Should the Timer be Set to 10 Minutes?

[xDD-Master]

@above:

If one match takes 7 and 9 minutes with 10 mins timer, and the same match wouldve ended in 2 timeouts with a 8 mins timer, then that equals itself out ~

Sometimes matches will be played to timeout if there only is 1 minute left on the clock, whereas with 3 minutes left, the match could potentially end in 30 seconds as neither of the players is planning to time the other out (Aka less campy play).

So all in all, it doesnt matter.

And because of this: 10 mins > 8 mins, as timeouts are less likely to happen, and on the same time, the tournament length basically stays the same (It could either take longer or be quicker - we dont know).

 

[Lord Chair]

im not surprised to see everyone i consider incompetent being actively anti-10

 

[Kink-Link5]

10 minutes is still far too short under a 3 stock ruleset when stocks can go minutes in length even without the intention of timing out. 2 Stocks and 10-12 minutes with a less ******** stage list is far more manageable.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Do you guys honestly want a competitive game in which sets could potentially last 30 minutes each?
Pools would become non-existent, tournaments would take forever, and this slow game would become ever slower.

I am voting no for this reason alone.

 

[xDD-Master]

I like brawls slow pace

 

[Lord Chair]

Do you guys honestly want a competitive game in which sets could potentially last 30 minutes each?
Pools would become non-existent, tournaments would take forever, and this slow game would become ever slower.

I am voting no for this reason alone.

thats a matter of better organizing

ok heres the ultimate example of what goes wrong in the states compared to europe:

Germany is the second most inefficient hosting country in Europe. Funnest tournaments, but these niggs manage to run pools of 10, full of snakes, falcos and warios, using 2 tvs per pool and still manage to run in time.

In the States you whine about 2 minutes extra once every 50 matches.

Learn to DQ players who are arriving at their stations an hour late before you ***** and whine about adding 2 valuable minutes to the timer ROFL

 

[Kink-Link5]

As far as I know, there is almost universally a different number of rules in effect for Finals matches than are used for the rest of the bracket. There's nothing stopping pools matches from using a slightly altered ruleset, especially since they mostly exist to weed out the statistical anomalies and form the bracket.

 

[xDD-Master]

As far as I know, there is almost universally a different number of rules in effect for Finals matches than are used for the rest of the bracket. There's nothing stopping pools matches from using a slightly altered ruleset, especially since they mostly exist to weed out the statistical anomalies and form the bracket.

That actually is good point. Pools 6 mins, normally 10 mins would be nice for example (Or early bracket 8, later 10 w/e).

 

[Dr. Tuen]

DATA FIGHT! Oh wait, the 10 minute fighters are unarmed.

Seriously. For the love of all that is good and holy GATHER SOME NEW DATA ON 10 MINUTE EVENTS. We have two valid theories:

THEORY 1:
The 1% (yes, 1% go to time, I'm not yet going to deal with games that go close to time) of time outs go longer than 8 minutes and cause a ripple effect in the brackets. If you have not been a TO then you may not understand... brackets are funny in that just one person can rip a bracket a 2-hour new one. This may also depend on the TO's tendency to disqualify people and such, but with respect to timeouts, if you have two consecutive delays, then you have a bracket that gets pinched.

THEORY 2:
Planking in real games is not perfect, and as such it takes a great deal of skill to use it for extended periods of time. If the timer is extended, then this discourages this behavior, due to the inherent risk of losing via mistake (planking involves edge shenanigans, and unless you are a god at teching, you are putting yourself at high risk if you mess up).

I'll say it again: BOTH THEORIES ARE VALID.

We need a 20-ish tournament data set in which all events utilize the 10 minute timer rule. A varied cross section of players would help too, especially those known for causing timeouts (I'm looking at you, M2K).

Why do we need this? We need this because psychological behavior (the tendency to stall more or to shy away from the timer) is NOT EASY TO PREDICT!

/end soap box rant about testing procedures.

 

[xDD-Master]

Yep testing is the best to do. Theory just ends here.

 

[Ussi]

I just want to say:

10 minutes will make brawl much harder on a player's endurance.

Seriously, we should go down to 2 stocks..

And i'm wondering.. what is the attention span of most smashers?

 

[Cygnet]

Edit: I misread that. Your math is still wrong though because that 20% length in game has no relation to the amount of games that get stalled, and negating 20% of stalls leaves 80% of stalls and any 1 stall still makes the tournament run longer with an increased time. You literally would need to stop 100% of stalling for an increased timer to shorten tournaments.

