why is the timer 8 minutes?

[Divinokage]

Yeah that is one of the examples I can think of though lol.

And I know what you mean Kage, but I think a lot of people just don't even try to play like that simply because it's thought of as boring to a lot of people. Kels is someone who is willing to play really "lame" though haha. I honestly enjoyed watching the finals of Apex though.

Yes but he wasn't able to camp anyone for that long inside the top 8 of FC. It goes to show that even if you try to play lame, you will HAVE to push the pace at some point. Melee is like that. You absolutely need a mix of a good defense or offense. Even with Ganon he wasn't able to camp me effectively, I mean if you pick your moves correctly he'll have to make a move at some point.

And there's also the current stagelist where it doesn't really limit any character that much, everyone has a good fighting chance to actually beat your opponent before the time limit. There's been only ONE occurrence since 2012 where a match lasted 8 mins.. and that was between 2 top players of the world. It reinforces my point that you have to be extremely skilled to do that. I mean being able to predict your opponent that long is astounding.

 

[Wake]

Yeah I completely agree. It certainly isn't easy. I just think that a lot of players don't even want to play like that not because they're scared they'll mess up, but because they don't think it's fun.

 

[Divinokage]

Yeah I completely agree. It certainly isn't easy. I just think that a lot of players don't even want to play like that not because they're scared they'll mess up, but because they don't think it's fun.

I don't agree with that, every player wants to win badly. There is no honor when your tournament life is on the line.. you'll get CGed, you'll get edgeguarded mercilessly, you will pick your spots if you need to. It's fun for M2k to camp and play like the way he does, he said it himself. It's fun for Hbox to stress out opponents to make dumb decisions and then he'll go in and destroy you for it. It may not be fun for me but I definitely do it if I have the chance to, though it's pretty much impossible for my character. When you want to win, you do everything you can to punish your opponent in any way possible.. the camping just doesn't happen anymore at all because decisions happen left and right every split second and people found answers to defensive styles like that.

It's not fun to camp in a player's standpoint because to do that you need incredible stage control and even for the camper it requires tremendous focus and concentration. They will crack at some point and lose their momentum, that's just the way it goes. It's fun to win, it's not fun to lose. =P

 

[Wake]

I agree that there shouldn't be honor involved, and I don't have any in tournament, but watching players, I know that people do have honor. Like honor SDs, things like that. It's definitely there, though I don't think it should be.

 

[Strong Badam]

I agree with Hax. We should test out timers of 6 minutes.

 

[Bones0]

i don't think you understand how it is vs M2K. sometimes, with the lead, i'll wait for an entire minute for him to stop sheikstalling on the ledge. i respect M2K's play to win mentality, but not when he's employing his "bore them till they play like ****" strategy. that **** shouldn't even exist; it's a gimmick of a strategy that doesn't test the ingame skills a tournament match should be testing (i hope to god you don't respond saying "it tests patience"), and it's the result of an obscenely long timer.

I agree ledgestalling when you're losing (or at all) is a pretty frustrating gimmick to deal with. Ideally, you would be able to just fastforward through M2K's 3 minutes of camping until the clock begins to finally pressure him to approach. Unfortunately, lowering the timer to avoid this situation results in a bunch of other side effects that completely unbalance the game. So the choice becomes: deal with boring camping that is rarely seen because it doesn't benefit the camper at all, or deal with a smaller skill gap for longer matches because players are forced to approach desperately.

your example of fox not wanting to camp out peach on an 8 minute clock = case in point. first of all, it's incorrect to say that fox camping is any more effective with ____ amount of time than it is with ____ amount of time; fox camping peach does not become any more or less effective unless the characters themselves are changed. the ONLY reason fox is less likely to time peach out with 8 minutes is because a longer timer softens the blow of the first ~5 seconds of a game, the seconds in which fox has absolute advantage over peach because she literally cannot come in contact with him while he lands a few free lasers (for example, on a 1 minute timer, these few lasers may actually decide the match. once the timer is set to a couple of minutes, however, the chance that these first few lasers decide the match is minuscule). but that's not what you were saying, nor is that a concern for either of our proposed timer lengths; you said that a strategy became better as a result of changing the timer. without changing actual gameplay mechanics, this cannot happen. such a misconception is likely the result of too much THEORY and not enough EXPERIENCE.

