Project: M Standard Timer Setting Discussion

[B.W.]

Sup guys. As of late I've taken a small break from Smash and started playing more traditional fighters and as a player of both Smash and various 2D fighters such as SSF4AE, GG, KOF13 I took notice of something. 8 mins is far too long on the timer.

Now before I go into more detail I would like to say, this thread wasn't made to try to appeal to the players of 2D fighters, nor was it made to make Smash more like 2D fighters. This thread was made because the rulesets of Melee (and therefor Project: M) are crafted by the community and I believe there are problems with the current standard timer in the sense that if a player wants to play to the clock then he must drag the match out for much longer than his opponent, the audience, and in most cases even himself desires.

I'm unaware as to why 8 mins was decided as Melee's tournament timer. But these days I truly believe that the clock is able to go for too long, and I know there are others that feel the same. Originally I felt that the number of stocks played a bigger part in the matter, having 4 stocks sounds absurd, but decided to take note of the timer while watching tournament streams of Project: M and I realized if a player is on top of things stocks can drop from 4 to 0 quite fast even when two high level players were on the screen. The faster games would last anywhere between 1 and a half to 2 mins. Though if the players were more evenly matched the games would take around 4 mins.

And so I decided to change my timer settings in Project: M to from 8 mins to 5 mins since I felt that this would give the same exact feel of how Melee and Project: M play but with a more reasonable time limit. Most matches being Zero Suit Samus (my step brother) vs Toon Link (myself). Being very much inspired by Armada's "do whatever you can to win" tactics with Young Link in Melee (and me being a previous Young Link main) I play running away and throwing projectiles for most of the match, racking up damage as high as 150% on my opponent sometimes even though I can kill much sooner if I manage to land the hit. As some of you can imagine, this runs down the timer quite a bit... And yet here was not a single time out. The lowest the timer ever got was 32 seconds.

Now going back to me playing traditional 2D fighters for a momenty. Matches can be long and short in traditional 2D fighters as well, though it's less noticeable due to rounds being present. It is not uncommon for the timer to fall pretty low before a round is over, and the occasional time out not seen as a negative thing, and playing to the timer is a common and viable strategy. When matches time out, it can even sometimes add hype as it often means a match was close.

Now this next part is an obvious "what if" scenario. Though the scenario is possible, it's not very likely.

So most traditional 2D fighter's timers are 99 seconds meaning a round 1 min & 39 secs possible in a round, unless we're talking about Marvel 3, then the second takes about 2 seconds each resulting in 3 mins & 10 secs a game.

This means that if you were playing most 2D fighters and you played 3 rounds an they all timed out they would last 4 mins & 57 secs. That means that if all the games in a 2/3 set time out then the set lasted 11 mins & 31 secs. (When's Marvel end? 8 mins & 14 secs in a 2/3 set if all games time out.)

And how long would a constant time out in Smash take? 24 mins. Though it's shiny Pokemon rare to see this happen due to the timer lasting so long.

No one plays to the clock in Smash. Probably partially because the higher tiered characters in the game don't need to do so as most are fairly aggressive. But the bigger reason would definitely be because the timer is so long that nobody wants to spend that much time doing it, though it's not as if it is not a viable tactic in some matchups. Armada showed as that two years in a row with his Young Link. But most people couldn't bear to watch it because who wants to watch 8 mins of Young Link laming out Jiggs? Do it 3 times and you've got almost half an hour of that match. Do it 2 more times for a 3/5 set (that I didn't do math for, but just imagine it or go watch it again). It get's pretty ridiculous, especially when you add on the extra time of stage striking and stage banning.

Dropping the timer to 5 mins did not make the me feel as though I had no time to fight my opponent, nor did it make it feel as if playing the lame game with Toon Link was any easier. If anything it just made me a little more aware of the timer, which again never timed out.

I feel dropping the timer from 8 mins to 5 mins would be a healthy change for the game as a whole since it would allow the strategy of players being able to play toward the timer without the effect of the match becoming less appealing to both the players and the audience, and I would like to know how the rest of you feel on this subject.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Most fighting games use best of five-best of nine rounds and best of 3 sets though. With 99 second timers, that allocates 8 and a quarter up to nearly 15 minutes for each set in the worst case scenario.

Even on a 60 real-second timer, that's 15-27 minutes allowed for the "longest scenario" of sets, discounting time on the CSS or button checks.

I'm pretty sure Smash's maximum of 24 minute sets discounting CSS and warmups is fine.

I do think 7 minutes would be more appropriate to accommodate 1 minute per stock, but 1 minute 9 seconds for a stock isn't terrible.

5 minutes would be pretty awful. Many games go to just over 4 minutes and encouraging running the clock an extra 40 seconds doesn't sound like it would make any ordinary set shorter.

The timer isn't made to be "played to." It's made to encourage the losing player to have to approach eventually. Make the timer too short and it specifically encourages timing out. Make it too long and its existence becomes negligible. It's there for the specific situation of say, a losing Sheik ledge camping. By making it clear to the Sheik that you do not need to approach, it forces her to stop ledgecamping by proxy because it's a zero-sum venture. If she should choose to ledgecamp for 7 minutes while behind then she is choosing to run an extremely risky and tiring gambit.

5 minutes would be fine if the game used like 3 stocks, but we have two more lives to account for.

 

[B.W.]

Why shouldn't the timer be made to be played to? It's a legitimate strategy many games have even outside of fighting games. Even if it's not what the timer was put in the game for, and it's never the reason it's actually there for. It's not like it's impossible to do in Smash either, so why shouldn't we fix it so that people playing to the timer don't have to do it for 8 minutes and frustrate everyone around them?

As it stands with an 8 minute timer, the losing player is not pressured to ever approach until very much of the time is up, the idea of lowering the timer is to make the losing player to feel that they need to approach sooner than they currently do.

We tried a 6 minute timer the day before yesterday, and we still felt the timer could be shortened as there was still plenty of time on the clock to spare. Once we took it down to 5 mins it seemed as though it was very much in a good spot.

I encourage you guys not only to just talk about the idea of lowering the timer, but you should actually do it yourselves. Start it at 5, let the people know what it was like? Did you time out constantly? Did you feel like there wasn't enough time in a match? Did you feel that there was too much time?

