A Proposition to Alleviate Time-outs

[Pengie]

After watching the GF at Apex I'm pretty sure that everyone, regardless of whether they enjoyed it, hated it, or don't play smash, thought one thing: HOLY CRAPBALLS THOSE MATCHES TOOK TOO LONG.

I feel that this is Melee currently one of the bigger problems with Melee; while sometimes we have two minute Fox shinespike fests, we are also starting to see matchups like Doc/Jiggs, YL/Puff, and Peach/Puff that tend too run around 5-6 minutes. There really isn't a way to avoid matches like these running long because the characters themselves favor more slow paces. Now, in spite of what many loud scrubs want to believe, there is nothing wrong with slow matches that end in the timer running out; what is a problem, however, is the fact that the timer lasts for eight minutes. This is an obscene amount of time and it also makes tournaments run longer than they should be running because on average matches are about 3.5 - 4 minutes. While I'm aware that this is also due to other factors such as the number of setups, people playing friendlies/MM's, etc., I feel that shorter matches would help significantly quicken the pace of tournaments and they should fall behind schedule a lot less often.

The system that I had in mind as an alternative to the current 4 stock/8 minute timer was a 2 stock/4 minute timer where all sets are now best of five rather than best of 3 in order to minimize things like games being lost due to random hit -> combo-> stock, which would be a far bigger deal in this setup. Ultimately the main point of this setup is to make the slower aforementioned matches more bearable, while not punishing a player for choosing a defensive playstyle like so many posts on the boards seem to propose.

I'm also aware that trying to change the current and deeply entrenched format of the game is a pretty futile endeavor, but I feel like if there was ever going to be a time where this idea might gain steam it would be after the last large tournaments grand finals took somewhere close to an hour to finish.

 

[Beat!]

Maybe taking a smaller step first would be better?

By that I mean 3 stocks, 6 min.


Not necessarily supporting your idea (haven't thought it through yet), just pointing that out.

 

[Strong Badam]

N o

 

[ph00tbag]

We don't need to alleviate time-outs.

 

[Kal]

It's entirely subjective to think that we should "alleviate" it at all. Even if you maintain that time-outs are bad and that we should exact methods to try and reduce their frequency, it still doesn't warrant a rule change. When you see more than a few sets per tournament ending this way, then you might have a point. For now, it's just preemptively fixing something that might not even be broken.

 

[Habefiet]

1. All your MU gripes involved Puffs, and there ARE other MUs that can take that long with good DI.
2. Two stocks / four minutes, even if sets are Bo5, strongly allow for randomness, or for total change in playstyles. Get up by a stock and go for a suicide gimp becomes the new strategy. Fox dittos become just plain stupid with only two stocks. Also, see the next point.
3. People always seem to neglect that lowering the time limit increases the chance of timeouts. First of all, 6-7 minutes is fairly uncommon, but four minutes is a pretty common match length, so there'd be more timeouts just by default. But more importantly, timeouts become a MORE viable strategy with less time on the clock. If you're winning with a minute left, and you're playing with a character that can do it, you're going to go for timeout almost certainly. Many defensively oriented players and characters now play for timeouts frequently because they're substantially easier to obtain than they were before. Doctor Mario versus Jiggs will probably ALWAYS go the full four minutes under these rules.
4. Javi v. PP Game 2 couldn't have happened if there were only two stocks. Many of the best moments in this game wouldn't happen with only two stocks.

I understand the desire behind this, but the idea is pretty flawed IMO. I guess it could work as a Gentleman's Clause type of thing where if both players agree to it then that's what they do, but why should they unless they both think it increases their chances of winning?

EDIT: Also, as some people have said, this is absurdly subjective. This is basically saying "I and some others didn't like watching these sets that rarely happen, therefore, change the system that has worked with no real complaints for years."

 

[t3h Icy]

No.

Also with a shorter timer, more people would likely be inclined to go for timeouts, particularly in floaty dittos, which actually increases the length of tournaments.

Time outs are so rare that they don't need to be worried about. Even Armada vs Vanz in Peach dittos took 7 minutes.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Peach/Samus always takes forever, especially when they are good players with good DI. The problem isn't with Puff. Furthermore, a smaller limit would only encourage camping, which could result in more time outs, and thus more time being used (as opposed to 2-3 minute spacie fights, we could see 4-5 minute spacie fights, if one deems it easier to win that way, since the timer is shorter).

Just calm down, guys. Not enough people want to "play to win" anyways.

 

[ajp_anton]

Mango is losing! We must change the rules somehow so that they favor him!
Also M2K, all characters that he hates must be banned!

 

[Varist]

what a joke of a thread.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

If we didn't mean for it to timeout we wouldn't have a timer.

 

[Pengie]

No

Kay

We don't need to alleviate time-outs.

Then the rest of the community should stop FEMALE DOGGING about time outs because that gets old really quickly.

It's entirely subjective to think that we should "alleviate" it at all. Even if you maintain that time-outs are bad and that we should exact methods to try and reduce their frequency, it still doesn't warrant a rule change. When you see more than a few sets per tournament ending this way, then you might have a point. For now, it's just preemptively fixing something that might not even be broken.

I completely agree that its subjective; the whole reason I prefer longer sets with shorter matches. Also, I am not trying to reduce the frequency of time outs, but rather make time outs less exaggerated because most people wouldn't whine as much if a 5 game time out set was only 20 minutes rather than 40 minutes.

1. All your MU gripes involved Puffs, and there ARE other MUs that can take that long with good DI.
2. Two stocks / four minutes, even if sets are Bo5, strongly allow for randomness, or for total change in playstyles. Get up by a stock and go for a suicide gimp becomes the new strategy. Fox dittos become just plain stupid with only two stocks.
3. People always seem to neglect that lowering the time limit increases the chance of timeouts. First of all, 6-7 minutes is fairly uncommon, but four minutes is a pretty common match length, so there'd be more timeouts just by default. But more importantly, timeouts become a MORE viable strategy with less time on the clock. If you're winning with a minute left, and you're playing with a character that can do it, you're going to go for timeout almost certainly. Many defensively oriented players and characters now play for timeouts frequently because they're substantially easier to obtain than they were before.
4. Javi v. PP Game 2 couldn't have happened if there were only two stocks. Many of the best moments in this game wouldn't happen with only two stocks.

I understand the desire behind this, but the idea is pretty flawed IMO. I guess it could work as a Gentleman's Clause type of thing where if both players agree to it then that's what they do, but why should they unless they both think it increases their chances of winning?

1. That's mostly just things that came to mind based on prominent defensive characters. I've see spacie dittos that go on for 5+ minutes on DL because of good DI + bad edgeguarding.
2. My gut instinct to that is to say just play safer to avoid those setups but I see where you're coming from. It is one of the bigger problems with the format but the I do in all honesty think that longer sets do a good job of weeding out the randomness.
3. As a player, I think that's not entirely logically sound; in a two stock format, aggro characters can abuse the fact that the can get a quick kill from a gimp or can convert into a combo and then into a kill just as much as a runaway character can abuse their strengths to time out the match, but again, that's just how I would view it.
4. With longer sets it could happen in later games; then again, this is a huge hypothetical because adaptation/comeback could happen in the middle of a match as well. If anything, I think this format forces faster adaptation because the consequences of being read becomes much greater.

Mango is losing! We must change the rules somehow so that they favor him!
Also M2K, all characters that he hates must be banned!

Holy words being shoved in my mouth Batman, what does mango have to do with any of this?

what a joke of a thread.

Kay

If we didn't mean for it to timeout we wouldn't have a timer.

I'm not discouraging timeouts I'm discouraging the fact that timeouts, as they are, are, in my opinion, extreme with the current rule set and that the stigma associated with timeouts would die down a bit if they didn't take so damn long to happen.

 

[KirbyKaze]

Time outs have so far been a significant issue with matches involving Peaches and Puffs primarily.

I propose we ban those characters.

