The timer?

[King Funk]

I don't think ADHD is talking about a full "timeout strategy" but rather how some matches seem to last so long that they get to the last minute, which prompts stalling at the very end.

I might be wrong though.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

If that's the case I don't even think this is an argument worth having. :/

 

[ADHD]

I'd rather ban MK and lower the timer and/or stock.

I also really play this game. Just FYI.

I guess my point is just that raising the timer to 10 minutes while not a terrible idea isn't suddenly going to make MK less gay or make him or his time-outs less powerful, we're just going to be asking MK's players to come up with bigger better strategies to time you out. How much wasted time are you willing to bet on this strategy actually making time-outs less viable, anyway? If MK can do it for 8 minutes, he can do it for 10.

I wasn't insulting you. I would bet that it would give players a much better chance to fend him off in the time limit, and even if time-outs still do occur, hopefully it will be at least happening within at least one player having one stock.

I'm sick of seeing time-outs with both players each having two stocks. That should never happen. I was also referring to actual time-outs, but the point that damage is taken because the individual being timed out is forced to rush in is legitimate. I believe that would probably account for the extremely low time-out data at MLG, no?

 

[Tagxy]

Theres that, and the fact that you really dont need to time someone out if youre clearly better than them.

I think whats ridiculous is the amount of timeouts that happen in high profile matches. It hurts the community because even players not participating hate to see it, and its a large contributor of why many find the game to be boring to play let alone watch. It destroys interest.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I'm sick of seeing time-outs with both players each having two stocks.

They would probably time out in 10 minutes if they still have TWO stocks at the 8 minute mark.That is a whopping what? 1 stock every 7 minutes? or maybe 1 stock every 4 if you are just about to lose that 2nd stock. Either way, that is a 12-minute timer pace you are now advocating.

Yeesh.

I think whats ridiculous is the amount of timeouts that happen in high profile matches. It hurts the community because even players not participating hate to see it, and its a large contributor of why many find the game to be boring to play let alone watch. It destroys interest.

Mind getting numbers to support your use of "large"? My guess is looking only at the winners semis, winners finals, losers quarter/semis/finals and grand finals that the vast, vast majority don't time out.

---

The timer forces people to act: that is what it is suppose to do. If you are losing you did something to get into that position and now you have to approach, otherwise neither player has any incentive to ever do anything, ever. If the timer is 10 minutes you will still have the same problem with 8 minutes, in that 1% of all matches will likely come down to the time limit. Maybe increasing it to 10, 12, or even 15 minutes will reduce that to <.05%, but frankly I don't want to have to EVER see a 3 stock match go 9, 10, 11, 12 minutes. 8 minutes is MORE than enough time to finish a 3 stock match, and in 99% of cases it works out exactly as it is intended to (scratch that, 100% of the time - the timer is meant to interrupt some matches that are taking absurdly long because you have to balance running the actual tournament, there are a few other reasons to but I wont get into them).

 

[Tagxy]

I never said large, and to be honest that shouldnt be the issue. The real issue is the affect it has on the community. Matches like m2k vs gnes, tyrant vs larry, etc. are supposed to be some of the most hype matches our game has to offer. It honestly leaves a horrible taste in peoples mouths to watch even one match go to time that ends up determining a set. Im not sure why we wouldnt want this remedied when everyone from regular tournament attendees to professional players like larry and adhd end up complaining about it, when the only issue presented is that it might cause tournaments to run longer (although if its really less than 1% of matches I find that unlikely).

Most matches I see still end up with players at a high percent last stock, so Im pretty sure even adding one minute (let alone two) will have a bigger affect then what youre implying. And if they happen as infrequently as you state then the cost in time for TOs should be minimal compared to the benefits it would have for the community. Another solution could be to simply add a minute (or two) to placement sets. Timeliness clearly isnt as big an issue since 3rd, 2nd and 1st are determined by 5 game sets.

Someone should make a thread cataloging timeouts that occur, or even better matches that go to 7 minutes.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

The timer forces people to act: that is what it is suppose to do. If you are losing you did something to get into that position and now you have to approach, otherwise neither player has any incentive to ever do anything, ever. If the timer is 10 minutes you will still have the same problem with 8 minutes, in that 1% of all matches will likely come down to the time limit. Maybe increasing it to 10, 12, or even 15 minutes will reduce that to <.05%, but frankly I don't want to have to EVER see a 3 stock match go 9, 10, 11, 12 minutes. 8 minutes is MORE than enough time to finish a 3 stock match, and in 99% of cases it works out exactly as it is intended to (scratch that, 100% of the time - the timer is meant to interrupt some matches that are taking absurdly long because you have to balance running the actual tournament, there are a few other reasons to but I wont get into them).

You are my hero.

Really.

MK is the problem, not the timer.
MK is the problem, not the ledge.
MK is the problem, not RC.
MK is the problem, not Brinstar.
MK is the problem, not Smashville.

Let's make the timer longer, put limits on ledges, ban RC and Brinstar, make it illegal to fly under the stage, and ban IDC.

There, MK's balanced!

 

[ADHD]

They would probably time out in 10 minutes if they still have TWO stocks at the 8 minute mark.That is a whopping what? 1 stock every 7 minutes? or maybe 1 stock every 4 if you are just about to lose that 2nd stock. Either way, that is a 12-minute timer pace you are now advocating.

Yeesh.

No, I'm advocating a two minute extension on the timer so matches at least go to last stock. I guarantee they would would 2 extra minutes.

Mind getting numbers to support your use of "large"? My guess is looking only at the winners semis, winners finals, losers quarter/semis/finals and grand finals that the vast, vast majority don't time out.

Once again, it's because most matches end without time-outs due to the timer running so slow.

The timer forces people to act: that is what it is suppose to do. If you are losing you did something to get into that position and now you have to approach, otherwise neither player has any incentive to ever do anything, ever.

I found it very ironic that you said this. The 8 minute timer actually rewards time-outs because of it being so low, so it encourages air camping and such.. not approaching. Yeah, one deserves to lose for being punished multiple times, but do you want me to bring up matches where players have been punished slightly and have gotten timed out regardless?

If the timer is 10 minutes you will still have the same problem with 8 minutes, in that 1% of all matches will likely come down to the time limit. Maybe increasing it to 10, 12, or even 15 minutes will reduce that to <.05%.

And you base this assumption.. where again?

but frankly I don't want to have to EVER see a 3 stock match go 9, 10, 11, 12 minutes.

Your opinion actually doesn't matter when it's "I don't want."

8 minutes is MORE than enough time to finish a 3 stock match, and in 99% of cases it works out exactly as it is intended to (scratch that, 100% of the time - the timer is meant to interrupt some matches that are taking absurdly long because you have to balance running the actual tournament, there are a few other reasons to but I wont get into them).

I fail to see how a 2 minute extension is "absurdly long." That's a maximum of 6 minutes per set, assuming the worst possible scenario.

 

[san.]

Even the average campy match ends up dreadfully close to the timer.

The timer shouldn't make you feel restricted in a normal match. Timeouts weed out those stalling matches where neither opponent is doing anything, not regular campy matches or MUs where neither character can kill but is played properly(ex. Sonic vs anyone who can't kill him easily like Jigglypuff).

 

[Yikarur]

I'm for 3 minutes per stock :D 9 minute timer!

 

[ShadowLink84]

Now, I don't know about other Meta Knight players, I might just be the cream of the crop in terms of intelligence (unlikely)... But I count every time I grab the ledge just fine, that's a really weak argument imo.

Irrelevant.
Anecdotal evidence does not, a defense make.
If at any point you are asking the players to keep track of something that is not easily at hand, then you are demanding too much of them.

Shall we start asking people to count how many hadokens Akuma does in SSf2T?
How about his kicks?
The information is made at the END of the match, not during the match, so the player has no method of accurately keeping "count" so that he can alter his strategy on the fly.

Furthermore, what stupidity is this?
Well, a lot of these matches would have gone to time, but they didn't because the other player rushed recklessly.
Really? REALLY!?

So what?
Tough ****!
The game should not have rules altered just because you do not LIKE something.
What matters is if the match went to time or not.
No entertainment of the ideas of would, should, could, or might have because the argument can go both ways.
Maybe if both players stopped playing so safely they could end the match up quickly. Ever thought about that? Maybe they should play more risky?
I imagine someone will go , no thats asking them to change the way they play.
Well, aren't you doing the same with a 2 minute addition to the timer.
After all you are pretty much making the demand that they KO each other.
Ah but wait a second let's think.
If they need an extra 2 minutes to try and get the last stock, doesn't that actually encourage the risky behavior? Something that was being used to argue against time outs in the first place?
L
O
L

Half the arguments here revolve around such foolishness and around the idea of how the match "should" be ending. Let's cease the stupidity, otherwise, I would desire number 2 of my suggestion to be put into play.
It is just logical as most of the arguments here are currently.

If it helps, you can wear gloves so you don't knock them out.

 

[Ghostbone]

So what?
Tough ****!
The game should not have rules altered just because you do not LIKE something.

Except it should, because having the timer at 8 minutes is just as arbitrary as 9 or 10, so we can basically have it as whatever we want if the majority agrees.

 

[Yikarur]

8 minutes was a conversion from melee, if we would say "3 minutes per stock" and have it at 9, it would be really really fine.

 

[Ghostbone]

8 minutes was a conversion from melee, if we would say "3 minutes per stock" and have it at 9, it would be really really fine.

Yea 9 minutes would be nice to try out at the very least.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Ok, make it simple.

Someone state all the reasons for a reason 10 minute timer.
Someone state all the reasons against a 10 minute timer.

Test it out.

Reconvene at another time.

10 minute timer.
Pro: Supposedly might deter time outs.
Against: Is time outs really an issue? Does it really deter a strategy to time out?

 

[tekkie]

seriously. ADHD, people are going to keep wall-of-texting stupid ****. meanwhile, brawl tournaments will keep whatever **** format they have til the end of time.

ADHD, stop listening to people here and go find a TO to host a good-size tournament with a 10-minute timer.

 

[Tesh]

This will just make everyone MORE mad when they get timed out.

We all know what the REAL problem is. Are you mad that you got timed out by a Pit? Or a Sonic? Or a Toon Link? Nope. Its not about the timer, its about broken camp games. Getting timed out in 8 minutes by a Sonic isn't broken is it? Getting timed out by in 99 seconds in street fighter isn't broken is it? Nope, not unless its by a character thats AMAZING as holding a lead and wasting time.

Are 8 minute timeouts happening with people just BARELY under the LGL limit? Nope. Its just gonna be an extra 2 minutes of bull****.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Pit's not gonna time anybody out.

Not with a decent LGL in place, anyway.

 

[Tesh]

Oh he doesn't always need a ledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtqeplsD0Oo

 

[MK26]

Stats:

At MLG, 38/3587 (1.06%) of games went to time
Of those games, 3 had insufficient data (final damage not written down)
3 of the remaining games ended with the winner at 2 stock or more, so those can't be helped

Of the remaining 32 games:
26 probably wouldve ended by ko had the timer been 1 minute longer (at least 1 player above 100% at time)
At least 25 could have had a different outcome (players within 20% of each other at time and/or both players above 100% at time)

Those two groups arent necessarily mutually inclusive (for instance, the game with the winner at 1 stock 90% and the loser at 1 stock 128% would go in the first group, but not the second)

 

[AlphaZealot]

I could reasonably go with a 9-minute timer. 10 no way. 9 = 3/min a stock which at least seems cleaner.

