Project: M Standard Timer Setting Discussion

[#HBC | Joker]

most matches end in about 5 minutes, or sometimes less. The problem with lowering the timer any more than it already is, is that yes, it would encourage timeouts ALL THE TIME. Every match that came down to last hit would probably end up getting played differently, because the person who's slightly ahead would look at the 6minute clock and see that he only has to avoid his opponent for about 45 more seconds to win. That's dumb, and it would happen literally all the time, because a match going to 6minutes isn't even a slightly unreasonable expectation with certain characters. People wouldn't have to work for a timeout, they'd just get free timeout opportunities a lot more often. And people who DO work for their timeouts? They'd probably win, like, all the time, because they thought timeouts were a good idea when the timer was 8 minutes. 2 more minutes is a big deal when it comes to "can I play keepaway during this timespan?"

As it is, with 8 minutes, a timeout is a logical strategy for certain characters, without being their default strategy across the board. With 6 or 5 minutes, characters who never dreamed of trying for timeouts would probably end up seeing them happen all too often.

 

[B.W.]

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.

This is the kind of post I've been looking for. Yes, intentional timouts are uncommon because they are difficult. My argument here is that they are too difficult.

Now I don't want time outs to become the optimal strategy (special thanks going out to Zenrot for helping me clear this up), but I do want the timer to be part of the match. With the setting at 8 minutes, people rarely even pay the timer any mind because there's no point. During my break with other fighting games I learned to keep an eye on the clock, knowing how much time is actually a lot of time during a round or game. Because of this I started paying attention to it more in Smash. In traditional 2D fighters when the game is coming down to the last few hits the timer is often running pretty low at like 17 seconds or so (and I really tend to look at the timer at around 17 seconds for some reason). In Smash now I do the same with the 8 minute timer and even with my defensive and campy Toon Link vs anyone on bigger stages, when I check the timer on the last stock with heavy damage to both players it's normally either just recently hit or is just about to hit the 4 minute mark. The timer is indeed, in just about every matchup, a non-factor.

And while I was looking for cases of the 8 minute timer almost running I only came across one thing that made it do so more than others and that thing was Jigglypuff and that's due to the fact that you have to play a lot more carefully against Jigglypuff. It's not a bad thing, but one single character is not enough of an argument for "8 minutes is needed to make matches not time out."

I've even stated that all I am proposing is that we fiddle with timer options in practice (and if you feel like testing the setting further in tournament).

This is supposed to be a test and I can't really test it alone. I'm not asking we change it out right, I'm asking we give it a shot in our spare time and talk it over. Putting the time setting lower for friendlies or cheap ($1 MMs) for a test is really not asking that much.

 

[Doctor X]

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.

Again, I go for the rule of not fixing what isn't broken. There is not a single established Melee player who thinks the timer needs to be changed. We know this, because the timer has been the same for 10 years.

Edit: I will add that Project M changes things, and may give us reason for this consideration. So far this seems a stretch, though. Fox still works the same way as before, and I know of more than one Fox player who would jump at the opportunity to take a stock and then laser camp for 2-3 minutes. Most of the cast would be powerless to stop him, and by the time they actually caught him and took the stock the timer would be too low to make up the percents done by lasers.

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?

Overswarm is speaking of Brawl, I am certain. He did not run Melee events and believe me, if he did, no such measures would be necessary.

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.

It might warrant testing if there was really a problem worth the effort it would take to test it, but again... there isn't. My intuition tells me that it would create far more problems than it would solve simply based on the fact there is no real problem for it to solve in the first place. Young Link vs. Jiggs is not exactly a definitive matchup in tournament play.

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.

Smash is not "most fighting games." It isn't even really a fighting game by many popular standards of that genre. Time limits have a much different dynamic in a game where platforms exist, block damage doesn't, and dashing through or jumping over your opponent without attacking them is a thing that can happen.

And once again, man, the timer is a concern. It has always been a concern since it was first implemented. Nobody who knows anything about his game will tell you that it is not a concern. How many times do we have to say this, because holy crap, dude.

Call me condescending, too, if you want, but really. The timer's existence plays a huge role in whether or not you should approach. How long is actually left on it doesn't matter quite as much as the knowledge that it is there.

 

[Zenrot]

Again, I go for the rule of not fixing what isn't broken. There is not a single established Melee player who thinks the timer needs to be changed. We know this, because the timer has been the same for 10 years.

Melee and P:M are relatively similar as most "sequels" (or whatever you wish to call it) to popular fighters are, but I feel that saying everything that works for Melee will automatically work for P:M is unfair, and the game should have a chance to develop it's own metagame instead of just having melee's ruleset pushed on top of it.

And once again, man, the timer is a concern. It has always been a concern since it was first implemented. Nobody who knows anything about his game will tell you that it is not a concern. How many times do we have to say this, because holy crap, dude. Call me condescending, too, if you want, but really. The timer's existence plays a huge role in whether or not you should approach. How long is actually left on it doesn't matter quite as much as the knowledge that it is there.

This isn't a condescending comment, so I have no reason to. Anyways, asteroids exist in space and may one day hit the earth. I know that its there but its not a concern I carry. Obviously a massive over-exaggeration, but that is the argument here, knowing that it is there is not the same as it being a viable gameplay strategy, difficult or not. You stating that it is "of concern because it exists" maybe be how you look at it, but I look at it as "I have as much time as I need to do whatever I want". 8 minutes is a very long time to push on a new game just because "It's worked for 10 years in Melee". Sentinel was top tier for 10 years in Marvel 2, but a new game brings a new meta with it. P:M isn't even fully done yet, more work should be going into establishing its own metagame instead of making it "Super Smash Brothers Melee Arcade Edition version 2013".

 

[Doctor X]

P:M isn't even fully done yet, more work should be going into establishing its own metagame instead of making it "Super Smash Brothers Melee Arcade Edition version 2013".

"Super Smash Brothers Melee Arcade Edition version 2013" is precisely what Project M is, though. The stated goal of the mod is to re-create Melee in every respect, barring some new characters, stages, and a few balance tweaks. It is not a "new game" in the same sense that Marvel 3 was a new game. It is not a sequel. It's the same game, almost to a tee.

 

[Octorox]

As an alternative to my other idea, what if the Timer reset with each stock? So say for example a two minute timer in a four stock match but each time a stock is taken it resets to two minutes.

 

[Zenrot]

"Super Smash Brothers Melee Arcade Edition version 2013" is precisely what Project M is, though. The stated goal of the mod is to re-create Melee in every respect, barring some new characters, stages, and a few balance tweaks. It is not a "new game" in the same sense that Marvel 3 was a new game. It is not a sequel. It's the same game, almost to a tee.

Not to such an extent, but I feel that with a new metagame should always come testing to develop it. Things changed in the transition from Street Fighter 4, to Super, to AE, to AE 2012. Things should, at the very least have the chance, to change here as well.

 

[B.W.]

The timer's existence plays a huge role in whether or not you should approach. How long is actually left on it doesn't matter quite as much as the knowledge that it is there.

This is the thing. The timer's existence plays a huge role in whether or not you should approach? At what point? When we've passed the 7 minute mark? Even if you do have the lead, if you're not looking for a way to make some kind of offensive move at all times and 7 minutes haven't gone by then you're going to have a bit of a harder time. As it is, the clock does not put any pressure on the losing player for most of the game. In many games, even outside of fighting games, there is a timer to make the player say "If I don't do something about this, I'm going to run out of time."

While I don't know how other players feel, I personally don't ever feel worried about running out of time at any point in the game, early or late. That is why the timer is a non-factor.

Smash has a timer setting, not so that the timer is part of the game, but so matches don't take hours, because if they did tournaments would take too long.

I'm proposing we attempt to actually make the timer part of the game, so that it can be a part of a player's gameplan outside of matches involving Jigglypuff.

And I'll say it clearly at the bottom of this post.

I want to test making time outs a viable method to achieve victory, but I do not want it to be the most viable method to achieve victory.

 

[Doctor X]

This is the thing. The timer's existence plays a huge role in whether or not you should approach? At what point? When we've passed the 7 minute mark? Even if you do have the lead, if you're not looking for a way to make some kind of offensive move at all times and 7 minutes haven't gone by then you're going to have a bit of a harder time. As it is, the clock does not put any pressure on the losing player for most of the game. In many games, even outside of fighting games, there is a timer to make the player say "If I don't do something about this, I'm going to run out of time."

While I don't know how other players feel, I personally don't ever feel worried about running out of time at any point in the game, early or late. That is why the timer is a non-factor.

You're telling me that you still take risks when your opponent is two stocks behind? That your opponent would take risks in this scenario if there was no timer?

Ask yourself this question. If you and another player both came to the realization that not approaching was the safest play-- you because you're winning and want to hold on to your lead, and him because he's losing and doesn't want to risk the stocks he has left-- would either of you approach if there was no timer?

If yes, then one or both of you isn't very smart.
If no, you've got yourself a recipe for an endless game.

The timer is part of the reason why Melee is so aggressive, even when two smart players are competing. Someone always has a reason to approach. They might not have to approach now, but often times there isn't any good to be gained from waiting. Your opponent will present no more openings 5 minutes from now than he does right now. In fact, he might present less because he's had more time to adapt to the way you play.

 

[Mithost]

Guys, the problem with all of this is that in smash, time outs do absolutely nothing to benefit the game's competitiveness. In Melee and P:M, timeouts are not currently a problem because it's really hard to play keep away for an extended 2-3 minutes after a normal match would end. In Brawl, the main controversy in rulesets is how to keep people from timing out so easily (and metaknight, but one of his problems is his ability to time out anyone, anywhere). Like I've said earlier, timeouts are not liked in this community, and they are only legal because of how difficult they are. Japan plays a ten minute timer to make timeouts more difficult, and they seem to have a lot less problems with timeouts than us. Shortening the timer (making timeouts easier and more common) will simply warrant a bunch of complicated rules that will stop timeouts from happening so often.

Your argument is "The timer currently doesn't play a big enough role in the match". If you can address how the current timer doesn't already do it's job (prevent endless rounds) and how without changing it, we will have problems playing the game, I'll be willing to talk more about how we would go about changing the timer widespread. P:M is already aggressive. It's already fast, entertaining, and fun. Tournaments run a reasonable amount of time, and nobody minds watching/playing the game at the current pace. What could possibly come out of shortening the timer?

Can we make it more fast? More aggressive? Will shortening the timer make tournaments shorter? Do people want them to be shorter? Do we have to make all these things happen?

I don't think so. People are really happy with the current game. Smash fans are never shy to boast how fast paced and aggressive Melee and P:M is, and the community is fairly happy with the game, even though it's not even done yet. Based on earlier arguments made by multiple people on multiple forums in multiple languages, dropping the timer causes more timeouts, which the same people have decided will make the game falter. This isn't a new concept, and it isn't the first time it's been debated.

 

[Jandlebars]

Never imagined a thread of this subject matter would be as seemingly volatile as it is now. >__>
I mean, I understand where everyone's coming from, and I knew it would be a controversial subject as soon as I read the OP, but...

In any case, I concur with the side of 'don't fix it if it ain't broke', but that doesn't mean that experimentation should be out of the question. As Project-05 said, the best place to try it out would be in a tournament setting and see how things pan out.

 

[Overswarm]

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?

I've tested every timer from 3 minutes to 12 minutes along with infinite. I've done the same changing the stock count. The results were as predictable as you'd expect and people's play only really changed when the timer got "low" (whatever their definition of low was, typically close to the minute mark) in relation to how far ahead they were.

 

[Mithost]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0r0DkNiqxc
Not even 2 minutes in, Will starts ledge camping so he can keep his lead.

 

[B.W.]

Guys, the problem with all of this is that in smash, time outs do absolutely nothing to benefit the game's competitiveness.

This sentence is the reason I'd like this to be looked into further. We have so few instances of time outs that I would say we really can't make a call like that. With a slightly shorter timer, it may be possible to feel like the person in the lead when the timer hits 0 feel as though they actually had to work for that time out while making the time out less painful to play through.

In Melee and P:M, timeouts are not currently a problem because it's really hard to play keep away for an extended 2-3 minutes after a normal match would end. In Brawl, the main controversy in rulesets is how to keep people from timing out so easily (and metaknight, but one of his problems is his ability to time out anyone, anywhere). Like I've said earlier, timeouts are not liked in this community, and they are only legal because of how difficult they are. Japan plays a ten minute timer to make timeouts more difficult, and they seem to have a lot less problems with timeouts than us. Shortening the timer (making timeouts easier and more common) will simply warrant a bunch of complicated rules that will stop timeouts from happening so often.

Time outs are not liked in this community because they're rarely ever reached due to the timer being at 8 mins. If a time out happens then that means someone was running away for a long time, not daring to approach and when it comes to going for the win, who could blame them? Playing chase for 8 mins is not fun for the player chasing their opponent, or for the crowd to watch so of course no one wants to watch it.

I'm not a Brawl player, but from what I understand, a long timer is necessary in that game. The matches already take longer naturally, which results in it being a 3 stock game rather than a 4 stock game. Playing defense is also quite powerful in that game. I'm unsure how long the average match lasts in Brawl, so I can't use much of that game as an example, but what I do know is there are a lot of extra outside of the game rules that have been made to help make sure time outs do not need to happen.

In Melee and P:M, it's different. As you said, time outs are currently not a problem because it's really hard to play keep away for an extended 2-3 minutes after a normal match would end, however on average the time remaining is more like 4-5 minutes, and that's what I'm talking about, which is the point I am mostly trying to make. We don't need double the amount of the average time a match takes on the timer, though I'm not saying we need to cut it exactly in half either. I'm saying we should find a new standard that does not change the way people normally play the game, but can also add a possible additional element of a match coming down to a last instant where the players fight for victory (in this case over the final hit(s) to put the player in the lead right before the match times out).[/quote]

Your argument is "The timer currently doesn't play a big enough role in the match". If you can address how the current timer doesn't already do it's job (prevent endless rounds) and how without changing it, we will have problems playing the game, I'll be willing to talk more about how we would go about changing the timer widespread. P:M is already aggressive. It's already fast, entertaining, and fun. Tournaments run a reasonable amount of time, and nobody minds watching/playing the game at the current pace. What could possibly come out of shortening the timer?

The timer does do the original job the community gave it, yes. I'm not saying it doesn't. Matches aren't endless if they have a limit of 8 minutes each.

But that doesn't make it an active part of a match. Just because it's there, doing its current job, doesn't mean it's helping anything out with how fast matches currently go. The only thing it's doing right now is it's making sure Jigglypuff doesn't make things last forever when her opponents refuse to come to her. A shorter timer will do that job as well, on top of, as I said in my reply before, add a possible additional element of a match coming down to a last instant where the players fight for victory (in this case over the final hit(s) to put the player in lead right before a match times out).

Can we make it more fast? More aggressive? Will shortening the timer make tournaments shorter? Do people want them to be shorter? Do we have to make all these things happen?

I don't think so. People are really happy with the current game. Smash fans are never shy to boast how fast paced and aggressive Melee and P:M is, and the community is fairly happy with the game, even though it's not even done yet. Based on earlier arguments made by multiple people on multiple forums in multiple languages, dropping the timer causes more timeouts, which the same people have decided will make the game falter. This isn't a new concept, and it isn't the first time it's been debated.

People are happy with how P:M is turning out. The PMBR is doing a fantastic job making the game into something new, balanced and fun. But that doesn't mean that the standard ruleset shouldn't be looked at and tested again. It's been 10 years since we've experimented, and while I can't say that the rules are currently broken, that doesn't mean they can't be fine tuned and I believe that we shouldn't keep things the way they are simply because that's the way they've always been.

Even if we lowered the timer to an amount where we see just as few time outs as we do now (say 6 or 7 mins on the clock) that would still be an improvement to the current standard timer simply due to the fact that we made the very rare time out a lot more bearable to watch and play.

While I'd personally like time outs to be a part of Smash I can understand that they are currently not a thing that Smashers are used to seeing and because of that, they may be seen as negative. This thread was created not just to talk about making time outs a more viable method of victory, but to talk about lowering the timer overall.

I can see how lowering the timer to 5 mins may cause more time outs to happen because they are a viable thing.

I cannot see time outs becoming a thing with a 7 or even 6 minute timer. And this is where testing comes in.

See if playing a 6 or 7 minute timer actually makes time outs a thing. I'm willing to bet you'll see just as few time outs in a 6 minute match as you would an 8 minute match since if playing a match now brings you down to 4-5 mins left on average, 6 mins would bring the match down to 2-3 mins left on average, and as you said before Mithost, it's really hard to play keep away for an extended 2-3 mins.

