10 Min Timer

[Rickerdy-doo-da-day]

I wouldn't mind someone establishing the reasons for increasing the timer to 10 minutes for competitive reasons because atm I honestly couldn't tell you

The arguement that it allows certain characters to actually finish their matches is sort of subjective - depending if I'm in the lead or not, I might want my match to end asap or drag on until I can regain the lead

I don't mind if the timer is changed to 10 minutes as I'm willing to camp and attempt to run the timer for an extra 2 minutes if I want to win that badly but imo, some sort of evidence is needed to show that 8 minute matches simply aren't long enough or that timeouts in 8 minute matches are in some way overcentralizing

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I do not think that it is personal preference.

Every setting and ruleset is. It's just as much personal preference to have the timer at 10 minutes as it is to have, say, stock mode instead of time, or certain items set to low instead of off.

Who's decision was it to make the timer 8 minutes in the rule set?

The community's.

If the rule set had a timer that was too low, you would have more matches end in time outs simply because there is just not enough time to finish an entire match with the amount of time given. An 8 minute timer gives almost all characters enough time to finish all of their matches with out forcing them to go to time but it does not give all characters enough to finish there matches and forces them to either blindingly approach or get timed out.

And in certain matches, we rely on this. A 10 minute timer is too much to let us time out. And this is just as valid as your logic; if we didn't want to have time out as a win condition, we have options like "remove the timer". If we didn't want to have stock advantage as a win condition, we would play time or coin mode.

The timer should be increased if a match is being played correctly and is somehow not finishing on time.

And on time is? When a match goes to time, it is finishing on time, the player is using a perfectly legitimate win condition to win the game. If it goes to time in 10 minutes, then the same. Essentially, whenever time runs out, the match did finish on time. And if certain matchups encourage this, oh well. We can change the timer, but that's a very, very poor reason to do so. It seriously sounds like "Bawww we hate time outs and want all 3 stocks to be lost in the game"

By not increasing the timer, you are basically nerfing these characters since they do not get the amount of time they deserve to actually finish their match like the rest of the cast.

WHAAAT?

This is ridiculous, I hope you realize why. Them having limited options is a part of their character; if they have to wait for 8 minutes to get a solid whack at the opponent, then that's a character weakness/part of the matchup.

While they may get the same amount of time to play their match as the other characters, what is enough time for one character may not be enough for another. I would also like to add that it's kind of hard to get accurate match up ratios if percentage lead is what determines the winner of a match most of the time in certain match ups (which can go either way and by no means determines overall player skill)

So in other words, if I get a lead on my opponent, and then can keep it for the next 8 minutes, then it took no skill on my part? Or, if I end the game with a % lead on my opponent, then I didn't win skillfully?

...

[collapse=If you aren't Jebus, this is not worth reading]
SCRUUUUUBBBBBBB
[/collapse]

I think the argument here isn't working because we're coming across two different ideas of when matches ending in time-outs actually mean. People either believe that running the clock is an actual strategy that should be an influence in matches

If you don't believe this, turn off the timer, or make both players get DQ'd if time runs out.

This holds true for virtually every fighting game ever. Running the clock is an actual strategy and it should influence matches. We have our entire game built up that way.

or believe that all characters should have more than enough time to effectively rack up damage safely and have enough time to successfully land a kill. One good example I think would be Wario vs. Falco.

When Wario gets a lead stock on Falco, his defensive game makes it extremely difficult for falco to manage a kill move. Should Wario keep this advantage just because we have a timer that makes this possible? 8 Minutes isn't really enough for Falco to safely rack up damage and get a kill where as 10 minutes would be a lot better for Falco. I believe that just this 2 minute change could change the match up ratio between these two characters.

And there is one of the top reasons why not to change the timer. Wario gains an advantage from the normal ruleset in a similar way that ICs get an advantage when it's a 1-stock game, or Ganon gets an advantage when items are around. We crafted the ruleset to use this game in, and matchups are heavily based on it.

Perhaps this is a poor reason to not change the timer, but it's an absolutely horrid reason to change it.

I think that this all just breaks down to if people believe that the clock's reasonable yet abusable time limit should be allowed to influence a win (assuming that no one is just planking or stalling...cough mk...).

Some people believe that matches should be played as if there were no clock

Hey guys, does this apply to you? If yes: please leave. Go plague a different community.

while others believe that having a clock builds strategy and makes matches have more competitive options.

This. You know what a match with no clock between falco and anyone else is? Falco NEVER has to approach-he just spams lazers until like 300% and hits with an ftilt or something. Now add an 8-minute clock. If Falco loses the lead, he had better **** well approach in the next 8 minutes to stop me from winning.

Personally I believe that if a character cannot win a match in 8 minutes consistently (like diddy), it is all apart of the match. I enjoy having the clock influence the match and force a conclusion within reasonable time constrictions, while allowing options that can add more ways to win a match (as long as it isn't just stalling or planking). To me the clock brings a sort of balance and pressure that makes matches more enjoyable, knowing that the mindsets of the players are always racing and trying to perform accurately within a timely fashion. This reminds me of chess matches that are either free time or have a turn clock. Both have different affects to an outcome winning player, while both are still competitive and used in tournaments.

THANK YOU.

Maybe the answer is to have the time (being either 8 or 10) as apart of the counter-pick process. This could allow the best of both worlds to the table. Of course, like anything, this would require a lot of testing.
In a world where we can only have 8 minute clocks or 10 minute clocks, personally I enjoy the 8 minute clock since it fuels excitement in the matches to me, like running a timed mile.

This... is actually really cool, but I'd make it anywhere between 6 and 10.

 

[Mic_128]

I want to know why are matches going to time a bad thing in the first place?

 

[-LzR-]

People who say it makes no difference really arent thinking.

An 8 minute timer is just as arbitrary as a 10 minute one. Whats sad is that most of the people disagreeing with this probably dont agree with their own logic. You know what else would make tournaments run more efficiently? Cutting it down to 6 minutes. Im assuming you guys are in love with that idea.

I heard the timer rule was meant for there to be 2 minutes for each stock in melee, and they just randomly carried it over to brawl. Since I doubt anyone wants 6 minutes total, making it 3 minutes per stock (9 overall) makes sense. I wouldnt mind 10 minutes either.

Also Jeebus just ignore BPC, lol. He just trolls responses and has no practical experience or arguments.

You do know BPC has smarter posts than all your stuff combined?

 

[Raziek]

Yeah, I'm just gonna re-peat what I, (And now BPC and Mic) said.

Why are time-outs a bad thing? Every match doesn't HAVE to end by stock, that's the whole point of the timer.

You have to justify a reason to tack a potential 6-10 minutes on per set, or there isn't much reason to change it.

Note: "Bawwww I don't like timeouts", "MK too good" and "My character has a match-up that goes to time where I lose." are not good answers. If you change it for any of those reasons, you're arbitrarily buggering with game balance.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You do know BPC has smarter posts than all your stuff combined?

Pretty much this. I don't mean to be a ****, but Truth, your posts are pretty much all blind flaming with no point to them.

 

[Thebest1pj]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-belb-LEZg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSEbbxFfU-o&feature=related

we literally had to force them to split or we would have had several 8 minute matches happen

replace 8 with ten and the fact that jerm was coming from losers he would have to win two 3/5.

 

[Raziek]

^That was somehow remarkably entertaining, yet boring at the same time.

 

[Shadic]

8 minute timer for a 3 stock match:
2 minutes and 40 seconds a stock.

8 minute timer for a 3 stock match:
3 minutes and 20 seconds a stock.

6 minute timer for a 2 stock match:
3 minutes a stock.

There's tons of combinations you can come up with, it's really just trying to figure out what works best for keeping the game "fair" while keeping tournament times realistic. Brawl is too slow/campy of a game for the current settings though, in my opinion.

It's all up to TO's, but I'd honestly like to make matches shorter, not longer. Unfortunately, I don't think the idea of lowering the stock count further would be very popular, and a 6 minute timer for a 3-stock match in Brawl is just going to result in over a third of matches going until the timer... That sure sounds exciting. /s

 

[moomoomamoo]

In Melee the clock wasn't a big enough influence so that it really mattered. In Brawl it does in so many ways. A match without a timer (and without stalling or planking and stupid stuff like that) would play out completely different than a match would if it were to be clocked. I think that the clock is just there to keep the matches coming and going and prevent stalling in melee, while in brawl it is also used as part of the game since brawl makes campy play styles too good to pass up for a lot of characters.

By this logic, it is without question that by adding a clock to brawl, it influences the match and gives some characters advantages and disadvantages. Since brawl's counter-pick system is one of the biggest influences on the ending result of matches, why not let it also morph what time the clock will be. I believe that the winner should be allowed to pick a time between a set time domain (i think 8 - 10 is fair, but maybe some of you would like 6- 10 or something like that... we would have to pick a domain as a community). By allowing this kind of change, it can balance some messed up character and stage counter-picks.

Mk's going for rainbow cruise will have to camp around the stage layout for another 2 minutes since the winner would increase the time to 10. Wario could set the clock to 8 (or 6 if that's how low the domain would get) when falco takes him to final forcing falco to approach a lot more and risk unsafe damage and kill moves. I think this an idea that is something like this would be the closest thing to fair seeing how the clock is way too important to match outcomes.

fyi, personally as a diddy/falco main, the idea of 10 minutes just sounds awesome for me, so if this is how it turns out I'd love it; however, I really don't think making it 10 minutes is the right choice. The time needs to be bendable between matches.

 

[solecalibur]

ughhh -.-"



NO , all time outs are intentional 2 more minutes might prevent 20% of the very little time outs we have and if you want to play ppl that are onlying aiming on timing someone out your making the tournament a hell of a lot longer then it should be already

 

[KillerJawz]

NO , all time outs are intentional 2 more minutes might prevent 20% of the very little time outs we have and if you want to play ppl that are onlying aiming on timing someone out your making the tournament a hell of a lot longer then it should be already

To be fair, timeouts are becoming more and more frequent these days, even by unintentional means.

 

[HelpR]

I dont get the point of extending the timer to 10 min, other then to

A. waste time
B. try and force an approach from whoever is behind a minute or so later then they would on 8 minutes

Time is a HUGE factor in tournaments, and trust me, those 2 extra minutes per match (if we assume all times outs will continue to time outs in 10 minutes) makes a MASSIVe difference, and makes brawl, a fairly slow game, even slower.

Several characters like diddy, DDD, peach DO have problems landing kill moves, but think about it like this: if these characters have difficulty killing, but dont have too much difficulty stacking damage, why dont they just keep stacking damage until one of their weaker and easier to land kill moves can kill?

On top of that, if we assume they DO take forever to kill, but end up getting killed by their opponent fast? Too bad, your character sucks or is counterpicked by your opponent, and those extra 2 minutes are worth ****

However, if we assume the characters who need the 2 extra minutes can rack up damage and survive longer then their opponents, why the hell don't you just camp? force your opponent to approach, they HAVE to, and that way you have the advantage.

very few playstyles and characters are hurt by the 8 minute timer, and let's be honest, if your character can kill, but can barely rack damage, that's fine, it'll kill eventually

if your character can do both, he's half of the top tier.

if your character can rack up damage but cant kill, keep racking up damage until you can kill with something which doesnt put you in danger. Play safe, it's good.

If your character can't rack up damage or kill, then he's ****ing worthless.

I just don't see how a 10 min timer does ANYTHING useful when you take these into account

 

[Kaffei]

I think the "winner by least % on time out" rule is really dumb.

Why does a 90% Jiggs beat a 91% Snake on time out? That just completely ignores the weight class and is unfair to heavier characters. People might say that you can put light characters in the same position of fairness but at least those characters can fly and stall, which is dumb. the % rule is just a random rule that lazy people thought of and smart people take advantage of it and time out with characters who are good at running away (mk).

I dont think smash is supposed to be "o lets see who can run away the best and win" it's more like "stay on the stage and ****"

the % rule just caters to characters who can run away and stall easily. And guess what, they all spend time in the air. How often do you see a grounded character time out someone? never because it's really HARD to time someone out when you are spending your time on the ground a lot

IMO it would be more logical to say "on the event of a time out, the character with the most GROUND TIME is declared winner". This discourages planking scrooging and timing out. Planking because the ledge doesn't technically count as a ground. scrooging because it is air based.

then ppl say that it's unfair to characters who are in the air a lot like jiggs/wario well dont fking intentially time out people and you have nothing to worry about.

people blame MK for time outs but really it's the stupid ruleset. I even timed out a person with jiggs and i dont even know how to play her.

mk gets free wins on RC because he can fly and run away for the whole match. we don't even have to surgically ban stages just change this stupid rule

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I think the "winner by least % on time out" rule is really dumb.

Why does a 90% Jiggs beat a 91% Snake on time out? That just completely ignores the weight class and is unfair to heavier characters. People might say that you can put light characters in the same position of fairness but at least those characters can fly and stall, which is dumb. the % rule is just a random rule that lazy people thought of and smart people take advantage of it and time out with characters who are good at running away (mk).

I dont think smash is supposed to be "o lets see who can run away the best and win" it's more like "stay on the stage and ****"

the % rule just caters to characters who can run away and stall easily. And guess what, they all spend time in the air. How often do you see a grounded character time out someone? never because it's really HARD to time someone out when you are spending your time on the ground a lot

IMO it would be more logical to say "on the event of a time out, the character with the most GROUND TIME is declared winner". This discourages planking scrooging and timing out. Planking because the ledge doesn't technically count as a ground. scrooging because it is air based.

then ppl say that it's unfair to characters who are in the air a lot like jiggs/wario well dont fking intentially time out people and you have nothing to worry about.

people blame MK for time outs but really it's the stupid ruleset. I even timed out a person with jiggs and i dont even know how to play her.

