why is the timer 8 minutes?

[tm]

Everything bones said x10000000000000000

GG guys, I hope you don't ever have to wait more than 8 minutes (an "obscenely long" amount of time) for anything else in your life, ever.

I like matches being played until someone wins rather than until someone loses less than the other person. The point that lowering the time limit will increase time outs is inarguable. Time limits are primarily for practical purposes, like keeping a schedule. If lowering by 2 minutes does 'almost nothing', then why push so hard to change it?

Just push for time matches if you want time to be a more active element. (yeah yeah, SDs would be unfair) Otherwise that's essentially the trade between strategies that's being proposed. Patience is part of this game, I can't believe all this whining about 8 minutes. Like 6 would even be that much better. Total game time would probably increase overall because the viability of camping would drag many matches to time out, while another (I'm guessing smaller) amount would get legitimately timed out, that would have gone to 8 minutes (lol like none).

Bones, you win my respect so much.

 

[S l o X]

every time you guys quote froggy, a kitten dies.

 

[Bones0]

Everything bones said x10000000000000000

GG guys, I hope you don't ever have to wait more than 8 minutes (an "obscenely long" amount of time) for anything else in your life, ever.

I like matches being played until someone wins rather than until someone loses less than the other person. The point that lowering the time limit will increase time outs is inarguable. Time limits are primarily for practical purposes, like keeping a schedule. If lowering by 2 minutes does 'almost nothing', then why push so hard to change it?

Just push for time matches if you want time to be a more active element. (yeah yeah, SDs would be unfair) Otherwise that's essentially the trade between strategies that's being proposed. Patience is part of this game, I can't believe all this whining about 8 minutes. Like 6 would even be that much better. Total game time would probably increase overall because the viability of camping would drag many matches to time out, while another (I'm guessing smaller) amount would get legitimately timed out, that would have gone to 8 minutes (lol like none).

Bones, you win my respect so much.

Thank you. The points you just made are argued pretty much exactly to how I would have (and a few I actually made), so it was kinda funny to read. lol

@SDs point
You can actually make SDs worth -2 so it would be equivalent to your opponent killing you (unless it's a FFA lol). But yeah, using a 5 min timer would basically be the same as playing Time matches for a lot of matchups. I think everyone remembers how horrible it was trying to play the default 2 min matches before they figured out how to change it to stock. XD

 

[Mahone]

Oh, this reminds me of a quote i made up for when i become famous for inventing some **** or something and people want epic quotes to remember me by...

The only time you have too much thyme is in the kitchen.

 

[Bones0]

Glad I'm not the only one who does that. lol

 

[DarkMarth]

I think the main reason why people oppose timeouts is because they accociate them with long, slow, boring and all around hype killing matches.

So if lowering the timer leads to more timeouts that makes a lower timer bad.

What some don't understand is that if the timer was 5 min. a match could still be fast and hype while ending in a timeout. In fact a low timer could actually add hype by encouraging ballsy aproaching not to mention the tension as the clock is about to run out.

Following this, I think it would actually be more entertianing if ~50% of floatie v floatie matches went to a timeout.

 

[EPsilon933]

Smash movemnt is different from traditional fighting game movement. Like Peach can't chase characters camping the top platform too well. Winning by timeout should never happen because people are impatient and this game is Melee. It never does anyways unless you're ARmada fighting Hungrybox or visa-versa. Or some other rare exception

 

[Kal]

People who say lowering the timer would necessarily increase the number of timeouts are right, but they need to show that the increase is meaningful. Nobody cares if it goes from a 1% timeout rate to a 2% timeout rate. On the other hand, going from 1% to 10% might be an issue. People should stop and realize that 8 minutes for 4 stock was chosen arbitrarily; someone figured "well, 1 minute per stock should work," and it became heavily adopted. It's not as though there was this plethora of playtesting involved. The only similar playtesting that ever really happened, as far as I'm aware, is with regards to number of stock. 3 was too few, while 5 was too many.

With that in mind, I would not be shocked it if turned out 30 - 45 seconds was a more reasonable time to allocate per stock. I'm not saying that any particular time is necessarily better, but rather that it all remains pretty much untested. What's important to realize is that there is an ideal time (though this time could vary by matchup and stage), and that it's not a bad thing if our choice of 8 minutes is above (or below) it.

 

[rawrimamonster]

Simple solution, make intentional timeouts result in a loss for the one stalling. Whats the difference? They lacked the skill to finish the match in the first place, this gives them incentive to get better.

Spoiler

Only ones that hate this will be the ones that need timeouts to win, dont be so free

 

[Froggy]

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.

Simply judging by how long pro matchups between floaties tend to take(and I mean looking at the timer) it's quite obvious lowering the timer would result in a lot more timeouts. And unless there is something wrong with the timer what's the point of testing a new timer out?

Following this, I think it would actually be more entertianing if ~50% of floatie v floatie matches went to a timeout.

And you are a biased fast faller maining ***.

 

[Bones0]

Simple solution, make intentional timeouts result in a loss for the one stalling. Whats the difference? They lacked the skill to finish the match in the first place, this gives them incentive to get better.

Spoiler

Only ones that hate this will be the ones that need timeouts to win, dont be so free

Someone already suggested this. It's dumb because the losing player can stall for a win.

 

[rawrimamonster]

Someone already suggested this. It's dumb because the losing player can stall for a win.

>one stalling winning
>stated that the one intentionally stalling for timeout will lose

I dont think someone read it right.

 

[Bones0]

How do you determine what is or isn't stalling? Shino stalling on the ledge for 30 seconds? Is that too long? How about 10 seconds? What if both players are trying to finish the match in time, but both have super strong defenses? The winning player has to approach or he loses. That's backwards from how we have it now, but of course that player will accuse the opponent of stalling while he was just taking his time approaching.

It's the barlw ledge grab limit BS all over again, and Melee doesn't need it since 99% of all games finish within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[Tee ay eye]

i dont know if anyone else said this yet

but im not about to skim 6 pages for it:

because 789

 

[Zodiac]

Link vs Doc = at least 6 of those 8 minutes

 

[DippnDots]

Srsly, deliberate time outs are equivalent to how fouls are used in Basketball.

 

[DarkMarth]

The player who is behind should be forced to aproach.

Instead the 8 min timer makes camping a viable option for the losing player because it allows them to waste as much time as they need. A lower timer would force the losing player to aproach due to the (realistic) threat of losing in the event of a timeout.

Camping may be lame but if anyone should be able to do it, it should be the player in the lead.

 

[Froggy]

Srsly, deliberate time outs are equivalent to how fouls are used in Basketball.

That doesn't work because establishing what is a deliberate time out is too tricky. What of my opponent was leading most of the match, but I get the lead near the end and keep away, is that a deliberate time out on my part? Who gets punished? Also neither player is really required to approach the other, so a timeout should never be punishable imo.

The player who is behind should be forced to aproach.

Instead the 8 min timer makes camping a viable option for the losing player because it allows them to waste as much time as they need. A lower timer would force the losing player to aproach due to the (realistic) threat of losing in the event of a timeout.

Camping may be lame but if anyone should be able to do it, it should be the player in the lead.

This makes no sense.

Camping isn't going to help the loosing player, how is it disadvantageous to the winning player if the loosing player camps longer? What the winning player is going to run out of patience? It doesn't matter how long the timer, the loosing player will always be forced to approach. Unless he's a spacy, which btw ruins your entire argument seeing as how spacies never really need to approach their opponent.

 

[Kal]

Camping isn't going to help the loosing player, how is it disadvantageous to the winning player if the loosing player camps longer? What the winning player is going to run out of patience. It doesn't matter how long the timer, the loosing player will always be forced to approach. Unless he's a spacy, which btw ruins your entire argument seeing as how spacies never really need to approach their opponent.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the losing player is eventually forced to approach, given perfect gameplay. Discussing time-outs doesn't make much sense if the losing player isn't forced to approach.

So, given that assumption, there must be some minimum amount of time it takes to overcome a disadvantage. Any time above that minimum time can then be wasted. This is the point: camping won't necessarily help the losing player, but it certainly won't do him any harm, and it very well might help the losing player. Thus the losing player is encouraged to camp until the timer has reached a certain median duration, after which he is forced to approach.

Just imagine two extremes to make this clear: one extreme is for the timer to be absurdly low. In that case, the winning player just needs to gain any sort of lead and run away, and he will win. The case relevant to DarkMarth's argument is the opposite one, where the timer is incredibly long. We can assume it is infinitely long if you're into that, but we could also just set it at something unreasonably high, like 99 minutes.

If you have a camping strategy that works (i.e., it forces a stale mate until a player approaches), and you are at a loss, we see that, with enough time on the clock, you're perfectly capable of executing this strategy until the time becomes reasonably short. In fact, your best tactic is to execute this strategy. After all, why approach now when approaching is just as viable in the future (vis-à-vis duration of the timer), and not approaching gives another possibility of success?

So yes, you're right; the losing player will eventually be forced to approach. But we want to avoid this situation where players just kill time because they're waiting for a mistake from their opponent.

 

[Bones0]

If you have a camping strategy that works (i.e., it forces a stale mate until a player approaches), and you are at a loss, we see that, with enough time on the clock, you're perfectly capable of executing this strategy until the time becomes reasonably short. In fact, your best tactic is to execute this strategy. After all, why approach now when approaching is just as viable in the future (vis-à-vis duration of the timer), and not approaching gives another possibility of success?

So yes, you're right; the losing player will eventually be forced to approach. But we want to avoid this situation where players just kill time because they're waiting for a mistake from their opponent.

