The Money Earning. (Yes, it's going to be debated again)

If youre worried about the money side of it, why would you even do a 4v4 knowing you would only get 1000 for a win? if you do the battle, then it shows that you dont mind the money, because you did it knowing that you would get a small amount of money...

 

I don't really think that we need a radical change in the way that we pay for smaller battles, like 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3. The pay has worked in the past (and still works now), and we don't have any problem with people doing 3vs3, as it is the most preferred option. I do agree with Pidge however in upping the pay for battles with more Pokemon, and I like the pay he has proposed- not enough to cause a sudden spike in the number of 6vs6s occurring, but enough to give it a prod so that people will begin to use it more.

Also: just emphasizing something that WTP said. If you want money, get a position as a ref/grader/judge/ranger!

 

I agree that there needs to be a better money system. 1V1 and 2v2 shouldn't have the same pay as a 6v6. And I am not agreeing with this just, and I doubt many others are, to have the same amount of money as a ref, as WTP suggested above. I am agreeing with this as the system makes absolutely no sense at the moment, and it needs to be improved. I'll copy and paste my payment suggestions in a minute

 

I agree with said post.

Now, turning back to the 6v6 battles. For example and I know we're different than Wifi battling, but you never see people asking for a 3v3 or lower (in Wifi, again), but for the common "fun" battle in URPG, you'll always see the typical 3v3/Revo/Helds optional/Clauses on rules which limits the variation with Pokemon. You can't have a tense battle particularly with 3v3s considering the cap on Pokemon chosen.

If the prices for battlers for, say 6v6, were adjusted, then we'll be seeing more battles such as these. People aren't THAT concerned with the times of these things since some can actually go considerably fast compared to some FFAs, they're concerned more that it's not worth it playing for a couple of hours or so and still get the same pay you would for a basic battle.

 

K, 5v5s and 6v6s getting paid 2k/1k is actually possible, but no way for 2v2s-4v4s. :|

The main problem here is that we're most probably gonna have people sending in mons then forfeiting. Yes, this can happen now, but by increasing the monetary gain, we're encouraging such activities. Unless, we put in some limitations or w/e.

In the first place, why would you work so hard just to battle a normal 6v6? People ref and use their wages to buy more TMs, or get more mons, just so they challenge positions (eg. gym, elite, legend defender, etc.) And if the said person is not doing any of those, then fine, suit him be. But most people don't even build up their mons just to do a normal 6v6 in the end, no iirc.

And not all 6v6s are epic btw. Just getting this out here while I still have a chance, and this is not directed towards anyone in specific. ^_^ Some people seem to think 6v6s are cool and define the competitive gaming, but no. If someone I don't know asks me to ref a 6v6, I'd probably say no, because it is really gonna be boring. I really don't want to be reffing a 6v6 then have the battlers doing stuff like Confuse Ray, Cosmic Power, Recover, Cosmic Power, Light Screen, Attract, Thunder Wave, and stuff like that if you get what I mean. /TOTALLY OUT OF POINT

 

Pidge, stop bashing the bmg bashers. ;-)

I think the issue really comes down to the idea that URPG has worked fine with the current rewards. As the ultimate goal of URPG is to create win, or as it is referred to in other circles, "fun," the only real concern associated with such a change is whether or not it increases the quantity of win. As much of URPG's win is derived from the joys of collecting and battling artificial creatures in a competitive environment, we need to consider each of these factors.

Collecting would be made easier due to higher payouts (though only with regards to mart Pokemon).

Battling would be made more lucrative, and thus more attractive. In addition, interest in using more Pokemon per battle would be increased, leading to greater scope in strategic battling.

Arguably the only disadvantage is that the level of challenge associated with collecting and battling would be reduced with higher payouts. So is this reduction in challenge worth it?

I personally don't give a damn. Whatever happens, URPG will be fine. Balance of things might be shifted, and heck, it might be easier to get well tmed mons, but things will just come down to strategy anyway.

One thing that does bother me (and I'm being rather presumptuous here, I'm not familiar with the history behind this argument) is that based on the first post of this thread, a similar thread has already run its course. If this idea has already been thoroughly shot down, there isn't much of a reason to revive it.

 

I do not think that raising the money of battles is necessary at all. If you want more people to do more 6vs6 battles then raise it to 1.5k for the winner, and 1k for the loser. Not the 2k for the winner like a gym battle (a battle with more planning, countering, and thinking behind it) offers. If you do, then it would make sense to have to up the price for 6vs6 gym battles, and so on.

You sound like you've been here for years, and since you haven't I perceive this as 'smug'. :/

Actually it does. Things are going smoothly so far until someone gets the idea that out of nowhere it's unfair. The payment for battles has been going fine until JUST now when someone brought the idea up in the air that we could get paid more. Personally I'd love to get more money, but arguing that gaining more during battles in an argument where the higher-ups have said 'eh, not really going to happen' seams a little pointless (to me at least). I am not a ref, or a grader. I'm doing the graders test and have had some kind of interest in becoming a ref, but at the moment I'm not. Just look at my stats, I have fairly decent Pokemon if not some that others would love to have. I've gotten all of them without being a ref or grader and with the '1k winner, .5k loser' rule, so I see no problem in that and no need to change suddenly.

