OrangeManiac Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) https://forums.pokemmo.eu/index.php?/topic/14180-event-suggestions-feedback/?p=1021611 Recently Noad has confirmed that no changes will happen to the current Time Clause rule, which is when 45 minutes passes - both players are disqualified (prior to semifinals). I can understand time being an issue, especially when we're entering 64 man officials. They would just last too long. I think it was Fredrichnietze who I think pretty appropriately compared using wall teams as the "Prisoner's dilemma". Basically if both players use wall teams, they are in the situation like both "prisoners betrayed each other". This has potentially lead people to use sweeper teams just to prevent them from getting time claused and possibly putting themselves in a vulnerable situation if opponent is using a wall team. (A betrays but B doesn't). The way time clause reduces wall teams is bad for a couple of reasons: 1) It takes stall away from being a legit strategy 2) It gives a false picture of the metagame we're having. When people are using sweepers only to avoid getting time claused it could potentially make them look better on paper as they actually are with high usage, for example. The solution I'm suggesting here is that when two players with stall teams notice this match is obviously not going to end before the 45 minutes mark, both players can declare the referee a stalemate let's say prior to 35 minute mark. The match will end immediately and both players have 5 minutes to bring a Pokemon to 1v1 duel. Winner of the match will move on. This would make players not afraid to bring stall teams just because they think they're in a trouble if opponent brought one too. I know what you are thinking. "What an uncompetitive way to finish a competitive match." Well, yeah. I agree it isn't better than settling the match with actual dueling but since this isn't exactly possible due to this decision, it's still better to make one player proceed than giving someone a total bye. At least in my opinion. I'm looking forward to hear some feedback for this and I know this concept might sound a bit funny but I think it would be at least more fair than what we're having now. Discuss. Edited March 26, 2015 by OrangeManiac Link to comment
DoctorPBC Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I disagree with a 1v1, as this is just completely luck based. I would be more in favour of a 2v2 or even a 3v3, back in the day they used to take no more than 5-10 minutes and the skill factor is still there. Link to comment
DrCraig Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 This idea.. Orange I see where you are coming from, but I don't like this idea. Sounds amatuer, and were mlg pro comp community here. Robofiend 1 Link to comment
OrangeManiac Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) I disagree with a 1v1, as this is just completely luck based. I would be more in favour of a 2v2 or even a 3v3, back in the day they used to take no more than 5-10 minutes and the skill factor is still there. Yeah I thought of that too but then I thought stalemate would need to be called much earlier. Also 3v3 with having a wall or two there can take a while too. This idea.. Orange I see where you are coming from, but I don't like this idea. Sounds amatuer, and were mlg pro comp community here. Yeah I do agree it sounds a bit amateur and it's a bit gimmicky and all which I'm aware is probably the biggest downside for this. Edited March 26, 2015 by OrangeManiac Link to comment
RysPicz Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 1v1, but what tier? I vote for IRL Kiliminati, Tyrone, jayfeatskydd and 3 others 6 Link to comment
DrCraig Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 1v1, but what tier? I vote for IRL Torchic 1 Link to comment
jayfeatskydd Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) I mean, it's better than 2 ppl DQ'd. Nice initiative Orange. Edit: What happens when shit kid with no skill brings time stall team, getting close to end and you know you'll get DQ'd bc this guy is using a fucking Mean Look Rest stall clops, pressure stall aero(Stay with me here), etc. Gonna have to chance it. Lose 1v1, shit kid moves on*? Edited March 27, 2015 by jayfeatskydd DoubleJ 1 Link to comment
OrangeManiac Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 1v1, but what tier? I vote for IRL Legit lol'd. Serious answer: Whatever tier the tournament is in, I guess? Link to comment
Gunthug Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 What happens when both duelers choose blissey for the 1v1 jayfeatskydd 1 Link to comment
OrangeManiac Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) What happens when both duelers choose blissey for the 1v1 Haha damn. I thought the 1v1 has "the remaining 5 minutes" time to settle but that will not happen with Bliss vs Bliss or Skarm vs Skarm so in that case I guess it's just get DQ'd, you already had a chance for giving respect to your playstyle. Edited March 27, 2015 by OrangeManiac Link to comment
fredrichnietze Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 credits to pandajj for the prisoners dilema thing. i had the concept but it was difficult to understand. panda linked the prisoners dilema. also it is a bit roll of the dice but 1v1 sounds better then both auto DQ'd. Link to comment
Robofiend Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Sorry, but I can't support this. It's really unfortunate that the time clause exists and won't be changed, but I think that a rule like this would incentivize stall too much. Basically, I'd always run stall because stall usually beats HO and has a good chance against balanced/bulky offense. If I ran into another stall team, I'd have essentially a 50% chance of winning my 1v1, making stall most practical from a game-theoretical perspective. I don't really like the time clause, but if it prevents stall from becoming rampant then I'll grudgingly accept it. DrCraig 1 Link to comment
DoubleJ Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I'm with robo on this, but I do like the idea of getting to develop a solution to tune clause. Link to comment
OldKeith Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 The downfall with this is, no matter what the deciding factor would be (and it can even be a rock paper scissors match), it will give the players more reason to abuse the time clause. While it's now only a wee-wee move to force a time clause to drag your opponent down with you, giving the losing player a chance to advance through time clause will force a lot of matches do be prolonged and go down that way. Players will just have a justification. "Oh, I can't win, sorry bro but gotta time clause you. My only chance." Big no from me. Link to comment
Senile Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 If this was implemented, I'd probably just get a full stall team, time clause every round, and turn every tournament I play in into a 1v1 tournament just to show how flawed the idea is. (Plus 1v1 is pretty fun) The fact you can turn any match in a tournament into a 1v1 match if you really want to is just kekworthy. Robofiend 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts