10 Min Timer

[SaveMeJebus]

Let me help you out Kaffei. BPC, you said that by default, the game goes to time out as the only win criteria. If you want to start including things in the game that happen by default, then why don't you mention the fact that level 3 CPUs will never run away for a win. In fact, the only time they will ever run for extended periods of time is if you are invincible(you getting a starman or you after lose a stock)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Legitimate or not, running away =/= fighting. I'm confident in saying that people play smash to fight not do this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPhdrjgmS0E

Some. Others enjoy that very element. It's completely subjective. Some would say that people play Halo for brutal shoot-outs, not camping with a sniper or splazer. But that doesn't matter; it's part of the game. Deal with it or play a different game. It's not possible for you to point to an element of competitive brawl that the game includes without any help from us and then say "we don't play brawl for this". If you hate it, play Brawl+, Melee, Brawl-, or some better game. Otherwise stop complaining.

yea money is on the line and it's tournament i realize that but wtf ^ do you really LIKE that? please don't say that this is not a matter of what i alone think.. I'm talking about the community as a whole( which i dont officially represent)

Yeah, I do. I enjoy watching my opponent squirm as I counter every one of their approaches easily; I love watching the timer count down, spacing and zoning carefully for no way through, running away and dair camping... It gives me this feeling, you know? I'm powerful. I am in control of the matchup. I own my opponent. It's powerful.

what?

If you can't once get a lead on a player as Metaknight, I have my doubts as to you being a good player...

I timed out a falco who could beat me whenever i tried not to time out. Please enlighten me on why that would not work well

If he was good, he would:
-Choose a character capable of beating your stall tactics
-Beat your stall tactics

Good players know how to deal with this. So he can beat you if you don't camp. Well I bet I could beat him if he didn't use Lazer. Or if he didn't chaingrab.

not necessarily, but consider : how many characters can beat mk when he is scrooging with a lead?

Is the tactic demonstratably broken and stalling?

Let me help you out Kaffei. BPC, you said that by default, the game goes to time out as the only win criteria. If you want to start including things in the game that happen by default, then why don't you mention the fact that level 3 CPUs will never run away for a win. In fact, the only time they will ever run for extended periods of time is if you are invincible(you getting a starman or you after lose a stock)

And this is relevant how? The timer is a part of the competitive gameplay. Level 3 CPUs not only aren't, but are terribly programmed and should not be emulated by anyone, ever. This is such a terrible argument it's not even funny.

I think you're mixing something up here. I point to that to emphasize what effect time-outs have on the game. The fact that the game has an entire mode where timing the opponent out is the win condition, and that we don't have to leave it as a win condition but choose to... Doesn't this point to the legitimacy of running away and timing out as a strategy?

 

[ADHD]

I'd be willing to run away for 2 more minutes.

This and the sonic icon made the thread.

 

[Zatchiel]

But...
Even with proper planking and camping, it would be hard for us to time out anywhere
Why would you attempt to screw us over by adding 2 minutes? That would ruin the characters that actually need to time out in order to win.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

And this is relevant how? The timer is a part of the competitive gameplay. Level 3 CPUs not only aren't, but are terribly programmed and should not be emulated by anyone, ever. This is such a terrible argument it's not even funny.

I think you're mixing something up here. I point to that to emphasize what effect time-outs have on the game. The fact that the game has an entire mode where timing the opponent out is the win condition, and that we don't have to leave it as a win condition but choose to... Doesn't this point to the legitimacy of running away and timing out as a strategy?

The point I was trying to make is that this game was created so that players could approach, fight against each other, take away each other's stocks and win. The creators obviously did not build these CPUs to run away since they know that actual fighting is part of every fighting game. If percent lead and time outs were more important to the creators of this game, there would be no reason to have stocks.

 

[swordgard]

The point I was trying to make is that this game was created so that players could approach, fight against each other, take away each other's stocks and win. The creators obviously did not build these CPUs to run away since they know that actual fighting is part of every fighting game. If percent lead and time outs were more important to the creators of this game, there would be no reason to have stocks.

Content matters, not intention.