 

[Overswarm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0r0DkNiqxc
Not even 2 minutes in, Will starts ledge camping so he can keep his lead.

This was due to Rich Brown's inexperience. It was discovered how to beat this shortly after this set.

I'm not sure what relevance this has.

I'm unsure how long the average match lasts in Brawl,

Between 3 and 5 minutes.

 

[Mithost]

See if playing a 6 or 7 minute timer actually makes time outs a thing. I'm willing to bet you'll see just as few time outs in a 6 minute match as you would an 8 minute match since if playing a match now brings you down to 4-5 mins left on average, 6 mins would bring the match down to 2-3 mins left on average, and as you said before Mithost, it's really hard to play keep away for an extended 2-3 mins.

I play as snake and Ivy a lot, and even when I'm playing an aggressive game, it's not uncommon for me to hit the 6 minute mark. If the timer was 6 minutes and I'm snake sitting at 5 minutes, there really is less reason for me to try to KO the person than to time them out for a single minute or two. It's complete BS to say that lowering the timer shortens the time it takes to do an average match. I could say that there is a 2 hour time limit on a game of monopoly, but it's still going to take 3-4 hours to bankrupt everyone. The game would time out a lot more often. Same goes for smash (unless we lower the stock count; good luck with that).

It punishes characters that cannot "rush" in aggressively, leaving them with even more reason to time people out. Many characters now have to play uncomfortably aggressive simply because if they play the normal way (the way the character was built to be played), they run risk of running time. There is no reason why games would NOT time out more often, because certain matchups usually hit 6+ minutes, and the characters in those matchups are very capable of timing someone out for a shortened amount of time.

I'll take you up on your bet, because lowering the timer will do nothing BUT make more timeouts for anyone who has a decent projectile or ledge game.

 

[Overswarm]

It punishes characters that cannot "rush" in aggressively, leaving them with even more reason to time people out.

^bam

Timer must be long enough to allow for optimal play of all characters or you're unfairly giving advantages to certain kinds of characters.

 

[B.W.]

I don't know how much farther we can get with talking about it. All concerns here for lowering the timer are valid concerns, but the only thing left to do is see if it really is something to be concerned about.

I'll keep my eye on timers in various matches, including ones with two more defensive characters and see if I can make any further points, but as it stands the only way I think we get anywhere is actually lowering it to see what results come of it.

 

[Overswarm]

I don't know how much farther we can get with talking about it. All concerns here for lowering the timer are valid concerns, but the only thing left to do is see if it really is something to be concerned about.

I still don't think you're understanding this entirely.

Let's start from the beginning, one simple question at a time:

Do you believe that the timer should be at an amount that doesn't deliberately help or hurt any character or playstyle to an undue degree?

 

[B.W.]

Yes, I just also believe that that time does not have to be 8 mins.

Hence why I was saying lower the timer and test it for yourself and come back with answers/experiences.

Even lowering it a minute would be helpful.

 

[Overswarm]

Yes

Eliminating the rest because it is irrelevant.

Next question:

Do you believe that there are characters that will gain an advantage or characters that will gain a disadvantage for each minute added or removed from the timer?

To clarify, if you said yes you would be saying that for every minute add/removed from the timer, at least one characters gets better/worse.

 

[B.W.]

I believe there are characters that would gain slight advantages if too much time was taken away. However, I don't really feel as though any character gets any worse from lowering the timer.

 

[Zenrot]

Quoting someone and removing the things that they say is pretty much the opposite of a quote.

 

[Mithost]

Now this is getting somewhere. Lets explore how snake is affected by a 7 min timer, Cons and Pros style:

Cons:
-Snake has to play an uncomfortable aggressive game that goes against his design, just to stay within the time limit
-Other characters are also playing more offensive, giving snake less room to do what his character was designed to do.

Pros:
-If snake does not play aggressively, he naturally has more opportunities to time out (being closer to time more often)
-Snake has the tools necessary to time out effectively for one minute (but probably not for two)
-Other characters have less time to learn/combat the timeout tactics

Therefore, unless snake solely focuses on timing out, he is only negatively affected by the timer. Because snake has more success in timing out than he does playing an aggressive game for a quick win, he will time out more times than he will KO the opponent. This is either unfair to snake or a ridiculously overpowered tactic given to him, depending on if he wants to time out. This isn't a slight advantage. The only way to beat snake now is to stop him from getting to the six minute mark with any type of lead.

This is something I want you to test: Find a snake player that does fairly well in tournaments (placing in top 8 at least), and SD every game that goes for longer than 6 minutes. If you succeed, drop the timer by a minute and bring up the words "time out", then play a few more sets (ignoring the 6 minute SD challenge). If your snake partner is anywhere close to your skill level (assuming your skill level is somewhere around the tournament "average"), you will not win any of your games unless the snake player makes a fatal mistake (SDing), and most of the matches will go to time.

Me and my friends tested the 7 and 6 minute timers at the public library yesterday. We stopped shortly after I started picking snake. I would play the game like I always did, hit 6 minutes, then avoid my opponent for the mere minute it takes to drop the timer down to zero. It was ridiculously overpowered, even for the friends who usually beat my snake outright. We played on Yoshi Story, Battlefield, Smashville, PS2, and a few other stages. I tried a match later with the 8 minute timer, and my theory was correct. I could not keep the stall going for the final minute because snake is not built to stall that long, and my opponent had enough time to work through my stall. There was 7 other people there, most of us are at similar skill levels (we trade wins fairly often, no clear winner for the most part). Outside of playing defensive characters, all the timer did was make the matches feel rushed to complete, and we ended up taking rumble falls and dracula's castle out of the random stage selection.

Me and my friends have tried the timer, and from what we experienced as a group, we really didn't enjoy it enough to be worth the trade-offs (easier, almost overpowered timeouts). Sure the game got a bit more aggressive when two aggressive characters were around, but even then it seemed fairly plausible to go for a timeout as a lot of new characters. I almost timed someone out as Wario, just by playing cat and mouse.

 

[Overswarm]

I believe there are characters that would gain slight advantages if too much time was taken away. However, I don't really feel as though any character gets any worse from lowering the timer.

Just yes or no please; the other stuff is irrelevant.

So, lowering the timer = no character gets worse

So you think that in the matchup Snake vs. Fox, Snake is not harmed by the timer lowering to any degree?

What about raising?

 

[B.W.]

Now this is getting somewhere. Lets explore how snake is affected by a 7 min timer, Cons and Pros style:

Cons:
-Snake has to play an uncomfortable aggressive game that goes against his design, just to stay within the time limit
-Other characters are also playing more offensive, giving snake less room to do what his character was designed to do.

Pros:
-If snake does not play aggressively, he naturally has more opportunities to time out (being closer to time more often)
-Snake has the tools necessary to time out effectively for one minute (but probably not for two)
-Other characters have less time to learn/combat the timeout tactics

Therefore, unless snake solely focuses on timing out, he is only negatively affected by the timer. Because snake has more success in timing out than he does playing an aggressive game for a quick win, he will time out more times than he will KO the opponent. This is either unfair to snake or a ridiculously overpowered tactic given to him, depending on if he wants to time out. This isn't a slight advantage. The only way to beat snake now is to stop him from getting to the six minute mark with any type of lead.

This is something I want you to test: Find a snake player that does fairly well in tournaments (placing in top 8 at least), and SD every game that goes for longer than 6 minutes. If you succeed, drop the timer by a minute and bring up the words "time out", then play a few more sets (ignoring the 6 minute SD challenge). If your snake partner is anywhere close to your skill level (assuming your skill level is somewhere around the tournament "average"), you will not win any of your games unless the snake player makes a fatal mistake (SDing), and most of the matches will go to time.

Me and my friends tested the 7 and 6 minute timers at the public library yesterday. We stopped shortly after I started picking snake. I would play the game like I always did, hit 6 minutes, then avoid my opponent for the mere minute it takes to drop the timer down to zero. It was ridiculously overpowered, even for the friends who usually beat my snake outright. We played on Yoshi Story, Battlefield, Smashville, PS2, and a few other stages. I tried a match later with the 8 minute timer, and my theory was correct. I could not keep the stall going for the final minute because snake is not built to stall that long, and my opponent had enough time to work through my stall. There was 7 other people there, most of us are at similar skill levels (we trade wins fairly often, no clear winner for the most part). Outside of playing defensive characters, all the timer did was make the matches feel rushed to complete, and we ended up taking rumble falls and dracula's castle out of the random stage selection.

Me and my friends have tried the timer, and from what we experienced as a group, we really didn't enjoy it enough to be worth the trade-offs (easier, almost overpowered timeouts). Sure the game got a bit more aggressive when two aggressive characters were around, but even then it seemed fairly plausible to go for a timeout as a lot of new characters. I almost timed someone out as Wario, just by playing cat and mouse.

This is more what I was looking for. Thanks for testing and giving input, Mithost we're many steps closer to putting this to rest than we previously were. And how certain are you that you wouldn't be able to force a timeout as Snake with an 8 minute timer?

I'll probably be going to a Smashfest this weekend, and I'll be asking if people would like to test a lower timer. I'll start it at 6 and see where it goes. I'll probably be playing Toon Link mostly as he's my main.

Just yes or no please; the other stuff is irrelevant.

So, lowering the timer = no character gets worse

So you think that in the matchup Snake vs. Fox, Snake is not harmed by the timer lowering to any degree?

What about raising?

Except in the real world, answering "yes or no" questions can be answered with phrases, and are indeed relevant. The fact that you won't accept anything but yes or no as an answer shows me that you are incapable of debating properly and therefore nothing I say or do will convince me to change you're mind.

Answering your questions with a straight yes or no will cause me to sound as though I am either against my own proposal, or you will find a way to twist things around to try to convince everyone else that the proposal is a pointless one.

This isn't the goal. The goal is test. Trial and error. As far as I can tell you've said you've tested before, but it sounds as if you've only done so with Brawl. Therefore your previous tests don't have any actual hold here and your claims of testing mean nothing. It would be better if you ran some tests with P:M yourself and start actually contributing rather than make claims and talk theory all day, because even though things sound correct in theory they almost always fall apart in practice.

Your current string of questions get us nowhere.

 

[Overswarm]

If I can ask you simple yes/no questions that result in you contradicting yourself, either there's a problem with the questions or... you're contradicting yourself.

These questions are meant to find general, common truths that the very foundations of your opinion.

You adding additional information to your yes or no responses is an attempt to make it seem as if your reasoning is logical when it is not founded in any logical basis.

You've already stated that the timer shouldn't be put at a place that gives any undue advantage or disadvantage to certain characters or playstyles and have also said that you don't believe that lowering the timer worsens any character.

This puts you in a contradictory place because we already know that lowering the timer does worsen certain characters and playstyles (at the very minimum Wario's fart is given less time to charge).

 

[Mithost]

Timing out with one minute left is MUCH easier than two minutes. Gives your opponent less time to learn your stall tactics, less time to successfully break that tactic, and less chances for you to mess up that stall. It still takes skill to get the lead, but really if you start at around the 6 minute mark (which isn't hard to get to as snake), that minute will fly by.

 

[B.W.]

If I can ask you simple yes/no questions that result in you contradicting yourself, either there's a problem with the questions or... you're contradicting yourself.

These questions are meant to find general, common truths that the very foundations of your opinion.

You adding additional information to your yes or no responses is an attempt to make it seem as if your reasoning is logical when it is not founded in any logical basis.

You've already stated that the timer shouldn't be put at a place that gives any undue advantage or disadvantage to certain characters or playstyles and have also said that you don't believe that lowering the timer worsens any character.

This puts you in a contradictory place because we already know that lowering the timer does worsen certain characters and playstyles (at the very minimum Wario's fart is given less time to charge).

The only way to tell if characters gain an advantage or disadvantage is by testing the timer setting.


Your yes or no questions only add to the theory not the practice. They get us no where.

I believe it might make characters better, not that it absolutely will make characters better, another reason why yes or no questions don't work.

Really the only one with irrelevant information at this point is you, as you're still speaking in theory and, again, that's not what this thread is about.

If you'd really like to start getting anywhere I'd suggest you start testing on your own because at this point all you're doing is bull****ting through this thread trying to keep things the same simply because they are the same.

Also, Wario's fart is a terrible example of something getting worse. If Wario tends to only get one fully charged fart a match even with the current timer, and that's only if he doesn't use it before it's fully charged. Other than that he operates perfectly fine without it, though Wario doesn't even need to wait until fully charged for his fart to be an incredibly powerful kill move. He really doesn't get worse from having a lower timer.

Timing out with one minute left is MUCH easier than two minutes. Gives your opponent less time to learn your stall tactics, less time to successfully break that tactic, and less chances for you to mess up that stall. It still takes skill to get the lead, but really if you start at around the 6 minute mark (which isn't hard to get to as snake), that minute will fly by.

I'll be a super **** and just run away a lot as Toon Link when I test to see if I come up with similar results and issues. I feel he'd even do better than Snake when it comes down playing the lame game.

 

[Overswarm]

The only way to tell if characters gain an advantage or disadvantage is by testing the timer setting.

This isn't true; we already have enough observational evidence through several smash games. "Campy" characters that do well generally are faster, have more control over their spacing, projectiles, or some combination of the two. If we have a history of certain characters being more prominent "timeout" characters we can thus note that characters of similar type are given an advantage the more often timeouts would occur.

Your yes or no questions only add to the theory not the practice. They get us no where.

I believe it might make characters better, not that it absolutely will make characters better, another reason why yes or no questions don't work.

Really the only one with irrelevant information at this point is you, as you're still speaking in theory and, again, that's not what this thread is about.

You don't have a hypothesis or any reasoning backing your request to lower the timer. The questions aren't meant to answer your query but rather to have you define where you stand so you can ask the right questions.

If you'd really like to start getting anywhere I'd suggest you start testing on your own because at this point all you're doing is bull****ting through this thread trying to keep things the same simply because they are the same.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Timeouts are both possible and unlikely by accidental means which isn't a bad thing. I don't have to defend a working machine.

Also, Wario's fart is a terrible example of something getting worse. If Wario tends to only get one fully charged fart a match even with the current timer, and that's only if he doesn't use it before it's fully charged. Other than that he operates perfectly fine without it, though Wario doesn't even need to wait until fully charged for his fart to be an incredibly powerful kill move. He really doesn't get worse from having a lower timer.

Uh... yes. Yes he does.

It's simple math. If Wario gets a usable fart every minute, with an 8 minute timer he gets 7 farts per match with optimum use. For each minute you lower, you lower both his maximum and his likely number of farts per match.

You could make the argument that this isn't a big deal, but you would be wrong to suggest that he isn't given a disadvantage.

 

[Mithost]

Snake was so easy to camp with because of his UpB getting him out of most bad situations. It wasn't the only tool, but it's a good measure.

 

[B.W.]

This isn't true; we already have enough observational evidence through several smash games. "Campy" characters that do well generally are faster, have more control over their spacing, projectiles, or some combination of the two. If we have a history of certain characters being more prominent "timeout" characters we can thus note that characters of similar type are given an advantage the more often timeouts would occur.




You don't have a hypothesis or any reasoning backing your request to lower the timer. The questions aren't meant to answer your query but rather to have you define where you stand so you can ask the right questions.



If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Timeouts are both possible and unlikely by accidental means which isn't a bad thing. I don't have to defend a working machine.

Wow, you like to discard all knowledge given to you from the start don't you? The original reasoning to lower the timer was due to it not being a major part of the game, existing only as a means to keep games from going on forever. We have timeout characters? Sure, I can agree with that. Some characters are able to time others out much better than others. Said timeout characters don't have the timer on their side though, not even a little bit. The original idea was to make it so that the timer was more on their side without making it those characters too powerful. I'd like to note that you immediately took my skill of the game into the matter by insulting me, calling me a scrub who doesn't like time outs while you yourself didn't even understand the original reason the thread was created to begin with.

The topic moved on. Most Smashers would not want time outs to become a more viable tactic for characters who could do it easier. That's fine and dandy as far as P:M goes as the cast can be balanced to not have to rely on the timer anymore.

So the topic moves to this: Are we able to lower the timer, not increase the overall speed of matches by forcing players to rush (which many people seem to be thinking that's the case), but for it to be lower so that when there are characters that actually drain the timer a massive amount (Jigglypuff is still the best example), no one has to be at it for 8 mins.

