Capping UC under the new format

[Texas Cloverleaf]

So with the new UC format assumed there comes with it the wrinkle of UC payouts for extremely large matches, both Brawls and standard formats. This is something that needs to be looked at.

Brawls: The cap is currently 25 UC. Should it be increased? Decreased? Removed?

Standard Matches: Here's the real wrinkle. At the time of writing a temporary cap of 100 UC per battle has been fiated as a UC cap for matches. This is due to the significant potential for abuse in the form of UC compensation far outside what is reasonable for reffing. For example, a 37v37 Singles match currently yiels 741 Universal Counters as a reward.

Thus, what kind of limitation should be put in place? Is earning vastly increased UC relative to the number of Pokemon reasonable? Are matches with large numbers of mons per side something we want to encourage? Is 100 UC a reasonable cap? What value should be assumed as a cap, if necessary?

Given this is effectively an amendment to the previous decision it will affect all battles utilising the new UC payout system once resolved.

Discuss.

 

[Birkal]

This OP is loaded with questions; I'll do my best to address it all.

25 UC cap for Brawls is ridiculous. I don't see why they (and melees) aren't lumped with standard matches. You still have to make plenty of calculations. While Brawls have spread attacks, note that these take just as many calculations, especially when factoring in accuracy, crits, and secondary effects. The biggest difference here is time. The effort is roughly the same to referee between a 20v20 singles match and a 20v20 brawl. The timing of it is different though: the former takes little chunks of time over a long period, while the latter takes big chunks of time over a short period. Brawls and melees should not be punished for this difference. I stand by the opinion of removing the UC cap entirely.

With that change, however, there's a huge flaw in the system. Dogfish44's new system makes a 30v30 brawl worth 496 UC, which I think we can all agree is nuts. However, putting a cap on it stifles the variety of matches we can play. As Elevator Music stated on IRC, there's something awesome about sending out all your Pokemon and having an all-out war. Having a cap stifles any desire for referees to take these sorts of matches, and they are never played out. That's an issue with our current UC process, and I'd like to see it addressed.

My recommendation that I listed on IRC is that we go with the current UC system (triangle numbers) up until 6v6 matches, and then go with my proposed system past that. From the recent PR thread, remember that my system is Referee UC = # of Winner's Counters (not including training items). My recommendation took flack due to the idea that 1v1 gives 6 UC. However, my recommendation works well in these larger matches. In a 20v20 brawl, for example, the winner get around roughly 120 counters (6 x 20), meaning the referee makes the same. That's much more manageable than the current system, yet it doesn't have the stifling cap that prevents these kinds of matches from being played. So yeah, proposing that we go with Referee UC equals number of winner's counters in UC, not including training items for matches over 6v6.

 

[Its_A_Random]

This probably sounds like the dumbest idea ever, but I was thinking of replacing the Brawl cap with a "Brawl Penalty" — A penalty that basically reduces the UC a player gets for formats greater than triples. Basically, take the number of active Pokémon per side at any given time, divide it by three, then divide the normal pay by that amount to get your final pay. In terms of rounding, well... I do not really care.

Some examples just so people know what I am talking about. (Note: ((X+1)×(X+2))÷2 is the triangle number formula that the Current UC System uses)

6v6 Quadruples: (((6+1)×(6+2))÷2)÷(4÷3)=21 UC
6v6 Brawl: (((6+1)×(6+2))÷2)÷(6÷3)=14 UC
10v10 Brawl: (((10+1)×(10+2))÷2)÷(10÷3)=19.8 UC
20v20 Brawl: (((20+1)×(20+2))÷2)÷(20÷3)=34.65 UC
26v26 Brawl: (((26+1)×(26+2))÷2)÷(26÷3)=43.615 UC
30v30 Quintuples: (((30+1)×(30+2))÷2)÷(5÷3)=297.6 UC (Capped at 100 UC)
30v30 Brawl: (((30+1)×(30+2))÷2)÷(30÷3)=49.6 UC
50v50 Brawl: (((50+1)×(50+2))÷2)÷(50÷3)=79.56 UC
100v100 Brawl: (((100+1)×(100+2))÷2)÷(100÷3)=154.53 UC (Capped at 100 UC)

The optimum number that hits the 100 UC Cap under the current UC formula in Brawl conditions for the record is 63.6352375391, or "(sqrt(36409)+191)÷6"

Basically the whole point of this is to make sure people are not being completely short changed for reffing large brawls, while keeping the UC they earn "respectable", given how quickly such matches end, & how many calculations are made. Why divide by three? Basically three is a nice number. I kinda came up with it as after doing a bunch of random calculations it seemed to produce the most random results.