The reason I don't like the ground time rule on it's own is because it forces certain characters to play differently. In order for that rule to work, they should have implemented it a long time ago. I feel that it is to late now to use it and it would not be fair to certain players and their strategies. The only way I could see that rule working is if it is used with some other set of rules to determine the winner of a time out

 

[-LzR-]

A % is still a %, no matter how much you weight.

 

[z00ted]

My dog died.

Ban Metaknight.

 

[Kaffei]

The reason I don't like the ground time rule on it's own is because it forces certain characters to play differently. In order for that rule to work, they should have implemented it a long time ago. I feel that it is to late now to use it and it would not be fair to certain players and their strategies. The only way I could see that rule working is if it is used with some other set of rules to determine the winner of a time out

What characters? and differently how? if you put a ground rule and extend the timer to 10 min they don't have to play differently because they will be playing matches normally and they will end before 8 mins

A % is still a %, no matter how much you weight.

..........

 

[SaveMeJebus]

What characters? and differently how? if you put a ground rule and extend the timer to 10 min they don't have to play differently because they will be playing matches normally and they will end before 8 mins



..........

Falco vs. snake. Even though the falco has the percentage lead, he is going to have to approach because if he does his short hop double lasers, his air time will increase and cost him the match if it goes to time.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think the "winner by least % on time out" rule is really dumb.

Why does a 90% Jiggs beat a 91% Snake on time out? That just completely ignores the weight class and is unfair to heavier characters. People might say that you can put light characters in the same position of fairness but at least those characters can fly and stall, which is dumb. the % rule is just a random rule that lazy people thought of and smart people take advantage of it and time out with characters who are good at running away (mk).

I dont think smash is supposed to be "o lets see who can run away the best and win" it's more like "stay on the stage and ****"

the % rule just caters to characters who can run away and stall easily. And guess what, they all spend time in the air. How often do you see a grounded character time out someone? never because it's really HARD to time someone out when you are spending your time on the ground a lot

IMO it would be more logical to say "on the event of a time out, the character with the most GROUND TIME is declared winner". This discourages planking scrooging and timing out. Planking because the ledge doesn't technically count as a ground. scrooging because it is air based.

then ppl say that it's unfair to characters who are in the air a lot like jiggs/wario well dont fking intentially time out people and you have nothing to worry about.

people blame MK for time outs but really it's the stupid ruleset. I even timed out a person with jiggs and i dont even know how to play her.

mk gets free wins on RC because he can fly and run away for the whole match. we don't even have to surgically ban stages just change this stupid rule

Okay now that is just ****ing ********, I'm sorry. The ground time rule has been thrown out more than once as completely idiotic. Why do people keep bringing it up? It has no basis in the actual game, but rather reforms the game to the way "we" want it to play slightly, even though-oh wait, it hardly does. Not to mention it gives the win according to something you not only can hardly count, but that certain characters rely on not having. How does Jiggs deal with this? TL? Samus? Wario? ROB? Peach? You know, chars who kinda rely on being in the air and have a lot of time-outs due to it being what their design is good at or not being able to kill anyone ever/having **** tier ground games. It's a ridiculously arbitrary buff.

Now, I agree, going by % is arbitrary too (according to the game, there's a tie unless someone has a stock lead) and goes against some matchups like, as you mentioned, Snake-Jiggs or Snake-MK. However, it's a hell of a lot less arbitrary, and a lot more measurable to the player, than "when time runs out, whoever has been in the air less wins". That's just flat-out stupid, and there is no reason whatsoever to use that rule.

Hell, I'd propose going with what the game says and making a % lead count as a tie in-game, to be replayed with a 3-minute, 1-stock game.

You ask for an example of a matchup that will change? Snake-Jiggs/Samus/Peach/basically any airborne char with poor kill moves. Those chars kind of have to rely on having a % lead when time runs out because they just suck at killing snake.

 

[moomoomamoo]

No matter what kind of rule we all play by, there will be characters that get an advantage or disadvantage. If ties are broken by highest/lowest percent, most air/ground time, 1 stock rematch or just a rematch all together, will have characters that gain from these special rules. There is no way of getting a fair tie breaker. The best way to handle this would be to consider two major factors: tournament time and how abusable rules can get.

Both % tie breakers and air time tie breakers have good reasons and flaws behind them. I see the only real reason behind using air time is to kill off stalling (seeing how most stalling requires air time). Although there are other ways to stall (via grab tricks and wall gimmicks), using an air time tie breaker is very reasonable to the idea that it kills stalling. The answer to how characters that require mostly air time like jiggs, tlink, falco, and peach must deal with this type of rule is that they continuously approach and force a kill move. This of course is by far easier said then done. So this rule offers no completely broken tactics like stalling/planking, but it sucks by forcing many characters to ruthlessly approach and risk kill moves that are mostly not going to be safe.

The other side of this coin is that a % tie breaker allows characters to use any means of play style that allows safe damage building until a reliable kill move is plausible. A good character that comes to mind is diddy. Of course, with only 8 minutes on the clock, if a character just plays safe all match and just deals damage, the match will without question force the lowest damage character to approach for a game-winning kill. Instead of forcing mid/low tier characters (like samus, jiggs, peach) to play aggressively all match due to their airborne likeness, this rule just forces any character that is behind in damage to rush for a kill move. The biggest downside to this rule is that it allows (in my opinion) broken strategies that make easy victories.

By going by the air time rule, someone with 200% dmg can still win against someone who doesn't have any dmg. To me that just doesn't seem right. Then again I don't like mk hugging the ledge for a win... I know this most likely sounds like a broken record, but maybe the answer is to allow both rules to be switched during the counter-pick process. :x

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I see the only real reason behind using air time is to kill off stalling (seeing how most stalling requires air time).

Boom. Rule has no legitimate competitive base, and merely is "we want to remove this element from play because it annoys us". That's terrible, you guys who support it should know better. Camping is not broken. Camping is not even remotely overpowered. Aerial camping isn't even particularly dangerous! Might as well complain about Falco's laser camping, or Snake's nade camping, or blizzard walling, or edgehogging, or...

The other side of this coin is that a % tie breaker allows characters to use any means of play style that allows safe damage building until a reliable kill move is plausible. A good character that comes to mind is diddy. Of course, with only 8 minutes on the clock, if a character just plays safe all match and just deals damage, the match will without question force the lowest damage character to approach for a game-winning kill. Instead of forcing mid/low tier characters (like samus, jiggs, peach) to play aggressively all match due to their airborne likeness, this rule just forces any character that is behind in damage to rush for a kill move. The biggest downside to this rule is that it allows (in my opinion) broken strategies that make easy victories.

Because most chars who suck at racking damage that are even remotely viable (HA! As if!) can't either kill ridiculously early (Snake, Wario), deal absurd amounts of damage per read/hit/move (Wario, Snake, DDD)... Broken strategies like "outplay your opponent carefully and be overly defensive"? Think about it this way-the matchups where MK's dair camping are seen as the most effective (Falco, ICs) are close to even. That's supposed to be broken? What broken tactics do you mean?

By going by the air time rule, someone with 200% dmg can still win against someone who doesn't have any dmg. To me that just doesn't seem right. Then again I don't like mk hugging the ledge for a win... I know this most likely sounds like a broken record, but maybe the answer is to allow both rules to be switched during the counter-pick process. :x

Dear god no. The anti-air rule is obscenely poor. If you would allow that during the counterpick process, then you should also allow the opposite-that the person with the most ground time loses if time runs out. Otherwise it's simply not fair to aerial chars. Snake, Falco, and ICs can time out too. Especially if they have no reason to approach you, ever.

Also it puts even more weight on game 1, plus it has the disadvantage that there is no real legitimization for any rule that depends on things like air time or ground time.

 

[HelpR]

that's why I think NL's time out rule is a little more concise for situations like this.

If there's more then a 50% difference on the same stock at time out, then the person with less wins the match

If there's less then a 50% difference, then it's considered a tie and is treated like a normal sudden death situation.

One of the bigger faults with this is obviously the fact that it hurts lighter characters, but it seems to be the closest middle ground possible when it comes to timeout rules.

Also, the ground time out rule is absurd. It just gives characters like diddy, snake and dedede advantages over characters like ness, lucas, peach, lucario and any other who attacks in an aerial fashion.

if I ever lose a match as lucas against a dedede because of time out, when i was playing defensively? I'd be absolutely livid.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

that's why I think NL's time out rule is a little more concise for situations like this.

If there's more then a 50% difference on the same stock at time out, then the person with less wins the match

If there's less then a 50% difference, then it's considered a tie and is treated like a normal sudden death situation.

One of the bigger faults with this is obviously the fact that it hurts lighter characters, but it seems to be the closest middle ground possible when it comes to timeout rules.

Also, the ground time out rule is absurd. It just gives characters like diddy, snake and dedede advantages over characters like ness, lucas, peach, lucario and any other who attacks in an aerial fashion.

if I ever lose a match as lucas against a dedede because of time out, when i was playing defensively? I'd be absolutely livid.

This. Also, that rule is even closer to the actual game's verdict (% leads don't matter, but even I'm shy to advocate that...) than the current rule, and makes a fair amount of sense.

