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

Yes, I'm sure gonna try. Even if we've failed before. :banghead:

I don't think the battle earning system makes sense. I find it illogical that a 2vs2 yeilds the same amount as a 1vs1. And doesn't a 3vs3 also earn the same amount? Shouldn't their be an increase?
Say, for the winner, the regular 1000, plus 500 for any additional pokemon used? Then 1,500 for a 2v2, 3vs3 gets 2,000, and so on?

I do battle for fun. And, yes, a small bit more money availiable would be nice. But I simply find the current situation illogical. In my mind, a 6vs6 should yeild more than a 1vs1. Battles should be paid for how much effort is put into them. After all, OHKOs do not pay.

Further more, It is very difficult for those who don't have AIM to battle. Mainly because there seem to be a lot of refs here that won't ref forum battles. For the most part, I rely on Dr. Strubbsberg to come and ref all my battles each night. He does a wonderful job, but slow battles then can take several days to complete because only one turn can be done a day.

I simply fail to comprehend the logic of the situation.

 

I totally agree. Most often my battles take like 3-4 days to finish. I know, it's mainly my fault because I don't have AIM, but still. And, I agree that more money should be earned based on effort. *Sheilds self*

 

Yes, if you put a lot of effort into a battle, shouldn't it yield more than one with very little effort?

 

Effort given is a really a matter of opinion. Some 3v3's and 4v4's can end in a matter of minutes. Some don't. Judging how those would be paid differently is fairly ridiculous.

 

Lol, do 10vs10s with one mon 1hkoing ten mons. Fast cash ftw?

 

We're speaking in general terms, and generally larger battles require more long-term thinking and effort. Every blue moon there may be a freak accident where 1 Pokemon sweeps 6, but it's not frequent enough that pay should be more complex than it already is.

You can do this currently with 2 VS. 2s. Maybe even a gym battle.

 

Why not $250 per mon involved on your side of a battle, with an extra $500 going to the winner? 1v1s will drop to 250/750, but 6v6s will be 2k or 1.5k.

 

^I kinda like that idea. It seems fair to me.

 

good idea, but I HATE FREAKING 250's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry, but seriously i like it.

 

I think one of the concerns that came up before regarded it being more lucrative to battle than to ref, so nobody would ref; so if we start bumping battle wages, we'd have to bump ref wages, and I've already noted my concerns about that elsewhere.

late edit:

Then do another 1v1 and your 250 melts away. This will help solve the 'loose change' problem.

 

If you think 6v6 takes a long time then just don't do it......

 

Problem is, the rules are based on a if-you-abuse-this-too-much-the-rules-will-get-stricter sort of, imo. Like for the 1v1s, they were allowed cash until people kept doing so many of it that Mike created the rule of 1v1s with fully evolved mons not paying unless any one of the battlers only have one mon. By coming up with something like this, I feel that we're practically slapping everyone in the face by telling them to abuse it so that they can get more money.

Well, 250/750 is frowned upon in the first place.

I still stand by what I said. Stick with what it is now, there's a reason why the rule hasn't been changed ever since URPG started. Like what AS stated, almost like all of the "upper class" URPGers either earn their money from reffing/grading. AND LIKE WHAT I SAID EARLIER, I was told right from the beginning that URPG is a reward-and-pay system, and still is iirc.

 

The problem is... its in the rules.

LETS STEP BACK IN TIME, BACK TO WHEN URPG WAS YOUNG, AND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WITH EMBARRASSINGLY POOR HTML CODING ABILITIES WALKED THE INTERNETS

http://www.angelfire.com/pokemon2/thepokemonultrarpg/rules.html

Specifically this section:

 

Rules can be changed, especially if they significantly impair fun. Things have come a long way since then; there's been a lot of learning on all sides. While I'm still not sure I'm in favor of changing the payment scheme, "Because it's always been that way" doesn't have much weight as an argument on its own.

If anything, I'd say bump pay up $500 on both sides for any straight trainer battles (not gym, e4, legend defender, etc.) that are greater than 3v3.

 

Yeah, I have to agree. It's not fun to try and fight with my 4 pokemon against someone else's, only to get a measely 1000 for what can be an hour or more of work and strategy.

 

Refs would get paid 3k for a 6v6, the winner gets 2k, the loser gets 1k. It will always be safer to ref, getting more money whether you win or lose. Additionally, there will always be more opportunities to ref than to battle if you can ref.

I'm not saying to do quick 2 VS. 2 or whatever. I'm just stating that the rules are easily abused in response to Near's argument. I think you misinterpreted what I meant or something here. How exactly is increasing payment for 6vs6 telling people to abuse them? If it is obvious abuse, the ref should take care of it and alert someone of authority regarding the payment of that individual battle.

