A simple solution to camping?

[Miles.]

So everyone should be familiar with the infamous Dojo vs DEHF sets at Genesis.

If you aren't watch them here.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=247028

Two amazing players, some amazing games.

The big problem that many of us on the west coast had, was how did Dojo go from getting 3 stocked to "winning" versus the amazing, sexy, cool, and buff LarryLurr?

Did he do something cheap?(Cheap is a scrub's invention)
Or Gay? (I hope so!)
Or Immoral? (I want some money)

Or was he just following the Holy Commandment/Golden Rule given to us by Isai; "DON'T GET HIT."?

There was a lot of drama at Genesis over the last match in particular. I had been running pools all day (like from 11 -10pm, I was actually still running a pool after the venue closed) and someone came up to me and told me Dojo was stalling/planking/whatever vs Larry. And to be honest I didnt really care, I was tired, I am not a TO, and as I recall Mango was doing some sexy things on the big screen.

Again someone came up to me telling me about the Larry Dojo situation. I still didn't care.

Finally Erow (a very respected player from Nor Cal) told me the same thing, that Dojo got like 3 stocked before and was now planking sooo hard.


I walk over and check it out and its in the last 2 minutes or so of the match. And he didnt really appear to be trying to attack DEHF. I told Neal or Champ, I dont really remember. Any rate, eventually a few of us Sheridan, Neal, Sky, Bardull, Praxis, Hylian, ETC squabbled about it for awhile.

They ended up getting 9 (odd number, so the vote would be final) of respected smashers and watched the video twice. They decided that Dojo hadn't broken any rules.

You watch the sets.
What do you think?

Is Larry that good? (Hell yes LarryLurr does work son!)
Is Dojo that bad? (Dojo is a beast)
Is Larry that bad for losing to such a "noob"/"cheap" tactic? (Total scrub)
Or is Dojo just smart?

Dojo spent about 2-4 matches trying to KO Larry. That is the main way we all try to achieve a victory in smash. I honestly have never thought to/or ever tried to time out a match, that is just boring to me. I have had many many matches go to time though for whatever reasons, whether it was just a real close match or just a campy match up like Rob VS Lucario.

Anyways Dojo couldn't out "KO" Larry. Larry's a beast. So Dojo decided to win another way while staying completely in the rules.

We all know you win when the other person runs out of stocks/lifes. Its pretty self explanatory, but we have additional rules for in the event of time running out.

And here my friends is my simple idea.

What if we removed time limits from matches?

We want to see to people fight, not run away. Now we dont want to see to people just mindlessly attack without spacing, or dodging, or using patience. But I for one sure as hell am sick of Brawl's bad reputation. I think eliminating a time limit FORCES people to try to win by KOing their opponents.

What I want to know is does anyone think this makes sense?
And if it is "such a bad idea"/ or stupid/ or it "wont work" I would like to know why you think so. So that maybe in time we could possible change the rules since there is no way to really stop Air Camping/Planking. If we eliminate a time limit there is no other alternative for the players than to win through actually fighting and playing the game as it was intended to be played.

 

[DanGR]

Time limits and all rules regarding stalling are only there to keep the tournament from lasting so long.

You have to have a timer.

 

[Moblin]

This has been suggested many times before, and the main problem with it is that it would take even longer. Brawl tournaments last hours on end with 8 minute matches alone.

 

[Miles.]

Time limits and all rules regarding stalling are only there to keep the tournament from lasting so long.

You have to have a timer.

Maybe brawl should be 2 stock or 1 stock then.

We dont need a timer for the sake of gameplay.

Its for the tournament, to finish on time.

 

[EWING]

I want to know if it's been tried before. Theoretically, it might make matches shorter, since it eliminates the entire purpose of camping by forcing the game to be about KOs instead of the clock.

 

[Spelt]

the solution to camping is too camp harder.


