Should timers be used for matches? (POLL)

[Shears]

Our current ruleset isn't perfect. We have a different ruleset than many of the other countries, specifically Japan, which our ruleset is significantly different than theirs and if ours was perfect we would adopt theirs and if theirs was perfect we would adopt it. Now that we established our ruleset is not perfect we admit that there could be changes that make it better. A change like adding a long timer is a change that should be tested to see if it improves. We're not flipping the game upside down, we're just adding a teency weency little timer. I know you all get attached really easy and it will be hard to fall in love with a timer only to find out it doesn't work then divorce the timer and go back to the single, timerless, life but life is about taking chances and learning from them. No one has done timers before so lets try it out and see what happens, don't worry we will have the annulment papers ready in case its a disaster but if its a success we can consummate the timer marriage and take it on a honeymoon to Apex 2015. This isn't a no turning back decision.

Honestly you stubborn prideful anti-timers should want to see this happen just so you can rub it in me and fireblasters faces when it falls apart like the hindenburg. Then we can go back to being socialist hipster ******* and let the Koroshiyo Communist Party walk all over us.

 

[SheerMadness]

Shears, I don't understand why you think a 10+ minute timer is a solution here. That's longer than 99.9999% of tourney matches I've ever seen.

How does that solve anything lol??

8 minutes is where it's at.

 

[Shears]

Shears, I don't understand why you think a 10+ minute timer is a solution here. That's longer than 99.9999% of tourney matches I've ever seen.

How does that solve anything lol??

8 minutes is where it's at.

I said before that I agreed with you. However, the anti-timers need warming up. You jump into an 8 minute they may not agree and play along. You start with 10 minutes or 12 or 15 to prove to them the timer doesn't ruin the game. Then you move down to 8 and see if it still works. Its like taking a virginity, you don't just throw home plate at them, you walk them to first, steal second, bunt them to third, then take them home usually done with a nice dinner and cuddling. Cuddling is the easiest way to steal second.

 

[EggSelent]

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

I agree that Brawl can have stalling. It's an issue enough that Apex banned ledge planking or whatever it's called; you're only allowed to grab the ledge some arbitrary number of times in a match, which is a hardly unenforceable rule. But just because Brawl has a timer doesn't mean it's "right" or beneficial. Players can and do stall in Brawl, and consequently I strongly disagree that stalling has never been an issue. Check out lots of the Apex matches this year -- players like M2K just float around the screen with no intention of approaching in order to wind down the clock in more than just one or two matches. As for Melee, I'll take your word for it that stalling isn't an issue, since I don't know much about it.

Go ahead and try using a timer in tournaments (not big ones) if you'd like. Stalling might be less prevalent when players are just trying to have fun rather than win money and acclaim.

As for the crack, yeah, hard drugs are sensationalized by the media. For instance, less than a quarter of people who try heroin become addicted.

 

[M!nt]

 

[KnitePhox]

i have a harsh solution

eject the offensive and aggressive players from all venues, add a timer

everyone can then enjoy ssb

most tournament matches will go down to, say, 4 MAYBE 3 stocks

 

[SheerMadness]

Puff, I think you and some other people are vastly overestimating ease and effectiveness of timing someone out.

Timing someone else out is not a simple task. It back fires all the time and the person attempting the time out loses. I've seen it countless times in both melee and brawl.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Man... all these problems would definitely be solved if people would just quit Stalin...

 

[Annex]

It would be so cool if we had a ruleset where the winning player was actually better off appr---

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

OH ****.

Now since everyone here likes to argue in ****ing novels I'm just gonna go ahead and post short versions of the objections I expect:

But what if WS/LS/WF/LF/GF ends in two DQ's? That would be lame as hell.

Why would any player camp their way into a DQ rather than accept a top 8 finish?

But doesn't this system encourage the losing player to camp?

Yeah. That sucks. HOWEVER, if the losing player manages to camp themselves into a lead, camping suddenly stops being their least desirable option. I think that makes up for it.

It'd be hard to implement a timer.

See all of Shears' posts on this.

[analogy comparing using a DQ timer to stifling the cure to cancer]

oh **** you got me

Seriously though, I don't see how this is the best option. It's weird, yeah, but it solves the problem of extremely long matches while creating significantly less problems in the process than normal timers do.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Man... all these problems would definitely be solved if people would just quit Stalin...

People need to act like the average Jo..seph when it comes to smash.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Yeah, I mean a campy play style definitely isn't commun… ist it?

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

That is quite a bol(d)shevik statement you got there.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Then again, why would anyone Russian and approach when they can camp instead? Maybe timers are a good thing after all.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

It'll be hard to test these timer controls online, I mean with the (Gu)lag and all.

 

[Han Solo]

Hey Koro,

 

[KeroKeroppi]

I've always thought that idea of timed matches was kind of biczar anyway.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

I should honestly Bloc myself from making anymore of thee jokes but nah.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

I know we're ruining this thread, but I Moscow-ntinue making these puns.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Just here Lenin' a hand to keep this pun thread alive.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

You'd think we would have run out of punny reMarx by now.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

We are sure both getting a Kapital revenue of likes from these posts.

We really should get a mod thought to move this to the Social(ism) thread though

 

[KeroKeroppi]

Man wtf, I'd hate to see this conversation get Putin another thread.

 

[Cobrevolution]

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.

set 1, game 3: no timer. he's a campy player and i have to be extremely cautious and patient in my approach and hits. i'm down 1 stock to 2 at 6 minutes. i take both of his stocks by 7 min. i win the set.

set 2, game 3: 8min timer. he realizes that his campiness helped him in the last match, and remembers how long it took for me to win. he institutes the timer. i'm down 1 stock to 2 at 6 minutes. he does everything in his power to not get hit, by any means necessary - stay there with kirby and utilt, sh uair with pika, whatever you like. i do not take either of his stocks by 8min. i lose the set.

if i lost the second set without a timer because of him camping moreso than he did the first match, then he flat out beat me. but if he won when i still had a stock left, there's no telling what could have happened - especially if we take into account the fact that i did it in the previous set.

hell, i'm stubborn enough that i wouldn't consider a timeout a victory for anyone. there's simply no telling what could have happened in the ensuing minutes.

may as well dq both players, or force a reset.

you have to try to create a rule that doesn't encourage people to play differently to break it. hyrule, for instance - you've argued how easy it is to camp on that map. the best strategy is, in fact, to wait for your opponent to come to you, because the approaching player often is at the disadvantage in smash. and when the best strategy is completely unfair for one of the players, it should be removed or altered.

timers function in this way, i feel. it encourages defensive, campy, stalling play. you do not actually have to take 5 stocks to win anymore. you could win by taking two and losing one.

that's stupid.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

set 1, game 3: no timer. he's a campy player and i have to be extremely cautious and patient in my approach and hits. i'm down 1 stock to 2 at 6 minutes. i take both of his stocks by 7 min. i win the set.

set 2, game 3: 8min timer. he realizes that his campiness helped him in the last match, and remembers how long it took for me to win. he institutes the timer. i'm down 1 stock to 2 at 6 minutes. he does everything in his power to not get hit, by any means necessary - stay there with kirby and utilt, sh uair with pika, whatever you like. i do not take either of his stocks by 8min. i lose the set.

if i lost the second set without a timer because of him camping moreso than he did the first match, then he flat out beat me. but if he won when i still had a stock left, there's no telling what could have happened - especially if we take into account the fact that i did it in the previous set.

hell, i'm stubborn enough that i wouldn't consider a timeout a victory for anyone. there's simply no telling what could have happened in the ensuing minutes.

may as well dq both players, or force a reset.

you have to try to create a rule that doesn't encourage people to play differently to break it. hyrule, for instance - you've argued how easy it is to camp on that map. the best strategy is, in fact, to wait for your opponent to come to you, because the approaching player often is at the disadvantage in smash. and when the best strategy is completely unfair for one of the players, it should be removed or altered.

timers function in this way, i feel. it encourages defensive, campy, stalling play. you do not actually have to take 5 stocks to win anymore. you could win by taking two and losing one.

that's stupid.

yeah i'm sure you're real fun at parties

showing up here with your lame ass ssb talk and ****

where are the puns

god you're such a ****ing n00b i swear

 

[Cobrevolution]

i can guarantee i am 850,000% more fun at parties than you will ever be joseph

 

[KnitePhox]

ssb64 internet forum

parties


ROB-e

 

[Maliki]

Timers are dumb

Puns are good

I'm good at party's ask rob he knows

 

[Cobrevolution]

when i go to chicago we'll throw a rager at casa de knitephox and you'll see firsthand

 

[SheerMadness]

Nobody, in brawl or melee, goes into a match thinking they're going to time someone out.

It only becomes a viable option when you realize you're in that position towards the middle/end of a match.

If you start the match playing as if you're trying to time someone out you will get pwned.

Seriously, go on kaillera and and intentionally try to time a good player out for 8 minutes. You guys are purely theory crafting because you've never dealt with timed matches before. It's VERY hard to intentionally stall the match for 8 minutes while holding the lead vs anyone half decent. It will not even be a viable strategy IMO.

 

[KeroKeroppi]

i can guarantee i am 850,000% more fun at parties than you will ever be joseph

when you say 'joseph' are you referring to me or stalin

 

[EggSelent]

when i go to chicago we'll throw a rager at casa de knitephox and you'll see firsthand

Speaking of ragers, when is the next open house Smash kegger at your place? We can advertise it on Smashboards, Facebook, Craigslist, etc.

 

[rpotts]

set 1, game 3: no timer. he's a campy player and i have to be extremely cautious and patient in my approach and hits. i'm down 1 stock to 2 at 6 minutes. i take both of his stocks by 7 min. i win the set.

set 2, game 3: 8min timer. he realizes that his campiness helped him in the last match, and remembers how long it took for me to win. he institutes the timer. i'm down 1 stock to 2 at 6 minutes. he does everything in his power to not get hit, by any means necessary - stay there with kirby and utilt, sh uair with pika, whatever you like. i do not take either of his stocks by 8min. i lose the set.

if i lost the second set without a timer because of him camping moreso than he did the first match, then he flat out beat me. but if he won when i still had a stock left, there's no telling what could have happened - especially if we take into account the fact that i did it in the previous set.