I want to see feedback from people actually trying a new timer out, whether it be friendly matches, money matches or anything. Don't just speak in theory.

 

[Strong Badam]

the short answer is I agree with you
the long answer is the community has been using the same rules for too long and won't be willing to change, so it's mostly a lost cause.

 

[B.W.]

Well I am glad that you agree, but why does it have to be a lost cause?

I do feel that way for Melee, but Project: M is a new game, and I think that if enough people got together testing this out for Project: M then we could make other people see that we can make the timer more reasonable without making it too short.

It wouldn't be the first time a long time rule was changed for the better.

If you agree Strong Bad, next time you play friendlies with people ask if they'd mind setting the timer to around 5 mins and give us your thoughts.

I'm really pushing for this to change no matter how hard it might be to convince people.

 

[Spiffykins]

Since 8 minutes has been the standard for so long, changing it would have to happen gradually. Any tournaments wishing to try a shorter time limit would probably go with 7 or 6. I wouldn't want it any shorter than 6 to be honest.

 

[B.W.]

But have you tried it with lower than 6?

Try it before you knock it, please. If you have tried, then what was wrong with the 5?

That's what I'm getting at with this thread.

 

[Mithost]

We don't want close matches ending in time. Imagine if the final stock of Apex 2013 Brawl (Salem vs. M2K) ended in time instead of letting it finish. The match was hyped because of how close it was. I don't mind talking about dropping the timer, but I just want to point out that close matches timing out does not equal hype.

Outside of that, some experimenting would be pretty interesting. I've noticed how fast P:M is, and I've seen matches go only 2-4 minutes. The problem I can see arising is the increasing viability of timing out. In 2D fighters, timing out is fairly difficult at a higher level. The two characters will always be just one or two movements away from each other, and the defensive maneuvers usually only protect against one or two types of attack (low, high, medium, grab, etc). If you can successfully change your guard to maintain a lead, you deserve the round.

In Smash however, there is more area between the characters. Stages are huge in comparison (If Ike was in a traditional 2D fighter, his attacks would fill around a third of the entire horizontal plane), and they have a single feature that 2D fighters lack; the ledge. The ledge is like guarding is to 2D fighters, a player uses it as a tool to time out a win. The difference is how hard it is to break the guard. Breaking a ledge stall isn't just getting off the right attack on the wrong guard. To break a ledge stall, you have to jump off the stage, fight to break the opponent's pattern, and THEN beat them to the recovery. It's safe to say you are at more risk when you are trying to break a guard in smash, making timing out slightly easier for the player.

Timing out being easier isn't the only difference from 2D fighters. Like said earlier, 2D fighters use more rounds than smash does. When you time someone out in a 2D fighter, you win yourself 1/7th (1/9th in finals) of a match. If you time someone out in Smash, you win yourself 1/3rd (1/5th in most finals) of the match. This makes the outcome of each round more substantial, and thus makes timeouts (which are slightly easier) more substantial. Added with the fact that rounds are longer in Smash and that they take more effort (assuming an entire match in both games take the same amount of effort), there is essentially more at stake per round, making timing out a more sensitive way of ending a match.

Sorry for the big word wall. To finish it off, I'll end with this. When we lower the time limit in pretty much anything, the amount of times the time limit will be reached will go up. If players find that running the shortened time limit is easier than approaching, and approaching someone who is running the time is harder than fighting on the stage, the game will start to lean into a more defensive stance. It's ironic really, how lowering the timer a bit will make people attack less frequently, but this debate has happened in many places before and this is generally what comes out of it. There was a Brawl tournament that ran 1 stock and 3 minute timer, and that was able to make for aggressive, fast, and entertaining matches. It's where I would love this game to go, but I doubt such a substantial change would survive here.

 

[Spiffykins]

But have you tried it with lower than 6?

Try it before you knock it, please. If you have tried, then what was wrong with the 5?

That's what I'm getting at with this thread.

I haven't, but my own experience and preference wouldn't change my opinion much. I could set the timer to 15 in friendlies and that wouldn't make much difference either, but a tournament is a different deal. I'm not knocking the idea completely, but I think 7 or 6 would really need to be proven 100% okay before the community accepts it going lower.

As for what I think is wrong with it, some matchups would definitely be strained by a 5 minute timer. Imagine Sonic getting a lead against DDD on Dracula's or Norfair or Rumble Falls.

 

[B.W.]

We don't want close matches ending in time. Imagine if the final stock of Apex 2013 Brawl (Salem vs. M2K) ended in time instead of letting it finish. The match was hyped because of how close it was. I don't mind talking about dropping the timer, but I just want to point out that close matches timing out does not equal hype.

Outside of that, some experimenting would be pretty interesting. I've noticed how fast P:M is, and I've seen matches go only 2-4 minutes. The problem I can see arising is the increasing viability of timing out. In 2D fighters, timing out is fairly difficult at a higher level. The two characters will always be just one or two movements away from each other, and the defensive maneuvers usually only protect against one or two types of attack (low, high, medium, grab, etc). If you can successfully change your guard to maintain a lead, you deserve the round.

A timer being smaller does not have to greatly increase the viability of timing out if a reasonable set time is found. It may happen more often, but often times the only time players will fight for the time is when it's down low enough to do so, in any game. In 2D fighters most fight it out, those on the defensive side focus on landing anti-airs, zoning, or punishing attacks. A KO is still reached more often than not. Usually the only time a player even tries to go for a time out is when the timer is close to reaching it anyway. If it becomes the safe way to secure victory then that's the option the player will choose.

In Smash however, there is more area between the characters. Stages are huge in comparison (If Ike was in a traditional 2D fighter, his attacks would fill around a third of the entire horizontal plane), and they have a single feature that 2D fighters lack; the ledge. The ledge is like guarding is to 2D fighters, a player uses it as a tool to time out a win. The difference is how hard it is to break the guard. Breaking a ledge stall isn't just getting off the right attack on the wrong guard. To break a ledge stall, you have to jump off the stage, fight to break the opponent's pattern, and THEN beat them to the recovery. It's safe to say you are at more risk when you are trying to break a guard in smash, making timing out slightly easier for the player.

