The timer?

[san.]

I've BEEN to a tourney that had a 6 minute timer. It was horrible.

 

[Denti]

I agree 100%. I was going to make the timer at my tournament 10 min but I didn't want people to throw a fit >.>

 

[Yikarur]

use 9 minutes :D

 

[B.A.M.]

9 minutes seems like the most reasonable assertion.

 

[xDD-Master]

Yeah 9 seems kinda "best" as it is 3-minutes-per-stock, which seems legit.

Anyway 10 seems to be the "better number", dunno what exactly its called in english, in german we would say "beauty number" xD
Just like we dont have a ledge grab limit of 33, 53, 57 or something like that, we use round numbers.
But of course, the timer has more impact on a match than the limit, so maybe we should stick to whatever is the most practical number, and not looking at its "beauty" xP
Just felt like writing it down, as no one has done it before

And about 8 minutes... it was just instant standard due to melee.
So yeah, 8 minutes is very established, would be hard to change, even with the best logical reasonings, as the timer isnt THAT important, as long as you stay over 7-8 minutes, since most matches end between 4-6 :x
And campy matches around 6-7 mostly.
At least thats my experience ^^"

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

I'd be open to discuss the possibility of extending the timer, if more evidence were provided that "Timing Out" is a dominant outcome with an 8 minute timer. As of now, it doesn't seem to be an issue and pretty sure the rest of the BBR RC would agree with that. Some data from upcoming nationals *cough* Genesis2 *cough* would be a good example. If someone got on that I'd take a look.

 

[1048576]

This is kind of radical, but why not play 1-stock matches in a best of 9 or so. That way all the stages get used as well.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I'd be open to discuss the possibility of extending the timer, if more evidence were provided that "Timing Out" is a dominant outcome with an 8 minute timer. As of now, it doesn't seem to be an issue and pretty sure the rest of the BBR RC would agree with that. Some data from upcoming nationals *cough* Genesis2 *cough* would be a good example. If someone got on that I'd take a look.

The Melee timer makes sense. It gives you two minutes to a stock. Brawl's timer makes no sense. It seems like the players just liked the idea of The Melee timer so they didn't bother to change it. A nine minute timer makes perfect sense. It will give us three minutes to a stock.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

The Melee timer makes sense. It gives you two minutes to a stock. Brawl's timer makes no sense. It seems like the players just liked the idea of The Melee timer so they didn't bother to change it. A nine minute timer makes perfect sense. It will give us three minutes to a stock.

How is two minutes to a stock any more appropriate for Melee matches than any other period of time?

Same with three minutes per stock. Do you REALLY think that's reasonable? That's a lot of time where nothing is really happening...

 

[SaveMeJebus]

How is two minutes to a stock any more appropriate for Melee matches than any other period of time?

Same with three minutes per stock. Do you REALLY think that's reasonable? That's a lot of time where nothing is really happening...

The Melee timer seems to work just fine seeing as how you get a hell of a lot less time outs than you do with the current Brawl timer and no threads of players wanting to increase the timer. In the event of a time out (with both players having same damage), the players are supposed to play a one stock, three minute match. In a regular match you get two minutes and forty seconds to a stock but in a rematch you get three? It makes perfect sense to increase the timer by one minute in order for that rule to make a little more sense.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

The Melee timer seems to work just fine seeing as how you get a hell of a lot less time outs than you do with the current Brawl timer and no threads of players wanting to increase the timer. In the event of a time out (with both players having same damage), the players are supposed to play a one stock, three minute match. In a regular match you get two minutes and forty seconds to a stock but in a rematch you get three? It makes perfect sense to increase the timer by one minute in order for that rule to make a little more sense.

Who is to say that the rematch time isn't at just as arbitrary a number?

 

[xDD-Master]

This is kind of radical, but why not play 1-stock matches in a best of 9 or so. That way all the stages get used as well.

Why not 1 Match - 10 Stocks 30 Minutes, striking out of every stage? That way the counterpick system cant be broken anymore (As it doesnt exist)

 

[1048576]

From my understanding, Brawl matches only become degenerate when someone gets a stock lead.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Who is to say that the rematch time isn't at just as arbitrary a number?

It's still part of the current rule set. With that rule, It would make sense to add another minute to the timer.

 

[Cassio]

Who is to say that the rematch time isn't at just as arbitrary a number?

Thats not the issue. Its consistency.

