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

Wait, I want to hear this. What makes the payment system we have now so illogical?

 

It's mathimatically illogical. With increase in pokemon and effort, result/reward should be increased as well.

 

You only got 500 after 6v6ing me.

 

Lol, these battles aren't FFA's, they're battles.

 

Thats beside the point. The point is neither of us complained about money afterwards.

 

edit: lol do i always get top of the page THE MOST POWERFUL POSITION ON A PAGE?!?!

What is your point exactly?

---

If anyone is suggesting someone is going to make big money with my suggested payment, more than refs, you're dead wrong. Be realistic here. Who is really going to win thirty 6v6s in a month, getting 60k, about the average I would say for a ref monthly. And even if they do, can we really say 60k is too much for winning those 30 battles? Or what if they win half of them and lose half of them? They make 45k a month. Is that a problem, making 1500 a day, when active refs can make more than twice that amount daily. Everyone is exaggerating (most important word in this post) the earning potential someone could make. You could do two 3v3s and make the same amount as one 6vs6, that is all.

Speaking of FFAs, in the month June, I made more than 55k in FFA money only. Is an FFA player capable of out earning a ref? o_o Just throwing that out there.

 

I agree with Pidge (and RMD, and the others on that side of the debate), the payout should be increased for lager (ie 5v5 upwards) battles.

On a side note I think that there should be an incentive for refs to ref forum battles, as one of the few referees who does them (and I hear the problem's even worse at PE2K) I find it frustrating that I can't seem to engage in the forum battles because they're so rarely reffed (and often appear to be forgotten about).

**Prepares self for backlash from other Forum-reffing Refs**

 

I do agree with your point Doc, I do occasionally ref forum battles (usually on request). The main problems I have is either the battlers expecting it to be as quick as AIM and constantly PMing me, or on the other side, me completely forgetting about, and then being PMed because of that. Because of this, I usually shy away from actively reffing them, unless asked.

 

Yeah, I typically don't ref forum battles because I'll forget and I know that I will.

 

Yes

It's not exactly hard to send a mon and just generic stat up moves while doing something else.

 

This. That's why we have to dojo system. I'm not against changing the pay for 6v6s and 5v5s, because I think it is easily abused, acctually I think its just an extra bonus to the people who will already do 6v6s. Rather I'm annoyed at the 'get rich quick' mentality behind this. Battling is regarded as fun, hence the relatively low payout. Higher caliber (gym, elite, LD, etc) battles payout more because of the extra titles and whatnot associated with them. Reffing and Grading and Judging and whatnot are regarded more as jobs, hence the high payout. There's no fun element attached to them.

 

As some of us have said, we do battle for fun, but we would like to have a slight pay increase in them. A lot of us don't have the time to ref battles, judge contests or grade stories, and battling is our only hope of making money.

 

How can you not have time to ref battles but still have time to be in them?

 

I have the time for forum battles as you don't necessarily have to be online. If I want to do AIM battles, I usually have to sacrifice a lot of time. But that isn't what is being debated here

 

So ref forum battles?

 

I still don't have the time, as I have exams in about a fortnight. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the money earning. I was making a generalization by saying the majority of us don't have time to ref.

 

And my point is that it takes just as long to battle as it does to ref. If you don't have time to ref, you don't have time to battle.

 

I'm a BMGer who has a position. (that hasn't yet paid, but apparently that's due to a microwave incident.) If I'm tight on money, I do 2v2 or 3v3 battles; I can get them done much more quickly than a 6v6. Even if the payout on 5 or 6 per side battles were doubled, it's still more efficient, time spent versus reward earned, to do multiple smaller battles. I don't think the wages need to be increased.

As to the time issue, where someone can't put the hours into a position; as heartless as it seems (on my part) to say it, frankly, too bad. Some people are able to be online, playing this game, for 11 hours a day; some of us have to resort to only checking the forum on my breaks at work, and occasionally having a few hours on a weekend on AIM. The people who are on here more are going to wind up with more money; I say that's fair, because they're investing their time into this rather than other hobbies they may pursue.