I can say I do understand this concern. You have much more space to run around in Smash, and the game is much more mobile than other fighters. But we have stage striking and banning which allows people to choose stages that keep people from easily selecting a stage that enables them to constantly run away easily. Even on larger stages pushing people to the edge of the stage is a tactic that happens regardless of the number on the timer.

The concern about the ledge is also understandable, but breaking a ledge stall is difficult regardless of the timer. If you're trying to "break this guard" timing out in Smash does not get "easier" it gets "shorter." This is an issue with Smash's mechanics, not the timer. If someone really wanted to, they could get their lead and just sit on the ledge for the rest of the match. If the person on the stage goes for the person on the ledge he's risking his stock, period. Timer doesn't matter. Hell I've seen a Melee match with Fox vs Jiggs on Battlefield, where Jiggs got the lead and stalled for the entire 8 mins. Every time Fox would try to attack Jiggs, he would end up losing a stock. There was nothing the Fox could do, so he waited for Jiggs to get off the ledge. It never happened. Jiggs ran the entire clock. It's just how the game's mechanics work. The only solution to the ledge issues would be for the PMBR to do something to make it harder to stall on the ledge for long periods of time.

Timing out being easier isn't the only difference from 2D fighters. Like said earlier, 2D fighters use more rounds than smash does. When you time someone out in a 2D fighter, you win yourself 1/7th (1/9th in finals) of a match. If you time someone out in Smash, you win yourself 1/3rd (1/5th in most finals) of the match. This makes the outcome of each round more substantial, and thus makes timeouts (which are slightly easier) more substantial. Added with the fact that rounds are longer in Smash and that they take more effort (assuming an entire match in both games take the same amount of effort), there is essentially more at stake per round, making timing out a more sensitive way of ending a match.

The idea isn't to make time outs easier, it's to keep matches from dragging on for too long (which, again, matches rarely go on for more than 4 mins) Also a time out in Marvel also allows the player to win 1/3rd a match, and even matches often end up with around 35 seconds or less left on the clock which turns to around 1 min and 10 secs or less, which is around the amount of time left when I was testing with 5 mins.[/quote]

Sorry for the big word wall. To finish it off, I'll end with this. When we lower the time limit in pretty much anything, the amount of times the time limit will be reached will go up. If players find that running the shortened time limit is easier than approaching, and approaching someone who is running the time is harder than fighting on the stage, the game will start to lean into a more defensive stance. It's ironic really, how lowering the timer a bit will make people attack less frequently, but this debate has happened in many places before and this is generally what comes out of it. There was a Brawl tournament that ran 1 stock and 3 minute timer, and that was able to make for aggressive, fast, and entertaining matches. It's where I would love this game to go, but I doubt such a substantial change would survive here.

Big walls of text are what I'm looking for. And I can see the concern in a shortened timer. The whole idea though is to test a shorter timer in friendlies or whatever kind of match to see if running the timer out really does become a problem. If 5 mins ends up being an issue when playing to win then we can bump it to 6. But I seriously doubt we need a 7 or 8 minute timer.

I haven't, but my own experience and preference wouldn't change my opinion much. I could set the timer to 15 in friendlies and that wouldn't make much difference either, but a tournament is a different deal. I'm not knocking the idea completely, but I think 7 or 6 would really need to be proven 100% okay before the community accepts it going lower.

As for what I think is wrong with it, some matchups would definitely be strained by a 5 minute timer. Imagine Sonic getting a lead against DDD on Dracula's or Norfair or Rumble Falls.

Stage Striking and Banning should prevent something like that from happening though. In this case I'd say it's Dedede's fault for not banning the stage. However, that's not to say that it couldn't happen anywhere else, though I played a few matches where I was T.Link and my step brother was DK on rumble falls and Dracula's Castle. The match still didn't time out. But I do acknowledge that T.Link is slower than Sonic and DK is faster than Dedede.

 

[GMaster171]

I think I'll try this, it makes sense to me, and seems like something that may be picked up if it proves to save time and not skew games (which I cant really see imo). Wont get back on this for awhile, I wont have a chance to play for almost a week, but will still try it.

Thing is, this seems like a suggestions about brawl that was made. iirc It was to set the damage ratio to 1.2, which prevented long silly CGs or MK strings, but didnt skew any character's strengths. Unfortunately, even tho it was proven to be effective, it just didn't grow on enough people to stick, and was lost. If this proves to be worth it, I'm just hoping it doesn't end up the same way.

 

[B.W.]

If we push for it, and it ends up actually being healthy for the game, it doesn't have to be.

If it ends up as a bad idea in the long run, I'll be the first supporter of the idea to openly admit that it shouldn't be done.

 

[Mithost]

My main point of all of that was that timing out is a bit more damaging to smash's metagame than other 2D fighter's metagame, and lowering the timer makes the option of timing out easier (the other person has less time to break the ledge stall, and the person ledge stalling has less chance of screwing up on their own). IIRC, brawl was trying to raise their timer to ten minutes or something to make timing out harder.

I would love to see a change in the timer if it encouraged aggressive, entertaining, and fair gameplay. I'm just getting all of the stuff that has already been argued out in brawl and melee. I've tried lowering the timer but I am not at a high enough competitive position to speak for a portion of the community. Lowering it down to 6 minutes really only becomes a problem when a match is played cautiously. I've seen matches hit 6 minutes where both players are playing fairly aggressively, where the only issue was the amount of good spacing on both sides.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Illustrating Mithost's last point, one of the greatest matches in the game's history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNCPGgZ_3ak

 

[The_NZA]

Playing to the clock is bad in smash because many characters have an easier time avoiding engagements than in a traditional 2d fighter.

 

[traffic.]

IIRC, brawl was trying to raise their timer to ten minutes

/me jumps off a bridge

 

[Kink-Link5]

The other alternatives discussed were lowering stock count and, briefly, using 1.1-1.2 damage ratio.

Which by the way 1-stock 3 minute Brawl matches are substantially more watchable than the normal affair with the game. Meanwhile 1.2 Damage ratio makes it more interesting to play since landing moves before getting to 120% actually means something.

 

[Spiffykins]

They've already done tournaments with 10 minute timers. SKTAR, for example.

