Time Stalling as a Strategy

[Hill]

Yesterday, I was battling a guy with Minimize/Soft-Boiled/Toxic/Seismic Toss Chansey. This Chansey was his last Pokémon, and I still had Gengar and Togekiss. I could switch between them and Roost the damage of toxic/Stoss when needed to pp stall the Chansey and win her when she started using Struggle. Or I could leave Gengar in the arena just letting the max time for each turn to go on (I still had 15 Shadow Balls left and there were 13 minutes left in the clock) and still win because I had more Pokémon left, which I did. (Left the DS in my room and went to the kitchen for a snack). I consider this situation more "fair" than the next one, because if I played I would still win.

Not much after that, same Chansey moveset, except Chansey got in battle in turn 2, after Sableye lost half of its health to Giga Drain after burning my Venusaur. I brought Gengar to the battle on turn 3, got a free substitute and started doing the same thing. In this scenario, my pps would run dry sooner than Chansey's if he used at least 1 PP Up and I'd probably lose. But once again I started taking 1 minute to select an attack, and I won after 30 minutes because Nintendo rules assure the win to the player with most percentage of HP left if both players still had the same amount of Pokémon.

I don't think what I did was fair, but I had Nintendo rules on my side. What do you think, I should have played normally or it's my opponent responsability to switch and try to get out of this certain losing situation?

 

[Guilan]

Fair enough. The opponent used a strategy that capitalizes from delay and stalling, and you played his game to win, and most importantly, under the rules.

Not the most brilliant battle/strategy ever, but all is fair in love and pokemon.

 

[Ankiseth]

Completely Fair in this situations, i think this is the reason why nintendo doesnt like 6v6, they should just reduce the time you have to make a move to half i guess.
i had some people time stall me but because they where mad when they know they will lose anyways for instance a guy had a hard baton pass team, i killed the reciever and he just had his baton passer left, the passer only had buff moves, baton pass and protect so he couldn't do a thing so he "time stalled" no chance he would win i had 2 pokemon and he had 1 just 3 hits to take him out and he took a minute just to protect, protect again, take a hit, protect and so on, im a patient person so np for me, but thats just being a big A hole.

 

[LiteSpecter]

I sometimes feel bad for losing games I could have won by timerstalling. In one case I tricked a sticky barb onto a Curse/Amnesia/??/(Recover probably) Quagsire, then encore locked it with Wobb. Since it would die in 16 or 17 turns and I had three guys left vs his two, I could have timerstalled to win, but didn't. His last guy was a Minimize/Recover/Scald/?? Starmie @Brightpowder that eventually swept me cuz I couldn't hit it.

Timerstalling seems like a good strategy against hax stalling.

 

[WhyBuffet]

Recently, a strategy known as "SwagPlay" has been discussed by the Smogon community, and it has been debated whether or not this strategy should be banned. From what I have gathered, the main reason for wanting to ban this "SwagPlay" strategy is because of its reliance on luck, a reliance which goes against the nature of what Smogon is trying to do (which is to create a fair and balanced metagame).

Therefore, it surprises me a little to hear that some people in the Smogon community would support this notion of timestalling, yet have a problem with luck or hax-based strategies. If timestalling is in accordance with the rules, and "all is fair in love and Pokémon," then "SwagPlay" and other evasion strategies should be given the same consideration.

 

[Chev]

Recently, a strategy known as "SwagPlay" has been discussed by the Smogon community, and it has been debated whether or not this strategy should be banned. From what I have gathered, the main reason for wanting to ban this "SwagPlay" strategy is because of its reliance on luck, a reliance which goes against the nature of what Smogon is trying to do (which is to create a fair and balanced metagame).

Therefore, it surprises me a little to hear that some people in the Smogon community would support this notion of timestalling, yet have a problem with luck or hax-based strategies. If timestalling is in accordance with the rules, and "all is fair in love and Pokémon," then "SwagPlay" and other evasion strategies should be given the same consideration.

OU discussion and Battlespot discussion are two completely different worlds. Please do not discuss one forum group in another for "rules and regulations". In Battlespot, standard Smogon rules are out the window completely, and therefore hold no sway in the way the world plays. Ugh what a tonguetwister.

On another note, SwagPlay is used in Battlespot, and is usually the reason for immediate rage quits from players of all rankings. I've seen a 1700 ranked player quit turn 1 they saw the team was housing Sableye, Blissey and Klefki. So, it is still not cared for by more than just the Smogon community. Most people just do the "Well f*ck em, I'll play their game then" and force the other player into waiting around twiddling their thumbs until the person they were attempting to stall out is off having a cup of tea. It's more of a revenge against those utilizing a strategy and a lesson all in one to show how that style of gameplay is not fun in the least if the opponent has half a brain. It kills the competitive feel of battling to a point where most people would rather not play pokemon AT ALL then have to play by that way. And when an entire team is focused around said strategy, it forces the opponent to react in a way to make it work; usually by walking away and letting the other player waste their own time or quit.

Thirdly, Necro-post much?

 

[WhyBuffet]

OU discussion and Battlespot discussion are two completely different worlds. Please do not discuss one forum group in another for "rules and regulations". In Battlespot, standard Smogon rules are out the window completely, and therefore hold no sway in the way the world plays. Ugh what a tonguetwister.

On another note, SwagPlay is used in Battlespot, and is usually the reason for immediate rage quits from players of all rankings. I've seen a 1700 ranked player quit turn 1 they saw the team was housing Sableye, Blissey and Klefki. So, it is still not cared for by more than just the Smogon community. Most people just do the "Well f*ck em, I'll play their game then" and force the other player into waiting around twiddling their thumbs until the person they were attempting to stall out is off having a cup of tea. It's more of a revenge against those utilizing a strategy and a lesson all in one to show how that style of gameplay is not fun in the least if the opponent has half a brain. It kills the competitive feel of battling to a point where most people would rather not play pokemon AT ALL then have to play by that way. And when an entire team is focused around said strategy, it forces the opponent to react in a way to make it work; usually by walking away and letting the other player waste their own time or quit.

Thirdly, Necro-post much?

I don't think I was very clear on my intended point. I wasn't trying to bring OU discussions into Battle Spot discussions; I used the example of "SwagPlay" to underline the fact that the Smogon community tries to eliminate luck, hax, or unsportsmanlike behaviour in their battles (because "SwagPlay" is a bit unsporting, in my opinion). Because decisions like this are made by the Smogon community, it would stand to reason that the vast majority of the Smogon community is opposed to the idea of unsportsmanlike Pokémon battles.

That is a point seperate to Battle Spot, so yes, maybe it was a bit out of context in this forum. Of course, there are players on Battle Spot that are not members of the Smogon community. But all of the people posting in this thread ARE members of the Smogon forums and community. So, my original point was that it just startles me to learn that all the people here on this thread (who are Smogon community forum members) would condone a strategy that goes against fair play and the nature of the game, when I thought people on the Smogon forums had a bit more decorum than that. Saying "well they are being cheap so I might as well give 'em a taste of their own medicine" doesn't sit well with me. Hopefully I made myself a little clearer.

Also, what is Necro-post?

EDIT: Ah, necro-post. Went away from my computer and deducted what that meant. Well, I'm kinda new to the forums, I was just going through a bunch of threads and saw that I had something to say about this one, so... I did.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

There are a number of Japanese that will timestall you. Tofu comes to mind.

I strongly STRONGLY discourage timestalling, unless if it is impossible to avoid (Blissey vs. Rest Dusclops). I also think it will really discourage some of the lower ranked players who have a lot of potential if they continue playing.

I know my code of honor seems silly, but honestly, in order for a metagame to grow it needs a large pool of players, otherwise it'll fall into obscurity.

As a player... What leaves a better impression? Being destroyed by a well-thought out strategy or... Stalled to time? What strategy is more likely to keep you playing and what strategy will make you want to spike your 3DS on the floor?

 

[Kashinn]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't time-stalling an option that is only available if one of the players makes it possible? I don't think there are a lot of players out there that fall under as victims of time-stalling in any of their battles unless they've opened up an option where one of their Pokemon can drag on a battle for many turns, and for some scenarios which heavily relies on chance. Like the case for Hill, not a lot of players would want to sit around for a battle that cycles repetitive turns for extended periods of time. By dragging on the number of turns with little changes in the match the player is potentially taking away their opponent's enjoyment of the battle, even though this may not have been the intent during the team-building process, and can thereby become a victim of time-stalling.

 

[stonerchris]

Time-stallers are assholes, and I dont mean the ones who use minimize and whatnot, I mean the ones who let the clock run down to almost zero before making their move each turn. Wish there was some way people who did this could be punished. I believe its very important not to give in to people who do this. As frustrating as it is, you can bet your opponent is getting just as annoyed that you haven't quit yet. Keep something else to do handy while you set down your gb and wait for the asshole's battle to finish. Even if you end up losing, it's better than just quitting, and will hopefully discourage the person from trying that again.

 

[Kashinn]

Is the timer used for Flat Singles the same as the duration used for Flat Triples? If so that's far too long for Flat Singles whereas it's a reasonable time used for Flat Triples. I do find that it could be slightly longer for turns that may take a bit to consider factors on both ends and the delay found in cancelling move selections. This usually leaves a few turns to auto-selection by over-thinking for the time given to you, but most moves are made in less than the time given anyways.

 

[MythTrainerInfinity]

The timer is the same for flat Triples... Which kinda sucks.

 

[Onicon]

Well, shit; the upcoming tournament is Singles, so it is going to be SwagPlay Heaven.

We are torn between the notion of doing anything possible and legal in order to win and exhibiting bad sportmanship - in our opinion the battle timer is implemented in a very clumsy way that encourages time-stalling when you are in a position to win because you deprive your opponent opportunities to retaliate. Should we promote this kind of behavior when we think that the mechanics are broken from the getgo? Gonna hate dilemmata.

We have really wished that the timer would punish the slower thinker (read: time-staller) similar to the chess timer. As of now they have increased the battle time to 20 in order to counteract time-stalling but in our opinion it has made it worse, not better. At least Rule 28.2 isn't as ambiguous anymore.

 

[Dragonbums]

I personally really hate timestalling. It's the worst strategy ever.

I'm not going to say it's cheating. Like you said, it is within the GameFreak rules. But really Gamefreak hasn't cared to balance out the game at all outside of VGC's.

Half the time it's just frustrating, annoying, and most people wouldn't put up with it.

Legitimate strategy, but there is a reason why many battlers don't use it.

 

[Unowninator]

It happened to me once. They intentionally ran out the clock by waiting until the last second to make their move. I think I could've won if they didn't do that.

 

[Haruno]

Is it a douchebag strategy? Most definitely, but I can definitely see it working and being an effective one at that since it guarantees wins either by you rage quitting due to lacking patience or if you do decide to play it out then you'll be in a distressed state of mind and thus make bad moves that you wouldn't have done otherwise in an environment where your opp isn't time stalling. Not to mention that timer stall is indeed a legitimate strategy both in vgc and in actual competitive play such as chess/badminton and the likes. Overall just deal with it or just ragequit, I'm sure timer stallers would love the latter so would you really want to let them get that satisfaction of knowing that you're free wins?

 

[Nighty]

I hate time stalling, it is incredibly annoying, and reeks of not being able to accept an unavoidable loss, or simply of playing the system in a completely not-fun way.

QMNG-WWWW-WWW7-3VY4

The battle in that video came annoyingly close to running out of time due to my opponent timestalling me the whole way after he was down to one Pokemon (Porygon2). Thankfully, the Hax Gods seemed to also think he was being a douche towards the end.

 

[Thatwackycruton]

I hate time stalling simply because it goes against my belief that a battle is own when the opposing player runs out of usable pokemon. Timestalling is a dirty, unhealthy, scumbag thing to do IMO.

 

[Spoonfairy]

They should just resolve this issue of shady sportsmanship by splitting the timer in two, each player has a 20min timer. Who ever runs out first loses.

 

[Thatwackycruton]

Neat idea!

 

[cant say]

Like a chess clock sort of system? That is actually a good idea

 

[Spoonfairy]

I do not know exactly how Time Chess works but I guess so.
The stalling strategy would kind of still work, but instead of just surviving 10-15 more turns you need to survive, I am guessing, for 60 turns as you need to be faster then you opponent to win it, leading to turns being around 10 sec long at most.

 

[cant say]

You basically just have a clock each instead of one game clock. When it's your turn your clock is counting down while the other players is paused. So if you take longer then your opponent to make a move eventually your time will expire and you lose. Because in Pokemon you don't take turns but instead do it at the same time, both users clock would count at the same time, but they would pause once they've selected a move. This would stop time stalling as that user's clock would expire before the other one, costing them the match instead of winning it on some HP% clause or whatever...

 

[Spoonfairy]

Yeah that is how I imagine the problem could be resolved! :)
But the huge problem is to make the devs aware of this option, no matter how many great ideas we come up with nothing will change until they say so

 

[Thatwackycruton]

Infuriating, isn't it....