Should timers be used for matches? (POLL)

[Shears]

**I encourage you to seriously think about it and read the discussions before making your vote**

Should timers be used for all matches? Each player would just use their phone timer, or a watch timer, or whatever they have and they would both start their timers at the beginning of each game. If the timers end before the game then the player with the most stocks wins, if equal stocks, least damage wins. Game begins, players start timers, timers are placed in front of the players next to the tv so both can see both times. Each player starts a timer so both start the game in the same situation and so neither can be accused of starting a faulty timer, checks and balances. The timer length can be decided upon here but I believe it should be made long enough so nearly all matches that are played will never use the timer expiration for a game decision. It would be implemented so games that become excessively long are halted from the timer. Basically M2K games, Wizzrobe-Firo games, etc. are the only ones really affected by the timer and most games the timer will go unnoticed. There are very rare scenarios where the timer will cause controversy and this will only be in matches where people have deliberately taken advantage of the timer and the stock is equal and the damage is within a few % and the winner is being attacked with a multi-hit attack by the loser at the second the timers end and the game is paused. That is the only con I see. The pros, it takes only a second to start timers and it can save hours of tournament time and clear most camping and stalling issues. Theres no need to call over a TO to penalize stalling and camping, the timer will end and it will be taken care of. We will never have to have a stalling/camping discussion or debate ever again. There was a debate going on, maybe more of a rant by me depending on how you want to look at it, in the Lovely Xanadu thread, so if anyone wants to read more you can go there, and that discussion can be moved here.

If you're going to vote no, provide a reason against it that has not been addressed if you have one.

If you're going to vote yes, provide a reason for it that has not been addressed if you have one.

IDEA: There should be poll restriction options that require a voter to give a reason for their vote. Stubbornly or ignorantly voting for or against something is counterproductive.

 

[clubbadubba]

But what will we debate in the future?

if it only affects the very few who abuse the lack of timer, I'm all for it. my fear is that it will spill over and affect other players who realize how easy it is to time someone out in this game.

 

[Fireblaster]

the damage is within a few % and the winner is being attacked with a multi-hit attack by the loser at the second the timers end and the game is paused. That is the only con I see. .

This is pretty much the only weakness of this system. When the damage is very close and how fast a player reacts to the timer running out to pause it, it could create a scenario that needs to be decided upon with arbitrary human decision. However, in all 13 years that I've seen competitive smash being played with a timer in any game, there is only ONE scenario ever where I've seen a timed out match that literally changed its outcome at the very last second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vMiKtp3-GE&t=49

This is the only kind of scenario that could cause trouble in 64 with a timer. Pretend that this match was in 64 with a phone timer and that the timer actually finishes just before the dsmash hits. If a player had reacted fast enough to pause before it connects, then the metaknight wins. If a player reacted slower to the timer going off/finishing, then the dsmash connects and Diddy wins. But like I said, this is the ONLY example that I've ever seen where it came down to the match outcome being changed at a split last second. I dare anyone to find me more examples like this. If you can't, then statistically it is much better to go with a timer than without.

my fear is that it will spill over and affect other players who realize how easy it is to time someone out in this game.

"People will actually learn how to play the TRUE OPTIMAL WAY TO WIN which they didn't do before because no timer made them ignorant of it" isn't a very good argument.

 

[SheerMadness]

YES. We need a timer.

6-7 minutes IMO.

Most of Boom/Moyashi's matches in top 8 were between 7-10 minutes. Way too long and boring.

EDIT: Isai and Moyashi too.

 

[Shears]

But what will we debate in the future?

if it only affects the very few who abuse the lack of timer, I'm all for it. my fear is that it will spill over and affect other players who realize how easy it is to time someone out in this game.

