Apex 2013 Smash 64 January 11-13th, 2013 Singles Bracket is now up

[The Star King]

MBR? I don't think we should be using Melee rulesets anyways

Kidding aside, just because it's not in the ruleset doesn't mean he can't include timers if he wants to.

 

[KnitePhox]

Does anyone going to Apex have a stopwatch? I'd like to actually allow players to request a timer for their matches.

i'd say everyone has one on a phone; is a basic phone application not adequate enough for this?

i remember even my ****ty old nokia from 03-04 had one


if real stopwatches are required...won't digital wristwatches suffice?

 

[ballin4life]

(I'll be in California this summer, so we can't have our Summer smash sessions then ).

Where in california?

 

[Battlecow]

MBR? I don't think we should be using Melee rulesets anyways

Kidding aside, just because it's not in the ruleset doesn't mean he can't include timers if he wants to.

sure yeah, whoever's running 64 can do their own thing. I've seen people thinking that there was an "official" 10 min time limit before though, just clarifying. I'm not against some sort of time limit. Less time I have to play on hyrule.

my bad on the MBR lol I'm stupid

 

[firo]

Where in california?

I'll be in Mountain View this summer for an internship. If you are nearby we should definitely get together! (along with all the other California people).

 

[Nintendude]

i'd say everyone has one on a phone; is a basic phone application not adequate enough for this?

i remember even my ****ty old nokia from 03-04 had one


if real stopwatches are required...won't digital wristwatches suffice?

Phones are ok but stopwatches that beep loudly are preferable.

 

[ballin4life]

I'll be in Mountain View this summer for an internship. If you are nearby we should definitely get together! (along with all the other California people).

Yup yup. I live/work about 20 minutes from Mountain View.

Phones are ok but stopwatches that beep loudly are preferable.

iPhone has a timer that rings when it is done

 

[mikeduncan23]

I'll be in Mountain View this summer for an internship. If you are nearby we should definitely get together! (along with all the other California people).

I should be up north this summer as well, we could get a decent group together

 

[clubbadubba]

Its not so much designer intent, but designer knowledge. Things that people had no reasonable expectation to believe possible with the n64 controller or hori are possible when using keyboards.

Also, significant DI is NOT a non-significant advantage. Being unable to do a falcon uair combo because someone is max DIing away from you is a huge gamechanger. The DIer has effectively gained another stock. It would be akin to a controller that allows players a higher recovery rate than normal.

 

[Battlecow]

I've never met someone who was capable of DI'ing out of falcon uair chains with a hori but not with an OG (referring of course to actual DI out and not like DI'ing down to catch the platform after fthrow SH uair from 0 or something, which is easy with both).

 

[clubbadubba]

Yea talking about keyboard. I'm cool with hori's now, I'm just preemptively striking down keyboards on console

 

[Surri-Sama]

Let everyone be their best eh, KK i got my GS primed the the best codes to ensure victory!!

Also saying that isai still won apex last year is now making these tourneys 100% pointless.

It seems like 90% of the smash64 community just doesn't want a competitive scene, so i guess we should simply have smashfests instead of tourneys....alex is wasting a lot of effort getting this **** on the go and no one really even cares.

 

[KnitePhox]

2hyped for A(nnual national smash fest)pex 2013!

 

[KnitePhox]

Honestly this is probably the worst.

"STFU up surri other, more important players use horis, and we dont want them to go away...so go away"


Hahahah....**** you

Dafuq sirri, </3? U Shud go apix 2017 wen horis r non exits


EDIT: don't infract, accident dub post; mod pls

 

[Kefit]

Does anyone going to Apex have a stopwatch? I'd like to actually allow players to request a timer for their matches.

While I'm not necessarily opposed to timing tournament matches, there are a number of significant competitive and logistical issues that probably make implementation of timers unfeasible for SSB64.

First, and most importantly, if some matches are to be timed then ALL matches MUST be timed. The presence of a timer introduces a very powerful new win condition. Timing a game out legitimizes stalling as a solid, winning tactic and otherwise transforms competitive gameplay progression in serious ways. It is not competitively tolerable for this win condition to be present in some matches and not others, or to only be invoked at the request of a player. It must be applied consistently.

