Should timers be used for matches? (POLL)

[Chaostatic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 64 plays 5 stocks because it's a lot easier to lose a stock than it is in Melee and Brawl.

The initial stock count of an SSB game is not an accurate indicator of set length.

 

[Shears]

If you think there exists a time limit that would be beneficial to the competitive game, regardless of length, then your vote should be yes and we should be deciding what that length is. Not, I think its 30, and you think its 3 and since there is parity timers clearly can't work. We have a way different rule set than the Japanese, if our rule set was already so perfect then why did they adopt a different set? The parity exists, but we can make compromises so it all works out. 4-stock vs 5-stock, let the TO decide, its not going to flip our understanding of the game upside down but it can get more people aware of the subtle differences and then as a community we can decide what is best. 3-minutes vs 30-minutes, let the TO decide, we can get a feel for it as a community and decide what is best, we already know how time limitless tournaments turn out. Everyone just agrees with the current rules because those were the first rules they were presented with and got comfortable with.


10nowitstimetowaitandseewhocomplainsandcallsmeoutforusing3minutesand30minutesasexampleseventhoughtheyaretooextremeandwerenevermentionedbyanyoneelseCHARS.

 

[Chaostatic]

Call me crazy, but I don't like the idea of changing smash. I know my word shouldn't be taken into account, and maybe it's because I've never been to a tournament, but it doesn't feel right basing the completive ruleset off the an external device.

When you can't play smash with just smash it doesn't feel like smash anymore.

Does that make sense?

 

[Shears]

Its not like you have to use a timer all the time even when playing lvl 9s. Its just at tournaments, and just so you know, at tournaments its not the same as you and your buddies just smashing. Theres friendlies and people do that before, after, and even during the tournament. But a tournament match is played very seriously...except against me because I always yell out 69 variations. M2K was getting mad at me for calling them out and talking during our sets.

A small tournament could forgo the use of a timer just like it may forgo the Hyrule ban, even players could gentlemans a non timed game if they both know they're not going to be ***** and try to camp. But having the ruleset allows for the game to be organized better and smoother than it currently is, in my opinion.

I'm not saying ban characters, or ban stages, or ban items, or ban stocks, or ban coins, or ban moves, or ban handicaps, or ban costumes, or ban keyboards (I take that back, ban keyboards), I'm just saying that for competitive and very serious matches, we should have a ruleset that prevents players from stalling matches and camping indefinitely by virtue of a timer.

 

[MrMarbles]

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.



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.

best solution would to put a game clock up on the stream and have that be the official clock. The majority of lengthy matches tend to be in the top 8 anyways

edit: except then the players wouldnt be able to see the clock so i take that back

 

[Shears]

best solution would to put a game clock up on the stream and have that be the official clock. The majority of lengthy matches tend to be in the top 8 anyways

edit: except then the players wouldnt be able to see the clock so i take that back

You have an official timer in front of the players, and an unofficial timer on the stream. It would only be a second or so off. Before any of you think this is a big deal, this is how soccer is done. Official time is kept on the field with the center referee and the clock on the scoreboard is unofficial. Injury time and stoppage time is added by the center referee. Spectators and players get more hyped because they see the clock end and have no clue how much longer it will go and just give it everything they have to try and steal the win before the ref blows it dead.

 

[Izuhu]

Well you can't really have the timer and stocks on at the same time without cheats, but personally I think the current ruleset of the matches being timeless should resume since this has always been the default ruleset since forever.

I mean there can always be an alternative ruleset that can be determined through something like "rock paper scissors" for those who are in constant disagreement with each other, on whether a match or set should be timed or not.

The game chess has both timed and timeless games, and in many aspects ssb64 is kinda like chess. So why not have both ?

just my thoughts lol

 

[Shears]

Well you can't really have the timer and stocks on at the same time without cheats, but personally I think the current ruleset of the matches being timeless should resume since this has always been the default ruleset since forever.

Tell that to Hyrule...

10RIPchars.

I mean there can always be an alternative ruleset that can be determined through something like "rock paper scissors" for those who are in constant disagreement with each other, on whether a match or set should be timed or not.

The game chess has both timed and timeless games, and in many aspects ssb64 is kinda like chess. So why not have both ?

just my thoughts lol

I agree, this is my suggestion of people trying it out at different events and seeing how it all works out and what is best. 4-stocks has been tried as well as 5-stocks. Hyrule banned has been tried as well as Hyrule legal. Why are people so resistant to trying out having timers at different limits since we already have the data on events without timers?

