Who would've thought a free-to-play online PvP game based on a beloved IP like Pokemon Champions could be so controversial? First, it was the bugs and performance issues, then it was all of those missing features, and then there's that alleged bug that traps Pokemon in limbo between Pokemon Home and Champions. Now, players are locked in heated discussion about whether a new change to the game's ruleset is a good thing or not.
As reported by Automaton, Pokemon Champions battles have a timer on them, and if it runs out, the battle ends in a draw, whereas before the winner would be decided based on how many active Pokemon they still have. If that number was the same, the player with the most HP would win. Now, no matter what, time out matches end in draws.
However, it's crucial to point out that there are two timers: a personal one and an overall timer, which effectively prevents the losing player from simply idling for the rest of the game. They can idle during their turn and then lose that turn, but they can't idle through the full match, which seems like a solid safeguard against cheating to avoid losing rank.
Still, the ruleset change is proving controversial. In several discussions happening across Pokemon VGC communities, no one can agree whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Genuinely, in most video game controversies I've covered, of which there have been many, there's usually an uneven split in opinion, but here it seems pretty 50-50.
"This only makes those slow paced teams even more annoying. This one torkoal kept putting my whole team to sleep, and I don't even get points for it," argues thezekroman.
On the other hand, some folks are "so glad this was added," like Individual_Paper80. "Had a legit 5 minute slogfest draw yesterday with a burned corviknight without flying type attacks and roost vs my sinistcha."
Other, less scrupulous players freely admit to stalling matches to avoid losses. "Me.. a Hoodra staller likes this very much," says Electrical_Active180.
As a non-competitive Pokemon player, I don't have a horse in this race, but it does seem sensical to award timeout wins to the player who, you know, did a better job in the battle. Even though the two separate timers prevent the sort of exploits that would otherwise be blatantly unfair, handing out draws when one player is clearly ahead still seems plainly wrong.
