Jump to content
Darkshade

PvP Time Limit Tiebreaker Feedback

Recommended Posts

As of the 20th August 2018, the following change was added for all tournaments rounds not included in Finals, Semi-Finals, or Quarter-Finals matches:

 

Quote

When determining winners in PvP time limit tiebreakers (RMM/Tournaments), the team which dealt the most damage will now be declared the winner.

As with many tournament format changes, this one has been controversial - so we ask whether the community has any alternatives that may also result in a fair outcome.

 

Please leave your feedback below.

Share this post


Link to post
gbwead   

Imo, the player that dealt the most dmg might not be the player that would win in the end. If a player dealt more dmg, it might be because that player is getting hard walled and will lose as soon as he/she has no pp left. I just feel it's not a fair way to determine who the winner should be. 

 

Imo, if we want duels to last less than 60 mins, the accelerated timer should start before 45 mins or the timer should just be more aggressive in general. I also believe that, if a winner needs to be determined after 60 mins, whoever took the least amount of time to make his decisions during the duel should be the winner since the other player is the main reason why the duel is lasting so long. I have seen and played several duels in matchmaking that ended up in a draw after 60 mins just because one player is stalling on purpose to avoid a lose. If there was a way to sum up all the time spent by players during a duel, it would be imo a better way to determine who the winner should be.

 

Is dmg from Toxic, Pain Split and Hazards counted in the overall dmg? What about High Jump Kick, Explosion, Belly Drum, Flareblizt, Curse, Final Gambit and Drain Moves against Liquid Ooze users? Theorically, the mons using these moves deal dmg to themselves, so is that counted as overall dealt dmg as well?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, gbwead said:

Imo, the player that dealt the most dmg might not be the player that would win in the end. If a player dealt more dmg, it might be because that player is getting hard walled and will lose as soon as he/she has no pp left. I just feel it's not a fair way to determine who the winner should be. 

 

Imo, if we want duels to last less than 60 mins, the accelerated timer should start before 45 mins or the timer should just be more aggressive in general. I also believe that, if a winner needs to be determined after 60 mins, whoever took the least amount of time to make his decisions during the duel should be the winner since the other player is the main reason why the duel is lasting so long. I have seen and played several duels in matchmaking that ended up in a draw after 60 mins just because one player is stalling on purpose to avoid a lose. If there was a way to sum up all the time spent by players during a duel, it would be imo a better way to determine who the winner should be.

 

Is dmg from Toxic, Pain Split and Hazards counted in the overall dmg? What about High Jump Kick, Explosion, Belly Drum, Flareblizt, Curse, Final Gambit and Drain Moves against Liquid Ooze users? Theorically, the mons using these moves deal dmg to themselves, so is that counted as overall dealt dmg as well?

what about perish song sacc ?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not entirely sure what you would define as a "fair outcome", I presume you want some sort of penalty system to not prolong tournaments, which is fair enough. However, I do not believe it is fair to discourage play styles (in this case stall) as every player is different, it would be like forcing someone to change their fitness routine when the one they have already been using has had great success.

 

Altough not common, some games come down to pp (power point) stalling the opponent, say somebody wanted to use Dusclops in a tournament to make use of the ability Pressure, they would not be able to with this clause active. Dusclops can only be fully utilized on a stall team and with it being so passive it would contribute next to no damage dealt and constantly rack up damage, thus making you more likely to lose if timeout occurs. Now this is only one example but I'm sure there are others out there.

 

Right now I believe it would be best to keep tournaments how they were previously, I don't think eliminating players by time is fair, as gb put it somebody could have lost even though they were in an advantageous position.

Share this post


Link to post
NikhilR   
Posted (edited)

Have a knowledgeable staff member / TC member online that can review the situation when the timer hits the 50 minute mark. There are so many factors or situations to take into account, so I don't think you can have a flat rule for all of them.

Edited by NikhilR

Share this post


Link to post
Aard   
Posted (edited)

At least make it how many mons are left before looking at total damage done.  If two people have chanseys, It doesn't matter if someone almost killed a chansey 10 times to the other person's 5 if on that 5th time the chansey fainted and the 10 time attacked chansey is still alive.  Why should the person who survived more attacks lose?