 

[Juushichi]

Mostly because, iirc, Japan plays on a 10 minute timer.

 

[Overswarm]

Having played Melee, Brawl, and Project M in a competitive setting I can tell you that if the timer was only 5 minutes I would win absolutely every match via timeout because there'd be no reason not to.

Camping is very character-centric and a unique skill in of itself. If your goal is to just lower risk to yourself more than damage your opponent you can go a long time without getting hit; your opponent would have to make themselves vulnerable to "rush" you, which would further expand the % gap.

Timeouts are a legitimate form of victory and the current timer is barely adequate in Melee and Brawl in many matchups. If you have a careful peach vs. a careful Jigglypuff or Samus, you have a long match by default.

If you are on your 3rd stock high % against a fresh 2nd stock and get a gimp, making you essentially up 3-1 in stocks, it is not unheard of to lose as your opponent makes a comeback. If it took two minutes for this to occur, that means that you would have 3 minutes to run away from your opponent because you no longer have to damage them. Given how difficult it can be to land a straight kill move on a competent opponent at high %, you can imagine how irritating it would be in this situation. You'd finally kill them and have somewhere between seconds and three minutes to completely eliminate another stock and then deal enough damage so that you are ahead when the time runs out.

The crucial thing to realize here is that having an 8 minute timer makes running the timer a strategic choice that requires a specific skillset or a specific scenario that has been earned. Having a 5 minute timer makes winning via timeout the logical conclusion in many common scenarios.

Can you imagine playing Jigglypuff vs. Sonic when Sonic had a stock lead? It would be impossible to catch him unless he messed up.


If you are concerned about matches "taking too long" when someone is running the timer then you're moving the timer the wrong way. Increasing the timer or removing it altogether is what reduces the amount of timeouts, not the other way around.

There are only two scenarios where timeouts occur:

1. Someone like me says "imma win via timeout" and starts it from the beginning
2. Someone is winning, looks at the timer getting close to 0, and says "I'm going to camp now"

Decreasing the timer increases the prevalence of both. If you increase the timer, both situations happen less often. If you remove the two situations by removing the timer, it CAN'T happen so all you'd have to worry about is someone running away to be an asshat.

The only downside to increasing the timer is a visceral reaction a lot of dum-dums have and the possibility of games legitimately lasting that long, which is entirely possible. The frequency of which would likely be correlated with the amount of games that naturally get under a minute with 8 minutes (since games probably end under a minute with people getting more desparate). If you have that data you could probably get a specific ratio. You could get even more accurate if you found out who had the most timeouts and compared them with "0" and the amount of games that naturally get within a minute, but no one has that info. Removing the timer results in the possibility of having a game where neither player will approach, which has its own slew of issues (although most of these could be solved by a TO-decided dual disqualification of both players and removing them both from bracket entirely, it'd be unneccessary to add to the tournament scene)

Anyway, decreasing the timer is an idiot's solution to a non-existent problem. You can't force people to finish games faster or play more aggressive and if your entire purpose of shortening the timer is "I'm bored, I dun wanna watch games that long" then you aren't helping the competitive nature of the game. If you just hate the idea of people winning via time, I disagree with you and also am confused by your solution.

 

[B.W.]

This isn't a guaranteed "solution" to the problem at hand. The problem really isn't, "people time out all the time and it takes too long" it's "what is gonna happen when people realize timing out/running away is a completely valid strategy?"

No where does it say "the timer needs to be shortened because I'm bored and don't want to watch games take that long." I think Hungrybox vs. Armada was a fantastic and entertaining match to the point where I've watched it multiple times. It doesn't mean that an 8 minute timer is necessary.

It still sounds as though people are speaking in theory. Saying things such as "having played smash competitively, I can tell you" etc implies that you haven't actually done what I was asking of players in the first place, so here it is in a list

1. Try a shorter timer (It doesn't have to be 5 mins, that's just my personal suggestion), over and over again in friendlies or any kind of match.
2. Come to this thread posting your thoughts on the timer settings you used. Did it time out a bunch? Did it add too much pressure to rush down a campy character/player?
3. Talk about what amount of time you think might be fair.

The point of the thread isn't just to decrease it to 5 mins. It's to find a lower amount of time that does not greatly effect how the game currently plays. 5 mins could very possibly greatly effect the game, but you can't be sure until you've given it a shot.

 

[Overswarm]

This isn't a guaranteed "solution" to the problem at hand. The problem really isn't, "people time out all the time and it takes too long" it's "what is gonna happen when people realize timing out/running away is a completely valid strategy?"

No where does it say "the timer needs to be shortened because I'm bored and don't want to watch games take that long." I think Hungrybox vs. Armada was a fantastic and entertaining match to the point where I've watched it multiple times. It doesn't mean that an 8 minute timer is necessary.

I believe there are problems with the current standard timer in the sense that if a player wants to play to the clock then he must drag the match out for much longer than his opponent, the audience, and in most cases even himself desires.

In what fashion would an audience not want the match to "drag out" for a long period of time not be considered to be part of "people time out and it takes too long"?

It still sounds as though people are speaking in theory. Saying things such as "having played smash competitively, I can tell you" etc implies that you haven't actually done what I was asking of players in the first place, so here it is in a list

1. Try a shorter timer (It doesn't have to be 5 mins, that's just my personal suggestion), over and over again in friendlies or any kind of match.
2. Come to this thread posting your thoughts on the timer settings you used. Did it time out a bunch? Did it add too much pressure to rush down a campy character/player?
3. Talk about what amount of time you think might be fair.

The point of the thread isn't just to decrease it to 5 mins. It's to find a lower amount of time that does not greatly effect how the game currently plays. 5 mins could very possibly greatly effect the game, but you can't be sure until you've given it a shot.

I tested every variable time setting from 3 minutes to 12 minutes and infinite time with 4 stock in both Melee and Brawl. Admittedly have not done this in Project M.

The results were the same in both Melee and Brawl. People naturally adapt to the timer when the timer gets lower; there is no discernible difference between 8 minutes, 12 minutes, or 99 minutes as far as a player's actions in-game are concerned. When the timer gets lower, people start to react. It seems to vary amongst players and characters (some like to time out, some are more likely to time out, some are simply better suited to time out), but it's always the moment when someone realizes "I can win/lose by time" as a legitimate possibility that is also easier than simply winning by conquest.