 

[Tesh]

From my understanding, Brawl matches only become degenerate when someone gets a stock lead.

You're right actually. Getting the first kill is what defines how alot of matchups play out. It just depends on how you view that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why not 1 Match - 10 Stocks 30 Minutes, striking out of every stage? That way the counterpick system cant be broken anymore (As it doesnt exist)

Because the counterpick system isn't the issue here at all... TBH, I'm kinda with numbers over there on this one. Timing out isn't an issue until you get a stock lead.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

The Melee timer seems to work just fine seeing as how you get a hell of a lot less time outs than you do with the current Brawl timer and no threads of players wanting to increase the timer. In the event of a time out (with both players having same damage), the players are supposed to play a one stock, three minute match. In a regular match you get two minutes and forty seconds to a stock but in a rematch you get three? It makes perfect sense to increase the timer by one minute in order for that rule to make a little more sense.

What are you basing that off of? Would 9 minutes make sense because its "pretty" and 3 min per stock looks more uniform? Or are you basing that off of something else. What makes sense to me are the numbers and the statistics we have so far. And that to me says that timing out is not a dominant outcome from an 8 minute timer. Even if our timer for Tie Breaker matches is 3 minutes it doesn't mean the regular matches have to be. I mean honestly we can't make a 2 minute 40 second time so 3 had to suffice. I mean show me where timing out is a huge issue. (not sarcasm btw )

Why not 1 Match - 10 Stocks 30 Minutes, striking out of every stage? That way the counterpick system cant be broken anymore (As it doesnt exist)

The counterpick system itself is not the issue here. People are complaining about RC/Brinstar being legal at the same time. And honestly, how much fun would playing one match for up to 30 minutes? That is boring as hell frankly. And on the other extreme, 1 stock, best of 9 is equally as bad.

 

[Tesh]

EQUALLY!!?



.....I used to think you were cool.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

lol and you're cryptic hidden posts Tesh. Eh, I still think they're both bad. It doesn't really matter which is worse.

 

[1048576]

Another fantastic argument from the brawl boards. Bravo, really.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

Please explain to me why 1 stock best of 9 is a GOOD idea then. I'm legitimately curious if you have an actual argument. I won't just write something off and then say "next". I am allowed to form an opinion however.

 

[1048576]

From my understanding, Brawl matches only become degenerate when someone gets a stock lead.

Also this allows more stages to be used.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

1 stock matches with say a 3 minute timer is NOT going to deter camping and timing out. It could probably even promote the desire to time out. If I mained Diddy, Falco or some character that racks up damage lightning fast, I'd just camp for those few minutes and then I win the match.

And characters only have so many strong counterpicks. The only thing a best of 9 would guarantee is more neutrals are going to be played as CPs. That doesn't mean more variety.

 

[vVv Rapture]

This entire theory is assuming that we absolutely must need to play on all the stages and that it makes the game better. That's not the case.

 

[WindMajor]

It's not necessary, but whether you or anybody thinks it makes the game better or not is completely subjective.

I personally think more variety in stages is better, since it makes the skill cap much higher, matches more interesting, and works better with our counterpick system as opposed to using the same ol' stages over and over, but hey, that's just me.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

This entire theory is assuming that we absolutely must need to play on all the stages and that it makes the game better. That's not the case.

This x 1000.

It's not necessary, but whether you or anybody thinks it makes the game better or not is completely subjective.

I personally think more variety in stages is better, since it makes the skill cap much higher, matches more interesting, and works better with our counterpick system as opposed to using the same ol' stages over and over, but hey, that's just me.

I agree to an extent. I won't sit here and say that things are perfect the way they are now.

 

[Cassio]

What are you basing that off of? Would 9 minutes make sense because its "pretty" and 3 min per stock looks more uniform? Or are you basing that off of something else. What makes sense to me are the numbers and the statistics we have so far. And that to me says that timing out is not a dominant outcome from an 8 minute timer. Even if our timer for Tie Breaker matches is 3 minutes it doesn't mean the regular matches have to be. I mean honestly we can't make a 2 minute 40 second time so 3 had to suffice. I mean show me where timing out is a huge issue. (not sarcasm btw )

If we knocked a minute off the timer and timouts occured at 100 per 1000 matches, would that be 'good enough' since its not a dominant outcome and affects a rather small minority of people? Rather than making an arbitrary judgement on what's good enough, the goal should be to minimize timeouts in ways that dont adversely affects a TOs ability to run tournaments.

