Need a Sudden Death mechanic?

[Luciandk]

I was speculating over the need for a Sudden Death mechanic to bring an end to pvp pet battles dragging out forever. Due to staller teams having no offense, but aiming to frustrate the opponent into forfeiting.

Perhaps a limit of 50 rounds before it kicks in.

All healing effects is reduced with 50%, stacks with healing reduction abilites.
Every time you use a defensive skill, it gains a stacking +1 round cd.
All damage done is increased with 50%.

[Jerebear]

I would go simpler but more brutal:

Healing reduced to 50% (or even 0%)
At the end of each round, every pet alive receives 25% max health as damage (cannot be dodged/blocked/missed/or avoided in any way).
Starts at X rounds (not sure what would be good here...never really count rounds).

[Maleric]

Is this really a problem? I think if your games are regularly going 50+ rounds, it may be because your own team doesn't have enough offense.

That said, I wouldn't mind if the round timer dropped to five seconds or something for people who take too long to select moves. I think taking slow turns is a much more irritating tactic than using defensive pets.

[Ligre]

Stall teams have antidotes...

Anubisath Idol + Jademist Dancer ... heck, Jademist Dancer by ITSELF

Darkness teams ... Crow/Raven x2, Gooey Shaling, Scourged Whelpling

Conflag teams that use Scorched Earth and Wild Magic

Seriously, and even without using some of those pets, I've killed stall teams without much trouble. I saw a Sunflower/Emerald Proto team earlier (forgot the 3rd pet), and beat it with my Xu-Fu/Ancient/Nether Faerie comp. It wasn't terribly QUICK, but it didn't drag out to a point where I wanted to shoot myself either.

[Jabart]

I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. Just because someone is playing with a couple healers or other defensive pets, it does not mean they are trying to stall and win via concession. Focusing on building a solid defense first with minimal resources (pets/moves) dedicated to offense is one of many viable strategies; variety is a good thing to see in a balanced metagame. Just because a team's win condition takes a lot longer to execute (eg: DoT, or even something like Sunlight repeatedly) doesn't mean it's immoral in any way.

I often play a team of Val'kyr/Crawdad/Ancient. Sure, some of those games can take awhile, but it's not like the goal of my team is to stall; it is simply one of many legal and viable strategies, one that happens to take longer to execute. I use two of my three pets to keep all three alive, while the Val'kyr does her job and kills off all the opposing pets, albeit slowly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this! It's also a great way to (legitimately!) earn the No Time to Heal achiev. (For the record, I also rotate through a variety of other teams, most of which are quite aggressive offensively.)

That said, I wouldn't mind some kind of sudden death win condition, although 50 rounds seems a bit premature.

[Digem]

I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. Just because someone is playing with a couple healers or other defensive pets, it does not mean they are trying to stall and win via concession. Focusing on building a solid defense first with minimal resources (pets/moves) dedicated to offense is one of many viable strategies; variety is a good thing to see in a balanced metagame. Just because a team's win condition takes a lot longer to execute (eg: DoT, or even something like Sunlight repeatedly) doesn't mean it's immoral in any way.

I often play a team of Val'kyr/Crawdad/Ancient. Sure, some of those games can take awhile, but it's not like the goal of my team is to stall; it is simply one of many legal and viable strategies, one that happens to take longer to execute. I use two of my three pets to keep all three alive, while the Val'kyr does her job and kills off all the opposing pets, albeit slowly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this! It's also a great way to (legitimately!) earn the No Time to Heal achiev. (For the record, I also rotate through a variety of other teams, most of which are quite aggressive offensively.)

That said, I wouldn't mind some kind of sudden death win condition, although 50 rounds seems a bit premature.

that team right there is for the sole purpose of dragging out the fight and hoping the opponent quits.
you can justify it anyway you want but you know exactly what you are doing with that.
and if the are gonna nerf high damage pets like they do all the time(robot cat,murkulot, and kovok to name a few) they should do so to the stall/healing teams or put in a round timer in.
if one cannot win the fight in 50 rounds they are purposely stalling that would take at least 10 minutes to get to 50 rounds.
so quit justifying it.

