Option To Turn Off Timer In Officials

[NikhilR]

Sometimes things come up during officials which can take up maybe 5 min of your time. This usually leads you to get afk'd from officials and it's hard to expect someone to have nothing come up during officials. Give the players a choice to turn off the timer under such circumstances, so that there is only a small delay of 2-3 min and then the other player can turn it on when they want. I really don't see any negatives in this.

Edited September 27, 2016 by NikhilR

[XelaKebert]

1 minute ago, NikhilR said:

Please tell me what is keeping the staff busy during the automated tournaments or what judgement calls they have to make regularly while the automated tournament is going on. Also you have refs for this exact purpose. 

That's the point of the automated system, staff aren't making judgement calls anymore. The system is auto-enforcing the rules in a standard way so that it is fair to all players. Adding this system means that there will be staff oversight on requests to pause the timer. This means that the staff member making those calls will have to decide on a case by case basis whether or not the timer should be paused. Not every request for a paused timer should be auto-approved just because someone requests it. We have no way of knowing if a player is really telling the truth that they need to be AFK for a certain amount of time either. This means that players could claim to be AFK and really be using the extra time to calc.

 

As Darkshade put it, if you don't have time to make your matches or make your moves within the time alotted, you don't really have time to participate. Whilst last minute RL tasks can come up, those should be kept to a minimum if you intend to take part in tournaments (emergencies notwithstanding). In the event of emergencies, it wouldn't be fair for the other players in a tournament to be kept waiting for possibly hours for someone to return either. This means that we also have to draw the line on how much time can be granted per request, and also how many requests can be granted for each duel. Put simply, adding this system adds inefficiency to a system that is already really efficient.

[xilias]

3 minutes ago, XelaKebert said:

be using the extra time to calc.

 

calcing is cheating 

 

ED: I think this system is really not fair for players who have weak internet/computers(including me),imo the best would be to let people chose wether they want to give their opponents a chance to or not like in showdown,and if they don't,then it'll just work like it does rn,so if the player accepts to give the time but then changes his mind,the timers will start from the beggining and it'll give 3mins to each of them,(you can also add a sound notifier for the player to know that their opponent changed his mind)this way,people won't abuse that very badly and it'll still be helpful in a lot of cases

Edited November 7, 2016 by xilias
why not

[XelaKebert]

25 minutes ago, xilias said:

calcing is cheating 

 

ED: I think this system is really not fair for players who have weak internet/computers(including me),imo the best would be to let people chose wether they want to give their opponents a chance to or not like in showdown,and if they don't,then it'll just work like it does rn,so if the player accepts to give the time but then changes his mind,the timers will start from the beggining and it'll give 3mins to each of them,(you can also add a sound notifier for the player to know that their opponent changed his mind)this way,people won't abuse that very badly and it'll still be helpful in a lot of cases

Having a sound wouldn't help those who are in a different room from their computer if their opponent changes their mind.

[NikhilR]

38 minutes ago, XelaKebert said:

That's the point of the automated system, staff aren't making judgement calls anymore. The system is auto-enforcing the rules in a standard way so that it is fair to all players. Adding this system means that there will be staff oversight on requests to pause the timer. This means that the staff member making those calls will have to decide on a case by case basis whether or not the timer should be paused. Not every request for a paused timer should be auto-approved just because someone requests it. We have no way of knowing if a player is really telling the truth that they need to be AFK for a certain amount of time either. This means that players could claim to be AFK and really be using the extra time to calc.

 

As Darkshade put it, if you don't have time to make your matches or make your moves within the time alotted, you don't really have time to participate. Whilst last minute RL tasks can come up, those should be kept to a minimum if you intend to take part in tournaments (emergencies notwithstanding). In the event of emergencies, it wouldn't be fair for the other players in a tournament to be kept waiting for possibly hours for someone to return either. This means that we also have to draw the line on how much time can be granted per request, and also how many requests can be granted for each duel. Put simply, adding this system adds inefficiency to a system that is already really efficient.

What is the purpose of having staff online during an automated tournament or what is the purpose of having refs if you have no decisions to make? Or do enlighten me with what decisions staff do make during these tournaments. About the timer switching off part, it has to be mutually agreeable and not every opponent will agree to having the timer off. This is mostly going to exist when an experienced player plays a random, but when it is 2 experienced players playing each other and one of them is lagging, the other guy will agree to having the timer turned off, at which point a staff member can do so. If at any point it is becoming inconvenient for the other guy, then he can request the staff member to turn it back on. So how is it going to be abused? Calc-ing is available to both parties and in no way does it put you at a lower advantage if you don't calc if you're aware and confident of the plays you need to make.

 

The argument for having time to participate works both ways because not every match is over when yours is, which means that if others are holding you back, it is something that you have to accept when you allot the time to participate in a tournament. I don't know how serious you are think anyone will ever make their opponent wait for hours due to an irl emergency. 

 

This isn't limited to rl tasks but applies to lag as well. I got dc'd in TT when I made my move in 5 secs but it took the system around 15 secs to register my move. I announced in normal chat that I was lagging and this lag was all of a sudden unexpected because I didn't have it during the first round of the same tournament. If staff intervention could've happened, that would've been great but no it isn't possible. 

 

Also your last bolded statement itself makes me realize that it is pointless arguing with you if you feel that the current system is efficient. 

Edited November 7, 2016 by NikhilR

[XelaKebert]

6 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

1) What is the purpose of having staff online during an automated tournament or what is the purpose of having refs if you have no decisions to make? Or do enlighten me with what decisions staff do make during these tournaments. About the timer switching off part, it has to be mutually agreeable and not every opponent will agree to having the timer off. This is mostly going to exist when an experienced player plays a random, but when it is 2 experienced players playing each other and one of them is lagging, the other guy will agree to having the timer turned off, at which point a staff member can do so. If at any point it is becoming inconvenient for the other guy, then he can request the staff member to turn it back on. So how is it going to be abused? Calc-ing is available to both parties and in no way does it put you at a lower advantage if you don't calc if you're aware and confident of the plays you need to make.

 

2) The argument for having time to participate works both ways because not every match is over when yours is, which means that if others are holding you back, it is something that you have to accept when you allot the time to participate in a tournament. I don't know how serious you are think anyone will ever make their opponent wait for hours due to an irl emergency. 

 

3) This isn't limited to rl tasks but applies to lag as well. I got dc'd in TT when I made my move in 5 secs but it took the system around 15 secs to register my move. I announced in normal chat that I was lagging and this lag was all of a sudden unexpected because I didn't have it during the first round of the same tournament. If staff intervention could've happened, that would've been great but no it isn't possible. 

 

Also your last bolded statement itself makes me realize that it is pointless arguing with you if you feel that the current system is efficient. 

1) Referees have only been present for automated tournaments during the initial roll-out phase to look for bugs. Unless I have missed something, referees have not been needed or used in automated tournaments for a while. Adding this system would make the rule read as follows, "Players who wish to pause the timer must request it from staff, who will then ask the opponent if they agree to pause the timer." The rule written that way prevents someone from telling staff that the other player agreed to pause the timer, but the drawback to that is that it puts the other player on the spot to decide if they want to pause the timer. As we've seen in the past, having rules written that way leads to players getting bullied by players in larger teams for not agreeing to the requests of their opponent. That will not be happening again. That would make the rule then read, "Requests for pausing the timer should be sent to the staff overseeing the event." This means that now staff are put on the spot to make the decision to grant the request or not. This opens the door for claims of bias for/against certain players. It's very safe to say that this will not happen.

 

2) Whilst this is true, there is a reason that the system enforces the rules the same for everyone. Having the option to override the system means that each case needs to be handled separately. Not every case can be approved because doing so opens the door to large scale abuse. Why make it back in 10 minutes when I can request the timer be paused so I have 45 minutes? Why make my moves within 2 minutes when I can request the timer be paused and get 5 minutes? This system takes us back to the days when it was up to the host/GM as to whether or not a time extension would be granted, which was a really bad system that we do not want to bring back.

 

3) That is why the rules are stated that you are only DQ'd if you fail to reconnect into your match. This removes staff intervention entirely. Lag spikes can happen for a variety of reasons from a spike in RAM usage on your system, try closing out memory intensive programs like Steam when using PokeMMO, or because your local ISP's system temporarily overloaded, which slows the speed for everyone in that area. Lag can also be the result of your home connection being over-utilized as well. As for the time it took to register your move, that is an area I feel could be improved upon but the issue is exactly what to do to improve upon the system so that it levels the playing field for everyone. Unfortunately, this system is not it.

[NikhilR]

10 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

1) Referees have only been present for automated tournaments during the initial roll-out phase to look for bugs. Unless I have missed something, referees have not been needed or used in automated tournaments for a while. Adding this system would make the rule read as follows, 

Okay, so firstly referees haven't been used or needed in automated tournaments for a while and yet they are needed to be present. So when you said that the proposed system would mean more work for refs, it's basically ANY work since there's absolutely nothing on their plate when an automated tournament is going on. This would give their presence a purpose. 

 

10 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

 Adding this system would make the rule read as follows, "Players who wish to pause the timer must request it from staff, who will then ask the opponent if they agree to pause the timer." The rule written that way prevents someone from telling staff that the other player agreed to pause the timer, but the drawback to that is that it puts the other player on the spot to decide if they want to pause the timer. As we've seen in the past, having rules written that way leads to players getting bullied by players in larger teams for not agreeing to the requests of their opponent. That will not be happening again. That would make the rule then read, "Requests for pausing the timer should be sent to the staff overseeing the event." This means that now staff are put on the spot to make the decision to grant the request or not. This opens the door for claims of bias for/against certain players. It's very safe to say that this will not happen.

The rule is written correctly, but please try to specify in what instance in the past this has happened where a larger team has bullied a player for not agreeing to their requests. There have been instances in my case where my opponent has refused to give me a rematch and no one was bullied. Also if I need the permission of my opponent to turn off the timer, don't you think I would ask my opponent first rather than putting the staff member in an awkward spot? Because everything is in my opponent's hands, so in no way does this make the staff member look biased because he is simply following the rule of where both parties agree to having the timer off. Also you're treating every case to be standard when you should realize that each and every player is unique, so what you assume or perceive for a normal player does not apply to all the players out there because I'm in touch with the competitive playerbase much more than you and I know that there are players who would prefer to win by fair means rather than their opponent getting timed out. I can even provide you with a lengthy list if you wish. 

 

10 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

2) Whilst this is true, there is a reason that the system enforces the rules the same for everyone. Having the option to override the system means that each case needs to be handled separately. Not every case can be approved because doing so opens the door to large scale abuse. Why make it back in 10 minutes when I can request the timer be paused so I have 45 minutes? Why make my moves within 2 minutes when I can request the timer be paused and get 5 minutes? This system takes us back to the days when it was up to the host/GM as to whether or not a time extension would be granted, which was a really bad system that we do not want to bring back.

I get that, but it seems like the only con with the proposed system is tournament taking up larger amount of time. And this is the problem in our system where our staff have absolutely no role in the officials in terms of participation or ensuring that everyone gets fair treatment. I spoke to a showdown tournament director earlier, and they give 5 minutes for a player to make their move and if a match is looking like it is going to hold up everyone, either the host makes a decision with regards to whether there will be an end to the match soon, or force them to rematch with different teams. The staff themselves usually participate and are aware of issues like lag and switch off the timer accordingly to see to it that battles are won fairly. I really think MMO can learn a lot of the good qualities that Showdown has adopted. 