Since you seem to acknowledge that timeouts are not ideal, that makes things easier. The problem is many seem to look at the statistics and say "thats good enough", as if you got a 99% on an exam and shouldnt try to make some petty distinction between that and 100%.

In reality the statistic is like looking at robberies. When you see 50 robberies per 1000 people its not splitting hairs when youre trying to reduce the amount and help individuals. i.e. We dont say 'good enough' if were capable of reducing it to 5 robberies per 1000 and preventing 45 individuals from being robbed.

*When you look at its affects on individuals and the community, timeouts are a big deal and have a pretty large negative impact on the community. Bizkit vs M2K was only one timeout and yet you saw people talking about how gay it was and people still talk about it. Its a reason people quit this game and its impact is not linearly proportional to the amount of timeouts that occur. This is why judging timeouts by how often they occur is irrelevant, and instead must simply be minimized to the greatest practical ability we can.*

And speaking of statistics, earlier in the thread MK26 gave pretty strong evidence that increasing the timer by even just a minute is likely to reduce timeouts by 80%, from 1% to .2%. Thats a significant improvement and 10 matches for every 1000 we couldve prevented from timing out.

Even if our timer for Tie Breaker matches is 3 minutes it doesn't mean the regular matches have to be. I mean honestly we can't make a 2 minute 40 second time so 3 had to suffice.

Theres a lot of things were incapable of doing, therefore we attempt to at least have consistency. Allowing different timers for the regular match and tie breaker is a perfect example of being inconsistent.

 

[xDD-Master]

The counterpick system itself is not the issue here. People are complaining about RC/Brinstar being legal at the same time. And honestly, how much fun would playing one match for up to 30 minutes? That is boring as hell frankly. And on the other extreme, 1 stock, best of 9 is equally as bad.

I didnt said I'd support it or even think its good

So dunno yeah, I also think it's quite boring.
I'd rather have the other extreme (1stock bo9).
This could be pretty interesting.

Even though I think, that stocks gives the game some depth too...

But maybe 3 stocks is too much.
2 Stocks bo5 also seems good, and would be a nice paralell to other traditional fighting games like street fighter. (2 bubbles)

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

@ Tagxy: So I'm looking at your argument and you make some good points (despite the fact I disregarded the whole robberies comparison and such) Why should Time Outs be removed from the game? Or why should the possibility of them be reduced down as far as possible? (Serious questions, I dont want to sound like I'm being sarcastic) I mean reasons other than "People don't like it". Actually that question goes out to anyone who feels like they can answer it.

 

[xDD-Master]

Yeah I can agree to this, timeouts probably are legits. As long as they arent to easy / degenerate / over-centralizing.

3 Stock 1 minute would be for example extremely stupid.

But 3 Stock 6 mins doesnt seem that bad, when you accept time outs as a legit winning strategy. In 8 mins timeouts may are way too long and boring, but maybe with 6 they are ok to watch & to play/do. But I dont know, I am not in this "timeout playing" as I nearly never do it, and mostly prefer the aggro or just the safe way of playing, so I dont know which characters may **** with such a low timer.

 

[Tesh]

1 stock solves the issue of stock leads (which some might believe lead to degenerate play). It doesn't stop camping, but in some matchups it stops people from just shutting down the other players kill options and living forever while increasing their lead. I would say there is basically no added value to playing only one match (unless you find set leads to be degenerative).

 

[Cassio]

The robbery thing was my attempt to give meaning back to the timeouts that are being objectified. I had a teacher trying to prove a point once who told us a stat about the amount of people who'd died in Iraq, then told a story about a puppy being thrown into a road. Classroom didnt flinch at the former and gasped at the latter xD. In this thread I think the "only 1%" stat is used too much without actually taking into account the affects timeouts have.

Onto your question. TBH I think the most important reason is the affect on the community, but as far as a logical/theory related reasoning in regards to how the ruleset is treated here you go.

