Should the Timer be Set to 10 Minutes?

[Jeffbelittle]

Been lurking the forums for a week, but some... "logic" has kind've urked me to make my first post.

A lot of people are criticizing AZ's 1% statistic because if there's 8 minutes in a game, at 6:30 if you're down by a stock you aren't going to be calm and waiting for your opponent to approach. Causing games to "artificially" end early if you will.



That's fine and all but at 10 minutes: the pace slows down even more. Even less necessity to approach becomes apparent, which I also believe screws with what's been called "the natural flow of game play"

Game clocks should force some pressure on players. They're what dictates football teams to do specific plays given how much time is on the clock. They're what dictates the aggression of a soccer match. They're what dictates the play style of teams in Basketball games. Similarly: it's okay that they have an influence on gameplay in SSBB.

If we saw time outs to be the BEST strategy, then we'd have a bit of a problem. Maybe it'd be a cause of stage selection. Maybe because the rules lend themselves to such. Maybe there's a character that forces them. But I think it's a bit more rare of them occurring than that.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Been lurking the forums for a week, but some... "logic" has kind've urked me to make my first post.

A lot of people are criticizing AZ's 1% statistic because if there's 8 minutes in a game, at 6:30 if you're down by a stock you aren't going to be calm and waiting for your opponent to approach. Causing games to "artificially" end early if you will.



That's fine and all but at 10 minutes: the pace slows down even more. Even less necessity to approach becomes apparent, which I also believe screws with what's been called "the natural flow of game play"

Game clocks should force some pressure on players. They're what dictates football teams to do specific plays given how much time is on the clock. They're what dictates the aggression of a soccer match. They're what dictates the play style of teams in Basketball games. Similarly: it's okay that they have an influence on gameplay in SSBB.

If we saw time outs to be the BEST strategy, then we'd have a bit of a problem. Maybe it'd be a cause of stage selection. Maybe because the rules lend themselves to such. Maybe there's a character that forces them. But I think it's a bit more rare of them occurring than that.

Agreed. The number used in tournaments is arbitrary, but, we want to make sure that tournaments can adequately play out. Timeouts happen, but, that's just the way it is in competition sometimes. Sometimes it backfires. It's hardly an optimal strategy, and it's unfair to say that it isn't a legitimate strategy. Pressure builds either way, and giving people two more minutes to sit on opposite sides of the stage does very little for the game.

 

[Cassio]

Its perfectly fair to say it isnt a legimate strategy. The strategy only exists out of necessity (and arguably isnt the best solution), same for the lgl and people complain about that all the time.

 

[-LzR-]

but then this people are playing the wrong game.
if it would be like that, Brawl would be played like in "europe" (or what people thing about europe because of Ramin and Leon)
A slow paced game isn't equal boring it could be the most intense thing ever!!!

QFT. I totally agree with you man, the best matches I have had were the slowest ones. The longer the match, the more important it feels to me too.

 

[yani]

Voted no. 8 minutes is fine

 

[Yikarur]

after playing with 10 minutes for months now (since October) I don't want to switch back. It's so good

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Its perfectly fair to say it isnt a legimate strategy. The strategy only exists out of necessity (and arguably isnt the best solution), same for the lgl and people complain about that all the time.

For better or worse, that's how competitive play works. We can't reasonably have tournaments without a time limit, so we keep a timer, and it becomes a natural part of the game. The same is (ab)used in many other competitive activities, and this is no different. Playing by the rules is remaining legitimate.

The ledge grab limit doesn't exist out of necessity; it exists out of people finding ledge camping extremely boring and overcentralizing. We can totally have tournaments without a ledge grab limit, but the amount of people going to tournaments would be significantly smaller in that case. A tournament without a timer would be impossible to finish in a reasonable amount of time.

but then this people are playing the wrong game.
if it would be like that, Brawl would be played like in "europe" (or what people thing about europe because of Ramin and Leon)
A slow paced game isn't equal boring it could be the most intense thing ever!!!