 

10 hours ago, XelaKebert said:

3) That is why the rules are stated that you are only DQ'd if you fail to reconnect into your match. This removes staff intervention entirely. Lag spikes can happen for a variety of reasons from a spike in RAM usage on your system, try closing out memory intensive programs like Steam when using PokeMMO, or because your local ISP's system temporarily overloaded, which slows the speed for everyone in that area. Lag can also be the result of your home connection being over-utilized as well. As for the time it took to register your move, that is an area I feel could be improved upon but the issue is exactly what to do to improve upon the system so that it levels the playing field for everyone. Unfortunately, this system is not it.

I'm sorry I phrased that wrong earlier. I didn't get dc'd but I got timed out because the time it took the system to register my moves was longer than the time I recovered despite making my moves in under 5 seconds. I had only my chrome browser with challonge bracket tab open and MMO. I don't have steam in my system. It was 1 am when TT was going on and it was on a Sunday for me, which is a weekday in this country, so no it can't be my ISP's system being overloaded, and everyone in my family was asleep so it wasn't overutilization of my home connection either. I was not the only one experiencing this sudden lag, several others were as well and they can vouch for it. So I can safely say that the lag was from your side and I got punished for it. Was that fair? 

Edited November 8, 2016 by NikhilR

[LifeStyle]

Can vouch for Nik, the lag in TT was real af, also the current timer system is pretty shitty tbh, it basically forces the players to make a move in 5-15 seconds when at sometimes you can have a lot of thinking to do before making a move "Should I hit this? How much dmg can I deal? Should I switch out instead? To what? Should I keep or sack this? Etc", playing Showdown is way better for this reason, at least when the timer gets turned on you have 150? seconds for EACH move you make instead of this pooped "Here's 3 minutes, clock keeps counting down, each move you make gives you a very few extra seconds, GL hope you're a fast thinker/don't have a shitty computer".

[XelaKebert]

10 hours ago, NikhilR said:

1)Okay, so firstly referees haven't been used or needed in automated tournaments for a while and yet they are needed to be present. So when you said that the proposed system would mean more work for refs, it's basically ANY work since there's absolutely nothing on their plate when an automated tournament is going on. This would give their presence a purpose. 

 

2)The rule is written correctly, but please try to specify in what instance in the past this has happened where a larger team has bullied a player for not agreeing to their requests. There have been instances in my case where my opponent has refused to give me a rematch and no one was bullied. Also if I need the permission of my opponent to turn off the timer, don't you think I would ask my opponent first rather than putting the staff member in an awkward spot? Because everything is in my opponent's hands, so in no way does this make the staff member look biased because he is simply following the rule of where both parties agree to having the timer off. Also you're treating every case to be standard when you should realize that each and every player is unique, so what you assume or perceive for a normal player does not apply to all the players out there because I'm in touch with the competitive playerbase much more than you and I know that there are players who would prefer to win by fair means rather than their opponent getting timed out. I can even provide you with a lengthy list if you wish. 

 

3) I get that, but it seems like the only con with the proposed system is tournament taking up larger amount of time. And this is the problem in our system where our staff have absolutely no role in the officials in terms of participation or ensuring that everyone gets fair treatment. I spoke to a showdown tournament director earlier, and they give 5 minutes for a player to make their move and if a match is looking like it is going to hold up everyone, either the host makes a decision with regards to whether there will be an end to the match soon, or force them to rematch with different teams. The staff themselves usually participate and are aware of issues like lag and switch off the timer accordingly to see to it that battles are won fairly. I really think MMO can learn a lot of the good qualities that Showdown has adopted. 

