time or stock?

[1048576]

Hah they are both fair, it's not like one player somehow has an advantage (besides skill) in time! Both players are playing the match with the same conditions, therefore it is fair. You just have to adopt a different strategy.

Also, it timed stock, the person with a greater percent will lose even if the stock is even.

Simply because both players play under the same conditions does not make it fair. For example, suppose Kobe and Shaq decide to play one on one basketball, but they take away the three-point line. This absence of three-pointers is a condition imposed on both players, but it obviously gives Shaq an unfair advantage.

In Smash terms, a time battle gives smaller, faster characters an edge because they can run away if the opponent dies first, and they can catch up to the opponent if they die first.

 

[psicicle]

I don't know basketball players, but that game would still be fair; one player is simply better under certain conditions than the other. Of course, if the rule came about because one of the players is better at that game it would be unfair. If random people were playing basketball like that, the game itself would still be fair. We are talking about the general advanced smash player.

To rebut myself with a counterexample I just realized, playing with items is more unfair than playing without items. However, I'm not sure how much this example applies, because items are a random factor.

EDIT: also, to the other part, smash brothers already has tier lists. People already play timed stock also. Smash brother is already unfair in terms of character choice.

Also, timed stock takes damage into account also, so wouldn't it be even more unfair towards the small fast characters?

 

[F8AL]

Time is unbalanced because if someone is winning by a stock or more, all they have to do is stall/run away till the time runs out. But it's good for when you have alot of people who want to play.

Inside stock battles they will have to eventually fight each other. But they usually take longer.

I prefer stock battles because my opponent will eventually have to stop avoiding me and fight me. :D

 

[Andromeda]

I prefer stock, 'cause it gives you a better chance to a comeback if you should fall behind. In timebattles, if you take the lead you could easily stall the match.

 

[psicicle]

It's not unbalanced (if by that you mean unfair, I guess the tactic is unbalanced), anybody can take the lead and stall! In time you have to adopt a different strategy that, in some people's opinions may be good or bad.

Also, it seems like lots of people here have a problem with camping, I personally haven't ever really played somebody who would camp the whole match.

 

[Keige]

Today's Super Smash Blog update brings up a good point about Time matches. They're often getting to "the good part" right as it ends. It seems that every time match my friends and I play, at least two of us give out a sign or moan at the end of each match because we were about to KO someone before the timer ended.

 

[CBNJ]

I usually just do 3 or 4 stock, it's fair that way. If you do time, someone could be one kill behind and just about to tie it up, as time expires.

 

[wazgood]

maybe we should just settle this with a poll...

 

[Joe_Sumo]

Practice with 4 life stock. those are tourney rules

 

[royandmarth]

once again... its been a while...

REVIVE

and who here is from gamefaqs?

 

[Grandeza]

I almost always play stock but when I'm battling in a free for all with my dad's friend's 9 year old kids I play time so one kids not complaining that he was killed in the first 15seconds and cant play anymore.

 

[Makaveli X]

I'm more of a stock person. I think time's good for touraments with a massive amount of people in terms of time trying to manage time, but I think your skills exhibited best in stock matches.

 

[Yoshi'stheBombers7]

Both: Stock with stock match time limit to 8 minutes. =)
Edit: It's common for that to be used in tournys too.
Edit Edit: This was a major bump, I didn't realize this!

 

[aMtt]

And no, my previously mentioned method would not be a screwed up timed version of stock, because in the end, timed matches judge you based on how many kills you rack up, not who is the last one alive. In stock, you can win regardless of whether or not you score the most kills, cause the most damage, and land the most hits. In 1v1 stock, the player who gets fewer kills sometimes wins. That's bull****. Killing your opponent is the whole premise behind fighting games. So stock is not, in fact, the fairest judge of skill.

If the player with fewer kills wins, then the other player obviously did something dumb, like a suicide, which is completely their fault. Timed matches are so ridiculously exploitable, if you played time competitively, it would be absolutely no fun.

Do you really think your ideas are better than the ruleset collectively formed by the competitive Smash community over the last 6 years? Come on, now.

EDIT: oh jeez, I quoted a post from 2 years ago...oops