However, whether a tournament is using a unity ruleset, or not, the number that run 8 minute timers are...what? Almost non-existent. 3 stock/8 minute is a staple of the game that will be very hard to convince anyone to change when the drawbacks are minor at best.

No, I'm advocating a two minute extension on the timer so matches at least go to last stock. I guarantee they would would 2 extra minutes.

Umm...what? You are advocating matches have a 10 minute timer so they go down to the last stock and still end in time outs?

Once again, it's because most matches end without time-outs due to the timer running so slow.

That is the timer serving it's function.

I found it very ironic that you said this. The 8 minute timer actually rewards time-outs because of it being so low, so it encourages air camping and such.. not approaching. Yeah, one deserves to lose for being punished multiple times, but do you want me to bring up matches where players have been punished slightly and have gotten timed out regardless?

Pretty sure we are going to see all of these tactics with a 10 minute timer. The difference is we have to watch it for 2 minutes longer.

And you base this assumption.. where again?

1) MLG data pegs 1% of games ending in timeouts of a sampling of over 3,000, which basically means the margin of error is non existent.

2) It is pretty reasonable to assume that adding another minute or two will not decrease the number of timeouts to zero, meaning that the number of timeouts that still exist will be between 0 and 1%. I posited that it would be roughly half the number we see in 8 minute matches. That is my original assumption, but then MK26 posted better stuff looking at the data:

3) According to MK26, 3 of the games (8/100th of 1%)) would likely still have gone to time in a 10 minute timer situation, so that is our minimun threshold. He stipulates also 26 of those 38 games would likely end within a 9 minute timer threshold. So, 3 games not ending in 10 minutes, 26 ending before 9 minutes, and 3 with no data, means extending to your idea of a 10 minute timer would have a whopping effect on 6/3,587 games, or slightly over 1/10th of 1% of all matches.

I fail to see how a 2 minute extension is "absurdly long." That's a maximum of 6 minutes per set, assuming the worst possible scenario.

Meanwhile a TO needs to be planning for worst case scenario, where Bo3's are now lasting 30 minutes instead of 24 minutes, an increase of 25%, or in other words, a tournament that I should be planning to finish in 10 hours now finishes in 12.5, all because of a less than .01% chance that someone, just maybe, possibly, could actually benefit from a 10 minute timer.

As of right now I plan on 30 minute sets, and in a given round that is roughly how long it takes because of factors like stage striking, counter picking, getting to seats, setting ports, finding people, etc. A single set in a given round of the bracket going to game 3, going to 10 minutes, effectively means every single set in that same round could have taken just as long and I would be able to run at the same efficiency. This is why when just one person holds up just one section of the bracket, it causes a cascading effect that ultimately reverberates to every subsequent round because everyone is waiting on the results of previous matches.

Extending to 9 minutes would be a squeeze, but maybe, just maybe possible (probably not really warranted but I digress). 10 minutes is absurd.

 

[MK26]

Actually, looking at the data from a more practical perspective, every one of those 32 single-stock-remaining matches couldve either ended by ko or had a different time-out outcome

ie either one player was close enough to death that he'd get ko'd in the next minute, or both players were close enough to each other than one good combo couldve changed the outcome of the match

also, time outs by stage:

Smashville: 10/834 (1.2% of matches)
PokemonStadium1: 9/232 (3.9%)
Battlefield: 6/659 (.9%)
Brinstar: 3/105 (2.9%)
Final Destination: 3/373 (.8%)
Delfino Plaza: 1
Green Greens: 1
Halberd: 1
Lylat Cruise: 1
Pictochat: 1
Rainbow Cruise: 1
Yoshi's Island: 1

 

[WindMajor]

There you have it. Ban Smashville.