 

[Tesh]

You know, hating camping isn't a valid competitive reason to limit it. If someone was proposing a ground time rule to limit shield camping/grabbing, it would be just as absurd. Or if you wanted to limit the use of olimar and yoshi because you don't like to play against them or watch matches including them. The developers didn't create this game so people could just pivot grab all day and throw stuff at you in varying annoying arcs.

Also if you go to training mode, you can set the CPUs to "run" away from you. Humans always refine these techniques beyond the developer expectations.

I respect that you do want to play a more intense, aggressive match, but adding time just makes the problem even more painful if you dislike it, and air time rules and other nonsense just allow you to time people out when you are losing. Jigglypuff would never catch anyone just running across the ground, so you could just run from her on foot and if she jumps to chase, she can lose if she fails to get that final stock off.

Competitive play gives you an objective and set of rules. People will always find the most effective strategy within those boundaries and lean on it. If you don't like camping, you should remove the incentive to camp (not the timer).

 

[Kaffei]

Some. Others enjoy that very element. It's completely subjective. Some would say that people play Halo for brutal shoot-outs, not camping with a sniper or splazer. But that doesn't matter; it's part of the game. Deal with it or play a different game. It's not possible for you to point to an element of competitive brawl that the game includes without any help from us and then say "we don't play brawl for this". If you hate it, play Brawl+, Melee, Brawl-, or some better game. Otherwise stop complaining.

I am not complaining about that, otherwise I wouldn't be timing out already.

Yeah, I do. I enjoy watching my opponent squirm as I counter every one of their approaches easily; I love watching the timer count down, spacing and zoning carefully for no way through, running away and dair camping... It gives me this feeling, you know? I'm powerful. I am in control of the matchup. I own my opponent. It's powerful.

Lmao @ this description. I admit I get that "feeling" when I do that. Do you do that in friendlies or just tourney

If you can't once get a lead on a player as Metaknight, I have my doubts as to you being a good player...

I didn't realize until now that you were being sarcastic. >_>
Of course I can get a lead, but I'm not a good player lol.

If he was good, he would:
-Choose a character capable of beating your stall tactics
-Beat your stall tactics

Good players know how to deal with this. So he can beat you if you don't camp. Well I bet I could beat him if he didn't use Lazer. Or if he didn't chaingrab.

Wtf? So Brood and DEHF aren't good players? M2K gets a free win anytime he picks RC. inb4 outliers

Is the tactic demonstratably broken and stalling?

I think you can answer that yourself considering you think that a Falco can beat scrooging.

 

[@TKbreezy]

aight soo my Boy BPC has handled all of you *******es the whole time but anyway I feel like jumping in

1. Ground rule would ultimately change the metagame for many characters...a jiggs staying on the ground because he doesnt want to be worried about a stall out thus getting his **** pushed in because Jiggs ground game is atrocious. same goes for mk to an extent..not saying his ground game is terrible but his air game is superior obviously.

2. if the percent lead rule would ever be changed it should be changed to who ever has dealt the most damage but then that doesn't even account to how the match could have actually played out

for instance
jiggs first stock gimps a snake by cypher grabbing so he does at like 30.

match plays out normally with snake getting gimped again by same cypher grab second stock at like 50

right there jiggs has only done 80 damage...so in the event it ran to time and snakes at like maybe 80 and jiggs is on last stock 70% but snake has dealt atleast 90 damage on both of jiggs stocks...jiggs should lose?

thats ********...leave your bad ideas in your head unless you fully think them out.

3.jeebus...this game was not made for people to approach...this game is essentially a party game but the community made it competitive...competitive doesnt not auto mean approach all day...thats how people get wrecked...theres 35+ characters in this game and all of them don't have solid approach and that right there pretty much tells you this is not All about approach like you think it is.

4.The timer should stay at 8 mins...I for one would be pissed off if I still got timed out for 10 mins...and yes that is completely possible.