QFT. I totally agree with you man, the best matches I have had were the slowest ones. The longer the match, the more important it feels to me too.

My "slow" and "boring" points are not necessarily one in the same. People must like the tournament scene to some degree if they're playing the game with the current ruleset. It's perfectly reasonable for a person to say, "I think the game is worth playing competitive with an 8-minute timer, but not a 10-minute timer." For example, I feel that raising the time limit makes the game feel more like a test of endurance than anything else.

Also, matches don't happen with the intention of "seeming important." They're just meant to see who can beat who, and who can win at the end of the day (or night, with a 10-minute timer ), and even then, the intensity of a match should have little to do with how long it takes. What's more exciting is personal opinion.

 

[Jeffbelittle]

Its perfectly fair to say it isnt a legimate strategy. The strategy only exists out of necessity (and arguably isnt the best solution), same for the lgl and people complain about that all the time.

Is it though?

Is it an illegitimate strategy to run running plays in football with a minute 45 to go if you're up by 3 @ your own 45 because you know it runs the clock out?


It's always the losing players fault for being being behind in stocks or damage. Rather than on blue moon occasions have the player blame the clock and the rulebook saying they prevented him from winning: why not blame his playing for getting him in the situation?

You guys remember that really awesome match between Ocean and M2K? Rob vs. MK

The final percentages of the last stock of both characters were: 139% to 155% at a KO at the 7 minute mark.

M2K Posted in this thread saying how we wouldn't try to camp if there were 4 minutes left, but that 2 would be pretty easy. Yet in this match, when he had only a 45% or so advantage: he camped and stalled an entire minute from the game. At what point? 3:20 left. From 3:20 to 2:20, he completely avoided any confrontation. Just flying away, spamming his DAIR, and ledge grabbing after ledge grabbing. For a full minute. It's only until Rob gets enough projectile hits to make it less feasible that he stops doing such. The same big advocate for a longer match up: is the one trying his best to time out his opponent on a really small map when he doesn't even have a projectile against someone who does have a projectile. It's kind've silly to take that seriously if you ask me.

 

[Cassio]

This isnt your fault, but I dont feel like elaborating on points discussed multiple times for the last several months. Heres a few things though:

-damage is an arbitrary victory condition and is easily argued as illegitimate when qualifying a lead.
-The timer is a mechanic in the game so its existence has a stronger case, but given other more natural options could exist in its place its quality as a victory condition or even its necessity are certainly capable of being questioned.
-Who ultimately judges what conditions for victory are acceptable? The community that supports the event. And in my experience smashers have never given timeouts the same weight as traditional stock victories. Even all rulesets are bias against timeouts.

 

[popsofctown]

Is it though?

Is it an illegitimate strategy to run running plays in football with a minute 45 to go if you're up by 3 @ your own 45 because you know it runs the clock out?

My brother (a sports buff) says that occasionally a team will run the ball backwards 50 yards and dive on the ground if that amount of time spent running can give the last bit of time needed to end the game without giving up possession and endangering the lead.
Basketball teams start to near the edge of their shot clock when they are holding a lead.
Effing CHESS players will notice if someone is managing their time poorly and start spamming defensive moves, stalling the progress of the board past the slower player's time pool to score a timeout win.

Smash is not the only game where a timer is pragmatically necessary and that timer becomes part of the game. I think some people don't realize that though.

@nath'd - Any arbitrary victory condition is fine, as long as there is one. If you say "taunts performed" is a better victory condition than "% damage on the last stock", then sure.
% damage is what everyone is familiar with though, so that gives it a large practical advantage over any other method you might advocate. On release date, you could suggest other alternatives and there would definitely be other viable methods, and if you say you can think of superior ones I believe you.

As for the timer itself, I have a hard time thinking of any method that makes tournaments run on time that handles even worst case scenarios. If you turn bob ombs on high, you still can get that one game stalling the tournament match where someone managed to fight your accelerating force. And what's worse is you've drastically increased the variation in the length of tournament sets, meaning you have lots of players waiting for a few players and less seeding, or single elimination rather than double elimination.