 

[Tagxy]

I think most reasonable people are fine with and/or have already argued for a 9 minute timer. I also think people underestimate how much you can actually do in a minute of gameplay, or even the psychological affect of reaching 7 minutes into gameplay and still having 2 minutes left on the timer instead of one.

And MK26 with some amazing posts. Precisely the argument that should be used when moving for a timer extension. People look at 1% and assume you cant see much improvement to that. But going from 1% to .1% is a rather drastic improvement. As opposed to looking at 1% of matches being timeouts and saying "thats good enough", we need to consider the concrete change thats occurs and its benefits.

 

[Kaffei]

Pit's not gonna time anybody out.

Not with a decent LGL in place, anyway.

I got timed out by Luckay's Pit last weekend. I'm so bad LOL

 

[MK26]

People look at 1% and assume you cant see much improvement to that. But going from 1% to .1% is a rather drastic improvement. As opposed to looking at 1% of matches being timeouts and saying "thats good enough", we need to consider the concrete change thats occurs and its benefits.

Exactly. What the data suggests is that 10 minutes is completely unneeded but 9 minutes is warranted. Theres an unstated but presumably non-zero number of games that were ended when a player saw the clock wind down and realized he had to go on the offensive to avoid being timed out...and ended the match in the process.

As winning by timer is our secondary win condition, valid but less common as an objective than winning by ko, we should try to minimize timeouts without interrupting the flow of tournaments. A small but significant number of matches would be affected by a change to a 9 minute timer, while an insignificant number would be affected further by another minute beyond that.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I agree with changing the timer to 9 min (3 min a stock makes sense)

@Shadowlink, Players are already forced to keep track of something that is not easily at hand. It's called Wario's Waft.

@Alphazealot, I don't see how adding an extra minute to the timer would give a TO any more trouble than having an extra five players in the bracket. I'm sure that TOs are prepared for a situation in which more players attend than what was actually expected. I don't see how they can't prepare for this

 

[ShadowLink84]

@Shadowlink, Players are already forced to keep track of something that is not easily at hand. It's called Wario's Waft.

Every something odd seconds Wario is nearly charged and can perform his super deadly 9 wind fart of ultimate bad smelly doom.

The timer as well as the fact he begins to flash, his belly button swells, are all detailing when he is near full, or full.

Your argument fails, good day sir.

Exactly. What the data suggests is that 10 minutes is completely unneeded but 9 minutes is warranted. Theres an unstated but presumably non-zero number of games that were ended when a player saw the clock wind down and realized he had to go on the offensive to avoid being timed out...and ended the match in the process.

Yes, because it is a bad thing when player's realize they are running out of time and have to approach instead of keep away.
The timer is doing its job when its forcing people to approach.
There is no data to suggest 9 minutes is warranted at all. Where you ever drew a conclusion makes me wonder if you are living in the same world I am.

As winning by timer is our secondary win condition, valid but less common as an objective than winning by ko, we should try to minimize timeouts without interrupting the flow of tournaments.

Oh hey, its a valid win condition.
It is also extremely less common than our primary win condition.

So...since its so very uncommon, to the point it made up less than 1% of MLG's circuit...its...too....much?
That's ****ing stupid.

A small but significant number of matches would be affected by a change to a 9 minute timer, while an insignificant number would be affected further by another minute beyond that.

Proof?
Wait you have nothing to suggest it.
My suggestion?
Look up my first post in this topic.
Use suggestion number 2.
Repeatedly.

 

[Tagxy]

Every something odd seconds Wario is nearly charged and can perform his super deadly 9 wind fart of ultimate bad smelly doom.

The timer as well as the fact he begins to flash, his belly button swells, are all detailing when he is near full, or full.

Your argument fails, good day sir.

I really hope this wasnt serious...

Yes, because it is a bad thing when player's realize they are running out of time and have to approach instead of keep away.
The timer is doing its job when its forcing people to approach.

Forcing a specific playstyle is a bad thing, but something we've come to accept as necessary due to time contraints. However, adding an extra minute doesnt changes this at all. It just gives the players an extra minute of freedom as opposed to being coerced into a specific playstyle. It also cleans up the ruleset to allow 3 minutes per stock.

There is no data to suggest 9 minutes is warranted at all. Where you ever drew a conclusion makes me wonder if you are living in the same world I am.

Oh hey, its a valid win condition.
It is also extremely less common than our primary win condition.

So...since its so very uncommon, to the point it made up less than 1% of MLG's circuit...its...too....much?
That's ****ing stupid.


Proof?
Wait you have nothing to suggest it.
My suggestion?
Look up my first post in this topic.
Use suggestion number 2.
Repeatedly.

He gave plenty of evidence in his last few posts. And the current frequency of timeouts should be irrelevant, the idea as mk26 clearly stated is "to minimize timeouts without interrupting the flow of tournaments." I also wouldnt call a 90% reduction in timeouts (as mk26's data suggests) an insignificant change.

 

[MK26]

Shadow...are you trolling or are you serious? Did you catch that post and not the previous two that I wrote?

 

[ADHD]

I'm sitting at my computer right now in 100 degree weather (lol) reading the posts and trying to understand why anyone is so adamantly putting their heart into arguing 1-2 extra minutes being added onto the clock.

???

But to progress, I'm going to ask keitaro/vinnie if they would try this for a change.

 

[MK26]

^^no johns, you suggested it first

 

[ADHD]

^^no johns, you suggested it first

I think it's a necessary minor tweak that will yield large positive results. Shadowlink is going insane over this topic even though the timer was a very subjective matter to begin with.

 

[MK26]

Oh, i thought you were referring to me...

<_<

carry on then

 

[xDD-Master]

Rule 42: Metaknight always loses in the case of a time-out.


Problem?

No need for IDC/EDC Ban, Scrooging Ban, Planking Ban, Air-Camping Ban, LGL, Air-Time Rule, whatever.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Rule 42: Metaknight always loses in the case of a time-out.


Problem?

No need for IDC/EDC Ban, Scrooging Ban, Planking Ban, Air-Camping Ban, LGL, Air-Time Rule, whatever.

I'm assuming that you would still have the win-by-stocks rule take precedence. Otherwise, people would have little trouble picking certain characters and spending eight minutes not-dying when fighting Meta Knight. Being Brawl, straight-up running away wouldn't be very difficult to manage a win, even against a ridiculous character like Meta Knight.

Also, as a result, all of the aforementioned rules would still need to be put in place, since Meta Knight is still entirely able to abuse a lack of those rules if Meta Knight has more lives left.

Also-also, extending Dimensional Cape is broken even outside of the infinite variety.

 

[Ghostbone]

Japan has EDC legal don't they?
I've seen them use it occasionally at least and it doesn't seem that broken....

 

[xDD-Master]

I'm assuming that you would still have the win-by-stocks rule take precedence. Otherwise, people would have little trouble picking certain characters and spending eight minutes not-dying when fighting Meta Knight. Being Brawl, straight-up running away wouldn't be very difficult to manage a win, even against a ridiculous character like Meta Knight.

Also, as a result, all of the aforementioned rules would still need to be put in place, since Meta Knight is still entirely able to abuse a lack of those rules if Meta Knight has more lives left.

Also-also, extending Dimensional Cape is broken even outside of the infinite variety.

Whats so bad if timing out MK and always winning now leads into some MK counters, finally :D
And no, the rule clearly says that MK ALWAYS looses ^-^

No need to been EDC if EDC is used mostly to stall the time.

 

[MK26]

so the best matchups against mk would be among the characters that can stall him out for 8 minutes?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

EDC allows Meta Knight to get out of almost any situation where he doesn't have the advantage and reset it to neutral (which is, of course, where he has the advantage). It's not about stalling. It's about being completely safe even if the opponent managed to put Meta Knight in a bad position.