[Implemented] New battle timer in doubles

[PandaJJ]

After having talked to several other doubles players, we have come to the conclusion that the current timer is bad for playing doubles.

 

The current timer was designed so that you have enough time to play long games, but you are still forced to actually make the game progress. If you spend more than 10 seconds per move, you will eventually lose on time. This is great for singles, because these games tend to be long, yet each turn will usually take less than 10 seconds. In doubles, this is not even close to true. There is not simply twice as many options each turn, the number of options is squared, making each turn a lot longer. Furthermore, doubles games are much shorter than singles games, so the amount of extra time you are able to gain by the 10 second increments is significantly less. As a result, losing on time in doubles is a lot more common than in singles, and a lot of games enter a stage where both players are throwing out their moves due to lack of time. This is undesirable in a competitive game. 

 

My suggestion is to change the time increment from 10 to 20 seconds. This will significantly reduce the number of matches decided by time, as well as having very little negative impact. Seeing as doubles game rarely ever passes 20 turns, this is about 3 minutes extra time added. In a tournament, this amounts to a maximum of 15 extra minutes. Considering that doubles tournaments generally finish within 2 hours, this seems like a minor issue. Of course, the exact change is up for discussion, but extra time is clearly needed.

[XelaKebert]

The point of the timer giving back 10 seconds is so that if you do take longer you lose time overall. It is a modified chess timer in which you clock it once you make your move. If you take too much time then you lose. If matches more and more matches are being determined by the timer running out then that points more to an issue in the meta game than an issue with the timer.

[OrangeManiac]

The point of the timer giving back 10 seconds is so that if you do take longer you lose time overall. It is a modified chess timer in which you clock it once you make your move. If you take too much time then you lose. If matches more and more matches are being determined by the timer running out then that points more to an issue in the meta game than an issue with the timer.

 

Well, first of all 10 seconds per move in Doubles match where there's so many moving parts is ridiculously low. Even bigger problem is that we have exactly the same timer in Singles and Doubles and that makes absolutely no sense at all. The 10 seconds / move for Singles is fine and all, there's very little or no outcry to fix that. What comes to Doubles timer I've yet to hear from a Doubles player they actually find this timer fair or to promote competition one bit.

[Tritios]

The point of the timer giving back 10 seconds is so that if you do take longer you lose time overall. It is a modified chess timer in which you clock it once you make your move. If you take too much time then you lose. If matches more and more matches are being determined by the timer running out then that points more to an issue in the meta game than an issue with the timer.

You are avoiding the essence of the suggestion. Doubles is a completely different from singels as I'm sure you know. which makes me wonder why you seem to ignore that fact.

[PandaJJ]

The point of the timer giving back 10 seconds is so that if you do take longer you lose time overall. It is a modified chess timer in which you clock it once you make your move. If you take too much time then you lose. If matches more and more matches are being determined by the timer running out then that points more to an issue in the meta game than an issue with the timer.

The timer was designed and calibrated by using singles. I already explained why that doesn't apply to doubles. Please stop posting in my suggestion threads.

[BigShotJoe]

The point of the timer giving back 10 seconds is so that if you do take longer you lose time overall. It is a modified chess timer in which you clock it once you make your move. If you take too much time then you lose. If matches more and more matches are being determined by the timer running out then that points more to an issue in the meta game than an issue with the timer.

Ok, I'll bite. How the hell does having more options and choices to make each and every turn reflect on the metagame? In a singles battle, 10 seconds is fine as you only have nine possible options (most of which are completely ludicrous most of the time) which consists of choosing one of four moves or swapping to one of five other Pokemon. Now, considering a doubles match involves two Pokemon on each side, there are many more options. First, choosing a move. You have four moves and three potential targets, not counting self-targeted moves. That's already three times as many options per turn should you use an attack. Second, you can choose to swap. There are only, what, two options you could swap to? (I think most double battles are 4v4, right?)  Third, you have to consider what your opponent is thinking. "How will my move affect them? How will their move affect me?" This isn't too bad by itself, but you have it do it twice every turn. You have to choose your move and a target (something you don't have to worry about in singles), choose your other Pokemon's move and a target, think about how each move will affect the chosen target (doubly or triply complicated if using a multi-target move), keep in mind the speed of every Pokemon in battle, and all the potential moves your opponent could make per turn. There is over twice as much to consider per turn in a doubles battle. Is having double the time per turn asking too much?

