gifs & yolol while keeping Ingo involved, but other than that bit of fun I had, the facility RP's just seem boring to me nowadays. I just feel like the magic with those RP's are lost. I find it hard to put it into words, but I just do not like them any more. Hall is the main offender in this regard, with its high sized queue, an odds of winning outright that is even lower than a TLR, & the fact that most people go in there just to train their Pokémon. I have just... fallen out of love with them.

"Is the game basically good as is or does it still require a lot of changes?"

This is perhaps one thing I, like several others, like about ASB. The fact that the game is very balanced, even in singles. Some Pokémon might seem stronger than others, but there is nothing inherently overpowered, let alone broken. If things need to be change, it should be more of a reactionary thing. If someone manages to engineer a broken strategy, then hit the strategy. I am not too fussed with things changing, but as long as the change is responsible & we have questioned why the change with some proper justification, then there is not much problem. The issue is that many people tend to ask why not instead of asking why (Read removing stat boost decay). All in all, there is not much that really needs changing imo.

"What are your thoughts on the registration system of Generation 6? In particular, for newer users joining in Generation 6, did you find the process too complex?"

The generation system of generation six is a big improvement over the last, especially in the light of the issues that reared up in the final few months of the last generation. One thing that would need to be improved is making things easier for new users to join, but that is being progressively addressed. One issue I can see is that new users post a profile & it gets idling & whatnot without approval. One idea I could see working is a registration thread, just like Registration Tower, but a temporary one where users make their two posts there. When they get approved, their posts then get spliced off to a new thread of the same format as the current (With the user being notified of the new thread by VM), with approval posts being deleted eventually. The idea creates a queue for new users to get approval, making the approval process a bit more streamlined. There are issues like if it is possible (I think it is), & what this has that the current system does not do better. IDK at the moment, but this is just a rough idea. If people like it I might expand on it, but I guess this is a case of "thoughts for now"?
 
With respect to the last portion of the post, the current system already does this imo. I make a concerted effort to have viewed the last post of the prize claiming thread whenever possible so whenever the Registration link is bolded I know that either a current user has made a post or there is a new user to approve. In this way it serves as an effective alert to me that a new user requires approval.
 
Last edited:
What I see of this whole "Community Refereeing" shebang is a mere attempt to -completely- bypass the current incentives for referees to not pass DQ, mainly, the "Substitute referees claim full UC unless the original referee called it" rule. I mean, if you really cannot referee something during the next week or whatever, what is not stopping you from just... Posting in the Battle Tower by yourself & calling for a sub-referee for the match you are reffing, even if you are within the DQ time (Heck, organise a sub-referee to take over on IRC & post for the sake of confirmation)? By the current rules, you are still expected to get the pay proportionate to the amount of rounds refereed if you do that. Sure, it -might- be a bit slower than what is being proposed, but it is still effectively the same thing as proposed. Basically, I see no reason to implement this on the basis that we can effectively do this already, as well as the fact that it is a giant middle finger to the subrefs claiming full rewards rule.

I apologise if I am completely misunderstanding this whole thing, but I honestly cannot see why we should go forward with this. I understand that this community reffing thing is optional, but I still feel like this is designed to bypass the subreffing rules, which is what I do not like about this.

You are misreading it, unless I am. I've been reading it as whenever somebody wants to ref a round, they post "reffing" in a thread, then ref it, regardless of how long the original ref is taking. This means that whenever a match needs reffing, anybody can come along and ref it (assuming they can ref and aren't in the battle), not just after the ref goes over DQ. This would make matches go by tons quicker, because a match is a lot more likely to be reffed sooner if there are 20 people who can ref it instead of one person, who has a life and other things to do besides ref matches.

In response to Ute's concerns:
About people reffing other people's training matches: We could just put a [Training] tag over matches where refs train, and say that you don't ref training matches unless you are the one being trained.
About having refs only community ref if the original ref has passed over DQ: That defeats the entire point of community reffing, which is to make battles not have to wait on refs. Refs are usually the slowest member of a battle, because they have the most work to do. If we only allow community reffing based if the original ref goes over DQ, then we aren't achieving the goal of makes battles faster at all - we're just making a more efficient subreffing process if we do that.
 
