Should timers be used for matches? (POLL)

[Shears]

THIS ISN'T A ****ING 3-MINUTE TIMER!!

You don't have to approach irrationally because you only have a few seconds of gameplay. You have 15 ****ing minutes, you can spend 3 minutes calculating your approach and still have 12 to spare. Moyashi-Boom doesn't end because of a time limit, its less than 15 minutes. You could play entire sets in 15 minutes and you all are complaining a 15 minute time limit isn't enough to finish a single game. I have no problem with several of the arguments brought up, and some of them have made me question my support for timers. But this **** that there isn't enough time in the time limit is stupid.

If I'm not understanding any of the points all of you are bringing up, then are any of you having your eyes at least pass over any of my points?!

 

[Fireblaster]

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.

How about for the viewing pleasure of 64 players? Do you actually believe that people enjoyed watching those 7+ minute matches?

 

[bloodpeach]

Pro-timers, you have yet to address this.

Timers can be added really easily to any stream or recording setup. Some extra overhead would definitely be required to keep everything running smoothly and n*sync.

 

[Shears]

Somebody name someone other than M2K that would camp for 15 minutes and not approach because they thought they legitimately had better odds camping than approaching and just outright winning the game over 15 minutes? Even M2K approached me when I counter camped him because he didn't want a 15 minute camp fest and he had other games to go to and couldn't waste time in one game, never mind entire sets.

 

[M!nt]

I enjoyed Boom vs Moyashi.

 

[Shears]

Timers can be added really easily to any stream or recording setup. Some extra overhead would definitely be required to keep everything running smoothly and n*sync.

I mentioned a while ago that a device can be placed between a "moderator" controller and the console that can be used to start the match, initiate the timer, then after X minutes pause the match. Start is mapped to starting and stopping the timer, some other button is mapped to resetting the timer.

Device listens to signals sent from controller, if start signal emitted, begin/stop timer, pass signal to console. If up-c emitted, reset timer.
Timer interrupt goes off, emit start signal to console, game gets paused.

 

[Sangoku]

How about for the viewing pleasure of 64 players? Do you actually believe that people enjoyed watching those 7+ minute matches?

I can't speak for others, but I know I did.

 

[Shears]

I enjoyed Boom vs Moyashi.

Boom thinks he can win in less than 10 minutes, why is he going to play to 15 and just give the opponent more time to figure out his camp and steal a win.

Moyashi thinks he can win in less than 10 minutes, why is he going to play to 15 and just give the opponent more time to figure out his camp and steal a win.

Boom thinks he can't win, well he's going to lose either way he might as well try and approach when hes down to see if he can figure out the camp and steal a win.

Moyashi thinks he can't win, well he's going to lose either way he might as well try and approach when hes down to see if he can figure out the camp and steal a win.

Boom thinks he can't win and is winning, we have an upset where the opponent is desperately trying to avoid a loss and is trying to right the ship by approaching, while Boom is camping and desperately trying to hold on. How is that not exciting?

Moyashi thinks he can't win and is winning, we have an upset where the opponent is desperately trying to avoid a loss and is trying to right the ship by approaching, while Moyashi is camping and desperately trying to hold on. How is that not exciting?

Where's the downside again?

Substitute Boom and Moyashi for anyone you want. Player 1/Player 2. There will not be as much swing in outcome as everyone thinks.


Everyone needs to acknowledge that timers are not all created equal. A short timer is different than a medium timer is different than a long timer. You can't use flaws of one timer class to argue against all of them, thats just being close minded.

Being blind is a handicap.
A person is blind.
All people are handicapped.

Thats the argument I see from most anti-timers:

Short timer can be exploited for a timeout.
A timeout is bad.
All timers are bad because they all are just as easily exploited for a timeout.

Its too late though, you've all made an impression, jumped to a conclusion, and now its a human defense mechanism that prevents any of you from hearing an argument rationally when it counters the impression your sub conscious has already made. Selective hearing, selective reading, selective thinking, and goodbye evolution.

 

[Sedda]

maybe im playing the wrong people, but ive played more 4 stock matches than 5 since i got back.