No one is saying anything is broken at this point. The goal is to test and see if the timer is actually able to be lowered without it having an extreme effect on gameplay. Because if we can lower the timer without gameplay the game being hurt in any way, it is infact an improvement on the timer as the timer would still do its current job of making sure matches can't last forever, but it would do that job faster as an overall time saver.[/quote]

Uh... yes. Yes he does.

It's simple math. If Wario gets a usable fart every minute, with an 8 minute timer he gets 7 farts per match with optimum use. For each minute you lower, you lower both his maximum and his likely number of farts per match.

You could make the argument that this isn't a big deal, but you would be wrong to suggest that he isn't given a disadvantage.

This is flawed in the sense that you're thinking that Wario gets more out of being able to get up to 7 farts with "optimum use" (Which implies that he's going to use the fart either before it's fully charged or as soon as it's fully charged). That's the possibility, but the reality is that Wario rarely gets more than 2 or 3 fully charged farts in a match (as far as I have seen anyway).

Lowering the timer isn't going to change this, especially when we also consider that matches don't often take more then 3-4 minutes. This means that Wario isn't going to get more than 2 or 3 farts anyway. If decreasing the timer doesn't have any effect on the average amount of time matches takes (which is the goal, and once again we won't know for sure until it's tested) then Wario does not actually get hurt in the process of lowering the timer.

 

[Overswarm]

Wow, you like to discard all knowledge given to you from the start don't you? The original reasoning to lower the timer was due to it not being a major part of the game, existing only as a means to keep games from going on forever. We have timeout characters? Sure, I can agree with that. Some characters are able to time others out much better than others. Said timeout characters don't have the timer on their side though, not even a little bit. The original idea was to make it so that the timer was more on their side without making it those characters too powerful. I'd like to note that you immediately took my skill of the game into the matter by insulting me, calling me a scrub who doesn't like time outs while you yourself didn't even understand the original reason the thread was created to begin with.

Scrub is not a description of skill, it is a mentality. Many good players are scrubs.

The topic moved on. Most Smashers would not want time outs to become a more viable tactic for characters who could do it easier. That's fine and dandy as far as P:M goes as the cast can be balanced to not have to rely on the timer anymore.

So the topic moves to this: Are we able to lower the timer, not increase the overall speed of matches by forcing players to rush (which many people seem to be thinking that's the case), but for it to be lower so that when there are characters that actually drain the timer a massive amount (Jigglypuff is still the best example), no one has to be at it for 8 mins.

Why

No one is saying anything is broken at this point. The goal is to test and see if the timer is actually able to be lowered without it having an extreme effect on gameplay. Because if we can lower the timer without gameplay the game being hurt in any way, it is infact an improvement on the timer as the timer would still do its current job of making sure matches can't last forever, but it would do that job faster as an overall time saver.

But we already know that is changes how the game is played because it gives you 60 seconds less or more for each minute removed or added. I don't get how this is not difficult to understand. If a character is naturally attuned to timeouts then he gets better the easier they are to achieve. It is not a difficult concept.

For you to actively push for this, you need an actual reason why to lower the timer. Currently all you have is "well we could" and "this way timeouts don't take 8 minutes", both of which are completely arbitrary.

This is flawed in the sense that you're thinking that Wario gets more out of being able to get up to 7 farts with "optimum use" (Which implies that he's going to use the fart either before it's fully charged or as soon as it's fully charged). That's the possibility, but the reality is that Wario rarely gets more than 2 or 3 fully charged farts in a match (as far as I have seen anyway).

You don't necessarily want a fully charged fart, and optimum use is used to look at the maximum level (as the minimum is obviously 0) to get a reliable range that can be quantifiably measured in regards to time changes.

Lowering the timer isn't going to change this, especially when we also consider that matches don't often take more then 3-4 minutes. This means that Wario isn't going to get more than 2 or 3 farts anyway. If decreasing the timer doesn't have any effect on the average amount of time matches takes (which is the goal, and once again we won't know for sure until it's tested) then Wario does not actually get hurt in the process of lowering the timer.

This sounds like a lot of estimation coupled with throwing out the possibility that a Wario player might want to play that way.


You will never find a person that agrees more that testing is important. Trust me, there's an entire back room full of people that hated me yelling at them to test things before making wild assumptions. But this isn't a wild assumption. This is you asking to lower the timer to make timeouts more viable because...... we don't know. When you found that people didn't like timeouts being a common thing your next step was to lower the timer enough to where it wouldn't affect gameplay but would still make timeouts take less time.

But that's a contradiction in of itself because if it makes timeouts take less time then it makes them more viable, and if it makes timeouts more viable than it would effect gameplay.

Because of this, you need an actual reason.

"Tournaments take too long"

"Timeouts result in spectators leaving streams"

"When a player attempts a timeout, he has a high % chance of winning and this is just prolonging the game"

"X% of games go to timeout anyway, we should make it faster"

things like that are reasons.

"It takes 8 minutes for a timeout and I think that's boring" or anything related to that isn't a reason.

 

[Zenrot]

Two pages of condescending responses, still quotes OP incorrectly for their reason about attempting to lower the timer.

GGs.

 

[B.W.]

You're still not understanding the point of testing to figure out if lowering the timer drastically effects gameplay

We know it effects it, even at least a little bit but tests would show how much. Is the amount it effects the game so little that it wouldn't matter? If yes then there would be no reason to not lower the time. If no, then the timer shouldn't be touched in any which way.

You've still not actually tested anything to see if the timer going a minute or two lower actually does matter. You keep saying the same things without getting results which just makes this go in circles.

Scrub is not a description of skill, it is a mentality. Many good players are scrubs.

