ASB Suggestion Thread

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

You want to be heard? You want to get a hold of the mods and explain your idea, or voice your critism? You want the whole community to listen to you?

Then this is the place for you.

Suggestions, feedback, all goes here.

Enjoy!

*poofs*

[chaos_redefined]

There is little to encourage someone to ref a large battle. (e.g. 10v10, one at a time) The rewards are given for the number of battles you ref, and disregard the length of them. And yet, people seem to like longer battles. In addition, if, say, a 3v3 battle ends just after the 1st pokemon faints, the ref gets nothing, even though the winner earns 2 points.

While it is not the only solution, would it be possible to use the same system as the safari zone: 5 ref posts gives you 2 points? And to address the rewards issue, 10 ref posts counts as a battle under the current system. (So a rookie ref requires 60 posts to get the rewards)

[Crazy Elf Boy]

There is little to encourage someone to ref a large battle. (e.g. 10v10, one at a time) The rewards are given for the number of battles you ref, and disregard the length of them. And yet, people seem to like longer battles. In addition, if, say, a 3v3 battle ends just after the 1st pokemon faints, the ref gets nothing, even though the winner earns 2 points.

Actually the ref gets as many points at the winner, unless half the pokemon have fainted (In the case of a 3v3 1 pokemon would have to be fainted and the seoncd one on 55% or less) then they just can't use it as a reffing reward match.

While it is not the only solution, would it be possible to use the same system as the safari zone: 5 ref posts gives you 2 points? And to address the rewards issue, 10 ref posts counts as a battle under the current system. (So a rookie ref requires 60 posts to get the rewards)

If you put it like that then refs who ref one on ones are actually losing points since it takes the average pokemon 5 rounds to be knocked out. But then again it is up to the ref which fights they choose to ref, so if they want to undertake a big reffing then its their choice.

[chaos_redefined]

Actually, since you did post in the Absence Tower, and since MxG is leaving, you might actually win this. MxG is under the required level as well.....and even though the battle itself is not at the half point (so Denz gets no points), you'd still get two points.

Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn't actually work like that. If less than half the pokemon have fainted, the ref gets nothing. It was based on this fact that I thought things needed changing. (Although I thought it was flawed beforehand)

[DarkestLight]

If the reffed match is not halfway complete , yes the ref gets no points.

Now. Side points of contention.

There are the issues of corruption among refs to gain profits for their reffing (by telling /asking people to lose) just to speed through matches. I'm not saying we aren't honest, I just don't want a situation where that could arise.

Length of battles are dependent of battlers strategy, and the Ref is there to write up that style. Therefore stall matches will always take longer than full out attackers.

Double battles and Melees are not included in this example..

Sa'll I got right now. La, back to reffing

[chaos_redefined]

There are the issues of corruption among refs to gain profits for their reffing (by telling /asking people to lose) just to speed through matches. I'm not saying we aren't honest, I just don't want a situation where that could arise.

As stands, my suggestion gives no benefit to that, unless they encourage the players to stall. But that can already happen in the safari zone.

Length of battles are dependent of battlers strategy, and the Ref is there to write up that style. Therefore stall matches will always take longer than full out attackers.

I fail to see why the ref should be penalized for the players dragging out the fight. Unless he asks them to stall, in which, they are disadvantaged. (They could be having other battles).

Double battles and Melees are not included in this example..

You are right in that these need to be figured out seperately, but they are another case in which the current system is flawed. A 2v2 double battle takes approximately as long as a 1v1 , but requires double the work by the ref. In the current setup, the ref is rewarded exactly the same in a 2v2 double as a 1v1 single.

[DarkestLight]

Stalling in the Safari Zone adds to your own experience. You don't expect to see your Pokemon instantly in the Zone. Yes, we're all guilty of making the Zone a bit to excessive in the RP element, and that may need to be calmed down a bit, but there is no true intentional stalling for the Zone,

As for the length of Double Battles vs Single Battles. the problem is that that is how they were introduced-in both the Anime and Games and being equal. The concept of double battle concept came about as the new norm, despite it being a dual on one one basically.

