Current, currently. I'm not married to this if base better fits people's intuitions.
Durations always elapse. The combat rule is for things like Sandstorm damage. Thread has been clarified.
-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
The leader of this forum is LouisCyphre. The moderators of this forum are JJayyFeather, Mowtom, nightblitz42, TheEver, and TMan87.
-
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.
-
Get your votes in for the 2025 Smog Awards!
Resource BBP Bug and Feedback Thread - Generation 9 Edition!
- Thread starter LouisCyphre
- Start date
Current, currently. I'm not married to this if base better fits people's intuitions.
Durations always elapse. The combat rule is for things like Sandstorm damage. Thread has been clarified.
to transfer thoughts from discord to here since it was mentioned this is the place for this:
it feels extremely bad losing to time in an otherwise-unloseable gamestate after playing 15 rounds in 11 days.
in my opinion the "hour gap" rule does not make sense in a context where most of the match time was not used. rewarding fast play does make some sense, but this is not detecting fast play, it is detecting "did you have something come up when you wanted to order", "was there anything going on in your life", etc.
at the same time, we don't want to have a situation at the end of a battle where the player with a time advantage has to stall a precise amount to cause the game to end while they are winning.
So, I have two proposed improvements (not compatible with each other). The first is more "I think this is just a direct improvement on the current system", the second is more my thoughts on a change that would work in general.
- Incremental Hour Gap:
Instead of always checking for a static 36 hour gap, the gap must be more than the number of hours left before the battle deadline.
Reasoning: If the battle ends with several days left before the deadline, both players must have played fast anyways.
- Block Hours
If we actively want Circuit to specifically test the ability to play very quickly, and so consider it desirable, I think it's still important to not punish players for "having one thing come up/one irl commitment" (for example in the form of "I'm busy this weekend"). But it's even more unfair if someone doesn't finish their match because of this.
Therefore I suggest:
Players have 24 Round Hours, 24 traditional Battle Hours, and one 48-hour "Hour Block". The way this works is that the single round you spent the most hours in uses up your "Hour Block" (and possibly additional hours, if you spent more time on that round), and that amount of time does not affect tiebreakers, except if fewer rounds than the round limit were played. In other words, you get one round on which you can take as long as the previous rules allowed, and it doesn't cost you the game to do so (for example, if you need to go for a weekend), but incrementally spending a few battle hours every round isn't safe. I think this has a nice balance of rewarding playing fast and not punishing something coming up.
(And what if two things come up? ...Well, then you probably can't play circuit. But that was also true under the old rules, that's just too much time to be away.)
it feels extremely bad losing to time in an otherwise-unloseable gamestate after playing 15 rounds in 11 days.
in my opinion the "hour gap" rule does not make sense in a context where most of the match time was not used. rewarding fast play does make some sense, but this is not detecting fast play, it is detecting "did you have something come up when you wanted to order", "was there anything going on in your life", etc.
at the same time, we don't want to have a situation at the end of a battle where the player with a time advantage has to stall a precise amount to cause the game to end while they are winning.
So, I have two proposed improvements (not compatible with each other). The first is more "I think this is just a direct improvement on the current system", the second is more my thoughts on a change that would work in general.
- Incremental Hour Gap:
Instead of always checking for a static 36 hour gap, the gap must be more than the number of hours left before the battle deadline.
Reasoning: If the battle ends with several days left before the deadline, both players must have played fast anyways.
- Block Hours
If we actively want Circuit to specifically test the ability to play very quickly, and so consider it desirable, I think it's still important to not punish players for "having one thing come up/one irl commitment" (for example in the form of "I'm busy this weekend"). But it's even more unfair if someone doesn't finish their match because of this.
Therefore I suggest:
Players have 24 Round Hours, 24 traditional Battle Hours, and one 48-hour "Hour Block". The way this works is that the single round you spent the most hours in uses up your "Hour Block" (and possibly additional hours, if you spent more time on that round), and that amount of time does not affect tiebreakers, except if fewer rounds than the round limit were played. In other words, you get one round on which you can take as long as the previous rules allowed, and it doesn't cost you the game to do so (for example, if you need to go for a weekend), but incrementally spending a few battle hours every round isn't safe. I think this has a nice balance of rewarding playing fast and not punishing something coming up.
(And what if two things come up? ...Well, then you probably can't play circuit. But that was also true under the old rules, that's just too much time to be away.)