 

Also, if its counting damage done by total hp lost instead of %hp, then someone could easily have all 6 pokes alive and lose to someone with 1 poke left because every time chansey is taken to 10% health its as if 3 pokemon were fainted since its base hp is so high.

 

Take species clasue and team limits out and one team has to faint 715 shedinja's before the other team faints one Blissey with this weird rule assuming no healing done by blissey.  Every heal is a few hundred more shedinjas it has to kill.  Makes no sense.

 

For a more real situation, a team could faint dusclops and skarmory but still lose if their one blissey has 10% health left and heals back up losing a stall war 4pokes left-6 pokes left.

Edited by Aard

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, NikhilR said:

Have a knowledgeable staff member / TC member online that can review the situation when the timer hits the 50 minute mark. There are so many factors or situations to take into account, so I don't think you can have a flat rule for all of them.

We're not looking for a manual solution, it must be automated.

Share this post


Link to post
FNTCZ   

I have mixed feelings abou this, on one hand there is the fact that this only applies to early rounds (anything before quarters) so I dont really see much of a problem there, I'm also not stall's greatest fan but eh..

 

either way, in my opinion at such game lenght the better way to look for a winner is via total PP left. (and hazzards! if one of the teams has their deffoger/spinner dead and there are atleast 3 layers of hazzards more on his field than on the enemies then I'd say his fate is almost sealed most of the time) obvioysly no criteria will be perfect but I rarely see early round matches going this long anyways.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I personally would recommend the tiebreakers that are used in current VGC format:

 

1. Number of Pokemon left

2. Remaining HP of your Pokemon (% wise)

3. Remaining HP of your Pokemon (numerical wise)

 

Recovery moves are part of Pokemon and the "damage dealt" isn't what determines a player who has the better position. It's not insanely hard to deal solid damage but then late game time stall with something stupid like heal + Refresh. For the record, the number of Pokemon remaining does not definitetively tell which player was winning either, but it sure seems more fair and "competitive" procedure to determine the winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Kyu   
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, xXBlu3BreathXx said:

I'm not entirely sure what you would define as a "fair outcome", I presume you want some sort of penalty system to not prolong tournaments, which is fair enough. However, I do not believe it is fair to discourage play styles (in this case stall) as every player is different, it would be like forcing someone to change their fitness routine when the one they have already been using has had great success.

 

Altough not common, some games come down to pp (power point) stalling the opponent, say somebody wanted to use Dusclops in a tournament to make use of the ability Pressure, they would not be able to with this clause active. Dusclops can only be fully utilized on a stall team and with it being so passive it would contribute next to no damage dealt and constantly rack up damage, thus making you more likely to lose if timeout occurs. Now this is only one example but I'm sure there are others out there.

 

Right now I believe it would be best to keep tournaments how they were previously, I don't think eliminating players by time is fair, as gb put it somebody could have lost even though they were in an advantageous position.

Our problems come when we have to weigh the "fun"/fairness that a single match is having, in comparison to the rest of the tournament. Because tournaments have grown massively, and 7 round 128-man tournaments are now commonplace, it affects other people significantly when a match gets stuck in the early rounds, and it can force players to wait several extra hours as the matches resolve themselves.

 

We're trying to be lenient on how many matches have time limit enforcement, and we can probably reduce the amount of rounds affected by time limits even further, but I believe they are a necessity to ensure that larger tournaments take place within a reasonable amount of time. That is why we are looking for any ideas towards a fairer representation of who "won" the match when it reaches its limits.

Edited by Kyu

Share this post


Link to post
foyone   

no winner after 60 mins = both eliminated imo.

There is no fair jugdgement choosing a winner by damage dealt, mons left, pp's left, etc in all scenarios. All of this are exploitable and limiters the playstyle and teambuilding.