 

[-LzR-]

That 50% rule still applies to weight on the same level as 1% rule

 

[HelpR]

That 50% rule still applies to weight on the same level as 1% rule

If you're going to make a statement like that, please back it up with an example >>

honestly, it's the best thing we're going to get to a decent time out rule. The ground time out rule is just silly, and 50% is a much larger margin of error, and really the largest one any reasonable person could possibly agree to in this situation, keeping in mind that some characters just die quicker then others.

I would actually like to know of a situation where this particular rule hurts one character over another more then the regular time-out rule does.

 

[Raziek]

-Lzr-, the issue with it is that we're judging based on how close the character is to death, not how much health they have LEFT, like traditional fighters.

If we played in stamina mode, your argument would make more sense, but we don't.

Edit: I'm actually considering testing out the % buffer idea that HelpR suggested, but I feel 50% is maybe a bit too high. I'll probably go with 35 or 40.

Unfortunately this rule is kinda subjective, but it still beats the crap out of losing by 1%.

 

[swordgard]

This. Also, that rule is even closer to the actual game's verdict (% leads don't matter, but even I'm shy to advocate that...) than the current rule, and makes a fair amount of sense.

The number will always be arbitrary, it is actually no different than the 1% buffer we have atm.


Game verdict only imo, otherwise it gets hard to say who really was winning. Snake is 1 second from dying from a spike, but hes at lower % so he wins. Legit? Better just honor the games decision and call it a tie/rematch/wahtever.

 

[Raziek]

The number will always be arbitrary, it is actually no different than the 1% buffer we have atm.


Game verdict only imo, otherwise it gets hard to say who really was winning. Snake is 1 second from dying from a spike, but hes at lower % so he wins. Legit? Better just honor the games decision and call it a tie/rematch/wahtever.

So do you mean to say that you advocate any %-based timeout going to a one-stock rematch, and stock timeouts would accept the game's verdict?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So do you mean to say that you advocate any %-based timeout going to a one-stock rematch, and stock timeouts would accept the game's verdict?

Same as me on that count. Assuming SSD has been proven anticompetitive.

 

[swordgard]

So do you mean to say that you advocate any %-based timeout going to a one-stock rematch, and stock timeouts would accept the game's verdict?

Yes. If people find 50% to be better, why not 60%? why not 70%? Why not 80%....


You get where I am going. Why not 999%. All are out of the games original content, so yes, stock only would be imo the best.


Now for how to proceed when it occurs, I would like to check how Sudden death would turn out for brawl competitive, otherwise either rematch or tie or +1 win each, I am unsure yet.

 

[Raziek]

I can agree with that, so then I question how counterpicking would work in the event of a tie.... or what happens if it's one-win each and it's game point?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Would require a restructuring of the bracket procedure...

 

[Raziek]

I would think it would have to be a re-match.

 

[HelpR]

what swordgard is saying is technically correct, but it's just simply not executable in the standard double elimination format for one big reason:

Time is a massive constraint. Let's assume that if 2 opponents are on seperate stocks, with one being at 200% and on 2nd stock and other is on their last stock at 150%. The person with the 2 stocks dies, and the other person times out. Now they have to replay the match, or at the very least 1 stock again.

So at the very worst that's another 8 minutes gone, at the very best it's 3 minutes gone. the currently time out rule is in place to avoid this, and I dont know about you, but from my experience, time outs tend to happen in the final rounds of a tournament, so having several matches needing to be replayed, or extending the final matches needlessly (usually when the venue is about to close) is stupid and should not happen, no matter how much you want a perfect result to be occur, time will always be an issue. The very way that double elimination is set up makes it so that there are bottlenecks in progress at certain points in the tournament, those mostly being the latter half of losers and at the end of winners.

Unfortunately, brawl is already a game that is slow as hell, and running to the timer DOES happen, as many players at the highest echelon of brawl have a tendency to play defensively, either due to the timer running or simply because there are no other options.

Even moreso, having a 1 stock gap would actually ENCOURAGE scrooging in many situations. If the person whose well behind acknowledges if he doesnt get killed, everything will be reset, wouldnt that be an incentive to scrooge?

50% is not an arbritary number. That's a little below the percentage between when snake can kill MK with an utilt (about 100%) and when MK can kill snake with one of his weaker kill moves (dsmash at about 160 fresh.) These two are at opposite sides of the weight list, and are considered the best characters in their weight class, so it makes sense for this percentage. If both characters are on their last stock and near death, they'll likely be within 50% of each other, and if one is at a higher percentage then this, then they're most likely losing.

That's the way I interpret it anyways lol

edit: coincidentally, swordgard's idea would work quite perfectly for a swiss format, but I doubt quite heavily anyone would actually try swiss format with a slow game like brawl.

