Should timers be used for matches? (POLL)

[Shears]

I agree that there will be a marginal change in the game play, but that marginal change is an expense to eliminate several issues with excessively long matches. The problem with the anti-timer argument is that people think in the current ruleset camping isn't viable or even advantageous when it is. If camping meant you could just punish and kill and almost ensure a win, then what is to stop people from doing that now. The way I see it from your points is camping is broken because the advantage goes to the defender and the defender should always win. If thats the case, I now have an infinite amount of time to camp and win. Instead of winning in 15 minutes from camping, I can camp for an hour and win by slowly doing 1% damage every time. That argument you and everyone else keeps making falls flat because its applicable to the current ruleset. It doesn't happen now because people don't like camping more than they like winning.

 

[Battlecow]

Here's the solution:

...

Like it or not, that is a solution using just the game

I don't like it.

 

[Shears]

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.

I see where you're going and I personally don't like it because there can be disputes about stock count. With a phone you don't have a dispute. Its not hard to get a timer running on a phone. The rule doesn't mean every single match forever and always has to be played with a timer. It means there are rules so if timing is an issue or is suspected to be, we have an agreed upon, indisputable, means of enforcing it and preventing those few matches from causing problems. There are double blind rules, there are controller port rules, but are these enforced every match? No, only at the discretion of the contestants. It can be the same with timers. I think this is the third time I've said this but here we go again, better to have and not need than need and not have.

"I don't think my match will take 10 minutes I shouldn't be forced to use a timer every time" You're not. If you and your opponent agree on not having a timer, then you don't have a timer and you just play your match. But if you're in a match where you or your opponent think timing and camping is going to be an issue, there is a rule to allow you to enforce and prevent such a problem. Hyrule is banned but people still gentlemans Hyrule. Timers are allowed, people can gentlemans no timers. Why do people think all of the world will change and social behavior will be flipped upside down because timers are a thing?

"I don't know how to wipe my own ass" DIE.
^^^This is no longer a joke. I can only assume that an anti-timers decision making, reading comprehension, and problem solving isn't selective to the smash community, but prevalent in every aspect of their life. If this is true, which it probably is, then they are nothing but a burden to society and themselves. They are toxic. They are the common mans Justin Bieber. If you're an anti-timer and you can't wipe your own ass, dying is probably for the greater good, and your own good because you're just hurting yourself the more you try and think.

 

[clubbadubba]

In most cases no timer works fine. But in rare cases it does not. I'm fine with adding a timer to the games that need them, so long as it doesn't affect the games that are fine without them. understandable or have I differed from your opinion so now you're gonna say I'm close minded and dumb?

I am not convinced thus far of a fair and productive way to do this, and yes I've read the whole thread (well except for the last 3 to 4 sentences of every shears post when he blames Obama etc). If someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't make them dumb so stop acting like it.

btw close minded stuff directed at fireblaster.

shears you know why endless stalling doesn't occur In the current ruleset? because you cannot win from it. If you camp and your opponent approaches you can win from it, and yes we see that all the time right now. If both players try to camp endlessly, what usually happens is both players do It for a bit and then one or both of them give up and go fight because they know eventually it will have to happen. so we do see it happen but not forever because there us no point. What you are trying to extrapolate from the other side is incorrect

 

[Shears]

In most cases no timer works fine. But in rare cases it does not. I'm fine with adding a timer to the games that need them, so long as it doesn't affect the games that are fine without them. understandable or have I differed from your opinion so now you're gonna say I'm close minded and dumb?

I am not convinced thus far of a fair and productive way to do this, and yes I've read the whole thread (well except for the last 3 to 4 sentences of every shears post when he blames Obama etc). If someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't make them dumb so stop acting like it.

Its unfair to say all M2K matches have to have a timer. In order to make it fair it becomes a rule, like double blinds and controller port selection. Its a rule that exists and probably won't be used in nearly all games, but because its a rule, when its applied it isn't the community or the game or the "laws" of ssb64 being biased and forcing upon specific individuals, it is the contestants making sure the game is played fairly and timely because they have a bias to think somebody can't follow the rules without moderation. Its illegal to speed but everyone speeds. The law exists not to punish everyone and be enforced upon everyone that goes 1mph over the speed limit, its there because if someone is reckless and is excessively speeding and being dangerous to the world around them, the law can punish them and prevent it from happening. That law is a deterrent to people taking advantage of speeding, and so the timer rule will be a deterrent to people worrying about it because they don't want to play under time limits.

And you should really read those last 3-4 sentences because its very insightful to the identity of the social mind and all of the political corruption in the world and the disaster people and their government are heading towards. People not making decisions leads to timidness, timidness leads to political correctness, political correctness leads to everyone always being right and equal, universal equality leads to communism, communism leads to the collapse of a people and their government like the Soviet Union. We're already at everyone being a ***** and thinking everyone is always right in their own way and agree to disagree bull**** that never solves problems just like the communists couldn't figure out who was going to be a plumber and then their world fell apart.

In most cases no timer works fine. But in rare cases it does not. I'm fine with adding a timer to the games that need them, so long as it doesn't affect the games that are fine without them. understandable or have I differed from your opinion so now you're gonna say I'm close minded and dumb?