We've established that a timer warps the game. Thus both players need to be able to discern remaining match time at a glance so they can properly apply this information to their gameplay and tactics. A stopwatch would not be acceptable for thus purpose. Brawl and Melee meet the immediate readability concerns through the use of clear timers at the top of the screen. A reasonable analog for 64 would be a digital count down timer with large numbers placed on top of the TV. I think it's highly unlikely that you will be able to procure sufficient timers like this for Apex.

Last second blows could conceivably place match outcomes in question. In Brawl and Melee this is avoided through the use of a cold, uncaring computer capable of ending a match precisely when time runs out. The only real world analog to this would be an impartial referee, and I think it would be very difficult to find impartial individuals willing to donate their time to 64 matches (players in the tournament, and likely anyone in the competitive 64 scene are not impartial with respects to the outcome of this tournament).

Finally, it is feasible for some characters to stall on Hyrule indefinitely through the use of a triangular retreat path (platforms to ground to top of the tent). While this is not the way most if not all of us want to play SSB64, this is first and foremost a competitive event. As a competitive player I'll be the first to say that I would employ stalling until the timer ran out if I thought it was the tactic most likely to win the match given the situation I find myself in. It would not be healthy for the competitive spirit of the event and our spectators to permit and implicitly encourage this type of gameplay.

15 minute matches on Hyrule are not inherently competitively unhealthy. The long matches at Apex and Genesis 2011 were incredibly intense for the players involved and full of interesting spacing, zoning, and execution play. But these matches are unhealthy for a tournament environment. They drain the very lifeblood out of the players involved due to their length and intensity, which harms later matches. They bore spectators who aren't intimately familiar with 64. And their length impedes smooth tournament progression. We can and should aim to eliminate these matches from tournament play.

But a timer is not the solution for SSB64. We cannot effectively implement a timer, and it would warp and mutate the game we know and love. The solution is much simpler and eminently employable - ban Hyrule from tournament matches.

I mean, you'll have to ban it even if you employ timers. So may as well ban it from the outset and avoid all those messy logistical and competitive issues associated with timers, right?

 

[Nintendude]

Thanks for your concerns Kefit. I'll respond to points individually.

First, and most importantly, if some matches are to be timed then ALL matches MUST be timed. The presence of a timer introduces a very powerful new win condition. Timing a game out legitimizes stalling as a solid, winning tactic and otherwise transforms competitive gameplay progression in serious ways. It is not competitively tolerable for this win condition to be present in some matches and not others, or to only be invoked at the request of a player. It must be applied consistently.

Fair point. I, personally, do not see this to be a concern since it's the players that have the control here. Though, players would have to request the timer prior to the start of the set. They can't ask for it after game 1. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this.

We've established that a timer warps the game. Thus both players need to be able to discern remaining match time at a glance so they can properly apply this information to their gameplay and tactics. A stopwatch would not be acceptable for thus purpose. Brawl and Melee meet the immediate readability concerns through the use of clear timers at the top of the screen. A reasonable analog for 64 would be a digital count down timer with large numbers placed on top of the TV. I think it's highly unlikely that you will be able to procure sufficient timers like this for Apex.

Last second blows could conceivably place match outcomes in question. In Brawl and Melee this is avoided through the use of a cold, uncaring computer capable of ending a match precisely when time runs out. The only real world analog to this would be an impartial referee, and I think it would be very difficult to find impartial individuals willing to donate their time to 64 matches (players in the tournament, and likely anyone in the competitive 64 scene are not impartial with respects to the outcome of this tournament).

I believe we'll have enough trustworthy people in attendance to designate judges when necessary, but I guess the best way to be sure is to ask here. Who reading this would be willing to judge matches when the situation arises?

Could there be human error? Of course, but pretty much every professional sport has learned to accept that.

Finally, it is feasible for some characters to stall on Hyrule indefinitely through the use of a triangular retreat path (platforms to ground to top of the tent). While this is not the way most if not all of us want to play SSB64, this is first and foremost a competitive event. As a competitive player I'll be the first to say that I would employ stalling until the timer ran out if I thought it was the tactic most likely to win the match given the situation I find myself in. It would not be healthy for the competitive spirit of the event and our spectators to permit and implicitly encourage this type of gameplay.