[Jabart]

I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. Just because someone is playing with a couple healers or other defensive pets, it does not mean they are trying to stall and win via concession. Focusing on building a solid defense first with minimal resources (pets/moves) dedicated to offense is one of many viable strategies; variety is a good thing to see in a balanced metagame. Just because a team's win condition takes a lot longer to execute (eg: DoT, or even something like Sunlight repeatedly) doesn't mean it's immoral in any way.

I often play a team of Val'kyr/Crawdad/Ancient. Sure, some of those games can take awhile, but it's not like the goal of my team is to stall; it is simply one of many legal and viable strategies, one that happens to take longer to execute. I use two of my three pets to keep all three alive, while the Val'kyr does her job and kills off all the opposing pets, albeit slowly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this! It's also a great way to (legitimately!) earn the No Time to Heal achiev. (For the record, I also rotate through a variety of other teams, most of which are quite aggressive offensively.)

That said, I wouldn't mind some kind of sudden death win condition, although 50 rounds seems a bit premature.

that team right there is for the sole purpose of dragging out the fight and hoping the opponent quits.
you can justify it anyway you want but you know exactly what you are doing with that.
and if the are gonna nerf high damage pets like they do all the time(robot cat,murkulot, and kovok to name a few) they should do so to the stall/healing teams or put in a round timer in.
if one cannot win the fight in 50 rounds they are purposely stalling that would take at least 10 minutes to get to 50 rounds.
so quit justifying it.

I am very offended by your "you can justify it anyway you want but you know exactly what you are doing with that" statement, and find it rather ignorant. So you're going to tell me what my own strategy is? Accusing my team of aiming for the opponent quitting is pure bull excrement. My team right there wins via legal means, without concessions. It typically wins in around 50-75 turns, which is not infinite. It's a control strategy.

I know exactly what I'm doing with it? Sure I do. In detail:

In a typical game, I start with Val'kyr, place a Curse, then Haunt. I go to my Ancient, who uses Sunlight, then Photosynthesis. In the right situation, I poison them too. Then I go to the Crawdad, Wish, and Mist. I go back to the Ancient to reset Photosynthesis and Sunlight, then go back to the Crawdad to Mist, then Wish. Then I pass the Wish to the Val'kyr.

So far, if all goes right, all my pets are at or near 150% health, I've come close to killing one of the opposing pets, and weakened the other two with a couple Sunlights. THAT IS THE PURPOSE. NOT TO MAKE THE OPPONENT CONCEDE.

I repeat the cycle a few times, passing the Wish back and forth between the Crawdad and Val'kyr as needed to keep them alive, ALL WHILE DEALING DAMAGE TO THE OPPONENT via Haunt/Sunlight/etc.

Eventually, it should come down to three of my pets vs. one of the opponent's. At that point, I cycle through one last time if needed to add health. Then, with a 3-to-1 pet advantage, I turn to offense and finish off the last with minimal to no healing. If the last opposing pet heals in any way, I also let sunny weather die in order to finish the job.

AGAIN, THIS IS A LEGAL (and finite) STRATEGY. I just laid my team's entire game plan out, and note that NOWHERE AM I PURPORTING TO FORCE THE OPPONENT TO CONCEDE. Quit making dirty accusations at legit players with legit game plans; if my strategy bothers you so much, counter it. And if you don't have the patience to play a fun, strategic game for ten minutes, go find someone to play some rock-paper-scissors with; you'll have a winner in seconds.

[JEC]

I don't mean to sound flippant, but if you come up against a team that you don't think you match up against, why not just forfeit? Everyone has the right to construct any team that they want, so there really isn't any "wrong" thing to do.

[Eekmeister]

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

The heal team works based on strategy and in the end, that's what pet battling is supposed to be about. The reason they nerf op pets is to level the playing field. You can win a heal team, you just have to be patient and outmaneuver them.

Anyways, it would be interesting if you could chose a level of pet pvp battling à la Battle Frontier. You could have one where you choose from a group of preselected pets, timed battles, fighting through a pet battle maze, the possibilities are endless. What would be interesting is if you could queue for a tournament the way you do for raids. Something like that would definitely have to be timed though.

[Maleric]

I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. Just because someone is playing with a couple healers or other defensive pets, it does not mean they are trying to stall and win via concession.

I totally agree. I typically play a team of S/S Quiraji Guardling, P/P Emperor Crab, and H/S Restless Shadeling. So three pets that heal, sandstorm, shell shield, evasion, and a stun. It's a defensive/control comp, but it wins fairly and none of those pets are OP. I play it because it beats a lot of stuff and because I like how it plays, not to annoy anyone. Also, I think I've had maybe two out of 1,000 matches go beyond 50 rounds.

