Should the Timer be Set to 10 Minutes?

[ninjaalex]

8 is a little odd, 3 min =1 stock sounds nice

 

[Ghostbone]

It's like blaming Nintendo for the unbalance present in Pokemon Black and White when Gamefreak are the designers.

You salty
/I don't mind Gen V

 

[The Ben]

When you outsource business and attach your name to it it's still your business.

 

[Life]

Seriously, we have no idea how hands-on Nintendo goes with Smash... do we?

 

[Kink-Link5]

When you outsource business and attach your name to it it's still your business.

This has little to nothing to do with the point being made, but the discussion is welcome.

 

[Strong Badam]

majority reached! that's enough justification! make it part of the Unity Ruleset!

 

[Tesh]

Yea, 51%. Don't forget to ban MK another 4 times while you are at it.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'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.

 

[Lord Chair]

I'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.

fascinating remark, chum

 

[TSM ZeRo]

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.

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.

 

[Tesh]

Honestly Zero, that seems like a really good reason to drop the stock count instead.

Unless we really want to test flat our stubborn endurance, I don't wanna see a round 1 or 2 set with the potential to run 30 minutes long without even factoring in counterpicking/coaching/disputes.

There is no reason not to drop the stock count to 2 because as you said its a slow paced game. If we are making comparisons to melee, then it should be clear that Brawl doesn't move 75% as fast as Melee.

 

[Akaku94]

I've favored 2Stock, 6Min for some time... better to do fewer stocks than more time imo

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If players want change, they are going to have to stop mindlessly approaching when the timer starts getting low. That is the one of the reasons why most matches with less than 1 min on the clock don't usually go to time. It's better to wait and try to figure out a pattern in your opponent even if it means getting timed out than it is to just mindlessly approach

 

[Rockenos]

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.

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.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

HURR DURR 2 STOCK I'M RIGHT DON'T BOTHER TESTING.

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.

 

[Ussi]

I believe he is bringing up the point that lower stocks would give us more time per stock while not increasing the potenial set time which is his reasoning to say no to 10 minutes

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Good point, but him and a few others have been pushing the 2 stock agenda for the whole length of the thread. If he just said "I disagree because I feel that 2 stocks would be a better solution" and left it at that, It would be fine, but he hasn't (plus, he's been discouraging testing and encouraging his idea being put in ASAP). I don't care if they have a valid point, they can go argue on a new thread.

 

[Tesh]

Lol, I don't discourage testing. I'm just pointing out that some people (I'm generally one of them) will still force timeouts with 10+ minutes and you are making the game less fun buy extending the amount of time spent in each match. The slow pace of the game means more reads per stock. Thus we shouldn't need 3 stocks to find the better player.

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?

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

First off, you just lost by using the "fun" argument. Second, my point still stands, this isn't the place to be discussing 2 stocks. I'm not sure if you're aware, but upon joining, you are granted the ability to make threads, and may do so whenever you please. You may use this power to make your own thread discussing the 2 stock idea, nothing is stopping you.

 

[Akaku94]

This is the place to talk about 2-stock, because it's a viable solution to the problem being addressed by extending the timer. We do that all the time. We're just putting forward a better alternative, a different suggestion, that accomplishes the same goal.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

You know what? No, it isn't. You guys have been preaching 2 stocks for the entire ****ing thread and forcing the main discussion out of the way, instead of just saying "No, because I think 2 stocks is a better solution" and then making your own thread about it, which is absolutely not okay. Also, seriously, stop acting like 2 stock is the greatest thing ever. You have zero proof that it is a better solution, all you have is theories and assumptions. You sound just like the Melee pricks that come to Brawl threads just to *****.

 

[Latch]

Dear Dr. R.O.Botnik,
Guess what! You have posted more off topic posts than anybody else! 17 posts mentioning 2 stock, specifically. Congratulations!
Did you know you can make a separate thread to rage at people expressing a possible solution to a problem being discussed?
Sincerely,

On topic, I agree about the 2-stock option, and most of the other points expressed in its support.

But barring that, I think that the 10 minute option is better than the 8 min option because increasing the max time does NOT increase the length of every match. It only increases the length of matches which involve timing out the opponent, and make it harder to do so. Right now, 3 match sets last ~15 minutes (without stalling), and that would continue to be the case after the rule change.

TL;DR: matches would only get longer than they are currently if they involved timing out the opponent.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Guess what! You have posted more off topic posts than anybody else!

Guess what! I was the only one pushing against it, so I had more people to respond to! If you factor in all of the 2 stock pushers, you'll see that they account for a significant proportion of the thread. Seriously, though, your argument is irrelevant. Just because I posted more than anyone else doesn't mean they should be deliberately pushing the main discussion out of the way to push their agenda.

P.S. I will make the 2 stock thread, because apparently all of it's supporters are too lazy to bring light to their own cause.

 

[Strong Badam]

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?

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.

I tried running 2 stock, 8 minute timer at one of my tourneys and the players did 3 stock anyway. It was very aggravating.

 

[Akaku94]

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.

 

[RespawningJesus]

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.

 

[MK26]

I have a nice long paragraph in my head that is refusing to transfer itself into written words on my screen, so I just want to say that 1) timeouts are very rare, and 2) at least from that old MLG data from a few years back, the correct time to change to is 9 minutes.

IIRC the reasoning is that the majority of games that get to 8 minutes would either be resolved after 9 or would not be resolved even after 10.

In other words, any time beyond 9 minutes is superfluous and would really only cause the kinds of games where each player's only lost one stock after 8 minutes to drag on even longer.

 

[Akaku94]

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.

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...

Besides, its not like anyone should even rely on the clock to give them a win.

*facepalm*

 

[Kink-Link5]

7 stocks over 10 minutes is like a minute and a half for each stock, not over 2 minutes.

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.

 

[The Ben]

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.

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.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I've rebuked that logic before. 3 stocks with 9 minutes would only be 3 minutes a stock if it was a blowout or every hit was an equal trade and is something entirely unrealistic. The extra time compensates for the work put in before each kill by each character.

 

[The Ben]

It doesn't though. It assumes 5 stocks are lost, it assumes each of those 5 stocks takes 3 minutes. If both players are working to kill each other, and damage sticks, then this doesn't equal 3 minutes a stock. Because each set of 3 is a goal independent of the other goal 9 minutes would mean each player has 3 minutes per stock. Anything spent below 3 minutes is extra time for reaching said goal, any time above 3 minutes is time wasted. Any other form of measurement requires considering the stock counts not independent of each other which is a totally fallacious way to view the stocks.

 

[Luxord]

heheh just broke the 50-50 tie =D

 

[Labernash]

5 stocks. 8 Minute timer.

Problem solved.

 

[SxK]

Things seem fine the way they are, keeping the timer lower just acts as another WinCon for certain MU's.
If you increase the timer, it would indirectly make some MU's harder. See R.O.B V/ DeDeDe.

 

[Yikarur]

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.

but extending does deter people from intentionally stalling because it isn't beneficial anymore.
it often shortens sets by a good amount and you're just not right with what you said here.

 

[theONEjanitor]

it's so scrubby to make a rule just to prevent time outs lol why woudl you do that It's a legit strat who cares if you get timed out.

most people don't go into matches trying to time people out anyway. i strongly disbelieve that increasing the timer will make people stop timing each other out. and like i said, who the **** cares if you get timed out, its part of the game. it would almost certainly make tournaments longer. people are not going to say, "oh wow I have plenty of time so I'm going to NOT zone/space and BE LESS defensive and LESS safe now." lol that's ******** what kind of argument is that. People are going to play the exact same way, if there a campfest, its going to remain a campfest, just for a longer time.

Personally I think time should be way shorter, just so tournaments don't last a week. 6 minutes sounds good. Matches will go to time a lot, but who cares, its a part of the game.

 

[Ussi]

^this why i suggested lower stocks too

 

[RespawningJesus]

How about people actually TESTS the 10 minute vs. the 8 minute rule before they say anything more. (Or whatever time/stock setting you feel that would work better)

Everything looks good on paper, but we won't know for sure until someone actually tests it, whether it is in a night of friendlies, or at a tourney.

 

[-LzR-]

Because if a large tourney tries 10 minutes, it's a bad tourney and no one will attend so they won't try and just stick to good old 8 minutes.

If a not so large tourney tries 10 minutes, it's too small and insignificant to matter so no on takes it seriously.