That's why time is to be determined. If we made the timer like 6 minutes, people could exploit it very easily. If we made the timer longer, there is less of a chance to exploit it. Assuming the upper bound of an average match is 10 minutes, then if the timer is 10 minutes, no one is going to be exploiting it because their natural game play will be less than that. If they're not going to win in 8 minutes, they're probably not winning in 10 because they can camp for an extra 2. The better player still always has the upper hand here. Timers done appropriately will only affect games that threaten the limit, and we can probably count on 2 hands how many games have stretched that limit and its probably one hand to count the people involved in those games. This is a simple fix that only effects outrageously long games. The whole meta isn't going to shift. Starting matches like the Japanese isn't going to dramatically change the meta either but people want to argue that its a terrible idea to switch because they're comfortable with the way it is now and are resistant to changes because they're stubborn humans.

 

[clubbadubba]

sure it is. If the timer changes the meta in a way such that we get timeouts every other match, that would be a bad thing imo. I think most ssb players would agree that Is undesirable, regardless of what sf4 or any other community thinks. The real issue you should take with my concern is whether or not timers would cause it to come to fruition.

shears I'm saying more games would push the limit. games that would otherwise end in 4 minutes might be stretched to 8 or 10. and stop acting like people are resistant to change for no reason.

 

[MrMarbles]

i just feel a timer will make stalling issue worse rather than solve them

 

[MattNF]

I don't think a 6-7 minute timer with 5 stocks would be fun. I could see many games ending in timeouts which would be really lame.

4 stocks, 7-8 minutes would work well I think.

 

[SheerMadness]

I'd be fine with 5 stock 8 minute timer.

Nobody wants to see a match last more than 8 minutes.

I want to stay at 5 stock. But I'd rather go down to 4 stock with a 7 minute timer than see a top 8 full of 7-10 minute matches like we had at Apex. BORING.

 

[Skrlx]

Timer? "Yes, please time me out!"

 

[Shears]

If the timer changes the meta in a way such that we get timeouts every other match, that would be a bad thing imo.

Lets say your matches take 8 minutes on average. Your opponents matches take 10 minutes on average. The timer is 12 minutes. Stalling really won't be an issue because the timer is longer than any of the matches you ever play. If you played your typical 8 minute game, no timeout. You play their 10 minute game, no timeout. You're deluding yourself into this idea that the timer is 3 minutes, everyone stalls, camps, and times out. The timer is made long enough that no one will really exploit it, but short enough that we don't have 1 hour long sets. Imagine the timer is a half hour, you really think you and your opponent are going to try and exploit the timer, no, you're going to just play the game as if there was no timer, but those rare few games that are 30 minutes, well now they end and everyones happy. You're not looking for a solution, you're looking for a reason to complain. You like having a problem.

I dare you to conduct a friendly tournament without money and a few people so it can run smoothly and quickly. Predict the outcome with and without timers. Run it once without timers and record the results. Run it again with timers (not 3 minute timers, try something like 12) and record the results. Are the results wildly different? I'm betting no. Was the tournament dramatically longer? I'm betting no. Timers also allow for a fixed tournament schedule. You don't have to worry about Star King having to play at 8am because everyone took too long and Wizzrobe was tired, we will now know when it will end.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Listen scrubs, I honestly don't give a **** one way or the other, but there's one MAJOR point that you all have failed to bring up.

What if one person times out another in a really high level set? Take the Top 3 at Apex this year, A LOT of games would have ended by the timer going off. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but what is a bad thing is the absolute lack of hype that goes with only TWO players being able to see the timer.

As of right now, Isai vs Kikoushi has 78,120 views on youtube. Let's pretend that those games would have ended by the timer, that's 78,120 people that have no ****ing clue when the game is going to end. Yeah sure you could look at the exact time the match started and make a really good guess, but it isn't the viewers responsibility to work for a good viewing experience. They should be able to sit back, watch the video and enjoy.

And what about the people watching stream and the people at the venue? Are we going to tell the streamers to put their own timer in the bottom right corner of the screen? Are we going to have a giant timer put on the wall so that everyone in the room can see? What if it's a few seconds off?