I kinda feel like Firo since he proposed an idea to a different way of running events and was burned alive for it. But before anyone compares my ideas to Firo's, I'm saying keep it all the same just add a timer, he was talking about some crazy maniac **** that I still don't understand.

 

[Izuhu]

I'm down for whatever. Timer or no timer.

To me a timer is just another element, that displays off another skill of how well you can think, play, and execute under the pressure of a time frame.

 

[MattNF]

Call me crazy, but I don't like the idea of changing smash. I know my word shouldn't be taken into account, and maybe it's because I've never been to a tournament, but it doesn't feel right basing the completive ruleset off the an external device.

When you can't play smash with just smash it doesn't feel like smash anymore.

Does that make sense?

You already need external help for running tournaments.

Like using bracket software to manage players (or even pencil and paper for smaller tournies). A timer would be no different.

 

[The Star King]

Yeah I think the best way to try it a tournament is make it so if a player wants a timer, there'll be a timer. Requestable, like double-blinds. So you're not forcing everyone to bother setting up timers, but if you're playing M2K or something and you want it, you can make it happen...

 

[EggSelent]

How on earth do you fools plan on implementing a timer? Players would need to be able to see the time left at all times, which is basically impossible unless players are forced to look away from the screen. Certainly, I wouldn't want to have to look away from the screen to look at some dumb arbitrary rule imposed by the most belligerent and solipsistic few of the community who are mad because they got pwned by M2K and/or didn't fare very well at APEX.

Yeah I think the best way to try it a tournament is make it so if a player wants a timer, there'll be a timer. Requestable, like double-blinds. So you're not forcing everyone to bother setting up timers, but if you're playing M2K or something and you want it, you can make it happen...

What if one player wants a timer, and the other doesn't? Doesn't that give an unfair bias to the player requesting timer if you enforce a timer when only one person wants it?

 

[MattNF]

How on earth do you fools plan on implementing a timer? Players would need to be able to see the time left at all times, which is basically impossible unless players are forced to look away from the screen. Certainly, I wouldn't want to have to look away from the screen to look at some dumb arbitrary rule imposed by the most belligerent and solipsistic few of the community who are mad because they got pwned by M2K and/or didn't fare very well at APEX.


What if one player wants a timer, and the other doesn't? Doesn't that give an unfair bias to the player requesting timer if you enforce a timer when only one person wants it?

maybe you should read the topic next time before posting

 

[Izuhu]

How on earth do you fools plan on implementing a timer? Players would need to be able to see the time left at all times, which is basically impossible unless players are forced to look away from the screen. Certainly, I wouldn't want to have to look away from the screen to look at some dumb arbitrary rule imposed by the most belligerent and solipsistic few of the community who are mad because they got pwned by M2K and/or didn't fare very well at APEX.


What if one player wants a timer, and the other doesn't? Doesn't that give an unfair bias to the player requesting timer if you enforce a timer when only one person wants it?

Gamesharks for the N64 are dirt cheap, and its possible to have stocks and a timer simultaneously with it.

So if we're going down this route of adding the additional rule of a timer. A gameshark should just be a part of your setup of a catridge and console that your responsible for when coming to a tournament.

 

[Shears]

Gamesharks for the N64 are dirt cheap, and its possible to have stocks and a timer simultaneously with it.

So if we're going down this route of adding the additional rule of a timer. A gameshark should just be a part of your setup of a catridge and console that your responsible for when coming to a tournament.

Not a bad idea. I think for just starting out though, gamesharks shouldn't be a requirement, cell phones can easily do the job especially for locals. If it works, we make people get gamesharks. They're less than $20 and most venue fees plus tournament signup will cost that anyway. If you're that tight on a budget you might not be going to tournaments and therefore might not need to get a gameshark. Bringing setups usually garners a venue discount so you can look at it as paying for itself because the ones who own gamesharks have setups desirable for time limit tournaments and get money back. Cell phones can still work for now, baby steps.

 

[SuperSmashTaters]

I could see the application of a timer in changing the frame of the game. There might be an inclusion of strategies which fighters can use such as evasion or stalling, but these would probably be more boring to watch. With a timer, whoever is in the lead has a reason to stay ahead, and could go on the defensive or the run. Games like this could be interesting but who knows? I always hated playing timed matches personally

 

[Shears]

They're not timed matches, they are stock matches that have a timer in case the match takes too long. Like boxing. You can win by knocking the opponent out, but if neither person gets knocked out and they camp the whole time, it comes to a decision based off points when the timer ends. The timer will rarely ever run out, the stocks will be exhausted before the timer is.

