Why doesn't anybody play Time matches?

[Phantom7]

Every thread I've posted on, people are always talking about how they 3-stocked someone else or something like that. But I've never heard anything like "I just beat a Meta Knight with Falco with a score of +3 to -4!" Does nobody ever do time matches?

What about Stamina, or coins? Well, I don't do much of that, but I just want to know why everyone plays stock matches and nothing else. I just want to hear other people's opinion on time matches and why nobody plays them.

But what I'm wondering the most is stamina matches. They're pretty much just as competetive as stock, I guess they're just too short.

 

[RyanPF]

In time matches, whoever gets the first KO just runs away the rest of the match. Stamina matches are almost a whole different game, and coin matches are just for fun.

 

[Flayl]

In time matches, whoever gets the first KO just runs away the rest of the match.

You can do that in stock matches too, and apparently competitive Brawl is developing in that direction.

 

[Zylar]

Does nobody ever do time matches?

-.- Yes for fun.

But we talk about stock battles because that's how the tournaments are set up. And we want to get better at those things that will help us win in tourneys.

 

[Muhznit]

It's pretty much the whole kill-stealing thing for me. Of course, that only applies to matches with more than two players. Otherwise you have a pretty decent chance to avenge yourself.

I created a stage of four blocks on the smallest size stage that I call "NO CAMPING". We use that for our Time matches.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

In time matches, whoever gets the first KO just runs away the rest of the match.

You can do that in stock matches too, and apparently competitive Brawl is developing in that direction.

This guy makes a point.

 

[tsu-money]

In time matches, whoever gets the first KO just runs away the rest of the match. Stamina matches are almost a whole different game, and coin matches are just for fun.

I find that especially true online. It sucks if you don't get the first KO especially against a laggy player.

 

[ColinJF]

It's not obvious that time mode is broken. I don't believe it is. However, it's just a setting in the game, and the community as a whole tends to prefer stock mode, rather like they prefer not playing with items. There are a few reasons why people might prefer stock.

Stock mode is more predictable. Many players would like it to be the case that, if they are much better than the opponent, they can win faster.

Stock mode allows for variable length matches. If you play time, what length do you use? If you pick a time like three minutes, in general it will be too short for anything interesting to happen. How many tournament matches finish in there minutes? If you pick a time more representative of the upper bound of tournament matches then every match would have to be around seven minutes, which would obviously make the tournament drag on too long, and probably isn't too fun to actually play.

Stock matches usually end with one player's stock being depleted, which is more climactic.

All together, most people find stock matches more interesting to watch.

Ultimately though, it's a preference, and basically the smash community has decided to play stock.

 

[Napilopez]

I think coin matches are tons of fun, specially with Sonic .

 

[Sukai]

I came to answer his question, but ColinJF stole my lines.
Pretty much what he said.

 

[illinialex24]

Coin could become a fun version but never competitive. Time, however, has very lenient rules on suicide and so if someone suicides and then kills someone, they still have a lead. It is also easier to play stock.

 

[Flayl]

That used to be true in Melee but is no longer true in Brawl. For it to be a suicide, you have to not be hit in a largish amount of time (yes even jumping off right after you KO'd someone will still give your opponent the kill if he hurt you).

 

[TheFast]

That used to be true in Melee but is no longer true in Brawl. For it to be a suicide, you have to not be hit in a largish amount of time (yes even jumping off right after you KO'd someone will still give your opponent the kill if he hurt you).

He means like boweciding lets say bowers is at 0 and the other player is at one 1. He bowsercides. -1 from bowser cuz he died. -1 from the other player cuz he died. +1 to bowser cuz he killed the other player. So now the score is bowser 0 and other player 0. How is this fair?

 

[The_Prince]

1. 1v1 time matches arent fun, constantly fighting against the clock to get the game-winning KO in (not to mention stalling becoming rampant in everyday play after the 1st KO)
2. free for alls are all about KO stealing and going after high-damage people

 

[_Phloat_]

I just hate losing without dying...

I mean, there is sort of a survival-esque thing about it. "Oh, ****, I have one life left" or "He has one life left, he might do X or try and Y, and he is getting desperate" kinda appeals to me more than "I simply dominated this guy in the beginning, now I have to play out a match he already lost"

Survival has always seemed more skill based than killing, at least from my point of view. I used to play Timesplitter's 2, survival. I was the only one in my TS social group (Don't say anything haters) that really did that.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

Survival has always seemed more skill based than killing, at least from my point of view. I used to play Timesplitter's 2, survival. I was the only one in my TS social group (Don't say anything haters) that really did that.

OMG TS2 was such a great game! And I also played survival mode.

You think you are the only one to ever play that game and then.... the internet proves to you it is a small world.

 

[CHOMPY]

One of the tricks to prevent players from getting a point is if your character had 120% and they are about to die right. You have 2 points and the player had 0, if the opponent killed you it would be 1-1. However if you kill yourself on purpose just so your opponent wouldnt get that extra point, then it would be 1-0. Theres just too many cheap ways to play around with timed matches and many players will simple just take advantage with that rule.

 

[Deleted member]

That can be easily fixed by changing suicides to be -2.

 

[_Phloat_]

A better question: Why would anyone play Time Matches? What advantage does a time match give players?

 

[Woozle]

He means like boweciding lets say bowers is at 0 and the other player is at one 1. He bowsercides. -1 from bowser cuz he died. -1 from the other player cuz he died. +1 to bowser cuz he killed the other player. So now the score is bowser 0 and other player 0. How is this fair?

Wouldn't that be...

Bowsercide @ 0 | 0

Bowser Dies (-1 B)

Opponent Dies (-1 O)

Bowser gets kill (+1)

Bowser 0 | Opponent -1

Unless the opponent gets the kill from Bowser's death.

One of the tricks to prevent players from getting a point is if your character had 120% and they are about to die right. You have 2 points and the player had 0, if the opponent killed you it would be 1-1. However if you kill yourself on purpose just so your opponent wouldnt get that extra point, then it would be 1-0. Theres just too many cheap ways to play around with timed matches and many players will simple just take advantage with that rule.

I would point out that any style of play tends to have "cheap ways to play". Look at planking. Or camping. Or simply running away. Any one player can take any match style and abuse it. We see it with stock, we would see it with timed.

My opinion is to eliminate time restrictions from stock matches. I run my tournaments as such, and they seem to run about the same length as any timed tournament.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Suicides counting as -2 is obviously necessary for time matches to be playable. I'm going to assume we're using that since -1 suicide just opens the door for tactical abuse of suicides. Brawl usually counts suicides as kills for the last person who hit you though; quite a bit of time has to pass before it is "forgotten".

Time mode is pretty bad about comebacks, by the way. Time matches always end with the winning player running away near the end of the timer, and the fact that you have to rush to get kills makes comebacks with characters like R.O.B. who are really bad at that even harder. Time mode probably actually changes the tiers up a bit since someone like R.O.B. is far more screwed if he's down a full point (that is a score of +1 to -1, equal percentage) than the average character; he'd have to worry about being stalled out if he fell behind way too much. I think this sort of thing makes stock mode superior, but time mode is somewhat playable I guess. We don't use it because it's worse, not because it's totally broken.

Also, for the record, stock with no timer is broken. If I played myself in a tournament stock no timer match and ever didn't feel like approaching for any reason, the match would take hours. I have the patience to wait until 3 AM when you are too tired to play well; I actually have essentially infinite patience which means that if I ever met someone like me, any real tournament with such rules would be ruined as the whole event would come to a screeching halt around whatever match I was in. If I meet someone who doesn't have my patience, it's even better. They aren't willing to wait around for hours which means that, even if I'm down, they always have to approach me. Don't try to make a rough rule to force me to approach when losing either; I'll still abuse it to the absolute maximum. Rules that are broken when you play to win are rules we should not use.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Also, for the record, stock with no timer is broken.

Its not broken. Sorry, but you don't understand what "broken" means. Timers are broken, because they promote stalling, which is highly degenerate. Stocks, no timer is really the only non-degenerate form of Smash. Timed matches are degenerate because they promote not playing the game and make stalling and very small events (getting in the first hit) far too significant (you can simply hit once, then stall the rest of the match and win, a highly degenerate setup).

In no-time stock matches stalling is actually bad for the stalling player, because it takes more effort to stall then to just stand around and wait, so eventually you will wear yourself out, make mistakes, and die while your opponent is fresh and pounds you. Its not broken that the player with more endurance wins, and the idea that it is is really quite wrong. Indeed, this is the natural way of things, and even Sirlin says as much. This is just the way things are.

 

[Brinzy]

In no-time stock matches stalling is actually bad for the stalling player, because it takes more effort to stall then to just stand around and wait, so eventually you will wear yourself out, make mistakes, and die while your opponent is fresh and pounds you.

This makes no sense. It doesn't matter *what* match you're playing here when it comes to the mistakes that YOU will make. No-time stock matches work similarly to time matches - get a lead and play incredibly defensive or just stall for a bit. Taking more effort is negligible, because people have a tendency to have the capabilities to get said effort in order to win.

The only thing that's really harder in a no-time stock match than a time match is getting an actual stock lead, but even then, that's not demanding; on the flip side, instead of having a character hit you with projectiles or whatever in order to bring your damage above their own, they have to actually KO you while you play extremely campy. If your projectile can't KO, well good luck to you.