 

[Varist]

i would second that proposal before i would move the timer any lower than 7 minutes.

 

[ajp_anton]

Holy words being shoved in my mouth Batman, what does mango have to do with any of this?

People like Mango winning. People like M2K winning. You like fast matches. You want to change the rules to better fit what you like.

 

[Pluplue]

If there was no time limit instead of a 4 minute time limit then the games wouldn't time out AND they'd probably be quicker.


*not quicker than four minutes but quicker than eight

 

[rhan]

Time outs have so far been a significant issue with matches involving Peaches and Puffs primarily.

I propose we ban those characters.

If we ban those characters we also get some counterpick stages back.

Mute for example.
Brinstar? (I have no idea if it's banned I just never seen it in compatative play anymore).

 

[Shadic]

If one match in a set goes to time, the rest of the set is dropped to 2 stock, 8 minutes.

Would be a lot harder to stall out.

 

[Pengie]

People like Mango winning. People like M2K winning. You like fast matches. You want to change the rules to better fit what you like.

shorter != faster necessarily. This has less to do with my personal biases and more to do with my personal lack of tolerance for the scrubby nonsense that gets posted on these boards and anything that can remedy said nonsense is something that I would support. The original point of this thread was to actually discuss this topic and see the flaws and strengths of this format and evaluate them as compared to the strengths and flaws of the status quo. You know have a DISCUSSUION (a meaningless word around here, apparently) about it, whereas all this thread has yielded is a bunch of cretins with internet connections mashing on their keyboards.

 

[t3h Icy]

No time limit is a horrible idea. If two players both decide to camp and are both patient enough to never leave their place, the game will go on forever. With two players hard-headed enough to win, it could result in hour-long games lol. I know I would.

Timer changes aren't necessary, it's fine the way it is, stop whining about not being entertained when the purpose of a tournament is winning. If you want to ensure that finals are always flashy and fast, get there yourself.

Edit: lol@above. Your idea is terrible, get over yourself.

 

[Pengie]

Your idea is terrible, get over yourself.

Please amuse me and my infinite ego as to why my idea is terrible. That would at least bring this closer to a discussion than your non sequitur about flashiness and entertainment that has nothing to do with my original post.

 

[DAS]

Nope doesn't sound good to me.

 

[Griffard]

Time-outs are not a significant enough problem (including GFs at apex) to make a rule change, especially not a drastic one like 2 stock matches where epic matches and great comebacks are completely impossible.

 

[ajp_anton]

4 stocks makes good average match lengths. Shorter would mean random stuff have too big influence and smaller chances for comebacks.
8 minutes is long enough that people rarely decide to go for time. Finland plays 7 minutes though, but 6 minutes is too close to the average match length of non-intentional camping of floaties.

These extremes aren't so extreme or even so common (hence the good average length) that they are a real problem.

 

[Varist]

if we made the timer a minute per stock 7 minutes makes the most sense, because only 7 stocks get taken in a real match. anything lower is just catering to people who like tech spam, anything higher is stupids being stupid

 

[Shadic]

If one match in a set goes to time, the rest of the set is dropped to 2 stock, 8 minutes.

Would be a lot harder to stall out.

Changing my idea:

Every match in a set that goes to time, the amount of starting stock is brought down by one. Two-stock minimum. Time remains the same.

 

[CloneHat]

Shorter time=more timeouts.

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[The Tycon]

Time outs cannot become a problem unless it is truly unavoidable during an entire match. Not in any cases, in any of the games, has it been so. There hasn't been any circumstances where some character can do it across the board in all of that character's match-ups, dominating the roster. Just because, lets say, a Peach can time out Gannondorf (or whatever), does not mean some rule should be changed. Also, many of the time outs are played with no stoppages of play on either side. Remember, there are rules for stalling, for good reason too, but time outs will happen without stalling, which is the reason for the timer.

Everybody plays differently, that's what's so great about Smash. It's a little bit sad that people can get upset about that.

