Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Darkshade

PvP Time Limit Tiebreaker Feedback

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Lazaaro said:

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.

THIS . We've had, for instance, reuni vs reuni getting eachother dry of pp and it takes ~20+ minutes even tho the players arent thinking more than one second per turn. Take this same scenario in showdown and it goes 3x as fast (battle logs help, yeah, but imo text speed can be improved in mmo)

Edited by FNTCZ

Share this post


Link to post

I like the speed up text and animations (maybe skip a lot of them all together while keeping everything in the battle chat).

 

I also like the whole whoever uses the least amount of time to move thing too. This doesnt discourage or encourage any type of play style, just quick thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
  • Quote

     

    • Tournaments now have a 60-minute time limit placed on early round matches.
      • Finals, Semi-Finals, and Quarter-Finals matches do not have time restrictions.
    • When determining winners in PvP time limit tiebreakers (RMM/Tournaments), the team which dealt the most damage will now be declared the winner

     

    MadaraSixSix lost against koudaii in the CC OU #100 with a 90% Skarmory and a 10% Milotic against a 5% Struggling Reuniclus because koudaii played with his timer on purpose to make the duel ends by this rule, MadaraSixSix would have won less than 1 minute later.

  • Change this garbage rule please...

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MadaraSixSix said:

Yo I just played in the CC 100.

 

I am pissed and disappointed. The game was starting to get interesting with all the new pvp players. But cmon now, go watch my [putain de] round 1 duel; I was easily winning, and I lose on what? On timer? I had a Skarmory with 90% HP and all he had was a Reuniclus with 5% HP and no pp left and I lose?

 

The guy knew as soon as we reach the 45 mins mark that he no longer stood a chance, so he just delayed all his moves to timer stall. This dmg rule is dumb. Wtf is this? We can’t stall anymore? Stall is part of the game, it’s a strat like any other. What do you want? That we all play the same offensive cores, so all tournaments end fast? (When you join a tournament, you should be ready to play as long as it takes to win and what’s interesting about tournaments is that all opponents can play with different strategies.)

 

Whoever thought of this rule knows absolutely nothing about this game. If many were involved in implementing this rule, [allez mourir]. If you have any common sense, go watch my duel and draw your own conclusions.

 

The timer doesn’t even speed up like a month ago. The guy was just timer stalling me with no pressure. At the very least, put back the aggressive timer for long duels; it adds pressure and spices everything up.

 

To conclude, whoever was involved in making this happen, [allez bien vous faire foutre].

 

Edited by gbwead

Share this post


Link to post

Alright some good banter in here, I like it. Should really save it for PSLX though. My thoughts are, damage dealt is OBJECTIVELY a stupid way to determine a winner. The first tiebreaker should be number of pokemon remaining - I can easily forsee a scenario where someone knows theyre completely outmatched by a bulkier or stall team, so they just fire aimlessly into the walls while drawing timer out as much as possible. You could be losing 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, etc. at the 60 minute mark while having done more damage (damage that was pointless, obviously, given the score). Then, if the pokes remaining are tied, you can move onto damage dealt or w/e. But pokes remaining is such an obvious first tiebreaker

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Stelian said:

I guess you know a thing or two about that with your inferiority complex. 

Jajajaja keep hiding in NU. 

I hide in NU or  the problem is that NU is not a tier that allows you to stall?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Gunthug said:

Alright some good banter in here, I like it. Should really save it for PSLX though. My thoughts are, damage dealt is OBJECTIVELY a stupid way to determine a winner. The first tiebreaker should be number of pokemon remaining - I can easily forsee a scenario where someone knows theyre completely outmatched by a bulkier or stall team, so they just fire aimlessly into the walls while drawing timer out as much as possible. You could be losing 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, etc. at the 60 minute mark while having done more damage (damage that was pointless, obviously, given the score). Then, if the pokes remaining are tied, you can move onto damage dealt or w/e. But pokes remaining is such an obvious first tiebreaker

or solve the time problem by solving the time problem? 

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

Alright some good banter in here, I like it. Should really save it for PSLX though. My thoughts are, damage dealt is OBJECTIVELY a stupid way to determine a winner. The first tiebreaker should be number of pokemon remaining - I can easily forsee a scenario where someone knows theyre completely outmatched by a bulkier or stall team, so they just fire aimlessly into the walls while drawing timer out as much as possible. You could be losing 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, etc. at the 60 minute mark while having done more damage (damage that was pointless, obviously, given the score). Then, if the pokes remaining are tied, you can move onto damage dealt or w/e. But pokes remaining is such an obvious first tiebreaker

I personally don't think a tie breaker based on the number of remaining pokemon is that good because it adds a new win/lose condition to every duel. The objective of a duel should be to remove all opposing mons and not just have more alive than the opponent after 60 mins. Furthermore, the real winner with no time limit might not be the one with the most pokemons at the 60 mins mark. In certain conditions, sweepers are incapable of setting up because they keep getting phased by Roar or Whirlwind and having that sweeper as the last pokemon alive can be the ideal scenario to finish up a duel. Everyone has already seen 1 v 6/5/3/2 scenarios where a pokemon is capable of taking out an entire team. Not so long ago, I remember watching a doubles stall duel where a solo Ferrothorn was able to beat 5 pokemons by itself. 

 

I believe whoever played faster overall in 60 mins should be the winner because i) it encourages both players to play faster which is the main objective  and ii) a timer win or lose doesn't take anything away from the regular plays made in a duel. If our problem here is time, we should focus on time when searching for a solution rather than altering the game with alternative win conditions imo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I played two games of more than 60 minutes
in the first I lost having clefable ready to set against milotic without pps in dragon tail.
in the second I won when I should have lost in the long term because my defog had less pps than his stealth rock.

I still claim% 100 that there is no fair way to break the tie. If this happens in a tournament, both must be eliminated since any automatic tie-breaking method will be easily exploitable unless the decision is made by a GM and I doubt that this can be applied.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Sashaolin said:
  • MadaraSixSix played full stall against koudaii in the first round of a CC

Let that sink in for a moment.

 

If anything id applay the current rules to ALL rounds of CCs except maybe semis and finals.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, I don't think there's a fair way to determine who the victor would be at the end of a match, especially with an automated system. 

 

Seeing as time is the problem, I think we should focus on that. Why not reduce the amount of time we get after moves at a frequent interval? 

 

For example, after 15 minutes, the time we get after moves could become 8 seconds. After 30 minutes it could be 6. After 45, it could be 4. At 50 It could be 3, and at 55 It could be 2 and so forth. I feel like this would affect both players equally, and would give a fair solution to the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/29/2018 at 7:46 PM, kevola said:

Firstly, I don't think there's a fair way to determine who the victor would be at the end of a match, especially with an automated system. 

 

Seeing as time is the problem, I think we should focus on that. Why not reduce the amount of time we get after moves at a frequent interval? 

 

For example, after 15 minutes, the time we get after moves could become 8 seconds. After 30 minutes it could be 6. After 45, it could be 4. At 50 It could be 3, and at 55 It could be 2 and so forth. I feel like this would affect both players equally, and would give a fair solution to the problem. 

Doubles bro. rip the "tier" 

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/27/2018 at 8:19 PM, fredrichnietze said:

the feedback seems mostly "hey lets not do this but find other ways to solve problem" so ofc ignore all feedback and do it as originally suggested? oh ok

Some things never change... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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