Anyway, banning hyrule did absolutely nothing to affect the duration of sets. I think it was mixa who brought up all of those charts with the time that it took each set to finish on DL/Hyrule, but nobody is talking about that. All of the sudden, long sets are no longer an issue, and it seems like some of you guys don't want to complain about that just because it happened on beloved DL. Please, try to implement a timer.

 

[Fireblaster]

Boom thinks he can't win and is winning, we have an upset where the opponent is desperately trying to avoid a loss and is trying to right the ship by approaching, while Boom is camping and desperately trying to hold on. How is that not exciting?

Moyashi thinks he can't win and is winning, we have an upset where the opponent is desperately trying to avoid a loss and is trying to right the ship by approaching, while Moyashi is camping and desperately trying to hold on. How is that not exciting?

Where's the downside again?

Substitute Boom and Moyashi for anyone you want. Player 1/Player 2. There will not be as much swing in outcome as everyone thinks.

This is one reason that I keep saying everyone in this community is so ****ing close-minded. They haven't played another competitive fighter at all, so they don't know anything beyond what they've experienced in 64. With the exception of SFxT, pretty much any timeout in a fighting game in a tournament becomes really hype as the guy losing has to pull off a perfect gamble while the guy defending is possibly under more pressure because he has so much more to lose if he makes the one wrong decision.

Just look at the brawl video I posted at the beginning of this thread. Did it look like the audience was half asleep when the match ended the way it did?

 

[Shears]

This is one reason that I keep saying everyone in this community is so ****ing close-minded. They haven't played another competitive fighter at all, so they don't know anything beyond what they've experienced in 64. With the exception of SFxT, pretty much any timeout in a fighting game in a tournament becomes really hype as the guy losing has to pull off a perfect gamble while the guy defending is possibly under more pressure because he has so much more to lose if he makes the one wrong decision.

Just look at the brawl video I posted at the beginning of this thread. Did it look like the audience was half asleep when the match ended the way it did?

I don't play any other competitive fighting game. I don't play any other video game for that matter.

The problem, as some have pointed out, is that it wouldn't be easy for the audience to see the timer so the audience wouldn't be getting hyped with the timer running out, unless it was added on stream, which means non-streamed games won't have a timer for the audience and if its not being streamed, the audience probably isn't much but its a counter argument that people want to bring up because they just want to be ***** and find a reason to complain and tear down everything around them like a wildfire turning America, no the world, into a ravaged wasteland.

Their arguments are much like the ones heard by uneducated morons that act, look, and think they're nerds (which means they're pretentious and think they're smarter than they are) with educated ones about something like cyber security:

Passwords need to be protected.
MD6 Hash as well as obfuscation and several other methods are used to protect passwords.
Its calculated that a brute force attack would take hundreds of thousands of years to gain the password, which is exponentially raised by a monitor preventing several attempts in a small amount of time and locking passwords so its really billions of years.
"Anti-Timer" argument: See it can be broken after a billion years therefore it has a vulnerability and a flaw, therefore it is worthless and the worst idea ever, we can't use passwords anymore and life is meaningless, lets all die.

Instead of seeing all the pros and that in every rational and reasonable way there isn't any cons, they hang on the one improbable con that exists only in theory.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Its too late though, you've all made an impression, jumped to a conclusion, and now its a human defense mechanism that prevents any of you from hearing an argument rationally when it counters the impression your sub conscious has already made. Selective hearing, selective reading, selective thinking, and goodbye evolution.

 

[clubbadubba]

Shears I understand you want to create the timer so that only a small number of matches would ever hit it. I am saying that by adding a timer you are potentially increasing the time that this would need to be. If you want to add a super duper long timer then okay, but I think it might be close to the point where its useless. 15 min would probably be okay, though at that point I wonder how much it actually saves. 8 min or even 10 min would be approaching dangerous territory.