You're joking right?

I could barely take you seriously before but holy **** dude.

 

[Zenrot]

Overswarm is S+ Tier at insulting people and claiming he didn't. He's also S+ tier at pseudo-intellectual debates that use a lot of round-about, purposely indirect means to attempt to "prove" a point that means absolutely nothing in the long run. He's godlike at not listening to the other side of a debate, and then justifies it with the "I have totally won a tournament" mixup. Dark Overswarm rises? Seriously dude. If you're going to engage in discussion about a game everybody loves, stop attempting to dictate and discuss. Your behavior is troubling for someone who claims to be as important to the competitive scene as you do.

 

[Overswarm]

You're still not understanding the point of testing to figure out if lowering the timer drastically effects gameplay

We know it effects it, even at least a little bit but tests would show how much. Is the amount it effects the game so little that it wouldn't matter? If yes then there would be no reason to not lower the time. If no, then the timer shouldn't be touched in any which way.

You've still not actually tested anything to see if the timer going a minute or two lower actually does matter. You keep saying the same things without getting results which just makes this go in circles.

I have tested timer changes and it's been the same in every game since 64 to Project M.

What I'm trying to tell you is that this:

We know it effects it, even at least a little bit but tests would show how much. Is the amount it effects the game so little that it wouldn't matter? If yes then there would be no reason to not lower the time. If no, then the timer shouldn't be touched in any which way.

Doesn't make any sense because there's no reasoning behind it. Why would we change the timer in the first place?

We could add items. If hasn't been test to see if adding items drastically effects gameplay, then why not try it? We should test it!

Hyrule Castle? Has this been tested?


You know we don't need to add in Hyrule Castle because you know the core concept of Smash hasn't changed and Hyrule Castle is still going to have the same Circle camping issues it had in the last two games. The core properties of the stage still exist, so any previous information from nearly a decade ago still applies. We can't use Hyrule temple because Fox can run around in a circle after lasing and only a select few characters can stop him from reasonably doing this. We don't even have to test the additions of characters like Sonic because it's irrelevant.

Now if they remade Hyrule Castle and they removed the entire bottom area and the left side, leaving only the right side? Then you could say "we should retest this stage because it's properties are different and it might add another stage". There's no reason to attempt to "fix" a system that works, and unless there's some actual reason to suggest change might be necessary discussion on the matter is irrelevant.

The timer's core properties haven't changed, nor how we interpret them, since Smash 64. You come in with no major evidence showing that they have; we still have the same amount of timeouts on average (rare and intentional) and tournament results aren't dictated by the timer in any negative way. To date, I have known of no character that feels limited by the timer.

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.

This is what you come in with, but this is no different than saying "I believe we should have items because they're more fun". It's not really a legitimate claim for change, it's just a personal opinion.

This in itself isn't a bad thing except there's obvious evidence against lowering the timer:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

aaaaaaaand most importantly:

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 ******.

You're moving the timer the wrong way if you want games to be shorter. For shorter games, you need to drastically lower the timer or gradually increase it. The longer the timer, the shorter the games, because games only "drag out" when they're either really close or someone decides to timeout, and timeout reasons are above. No one minds really close games no matter how long they are.

The idea isn't to make time outs easier, it's to keep matches from dragging on for too long

Why? This is the part I still haven't gotten from you. Why is 8 minutes per match "too long"? What would not be too long? What would be too short? You don't even have a suggested timer with your own tests, just "lower timer".

If you had played to attempt to timeout you'd find a pretty easy mathematical constant: if (number of stocks) = constant, then !Δ in difficult to timeout

You're joking right?

I could barely take you seriously before but holy **** dude.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html

The contemporary usage of scrub stems from Sirlin's articles and typically means someone who is handicapping themselves artificially rather than adapting to the game as it stands. An example would be someone saying "chain grabs are gay, I don't use them".


What REALLY is your reason though?

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.

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?"

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?

You have to have a reason more than "Man, Peach vs. Jigglypuff is boring. Let's change the game for every matchup so these matches don't last so long."

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'm pretty sure 10 matches going to 5:55 in an 8 minute timer is at least like, 50 seconds shaved off from 10 matches going to 6:00 in a 6 minute timer. How is time saved by lowering the in-game timer exactly? It honestly reminds me of Hax on one hand griping about the game being "Never approach for any reason" while also saying the timer is too long because "most" matches are on the shorter end of completion time.

 

[B.W.]

It's not about saving time as it is now, but more about saving time should the matches end up going to 8 minutes.

Ideally (using your example) if every match goes to 5:55 with 8 mins, it'd go to 5:55 with 6 mins. Though should a match take 5 mins and 55 seconds in a 6 minute timer setting it's more likely for it to go for a time out, yes sure.

But with the average match ending closer to 3-4 mins on the clock, ideally the goal would be to find a time where the average match time does not end, but the extended match time ends sooner...

I'm not sure if I said that in a way that makes sense.

And Overswarm, holy **** the idea isn't to make matches shorter over all for the 50th damn time. I don't give a damn if matches time out, but again I don't think we need 8 minutes on the timer. You're making the idea sound way more complicated than it is.

 

[Kink-Link5]

That's what most people feel the 8 minute timer accomplishes. Long enough for characters that aren't Falcon and can't get a kill of 3 reads to have the time they need to work, not long enough to turn your hair grey from the handful of matchups that would take 9 or more minutes to really allow optimally safe gameplay from both players.

Most matchups at the higher levels do NOT take shorter time. It tends to be: Falcon dittos or other such read-heavy matchups, a single player getting absolutely bodied, or two low level players that know nothing of spacing and kill each other haphazardly.