5.Kaffei you are not pulling up invalid points. RC is a counterpick...which means M2K might get that free on def but it has nothing to do with time...it has to do with the Way M2K plays on the stage...timer or not he would play the exact same way because it plays to his advantage...especially against falco

I'll probably be more active in here because I love watching stupidity try to argue a super invalid stance

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

<3 TKO

Now can we please put Air Time Limits in the closet where we put rule suggestions like "you can only pick MK once per set", "Punch Time", and "DDD's infinite chaingrab is b"-oh wait a minute...

 

[SaveMeJebus]

aight soo my Boy BPC has handled all of you *******es the whole time but anyway I feel like jumping in

1. Ground rule would ultimately change the metagame for many characters...a jiggs staying on the ground because he doesnt want to be worried about a stall out thus getting his **** pushed in because Jiggs ground game is atrocious. same goes for mk to an extent..not saying his ground game is terrible but his air game is superior obviously.

2. if the percent lead rule would ever be changed it should be changed to who ever has dealt the most damage but then that doesn't even account to how the match could have actually played out

for instance
jiggs first stock gimps a snake by cypher grabbing so he does at like 30.

match plays out normally with snake getting gimped again by same cypher grab second stock at like 50

right there jiggs has only done 80 damage...so in the event it ran to time and snakes at like maybe 80 and jiggs is on last stock 70% but snake has dealt atleast 90 damage on both of jiggs stocks...jiggs should lose?

thats ********...leave your bad ideas in your head unless you fully think them out.

3.jeebus...this game was not made for people to approach...this game is essentially a party game but the community made it competitive...competitive doesnt not auto mean approach all day...thats how people get wrecked...theres 35+ characters in this game and all of them don't have solid approach and that right there pretty much tells you this is not All about approach like you think it is.

4.The timer should stay at 8 mins...I for one would be pissed off if I still got timed out for 10 mins...and yes that is completely possible.

5.Kaffei you are not pulling up invalid points. RC is a counterpick...which means M2K might get that free on def but it has nothing to do with time...it has to do with the Way M2K plays on the stage...timer or not he would play the exact same way because it plays to his advantage...especially against falco

I'll probably be more active in here because I love watching stupidity try to argue a super invalid stance

Are you going to tell me that a match should be won by completely avoiding any contact with the opponent once you get the lead(the exact opposite of what a fighting game should be)? If that is true, then maybe we should just get rid of the stocks and just play for eight whole minutes. With strategies like these, I don't even see a point in having stocks.

 

[@TKbreezy]

no but a match won't be won by you blindy rushing in attacking with no form of defense ever

don't be stupid...I hate when people try to focus on one sentence and drastically take it out of proportion

anyway...in this game there will be times to approach but its not 100% approach...do you watch pro matches?...its about finding openings, baiting approaches, and punishing on bad approaches.

thats not ALL that its about but thats the main jist of it...take how you want but your idea of the game to me is equivalent to a button masher in SSF4?

he's a better question to see where your logic is (and if this thread should be closed of off pure stupidity)

when you play vs. ice climbers...how often do you approach?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

no but a match won't be won by you blindy rushing in attacking with no form of defense ever

don't be stupid...I hate when people try to focus on one sentence and drastically take it out of proportion

anyway...in this game there will be times to approach but its not 100% approach...do you watch pro matches?...its about finding openings, baiting approaches, and punishing on bad approaches.

thats not ALL that its about but thats the main jist of it...take how you want but your idea of the game to me is equivalent to a button masher in SSF4?

he's a better question to see where your logic is (and if this thread should be closed of off pure stupidity)

when you play vs. ice climbers...how often do you approach?

When ever I play against Ice climbers, I approach when ever they trip on a banana peel or I have separated them. I don't hit them once and run away just because I have the lead. I also never said to 100% approach all the time. I just think that there should be more to this game then getting the lead and running away until you lose it or the time runs out. There is a reason why this game was built with stocks and why it doesn't take percentage lead into consideration when determining a winner of a time out.