Since its a new norm, it starts at the base level.

The ref isn't penalized. As Elf said, it is due to the ref choosing to accept this match. They have to be ready for anything, whether its fast or slow. You have the ability to choose your matches, and if you end up in a match that is not to your liking, you also have the option to bow out and get a sub-ref.

[chaos_redefined]

Stalling in the Safari Zone adds to your own experience. You don't expect to see your Pokemon instantly in the Zone. Yes, we're all guilty of making the Zone a bit to excessive in the RP element, and that may need to be calmed down a bit, but there is no true intentional stalling for the Zone,

Even before "of recent", I believe an award was attributed to MLG for taking over 100 posts to catch a magikarp. And there is nothing penalizing safari refs taking so long. The only way a battle can take for ages is for the ref to nudge dice for miss chances/paralysis/sleep/etc... (or for just a series of bad rolls) or if the players deliberately take longer. Since the players don't gain more points by taking a shorter period of time, it is in their best interest to speed things up.

As for the length of Double Battles vs Single Battles. the problem is that that is how they were introduced-in both the Anime and Games and being equal. The concept of double battle concept came about as the new norm, despite it being a dual on one one basically.

Since its a new norm, it starts at the base level.

In the game, there is no ref. In the anime, we never see a ref receiving payment. Making that comparison is, at best, difficult for the discussion of how the ref should be rewarded in ASB.

The ref isn't penalized. As Elf said, it is due to the ref choosing to accept this match. They have to be ready for anything, whether its fast or slow. You have the ability to choose your matches, and if you end up in a match that is not to your liking, you also have the option to bow out and get a sub-ref.

As Elf said. It is their choice. And, besides the fact that a lot of people do big battles (8v8), and very few do small battles, I'm left wondering why refs would make the choice to do a big battle.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

Because they like reffing? Because it gives them satisfaction? Just like when I'm doing a big battle.

Reffing isn't about getting the most points out of the least effort. You do it for fun, and that includes big battles for some people.

That aside, I tend to wander around a long time in the Safari Zone, because I like the RP-element of it.

MAKES ME FEEL LIKE A REAL POKEMONMASTER!

[chaos_redefined]

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see any extra fun in doing an 8v8 than a 4v4 followed by another 4v4. And the same breakdown applies to the 4v4s. I know some people regret taking longer battles when they realize how long they go.

As for the safari zone, I don't mind the RP aspect, to some extent, but I need to feel progress is being made. I definitely could not go for that long and still wonder if I will get to capture the thing I'm after.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

You must understand my friend, that not everyone thinks like you.

If you want a pokemon, just buy it. If you want to do some time-spending, and search for what pokemon you might wanna add to your team; safari zone is better, or cooler at least.

As for the battles, no one is obligated to take a 8vs8, or even a 4vs4. Those that want to, will.

[chaos_redefined]

I was gonna post a bunch of stuff about the safari zone, and then realized we are heading off topic.

I've rethought the issues, and come to a new potential solution. This one is less change from the current system, in fact, part of it is what some people believe the the current system does. You could reward the refs based on pokemon reffed. This applies to both the above situations.

If there is a 10v10 battle, and both trainers are on their fourth pokemon, with one below 55%, and a trainer gets disqualified, award the ref 8 points. The ref has done just as much as if it was a 5v5 where both trainers are on their fourth pokemon with one below 55%, but currently, they are treated differently.

Secondly, for an NvN battle, treat that as if the ref had reffed N/2 battles under the current ref reward system. That way, reffing an 8v8 is the same as reffing 4 2v2 battles. In the situation above (the 10v10 that gets disqualified and is effectively a 4v4), it would be treated as 2 battles.

The advantages of this system over the previous one is that there is no situation that does not currently exist where it would be beneficial to tell the players to stall. There is still the problem of double battles/melee brawls that needs to be figured out, but for the case of the DQing case, that isn't an issue. (Or, it's as much of an issue as it is under the current system)

I know I'm suggesting some rather odd changes, but there is logic behind them.

tl;dr - What if we base rewards on the # of pokemon he has reffed for?

[DarkestLight]

Ok I finally got around to reading this.

Long and short of it...MLG and I read it.

We mumbled some words. Then we grumbled some words. And then we realized. "yeah...that kinda doesn't make sense." So we halfway agree with you there Chaos.

Halfway. The other one, the N/2, naa. Because your example is flawed.

#1) If it was to be treated as such, then that means 3 of the battles didn't even get started. Why would the Ref get credit for that?

#2) Disregarding #1 completely, if we follow your first plan, then that means they're getting points for more than one battle, Yes numerically they divvy up to the same amount of points but its still one battle, truncated to the benefit of everyone. The matches are stated as one type and we can't break that-because that's an extra benefit that makes things lopsided.

But I guess we can write that up :O Reffing Rules and Regular Rules need a huge makeover anyway. Lotta little instances aren't covered.

[chaos_redefined]

I don't quite get your points, but you guys have been around a lot longer than I have, so you are probably attacking problems I can't see. Feel free to PM me/discuss them over msn/whatever, as further discussion on the points would merely serve to derail the thread.

In any case, as long as the fundamental issue is being looked at, and gets some sort of a fix, then all should be good. If I throw out an idea that sorta nudges you guys into the right direction, then I get to be slightly proud of myself as well.

[Greyfox]

I've been tinkering with this idea for a few days and ultimately decided to bring it here. Reffing is a complex job, and some trainers' battles are decided completely by how the referee chooses to ref.

I think it would be interesting to see how the exact same match would be decided with two different refs. The battlers would still use the same pokemon and attacks, but there'd be two different ref's handling it. They wouldn't take turns or anything, because that'd just make a mess of things -- I'm saying for each round, both refs take a stab at it and come up with their result.

It'd be a little confusing at first, but I'd like to see how a match can differ by two different referees.

[Phoenixsong]

That does sound interesting, but the only thing is that if the two refs have two drastically different outcomes for whatever reason (also, what about things like, say, thunder rolling a hit for one ref but a miss for the other?), the same moves may not be logical in both situations, and asking both trainers to use the same moves would be a bit more... "staged", I guess? For example, if both Darkly and I were going to ref it and someone's Pokémon was almost out of energy, that player would be forced to stop and relax if they didn't want to lose under my reffing while they could theoretically continue to attack under Darkly's and worry about the forced relaxation later.

Now, aside from things like accuracy/crit/effect rolls, etc., I don't know that most people's interpretations of attacks and damage scales would vary that greatly, but should it occur it could create a situation where people would not issue the same attacks in both battles.

[DarkestLight]

Yeah, its a variance in people's tendencies. I could see how this would be fin as an experiment though,to see how things would vary between us all, but that's one of the things that makes us ASB.

There will be differences that make us always change our strategies, since they may not always work. But Grey, I'm not saying it shouldn't happen. It would be fun to see, if it was to occur.

[Blademaster]

I wanna see that happen.

[Darth CookieMonster]

There should be a breeding Tower.

[Greyfox]

Well, there'd really be no point in the Breeding Tower since people'll will just buy the eggs from the station or catch 'em. The only purpose it could possibly serve would be to teach your pokemon new moves, and since every pokemon has access to all their moves already, it'd be unnecessary.

[Ayeun]

I was thinking maybe we allow interest to accrue on points in the bank? Like at the end of every month/quarter, you can claim a portion of points extra?

Make it fair for those with fewer points. Allow higher rates for lower points, and lower rates for higher points. I know some of us *Cough* me *Cough* are scraping for points, with the number of losses some of us face, and the time it takes to finish a match.

[Charles Legend]

Well, there'd really be no point in the Breeding Tower since people'll will just buy the eggs from the station or catch 'em. The only purpose it could possibly serve would be to teach your pokemon new moves, and since every pokemon has access to all their moves already, it'd be unnecessary.

correction all moves other then NYCPC TCG only and Shadow moves....