so, why then, are you right in saying that foxes are less likely to lasercamp peach (arguably the optimal way to play the matchup) on an 8 minute clock? the answer is literally: it's too boring. people would rather play suboptimally and have a decent time playing the game than play like complete ***s for 8 minutes, even if it means earning the W. i'm glad you could present yet another example of suboptimal play as a result of a ****ing stupidly long timer

what will happen if 6 minutes is enforced are matchups being played as they should. this won't affect all matchups, only some. namely ones that involve camping. this whole time, if your character has had a weakness to being camped out (Peach, Samus, Jiggs), you've been artificially awarded by the extremely long timer; no one is gay enough to camp you for 8 minutes anyway.

if this means buffing fox (or gay play in general), so be it. i'm all for melee matchups being played as they were meant to be

Having a longer timer DOES reduce the effectiveness of camping and timing out. The reason is because we are human and make mistakes. Obviously if someone could laser camp perfectly for 5 minutes they could do it for 8, but that's not the case. What we currently have is a Fox laser camping for 5 minutes, and in that time he only makes a few mistakes. Let's say it takes 3 spacing errors for a Peach to kill the Fox. If she has 8 minutes to force out mistakes and compensate for the laser camping by getting a meaty combo, then she has a chance to fight back. As you lower the timer, Peach still needs to capitalize on 3 mistakes, but the duration the Fox has to go without making those 3 mistakes is reduced, thus making it more likely that his camping will be an effective strategy.

This doesn't even consider matches where the camping Fox doesn't take the lead until later in the game. Maybe there's only a minute left because the timer started at 6, and he finally takes the lead. Running away for 1 more minute is certainly much easier than running away for 3. With less time for Peach to catch up, she reaches a tipping point where she has to make desperate reads in order to get an approach. When she has 3 minutes instead, she can patiently use turnips and make safer (but less ambitious) reads in order to poke a hole in the Fox's defense. THIS is how simply lowering the timer can change player's styles. If the clock were blind to both players, then it would be a different case. If neither the Fox nor the Peach knew if there were 1 minute or 3 left, then they would probably play pretty much the same. But as soon as you have the clock to add pressure, you force subpar decisions because slower characters have to rush to catch up. It has nothing to do with how boring it is to laser camp.

Obviously that CAN BE a factor, but you can't assume everyone is going to play with honor or whatever because it varies person to person. You say suboptimal play occurs with long timers because players get bored, but I'd rather the impatient players who aren't playing to win suffer from a long timer than have the players who happen to play slower characters lose because a short timer forces them to play stupid. I'd rather you be forced to wait patiently with the lead while M2K camps than force players to play below their optimal skill level because an artificial constraint is being placed on what they are capable of with a character.

Hax, you're aware that if a player has a stock or life deficit and refuses to approach, they are the one that is considered to be stalling, and you can call them out on it legally, right?

This isn't true at all. It's only stalling if it's IMPOSSIBLE to hit them. This is basically only applicable to Rising Pound and Peach Bomber stalls (or Luigi ladder in teams, but I've always thought that'd be funny to see how the opponents react lol). If you are playing a Jiggs ditto on FD and are up by 1%, neither player has to approach at all. As far as anyone concerned, they are spacing defensively.

 

[EPsilon933]

Timers don't mean a thing. We should get rid of them

 

[DerfMidWest]

No we should not.
I have been to tournaments where scrubs have timed out with 2 stocks left.
Thats why the timer exists.
For the sake of the TO.