 

[@TKbreezy]

^Fail Logic

you threw in a stipulation which I said nothing of and only applies to one character anyway (Which so happens to be your character)


What do you do when you aren't Diddy and don't have a banana Peel?


and nobody is saying you have to run away after you get a hit...its more like you keep that lead percent or stocks. so you dont keep blindy running in and you wait for that opening besides isn't the point of the game to be in the lead anyway...I mean correct me if I'm wrong...which I'm clearly not.

and to wait doesnt mean you are running.

I hope this gets closed soon...this is an invalid arguement that you only brought up because of who you play and on top of that you aren't even on topic anymore

you went from "WE SHUD PUT THE TIMER UP OMG TIMEOUTS ARE GAY"

to

"OMG NOBODY APPROACHES IN THIS GAME HAXXORS F@G NOOBZ"

either learn to play the game or stfu imo.

and stop making threads to change stuff that well help you still not place anywhere near the money in tournaments anyway

 

[Yink]

This might be pretty, off-topic but play to win IMO. If you do 25% to let's say Luigi and you're Snake with 0% I'd most certainly back away and wait for him to do something. If you want to win you will abuse the fact that you can run after contact has been made.

EDIT: Ninja'd by TKO, but he's cool. <3

 

[@TKbreezy]

^<3 Yink how you been BABY!!!

umm I'll wait until I talk to you on skype...lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Guys. Okay, mostly just Jebus (why am I bothering...)... WE have chosen to legitimize timing people out as a strategy. It doesn't matter if you say "the game wasn't made to be this way"; that's bull**** and you are obviously wrong. What's your evidence, what the designer said? That doesn't matter for one minute. If the designers of Halo said it was all about riding around in Warthogs, would you base the gameplay around that? Is it how you presume the game should be? That also does not matter at all; the game is how it is. If you assumed Halo was about brutal 1v1 gunfights with light cover, that doesn't give you the right to ***** about some guy taking a good camping spot and picking you off with a sniper rifle.

Since we have chosen the in-game setting to have a timer, we have decided that winning the match by means having a higher stock count than your opponent when time runs out is a legitimate way to win the game. If the best way to succeed with this setting is "run away the whole game", then it is not only anticompetitive to limit/remove this option until we have established extremely thoroughly that it is the only viable option, it is virtually the duty of every player who intends to play to win to abuse this tactic.

You don't like that? Remove the timer.

 

[Tesh]

I'd still camp without a timer. I have an infinite amount of time to wait for my opponent to make a mistake even if I am losing. Why would I give that up?

 

[Raziek]

Yeah, the timer is there for a reason. Patient people WILL camp indefinitely.

Also, having a timed match is even worse, because you can still just take the lead and run.

 

[Mic_128]

Still waiting to hear someone explain why timeouts are a bad thing.

 

[Tesh]

Still waiting to hear someone explain why timeouts are a bad thing.

-Makes sets last longer than they have to
-Humiliates the other player
-Bores the crowd
-Makes other gamers laugh at us
-"No one should ever win by running away in a fighting game"

 

[Flashing]

-Makes sets last longer than they have to
-Humiliates the other player
-Bores the crowd
-Makes other gamers laugh at us
-"No one should ever win by running away in a fighting game"

1) Probably maybe the only reasonably thing you said in that list that is arguable.

2) Not really humiliating when its a viable win condition. Also if your getting timed out by somebody other then MK then main a better character but if you do get timed out by MK then go MK or just beat his *** by figuring him out on your CP's. Either way you should get humiliated if your going to get demolished by time outs. Its like bringing a knife to a gunfight but you don't even know how use a knife in the first place.

3) Also preference, before you say video games should be fun, yes they should but when there's 1000$ on the line then to some people its top level play.

4) What other gamers? I mean why the **** should we care what they say?

5) Proof? You don't have any because you can't define a fighting game since a fighting game is either defined by the community or the developer.

 

[Mic_128]

-Makes sets last longer than they have to

I don't see how, especially when people are claiming that non-stalled matches go to time. If anything it keeps the matches (and tournaments) from going over time.

-Humiliates the other player

Beating someone in any method is humiliating. And I wasn't aware we made rules around peoples feelings.

-Bores the crowd

Doesn't seem to affect the crowd much in soccer, foootball, basketball...

And even if it does, so? There are plenty of competitive events out there that aren't great spectator sports.

-Makes other gamers laugh at us

If you seriously conciser this a reason, quit the game. You're playing a game with pokemon in it. I have never heard anyone say 'You play smash Bros? Man that game sucks with that 8 minute timer!'

-"No one should ever win by running away in a fighting game"

Why not? If professional sports can use that as a stratagy (We're up by 5 points, keep the ball away from the opposition for the next minute and we win!) why can't we? Either way, the argument wasn't 'should people be running away' but 'why is the timer bad'

Still waiting for a real answer.

 

[Tesh]

Thats all I've gotten so far from the discussion. I think people are just confusing the timer with the real incentive for camping people out. I wish the timer was actually lower.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Still waiting to hear someone explain why timeouts are a bad thing.

Time outs are not a bad thing. It is only when players use this as the only strategy to win that it becomes a problem. It becomes a game of time and percentages makes it so that there really is no reason for playing with stocks.

 

[MikeKirby]

Okay, I'll bite. So what exactly is so bad about adding 2 minutes to the timer? If you can time someone out for the extra 2 minutes then all the more power to you. Personally, I don't mind if the match settings is 8, 9 or 10 minutes. I'm just curious what makes having more time on the timer such a bad idea.

 

[Life]

The problem with adding two minutes is that makes it two more minutes per game, which is six per set (and even more for finals) which works out to howevermany a round... basically it makes tournaments take much longer.

Meanwhile, it doesn't really do anything about people trying to run the timer (which I don't really have a problem with). Do I perfect plank for eight or ten minutes? Either way I still win, but now your tournament's going to take much longer.

 

[PottyJokes]

just copy and paste the japanese ruleset (most balanced and most skill based ruleset IMO) and be done with it.

 

[Life]

First: Japan's stagelist.

Second: You could be so kind as to tell me where to find the Japanese ruleset or post it here, since I (and if not I, certainly others) do not know how it's different from 3.1.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Time outs are not a bad thing. It is only when players use this as the only strategy to win that it becomes a problem. It becomes a game of time and percentages makes it so that there really is no reason for playing with stocks.

Err... faulty logic. If both players are aiming for a time-out, and trying to win this way, then yes, stock count hardly matters. If one or both players isn't, then stocks will make a difference. And even then, why is this a bad thing?

I saw this great post by IIRC Pierce or Shaya, where they explained why stock was better than time. It isn't because time mode is faulty or anticompetitive, no; time mode is in fact perfectly competitive. The reason we throw stocks into the mix is to lower the time needed when one player is really outplaying the other; say, in a match between M2K and Some Random Noob, M2K is going to **** on him. In such a situation, it's not necessary to play all 8 minutes out, it's like setting a cap where we say "you're this much ahead, so you win". In this case, by adding stock, we legitimize such things as win conditions, which means not every game ends up going to time (great for tournament duration).

just copy and paste the japanese ruleset (most balanced and most skill based ruleset IMO) and be done with it.

You mean the one that completely removes the skill of "dealing with stage elements" (an inherently required and essential skill in smash)? The one that inserts rules where it wishes to mold the game into what they wish it was?

The Japanese ruleset, if it is what I remember it to be, is a ridiculous piece of garbage that removes an incredible amount of the competitive depth of the game, neuters chars like Wario and G&W, and basically does what MK and a 19-stage counterpick list failed to do-make the game ridiculously dull and boring. Stop referring to it as a good ruleset-it isn't.

Additionally, it's only the most skill-based if the only skills you are willing to accept are pure PvP skills. Smash normally also requires PvS skills, which are an inherent part of the game's balance and should not be removed; things like adaptation to physics changes, dealing with abnormally-shaped terrain, etc. I've dealt with why these things are a positive element to competitive gameplay several times; here's an excerpt on it.

As to why this concept matters, you really only have to look at what they add, competitively. Let's say we work backwards (everything is banned, stages are unbanned one by one). When I add FD, I have a game where, when I main a character, I have to learn 38 matchups on one stage.
Now we throw Battlefield into the mix. All of a sudden, I still have those 38 matchups, but some of them play drastically differently on battlefield than they do on Final Destination!

Now we really throw everyone for a loop and add Norfair to the mix. Now I still have these 38 matchups, but now I need to not only learn how to play them on Battlefield, Final Destination, and Norfair, but I also have to learn how to play on Norfair at all! Once I've done that, I find that trapping my opponent with the lava if he is inexperienced becomes a very potent strategy, forcing him to learn how to play the stage or to die (imagine it, if you will, like a character matchup-if I run into the ICs and never have played against them before, I won't know that one grab = death until I've already suffered it. If I run into norfair without ever having seen it before, I won't know how to deal with the lava). I also have to, in turn, find ways around this strategy.

Now we add PS2 to the mix. Now I still have the 38 MUs, but not only do I have to know them on these 4 stages, have to know how to play on Norfair, but now I also need to know how to deal with PS2's transformations, know how to take advantage of the changes to the best of my ability, and how to get around things like MK's uair on the air segment. This is a RIDICULOUS amount of things you have to learn to play the game competitively at a high level. In other words: it adds to the competitive merit of the game.

So in short, by adding more stages, we are almost always making the game more competitive by giving it a longer learning curve. If you only have to learn 38 matchups on FD... oh well. If you have to learn 38 matchups on FD, Battlefield, Norfair, RC, Halberd... It's a lot to learn, and a lot more chance for someone to shine who is good at many facets of the game, instead of just one particular part.

The only cases where this doesn't apply are when the stage itself is drastically anticompetitive. To continue the pattern above:

Now we add Warioware. I have 38 matchups and 5 stages, but now I also have to learn how to deal with drastically unfair randomness. I am the best in the country, and some random scrub beats me on this stage about half the time because whenever I win a minigame I go giant or get nothing, and whenever he wins, he gets a star.

This is anticompetitive. The stage gives far less in than it gives back. I don't think I have to explain it that much.

In the cases of stages with choke points such as PTAD, or stages where a certain character is just way too good (Brinstar, RC), this is the question that needs to be asked. Through thorough testing. But seeing as stages are, by default, unbanned, it's up to the people who believe a stage are wrong to conclusively show that it is broken, and that it is a bad stage to have legal because it lowers the competitiveness of the game .

Banning almost any stage out of hand that doesn't fit one of the criteria I posted above is scrubby. In fact, it's pretty much exactly scrub logic-"I don't like this, let's ban it" (ignoring for the moment that usually, scrubs hate FD/BF/SV instead of RC/Norfair/GG/PTAD). Such decisions can only really be made effectively after one of two things happens:

1. The stage has been thoroughly and exhaustively tested. Remember how long people waited on the button to put Garchomp into Uber tier? Or how long it's taking to ban metaknight? Or how hard banning Hilde was/is?

Is PTAD really that bad for competitive brawl, or have we just looked at it, shouted, "OMG DANGEROUS MAP BAN BAN BAN" like an idiot scrub would say when looking at something like DDD's CG or G&W/Pit's planking? I'm going to argue the latter. It was only ever allowed in some parts of the midwest, and whenever a thread was made about the stage, the complaints were coming from... Well, I'll give you a hint-it wasn't people in the midwest who had actually used the thing in their tournaments-it was people from the more conservative regions, bawwing over a stage that they had probably never played on in their lives.

2. The brokenness can be logically explained. There isn't really any need to look at a stage like Spear Pillar, because it has criteria that automatically disqualify it, such as the cave of life and the large circle. Same with stages like Warioware, where it's obviously too random for any kind of competitive play. However, you can only really apply this to stages where it's brutally obvious-if someone challenges your proposal with any credible argument, then you should either go to 1. or revise your argument completely. See, for example, the thread about Mario Circuit in the SWF stage forums.

The japanese ruleset is horribly skill-neutering, transforms the game into something completely different to what it is, and in the end, I have to say, is one of the worst rulesets I have EVER seen.

 

[Life]

^To add to what BPC said: keep in mind that Japan is a place where they don't play Guitar Hero because it's too easy. (Or so I heard.)

