ParanoidDrone
Smash Master
Yes, the 5 minute timer is locked due to time concerns. 3 stocks is a possibility but I don't think any of us want 3s5m rules.What else acts that way?
Anyway, is it too late to push for a 6 minute timer at EVO?
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Yes, the 5 minute timer is locked due to time concerns. 3 stocks is a possibility but I don't think any of us want 3s5m rules.What else acts that way?
Anyway, is it too late to push for a 6 minute timer at EVO?
Last I read there was a slim chance of Mr. Wizard bumping the timer back up to 6. Team Sp00ky is doing a 5 min. custom tournament and the king of all timeouts will be in attendance again (jk love ya @#HBC | Bunzy) so if things run to time constantly I think that could make a pretty good case for 6 minutes again.Yes, the 5 minute timer is locked due to time concerns. 3 stocks is a possibility but I don't think any of us want 3s5m rules.
I wouldn't hold my breath. Mr. Wizard has shown a remarkable willingness to listen when we talk about preferred rules, but for something on the scale of EVO, he simply has to consider the worst case, I.e. all matches going to time. And even an extra minute there will result in probably a couple of hours of extra time.Last I read there was a slim chance of Mr. Wizard bumping the timer back up to 6. Team Sp00ky is doing a 5 min. custom tournament and the king of all timeouts will be in attendance again (jk love ya @#HBC | Bunzy) so if things run to time constantly I think that could make a pretty good case for 6 minutes again.
.@theharddd I'm most likely switching back to 6 min at ceo, this thread is good to know about. Does that extra minute really stop timeouts?
— Alex Jebailey (@Jebailey) March 16, 2015
I already did a bit before I interviewed Mr. Wizard. It didn't seem to change his mind.
What were his comments?I already did a bit before I interviewed Mr. Wizard. It didn't seem to change his mind.
I figured it was obvious that this was his reasoning.The only explanation that makes sense given the "I don't care" is that he did the math and said "we can fit in 100% timeouts if we do an X minute timer, so this will increase the time spent overall but guarantee the tournament finishes on time".
It shouldn't be. Solution is to alter tournament presentation or have an entry cap; if we had 3,000 players we wouldn't want 1 minute timed matches and single elimination even if that would "fit".I figured it was obvious that this was his reasoning.
That's an entirely separate discussion I don't think I'm qualified to participate in.It shouldn't be. Solution is to alter tournament presentation or have an entry cap; if we had 3,000 players we wouldn't want 1 minute timed matches and single elimination even if that would "fit".
Was there any procedure in picking those matches? Like we're they all the top matches, or were they random from the ones streamed? While I do think that this data could be great at showing why 6 is better than 5, the picking method could significantly effect the validity of the data. Even if they were procedurally or randomly picked (as opposed to cherrypicking to make the data look nice) things like characters and player could matter a lot. Like at SA4, Will is present in 4 of the sets taken, while at SA5 JohnNumbers is present in 4. I'd be more interested in the few intersecting matches (Will vs Dabuz and Will vs JohnNumbers). Also if Will vs Dabuz's sets effect the data more since it's present 2 at SA4. And obviously with characters, Characters that tend to timeout like Rosalina are going to make matches seem longer compared to characters that tend to have fast matches like Captain Falcon.AVERAGE MATCH TIME FROM SMASH ATTACK 4 CUSTOMS (6 SELECTED SETS, 20 MATCHES, 6 MINUTE TIMER): 2:48
Longest set: 5:25
Shortest set: 1:05
Will vs. JohnNumbers avg. time (3 games): 2:38
[Sets used:
Will vs. Dabuz
Will vs. Dabuz
Will vs. JohnNumbers
Dabuz vs. Robin
GTS vs. Angel Cortez
Will vs. Snakeee]
AVERAGE MATCH TIME FROM SMASH ATTACK 5 CUSTOMS (6 SELECTED SETS, 17 MATCHES, 5 MINUTE TIMER): 3:43
Longest sets: 5:00 and 5:00
Shortest set: 2:02
Will vs. JohnNumbers avg. time (3 games): 2:51
[Sets used:
Will vs. Dabuz
MikeKirby vs. Dabuz
MikeKirby vs. JohnNumbers
JohnNumbers vs. Vinnie
JohnNumbers vs. Dabuz
Will vs. JohnNumbers]
Matches past 4 minute mark (SM4): 3
Matches past 4 minute mark (SM5): 8
It's not perfect, but hard data~
Yeah, I'm not really the best person for this sort of job, haha, but I wanted to try. Was hard to collect proper data with variable set length. As you noted I tried to do a couple of overlaps where I could. I do think the most important part of my post was the comparison of how many matches went past 4 minutes, and Will vs. JohnNumbers (the same characters and the same amount of matches). EVO wants to save time right? I think those bits of data are the strongest case for a 6 minute timer. Keitaro, ZeRo, and others have tweeted Mr. Wizard out about the timer but he doesn't seem to be budging, unfortunately. https://twitter.com/KeitaroTime/status/577398394701918208Was there any procedure in picking those matches? Like we're they all the top matches, or were they random from the ones streamed? While I do think that this data could be great at showing why 6 is better than 5, the picking method could significantly effect the validity of the data. Even if they were procedurally or randomly picked (as opposed to cherrypicking to make the data look nice) things like characters and player could matter a lot. Like at SA4, Will is present in 4 of the sets taken, while at SA5 JohnNumbers is present in 4. I'd be more interested in the few intersecting matches (Will vs Dabuz and Will vs JohnNumbers). Also if Will vs Dabuz's sets effect the data more since it's present 2 at SA4. And obviously with characters, Characters that tend to timeout like Rosalina are going to make matches seem longer compared to characters that tend to have fast matches like Captain Falcon.
