FFA Reform

As a loser who makes most of his money by abusing the whole FFA thing, I feel a small opinion of my own would be worth a slight glance.

As it stands, small FFAs are rather frequent, with me having roughly FIVE FFAs a week, and 2 of them being larger ones, of over 20 participants. Because I'm not as skilled as others (read: stingy and not a spendthrift on TMs) I usually come around the mid placings, which equates to a good 8 to 10k for a large FFA, and 4-5k for a smaller one. Running calculations, I'm making a heavy THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND a week, simply by being in the right place at the right time. I'm even one of the guys who actively participates, rather than Bumblebee and his 'Enter, make a move, go elsewhere and profit' tactic. What the problem here among competitors is that the cash per rank is a bit too high for both refs and competitors.

As an example, a ten man FFA's winner gets 4.5k, with the ref picking up a 5k packet. Yes, this seems somehow fair. However, for large FFAs, such as ST and his 30+ man FFAs, not only do they last hours, which can't be healthy for the body, but the winner gets a fat chunk of money, around 14.5k, with a ref boost of 15k. As you can see, it's much more economical for the ref to be running smaller ffas that take an hour or so rather than full-blown stall wars that are shorter than two sandstal teams against each other on Wifi.

It's therefore economical to lower the rewards for the participants, while reworking the referee finances, as a good 4v4 battle earns the ref about 2k, I think, but lasts as long as a 10 man ffa. My own opinion is to keep the first 3 out with 1k, but to limit the reward for every rank by halving the current addition of 500 to 250. This way, the winner of a 10 man FFA will earn 1k + (250 * 7) = $2750, still a decent packet, while the ref should be rewarded roughly 1k the winner packet, so $3750 or so. Not only does this make larger FFAs a bit less rewarding, but it encourages smaller ones more often, as you'll find everyone prefers a relatively quick one rather than RSE Wobb-Wobb showdowns.

On that tangent, the FFA limits. It's best to make it so every person is LIMITED to ONE FFA A DAY, with no more than FIVE FFAs a week, and for refs to have a hosting limit of either THREE SMALL FFAS or ONE LARGE FFA a week, with a large ffa being classed as one with 17 or more participants.

You're welcome to commen or ignore me, but this is just my two cents.

 

Maybe instead of trying to change the rules that have worked for a long time (as far as I know? dunno how long FFAs have been around), why don't we just ask ST to ref less FFAs?
I mean, he's a person. We're not writing rules for a rulebook, we're playing a forum-based game where we deal directly with other players.

Also, anyone can easily do 1v1's with basic pokemon to get money quickly. Maybe instead of decreasing the amount of money you get from a FFA, maybe the amount for regular battles should be increased?
proposition: make the reward for a regular player-vs-player battle dependant on the amount of pokemon, at a rate of 1k per pokemon participating, 500 per pokemon to the loser. I dunno, the amount from regular battles is fine. but it does solve the "regular battles can take as long as FFAs" problem.


actually, you know it kinda doesn't make sense that the -winner- only gets marginally more then second and third place.
maybe we should bump it down two notches, so the two-three people in last place only get 500, then it progresses like it does already, but the person that wins get 2000 more or so then the person behind it? that motivates people to try to -win- rather then just survive for a while. the gap could even be more substantial then just 2000, while decreasing the amount gained by people that lose.

Pretty much it'd be like this, for a hypothetical FFA of 15 people.

1st out: 500
2nd out: 500
3rd out: 500
4th out: 1000
5th out: 1500
6th out: 2000
7th out: 2500
8th out: 3000
9th out: 3500
10th out: 4000
11th out: 4500
12th out: 5000
13th out: 5500
14th out: 6000
15th out: 8000


or maybe instead there could be caps on the number of people in FFAs? Limit them to a max of 10 in general, but there would be special ones (such as the forum FFA) and maybe other AIM ones that would occur a few times a month with higher maximums.


these are all just different possible suggestions, and I don't necessarily endorse any one of them more then the other. personally I think it'sfine the way it is. I just think we should explore different possibilites, beyond just "OMG people are making too much money!"

I also want to emphasize: I'm not suggesting any of this out of my own interest. I have yet to win a FFA for example, so the higher amount for the winner doesn't benefit me.



EDIT: fixed, said increasing when I meant decreasing

 

My two cents?

I don't care about the money. They're willing to put significant effort into it, and I think they deserve compensation to match. I have no particular quibble with the amounts involved, either, though decreasing the first 3 to 500 each wouldn't affect the overall very much, and would suck for the people who were eliminated. Perhaps make the first 5 people out each get 1500?