 

[Kaffei]

Okay now that is just ****ing ********, I'm sorry. The ground time rule has been thrown out more than once as completely idiotic. Why do people keep bringing it up? It has no basis in the actual game, but rather reforms the game to the way "we" want it to play slightly, even though-oh wait, it hardly does. Not to mention it gives the win according to something you not only can hardly count, but that certain characters rely on not having. How does Jiggs deal with this? TL? Samus? Wario? ROB? Peach? You know, chars who kinda rely on being in the air and have a lot of time-outs due to it being what their design is good at or not being able to kill anyone ever/having **** tier ground games. It's a ridiculously arbitrary buff.

Now, I agree, going by % is arbitrary too (according to the game, there's a tie unless someone has a stock lead) and goes against some matchups like, as you mentioned, Snake-Jiggs or Snake-MK. However, it's a hell of a lot less arbitrary, and a lot more measurable to the player, than "when time runs out, whoever has been in the air less wins". That's just flat-out stupid, and there is no reason whatsoever to use that rule.

Hell, I'd propose going with what the game says and making a % lead count as a tie in-game, to be replayed with a 3-minute, 1-stock game.

You ask for an example of a matchup that will change? Snake-Jiggs/Samus/Peach/basically any airborne char with poor kill moves. Those chars kind of have to rely on having a % lead when time runs out because they just suck at killing snake.

it's stupid that people actually support intentional time outs. -_____- you think the rule is dumb because ****ty characters become theoretically nerfed? omfg how often do you see a jiggs/samus/peach intentionally time out someone.

I really don't understand how it doesnt have a basis on the actual game when it's the opposite of RUN AWAY TO WIN.
I have seen jiggs beat mks/snakes whatever because they actually outskilled the other player. running away is dumb. it's no wonder people think brawl sucks because people actually support time outs wtf? i'm not trying to say that a time out shouldn't ever happen but come on, there has to be an alternative to the % rule.

Hell, I'd propose going with what the game says and making a % lead count as a tie in-game, to be replayed with a 3-minute, 1-stock game. <- this sounds good too

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

it's stupid that people actually support intentional time outs. -_____-

It's a legitimate way to win, according to both the rulesets that almost everyone uses ('cept some stupid regions like mexico) and the game itself (try switching to time mode lol).

you think the rule is dumb because ****ty characters become theoretically nerfed?

****ty? S tier (wario) is ****ty? That's news to me.

I really don't understand how it doesnt have a basis on the actual game when it's the opposite of RUN AWAY TO WIN.

The game does not care how long you have been on the ground or in the air as far as a win goes. In fact, it doesn't even matter in the slightest as far as stock leads go, unlike %, where the higher your % is, the closer you are to losing your stock (the higher your air time, the neutraler the number is towards how soon you're about to lose your stock; it has no bearing whatsoever).

Sure, it indirectly nerfs a tactic you believe has no place in a fighting game. A tactic that we intentionally legitimize, which adds immense depth to the game, forces approaches, and generally leads to the player who is behind to eventually get risky. Hell, by default the game goes to timing out as the only win criteria.

I have seen jiggs beat mks/snakes whatever because they actually outskilled the other player. running away is dumb.

Hang on, are you honestly saying that there is no skill involved in timing the opponent out? Because that's what I'm getting from this post. If that's what you think, go time out a top player and tell me how well that works for you. It takes a fairly ridiculous amount of skill to time a good player out.

it's no wonder people think brawl sucks because people actually support time outs wtf? i'm not trying to say that a time out shouldn't ever happen but come on, there has to be an alternative to the % rule.

No, there doesn't have to be. In fact, even that rule goes against what the game says.

Hell, I'd propose going with what the game says and making a % lead count as a tie in-game, to be replayed with a 3-minute, 1-stock game. <- this sounds good too

Indeed, this, while a times being blatantly unfair compared to what we know (we know the game as giving us an advantage by % lead–), actually matches up with what the game says (–this is just simply not how the game is programmed, but rather only giving a true advantage when time runs out by stock lead)

It also has the nice side effect that small % leads (where most time-outs are where you can't say "this guy got blatantly *****" happen) no longer give you an excuse to camp for 8 minutes-you need that stock lead to time your opponent out. AND it conforms with the game's internal ruling.
I suppose this may lead to some people camping while they're behind, but with this rule, that's a hell of a lot less effective than, say, the MXBR rule.