With regards to excitement, who gives a ****? Not relevant. Though in regards to people saying how hype time outs are... hbox vs armada is probably the closest thing to what 64 would experience if timeouts occurred at high level. The groans from melee players at that match at Apex 2012 GF would indicate it is not hype at all. There may even have been some oo's and ah's from the crowd, but the those were from the people who actually decided to stay and watch the match. A good chunk of the melee people just left because they knew it would suck.

I know fireblaster didn't just accuse other people of being close minded?

timer side: all pros, no cons. No reason to argue against us.

anti-timer side: there are definite pros to a timer, but it does open up the possibility of timeouts that we don't want as a community

anti-timer is clearly close minded as **** right?

 

[Shears]

If you want to add a super duper long timer then okay, but I think it might be close to the point where its useless.

That's the point. It should be virtually useless so no one ever uses it. Its factor would only deter matches that are abnormal and painful because they go on for 20 minutes. Most people may choose to opt out of it, but having its existence means that it can be used and enforced especially in matches that are timeout potential. We have agreed to a ruleset in controller port selection, but its rarely used or enforced, and when it is, we have a procedure for it. Lets make a timer procedure and ruleset so people can actually use it and matches won't have to take forever.

I don't know how many more hands I can hold to walk through this, but you pessimists need to start thinking out of the box and figuring things out.

I'm also running out of toilet paper so if you still can't wipe your own ass then you're **** out of luck. Koro pun intended.

 

[Skrlx]

Now that I'm considered the new s2j of this community

da ***

 

[MattNF]

i thought s2j was the s2j of this community

 

[M!nt]

If it's virtually useless, why bother. why go through the hassle when it's only going to matter in like one game and if it's a long timer, only save just a few minutes then if the match was played without one?

 

[Han Solo]

It doesn't matter how "great" a long match could be in a tournament setting. Matches that long are rarely "great". Tournament matches are here to determine a winner and a loser in a timely fashion. If it's over 10 minutes each match, then that's a problem from a scheduling perspective for the TO. When TOs aren't happy, players aren't happy. Matches like Firo/Wizzy and Stranded/M2K stop tournies from finishing on time which introduces a whole load of problems (later sets might not be played out, if a player like M2K is in multiple tournies he could hold up the other tournies, Star King loses to wizzy because of early morning johns, etc.).

The addition of a timer forces matches to end within a reasonable time. That's all. If you want to change the way you play the game because of the addition of a timer, that's up to you. It's easier to get 5 stocks then to stall for 8 minutes. Some matches going to time is better than seeing matches like the ones already mentioned go on with no end in sight.

 

[rjgbadger]

I enjoyed firo vs wizzorbe x_x

Though I did leave to take a potty break game 3 and when I came back 0 stocks were lost lmao

 

[clubbadubba]

Determining an actual time is the problem. Of course no one would argue vehemently against an hour long timer. But most of the pro-timer people argue for 6-8 minute timers. Pick a time and we can say whether or not we agree, the whole "is a timer okay" question depends entirely on its length.

Also people with these 6-8 minute timers are falcon yoshi fox players. The pika kirby matchup is something they don't have to deal with so they don't seem to realize how mother ****ing long that **** takes even with neither player being a *****.

 

[Shears]

If it's virtually useless, why bother. why go through the hassle when it's only going to matter in like one game and if it's a long timer, only save just a few minutes then if the match was played without one?

Stop imagining problems. Stop imagining hassles. There is no hassle. You pull out your phone and push start on your timer app, or don't and forfeit that option. The rule exists so it can be enforced when need be, like controller port selection. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. How hard is this to imagine? I learned when I was a child that animals had these things called brains that allowed them to think and make decisions. Idk if my education failed me but I believed it to be true. So if it is, think it through and figure it out. I honestly shouldn't have to be defending every little thing because you all need to play devils advocate. I can't believe I just had to explain the meaning of the saying "better to have and not need than need and not have" in this context. Come on people.

@ clubbadubba I agree that not all timers are the same, as I stated above. I believe something between 10-15 minutes is acceptable. I leave it open to discussion because its really the anti-timers that need to feel the timer is appropriate. I think less than 10 can end certain matchups with characters and players prematurely, and I think more than 15 isn't achieving what timers are meant to do.