/thread

 

[j0s3ph]

I want to know if it's been tried before. Theoretically, it might make matches shorter, since it eliminates the entire purpose of camping by forcing the game to be about KOs instead of the clock.

Yeah, does anyone know if it has been tried before? If not it would be something to try out in at least one tourney and see what happens

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

turning off the time would make barlw even more campy

just reduce the ledge grab rule until people can't camp, or at least as much

 

[Nanaki]

Or we could make people actually play out the sudden death situations. You'd have to gain a stock lead then, not just a percent lead, to be able to plank or aircamp to victory. I'd bet campers wouldn't want to leave it to chance in sudden death when they've spent 8 minutes running away - they'd actually start to fight a bit to try to get a stock lead. At least then you have to outplay someone by at least a stock before you gay them to death.

TBH, camping/planking hasn't become a big enough issue yet that any rules really need to be put into place to stop it. Yeah, some people make it a way of life (DMG...), but for the most part matches still come down to matchup knowledge and execution instead of 'pick mk and ledge/air camp'.

 

[Tien2500]

At any rate a timer is needed as people said. The game just takes too long otherwise. I've had a few matches last to the time limit where neither person was really trying to run it out. Some matches just make it very hard for either character to approach and are just slow paced.

And camping is still beneficial without timers. The purpose of camping is not always to run out the clock it is also to force your opponent into making a risky approach that you can punish. So camping would still exist.

It seems whatever rule is made to prevent this type of play certain characters (...) find ways around it. The answer may be a more vague rule that gives more discretion to TOs to decide what constitutes stalling. Of course the solution may be worse than the problem in this case.

Edit:

Or we could make people actually play out the sudden death situations. You'd have to gain a stock lead then, not just a percent lead, to be able to plank or aircamp to victory. I'd bet campers wouldn't want to leave it to chance in sudden death when they've spent 8 minutes running away - they'd actually start to fight a bit to try to get a stock lead. At least then you have to outplay someone by at least a stock before you gay them to death.

TBH, camping/planking hasn't become a big enough issue yet that any rules really need to be put into place to stop it. Yeah, some people make it a way of life (DMG...), but for the most part matches still come down to matchup knowledge and execution instead of 'pick mk and ledge/air camp'.

Thats an idea but what about matches that legit go the 8 minutes?

 

[Nanaki]

Edit:




Thats an idea but what about matches that legit go the 8 minutes?

If they go the legit 8 minutes and are still tied on stock, the match was pretty close anyway, and sudden death just speeds things up.

Honestly, if you can't take 3 stocks in 8 minutes, I don't see the issue with sudden death. If you haven't outplayed your opponent enough to win in those 8 minutes, you can't really say that it got left up to chance when you both get set to 300%. If you've been 'playing carefully' for 8 whole minutes, odds are one or the other of you has been camping pretty hard. Isn't the point of putting in a new rule to avoid camping?

For the record, I'm not an advocate of invoking this rule or any other, but this one makes way more sense to me than getting rid of the timer. It would keep the max time for a match about the same it is now, and give an incentive to stop camping at some point.

 

[Spelt]

sudden death is luck.
especially if they camp the whole time and then get exploded by a bomb

 

[Tien2500]

If they go the legit 8 minutes and are still tied on stock, the match was pretty close anyway, and sudden death just speeds things up.

Honestly, if you can't take 3 stocks in 8 minutes, I don't see the issue with sudden death. If you haven't outplayed your opponent enough to win in those 8 minutes, you can't really say that it got left up to chance when you both get set to 300%. If you've been 'playing carefully' for 8 whole minutes, odds are one or the other of you has been camping pretty hard. Isn't the point of putting in a new rule to avoid camping?

For the record, I'm not an advocate of invoking this rule or any other, but this one makes way more sense to me than getting rid of the timer. It would keep the max time for a match about the same it is now, and give an incentive to stop camping at some point.

Despite what the OP is called I don't think camping in general is the problem. Most forms of camping have been found to be manageable. Air planking/planking however has been viewed by some to be unrealistic to play against (at least for the majority of the cast).

Besides if you get up to the end of the match and have 40% damage on you and your opponent is at 118% then you outplayed them. The match is supposed to go to the person who outplayed the other. As long as you outplayed them by the teeniest bit you should win. You shouldn't have to like outplay someone beyond a reasonable doubt or anything.

 

[Miles.]

We dont need a time limit.

There are other ways to alter the rules to make tournaments end on time.

 

[Tien2500]

We dont need a time limit.

There are other ways to alter the rules to make tournaments end on time.

Such as..? And I don't think cutting the stock is a viable alternative. Lowering the stock means that it is way easier for a worse player to win.

 

[Jupz]

The thing is, without a timer, whats to stop the two players just sitting there? It doesn't force players to approach. Neither one will approach because the game will never end. The current system forces one to approach. The timer (and the timer percentage rule where the player up on percent loses) forces a player to approach if they are losing. This will simply make matches even more campy IMO and we will start seeing 15-20 or even 30 minute matches

 

[Tien2500]

The thing is, without a timer, whats to stop the two players just sitting there? It doesn't force players to approach. Neither one will approach because the game will never end. The current system forces one to approach. The timer (and the timer percentage rule where the player up on percent loses) forces a player to approach if they are losing. This will simply make matches even more campy IMO and we will start seeing 15-20 or even 30 minute matches

Probably not most of the time because most players wouldn't have the patience but there are a few players who play "gay" enough to make a 30 minute match happen.

 

[Miles.]

Such as..? And I don't think cutting the stock is a viable alternative. Lowering the stock means that it is way easier for a worse player to win.

False.

Less stocks doesnt make it any easier to space or punish. Less stocks means, bad players lose faster.

I am not gunna magically beat M2K just because we are playing 1 or 2 stocks as opposed to 3 stock.

 

[Tien2500]

False.

Less stocks doesnt make it any easier to space or punish. Less stocks means, bad players lose faster.

I am not gunna magically beat M2K just because we are playing 1 or 2 stocks as opposed to 3 stock.

True. Lets say you and M2K are playing a one thousand stock match (assume thats possible for a moment). To beat him you'd have to outplay him over the course of those thousand stocks. You will probably never ever win a one thousand stock match.

Now lets say you're playing a one stock match. Lets say M2K makes a few bad mistakes or trips into an Fsmash or something (assume tripping is not hacked out). You could win this set easily because one small error or bit of luck will shift the battle tremendously.

So if you played 100 matches of 1000 stocks each how many do you think you'd win? Probably 0. If you play 100 one stock matches how many do you think you would win? I'd say you could probably take at least 10 or so.

Of course this is an exaggerated example but the point is that the longer a match is the more it favors the better player.

 

[Nanaki]

Probably not most of the time because most players wouldn't have the patience but there are a few players who play "gay" enough to make a 30 minute match happen.

Somewhere, DMG just smiled.

False.

Less stocks doesnt make it any easier to space or punish. Less stocks means, bad players lose faster.

I am not gunna magically beat M2K just because we are playing 1 or 2 stocks as opposed to 3 stock.

It also means less room for error from both parties. Good players make mistakes too - M2K got fair'd twice by Ally, and you can't say that was all because of skill on Ally's part. If we play 1 stock matches, one mistake (especially against someone like IC's) is enough for a great player to get knocked out by a mediocre one.

For the first time tonight, I'm with Tien. Less stocks isn't a good idea.

 

[Tien2500]

Somewhere, DMG just smiled.



It also means less room for error from both parties. Good players make mistakes too - M2K got fair'd twice by Ally, and you can't say that was all because of skill on Ally's part. If we play 1 stock matches, one mistake (especially against someone like IC's) is enough for a great player to get knocked out by a mediocre one.

For the first time tonight, I'm with Tien. Less stocks isn't a good idea.

While we're at it, less stocks also limits the time players have to learn the matchup. In a one stock match by the time you really learn your opponent its over.

