The timer?

[Tesh]

I could see some character legitimately avoiding MK long enough to win by that method, but the rule itself jumps across all previous nerfs on MK and just says "he is just waaaaaaaaaaaay too good at stalling". You might as well just put the LGL at 10 for what its worth.

 

[Blacknight99923]

IDC should be banned for obvious reasons regardless of the timer ect, if Zelda could perform a similar glitch it'd still be banned.

if metaknight timing people out is specifically the reason why anyone has an issue with him you could put such a rule in place that he has to kill his opponent before the match ends.


Any time I see a match that goes to time involving metaknight that didn't involve form of his stalling metaknight got outplayed anyway.

that being said if your going to make a rule that he's up a stock, he could just kill someone and plank for 8 minutes anyway.



Raising the timer is probably just a better solution.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I really hope this wasnt serious...

I was quite serious.
If you use Wario's biker outfit, you can see his belly swell.
Or use the timer...
or watch him flash.

Or hell, I can be kind enough and point out the fact it is a character attribute over which we have no control over and is not something artificially imposed by our tournament rules.
Take your pick, the point still stands.

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.

It does change things.
It gives the losing player an extra minute to catch up to their opponent.
It also makes it more difficult for the player that is playing keep away to maintain that lead.
By lengthening the timer by one minute, you basically give the player who is behind another minute to try and make a comeback, and also nerfing the ability to use the timeout as a valid winning strategy.

So in what way is this at all justified?
We know what you are suggesting, the issue is that you have no provided any reason, if at all as to why it is needed

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.

I genuinely think you are arguing simply because you just want to see the timer lengthened, not because there is any benefit.

The current frequency of timeouts is completely relevant because the alteration of the timer has an effect on the ability to time out.

Furthermore, why would you try to minimize timeouts, when less than 1% of all matches result in a timeout in the first place.
Logically speaking, it makes very little sense to argue one is trying to minimize a valid winning strategy, that is shown to be very rare within the MLG circuit!
Furthermore, yes, it would be an insignificant change.
You are moving from .8% of all matches ending in a timeout.
To roughly .1% of all matches ending in a timeout.
You can't shout "ITS A 90% DIFFERENCE WOMG!" and then ignore the fact that it would pretty much be reducing timeouts to roughly .1% when its only .9%

That final result is why its insignificant, and why it is unnecessary, and why you would need to show proof that timeouts are an issue in the first place before messing with the timer.
Don't fix what is not broken in the first place.
Stupid

I'd much rather hear "because MK is a problem" since at least then, there is some logical sense to it.

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)

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

You mean those?
Yes, i saw them, and again, insignificant.
You are arguing based on the interpretation of the numbers.
Firstly, 26 COULD have ended with a KO, but they also could not have ended in a KO.
Of those, 25 also COULD have NOT ended with a different outcome.

Your argument relies entirely upon one scenario and does not take into account that the same ending could have occurred.
Furthermore, you would have to show why this is a bad thing in the first place.
Why is it non competitive, for those 30+ matches, to end in a timeout, as opposed to a KO?
In what way, is it hindering the competitition, for those matches which made up less than 1% of ALL the games played at the MLG circuit, to be a timeout as opposed to a KO?

NO ONE has answered this very simply, very BASIC question.
All I have heard so far is the following.

Lengthening the timer would make timeouts occur less.
Lengthening the timer could have made these matches have a different outcome.
Lengthening the timer lets the losing player have an extra minute before approaching due to time limit

I would very much appreciate to know the reasons as to why it is necessary to change the timer competitively.
It sounds as if you have all the reasons you require, but no actual argument as to WHY the change is necessary.

 

[ADHD]

Shadowlink, you act as if increasing the timer 1-2 minutes will completely make timeouts nonexistent. We are not arguing for an increase of time because we are entirely against time-outs. Most of us generally feel that 8 minutes reward time-outs, when KO's are generally more appreciated in any fighting game.

Would you care to explain your opinion on why 8 minutes is perfect then? Since it's only .1% or so that occured at MLG and time-outs are certainly a viable strategy in Brawl, then why not decrease it 1-2 minutes? I feel like you are just against changing the standard.

Oh, and to answer your question, it's a subjective reason.. that time-outs are unhealthy for the metagame because it generates even more camping and stalling than Brawl already has. We need a timer to prevent tournaments from drawing on too long, but our form of smash's intent was to get all 3/4 stocks down to zero.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Shadowlink, you act as if increasing the timer 1-2 minutes will completely make timeouts nonexistent. We are not arguing for an increase of time because we are entirely against time-outs. Most of us generally feel that 8 minutes reward time-outs, when KO's are generally more appreciated in any fighting game.

Making up less than 1% of all the matches in MLG's circuit means its not only very small, but practically non existent.
Frankly, I care little for what people "feel".
People often "feel" frustrated because they are being forced to approach when they are in a position in which they don't want to approach.

It is entirely an argument of wanting more time so one can win, not because more time is needed for the game's competitive health.

Feel all you want, but if the data shows timeouts aren't an issue, then changing the timer is unneeded.

Would you care to explain your opinion on why 8 minutes is perfect then? Since it's only .1% or so that occured at MLG and time-outs are certainly a viable strategy in Brawl, then why not decrease it 1-2 minutes? I feel like you are just against changing the standard.

You should read your posts out loud.
I am not changing any standard since I have not proposed any changes for the timer.

I would be opposed to decreasing it by 1-2 minutes.
It isn't necessary at all, nothing is showing it is necessary.
It isn't about 8 minutes being perfect.
The reason is because 8 minutes works for our tournaments.
If tournaments are taking too long, have the gamers play their matches on time.
Penalize them for not arriving on time.
Call them out for holding up the bracket cause they wish to play friendlies.

Oh, and to answer your question, it's a subjective reason.. that time-outs are unhealthy for the metagame because it generates even more camping and stalling than Brawl already has. We need a timer to prevent tournaments from drawing on too long, but our form of smash's intent was to get all 3/4 stocks down to zero.

Well hey, at least he answers honestly, and so shall I.
No.
The game was intended to end with the opponent to be KO'ed, since after all it does not end with a player "winning" for having more health.

The time out was placed for the sake of maintaining a simple and fair method of dictating who won the match when a time out occurred.

Brawl is a campy and defensive game. it is not like melee where you could 0-death your opponent.
It is because of this great difference in gameplay, because the game is more rewarding towards picking your opponent apart rather than mauling them with a combo, that many whine about the time outs and stalling, despite data saying otherwise.

So while it is completely subjective in reasoning, which in itself is not wrong, it is because that reasoning has little to support it that I am against it.
It is the same thing with the MK issue when i voted anti-ban in every poll. There was no data at the time to support such a thing, so there was no reason to change it unless there was reason.

 

[MK26]

You should read your posts out loud.
I am not changing any standard since I have not proposed any changes for the timer.

He said 'I feel like you are just against changing the standard'...ie the only reason why youre defending 8 minutes is because its the standard and not necessarily because its objectively better

 

[ShadowLink84]

He said 'I feel like you are just against changing the standard'...ie the only reason why youre defending 8 minutes is because its the standard and not necessarily because its objectively better

He edited it then, I am sure I read differently.
Or least I think I did.
Regardless, there is no way to objectively state "this time is better than this time".
The metagame does change, and there are TONS of factors that have an effect upon the match.

8 minutes shows itself to work well. If anything, it favors KO endings over 90% of the time!
So I see very little reason to try and minimize timeouts when, timeouts can't even make 1% of all those matches.

It is not a matter about being the standard, but a matter about not wishing to change it because there is no reason to change it. There is nothing to show there is an issue with an 8 minute timer outside of people wishing to see a certain conclusion 100% of the time, as opposed to 99% of the time.

 

[-DR3W-]

I have yet to see a logical answer to the following.

Why should the timer be increased to 10 minutes, when overall, less than 1% of all matches resulted in a time out.

If timeouts are obviously not a problem, why are we attempting to remove them again?
In fact, I have some ideas.


1. In the event a match goes to time, the person with the least "cheap" character will automatically win the set.
This ensures matches go by quickly, and we do not have to endure dreaded time outs since someone is playing cheap.


2. In the event a match goes to time, both players will proceed to take turns slapping each other. The first to quit loses the set.


3. Ban Metaknight.
Now before everyone goes "WOMG MK BANNER"
My defense is, If the community is willing to place a ledgegrab limit upon the MK player, despite the fact there is no clear and easy method of keeping track of the number of ledge grabs, then it is being unreasonable to the MK player as well as his opponent who cannot be expected to keep track.

My second defense to this is similar to the first If the community is willing to go to such drastic measures, then one might as well ban the character

My third and best defense is Stop being stupid, time outs aren't an issue int he first place, so why try to nerf something that isn't even an issue in the first place? Oh wait unless you are Meatknight.


tl;dr: I say we go with option 2. It's funny, people will cheer, and its just as intelligent as an lgl.

This, exactly.

I ****ing love you.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

He edited it then, I am sure I read differently.
Or least I think I did.
Regardless, there is no way to objectively state "this time is better than this time".
The metagame does change, and there are TONS of factors that have an effect upon the match.

8 minutes shows itself to work well. If anything, it favors KO endings over 90% of the time!
So I see very little reason to try and minimize timeouts when, timeouts can't even make 1% of all those matches.

It is not a matter about being the standard, but a matter about not wishing to change it because there is no reason to change it. There is nothing to show there is an issue with an 8 minute timer outside of people wishing to see a certain conclusion 100% of the time, as opposed to 99% of the time.

I think we should only take into account the matches in which high level players played and how many of those matches actually went to time. We would never use matches of low level players to determine whether a tactic is really broken or not. Who cares if over 3,000 matches where played and less than 1% of the matches went to time. I'm pretty sure no pros wasted their time trying to time out low level players. It is a tactic that seems to be seen more at high level play.

 

[WindMajor]

Who cares if over 3,000 matches where played and less than 1% of the matches went to time.

You don't have to fix what isn't broken.

The fact that barely any matches went to time means that 8 minutes is plenty of time for a Brawl match to finish. Changing what has been the norm for over 3 years for something that's not really a problem is a waste, and would probably do more harm than good.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

You don't have to fix what isn't broken.

The fact that barely any matches went to time means that 8 minutes is plenty of time for a Brawl match to finish. Changing what has been the norm for over 3 years for something that's not really a problem is a waste, and would probably do more harm than good.

How many of those matches where at high level play? When someone posts a video of a player getting timed out, it is usually a match with two high level players. Again, a top level player isn't going to waste his time against a player who he can easily beat without having to time him out.

 

[ADHD]

Shadow you read wrong yo! I'll clarify. It does not make sense to me that your reasoning was "time-outs are a legitimate strategy" and then you stated that the amount of time-outs that occurred were insignificant. So why not just decrease the timer considering the strategy is perfectly acceptable? What makes 8 minutes fine? It may under your eyes accomplish its intention, but so would 6..7..9..12 minutes.. etc. You claim that we haven't given legitimate reasons to produce change in the ruleset, but neither have you to keep it the way it is. We're trying to change the standard, yeah, but the time standard is the fossil remains of Melee which really hasn't been thought about much to begin with.

You don't have to fix what isn't broken.

The fact that barely any matches went to time means that 8 minutes is plenty of time for a Brawl match to finish. Changing what has been the norm for over 3 years for something that's not really a problem is a waste, and would probably do more harm than good.

I think this mentality is negative because Brawl was not made a competitive fighter. Just because something isn't absolutely "broken" does not mean that it does not deserve to be altered. Look at Metaknight and all of the fences being made around him. He isn't Akuma, but he's affecting the game so significantly.

 

[Tesh]

You folks quoting data like it proves something are being silly. Just because a match didn't actually go to 0.00 time doesn't mean the timer didn't affect the match. Plenty of matches end early because of what the player losing must attempt to do in the last minute to attempt to bring it back.

 

[WindMajor]

How many of those matches where at high level play? When someone posts a video of a player getting timed out, it is usually a match with two high level players. Again, a top level player isn't going to waste his time against a player who he can easily beat without having to time him out.

Let's assume that all the matches were from high level play. What's the problem?

Time outs occur in high level play. This is a fact. Where are you getting at?

I think this mentality is negative because Brawl was not made a competitive fighter. Just because something isn't absolutely "broken" does not mean that it does not deserve to be altered. Look at Metaknight and all of the fences being made around him. He isn't Akuma, but he's affecting the game so significantly.

1) Brawl was made a competitive fighter, it just wasn't meant to be as competitive as it is.

2) Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it without a good reason. Timeouts aren't a problem. They are a legitimate winning condition, and that condition is barely met. What's your good reason for changing an already working and acceptable rule?

3) You're right. Here's the winning mentality: I don't like it, the majority agrees with me, don't change anything cause I don't want to adjust to it.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

@ Twinkie, We can't assume that all matches are at high level play because they are clearly not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSxJoUwjTm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAE_BOSsd8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rxzmQ9VGew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j14HuX7F2ng

All of these videos (except the last one) are from Mike's E4 tournament series. From the 64 competitive brawl matches that mike has uploaded, 4 have gone to time which makes it more than 6% of the recorded matches (matches of high level players) going to time. If we don't count the last match (because it's a money match), then that means that 3 out of 56 matches went to time which is a little more than 7%

 

[ShadowLink84]

Shadow you read wrong yo! I'll clarify. It does not make sense to me that your reasoning was "time-outs are a legitimate strategy" and then you stated that the amount of time-outs that occurred were insignificant. So why not just decrease the timer considering the strategy is perfectly acceptable?

The argument would again, be just the same ADHD.
Why?
Is there any reason why the timer would have to be decreased?
is there an issue with 99% of the matches ending in a KO?
8 minutes works fine, decreasing it or increasing it would need to be shown as NECESSARY.

It isn't just the fact that the time out is legitimate, but also in regards to if the change is NEEDED.

What makes 8 minutes fine? It may under your eyes accomplish its intention, but so would 6..7..9..12 minutes..

And it is also possible that 99 minutes may be the best.
Or that 4 minutes is the best.
It becomes a subjective call, and so it falls down as to whether or not the change is necessary because of the subjective reasoning.


In short, just because it MAY be better doesn't mean a change is needed.
It would need to be shown that the current time, 8 minutes, is a hindrance to the game.
Frankly, we are going in circles and I get rather tired of the argument. So I shall bow out in a bit.

etc. You claim that we haven't given legitimate reasons to produce change in the ruleset, but neither have you to keep it the way it is. We're trying to change the standard, yeah, but the time standard is the fossil remains of Melee which really hasn't been thought about much to begin with.

I have no need to do so ADHD.
This is the burden of proof on your part, or rather, disprove 8 minutes as being good for the competitiveness of the game.

To change the standard, you need to show that the current standard is faulty.
We cannot go about changing things just because we "feel" it needs to be changed since that sets a precedent as to why we change things.

I think this mentality is negative because Brawl was not made a competitive fighter. Just because something isn't absolutely "broken" does not mean that it does not deserve to be altered. Look at Metaknight and all of the fences being made around him. He isn't Akuma, but he's affecting the game so significantly.

He is more like Old Sagat.
A royal...pain...in...the ****ing ***.

 

[WindMajor]

@ Twinkie, We can't assume that all matches are at high level play because they are clearly not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSxJoUwjTm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAE_BOSsd8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rxzmQ9VGew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j14HuX7F2ng

All of these videos (except the last one) are from Mike's E4 tournament series. From the 64 competitive brawl matches that mike has uploaded, 4 have gone to time which makes it more than 6% of the recorded matches (matches of high level players) going to time. If we don't count the last match (because it's a money match), then that means that 3 out of 56 matches went to time which is a little more than 7%

I'm not assuming that all of them were high level matches, I was trying to set up a hypothetical, worst-case scenario for myself.

You said something along the lines of, "How many of those matches were high levels of play? This is important!".

In which I tried to respond, "Let's say ALL of them were high level play, and make things harder for me to refute. Where are you getting at?".

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I'm not assuming that all of them were high level matches, I was trying to set up a hypothetical, worst-case scenario for myself.

You said something along the lines of, "How many of those matches were high levels of play? This is important!".

In which I tried to respond, "Let's say ALL of them were high level play, and make things harder for me to refute. Where are you getting at?".

How would that make it harder? If anything, assuming that all matches are at high level play would help your argument since most of the low level matches seem to end before they go to time.

 

[sunshade]

How would that make it harder? If anything, assuming that all matches are at high level play would help your argument since most of the low level matches seem to end before they go to time.

Wouldn't that be an implication that timing your opponent out is a strategy you must be above average in skill to do?

@shadowlink84: O.saget is not actually the best character in ST. Sim is the best and is tied or slightly above balrog.

 

[Tagxy]

It sounds as if you have all the reasons you require, but no actual argument as to WHY the change is necessary.

Ok so lets give some freebies here:
-The argument you always come back to is precedent, not changing something without a need. Sounds fine to me.
-Judging by the quote it seems generally agreed that timeouts could be reduced without much interference to tournaments.

So it boils down to why timeouts should be reduced in the first place. Specifically how much weight a timeout should be given as a condition for victory. As a result we have 3 outcomes:
-timeouts are of equal merit to stock removal. The ruleset should probably be changed to treat them as such, though I doubt anyone would do so.
-no conclusion; stick with precedant
-timeouts are inferior and should therefore be reduced

The strength of each argument determining the outcome. However, the issue is that those arguing timeouts to be equal have been using precedent in the argument itself. While precedent is a good reason to leave things as they are in absence of an argument for change, it cant be used as an argument against it without becoming circular and therefore unsound. Those stating timeouts are an equal condition for victory are using this type of circular logic. i.e. Timeouts are equal to victory by stock removal. Why? Because theres precedent. In essence there is no argument for timeouts being equal to stock removal. Instead this argument relies on timeouts being inferior also having no argument.

Problem is
a)Having two equally sound forms of victory would create a mess in any competitive game. I cant think of any competitive game in existence that allows for victory with "do this or that" while giving equal preference to both. In brawl, that preference is victory by stock removal. This is partly because:
b)Theres no way to establish why one would give an advantage to the person ahead at 8 minutes over the person ahead at 7 minutes or 9 minutes. Using the timer as a form of victory without referencing either stocks, time contraints, or precedence is impossible. leaving us no way to accurately set what the timer should be.
c)Its stated frequently that timeouts force a particular strategy, something everyone here agrees with. Its an artificial change to gameplay we condone because we must.

 

[ADHD]

Idk, shadowlink's not really getting my points or caring for that matter. I felt I had detailed them enough.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Wouldn't that be an implication that timing your opponent out is a strategy you must be above average in skill to do?

@shadowlink84: O.saget is not actually the best character in ST. Sim is the best and is tied or slightly above balrog.

Timing out does require a good amount of skill, but there are also those matches where both players weren't trying to time each other out and yet, the match still went to time. Saying that 8 minutes has always been the standard is not a good argument. Adding an extra minute to the timer would give you 3 min a stock. How could you guys be against adding an extra minute to the timer, yet have a 3 MIN 1 STOCK rematch in the event of a tie?

 

[ShadowLink84]

@sunshade: Really? Ah but then again I haven't paid much attention to ST in some time.

@tagxy: I mentioned earlier I am exiting the arguments since again, it is just going to be in a big circle.

 

[wWw Dazwa]

@sunshade: Really? Ah but then again I haven't paid much attention to ST in some time

O.Sagat's problem was just being completely uninteresting to play as and against. Sim shuts down characters harder but has to pick the best option at the time to properly do so. O. Sagat's best option for nearly the entire match is TIGER.

 

[tekkie]

Idk, shadowlink's not really getting my points or caring for that matter. I felt I had detailed them enough.

adhd like ignore this thread and find a TO to talk to and have them implement 10-min timer

 

[-Ran]

Sixty-four matches creates too low of a sample size to have accurate numbers for statistics.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Sixty-four matches creates too low of a sample size to have accurate numbers for statistics.

But they all all matches of high level players

 

[Orion*]

Wouldn't that be an implication that timing your opponent out is a strategy you must be above average in skill to do?

I would venture and say, the bad players make so many mistakes it ends quicker

But they all all matches of high level players

:LOL:

 

[NO-IDea]

Eh. If it means anything, I'd agree with Shadowlink after reading over everything. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the timer. They need to show a change is necessary. Quite frankly, I don't see a significant, quantitative way to show it with the current metagame.

However, you could subjectively argue that it could influence players to play less campy/defensive/gay? It could make players not actively go for the timeout?

I dunno. Honestly, it would be more fruitful to have data as to how long matches tend to go and on what stages more so than how many timeouts have occurred at MLG. It's entirely possible that many victories were won simply because a smasher played too "gay," causing the other player to approach and put himself in the worst position... and lose by KO.

And even then, that just spells out moreso a problem with the game that extending the timer won't fix. Playing defensively is good. A character that can camp does wonders.

In short, sounds to me like we're complaining about the fundamentals of the game of Brawl (not Smash, Brawl.) I'm all for an LGL to prevent stalling on the ledge. Without it, it breaks a lot of MUs to a heavy degree. But defensive play on stage? That's just part of the game dude. If you can't break that wall in 8 minutes, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the rules, it means there's something wrong with the game.

 

[Smasher89]

I agree to give more time for matches.
A reason why is that if say, theres player A and B facing each other, player a has got, lets say a 110% stock vs 1stock 0%.
A stock can take up to 2.5-3 min(depending a bit on matchup), meaning it might be just a little more then 2 minutes left, both players playing smartly "aggressive" and knows what they are doing(=knows how to DI stuff).

Player A gets offered a choice by the timer that is at like just over 2 min left, to either go for time, or risk getting hit and that it gets "evened out" in stock, risking getting timed out himself.
When it´s just 2 minutes, it´s easy if you get the lead to just stay away/delay things to make the clock tick.
Whereas if theres 4-5 min left you don´t have the same "easy option" to switch strategy and go for time just for playing it safe.

The japanese do the 10 min timer, I used to have it on my tournaments(when hosting) due to how long you survive compared to where the 8min rule is taken from (melee), so I support this, even though I´m very much for keeping the game as open as possible.

 

[Papero]

I'd personally like to see a longer time limit, but the only data on record shows it's not that big a problem.

If people don't agree with statistics, then they should get more of them. Find or record the percentage of time-outs of other tournaments. Average it with MLG's percentage and see if it creates a substantial difference.

 

[MJG]

Increasing the timer won't work imo. When I played against CO18 @ MLG Dallas, we were both @ three stocks still and 6 mins had passed..

 

[Tesh]

2 more minutes won't change the fact that I'm in the lead and I'm gonna win if I keep running away.

 

[MK26]

Increasing the timer won't work imo. When I played against CO18 @ MLG Dallas, we were both @ three stocks still and 6 mins had passed..

i saw that match in dazwa's spreadsheet, and i have to say you are the minority by far, even among time out matches lol

basically for every match that would still go to time if the timer was 10 minutes, there were about 9 that went to time at 8 but wouldve ended after 9 minutes

in other words, extending the timer to 9 minutes could help more than it hurts, while extending it to 10 is unnecessary

 

[MJG]

i saw that match in dazwa's spreadsheet, and i have to say you are the minority by far, even among time out matches lol

basically for every match that would still go to time if the timer was 10 minutes, there were about 9 that went to time at 8 but wouldve ended after 9 minutes

in other words, extending the timer to 9 minutes could help more than it hurts, while extending it to 10 is unnecessary

Omfg YES!!!!!!!


Ive been tellin people that I don't always play like that for the longest :D

 

[wWw Dazwa]

Increasing the timer won't work imo. When I played against CO18 @ MLG Dallas, we were both @ three stocks still and 6 mins had passed..

hahaha I remember inputting the data for this match and triple-taking, thinking "there's no way this is right."

 

[Raziek]

hahaha I remember inputting the data for this match and triple-taking, thinking "there's no way this is right."

I recorded that match. GOD that was boring.

Or maybe that was.... yeah, nevermind, that was Co18 vs. Jerm that I recorded. Just as boring, but not quite as ridiculous.

 

[hichez50]

How about 2 stock games?

 

[Anaky]

I kinda agree with ADHD here. But i wouldn't go as far as decreasing it by 3 minutes. Personally i think a stock should take no longer than 2 minutes, id definatly agree with a 6 minute timer, but hey im from EU so i have no say.

 

[Tesh]

I kinda agree with ADHD here. But i wouldn't go as far as decreasing it by 3 minutes. Personally i think a stock should take no longer than 2 minutes, id definatly agree with a 6 minute timer, but hey im from EU so i have no say.

oh good god, that would not work over here sorry man. I've seeen PLENTY of matches that go to 4-5 minutes without the first stock off. We need at least 3 minutes per stock, maybe 4.