The timer?

[ZTD | TECHnology]

I like how this thread went completely off topic again.

 

[1048576]

You can't "adapt" to circle camping on hyrule and leaning all about it won't make it less harmful to your character. Peach does fine on the Air phase, but assuming she doesn't, thats just a CP quality. The pattern on Ps2 is the same as Ps1. You get a warning and there are only 4 possibilities anyway. As far as being countered by the stage, you are much more likely to die early as Peach because of a Delfino transformation if you don't know how to deal with it. The portion with the low ceiling, or a walkoff section can determine who gets the advantage just as much as the Air phase. Alot of players have barely played competitive matches on Ps2 because its rarely been legal due to bias. Look bad at 08 vids of people being new to Lylat, Delfino, Halberd etc. and you will see people SDing, dying super early and whatnot because they don't understand the stage.

Keep in mind that when you compare to Hyrule, most of the transformations in the game on Delfino, Castle Siege and all the pokemon stadiums would be banned if they weren't temporary. Air phase lends itself to the same camping issues as Ps1, but its a temporary thing so its not a "hard counter" situation like Hyrule.

Also being a mod has nothing to do with being knowledgeable or right about the game. Its just about keeping order on the forums and some sense of maturity.

Also here is a top peach on Ps2 if you were serious about that example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqetdkJoEv8

I see no random hard countering.

That's fair, and I concede my position that PS2 should be banned, as I already did when BPC made his argument. My objection was mainly to the mod saying "you can't adapt lololol" as a reason for PS2's legality, and then you strawmanned the hell out of me.

I still don't like random stages though. Like if Castle Siege stayed in a random configuration the whole match, I'd call for its banning. I don't think PS2 air should be treated as a normal CP, since it prolly doesn't come up every time you play the stage, so you can't select an appropriate character around it. It apparently doesn't affect anyone too much though, so I'm fine with it.

 

[Tesh]

I'm gonna tell you right now that being "bad" on the air phase is just like being "bad" on Ps1 rock phase. At top level play the player that doesn't want to fight during that phase is going to camp it out. Because 90% of the cast can camp that transformation to death OR they are amazing on it otherwise and the other player will camp it to death. Its not hard to pick an appropriate character for the stage. All you need is an air stall move, a dive attack, or a good ground defense to do okay here. Keep in mind that if you are a character like Olimar who would get juggled like hell on this stage AND die early off the top, you can stay grounded and no one would really be able to approach you with fast falls or any other mixup using aerials for pressure. Same goes for Snake to some extent. Options are just so limited here (just like Rock transformation), that both players will probably just chill out and wait unless they are certain about how to get hits in.

As for random stages, You would wind up with like 5 or 6 stage if you wanted to remove all the random ones we have now.

I'd like to see it as a starter, but I don't think it will happen until people get more comfortable with it. There are still people that think its a bad Marth stage because of the treadmills (its the same thing that happens if you dancing blade into DDDs inhale).

 

[WindMajor]

I'd like to know how you become a mod when the best of your knowledge for how to overcome PS2 air is "adapt." Do me a favor. Before you troll like a R-E-T-A-R-D, run your argument through the following hypothetical: "Hyrule should be legal because *insert your argument*. If it still makes sense, then you should reconsider your position.

You have to realized that this same argument about PS2 has been beaten to death so many times before, that it's regarded as "that same old argument". It's nothing new, everybody has heard it. Everybody knows about it. That's why when you brought up the argument again, I just replied with "That's when you're supposed to adapt", because after witnessing the argument being beaten around so many times, there's no real point in putting a whole mountain of effort into repeating yourself for the millionth time. It's not a troll remark, especially by SWF's definition of trolling. It's just an incredibly vague way of answering your question. If you read it any other way that might have offended you, that wasn't my intention, and I can apologize for that.

Anyways, Tesh sort of explained it already, but I'll give you my lowdown. You mentioned pre-selected ordering of the transformations, which I'm assuming means that for you, the randomness in choosing the transformations is too game breaking for competitive play. You can get a barely intrusive ground transformation, or you can get an air transformation. My point is that randomness barely matters, because that's just another exercise in adaptation, just like EVERYTHING else in Brawl. Adapting is a required skill in Brawl, and it's one that we couldn't even remove even if we tried.

How do you figure out your opponent? You adapt to his playstyle.
How do you play on Delfino? You learn how to use your character on all the transformations, and when they come up, adapt.

If you tried to remove the skill of adaptation, how would the above two situations even work? Remove the stage, remove the opponent?

You're supposed to learn how to use your character on all the legal stages, so you can maximize your chances of winning. If you don't want to learn it, that's fine, but that's your loss. Since in PS2, the stage gives you a niiiice big warning in the background of which transformation is about to appear, that's expected that players are able to pick up on the huge warning and have enough time to adapt. Adapting to a stage is no more demanding than adapting to your opponent.

Mentally, you should be preparing yourself by thinking something like this:

"Okay, the stage is going to transform into the AIR transformation. I should re-position myself or change my strategy to reflect this sudden change. I know how this transformation operates, so I have to review my options again to see how I'm going to fight my opponent under these conditions.

As for your Hyrule argument, there's no issue with adapting. If a player can abuse movement speed on a specific stage to gain a win, then that's just a counterpick quality. However, the two issues with Hyrule that I see is that (1) the stage is simply too big for 1v1 play, and (2) the largeness of the stage invalidates practically the majority of the cast, to the point where the only character worth using would be Metaknight.





Anyways, like Technical Chase mentioned, this thread is about the timer. If you want to continue the argument with me, then you can VM me about it, but for now, let's get this topic back on track.

I heard that 8 minutes was too much time. We should bring it down to 7 so that my Toon Link can get easier wins.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Does anyone Know the amount of matches that went to tome out or were affected by the timer at Genesis 2?

 

[Tesh]

Pretty sure M2K was about to time Ally out with 17 ledge grabs. You people thinking another minute or two will stop this are foolish. The most ledge grabs I saw M2K use was 27 ledge grabs.

Especially on stages like RC, where you can basically hardcore plank on the boat and still timeout with under 20 ledge grabs because of the stage layout.

At best the LGL will stop timeouts one maybe FD/BF by MK.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Pretty sure M2K was about to time Ally out with 17 ledge grabs. You people thinking another minute or two will stop this are foolish. The most ledge grabs I saw M2K use was 27 ledge grabs.

Especially on stages like RC, where you can basically hardcore plank on the boat and still timeout with under 20 ledge grabs because of the stage layout.

At best the LGL will stop timeouts one maybe FD/BF by MK.

better than nothing

 

[Tesh]

Better than nothing isn't much of a solution. We could lower the LGL to 34 for MK and it would be better than nothing.

The LGL honestly should be lowered to 20 or 15 for MK. 10 if you want to stop him from camping RC to death. He has the best recovery in the game by far, and might have some counters if timeouts are taken off the table.

 

[Player-1]

Raising the timer would help against scrooging, M2K Vs ADHD on smashville was still close IIRC thanks to the damage ADHD was getting from peanuts, but he didn't have enough time to catch up with just those alone.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Rain vs Krystedez

 

[BSP]

10 Minute timer probably won't do much for matches involving MK

 

[san.]

We DO know that 8 minutes do nothing but make it much worse.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Nine would make perfect sense since the timeout match is played with one stock and a three minute timer.

 

[stingers]

yeah 9 minutes makes sense

 

[Jimmyfosho]

if only match that went to timeout was like that...

 

[1048576]

1.) Perhaps the restart would be played with 2:40 if you could?
2.) Perhaps timing out the restart is worse for the tournament than timing out the regular game?

 

[WindMajor]

if only match that went to timeout was like that...

I'm disappointed that MJG only has one stock.

 

[Flayl]

Maybe I'm missing out on a joke, but MJG has two stocks in that picture.

 

[Ghostbone]

Brawl's horrible stock icon design strikes again...

 

[-LzR-]

So what exactly is wrong about the match going timeout?

 

[WindMajor]

I t's gay.

Spoiler

aka nothing is wrong

 

[SaveMeJebus]

There's also nothing wrong with increasing the timer by one minute

 

[Tesh]

Or leaving it at 8.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

What percentage of the matches between the top 16 players at MLG went to time?

 

[Tesh]

If timing out is 1 of only 2 valid win conditions, it shouldn't be a big deal if its the outcome like 5% of the time.

If anything we should be appalled that 95% of matches at high level play are ending by KO. The timer should be reduced to 5 minutes.

 

[san.]

We don't want timeouts to happen often because winning conditions on a timeout are flawed.

 

[ShadowLink84]

We don't want timeouts to happen often because winning conditions on a timeout are flawed.

Despite the fact that they are the most objective manner of determining a winner in the event of a timeout and also because the game has no method of determining a winner in the event of a timeout.

Seriously, all i hear is "this is flawed" okay why?
If it is flawed, you obviously should see a method to correct it if it is indeed that badly flawed.

Instead, rather than address the flawed system we...try to increase timers.

Edit: Funny, people went from going "I want to increase timers to limit timeouts" and have now gone to saying "timeout system is flawed in itself." while still advocating for increased time limits.

Friggin brilliant, you all should be politicians.

 

[Flayl]

There's nothing that can be reasonably done about the timeout system, hence the indirect approach. I figured all BBR members should have known this by now...

 

[san.]

I've been vocal on the same opinion since the beginning of 2011.

Don't look at two different arguments from different people and assume they're the same. That's just ignorance.


A timeout based on percentage is currently the best method for determining a winner. Right now, there is no other feasible alternative. Obviously, it emphasizes certain character traits and strategies, but we accepted it that way. It's the best, but it's not necessarily that great. People are constantly suggesting other methods (that would obviously fail).

I believe that in comparison to losing all stocks, timeout through percentage is inferior. Therefore, I cannot treat them both equally. That is why I want timeouts to be limited in that manner.

What is the reasoning against raising the timer?
Even if there aren't a large amount of games going to time, an increase would not negatively affect tournament length by a noticeable degree. It also helps emphasize the primary win objective.

My reasoning for increasing the timer if you bothered to read, in short, would be that 8 minutes does not give enough time above your average match. Your average match usually reaches 5-6 minutes. Matchups with characters that can't kill or campy matches end way too close to those 8 minutes.

Yes, it's pretty much my opinion. But 8 minutes is also just a number people just decided on. I was pretty much convinced after looking at other regions who had longer timers that were successful.

 

[ShadowLink84]

There's nothing that can be reasonably done about the timeout system, hence the indirect approach. I figured all BBR members should have known this by now...

The system of stock/time is the most objective manner in which to determine a winner in the event of a timeout.
Why?
The system for determining a winner in the event of a timeout is completely non-competitive because it cannot take into account opponent's with the same stock.

So what happens if both player's have 2 stocks while one is at 300%, the other at 0%?
You go into sudden death.

So naturally, this needed to be modified to account for same stock. Percent was used because it is not only easily monitored, it is also unbiased as to who would win.
It also falls in line with fighting genre in which the winner is the one with the greater percentile of health. In this game it is the opposite, higher percent=weaker=more easily KO'ed.

We can see this in many other mediums as well including boxing in which the winner is not always determined by a K.O.

Other methods become completely subjective and are not at all easily monitored by the player's. Ledge grabs being a prime example.

Now how is it flawed exactly?
I have yet to really see an argument outside of Gheb, whose argument was that because it was not within the game's original design, it is thusly an illegitimate tactic of winning and should be replaced to be more in line with the game.

The problem is that this means we still have to use a method not designed in the game.
So even if there was a flaw, it is the best method of determining a winner, and those timeouts still made up just less than 1% of all MLG rounds!

So even if there was an issue with the system, it occurs so very rarely that it does not even warrant changing any rules!

Or maybe...just maybe...the whole "flawed system" argument is merely a big heaping pile of **** used by others to try and push for a higher time limit because they dislike time outs!

This isn't a case of the system being flawed, this is the case of trying to make the argument of the system being flawed in order to argue for a higher time limit. Otherwise, it wouldn't have deserved a topic of its own rather than being used within the same topic that's pushing for higher time limits!

Before you start trying to sling snide remarks, I would suggest a lesson in tact should be taken.
Oh and do me a favor, do something else than try to take a shot at my being in the BBR.
Just because you feel inept at actually making an argument about this "flawed" system means you should simply not post at all.

Kthxbai

I've been vocal on the same opinion since the beginning of 2011.

Haven't really seen it but I'll take your word for it since i don't read every page.

Don't look at two different arguments from different people and assume they're the same. That's just ignorance.

When I see that both wish to use the same means for something that isn't even an issue, no, I don't presume its the same argument, but I do notice that it comes to the same end.
So yo can imagine my critique ont he matter.

A timeout based on percentage is currently the best method for determining a winner. Right now, there is no other feasible alternative. Obviously, it emphasizes certain character traits and strategies, but we accepted it that way. It's the best, but it's not necessarily that great. People are constantly suggesting other methods (that would obviously fail).

I believe that in comparison to losing all stocks, timeout through percentage is inferior. Therefore, I cannot treat them both equally. That is why I want timeouts to be limited in that manner.

*sigh*
Okay look, no matter what system you use, there will ALWAYS be a character that benefits. This is why the whole "flawed" argument falls flat on its face EVERY.SINGLE.TIME.

Going by ledge grabs? Sonic is favored due to amazing recovery while Link gets the ****.
Going by airtime? Snake becomes very good.

There will ALWAYS be characters who are favored, that is just how it is in ANY competitive game. That;s just how it is, because as soon as a character is different, favoritism with a rule will come into play.

Furthermore, where is the argument that shows timeouts as being inferior? For what reason do you feel this way?
Look at Street Fighter and Boxing, winner is determined by who has the most health and most points.
While these win conditions are unintentional, they are a result of wanting to create a competitive environment.

That's how it is, how it always will be.
Deal with it.

What is the reasoning against raising the timer?
Even if there aren't a large amount of games going to time, an increase would not negatively affect tournament length by a noticeable degree. It also helps emphasize the primary win objective.

So despite the fact that over 99% of matches end with the "primary" win objective, the timer needs to be increased to emphasize it even more?
There is NOTHING to gain from it COMPETITIVELY.
ZERO.
ZIP.
NADDA!

Do you know how large of an increase it would be if stock went from 99% to 100%?
It would be so incredibly small statistically that it is completely and utterly pointless.
The community gains NOTHING outside of stroking their e-peen over it.

My reasoning for increasing the timer if you bothered to read, in short, would be that 8 minutes does not give enough time above your average match. Your average match usually reaches 5-6 minutes. Matchups with characters that can't kill or campy matches end way too close to those 8 minutes.

My reasoning against it if you bothered to read, in short, was that 8 minutes provides plenty of time for the average match.
Why?
99% of matches end with the end of stock. This is the exact result that you desire, and shows that time outs are so incredibly small they make little difference to the competitiveness of the game.

Matchups with characters that can't kill or campy matches end way too close to those 8 minutes.

So?

What's the issue with the match ending close to those 8 minutes? If anything, its showing that the timer is actually WORKING!
That it is fulfilling its purpose in forcing opponents to fight each other, that it is working in ensuring that the tournament ends in a timely manner.
So your entire argument is "It ends too close to 8 minutes and I do not like it.
Tough.

Yes, it's pretty much my opinion. But 8 minutes is also just a number people just decided on. I was pretty much convinced after looking at other regions who had longer timers that were successful.

Opinion's don't matter so much as it is the argument that supports it. So I am not going to go "oh opinion lol".
On the other hand, you're saying "other regions were successful because now, rather than the match ending with stock loss near 8 minutes, it ends with stock at x minutes".
At which point one would have to point out that it is the same exact thing and that increasing the timer was needless and unnecessary and really was just people wanting to change things because of the winged bat rather than have the balls to admit it.

We need to get out of the whole "I don't like this we need to change it" and change things when its an ACTUAL PROBLEM.

 

[san.]

Of course, everyone else is just crazy. It all makes sense now.

Now that you let it all out, why should we keep 8 minutes?

 

[Papero]

Don't the Japanese determine timeouts based on airtime or something?

It would make the LGL rule obsolete, and MK, subjectively, would still have a harder time (I'm assuming that's why he has a lower LGL rule).

Just an alternative. Timeouts still don't seem that big a problem. If people don't like what the MLG facts show, find more tournament results that supports your thesis.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Now that you let it all out, why should we keep 8 minutes?

I thought I made it pretty clear.
If you want, I can go to my last post and make it size 7, red, bolded and underlined.
I understand dyslexia can be problematic, but if my ex could deal with it, I am sure you can too.

Oh and one more thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

At this point I think it has hit the point of showing data.

Of course, everyone else is just crazy. It all makes sense now.

You make the presumption that your argument is backed by the entire community, and that alone tells me that continuing such an argument with you is a lost cause.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

Have a good evening San.

@papero: I do not know, you can try asking in the Unity discussion forum since I am sure somebody will know.

 

[MK26]

data?

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)

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

oh wait, youve already insulted my data

regardless, even with the data, its a judgement call...is 1% of matches going to time too much? if increasing the timer by 1 minute decreases that amount to 0.1% of matches, is that a fair tradeoff?

 

[ShadowLink84]

stuff

Playing Burnout Paradise.

Click the second link in my reply to San since I am not really of the mood to argue as to why 99 is a much bigger number than 1.

 

[san.]

I thought I made it pretty clear.
If you want, I can go to my last post and make it size 7, red, bolded and underlined.
I understand dyslexia can be problematic, but if my ex could deal with it, I am sure you can too.

There was nothing of note in that entire rant. You had to edit your post 20 minutes later before anything worth responding to was written.

You make the presumption that your argument is backed by the entire community, and that alone tells me that continuing such an argument with you is a lost cause.

I did not. YOU are the one who brought up these Others. And you're insane if you think an argument is invalid because other people agree with it. Well.. I guess that DOES make sense after looking at your arguments.

"Or maybe...just maybe...the whole "flawed system" argument is merely a big heaping pile of **** used by others to try and push for a higher time limit because they dislike time outs!"


Now to quote a bunch of stuff you snuck in.

Haven't really seen it but I'll take your word for it since i don't read every page.

Learn to read. Then where did these "others" come from? I have multiple posts in this thread. I suggest reading the entire topic so you're up to speed in what people have been talking about.

When I see that both wish to use the same means for something that isn't even an issue, no, I don't presume its the same argument, but I do notice that it comes to the same end.
So yo can imagine my critique ont he matter.

Well, hopefully you can differentiate whose argument we are dealing with here.

*sigh*
Okay look, no matter what system you use, there will ALWAYS be a character that benefits. This is why the whole "flawed" argument falls flat on its face EVERY.SINGLE.TIME.

Going by ledge grabs? Sonic is favored due to amazing recovery while Link gets the ****.
Going by airtime? Snake becomes very good.

I would have assumed that you knew that when I said that % based timeout was flawed, even worse alternatives would be even more flawed.

There will ALWAYS be characters who are favored, that is just how it is in ANY competitive game. That;s just how it is, because as soon as a character is different, favoritism with a rule will come into play.

Not for stocks. If you're a stock behind, you're most definitely behind, as a matter of fact.