[Rendiz]

The point of the timer giving back 10 seconds is so that if you do take longer you lose time overall. It is a modified chess timer in which you clock it once you make your move. If you take too much time then you lose. If matches more and more matches are being determined by the timer running out then that points more to an issue in the meta game than an issue with the timer.

You should at least read and comprehend the thread before posting some asinine response. The timer and meta are completely different things and have no correlation. Also there are already issues with the timer I've seen countless people lose in doubles due to the timer being so short. As panda has already stated the amount of options for possible moves in doubles is squared, therefor if we were to draw some kind of correlation between the amount of time it takes to think vs the amount of time given from the timer it should be vastly increased in doubles. Even if we double the length of the timer doubles battles would still last way shorter than singles battles so I'm really struggling to see how this is a problem in any way for this to be implemented.

 

And please in future can we have staff that know at least a little bit about doubles reply to these threads. It would be beneficial to both parties and would avoid you making a fool of yourself again.

[KaynineXL]

I agree with this, I made a thread a while back.

 

 

Rachel seemed like a change was going to occur here.

[XelaKebert]

Ok let me clarify my point more. If too many matches get determined by someone running out of time that is partly due to the meta and their playstyle. If the timer gets upped in doubles then taking more than 20 seconds will still make you lose based on time eventually because you end up with a net loss each turn. That is how the timer should work. So that part is not really an issue. I never stated agreement or disagreement with the suggestion I pointed out that an issue was being made out of the design of the timer in the first place. Is there improvement to be made? Yes. Is it an issue that if you take too long that you eventually lose on time? No.

[Rendiz]

Ok let me clarify my point more. If too many matches get determined by someone running out of time that is partly due to the meta and their playstyle. If the timer gets upped in doubles then taking more than 20 seconds will still make you lose based on time eventually because you end up with a net loss each turn. That is how the timer should work. So that part is not really an issue. I never stated agreement or disagreement with the suggestion I pointed out that an issue was being made out of the design of the timer in the first place. Is there improvement to be made? Yes. Is it an issue that if you take too long that you eventually lose on time? No.

Can you please stop being so patronizing. We know how timers work and their function in comp you don't need to explain that and if you actually spent the time to read the OP you would understand that. We are saying because there are far more options for moves in doubles it would only make sense to give us more time. Running out of time in doubles vs singles is not a playstyle issue, very rarely do you ever get a turn which you get obvious plays that you can instantly make. Almost all doubles players are low on time and are under pressure to makes moves way faster than what should be expected.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Rendiz

[PandaJJ]

Ok let me clarify my point more. If too many matches get determined by someone running out of time that is partly due to the meta and their playstyle. If the timer gets upped in doubles then taking more than 20 seconds will still make you lose based on time eventually because you end up with a net loss each turn. That is how the timer should work. So that part is not really an issue. I never stated agreement or disagreement with the suggestion I pointed out that an issue was being made out of the design of the timer in the first place. Is there improvement to be made? Yes. Is it an issue that if you take too long that you eventually lose on time? No.

You said there was an issue with the metagame, while in fact the timer is simply not designed for the metagame. That makes the timer the issue. If you actually read what I wrote, you would know that I'm fully aware of the purpose of the timer. By changing the increment from 10 to 20, it does exactly the same as it does now. If you thought I wanted it to be impossible to lose on time, I would have suggested to remove the timer. Alas, I did not. Both of your comments are completely obsolete, since my original post already contains all that information.

 

(also, playstyle has nothing to do with this since this affects the majority of players, irrespective of playstyles)

[OldKeith]

Not sure if Xela has a grasp on competitive play at all, but let me tell you this: in VGC (doubles) you get 40 seconds per turn to make a move. Just think about it. 10 seconds is nowhere enough for doubles here, it means you only get 6-7 seconds to think, and the rest to press the buttons.

[KaynineXL]

If the timer gets upped in doubles then taking more than 20 seconds will still make you lose based on time eventually because you end up with a net loss each turn. 

I don't understand this part, are you saying if the timer gets upped to 20 seconds, even with that change you will eventually lose if you use 20 seconds each turn?

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said wrong, but each turn you get 20 seconds added to your timer, so.. you wouldn't eventually lose at all, you'll just get an extra flat 10 seconds each turn added additionally.

 

Either I didn't understand your comment or you don't understand how the timer works. Either way, adding an additional 10 seconds will fix the problem.