My real problem is that there's a dearth of refs for simple 1 v 1 matches. ST used to sit in the chat and ref matches in there; now, I assume, he's too tired from running massive FFAs to spend time with the individual matches. There were several posts in the general topic whatchamahoozit about people not reffing anything less than 4v4 unless it's a gym match, and while I respect that they have lives, if the attitude becomes prevalent, nobody will be available to do the simple matches. This leads to a higher incidence of pokemon like Zubat or Cleffa in FFAs (which, while amusing, really don't stand a chance), which luckily count towards evolution, but then you're spending 3 hours in a single battle.

 

The pay is so high because they used to be pretty rare events.

I think that the pay is fine, but the amount that can be reffed should be reduced. Maybe one per week per ref is acceptable.

Just to prove Pidge's argument, I've sent a Kakuna multiple times and just used harden every turn and end up making 5k+.

 

As many people are agreing, pay really isnt the problem, its the amount of FFA's that happen.

So yah, each ref should have the amount of FFA's they host per week capped

 

I'm gonna love it when refs are restricted to 1 FFA a week and it backfires...

You keep talking about the huge member boosts and activity boosts we got from BMG, do you not reaize that's the very reason you can't restrict them that much?

Not only that, but EVERYONE is saying that the problem is the amount of FFAs reffed! Are you people stupid? Because although that is a problem with ST that isn't even what Sigma (Pidge) is talking about in his posts (not that I necessarily agree with them)...come on!

He was talking about how little effort it takes and a few other things, which is not true. Yes if you use a basic you could get ignored in the FFA but alternatively if someone wants to get more money they will KO you as quick as possible. And FFAs are not just sending moves.

The things that need to be capped are ST's constant 30 man FFAs, he NEVER tones it down. I suggest not letting refs ref FFA two days in a row and maybe limiting the amount of mons that can be in it sometimes but not all the time because sometimes 30 man FFAs can be good but not EVERY. DAMN. TIME.

And I lol'd at whoever said the national park is what keeps the URPG going or w/e, that's total bull, I've never even been in that place. :kiss:

 

Also this ease with which people are getting money, um basics?

Honestly basic battles are pretty easy to get a lot of money quickly too. Usually these only last like 15 minutes, especially with the popularity of people keeping powerful basics to ensure their victory in these battles, and the winner gets between 7-10k >> by telling to ref to lock them into 2 moves. And this is usually about the same payout as a FFA, ST's massive ones being an exception.

So do you suggest we reduce the price of basic battles too?

 

I'd be fine with limiting what rules there can be. I dislike the idea of cutting pay, as they usually take around hours on end, and I'm neutral on limiting us to one FFA per week. If it happens, fine, weekly FFAs from Khajmer, if not then summer will be very kind to my wallet.

Also Pidge, I lol'd at your notion that diplomacy isn't strategy. Any idiot can point his Pogeymanz at a target and command it to fire, it takes actual brains to get several other people to point theirs at the same target and/or other targets on the field and fire, particularly if it's against their own interest. Figuring out who to backstab and when and why, and more importantly negotiating the backstabbings since usually you can't do it alone, it's not easy. Luck I will give you, but nothing is won without some level of luck. Even in one on one battles where no dice rolling moves are used, there's still the luck of your enemy mis-predicting, or better yet, you having a toss-up between two things your opponent would equally do and picking the right one. Really the only time FFAs are easy are when you're the likes of Wobbufett and Metapod and no one bothers with you, otherwise it does require an amount of finesse and diplomatic skill (and patience. A loooot of patience).

 

Last I checked, multiplying battles (which is pretty much exactly what this is) is against the rules. If you just say 'Okay, ref 7 battles where I send my Charmander and Flamethrower him twice' then go away, then you're not actively participating in any of the battles.

Also, what 'strong basics' are you actually talking about. The only one BMGers really seem to have a problem with is Scyther...

But anyway, basics is off-topic. Back on topic:

When the issue of too many FFAs was initially brought up, I was against 1 FFA a week, but now, I agree with it. Although, I still have yet to see clear-cut evidence of too much money being pushed into the URPG.

 

Based on everyone's opinion so far, I've decided to set the FFA limit at two per week per ref. Any referee that go against the rule will have his FFA voided, meaning no pay for everyone (forced deduction) and the referee when wages are being calculated.

EDIT: teehee count yourselves lucky

EDIT @ Sota: The way I see it, Pidge is complaining about the payouts being too high. By limiting the amount of FFAs a referee can ref, it solves the problem of payouts being too high more or less. In the first place, FFAs payouts were never a problem until we expanded into BMGf, thus there were more people on AIM, which equals to more people in FFAs. THEREFORE, we should be able to limit payouts when only two FFAs are allowed per week per ref. I do actually care about others opinions actually.

 

:banghead:

Too many FFAs is NOT the fucking problem (well you could limit them to not being able to ref two days in a row), that's not even what Sigma was talking about. And since when do higher ups care about anybody's opinions anyway...

Limiting the amount of FFAs reffed does not solve any problems Ataro, it actually might create more.

Just because everyone thinks that will solve all the problems doesn't mean it actually will!

 

That's actually not true. A few summers ago, Jack commented on the amount of money in URPG from FFAs and how bad the rules were in them. which led to the whole crazy rule thing where only a few refs could ref FFAs.

 

I think that was more due to the fact that there were too many stupid special rules, like the ones that've been brought up here.

 

Lol okay mk you can pretend like you're a little saint. I also don't see how this is different than the "lock me into a move" during ffas but w/e

EDIT:

So you're wrong. As long as a ref refs them, they're legit

Also I don't really think that what we've come up with is a great short term solution, which is obviously what we're looking for atm.

Why not just limit the amount of people that can be in an ffa for now, or maybe allow only 1 ffa with more than so many people? Most people don't realize this but a 10 man ffa can last a decent amount of time. And for all that time only 4.5k for the winner isn't that extreme.

The problem here is the large payout from ffas. Smaller ffas means less payout and most refs won't wanna ref small ffa after small ffa since they can be quick difficult.

 

If you're implying that I've ever reffed a battle where someone's just said 'I'll use X mon and Y move repeatedly', then get your facts straight before you start accusing. You're talking to the person that hates (and often refuses) to ref consecutive 1v1s; you're talking to the person that thinks 'Useless move first turn, OHKO move second turn' should be counted as a OHKO and not pay.

Here's the thing - with basics battles, it's going to be clear from the first battle whether or not you're getting 7k guaranteed. With a FFA, your plan might backfire on the first go, landing you a measley 1k.

Do you live to find loopholes in the rules or something? :/ We said this when you brought up the Geodude thing, but obviously it didn't sink in - JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING ISN'T LISTED IN THE RULES, DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T GET PUNISHED FOR IT. If you do something that abuses the system for your own personal gain, it is cheating, especially if people have already warned others against it.

Take football (or soccer, w/e) for example; if the teams had arranged with the ref what goals were going to be scored during the match, and then they waited there for 90 minutes, with the ref and linesman and whoever else acting like the game was being played and taking approriate action and such, does that mean the outcome was legit?

No, we're looking for a long-term solution. That's the reason he made this whole thread. Not 'Change FFAs for a bit untill we make them better', just 'Change FFAs'.

This is the most sense you've made in your entire post, but people have already said it.

... what? So ST will ref constant 30 man+ FFAs, no problem. But as soon as it goes to 6, it gets DIFFICULT?! Please start talking sense.

Anyone who can't ref a 6-man FFA shouldn't be reffing FFAs in the first place.

 

Except normally these people make it pretty far in the ffa as opposed to someone who is strategically trying to win and gets piled... Sounds stupid to me >>

This is more of a problem with the way my mind works more than a love of finding loopholes. To me, if the rules aren't clear and thought out than there's a problem. In my mind, the rules help keep the place together, with shaky rules, the project will be shaky. In my honest opinion I don't think that one person should be able to decide whether something is abusive or not, regardless of their position. It's all opinion, why not just put what isn't allowed in the rules and be done with it.

If the losing team was okay with it and there was no rule against it and the referee was fully entitled to do something like that then sure. Also assuming there was no betting on said match, since that's illegal. Honestly is there anyway to know that this isn't already happening? /conspiracy theory

K well do you think that limiting the amount of ffas is really something that is going to help in a long run? Large ffas will still be large, and with more members they'll probably get larger. Just because someone can't throw one every day doesn't solve the problem of them being abusive. To me this is kind of like a treating the problem more than curing it kinda thing.

Well then I apologize?

Lol he refs them no problem. They usually last like 3-4 hours you know that right? Anyway yea small ffas can take a while to ref. Especially if the mons sent are something like Clefable, Blissey, Shuckle, Shuckle, Mantine, and Bastiodon. These are all mons with terrible offensive stats, but excellent defensive stats. They also are capable of raising these defensive stats to essentially impenetrable numbers. On top of that most of them have ways to heal themselves. Don't you think that ffa would be rather difficult to ref? I'd like to say that the length of time a ffa lasts contributes to its difficulty, at lesat for me.

lol mk's gettin angreeeee

 

Could somebody point me in the right direction to join a FFA, cause I can't seem to re-find it...

 

Just be on AIM when someone's organising one