I am not really justifying it, just throwing the idea out there... because why not? Better make myself useful after somewhat discovering the "abuse" in the new system... -.-'

EDIT: Answering the Questions:

As far as Brawls are concerned, either the penalty, or something like Birkal's suggestions could work or something.

Standard matches? The current system is fine with the cap in place until further notice. Basically give the new system a chance to settle in at least.

Some penalty for larger matches is fine if they are in multiples since they end far sooner, but require a lot to do in a round, & generally take a lot less effort to referee overall compared to a singles match with the same number of Pokémon per side as the brawl. 20v20 Brawls are like a 100m Sprint for example, while 20v20 Singles are like a Marathon. It takes a lot of effort to sustain a high pace for about 10 seconds, but it takes a lot more effort to sustain a steady pace for north of 2 hours.

Vastly increased UC per extra Pokémon is okay for the assumed 1v1 to 6v6, but then after that it tends to go out of whack, but that is where the definite 100 UC Cap comes in I guess.

We do not really want to encourage large battles with large Pokémon per side to a degree where everyone wants to do them, & that is where the Brawl Penalty comes in. Also, not to mention how taxing it is just to referee one round of a significantly large brawl. You guys think reffing a TLR or a Raid is hard, those two are nothing compared to the amount of effort needed to ref one round of a large brawl. That is not to mention the case that it lasts more than two rounds, & not many Pokémon are KOed. It becomes taxing on the referee & it becomes more of a chore than the one round blitz & it can cause referee breakdowns. I like the strategy & the depth of brawls, but it is something that should not be done every day. The last thing we want is a referee breaking down & possibly quitting because they either took too many brawls or the one brawl "goes on forever", or something else.

100 UC as people might have gathered from what I have said appears to be a reasonable cap. It is large enough so most battles never hit it, but big enough so the larger battles do not get insane amounts of UC. It is a fair cap imo.

 

[ZhengTann]

Just throwing out the numbers here based purely on observation - Under the 100 UC cap, maximum non-Brawl non-Melee match sizes a referee would go for is:

12v12 Singles/Doubles/Triples: (12+1)*(12+2)/2 = 91 UC
13v13 Singles/Doubles/Triples: (13+1)*(13+2)/2 = 105 UC (capped at 100)

We do not really want to encourage large battles with large Pokémon per side to a degree where everyone wants to do them... 100 UC... is large enough so most battles never hit it, but big enough so the larger battles do not get insane amounts of UC.

 

[Frosty]

To be honest I am not overall a huge fan of those 20vs20 matches. They are either done in a sloppy manner (players ordering whatever and refs speedreffing with bare essentials) to end faster or simply don't end.

And Brawls...they are usually an Explosion fest or something silly like that, since it is the only way you can defeat 10+ mons at once, so the brawl doesn't take forever.

The game limits matches at 6vs6 for a reason. Everything that goes beyond that isn't really serious.

I would go as far as to propose that we cap the UC gains at 6vs6 (so we discourage people to have those huge battles, since they won't have refs). But since that will never be accepted, I stand behind IAR's proposal: cap at 100. And put a more strict cap at Brawls (50) and/or make it give less UC somehow.

Also, just to make it clear: it's not a matter of underpaying refs anymore. It is a matter of abuse. A 20vs20 Brawl nets ridiculous UC gains for not-that ridiculous amount of work (since if any of the players is any smart, the usage of boosted wide range moves will make it end pretty faster). And a 20vs20 singles (and I can say this from experience) has either little skill actually involved or lasts fucking forever.