~Charles Legend

[chaos_redefined]

I was thinking maybe we allow interest to accrue on points in the bank? Like at the end of every month/quarter, you can claim a portion of points extra?

Make it fair for those with fewer points. Allow higher rates for lower points, and lower rates for higher points. I know some of us *Cough* me *Cough* are scraping for points, with the number of losses some of us face, and the time it takes to finish a match.

Instead of interest, as a quick way to get some points, how about a casino? I have a few zero-sum minigames if the mods can't think of any, but there should be a fair few good ideas out there.

[Blademaster]

A casino, eh?

It might be hard to run, but I like that concept... I'll toss in an "Aye." for that.

[Oslo]

Ooh, a casino would be neat, though low-stakes wagers only with limits as to how frequently you can take part. That way people don't lose the motivation to ref (not that points are by any means the only/primary reason people ref, but still).

[Rossymore]

Yeah, reffing has its nice rewards but I ref because I'm not that good at anything else and it allows me to express my comical and wtfhax? writing style.

I'm all up for a casino, as I don't spend my points on anything but evolutions.

[chaos_redefined]

Ooh, a casino would be neat, though low-stakes wagers only with limits as to how frequently you can take part. That way people don't lose the motivation to ref (not that points are by any means the only/primary reason people ref, but still).

I have a few ideas on how to cope with that. Easiest way is to make one game a day, that everyone can participate in. Other options include zero-sum, multiplayer games. (For example, a 6 player game with a 2 point entry cost, where the winner gets 12 points.) This means that the only way to get a game is to find other players who wish to play, and if you are earning too much from it, then you would not be able to find people who would just end up losing their points to you.

[DarkestLight]

A new way to make points, Poke spin to it, like that aggravating Voltorb Flip that's taken away my beloved Game Corner. Me likey.

[Rossymore]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O!!!

Destroy the Voltorb Flip! Bring back the Slots!

[Blademaster]

Oh come off it. Those shitty slots were luck-based and annoying. At least Voltorb Flip provides a way to consistently get points.

Unless you're a retard who sucks at mathematics and probability, in which case it's a slow and frustrating process that you'll probably cry and run to get a calculator to help you with.

Of course, if Gen V has Flip AND brings back just buying the Goddamn Coins, that'd be peachy-keen too.

[chaos_redefined]

I was thinking something more along the lines of the following:
Underdog's challenge. If you wish to participate, you must post in this thread and pay 2 points. Then PM me either Venusaur or Victreebell. In a weeks time, these two pokemon will fight, and the winner will be the underdog (the one with the least votes). The points from entry will be divided amongst those who voted for the underdog. Winners will receive at least 4 points.

[Blademaster]

That ain't a casino. That's a cockfight.

[chaos_redefined]

I'm trying to think of games that can be pokemon related, involve strategy, and can have gambles.

OK... Try this one then...
Pokemon Roullete. Modfied to include strategy.
Player A and Player B both agree to this in thread, and a number of points is chosen. (This number will be X)
Player A PMs the dealer with one of the following: Bulbasaur - Chikorita - Treecko - Turtwig.
Player A then distributes X points amongst those 4 pokemon.
Plyaer B then distributes X points amongst 2 of those 4 pokemon.
The dealer reveals which pokemon Player A selected. If both players put points on that pokemon, then all points are distributed in a ratio as close as possible to the ratio of points on that pokemon. If only one player put points on that pokemon, that player receives all the points. If neither player put points on that pokemon, the points are split equally between the players.
The process is repeated with Player A and Player B switching places.

As an example.
Blade and Rossy agree to play, each using 20 points. I will be dealer. Blade PMs me Treecko, and posts as follows:
Bulbasaur: 6
Chikorita: 8
Treecko: 6
Turtwig: 0
Rossy then decides that Blade clearly chose either Chikorita, but to be safe, he'll also bet on Treecko, since it's one of the ones that Blade put 6 on. He puts 12 points on Chikorita and 8 points on Treecko.
I reveal that Blade actually selected Treecko. Since the points on Treecko were 8 from rossy and 6 from Blade, the points are distributed 11 to rossy, and 9 to blade.

If, instead, Rossy put the 8 points on Bulbasaur (and the 12 points on Chikorita), Blade would have received all 20 points.

[Rossymore]

...w-what?

Yeah...we can have the Voltorb Flip. Sounds like a great idea.

[chaos_redefined]

Oh. I forgot the other condition I was thinking of when I tried to make games. It shouldn't require constantly going back. For the first game I suggested (Underdog's challenge), each player was required to post once, PM once, and check back at the end of the week. The dealer had to post twice. Players can do more, in an attempt to get other people to vote differently, but it isn't necessary. The second game requires 3 posts from each player, and a PM from each, and the dealer posts twice. Once again, they can do more, in an attempt to learn which pokemon was selected, but it isn't necessary.

The voltorb flip, on the other hand, has a significantly higher number of posts, and I doubt DL and MLG will make seperate threads for each, so things will get confusing. Especially when some posts will be just "A1" or "E5", which is difficult to distinguish from other games. I'd rather have a dice roll be the end of it, even though it is based entirely on luck.

[Zergling2005]

Community Ribbon Awards!

After some tinkering in GIMP I have produced this madness.


My idea is to have community ribbons to encourage people to interact and be really helpful within our little ASB group.

Reffing Ribbons

• Rookie (5 Battles Reffed)
• Intermediate (10 Battles Reffed)
• Advanced (15 Battles Reffed)
• Expert (25 Battles Reffed)
• Master (50 Battles Reffed)
• Exceptional Reffing Award (Mod Discretion)

Battle Ribbons

• Novice Battler (5 WINS)
• Intermediate Battler (10 WINS)
• Advanced Battler (15 WINS)
• Expert Battler (25 WINS)
• Master Battler (50 WINS)
• Exceptional Battling Award (Mod Discretion)

Collector Ribbons

• Pokefan (30 Unique Pokemon)
• Pokemon Collector (60 Unique Pokemon)
• Pokemaniac (90 Unique Pokemon)
• Pokemon Professor (150 Unique Pokemon)
• Pokemon Fanatic (300 Unique Pokemon)
• Pokemon Master (Mod Discretion)

Post Quality Ribbons/Formatting/Community Involvement

• Hard Worker Ribbon (Community Award)
• Dedicated Ribbon (Community Award)
• Go To Guy Ribbon (Community Award/Mod Discretion)

Other/Misc

• Contributor Ribbon (Mod Discretion)
• Super Contributor Ribbon (Mod Discretion)

Just an idea, obviously i have blank template of the card and the ribbons can be changed/added on to/removed..

let me know what you think
-Zerg

[Greyfox]

That does sound interesting, but the only thing is that if the two refs have two drastically different outcomes for whatever reason (also, what about things like, say, thunder rolling a hit for one ref but a miss for the other?), the same moves may not be logical in both situations, and asking both trainers to use the same moves would be a bit more... "staged", I guess? For example, if both Darkly and I were going to ref it and someone's Pokémon was almost out of energy, that player would be forced to stop and relax if they didn't want to lose under my reffing while they could theoretically continue to attack under Darkly's and worry about the forced relaxation later.

Hm... considering how awkward my battle with Oslo's been going, I can see how this would make things difficult first-hand.

Darkly, no offense, but our battle has been a big clusterfuck with attacks having completely different outcomes from rounds before.

You changed the outcome of one round when we were already in the round after; had I've known where I stood then, my attacks would've been vastly different.

[DarkestLight]

o.O?? No offense taken. I've noticed I've been slipping horribly as of late.

Side note-As per the different styles of reffing, maybe this might be a way for everyone to at least see each others reffing styles-and see just how drastic they can be in terms of game changing scenarios.

Would also help me and my shoddyness as of late.

[Zergling2005]

Any comments on the ribbon idea?

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

I'm cool with that. Sounds like another extra way to boost our battling, reffing, etc. Very nice.