 

[Smasher89]

ah Hax- forum to win, cool strategy but start winning by practice instead of manipulating common knowledge and rules ( i guess i´m not playing to win enough since i´ve not used it as strategy)
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5258166

I´ve played falcon 3 times in tournaments(never ever practices the character), it lead to timeout or winning without even really trying(more then to stay away as much as possible) against players I otherwise had trouble with or even lost too. 2 of the matches i believe was with 7min timer and making it 4 min would make possibly 4 chars viable, same as "the common knowledge" is on pokefloats or like rc.

Fox gains much when the timer is lower against peach, since he dies at lower % he would rather just have the lead where no players dies, and the time is out ideally with % and not having to go for stocklead.

How is banning stages(to the extent of battlefield only) legit if you want the game to played "as it is meant to be"?

 

[Armada]

Hax: Fox benefits A LOT if we make the timer 6min instead of 8 against Peach (use this as a example because you talked with Bones about it).

Fox camping is WAY more effective with 6mins instead of 8. Like Bones said with a way shorter time limit that strategy needs way less perfect play. I have played against tons of Foxes (campy ones aswell) and I can promise you that a shorter timer ONLY benefits Fox (and a lot) against Peach if he wanna time her out. With 8min it becomes much harder but it can still work if you are very good at the strategy. BUT with 8min slower chars still have a better chance to win for sure.

Makeing the timer shorter will lead to way more stupid play because of the timer is running to the end much faster. 6min is way better then 4min but still to short if you ask me. Tons of MUs actually take at least 5min in average (with a combination of deffensive/aggresive style). And that means the timer is for sure to short in those MUs.

In the rest of the MUs that normally don't have those problems will have those problems much more often because it is way easier/better to actually play for timeouts.

 

[SleepyK]

Timers don't mean a thing. We should get rid of them

but then you can't time randall D:

also hi zant <3

 

[EPsilon933]

but then you can't time randall D:

also hi zant <3

99 minutes

also hi durhamred

 

[Battlecow]

Hax is being CONVINCING

I support a 6.5 minute timer now

 

[Froggy]

Hax is being CONVINCING

I support a 6.5 minute timer now

You main falcon right?

 

[Cactuar]

The problem with a long timer is that it allows a player who is losing the ability to play defensive vs an opponent who is winning and choosing to play defensive to preserve their advantage. This is enabled for characters like Fox and Falco because they have ranged projectiles that do not inhibit their movement. If they ever lose the lead, because of the lack of laser stopping barriers in the stagelist we use, they can run away while racking up damage, and force the winning player to approach (usually the weaker position). With a lower timer, there is more pressure to swing the %'s with damage that can be performed in high amounts using smaller amounts of time (actual attacks/combos), as time is of higher value, and not to be wasted by attempting to use lasers to comeback from a moderate percentage deficit.

The punishment for losing the lead, when playing against a smart, playing to win opponent, is that they should have the ability to force you to approach them or to force you to use valuable time and hope that their projectile game can make up the difference in percent. The excessive time allotment takes this too far, as the value of time is so low throughout most matches that there is little reason not to take advantage of it.

Camping is an outdated term. There is only offense, defense, and stalling. Stalling can only be performed by a losing player, as the responsibility of attacking is ALWAYS placed on the individual with a stock/% disadvantage.


This is all in theorysmash though. Most matches aren't like this because very few people enjoy playing this way, and even in the current meta, it's not necessary to take advantage of these flaws in the rules to win. There are examples of players who will win regardless of this kind of strategy being taken advantage of. The issue isn't that its broken in the current game, but that it is something we don't want to encourage because it detracts from the game we(or at the least, myself and a high % of the high level scene) want smash to be.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I would contend that offense and defense are rather outdated as well. Approach-based, Spacing-centric, Adaptive, and Avoidant (stalling) are more accurate parts of what defines the meta-concepts of pretty much any real-time player vs player game. They've always been there, but describing parts of the game as offensive or defensive becomes blurred when you look at things like Jigglypuff's WoP spacing.