Another good point, but we do have an anti-stalling rule. Identifying someone attempting to stall with a "triangular retreat path" wouldn't be difficult.

15 minute matches on Hyrule are not inherently competitively unhealthy. The long matches at Apex and Genesis 2011 were incredibly intense for the players involved and full of interesting spacing, zoning, and execution play. But these matches are unhealthy for a tournament environment. They drain the very lifeblood out of the players involved due to their length and intensity, which harms later matches. They bore spectators who aren't intimately familiar with 64. And their length impedes smooth tournament progression. We can and should aim to eliminate these matches from tournament play.

But a timer is not the solution for SSB64. We cannot effectively implement a timer, and it would warp and mutate the game we know and love. The solution is much simpler and eminently employable - ban Hyrule from tournament matches.

I mean, you'll have to ban it even if you employ timers. So may as well ban it from the outset and avoid all those messy logistical and competitive issues associated with timers, right?

[/QUOTE]
For the record, I am in support of banning Hyrule and I agree it would pretty much eliminate the stalling issue. I do not think that's what the community wants though.

 

[kys]

I wouldn't leave it up the players' discretion. It's very possible ignorance could be king and players would not know about the timer. Time all the matches, or none. No in-betweens. You don't want a controversy.

Judging would be pretty easy. The circumstances Kefit mentioned for last second hits would be pretty rare, but plausible I suppose.

He makes a good point with the timer not being easily viewable. If it's not, I don't think it should be allowed.

Ban Hyrule. Tornados are gaaaaaay.

Make the neutral starter Congo thankyouverymuch.

 

[B Link]

Wait, are we talking about timing matches just to put up a warning sign when it gets >15 min (for eg)?

Or are we talking about timing matches and setting time limits?

I disagree entirely with setting time limits, and choosing the winner based on leftover stocks, but letting players know how much time has passed since the beginning of the match is perfectly ok with me. That said, you shouldn't be like "hey c'mon kirby you've been utilting for a while now in the green box, pick it up....let's goooo, cmon, cmon, move ittt..."

Yes, tournaments (and a fortiori, matches) need to finish faster. I think we can agree on that?

I've kinda been persuaded that stalling is subjective (unless it's a TIME LIMIT MATCH), so I really don't know if solutions using stopwatches or timers is all that fair.

Looks to me like the only solution is banning Hyrule. Or single elimination (lulz)

 

[Battlecow]

Kefit basically took the words out of my mouth, and then said them way better. Props.

What I'm really, really, really against is what nintendude may or may not be alluding to--a subjective criteria for stalling. The BR ruleset states that the player who's behind is the one stalling, but triangular run-away tactics sort of invalidate that. You could just ban that, but it's not that simple--what if they're only running away sort of triangularly? What if they attack once in a while? First of all, to call it at all you'd need an UNBIASED and TRAINED/RELIABLE referees watching every match (not really doable; I love knitephox to death, for example, but I wouldn't want him reffing one of my matches because he'd probably say "Utilt's gay! You lose!" three minutes in). The point I'm trying to make here is that it's never as simple as "don't run away" because then we'll kind of run away, or run away as much as we think we can get away with; basically the game warps around wherever the line's drawn and gets progressively dumber.

The optimal solution is, of course, to ban hyrule; that takes care of all our problems. But community sentiment is (apparently) not yet overwhelming enough to get that. The next best solution (and it's a freaking sucky one) is a time limit, and while games that use that will be boring as all hell and awful any way you look at them, they will at least finish. Absent a time limit and with hyrule, the games will take ridiculously, stupidly long (I can see me vs. Kefit going for 5 hours, easy). With subjective criteria against stalling and referees, the games may or may not end, but they'll be silly if they do end and you WILL have people protesting.

And nintendude, I would urge you to perhaps reconsider a ban--Given that the last five posters are in favor of a ban, community sentiment may not be as pro-hyrule as you think.

 

[Han Solo]

I fear the day that this game becomes Dreamland only. Don't ban Hyrule.