 

[Bones0]

False.

Less stocks doesnt make it any easier to space or punish. Less stocks means, bad players lose faster.

I am not gunna magically beat M2K just because we are playing 1 or 2 stocks as opposed to 3 stock.

It's common knowledge that the number of experiments you do in chemistry determines how precise your judgement of calculations are. The more experiments you perform, the closer your value will be to the theoretical true value. The same is with competitions. I am much more likely to beat M2K in a single stock match than I am in a 100 stock match. If we each have one life, I might be able to get momentum and end the game before M2K has a chance to counter (unlikely though, lol). With 100 stocks, there is no chance I will win, because it is extremely unlikely that M2K would screw up that badly so many times in order to let me win, when he is a much better player.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

Changing rulesets, huh?

What we must realize first is that Brawl is a game whose competitive scene is harder to idealize. On one side you've got those who would suggest anti campy/planky solutions like no time limit or a ledge grab count; on the other you've got people who, quite frankly, exploit the (to quote the OP) respected smashers' leniency regarding legality of tactics. So no matter how we try to mend the situation, someone will become dissapointed. Either the proud (for lack of a better term) will find whatever designated legality unfair, or the realistic will be annoyed by an imposition of prohibitions.

IMO: No-time-limit does not actively solve anything due to how both players may continue in whatever manner they choose in order to win, except now the process takes an indefinite amount of time.
Fewer stocks, espescially 1 (whether whoever mentions it is actually being serious or not), for obvious reasons, leaves more room for flukes.

Seems to me like 2 options remain: 1. Whoever is expeted to make such a decision regarding tactic legality needs to develop a stricter view -OR- 2. We accept Brawl as the game it is (be that, in your opinion, a good or bad thing) and leave things exactly the way they are.

 

[xDD-Master]

What about:

2 Stocks - 4/5 Minutes - Bo5 ?


Normal: 3 x 7/8 is 21/24 minutes ||| 3 x 3 = 9 Stocks

New: 5 x 4/5 = 20/25 minutes ||| 5 x 2 = 10 Stocks

In both rules you have to take your oppenant at least 6 stocks to win (Without a loose and without Timeouts)

The new rule would shorten the time of camping.

For example if someone died suddenly or got gimped by MK in the first match, the MK starts to plank. Because he only has 1 life left and only ~4 minutes left, other than ~7 the whole Air Camping game is shorter, he also has 2 instead of 1 tries left to beat his oppenant. The knowledge about CPs do get more important since you have to choose 2 instead of 1. This would may allow some more CPs, because they loose in importance since crazy CPs would only decide 1 of 5 instead of 1 of 3 matches => more variety. It would also reduce the importance of the first match since you have more tries and so the "I do all to win the first match" thinking will go away. On the other hand, it's easier to stall/camp 5 instead of 8 minutes. Timing out your Oppenant would also be a less boring since the set-up of a match (Characters & stage) would only last 5 minutes, that means at least more variations and more exciting matches in a set. Character-CPing would also may be more common then, since you can loose 2 matches and then try another character.

Think about it :]

 

[Ugg]

Nevermind this post.

 

[Kyari]

While we're at it, less stocks also limits the time players have to learn the matchup. In a one stock match by the time you really learn your opponent its over.

Oh please. Stop crying. Most fighting games you really gotta learn quick, or they **** you over bad. Why does Brawl have to be any different? If you make a few mistakes in typical games you're a goner. Smash needn't be an exception.

I'd be down for a 1 stock match. Forces the opponent to read the **** out of the other guy, or do a better job at it anyway. 3 stocks and 8 minutes just to do that is laziness.

 

[Nanaki]

Oh please. Stop crying. Most fighting games you really gotta learn quick, or they **** you over bad. Why does Brawl have to be any different? If you make a few mistakes in typical games you're a goner. Smash needn't be an exception.