 

[Cactuar]

Note: When it comes to defining aspects of play, the best definitions to use are the ones that make the most sense to you personally. I use definitions that can be easily understood while trying to explain concepts to other players because I focus on training players and how to explain strategy and neutral game for the purpose of rapid improvement and sharpening high-top level play. Use whatever terms help you the most.

The terms you are using do not contribute to the conversation as I have laid it out. They would be used to further describe an offensive or defensive action, and cannot be used to replace offense or defense.

Not posting what I had here originally. Training related.

WoP is a versatile technique, but each of the applications of it still fall easily within the further categories under offense and defense. Spacing only contributes to intention.

 

[ShroudedOne]

what usually ends up happening is i refuse to not approach for 8 whole minutes, so i approach and get grabbed and lose my stock. its times like these that i wish the timer was shorter and actually made sense for a game of melee. this whole "get bored and end up making suboptimal decisions" issue really only exists when the timer is too long. there must be an incentive for the losing player to approach to eliminate this gimmick. i don't believe anyone who tells me that they feel one with an 8 minute timer

Getting bored and making suboptimal decisions as a result is a player problem, in my opinion. If you're not in the lead, you have to approach (I would say that a significant lead in this game is having a stock over your opponent with less than maybe 70 damage?) But I don't think that people getting bored and making bad decisions as a result is a good reason to change the timer.

i don't think you understand how it is vs M2K. sometimes, with the lead, i'll wait for an entire minute for him to stop sheikstalling on the ledge. i respect M2K's play to win mentality, but not when he's employing his "bore them till they play like ****" strategy. that **** shouldn't even exist; it's a gimmick of a strategy that doesn't test the ingame skills a tournament match should be testing (i hope to god you don't respond saying "it tests patience"), and it's the result of an obscenely long timer.

You say it yourself, it's a gimmick, and it shouldn't really work. Just outwait him. If you have a sizable lead on him, you are not losing anything by just waiting for him. Again, getting bored is the problem of the player, not of the game. Unless I'm missing your point?

so, why then, are you right in saying that foxes are less likely to lasercamp peach (arguably the optimal way to play the matchup) on an 8 minute clock? the answer is literally: it's too boring. people would rather play suboptimally and have a decent time playing the game than play like complete ***s for 8 minutes, even if it means earning the W. i'm glad you could present yet another example of suboptimal play as a result of a ****ing stupidly long timer

I don't really agree that "playing lame" is always the most optimal strategy, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not really sure that lowering the timer to 6 minutes would make it less boring. The people who do play in a style that looks more optimal (let's use Kels as an example) would still play that way, and the people who do well without playing that way would see no reason to change unless it were severely interfering with their overall development as a player. It seems like people tend to think that lame = suboptimal, but this isn't the case often enough for the timer to be lowered in order to make this more viable.

what will happen if 6 minutes is enforced are matchups being played as they should. this won't affect all matchups, only some. namely ones that involve camping. this whole time, if your character has had a weakness to being camped out (Peach, Samus, Jiggs), you've been artificially awarded by the extremely long timer; no one is gay enough to camp you for 8 minutes anyway.
if this means buffing fox (or gay play in general), so be it. i'm all for melee matchups being played as they were meant to be

Melee matchups being played as they were meant to be? What in the world does that mean? That Fox should consistently cede space to Peach so that she can never touch him? That doesn't sound like the optimal way to play the matchup. I don't even think that matchup optimization is what we should be striving for, but instead optimizing our playstyles...

Forgive me, but this does sound like a bias towards faster characters. Sorry if I'm missing the point, again.

Hax is being CONVINCING

I support a 6.5 minute timer now

With all of this, however, I would very interested to see how a 6-6.5 minute timer works out at locals/regionals. If the benefits were evident, I would support it.