And for the "but you have to work as much on brawls!" argument I respond with:
a) You can gain the same UC if you work faster and if you work slower. If you have the time to work faster, do you prefer to get the UC sooner or later? If we put brawls and normal battles at equal ground, any ref with a glimpse of free time will prefer the brawls for the same gains in MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH less time.
b) Helping Hand + COMBO (Explosion + Explosion) = And we have a winner! With much less rolls and calcs and whatever I can guarantee. Brawls are faster because you can simply abuse of wide range moves and be done with it. And with combos and helping hand, more pokemon will suffer more damage per action, lowering the amount of rolls and calcs necessary to end a battle.

Do we really want to emphasize these kinds of battles instead of the usual 3vs3 singles, 4vs4 doubles ones that are much more skill-based? I don't think so or I don't think we should.

2 cents.

 

[Geodude6]

IMO the current system with a 100 UC cap is fine. 100 UC is still a fuckton of cash.

1.5 cents.

 

[Its_A_Random]

Yo can we get more input into this please? This has been idling for nearly four weeks without much being done.

 

[Gerard]

My only issue with Brawls is the insane amounts of mistakes that would be allowed to happen every round, this is my biggest concern with them as almost nobody will check the whole round in a big brawl thanks to the hundreds of calcs there are, so any mistake can go unaccounted, there is no penalty for these mistakes which when once or twice are fine but when you're reffing a battle with this dimensions tend to escalate quickly, and one mistake means one round re-reffed (which even if noticed many battlers will decide to let it stay that way rather than wait another week for the new calcs, I don't know others but I can't manage 6 mons outside, way less sixteen and now imagine 30, idk it just rubs me the wrong way that in brawls all you do is attack, attack, attack, at least when it comes to this numbers, maybe you're trying to do an strategy the first time but by the time you get to mon 25 you're gonna be "EQ - EQ", even worst next round since you need a lot of times to barely order some basic moves, I just seemed to me that brawls are more about spamming spread moves rather than using a smarter strategy so I'm in favor of them being more restricted rather than being free farming, though that will punish the reffing of such tremendous efforts, I would be in favor of a system that rewarded brawls reffing based on quality, so that every time one brawl finish you would lose UC for each mistake that an approver finds, that way the price of making a rushed work make them at least check twice their reffings in order to get their money, and when you look at the numbers it's easy to see that these is fair considering the huge prizes these people are trying to get (I'm in favor of Birkal's system since it also works well with this, as each mistake could cost 2 UC, making the prize of being a bad ref very high)

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

Fwiw I'm currently in support of both IAR and Birkal's proposals, they both sufficiently address the concern of overpayment and will be successful in their implementation. My main goal is to ensure that the 100 UC cap for all formats remains as that is the most effective throttler of abuse in general while still allowing a certain flexibility.

I'm a bit torn between IAR and Birkal's system having participated in a 20v20 brawl before, I recall a distinct feeling that Quagsires deserved more than 15 UC (at the time) and feel that more than 35 wouldnt be too unreasonable for the amount of work that was put in. Please keep discussing all available options, a tentative slate at this point would consist of two options, retaining or eliminating the 100 UC cap and then a poll on the best system of payout for >6v6 matches.

 

[Geodude6]

Maybe we could use Dogfish's system up to a 6v6 and then increase payout by some linear amount beyond that. Maybe 6 is a good amount.

1v1: 3 UC
2v2: 6 UC
3v3: 10 UC
4v4: 15 UC
5v5: 21 UC
6v6: 28 UC

Referee payout for a XvX battle:

X<6: (X+1)(X+2)/2
X>6: 28+6(X-6)

This would mean that a 7v7 would be worth 34 UC, compared to 36 under Dogfish's system. A 20v20 would be worth 112 UC, compared to 70 UC under the old system and 231 under Dogfish's system (capped at 100). This system has the benefit of rewarding refs that ref large matches, while not having potential for abuse as far as I can see, even if we remove the 100 UC cap.

If anyone has found any wrinkles in my proposed system, feel free to point them out.

 

[zarator]

Maybe I'm being too blunt, but why are we even allowing stupid stuff like 7+ Brawls? They just look like a massive counterfarming to me <.< In my humble opinion, we should limit the amount of usable Pokemon to:

- 6 for singles
- 7 for doubles
- 8 for triples
- 6 for brawls
- 6 for rotations

Did I forget any format?