I am not convinced thus far of a fair and productive way to do this, and yes I've read the whole thread (well except for the last 3 to 4 sentences of every shears post when he blames Obama etc). If someone doesn't agree with you that doesn't make them dumb so stop acting like it.

btw close minded stuff directed at fireblaster.

shears you know why endless stalling doesn't occur In the current ruleset? because you cannot win from it. If you camp and your opponent approaches you can win from it, and yes we see that all the time right now. If both players try to camp endlessly, what usually happens is both players do It for a bit and then one or both of them give up and go fight because they know eventually it will have to happen. so we do see it happen but not forever because there us no point. What you are trying to extrapolate from the other side is incorrect

I think the problem of having two players camp is a worse problem. With a timer, you get only one person camping in the worst case scenario and the match will end in 15 minutes. Without a timer you get two people camping, then not camping for just a bit, then camping again, then not camping for a bit, then camping again, back and forth for 30 minutes. If I'm going to watch a snail race I'd rather it be for only a couple feet than a couple miles.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, I have a problem with having to answer a question I've already answered 5 other times because someone didn't feel like reading the thread but figured they were right anyway and didn't need to. I have a problem with people asking the most trivial little questions and using them as if they debunked an entire argument when I provide a solution to their question immediately without thinking because the answer is obvious and intuitive but they can't fire off more than a couple neurons at once so they never got that far. The counterpoints you just provided are solid and I don't think they're dumb. What I think is that if you tried it out you would see that your concerns are a little over exaggerated like my analogies and comparisons of people here to communists and terrorists. I think you are over imagining this huge and dramatic change to the game play and experience without actually trying it out. Those speculations are valid, however, in my opinion they are not sound.

We already know what untimed tournaments are like. Why can't anyone be willing to optimistically try a timed one and see how it goes? I use the word optimistically because if a bunch of negative nancys go into it purposely running it all wrong and going out of their way to be stupid and screw it up, then they have created poor data that is a false positive and will be used to throw this out unfairly. If the losing player decides to camp and not approach the winning player and the match times outs thats not a timeout win or a point against timers, thats the loser not wanting to win and is no different than if they just suicided 5 times in an untimed match. Both people playing to win, I think you'll see its not as bad as you want it to be. And I still think everyones ignoring or forgetting my point that timers can be forfeited if both players agree to not using one. The rule exists for all games, but the application and enforcement of the rule will, in practice, only be on the matches that you @ clubbadubba think deserve it.

Everyone has the right to a double blind, but not everyone exercises that right. Everyone has the right to a timer, and not everyone will exercise that right.
^^^If everyone can understand this point I think they will understand timers aren't as bad as they first imagined.

 

[Fireblaster]

In most cases no timer works fine. But in rare cases it does not. I'm fine with adding a timer to the games that need them, so long as it doesn't affect the games that are fine without them. understandable or have I differed from your opinion so now you're gonna say I'm close minded and dumb?

This is not a fair way to implement timers. Timers should be enforced between pretty much any good players unless they're super confident that they won't have a long match. Who are you or anyone else to say that every single m2k match NEEDS a timer? Who would have predicted that a timer would have been helpful and really crucial to firo vs wizzrobe? Or that me vs killer should have required a timer? And yes you're close minded and dumb and stupid and everyone on this board is a moron and you should all stop playing (are you watching, sheer?). All I've done is directly attack the opposing arguments. Because that's what you do in a debate, you attack the opponent's argument and expose all of its flaws. Just because I demonstrate how bad these anti-timer arguments are doesn't mean I'm insulting you people. Get over it.

shears you know why endless stalling doesn't occur In the current ruleset? because you cannot win from it. If you camp and your opponent approaches you can win from it, and yes we see that all the time right now. If both players try to camp endlessly, what usually happens is both players do It for a bit and then one or both of them give up and go fight because they know eventually it will have to happen. so we do see it happen but not forever because there us no point. What you are trying to extrapolate from the other side is incorrect

So that's your entire argument against having no timers? "We don't need timers! Boredom is the only thing we need to prevent infinite campfests!" You know, the ssb64 community is real ****ing lucky that wizzrobe vs firo wasn't a top 8 match. Pretty much the only people that saw that happen live were the ssb64 players. As this community grows, this camping without a timer problem is going to get worse. If you and everyone else in this community want to rely on boredom to stop players from camping infinitely, that's fine but it's going to hurt the growth of this game by a lot.

 

[The Star King]

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

My suggestion isn't a gentleman's, it's if one person requests it, a timer will be implemented. The exact same as how double-blind picks currently work.

How is it unfair. If you didn't request a timer, that's on you.

 

[Shears]

My suggestion isn't a gentleman's, it's if one person requests it, a timer will be implemented. The exact same as how double-blind picks currently work.

How is it unfair. If you didn't request a timer, that's on you.

Yay someone figured something out without me doing it for them!! Although it is Star King so I'm not surprised as I expect he could figure most, if not all, of how to work these ideas out on his own.

idk if I'll get an infraction for this because its probably a double post since I'm repeating myself here but I'll say it again so everyone can read it without as much of my rant text being in the way:

Everyone has the right to a double blind, but not everyone exercises that right. Everyone has the right to a timer, and not everyone will exercise that right.

Timers need to be seen as less of a mandatory rule and more as a right, or an encouraged rule, to assist in the progression of tournament matches and outcomes.

 

[tacos]

cmon guys, where is the luv

 

[Cobrevolution]

one person shouldn't be allowed to essentially alter a ruleset for a tourney once the tourney has begun.

i don't want a timed match. let's say i play someone in winner's and beat them, and it took 6 or 7 minutes. then we play again in loser's and they institute a timer, and camp/run/stall the entire time, and i lose. how is that fair to me?

or what if two matches in bracket start at the same time, and one set has a timer placed on it. both matches run to 8 minutes, with one ending and one continuing. match a ended, match b continued. the winner of match b, at 8 mins, should have been player 1, but because player 2 didn't lose due to timeout, he was able to snag a victory.

they did this at smashacre gluttony - put timers on certain matches involving m2k, but not every match in the tourney. it was a bad time. iirc they even put a timer on stranded m2k midmatch or something.

edit: i've already given input on double blinds but i'll restate it here. i do not think that a player should have a clear advantage going into a match. double blinds eliminate the possibility of that advantage, and i feel should be mandated into the ruleset, because it prevents said advantage from taking place. the attitude of "it's your fault if you get cp'd before the match begins" is a bad one to have. you should only be counterpicked when you win, not before you even start the game. i find it the most fair way of selecting characters first.

