Should the Timer be Set to 10 Minutes?

[SFA Smiley]

Just saying, AZ has adopted the Japanese Ruleset

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Reflex did this against vinnie at apex too (actually half the top wario's try to do this), but with 2 extra minutes, running away to achieve victory is HARDER.

Why does everyone keep saying this? I only fought him when he would approach me, which rarely happened, because he didn't feel the need to, despite his pretty much always being at a solid percent disadvantage (at least) during the set. I am a pretty aggressive player.

 

[Lord Chair]

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.

Do you have any clue how ******** this is.

 

[The Ben]

Do you have any clue how ******** this is.

Not half as ******** as your response to it.

 

[Vinnie]

Why does everyone keep saying this? I only fought him when he would approach me, which rarely happened, because he didn't feel the need to, despite his pretty much always being at a solid percent disadvantage (at least) during the set. I am a pretty aggressive player.

Game 1 you stayed on the SV platform the entire match. Game 2 was a little less campy, Game 3 I got farted at like 25 on CS and chased you for the rest of the match. Not saying that it's a bad thing, I think that's what Wario has to do in order to beat ICs. I should have been wiser with my CP.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Game 1 you stayed on the SV platform the entire match. Game 2 was a little less campy, Game 3 I got farted at like 25 on CS and chased you for the rest of the match. Not saying that it's a bad thing, I think that's what Wario has to do in order to beat ICs. I should have been wiser with my CP.

Exactly as I said. Plus, the third game wasn't even close to going to time, and getting Waft KO'd at ~29% has to count for something, right?

 

[Vinnie]

Exactly as I said. Plus, the third game wasn't even close to going to time, and getting Waft KO'd at ~29% has to count for something, right?

It was a well placed fart, if anything. I ain't johning, I kill people at 0.

 

[Luigi player]

If both players are playing patiently or maybe even just have really good DI, and characters with trouble killing, etc., then it's really not that rare for matches to last quite some time.

Even in friendlies games somtimes last very long for me. Now that we've switched to 10 minutes in my area I didn't look at the timer that much and it never concerned me, which is a pretty nice thing I must say.
Being able to play it out till the end - the real end...

Although I'm not sure how good this would be at large tourneys with time issues... I'm leaning towards 10 minutes now, though, because that is better for the game.

 

[Tesh]

The timer isn't the reason people run from ICs. Olimar and ICs deserve to get timed out.

 

[KirbyandSonicrock14]

We only got 3 stocks. Why does it need to be 10 minutes?

 

[-LzR-]

Do you have any clue how ******** this is.

It is ******** but that's pretty much how it works here.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Something occurs to me. If extending the timer is to reduce/remove timeouts, why is the timer even THERE in the first place? Legit answer this question someone.

 

[Yikarur]

if no one approaches the match would never end lol
you can't run tournaments this way

 

[Kink-Link5]

Please answer my question instead of dancing around it. :V

 

[BSP]

You have to have some way to force the match to end :\

 

[Kink-Link5]

And then it goes to time and what has extending the timer accomplished?

/Socratic

 

[BSP]

You asked why the timer was there

IMO stock count should be reduced if we want less timeouts.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Well now we're getting somewhere.

Oh wait, it's just cyclical at this point because that is the nature of discussions.

 

[Tesh]

He answered your question. The timer keeps matches from potentially going on forever. Matches could easily go on for 15+ minutes if alot of money is concerned.

 

[Lord Chair]

It is ******** but that's pretty much how it works here.

implying finland has large tournaments
implying finnish players boycott small tournaments with 10 minute timers
implying any finnish player ever tried 10 minutes
implying anything about finland

what the hell dude

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I think by "here", he meant Smashboards. Not Finland.

 

[Dcold]

In my own opinion, and experience from using 10 minute timer for a little bit, I do think it should be extended to 10 minutes. I don't think the point of it being 10 minutes is to avoid time outs, but to make them less likely because a regular high leveled match between 2 good players, is usually around 6-7 minutes I'd say, depending on who's playing ofcourse. Now add in money, and how far in the tournament they are, like say Finals or something. With an 8 minute timer, seeing it's close to the end, abandoning spacing and playing safe in order to plank and time out seems more likely because there is less time left, meaning desperation kicks in for some people.

However with 10 minutes, that same match would have 4 minutes or so left, leaving more than enough time to play safe, patient, and still try to get your win w/o planking because you see you have enough time to execute what you need to, without the fear of even being timed out yourself. I think it's more of a psychological thing, than an issue of going into the match with the sole objective of timing the person out.

tl;dr if you see the timer low, you may want to time the person out in order for a win. See the timer high, you may want to just continue playing the way you are so you yourself do not get timed out. All depends on the person really.

 

[Kimidori]

So, everyone goes with 8 minutes for a few years, and all the while complains about planking (which increases likelyhood for timeouts).

After these few years, people suggest 10 minutes because it prevents timeouts and planking isn't as big of an issue (I shouldn't even HAVE to say why).

The same people who complain about planking say that we should keep the timer low.

How stubborn can people get? MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.