I think that a community reffing should be an option. If the battlers want to have their battle go by more quickly, at the expense of the formatting changing every round and mistakes in reffings taking a very long time to fix, they should be welcome to. If the battlers want a slower battle, but a consistent format and mistakes in reffings taking not that much time to fix, they should be welcome to.
 
Then there are the cases when someone posts a WIP & never tells anyone that they are waiting for approval when they are done... Though it does not seem like big enough of an issue to worry about.
You are misreading it, unless I am. I've been reading it as whenever somebody wants to ref a round, they post "reffing" in a thread, then ref it, regardless of how long the original ref is taking. This means that whenever a match needs reffing, anybody can come along and ref it (assuming they can ref and aren't in the battle), not just after the ref goes over DQ. This would make matches go by tons quicker, because a match is a lot more likely to be reffed sooner if there are 20 people who can ref it instead of one person, who has a life and other things to do besides ref matches.
This actually brings up another concern I have with community reffings: Refereeing races. Assuming no one ever posts a place-holder for reffing, place-holders being something I do not like, community reffing encourages "reffing races", which while may be a good thing, actually is rather dangerous. With this thing, you are -clearly- putting bias towards faster reffings than slower reffings. We all know that there is some correlation between faster reffings & sloppier reffings; faster reffings tend to be sloppier—or more error ridden—on average as opposed to a slower reffing time. It can encourage people to race for the UC, which is something I not only hate, but I also know that it can result in unhappy faces. Tell me, how would feel if your well detailed, error free reffing ends up amounting to nothing, just because Geoduderox666 posted his reffing seconds before you posted, & it is riddled with many mistakes or god forbid, zero visible RNG rolls and/or calculations? Some people might just move on, but others will not. Battlers want their referees to be as accurate as possible so they do not have to waste their time pointing out errors that they made. The next person to referee the match want their previous referee to be accurate, & if the sloppy referee makes a mistake no one notices until later on, then well...

Basically, faster =/= better. A sloppier reffing would have to spend more time fixing errors that they made, which can result in the sloppy referee taking more time to make an error free reffing than a slower ref making no errors. We do not want our referees to be sloppy. Community reffing can exacerbate this problem by favouring faster referees, who tend to be sloppier on average. Community reffing may have its merits, but there are enough pitfalls to say that there is nothing this has over what we have now. Instead of racing to get the reffing post up, why not have the community race to accept some subreffing that the original referee put up because he or she cannot ref another round within a respectable time frame? As I have said before, we already the ability to do community reffing in some form in the existing system. The best thing about it is that the race is to pick up the subref request & not a race to ref a round! After picking up the request, you can then take your time to make a proper reffing before putting up a subref request for the next guy to ref if you do not want to ref another round.
 
Then there are the cases when someone posts a WIP & never tells anyone that they are waiting for approval when they are done... Though it does not seem like big enough of an issue to worry about.

This actually brings up another concern I have with community reffings: Refereeing races. Assuming no one ever posts a place-holder for reffing, place-holders being something I do not like, community reffing encourages "reffing races", which while may be a good thing, actually is rather dangerous. With this thing, you are -clearly- putting bias towards faster reffings than slower reffings. We all know that there is some correlation between faster reffings & sloppier reffings; faster reffings tend to be sloppier—or more error ridden—on average as opposed to a slower reffing time. It can encourage people to race for the UC, which is something I not only hate, but I also know that it can result in unhappy faces. Tell me, how would feel if your well detailed, error free reffing ends up amounting to nothing, just because Geoduderox666 posted his reffing seconds before you posted, & it is riddled with many mistakes or god forbid, zero visible RNG rolls and/or calculations? Some people might just move on, but others will not. Battlers want their referees to be as accurate as possible so they do not have to waste their time pointing out errors that they made. The next person to referee the match want their previous referee to be accurate, & if the sloppy referee makes a mistake no one notices until later on, then well...