If you outskill your opponent then winning by time is irrelevant. You simply will it to happen and it does. Your opponent can't do anything about it anyway.

But if you are of near equal skill or are on the lower end, winning by time is an attractive option. If you get a gimp and are effectively ahead by two stocks, you almost automatically take a more guided approach than if you are on the other end of that spectrum. Go watch some videos, you'll find it true on a consistent basis. The panicky player will take more risks and repeatedly attempt to get that perfect grab or tilt or whatever starts their killer combos. The one who is ahead will be patient and wait for prime opportunities (assuming he is equally skilled). If it's easier... they'll simply let the timer run out.

Some do this with only 30 seconds left on the clock, others with 2 minutes, but everyone does it. Anyone who doesn't is an idiot or a liar.

Because of this the timer itself is irrelevant. What's more important is the stock ratio between the players in regards to the remaining time. If it takes an average of a minute to take a player's stock and he has 2 stocks left with 1 minute remaining, he should win by time by default. The timer is meant to make that victory condition something to be earned and not given by chance.

Lowering the timer results in more timeouts across the board. Once people play to the timer deliberately and become attuned to how much time they have, you get more or less depending on the timer.

We have an incredibly small amount of timeouts. I went through Brawl MLG matches and the number of timeouts was miniscule across hundreds of games. Melee has even less. The timer currently does its job and makes timeouts only occur when two players are evenly matched and both playing defensively and patiently and it rewards the better of the two without making us grow old.

 

[Mithost]

The other alternatives discussed were lowering stock count and, briefly, using 1.1-1.2 damage ratio.

Which by the way 1-stock 3 minute Brawl matches are substantially more watchable than the normal affair with the game. Meanwhile 1.2 Damage ratio makes it more interesting to play since landing moves before getting to 120% actually means something.

I don't like changing the damage ratio because it changes how combos line up and there are easier ways to make the game faster. 1 stock 3 minute timer was one of the most interesting things to watch, and it made brawl fast enough to be entertaining for both the player and spectators.

Everything stated by overswarm states my opinion further on how timer decrease = more common timeouts (which the smash community has already deemed as "bad"

 

[Overswarm]

I don't deem them as bad. I just deem anything being an inevitability is bad. You should be able to camp or play aggro and deal with the advantages and disadvantages of doing so, unhindered by the ruleset.

 

[Kink-Link5]

You are not the smash community Overswarm.

 

[Overswarm]

You are not the smash community Overswarm.

Yes I am. It's just me, you, and my thousands of alternate accounts on smashboards.

 

[Kink-Link5]

SHHHH

Don't let them know that. They're pretty committed to the lie.

But yeah the general consensus is that the timer was made as long as it is for a reason and timeouts were never meant to be an intentional goal of gameplay, and only come about as a result of two very safe players and to accommodate long matchups because not every character is all-or-nothing like Falcon.

 

[Overswarm]

But yeah the general consensus is that the timer was made as long as it is for a reason and timeouts were never meant to be an intentional goal of gameplay, and only come about as a result of two very safe players and to accommodate long matchups because not every character is all-or-nothing like Falcon.

Where in the world are you getting this from? I was part of the back room during both Melee and Brawl and there was never an actual "reason" for 8 minutes. The timer was chosen at 8 minutes as an educated guess originally. Two minutes per stock, 4 stock, 4x2 = 8. 8 minutes. Enough time for two competent players to decide a victor and short enough to where a TO's tournament wouldn't fall apart. In Brawl we found 3 stock / 8 minutes worked better. We tried other time limits, but raising the time limit past 8 minutes would be too difficult for any tournament to have; there just isn't time for that many games to go to time. Games have to end for a tournament to continue; this is the primary reason for a timer's existence in the first place.

Within the timer a player can pretty much win how he pleases. When Hyrule Temple is suggested as a stage we don't solve circle camping with "you can't run the timer". Winning via timeout has never been frowned upon as a rule. You are allowed to win by just running away and throwing bombs with Toon Link, spin camping with Sonic, laser camping with Fox, whatever you'd like. It's only when a strategy itself is so good that it becomes centralizing that it is ever been addressed.



If you didn't want someone to win via timeout, the current ruleset makes no sense.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Jesus you're difficult to talk to.

 

[Doctor X]

One thing people may or may not realize about the time limit is that it was added at a point in the metagame where spamming roll-dodges, dropping combos, and simply letting your opponent back on the stage were common. People were really, really bad at Melee in 2003. Matches taking a long time was an actual concern as very few people were confident and knowledgeable enough to play aggressively with money on the line. As a result any time limits below 8 minutes seemed like they might be game-destroying. Some tournaments were still being played with 3-stocks, with matches ending in 5+ minutes. That's how inefficient 2003 players were. To them, 8 minutes wasn't considered an absurdly long match.

As people got better, the problem that the time limit rules were intended to solve disappeared. 2006-present Melee matches use 4 stocks and end in like 3-4 minutes tops. Some might see this as an indication that time limit rules should be changed, but personally I can't understand why anyone would want to fix what isn't broken. The 8-minute timer has worked very well for Melee, and we don't need more matches to end in timeout to prove that it matters. Taking stocks almost always requires an approach because most projectiles don't kill. A player who is a stock behind must therefore approach at some point in the next 4-7 or so minutes or they will face a guaranteed loss. How can that not matter?

Edit:

Jesus you're difficult to talk to.

You'll find this less so if you stop defending every one of your arbitrary notions to the death.

 

[B.W.]

Games have to end for a tournament to continue; this is the primary reason for a timer's existence in the first place.

Within the timer a player can pretty much win how he pleases. When Hyrule Temple is suggested as a stage we don't solve circle camping with "you can't run the timer". Winning via timeout has never been frowned upon as a rule. You are allowed to win by just running away and throwing bombs with Toon Link, spin camping with Sonic, laser camping with Fox, whatever you'd like. It's only when a strategy itself is so good that it becomes centralizing that it is ever been addressed..