Wait. I don't think you can set a 6.5 minute timer.

 

[stelzig]

Cactuar trying to turn the camping (or defensive, whatever) issue upside down... Pretty sure the lead defensive play issue is much bigger than behind defensive and that the spacies also benefit more from their chip damage abbility to time their opponents out than to just camp their opponents while being far behind.

Not to mention that your issue is up at the theory smash level (which you said yourself), while the issues others here are mentioning, is actually something that most definitely would happen. Not sure I even find this "defensive while being behind" thing for spacies an issue, it isn't all that easy to play this way anyway. And of course arbitary to choose that one projectile shouldn't be used for taking the lead, but others are ok and whatnot.

A bit crazy to go ahead and say that focus on timing people out is what "we" want, when a bunch of people have said what I just repeated. For high level players example i'll just point to armada who also just said this (not gonna look further back in the thread for more namedropping).

Edit: Oh and... At this theory smash level where countering some defensive lasers is so hard btw... The game must already be decided at the very start of the match - If getting through such defense is really that hard, then getting through it with more reckless play is going to be hell. Sounds pretty ****ty to me as well.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

In the end, someone needs to test out a timer change with a significant pool of people and see the effects.

I can really only see a moderate timer change like 6 minutes affecting a few match-ups and it being more of a problem when you are getting closer to the finals of a tournament and a few choice people who see time outs as a viable tournament option to them if they seek to win. As Hbox and armada have said before, they do not care about time outs. If the timer is nearing one minute left and you a couple stocks to go, then time out is a very viable option to consider if you wish to win.

The only good reason I have heard for lowering the timer is because it can drag out tournaments if matches went to time. If anything, if all matches went to time we wouldn't be finishing tournaments in a day or anything. And even this argument is pretty bad since this virtually never happens. Most of the waits come from people playing friendlies or running multiple tournaments at once and being held up by one player.

Its only in grand finals at apex2012 where time outs were ever a big toll on the time it took to finish tournament. And even then, most of their matches were at the 5-6 minute mark at first, but moved to 4 time outs by the end of grand finals. That whole thing lasted over an hour and only about half of the maximum possible matches had been played. With coaching and pauses between matches that round could have lasted for over 2 hours if they had to go and play a 3rd set at all and were still evenly matched.

 

[stelzig]

In the end, someone needs to test out a timer change with a significant pool of people and see the effects.

I don't really see why this should even be neccesary. I think most people have an idea of how long their matches usually take, and a fair amount of them have also experienced getting close to timeout before, knowing how it affects their play. The question is if your games get close to the timeout if it is lowered to 6 and if you want to play against/with the timer much more often. I know it isn't uncommon for my games to go to 4-5 minutes+, and I have experienced going close to timeouts before (hitting TIME twice IIRC).

Over time you might see a change in the way it works, if people start to play more agressive when behind because they know the timeout will be coming eventually anyway/otherwise... But it would have to be tested multiple times to see such a behaviour. We would gain nothing from testing it once.

Edit: Btw, screw singles. Some of these "boring" issues, is exactly why teams is the superior mode. Or one of the reasons anyway

 

[Cactuar]

The stigma against timeouts is mostly due to how frustrating it is to try and chase down a player who is in the lead and will consistently run away for the entirety of the match (7-8 minutes), especially given the stage-circling mechanisms that are present. Timeouts are viewed as being this vile scenario by the entire community because it feels ****ty. This isn't a problem in nearly any other fighting game afaik(there was an issue with the timer being way too low in one of the recent ones though... forget which one). The less time is left on the timer in other fighters, assuming a reasonable total time, the more frantic the play is, as the trailing player has to make up the disadvantage. It gets exciting. We barely get to experience those moments in melee because the timer might as well not exist except for matches that are needlessly drawn out by overdefensive play and stalling, leading to that feeling of "ugh, timeout? really?".

I proposed a solution for this already, but a bunch of people outside of my scene jumped the gun on testing without really understanding the impact of each of the variables. *shrug* It doesn't really affect me either way. I like playing the game in endless, in 4, 2, and 1 stock. I like playing it in 4 minute team coin mode with FF off on hyrule. I really don't give a **** about the rules. I just like playing. I really don't get why you guys are so opposed to at least trying variations.

 

[Twinkles]

I agree with Cactuar.

6 minutes is good imo, but I probably don't understand the pain of time-outs well because I've never been timed out before.

 

[Froggy]

In the end, someone needs to test out a timer change with a significant pool of people and see the effects.

Well as Bones stated before, trying it ot isn't likely to yield anything. As the timer usually don't play a factor in tournaments. If you try out and nothing happens then it's erroneous to say that it's doesn't affect gameplay. It skews matchups, which is something you'll see more and more at nationals.

 

[Divinokage]

Having a shorter timer does make camping strats more viable, you know like in SF4 you sometimes have enough time to sit on your lead though you still have to pay quite a bit of attention to your spacing and decisions. You should be advantaged to do things like that, it balances out both the offense and defense and I think Melee's metagame right now is fast enough to end it quickly anyway.

 

[Biglard]

I like playing it in 4 minute team coin mode with FF off on hyrule.

That sure makes a lot of Cactuars. At least 7.4 I'd say.

 

[Froggy]

The stigma against timeouts is mostly due to how frustrating it is to try and chase down a player who is in the lead and will consistently run away for the entirety of the match (7-8 minutes), especially given the stage-circling mechanisms that are present. Timeouts are viewed as being this vile scenario by the entire community because it feels ****ty. This isn't a problem in nearly any other fighting game afaik(there was an issue with the timer being way too low in one of the recent ones though... forget which one).

Smash isn't like any other fighting community because smash isn't like any other fighting game, why are you comparing us to them?

The mechanisms to camp/stall in melee are far greater than any modern fighting game on the scene right now. The melee community likes there matches to be played out instead of going to time, it's inconsequential that other fighting communities don't have this issue, just as it is inconsequential to us that they run double elimination pools instead of bracket pools. We don't like time outs, so why should we now try and prompt them?

 

[PB&J]

I want to get trained by cactuar

 

[NalsXR]

Great contribution.

i just want to point out an 'us vs them' mentality concerning other gaming communities is no bueno, ese

 

[Varist]

we're not a gaming community nalsXR, we're a fighting game community. if there's no "us vs them" then why the **** would i play this game

 

[Cactuar]

Yes, lets ignore potentially useful information because the sources are other FGCs. This will help us grow.

 

[Varist]

fighters dont grow they're already big only muscles grow you dont need to ask other fgc how to grow ur muscles you just go to the basement

 

[Mahone]

ur vs m2k story doesnt really make sense to me

if u have the lead and hes ledgecamping, im guessing you can just stand at like the other side of the stage and do nothing...

so ur saying that ud do that for 6 minutes but 8 minutes is so boring that you have to move?

why dont u just bring an ipod and listen to a nice podcast or beautiful song?

 

[Wake]

Yeah if I had the lead against someone, and THEY started stalling me, I would just wait.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

This topic is a monument to how stubborn and unwilling to change many members of the community are.

Changing the timer from 8 to 6 minutes does nearly nothing. It won't affect 99.9% of matches. And for that .1%, we probably don't want to watch two extra minutes of it anyway.

I've said my opinion on the timer topic many times, but to summarize: an effectively infinite timer as we have now, promotes imbalanced playstyles; players do not need to know how to hold or take a lead, but rather only how to do the most damage. They are encouraged to mold their styles as such, so polarized playstyles (super offensive: Axe, Mango; super defensive: M2K, Hbox) are common.

