Need a Sudden Death mechanic?

[Liopleurodon]

The funny thing is, my longest fights haven't been against people using turtle teams. It's almost always against people using Lightning Storm, because of that weird graphical lag between hits. I stopped using mine before it was nerfed down to 5 turns even though it was my favorite to play early on, because matches went 20-40 rounds but took upwards of 10 minutes per match. 5-10 seconds of lag per hit, plus a minimum of 4 hits per round adds up fast. Ain't nobody got time for that.

That said, I'd absolutely support a sudden death mechanic, but only after something like 200 rounds, where it's clearly a stalemate that isn't going to be won except by concession. Using a control/turtle team is an absolutely valid strategy, no matter how annoying you may think it is.

[Digem]

On a side note, I once went about 45 minutes on a single battle with a guy who had a P/P Emp crab left; and so did I. We could not kill each other so it became a battle of "who will concede first". I ended up quitting because I got hungry.

this is what people are talking about it isn't wrong but who wants to battle for 45 minutes?
boss fights don't even last close to this long why should one pet battle?
and it doesn't need a sudden death mechanic per se but after a certain amount of rounds ,30 to 50 I would say, have healing go down 5% or so a round and damage go up 5% or so.
this would speed up an already long battle.
one would still have 30 to 50 rounds to do their "strategy" this idea really isn't infringing on it.

No, this is not 'what people are talking about'. My example has NOTHING to do with a stall team. It was a humorous example of two people playing the way they want to play. I decided to give up, and actually respected the other guy for hanging in. I imagined him sitting there thinking the same thing I was and it made me laugh.

I wanted to battle for 45 minutes, and so did that guy apparently. That is how we chose to play the game and that has nothing to do with how you choose to play the game.

And for the record, I am not really for or against a sudden death mechanic, but I am certainly against people harassing players in this thread for their style of play.

You say people are harassing them for their style of play right?
I say that style of play is harassing others forcing them to play their long style.
And don't say a dungeon can take that long because that is comparing apple to oranges.
Yes, one whole dungeon might take that long but one boss fight in that said dungeon does not.
Pet battles is one fight not a series of fights.
Forcing others to fight their style just because they want to is just as bad.

And finally everyone all knows what the goal here is with the long fight teams.
You might get someone once or even twice to fight one that long but in the long run this team set up gets people to run away for easy win.
Anyone who pet battles regularly knows you see the same 4 or 5 different people at most while battling.
The que groups seem pretty small most times so playing with this style of team is to get quick run away wins.

[Kring]

You might get someone once or even twice to fight one that long but in the long run this team set up gets people to run away for easy win.
Anyone who pet battles regularly knows you see the same 4 or 5 different people at most while battling.
The que groups seem pretty small most times so playing with this style of team is to get quick run away wins.

I think that's the real problem. If you get facerolled by clone dancer or the Val'kyr you will either stop battling (which keeps the people in the queue even smaller), get better (not everyone want's to invest that much time into pet battling to learn the tier 1 teams) or resort to something that works for you.

Most of the time I play without a healer. Which means I will either win fast against these teams or loose eventually. You only need a sudden death mechanic if you're team has a stall pet too. I don't think they try to win by getting you to forfeit. They try to win by grinding you down.

[Digem]

You might get someone once or even twice to fight one that long but in the long run this team set up gets people to run away for easy win.
Anyone who pet battles regularly knows you see the same 4 or 5 different people at most while battling.
The que groups seem pretty small most times so playing with this style of team is to get quick run away wins.

I think that's the real problem. If you get facerolled by clone dancer or the Val'kyr you will either stop battling (which keeps the people in the queue even smaller), get better (not everyone want's to invest that much time into pet battling to learn the tier 1 teams) or resort to something that works for you.

Most of the time I play without a healer. Which means I will either win fast against these teams or loose eventually. You only need a sudden death mechanic if you're team has a stall pet too. I don't think they try to win by getting you to forfeit. They try to win by grinding you down.

Truth be told I have no problem with a healer centric team.
If that what works for someone and makes pet battling fun for them great.
More people battling the better and everything does I have a counter.