 

Well tbh it's not very often when people suddenly have 6 basics that they need to evolve, usually its only one or two at a time. I don't think we really need to worry about abusing basics in 6vs6s, it's much more time-efficient to do a 2vs2 if you have two basics rather than a 6vs6. Forfeiting isn't something that happens very often in basics- so I would think that a ref would notice this and not ref another battle, or report it.

 

Maybe we could reach some sort of compromise: we can do the pay increase for 5v5 and 6v6, but if the trainer forfeits, there won't be a payout. If we do this, it could ensure that battles are battled to the end, which could make them more epic. And, as Ataro said above, we should make some sort of Taunt Clause to prevent people just using TW, CR, CP and Recovery moves (but that's another story )

 

Pretty much this. It makes the most sense to me.

 

Maybe something like the forfeiting trainer doesn't get anything, rather than everyone. Plus, I think the ref should be able to use his/her own discretion regarding payments a little. For example, when two refs ref a battle and the payment for the ref should be split. How much exactly does each ref get? The ref that logs it usually decides with his/her discretion without calculating how much each ref really reffed, but usually there isn't a problem.

I'm not going to touch this one.

 

Whatever we can all agree on works Maybe we should take this to a poll or vote, and see whatever wants so the mods can decide the best course of action.

 

A poll actually does sound good, that way we can (hopefully) reduce the amount of arguing.

 

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that payout be tiered based on the number of turns a battle lasts? Maybe a komi rule like in go to ensure that players just don't agree to enter repetitive infinite loops of moves. (For those individuals unfamiliar with go, the object of the game is to surround territory with your pieces. If you can fully surround an opponent's pieces, you can capture them. The komi rule is brought into play when pieces meet in such a way that a move would return the board to its state from the previous turn. In order to prevent infinite loops from beginning, players are not allowed to play such a move.)

Or, if we wanted, we could do things like applying bonuses for using certain types of moves depending on battle length. In a long battle, moves which do a significant amount of damage would receive a higher bonus, while in a short battle, moves that prolong the battle could be weighted higher.

Or maybe we should just allow betting on battles, a minimum of 500 per Pokemon (so with betting on, a 1 vs 1 would give the loser nothing, but the winner would win 1500, a 2 vs 2 -500, 2000... up to 6 vs 6, -2500, 4000).

Yeah... random ideas. Random ideas.

Edit: I oppose the poll idea. All it would serve to do is get people riled up if URPG Leaders didn't bow to the majority. Nothing is going to change unless we have URPG leaders as a part of the discussion, and that discussion is far from over. Meaningless poll is meaningless.

 

I lol'd. Yea let's change it so where encore will give us 10k each battle, or where the kinds of moves we use determines the pay, or better yet, take away money from the loser! All great ideas, I say, put them all together somehow and do it, right now.


I doubt payment will change anytime soon, sorry for those who dream of 'get rich quick' schemes. Then only one of those here is becoming a ref.

 

I laughed :mail:

I agree with a lot of the people here but whatever is decided, can we not make it something stupidly complex. That way whatever happens, everyone can understand it.

 

I would like to note in support of my theory that there has also been no complaints about battle payout from the BMGers that already have positions that reward them with pay.

@Pidge: I'm not bashing BMG. All it takes is one member to speak up and a bunch of followers who think, "Say, I could use more money, but I'd rather not put in the work the refs/graders do." My point wasn't that it was BMGers specifically, they merely fit the scenario necessary: A bunch of new members that all pop up at relatively the same time.

 

Any poll is just going to be filled with "I WANT MORE MONEY!". I became a ref because I wanted to ref. Seriously. The fact that we do earn a lot of cash (if we're active) was an awesome bonus. I'm a BMGer too, but I do have to agree with what the vets are saying, it's out of line for us newbs to question a tried and true system. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

I'm not asking to get rich quick, or even at all. Just that the system be logical-which it currently is not.

 

How is it illogical? We do URPG for fun. We don't do it because we must but because we can. We enjoy it. We get a small monetary reward for participating in battles. Eventually, we can exchange that reward to help us in further battles. All you're trying to do is make it much easier to reap more rewards. I've taken place in many 6v6s in the last week. I didn't once do it because I wanted money, it was fun. There was at no point where I finished and I thought, "OH THIS IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS THAT I SPENT AN HR AND A HALF ON THIS AND ONLY GOT 1k FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF". I might have raged at the dice or something, but not my reward. Its been said before, if you want money, take a position that pays. It might be harder for some than others to do these jobs, but in the end its still work, even for those who find it a little easier than others.

This is just like the "Ref shortage" situation that was debated over a few months ago. You came to the URPG officials, for a quick fix to your problem, when the real solution was within your power. Take the ref quiz, practice reffing, and take the ref test. The only difference is that you have MORE OPTIONS to fix this problem. Grading and being a Ranger are also positions that offer money for your services.