We've been using horses forever, why should we switch to planes? Women shouldn't work because they've always stayed at home. I've heard this one before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

That wouldn't change if this proposition is accepted. In fact, it would reinforce your latter sentence in this quote.

WHAT AM I READING AAAAAAAAA

My suggestion:

NvsN: winner pay; loser pay; tie pay
1vs1: 1000; 500; 750
2vs2: 1000; 500; 750
3vs3: 1000; 500; 750
4vs4: ???
5vs5: ???
6v6: 2000; 1000; 1500

If you want to be less extreme about changing things, i guess 4v4 could be 1000; 500 and 5vs5 could be 2000; 1000.

Additional comment: Pokemon at its heart is best played in a 6vs6 format. However, rarely does anyone play this type of battle (unless for E4, gym, etc.) because it just isn't worth it at the moment, and this saddens me. Well I say there will always be a bit more motivation if there is something more at stake, especially if it isn't a measly 1000 that you could get in a quarter of the time.

I've always been an advocate of more bigger battles. Not just your run of the mill basic battle. Most refs probably like reffing bigger battles, too, if they have the time. Everytime a non-basic battle occurs, and I ref, I like seeing how people think long-term or what strategies they employ. Heck, that is why I made the ladder. Maybe I'll make the next series a 6v6 only ladder. The URPG is unique and doesn't limit you to just 4 moves, and I think we have yet to uncover all the potential strategies and possibilities, especially when people are stuck with a mindset that 6vs6 just don't pay. How effective is Choice Scarf Salamence in URPG? What about Gyarados and Kangaskhan? Is Assist Skitty and 5 Wobbuffets the ultimate team? Speaking of Wobbuffet, is that thing really broken?

 

I'm in favor of the earnings increase.

I agree with you on this one. I mean, what on this site is worth 250? *And Pidge, if you say heartmail...* I'm much more in favor of .5K for each mon you use. This would make 1v1=.5 for both winner and loser. This is fair from the stand point that 1v1 are usually basic battles and all you really care about with those is that fact that you can evolve that Bellsprout you have. *Don't know why anyone would evolve their Sprout, though*

From then on, you take the winner's earnings, divide by 2, and that'll be the losers earnings. If the divided number is between a solid 1000 and 500, you round up. EX: 3v3. Winner gets 1.5K while Loser gets 1K

This, imo, will help boost larger battles and help those that can't use AIM for any reason.

List of Earnings as I see them:
1v1:
Winner .5K
Loser .5K
2v2:
Winner 1K
Loser .5K
3v3:
Winner 1.5K
Loser 1K
4v4:
Winner 2K
Loser 1K
5v5:
Winner 2.5K
Loser 1.5K
6v6:
Winner 3K
Loser 1.5K

Well, there is no argument over whether URPG is a reward-and-pay system, but is it really a reward to spend all the time buy/writing/trading for a team of Pokemon, getting all the tm/mt/bm/sm's for them, head off for an epic 6v6, and only get 1K for all your hard effort for winning? Hell, .5K if you lose? I can't see how that is a reward equal to what I paid in time and effort.

I know that this site has been around for a long time *Just look at Pika57's link*, and I know that years of work have gone into making this place almost fool's proof. The only thing is, nothing is faultless, nothing is perfect, and nothing can stand without having periodic changes occurring within it. I think it is time for a small change to help the site flow and to encourage more epic 6v6 battles.

 

Never in my 5 years of URPGing was this a problem. EVER.

I think the problem lies in the minds of the new BMGers. Rarely before has URPG had such a rapid gain in new members. This large group of new members feels inferior to the richer, older, URPGers who have more pokemon and more TMs, most often from being refs and/or graders. So they think they need to get more money to buy more TMs and more pokemon and aren't willing to do what every ambitious URPGer has done since the beginning: Become a ref/grader. I'm really quite surprised that in the last 3-4 months since the opening of URPG @ BMG, there have only been 3 new BMG refs and a handful of BMG graders, just based on the sheer number of total members.

Anyway, thats just my crackpot theory ;-)

EDIT: Zeferin, your "solution" doesn't cover gym battles, Elite battles, etc.

 

yo dawgs we heard you like the truth so we sent WTP to give you the truth so you can truth while you truth.

 

You guys are pathetic. Please keep your BMG bashing elsewhere. If anything, debate the idea, not the person(s). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Also, my face when we find out BMG is more talented than PE2K in a year or two: :shy: