Message to the BBR about various things...

[Blacknight99923]

@black knight-is it possible under any circumstance? to be fair are you saying it CANNOT happen? just unlikely isn't enough.

also why would you ask me for vidz with a ten minute timer? what tournaments do you go to? two day events singles only lol.

Call me FeSoren or Soren

I don't see how any way people are fighting each other the entire time will run to ten minutes, its hypothetically possible (hey I suppose you could shield every kill move)


secondly I am not BPC I DO attend tournaments monthly and I actually enter doubles more often than singles. People from the Socal scene who know me can attest to my attendance.

thirdly I should be obvious why I want a match were 2 players are actively engaging each other go to time in a 10 minute match before I think its reasonably possible and will actually happen in the course of play at during the games life span

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

1. We have high level tournament matches of it apparently not being beatable (one of the most popular examples is against gnes, using diddy, who is very good at not getting timed out on the vast majority of stages). Other characters would be screwed even worse.

So we have an example of one high-level match where it was used effectively. However, when you say it's broken, you can't exactly reference one high-level match. It's like me pointing to a match where Dekar abuses single nanner locking to completely destroy his opponent and wins because of that. If the tactic is broken, why isn't it winning every tournament? Why isn't it winning every tournament match? Why hasn't M2K picked it up and started destroying everyone even more?

I'm aware it's a powerful tool in many of MK's harder matchups. The same way that Tornado is a powerful tool in matchups like Bowser or DK, the same way that marth's fair is powerful in matchups like Mario and Luigi. It isn't the only viable strategy (in fact, it's hard to find examples where it is used heavily with success in important matches, a good sign that it's not as good as you think it is). It's a good strategy, but we haven't shown that it is broken or overcentralizing at the highest level of play and therefore a rule against it is unnecessary.

2. Those aren't the reasons for this proposed ruleset, those were just additional considerations some people raised that you're trying to use as the basis for your argument.

A consideration. Not the basis. The basis is, for the most part, the whole "completely unnecessary and stupid" point.

3+4. People would still go to time in a 10 minute model, you just can't read. It's the consideration that players wouldn't want it to go to time due to a ground/air time rule. The argument is that matches wouldn't go to time if the ruleset was both a 10 minute timer AND the air/ground time rule. You keep bringing up ground-camping as opposition to this, but there is zero evidence that this could even happen. The only example I could even think of would be jiggs vs snake. However, because jiggs has no projectile and snake does she is the one forced to approach anyway in the current US ruleset. She'd have the additional 2 minutes to work with anyway, so in a way the ruleset could help her.

There is zero evidence that it would go to time often with a 10-minute timer without this rule. There's also zero reason why timing out is not a valid strategy. It has been a valid strategy in every fighting game up until now, with good reason. We have banned the strategies that allow timing out and remove all possibility of the opponent catching up to you (planking, scrooging (this is even debatably necessary and unproven), circle camping, excessively powerful stage positions like Corneria's fin). Therefore this is trying to remove a legitimate and non-overcentralizing (what % of high-level tournament matches go to time? Probably not even 50%. MK wins over 50% of all tournaments, that's not considered overcentralizing by this community) strategy to win the game under which premise?

The only one I've heard is "it makes more people show up because camping is gay". First of all that's so ridiculously subjective it's not even funny. Second of all there are far more gay things that have caused far more people to leave; what about the lack of hitstun; lets hack the game to add that because it made people leave. What about various chaingrabs, let's remove them because they made people say "this game is gay" and leave?

I don't know if this was mentioned yet or not, but I didn't notice a mention on whether or not the stock difference mattered. Of course, we don't want a jiggs at 3 stocks losing to a snake at 1 stock due to time, so it should probably only be implemented if the stocks are the same.

Yes, this should be cleared up.

I don't see how this would hurt aerial based characters unless you were TRYING to camp; that's the point of the 10 minute timer. If you can't finish a match on a stage that's not RC in under 10 minutes AND there is no incentive to time someone out, I just can't imagine a match taking that long unless neither player is approaching, which is just stupid.

There have been examples named. It's certainly possible, and it's realistically plausible. And you seem like you're thinking that only aerial characters could try to time out.

Closing thoughts: I'm not 100% dedicated to this ruleset and I'm probably overlooking some things, but I don't see why people are so vehemently against it without giving it a try. It sounds decent to me at the moment.

Eh, seeing as you just read my posts you probably know why and disagree.

BPC your not using your head please proofread your arguments in the future. YOU ALSO NEED TO STOP TRYING TO DEFEND YOUR POINTS VIA SIRLIN IDEALS however yes I can't expect them to not play optimal. Camping with a projectile and running away are (while both defensive by nature) are different things. When you ask running away for the whole match and then state throwing projectiles shows me that you have no concrete way of defending your points.

Not really.
When I run away with the lead, I am taking an advantageous position (having the lead) that I earned (by fighting you until I had the lead) and abusing it (by trying to keep this lead until the time runs out, a legitimate strategy). It is also completely beatable in most matchups.

When I camp with projectiles, I am taking an advantageous position (having a strong, spammable projectile) that I earned (by selecting a character with a strong spammable projectile) and abusing it (by throwing junk at you and hoping you **** up your powershielding). It is also completely beatable in most matchups.

Both are strong defensive strategies. Both involve me abusing an advantageous position I have. Both are completely beatable. The difference between the two is obviously there, but why does it make it bannable not to have hitboxes going towards my opponent?

Running away the whole match so that you are no longer fighting is in fact stalling.

...oh. That's why. Because stalling (making the game unplayable) can be achieved by running away.

However you cannot PROVE its stalling, but the majority of people will agree that running the timer intentionally is blatantly stalling it cannot be proven.

How wide is your definition of stalling? And why is it necessary to ban it?

in response to this people wish to create rules that prevent such stalling tactics from occurring. While I personally would rather discuss a better alternative to an airtime rule I do support a raised timer to reduce timeouts.

Also by your definition of you get a better position on a stage you should always be able to abuse it is essentially supporting circle camping.

Yes. Except that I realize that if we allow circle camping, the competitive depth of brawl becomes so negligable that it is not a valuable competitive game any more. Pragmatism, if you will.

Circle camping is not stalling, believe it or not. Ask the BBR, I saw a really good post by someone on this (was it Shaya?). It doesn't make the game unplayable. What happens during circle camping is this:
1. Character X (fast) is in an advantaged position of having a lead on Character Y (slow). He proceeds to do whatever he can to keep this lead and puts a piece of the stage between him and character Y.
2. Character Y follows character X. Character X wants to keep his advantaged position, so he moves, again, to keep a piece of stage between him and character Y.
3. Repeat 2 ad nauseum.

It's not banned because it's stalling, it's banned because it's ridiculously overcentralizing and skews matchups ridiculous.

Stalling in brawl (and in melee) is actually ridiculously limited. We have...
-IDC
-Sonic's homing stall
-infinites
-various freeze glitches where the character freezes in midair, IIRC there was one with Diddy Hump
-Perfect Planking (the unbeatable variant only; all other forms of planking are merely abusing a strong position. I could be even wrong about this one)
...and that's pretty much it. In melee it's just Peach Bomber stall and Rising Pound stall.
These tactics all go with the actual meaning of "stalling". Which is not "trying to run the clock"; that's playing stupidly safe, campy, and defensively, and sometimes running away. It's "Makes the game effectively unplayable", which is banned for overcentralization (you get your opponents with one of these stalls, and the game is over in most cases).

What's your definition of stalling, and why is such a massive blanket ban on any tactic based on running the clock necessary?

after all if I have the lead why shouldn't I stall by circle camping the whole match. By your discussed ideals your are actually supporting such game play mechanics. So then tell me WHY SHOULDN'T circle camping be legal. After all you have opposed a LGL which prevents metaknight to do the exact same thing for 8 minutes why shouldn't any character with a decent mobility be allowed to time someone out via circle camping?

Just did, look up. And also, I opposed LGLs as a concept; I have changed my stance to that that it is a bad rule, but a completely necessary one. You can't have

i do name search rofl.

and honestly, i am trying to find motivation to play brawl right now. all my goals are complete, or at least realistically for this game. im gonna have to find new ones, otherwise im just gonna **** around wit falco and enjoy the community.

w/e i move to EU soon anyway, so hopefully ill be renewed there

Go to germany, it's great here. Bavaria is probably the very best place in the world.

 

[_Kadaj_]

ok Rickerdy I'll post a lot more on the subject when I have my laptop atm I'm on my PS3. There were people who posted at first that the rule could hurt characters like Wario, Robot, and Peach. Earlier I posted vids and time consuming mu's regarding the aforementioned characters. Wether the character won or lost was not the purpose of posting the links, the purpose was to show you that the characters abilities and viability was not hindered at all by these rules. Again I really do understand your concern on the issue as you and a few others really hit on some valid points, sadly others just spew out angry, biased non-sense

 

[Kewkky]

thirdly I should be obvious why I want a match were 2 players are actively engaging each other go to time in a 10 minute match before I think its reasonably possible and will actually happen in the course of play at during the games life span

This is true (although you gotta make your paragraphs clearer man, fix up your arguments and grammar and stuff so no one gets confused).


Since we're saying Brawl is a fighting game, let's try and compare this to other fighting games... How many times have you seen people win in Street Fighter by running away from the opponent until the time runs out? What about in any other competitive game besides the Smash series? I can at least attest that:

*In Brawl we can run over, under, and away from our opponents without suffering a single hit if done right (eg. Wario vs Zelda, MK vs Bowser, TL vs Ganondorf, insert time-out character vs insert slow character...), as well as have a maximum of 99 minutes per match.
*In the vast majority of other competitive games we have a combination of walls characters can't bypass, everyone generally jumps the same height, you can't jump over the opponent without it being risky, you can't go under the stage, a maximum of 99 seconds per match, and characters with a vast array of projectiles/disjoints that enhance their turtling capabilities (biggest example that comes to mind is Arakune from the BlazBlue games)...

Due to Brawl being so inherently different, we can't say that what isn't a problem for them, isn't a problem for us. Camping characters like TL, Falco, Wario are cool and everything, we all accept their camping to be completely legitimate, and some of us tend to barely ever lose to some of them, just like camping/turtling characters from other fighting games; we can catch them. It's only when a character like either Brawl's MK or Melee's Jigglypuff (read some discussion concerning her and how she planks as well) start going over, through AND under the stage in an attempt to COMPLETELY avoid ANY type of confrontation, that we find a problem.


On a serious note... Is there a stalling rule in any other fighting game out there? If you believe so, what examples could you give me about stalling in other fighting games?

 

[_Kadaj_]

Although true no other fighting game has rules regarding the issue because their timers are extremely short lived (99 seconds) also because the fighting mechanics are very different. In other fighters you actively have the ability to rush down your opponents without them having the luxury to fly away, and or go under the stage to avoid all confrontation (Pit, MK) they also don't have the ability to actively jump to a point most characters can't (D3, Kirby, Wario, Pit, Jiggz and Mk). So due to the vast difference in fighting mechanics they can't really be compared to one another in that aspect .

 

[Blacknight99923]

this is precisely why I do not support Sirlins Ideals for all arguments in brawl they simply don't all apply

 

[Kewkky]

Although true no other fighting game has rules regarding the issue because their timers are extremely short lived (99 seconds) also because the fighting mechanics are very different. In other fighters you actively have the ability to rush down your opponents without them having the luxury to fly away, and or go under the stage to avoid all confrontation (Pit, MK) they also don't have the ability to actively jump to a point most characters can't (D3, Kirby, Wario, Pit, Jiggz and Mk). So due to the vast difference in fighting mechanics they can't really be compared to one another in that aspect .

So, taking the difference between Brawl and the rest into consideration, we could actually argue that what otherwise wouldn't be a problem in another fighting game, would be a problem in Brawl due to the big differences between both. If we are trying to make Brawl a fighting game, then immediately the ability to have THAT much liberty would be considered broken, so by these observations, we can safely say that Brawl is not a fighting game no matter how we wish it to be, unless we ban and limit a lot of tactics and commands arbitrarily.

With the large differences in mind, why can't we admit that what we can compare between Brawl and other games to look similar (such as dominant characters and their domination rates, most powerful strategies and tactics, classification of what is 'broken' and what isn't, etc), might be normal for them but a problem for us, or vice-versa?

 

['V']

At this point, I don't think that it's the time that's the issue here anymore. Brawl naturally takes a long time in general, so what's the point in making it longer, especially if we've seen that matches can potentially go longer than the initial 8 minutes anyway?

The ground time rule seems like it'll just ruin other characters for no reason at all and not just MK. Peach, Wario, and Jigglypuff immediately come to mind when thinking about this because their playstyles as characters require them to spend a lot of time in the air. Characters like Snake, Diddy, and Ice Climbers all get buffs because they spend the majority of their time on the ground.

To me, the problem lies within the game's defensive mechanics and MK himself. At this point, if so many rules have been made up just to limit MK, you might as well just ban him.

 

[Kewkky]

I hope you don't feel offended that I just nitpicked a part of your post, but it's the only thing i really wanted to reply something to.

At this point, I don't think that it's the time that's the issue here anymore. Brawl naturally takes a long time in general, so what's the point in making it longer, especially if we've seen that matches can potentially go longer than the initial 8 minutes anyway?

We've seen that sets can go a full 24 minutes. We've heard arguments that extending the timer will increase tourney duration... But for that to be true, EVERY match would have to take up EVERY second in 24 minutes (resulting in time-outs due to incomplete matches)... In actuality, whenever we see a set go the full 24 minutes, what do you think is going on through the rest of the tourney, outside of the set in question? We have players playing their sets normally, the bracket advancing, completely unhindered because of that one 24-minute match. Whenever a tourney has their brackets held up, it's not because a match is taking forever, instead it's because one (or more) of the players didn't care whether their unplayed sets held up the tourney, so they took their time getting ready. When PR's tourneys get held up, it's because a player had to leave the venue temporarily, or went to the bathroom, or is eating something, etc etc etc (we don't apply the "disqualification of a player if they're late" rules, we only disqualify if we know the player left and isn't coming back)... Never has it happened that the tourney has ended ahead of time because every match took all 24 minutes thus extending the tourney to the maximum alloted time. And you can't deny this to be true!

Raising the timer to 10 minutes won't cause tourneys to take longer at all. A match or two WILL take longer than 8 minutes, but the tourney isn't going to be held back because of it. The probability of EVERY tourney set taking the full 24 minutes of playtime is as improbable as me landing EVERY powershield attempt in a match.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

this is precisely why I do not support Sirlins Ideals for all arguments in brawl they simply don't all apply

The most central one-"play to win" still does.

Kewkky brings up an interesting point. However, here's one for you. How many games exist where a high tier character completely and utterly shuts down various low tier characters (to the point where they can never catch up if you simply do one certain string)? I immediately think of BlazBlue's Nu vs. Tager matchup. This is not a hallmark of brawl, this is a hallmark of poor balance. Granted, this advantage taking place by being able to run away the whole game is uniquely ours, but how is that different from winning because your opponent literally has no options against your blizzard wall or chain lock?

EDIT: nvm, I can't quite place it but something feels wrong about that post and when I sense something wrong with one of my own posts, then it's definitely a stinker.

 

['V']

Nah Kewkky, it's cool. It only helps my post in saying that it's not really the time that's the issue anymore.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Kewkky said a lot of stuff that makes sense, but I want to touch on this

Wether the character won or lost was not the purpose of posting the links, the purpose was to show you that the characters abilities and viability was not hindered at all by these rules.

It's not that these characters can't still play on this ruleset; Peach has a good approach game and Wario has great approach mix-ups—ROB and TL have great strengths in their camping games though which they now have to be wary of. The problem is that they don't have the option of playing defensively or timing people out, because if they choose to do that they lose. Most people would agree that even if Peach, ROB, TL, or Wario (on some stages) was trying to time someone out, it isn't broken because it's easily punishable. How come they don't have the option simply because MK is great at timing people out?

The removal of this option changes match-ups. As I've already said, Diddy vs. Wario is often a match-up that goes past the 6 if not 7 minute mark (same with vs. ROB and vs. TL and vs. Peach kinda) when playing without the intent of timing out. That's just how the match-up is. I've timed out Warios on accident (last stock, just noticing there was 20 seconds left and running away). In the current ruleset, his option to camp is present so long as he has the lead. In this ruleset, his option to camp is not there. If he chooses to air-camp for any moderate periods of time, he runs the risk of losing via time out. This forces him to constantly approach, which is a pretty good situation for Diddy and skews the match-up into his favor.

You could say the same thing for vs. ROB and vs. TL. I'd love to play a Toon Link that doesn't double jump around throwing projectiles everywhere and instead approaches me—it makes the match-up that much easier. Because of the threat of losing via time-out because of how your character is played, you'll see that happening more with these characters. And while it may not be highly likely that Diddy ( or another character) will be winning tons of games vs. these characters, it's still possible. It can happen, and even if it doesn't it presents a situation that's

-You either camp because it's the advantaged situation and risk losing via time out or you approach me which is a disadvantaged position making the match-up quite easier for me.

So my question is ultimately: Why is it okay for these characters to have to approach in some match-ups with your proposed ruleset, but it's not okay for "Snake to have to approach MK when he loses the lead" in the current ruleset?

There are other problems with the OP suggestion IMO but this is the one that irks me the most.

 

[KAOSTAR]

even if time out is unlikely that didn't mean matches won't end in 9 minutes. it can increase the length. kewkky that is terrible math if you think you need 3 time outs to exceed 24 on the set.

the rule is bad because IF a time out occurs the winner is chosen by a very controlling method of who jumped less.

how can you allow a rule that could end in something where the winner isn't chosen by who played better?

whats your solution to this problem, it may be unlikely but it is very possible. don't leave holes in your rule set.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

how can you allow a rule that could end in something where the winner isn't chosen by who played better?

Because by our definition of "better", the winner did play better-they timed out their opponent while having less air time. We're changing the definition of what it means to be "better". To... um... Yeah........

 

[KAOSTAR]

Because by our definition of "better", the winner did play better-they timed out their opponent while having less air time. We're changing the definition of what it means to be "better". To... um... Yeah........

its only two more minutes. people act like its not possible to time people out.

why would you not account for a possible situation. imo thats sooo bad. its a biased and incomplete rule.

nobody here can guarantee time outs with decent amounts of fighting will not happen. but lets not worry about that situation cuz it goes against what we want.

some scrub **** right there.

 

[Kewkky]

even if time out is unlikely that didn't mean matches won't end in 9 minutes. it can increase the length. kewkky that is terrible math if you think you need 3 time outs to exceed 24 on the set.

Well of course you need to account time for stage-striking, character choice and all that whatnot, but I was looking at the fastest possible time for a full 3-matches' worth of timeouts (8 minutes per match, according to the current ruleset).

And why would matches now magically end in 9 minutes, when matches that are played these days take an average amount of 4-5 minutes? What would motivate the vast majority of players to instantly change their playstyles to play out matches SO long, that it would average out to 8+ minutes per match? Increasing the timer is something that would simply aim to discourage time-outs, since you'd have to spend an extra 2 minutes running around avoiding any and all conflict for your victory to happen. It would also help people discern between stalling and playing safe... I've had matches randomly time out on me while I was playing incredibly safe in order to regain the lead, and my opponent's intent wasn't "running away from me for the entire match", but instead forcing me to come to him so he could bait and punish with relative ease.

Even if it's not 24 minutes for the longest possible started set (since you gotta count the selection screens' time and all that jazz, but that can't be measured so I just used the match's timers to time the length of a 3-match set), the point still stands: while the slow set is happening, the other matches are running completely normal, totally unhindered... And as a bonus point, the TO could better decide whether a match was being stalled, camped, or played safe with 2 extra minutes of analysis.

the rule is bad because IF a time out occurs the winner is chosen by a very controlling method of who jumped less.

how can you allow a rule that could end in something where the winner isn't chosen by who played better?

Ehhh, I'm sure this wasn't directed at me, but I'm still gonna throw out that I don't support that method. Both of my main characters love to be in the air, and my matches have timed out because my opponents have played excessively defensive against my non-top tier mains. The feeling I would get of knowing I was winning a match while my opponent has been an extremely safe guy, safe enough to run the timer entirely from the ground EVEN if I was winning, would be an incredibly sour feeling and would really make me question how much I like playing in tourneys... Losing a match even though I was winning. :|

its only two more minutes. people act like its not possible to time people out.

Same argument could go both ways: it's only 2 minutes, why not simply add them in?

 

[Tetsion]

I do not agree with ground time rule. I usually stay on the ground (yet im pit, go figure) and this just changes things too dramatically.. Olimar would for example **** everyone (I think) he has the best ground game.. and he could time people out like no other. Diddy would be using banana's all over the place, you have to jump over them.. short hop..etc. Ground time rule is not a good rule.. it messes with the metagame dramatically.

 

[Kewkky]

Ground time rule is not a good rule.. it messes with the metagame dramatically.

Oh, let me say something that this observation brought to me!

First of all, the rule isn't bad at all. It was made for TKD's community, and it has worked perfectly for them. The rule is perfect for what it was created for, and their metagame has evolved around that rule just as much as our metagame has evolved around our time-out rule.

The rule wouldn't work well in our ruleset because OUR metagame developed differently. We were always playing with the thought of "if the time runs out, the one with least stocks, if not most %, loses", this creates the illusion of "the more damage you have, the more you're losing"... But in TKD's community, they've been playing with the thoughts of "the only way for time to run out is to have someone run away, and to run away effectively you eventually have to jump over them/fly under them while under the stage", so their metagame developed into a more 'aggressive' one.

This definitely explains why TKD's Fox is different than the american Foxes in terms of tourney performance and gameplay! He's been playing in a different metagame than ours, this developed differently than us... And that same observation is why the addition of the rule would be bad for us: it doesn't fit with our metagame. It's a BIG change, since the characters who time out the most are usually jumping and flying around, and to us that is perfectly acceptable, while to TKD's community it isn't.

 

[KAOSTAR]

im not a brawl player and the timer means nothing to me.

I wasnt saying anything about stage strikes character select screens because its virtually the same.

I just mean a time out of ten and two 7 minute matches. two time outs of ten then a faster 5 etc. since we are speaking about the people who are deliberate time out, we assume they will attempt ten minutes. they have longer matches in general. 3 8 minute and a few seconds exceeds 24 and with ten minutes there is still no time out. its not every match that gets longer. just the ones where people try to time out.

basically the tournament is extended by the length of any match that goes past 8 minutes. doesn't actually matter if its longer than the "allotted" 24.

and yes the ground rule doesn't need to even be considered until its complete and at minimum always leads to a fair solution to a tournament game.

 

[Kewkky]

im not a brawl player and the timer means nothing to me.

I wasnt saying anything about stage strikes character select screens because its virtually the same.

I just mean a time out of ten and two 7 minute matches. two time outs of ten then a faster 5 etc. since we are speaking about the people who are deliberate time out, we assume they will attempt ten minutes. they have longer matches in general. 3 8 minute and a few seconds exceeds 24 and with ten minutes there is still no time out. its not every match that gets longer. just the ones where people try to time out.

basically the tournament is extended by the length of any match that goes past 8 minutes. doesn't actually matter if its longer than the "allotted" 24.

A longer timer would reduce the number of "accidental time-outs", and would give players 2 extra minutes to finish their matches before time-outs happen. Almost all of the time, time-outs happen while one player is rushing after the other and slowly regaining the lead, but the timer didn't let them because it was too short. It has happened when a person gains a lead and starts playing campy, the opponent follows him around and engages constantly, and they're short for a finishing blow, but the timer runs out thus ending the match prematurely. it has alspo happened that two guys are playing so defensively so as to not put themselves in vulnerable positions, that the timer runs out on them before they could finish each other off... These are signs of the timer being too short.

Matches which are made to be intentionally timed out will still be timed out, meaning that TL's, Jigglypuff's, and every other timeout character's strategy would STILL be working, but people will not have to fear as much finding their matches ending prematurely.


And just to bring it up before someone else does, this isn't made to target MK indirectly. It targets every character and every player, and is aimed at helping matches that end prematurely, to actually end after a winning requirement is purposefully met (reducing your opponents' stock count to 0, or timing your opponents out on purpose).

 

[Orion*]

Ooo when do you move to Europe?!! That will be a fun new scene.

31st

Go to germany, it's great here. Bavaria is probably the very best place in the world.

travelling seems expensive if theres tournament

Although true no other fighting game has rules regarding the issue because their timers are extremely short lived (99 seconds) also because the fighting mechanics are very different. In other fighters you actively have the ability to rush down your opponents without them having the luxury to fly away, and or go under the stage to avoid all confrontation (Pit, MK) they also don't have the ability to actively jump to a point most characters can't (D3, Kirby, Wario, Pit, Jiggz and Mk). So due to the vast difference in fighting mechanics they can't really be compared to one another in that aspect .

out fighters have 8 minute timers instead of 99 second ones for a reason.

you can not avoid ALL contact by just jumping (tbh i would argue planking to, because this has NEVER been done, there has always been some contact.). i have tried this many times, ive seen jason, spam and players much better than me try. however eventually good characters will force you into situations where you are forced to fight them.

it takes longer, and there are characters that can do it. its just ****ing hard. with a proper LGL there really isnt to much to bug out about tbh :/

 

[KAOSTAR]

if matches regularly end in time out that could very well be evidence to support the timer being too short.

but it can and realistically will always extend the length of tournaments.

it makes it harder to time out which im not necessarily against, just stating facts.

it may just mean players play crazy safe. but playing that safe might in all honesty be better for time outs. maybe brawl is meant to go to time and its more impressive to tko somebody like boxing.

not saying ten minutes is good or bad, leave that to you brawlers. but ground rule has holes in it and I wanted to make sure people recognized that.

 

[_Kadaj_]

.....................

 

[_Kadaj_]

Oh, let me say something that this observation brought to me!

First of all, the rule isn't bad at all. It was made for TKD's community, and it has worked perfectly for them. The rule is perfect for what it was created for, and their metagame has evolved around that rule just as much as our metagame has evolved around our time-out rule.

The rule wouldn't work well in our ruleset because OUR metagame developed differently. We were always playing with the thought of "if the time runs out, the one with least stocks, if not most %, loses", this creates the illusion of "the more damage you have, the more you're losing"... But in TKD's community, they've been playing with the thoughts of "the only way for time to run out is to have someone run away, and to run away effectively you eventually have to jump over them/fly under them while under the stage", so their metagame developed into a more 'aggressive' one.

This definitely explains why TKD's Fox is different than the american Foxes in terms of tourney performance and gameplay! He's been playing in a different metagame than ours, this developed differently than us... And that same observation is why the addition of the rule would be bad for us: it doesn't fit with our metagame. It's a BIG change, since the characters who time out the most are usually jumping and flying around, and to us that is perfectly acceptable, while to TKD's community it isn't.

This.

It is also why the Japanese players playstyle and decision making are a lot different from ours, and in some ways drastically better

 

[Mit]

I feel like a 10 minute timer could actually shorten the length of certain matches.

When it gets between 1-2 minutes left on the clock, I believe that's when most players start thinking about running the clock. If not within the last minute. You don't usually go into a match thinking about running the clock or entire matches would be made up almost entirely of camping and running away.

By increasing the timer to 10 minutes, many players won't even consider running the clock. When you hit the 7 minute mark, both characters are usually on their last stock. You're not gonna think to try and run the clock for three minutes on your last stock because it likely won't last that long. You have to think about how you're actually going to take your opponents last stock.

Which means they continue fighting during the 6th and 7th minutes of the fight. Chances are, the match will be finished before hitting the 8 minute mark.

EDIT: Although after reading some more, I guess aiming to get rid of time-outs shouldn't necessarily be the focus here.

I do think ground time rule is dumb though, and unnecessary with a 10 minute timer. For plenty of reasons already stated.


All of this may have been said before as I'm too lazy to read 20 or so pages of posts D: but that's the reasoning I support a timer increase.


I also support the more limited stage set as opposed to the more expansive one due to how incredibly strong certain counterpicks are, and how banning them is **** near pointless because with so many stages to choose from there's always going to be something equally effective to counterpick for certain characters. I enjoy banning something that I less prefer to fight on, or the greatest evil of a counterpick stage, but when there are so many incredibly bad counterpicks that a versatile character like MK could choose against a variety of opponents, it just seems like a bad idea and one that's going to create an even greater number of MK mains and pissed off people who play other characters.

 

[Browny]

idk who posted, but whoever suggested that if the time goes to 10 minutes, both players are DQ'd (or sent to losers), that actually sounds like a decent idea lol. One could argue that this doesnt favour the player who is winning and wishes to maintain the lead by planking/running away, I'll argue that the person who is winning isnt actually winning a fighting game I mean, when the aim of the game is to kill your opponent, isnt that just the case lol?

 

[KAOSTAR]

idk who posted, but whoever suggested that if the time goes to 10 minutes, both players are DQ'd, that actually sounds like a decent idea lol. One could argue that this doesnt favour the player who is winning and wishes to maintain the lead by planking/running away, I'll argue that the person who is winning isnt actually winning a fighting game I mean, when the aim of the game is to kill your opponent, isnt that just the case lol?

so when people play safe and run out of time they should both lose....if I can't beat m2k in gonna take him out by running for 8 minutes. **** move


terrible idea. the timer shouldn't make people play un safe. ten minutes is better than this trash.

 

[Browny]

good luck running away for 10 minutes vs m2k lol, youll need it.

I mean really, if you forced people to take off 1 stock every 3.3 minutes, thats not forcing them to play unsafe... with that time-frame you can play extremely safe and still take a stock off with time to spare :/ At the least, it forces both players to play a fighting game lol

 

[KAOSTAR]

most games have methods of winning. you are trying to propose a method for players to lose.

you guys are running into these issues honesty because brawl is gay. im not trying to bash but you really have to accept your game and play it or get a new one.

its a terrible idea honestly. its better to drop it.

 

[lilseph]

good luck running away for 10 minutes vs m2k lol, youll need it.

I mean really, if you forced people to take off 1 stock every 3.3 minutes, thats not forcing them to play unsafe... with that time-frame you can play extremely safe and still take a stock off with time to spare :/ At the least, it forces both players to play a fighting game lol

Can't say i have ever played against M2K, but i sure as hell know that any decent MK main knows how to plank perfectly. It honestly takes like 10 minutes of practice, and if your perfect at it you can plank anyone regardless of their skill.

 

[Browny]

lol... I just realised that there is no LGL in place (a lowered one specifically).

I figured it would be impossible to plank/stall for 10 minutes without breaking the LGL (on any stage not RC -_-).

yeah ok disregard my posts lol

 

[ShadowLink84]

most games have methods of winning. you are trying to propose a method for players to lose.

you guys are running into these issues honesty because brawl is gay. im not trying to bash but you really have to accept your game and play it or get a new one.

its a terrible idea honestly. its better to drop it.

I like this guy. Can we keep him?
Please?

 

[TKD]

This is a matter of preference.

The main issue of this rule is different than a cheap new timeout tactic. The issues are:
- It does indeed eliminate camping and forces some characters to approach others.
- It changes match-ups, as has been mentioned: For example Falco goes from advantage to near even vs Kirby (Falco simply can't allow time outs unless he's being planked...he's one of the worst characters for this rule), and Kirby goes from being undoubtedly countered to only being somewhat disadvantaged vs MK. It makes Snake a top tier character (which may be why he's one in Japan), since approaching Snake comes with great risks.
- Matches will go to time at first because people that play the character with time out disadvantage and aren't familiar with the new dynamic will camp instead of approaching an baiting.

If you don't want to change match-ups as they are now, you should keep the current time out rule, although a 9-10 minute timer would make time-outs more reasonably difficult for characters favored by that rule (those that are better at keeping percent leads).

The SSBB culture in the U.S. is about camping, which isn't possible with this rule. The game becomes more like other fighting games (more about baiting, mix-up, and execution), which dramatically changes match-ups (although turns SSBB into a much, MUCH more fun game to watch). Again, for the metagame to stay similar to what it currently is in the U.S., you need a better stage list and a bigger timer.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Here is an idea.
Let's all unplug the opponent's controllers?
And make a rule that forbids them from plugging their controller back in for 30 seconds.

You are trying to change the win condition not because it is necessary, but because it is simply disliked.
That's extremely scrubby in thinking.
Baby steps are what is taken, but if the current time limit is fine (few matches go to time out) why in the heck would we change it?
To encourage overly aggressive behavior?

The ground time rule is stupid. Period.
No argument can ever prove it to be anything but a vain attempt to nerf things that people dislike for no reason other than "its gay"

 

[TKD]

The word you're looking for is "different". And this "different" version of the game is more balanced and entertaining. Besides that I don't have strong enough arguments to change your already set game-play dynamics. TJ doesn't have a reason to change back to win by % either, which to me doesn't mean the other rule's stupid.

 

[KAOSTAR]

The word you're looking for is "different". And this "different" version of the game is more balanced and entertaining. Besides that I don't have strong enough arguments to change your already set game-play dynamics. TJ doesn't have a reason to change back to win by % either, which to me doesn't mean the other rule's stupid.

its brutally obvious you made it into the Bbr because of your skill as a player.

 

[Hydruz]

I really like the ground rule, but since im a more of an air based fighter, what happens if my opponent is falco or something and camps the living **** out of me. All I would try to do is try and approach him from the air. So after a long match of me approaching and him intentionally trying to time me out, at the end I have the most air time because I was trying to approach him all that time.

The ground rule is a good idea but it has some flaws.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

idk who posted, but whoever suggested that if the time goes to 10 minutes, both players are DQ'd (or sent to losers), that actually sounds like a decent idea lol. One could argue that this doesnt favour the player who is winning and wishes to maintain the lead by planking/running away, I'll argue that the person who is winning isnt actually winning a fighting game I mean, when the aim of the game is to kill your opponent, isnt that just the case lol?

That was me and it was a joke. It's such a terrible idea. Yes, I can't beat this guy, so I'll run away, plank, and scrooge for 10 minutes and at the very least have both of us kicked out unless he decides to take a loss. It's so horrible.

Kewkky brings up a point I hadn't thought about, and then Shadowlink destroys it.

I guess your metagame developed differently and "better". But what if we inserted god knows how many rules like Punch Time, a rule against intercepting PK Thunder, a rule against CGs and GRCGs, a rule that if the timer runs out and someone is playing Metaknight, that player loses, a rule that if you get hit by rest, you die, a rule that if you grab the ledge more than 5 times between either hitting your opponent or being hit you have to give up your stock, a rule that you can't shoot more than 5 projectiles at your opponent without hitting them with a melee attack... etc.

Would these rules make the game better? They'd probably make it more balanced. They'd make it more agressive. They'd make MK less of a monster, make some low tiers viable, and continue to make brawl a "better" game. Albeit a completely different one.

So why don't we add a whole bunch of rules to really make the game better, instead of just a little band-aid like your ***** little rule that doesn't really improve much?

...

BECAUSE IT'S ****ING RIDICULOUS, THAT'S WHY! Anyone can tell you this. Because we don't enter a game and rebalance it or else it becomes a completely different game. I used to see this thread as stupid and pointless, but now I realize it's pretty important. Everyone wants these special rules that have no basis in-game and solve problems that aren't actually problems (this and the suicide rule where the initiator always wins are two prime examples; planking/stalling rules hav no basis in-game but solve problems that need to be solved in order for smash to be competitive). But it doesn't matter if it makes for a better game, it's a completely different game. You guys aren't playing brawl anymore, what you're playing is closer to a hacked game like Balanced Brawl. And if you honestly are so displeased by brawl as a whole that you need to insert rules to make the game more playable (not to dispose of ridiculously broken tactics, but to make the game more fun), you should find a different game to play. I recommend Brawl-.

 

[-LzR-]

inb4someonesayingthatisaverystupidideaBPCbecausetheydidntreaditover

 

[Kewkky]

Kewkky brings up a point I hadn't thought about, and then Shadowlink destroys it.

Ehhh, my point still stands strong, their metagame developed around their rule, and it works for what they wanted it. ShadowLink just inserted his own argument.


And one small thing... You seem to be so bent in believing that Sirlin's write-ups IS the competitive scene. He doesn't dictate what's the "right way" or the "wrong way", he just presents what he believes competitive rules should be. We don't HAVE to follow what he says all the time, he's not an Isaac Newton where his experiments proved that without a shadow of a doubt, he's 100% right, thus turning his theory into law... Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's correct, just like how geocentrism was viewed back in the old days, or the "flat world" theory which everyone believed to be true. I personally think that since Sirlin is the only one that has done a write-up about competitive aspects that has met with lots of positive reception, everyone takes it as the word, since it's the ONLY word out there, and it's well tied-up... But that doesn't mean it's a law. It's still theory.

Whenever I see "scrub" or "scrubby" or "scrubiness" thrown around as an argument (eg. "that rule is bad because it's scrubby") instead of an ACTUAL argument made to explain it to even the dumbest of people (as simply put as possible's the best way to formulate arguments), I get a major brain aneurysm.

So, come on, Sirlin followers. If you want this community to follow Sirlin as well as you all do, try and explain your points instead of writing up such a conclusive phrase such as "because it's scrubby" at the end of the beginning of an argument. Otherwise you leave them believing you're insulting them and that you're dancing around the subject. Using religion as an example, you guys are just like religious followers whose only explanation of things is "because God is grand" whenever people ask for explanations as to why X is only possible because of God (they could expand their explanations instead of being so small and vague, there's no problem with that religiously-speaking, so the same should be said about the Sirlin followers in that they should expand their explanations).