 

[Pengie]

4 stocks makes good average match lengths. Shorter would mean random stuff have too big influence and smaller chances for comebacks.
8 minutes is long enough that people rarely decide to go for time. Finland plays 7 minutes though, but 6 minutes is too close to the average match length of non-intentional camping of floaties.

These extremes aren't so extreme or even so common (hence the good average length) that they are a real problem.

Okay, fair enough; I see how these all come together such "trimming the fat," so to speak, would result in a negative impact on the gameplay. I still think that it's a shame, however, that time outs will continue to be stigmatized because of their length =/. I still think it'd be kinda interesting to see how a 2 stock metagame would play out; I can see reasonable arguments being made for both runaway heavy and rushdown heavy.

I guess the main thing that I was trying to get across that I didn't make as clear as I should have is that an eight minute match of two players zoning each doesn't really show much more than a four minute match would, especially when an extended set count would still make patience and consistency a factor. On the other side, I can see how shorter matches with less stocks would skew individual fast paced matches to be more about who can punish the others' minor mistakes harder; however, I do think that this format would be promote safer gameplay and faster adaptation between matches so I guess we'll just leave that as a difference of opinion.

 

[Krynxe]

N o

Th is

 

[Bones0]

If you really want to alleviate the issue of timeouts (and I do believe the actual timing out is an issue, not so much the play styles that result in it), then all you need to do is extend the timer. 10 minutes is certainly not unreasonable, and 15 would virtually guarantee a match to reach a victor. Like I've said multiple times, the only reason a time constraint should ever be applied to a match is for logistical reasons; i.e. allowing the tournament to finish in time.

I don't get what everyone's obsession is with faster matches in the first place. I can understand not wanting to PLAY them, but most sets only time out when BOTH players are playing extremely cautious. Unless you are Armada Jr. and plan on timing out Jiggs players with YL, WTF do you care if a set takes 30+ minutes to finish? The important thing is that the best player advances. Spectators need not hold their breath.

 

[Lukahn]

I hated that match. Really.
But I don't think we should change anything.

 

[t3h Icy]

Please amuse me and my infinite ego as to why my idea is terrible. That would at least bring this closer to a discussion than your non sequitur about flashiness and entertainment that has nothing to do with my original post.

Read your own thread, lol.

 

[Jonas]

What would it exactly improve?

And btw the timing out is not an issue because we have a practical rule to decide the winner under those circumstances. It overrules the game's decision, and SRK-heads and Sirlin would probably laugh at it, but it works pretty well.

 

[Acryte]

Nothing needs to be changed if anything more time encourages less camping, but honestly its just one of the few super campy matchups

 

[Kal]

If you really want to alleviate the issue of timeouts (and I do believe the actual timing out is an issue, not so much the play styles that result in it), then all you need to do is extend the timer. 10 minutes is certainly not unreasonable, and 15 would virtually guarantee a match to reach a victor. Like I've said multiple times, the only reason a time constraint should ever be applied to a match is for logistical reasons; i.e. allowing the tournament to finish in time.

If you increase the timer to fifteen minutes, I assure you I would camp like crazy every time I was down. There is absolutely no reason to approach when you have a seven minute buffer allowing you to hope for a mistake from your opponent.

As we've discussed before, increasing the duration of the match might only encourage camping from both players. Only if we are below the healthy medium should we increase time.

 

[Archangel]

Changing my idea:

Every match in a set that goes to time, the amount of starting stock is brought down by one. Two-stock minimum. Time remains the same.

I actually like this idea.

 

[ajp_anton]

You're overcomplicating things for no real benefit (changing the # of stocks mid-set). Long matches isn't the reason tournaments run late.

 

[BigD!!!]

1 stock, 1 minute, best of 7

 

[mhenlo]

There is no reason to try to alleviate time outs. you like shorter games because they are "faster" what if i like longer matches because they are more mentally exhausting. if i enjoy it why shouldnt i go into every match trying to time out opponent's, what if i go into every game wanting to no one to lose a stock in 8 min. it is good that time outs are atleast viable.

EDIT: I dont enjoy it just trying to make a point