I've never seen this secret camping strategy that works ever executed in Melee. Until I do, I'm just gonna keep considering it pure theory bros that anyone can actually camp while losing and never put themselves at risk of getting hit.

The entire argument against long timers seems to be that it gets to the point where neither player is putting themselves at risk of getting hit, but this only makes sense if you assume it's worse to approach than to be approached. If you're camping, you're limiting your options and giving the opponent space. If my opponent is camping me, then I just move towards him and cut off his options. Now this completely flips around the whole idea that the losing player can wait for the winning player to make a mistake. The player camping is doing all the work while the winning player simply controls stage without doing anything. He can back off at any time whereas the camping player has to maintain perfection because one mistake and they get punished. This is how I see it anyway. I've never seen anyone consistently stay alive while camping until Hbox vs. Armada, and that's only because Hbox decided to try to out-camp (despite not having a projectile). It's a losing strategy because Armada can simply hold the middle and toss bombs/rangs all day while Hbox tries to camp. When Hbox started playing more aggressively, we see the same dynamic. Armada is running away and constantly at risk of being wall of pained off the edge.

 

[JPOBS]

Srsly, deliberate time outs are equivalent to how fouls are used in Basketball.

>Deliberate time outs are used so the winning player doesnt have to approach and can win without "scoring"
>fouls are used so the losing player can extend the game and continue attacking in the hopes of scoring more.

They are literally the exact opposite.

 

[DippnDots]

equivalent in their bull**** rating, happy now?

Edit: I love that sig you got

 

[Kal]

JPOBS used to have a Boondocks sig if I remember correctly. Gangstalicious being... gangsta.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

>Deliberate time outs are used so the winning player doesnt have to approach and can win without "scoring"
>fouls are used so the losing player can extend the game and continue attacking in the hopes of scoring more.

They are literally the exact opposite.

Maybe he was talking about a hack-a-Shaq scenario. Where the winning team fouls a poor free-throw-shooter in order to a) force the opposing coach to call a timeout to substitute in a better foul shooter and b) extend the lead while the poor free throw shooter misses.

a) isn't particularly analogous, but b) is pretty damn spot on.

 

[Corigames]

I've had tournament games this year that have run down to the wire (Within 30 seconds on the clock). If your games are over in 2 minutes, what does it bother you anyway?

 

[DippnDots]

Maybe he was talking about a hack-a-Shaq scenario. Where the winning team fouls a poor free-throw-shooter in order to a) force the opposing coach to call a timeout to substitute in a better foul shooter and b) extend the lead while the poor free throw shooter misses.

a) isn't particularly analogous, but b) is pretty damn spot on.

Thanks for being a defender of the common man CrimsonBlur!


Fouls are seriously used for a number of things. I think it's stupid that a team intentionally breaks rules because the overall outcome is beneficial. Likewise, it's stupid that because we NEED a clock for tournaments to end before we get kicked out of the building, people abuse this to their advantage. There shouldn't be a clock in the first place when you really get down to it, everyone should just play Falco. I'm not trying to prove any point, just stating that time outs are stupid, like foul abuse in Basketball.

 

[Bones0]

Timeouts in Melee are myth-like, unlike foul abuse in basketball.

We should implement something like a Snitch in Quidditch that determines when the game ends so we can have absurdly long games that last weeks on end. Maybe something like you have to 0-death them. Just set the stock count to infinite and the first person to 0-death the opponent gets 150 points. I'll work out the details for this later, since it's clearly groundbreaking stuff.

 

[Wretched]

How do you determine what is or isn't stalling? Shino stalling on the ledge for 30 seconds? Is that too long? How about 10 seconds? What if both players are trying to finish the match in time, but both have super strong defenses? The winning player has to approach or he loses. That's backwards from how we have it now, but of course that player will accuse the opponent of stalling while he was just taking his time approaching.

It's the barlw ledge grab limit BS all over again, and Melee doesn't need it since 99% of all games finish within a reasonable amount of time.

You're dumb. The winning player WINS if he isn't approaching and the time runs out.

 

[Bones0]

The winning player SHOULD win if time runs out. Whether or not he is approaching or not is irrelevant because there's no objective way to determine if someone is approaching. Approaching is a process, not a state of being. If I am dash dancing towards my opponent and closing space (2 units towards them, 1 unit back), this is just a collection of mini-approaches and camps. If my opponent dashes away, can I accuse them of not approaching? Obviously not. That's ridiculous. What if they dash away and wait there a little? How long can they wait there before their defensive spacing turns into camping? Why is playing like this even looked down upon in the first place? It takes a similar level of skill as approaching (otherwise people would camp all game like in barlw).

 

[Kal]

Wretched, I think Bones is referring to that with regards to a stalling rule. If you can get disqualified for stalling, it's possible for the winning player (who has every right to stall, really) to be disqualified.