Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Respect38]

Unless the intention is that this should become the stage legality discussion thread, it would be awesome if someone good at thread-making could make a sequel to the stage legality thread, since the OP there abandoned it for everyone.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I guess I can do one in the afternoon.

 

[Respect38]

As long as you don't forget to do that relatively soon, thanks for volunteering, ぱみゅ.

 

[paperchao]

So, how much does 1 ban with a stagelist with Battlefield and Dreamland effect counterpicking, are the stages too similar to be different?

 

[Yikarur]

no they are entirely fine to be different stages. There are a lot of characters that like one but not the other. While there are characters that like both, it's not much different to FD / Duck Hunt.

 

[Dr.Peabody]

Though I appreciate the necessity to keep tournaments moving along at a reasonable pace, I really don't like time limits imposed on matches, because it favors certain characters. Consider, for example, Sheik, who has difficulty KO-ing and requires an extraordinary amount of patients and precision, as a single mess-up can easily lead to death, vs characters like Cloud or Ryu, who can very well punish mess-ups and take stocks relatively easily. Some things just can't be rushed. It's also kinda lame watching someone play keepaway so they can win on a time-out because they're a few % ahead--AND, mind you, % means something much different for practical purposes depending on matchups, e.g., a Ryu with 107% is sitting in a better place than the Sheik he's up against with 70%.

On a different note, I kinda like the idea of higher stock counts for things like finals. I think you'd get a much better feel of who's actually the better player watching a few less 3-or-4-stock matches than a few more 2-stock matches. (though, perhaps this limits a player's option to counterpick characters/stages)

 

[paperchao]

Though I appreciate the necessity to keep tournaments moving along at a reasonable pace, I really don't like time limits imposed on matches, because it favors certain characters. Consider, for example, Sheik, who has difficulty KO-ing and requires an extraordinary amount of patients and precision, as a single mess-up can easily lead to death, vs characters like Cloud or Ryu, who can very well punish mess-ups and take stocks relatively easily. Some things just can't be rushed. It's also kinda lame watching someone play keepaway so they can win on a time-out because they're a few % ahead--AND, mind you, % means something much different for practical purposes depending on matchups, e.g., a Ryu with 107% is sitting in a better place than the Sheik he's up against with 70%.

On a different note, I kinda like the idea of higher stock counts for things like finals. I think you'd get a much better feel of who's actually the better player watching a few less 3-or-4-stock matches than a few more 2-stock matches. (though, perhaps this limits a player's option to counterpick characters/stages)

The thing is, if you turn off the timer you can end up with single games taking a lot more time and slowing down the tourney, and the timer helps force a character to approach, as a sonic could theoretically keep running away and get chip damage despite being at a 50 percent deficit, because no timer exists. So yea, the timer is pretty important for keeping a tourney running on time.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I rather add a win condition (as arbitrary as it is) than drag the whole event.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It would also depend a lot on the scale of the event. The bigger it is, and the more people you have to manage, the more important it becomes that all matches are guaranteed to finish in X amount of time. At a small weekly you could probably get away without time limits unless you have that guy in your region who refuses to approach ever, but this is one case where the average Smash player's love of pushing buttons works in our favor since that means a match keeps on moving.

There's also an argument to be maid about how removing stalling as a valid win condition would players together into more interactions but that's a discussion I'm not really qualified to participate in beyond acknowledging the idea exists.

 

[Respect38]

I mean, Smash 64 existed for years without a time limit, right? If you wanted evidence one way or the other, then that might be where to look. [even though they recently modded in a time limit for stock matches, so you'd have to go back to the past years]

(just don't watch the legendary 50 minute Hyrule Castle match. RIP Hyrule Castle)

 

[Radical Larry]

In my honest experience, I've always had faster matches when there was no time limit. I guess it was due to the fact that the opponent didn't have to camp on the last thirty seconds or minute. When I didn't have to worry about losing due to the match ending and the opponent having a percent lead, that put a lot of weight away from me and I was able to pretty much make my matches faster.

The fear of a time out is something that always makes me mess up, no matter how much time there is in a match.

 

[Ghostbone]

I mean, Smash 64 existed for years without a time limit, right? If you wanted evidence one way or the other, then that might be where to look. [even though they recently modded in a time limit for stock matches, so you'd have to go back to the past years]

(just don't watch the legendary 50 minute Hyrule Castle match. RIP Hyrule Castle)

64 is a perfect example of why we need a timer lmao.

You get 50 minute games with nobody approaching because approaching is so bad in that game.

 

[Respect38]

64 is a perfect example of why we need a timer lmao.

You get 50 minute games with nobody approaching because approaching is so bad in that game.

I think that it's unfair to use an example from Smash 64, which was considered stage-specific and worthy of a stage ban [alongside the many other issues with Hyrule Castle], to reject the universal concept of not having a timer. Do any matches even go past 10 minutes on Dream Land?

 

[Radical Larry]

I redact my prior statement.

 

[Respect38]

As it appears that ぱみゅ had completely forgotten about the request [partly my fault, of course; I should have either been more pushy about it or just reinstated the request much earlier than 2 months after] I would like to reopen the request:

Unless the intention is that this should become the stage legality discussion thread, it would be awesome if someone good at thread-making could make a sequel to the stage legality thread, since the OP there abandoned it for everyone.

If anyone with a good sense of thread formatting and understanding of what the OP of such a thread should entail, it would be awesome if you could restart such a thread. [as well as being committed to not asking for the thread to be closed at any point, because, sadly, the moderation on this site are of the ideology that an OP "owns" his thread]

 

[ぱみゅ]

Yeah, whoops, I forgot about it.
I myself have been pretty busy lately, and will continue to be so thanks to our own preparations previous to Smash Factor 5, but I'd love to have legality discussions with structured ideas and able to compile pros and cons for every stage, but it sure requires a bit of commitment I am, unfortunately, unable to provide atm.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Yeah, whoops, I forgot about it.
I myself have been pretty busy lately, and will continue to be so thanks to our own preparations previous to Smash Factor 5, but I'd love to have legality discussions with structured ideas and able to compile pros and cons for every stage, but it sure requires a bit of commitment I am, unfortunately, unable to provide atm.

It's not like EVO won't be a huge distraction this weekend anyway, and there will no doubt be lots of post-mortem discussion to be had for a while past that.

That said, it would be nice to have a formal stage discussion thread eventually. Preferably one that isn't limited to the current legal stages as valid discussion topics.

 

[Lomogoto]

I would really like to see the next stage threqlad focus on what makes a stage legal or banned, not particular stages. The last one ended with people overusing the word "jank" and not really saying why a certain stage with walkoffs is ok while others are not, and some stage hazards are ok but others are too "janky."

 

[JesseMcCloud]

I'd be happy if we could just have one single FD-style stage, instead of having to discuss the "FD vs. Omega"" rule.
Cut out the ones with too much visual clutter, like the actual FD, Omega Umbra Clock Tower, or Omega Port Town Aero Dive. I have the hardest time seeing things on those stages.
Like, if Omega Palutena's Temple could be THE Final Destination-style stage, I'd be happy.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It baffles me whenever people complain about FD or UCT Omega being distracting. Like, if you have severe light sensitivity or something I can see the white flash on FD being a legit issue, but that's literally it. I barely notice the background these days; hell, when I was playing with my friend on Omega UCT I wanted to point out Fortitudo to him but kept forgetting when he was actually there because I was so used to him.

 

[Pazx]

Hey gang, it's been awhile but I thought I'd check in.

Over the past 8 or so months a group of top Australian players and tournament organizers have come together in an effort to create a unified ruleset for Australia and New Zealand. After multiple revisions and each region using the ruleset extensively during extended trial periods we are pleased to officially announce the Super Smash Bros. for Wii U Australian Ruleset v1.0

This ruleset will be used at the next 3 major Australian events, OzHadou Nationals 14 (26-28 August), DI Another Day 2 (9-11 September) and Southern Cross Championships 2016 (2-4 December).

Some key aspects of the ruleset that have been proven to work well in Australia that we would like to see other regions try out for themselves:

• Mii movesets are completely unrestricted but Mii Fighters must be created with a guest Mii. Unrestricted movesets have also been extensively proven to work fine in Europe.
• All seven stages are treated as Starter Stages, commonly known as Full List Stage Striking (FLSS). This took some getting used to for players but overall was deemed better for the game and the community in the long run, due to the immense benefits from a competitive standpoint and the ease of understanding for new players.
• Both 2-stock and 3-stock formats are encouraged in this ruleset! This is a bit of a contentious point but it was determined that as a TO doing what your region prefers can be more important than a sense of national unity. On top of that, both stock counts have merit and it's unfair to tell TOs that are already pressed for time to switch to a 3 stock format if they do not feel they are able to successfully run events in that time. There is a good spread of both 2 and 3 stock events successfully run across the country, and at least one of the upcoming majors (OzHadou Nationals) will be entirely 3 stock.
• 3 stocks, 9 minutes is the recommended 3 stock ruleset. This is a minor point that met very little opposition in the Senate as it is believed that a longer timer results in fewer matches going to time and lowers the average time taken per match, due to timing an opponent out becoming more difficult and less desirable. It also lets 2 and 3 stock to have a consistent ratio of 3 minutes per stock.
• Duck Hunt is legal, and thus also a starter. It's a good stage ok, I don't really know why we were ever debating the legality of this one.

The Super Smash Bros. for Wii U Australian Ruleset can be read in its entirety HERE.

I hope to see the Australian ruleset widely adopted around the world. If you have any questions about the ruleset itself or the process of creating it feel free to ask.

 

[Yikarur]

10/10 would recommend.

 

[Respect38]

Mii movesets are completely unrestricted but Mii Fighters must be created with a guest Mii. This has also been extensively proven in Europe.

Pardon me for my ignorance, but I feel like there are two ways to interpret this statement. Do you mean that Europe has experimented with non-guest size and decided that they were jank, or has it only tested with guest+specials and decided that they weren't jank?

Therefore, is it the opinion of most European Smashers that non-guest size Miis are brokenly unbalanced?

Yeah, whoops, I forgot about it.
I myself have been pretty busy lately, and will continue to be so thanks to our own preparations previous to Smash Factor 5, but I'd love to have legality discussions with structured ideas and able to compile pros and cons for every stage, but it sure requires a bit of commitment I am, unfortunately, unable to provide atm.

Do you have any idea of when you'll have the time to make such a commitment?

 

[Yikarur]

it has been proven that Guest Mii's are completely fine.

 

[Respect38]

I understand that, and I agree. That's not what I'm saying, though.

For example, everyone would have already agreed that Guest+1111 isn't broken and shouldn't be banned. However, we're now going a step further and saying that Guest+Specials isn't broken.

However, as someone who holds to the "allow everything within Customs Off" mindset, shouldn't it be that we have a rationalization as for why Sizes+Specials is broken, but Guest+Specials is not?

Unless exactly that is considered in your "completely fine" statement, in which case: where have Sizes+Specials been extensively tested and proven to be broken? [relative to the 1.1.6 metagame]

 

[Yikarur]

it's "Guest + moves are not broken and sizes are custom modification that are not present on any set-up and thus cannot be used"
Sizes are not broken (read: banworthy) in a game where pre-patch Diddy, Sheik and Bayonetta have been fine.

 

[New_Dumal]

Watching Super Smash Con I feel the metagame of Smash4 is too volatile right now.
The number of upsets are too high, with the best players of the world falling to another great players (but not top30 world) at every tourney.
We decided for 2-stocks because there's some comeback potential and still was fast and good to watch.
But with the metagame evolving, this stocks are going faster, and faster, and some characters are put in some absurd situations if he loses one stock (comeback factor too restrict). While MK can probably do a nice comeback with 2-stock, Sheik must play perfectly to stand a chance.
I never had this stance before but I think it's really time to discuss about 3-stock again. It's something that can be worse to the expectator, but much better for the players, mainly the top players.
And we must create a scene that have variety, but consistence. A LOT of upsets is quite strange, and not good by any means.
What do you think about it ?

 

[Yikarur]

Na 2 stocks were decided because of for glory and early 3DS days. If for glory didn't exist everyone would play 3 Stocks.

Europe most likely kept 3 Stocks because we didn't have japanese versions at release and got a later european release and we didn't have the for glory hype in the beginning so we just kept with the number we've used for a much slower game.

3 Stocks masterrace

 

[Radical Larry]

I've something that will kickstart a new discussion. Akin to the 2 Stock vs 3 Stock debate, there is another debate that isn't recognized yet, but I will bring this up after seeing countless videos of time-out matches occurring. My main topic will be this< and there will be substantial and heavily viable reasoning and justification for this: The removal/change of Damage Based Time Out Wins/Losses. What this is, for those who don't know, is when an opponent is in higher damage than the other opponent, then the opponent with the higher damage loses. However, on the flip side, there is the fact that opponents with the "same" damage will create a tie breaker in order to make sure that they have a fair fight. Now this is a concept that is excruciatingly and heavily flawed beyond reason, for there is simply no benefit of this whatsoever and there are things to take into consideration when this rule is applied.

This rule applies even when:

• A Sacrificial KO move (e.g. Flame Choke) is activated and grabs the opponent over the ledge of the stage.
• An attack hits the opponent in the very last seconds of the match and counts.
• An attack that should have KO'd does not KO due to time out.

Addressing the Flaws of Time Out
Now let me get onto addressing the horrendous flaws that should have made this rule obsolete years ago before I go to these. Firstly, in Super Smash Bros. as a series, even though the screen does not show the exact percentage, do note that unless you are in a mirror matchand do the exact same moves to each other, there will never be such a thing called "exact percentage", meaning that even if both opponents have 80% damage, one may have 80.2% and the other has 80.75% damage, but the two are counted as having the same exact damage solely due to the on-screen appearance of this.

Secondly is how time outs merely play out. If a Sacrificial KO move or a KO move is normally played without risk of time-outs, then the character who used it often wins irregardless, but if the timer times out just as the opponent reaches the blast line, it does not count in favor to the person who used the could-have-been final blow or KO move on the opponent. Now this is a heavy flaw because not only does the rule disregard any KO move, but it unjustly eliminates players who initiated these moves when they could have won either way.

Then we have the fact that within the last ten seconds, or even five seconds, when one opponent has the damage lead, and the other opponent manages to make them lose that lead, the opponent who initiated the attack wins. That's a horrible flaw that is undoubtedly inane and also unjustly eliminates some players. And notably, Time Out rules will make players camp one another out in the event that a player has a damage lead, which is quite horrible if you ask me.

Fixing the Flaws
So what can we do to fix this? What is there that could possibly be done to fix this system I deem flawed? Why it's the most basic concept that should have been accepted a long time ago. We remove the Damage portion of the time-out rule. Now before you try to refute my claim, I'll back this up by stating these:

Firstly, this would allow for a fair tie breaker to ensue in the event that the time does run out. If the time runs out, then neither opponent will be suffering the consequence of what happened or gain from the consequence of this. This also leads into another thing, because if the damage-based tie breaker is removed, then the players will not be motivated into camping or trying to keep the damage lead up, and will instead, press on with the fight and possibly even end the match earlier than anticipated.

You see, the current rule has it set up to where it benefits the player with the lower damage, so the player with the lower damage will consequently win and try to camp to win. What the removal of the "Damage" portion does is it will remove any and all motivation to camp and make it to where both opponents will still have to fight to determine a winner, simply instead of just trying to keep that damage lead. This allows for just player wins and losses and doesn't lead into any victories or losses based on the time out rule.

Philosophy and End Statement
My philosophy is that tie breakers should be like sport tie breakers. You simply cannot add anything to judge when both opponents have the same stock. That is not how it works in many sports; you never see a team winning depending on how far the ball is to the other team's goal or hoop. While you can say that Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat do damage based systems, please note that it only works for the games because there's no such thing as "Stocks" in those games, the life in those games is literally only the HP, and the time-outs are fairly given to the opponents and sometimes, matches even end in draws!

What I believe is that Super Smash Bros.'s ruleset do away with the Damage portion of the time-out rule to make the competitive side of the game fair for everyone. While you can have your opinions, someone has to come out and say that the way we're doing it now is unfair and needs changing for possibly the better.

The Impromptu Question
What is better for a game competitively than complete fairness?

 

[White_Pointer]

Some good points Radical Larry

I personally don't like the damage-based timeout rule for another reason that you didn't mention actually, and that's that it ONLY takes the damage done on the final stock into account.

Say for example, player 1 KOs player 2 at 100%. Player 2 however does not KO player 1 until 200%. Neither player manages to take a 2nd stock and the match ends in a timeout, with player 1 sitting at 50% and player 2 sitting at 100%.

Under the current rules, player 1 will be deemed the winner because he has taken less damage on his 2nd stock. However, player 2 has done more damage to player 1 throughout the course of the match - therefore it can be argued that player 2 has been the better player overall.

To me, it doesn't seem fair to be only counting the damage done on the final stock when in the situation of timeouts. If you're going to make it damage based, you should be taking the entire match into account, not just the final stock. Sure the final stock damage is easy to use because it's right there on the screen, but to disregard what happened in the rest of the match is nonsensical to me.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Well then, what is the ACTUAL proposal to fix this "problem"? Someone must be declared the winner, so there must be a way to break the draw.

I may agree that the current rule adds an incentive to camp to conserve the lead, but it is no like it's not a valid strategy.
But at the same time, it adds some sort of pressure and an incentive to approach when you're behind.

White Pointer's point makes sense though.

 

[Lomogoto]

this was my idea when this topic was brought up before:

If the player with lowest total percent taken to peak percentage ratio won, i think that would sufficiently take survivability into account.
So if bowser kills jiggs at 60 and lives to 160, and the next stock ties with jiggs at 60 and boswer at 80 (120/60=2, 240/160=1.5), it still shows that the jiggs player is less likely to kill and the bowser has proven he could potentially kill at the buzzer.
If no stocks are taken the current rule would apply as neither character has shown they can kill early. If someone plays a light character but is really good at staying alive, we would not want to assume otherwise and discredit their skill.
Both total damage taken and peak damage are viewable on the results screen, though skiping it is still an issue apparently.
The players also have a pretty good idea of where they stand as well, knowing about when they died.

i would like to hear what everyone thinks

 

[Radical Larry]

Well then, what is the ACTUAL proposal to fix this "problem"? Someone must be declared the winner, so there must be a way to break the draw.

I may agree that the current rule adds an incentive to camp to conserve the lead, but it is no like it's not a valid strategy.
But at the same time, it adds some sort of pressure and an incentive to approach when you're behind.

White Pointer's point makes sense though.

My proposal was to do away with the entire damage-based rule and just settle it with the common tie breaking match that happens in the event of similar damage outputs. Simply put, we shouldn't give a loss or win depending on who gave the most damage on the last stock at all, so we should just let a tie breaker match ensue irregardless of damage. The removal of benefits to a damage lead would actually remove the pressure to try and approachand the incentive to camp, both at the same time, thus evening the playing field.

However, White Pointer does make a point in saying that all of the damage should be taken into consideration. It's not a flawed concept, though reviewing will take a little bit of time to do. You can review total damage on the results screen, which is a benefit, but a problem I can still see is the possibility of camping from the opponent in order to keep that damage lead, but that sort of thing may end up being rarer than ever.

So really, both possibilities can happen and would dissuade camping and make opponents rush in more near the end, since last-stock damage will not be taken fully into account. But the thing is, which way is the right way?

 

[Lomogoto]

i do not see camping or going for a time out as a problem though i know many do. timeout sets can be really intense. this should be focused on being fairest while being timely. sets taking too long can be dealt with in way more direct ways.

 

[Radical Larry]

So I think I found out the counter-argument to the White_Pointer solution. While he says that damage between both stocks should be taken into consideration in time outs, I will have to argue this and state that the biggest flaw in this would be that there could be a stock taken by the opponent at an incredibly low damage. So say if you're at neutral with your opponent, and you score a zero-to-death against them and they die at 32% damage, and you die around 110% damage from them. You automatically would lose against the opponent because you killed them at such a low damage. This is especially evident in the fact that if you kill an opponent at around 0% to 10%, it will be virtually impossible for you to time them out and win.

Know that there are character who can and will kill that early on, so having a rule like this is also extremely flawed. While it's one flaw, it's actually a heavy flaw for this thought. Sorry for landing a hefty blow to your theory dude.

 

[White_Pointer]

So I think I found out the counter-argument to the White_Pointer solution. While he says that damage between both stocks should be taken into consideration in time outs, I will have to argue this and state that the biggest flaw in this would be that there could be a stock taken by the opponent at an incredibly low damage. So say if you're at neutral with your opponent, and you score a zero-to-death against them and they die at 32% damage, and you die around 110% damage from them. You automatically would lose against the opponent because you killed them at such a low damage. This is especially evident in the fact that if you kill an opponent at around 0% to 10%, it will be virtually impossible for you to time them out and win.

Know that there are character who can and will kill that early on, so having a rule like this is also extremely flawed. While it's one flaw, it's actually a heavy flaw for this thought. Sorry for landing a hefty blow to your theory dude.

I'll counterpoint that by saying that if someone lands an early 0-death, they should have more than enough time to take the 2nd stock. If they can't take a 2nd stock after scoring an early kill in the first 30 seconds of the match or so, they probably deserve to lose.

But it's all the more reason why the rules need to be examined. The current system isn't good - that much is clear, but how we fix it is the question.

 

[ぱみゅ]

My proposal was to do away with the entire damage-based rule and just settle it with the common tie breaking match that happens in the event of similar damage outputs.

Are you referring to the 1-stock, 3-minute tiebreaker? Because doing that after every timeout would be impractical and time-consuming.

Of course want competitions to be fair, and that's why the default settings are changed.
Part of these changes, mainly to help events running on time, is to add a time limit.
And then we needed to craft a rule that comes as reasonably fair and schedule-friendly.
The best compromise found so far is to determine the winner in a reasonable time frame is the one we've been using.
As a bonus, it is simple, straight-forward, very enforceable and easy to understand so players can do it themselves during a match without needing a third-party.
Other alternatives have been proposed (though, I am not sure if actually explored or tested), but this one is simple and effective enough.

I am not saying it is perfect, or that it couldn't use a revision, or that is the absolute best one. But it is a decent rule.

 

[Radical Larry]

Of course want competitions to be fair, and that's why the default settings are changed.
Part of these changes, mainly to help events running on time, is to add a time limit.
And then we needed to craft a rule that comes as reasonably fair and schedule-friendly.
The best compromise found so far is to determine the winner in a reasonable time frame is the one we've been using.
As a bonus, it is simple, straight-forward, very enforceable and easy to understand so players can do it themselves during a match without needing a third-party.
Other alternatives have been proposed (though, I am not sure if actually explored or tested), but this one is simple and effective enough.