If you wanted to win the set you shouldn't have been behind at 6 minutes.

My only issue with timers is not wanting to use a separate timer that can't possibly be easily visible to all parties, bystanders and stream viewers/commentators and one that won't actually stop the game when time is reached, like in melee and brawl. Too much responsibilty rests in the hands of the players who are trying to win the set, not referee it.

 

[clubbadubba]

kero = on fire itt, good **** son

 

[Cobrevolution]

If you wanted to win the set you shouldn't have been behind at 6 minutes.

but i was, and i wound up winning the first time. it is not uncommon to be behind and still win.

this is also a dumb statement. you think someone being behind after a certain amount of time means they don't want to win...?

 

[Battlecow]

Boom vs moyashi was good as **** to watch

 

[rpotts]

but i was, and i wound up winning the first time. it is not uncommon to be behind and still win.

this is also a dumb statement. you think someone being behind after a certain amount of time means they don't want to win...?

That's not what I said. If at 6 minutes into an 8 minute max game you're behind then you're losing, of course you can still win but you are currently behind.

It's not that they don't want to win, it's that they shouldn't be mad if they lose when they're behind when the games almost over. It's your responsibility to win the match under the rules outlined, we'd have implemented a timer years ago if it was an option in the in-game menu like it is in melee and brawl.

 

[Sedda]

Guys, we shouldn't implement a timer!!!

If you do, the world is going to end. Meteors are going to come down from the sky, and the SWINE FLU is going to take over the world. Not only that, but massive diarrhea will overtake our digestive systems and all toilet paper will disappear from the world instantly. I have zero evidence of any of this, but I just know it in my heart that the worst thing ever will happen and we cannot assume that adding timers will be a good thing......

Once again guys, try it out first before getting all defensive about it. All this discussion gives the timer idea enough merit to at least deserve a couple of tournaments.

 

[Cobrevolution]

yes, i'm losing at 6min in an 8min max game, and i was also technically losing at 6min in a pure 5 stock game. you said "If you wanted to win the set you shouldn't have been behind at 6 minutes." which is a really stupid statement to make. because i'm willing to bet anyone who's ever been behind has wanted to win the set.

and if my opponent can just activate a timer whenever he wants during his tourney sets, that's drastically unfair. and also stupid. what kind of ruleset would include "timers can be placed on matches if you want?" does nobody else see why this is wrong, having game changing rules available to players that they can bend whenever they want? also, it's unfair to the person who doesn't want to play with a timer.

if ya'll wanna put timers on your locals, go ahead. i did not like 4 stocks at tfp2. like, really didn't enjoy it at all. i'm also confident i won't like having to glance over at a phone or something in the middle of the match to check the remaining time.

 

[The Star King]

It would be so cool if we had a ruleset where the winning player was actually better off appr---OH ****.

Now since everyone here likes to argue in ****ing novels I'm just gonna go ahead and post short versions of the objections I expect:

DQing both players if it goes over a certain time is a bad idea in my opinion, because assuming that camping is actually the stronger tactic in a certain set and approaching is disadvantageous for the loser, if the winner decides to be stubborn and camp, it puts the loser in a lose-lose situation. Either they approach and lose, or they don't and they both lose. I know it might seem strange for the winner to do that, so let me give an example scenario to illustrate:

Imagine a hypothetical, totally fictional player - we'll call him San Holo - against another completely-not-real player he despises - we'll call him Queero. Let's say San Holo is destroyed the first game of the set (which he promptly blames on his character, Pikachu, saying "Pikachu isn't as good as people think he is"). He then decides to try camping second game, and to his surprise, it gives him the edge and he takes the lead. "No wonder I couldn't even make top 8 at Pinnacle 2014," Queero thinks sadly to himself, a single tear rolling down his cheek and landing upon his Lion shirt as he recalls all the cousins he missed the opportunity to bang due to his disappointing placing.

However, San Holo realizes he's in a bit of a dilemma, as well. Because at the rate the match is going, they're going to hit the time limit and both of them are going to be DQ'd! But San Holo remembers how hard he got destroyed first game when he wasn't camping. If he stops camping now, he's probably gonna lose! He realizes that it's a choice between him losing, and both of them getting DQ'd. He thinks about all those times Queero has aggravated him on Smashplanks. "**** it. If I'm going down, I'm taking this Commie ******* down with me!"

If you wanna take this even further - San Holo also knows that his best buddy and favorite player, the legendary Moon King, is waiting to play the winner of this. San Holo knows that if he gets both of them DQ'd, his bro for life Moon King basically gets a free pass for the next round. "At this point, why wouldn't I get us both DQ'd?!" San Holo screams, laughing maniacally.

 

[KeroKeroppi]