 

[Geodude6]

Maybe I'm being too blunt, but why are we even allowing stupid stuff like 7+ Brawls? They just look like a massive counterfarming to me <.<

I remember that someone (I think it was Emma?) said that there's something awesome about sending out a ton of Pokémon and having an all-out war. Yes, there's a ton of counters being awarded, but that's not the only reason people play brawls.

 

[zarator]

If people want to do something "for the heck of it" they are more than welcome to do so, but they should not get additional rewards for it if it's something completely ridiculous. If they want to do a 20v20 brawl they are more than welcome to do so - as long as the rewards are capped for a 6v6 one or something like that.

 

[akela]

We should not punish any format seen in the Anime and Manga. Lest we forget this is ANIME Style Battling and not Video Game Style Battling With Words.

 

[ZhengTann]

Pulling a leg over this... For one, I think 25 UC Brawl/Melee cap for referees is a bit too tight, but having reffed Brawls and Melees before, they are NOT fun (in the sense that I never get to learn new tactics from a spectator/referee point of view while doing a lot of intensive calcs that would inevitably result in an error or two). However, we already have a 100 UC cap for Singles/Doubles/Triples/Rotation(?), so why not, for the sake of consistency, just go with that for all formats? Under a 100 UC cap, you get to have up to 12 or 13 Pokemon per side in Singles/Doubles/Triples/Rotation/Brawls, which is already a pretty large match. Personally I'd go with just a 12-Pokemon Melee to yield the same UC for the referee as a 24-mon non-Melee, since 12 PM'ed orders from multiple users in a Melee match is enough of a workload to process.

100 UC cap for all formats.
12v12 non-Melee OR 12-mon Melee = 91 UC
13v13 non-Melee OR 13-mon Melee = 105 UC (capped at 100)

• Consistent cap and formula for all formats.
  
• High enough cap to not discourage above-average match sizes.
  
• Simple (no need to remember or look up different equations to calculate referee payment).

And I can empathize with Zar that we shouldn't reward additional counters for people who do overlarge matches "just for fun" - in fact, I doubt we would give extra counters to those people playing large matches at all. But neither should we punish them. Do we say only 6 out of 10 mons per player that participated in a Brawl deserves counters, to avoid counterfarming? If not, then why discourage a referee by limiting UC payouts for reffing match where there are more than 6 mons per side? The fiated 100 UC cap is, if I may use IAR's words, high enough that most battles wouldn't hit it (Personally I rarely see anything above 5v5 these days, let alone 12v12) but low enough to restrict ridiculously large matches (that 20v20 counts as ridiculous, sorry). If 100 is too high a cap, then lower it to some number such as 50. FYI:-

6v6 Singles/Doubles/Triples: (6+1)*(6+2)/2 = 28 UC
8v8 Singles/Doubles/Triples: (8+1)*(8+2)/2 = 45 UC
9v9 Singles/Doubles/Triples: (9+1)*(9+2)/2 = 55 UC

 

[Its_A_Random]

Putting a cap on how many Pokémon can be brought to a format, or not allowing any extra counters for non-standard formats, does nothing to solve the issue concerning UC under the normal format (We want to satisfy a majority of the crowd here, not just the one user!), & is a pathetic attempt to sweep the issue under the rug.

There are far better ways to handle this issue than a thoughtless, effective blanket ban on large formats (or make them worth so little that you will struggle to get a referee for the match), & there are way more viable ways to deal with this (Brawl Penalty comes to mind here for starters, among other things).

Tangential here, but can we stop being so paranoid about counter-farming. To me, it is a very minor issue that while needed to be kept in check, is not the big issue that it is being made out to be. To the battlers, yes you might be able to gain quick counters in a short period of time, but is it really that much of an issue that we have to worry about it? Really? That is just a massive mountain out of a molehill right there. So what if someone battled and got a lot of counters in a short period of time? It is not the end of the world, & even then the player might have had a bit of fun out of it. The battler may have learned some strategy that they could use the next time they play a brawl to win as well (Saying that Brawls have no strategy & is just mindless spread spam is a fallacy imo). The referee on the other hand is short changed. They literally do a metric fuckton of calculations (which may not be completely accurate) only to be compensated with a small reward. How on earth is that counter-farming? With the proposed Brawl penalty, we can provide a scaling payout that gives them, while a little short changed to a degree, a better payout that at least gives some incentive to referee a brawl, & also compensate for the fact that they end quickly by not giving them as much uc as they would normally get, since a 20v20 brawl will have less calculations on average than a 20v20 singles. That said, counter-farming is something that is not a major issue, & is nothing that should be worried about. That said, this is not a topic on counter-farming so please steer clear of continuing any discussion on counter-farming in this thread.