Basically, faster =/= better. A sloppier reffing would have to spend more time fixing errors that they made, which can result in the sloppy referee taking more time to make an error free reffing than a slower ref making no errors. We do not want our referees to be sloppy. Community reffing can exacerbate this problem by favouring faster referees, who tend to be sloppier on average. Community reffing may have its merits, but there are enough pitfalls to say that there is nothing this has over what we have now. Instead of racing to get the reffing post up, why not have the community race to accept some subreffing that the original referee put up because he or she cannot ref another round within a respectable time frame? As I have said before, we already the ability to do community reffing in some form in the existing system. The best thing about it is that the race is to pick up the subref request & not a race to ref a round! After picking up the request, you can then take your time to make a proper reffing before putting up a subref request for the next guy to ref if you do not want to ref another round.
I agree with this post in its entirety. There are simply too many potential shortfalls of community reffing for it to be a viable option at the present time, imo. Baby steps.

Maybe if we shared the reffing duties with the players? I mean, the ref has to format the round, add images hp and what not, get the moves, calc the damage, roll RNG, rule stuff, post end-game and flavor. In theory the only things that must be done by the ref are: Roll RNG, Rule Stuff and do Flavor. Everything can be done by the battler.

So my suggestion would be: estimulate (not force yet) the trainer ordering first to post on the same post as the orders the profile (image, hp, en, stats and item) of the pokemon involved in that round. And the trainer ordering last would post the calculations for the moves dones (only the ones he can be sure that will be used...or something like that) and list the rolls that need to be done. The ref would only need to copy and paste that (profiles and calculations) into his reffing, roll the rng, do the proper changes if the rng gets something and post. Maybe that will make reffing a bit easier?

Also, allow trainers to post reffings themselves if there is no RNG to be rolled or ruling to be made. If a pokemon faints A1 by the attack of a faster mon regardless of critical hits, there is no need to wait for the ref to post a result that you already know. Same way if, for example, Lucky Chant is up (let me theorymon I know that doesn't happen >_<) and both players spam attacks with no secondary effects. Again waiting for the ref is useless, as the result will be the same no matter what.

The opposing player would be the control of this, as well as the ref. Maybe that way we can boost, even just a little, the speed of the matches and, because of that, our possibilities of having fun.

However I want to talk about this. This is imo an excellent first step into speeding up reffing and reducing some of the duties of the referee. If we can reduce a referee's roles from what Frosty has outline above to purely running the RNG, doing calcs, and writing flavour, then the speed of ASB will automatically increase. I don't think its important for the players to post the calculations, but at least forcing them to post their Pokemon's current status, perhaps also those of the Pokemon switching in in a given scenario is an excellent idea. This also provides an opportunity to standardize a summarized Pokemon format.
 
Ref1 said:
Placeholder
Ref2 said:
Placeholder
Ref3 said:
Placeholder
Ref4 said:
Placeholder
Ref5 said:
Placeholder
Ref6 said:
Actual Reffing with errors galore
Ref1 said:
Placeholder to correct ref6
Ref2 said:
Placeholder to correct ref6
Ref3 said:
Placeholder to correct ref6
Ref4 said:
Placeholder to correct ref6 and actual reffing
Ref5 said:
Placeholder to correct ref6

Guess who has to clean up the mess? Odds are, the Placeholder refs will not be deleting their placeholders. Community isn't going to be deleting the postwhorings. Meaning this falls on the shoulders of the moderators to keep ASB from being a meaningless post++ zone. Significantly less work for the referees (of which there are many). Significantly more work for the people in charge of keeping ASB running at all (of which there are few).
 
Guess who has to clean up the mess? Odds are, the Placeholder refs will not be deleting their placeholders. Community isn't going to be deleting the postwhorings. Meaning this falls on the shoulders of the moderators to keep ASB from being a meaningless post++ zone. Significantly less work for the referees (of which there are many). Significantly more work for the people in charge of keeping ASB running at all (of which there are few).

Couldn't you simply make it so that, when a ref makes a placeholder, no one else can make a placeholder or ref the match for the next hour, and make the ref edit the reffing into the placeholder (and, if the ref fails to ref it on time and gets beaten to reffing it, he/she must delete the placeholder post)? That way, the refs have the time to produce a quality reffing, and the thread will not fill up with postcount++ posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top