This is what I'm getting at. I understand we don't want timeouts to be too strong, nor do we want them to happen too often. But when a matchup calls for excessive camping or running, do we really want to deal with 8 minutes of it?

I was never asking to make timouts a thing in Smash. Time out after time out would be boring and frustrating, but I still don't think we need 8 minutes to make it happen less.

I can see 5 mins being too small, but that's why I asked people to test it. 6 mins could be better as it wouldn't really make timing people out easier do to it being faster, but it wouldn't take so long to get the time out if the matchup was calling for the clock to be run anyway.

Though if people would prefer, experiment with different stocks too, I wouldn't mind playing with 3 or maybe even 2 stocks.

But I feel something could be done to shorten the time matches take in the long run.

 

[Overswarm]

This is what I'm getting at. I understand we don't want timeouts to be too strong, nor do we want them to happen too often. But when a matchup calls for excessive camping or running, do we really want to deal with 8 minutes of it?

Yes.

There is no such thing as excessive camping or running. If you don't like how someone is playing within the confines of a rule, that's fine. You're allowed to note like it. If you notice that it wins so often that it is a centralizing strategy, that can be important to.... but if you consider changing the rules to deal with something like "excessive camping or running" you are being a scrub.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the 8 minutes however is necessary. You don't put toon link vs. Jigglypuff or Peach vs. Samus into a tournament and say "Oh, sheesh, this match is gonna be SUPER long so we're just gonna lower this timer down to 5 minutes. That cool?"

I was never asking to make timouts a thing in Smash. Time out after time out would be boring and frustrating, but I still don't think we need 8 minutes to make it happen less.

You're coming at this from the perspective of "time outs are bad" when they aren't bad at all. They are a legitimate form of victory. They may not be as flashy as others, but they are still a legitimate form of victory. A less skilled player will not beat a more skilled player consistently by simply attempting to run the clock.

Knowing this, we can't deliberately alter gameplay elements to simply make the game "more fast paced" for random spectator's liking. Some characters are slow.

If you think 8 minutes is simply too long for a tournament to have and still finish on time, that's a whole different ball game. Tournament finishing has to come first and I myself have lowered time limits to guarantee that they do. If you think 8 minutes is simply too boring when it occurs though, you're off your rocker. If we had enough time we'd have infinite time so that way we'd get the final result without a timer interfering, but we have to have it to guarantee a finish (without additional rulings).

I can see 5 mins being too small, but that's why I asked people to test it. 6 mins could be better as it wouldn't really make timing people out easier do to it being faster, but it wouldn't take so long to get the time out if the matchup was calling for the clock to be run anyway.

Though if people would prefer, experiment with different stocks too, I wouldn't mind playing with 3 or maybe even 2 stocks.

Why? How many timeouts do you even see?

You're proposing a faulty solution to a non-existent problem because....why?

 

[Mithost]

I'm pretty damn sure the smash community (TOs, players, spectators, and the back rooms) have decided that they don't want timeouts to be a frequent/reasonable option of winning a match. Sure the 8 minute timer was thought up due to the 2x4 estimation, but I can guarantee that there has been experimenting and tweaks to the timer and people stuck with 8 minutes because it worked best. If we started with 1 stock 3 min timer, some people would probably argue that it should be dropped due to Tournament scheduling/timing out, which would play out the same way it is here.

Another thing that people fail to notice is that if we lower the timer, timing out becomes more valid and then more games go to time. Most games hit around 3-5 minutes, but if we lower the timer to say, six minutes, more people will be looking at that 6 minute mark than the 3-5 minute mark. This essentially would make matches LONGER than before.

We punish the players who play defensive characters by forcing them to be aggro earlier on, and we reward people who get early leads and change to a camping style to keep it. On top of that, we punish both TOs and spectators by making the matches longer. Streams drop viewers when people camp. just sayin

 

[#HBC | Joker]

so basically you're saying that people who don't necessarily understand the game, or competition, are the ones who should influence the ruleset?

It's not "the smash community" who decided they didn't like timeouts. It's scrubs on smashboards who don't like them.

 

[B.W.]

Overswarm you're misunderstanding me still.

It's not a problem now because no one is making it a problem. Melee has taught people to play aggressively and the Melee top tiers are all good at a very aggressive playstyle. I'd say in Melee, if we were to change the timer we'd have a very slight change in tier list because some characters would end up relying on time, but those characters still wouldn't get to even the high tiers as the characters on top have those spots on lock.

In P:M camping is much easier as the characters who are able to do it are much more viable. Should some of the characters want to, they can run the 8 minutes without worry, they can already play to the timer. It's not that they necessarily need to, but they are able to. The reason it doesn't happen is because players aren't willing to do it for a whole 8 minutes, which is really what it mostly comes down to. Players do not want to drag the match along, but I'm sure eventually people will come who will run the entire 8 minutes because it's not as difficult to do.

On the other hand, this game is much more balanced and all the characters are very powerful. If they land a hit and can combo off it's very common for them to end up losing a stock as they have the tools to do so. Everyone has a the tools to do big damage and almost everyone has at least one reliable attack for killing, and most characters have excellent edge guarding tools.

Both playstyles are buffed in this game, campy/projectile spammy characters could spam all day, and if they secure a lead they very well could run the clock for 8 mins while chipping away at the opponent, forcing him to approach and only going for the kill when the killing hit is guaranteed to land and kill. Likewise, rushdown characters are still as strong as ever and once they get a hold of you, if they're doing everything correctly your stock is forfeit.

Because of all of this, I don't feel as though the timer being decreased would very much change how the game is played since regardless of the timer, the person in the lead is (or should be) playing more defensively, using their dash dance to be hard to hit and force mistakes so that they can keep on the defensive, making little hits that will allow them to kill outright to maintain a lead, only going for large combos if their in a position that it is guaranteed to land (which happens more often in P:M than in Melee as most characters now have moves that start combos that are also safe). Then it is the person who's losing who has to land the a hit that will allow them to catch up and eventually take the lead.