[Robofiend]

Ok let me clarify my point more. If too many matches get determined by someone running out of time that is partly due to the meta and their playstyle. If the timer gets upped in doubles then taking more than 20 seconds will still make you lose based on time eventually because you end up with a net loss each turn. That is how the timer should work. So that part is not really an issue. I never stated agreement or disagreement with the suggestion I pointed out that an issue was being made out of the design of the timer in the first place. Is there improvement to be made? Yes. Is it an issue that if you take too long that you eventually lose on time? No.

 

But the meta & playstyle of Doubles is essentially flat. There's no such thing as stall, there's no bans, there's not even such a thing as offense, really, it's just this one style of play that players have to play or they lose (e.g. Protect, Intimidate spam, Boosting moves + Follow Me, etc.) It's not like longer timers would reward anything in particular, except players making more well-thought-out decisions. So regarding your first point, there's no such thing as this being a problem with the doubles meta, therefore discussion should be focused on the timer itself.

 

Players probably would take longer to play their matches if you changed the time, yes. But that's kind of the essence of the suggestion: players need more time to make decisions. It's not that one particular element of the metagame causes Doubles to be slow/hard, that's true pretty much anywhere, since you sometimes have to triple predict, double-double swap or choose the right time to execute a certain strategy if you want to be successful. 

 

TL;DR - seems like a legit improvement, I don't see any reason why Doubles and Singles should have the same timer mechanics, especially if players seem to think it'll improve the game.

[XelaKebert]

TL;DR - seems like a legit improvement, I don't see any reason why Doubles and Singles should have the same timer mechanics, especially if players seem to think it'll improve the game.

Yes they are and yet again I never said anything about this not being an improvement at all nor did I state that I disagree with this suggestion at all. I merely pointed out that the issue of losing time by taking more time than you get back is a non issue and should not play into the discussion at all.

[BigShotJoe]

Yes they are and yet again I never said anything about this not being an improvement at all nor did I state that I disagree with this suggestion at all. I merely pointed out that the issue of losing time by taking more time than you get back is a non issue and should not play into the discussion at all.

I don't even... If, in standard play and with no distractions or interruptions, players regularly race to beat the clock in a strategy game, that clock should be extended. How do you not see this? 

With as adamantly as Xela defends the timer (see every timer discussion ever), you'd think he spent a year designing it.

[Kiliminati]

Xela, just take the L on this one. PandaJJ and all the others bring up amazing points- the most obvious being that the timer was intended to function for singles, not doubles. Let doubles players have a proper amount of time to decide what actions to undertake with FOUR Pokemon on the field, not just two. More careful planning is required considering the increase in Pokemon interaction.

[XelaKebert]

I don't even... If, in standard play and with no distractions or interruptions, players regularly race to beat the clock in a strategy game, that clock should be extended. How do you not see this? 

With as adamantly as Xela defends the timer (see every timer discussion ever), you'd think he spent a year designing it.

I'm not defending the timer. I'm pointing out that it's not an issue that if you take more time than you get back that you start to take a net loss on time. I never once stated that I disagreed with this suggestion. In fact, if you read above, I agreed with what Robofiend stated. I even stated in an earlier comment that there is room for improvement, but that taking a net loss on time because you take more time to choose your move than you get back is a non-issue and should not play a factor in this discussion.

[Kizhaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what im reading your saying your against raising the 10 second increment because its a non issue, but your fine with raising the overall time?

[XelaKebert]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what im reading your saying your against raising the 10 second increment because its a non issue, but your fine with raising the overall time?

Nope, misunderstanding. I think the amount of time gained back for doubles could be improved, but I don't think that the fact that if you take longer than the amount you get back each turn you eventually take a net loss on time should play a factor because that part is not an issue.

[BigShotJoe]

I'm not defending the timer. I'm pointing out that it's not an issue that if you take more time than you get back that you start to take a net loss on time. I never once stated that I disagreed with this suggestion. In fact, if you read above, I agreed with what Robofiend stated. I even stated in an earlier comment that there is room for improvement, but that taking a net loss on time because you take more time to choose your move than you get back is a non-issue and should not play a factor in this discussion.

If you look at the comment you just quoted, it was a direct reply to the comment you are referencing here. I think that means I read it. As for taking more time than you get per turn, it does seem to be a problem as it affects so many battles in standard play. The timer is meant to prevent things like AFK stalling and, to a lesser degree, damage calculating. It's doing both of these jobs, sure. But it's also preventing tactical, thought-out plays in important battles.

Right now, the timer is causing players to play with less skill than they normally would. To me, that just screams "bad mechanics." I don't think anyone has given a single plausible reason to not extend the per-turn timer in double battles. It wouldn't even be difficult to implement. What I have seen however, is you stating the same response with slightly different wording. I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it- nor does anyone else that has commented on this thread.