Well, I guess I acknowledge that my math was totally wrong (what my math actually meant was that 20% of games need to be eliminated entirely so that 8+8+8+8+8=10+10+10+10, but that's probably not going to happen).

I agree that any stall increases the tournament duration under a longer timer, but you're ignoring the possibility that an increased timer will prevent timeouts and therefore decrease tournament duration time. It really just depends on which happens more often. (So, no, not 100%.)

Negating 20% of stalls leaves 80% of stalls, but isn't that better than.... not negating any of the stalls that are happening right now?

And we seriously need some data on this subject.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

Yep testing is the best to do. Theory just ends here.

And we seriously need some data on this subject.

Alright. Let's get this train moving. Who's a TO willing to start running 10 minute events?

 

[Lord Chair]

the entirety of europe

oh wait no one cares

 

[Dr. Tuen]

the entirety of europe

oh wait no one cares

Yeah, unfortunately, we need to test the system that's having the problem... that system is America :-/.

 

[Cassio]

I think some regions are adopting the japanese ruleset, unfortunately the 10 minute timer seems to be the first thing they scrap. The other thing is there needs to be some specifications on what sort of data ought to be collected.

 

[Volt_Storm_7]

I like how you guys sit here whining towards one another and still haven't tried it yet. Just putting that out there.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I, personally, think that we should make it go into sudden death (standard 1 stock 3 minutes) if there's no stock difference (if there's no KO in SD, it's a draw. If the set ends in a draw, both players lose the set). This would not only discourage timeouts, but also encourage more offensive gameplay (Japanese offensive, not complete rush-down offensive). But, at this point, anything that will take down decisionf@gs has got my vote.

 

[Conviction]

I like how you guys sit here whining towards one another and still haven't tried it yet. Just putting that out there.

I agree with this.

I, personally, think that we should shorten the length of the matches to 6 minutes and make it go into sudden death (standard 1 stock 3 minutes) if there's no stock difference (if there's no KO in SD, it's a draw. If the set ends in a draw, both players lose the set). This would not only discourage timeouts, but also encourage more offensive gameplay (Japanese offensive, not complete rush-down offensive). But, at this point, anything that will take down decisionf@gs has got my vote.

So in other words, punish people that hold a precent lead by causing them a loss too? How would brackets work if someone had one of draws in WB and both were sent to LB? What if they same happened in GFs?

Sorry Peach players but holding a fifty percent lead over said Snake players even though the game ran to time, you must face a loss too.

 

[PMC66]

With no time limit people would have to stop stalling eventually.

problem with that is you just force a draw, either that or you have to award it to the guy with the lower percent who is the guy stalling, so it's either call it a draw or give the win to the guy who starts running away and thats just boring and screwed up imagine i hit you once then win the match because you didn't hit me back <.<

 

[Yikarur]

problem with that is you just force a draw, either that or you have to award it to the guy with the lower percent who is the guy stalling, so it's either call it a draw or give the win to the guy who starts running away and thats just boring and screwed up imagine i hit you once then win the match because you didn't hit me back <.<

thats your opponent being bad.

 

[Kink-Link5]

No time limit means there is no reason for the person who is behind to approach.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

So in other words, punish people that hold a precent lead by causing them a loss too? How would brackets work if someone had one of draws in WB and both were sent to LB? What if they same happened in GFs?

Sorry Peach players but holding a fifty percent lead over said Snake players even though the game ran to time, you must face a loss too.

I can't give you a perfect description of how the brackets would work for a double loss right now, so sorry if that was what you were expecting (Although I can tell you that the set could only end in a draw if every single game ended in a draw, and the people who tied would probably have to play an extra set in losers [against other drawers, if possible]). Also, decisions by percentage discourage last minute KO attempts, which means that people would only use their projectiles and camp for the last quarter of the game. With this method, you'd actually have to spend the next 2 minutes trying to take off a stock. Plus, if they have such a huge percent lead, they should be able to KO them anyway, so I don't see the problem. And, if it does go to SD, you would have 3 minutes to take off one stock, which is almost impossible to not do. No matter how you look at it, it would be extremely hard to get a draw.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

thats a matter of better organizing

ok heres the ultimate example of what goes wrong in the states compared to europe:

Germany is the second most inefficient hosting country in Europe. Funnest tournaments, but these niggs manage to run pools of 10, full of snakes, falcos and warios, using 2 tvs per pool and still manage to run in time.

In the States you whine about 2 minutes extra once every 50 matches.