 

the only considerable factor may be the total time used by each player to penalize the one who extends the game intentionally in order to avoid defeat as gbwead said. But if the times used are similar, both players should be eliminated since none got the victory

 

sorry my english btw

Share this post


Link to post
Suneet   
3 hours ago, OrangeManiac said:

I personally would recommend the tiebreakers that are used in current VGC format:

 

1. Number of Pokemon left

2. Remaining HP of your Pokemon (% wise)

3. Remaining HP of your Pokemon (numerical wise)

 

Recovery moves are part of Pokemon and the "damage dealt" isn't what determines a player who has the better position. It's not insanely hard to deal solid damage but then late game time stall with something stupid like heal + Refresh. For the record, the number of Pokemon remaining does not definitetively tell which player was winning either, but it sure seems more fair and "competitive" procedure to determine the winner.

I think this would definitely work

Share this post


Link to post
Eggplant   
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, OrangeManiac said:

I personally would recommend the tiebreakers that are used in current VGC format:

 

1. Number of Pokemon left

2. Remaining HP of your Pokemon (% wise)

3. Remaining HP of your Pokemon (numerical wise)

 

Recovery moves are part of Pokemon and the "damage dealt" isn't what determines a player who has the better position. It's not insanely hard to deal solid damage but then late game time stall with something stupid like heal + Refresh. For the record, the number of Pokemon remaining does not definitetively tell which player was winning either, but it sure seems more fair and "competitive" procedure to determine the winner.

I kidna dig this.

Splatfest-style.

You can award each player 1 point per win in certain categories.

then the winner would be the one to score 2-1

 

ie say, player 1 has more pokemon remaining

player 2 has more total remaining hp%

player 2 has more remaining hp of pokemon numerical wise

 

then player 2 would win

Edited by Eggplant

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Eggplant said:

I kidna dig this.

Splatfest-style.

You can award each player 1 point per win in certain categories.

then the winner would be the one to score 2-1

I would prefer them as tiebreakers in said specific order. 2nd and 3rd are almost the same but in the very rare occurance where both players have the same % of the HP left, I guess it was useful to have one additional tiebreaker there. Combined they would outweigh number of Pokemon left, which for a reason was considered to be the #1 tiebreaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Munya   

Interestingly enough that isn't just vgc rules, the base pokemon games(at least in gen 6+) use that method when a time limit is set, I won a match I should have lost via it.  I'm quite fond of it honestly in the event a match goes on for 60 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Risadex   
Posted (edited)

It also encourage stall players to have a different strategy at early rounds (in counterpart it doesnt affect full offensive players to change strategy sometimes, tho)

 

@Kyuimo, faster text speed, faster time penalty, faster battle debuffs (its live it, isnt?) Dynamic displays are hard to implement, but I guess one of the most stalling factor is the game engine itself.

 

Edited by Risadex

Share this post


Link to post
Suneet   

I like the idea with Orange's addition. Honestly, I've seen a round 1 match still going when other players are in quarters or even semis way too many times

Share this post


Link to post
RysPicz   

@Risadex has made a very valid point here. All the animations (leftovers recovery, stat boosts- ESPECIALLY THIS ONE, moves which's animation take very long time and so on) play a huge factor in the length of the game. Matches which I could've ended in 3 mins were finished in 10 because of all the slow combat messages and long animations.

Share this post


Link to post
Aard   
1 hour ago, RysPicz said:

@Risadex has made a very valid point here. All the animations (leftovers recovery, stat boosts- ESPECIALLY THIS ONE, moves which's animation take very long time and so on) play a huge factor in the length of the game. Matches which I could've ended in 3 mins were finished in 10 because of all the slow combat messages and long animations.

Straight from the most recent update changelog:

 

" Redundant stat stage animations for multi-stage changing skills (e.g. Superpower, Quiver Dance, etc.) are now skipped "

 

It is a lot faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

after X amount of minutes reduce your time added every turn by a second until you have 2 second move time. stall is going to go fast when you have 30 turns per minutes flying by. turn stall into speed chess.

also kudos for actually asking for feedback instead of just deciding whatever behind closed door and we find out when its live. 

 

turning off animations and faster text for tourney mode would also be nice. 

Edited by fredrichnietze

Share this post


Link to post
xStarr   

Inputs from Orange/Risa seem decent enough for me to agree with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Lazaaro   

First of all, why not work on the animations and texts and make them faster, that'd at least save you 30/40% of useless time consumed in a single battle.

Share this post


Link to post

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.