 

[Kaffei]

It's a legitimate way to win, according to both the rulesets that almost everyone uses ('cept some stupid regions like mexico) and the game itself (try switching to time mode lol).

dare to be different lool

****ty? S tier (wario) is ****ty? That's news to me.

Wario doesn't need to time out to win.. He's a good character unlike Puff, who according to you relies on time outs

The game does not care how long you have been on the ground or in the air as far as a win goes. In fact, it doesn't even matter in the slightest as far as stock leads go, unlike %, where the higher your % is, the closer you are to losing your stock (the higher your air time, the neutraler the number is towards how soon you're about to lose your stock; it has no bearing whatsoever).

i think that is silly though.. jiggs vs snake. jiggs dies at like 90% from a utilt and snake would at like 150% from a fair or something, but the jiggs wins? jiggs is way closer to losing her stock at a lower %.

Sure, it indirectly nerfs a tactic you believe has no place in a fighting game. A tactic that we intentionally legitimize, which adds immense depth to the game, forces approaches, and generally leads to the player who is behind to eventually get risky. Hell, by default the game goes to timing out as the only win criteria.

fair enough

Hang on, are you honestly saying that there is no skill involved in timing the opponent out? Because that's what I'm getting from this post. If that's what you think, go time out a top player and tell me how well that works for you. It takes a fairly ridiculous amount of skill to time a good player out.

If the player was better than me by a large margin, obviously I would never have the %/stock lead to be even trying to time him/her out... <_>

If I can get a stock/% lead I just have to fly under the stage back and forth (except in like the ditto).. I really don't see how that takes a lot of skill. (i realize some stages can't be scrooged on but i mean the ones that can)

No, there doesn't have to be. In fact, even that rule goes against what the game says.

fair enough

Indeed, this, while a times being blatantly unfair compared to what we know (we know the game as giving us an advantage by % lead–), actually matches up with what the game says (–this is just simply not how the game is programmed, but rather only giving a true advantage when time runs out by stock lead)

It also has the nice side effect that small % leads (where most time-outs are where you can't say "this guy got blatantly *****" happen) no longer give you an excuse to camp for 8 minutes-you need that stock lead to time your opponent out. AND it conforms with the game's internal ruling.
I suppose this may lead to some people camping while they're behind, but with this rule, that's a hell of a lot less effective than, say, the MXBR rule.

asdfjasldfjasdjfa

P.S. what is MXBR lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

dare to be different lool

Dare to be stupid, more like. Virtually every rule built to combat time-outs runs into the same issue-you are trying to make a legitimate strategy harder/impossible to do effectively.

Wario doesn't need to time out to win.. He's a good character unlike Puff, who according to you relies on time outs

Several low tiers would do well to attempt more time-outs. But wario does very, very well for himself if he does try to time out. His camping is really strong.

i think that is silly though.. jiggs vs snake. jiggs dies at like 90% from a utilt and snake would at like 150% from a fair or something, but the jiggs wins? jiggs is way closer to losing her stock at a lower %.

Jiggs vs. Snake. Snake is at 150%, Jiggs is at 10%. Time runs out and Snake wins because Jiggs was in the air longer.

If the player was better than me by a large margin, obviously I would never have the %/stock lead to be even trying to time him/her out... <_>

Because metaknight can't get a lead once. And if they aren't better than you by a large margin, you can try to time them out... but it won't work too well.

If I can get a stock/% lead I just have to fly under the stage back and forth (except in like the ditto).. I really don't see how that takes a lot of skill. (i realize some stages can't be scrooged on but i mean the ones that can)

And this is broken to the extent where it virtually automatically wins?

asdfjasldfjasdjfa

Wazzis?

P.S. what is MXBR lol

Mexico Brawl Back room. Thread is down a ways.

 

[Kaffei]

Dare to be stupid, more like. Virtually every rule built to combat time-outs runs into the same issue-you are trying to make a legitimate strategy harder/impossible to do effectively.

Legitimate or not, running away =/= fighting. I'm confident in saying that people play smash to fight not do this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPhdrjgmS0E
yea money is on the line and it's tournament i realize that but wtf ^ do you really LIKE that? please don't say that this is not a matter of what i alone think.. I'm talking about the community as a whole( which i dont officially represent)

But wario does very, very well for himself if he does try to time out. His camping is really strong.

true

Jiggs vs. Snake. Snake is at 150%, Jiggs is at 10%. Time runs out and Snake wins because Jiggs was in the air longer.

u win

Because metaknight can't get a lead once.

what?

And if they aren't better than you by a large margin, you can try to time them out... but it won't work too well.

I timed out a falco who could beat me whenever i tried not to time out. Please enlighten me on why that would not work well

And this is broken to the extent where it virtually automatically wins?

not necessarily, but consider : how many characters can beat mk when he is scrooging with a lead?

Wazzis?

magic =D

Mexico Brawl Back room. Thread is down a ways.

oh thanks lol


then again I just realized: time outs won't happen if the player can prevent the aerial char from getting that lead.. I still think it's dumb