What annoys me is the people defending this long style as a great strategy they came up with.
With great synergy of their team.
BS healing is just as if not more OP right now than damage and they are taking advantage of that and good for them.
But don't act like you are persecuted for using that team.
One knows what they are doing when they roll such a team and if we can't make comments on it here than you can't complain about high damage teams.
I know to get to the 250, then 1000, the 5000 wins takes a lot and can go about it how they like but others have a right to complain or suggest some ways to not battle for 45 minutes.
An increase of damage and decrease of healing after say 50 rounds won't cramp this style of play heck it might make the team better.
They would still be well healed by round 50 and their opponent probably not, probably lost a few by then, and now when they do attack to finish off opponent they would be doing more damage.

[Jerebear]

Whenever I face healing teams, I take note of their overall strategy. If they have a pet doing damage to me outside of the healing abilities, then I don't consider them a stall team. If all they do is heal, rotate, heal, etc. with no active damage dealing, then I would consider them a stall team. For me if I don't want to take a long time, I just flee. If I don't mind a long fight, I'll stay in and try to calculate a counter. I did this the other day against a crawdad/zao/sunflower team. I had to do some trickery but manage to kill off the sunflower, then the crawdad, then eventually zao. I know the person wasn't stalling me as they actively were attacking me with both Zao and the crawdad in between heals. I think there is a difference between a stall team and a healing team. A stall team never attacks unless it is part of a healing ability and sometimes even pulls the "wait out the timer" method. A healing team takes a while to kill, but at least tries to kill me in the process.

For me, even if I don't want to be forced into a slow battle, I likewise don't want to pressure a person into playing fast like I like. I think it goes both ways. Its equally unfair of me to try to force someone into my playstyle as it is for them to do the same to me. Luckily I have the choice to stick it out or flee and go on to the next battle.

EDIT: I am very much for a sudden death mechanic as I stated before, but I do understand how a healing team can be interesting to some.

[Kring]

I have never seen a team that only tries to stall. They all do some damage. Maybe I'm lucky.

Sudden death mechanic doesn't have to be reduced healing. Blizzard could also implement a mechanic that changes the weather to Scorched Earth after 30 rounds and increases the damage of the effect by 50 every round.

[Kpb321]

I ran one of the teams described here to try it out. I found it did fairly well in the meta and was fairly straightforward to play. I was perfectly happy to actually kill of the opponent but I'll admit that it is nice when people abandon at the start of the fight or even part way into the fight when they realize they won't win.

[Poofah]

This comes down to a problem with how we're rewarded for pet PvP. Losses don't count, so people hunting the achieves probably want to optimize wins per time. Whereas most games encourage you to optimize win percentage instead, and the queue is filled with both types of players.

Healing absolutely should be a viable strategy for winning games. But it's necessarily slow, and wins-per-time players are probably not going to be happy when they're forced into slow games. So the reward system is inherently creating a conflict between wins-per-time players and win-percentage players.

Obviously there are also pure 'stall' teams that angle for concessions as their primary route to victory. Luckily Bliz has addressed that somewhat with the dwindling move timer, and nerfs to abilities like Decoy. I run across these teams very rarely.

[Digem]

I have never seen a team that only tries to stall. They all do some damage. Maybe I'm lucky.

Sudden death mechanic doesn't have to be reduced healing. Blizzard could also implement a mechanic that changes the weather to Scorched Earth after 30 rounds and increases the damage of the effect by 50 every round.

That is an interesting idea you have there.
Though I don't believe it could be scourged earth due to the fact some pets have conflagrate which would love to not have to do a set up move like burn to get the double damage. A smart battler would find a way to take advantage of this.
Also, can other pets still use their weather changing moves?
If not big disadvantage for them.
But, the idea has some real merit maybe call the move like creeping death and it grows stronger a bit each move it is out after activated kinda like the lich king move.
You have to make sure though no pet will be able to work off it like burning or that it does equal damage to all can't be super effective to some and not to others.
People liked pointing out boss fights but forget bosses have enrage timers so this is nothing new to wow and Pokemon which we all know this is based off of had a limits to the amounts one could use a move to some what speed up fights .

