Should the Timer be Set to 10 Minutes?

[Kink-Link5]

The point wasn't that shield breaker is a good move (It's prt bd) but that it's one of the few moves safe to use on a shielding opponent because it has the name shield breaker.

 

[Mithost]

ANYWAYS, Back to the timer discussion.

Japan switched to an 8 minute timer. Discuss

 

[The Ben]

The obvious answer is "Japan did it so it must be the best way to do things!"

 

[TheReflexWonder]

After realizing that this game takes forever and that the extra two minutes don't add any depth to the game, they fixed it.

Obviously.

 

[Dcold]

There are 2 regions in Japan, east and west. East as far as I know uses 8 minute timers. Yet the best player is still in West Japan which uses a 10 minute timer as far as I know. So, Japan still has a 10 minute timer.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

All that means is that they're not sure what's best, either, so even if their scene were ideal for basing a decision on, they don't even know what's best.

 

[Mithost]

At least they are willing to make changes. It bothers me how a ruleset committee doesn't do anything new to the ruleset unless it is debated for 4 years, or it helps get people to the tournaments they happen to be running.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

ANYWAYS, Back to the timer discussion.

Japan switched to an 8 minute timer. Discuss

I am disappoint, Japan.

At least they are willing to make changes. It bothers me how a ruleset committee doesn't do anything new to the ruleset unless it is debated for 4 years, or it helps get people to the tournaments they happen to be running.

^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^

Although, the BBR did make significant changes in it's final ruleset, but were completely convinced that it was perfect beforehand. Now, the URC is completely convinced that the current ruleset is perfect, and we don't have 4 years to change.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

If they changed it, they clearly didn't think it was perfect. You make it sound like the URC never does anything, but they've made several changes to the ruleset that didn't require 4 years of debate.

Can you really compare banning MK to changing the ****ing timer? There's a huge difference between them. For one thing, the poll for banning MK actually said to do it, whereas the poll for the 10min clock says not to do it. But because the poll doesn't agree with you, you wanna ***** and complain about how the URC never wants to try anything new so that you can have your way. Banning a character was a big deal, the goddamn clock isn't.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

If they changed it, they clearly didn't think it was perfect.

Yeah, after 3 years of only minor changes.

You make it sound like the URC never does anything, but they've made several changes to the ruleset that didn't require 4 years of debate.

Name 3 that aren't MK or MK related.

Can you really compare banning MK to changing the ****ing timer?

First off, I'm not comparing them, I'm saying that it took years for the BBR to change anything, and that we don't have years for the URC to do the same. Second, yes I can, they're both rules, and they're both controversial topics that were shot down initially by the people in charge of rulesets at the time.

There's a huge difference between them. For one thing, the poll for banning MK actually said to do it, whereas the poll for the 10min clock says not to do it.

This poll isn't just change vs no change, like the MK poll was. This is change vs no change vs different change, so obviously the 2 sides against this change would be larger than the one for it.

But because the poll doesn't agree with you, you wanna ***** and complain about how the URC never wants to try anything new so that you can have your way. Banning a character was a big deal, the goddamn clock isn't.

Every single time I complain about the BBR or URC, you (and it's always you) say it's because I'm just being a whiny little ***** that didn't get his way, but it is obviously not just me. Look at that pole. Notice how more than 1 person voted in favor of more time? That alone proves that it's not just me. Right now, the community is crying out for change louder than they've been since MK, and what are the URC members doing? Refuting every single point made against the current ruleset. Try and find one URC member post that's in favor of any sort of proposed change, I dare you. You will find nothing, and if you do, I'll shut up.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

The URC isn't in favor of the change because the community you claim is crying out so loudly for change, has even more people crying out just as loudly for no change. The poll says "No"

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

The URC isn't in favor of the change because the community you claim is crying out so loudly for change, has even more people crying out just as loudly for no change. The poll says "No"

This poll isn't just change vs no change, like the MK poll was. This is change vs no change vs different change, so obviously the 2 sides against this change would be larger than the one for it.

It's called reading, try it sometime.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

You just saying that isn't proof that it's true.

 

[Jeffbelittle]

It's called reading, try it sometime.

If votes flip flopped because of that change and it was 60% for the vote and we still didn't see any very convincing arguments, I would hope they wouldn't change it.

Rules aren't a popularity contest. They're the tone of balance and fairness.

 

[TreK]

Rules aren't a popularity contest. They're the tone of balance and fairness.

Actually, this is not everytime the case.
You'd be playing with no tripping codes activated on all wiis, just like us, if other factors weren't influent. Sponsors are influent in American Smash, and sponsors make their decisions out of two factors : laws, and popularity. So you could say that the popularity of a rule is important. In E-sport, TV time is a game's ultimate goal. The more a game is popular, the more sponsors will get interested in it.

If a rule is truly against the balance of the competition, and you are convinced of it, then it's your role to convince people that the game could be better with it. And until you have the vast majority by your side, rules will still suck.

 

[John12346]

Two things:

Name 3 that aren't MK or MK related.

"v2.1:
-Meta Knight is no longer optionally banned: only reference to Meta Knight in the ruleset states that he is banned in Singles and Doubles.

v2.0:

-Meta Knight is now banned from Singles and Doubles.
-Meta Knight may be used with Unity until January 8th, 2011.
-New pause rule.
-New coaching rule.
-New method of determining who strikes stages first.
-Method for determining pools results.

v1.4:

-The Unity Ruleset is now active in both the US and Canada, not just the US now.
-Experimental Ruleset system added.

v1.3:

-Castle Siege and Pokemon Stadium 1 changed from Counterpick to Starter.
-Order of stage striking changed to accommodate 7 stages.

v1.2:

-Pictochat removed as a Counterpick.

v1.1:

-Stalling and game freezing rules added.
-The losing player or team may opt to re-pick controller ports prior to the next match.
-If an accidental pause mid game causes the opponent (the person who didn't pause) to lose a stock, the offender loses 2 stocks instead of 1.
-Added a rule for if a players tag or controls are incorrect.
-Added a rule on disrupting your opponent.
-Mentioned that rules are subject to change prior to event date.
-The Tournament Organizer, helpers, venue, and any affiliates are not responsible or held liable for any injury or harm to a person. A player agrees to this by entering the tournament."

Right now, the community is crying out for change louder than they've been since MK, and what are the URC members doing?

And this... just isn't right. The Meta Knight debate was huge; bigger than anything you could possibly imagine. Not only is the rule under scrutiny not as serious as MK's legality, but this poll has a third of the voters that MK's vote had. Plus, the fact that, at the moment, above 50% of the community is against such a rule change, I don't that we're going to see a numerical amount of people voting "yes" on this equal to the amount of people who voted "ban MK" any time soon.

 

[Mithost]

I suggest that if you want a change in the timer, assemble 30 people and go to the same tournaments with the goal of timing out. More people will see how bad this is for the game, and those people will join your efforts.

 

[Hat N' Clogs]

IMO, the time limit is fine for now.

 

[Jeffbelittle]

I suggest that if you want a change in the timer, assemble 30 people and go to the same tournaments with the goal of timing out. More people will see how bad this is for the game, and those people will join your efforts.

Oh can it.


Timing out isn't the best or anywhere a super strong strategy you can just GO IN at the 0 minute mark planning to do. It's a circumstantial strategy left primarily because of match ups where characters chosen fail to effectively play against camping OR has a substantial disadvantage.

You're not going to beat M2K or OCEAN because you're going to develop the new time out strategy.

 

[Espy Rose]

Voted no, 8 minutes always felt just fine.
However, if I had to choose a change, I'd definitely switch it to 2-Stock, 8 Minutes. It's amazing.

 

[Mithost]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0r0DkNiqxc

I'm pretty sure Will won game 1 here. He knew full out that he was going to plank if he got the first stock, which he did. He did this for the LGL, and we now have a LGL. Someone can pull something similar for the timer.

 

[Nike.]

Wtf, this topic is still going on lol

 

[EPsilon933]

Voted no, 8 minutes always felt just fine.
However, if I had to choose a change, I'd definitely switch it to 2-Stock, 8 Minutes. It's amazing.

This guy knows what's up!

 

[Wizzrobe]

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!!!

If your the one playing in the slow paced match it could be intense since your trying to be patient and win.

But its actually pretty boring if your watching the battle.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

If nintendo gave a **** about the competitive scene, we wouldn't go through this either.

mmhmm.

Anyway, if the point of pushing this to prevent timeouts, why don't you guys just lower the stocks to 2 instead of raising the timer? I mean, when 4 stocks wasn't fitting for Brawl early on, everyone just lowered it to 3 to fit the 8 minutes with very little hassle. It seems to me that Brawl may be a little too slow for 3 stocks to fit in the allotted time limit. I don't see the problem in lowering the stock count again to 2 to better fit the 8 minutes. There's practically no risk of making tournaments lasting longer and there should be less timeouts, not that they are that common anyway.

Am I missing something?

Edit: Factory Default is not a valid argument here, as it was not tested AT ALL in Brawl.

 

[EthereaL]

I just want to clarify that more time equates to less camping / fewer time-outs.

This was a big point argued by the Melee community some time ago, and that's the consensus (bar two characters that literally have no approaching options against one another, in which case both will camp for 10 minutes). Yes, (insert argument about how Brawl is not Melee). However, it is true for both.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Unfortunately for you, I had ribs....... and this is not regarding Melee, and shouldn't really be brought up in this context.

That doesn't really answer my concern about just lowering the stock count instead.
With raising the time limit, you make it harder for the time limit to do it's job of making sure matches, and by extension tournaments, finish in a timely manner.

Lowering the stock count pretty much doesn't have this issue.

 

[The Ben]

I just want to clarify that more time equates to less camping / fewer time-outs.

Camping != trying to force a timeout. If camping would be good in scenario A with an 8 minute timer, camping would be good in scenario A with a 10 minute timer. The only thing that has changed is that it takes longer to force a timeout which doesn't make the situations where you'd want to camp come up less.

 

[EthereaL]

Camping != trying to force a timeout. If camping would be good in scenario A with an 8 minute timer, camping would be good in scenario A with a 10 minute timer. The only thing that has changed is that it takes longer to force a timeout which doesn't make the situations where you'd want to camp come up less.

I am very well aware. The / was meant to imply "or", not "in place of".

Let's say, when camping, the openings to hit the camper appear 1/15 jumps. By extending the timer, you give the "aggressor" more chances to poke through the camper's defense, making it less viable.

That's a very streamlined example.

Again, in games where there are no approaching options, the timer doesn't matter.

 

[Mithost]

IMO 1 stock 3 minutes Bo5 is ideal for fast, fun, balanced (character wise, more characters are viable like PT and ZSS), and entertaining tournaments. Timing out might still be possible, but if you mess up once with ledge gimmicks, your basically f***ed. It isn't worth it, especially when you are on match 5 with no extra stocks to fall back on.

 

[Yikarur]

more balanced through inconsistent results

 

[Tesh]

Consistency isn't some godly proof that a ruleset is good.

More time = longer matches. 2 agressive players that end a match in 4-5 minutes now aren't going to end it sooner now, knowing they have to wait longer for a timeout. 2 patient campy players simply have more time to camp or get camped.

 

[Mithost]

Consistency isn't some godly proof that a ruleset is good.

More time = longer matches. 2 agressive players that end a match in 4-5 minutes now aren't going to end it sooner now, knowing they have to wait longer for a timeout. 2 patient campy players simply have more time to camp or get camped.

I think it would make matches longer and even more boring D:

 

[-LzR-]

IMO 1 stock 3 minutes Bo5 is ideal for fast, fun, balanced (character wise, more characters are viable like PT and ZSS), and entertaining tournaments. Timing out might still be possible, but if you mess up once with ledge gimmicks, your basically f***ed. It isn't worth it, especially when you are on match 5 with no extra stocks to fall back on.

I've played enough 1 stock matches to know they are actually pretty bad. Way too inconsistent.

 

[Yikarur]

Consistency isn't some godly proof that a ruleset is good.

.

I think consistent results are what the ruleset should aim for.
the better player should win and 1 Stock Matches can end due one mistake, one misclick, one wrong decision.
Thats pretty bad imo.

 

[Tesh]

A good ruleset should have consistency, but consistency doesn't prove a rule (set) good.

And if you made 1 mistake and your opponent made 0, he is better under the rules. Unless its DDD dittos, it won't go down like that.

Not to mention how much a matchup can change once a stock lead comes up. Getting the first kill can still set the pace for a much easier time holding the lead.

 

[Mithost]

I've played enough 1 stock matches to know they are actually pretty bad. Way too inconsistent.

Could you explain this further?

 

[-LzR-]

Tripping for one. A single trip makes you the worse player in 1 stock. Trip against ICs? Too bad, you lost. Did you **** up once? You lost
When I played against a noob in 1 stock I totally messed up and got Falcon punched and lost. In a 3 stock game I would have just not cared and then proceed to eat the rest of his stocks.

 

[The Ben]

That doesn't make any sense. The odds of tripping once in 3 games with 1 stock is lower than the chance of tripping once in a single game with 3 stocks since you don't actually play the damage between stocks. Assuming you played equivalent amount of stocks you should trip less often in a set of 1 stock games than in a long game with x amount of stocks.

 

[-LzR-]

Yeah but the point was that tripping in 1 stock can decide the match where as in 3 stock it might only decide one stock. It shouldn't matter that much in 3 stock since a better player can easily make a comeback in 3 stocks and win. In 1 stock you just lose. Too bad.