You say matches will go longer than average because we would start making people run away for that extra little bit of time, but really we already shift back and forth like a game of tag. Smart players don't approach when they have the lead unless they are sure an even bigger lead will come of it, and despite this fact 4 stock matches still tend to only take 3-4 mins in P:M. Making the switch to retreat rather than approach isn't encouraged by the timer, it's encouraged by being a stock or more ahead of your opponent. The most that will happen is the losing player will feel more pressured to try to take the lead once you're playing on the last minute/few seconds, and that can't even be considered a bad thing. If a player can't keep their cool on that last minute while trying to come back then it's something they need to work on.

 

[Overswarm]

Both playstyles are buffed in this game, campy/projectile spammy characters could spam all day, and if they secure a lead they very well could run the clock for 8 mins while chipping away at the opponent, forcing him to approach and only going for the kill when the killing hit is guaranteed to land and kill. Likewise, rushdown characters are still as strong as ever and once they get a hold of you, if they're doing everything correctly your stock is forfeit.

Believe it or not, both "campy" and "rushdown" characters play by camping and forcing or tricking their opponent into making themselves vulnerable. A lot of people equate Fox and Falco with high level play, but attacking someone's shield, shining, and then continuing shield pressure is a rarity shared only by a select few characters. It isn't the norm. Even with Fox and Falco it's not the best strategy nor is it employed by the most successful ones.

If you watch top Captain Falcon players play, they don't simply run up and throw out moves or grabs and hope to get lucky. They make hard reads based off opponents patterns and common tendencies, sure. Many times they'll do something like nair through their shield and land behind them so they can't be grabbed. But the majority of the time they are simply throwing aerials out in unoccupied space, dash dancing just outside of range, and enticing their opponent to attack them and then punishing them in the lag. Good captain falcon players have trained themselves to grab their opponent the moment they put their shield up. Watching Darkrain play from years ago you'll see a blip of a shield for just a moment before he gets a grab and then starts a death combo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3YJpIH63cc

Watch the first stock at least of that game. Notice anything? Falcon is throwing out moves to control space, landing behind shield, spacing as far as he possibly can when hitting the shield, and waiting for an opening.

The only difference between that and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twwXHDIVBc

Is that Young Link's effective range is much higher and Jigglypuff's effective speed is much lower.

That's it.

Young Link is just staying outside of Jigglypuff's effective range and throwing bombs to control space and slightly hoping to hit Jiggs, just like Falcon was hoping to control space and hopefully hit peach with nairs. The fact that one seems more "exciting" is irrelevant.

Now watch this match:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vphTto5RzLc

Immediately after the first stock, what does M2K do? He stands by the edge and doesn't leave. Know why? It limits Falcon's options substantially and means his death if he knocks him off stage. A lot of people call this boring, but a lot of people also don't 4 stock Darkrain.

You know what the solution for Captain Falcon is in that situation? Absolutely nothing, because Falcon is a garbage character in that situation. He has no projectile and has nothing safe on shield and dies the moment he's off stage. But if he was someone with a projectile? He'd be an idiot to approach the ledge. Behind or no, he'd run around and shoot projectiles until he got the guarantee. If he didn't, he'd end up like Falcon did in this video. If it was easier, he'd attempt to run the timer.

Wanting to change the timer simply because you don't like it is the pinnacle of noobish behavior. Not only does it not work and not only are timeouts a legitimate form of victory, but it's an entire style of play that some characters are actually designed around!

What you don't understand is that attacking when you don't have the advantage is what bad players do and good players will camp just outside of range and throw out moves that make them seem vulnerable when they aren't. Good players will run away and throw projectiles if that's what is effective. Good players will camp the ledge if that is what will let them win. If they can run the timer they will run the timer. Running the timer isn't a BAD thing. It's a choice made by the players when they are presented with a situation that makes timing the opponent out a more likely path to victory. Our current timer doesn't lend itself to timeouts by default and it allows them when a player deliberately attempts it and his opponent can't stop it. What legitimate reason do you have to change it?

It's not a problem now because no one is making it a problem.

You say this as if an increase in time outs caused deliberately by players of their own volition would somehow be a problem. The solution to someone timing you out is ti not let them. I'm not trying to explain numbers or situations to you, I'm trying to get you to understand competitive philosophy. We have to have a timer to guarantee that games will end. The timer has been set for nearly a decade at 8 minutes that has resulted in timeouts being a rarity; I can think of only one game in my history of playing Smash that actually went to time against both player's will. Some find timeouts distasteful and that is within their right, but changing the timer to remove a legitimate victory condition skews the game against characters that are advantaged by using the timer as a weapon.

 

[Zenrot]

This will probably get ignored since I have no status (considering I made an account to post this, but)...


The argument against OP seems to be the fact that you claim he is "embodying noobish behavior by making time-outs inviable and/or appealing only to excitement", when this is not the case. You state he "lacks competitive understanding by claiming that time-outs are not a viable method of victory when in fact they are", yes, because he is arguing that the timer is a non-factor in the current smash metagame. The timer is not there to "cause games to eventually have to end", the timer is a natural part of competitive games, not just video games. How often is a professional football game decided by the clock? By making the timer so long or, as you put it, "in an ideal situation we would have infinite time so a match can end properly", you take that aspect of the game away. Ideally the game would not have "infinite" time, because that favors the aggressor 100%. You put unfair, and undue, pressure on a defensive player to play better than his opponent for a longer period of time. Offense is naturally stronger than defense in most fighting games because offensive characters can deal naturally higher damage that is also unavoidable via combos, dealt in single chunks of heavy damage. Defesnsive characters often deal significantly less damage upon striking solid contact and rely on chipping away at an opponents health via (avoidable) projectiles to even the field.

Fighting games, 2D fighters being my frame of reference, run at the times he has stated in the opening post. For those familiar with the metagame of Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, the most powerful force in the metagame right now is the "MorriDoom" shell (Morrigan/Dr. Doom). It is an inherently defensive style that is designed to minimize risk to oneself and prioritize the usage of projectiles over direct offense. It rarely results in a time over. Why is that?