Sure, this could go for timed stock matches as well, but timed stock matches are capped off so you don't have two players who won't give in just spending 20 minutes on Rainbow Cruise before something significant happens. I'd rather take the 7-8 minutes of this type of play than a potentially longer round.

 

[choice_brawler]

The reason why we play stock matches instead of timed matches or anything else is because people who did tourneys decided to do so (ie: SBR suggested rules are for stock). Its really just preference. I'm not saying the other ways to play arent fun, but this is just how the community has decided competitive matches should be played. No one's stopping you from playing coined matches or anything like that, but prolly will be hard to find a tournament that has those rules. I mean its just like the same reason why we dont use items.

 

[Flayl]

One of the tricks to prevent players from getting a point is if your character had 120% and they are about to die right. You have 2 points and the player had 0, if the opponent killed you it would be 1-1. However if you kill yourself on purpose just so your opponent wouldnt get that extra point, then it would be 1-0. Theres just too many cheap ways to play around with timed matches and many players will simple just take advantage with that rule.

If you had actually read the thread you would know that is no longer true for Brawl.

 

[ExCeL 52]

Haha Coins?.... Noooooo

 

[illinialex24]

Suicides counting as -2 is obviously necessary for time matches to be playable. I'm going to assume we're using that since -1 suicide just opens the door for tactical abuse of suicides. Brawl usually counts suicides as kills for the last person who hit you though; quite a bit of time has to pass before it is "forgotten".

Exactly, if someone is at 150%, they will just suicide without getting hit (be careful against Fox lol) and so they get a -1, instead of a -1 with a +1 for the opponent.

 

[petrie911]

Exactly, if someone is at 150%, they will just suicide without getting hit (be careful against Fox lol) and so they get a -1, instead of a -1 with a +1 for the opponent.

The game is still likely to give a point to the opponent if you do that. After all, your opponent had to hit you to get you to 150% in the first place, and the game has a long memory.

Hmm...If you do this with SDs set to -2, will it give your opponent a +1 and give you a -2?

 

[Kaiasian]

The game is still likely to give a point to the opponent if you do that. After all, your opponent had to hit you to get you to 150% in the first place, and the game has a long memory.

Hmm...If you do this with SDs set to -2, will it give your opponent a +1 and give you a -2?

So a bowsercide is...

Boswer kills opponent- +1
Opponent dies -1
Boswer suicides -2
Opponent kills boswer +1

Boswer -1
Opponent 0

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Its not broken. Sorry, but you don't understand what "broken" means. Timers are broken, because they promote stalling, which is highly degenerate. Stocks, no timer is really the only non-degenerate form of Smash. Timed matches are degenerate because they promote not playing the game and make stalling and very small events (getting in the first hit) far too significant (you can simply hit once, then stall the rest of the match and win, a highly degenerate setup).

In no-time stock matches stalling is actually bad for the stalling player, because it takes more effort to stall then to just stand around and wait, so eventually you will wear yourself out, make mistakes, and die while your opponent is fresh and pounds you. Its not broken that the player with more endurance wins, and the idea that it is is really quite wrong. Indeed, this is the natural way of things, and even Sirlin says as much. This is just the way things are.

You are just wrong in every way a person can be wrong. You miss the point. What if both players are willing to wait for HOURS. If I were in some finals worth $1000 or something, I'll literally refuse to move until my opponent collapses from exhaustion from staying up too late (I always stay up pretty late, and the fact that I'm used to staying up late is a really fair advantage). It doesn't take effort to stall; we both just stand there doing no moves. Whoever is willing to wait for literal hours has the massive advantage of never having to approach. Tournaments would be impractical too; they would probably take about a month to complete as every match might randomly take 8 hours. I'm not exaggerating any numbers in any way by the way; with money on the line, I'm willing to stand there doing nothing for 8 hours. The tournament is ruined if I ever play anyone who is like me. That is "broken" as much as anything can be broken, and the "endurance" tested here isn't the usual endurance. It's the endurance of "who got a better night's sleep", "who is used to staying up late", "who has to go to the bathroom first", and "who ate better beforehand". That's not fair, and it's not even a real competition. Your proposed rule only works if one player wants to approach at any given time, and that's just a terrible presumption.

 

[misterpimp5757]

if your talkin about 2 minutes then i would say timed matches are not fun. bcuz pretty much one guy gets a kill and then at the end of the match the other dude gets a kill and then it goes to sudden death. it happens all the time. but if your talkin about 3min or higher i guess i would have a different opinion.

 

[Pr0phetic]

if your talkin about 2 minutes then i would say timed matches are not fun. bcuz pretty much one guy gets a kill and then at the end of the match the other dude gets a kill and then it goes to sudden death. it happens all the time. but if your talkin about 3min or higher i guess i would have a different opinion.