Theres only two ways timeouts can attempt to be treated for a ruleset

1. The first way we can treat them is as an equal to stock victories.
a)Problem is you can't have two equally valid conditions for victory. I cant think of any competitive sports, games, etc (that arent heavily chance based) that do this, if there are two conditions one is always inferior to the other. The difficulty and chaos of trying to incorporate two different skills equally into one game is too much. Instead what you usually see is a second condition for victory when the first isn't able to be met as a matter of convenience.

b)In addition, we've always treated timeouts as the step-child. I know the common statement in favor of timeouts is that "regardless of its origins, theres no reason to treat timeouts as less than equal to stock victories". But we've always treated timeouts this way and still do(and it is likely directly related to its origin). Our timer, stagelist, and ruleset in general certainly isnt adjusted to treat timeouts as an equal, even the way theyre treated by the community. Even most of our culprits usually end matches at last stock mid-high percent (vs those rare occasions where we see 2 stocks left, what I consider the real timeout attempts)

c)I think some people get confused because when we say timeouts are a valid form of victory, it means in bracket we dont distinguish between one and the other. But when rules are made it would simply be chaotic if one werent favored over the other.

Basically, we cant treat timeouts as equals. Too chaotic, no precedent, etc. So instead...

2. Timeouts are treated as a secondary condition
a)Since its establish that timeouts are a secondary form of victory, its logical that the ruleset would attempt to minimize them to avoid the chaos inherent with having two ways of winning. It already does a very good job of this, but the idea is if we can do better and if it doesnt adversely affect TOs then we should take the initiative to do so.

b)The community already views timeouts as a secondary condition, consequently timeouts cause a pretty large disruption in the community, especially if its a high profile match.

Spoiler

As a sidenote I'm pretty sure we'd see a different kind of chaos here were timeouts treated and viewed as equal, although thats something we'll never get to see.

c)Timeouts are too detrimental to not minimize just to maintain the status quo. Not only does it work against the logical fact that its secondary and should be treated as such for consistency sake, timeouts are viewed very negatively by the community that's been brought up to treat them as such.

So in addition to the fact that timeouts cant be treated as an equal, we already treat timeouts as a secondary condition and its accepted as such in our community. The problem is the timer could better reflect this. The only real question should be is it practical for TOs.

Also tbh in and of itself timeout victories arent bad, if thats what the game was about no one would complain. The reason people get p/o about them is because winning by timeout is a separate skill, and thats part of the chaos I mentioned thats created in trying to incorporate separate victory conditions into one game. Even if there are two minimizing one of them is important for this reason.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Yeah I can agree to this, timeouts probably are legits. As long as they arent to easy / degenerate / over-centralizing.

3 Stock 1 minute would be for example extremely stupid.

But 3 Stock 6 mins doesnt seem that bad, when you accept time outs as a legit winning strategy. In 8 mins timeouts may are way too long and boring, but maybe with 6 they are ok to watch & to play/do. But I dont know, I am not in this "timeout playing" as I nearly never do it, and mostly prefer the aggro or just the safe way of playing, so I dont know which characters may **** with such a low timer.

I guess it depends on what you want to focus.

If you're going with the philosophy that a player has to take 3 stocks to win and you're using the time only to make sure that a tournament can finish in time you would want to avoid timeouts as much as possible as they aren't a regular win condition but a necessity.

On the other hand, you could say that you give players X amount of time to finish their match, making timeouts the "normal" win condition and adding stocks to end the match sooner in case one player is that much better than his opponent. In that case, you'd probably go with a greater amount of stocks to make sure someone doesn't lose all their stocks in a close match before the timer runs out.

Lastly, you could say that wins through stocks and timeouts are equally viable in which case you'd probably want to do something like the 3 stocks/6 min timer like you suggested.

 

[Tesh]

Gotta agree with chaosmaster1991, the real spine chilling stat is that 99 percent of matches at MLG were ended by stock loss.

 

[xDD-Master]

Btw. just a question that popped up in my head.
Why do we play stock-matches and not time-matches?
I'm sure there are some good reason, but nevertheless I'd like to hear them ^^
I'm pretty sure it isnt just subjective choice, or is it?

 

[Ghostbone]

Btw. just a question that popped up in my head.
Why do we play stock-matches and not time-matches?
I'm sure there are some good reason, but nevertheless I'd like to hear them ^^
I'm pretty sure it isnt just subjective choice, or is it?

Pretty sure it's just subjective choice lol.

Same reason we don't play coin matches.
We don't want to.

 

[Tesh]

So one-sided matches don't take up more time than they need too. Ever see a 3 stock in under 2 minutes?

 

[xDD-Master]

So one-sided matches don't take up more time than they need too. Ever see a 3 stock in under 2 minutes?

That would be a kinda bad reasoning if you ask me :x

Maybe its because in time matches there will happen much more tie's ?