Because defense is also a form of pressure. By utilizing effective evasive/defensive/counter-attacking strategies you force the opponent to press offense in a disadvantageous situation. This of course has two possible outcomes that result in victory for the defensive player, one being a KO dealt from damage sustained trying to pierce through the opponents defenses unwisely, the other being a "time over" victory. Both of these are not only totally acceptable methods of victory, I would argue they are both absolutely required for a defensive player to have even footing in any fighter. If Captain Falcon or Shiek can obliterate me when they touch me, why should I have to put in so much more effort to evade them for an entire 8 minutes when all they have to do is touch me to leave me crippled? Playing the clock is a viable strategy and an integral part of competition, one that you deny more and more the longer you make the clock.

Smash of course is different from a traditional "fighter". There are stronger defensive options that aid a defensive player, but and 8 minute timer removes the timer from the equation as nearly no game lasts that long. Even dissenters to OP's idea are stating matches seem to last "2-4 minutes". The argument that stream viewers drop when people camp is irrelevant, its part of competition. Half of you are arguing about competitive mindset for the player, the other half is arguing for the viewer. Both of those arguments are not contradictory to OP's argument at all, he simply advocates lowering the timer to actually make the timer relevant in gameplay. What is the point of a mechanic set to "ensure matches eventually end"?

Running the timer isn't a BAD thing. It's a choice made by the players when they are presented with a situation that makes timing the opponent out a more likely path to victory. Our current timer doesn't lend itself to timeouts by default and it allows them when a player deliberately attempts it and his opponent can't stop it. What legitimate reason do you have to change it?

The fact that your timer is, currently, a non-factor in games that should have it as a standard possibility for victory. You keep saying running the clock isn't a bad thing, while advocating a clock that makes it unfairly difficult to do.

 

[Doctor X]

The fact that your timer is, currently, a non-factor in games that should have it as a standard possibility for victory.

Again... as this needs to be said again, and again, and again, apparently: Games rarely ending in timeouts does not mean that the timer is a "non-factor." You just cited an example of this yourself, from Marvel. Any timer of any length puts pressure to act on the player who is behind, which defensive players can exploit. The game will still probably end before the timer expires, but it still influences the outcome.

You keep saying running the clock isn't a bad thing, while advocating a clock that makes it unfairly difficult to do.

No, we're advocating a clock that makes it just as difficult to do as it damn well should be. If you make it too easy, it becomes the most optimal strategy for many characters in many matchups. We don't want any strategy to be the "most optimal." As it stands, playing defensively can already be very strong, and as noted before we don't need actual timeouts to be common for this to be true.

The OP's suggestion would not make Young Link vs. Jigglypuff any more interesting. It'd simply cause more matchups to be played like Young Link vs. Jigglypuff. This is not a good thing. Timeouts are not bad, but when any strategy becomes the default best way to play, the game becomes very boring.

-

I will add the following having reviewed Project-05's posts and OS's further. I do think OS is off-base in saying that Project-05's desires are scrubby, born of a distaste for timeouts. If anything, it seems like Project-05 wants timeouts to be more viable, without requiring players to draw matches out to unpleasant lengths that put stream viewers to sleep. With a 5-minute timer, a player could intentionally run the clock without it seeming like a chore.

So... I think I understand your perspective, Project-05; correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong then I do think OS is wrong.

That being said, however, long years of both playing and watching Melee reveals flaws in this perspective. Timeouts are uncommon in Melee not because players aren't smart enough to try them, or because they're insane enough to care more about stream viewership than hundreds or thousands of dollars of prize money.

Intentional timeouts are uncommon because they are difficult. You must evade your opponent for a very long time, and sometimes your clear, single-minded plan to avoid confrontation can make you predictable, especially given the amount of time your opponent has to deduce your habits. In most matchups, what will normally happen if you play purely for a timeout is that the other player catches on to your usual escape paths, lands a few key hits, and seizes the lead.

Again, this is a good thing. It means you can't use a single-minded, one-dimensional strategy to win. You need to be able to switch between defense and aggression at the right times in order to keep your opponent guessing.

 

[Octorox]

I know this isn't currently possible but what would people think about a timer that starts really low but adds some time every time a stock is taken. Let's say for example that in a four stock match that the timer starts at 3 minutes and then every stock taken by either player adds a minute to the timer. So say the first stock is taken at 1:57 left on the clock, that will go up to 2:57, if the next stock is taken at 1:36 that will go up to 2:36. This would make the timer always pretty low and taking a stock could buy you time so in theory players would want to play pretty aggressively. I'm not really talking about the specific time amounts, just the general idea.

 

[Zenrot]

No, we're advocating a clock that makes it just as difficult to do as it damn well should be. If you make it too easy, it becomes the most optimal strategy for many characters in many matchups. We don't want any strategy to be the "most optimal." As it stands, playing defensively can already be very strong, and as noted before we don't need actual timeouts to be common for this to be true.

The OP's suggestion would not make Young Link vs. Jigglypuff any more interesting. It'd simply cause more matchups to be played like Young Link vs. Jigglypuff. This is not a good thing. Timeouts are not bad, but when any strategy becomes the default best way to play, the game becomes very boring.

Ah friend but there in lies the question... Have you tested anything else? He's not asking you to upheave your entire system and completely change everything, he's merely asking "I think we should all test some other times". Have you tested 6-7 minutes? Will time out's suddenly become "incredibly optimal" by docking those 2 minutes? Or are you simply saying that it will become "too easy", "optimal", and "the default way to play" with no basis for those statements? If you have tested earlier times and found that timing out became the metagame maybe look around it. But someone's post (the condescending one, I believe, I forget his username) stated "I've even had to cut matches short so tournaments could run on time". Maybe that is just because your matches run too long?

Intentional timeouts are uncommon because they are difficult. You must evade your opponent for a very long time, and sometimes your clear, single-minded plan to avoid confrontation can make you predictable, especially given the amount of time your opponent has to deduce your habits. In most matchups, what will normally happen if you play purely for a timeout is that the other player catches on to your usual escape paths, lands a few key hits, and seizes the lead.

This seems opposite to what you just said. You said that cutting the time would make them far too easy. Dropping a match from 8 to 6-7 minutes should not bridge the gap between "difficult" and "default metagame strategy" without at least warranting testing.

EDIT: As far as the "non-factor" statement goes, 8 minutes is an obscenely long time from most fighting game standpoints. It is a non-factor not because there are "few" time outs, but because the timer is so long it is almost not a concern in any way.