Just in case somebody brings up Brood vs. M2K.

 

[-LzR-]

That guy was crazy good.

About the timer, I don't think it's good idea because:
1. The matches rarely end by timeout without one trying to do it.
2. When one tried to do it, it just extends the matches by 2 minutes.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, for the record: how many good players a region with a certain ruleset has should have no bearing on the legitimacy of the ruleset. (Similarly to how your ability to play smash should have nothing to do with how good you are at making a ruleset; you don't have to be a top player to know how the game works; look at pretty much any member of the Smash Lab, the Smash Workshop, most of the BBR...)

The Nova Scotia ruleset is probably the best ruleset I have ever seen. EVER. The players in NS? Not so much (no offense, Raziek); you never hear about them. Does that make the ruleset less legitimate? No, of course not! It just means that the players in Japan, or New Jersey, or other places with a ****ty, horrible stagelist are better players. That's all there really is to it.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Time outs are not a bad thing. It is only when players use this as the only strategy to win that it becomes a problem. It becomes a game of time and percentages makes it so that there really is no reason for playing with stocks.

Really?
Proof?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I said it before, I'll say it again... Can we stop listening to Jebus? He obviously has no idea what the hell he is talking about, can't back **** up to save his life, and is ridiculously scrubby (seriously, he wants to mold the ruleset according to what requires more "skill").

 

[Kaffei]

you know what just pick MK and run away it's the most efficient way to win. Im gonna do that now.

 

[Raziek]

I said it before, I'll say it again... Can we stop listening to Jebus? He obviously has no idea what the hell he is talking about, can't back **** up to save his life, and is ridiculously scrubby (seriously, he wants to mold the ruleset according to what requires more "skill").

This, my GOD this.

If I could pick someone to brutally mutilate through the internet, it would be him.

His posts have done more harm to my brain cells than is warranted by any one person.

 

[HelpR]

This, my GOD this.

If I could pick someone to brutally mutilate through the internet, it would be him.

His posts have done more harm to my brain cells than is warranted by any one person.

oh dear. I guess you should never go to gamespot forums.

Can we just come to the consensus that extending the timer is a stupid idea?

Most tourneys already go over on time by a decent margin, extending each time out (and honestly, most time outs happen to be clutch matches (winner semis, loser semis, etc) so extending each tourney by up to an hour is NOT something we want.

Extending the timer to accommodate characters that have trouble killing is just plain stupid, if they have trouble killing, then timing out would be in their favor wouldn't it?

Extending the clock for each match WOULD confer more accurate results, but unfortunately, this trade off just doesn't seem worth it, brawl is a slow enough game already, and the LGL most TOs incorporate, as well as the decently high timer seems sufficient.

Speaking from personal experience, a regional tourney has a tendency to run late, and an extra half an hour is worth quite a bit to most TOs. Time should ALWAYS be a big point in this argument, and most brawl matches take about 5-7 minutes to complete. Anything longer then that and it's usually characters who have difficulty killing, or an intentional stall for a time out; both of which determining via percentage should be an accurate portrayal of skill on both sides, as for the first situation, the one with the higher percentage is closer to death (or so we'd hope,) and in the second situation, it becomes a battle between who is better at planking and who is better at stopping planking.

There are a few people who do agree with extending the timer to 10 min, but i dont hear any good arguments other then

A. The Japanese use it, so it must be good
B. This confers more accurate results.

So can we get some reasons in here for the pro 10 min side?

 

[sunshade]

Someone mentioned it earlier and it actually struck me as an interesting idea but what if an additional rule was added into the ruleset?

"The loser of a round in addition to getting to select his character second, select a stage (which has not been banned by his opponent), may also choose to add or remove 2 minutes from the timer."

The idea of adding or removing time tickled my fancy. If people are fine with adding time I don't see the issue with removing a bit. A longer or shorter timer does not make the game more or less skillful it just amplifies the urgency of approach.

btw that 2DX video blew my mind across the room.

 

[Tesh]

Counterpicking the general rules? Some might say its a slippery slope.