[Astraldr0p]

Considering that I had a 350 round pet pvp, yea, I would want there to be a sudden death mechanic. If it works in regular PVP, there should be one in place for pet pvp too.

I dont think that the team I had was meant to stall. I used it because I was testing out different comps, I only have like 18 wins under my belt. I liked the pets I ran with and thats what I used. However, it became a point wherein the other person was just spamming a heal rather than trying to attack me.

[Luciandk]

Considering regular arena pvp have their sudden death to discourage bringing nothing but healers to drag it out forever, I think its the same situation reflected in pet pvp.

Edit: Not long ago I ended up with a Ruby Droplet vs Fossilized Hatchling with heal. It was agonizingly slowly to whittle down the opponent.

[Ligre]

Jabart is right. Find a counter. I've listed some above in my previous post.

[Shagina]

A healing/control oriented team is not inherently a problem, as long as it has the intention of killing the enemy in some fashion. I can definitely see how Jabarts team plays out and I don't have a problem with it, though I wouldn't play the team myself (I loathe extremely defensive playstyles, just a personal preference). The issue is if you replace that val'kyr with, say, a ruby droplet. That's the kind of team that is genuinely there to annoy other people and the source of a lot of grief. It's also the reason why a lot of legitimate defensive setups are receiving collateral hate from frustrated players.

A quick note on the whole "tactical" aspect of long vs short games. A longer game doesn't actually make it more tactical, a short game can leave less margin for error where even a single mistake or a single brilliant move can turn a loss into a win.

[Digem]

I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. Just because someone is playing with a couple healers or other defensive pets, it does not mean they are trying to stall and win via concession. Focusing on building a solid defense first with minimal resources (pets/moves) dedicated to offense is one of many viable strategies; variety is a good thing to see in a balanced metagame. Just because a team's win condition takes a lot longer to execute (eg: DoT, or even something like Sunlight repeatedly) doesn't mean it's immoral in any way.

I often play a team of Val'kyr/Crawdad/Ancient. Sure, some of those games can take awhile, but it's not like the goal of my team is to stall; it is simply one of many legal and viable strategies, one that happens to take longer to execute. I use two of my three pets to keep all three alive, while the Val'kyr does her job and kills off all the opposing pets, albeit slowly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this! It's also a great way to (legitimately!) earn the No Time to Heal achiev. (For the record, I also rotate through a variety of other teams, most of which are quite aggressive offensively.)

That said, I wouldn't mind some kind of sudden death win condition, although 50 rounds seems a bit premature.

that team right there is for the sole purpose of dragging out the fight and hoping the opponent quits.
you can justify it anyway you want but you know exactly what you are doing with that.
and if the are gonna nerf high damage pets like they do all the time(robot cat,murkulot, and kovok to name a few) they should do so to the stall/healing teams or put in a round timer in.
if one cannot win the fight in 50 rounds they are purposely stalling that would take at least 10 minutes to get to 50 rounds.
so quit justifying it.

I am very offended by your "you can justify it anyway you want but you know exactly what you are doing with that" statement, and find it rather ignorant. So you're going to tell me what my own strategy is? Accusing my team of aiming for the opponent quitting is pure bull excrement. My team right there wins via legal means, without concessions. It typically wins in around 50-75 turns, which is not infinite. It's a control strategy.

I know exactly what I'm doing with it? Sure I do. In detail:

In a typical game, I start with Val'kyr, place a Curse, then Haunt. I go to my Ancient, who uses Sunlight, then Photosynthesis. In the right situation, I poison them too. Then I go to the Crawdad, Wish, and Mist. I go back to the Ancient to reset Photosynthesis and Sunlight, then go back to the Crawdad to Mist, then Wish. Then I pass the Wish to the Val'kyr.

So far, if all goes right, all my pets are at or near 150% health, I've come close to killing one of the opposing pets, and weakened the other two with a couple Sunlights. THAT IS THE PURPOSE. NOT TO MAKE THE OPPONENT CONCEDE.

I repeat the cycle a few times, passing the Wish back and forth between the Crawdad and Val'kyr as needed to keep them alive, ALL WHILE DEALING DAMAGE TO THE OPPONENT via Haunt/Sunlight/etc.