 

[Cassio]

Arbitrary conditions being ok depends on who youre talking to. But generally arbitrary conditions are introduced to be pragmatic, and I hope its self-evident that timeout by percent with an 8 minute timer has been causing uproar in contrast with this goal. I dont really disagree with what you said in your third paragraph though, I think the best argument against 10 minutes is its real affect on tournament length, as opposed to attempts to validate its existence as an immutable victory condition which I find rather silly.

In regards to your last paragraph, items did exist in smash for some time and did not require a timer. Maybe brawl would be different, but theres little reason to think so. I acknowledge it as a more 'natural' solution even if its not feasibly in the community.

 

[-DR3W-]

Where is this going?

Will any consideration or negotiation among one of the committees be held?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I suppose if there are convincing arguments, people in the committees might change their minds.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

No they won't, the BBR never did and the committee never will, because it's full of like-minded people who think the current ruleset is perfect and would rather just tell everyone to shut up than actually think when a conflict arises.

 

[Jeffbelittle]

No they won't, the BBR never did and the committee never will, because it's full of like-minded people who think the current ruleset is perfect and would rather just tell everyone to shut up than actually think when a conflict arises.

They banned an entire character from US tournies effective just recently.

If you bring legitimate data to them with a compelling argument rather than being a brat acting AlphaZealot is here to intentionally ruin everyones day and throw out statistics that mean nothing: I'm sure they'd listen.

We are talking about people after all.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

That's all they did, and that's probably all they'll ever do. It took that god damn long for them to do that and we've heard nothing from them since. They can prove me wrong, though, but I really don't think they will.

 

[WindMajor]

Ban of Pictochat? 5 starters to 7 starters? Change of the pause rule? Any of those ring a bell?

C'mon man, cut them some slack. Jeffbelittle is completely right. The BBR/URC have listened to the community and changed their minds because of them on numerous occassions. If the data/arguments aren't convincing, then try again later. If they are, expect a change in the ruleset. They don't think their ruleset is perfect (in fact, it's a ruleset built on sacrifices for the greater goal of standardization, chances are that neither of them think it's perfect), so stop putting words in their mouth.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Instead of demonizing the URC for not following your every whim, maybe you should just recognize that your thoughts on how the rules should be changed aren't the same as the majority of players.

 

[Cassio]

Or recongize that a unified ruleset is futile

 

[Tech-Nelium the Shark]

we do that anyway? lol or you're just not playing patient warios.

I know warios do this and I do play patient warios. What I mean is that we give warios even more chances and time to fill it up. Maybe I could have worded what i meant better but instead of just looking to get your troll on maybe you should have thought about the meaning of my statement and the implications of it.


(now back to the public)
Most characters in this game have a bad MU with the ICs. Lets say you have sort of worked a time out strategy against them. Its not perfect but it allows you if you get the lead to chip in damage and sort of hold it. Now with 2 extra minutes on the clock they have even more time to look for opportunities to hit and kill you or even land a grab. Or how about you are playing Falco and he has been camping it up the entire game but you have managed to put yourself ahead stock and percent wise. Normally a very campy game will play out just to 8 minutes or go to time with a little percent separating them. With an extra two minutes that Falco has even more time to laser you and phantasm around or even look for that free 50-60% chaingrab. These examples go for Wario, DDD, Diddy and more but in other word characters that have good camp games and mostly high tier which will further separate them from the mid-tiers. Expanding the timer only leads to more defensive play. I'm not saying that these things don't go on anyway but with more time it will just encourage more camping. More time I don't feel like would be a big deal in Melee as character's defensive options are not nearly as good as most characters in Brawl and offensive play can be extremely rewarding. Our shield stun mechanics just make defensive options in this game too powerful. Almost nothing is safe on shield. I'm going to make a point for a shorter timer in a bit.

