-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
OU GSC Turn limit proposal
- Thread starter Jorgen
- Start date
I believe the actual limit would be the in-cart battery - GSC cartridge batteries are well-known to die after about 10 years, EVEN if the Gameboy is plugged in with an AC adapter, so there's your limit :P
Disaster Area
formerly Piexplode
well considering you'd have to trade over your team etc. would take up a lil bit of time if ur not just raising it straight up but I'm pretty sure no sleep for 10 years would kill you :^)
Not quite sure how i'd feel about a 300 turn limit, that would just make stalling for a tie incredibly easy. The solution with 50 turns seems pretty reasonable for me. Something has to be done though, i don't think several hundred turns of nothing until either the simulator bug limit is reached or a tourney director comes in or one of the players straight out falls asleep or dies isn't in the interest or any competitive community. In situations like tiba vs me (read once in 6 spls) where one player will be forced to risk losing at some point i really don't get why you just can't make that player go for the unescapeable play instead of stalling till the turn limit. Making official rules for that kind of situation would be pretty arbitrary because of the frequency of such events, taking my battle as an example for future decisions is hopefully not what is ever going to happen either though.
tl;dr i still want my win.
tl;dr i still want my win.
Disaster Area
formerly Piexplode
300 turns until a TD decision is made (with the clear option of carry on) seems reasonable imo, but with the obvious cost of needing a TD on at that time
Actually, if I may get on my analytical pedestal for a second, about the Tiba v. Beds situation:
Also once in 6 SPLs? A game like this happens every SPL. They're huge outliers too, no game really comes close to 300 turns, let alone surpasses it, except for these sorts of games. I really don't think stalling for 300 turns is very easy unless both players' optimal play is to sit there and not attack, in which case... that's a draw anyway, why not just auto-call it rather than rely on the goodwill of players or TDs' willingness to step in, neither of which gets anything done until turn 700 of a game we knew would go on forever by turn 150?
- It was definitely in Beds' favor, but the odds were maybe not as huge as we all thought
- Tiba's play could have gone in a few directions: all involved Ttar, and all give him better odds than you'd think.
- The first direction (the straightforward direction that everyone wanted him to go in) was to get Ttar active on Zapdos, continually Roar it out, and subsequently hit it with Crunches on the switch. This way, he keeps Ttar at full health and guarantees at least 3 attempts at a Special fall (barring crits) vs. the Lax, and if he gets just one, he can make a mad dash to KO the Lax with Starmie, Raikou, and Suicune. Starmie & Suicune would need crits, but Raikou could 3HKO and therefore attempt to come in on a predicted rest vs. Suicune or something (although playing for the crit would probably be the safer play from Tiba's perspective). This situation is very hairy for Beds (Tiba's probably actually favored in that situation, as DE won't OHKO Suicune or Starmie at +1, and if he Curses enough to get the OHKOs, Ttar gets extra Crunches), and there's a 48.8% chance of getting at least one Spc. fall from 3 Crunches (as opposed to 36% chance from only 2, and 59% from 4), so... I don't wanna calculate it, I probably can't calculate it, but with this sort of play, Tiba's odds are actually decent.
- There's also the idea of Roaring the Zapdos out, then repeatedly Pursuiting the Lax to just eliminate the threat altogether. If Beds plays to just keep getting the Zapdos in, his Lax dies and Tiba just straight-up wins. So Beds' play cannot be fixed into just getting Zapdos in every time.
- Beds needs to go for an EQ at some point instead of letting Lax get Pursuited to death or letting a full-health Ttar get 3 Crunches. These EQs are inevitable, and Tiba's only recourse is to attempt to PP stall Beds out of EQs, and only then play for the win. So stalling actually becomes a legitimate tactic and not just "fukc him he's just extending the game and being a bitch"
- Because there's a lot of interplay between what moves / directions the players could go in and who gets the win, and because the odds are certainly not guaranteed either way, and because you can't make a sportsmanship DQ or w/e for stalling because it's a legitimate play, Beds v. Tiba could therefore only reasonably be called a tie by a TD/host.