[fredrichnietze]

im a doubles player not a singles player. it's more difficult for me to do singles then doubles. i do not have trouble with the timer. but im the exception. a vast majority of singles players have trouble with the timer. the purpose of the timer is to prevent those few players who spend a enormous amount of time calc'ing and being coached slowing down tournaments.  

if a large portion of your player base says "we need more time" then you need more time. the specifics of how you do this can be argued. but what can not be argued is that at the time of this post 33 separate individuals have said "we need more time for doubles" by liking the op, and that is a significant section of the competitive player base which typically holds 32 man tournaments. the only real reason not to do it is "effort".

 

when the timer was originally made the only doubles player asked was me. i dont have a problem with it and could not conceive of others having trouble with the timer but apparently im this crazy exception. it's just a minor oversight that needs to be fixed, no reason to get offended or cause a ruckess but it does need to be fixed.

[Kizhaz]

Nope, misunderstanding. I think the amount of time gained back for doubles could be improved, but I don't think that the fact that if you take longer than the amount you get back each turn you eventually take a net loss on time should play a factor because that part is not an issue.

 

But isn't that the same thing? Your fine with adding a larger time increment increase because currently there is not enough time in doubles which is an issue and adding an extra 10 seconds will solve the issue by giving us more time.

 

If your suggesting that losing by the timer is a non issue then sure it makes sense, but nowhere in this thread was that even mentioned until you posted about it. I guess I'm just confused how your ok with the suggestion but are still able to post walls of texts against it

[XelaKebert]

But isn't that the same thing? Your fine with adding a larger time increment increase because currently there is not enough time in doubles which is an issue and adding an extra 10 seconds will solve the issue by giving us more time.

 

If your suggesting that losing by the timer is a non issue then sure it makes sense, but nowhere in this thread was that even mentioned until you posted about it. I guess I'm just confused how your ok with the suggestion but are still able to post walls of texts against it

 

That's because a point in the OP brought up that if you take longer than 10 seconds per turn you eventually lose based on time, which should be happening and would still be happening if someone took longer than say 20 seconds per turn. So that part shouldn't play into the discussion because you will still eventually lose based on time if you take too long regardless of how long the timer is and/or how much time you get back per turn. The OP suggested upping the time gained back to 20 seconds, which sounds reasonable, but whether or not that will solve the overall issue is a different story. I'm not against the suggestion at all. I've been clarifying my point that if the timer were changed in Doubles that you gained 20 seconds back you would still eventually lose based on time if you take longer than 20 seconds each turn, which is what should be happening. Other points have been raised that it causes players to rush their move choices in matches, which is a legitimate argument because that shouldn't be a large issue. Should you have to quickly decide your moves each turn? Yes, but you should not have to feel so rushed to make your decision that you end up second guessing it each and every turn until you eventually lose because your timer runs out.

 

Here's personally what I think, bring the time gained back per turn up to 15 seconds in Doubles and add an extra 1 to 1.5 minutes to the timer length.

[YettoDie]

That's because a point in the OP brought up that if you take longer than 10 seconds per turn you eventually lose based on time, which should be happening and would still be happening if someone took longer than say 20 seconds per turn. So that part shouldn't play into the discussion because you will still eventually lose based on time if you take too long regardless of how long the timer is and/or how much time you get back per turn. The OP suggested upping the time gained back to 20 seconds, which sounds reasonable, but whether or not that will solve the overall issue is a different story. I'm not against the suggestion at all. I've been clarifying my point that if the timer were changed in Doubles that you gained 20 seconds back you would still eventually lose based on time if you take longer than 20 seconds each turn, which is what should be happening. Other points have been raised that it causes players to rush their move choices in matches, which is a legitimate argument because that shouldn't be a large issue. Should you have to quickly decide your moves each turn? Yes, but you should not have to feel so rushed to make your decision that you end up second guessing it each and every turn until you eventually lose because your timer runs out.

 

Here's personally what I think, bring the time gained back per turn up to 15 seconds in Doubles and add an extra 1 to 1.5 minutes to the timer length.

Instead of saying what you personally think, with the whole 15 seconds stuff. GO PLAY DOUBLES. It's clearly from the post you made in this thread that you have no clue on the slightest what you're talking about. Making redicilous statements, you're basically trying to convince everyone 1+1=3 while everyone else is saying 1+1=2.

 

I've only played a couple of doubles matches in my time and 10 seconds is not really enough to make a solid decision for 2 pokes.