I just lost a duel because of the 60 mins time limit rule. After 20 mins, the duel was over, but because it was 4v5, my opponent had this artificial win condition (because of the time limit rule) that allowed him to win if he survived for 60 mins. So the rule that is designed to prevent endless stalling encouraged my opponent to stall an unwinnable game. I understand the need for a rule to prevent tournaments from lasting forever, but that doesn't mean the rule needs to reduce the game to something as simple as whoever has the most mons would have won. There are many ways to make the 60 mins time limit rule better:
1. Instead of looking first at the number of mons alive and then at the sum of % of hp on these mons, why not look at these two criteria at the same time? The number of mons alive is an arbitrary value that does not really reflect who is the most likely to win. For this reason, the following formula would be better imo:
(sum of the HP% of all mons of player 1) x (number of mons alive of player 1)
vs
(sum of the HP% of all mons of player 2) x (number of mons alive of player 2)
I do not see why the number of pokemon alive should be a criteria more important than the % of hp of all mons. There are tons of scenarios where the number of pokemons alive is more important than the % of hp of all mons and there are also tons of scenarios where the % of hp of all mons alive is more important than the number of pokemon alive. Looking at both criteria at the same time rather than one and after the other gives a much better picture of who is the most likely to win in stall matches.
2. At 55 mins, both players could get the option to extend the 60 mins limit for an extra amount of time. In the event, the player that chooses to extend the time limit loses, this player ends up with a big penalty (money penalty, temporary tournament ban, etc.) Temporary tournament bans are already common practice for bad sportmanship on the ladder, so I think it would be more than fair for people that would abuse extensions.
3. The following suggestion is quite complex and requires probably more thoughts, but it can somewhat work imo:
(Total dmg inflicted by Player 1 / Total HP recovered by Player 2) x (# of pp left of Player 1)
vs
(Total dmg inflicted by Player 2 / Total HP recovered by Player 1) x (# of pp left of Player 2)
This formula is based on the assumption that, with all the PP used in 60 mins, Player 1 was able to inflict a certain amount of permanent dmg and whatever amount of PP remaining for Player 1 reflects on the amount of permanent dmg Player 1 will be capable of inflicting long term.
I do not believe any of these suggestion will be able to predict perfectly who the winner should be long term, but determining the winner based on these suggestions would be more accurate imo.
Question
gbwead
I just lost a duel because of the 60 mins time limit rule. After 20 mins, the duel was over, but because it was 4v5, my opponent had this artificial win condition (because of the time limit rule) that allowed him to win if he survived for 60 mins. So the rule that is designed to prevent endless stalling encouraged my opponent to stall an unwinnable game. I understand the need for a rule to prevent tournaments from lasting forever, but that doesn't mean the rule needs to reduce the game to something as simple as whoever has the most mons would have won. There are many ways to make the 60 mins time limit rule better:
1. Instead of looking first at the number of mons alive and then at the sum of % of hp on these mons, why not look at these two criteria at the same time? The number of mons alive is an arbitrary value that does not really reflect who is the most likely to win. For this reason, the following formula would be better imo:
(sum of the HP% of all mons of player 1) x (number of mons alive of player 1)
vs
(sum of the HP% of all mons of player 2) x (number of mons alive of player 2)
I do not see why the number of pokemon alive should be a criteria more important than the % of hp of all mons. There are tons of scenarios where the number of pokemons alive is more important than the % of hp of all mons and there are also tons of scenarios where the % of hp of all mons alive is more important than the number of pokemon alive. Looking at both criteria at the same time rather than one and after the other gives a much better picture of who is the most likely to win in stall matches.
2. At 55 mins, both players could get the option to extend the 60 mins limit for an extra amount of time. In the event, the player that chooses to extend the time limit loses, this player ends up with a big penalty (money penalty, temporary tournament ban, etc.) Temporary tournament bans are already common practice for bad sportmanship on the ladder, so I think it would be more than fair for people that would abuse extensions.
3. The following suggestion is quite complex and requires probably more thoughts, but it can somewhat work imo:
(Total dmg inflicted by Player 1 / Total HP recovered by Player 2) x (# of pp left of Player 1)
vs
(Total dmg inflicted by Player 2 / Total HP recovered by Player 1) x (# of pp left of Player 2)
This formula is based on the assumption that, with all the PP used in 60 mins, Player 1 was able to inflict a certain amount of permanent dmg and whatever amount of PP remaining for Player 1 reflects on the amount of permanent dmg Player 1 will be capable of inflicting long term.
I do not believe any of these suggestion will be able to predict perfectly who the winner should be long term, but determining the winner based on these suggestions would be more accurate imo.
Link to comment
11 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now