Learn to DQ players who are arriving at their stations an hour late before you ***** and whine about adding 2 valuable minutes to the timer ROFL

People in the United States don't correlate the word "finish" and "your matches" together. Just look at Apex

It isn't the organizers. People in the US can't play a tournament match without playing 50 friendlies first (and they complain when they can't.)

 

[The Ben]

Honestly if you're wasting time with friendlies and using up consoles other people could be using and slowing down the bracket you should be kicked out of the tournament. Not just DQed, but not allowed to touch any equipment, and possibly completely ejected.

 

[Tesh]

Lowering the stock count/time spent in each match increases character viability. Increasing the timer and time spent in each match may seem to nerf MK, but it just makes the game worse overall.

 

[Yikarur]

Lowering the stock count/time spent in each match increases character viability. Increasing the timer and time spent in each match may seem to nerf MK, but it just makes the game worse overall.

how could that be?

 

[Strong Badam]

Lol if you think sets take too long and tourneys don't finish on time, lower the stocks to 2 instead of trying to artificially make the game take less time via timer.

 

[Lord Chair]

People in the United States don't correlate the word "finish" and "your matches" together. Just look at Apex

It isn't the organizers. People in the US can't play a tournament match without playing 50 friendlies first (and they complain when they can't.)

Honestly if you're wasting time with friendlies and using up consoles other people could be using and slowing down the bracket you should be kicked out of the tournament. Not just DQed, but not allowed to touch any equipment, and possibly completely ejected.

Yeah, listen to Mr. Ben. Little I can add to that. If the TO doesn't have control over his own tvs then it's his fault if everything gets delayed. Strict policies on when people are allowed to play friendlies is the TO's task, not the participant's.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Lol if you think sets take too long and tourneys don't finish on time, lower the stocks to 2 instead of trying to artificially make the game take less time via timer.

I would prefer this.

 

[Ussi]

Don't make games longer... We shouldn't need super long mental endurance..

 

[Kuro~]

People in the United States don't correlate the word "finish" and "your matches" together. Just look at Apex

It isn't the organizers. People in the US can't play a tournament match without playing 50 friendlies first (and they complain when they can't.)

This was a terrible post...

Apex PROMISED 20 SET UPS FOR FRIENDLIES SPECIFICALLY

And didn't deliver

THAT'S why people *****ed.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Lol if you think sets take too long and tourneys don't finish on time, lower the stocks to 2 instead of trying to artificially make the game take less time via timer.

I completely disagree, 2 stock matches give a huge, unfair advantage to whoever takes the first stock. Also, this is to prevent timeouts, not make the matches quicker.

 

[Tesh]

I completely disagree, 2 stock matches give a huge, unfair advantage to whoever takes the first stock. Also, this is to prevent timeouts, not make the matches quicker.

How do you figure that? If you think more stocks = more fair then why not just run 4 or 5 stocks. Then the first kill doesn't get a glaring advantage since its only 1/5 of the game.

The nature of this game gives a huge "unfair" advantage to whoever takes the first stock.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Your pretty much stuck at a disadvantage whether its 3 or 2 stocks. Only difference is your mentality about it. "oh, I have 2 stocks left, I'm good." vs "OH **** half my life is gone and this could end really badly!!!"

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

The problem is that it's way harder to make a comeback with only 2 stocks. And regarding the 4 or 5 stock argument, that would not only make the match take forever, but also make comebacks too easy.

 

[Life]

Comebacks are something to be neither encouraged or discouraged. Making a comeback just means you played extraordinarily well under pressure.

Game mechanics that encourage comebacks are usually unpopular anyway (see Mario Kart's rubber band AI and blue shells, Lucario's aura, randomness).

 

[Ussi]

Less stocks = aggro play is more rewarded

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Comebacks are something to be neither encouraged or discouraged. Making a comeback just means you played extraordinarily well under pressure.

Game mechanics that encourage comebacks are usually unpopular anyway (see Mario Kart's rubber band AI and blue shells, Lucario's aura, randomness).

Obviously things like x-factor that completely flip the game around are bad and should feel bad, but the opponent should at least have a fighting chance when at a disadvantage. With 2 stocks, that's not there.

Also, they will never change the stock count. No matter how much you push it, adjusting the stock count would change the metagame too much to be casually implemented. Putting my disagreement with the idea aside, it's still something that's just not gonna happen.

 

[Ussi]

The only legit change with less stocks is ZSS

Otherwise the game just takes less reads and you need to adapt faster