 

[Wizzrobe]

I think people just need to learn to play with the 8 minute timer instead of having to change it.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Plenty of people have learned to play with the 8 minute timer. That's precisely why this influx of proposals has sprung up.

 

[Kimidori]

Are people ********? I want you all to analyze the scenario.
Look at Melee. Look how far it has come. The near peak of its metagame.
Now look at Brawl. Lots of room for improvement. Nowhere near the peak of its metagame.
Now look at Melee's ruleset. 4 stocks, 8 minutes. Perfect for a very fast paced game.
Then look at Brawl's ruleset. 3 stocks, 8 minutes. For a very slow paced game. Not acceptable.
Notice how timeouts hardly EVER occur in Melee (Only when the matchup involves major stalling does it happen)? And then look at how great the Melee players are. Incredible..
Notice how timeouts frequently occur in Brawl (No matter what the matchup)? Then look at our skill vs, dare I say it, Japan.
We need to extend our timer. It's the only way we're going to get better at this game. People say timeouts are a legitimate win. In other words, you're saying that getting a single stock off and hiding for the rest of the match is a legit win? No. That's just pathetic. No wonder we have so many players that plank and attempt to gay out their opponents. People need to realize that the only way to get out of this timeout issue is to extend the timer. Lower the stocks? No. The stocks are low enough. Also, making a major change like that will just lessen our global attention for smash. Less Japanese players in tourneys. And possibly even less European players (unless they adopt the same ruleset). Extend the timer or bust. Goodness gracious, the fact that people even considered timeouts as a legitimate win makes me cringe.

 

[Akaku94]

Using a larger stagelist doesn't seem to deter Japanese players, so I doubt decreasing the stock count would do that. There's a separate thread for that, but it is definitely worth mentioning here that lowering the stock count is preferable to increasing the timer imo.

Melee is such a technical game that just a couple of good reads often lead to a stock. In Brawl, there is less of a reward for each correct read, meaning that you must make more of them, and that takes longer. Adding more time doesn't discourage timing out; it barely makes it more diffucult. If someone is set on getting a timeout, two extra minutes won't change that if they are good at stalling. The only advantage that we would get from increasing the timer would be the occasional match that ends in a timeout naturally; that is, when neither player is actively attempting to get a timeout. However, that issue is solved just as well by decreasing the stock count.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Lower stocks and more time have both been proven to work, but the latter changes the game way less than the former. Really, there's no reason to use 2 stocks if this is the main problem you're trying to solve, when 10 minutes solves it without changing any other gameplay aspects. Whether or not 2 stocks makes the game generally better is a different question entirely.

 

[Life]

Two stocks shorten tournament length, which leads to easier logistics

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Okay, that's tournament length. We're talking about preventing timeouts. Completely different discussion.

 

[The Ben]

If we're trying to prevent timeouts for the sake of making the game better than we've concluded that timeouts are bad for the game. Logically you should just get rid of the timer altogether. If timeouts aren't bad for Brawl I don't see any reason to make the timer longer other than to lengthen tournament times.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Removing the timer would allow for matches lasting 20-30 minutes. The LGL rule wouldn't apply anymore since timeouts can't happen, and matches would become campy as hell once down to the last stock. You'd be suprised how hard people can camp when $$ is on the line.

Timeouts themselve aren't inherently bad, it's just that they're looked down upon by the community. They're necesary to keep certain people in line. People view timeouts as cheap wins, cuz instead of killing your opponent, you avoided him. Since the game isn't called Super Run Away Brothers: Flee, it's understandable.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

If we're trying to prevent timeouts for the sake of making the game better than we've concluded that timeouts are bad for the game. Logically you should just get rid of the timer altogether. If timeouts aren't bad for Brawl I don't see any reason to make the timer longer other than to lengthen tournament times.

Intentional timeouts are a bad thing. This isn't boxing where going 12 rounds is a challenge on it's own. Without time, we have extremely campy matches where there's no punishment for not moving forward. Now, we have a similar but different problem, where the current time is too low and there's no punishment for not moving forward as long as you have the lead and there's not a lot of time. With 10 minutes, it would be easier to score a KO than to time out.

Since the game isn't called Super Run Away Brothers: Flee, it's understandable.

I think that was the beta English name.

 

[Tech-Nelium the Shark]

I don't feel like reading this entire thread to see if this point has been made been does anyone really want warios just camping you to build their waft back up and kill you at 50 when you have them at 140.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

That's what they'll do anyway, though.

 

[waldorf2007]

I don't feel like reading this entire thread to see if this point has been made been does anyone really want warios just camping you to build their waft back up and kill you at 50 when you have them at 140.

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

 

[Tesh]

He does touch on the issue that bothers me here. People are going to be even more patient....because they can. And it will just serve to make the game even less appealing.

 

[Yikarur]

how is a game where both players have to be patient not appealing? these are one of the greatest matches, when both players are patient.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

On an objective level, because the game is already pretty slow, and giving people even more time to stretch makes it even slower. TOs often don't have that kind of time.

On a subjective level, because the game is already pretty boring, and giving people even more time to stretch makes it even more boring. Many people will be displeased.

 

[Yikarur]

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!!!