It just seems kind of meh right now. I'd support it if there was a better way to handle the cons.

And Shears, I love you man. You have a lot of great arguments, and I know that Kero ****ing Keroppi should have no right to say this, but the way you're coming off makes you sound like a huge douche lol.

The problems in the SSB community aren't a result of stubborn humans that are scared of change. They aren't the result of the the American political system or any of the other bull**** you mentioned either lol. Go take a nap or something, you're way to heated about this lmao.

why the hell is my god damn text so small lol

oh and 4 stocks is the BEST just saiyan

 

[Vale]

I personally don't like it, but would understand if it was needed for the case of running a tournament on time.

 

[Cobrevolution]

stop the 4 stock discussion it's gross

with a timer, camping and playing defensively without approaching is no longer a good option

it's the best option

i don't think it'd make games less boring, it would just make them end quicker. besides, what's boring to some isn't to others. the same combo with falcon 5 times in a row on someone leads to a quick match, but it's boring. neither player approaching leads to a long match, but it's still boring. ya dig?

all i like about timers is the fact it forces you to approach when you're behind, or you're going to lose when time runs out. that's it.

 

[MattNF]

how about we all play on metal mario only

let's see you nerds camp on that stage

 

[clubbadubba]

shears you are completely missing my point but I've already made it multiple times and others are picking up on it and/or expressing the same concern so Idk man... reread I guess

 

[Shears]

The problems in the SSB community aren't a result of stubborn humans that are scared of change. They aren't the result of the the American political system or any of the other bull**** you mentioned either lol. Go take a nap or something, you're way to heated about this lmao.

I'm kind of exaggerating...I'm a little serious but my generalization of it to be true and exhibited by every single person is an exaggeration that I do to find it funny and calm down.

Everyone really needs to think about what causes a timeout. If someone sees theres only a minute left and they can steal a win by timing out, then they will. But if theres 5 minutes to go and only 2 stocks left, they're not going to timeout because the threshold is too far away and thats more time for the tides to turn. They have better odds just finishing the match. You build the time limit like this (as I mentioned in a different thread): "It doesn't have to be 8 minutes. We find the average match length eliminating outliers and make it that. 90% confidence interval, make the timer the upper bound. Everything plays like a normal match without a timer except the exceptionally long matches get truncated. Everything basically stays the same. You won't notice a difference 95% of the time." There isn't a single instance in any sport or game that doesn't allow for ties, where someone tries to score/hit once and then never do anything again. Lets say you have a 15 minute timer, you get the first hit, do you really think you can go 14:55 without getting touched and that you and everyone else will opt to go for this? You need to get a grasp on reality because this option is viable in every sport/fighting game and never happens. It happens only when the timer is coming to an end and the person/team has a lead. If the time limit is out of reach for average games then no one is going for the timeout.

 

[Sedda]

Why do you guys assume the worst? TRY IT OUT.
Maybe there will be a ton of time outs, maybe not (I'm really thinking probably not). I agree with Sheer. Some sets from Apex were exciting to watch the first time, but then they just got really boring.

Some of you guys are acting like a timer will forever ruin the meta. Just try it a couple of times and see how it goes.

 

[Shears]

shears you are completely missing my point but I've already made it multiple times and others are picking up on it and/or expressing the same concern so Idk man... reread I guess

Are you still in NOVA? I'll come down this weekend and lets see if you can timeout on me or if it is in your best interest to just try and win. We will use my version of the timer, not your 3-minute version.

Everyone that said no, I double dog dare you to sit in a chair by yourself, face against the wall, hands by your side, no music, nothing, for 15 minutes and then tell me if you think you'll be doing that in a tournament match with a 15 minute timer.