This.

In time matches, once someone gets a kill, and then dies, its +1; -1, so it'd be a fairly close match, and less decisive.

 

[Liex Link]

We don't do time cause it doesn't show one's true skill.

 

[ThatGuy]

You are just wrong in every way a person can be wrong. You miss the point. What if both players are willing to wait for HOURS. If I were in some finals worth $1000 or something, I'll literally refuse to move until my opponent collapses from exhaustion from staying up too late (I always stay up pretty late, and the fact that I'm used to staying up late is a really fair advantage). It doesn't take effort to stall; we both just stand there doing no moves. Whoever is willing to wait for literal hours has the massive advantage of never having to approach. Tournaments would be impractical too; they would probably take about a month to complete as every match might randomly take 8 hours. I'm not exaggerating any numbers in any way by the way; with money on the line, I'm willing to stand there doing nothing for 8 hours. The tournament is ruined if I ever play anyone who is like me. That is "broken" as much as anything can be broken, and the "endurance" tested here isn't the usual endurance. It's the endurance of "who got a better night's sleep", "who is used to staying up late", "who has to go to the bathroom first", and "who ate better beforehand". That's not fair, and it's not even a real competition. Your proposed rule only works if one player wants to approach at any given time, and that's just a terrible presumption.

What? Titanium Dragon is completely right, I don't know where you get your reasoning.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

What? Titanium Dragon is completely right, I don't know where you get your reasoning.

I will explain this as simply as I can. In some situations, I do not attack the opponent if time pressure is not forcing me to. I don't do anything at all; I just stand still and wait for them to come to me. Sometimes, there are situations in which my opponent wants to do the same thing. I am very patient. I would be willing to wait for hours. If my opponent is also very patient, our matches would take hours. The deciding factor in the match will be who falls asleep first. This is not practical for tournaments. It is very bad.

 

[Lex Crunch]

Because time matches are better suited to three to four players, whereas stock is more fitted for 1v1's. Almost no one ever kicks it and plays FFA's because most of the time, you're just not in the mood for it, so the rules stay as stock, which can result in more BS than there already is called out in an FFA, and the same thing will happen in time 1v1's, therefore, not alot of people play Time matches.

 

[ThatGuy]

I will explain this as simply as I can. In some situations, I do not attack the opponent if time pressure is not forcing me to. I don't do anything at all; I just stand still and wait for them to come to me. Sometimes, there are situations in which my opponent wants to do the same thing. I am very patient. I would be willing to wait for hours. If my opponent is also very patient, our matches would take hours. The deciding factor in the match will be who falls asleep first. This is not practical for tournaments. It is very bad.

First of all, any character with some sort of projectile will probably use it. You will be forced to maneuver in this situation, and suddenly we have a match that can't be frozen in time for 8 hours.

Second, just TRY to show me a match where someone will actually STAND AND WAIT for hours. If you don't attack, you can't even win the match. You can CAMP, you can STALL (which is banned), but you can't just sit there. The entire benefit of stalling is gone when the timer is removed, not enhanced.

As an example, DMG (and a few other Wario users) have proposed a strategy where they take a slight lead in a match and run the clock using Wario's effective air control and maneuverability. This enables them to turn certain matchups around because certain characters simple cannot keep up. By taking away the time factor away, the Wario player can't get a win from this anymore; what they CAN do is piss people off into making mistakes. Or make longer matches. But you can be sure that someone will be attacking somehow, otherwise none of them will win the match.

Removing the timer will make many matches shorter, and a few matches longer, IMO. Your 8 hour example is absurd.

 

[SexTornado]

I don't think projectile spam is really an issue because they programmed certain chars with projectiles and others without them on purpose. Look at link, worst tier and has 3 different projectiles, while mk has none. Timed matches are dumb though because near the end of time if you are down points you are forced to make stupid/risky moves that they wouldn't normally do in order to tie it up.

To the ppl confused about bowsercide, the game only counts it as a suicide if you haven't been hit in a long time. So it would be:

The other guy dies first +1 to -1 for bowser
Bowser dies next 0-0
Bowser bowsercides making it -1 to 0 in favour of bowser. Of course if the suicides are set to -2, then it would be 0-0. If they hit bowser before he bowsercides than it is still 0-0 because it doesnt count as suicide, its a point for the other guy.

 

[xDD-Master]

So a bowsercide is...

Boswer kills opponent- +1
Opponent dies -1
Boswer suicides -2

Boswer -1
Opponent -1

Fixed

Spoiler

10Fixes

 

[J4pu]

In time matches when you're nearing death percent it's smart to just jump off and SD and take the -1 rather than getting killed and getting -1 and your opponent getting +1.

This makes the game extremely ********.

EDIT- I guess SD=-2 would fix the problem