I am not saying it is perfect, or that it couldn't use a revision, or that is the absolute best one. But it is a decent rule.

Except this current rule is the most flawed rule fundamentally. What about Sacrificial KOs on the same stock and the opponent legitimately about to be KO'd on the blast lines or by a meteor? What then? What if the opponent is guaranteed to being KO'd like from a Marth Tipper or Ganondorf F-Smash near the edge of a stage at 80%? Or Little Mac being gimped last second?

Are you saying that a rule like what we have right now is legitimately the right way to go? Because from the looks of it, the current rule itself has the most extreme amounts of flaws that I could ever see in a ruleset. So why take a rule with an extreme amount of holes over one with the least amount of flaws?

Are you referring to the 1-stock, 3-minute tiebreaker? Because doing that after every timeout would be impractical and time-consuming.

I have a different proposal on 1-on-1 matches:
2 stock and 5 minute matches in normal tournaments. Damage gauging will not apply.
1 stock and 1 minute matches in tie breaker matches. Damage gauging will apply.

And you know what would happen if we implemented this? In general, tournaments would actually be shorter if the matches are played at maximum, because you're going from a total of around 9 to 11 minutes all the way down to 6 minutes, and that is definitely an enormous decrease in the amount of time overall. So that's a boon that my proposal can have.

So far, the official times on rules are also quite...inefficient and waste more time than mine.

 

[Lomogoto]

the game will not star KO a player if the time is running out ever
also if they didnt die, there is no way to be sure they were going to die, sure it looked like you spiked villager really hard and he was about to die, but maybe he could cancle his momentum with rockets at the last moment and balloon all the way back
theres no way to know
and sacrificial KOs shouldnt get any special case because we "know" he was about to die
all we know is that he didnt before the time was called
and things like bowsersides require seeing the win screen to see who died first
and how does resetting to a tie breaker address any of these problems you mention?

 

[ぱみゅ]

No rule is perfect, I too can pinpoint flaws, but whatever new method surfaces, it will have its fair number too. The only way the current, standard rule were to be replaced is if a solution has SIGNIFICANTLY less issues to address.

All of your examples trying to point problems of our current system are grouped in the same category:
You failed to terminate both of the opponents' stocks within the time frame (6 minutes = 360 seconds = 21600 frames), the deadline being so strict that even the "extra" frames of the character flying towards the blastzone are to be considered.
I mean, there are even cases of people throwing themselves out of the stage to points they would be unable to recover PRECISELY because time is to run out before they lose the stock.
EXHIBIT A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyQImaKwwoo
EXHIBIT B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSLs5nwt5gM
Point being, it really can go both ways.

Now, I too find a lot of problems with your proposed rule:

• This has been proved already: by reducing the timer, it significantly increases the chance of a timeout. Not only because slower matches would take ~5 minutes anyway, but some that may normally take 4+ can be slowed down by the players and they now can aim for a timeout.
• Time between matches counts, a lot. So, instead of a single game taking 6 minutes max (without tiebreaker, but I'll get into this later), now you're taking 5, plus the downtime between games, plus whatever the tiebreaker lasts. It will likely be way more than 6 minutes total.
• Your time projection would only be actually improving if our current method had every timeout resulting in tiebreaker matches (both players would need to have the exact same percentage, and that's extremely unlikely), and if said tiebreaker will take all of the 3 minutes (even less likely). Otherwise, the current standard is better.
• And most importantly, WHY would you ignore percentage for the "regular match" but take it in account for the tiebreaker? Wouldn't that beat the purpose of changing the current rule?

Again, I understand what you're trying to get at: The current standard is flawed. And I somewhat agree.
But so far it is the least-worse out of any other option we have.