Eventually, it should come down to three of my pets vs. one of the opponent's. At that point, I cycle through one last time if needed to add health. Then, with a 3-to-1 pet advantage, I turn to offense and finish off the last with minimal to no healing. If the last opposing pet heals in any way, I also let sunny weather die in order to finish the job.

AGAIN, THIS IS A LEGAL (and finite) STRATEGY. I just laid my team's entire game plan out, and note that NOWHERE AM I PURPORTING TO FORCE THE OPPONENT TO CONCEDE. Quit making dirty accusations at legit players with legit game plans; if my strategy bothers you so much, counter it. And if you don't have the patience to play a fun, strategic game for ten minutes, go find someone to play some rock-paper-scissors with; you'll have a winner in seconds.

you yourself think a 50 round timer is premature.
so how are you not trying to stall out a fight then?
I have no problems with your team because I have a few teams that easily counter it.
but do not say you aren't trying to stall when you yourself said 50 rounds was premature.
what else are you hoping for then?
be truthful with oneself it will make things easier on you.

[Jabart]

That said, I wouldn't mind some kind of sudden death win condition, although 50 rounds seems a bit premature.

My team right there wins via legal means, without concessions. It typically wins in around 50-75 turns, which is not infinite.

you yourself think a 50 round timer is premature.
so how are you not trying to stall out a fight then?
I have no problems with your team because I have a few teams that easily counter it.
but do not say you aren't trying to stall when you yourself said 50 rounds was premature.
what else are you hoping for then?
be truthful with oneself it will make things easier on you.

Considering I've stated that my finite game plan typically wraps up in about 50-75 turns, it makes sense that I would hope for slightly more than 50 turns before triggering any sudden death mechanics meant to end otherwise infinite battles. What I am hoping for is to execute my game plan, as clearly laid out. Perhaps you should be taking your own advice about being truthful to oneself.

[Astraldr0p]

Maybe rather than turns, go by minutes. If a battle is already more than 20 mins then there has to be a sudden death - same rules for arena or maybe even make it end with a draw rather than how the arena randomly picks a winner. I think that is fair considering thats more than enough to work the 50-75 round.

[Mezmaron]

I just wanted to clear up a common misconception. Just because someone is playing with a couple healers or other defensive pets, it does not mean they are trying to stall and win via concession. Focusing on building a solid defense first with minimal resources (pets/moves) dedicated to offense is one of many viable strategies; variety is a good thing to see in a balanced metagame. Just because a team's win condition takes a lot longer to execute (eg: DoT, or even something like Sunlight repeatedly) doesn't mean it's immoral in any way.

I often play a team of Val'kyr/Crawdad/Ancient. Sure, some of those games can take awhile, but it's not like the goal of my team is to stall; it is simply one of many legal and viable strategies, one that happens to take longer to execute. I use two of my three pets to keep all three alive, while the Val'kyr does her job and kills off all the opposing pets, albeit slowly. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this! It's also a great way to (legitimately!) earn the No Time to Heal achiev. (For the record, I also rotate through a variety of other teams, most of which are quite aggressive offensively.)

That said, I wouldn't mind some kind of sudden death win condition, although 50 rounds seems a bit premature.

that team right there is for the sole purpose of dragging out the fight and hoping the opponent quits.
you can justify it anyway you want but you know exactly what you are doing with that.
and if the are gonna nerf high damage pets like they do all the time(robot cat,murkulot, and kovok to name a few) they should do so to the stall/healing teams or put in a round timer in.
if one cannot win the fight in 50 rounds they are purposely stalling that would take at least 10 minutes to get to 50 rounds.
so quit justifying it.

I am very offended by your "you can justify it anyway you want but you know exactly what you are doing with that" statement, and find it rather ignorant. So you're going to tell me what my own strategy is? Accusing my team of aiming for the opponent quitting is pure bull excrement. My team right there wins via legal means, without concessions. It typically wins in around 50-75 turns, which is not infinite. It's a control strategy.

I know exactly what I'm doing with it? Sure I do. In detail:

In a typical game, I start with Val'kyr, place a Curse, then Haunt. I go to my Ancient, who uses Sunlight, then Photosynthesis. In the right situation, I poison them too. Then I go to the Crawdad, Wish, and Mist. I go back to the Ancient to reset Photosynthesis and Sunlight, then go back to the Crawdad to Mist, then Wish. Then I pass the Wish to the Val'kyr.