 

[Annex]

Timers would only solve the problem of the losing player camping. It would actually encourage the winning player to camp even more.

Instead, use an 8 minute timer, and if the time runs out DQ them both.

 

[M!nt]

better to have and not need than need and not have

that's hoarder talk! :D

also stop talking down to people that don't share your opinion jeez

 

[Shears]

Also, for all of you that replied to this thread, or liked a post, and didn't vote; I will turn my head in disgust. There are plenty of people in third world countries, waiting to be liberated and have the right to vote on something. Even if it meant voting on something as trivial as timers in a video game, it is a right you are taking for granted and others would kill to have. Abstaining is like slapping freedom in the face, and here in America we have a saying for people that don't respect freedom, we call them...terrorists!

that's hoarder talk! :D

also stop talking down to people that don't share your opinion jeez

I realize I'm being a little condescending, but I'm getting very heated about this. If anyone finds anything offensive or is insulted by it, I meant for my extreme opinion to exhibit my passion for the topic and to be mildly sarcastic, not hurtful although I see how it can be.

As far as hoarding goes, I have three non functioning laptops and two non functioning phones in my room that I smashed to pieces and have yet to throw away...I still want timers.

 

[Han Solo]

The freedom to vote implies the freedom not to vote as well.

 

[The Star King]

I don't have a strong opinion either way.

I don't like the you-should-take-a-side mentality that is often promoted by society and such. I'm not sure which one would be better, so I don't want to ignorantly pick a side.

I think it's ironic you said this

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.

and then this

Also, for all of you that replied to this thread, or liked a post, and didn't vote; I will turn my head in disgust. There are plenty of people in third world countries, waiting to be liberated and have the right to vote on something. Even if it meant voting on something as trivial as timers in a video game, it is a right you are taking for granted and others would kill to have. Abstaining is like slapping freedom in the face, and here in America we have a saying for people that don't respect freedom, we call them...terrorists!

(I know you're jokingly taking it overboard in the second quote but I'm assuming you were actually trying to say people should vote, the grain-of-meaning-behind-a-joke sort of thing)

 

[Shears]

The freedom to vote implies the freedom not to vote as well.

You have the freedom to an opinion, not the freedom of whether or not to vote.

@ The Star King the second part was a joke. But, if someone posted in support or defense of something, it would be nice for them to vote since they clearly have an opinion in the matter. If you want to abstain fine, but don't bash an idea or support one and abstain.

 

[clubbadubba]

@ clubbadubba I agree that not all timers are the same, as I stated above. I believe something between 10-15 minutes is acceptable. I leave it open to discussion because its really the anti-timers that need to feel the timer is appropriate. I think less than 10 can end certain matchups with characters and players prematurely, and I think more than 15 isn't achieving what timers are meant to do.

Yea that's the thing there comes a point when having the timer is meaningless because its so long. The question is whether you can have a timer that is short enough to be purposeful but not so short that it drastically changes the way people play. 10 minutes I would definitely disagree on. 15 I would be open to.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Wow the votes are really close right now. I definitely have an opinion on the matter and my vote could really make a difference…

Oh well.

 

[Shears]

Wow the votes are really close right now. I definitely have an opinion on the matter and my vote could really make a difference…

Oh well.

You do not deserve to be a citizen. There should be a petition to revoke QueeroQueeroppis citizenship and deport him to Canada with Justin Bieber.

15 isn't going to change the meta for almost anyone who plays the game, but it will bring an end and an outcome to matches that Solo listed.

I would play with a shorter timer but I wouldn't like it as much. I wouldn't support less than 6 minutes and less than 10 I still wouldn't be the happiest with but I'll tolerate.

Note: Most of the time when I have used "you" in this thread it was meant as a figurative "you" meaning everyone that is not me, or in disagreement with me. In some cases I have meant it literally but I think it was obvious, like when I told clubba I would play him this weekend and referred to him in the second person.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Whatever you say Queers!

 

[Sangoku]

Also, for all of you that replied to this thread, or liked a post, and didn't vote; I will turn my head in disgust.

I don't care about this issue, I never participate tournaments and I'm so impatient that I'd rather lose than play a long game, so this whole discussion doesn't apply to me at all. Why should I voice an opinion and influence the outcome then?

Edit: If Kero continues, he'll end up on my best poster of 2014 list.

 

[Shears]

I don't care about this issue, I never participate tournaments and I'm so impatient that I'd rather lose than play a long game, so this whole discussion doesn't apply to me at all. Why should I voice an opinion and influence the outcome then?

That was meant to be a joke. As noticed by Star King, I was going overboard and being an extremist. I don't actually think people abstaining are terrorists, I just thought the ridiculousness and being overly serious would be humorous and lighten the mood. In some other thread somewhere somebody told me I wasn't funny or good at telling jokes. Maybe thats the case...I find it funny so I won't stop.

 

[SheerMadness]

Lol 15 minute timer??? Absolutely pointless. I'm not even sure those Wizzy/Firo matches were 15 minutes long.

Every other competitive game has a timer. And you rarely see time outs be strategically employed. Even in brawl it's a rarity. Yes it happens every once in a while, but it's still quite rare.

Some of you are being ridiculous in saying that time outs would be an optimal strategy if we had a timer. It's just not true.

 

[Sangoku]

I know it was a joke, but I thought it was the "the grain-of-meaning-behind-a-joke sort of thing". Actually I thought it was more a humorous way to put it than a real joke.

 

[Shears]

Lol 15 minute timer??? Absolutely pointless. I'm not even sure those Wizzy/Firo matches were 15 minutes long.

Every other competitive game has a timer. And you rarely see time outs be strategically employed. Even in brawl it's a rarity.

Some of you are being ridiculous in saying that time outs would be an optimal strategy if we had a timer. It's just not true.

I got two white russians in the time they played 1 game. I don't think 15 minutes is far off. It can be 12 minutes then, I just think we need a timer and one that won't alter game play but prevent unbearably long games.

I know it was a joke, but I thought it was the "the grain-of-meaning-behind-a-joke sort of thing". Actually I thought it was more a humorous way to put it than a real joke.

The grain of truth behind the joke is that if someone defended a side, either argued for or against timers, then they openly admitted to having an opinion that isn't meaningless and hopefully isn't ignorant or stubborn. I think those people should legitimize their opinion by voting. Plenty of people like having opinions but are afraid to commit to them because they're insecure, politically correct, hipsters that don't have the balls to stand up for themselves and don't want anything to get done and want everyone to be happy and win and lead us into communism. If you have an opinion and don't vote, you're a communist. We all know how the soviet union ended...

I guess thats why Star King didn't vote and doesn't have an opinion...jk

 

[MrMarbles]

I think 10-12 minutes would be ideal. 15 would not significantly shorten those horribly long sets, and bellow 10 might encourage campyness for the winning player a little too much and/or not give the losing player enough time to carefully approach. Even though i am mostly against implementing a timer i think 10-12 minutes wouldn't cause any huge problems and might shorten some long sets

 

[SheerMadness]

I would be strongly against anything higher than 8 minutes.

The only 12+ minute matches I've EVER seen are Wizzy/Firo. And I've been playing since 2005. A timer that large would essentially be pointless.

Every other smash game has an 8 minute timer. If it's fine for brawl it should be fine for us. I see no reason for a match to exceed 8 minutes.

People who were in favor of banning hyrule were convinced it would shorten game play. It didn't. Matches were longer than ever at Apex.

The addition of a timer forces matches to end within a reasonable time. That's all. If you want to change the way you play the game because of the addition of a timer, that's up to you. It's easier to get 5 stocks then to stall for 8 minutes.

I concur.

Kero does bring up a good point though. Would be very confusing for the audience since they likely wouldn't be able to see the timer.

 

[mixa]

Compulsory voting is bad mkay.

 

[Shears]

I think 10 because at least 1 minute for each stock. Brawl is 8 minutes because Brawl has 3 stocks. With 5 stocks you need more minutes. If you want 8 minutes then it should be 4 stocks.