Other competitive games use a much more standardized form of who is winning in terms of health, points, or whatever firmly instituted by the game itself. % and other forms aren't as clear cut.

Furthermore, where is the argument that shows timeouts as being inferior?

You answered this yourself:

"Okay look, no matter what system you use, there will ALWAYS be a character that benefits."

% is a means to an end. With the existence of offstage play and blastzones possibly on 4 sides, % doesn't hold a candle to stocks.

Stocks are clearly much better defined than our timeout counterparts.

Look at Street Fighter and Boxing, winner is determined by who has the most health and most points.
While these win conditions are unintentional, they are a result of wanting to create a competitive environment.

Brawl % does not correlate to SF health. SF's variables with that are much more tightly enclosed. Health is health, goes to 0 you lose. Brawl's % doesn't work like that at all, so there's no comparison.

Bringing up boxing is too ridiculous to even respond to.

So despite the fact that over 99% of matches end with the "primary" win objective, the timer needs to be increased to emphasize it even more?

I would need more comprehensive data requiring how long matches were (if they're available. I can only find the yes/no if a timeout occurred). I don't see enough for conclusive evidence.

Look at this:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spr...ajRDSTVrN1o1ZkF1Qmc&hl=en_US&authkey=CLqi7aUG

Things to take note:

Even though there were hundreds in attendance at MLG, there was almost always a VERY recognizable name (usually top 5 character mainer) involved, except for a few NY/NJ people and djisk.. Timeouts are only a subset of this higher level play.

A majority of these high level players were already ranked 40 and below. This means that there is a high possibility for these timeouts affecting late bracket matches.

If timeouts are affecting these late-bracket matches where every match counts, that's already enough in my book.

A vast majority ended with the other person 120%, or well above 120%.

My reasoning against it if you bothered to read, in short, was that 8 minutes provides plenty of time for the average match.
Why?
99% of matches end with the end of stock. This is the exact result that you desire, and shows that time outs are so incredibly small they make little difference to the competitiveness of the game.

As shown above, many of those matches ended at very high percentages.
An abnormal percentage were also high level/ known players.

Without data of how long each match was, the 99% is not conclusive enough.

The timer has an adverse effect on the game by being way too close for comfort. It disrupts the natural flow of exchanges that the match was providing. Granted, most of them were getting ready to finish in most cases anyways. However, you can't compare those 8 minute games directly to 10 minute games, because of the way the timer affects both opponents, especially when it's so low.



The rest of your post were bad analogies I don't feel like responding to.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Edit: Eh forget it

 

[NO-IDea]

Don't the Japanese determine timeouts based on airtime or something?

It would make the LGL rule obsolete, and MK, subjectively, would still have a harder time (I'm assuming that's why he has a lower LGL rule).

Just an alternative. Timeouts still don't seem that big a problem. If people don't like what the MLG facts show, find more tournament results that supports your thesis.

You need to look past just the 1% of matches that occurred in time-outs. Understand that the existence of this secondary win condition is changing the metagame altogether, towards a game where hitting a player and running to the ledge is the superior strategy. The question is does this accurately reflect what Smash is? Is Smash a game where we're supposed to abuse the mechanics of the ledge for a PERCENT victory or is it a game where we're supposed to use all our tools necessary for a STOCK victory? Unfortunately, a player with the mindset of aiming to have more stocks no longer wins tournaments.

The question is not "Do we want this or not?" as ShadowLink tends to think.

I think we should just ignore ShadowLink for that matter.

I mean honestly? He always talks about how "oh you don't like it? Too bad!" even if we don't have anything personal to gain out of this.

Even our current data doesn't exactly show what has occurred to the metagame. Players are beginning to shape their playstyles around a win by percent rather than a win by stock. It doesn't matter if only 1% of matches go to time-out when the consequences of adopting these playstyles becomes prevalent in the other 99% of the matches.

ShadowLink is then going to proceed with "SO?"