So far, if all goes right, all my pets are at or near 150% health, I've come close to killing one of the opposing pets, and weakened the other two with a couple Sunlights. THAT IS THE PURPOSE. NOT TO MAKE THE OPPONENT CONCEDE.

I repeat the cycle a few times, passing the Wish back and forth between the Crawdad and Val'kyr as needed to keep them alive, ALL WHILE DEALING DAMAGE TO THE OPPONENT via Haunt/Sunlight/etc.

Eventually, it should come down to three of my pets vs. one of the opponent's. At that point, I cycle through one last time if needed to add health. Then, with a 3-to-1 pet advantage, I turn to offense and finish off the last with minimal to no healing. If the last opposing pet heals in any way, I also let sunny weather die in order to finish the job.

AGAIN, THIS IS A LEGAL (and finite) STRATEGY. I just laid my team's entire game plan out, and note that NOWHERE AM I PURPORTING TO FORCE THE OPPONENT TO CONCEDE. Quit making dirty accusations at legit players with legit game plans; if my strategy bothers you so much, counter it. And if you don't have the patience to play a fun, strategic game for ten minutes, go find someone to play some rock-paper-scissors with; you'll have a winner in seconds.

I really don't have a problem with stall teams but if I were to write out a definition of how to play a stall team it would essentially be what you're describing. While you insist your intention isn't to get people to quit to avoid an overlong, drawn out fight, I would think that occurs quite often. That being said, I don't really think there's a need for a sudden death mechanic. You can just quit a match if it's taking too long. You can be right into another pet battle relatively quickly. Most people luckily don't like to play stall teams in my experience. You can get fast wins with plenty of teams without having to resort to doing that.

[Jabart]

I really don't have a problem with stall teams but if I were to write out a definition of how to play a stall team it would essentially be what you're describing. While you insist your intention isn't to get people to quit to avoid an overlong, drawn out fight, I would think that occurs quite often. That being said, I don't really think there's a need for a sudden death mechanic. You can just quit a match if it's taking too long. You can be right into another pet battle relatively quickly. Most people luckily don't like to play stall teams in my experience. You can get fast wins with plenty of teams without having to resort to doing that.

So if you were going to make a stall team, you would include a completely offensive pet such as Unborn Val'kyr instead of something like Singing Sunflower/Ruby Droplet/Emerald Proto-Whelp?

Do people concede matches? Sometimes, but usually when the writing is on the wall. When I have three pets at over full health, and the opponent's remaining pets are obviously on their way to death, the game is pretty over. This is no different than when I play my Murkalot/Blackfuse Bombling/Gilnean Raven team that wins (or loses) in 6-10 turns, yet still get plenty of concessions by turns 2-4 when the outcome of the game is already obvious. Occasionally, people (usually those I have just beaten in a previous match) will concede upon sight of my team, but again, this happens to all my teams. (For the record, my old team of pre-nerfing Kovok, Val'kyr, and ANY third pet triggered more pre-game concessions than any other team I have ever fielded, by far.)

I disagree with the fact that I am "having to resort" to a "stall team." I enjoy testing and perfecting different strategies, and one of them happens to be based around the incredible synergy between Sunlight and Wish. If I was all about getting wins faster, I have plenty of aggro teams such as the aforementioned Bombling team that easily gets through a whole battle in less than a minute. It takes very little time to rack up a bunch of wins using a team like that. I have no need to use any allegedly dirty tactics for cheap wins; if anything, using my Wish team results in much slower wins for myself due to the nature of the team. So why use my Wish team? Simple. Because it's fun and strategic, which is why I enjoy this game. I still see nothing wrong with that.

[3wd]

If Blizz will decide to ban all other specs except DPS in Arena and BG, what will you think the game will be?

More fun? Well, you want the game to end faster right?

It is ridiculous to suggest anyone whose playing any pets in their team with healing abilities or tanking abilities to be a stall team.

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. Even that, I still will respect his choice and just click my part and move on.

If you don't like to play healer or tank in the game, that's your choice.

But just because you play a rogue and lost to a shadow priest, you really should cry for the nerf bat because your opponent can heal better than you.

You, like your opponent, do have the same choices.