(And tie's are bad?)

That would make some sense at least.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

The robbery thing was my attempt to give meaning back to the timeouts that are being objectified. I had a teacher trying to prove a point once who told us a stat about the amount of people who'd died in Iraq, then told a story about a puppy being thrown into a road. Classroom didnt flinch at the former and gasped at the latter xD. In this thread I think the "only 1%" stat is used too much without actually taking into account the affects timeouts have.

Onto your question. TBH I think the most important reason is the affect on the community, but as far as a logical/theory related reasoning in regards to how the ruleset is treated here you go.

Theres only two ways timeouts can attempt to be treated for a ruleset

1. The first way we can treat them is as an equal to stock victories.
a)Problem is you can't have two equally valid conditions for victory. I cant think of any competitive sports, games, etc (that arent heavily chance based) that do this, if there are two conditions one is always inferior to the other. The difficulty and chaos of trying to incorporate two different skills equally into one game is too much. Instead what you usually see is a second condition for victory when the first isn't able to be met as a matter of convenience.

b)In addition, we've always treated timeouts as the step-child. I know the common statement in favor of timeouts is that "regardless of its origins, theres no reason to treat timeouts as less than equal to stock victories". But we've always treated timeouts this way and still do(and it is likely directly related to its origin). Our timer, stagelist, and ruleset in general certainly isnt adjusted to treat timeouts as an equal, even the way theyre treated by the community. Even most of our culprits usually end matches at last stock mid-high percent (vs those rare occasions where we see 2 stocks left, what I consider the real timeout attempts)

c)I think some people get confused because when we say timeouts are a valid form of victory, it means in bracket we dont distinguish between one and the other. But when rules are made it would simply be chaotic if one werent favored over the other.

Basically, we cant treat timeouts as equals. Too chaotic, no precedent, etc. So instead...

2. Timeouts are treated as a secondary condition
a)Since its establish that timeouts are a secondary form of victory, its logical that the ruleset would attempt to minimize them to avoid the chaos inherent with having two ways of winning. It already does a very good job of this, but the idea is if we can do better and if it doesnt adversely affect TOs then we should take the initiative to do so.

b)The community already views timeouts as a secondary condition, consequently timeouts cause a pretty large disruption in the community, especially if its a high profile match.

Spoiler

As a sidenote I'm pretty sure we'd see a different kind of chaos here were timeouts treated and viewed as equal, although thats something we'll never get to see.

c)Timeouts are too detrimental to not minimize just to maintain the status quo. Not only does it work against the logical fact that its secondary and should be treated as such for consistency sake, timeouts are viewed very negatively by the community that's been brought up to treat them as such.

So in addition to the fact that timeouts cant be treated as an equal, we already treat timeouts as a secondary condition and its accepted as such in our community. The problem is the timer could better reflect this. The only real question should be is it practical for TOs.

Also tbh in and of itself timeout victories arent bad, if thats what the game was about no one would complain. The reason people get p/o about them is because winning by timeout is a separate skill, and thats part of the chaos I mentioned thats created in trying to incorporate separate victory conditions into one game. Even if there are two minimizing one of them is important for this reason.

Well I understand how you could say that community perspective aspect of Timing Out is very important. I won't say it isn't either. The reason I didn't want an explanation about that is because its ALL we ever hear when people ask us to extend to the timer. I came to this thread because I wanted an actual logical argument that is based off of something more than "We don't like it". Like I said, the social aspect IS important, the BBR RC has just heard every argument for it like 1,967 times already is all.

Now on to your response:

The only thing I can really say without going in a circle is: It's entirely subjective. It really a matter of how much of a "secondary" outcome we want timing out to be. I mean you can't argue that it isnt a secondary outcome now. I hear your argument but I still wonder why it has to be so black and white from your view; either make timing out more likely or not likely at all. Very few things with making a rule or an amendment is black and white. VERY few people actually attempt to win by these means alone. So at first glance, it seems fine. But when we have a formula that has been working we don't see the reason to add on to it when it could add on time to the tournament itself. It seems like an funny side effect for something that isn't absolutely needed. I'm not saying it would happen automatically but it could. Truth is, we don't actually know what exactly will happen because we haven't tested it yet. I am definitely willing to though.

I will say this: We are the discussing playing around with experimental rulesets for future tournaments and such (like on a local scale...baby steps). This is DEFINITELY one of those things that should be tested if we go through with it.