 

[Cobrevolution]

Everyone that said no, I double dog dare you to sit in a chair by yourself, face against the wall, hands by your side, no music, nothing, for 15 minutes

welcome to most of my school career

but it's not that you would be actively running and not doing anything. you just wouldn't approach. you'd still be throwing out moves and baiting them to get closer and get hit.

i'm the weirdo that thinks it should be the opposite though - the person in the lead should be forced to approach, because it's their responsibility at that point to win the match. it is not anyone's responsibility to lose, and the person behind shouldn't be forced to approach.

but that's another discussion. and i am hating the word approach.

 

[clubbadubba]

vs you I would just win in 2 min lol. and no unfortunately I'm out of town or I'd be down to play

No one has mentioned a 3 minute timer but you. people see 8 minute or more timers possibly causing issues.

With regards to trying it out, it's fairly meaningless at most of the local tournaments because of lack of high level matchups. If it works great for mid level players but not high level, it's bad, and we can only really test that at zenith or apex.

 

[Shears]

welcome to most of my school career

but it's not that you would be actively running and not doing anything. you just wouldn't approach. you'd still be throwing out moves and baiting them to get closer and get hit.

i'm the weirdo that thinks it should be the opposite though - the person in the lead should be forced to approach, because it's their responsibility at that point to win the match. it is not anyone's responsibility to lose, and the person behind shouldn't be forced to approach.

but that's another discussion. and i am hating the word approach.

Its last stock, you have a 50% damage advantage over your opponent and there is 6 minutes left, are you going to camp on dreamland for 6 minutes and win? That 6 minutes is more likely to give the opponent time to rally that 50% damage than for you to win in a timeout. Your best interest is to play defensively but not be a camp ***** and try to get that last kill.

vs you I would just win in 2 min lol. and no unfortunately I'm out of town or I'd be down to play

No one has mentioned a 3 minute timer but you. people see 8 minute or more timers possibly causing issues.

With regards to trying it out, it's fairly meaningless at most of the local tournaments because of lack of high level matchups. If it works great for mid level players but not high level, it's bad, and we can only really test that at zenith or apex

I'm using 3-minutes as a metaphor for a short timer that would encourage camping because a timeout win would be feasible. I see a short timer being a problem. I see a medium timer being a problem only in the uncommon instances you have outlined. I don't see a long timer being a problem.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

If someone sees theres only a minute left and they can steal a win by timing out, then they will. But if theres 5 minutes to go and only 2 stocks left, they're not going to timeout because the threshold is too far away and thats more time for the tides to turn.

Lets say you have a 15 minute timer, you get the first hit, do you really think you can go 14:55 without getting touched and that you and everyone else will opt to go for this?

You're totally missing the point of what people are trying to say.

It's not so much, "oh i have a 10 percent lead, no way my opponent s gong to land a hit on me!"

It's, "Oh i have a 10 percent lead? Well technically they have to approach me so they can get ****ed if they think i'm moving from below the platform."

You underestimate the extent to which some players will play to win and you seemingly don't realize the advantages certain characters have (kirby) when they play defensively.

You just played an hour long set with M2K. You should know better than anyone the dramatic advantage Kirby has when he decides to camp.

I know that a, "i have the lead so they have to approach me," mindset is existent in the current ruleset, and there's nothing we can do about that, but what some others are suggesting is installing a time only makes the problem worse.

Suddenly a bunch of people have this intense "play to win" mindset because the ability to win is clear. You can literally see the seconds ticking town on a timer and you can watch yourself getting closer to the victory.

The intense "play to win" mindset won't assure you a victory in the current ruleset, but with a time it certainly does.

Now let me just say that these aren't necessarily my views at all. Like i said, i don't give a ****. I'm just trying to help you see clearly what other people are arguing.

 

[Sedda]

jeez you guys are so heated. All you have to do is try it, see if it works or not, and then move on.

Everybody here cares too mucch about rulesets. I'm in the US right now only during this week, and now everybody on kailera is playing me on dreamland and 50% of players use 4 stocks. disgusting.