The argument for either side, and one that the detractors to this change don't seem to be addressing, is whether we ought to homogenize our matches to a more structured game flow (lead swings) which test a more diverse set of skills, or if we should keep our format which produces more varied and extreme playstyles, but tests a smaller subset of gameplay.

 

[Froggy]

This topic is a monument to how stubborn and unwilling to change many members of the community are.

Changing the timer from 8 to 6 minutes does nearly nothing. It won't affect 99.9% of matches. And for that .1%, we probably don't want to watch two extra minutes of it anyway.

I hate reading stupidity like this.

You main a fast faller don't you? Do you realize that the majority of characters in this game are floaty? It won't affect 99.9% of the matchups? That it pure idiocy, it'll affect a lot of the matchups. Within the past year alone I could go through top level matches and give you a bunch of sets that this would affect. Think about the game as a whole, and not just how it affect Fox, Falco and Falon. Geesh.

 

[CableCho57]

he mains marth bro

 

[Warhawk]

I hate reading stupidity like this.

You main a fast faller don't you? Do you realize that the majority of characters in this game are floaty? It won't affect 99.9% of the matchups? That it pure idiocy, it'll affect a lot of the matchups. Within the past year alone I could go through top level matches and give you a bunch of sets that this would affect. Think about the game as a whole, and not just how it affect Fox, Falco and Falon. Geesh.

I hope to God you don't read your own posts then. Like I want to be civil but I swear in every thread you go and post like you have some chip on your shoulder over nothing. Pretty sure TCB is a Marth main and Marth's not exactly a fast-faller. Don't know why you keep grouping smashers into categories before you argue with them but whatever. To the part of your post that actually has a point, do you really know how much changing the timer will actually affect matchups? Until its tested, you really don't so its all theory until then. For a lot of matchups the things discussed that should be completely game-changing may in practice actually have a very small affect on the matchup. I like the timer how it is, but until a 6 minute timer is tried we really don't know if it will severely change how the game is played or even if what does change is a bad thing or not.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

No I main a fastfaller





Froggy is so perceptive.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Changing the timer from 8 to 6 minutes does nearly nothing. It won't affect 99.9% of matches. And for that .1%, we probably don't want to watch two extra minutes of it anyway.

Changing the timer should NOT be about what people "want to watch." Period. If it benefits the metagame/tests a more diverse skillset that we, as a community, feel is important, then that's another thing.

I've said my opionion on the timer topic many times, but to summarize: an effectively infinite timer as we have now, promotes imbalanced playstyles; players do not need to know how to hold or take a lead, but rather only how to do the most damage. They are encouraged to mold their styles as such, so polarized playstyles (super offensive: Axe, Mango; super defensive: M2K, Hbox) are common.

Well, I think that the variety of playstyles is pretty important to how this game develops, as well as keeping it open and interesting for many different types of people.

I don't see how doing the most damage isn't a function of knowing how to hold a lead. If you're constantly outputting more damage while taking minimal damage in return, you're not only taking a firm control of the lead, but you're keeping it by continuing to keep your damage output above theirs (there are exceptions, like rest, but if one wants to keep a lead, they shouldn't let themselves get rested).

If you, by comparison, don't do more damage, then you risk losing your lead, and not being able to take it back. You should always be opting to, therefore, do the most damage. I don't see how this is an issue, but if I'm missing your point, tell me.

The argument for either side, and one that the detractors to this change don't seem to be addressing, is whether we ought to homogenize our matches to a more structured game flow (lead swings) which test a more diverse set of skills, or if we should keep our format which produces more varied and extreme playstyles, but tests a smaller subset of gameplay.

I like that we're not trying to get certain playstyles through ruleset changes, and that Melee kind of let's us do what we like to (with some exceptions, I guess). And again, I don't think most players have an issue with understand how to hold/take leads (and if they do, they certainly aren't good enough to mention). And I'm not averse to testing this at all. I'm just trying to find sound reasons.