Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
You saltyIt's like blaming Nintendo for the unbalance present in Pokemon Black and White when Gamefreak are the designers.
This has little to nothing to do with the point being made, but the discussion is welcome.When you outsource business and attach your name to it it's still your business.
fascinating remark, chumI'm not sure if Tesh gets that SB was being sarcastic and is joining in the joke, or if he took SB seriously and is being sardonic.
Exactly.I think a better question would be "Should the timer be increased?" instead. Seeing if the community is interested in increasing the timer at all is a more important endeavor than trying to get people to agree on a specific increased timer.
Yes, I agree with this post. I voted "Yes" anyway, but the fact that the "No" response is already broader than the "Yes" response gives this poll a bias from which data can technically not be recovered. Still, in context, if a majority comes out as "Yes" when you decide to cut the poll off, then it shows that at LEAST that many are in favor of increasing the time limit and that the poll should probably be redone to show exactly how much anyway.Exactly.
Otherwise some people could vote "No" because they think that 10 minutes is too much/isn't enough, rather than giving an answer to what the poll really is asking "Should the timer be increased?".
I voted "Yes".
8 Minutes aren't "hard enough" (Timing someone out with 8 minutes is a little bit hard, but it's completely do-able, as in, not that hard) to make a time out "valid" (skill-wise).
Time Outs should be hard to do. So if someone times out his opponent, it's legit.
Look at Melee. Timing someone in that game is very hard. Time outs almost never happen on that game (Because it's a fast-paced game, and the time limit is quite high for the pace of the game). This makes timing out someone in that game very skillful, atleast from my standpoint.
So this is why I think that 10 or 11 minute timers would be a good option for Brawl. The game is already slow-paced, so 8 minutes aren't enough. But 10/11 yes.
Stop trying to push your 2 stock agenda on here, that is not the discussion. If you really want to keep demaning that this major change be implemented without ever being tested (and, to all the people blaming Unity, they made an experimental ruleset that allows 2 stocks to be tested), then make your own thread/poll.HURR DURR 2 STOCK I'M RIGHT DON'T BOTHER TESTING.
Guess what! You have posted more off topic posts than anybody else!
This is just a bad argument in general. 4 stocks is actually a bit of an arbitrary number for melee. basically, one of WC/EC used 3 stocks and the other used 5 stocks. Tourneys eventually compromised in 2003 or something w/ 4 stocks, 8 minute timer. The game would still be about the same w/ 3 stocks or even 2 stocks.If 4 stocks for Melee (where it can take as little as 3-5 reads to take a stock) is good enough to find the better player, then why do we need 3 stocks when it can take 10+ reads to end a stock in the types of matchups that time out?
4-stock 10min would give only 2 and a half minutes per stock. Our current ruleset gives 2 minutes and 40 seconds, which is still less than we probably should. 3 minutes per stock is something most of us agree is a good ratio, so either go to 3-stock 9min or 2-stock 6min...I tried the Japanese ruleset with my friends (4 stock, 10 min.) and I would have to say that matches ending in taking all stocks more frequently. After a night of Brawling (about 2 hours,) a time out would only occur 2 times. If you consider the fact that previous Brawl nights would use the Unity ruleset (4 stock, 8 min.) and that time outs were much more frequent (about 4-6 times,) then that 10 min. mark means that it works in preventing timeouts.
Besides, its not like anyone should even rely on the clock to give them a win.
*facepalm*Besides, its not like anyone should even rely on the clock to give them a win.
I think I've addressed this before, but this is totally wrong. Each player's 3 stocks are independent of the other player's 3 stocks and the damage happens simultaneously. 3 stocks at 3 minutes would be 9 minutes. It'd only be 15 minutes if you counted the players as trying to tick off their own stocks too.If you want three minutes a stock with a 3 stock ruleset, you need to make the matches 15 mintues long. For 2 stocks you need 9 minutes on the clock.
but extending does deter people from intentionally stalling because it isn't beneficial anymore.First off, 2-stock would need a 6-minute timer, and secondly, we spent a bunch of pages explaining how extending the timer doesn't deter people from intentionally stalling, how it lengthens sets unnecessarily, and how it would be a better idea to do fewer stocks than more time.