The ultimate aim of this thread is to come up with a way that we can fairly compensate those who want to referee tower matches without going way overboard (As well as fair caps or something), something I believe my first post can achieve, along with other proposals that can work easily as well. Please stick to that aim.

I am not trying to say that I want us to encourage large matches (I believe they are not something that should be done every day), but we should at least cater to them in some way instead of constantly bashing them in a way that makes participating in them a sin. At least give those that are brave enough to referee a brawl a decent reward after losing their sanity at least once per round (:Þ).

 

[Texas Cloverleaf]

I've spoken with Deck and he's fine with the alteration of the Brawl cap. I'm going to stand by the Global UC cap of 100 UC because its worked well in practice and leaves sufficient room for creativity.

I've reviewed the posts for systems that I think adequately address the problem so here is the potential slate, pending discussion:

Do not change the Brawl cap (i.e. keep it in line with the 100 UC global cap)
Raise the Brawl cap to 50 UC
Birkal's system - Referee UC equals number of winner's counters in UC, not including training items for matches over 6v6.
IAR's system - Brawl UC formula equals (X+1)×(X+2))÷2)÷(Pokemon per side÷3)
Geodude6's system - Brawl formula where X equals Pokemon per side equals; X>6: 28+6(X-6)

If anyone has any commentary or objection to the slate speak now. I'll move this to a vote in a few days.

 

[Frosty]

While I do agree with Zarator that +6vs6 matches are iffy, the majority likes them, which is reason enough to let them be.

Counterfarming is not an issue. It still takes more effort to get more UC/MC/CC. If people want to work more in less time then by all means, be my guest. There isn't anything bad/wrong with that.

The issue I have is with brawls.

My problem with brawls is that, after a point, the effort needed there IS smaller than the one needed on other formats. Eventually, you will be able to deal so much damage with a wide range move that the number of rounds/calcs/rolls/whatever will be smaller, specially when you consider combos and helping hand. A Helping Handed Explosion + Explosion usually nets so many KOs it's not even funny.

Lemme try to explain this better.

On a 20vs20 doubles match, if you use HH + Explosion^2, you will at most defeat 3 pokemon with 3 rolls. On a 20vs20 Brawl, 39 pokemon may fall with 39 rolls for crit. Seems about equal, right?

Wrong.

On Doubles, another set of pokemon will replace the ones that fall and they will have different movepools. Which means that you will need 10 mons with helping hand and 10 exploders to net 30 kills with 30 rolls. Of course that won't happen, which means that you will need more rolls to get everything done. If you need, say, 10 rolls per double (5 rolls per mon, with an average of 20 damage done per move with no effect roll nor hit roll...aka something still too damn good to be true), we are looking at around 180 rolls on an even match.

On Brawls you only need 1 or 2 exploders and 1 or 2 HH users to get the job done (go go 64BAP per combination - also 2 HH and 2 Exploders is quite easy to work on a team) in, at most, 78 rolls (not to mention that on the second explosion, many mons will die regardless of crit and the ref will end up not rolling). Add 36 rolls for the other attacks that round and you still won't get even close to doubles.

In other words: the bigger the brawl, the less effort/work the ref will have to do to end it, if compared to singles/doubles/triples. Then how the fuck can we even consider the possibility of rewarding them the same way?

I am in favor of any measure that reduces the UC reward from a brawl larger than 6vs6. Either a cap on 50 or some kind of formula (I prefer the cap for simplicity).

Also, there is the "why should we emphasize a format as messy as 20vs20 brawls?" argument. But since I already said that, just go read above for it, k?