 

[EggSelent]

Timer would be awful. It just gives further advantage to characters that thrive on quick combos like Falcon, as if the community's Dreamland bias isn't enough of an advantage. Not everyone has an aggressive playstyle, and there's no need to try to force everyone to adopt it.

Look at Isai's matches with Puff. Some of them are long, maybe 9 or 10 minutes, and that's NOT because players are camping. Indeed, sometimes my matches go pretty long, and it's not because I camp.

Making the games fun to watch should NOT be a deciding factor in a ruleset. If it were, why not just ban all Pikas and Kirbies etc?

As I've said before, the timer will incentivize stalling. That's an objective fact, and none of you have adequately addressed it. As soon as you're up a stock, just stall endlessly. That becomes a legitimate, and in fact optimal strategy. Do we really want to be like Brawl?

To my knowledge there's never been a game that didn't end. Why is this necessary?

 

[Shears]

You just played an hour long set with M2K. You should know better than anyone the dramatic advantage Kirby has when he decides to camp.

Had a timer been enforced, the outcome would have been very different because in most games I had leads over him even in the last couple stocks. A timeout would've benefited me, even a 15-minute timeout would've benefited me. There's plenty of ways to approach a defensive person. You can bait a defensive person into defending and then punish a missed defense so the whole, they have to approach me problem, can be taken care of with better/different game play.

 

[Cobrevolution]

You can bait a defensive person into defending and then punish a missed defense so the whole, they have to approach me problem, can be taken care of with better/different game play.

which takes time and patience to do. time you wouldn't have if there were a timer.

 

[M!nt]

now everybody on kailera is playing me on dreamland

It's always been like that, at least as long as i've been playing. It's a stage almost everyone likes, so it's a good starting stage. Did you even ask to play somewhere else? Most people online play by loser picks stage.

and 50% of players use 4 stocks. disgusting.

I wouldn't say that, most people that aren't new players play with 5 stocks still. Bane was the only person I played that prefers 4 stocks.

Also with hyrule banned I see no reason for a timer.

 

[Shears]

which takes time and patience to do. time you wouldn't have if there were a timer.

It doesn't have to be a short timer where every second counts. It can be a long timer where every minute counts, and a minute is rather long in a game. The timers purpose is to prevent games from going way too long. A long enough timer will not be as easily exploited as you all think it will.

I seriously think a 12-15 minute timer would be long enough that its in the best interest of both players to still approach. The play to win mentality suggests you're odds of winning would be higher if you approached then just stalled infinitely at this length because you can't know for certain you will still be winning at the end of 15 minutes.

 

[Cobrevolution]

i don't mind 4 stocks online PURELY BECAUSE of the timeout/ds issues. i want to get as many games possible before i have to reload the program and restart and ****.

 

[The Star King]

It's always been like that, at least as long as i've been playing. It's a stage almost everyone likes, so it's a good starting stage. Did you even ask to play somewhere else? Most people online play by loser picks stage.

Back in like 2009 90% of people played on Hyrule lol. But yeah everyone picks Dreamland now.

But yeah you should ask.

I usually just pick Dreamland because that's what most people seem to want, but I'm cool with playing on other stages. If you never asked me I wouldn't know you want to play on other stages. Hell, forget asking, just pick the stage you want.

And maybe like 10% of people use 4 stock, dunno who you're playing Sedda.

 

[M!nt]

People switched to dreamland online even before the hyrule console ban, because it was primarily dreamland when I started at the end of 2010.

And maybe like 10% of people use 4 stock

I'd say that's an overestimation too lol. It's just the few people that come on thinking it works the same way as brawl or melee. Probably don't have items unlocked. Probably load mario kart after 1 game.

 

[Shears]

This isn't an online play thread. Take that garbage somewhere else. Citizen's infractions should be a thing, I would ban all those who disagree with me.

 

[Fireblaster]

You are all being close-minded and stubborn. Now that I'm considered the new s2j of this community I'm gonna say my opinions all I want. All of you that are against timers are making awful arguments full of flaws.