It's... Really not. And it's basically standard to take into consideration the 8.5% of the population who are colorblind these days. It requires so little work for a decent gain. Adding "use these colors" to a doubles match is something that no one worth their salt will complain about.Is a small addendum like that such a big deal?
Because it costs nothing, is trivially easy, and "making it longer and more complicated" is a bit of an overstatement. Honestly, this just seems a little callous. There are people who are colorblind. Demanding that certain colors be used to cater to them is not a big deal.Why does everyone try to cater the colorblind people?
I mean, integration is a thing, but is it really worth it to make an already long set of rules even longer and more complicated?
Do not under any circumstances cut good stages from your stage list.What do you guys think is a good stage list? I had a pretty diverse one but I'm getting some pretty convincing reasons to cut a lot of it.
I'm more asking what good stages are. My list was:Do not under any circumstances cut good stages from your stage list.
We had someone ask the same question a few hours ago here, here is my stage list:
Battlefield
Smashville
Town and City
Final Destination
Lylat Cruise
Halberd
Skyloft
Wuhu Island
Castle Siege
Duck Hunt
Kongo Jungle
Delfino Plaza
Pokemon Stadium 2 (I played on this in my last tournament, no complaints at all)
"I'm also a fan of Norfair but I'm not entirely sure you'd have much luck convincing your scene (or my scene) to start using it competitively. The next stages I'd consider adding are Norfair, Woolly World, Mario Circuit (although I personally really dislike the latter and I don't think competitive scenes will have a warm reception for any of them. That said, they are valid competitive stages, just very disliked)."
Not bad, for the record they're known as "Starters" not "Neutrals" and having 3 starters is typically a bad idea. 5, 9 or 13 are the best options. I really hate Orbital Gate Assault but that's because I'm whiny, the rest of your list is good.I'm more asking what good stages are. My list was:
Neutral:
Battlefield
Final Destination/Ʊ
Smashville
Ʊ rule: If FD is agreed upon you can ask your opponent to choose an omega, your opponent has the right to deny you and if no omega is agreed on you just go to FD.
Counter Picks:
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Duck Hunt
Halberd
Kongo Jungle 64
Lylat Cruise
Orbital Gate Assault
Pokemon Stadium 2
Skyloft
Town & City
Wuhu Island
Ok, why are those 2 iffy?Why did you use the Omega (Ω) symbol upside down?
Orbital Gate Assault is iffy. So is Kongo Jungle, but it's slightly more acceptable.
Also, why do you have only 3 starters and like a million CP's? It0s better not to have a Starter/CP distinction at all
Lylat is a good starter candidate, you could also bump it up to 9 and add 4 of the following: Duck Hunt, Skyloft, Delfino, Wuhu, Castle Siege, KJ64, Halberd (depends how your area feels about hazards). That said, T&C is arguably a better starter stage than Final Destination, so it should be considered a starter in all stage lists.Ok, why are those 2 iffy?
I wanted to have Town and City Neutral but couldn't find a 5th.
Neutral, starter, potato chip, whatever the hell you wanna call it.Lylat is a good starter candidate, you could also bump it up to 9 and add 4 of the following: Duck Hunt, Skyloft, Delfino, Wuhu, Castle Siege, KJ64, Halberd (depends how your area feels about hazards). That said, T&C is arguably a better starter stage than Final Destination, so it should be considered a starter in all stage lists.
KJ64's main "issue" is that it might promote runaway play, but it has yet to be seen.
Yeah, I'll go there in a sec but first I'd say how would we test? We know everything about the stages.Discussion about stages is being held here: http://smashboards.com/threads/stage-analysis-discussion-thread.367708/page-98
But basically, Orbital Gate Assault pretty much forces players to get hit to keep the cycle (granted, it doesn't deal damage and won't kill (iirc), but it's considered highly obtrusive.
Kongo Jungle 64 has an issue with barrels, in which certain characters can abuse them and potentially circle camp the stage over and over.
Both need a lot of testing, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your list is bad or those stages deserve to be banned, they're just... iffy.
I'd say you test by having matches on the stages and see if anyone can abuse it to the point where it trivializes the actual competition.Neutral, starter, potato chip, whatever the hell you wanna call it.
9 starters is madness. Striking would be a huge chore. 5 is fine. Lylat seems like the best idea but I'm not sure.
Yeah, I'll go there in a sec but first I'd say how would we test? We know everything about the stages.
Munich has 13 and we do just fine. It's a lot easier than you might think, and once your player base gets used to it, it goes really fast. The main issue with so few starters is that it throws a huge advantage to characters who favor Flat+Plat stages with no changes or transitions.Neutral, starter, potato chip, whatever the hell you wanna call it.
9 starters is madness. Striking would be a huge chore.
We run 13 starters here, and it's runs perfectly fine. 9 works just as well, you just strike from the random stage select menu (just like in every other game...)9 starters is madness. Striking would be a huge chore. 5 is fine. Lylat seems like the best idea but I'm not sure.