[Adezero]

haha. I just faced a sunflower/crawdad/fiendish imp team and I was disgusted so I afked the first two turns, then I decided I'll just fight him and I beat his stupid stall team.

I'm using the valk/qiraji/death adder team though, do people think i'm cheesy for using that?

[Mwebly]

I am not a fan of sudden death or ramping-up timers because they will obviously favor the fast and furious over the slow and methodical. I love diversity in the meta-game and hate stagnation more than long matches. If I need quick wins, I forfeit when I see a composition that will take a long time to beat. If I have the time then I will take on all comers and really enjoy beating a heavy healing team, or even losing after a long fight.

I would hate for the rules to change so that a bunch of currently viable strategies are left behind in favor of a narrower and faster game. It would be a different game than the one we play now, and while there are many who are calling for it, I would advise you to be careful what you wish for.

Since the original Wow build, the game has been simplified and its complexity reduced to appeal to people who do not want to do the work to adapt to the game as it is but want the game to adapt to their playstyle, and Blizz has often followed the dollar and sought to expand their fan base with a "simpler is always better" philosophy. While bigger than they originally anticipated, I don't think pet battles represent a lot of real profit for the developers, so my hope is that they will keep nudging and nerfing as certain pet abilities become impossible to counter, but that they have actually invented a far better game than they, or we, know.

And there is always the option to flee if you don't like what your opponent brought to the table, that is a much better option than telling him he can't bring what he likes. I hate trolling and pure stalling too, but not enough to break the game to stop it.

[Drudatz]

Hey, the only tactic I will consider my opponent doing to delay the game for the purpose of wanting me to leave will be : spent the whole clock and doing nothing.

THIS is the only really anoying thing wich is why I think the clock should be set down to 5 secs
(after all you only have 4 buttons to push)

And a sudden Death mechanic should only kick in, if, like someone mentioned you ie have a crab vs a crab as last pets and its obvious noone can win and then it should count as a tie.

I often play a team of Val'kyr/Crawdad/Ancient.

that team right there is for the sole purpose of dragging out the fight and hoping the opponent quits.

No its not - it might be annoying but with a Death Adder, Anubis Idol and a Magical Crawdad (wich I run) that team is toast as my Crab eats the Valkyrs Haunt wich does zero demage thanks to anubis sandstorm
So dont complain about pets but learn how to play and COUNTER teams.

[Hootstwo]

I still favour a hard cap on number of turns, not too too low, but not a ridiculous number either - say 60ish. At the end of the 60 turns the player with the most aggregate damage wins, that simple.

If you're running a team that is genuinely trying to win by killing your opponent's pets and not by simply infuriate your opponent with healing and trivial chipping at opponent health, you shouldn't be too worried that you'll always lose on damage aggregate.

[Hootstwo]

Hey, the only tactic I will consider my opponent doing to delay the game for the purpose of wanting me to leave will be : spent the whole clock and doing nothing.

THIS is the only really anoying thing wich is why I think the clock should be set down to 5 secs
(after all you only have 4 buttons to push)

And a sudden Death mechanic should only kick in, if, like someone mentioned you ie have a crab vs a crab as last pets and its obvious noone can win and then it should count as a tie.

I often play a team of Val'kyr/Crawdad/Ancient.

that team right there is for the sole purpose of dragging out the fight and hoping the opponent quits.

No its not - it might be annoying but with a Death Adder, Anubis Idol and a Magical Crawdad (wich I run) that team is toast as my Crab eats the Valkyrs Haunt wich does zero demage thanks to anubis sandstorm
So dont complain about pets but learn how to play and COUNTER teams.

Nobody says that teams can't be countered - of course they can. The issue is when you have to have a team explicitly designed to be ONE opposing team, that's an issue.

The team I run is quite generic and can WIN (or at least stand a reasonable CHANCE of winning) against the vast majority of teams it comes up against. Most "stall" teams won't LOSE to most teams, but there are many teams that they CAN'T win against other than having their opponents concede. IE most teams that have a magic crawdad just plain can't win against a crab, the count on you conceding.

[Jerebear]

I still favour a hard cap on number of turns, not too too low, but not a ridiculous number either - say 60ish. At the end of the 60 turns the player with the most aggregate damage wins, that simple.

If you're running a team that is genuinely trying to win by killing your opponent's pets and not by simply infuriate your opponent with healing and trivial chipping at opponent health, you shouldn't be too worried that you'll always lose on damage aggregate.

For a hard cap, I would rather see the result be a draw. That discourages both sides from drawing it out and making it a game of "adding just enough damage to win aggrigate". If it was a decreased healing/increased damage, then whoever is left standing would be fine IMO.

[Digem]

I am not a fan of sudden death or ramping-up timers because they will obviously favor the fast and furious over the slow and methodical. I love diversity in the meta-game and hate stagnation more than long matches. If I need quick wins, I forfeit when I see a composition that will take a long time to beat. If I have the time then I will take on all comers and really enjoy beating a heavy healing team, or even losing after a long fight.

I would hate for the rules to change so that a bunch of currently viable strategies are left behind in favor of a narrower and faster game. It would be a different game than the one we play now, and while there are many who are calling for it, I would advise you to be careful what you wish for.

Since the original Wow build, the game has been simplified and its complexity reduced to appeal to people who do not want to do the work to adapt to the game as it is but want the game to adapt to their playstyle, and Blizz has often followed the dollar and sought to expand their fan base with a "simpler is always better" philosophy. While bigger than they originally anticipated, I don't think pet battles represent a lot of real profit for the developers, so my hope is that they will keep nudging and nerfing as certain pet abilities become impossible to counter, but that they have actually invented a far better game than they, or we, know.

And there is always the option to flee if you don't like what your opponent brought to the table, that is a much better option than telling him he can't bring what he likes. I hate trolling and pure stalling too, but not enough to break the game to stop it.

what?
how is 50 or 60 rounds not enough time to win in?
how is that possibly cramping ones play style to have some sort of debuff to start happening after then?
last time I checked all bosses have enrage timers.
how in the world is pet battle that lasts longer than 50 to 60 rounds fun?
and even then if the debuff started then it could still go on 20 rounds or so.
their is no way making a fight speed up after 50 to 60 rounds is "dumbing" it down.
the only reason to shoot for that long of a fight is to hope for opponents to flee.
if that is what you want the easy win due to that isn't that "dumbing" it down or at least admit that is your goal and I am fine with it don't claim the sanctity of the game is being played with making one pet battle speed up after 50 to 60 rounds.

come on

[Drudatz]

how is 50 or 60 rounds not enough time to win in?
how is that possibly cramping ones play style to have some sort of debuff to start happening after then?
last time I checked all bosses have enrage timers.
how in the world is pet battle that lasts longer than 50 to 60 rounds fun?

If you dont like a game lasting that long - Id prefer a 100 round game over every usual 15 round game everytime - you can allways just forfit.

And yes as someone posted IF they implement a sudden death to pet battles it should end as tie thats the ONLY option that makes sense for a sudden death.

[Tuatha]

what?
how is 50 or 60 rounds not enough time to win in?
how is that possibly cramping ones play style to have some sort of debuff to start happening after then?
last time I checked all bosses have enrage timers.
how in the world is pet battle that lasts longer than 50 to 60 rounds fun?
and even then if the debuff started then it could still go on 20 rounds or so.
their is no way making a fight speed up after 50 to 60 rounds is "dumbing" it down.
the only reason to shoot for that long of a fight is to hope for opponents to flee.
if that is what you want the easy win due to that isn't that "dumbing" it down or at least admit that is your goal and I am fine with it don't claim the sanctity of the game is being played with making one pet battle speed up after 50 to 60 rounds.

come on

I disagree.

First, you are not a boss. You may nerd-rage, but there is no enrage timer for you. There used to be no timer in the arena either, but now it's what, 45 minutes? Not exactly a 5 minute boss enrage timer. Also, have you ever seen a pet in the Celestial Tournament enrage on you? Apples and oranges.