 

4) I'm sorry I phrased that wrong earlier. I didn't get dc'd but I got timed out because the time it took the system to register my moves was longer than the time I recovered despite making my moves in under 5 seconds. I had only my chrome browser with challonge bracket tab open and MMO. I don't have steam in my system. It was 1 am when TT was going on and it was on a Sunday for me, which is a weekday in this country, so no it can't be my ISP's system being overloaded, and everyone in my family was asleep so it wasn't overutilization of my home connection either. I was not the only one experiencing this sudden lag, several others were as well and they can vouch for it. So I can safely say that the lag was from your side and I got punished for it. Was that fair? 

1) I can't speak to the validity of the claims as to whether or not referees are required for automated tournaments, but from what I gather, we do not as I see 7 (from a brief pass through the section) automated tournaments this month with no referees listed. I'm quite sure that there are more in the archive as well. Referees were only required for the initial rollout to ensure there were no bugs in the system.

 

2) To start, we will not be placing any decisions on when a timer is paused into the player's hands. This happened with the AFK timeout button and with whether or not to offer rematches to players who were disconnected during duels. It was an awful system, which was why it was moved to staff. While that improved the system slightly, it was still a terrible system as it was a) inefficient since decisions sometimes took upwards of 5 minutes to reach and b) left the door open for claims of bias for/against certain players. You may not remember it happening, but it has happened. I've witnessed it and I know other staff have witnessed it as well. If we hadn't seen a problem then the rules wouldn't have changed in the way that they did. I am not treating each case as a standard as I even stated that each case is subjective multiple times. Instead I am noting that there will have to be a standard procedure to follow. The problem is still that there is a judgement call in someone's hands at some point with regards to whether or not to pause the timer, how long the timer should be paused (it cannot be paused indefinitely it will have to come back on at some point), and how many requests can be granted in a single duel (again, allowing unlimited requests means that players would be free to have the timer paused as many times as they like which will draw out the event).

 

3) Just because Showdown does things that way, that does not mean that it will be good in an actual MMO. The reason for the automated system was to remove judgement calls from our hands so that we can better monitor the event itself. The part you bring up about them deciding to just end a match is Time Clause, which we did away with in favor of the modified Chess timer. Instead of having 45 minutes to finish your match where your opponent could just stall until Time Clause to get a double DQ, you are now constrained by your own timer. Meaning that if you stall yourself to the point of running out of time, you can't blame your opponent for your loss.

 

4) If you read what I said, finding ways to improve the system to automatically deal with lag is the best way to go. This removes judgement calls from staff entirely as we have all agreed that allowing judgement calls at the staff level is a bad system to have for tournaments. It leads to inconsistent decisions on how certain rules should be applied and opens the door for claims of bias for/against certain players.

[bigbangattack]

On 11/7/2016 at 3:46 PM, XelaKebert said:

If you read in a previous statement I made about the mutual compliance issue, that can be abused by those who just want a free win. They can say that they will pause the timer until you get back and not actually pause the timer. So while you are gone you end up losing to someone who just wanted a free win. Dual verification doesn't make it so the system cannot be abused, it just adds another way to abuse the system. Whilst lag is a legitimate argument, there are ways to reduce the lag, such as not having the overworld render during duels and closing out background apps that you aren't actively using (such as Steam, which can be a huge memory hog).

Yeah but heres the thing....

Its not an argument to say that someone will bait you into leaving your computer

People should have the right to hold you to the time limits set up in the game

But this way there is an option if you have lag or need to leave the computer

Thats like saying "if we allow people to battle then someone might cheat so lets just not have battling at all"

Now thats ridiculous of course but your argument against the suggestion doesnt mean anything.

Sorry if that came off rude it just doesnt make any sense

[bigbangattack]

Ok everyone keeps talking about abusing the timer

But im at a loss here

How can someone abuse this?

Other than wisping its ok i wont turn on timer and then turning it on which with or without a toggle you would lose for leaving your computer so thats not an issue.

If your battling you could make your battle last longer....well there is a time limit on the overall battle so...

Darkshade i get that your against the timers but you said something about an abusable system vs unabusable but i dont see how either system can be abused.