 

[The Star King]

Battlecow, pretend you are neutral about Hyrule for a moment. Why should you, from a TOing perspective, ban Hyrule? It's not like the community has shown that the majority wants it banned.

 

[malva00]

you going The Star King?

 

[The Star King]

I still DUNNO bro but if I do show up I probably won't be there Friday for the tourney, just friendlies on weekend

 

[Nintendude]

The points everyone's bringing up are all things that I have considered. These have all been issues for a long time now. We could just go with the status quo and not alter anything from last year, but I think that trying something new with regards to timers can be beneficial even if it's not perfect. It's never been tried before, and it was brought up after last year's tournament, so why not at least give it a shot? It won't make or break the tournament. If a timer is implemented, it will likely be 10 minutes per game.

 

[ballin4life]

Let everyone be their best eh, KK i got my GS primed the the best codes to ensure victory!!

Also saying that isai still won apex last year is now making these tourneys 100% pointless.

It seems like 90% of the smash64 community just doesn't want a competitive scene, so i guess we should simply have smashfests instead of tourneys....alex is wasting a lot of effort getting this **** on the go and no one really even cares.

Also here's my new rule proposal: if the time hits 20 minutes then both players lose. No checking how much time is left either.

 

[clubbadubba]

Also here's my new rule proposal: if the time hits 20 minutes then both players lose. No checking how much time is left either.

lol good solution if both players want to win. I can see some serious kamikazees occuring though...

How about something similar to a 5 second count in basketball (you know I love my basketball analogies). If one player is stalling, impartial ref begins counting to... some number undecided as of yet. If the count completes, the player loses that stock. Of course stalling is subjective, but maybe if you define it as something like how close players are on the screen to one another or whether the player has gone towards the opponent at all. Not really thinking about specifics but I think that could work.

 

[Kefit]

Battlecow, pretend you are neutral about Hyrule for a moment. Why should you, from a TOing perspective, ban Hyrule? It's not like the community has shown that the majority wants it banned.

I actually really enjoy playing on Hyrule. I know the stage far better than any other and have a lot of fun pulling off combos with the help of all the stage features. I even enjoyed my matches against Sensei during Apex 2012, at least to a degree. I just didn't enjoy an hour straight of ultra high intensity play forced upon me by Hyrule.

But more importantly it's unhealthy for a tournament environment because of the long match times it forces upon us. This has repercussions both on tournament progression and player fatigue that negatively impact later matches - i.e., the matches people actually care about.

Fair point. I, personally, do not see this to be a concern since it's the players that have the control here. Though, players would have to request the timer prior to the start of the set. They can't ask for it after game 1. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this.

What if one player wants a timer and the other does not? If given the option I would refuse a timer for all matches simply because I am not familiar with playing under a timer and would not be able to play optimally. The same may or may not be true of my opponent, but I know they can't be worse off than me under a timer and may in fact be better. Thus it only makes sense for me to reject a timer if I have any say in the matter. I suspect other skilled players will think along the same line as me. The end result is few players agreeing to timed matches in situations where they would actually matter, which means the problem of long matches is not addressed in any way.

If you do let one player unilaterally force a timer then you are letting one player unilaterally change the game rules in a major fashion by adding a hugely significant new win condition. Letting one player unilaterally change major game rules - which won't even be consistently enforced throughout the tournament - is a huge blow to a competitive environment. I don't understand how you can even consider allowing this.

I believe we'll have enough trustworthy people in attendance to designate judges when necessary, but I guess the best way to be sure is to ask here. Who reading this would be willing to judge matches when the situation arises?

Could there be human error? Of course, but pretty much every professional sport has learned to accept that.

Professional sports are refereed by trained professionals who make a career out of being impartial. Often these professionals must review high speed camera footage before making a decision. We can't even come close to this level of impartiality in an SSB64 tournament, and quite simply we aren't going to obtain the equipment necessary to make accurate split second determinations after the fact. Consider the following possibility:

Kefit vs Boom: It's the loser's finals, and Kefit's on fire. In a remarkable, inspired, and wholly unexpected display of tenacity he's driven Boom to the very end of game five. Kefit and Boom are matched on stocks, but Kefit is behind by 10% with only 10 seconds to go. Kefit makes a desperate mad blitz towards Boom and nails him with a solid +12% attack right as time runs out. Who wins? A huge amount of weight rests on this determination. But who can be impartial? Everyone knows who Boom is. He's been a major SSB figure for years and years and has fans both in the 64 and SSBM scene. Kefit on the other hand is relatively unknown outside the competitive SSB64 scene. If I were Kefit then I certainly wouldn't want anyone naturally present at a major Smash event to determine the winner in this situation.

Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No. Too unlikely to worry about? Maybe. But if so then consider the same situation except with Boom vs Isai in the grand finals. This kind of outcome is a very real possibility in light of the grand finals of both Apex 2012 and Genesis 2011. Do really you expect anyone within ten miles of a major Smash event to be capable of fairly and impartially judging the outcome of any match involving Isai?

Oh, and you never addressed the logistical issue of obtaining and displaying easily read and precise digital count down timers for the players to refer to during gameplay. This is an important issue - players need to know exactly when their match is going to end at all times.

Another good point, but we do have an anti-stalling rule. Identifying someone attempting to stall with a "triangular retreat path" wouldn't be difficult.

One of the biggest benefits of implementing a timer is not having to worry about an overly subjective no stalling rule. I believe that stages that allow for easy, indefinite retreat such as Hyrule Temple are banned in SSBM, correct? We should do the same for SSB64 if we require the use of a timer.

I should mention that stalling without a timer is not a valid tactic - you can't win a match without ending a match. This is why competitive SSB64 players are generally willing to approach and attack each other. Thus, the competitive SSB64 player base has up to now policed themselves on this matter. 15 minute Hyrule matches typically don't contain stalling. Instead they are full of conservative space camping and zoning from both sides as each player tries to eke out the necessary advantage to make risking aggressive moves worthwhile.

While we've always had a "no stalling" rule, we've never had to actually enforce it on a competitive level. Implementing a timer would effectively require adding a major, highly subjective no stalling rule to our ruleset. The ramifications of this are at best completely unknown, and at worst open to abusive interpretation driven by a fans of a given player or simply driven by a fatigued competitive spirit caught in the heat of the moment.

For the record, I am in support of banning Hyrule and I agree it would pretty much eliminate the stalling issue. I do not think that's what the community wants though.

You want it. I want it. Battlecow wants it. Boom wants it. B Link is cool with it. I don't know who kys is but he's cool with it. Where does your assertion that the community doesn't want to ban Hyrule come from? The fact that we don't agree on it 100%?

Well, I'm pretty sure we agree on implementing a timer far less than we agree on banning Hyrule. Furthermore the timer solution brings with it a legion of messy issues that harm the competitive environment by adding subjectivity, adding significant unknowns re rule enforcement, and adding a new win condition that goes against the rules we've been playing under for more than a decade and that is wholly unsatisfying to both players and spectators. How is this superior to a simple Hyrule ban solution in any way?

The points everyone's bringing up are all things that I have considered. These have all been issues for a long time now. We could just go with the status quo and not alter anything from last year, but I think that trying something new with regards to timers can be beneficial even if it's not perfect. It's never been tried before, and it was brought up after last year's tournament, so why not at least give it a shot? It won't make or break the tournament. If a timer is implemented, it will likely be 10 minutes per game.

You've considered my points, agreed that many of them are good, but still intend to go with timers anyway? You have yet to answer some of my points at all, and have fully failed to address any of the issues I've raised in a well thought out and satisfactory manner commensurate with the thought and detail with which I've composed my side of this debate.

If you want to change the status quo that's great. I think everyone agrees that it needs to be changed. But do it by banning Hyrule. A Hyrule ban introduces no unknowns to the game and no subjectivity to our competitive event. Yet it solves the problem of soul sundering match lengths. It's the simple, elegant, perfect solution to our tournament woes.