I heard illiteracy was getting worse in the US, but reading is still a thing right? Or am I'm just old fashioned? Maybe we need a youtube video or some silly animal pictures to get people to pay attention. No wonder people get scammed, they don't read what they're doing they just see flashing lights and give away all their money. Way to go obamacare, every child seems to be left behind...

 

[Izuhu]

Not a bad idea. I think for just starting out though, gamesharks shouldn't be a requirement, cell phones can easily do the job especially for locals. If it works, we make people get gamesharks. They're less than $20 and most venue fees plus tournament signup will cost that anyway. If you're that tight on a budget you might not be going to tournaments and therefore might not need to get a gameshark. Bringing setups usually garners a venue discount so you can look at it as paying for itself because the ones who own gamesharks have setups desirable for time limit tournaments and get money back. Cell phones can still work for now, baby steps.

The only issue with this what EggSelent said "People don't want to be forced to look away from the screen just to look at the timer"

I mean yea we can always have a person shout out like if the time is at its half way point and etc

But other then that I can confirm you that there's gonna be several people b****hing about having to look off the screen for the time, because there's always those people lol

 

[Shears]

You don't put the timers behind them, under a rock, locked in a safe. You put them right next to the tv. Its almost no different than looking at the damage percentages.

 

[Chaostatic]

I didn't know that there was a code to have a timer with a game shark. I can really see this working now. Just make sure there are like two or three game sharks at the venue.

Just have the main stream/recording setup be a game shark set up, and then have like one or two other set ups (recording set ups maybe) be a game shark set up for people who prefer the game shark over a phone.

There's no reason to have each set up be a game shark set up. I'm sure 90% percent of players have no intentions of timing out their opponents. And among the small percentage who do, I further doubt that they'll give a **** whether or not they time their match by a phone or a game shark.

If people complain about the rules being unequal or something, just state that the tournament is Bring Your Own Timer. If you really prefer a game shark code over a phone THAT much then you can go by yourself your own game shark.

 

[Izuhu]

You don't put the timers behind them, under a rock, locked in a safe. You put them right next to the tv. Its almost no different than looking at the damage percentages.

I know its on the side on the TV, but there are people who don't want to take their eyes off the "game screen" and complain about the littlest things which is what I'm trying to say. With the gameshark the time is on the screen. If Eggselent is complaining about it, then there's gonna be more.

And the other question...

What if hypothetically speaking the timer was to ring and at around the same time the player landed the game changing hit which made him supposedly win by percentage, but no one could of told if the timer rang milliseconds before he hit, or milliseconds after he hit. We don't want that to happen because then its gonna cause arguments on who won the match and whatever. With the gameshark we don't have to worry about this because once times up, it freezes the game so you could easily tell who won by percentage.

But yea we can test the phone thing out for a while to see whether its a legit thing to keep and what not

 

[KnitePhox]

any gameshark that is 3.3 is ready for lots of codes

gamesharks version 3.0-3.2 that have a working LED countdown and a parallel port on the back can be upgraded to 3.3 by me or anyone with a win 98 computer that has a parallel port on the motherboard

you can upload and download codes to and from a gameshark with a win 98 pc from a text file with codes in a specific syntax as well as with a N64 memory card




it can be even easier though with N64 flashcarts, we can just patch roms and start in character select menu with tournament settings + timer on by default


thanks madao

 

[Izuhu]

it can be even easier though with N64 flashcarts, we can just patch roms and start in character select menu with tournament settings + timer on by default


thanks madao

The thing with n64 flash carts is that they're expensive though

 

[Shears]

We have already discussed that a situation in which a game outcome changes at the moment the timer comes out is so rare that it is considered an outlier. Fireblaster says its only happened once and has challenged anyone to find a second occurrence (which no one has yet to do). In the case of phones, the person who thinks they are winning when the timer goes off would pause. The player who thinks they should've won had the pause happened perfectly would dispute this with the TO. The TO makes the decision on this outcome that happens once every Halley's comet and then it is never decided ever again because this only happens in the minds of pessimists who want to ***** and moan about everything they can. "Anti-Timers" will argue the cure for cancer is a bad thing because we never had the cure for cancer before so why start adding all these cures now. 99.9% success rate in curing cancer, Anti-Timers say its unfair that 99.9% of cancer patients get better while the 0.1% have to suffer so its not worth it, no more cure for cancer, it has to be done in a hospital so astronauts on the moon can't be cured, unfair to astronauts, throw away the cure, everyone needs to go back to living in caves. These anti-timers are real proactive...

 

[Izuhu]

Never thought about using the pause button. If that's the case all that there is left is to put it into the test

 

[Fireblaster]

What if hypothetically speaking the timer was to ring and at around the same time the player landed the game changing hit which made him supposedly win by percentage, but no one could of told if the timer rang milliseconds before he hit, or milliseconds after he hit. We don't want that to happen because then its gonna cause arguments on who won the match and whatever.

I literally addressed this in the 2nd reply to this thread. Anti-timer people need to actually start reading posts and arguments or otherwise we're going to start repeating ourselves ad infinitum.

 

[Cobrevolution]

sheer, you should watch the excruciatingly long matches between stranded and m2k, or anyone vs m2k really, and fireblaster vs killer

we can't have selective timers - you can't have it like a gentleman's, because that's unfair to other participants.

also, viewer enjoyment should not be a factor of a ruleset. that comes down to how two players perform. unfortunately, some players will perform differently under certain rulesets. fireblaster chose to play that way vs killer to highlight why hyrule is bad, for instance. a dreamland only ruleset will yield different performances than one with hyrule allowed, in the same way that a timer being introduced will yield different performances.

why do i think it would yield different performances? because now there's a guaranteed window for you to win. in theory, you can hit your opponent once and flee the entire game. obviously, that isn't going to happen - it's an extreme case. but why wouldn't a person who wants to win a game/set get a lead and then let that timer drain? if they're in the lead when it hits zero, they win. it's in their best interest to let it hit zero.

when it comes to other fighting games, i just don't like comparing them. 99 seconds with a health bar vs 10 minutes with 5 stocks. meh. i also do not know if sf has the different character properties that smash has. i mean, a falcon ditto seldom lasts longer than 4 minutes, and can be as short as 2. or take into account that characters can live to dumb high percents because of stale moves/di/weak hits. i was actually going somewhere with this last paragraph but i forgot where

 

[Shears]

Never thought about using the pause button. If that's the case all that there is left is to put it into the test

For this post I'm genuinely not trying to be a douchebag. I know how this obviously looks like I'm pointing a finger for the world to see. But I've been saying all along that it is a simple thing to figure out and I shouldn't be wiping everyones ass and holding everyones hand and some of these fill in the blanks should be obvious or at least figured out with taking a second to think about it. I shouldn't have to explain that a start button can be used to pause a match and solve a problem when the agreed upon timer ends. The problem is people not thinking of these simple things and then I have to repeat myself and think for everyone. I'm not trying to insult you, I respect your courage to admit you overlooked something and humbly take in new information. Because you publicized that, I figured to use you as an example so hopefully people can see it happen to someone else and then selflessly go back and realize what they've overlooked and stop inventing new "hassles" and make sense of a good idea. Again, I'm not trying to be a douchebag to you, but to everyone else who's hand I had to hold when I said from the beginning I would have to do this, I am being a douche bag and you can take this as proof of an I told you so.

Cobr I think you are too caught up in theory. It's so improbable that your theory happens it can be considered virtually impossible. As I've said before, finishing someones 5 stocks can be of better interest than waiting for a timeout. More time stalling means you could slip up and fall behind and let's the underdog catch you and win. If you just go for an outright win, you don't need to worry about screwing up or a timeout or stalling or winning because you already won. I challenged clubba to time me out. He said he would just beat me instead because he knew he could. According to him, a despicable anti-timer, timing out isn't always in his best interest because going for the win by stocks is a higher chance of success.

According to your theory, a timeout is a coin flip. Why risk losing on a coin flip when you can just guarantee a win?

 

[Izuhu]

I literally addressed this in the 2nd reply to this thread. Anti-timer people need to actually start reading posts and arguments or otherwise we're going to start repeating ourselves ad infinitum.

lol must of skimmed over that sorry

I don't know if your referring to me as a anti-timer, but I already said previously that I can careless whether there is timer or not. I'm just stating the pros and the cons between using phones and using a gameshark, and all the hypothetical situations that may take place within using them.

 

[Cobrevolution]

someone tag and ask bcow what he would do if he were participating in a tournament that mandated timers

 

[Izuhu]

For this post I'm genuinely not trying to be a douchebag. I know how this obviously looks like I'm pointing a finger for the world to see. But I've been saying all along that it is a simple thing to figure out and I shouldn't be wiping everyones *** and holding everyones hand and some of these fill in the blanks should be obvious or at least figured out with taking a second to think about it. I shouldn't have to explain that a start button can be used to pause a match and solve a problem when the agreed upon timer ends. The problem is people not thinking of these simple things and then I have to repeat myself and think for everyone. I'm not trying to insult you, I respect your courage to admit you overlooked something and humbly take in new information. Because you publicized that, I figured to use you as an example so hopefully people can see it happen to someone else and then selflessly go back and realize what they've overlooked and stop inventing new "hassles" and make sense of a good idea. Again, I'm not trying to be a douchebag to you, but to everyone else who's hand I had to hold when I said from the beginning I would have to do this, I am being a douche bag and you can take this as proof of an I told you so.

Nah I understand where your coming from. I should of thoroughly read the thread just to see if I wasn't restating what was already being said. I didn't take it the wrong way lol

 

[Annex]

If you just go for an outright win, you don't need to worry about screwing up or a timeout or stalling or winning because you already won.

Oh ****, I guess I'll just decide to win every time then. My bad.

Stalling puts you in a much better position. I'm sure you wont debate that. So lets say I get a lead. Lets look at each players options:

Me
Approach: Put myself at either a disadvantage (if they are camping) or at a neutral position (if they are approaching too).
Camp: Put myself at an advantage (since they'll have to approach).

Opponent
Approach: Engage me at a disadvantage (if I'm camping) or at a neutral position (if I'm approaching too).
Camp: Get timed out and lose.

Why the **** would I ever choose to approach?

 

[Fireblaster]

Oh ****, I guess I'll just decide to win every time then. My bad.

Stalling puts you in a much better position. I'm sure you wont debate that. So lets say I get a lead. Lets look at each players options:

Me
Approach: Put myself at either a disadvantage (if they are camping) or at a neutral position (if they are approaching too).
Camp: Put myself at an advantage (since they'll have to approach).

Opponent
Approach: Engage me at a disadvantage (if I'm camping) or at a neutral position (if I'm approaching too).
Camp: Get timed out and lose.

Why the **** would I ever choose to approach?

Well gee, I guess every single fighting game match ends in a timeout with this brilliant logic. Congrats, thanks to your amazing reasoning no one shall ever question ssb64 and ever threaten to talk about putting timers on tournament matches again.

Oh wait, no. How about **** off with repeating the same awful argument over and over that has been said numerous times in this thread and actually read the thread (more specifically the OP since this **** was literally addressed there) so we don't have to keep repeating the same counter-arguments that fail to get addressed every time.

 

[asianaussie]

ok so im not part of this argument and nor do i really want to be but i saw shears post about evolution stopping, and then i saw kero posting and i had to stifle a laugh

 

[Annex]

How about **** off with repeating the same awful argument over and over that has been said numerous times in this thread and actually read the thread (more specifically the OP since this **** was literally addressed there) so we don't have to keep repeating the same counter-arguments that fail to get addressed every time.

Alright, just for you here's every single counter-argument in this thread so far:

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.

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.

If the time limit is out of reach for average games then no one is going for the timeout.

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.

^ All these counter arguments rely on the faulty assumption that games played by players playing to win would be played the same with or without a timer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

^ And all these rely on the opinion (that I don't even think Shears holds) that camping doesn't put you at an advantage over your opponent.

"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.

Cobr I think you are too caught up in theory. It's so improbable that your theory happens it can be considered virtually impossible.

^ And then there's these, which just straight up dismiss the arguments.

If I skipped over something you want me to see, link to it.

 

[Shears]

I genuinely believe that some people have better odds of winning if they go for the 5 stocks instead of camping. A lvl 9 computer will never beat you in 5 stocks but if you're trying to keep a 1% damage lead for an hour wouldn't you say the odds of the computer winning has gone up because all they need is to snag a hit just before the timer because your play to win mentality didn't give you the lead you needed. I dare you to try and timeout a human opponent for 15 minutes. If you take their 5 stocks then I win, if the game is closer at the timeout then it would've been had you just killed them then I win, if you die of boredom then I win. You're opinion that camping is objectively the best strategy in the game is ridiculous because the game currently has a timer and it's set to infinity and people are rarely camping at the rate you all imagine them to. Camping only becomes advantageous if you are a significant underdog with a lead (which won't last over a course of 10 minutes), or the timer is coming to an end and you are leading (which means your opponent becomes super aggressive and the camping is only for a minute anyway).

Theory arguments dismiss the anti-timer argument not me. In theory you could spontaneously combust right now and die but you haven't and you probably won't and to expect it to happen and to live your life in fear of it is foolish. Nobody lives like that. In theory it can happen, odds are it won't, and the odds are so unfavorable for it to happen you should write it off as an impossibility and no one would blame you. Stop inventing theories, stop arguing something that is impractical, stop being so short sighted and foolish. Now please, tell me all about how you believe in ancient aliens and the zombie apocalypse as facts, because right now I wouldn't put that past you.

You all have infinite timers set on your matches, all you radical camp theorists need to explain why camping isn't a smash pandemic right now.

If camping is encouraged everyone will camp always.
Timers of any length encourage camping.
Infinity is a length.
Infinity timers encourage camping.
Timer is currently set to infinity.
Currently camping is encouraged.
Currently everyone camps always.
If there was a timer santa wouldn't be able defeat all the martians.
If there were surviving martians they would invade earth.
A martian invasion would be successful.
Earth is under martian law.
**fact. as proven by anti-timer logic**

Something doesn't hold up here and my guess is its the first premise.

 

[clubbadubba]

Actually it's the premise that infinity is a length, pretty sure you just divided by zero.

Anyway the whole point is that currently stalling has 0 utility. If a timer is added that utility becomes non zero. And of course the lower the timer the greater the utility. many timer lengths make that utility very near 0 which is fine.

It's not that people expect timeouts to occur often, they would rarely happen I'm sure. It's the fact that if you have a lead you can find a position you like and keep it. That doesn't mean that if they approach you don't take advantage and kill them, as shears seems to be implying with his lvl 9 example. using the clock to your advantage doesn't mean you have to have the clock go to zero so don't try to hit your opponent and win that way too. It means you can put the pressure on your opponent to force the action, which more often than not is good for the defender. This is what I mean when I express concern about fundamentally changing the way the game is played. many matches wouldn't be affected at all, but some will, and not just the ones that actually reach the time limit or even get close to it.

 

[Battlecow]

12 minutes or more IMO

 

[lunp]

Here's the solution:

Change settings to timed match for 10 minutes, and players keep track of the stocks. Game ends when one player loses five stocks, then pause, quit, no contest. Otherwise, time out determines winner.

Like it or not, that is a solution using just the game, that everyone can do with no phones or gamesharks, and allows TO's to limit matches. To me, this ruins the game, but at least there's a timer on screen.

I believe a majority of people who know their matches won't take longer than 10 mins will agree that they don't want to mess with a phone or deal with any sort of responsibility of keeping track of time off screen, which drives home the point that time is only an issue with a select number of people/matches. It's not affecting a majority of people yet, and until it does, or gameshark can add time to a stock match, then I'm on board. But for now, my vote is no.

 

[Fireblaster]

Actually it's the premise that infinity is a length, pretty sure you just divided by zero.

Anyway the whole point is that currently stalling has 0 utility. If a timer is added that utility becomes non zero. And of course the lower the timer the greater the utility. many timer lengths make that utility very near 0 which is fine.

It's not that people expect timeouts to occur often, they would rarely happen I'm sure. It's the fact that if you have a lead you can find a position you like and keep it. That doesn't mean that if they approach you don't take advantage and kill them, as shears seems to be implying with his lvl 9 example. using the clock to your advantage doesn't mean you have to have the clock go to zero so don't try to hit your opponent and win that way too. It means you can put the pressure on your opponent to force the action, which more often than not is good for the defender. This is what I mean when I express concern about fundamentally changing the way the game is played. many matches wouldn't be affected at all, but some will, and not just the ones that actually reach the time limit or even get close to it.

Okay so we've acknowledged that the timer forces the losing player to approach. OF COURSE IT DOES. That's the point of the timer, that it forces someone to approach. That's what the stalling rule tried to do but failed because it is impossible to enforce.

How about with no timer? No one has to approach. What makes this better than having a timer?