Showdown doesnt seem to have any problems?

[XelaKebert]

Just now, bigbangattack said:

Yeah but heres the thing....

Its not an argument to say that someone will bait you into leaving your computer

People should have the right to hold you to the time limits set up in the game

But this way there is an option if you have lag or need to leave the computer

Thats like saying "if we allow people to battle then someone might cheat so lets just not have battling at all"

Now thats ridiculous of course but your argument against the suggestion doesnt mean anything.

Sorry if that came off rude it just doesnt make any sense

Then the timer is undermined entirely. Lag is something that can't be predicted when it will happen or how long it will last. You actual computer could experience lag because the CPU needs more RAM to finish a process. Your internet can lag because of a temporary overload on the infrastructure in your area. If you have really good internet and the ports on your system are 10/100 Base T ports with your connection speed being around 1GBps, your system will down clock the speed because the ports cannot handle that kind of speed. If you are on a wi-fi network you will likely only see 56MBps connection speed. In other words, just because you lag, that doesn't mean the server is lagging. Unless an official post is ever put out regarding server issues, it's better to assume that any lag you experience is localized to your area rather than assume it is the server.

 

Furthermore, if you read every single statement I have made I have shown how this option takes us back to the days of staff judgement calls. We all remember when the 10 minute timer was added between matches. With it came the caveat that the host may grant time extensions when needed. This created a huge problem though, there wasn't any consistency in granting time extensions. Some players would get time extensions and others would not, which made it appear as though there was bias for/against certain players. So it was changed to a flat rule. The same goes for Time Clause, a limit was placed on matches with the exception that the match may be extended so long as it ended withing a reasonable timeframe after the extension. The same issue happened. Having been around as long as I have, I have seen numerous rule rewrites for tournaments in order to get consistency in rule enforcement. I can go on about the rules that have been rewritten and changed so that there are not judgement calls being made. Having this system takes us back to that time. Writing the rule that you have to request a timer pause from your opponent means that your opponent gets put on the spot, then the staff overseeing the match has to be informed. That is a bad system because it means that players have to decide whether or not to pause the timer for their opponent, which gives them control over the flow of the match. I have yet to see any tournaments where players agree to extend the time and then inform the judge of that, in fact there are none because doing so is more likely to have you removed from the event. Rather tournaments where time needs to be added always have that decision made by the judges as they are supposed to be a neutral party involved. This means that the request goes to the staff overseeing the match, timer gets paused for an arbitrary amount of time. This is bad because then players will start to complain about not getting as much time as another player for the timer being paused. Leading to claims of bias for/against certain players. If a timer is paused, it cannot be paused indefinitely either, as doing so is likely to draw the event out to unreasonable time lengths. Imagine 128 man brackets with this option.

 

Simply put, there are a lot of things not being taken into account when arguing for this system. The arguments of lag or RL issues coming up, whilst valid, are small compared to the issues that are faced with writing the rules in such a way that they will be consistently enforced. In other words, this system won't happen because there is simply no way to introduce consistency with enforcement. There are too many variables to account for, such as lag duration. What is to stop a player from having the timer paused because they are lagging and then not inform the staff overseeing the event that they are no longer lagging, thus giving them more time to make moves? This is a very nice system on paper, but the logistics of making it happen are a nightmare.

[bigbangattack]

I understand and agree that staff should not be in charge of making judgement calls....but what judgement call would a staff member ever have to make if we had a toggle timer option? There would not be any staff involvement. if the two people playing want a timer on then one of them will turn it off.  If neither of them want to win by afk then they will keep it on. In these threads we tend to put up so many what ifs and over analyze everything and comment every minute possibility so that we have more ideas to contribute but it really is that simple.

Timer toggles can not be abused in any concievable way that is beneficial to the player (other than scamming by saying "ok go to the bathroom" and then switching it on) and beyond that scamming has never been policed in pokemmo so it wouldnt be in that situation either.