 

[¨°PÞ-§°¨ Bane]

I really don't see why some people are against banning Hyrule. Japan has had it banned for a long time and their stuff is still extremely fun to watch. Seriously, tornadoes alone really deserve to get it banned. I've legit lost matches because of them a bunch of times. At least on DL it's really obvious when wind is going to happen/where it's going to happen if you watch the tree. Not always the case with tornadoes - especially fast tornadoes. I get that people like Hyrule cause it boosts some low tiers a bit, but that really doesn't mean we should keep it around. Why not try to keep everything outside of character choice as objectively fair as possible? Making people who want to play low tiers play them on Dreamland will probably boost the character's metagame over time if anything.

 

[Nintendude]

The last time the SBR took a poll on Hyrule (earlier this year), 7 out of 10 people that voted did not want it to be banned. I'm aware that the SBR doesn't necessarily share the same opinion as the community as a whole, but I really have yet to see overwhelming support for a Hyrule ban among high level players. Feel free to set up a poll to get the community's most current opinion on the issue. In the meantime I'll discuss the issue with the staff.

 

[ballin4life]

lol good solution if both players want to win. I can see some serious kamikazees occuring though...

Why?

How about something similar to a 5 second count in basketball (you know I love my basketball analogies). If one player is stalling, impartial ref begins counting to... some number undecided as of yet. If the count completes, the player loses that stock. Of course stalling is subjective, but maybe if you define it as something like how close players are on the screen to one another or whether the player has gone towards the opponent at all. Not really thinking about specifics but I think that could work.

Way too hard to enforce and doesn't deal with the subjectivity issue (what is camping?)

 

[The Star King]

I actually really enjoy playing on Hyrule. I know the stage far better than any other and have a lot of fun pulling off combos with the help of all the stage features. I even enjoyed my matches against Sensei during Apex 2012, at least to a degree. I just didn't enjoy an hour straight of ultra high intensity play forced upon me by Hyrule.

But more importantly it's unhealthy for a tournament environment because of the long match times it forces upon us. This has repercussions both on tournament progression and player fatigue that negatively impact later matches - i.e., the matches people actually care about.

Did 64 have issues finishing on time because of Hyrule last year at Apex? I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think matches taking longer is a problem on its own. The only reason I can see myself being convinced of banning Hyrule is by being convinced that defensive play on that stage is overpowered (which is quite plausible).

Should we reduce the number of stocks to also reduce match length?

Dealing with tournament fatigue is another skill and part of being good if you ask me.

BTW, Genesis 2 Grand Finals:

The average length for the Hyrule games was 53 seconds more than Dreamland's average BTW. Could be a lot worse.

 

[prisonchild]

when people are talking about stalling, how long are these matches lasting? i don't think i've ever seen a match longer than isai and gerson's 14 minute pika ditto, and they had another one that was around 12 minutes i believe.

i think the third longest match i've seen was isai vs boom on DREAMLAND.



most matches i saw from last apex were very reasonable lengths

 

[Yobolight]

Hyrule is dope.

 

[Kefit]

Did 64 have issues finishing on time because of Hyrule last year at Apex? I don't think so. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think matches taking longer is a problem on its own. The only reason I can see myself being convinced of banning Hyrule is by being convinced that defensive play on that stage is overpowered (which is quite plausible).

Should we reduce the number of stocks to also reduce match length?

Dealing with tournament fatigue is another skill and part of being good if you ask me.

Apex was well enough organized that we didn't have to worry about finishing on time. However, it still took all day and most of the night to complete the 64 man SSB64 bracket because SSB64 tournament matches are low priority for many of the players involved. We don't need stupidly long matches extending this process.

Management of personal fatigue at a long tournament event is certainly part of the required competitive skillset. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable action to ameliorate these fatigue issues and simultaneously improve the competitive environment for both players and spectators.

Reducing stock would lead to lightning fast matches. While not an issue in later rounds, I don't think scrubs (a hugely essential component of our relatively large tournament pool of players at Apex) want to waste their time with an SSB64 tournament match if it lasts all of two minutes. It would also change the dynamics of high level match progression in difficult to predict but ultimately objective ways. This is a far more reasonable solution than clumsily implementing timers, but I don't think it really addresses the issues with Hyrule. It merely hides them.

Matches taking longer is not in and of itself a problem. However, I believe that it's a problem at large scale competitive events for the reasons I've stated in prior posts. But if the general group consensus is that long tournament matches are not an issue then that means that everything is operating as intended and that the status quo is fine as is.