Second, I have been in many battles that have gone more than 50 turns, even more than 100 turns, where there was no intent to stall, we just each happened to have a healer. You can't invalidate a whole class of moves like heals just because you want to get in and out and on with your life. You're now forcing someone else to play your style.

Third, if you really want a debuff after x rounds to force a win, you are advocating for the creation of a stall team that is guaranteed a win after x+y rounds. Because you know there will be that one combination of stall pets that can survive just long enough to let that debuff do the dirty work. And when that is figured out, you will see those teams queuing up more than you see a valk today.

I'm all for a "Draw" button, usable once every 10-20 turns or so to prevent spam, resulting in a draw if the opponent fails to make a move or to decline the draw. I'm even fine with a sudden death threshold that results in a draw, but only after a significant number of turns like 100+.

[Digem]

what?
how is 50 or 60 rounds not enough time to win in?
how is that possibly cramping ones play style to have some sort of debuff to start happening after then?
last time I checked all bosses have enrage timers.
how in the world is pet battle that lasts longer than 50 to 60 rounds fun?
and even then if the debuff started then it could still go on 20 rounds or so.
their is no way making a fight speed up after 50 to 60 rounds is "dumbing" it down.
the only reason to shoot for that long of a fight is to hope for opponents to flee.
if that is what you want the easy win due to that isn't that "dumbing" it down or at least admit that is your goal and I am fine with it don't claim the sanctity of the game is being played with making one pet battle speed up after 50 to 60 rounds.

come on

I disagree.

First, you are not a boss. You may nerd-rage, but there is no enrage timer for you. There used to be no timer in the arena either, but now it's what, 45 minutes? Not exactly a 5 minute boss enrage timer. Also, have you ever seen a pet in the Celestial Tournament enrage on you? Apples and oranges.

Second, I have been in many battles that have gone more than 50 turns, even more than 100 turns, where there was no intent to stall, we just each happened to have a healer. You can't invalidate a whole class of moves like heals just because you want to get in and out and on with your life. You're now forcing someone else to play your style.

Third, if you really want a debuff after x rounds to force a win, you are advocating for the creation of a stall team that is guaranteed a win after x+y rounds. Because you know there will be that one combination of stall pets that can survive just long enough to let that debuff do the dirty work. And when that is figured out, you will see those teams queuing up more than you see a valk today.

I'm all for a "Draw" button, usable once every 10-20 turns or so to prevent spam, resulting in a draw if the opponent fails to make a move or to decline the draw. I'm even fine with a sudden death threshold that results in a draw, but only after a significant number of turns like 100+.

100 rounds are you kidding me for pet battling?
100 rounds isn't stalling?
And my only option against you is quit but you aren't forcing me to play your style?
Wow just wow is all I am going to say.

[Tuatha]

I have been in many battles that have gone more than 50 turns, even more than 100 turns, where there was no intent to stall

100 rounds are you kidding me for pet battling?
100 rounds isn't stalling?

I guess I don't see why that is met with such derision. Maybe "many" is overstating it, but yes, I have been in battles that have had a lot of switches, some healing, some evasion, and I've seen it go over 100 rounds while still being a battle and not stalled.

Fwiw, I hate stall teams and I don't think I play any. But if I put an Emperor Crab in there to counter all the valks, I have one heal and one shield. Does that alone constitute a stall team in your mind? Or does it have to be a heavy healer like a Sunflower or Crawdad? What about when my rabbit, with its avoidance and critter attacks, takes forever to beat down your Fiendish Imp? Which is the staller, the rabbit with dodge, burrow, and weak vs humanoids attack, or the Imp with its humanoid healing and 90% attack that's weak vs critters?

Just like in the arena, it's usually over in 2-5 minutes. But sometimes you need to create a few minutes to let a cd come up. Same thing, but in this case it's rounds. I think that's a good comparison, because they did eventually put a time limit in the arena specifically because of stallers. And I said I'm fine with a round limit in pet battles, but 50 turns is too short. 100 puts it outside the realm possibility that someone is executing a plan, just being slow about it. And it should be a draw, not a forced win. Again, compare it to the arena. Not only does it end in a draw, but 45 minutes is an eternity.