Also once in 6 SPLs? A game like this happens every SPL. They're huge outliers too, no game really comes close to 300 turns, let alone surpasses it, except for these sorts of games. I really don't think stalling for 300 turns is very easy unless both players' optimal play is to sit there and not attack, in which case... that's a draw anyway, why not just auto-call it rather than rely on the goodwill of players or TDs' willingness to step in, neither of which gets anything done until turn 700 of a game we knew would go on forever by turn 150?
I can see your point somehow, jorgs, I just don't like to have this as a general rule of thumb because every match is a different case. I mean, I'm ok with 300 turns limit if we could make exceptions and shit.
Actually if you recall our match for POWC last year, we were both using stall (maybe mine a bit more active-defense-kinda-thingy), and the match lasted slighty more than 400 turns. You had legit ways to break my cores if you get crits at the right time or if I made bad plays, but I suppose you went out of important PPs at some point, plus I had spikes and you didn't. This is a situation where a forced draw would suck 'cause the match could go either way for more than 300 turns.
Tiba had Skarm as well, but with toxic > curse. Dogs were both restalk.
Yes. Also Skarm to enable the PP stall in the first place.
EDIT: Crunch/Pursuit/Tbolt/Roar for the Ttar set. No Rock Slide flinch cheese.
Last edited:
Most of the turns came from Starmie trying to stall out Umbreon iirc. That's actually a really good case against the hard turn limit though, as things were clearly happening up to the end, and a solution should be constrained to avoiding calling games like that (as opposed to streamlining draws for games where both players clearly aren't making any progress anytime this millenium).
That said, I don't think an exception is the answer, as that defeats the purpose of a draw rule in the first place; if it can be overridden, players will be forced to play on until the decision anyway. I think it's more a case for the (original) complex criteria for auto-draw.
The Zapdos was already struggling. It was trying to Sac itself to let CurseLax get the sweep on the team with no CurseSkarm. Obviously the other side wasn't accepting the Sac, what happened instead was that Zapdos jsut kept struggling while the other side infinitely switched (which ends in a loss for the infinite-switch side, and therefore isn't strictly optimal play, but the loss only comes after forever and a half).
Happened to me just last season I think? Maybe the one before. Didn't immediately go to Umbreon and let Starmie switch out to regular Poison, later spammed Pursuit looking for crits at the right time and ran out of PP without ever finding it. Surprisingly, PSN doesn't supplement your 40 BP attack coming off 218 SpA to outpace Recover. At least it eats most of the PP...
ok if that's the case then clearly it is a tie then? since that's what both players are playing for.
there use to be a propose draw button on netbattle for that reason.
Well it's complicated because Struggle outpaces Leftovers recovery. So in literally a billion years, if all the other player does is switch, Struggle will kill all their mons. But they can't kill the Zapdos because then Snorlax kills in, like, 50 turns, barring crits and spc falls and all that.
The idea is that "propose draw" is not self-policing because some asshole has always wanted to play it out. This has been, like, the 6th 600+ turn GSC game in the past 3 SPLs.
The idea is that "propose draw" is not self-policing because some asshole has always wanted to play it out. This has been, like, the 6th 600+ turn GSC game in the past 3 SPLs.
No wonder GSC gets less and less popular.
on topic: I think it's difficult to implement a set of conditions in which a game is considered a draw. Too many variables. It should be both players common sense to see that the game has reached a point where a possible win outcome of either player would take a HUGE amount of time to occur and thus it should end in a draw.
I know in a tournament situation the mentality can be different than in a friendly match, but still.
on topic: I think it's difficult to implement a set of conditions in which a game is considered a draw. Too many variables. It should be both players common sense to see that the game has reached a point where a possible win outcome of either player would take a HUGE amount of time to occur and thus it should end in a draw.
I know in a tournament situation the mentality can be different than in a friendly match, but still.
Totally disagree , I think I don't have to explain why
The part that I bolded is the part that's a problem. There is no 'but still' in this situation; it's just a fact that if we're playing in a tournament, it's a completely different beast than just some friendly match between acquaintances or whatever. You can't leave things up to 'social expectations' in a tournament. That punishes everyone, from the people who give in to social pressure and agree to a draw when there might be a chance to somehow squeeze out a win in 30 minutes, to the people who really do play the whole boring thing out. It's best to have concrete rules.Xeze said: