Backroom Reform: Current Topic -> Success?

[smashmachine]

if the timer is 5-6 minutes, it would be way easier to time someone out
so actually, it would make matches LONGER

 

[VK-137]

Haven't exactly thought this all the way through (or at all), but what's wrong with a draw? Don't really know how you'd decide placings with it, but I'm sure there's something :/ Anyone know what happens in, for example, chess?

Also, what does this have to do with the Backroom Reform?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The problem isn't really that it's a draw. The problem is how the game deals with draws-specifically, Super Sudden Death. Which apparently is bad. Has anyone actually tested with sudden death?

 

[-Vocal-]

The problem isn't really that it's a draw. The problem is how the game deals with draws-specifically, Super Sudden Death. Which apparently is bad. Has anyone actually tested with sudden death?

O_O

Well he held on to his credibility as long as he could...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Dude, I'm an advocate for PTAD, Onett, and removing the "you win if you have a higher % at the end of the game" rule. What credibility.

But no, I'm serious. What was shown to happen? Were there any decent results? Was it too random, or what?

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Dude, I'm an advocate for PTAD, Onett, and removing the "you win if you have a higher % at the end of the game" rule. What credibility.

But no, I'm serious. What was shown to happen? Were there any decent results? Was it too random, or what?

The gameplay becomes rather sour. Both sides resort to ledge camping to evade getting hit by bom-ombs. Which in the end sort of negates conflict.

 

[Spelt]

Because a few MUs out there do honestly need that much time if they want to have any hope of the match not ending in a time out. Like Peach vs Wario IIRC. Heck, just imagine a Samus Ditto match, and how long that would take.

if the timer is 5-6 minutes, it would be way easier to time someone out
so actually, it would make matches LONGER

It would still be the best player winning, even if it's who can hit each other first and camp the rest of the match.

 

[-Vocal-]

It would still be the best player winning, even if it's who can hit each other first and camp the rest of the match.

I would get timed out by Sonic SOOOOOOOOO much.

That small of a timer is just asking for trouble

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I would get timed out by Sonic SOOOOOOOOO much.

That small of a timer is just asking for trouble

I agree with that. 8 minutes has proven to be effective at avoiding most scenarios where people get timed out. Many campfests I have witnessed last generally no longer than 6-7 minutes. It takes extra stalling or evasion on both parties to time out 8 minutes. If anything, a longer time limit might further prevent people from achieving time outs. However, then tounaments become too long.

 

[Orion*]

i played a 15 minute match in crews vs delta and he only had 1 stock to my three ._.

remove the timer and this game will take FOREVER

 

[deepseadiva]

If we have timers for tournament convenience and not in game aspects why not lower it to 5-6 minutes?

loooooooool

Spelt, didn't you come or at least hear about one of Underload's tournies?

We lowered the time down by one minute and suddenly we had at least three timeouts in a 10-person bracket. We never time-out before.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Yes, but then we hit the same problem as we have with every other solution, just more drastic and going against the game even more.

...What problem, exactly?

 

[Spelt]

loooooooool

Spelt, didn't you come or at least hear about one of Underload's tournies?

We lowered the time down by one minute and suddenly we had at least three timeouts in a 10-person bracket. We never time-out before.

Was Zajice there?
If so, that explains it.

 

[Zajice]

And all 3 were me.


I hate you guys.

 

[Orion*]

i still dont see the problem with 8 minutes 35 lgl.

very very very few matches go to time with 8 minutes unless you want them to ._.

and coming from me that kinda sais something.

upping the LGL is stupid. lowering is also stupid at this point imo, because then youll start to get into the realm where people can legit ledge pressure ftw XD.

making the timer shorter is dummmmb. making it higher could potentially work if you up the lgl to like 40 with a 10 min timer or something. honestly the only reason i wouldnt be for that is because i dont want to watch 10 minute videos of jason scrooging, people barely watch that **** already. XDDDD

 

[Luxor]

Timeouts are a legit, honest way to win. As long as the only unbeatable planking is limited (MK) you're fine- we shouldn't have to nerf Pit/G&W/ROB's planking when it's not unbeatable. Timing out a match is only a problem because people arbitrarily decide it's boring.

Also MK should get an LGL of 15-20 max, many timeouts don't even take that many.

 

[solecalibur]

Timeouts are a legit, honest way to win. As long as the only unbeatable planking is limited (MK) you're fine- we shouldn't have to nerf Pit/G&W/ROB's planking when it's not unbeatable. Timing out a match is only a problem because people arbitrarily decide it's boring.

Also MK should get an LGL of 15-20 max, many timeouts don't even take that many.

Honestly there should never be a LGL
if MK's planking is unbeatable and the match ends up with 2 minutes left and 5 edge grabs , are we really going to let him run the clock because it doesn't reach the edgegrab limit and its "unbeatable"


btw its not I believe, I think there is one frame of vulnerability
Good luck hitting it and OFF STAGE WITH METAKNIGHT

 

[Luxor]

One frame of vulnerability is trivial, you can't get past the Uairs in time anyway. He can always react/adapt if you try to hit him anyway, unfortunately. I blame Sakurai, he probably put that frame there just to taunt us.

 

[Poltergust]

Uh, where is that one frame of vulnerability, exactly?

 

[-Vocal-]

Honestly there should never be a LGL
if MK's planking is unbeatable and the match ends up with 2 minutes left and 5 edge grabs , are we really going to let him run the clock because it doesn't reach the edgegrab limit and its "unbeatable"


btw its not I believe, I think there is one frame of vulnerability
Good luck hitting it and OFF STAGE WITH METAKNIGHT

Hey Sole, it's been proven; iirc, if MK does it properly, he's untouchable due to ledge invincibility. And I think he has a ten frame window of error too. It's called PPlanking - perfect planking, and there's been a lot of talk about it.

 

[Laem]

i dont really understand this PPlanking yet tho
lets say mk has 42(right?) inv. frames and can ledgedrop from 21(right?) he gets 21 frames to do stuff
which was enough for 2 unpunishable upairs iirc and stuffs
so what happens when theres lets say a c4 explosion in his range on his first frame of vulnerability (43)?
He couldn't have grabbed the edge again already, or else everybody'd have infinite inv. using the ledge.
so I see only 2 options from there
1. get out of range of the c4 (MK's got slow aerial movement though, as we all know)
2. use down b to extend inv. but giving up some for grabbing the ledge with it (or is this the one frame of vulnerability that everybody's yelling about to begin with?) > This can be punished by grabbing the edge, however.

PPlanking would appear to me like it requires some predicting(will the opponent attack or ledgegrab?), and I definitely can't see where the 10 frames window of error comes from.
But sure
enlighten me.

and because why not
3. airdodging

 

[-Vocal-]

i dont really understand this PPlanking yet tho
lets say mk has 42(right?) inv. frames and can ledgedrop from 21(right?) he gets 21 frames to do stuff
which was enough for 2 unpunishable upairs iirc and stuffs
so what happens when theres lets say a c4 explosion in his range on his first frame of vulnerability (43)?
He couldn't have grabbed the edge again already, or else everybody'd have infinite inv. using the ledge.
so I see only 2 options from there
1. get out of range of the c4 (MK's got slow aerial movement though, as we all know)
2. use down b to extend inv. but giving up some for grabbing the ledge with it (or is this the one frame of vulnerability that everybody's yelling about to begin with?) > This can be punished by grabbing the edge, however.

PPlanking would appear to me like it requires some predicting(will the opponent attack or ledgegrab?), and I definitely can't see where the 10 frames window of error comes from.
But sure
enlighten me.

and because why not
3. airdodging

I'm pretty sure DMG covered explosions and projectiles in his thread. Search it up to get a good answer

 

[Pierce7d]

I'd just like to clarify:

To understand why we have made an exception in overruling the game's Victory Screen in regards to the timer, you must understand why there is a timer.

The game must end

Ideally, to prove who is the better player, there would be no timer. However, this could lead to inconveniently long matches, and we live in a real world.

Thus, the timer was born. Now, because we MUST put in a timer, despite not wanting to, we limit the affect that the timer has on the match by rewarding the player in the most OBJECTIVE lead as possible. Stock and percent are the most objective elements of damage/health/progress in Brawl. The game already rewards a player with more stock the victory, and you accomplish increasing decreasing the opponent's stock in virtually the same method as you do with their percent.

Thus, changing the flow of the battle is done the LEAST when victory is awarded to the player with the most percent.

Additionally, trying to force a time out while you are NOT in the lead is a very unfair and broken strategy if it causes a reply. Imagine that I'm at a disadvantage by 75% on the last stock, but we must now do a 1 stock rematch. I will then force the game to time, and essentially recover 75%. I can exploit this until things are in my favor, and when they are, my opponent can exploit this. Our current system is proven to be the least broken, in a ruleset with a (required) timer.

 

[AfroQT]

I'd just like to clarify:

To understand why we have made an exception in overruling the game's Victory Screen in regards to the timer, you must understand why there is a timer.

The game must end

Ideally, to prove who is the better player, there would be no timer. However, this could lead to inconveniently long matches, and we live in a real world.

Thus, the timer was born. Now, because we MUST put in a timer, despite not wanting to, we limit the affect that the timer has on the match by rewarding the player in the most OBJECTIVE lead as possible. Stock and percent are the most objective elements of damage/health/progress in Brawl. The game already rewards a player with more stock the victory, and you accomplish increasing decreasing the opponent's stock in virtually the same method as you do with their percent.

Thus, changing the flow of the battle is done the LEAST when victory is awarded to the player with the most percent.

Additionally, trying to force a time out while you are NOT in the lead is a very unfair and broken strategy if it causes a reply. Imagine that I'm at a disadvantage by 75% on the last stock, but we must now do a 1 stock rematch. I will then force the game to time, and essentially recover 75%. I can exploit this until things are in my favor, and when they are, my opponent can exploit this. Our current system is proven to be the least broken, in a ruleset with a (required) timer.

You dont know what your talking about im the one whos right

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Pierce, why is it a broken tactic? Why is camping without the lead broken if it gives an advantage like that? The game specifies a tie when time runs out unless a stock lead is present. Why should we go against that? Because it seems "logical"? AKA for the same reasons people advocate the ganoncide rule?

The fact is, when a game goes to time and neither player has a stock lead, the game normally goes to Sudden Death. Or, as we would have it, a tie. The game does not innately reward having a procent lead when time runs out, why should we reward it?

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Find a way to apply a smash ball to force conflict for overtime or similar situations.

Discuss.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ew. Smash balls automatically favor the person who is losing, their trajectory is semi-random (other than avoiding the winner and zooming in on the loser), and in general they just aren't competitively viable.

Food on the other hand...

 

[Pierce7d]

BPC, considering the question you asked, I'm going to assume you TL;DRed my post. I mean, obviously a post of that size said quite a bit more than just, "The losing player winning is bad." Still, I will say it again differently just for you. This time, it will be in simple form so hopefully you cannot TL;DR it.

Optimally, we would have no timer, but allowing the losing player to camp their way to a rematch over and over again would be broken. In all scenarios, the natural flow of competition favors rewarding the winning player.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ah. I misread the part where you refer to matches repeating over and over again. My bad. I suppose it makes sense...

 

[AfroQT]

BPC for best troll ever

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

No one trolls does more so than you Afro. It's just a gift you got.

I was throwing out the smashball for situations pertaining to maybe time out scenarios possibly. Smashball randomly enough is probably the best idea to forcing combat. If you hang form the ledge, you are doing to miss it more than likely. However, there are too many problems with using it to force combat.

 

[Underload]

loooooooool

Spelt, didn't you come or at least hear about one of Underload's tournies?

We lowered the time down by one minute and suddenly we had at least three timeouts in a 10-person bracket. We never time-out before.

It's true

Lowering the timer had an interesting effect like I hoped it would, and looks like it makes good argument ammo? Coo'. Oh, the tourney was round robin and not bracket, btw.

 

[BSP]

I'm bumping this. Did this thread help to change anything about the BBR, or will things remain the same?