As a corollary to that, most of the positions wouldn't take that much more time. As WTP stated, reffing the battle takes just as long as battling the battle, with an extra minute or so to type everything and log it. I believe there are forum-only refs around, though I don't know any; judging only seems to have a few active judges, so there may be some good demand for that, but again it takes as long to run as to participate. With grading, you could do like I do and print off the story you're grading to mark up during your commute, or while sitting at a desk, or a few minutes before you go to bed, then type up your collected notes when you have a few minutes somewhere.

The system isn't broken, and as such, doesn't need to be fixed. Most of my previous arguments were against bad reasons not to change it for the simple purpose of distilling the argument in question, and my suggestions (I felt, at least) were reasonable but not at all necessary.

 

I'm just going to repeat what everyone else has said. Eventually, it might get through.

First off, before the rant, I want to say: 5v5 6v6 doubling hasn't occurred not because "we don't want to give out that much money for a battle" but because it'd be easy to abuse. The only battles worth 2k are the official gym (et cetera) matches, which are less abused. We have this set up that way for a reason. I wouldn't be surprised if it's changed at some point, though.

Battling is for fun. Everyone can battle. Battling does not take a particular skill level to participate in it, because you can match yourself off with people at your level. Battling in gym battles gets you more money. Battling at a high level has rewards all of its own. Battling at the top gets you a legendary.

Now, if you're good enough at battling, and devoted enough to learning the ropes, we have the option of refereeing. This gets you more money, more esteem, and more fun than battling on the lower levels; can't hold a candle to top tier strategics, but it's still got its perks. If you're that interested in earning more money from battles, ref them. It takes the same amount of time, but twice the effort and three times the know-how, but it's a perfectly obtainable goal. Far more obtainable than beating the Elite Four and moving on to the Champion.

Now, increasing the pay for battles means that people who don't necessarily have a high skill level, who haven't necessarily worked for their knowledge, and who will not necessarily contribute to URPG society, ever, have the ability to earn money with little effort and little care. Not only does this further decimate our economy (which is already pretty screwed over)--it discourages people from entering into positions of responsibility and working their way up the URPG hierarchy. Why waste all that precious free time working hard when you can just get quick money through battling? URPG is a system. It's not always a system that works perfectly, but it's still a system that works. Strip away the incentive for progress, and everything falls apart.

Also, see avatar.

 

(point was ffa's are overpaid, while large normal battles are underpaid)

How is somebody going to get rich quick of this when 2vs2s are actually more efficient? Anyway, I already put to rest get rich quick in this thread. Furthermore, battling is also a competition, and to the victor belong the spoils. Battles involving defending will always give more when counting TMs, badges, advancing in the league, and/or a legendary.

Reffing can actually be fun. Grading too, it's FAN FICTION. Reading is entertaining.

Okay what? o_o I don't understand how your last sentence here is backed up by the one before, if anything, it does the opposite. The part of your post I didn't quote because it is a response to an argument I don't support.

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it" is just a logical fallacy, appeal to tradition. "Such an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even better than the old one?"

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

2vs2 pays 1000/500, 6v6 can pay 2000/1000. Which one gives more money per time? Yep, the former, which we already have. Additionally, 6v6 and up can be more stally (longer), given you have more Pokemon that can switch in safely to a variety of attacks, while I believe lower battles are more offensively oriented. Also, read my last post itt. ~_~

This isn't about getting more money for yourself. It's more about putting sense in a system. A victory in a 2vs2 battle rewards you the same as one that can take 5 times as longer? If battling is so fun let's lower their payouts, or how about we give none at all? Many people think writing is fun. Write me a 10 page fairy tale, I'll give you $100. Or you can write me a 60 page one, I'll give you $100 for that too. Yeah, it makes sense, you're having fun either way right, so why should you get paid extra for having fun?

That was easy.

Entire paragraph is based on you thinking people are going to be rolling in bank with this different pay system. That couldn't be further from the truth. If anyone is going to get rich, they could do it more than two times faster doing 2vs2s than doing 5v5s.