 

[Shears]

cmon guys, where is the luv

In a desolate wasteland ravaged by anti-timers where all hopes and dreams are disposed of by their pessimism and resistance to progress.

one person shouldn't be allowed to essentially alter a ruleset for a tourney once the tourney has begun.

i don't want a timed match. let's say i play someone in winner's and beat them, and it took 6 or 7 minutes. then we play again in loser's and they institute a timer, and camp/run/stall the entire time, and i lose. how is that fair to me?

or what if two matches in bracket start at the same time, and one set has a timer placed on it. both matches run to 8 minutes, with one ending and one continuing. match a ended, match b continued. the winner of match b, at 8 mins, should have been player 1, but because player 2 didn't lose due to timeout, he was able to snag a victory.

they did this at smashacre gluttony - put timers on certain matches involving m2k, but not every match in the tourney. it was a bad time. iirc they even put a timer on stranded m2k midmatch or something.

edit: i've already given input on double blinds but i'll restate it here. i do not think that a player should have a clear advantage going into a match. double blinds eliminate the possibility of that advantage, and i feel should be mandated into the ruleset, because it prevents said advantage from taking place. the attitude of "it's your fault if you get cp'd before the match begins" is a bad one to have. you should only be counterpicked when you win, not before you even start the game. i find it the most fair way of selecting characters first.

The timer being put on a match wouldn't be forced by the TO, unless it was tournament wide, or by the spectators, it would be forced by the players involved directly in the match. If a player forfeits their timer, it can't be applied mid match, just like if someone feels they were counterpicked they can't cancel the game and replay game 1 with double blinds, that decision must be made at the start.

For player 1 and player 2 in match b, that is a reason that player 1 should've asked for a timer. Player 2 says it was better to not have a timer. The match took more than 8 minutes, if any of you realize, most sets, not matches, take 8-10 minutes, so player 2 barely benefited from not having a timer since if they won in the last minutes. If a match is 8 minutes in its almost always on last stock, if its on last stock and at 8 minutes player 1 is winning and at 9 minutes player 2 won, the match was nearly a coin flip where player 2 could've easily been winning at the 8 minute mark anyway, meaning the timer would unlikely change the outcome and would've just saved a minute.

 

[lunp]

@ Shears Fair enough. The solution I suggested was an alternative. It was a laughable solution that I already said would ruin the game, but it is still technically a solution, despite it being impractical. It all comes down to the fact that, on its own, 64 can not do timed stock matches, like melee and brawl. There will always be resistance to your suggestion because of this, unless the timer can be added in game. And if that means buying a gameshark, or having them available at tourneys, then whatever, that's fine.

However, I do agree with you that a gentleman's agreement to use, or not use a timer is fine, and I also agree that the phone timer would be some sort of test for a final solution, but can not be the final solution because of some small issues. (what if someone bumps the table and it falls off mid match, someone gets a call mid match, blah blah blah. They may be stupid, rare issues, but they are issues).

Right now, the poll reflects an answer to your question, "Should timers be used for matches?", which should show you that people's initial reaction is almost split, but leaning towards no. I think it would be a different result if you make another poll once you have a stronger argument for both sides, with all bases covered. That way, people can be convinced to vote yes or no, with clear pros and cons to consider.

So like I said, I'm on board for a timer, only if it is on the screen, and the only real way that seems to be possible is with a gameshark I guess.

 

[MattNF]

Pretty sad that ****ing Brawlers have better standards than we do.

 

[Shears]

@ Shears Fair enough. The solution I suggested was an alternative. It was a laughable solution that I already said would ruin the game, but it is still technically a solution, despite it being impractical. It all comes down to the fact that, on its own, 64 can not do timed stock matches, like melee and brawl. There will always be resistance to your suggestion because of this, unless the timer can be added in game. And if that means buying a gameshark, or having them available at tourneys, then whatever, that's fine.

However, I do agree with you that a gentleman's agreement to use, or not use a timer is fine, and I also agree that the phone timer would be some sort of test for a final solution, but can not be the final solution because of some small issues. (what if someone bumps the table and it falls off mid match, someone gets a call mid match, blah blah blah. They may be stupid, rare issues, but they are issues).

Right now, the poll reflects an answer to your question, "Should timers be used for matches?", which should show you that people's initial reaction is almost split, but leaning towards no. I think it would be a different result if you make another poll once you have a stronger argument for both sides, with all bases covered. That way, people can be convinced to vote yes or no, with clear pros and cons to consider.

So like I said, I'm on board for a timer, only if it is on the screen, and the only real way that seems to be possible is with a gameshark I guess.

I agree that phones are not a suitable solution for the long term. I think they're great to try it out as you suggested and I think they are more than acceptable for small local tourneys. If its a regional tournament or something bigger, gamesharks should be used for any streamed consoles or consoles with bracket altering matches being played. Your concerns are things that definitely need to be addressed, but before we can address them, we need to decide if we should have timers assuming the logistics can work and what that time length should be if we decide to have them.

**I'm not deflecting a counterpoint. I think if you're arguing about tables being knocked over then you're missing the current argument and trying to be a hard ass. We want to speculate that a phone malfunctions and the timer stops working, why aren't we concerning ourselves with the ruleset not protecting game play and match outcomes from the apocalypse? Timers aren't apocalypse proof, therefore they are invalid. We can work out getting gamesharks or stop watch timers or whatever later. The question isn't about what device to use its should a timing mechanism, regardless of device, be useful to the tournament scene.

**=metaphoric you not literal you here.

 

[clubbadubba]

This is not a fair way to implement timers. Timers should be enforced between pretty much any good players unless they're super confident that they won't have a long match. Who are you or anyone else to say that every single m2k match NEEDS a timer? Who would have predicted that a timer would have been helpful and really crucial to firo vs wizzrobe? Or that me vs killer should have required a timer? And yes you're close minded and dumb and stupid and everyone on this board is a moron and you should all stop playing (are you watching, sheer?). All I've done is directly attack the opposing arguments. Because that's what you do in a debate, you attack the opponent's argument and expose all of its flaws. Just because I demonstrate how bad these anti-timer arguments are doesn't mean I'm insulting you people. Get over it.



So that's your entire argument against having no timers? "We don't need timers! Boredom is the only thing we need to prevent infinite campfests!" You know, the ssb64 community is real ****ing lucky that wizzrobe vs firo wasn't a top 8 match. Pretty much the only people that saw that happen live were the ssb64 players. As this community grows, this camping without a timer problem is going to get worse. If you and everyone else in this community want to rely on boredom to stop players from camping infinitely, that's fine but it's going to hurt the growth of this game by a lot.

calling people close minded is attacking the person, not the argument. This is how you always behave on the Internet and it's why people who meet you in person have drastically different opinions of you than those who only know you online. If this were a debate you would've been dq'd for uncivil behavior long ago.

In terms of testing, like I said before testing at a local tourney does not qualify it for use at a real tourney with lots of top players. I'm down to try timers at the next local I just dunno how that shows anything.

 

[Nintendude]

I'd rather cut the stock count down to 4 first.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

I agree. 4 stocks please.

 

[Shears]

In terms of testing, like I said before testing at a local tourney does not qualify it for use at a real tourney with lots of top players. I'm down to try timers at the next local I just dunno how that shows anything.

It gets people comfortable with the idea so its not a shock to them. It shows that at least in small controlled settings it doesn't show an immediate glaring problems. I'm not saying Apex 2015 needs timers and it needs to be decided now. But the next local lets see how bad it goes. If its not a disaster and turns out to either be a non factor or an improvement, then encourage other locals to adopt it as well. Everyone else reports the same outcomes, then throw it into a bigger tournament like smashacre or some regional. Then when everyone is brainwashed convinced that it is an improvement, its then included into Apex 2015. Does anyone understand how testing works? If the point is small tournaments are run differently than big tournaments or that people take them differently and play differently so they can't compare, then the same can be said about testing medicine on rats vs humans. Rats aren't humans, they're not like them at all, but there are a small amount of similarities that testing on a rat is better than testing on a human because better to have it screw up on those similarities in a rat than in a human, which makes rat testing important. That goes the same for small tournaments. It doesn't prove that it will work for big tournaments but it at least disproves that it won't.

I'd rather cut the stock count down to 4 first.

From a game play and outcome perspective, I'm indifferent. I think theres pros and cons with 4 stocks that are about equal in quantity. I think it will have a slight change on outcomes of games, which could be a good thing, and a slight change on game play, which also could be a good thing. But I don't think the good outweighs the bad or that the bad outweighs the good. But I quote this because I think there is a factor that heavily favors 4 stocks. 4 stock tournaments cut down the length of a tournament substantially, it means quicker games, a faster tournament, and therefore more time before and after to play friendlies and even run a doubles tournament. That to me is a big argument for 4 stocks and its that point that gives 4 stocks my vote. I'm used to 5 stocks so 4 is against the grain, but I don't think the change will be substantial in regards to a games outcome and play, but it will be to the event as a whole.

TFP3 had 4 stocks and we were able to run a good sized doubles and singles tournament with half a crew battle afterwards, as well as friendlies before and it didn't make the biggest difference in outcome or seriously piss anyone off. idk what everyone else thinks, but in my opinion doubles is the best and more fun than singles, so having a tournament go smoothly enough and fast enough to be inclusive of doubles makes the experience of going to a tournament that much better. Compromise 1 stock per game to gain an entire doubles tournament, count me in.

 

[SheerMadness]

Cutting a stock off won't prevent excessively long and campy matches, just like banning hyrule didn't.

 

[Fireblaster]

calling people close minded is attacking the person, not the argument. This is how you always behave on the Internet and it's why people who meet you in person have drastically different opinions of you than those who only know you online. If this were a debate you would've been dq'd for uncivil behavior long ago.

Yeah whatever, it's already been established that I'm an asshole and most see me like this and I can't change anyone's opinions about me anymore so I don't care anymore. Either way, don't derail this thread since it's not about me. The reason I'm calling people close minded and dumb about this topic is because they ARE being close minded and dumb about it.

"Guys, in practically every other event there's a timers for such and such reasons and ssb64 should implement them because of reasons"
"NO, SSB64 IS A SPECIAL FLOWER AND DOESN'T NEED TIMERS. SSB64 WILL BECOME WORSE THAN BRAWL ONCE TIMERS ARE IMPLEMENTED"

This is how I practically see this thread:

"Yo, we should totally use seatbelts while in a car. It's a minor annoyance but if you ever get into a car accident you'll be protected from dying and possibly many injuries"
"NO, SEATBELTS ARE A BAD IDEA BECAUSE IF EVERYONE KNOWS YOU'RE SAFER WITH SEATBELTS THEN PEOPLE WILL DRIVE RECKLESSLY AND MORE CAR ACCIDENTS WILL OCCUR"
"Uhhh no they won't, most drivers would try to avoid a car accident no matter what since it's a really unpleasant experience. The seatbelts are just there to protect lives and won't affect most drivers who don't get into car accid-"
"BUT THEN IT'S NOT FAIR TO THOSE PEOPLE IS IT? HOW FAIR IS IT THAT THOSE THAT WILL NEVER GET INTO A CAR ACCIDENT HAVE TO WEAR THAT BOTHERSOME SEATBELT? I SAY THAT SEATBELTS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IT CHANGES THE WAY PEOPLE DRIVE AND ISN'T FAIR TO EVERYONE"

one person shouldn't be allowed to essentially alter a ruleset for a tourney once the tourney has begun.

i don't want a timed match. let's say i play someone in winner's and beat them, and it took 6 or 7 minutes. then we play again in loser's and they institute a timer, and camp/run/stall the entire time, and i lose. how is that fair to me?

Then your opponent was not playing optimally in the first set he played against you. There was literally no reason that not having a timer in the first game stopped him from camping and stalling. If he camped you and beat you in your second set without a timer, what would pin the blame on? How is that fair to you? It's absolutely ****ing fair. Unless you have some secret undiscovered strategy where you can eventually beat a camper that requires more than 8 minutes, there's no reasoning in this logic that shows no timer is better than having one.

 

[Han Solo]

Firo vs Wizzy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ZFH2Z7Up4

 

[EggSelent]

This is how I practically see this thread:

"Yo, we should totally use seatbelts while in a car. It's a minor annoyance but if you ever get into a car accident you'll be protected from dying and possibly many injuries"
"NO, SEATBELTS ARE A BAD IDEA BECAUSE IF EVERYONE KNOWS YOU'RE SAFER WITH SEATBELTS THEN PEOPLE WILL DRIVE RECKLESSLY AND MORE CAR ACCIDENTS WILL OCCUR"
"Uhhh no they won't, most drivers would try to avoid a car accident no matter what since it's a really unpleasant experience. The seatbelts are just there to protect lives and won't affect most drivers who don't get into car accid-"
"BUT THEN IT'S NOT FAIR TO THOSE PEOPLE IS IT? HOW FAIR IS IT THAT THOSE THAT WILL NEVER GET INTO A CAR ACCIDENT HAVE TO WEAR THAT BOTHERSOME SEATBELT? I SAY THAT SEATBELTS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IT CHANGES THE WAY PEOPLE DRIVE AND ISN'T FAIR TO EVERYONE"

The seatbelt analogy is not a good one. Adding a seatbelt does not give an incentive for bad driving (you don't win if you drive badly), whereas implementing a timer does give an incentive for stalling (you can win that way).

Fun and honor aside, if camping really is unfair and leads to wins, why don't you just do it then? The fact of the matter is, you've tried, and you've still lost. Camping is boring but doesn't alone win you games. Conversely, it'd be quite easy to stall with many characters on many stages.

 

[clubbadubba]

Yeah whatever, it's already been established that I'm an ******* and most see me like this and I can't change anyone's opinions about me anymore so I don't care anymore. Either way, don't derail this thread since it's not about me. The reason I'm calling people close minded and dumb about this topic is because they ARE being close minded and dumb about it.

"Guys, in practically every other event there's a timers for such and such reasons and ssb64 should implement them because of reasons"
"NO, SSB64 IS A SPECIAL FLOWER AND DOESN'T NEED TIMERS. SSB64 WILL BECOME WORSE THAN BRAWL ONCE TIMERS ARE IMPLEMENTED"

This is how I practically see this thread:

"Yo, we should totally use seatbelts while in a car. It's a minor annoyance but if you ever get into a car accident you'll be protected from dying and possibly many injuries"
"NO, SEATBELTS ARE A BAD IDEA BECAUSE IF EVERYONE KNOWS YOU'RE SAFER WITH SEATBELTS THEN PEOPLE WILL DRIVE RECKLESSLY AND MORE CAR ACCIDENTS WILL OCCUR"
"Uhhh no they won't, most drivers would try to avoid a car accident no matter what since it's a really unpleasant experience. The seatbelts are just there to protect lives and won't affect most drivers who don't get into car accid-"
"BUT THEN IT'S NOT FAIR TO THOSE PEOPLE IS IT? HOW FAIR IS IT THAT THOSE THAT WILL NEVER GET INTO A CAR ACCIDENT HAVE TO WEAR THAT BOTHERSOME SEATBELT? I SAY THAT SEATBELTS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IT CHANGES THE WAY PEOPLE DRIVE AND ISN'T FAIR TO EVERYONE"



Then your opponent was not playing optimally in the first set he played against you. There was literally no reason that not having a timer in the first game stopped him from camping and stalling. If he camped you and beat you in your second set without a timer, what would pin the blame on? How is that fair to you? It's absolutely ****ing fair. Unless you have some secret undiscovered strategy where you can eventually beat a camper that requires more than 8 minutes, there's no reasoning in this logic that shows no timer is better than having one.

I'm sorry you see the thread that way. That is not my position nor I think anyone else's. perhaps there is some miscommunication going on in that case

 

[SheerMadness]

So that last Wizzy/Firo match was under 13 mins. I knew you guys who were claiming it was 15-20 mins long were crazy lol.

 

[Fireblaster]

The seatbelt analogy is not a good one. Adding a seatbelt does not give an incentive for bad driving (you don't win if you drive badly), whereas implementing a timer does give an incentive for stalling (you can win that way).

You can win with stalling. Without a timer this means the match takes forever until someone gets bored and approaches. With timers, someone has to approach.

Fun and honor aside, if camping really is unfair and leads to wins, why don't you just do it then? The fact of the matter is, you've tried, and you've still lost. Camping is boring but doesn't alone win you games.

I didn't know we were taking personal skill and results into account as part of the argument. I guess I'll take advantage of this logic and say my opinion is many times better than yours since you stand no chance of beating me regardless of me camping or playing normally.

Or not, since that's not how a ****ing argument works.

Conversely, it'd be quite easy to stall with many characters on many stages.

So once again, how is this stalling any better without a timer? Without a timer, camping/stalling pretty much becomes the same thing in that the player trying to approach has to put himself at a disadvantage to do anything. We're not talking about brawls level of stalling where metaknight can just disappear from the stage and become invisible permanently. Nor are we talking about ice climbers being able to keep you in a grab for the rest of the match. With no timers, stalling is pretty much the same as camping and solves no problems whereas the timer will at least force someone to approach and stop the match from taking forever.

 

[lunp]

Your concerns are things that definitely need to be addressed, but before we can address them, we need to decide if we should have timers assuming the logistics can work and what that time length should be if we decide to have them.

Got it, didn't mean to jump the gun.

 

[bloodpeach]

Firo vs Wizzy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ZFH2Z7Up4

I'm glad there was no timer for this set. Otherwise there might have been camping or stalling.

 

[EggSelent]

You can win with stalling. Without a timer this means the match takes forever until someone gets bored and approaches. With timers, someone has to approach.



I didn't know we were taking personal skill and results into account as part of the argument. I guess I'll take advantage of this logic and say my opinion is many times better than yours since you stand no chance of beating me regardless of me camping or not.

Or not, since that's not how a ****ing argument works.



So once again, how is this stalling any better without a timer? Without a timer, camping/stalling pretty much becomes the same thing in that the player trying to approach has to put himself at a disadvantage to do anything. We're not talking about brawls level of stalling where metaknight can just disappear from the stage and become invisible permanently. Nor are we talking about ice climbers being able to keep you in a grab for the rest of the match. With no timers, stalling is pretty much the same as camping and solves no problems whereas the timer will at least force someone to approach and stop the match from taking forever.

It seems as though most of the community has a different perspective than you about what an argument consists of. My point was that camping doesn't allow you to win games you would otherwise lose, so it doesn't affect the outcome of matches and thus isn't much of a problem. That implicit claim was substantiated using direct evidence, like the matchup between you and Killer. It has nothing to do with personal skill. If you fail to see how that fits into the argument, I am truly sorry for you.

In the current ruleset, you cannot win by stalling. If you sit idly, the game will not end. You will not kill your opponent by stalling. With or without timers, somebody has to approach in order for the game won't end. Every game to date has ended. If you cannot approach your opponent, that is your own fault IMO.

Stalling without a timer is lame, but pointless. Stalling with a timer is lame, but has a most obvious purpose. That is the key difference.

 

[Shears]

So that last Wizzy/Firo match was under 13 mins. I knew you guys who were claiming it was 15-20 mins long were crazy lol.

I'm only advocating 15 minute timers because I think it will be long enough to lure the anti-timers into the idea.

we can knock it down to 8 minutes or less later, just don't tell the anti-timers our plans. they're turtling right now and we need to slowly bring them out of their shells and into the light. then when they're vulnerable WE ATTACK!!

It seems as though most of the community has a different perspective than you about what an argument consists of. My point was that camping doesn't allow you to win games you would otherwise lose, so it doesn't affect the outcome of matches and thus isn't much of a problem. That implicit claim was substantiated using direct evidence, like the matchup between you and Killer. It has nothing to do with personal skill. If you fail to see how that fits into the argument, I am truly sorry for you.

In the current ruleset, you cannot win by stalling. If you sit idly, the game will not end. You will not kill your opponent by stalling. With or without timers, somebody has to approach in order for the game won't end. Every game to date has ended. If you cannot approach your opponent, that is your own fault IMO.

Stalling without a timer is lame, but pointless. Stalling with a timer is lame, but has a most obvious purpose. That is the key difference.

Your last point is valid, and in my opinion I would rather have meaningful stalling that ends instead of meaningless stalling that doesn't.

You can't win by stalling in a timeless match but you also can't lose. In a timed match you can win and you can lose by salling. Everyone wants to use all these theoretical scenarios to argue against timers but you fail to see the theoretical scenarios to argue for them.

Theoretically, if you are winning in a timed match and stall you can't win, inversely, if you are losing in a timed match and stall you can't lose. In this scenario the winner may want to stall to prevent them giving up their lead. The loser may stall to prevent losing. In reality, one of them caves, in theory neither do, the match goes on forever, life on Earth ceases to exists, both players die of starvation and dehydration from not moving and just stalling and nothing is ever resolved.

Everyone knows this theoretical scenario is preposterous and shouldn't be used for timers. But for some reason the preposterous theoretical scenarios of timers are perfectly acceptable and valid to use in an argument?

Practically speaking, the winner camps and the loser approaches in both timer and non timer games. Stalling doesn't win in theory but it does win in practice because if you play someone like M2K you will see. The camping Kirby just sits and waits to utilt anyone who approaches. They keep just utilting and doing the simplest and safest things that allow them to camp and not lose. Eventually, the approacher has racked up enough damage that a stale utilt kills. This happens 5 times and now the camper won after 30 minutes. In a timed match the same thing happens except it ends in 15 minutes not 30. Stop using theory and start using reality. With that said, "Stalling without a timer is lame, but pointless. Stalling with a timer is lame, but has a most obvious purpose. That is the key difference." is a reality and as I mentioned above, is a reality that in my opinion is better than where we are now.

 

[Fireblaster]

In the current ruleset, you cannot win by stalling. If you sit idly, the game will not end. You will not kill your opponent by stalling. With or without timers, somebody has to approach in order for the game won't end. Every game to date has ended. If you cannot approach your opponent, that is your own fault IMO.

Stalling without a timer is lame, but pointless. Stalling with a timer is lame, but has a most obvious purpose. That is the key difference.

Once again, you're repeating the same crappy argument that's been said many times already. "If both players just stall and camp, the game can't end so somebody will eventually get bored and approach, PROBLEM SOLVED". This is why I'm losing my patience with you anti-timer people. You fail to address legitimate points and instead keep repeating the same debunked arguments over and over.

It seems as though most of the community has a different perspective than you about what an argument consists of. My point was that camping doesn't allow you to win games you would otherwise lose, so it doesn't affect the outcome of matches and thus isn't much of a problem. That implicit claim was substantiated using direct evidence, like the matchup between you and Killer. It has nothing to do with personal skill. If you fail to see how that fits into the argument, I am truly sorry for you.

So you ARE using my personal performance as part of the argument. Even if my personal performance was any form of legitimate evidence towards this argument, it benefits timers more anyways. The match took 16 minutes. Had this been a streamed match at apex, it would have damaged the image of 64 by a lot in front of all non-64 players. It would have removed stream time from other players who could have played on stream. And on top of that, most of the match I was actually behind in terms of stock or damage, but that didn't stop me from camping/"stalling" on the left edge of hyrule. Having no timer didn't prevent wizzrobe and firo from camping the **** out of each other. All that happened was that someone got bored or thought they could catch their opponent offguard every 30 seconds. If that's what you guys want, a metagame with no timer and players are safer camping and attempting an attack at each other every 30 seconds, then have fun destroying any more growth this community could have had

 

[EggSelent]

Once again, you're repeating the same crappy argument that's been said many times already. "If both players just stall and camp, the game can't end so somebody will eventually get bored and approach, PROBLEM SOLVED". This is why I'm losing my patience with you anti-timer people. You fail to address legitimate points and instead keep repeating the same debunked arguments over and over.



So you ARE using my personal performance as part of the argument. Even if my personal performance was any form of legitimate evidence towards this argument, it benefits timers more anyways. The match took 16 minutes. Had this been a streamed match at apex, it would have damaged the image of 64 by a lot in front of all non-64 players. It would have removed stream time from other players who could have played on stream. And on top of that, most of the match I was actually behind in terms of stock or damage, but that didn't stop me from camping/"stalling" on the left edge of hyrule. Having no timer didn't prevent wizzrobe and firo from camping the **** out of each other. All that happened was that someone got bored or thought they could catch their opponent offguard every 30 seconds. If that's what you guys want, a metagame with no timer and players are safer camping and attempting an attack at each other every 30 seconds, then have fun destroying any more growth this community could have had

Which legitimate points, in your mind, have yet to be addressed?

 

[KeroKeroppi]

I don't really give a **** about this topic at all, but if you're gonna implement a timer please for the love of god make it 8 minutes.

I know Fireblaster always jokes about this, and he's right, the SSB community isn't some unique snowflake that deserves special treatment. Yeah this game's awesome and we want to be independent, but i can't help but feel that some of you desperately try to keep SSB different.

If another game/ruleset is doing something right (4 stocks, timer, banned stages, etc), there's nothing wrong with using it as a guide. We don't have to be so independent lol, we can be influenced by other communities, it'll be ok, i promise. If we go on without using a timer, whatever fine. If we decide to implement it, can we at least be consistent? There's no reason for a 15 minute timer. If someone is absolutely trying their best to abuse the timer, it doesn't matter how long it is. !5 minutes won't deter a player from timing someone out if it came down to it.

Also, please don't reply with something like, "god damn ****ing communist, have you read this thread at all?" Because yes, I've read each post.

ALSO, attention to you Pro-timers. Your arguments would be a lot more convincing if you didn't seem like such a butthurt asshole every time someone disagreed with you.

You guys have good points, you don't have to be so aggressive in your arguments.

And finally, llama.

 

[Fireblaster]

Which legitimate points, in your mind, have yet to be addressed?

Not having timers can allow matches to take forever (ie, a really long time, just so you people don't sperg out and take "forever" literally). None of you have acknowledged this or don't even understand how terrible of a problem this is for tournaments.

Not having timers doesn't force anyone to approach. The fact that pure boredom forces to approach isn't because there's no timer. At least with a timer someone has to approach.

Not having a timer doesn't deter people from stalling/camping. Whether they're losing or winning, if they feel like it's the safer and smarter option to do so, they will camp.

In every other competitive fighting game in existence, there is a timer. In all of those games, almost always defense > offense. In every other non-smash fighting game, the timers are a lot shorter than 8 minutes. In all those games, very few people still choose to go for the camping/stalling strategy and more often than not go on the offensive. So what makes 64 so unique that the game will become worse than brawl once timers are implemented?

 

[Sangoku]

Damn now Kero is even acting like a mod. Seriously what's going on? It's true that people needs to tone down ITT. Try to keep it civil as much as possible.

 

[EggSelent]

Not having timers can allow matches to take forever (ie, a really long time, just so you people don't sperg out and take "forever" literally). None of you have acknowledged this or don't even understand how terrible of a problem this is for tournaments.
Not having timers doesn't force anyone to approach. The fact that pure boredom forces to approach isn't because there's no timer. At least with a timer someone has to approach.

Not having a timer doesn't deter people from stalling/camping. Whether they're losing or winning, if they feel like it's the safer and smarter option to do so, they will camp.

In every other competitive fighting game in existence, there is a timer. In all of those games, almost always defense > offense. In every other non-smash fighting game, the timers are a lot shorter than 8 minutes. In all those games, very few people still choose to go for the camping/stalling strategy and more often than not go on the offensive. So what makes 64 so unique that the game will become worse than brawl once timers are implemented?

Of course, there's no denying that logistically, long games could be a problem. Implementing a timer comes at a price of changing the game in a fundamental way, and isn't without its own logistical burdens to tournament organizers. Really, this boils down to a matter of preference: would you rather lose due to a clock, or due to a lack of patience? Personally, I would much rather play a 25 minute set and lose than lose because I ran out of time. Also, long games can be boring, but they can also be exciting. And match length is determined by many more factors than just the amount of camping.

I would consider feeling forced to approach due to boredom to be a consequence of insufficient patience and focus, and hence a personal flaw as opposed to a flaw in the ruleset.

While not having a timer doesn't deter people from stalling/camping, having a timer doesn't necessarily deter it either. As we've all stated repeatedly, players may in fact have more of a reason to camp and especially to stall if a timer were implemented. So while the game would be forced to be shorter, it wouldn't necessarily be less plagued by camping and stalling. I seriously think if a timer were implemented, players will just stall the clock once they're ahead, especially when the stakes are high. I am much more worried about this than having a match be plagued by camping and stalling. In short, camping and stalling will exist regardless of whether there is a timer. It's unfortunate, but a fact of Smash existence haha.

Other competitive fighting games are largely irrelevant. While I can't say I play many other fighting games, I would dare to guess that in such games, intentional stalling to achieve a victory is much less feasible than it is in Smash.

 

[Shears]

Also, please don't reply with something like, "god damn ****ing communist, have you read this thread at all?" Because yes, I've read each post.

....

And finally, llama.

This is exactly what a communist would say...way to go obamacare, another example of a fine job...

10JKchars

 

[Shears]

Of course, there's no denying that logistically, long games could be a problem. Implementing a timer comes at a price of changing the game in a fundamental way, and isn't without its own logistical burdens to tournament organizers. Really, this boils down to a matter of preference: would you rather lose due to a clock, or due to a lack of patience? Personally, I would much rather play a 25 minute set and lose than lose because I ran out of time. Also, long games can be boring, but they can also be exciting. And match length is determined by many more factors than just the amount of camping.

I would consider feeling forced to approach due to boredom to be a consequence of insufficient patience and focus, and hence a personal flaw as opposed to a flaw in the ruleset.

While not having a timer doesn't deter people from stalling/camping, having a timer doesn't necessarily deter it either. As we've all stated repeatedly, players may in fact have more of a reason to camp and especially to stall if a timer were implemented. So while the game would be forced to be shorter, it wouldn't necessarily be less plagued by camping and stalling. I seriously think if a timer were implemented, players will just stall the clock once they're ahead, especially when the stakes are high. I am much more worried about this than having a match be plagued by camping and stalling. In short, camping and stalling will exist regardless of whether there is a timer. It's unfortunate, but a fact of Smash existence haha.

Other competitive fighting games are largely irrelevant. While I can't say I play many other fighting games, I would dare to guess that in such games, intentional stalling to achieve a victory is much less feasible than it is in Smash.

I can't say much about SF or any of those fighters but I imagine stalling is hard to do and maybe impossible. As far as Brawl, Melee, or PM goes, stalling is definitely feasible. Especially in Brawl. Brawl more so than 64 since there are plenty of glitches and characters that have infinite stall techniques. Sonic can float indefinitely under a stage and not ever get hit. Many characters have infinite grab release combos. Metaknight can be invisible and invincible for as long as the player chooses. Stalling has never been an issue in the game.

I feel like the difference now is that in my opinion a timer won't encourage people to stall and camp like the way you imagine it and your opinion that a timer will encourage people to stall and camp unlike the way I imagine it. To that I propose this to you: you know what untimed matches are like, you're familiar with untimed tournaments and how the games go and how the tournament runs and its pros and cons, so just try it out with a timer once or twice and see how it really makes you feel before thinking your opinions are certainties. Speculation is fine, but until proven otherwise, its just speculation and not fact. You can't say it will happen when it hasn't yet.

Crack cocaine seems like a really bad drug because you've heard that it was bad and it sounds bad and you imagine it to be bad, but until you try it you'll never know if you like it or not and just how bad, or good, it really is.

10i'veneveractuallytriedcrackcocainebutithoughtitwouldbeafunnyexampleCHARS

 

[clubbadubba]

They specifically ban techniques as you described in brawl to prevent such stalling just fyi.

I'm opposed to an 8 min timer because in this game there are too many matchups that are easy to time out. Would it affect falcon dittos? he'll no. would it affect kirby dittos? think so. lot of puff kirby Samus Ness matchups seem pretty prone to stalling off the top of my head. 64 is pretty prone to stalling in general tbh. it's a game flaw that we are trying to fix with our ruleset, I hope this solution would work but I have my doubts. This would all be solved if I was in charge of dqing people in tourney cuz I would not hesitate to pull the trigger lol

 

[bloodpeach]

no rule set is ever going to remove camping and stalling from 64, this is just a very defensive game.

the real problem is it's not hard to imagine a bo5 set between two extremely defensive and patient players lasting 40 minutes or more. if that ever happens on a professional stream or on a main stage, I think there will be a lot of fallout that will ultimately result in less exposure and tourney privledges for 64. if thats okay with you then keep arguing for the status quo i guess.

 

[SheerMadness]

Boom vs Moyashi in top 8 was 40+ minutes.

Luckily Isai/Moyashi didn't go to 5 games either set or those would have been 40+ minutes too.

Sets where every game goes 7-10 minutes (essentially what top 3 Apex was) is just long, tedious, and boring for any non ssb64 player to watch. Hell it's even boring for 64 players to watch.