 

[-LzR-]

People always overrate Brawls shield. A lot of stuff is safe on shield.

 

[Karnu]

 

[Kink-Link5]

Depends on what you mean "Safe on Shields." There's a big difference between a spacing a move on a shielding opponent and having advantagous or neutral frames on block.

Like, MK's rising dair is "Safe" on shields because he moves away from the opponent while using the move, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is actually safe to use against a shielding opponent other than Marth's mostly to fully charged standard B. Even in Melee, most things are neutral at best on block, but shield drops were significantly slower, reducing options OoS and making more moves arguably "safe" on block.

Maybe MK's Fully charged F-smash is safe on block? It has like no cool down so, maybe?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Japan starts using an 8 min timer and all of a sudden MK starts winning tournaments. Interesting

 

[popsofctown]

Are we including perfect shielding? Lots of stuff is safe on normal shield but not perfect shield.

 

[Dcold]

It's funny how some people dispose of logic in order to make their point to seem even somewhat reasonable.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I want to know where that came from and what it is referring to.

 

[Life]

It's funny how some people talk about "some people" but are vague as to which group they are referring to.

Anyway, "safe on shield" is not always a consistent thing. Or are we looking for "advantageous on shield"? Something -1 on shield is fairly safe since it leaves enough time to spotdodge a potential grab, even though it's not an advantage, right?

 

[Tesh]

Most projectiles are safe on shield.

 

[Dcold]

Was directed at Jebus somehow referring to the point that an MK winning is even somewhat related to the timer being 8 minutes, when Rain has won tournaments even when the timer was 10 minutes.

 

[Tesh]

Doubles Wario beat double MK in doubles in Japan. Now none of the matches went to time, but it was because of the timer.

 

[Jeffbelittle]

This conversation is about Timers. Not MK.

Unless you have a legitimate statistic that relates him to the discussion: chill it.

 

[-LzR-]

Depends on what you mean "Safe on Shields." There's a big difference between a spacing a move on a shielding opponent and having advantagous or neutral frames on block.

Like, MK's rising dair is "Safe" on shields because he moves away from the opponent while using the move, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is actually safe to use against a shielding opponent other than Marth's mostly to fully charged standard B. Even in Melee, most things are neutral at best on block, but shield drops were significantly slower, reducing options OoS and making more moves arguably "safe" on block.

Maybe MK's Fully charged F-smash is safe on block? It has like no cool down so, maybe?

Peach actually has an advantage on block on many of her moves.

Keep in mind that safe on shield =/= unsafe to shield

Also since when has Marths neutral B been safe on shield? AFAIK it's really damn laggy and unsafe on shield.

And on topic: 10 min is bad and you should feel bad.

 

[Life]

Peach actually has an advantage on block on many of her moves.

Keep in mind that safe on shield =/= unsafe to shield

Also since when has Marths neutral B been safe on shield? AFAIK it's really damn laggy and unsafe on shield.

And on topic: 10 min is bad and you should feel bad.

The idea is that, once it's charged a certain amount, the opponent's shield will break if it doesn't get PS'd.

 

[Karnu]

Who cares really it don't make much difference to me.

 

[-LzR-]

The idea is that, once it's charged a certain amount, the opponent's shield will break if it doesn't get PS'd.

Doesn't break a full shield though and if you charge it they will hit you out of it.

 

[Mithost]

Doesn't break a full shield though and if you charge it they will hit you out of it.

I've caught people panicking before. Just jump towards them and land before the attack finishes charging. It pretty much eats there shield if they have it out while you are jumping.

 

[-LzR-]

If they see you charging it they can SH AD behing you or just roll behind you as it has quite a lot of lag on whiff.

 

[Mithost]

Meh, it's nice to try it for the lulz. I don't usually play it safe anyways.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

That just means the people you were playing are bad. Uncharged Shield Breaker does a lot of shield damage by itself. Anyone seeing you charge it can just roll, jump, whatever and punish you hard.