This is a problem because we originally built tournament play around the basis of stocks, not percent. We only adopt a timer, not because if has much to do with winning but because we think timers help tournaments end on time (although better time management and resources would be a more efficient way to accomplish this.)

His ignorance may be because he doesn't actively engage in the tournament scene. But anyone who is an avid participant of this community (beyond just local tournaments) can see the change, and for the most part, abuse of the win by percent rule.

If there were a good way to determine a victor when a time-out occurs, we should use it. Quite frankly, with a game like Smash, which is unlike Boxing (points) and Street Fighter (health), two examples ShadowLink used, our win by percent condition was UNINTENTIONAL.

Points are used in boxing to accurately reflect skill of the boxer during the rounds in case a knock out does not occur. If points are tied, then more rounds ensue. If knockout occurs... well obviously the boxer can't continue the match and would probably lose in points fighting unconsciously (lol).

In Street Fighter, health is the ultimate factor in determining the winner, time-out or not. Not hit rate percentage, not amount of damage dealt, but rather who has a greater proportion of health remaining.

What ShadowLink is too ignorant to realize is that points in Boxing and health in Street Fighter convert to stocks in Smash, not percent. So I don't know where he gets the idea that those win conditions in the rulesets of boxing and SF were unintentional when they perfectly match their sport's primary win condition. If time runs out, they directly measure points/proportion of health. If it's tied, they issue a re-match of sorts.

Smash should go by stocks. If stocks are even, I don't see why percent is used to determine the victor. By literally using his examples, I am proving how flawed using percent is. While this does cause issues such as Player A having 0% to an opponent's 100% (one would think percentage is the most dominant variable here and thus should be used), nonetheless we may run into highly debatable scenarios, where say Player A has 120% and Player B has 123%. What if Player B is D3 and Player A is Jiggly?

There are too many variables beyond percentage that determines who was appearing to be the victor.

San only proposes to extend the timer so as to decrease the chances of a time-out occurring. I honestly wouldn't mind doing away with the timer altogether, thereby eliminating the chances of a time-out. The likelihood of a game going on past 8 minutes is already what, 1%? I doubt having no timer would delay a tournament. Rather, what typically delays a tournament is lack of preparation by the TO. And this has happened at EVERY SINGLE NATIONAL that has taken place in Brawl's history.

ShadowLink has yet to even properly give a counterargument to San's proposal (or mine for that matter) and instead ignore and insult him. His argument is "Why fix what's not broken? We're not going to change the rules just because you don't like it."

It's not about what we do or do not like. The ruleset is broken. There have been examples of it happening already. It's not our fault you aren't in tune with today's metagame.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

A 9 minute timer is the minimum required for this game imo. The rule of thumb of 3 minutes for each stock looks reasonable enough [1 stock & 3 minutes for tiebreaker matches, 2 stock & 6 minutes for special events and 3 stock & 9 minutes for "regular" events] and is absolutely not more arbitrary than 8 minutes. I don't think it's possible to be 100% objective when it comes to the timer - it's not a game rule per se after all but a circumstantial addition of the tournament environment. With that in mind the timer should not be based on what is just needed for the game to be played but on what's possible within a tournament setting.

The statement that 8 minutes is better than 10 minutes on the account that it makes tournaments run faster lacks any empirical basis. I would argue that it possibly makes tournaments run faster. First of all +2 minutes on the timer doesn't mean that each game will take 2 minutes longer - a game of five minutes with an 8 minute timer will still take the same 5 minutes of a game with a 10 minute timer.
But if there are 4 minutes *left* on the clock players are less inclined to go for the time-out than when there are only 2 minutes left. If the game ends within the next minute that'd mean that a minute has actually been saved by successfully avoiding the time-out. That's just one instance of how a higher timer can save time and data from Japanese tourneys supports the idea that a higher timer doesn't negatively affect how long a tournament takes.

 

[Flayl]

Why the eff is Shadowlink in the BBR again?