I'd be down for a 1 stock match. Forces the opponent to read the **** out of the other guy, or do a better job at it anyway. 3 stocks and 8 minutes just to do that is laziness.

Yeah, we might as well just make the Grand Finals a 1 match 1 stock event then, since playing out 2 sets of best of 5 is just laziness.

Yeah, you get punished hard in other fighting games. You also play sets of multiple rounds, just like Brawl. 1 mistake doesn't = doom, it just means you lose a round (effectively, a stock in Brawl). If you get punished super hard in 1 round, you can easily remedy that mistake in the next. The idea is that whoever makes the least mistakes wins, not that whoever makes the first mistake loses.

 

[DMG]

TBH, camping/planking hasn't become a big enough issue yet that any rules really need to be put into place to stop it. Yeah, some people make it a way of life (DMG...), but for the most part matches still come down to matchup knowledge and execution instead of 'pick mk and ledge/air camp'.

I love it when people reference me and my camping ways. It makes me stronger, I gain power from it.

We dont need a time limit.

There are other ways to alter the rules to make tournaments end on time.

No. You need a timer. Otherwise you will have situational rules that won't work properly WHILE still having matches possibly go on longer. I guarantee you would look STUPID if you did pools matches without a timer of any kind, let alone the actual bracket matches. Trust me, I of all people would know of the consequences of removing the timer.

Somewhere, DMG just smiled.

Indeed, I am greatly pleased at some of the posts in this thread.

Also less stocks is probably bad idea, although 2 stocks 5 minute timer for regular bracket matches doesn't sound TOO bad. It would positively and negatively affect me though, in that I would have less time required to camp, but lose extra farts. 2 stock 6 minutes is too much time, 2 stock 4 minutes is too short.

Also check out my thread:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=247837

 

[Steeler]

this is my sig now

lol

 

[Tien2500]

Oh please. Stop crying. Most fighting games you really gotta learn quick, or they **** you over bad. Why does Brawl have to be any different? If you make a few mistakes in typical games you're a goner. Smash needn't be an exception.

I'd be down for a 1 stock match. Forces the opponent to read the **** out of the other guy, or do a better job at it anyway. 3 stocks and 8 minutes just to do that is laziness.

Yeah and you know what else would be really awesome? If the tournament standard for Street Fighter 4 was one round. While we're at it we'll crank the damage ratios on both games to the max. Better read your opponent really quick!

Seriously though you can read any of the posts above you to see why 1 stock matches are a bad idea.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The title of this thread sucks. Camping isn't a problem therefore it needs no solution.

 

[Nic64]

Camping isn't the problem.

Camping is actually the solution

 

[castorpollux]

Here's the solution:

If it's timed out, both players get DQ'd

 

[xDD-Master]

Here's the solution:

If it's timed out, both players get DQ'd

I HAVE THE POWEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRR to DQ my oppenant

Good idea

/sarcasm

 

['V']

Make the games 2 stocks and 4 minutes long. Anything to at least make the round move faster.

 

[xDD-Master]

Make the games 2 stocks and 4 minutes long. Anything to at least make the round move faster.

Like DMG said, I also think 5 minutes is better than 4.

So ruleset would be:
- 2 Stocks
- 5 Minutes
- Bo5 Pools and Bracket
- Bo7 Loosers and Winners Final
- Bo9 Grand Finals

I can see this beeing much more pleasant than a tourney with normal ruleset.

 

[Miles.]

Or maybe we all need to DMG it up and play gayer?

 

[DMG]

Or maybe we all need to DMG it up and play gayer?

I like this idea best. Great minds like to camp.

 

[Miles.]

You know you are my favorite smasher though right?

Ever since you DMGed the last guy in the South vs Australia Crew battles at Genesis.

 

[DMG]

Well thank you.

The Australia Snake is my best friend though. Not many people can honestly say they would intentionally lower the timer to 8 minutes in a crew battle and not change characters when I picked Brinstar. That man... is my hero.

Aside from Plank of course.