If matches are too long then timers are not the proper solution. If matches are not too long then we don't need to worry about timers period.

 

[Battlecow]

Battlecow, pretend you are neutral about Hyrule for a moment. Why should you, from a TOing perspective, ban Hyrule? It's not like the community has shown that the majority wants it banned.

If I'm the TO, I ban hyrule because TO's can do what they think will make for the best tournament. They're not elected officials, they don't just channel the will of the community.

A very substantial part of the community does want it banned. Look at this thread. The only statistic we have is a joke statistic from the joke backroom.

 

[ballin4life]

Also here's my new rule proposal: if the time hits 20 minutes then both players lose. No checking how much time is left either.

I'm not even joking about this

 

[SSB64-Jel]

What I think is have the players pick if they want to play on Hyrule or not play on it before there frist match. If only one player wants to play on it then you wont play on that level, but if both want to play on Hyrule let them play on it easy as that.

 

[clubbadubba]

^^But then 1 player gets to make a big change to the ruleset without the consent of the other player. What you're suggesting is basically banning hyrule, but allowing players to play on any stage as long as they agree to it. Stage agreements between 2 players are not uncommon as it is. If 2 players want to play on saffron, what is the TO gonna do, DQ them both? No, he'll just let them play it out most likely. So your solution is really no different than a straight up ban of hyrule.

Why?

Way too hard to enforce and doesn't deal with the subjectivity issue (what is camping?)

I dunno, lets say player A hates player B with a passion but knows that he can't beat player B straight up. Player A might try to stall for 20 minutes and make them both lose because he gets a kick out of it. In a situation like, say, Gio vs Battlecow for example. I could see that happening with those two EASILY.

And what do they both lose, the game or the whole set? I was assuming you meant the whole set, because double forfeiting 1 game would just mean they would have to replay the game, because someone has to get to X amount of game wins to win the set, right?

And yea stalling (not camping, camping is perfectly legal and legitimate) would be pretty hard to enforce, about as hard as the current stalling rule which has never been enforced (and has never NEEDED to be enforced either).

____________________________________________________

With regards to the whole timer thing, there was not an issue with match length last year at apex. Sensei vs kefit were probably the longest ones, but they weren't even that long. The much bigger problem with that set (and probably why kefit felt so drained afterwards) was that they initially thought it was a bo5 so they finished their 5 games and kefit won, but then realized it was a bo7 so they played out the final game(s?).

Genesis 2 had long matches at the end, but really those were only about 10 min long on the high side. And as star king said, the DL matches WERE NOT much shorter than hyrule matches (it seems like everyone keeps ignoring this and acting like hyrule matches are +5-10 minutes longer than DL matches). It depends much more on playstyles than stage selection. If you want to discuss other issues with the stage that's fine with me, but this myth of hyrule matches taking waayyyyyyyyyyyy longer than DL matches has to stop.

 

[Nintendude]

Other than camping, there are two other notable factors for why Apex 2012 took a long time, both of which have been mentioned: Stock count and set length

SSB64 has always used 5-stocks, but honestly this seems excessive. Why not use 4 like in Melee? People may argue that it's because of how easy it is to put together some good death combos and gimps to erase multiple stock leads. Thus, more stocks is meant to reduce upsets due to a lesser player getting a few lucky death combos and gimps. However, this is the same thing that longer set lengths are meant to address. Why do we run quarters and semis as best of 5 and WF, LF, and GFs as best of 7? It produces more accurate results but it takes a really really long time. Other Smash tournaments typically only do WFs, LFs, and GFs as best of 5 and that's it.

I am considering either reducing stock count to 4 and/or eliminating best of 7 sets, ESPECIALLY if the cap is increased to beyond 64 (btw this is likely if the cap is reached soon). Thoughts?

 

[clubbadubba]

I'm not going to the tourney so keep that in mind but...

I would keep 5 stocks but get rid of bo7 sets except for GF. In GF I wouldn't do a full reset either, but instead an extended set where the WF champ can win it in a bo5, or if he doesn't win that it is extended to a bo7. The reset is cool and was sick at apex, but it takes an insane amount of time.