Time Clause.

Restrict turns to 6-7 minutes maximum during an AIM battle (DPP or Revo) or else that turn is a failed turn.

Unless user disconnects from chatroom.

Have it as an OPTIONAL CLAUSE (Default=off).

Y/N?

If it takes you more than 8 minutes to move for a turn then you are taking to too seriously (inb4 Poogeymonz is srz buiznezz)​

 

I wonder who this could be aimed at... As a ref I tend to give a notice after 5 minutes roughly asking for a move. I think as a clause it might be an ok rule. But if its their gym, they decide clauses so gl using it against a certain rustyperson.

 

That's stupid. Just make sure they're still there every now and then. All battles end eventually if it's important enough.

 

No Want

Yeah this seems too serious, sometimes things come up in life that will require you to leave the battle, you wouldn't want to come back to the battle only to find that you've lost.

If the person goes offline mid-battle and doesn't come online after 10-20 mins then thats a forfeit but you must always consider things may come up on the other side of the internet

 

I also want to point out that by bringing this point up surely youare taking it just as seriously given that you got that annoyed about it you came to make a case to stop it. If you weren't surely you would have just let it slide. Just sayin'

 

It's optional and default is off, so why you frettin'? :dumb:

 

This seems too serious yet FFAs commonly use this.

You'd be pretty angry if someone took 10 minutes per move in a 3v3 basics :embarass:​

 

As much as my initial reaction to this is to be all "OHGODYESIHATETHATSOMUCH", I can't really see a practical use for the clause unless you use it when defending your own gym. Against someone elses, as Buzzer said, you cant enforce the clause anyway.

That ruling is implemented in the FFA by the referee, it's essentially optional just as most of the others they use. When I ref one, I don't want to wait 20 minutes between turns... so I don't. The battlers have to deal with that.

 

I'd say I'm down with this. It gets frustrating having to wait on slower opponents. If it's an optional clause, I see no problem with adding it.

 

Since when? o.o To me, it's always been a 'Wanna save stats?'.

I don't like this, just do something else while you're waiting for the move to be called.

 

As Pidge already pretty much stated, it is already possible to have the time clause up...

You don't need to argue about something that can already be done.
(Unless you want Time Clauses to be mandatory?)

 

Nowhere is Time Clause mentioned, so it is an illegal clause at the moment, and rightly so, imo.

 

I said it's implementation would be that way. ^_^

 

I'm against this simply because I take a year making my move. kthxbai

 

reviving this

an LD battle that takes 6 hours is really unfair.

Yes, I had to go for 30 mins at some point. In 6 hours, I think a 30 minute break is pretty reasonable.

Taking an hour to send your initial team is already pushing it.

Deliberately taking your time to send is not okay. Thinking is fine but being spiteful really is not okay.

360 minutes or so for 30 something turns.

Then ending it with this and not even thanking the ref is actually so rude

But, really, can we actually implement something here because I don't think it's fair to want to challenge a particular gym, E4, LD against someone multiple times and each taking so many hours. I don't think it took me more than 10 mins max to send for any one turn. It just seems really ridiculous and unfair to people who want to progress.

edit: been brought up a good few times now: http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/f400/reffing-long-battles-137984/

 

I'm not opposed to this clause, and I totally agree with what Pidge said previously in this thread. Implementing it isn't a problem, but it would be an optional clause, defaulting to off.

However having said that, I don't believe that the nature of this clause belongs in E4/LD battles anyway. Unlike a four-move competitive environment, URPG has a lot more variables and possibilities to consider, which naturally will take a longer time. I don't believe we should be restricting the competitiveness of these top tier battles in any way.

So, let's talk compromise. Obviously a time limit of two minutes, or whatever Showdown has, isn't appropriate for URPG. What would be, something like 15-20 minutes?

As a sidenote, I'd highly recommend finishing FFA's you start before you start complaining about having to wait. At least your battle finished.

 

Why don't we just have the battlers agree on the time limit for the time clause? In Gyms/E4, the defender gets to pick the time limit?

EDIT: Two thoughts occurred to me after I made this post;

1. What happens if a battler doesn't send within the time limit?

- We need some kind of punitive measure. I'm assuming they'd just not move that turn. Problem is, there are several situations where that could actually be advantageous to the battler in question. The only other option I can think of is a forfeit, but that also seems somewhat unreasonable, especially if the person that didn't send dc'd or something. Finding a balance is tough.

2. I AM SO FREAKING EXCITED TO DO 30 SECOND TURNS YOU HAVE NO IDEA. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TIME BASED META!!!!!!

 

Ya I really am behind this, even as someone who occasionally takes a long time to send. I don't really see a reason we can't have varying degrees of the clause either. As in, for standard battles have anywhere from 30 seconds to 10 minutes; for gym battles allow 5 -10 minutes; and for LD battles allow only 10 minutes. Also, I really do not think that anyone could need more than 10 minutes per turn. In my experience, usually the reason people are taking a long time to send is because they are being distracted by other things besides the battle (what happens to me).

Also, keep in mind that just because you implement this, doesn't mean that you HAVE to abide by it at all times. A battler can always ask his opponent if it's okay for him to run to the bathroom or take a little extra time for 1 turn. The real purpose is repeat offenders who push on 20+ minutes multiple turns and also those who disappear without notice (me).

Unfortunately, the most fair thing I can think of for punishment is forfeiting, but it does kinda stink. As WTP said not sending can sorta be an advantage, though very very rarely. I think, given the overall leniency of the other parts of the rule I suggested, having the punishment be forfeiture isn't too bad.

 

I like this idea. I don't see why it shouldn't be implemented, seeing as it's optional and needs to be agreed upon by both battlers (unless you're a gym or something). It makes life easier for battlers and refs imo.

 

If you're limited to 10 mins and you take 11 and being forced to forfeit is pretty silly imo. I think just having your Pokemon not be able to move that turn is far better. As for how this can be advantageous, I can't even think of any strategy where it would be. Surely having the option to move is far better than being forced to not move. The only example that actually comes to mind is versus a Wobbuffet or some other Shadow Tag/last mon very hypothetical scenario and you want to PP stall it to death, which would take a hundred or so turns anyway which obviously would be cheating and warrant a forfeit I'd imagine. Unless people can think of some legit possible scenarios I don't think losing a turn is really advantageous.

Forfeiting is pretty severe in the sense that if your power cuts out or laptop dies or whatever, you can still be left signed on even though you clearly can't get any messages, which is what happens with my laptop and probably others.

Also, I think that whoever is making the rules should be able to decide if it's on or not for important battles. So, you can put it on for your Gym, your E4, your LD. Then again, maybe it should just be auto-on for those battles and auto-off for regular battles and both players have to agree to change it?