I can't believe so many of you seriously think having a timer is going to give players like m2k more of an incentive to camp over having no timer at all. Or that players that usually play "normally" are suddenly going to set up tents everywhere because they "will get a really easy win if they just avoid getting hit for 4 more minutes!"

I'll make a bigger more detailed post when I get back home and I'm not on my phone

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Listen scrubs, I honestly don't give a **** one way or the other, but there's one MAJOR point that you all have failed to bring up.

What if one person times out another in a really high level set? Take the Top 3 at Apex this year, A LOT of games would have ended by the timer going off. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but what is a bad thing is the absolute lack of hype that goes with only TWO players being able to see the timer.

As of right now, Isai vs Kikoushi has 78,120 views on youtube. Let's pretend that those games would have ended by the timer, that's 78,120 people that have no ****ing clue when the game is going to end. Yeah sure you could look at the exact time the match started and make a really good guess, but it isn't the viewers responsibility to work for a good viewing experience. They should be able to sit back, watch the video and enjoy.

And what about the people watching stream and the people at the venue? Are we going to tell the streamers to put their own timer in the bottom right corner of the screen? Are we going to have a giant timer put on the wall so that everyone in the room can see? What if it's a few seconds off?

Pro-timers, you have yet to address this.

 

[EggSelent]

Let me add that should this filthy timer be implemented, the ban on the Hyrule should be lifted.

 

[Shears]

In theory, without a timer the winner doesn't have to approach and the loser doesn't have to approach, games only end during the apocalypse.

In theory, with a timer the winner doesn't have to approach but the loser has to approach, games end when the timer runs out.

In reality, without a timer people play games on average of X amount of minutes and some take 10X amount of minutes, ending when someone loses all stocks and still the winner doesn't have to approach and the loser doesn't have to approach.

In reality, with a timer people play games on average of X amount of minutes and some take 15 minutes, ending when someone loses all stocks except when the game is abnormal and takes 15 minutes in which it ends in a timeout and still the winner doesn't have to approach but the loser still has to approach.

The fact that approach is encouraged should be desirable, despite it being from the loser (sorry cobr your hopes and dreams don't seem feasible). Better to have the loser approach than no one at all.

@ EggSelent Timers would force the ban of Hyrule to continue because Hryule and timers can't go hand in hand. If we already banned Hyrule, we might as well implement timers.

@ KeroKeroppi The games didn't take more than 15 minutes, which; according to what I'm proposing and what I believe timers will do, the games would still end in the fashion they did without people being disappointed in a timeout. None of you Ant-Timers are addressing my idea of a long timer, thats why I used a 3-minute timer metaphor, so people could see differences in the extremes. A long timer means its longer than any realistic game so it bears no influence on 95% of games. Its the unrealistic, extremely long, outlier games that last forever that will be influenced by the timer. Does anyone understand statistics and confidence intervals like I suggested several posts ago? Kero, you're a math major you should understand how to make rational statistics.

 

[M!nt]

A timer would make me feel more pressured to run in and get punished for bad approaches because i'm on a time limit. I think that a timer favors the one camping.

This isn't an online play thread.

Yeah, sorry I shouldn't have voted, i forget that i'm an online player and this doesn't change anything for me sorry

 

[Sangoku]

I'd be sad to see a great set like Boom vs Moyashi end prematurely because of a time limit, to the viewing pleasure of Brawl/Melee/SF4/insert fake game waiting for their strim tiem.

 

[Combo Blaze]

Pro-timers, you have yet to address this.

Add timer to stream, use that timer for match?

I don't mind any changes with timer/stock counts. Seeing matches last more than 7 minutes is dumb as ****. Campers don't get an advantage with a timer, since if they're losing they're gonna have to approach to get a lead or else they'll lose and if they're winning they'd most likely be winning WITHOUT a timer anyways.