Should the Timer be Set to 10 Minutes?

[#HBC | ZoZo]

M2K is pretty darn right.

But I think timeouts are a legitimate way to win.
loleurope

Also **** Wario's fart


and that's why we don't use 10 mins. ARTIFICIALLY BUFFING CHARACTERS, GUYS!

so i voted 8

 

[Yikarur]

Increase the timer for 10 minute timeouts and sets that never end? No thanks...

in which world do you life, an increased timer doesn't lead to anything like that.

 

[xDD-Master]

Yep M2K's right guys

10 Mins da Bess.

 

[Ussi]

i say we reduce the timer to 6 minutes and the stocks to 2

I'd rather 1 stock 3-4 minutes, but I think more people would be accepting of 2 stocks.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I've been suggesting a 2 Stock, 12 Minute match set up since the MK ban was being voted on.

But then I've also been pulling for a 7 stage legal list consisting of FD, BF, SV, YI, and PS as starters, and Halberd/One other stage as the only counterpicks.

So I'm going to vote "no" on this. 10 minutes is still not near long enough with 5 stocks per game, it's scratching 2 minutes per stock, and it's been shown that stocks can go to 5 minutes easily.

9 min. 3 min a stock

>Assuming every match is a 3 stock blowout

9 minutes is 1 minute and 48 seconds per stock in a 3 stock ruleset.

 

[Kinzer]

Increasing the timer isn't so bad.

Not sure if I want ten or nine though.

Too soon to put a vote down. I want to see some other people make more arguments before I'm convinced that increasing it is truly better.

 

[Okuser]

If you unban metaknight then yea the timer should be 10 minutes.

 

[The Ben]

9 minutes is 1 minute and 48 seconds per stock in a 3 stock ruleset.

This math is wrong because stocks run simultaneously and not independent of each other. 9 minutes for 6 stocks divided among 2 players is 3 minutes per stock per player. Since both players are trying to work 3 stocks independent of each other that is all that matters. Your math would be right if stocks either didn't run independent of each other or if both players were trying to get rid of the same stocks.

 

[Doc King]

I think there shouldn't be a timer at all so it can force opponents to approach and so we wouldn't have stupid timeout/planking issues.

 

[WindMajor]

The timer always forces one person to approach though. If there's no timer, nobody has to approach, because there's no hurry.

 

[Tesh]

^ This is exactly why increasing the timer doesn't solve anything. If I have plenty more time, there is no hurry.

 

[The Ben]

On the contrary, if there is no timer you have to approach eventually to win.

 

[waldorf2007]

i think right now 8 minutes is making people time out a small percentage of the time. with 10 minutes that percentage will be even smaller I think. so go for it. 12 minutes if you REALLY want to eliminate timeouts almost entirely, 4 minutes a stock is insane.
But remember that as soon as someone times out for 10 or 12 minutes at a major, even though it's an isolated case, it will get so many flames from the community that this exact same argument will rise again.

 

[Doc King]

Well, then just keep the timer to 8 mins then.

Edit: Nah, nm. Put no timer. Force people to approach instead of having a camp fest.

2nd Edit: Pro my argument, they will have to approach eventually. You cant have something like you ***** slap someone and then have the audience saying "RUN FORREST RUN!" while some pro boxer lossing to a professional olympic runner because of them getting ***** slapped.

Seriously, it makes Brawl look like a racing game more than a fighting game.

 

[Life]

One stock, three minutes, food on medium, Bo7.... siiiiiiiigh. It solves so much and yet it has no chance of happening...

 

[Doc King]

One stock, three minutes, food on medium, Bo7.... siiiiiiiigh. It solves so much and yet it has no chance of happening...

would be banned from food fights!

He would beat Falco +4 because he would be eating burgers in the air.

Edit: Brawl would be like a thanksgiving lottery.

 

[The Ben]

That doesn't even make sense. We've all seen King Dedede drooling while eating!

 

[Xyro77]

As a TO, 10min timer is a bad idea.

1. People who go into a match WANTING to timeout will time out whether its 8 or 10min. If a time out will get you a win, you will do it. PERIOD.

2. Every match that goes over 8min adds more time to the overall time the tournament will run. Dont care if its 10 people or 100 people. Brawl is slow enough as it is, don't make it slower.


Anybody who goes to my events will NEVER see a 10min timer. PERIOD.

 

[Doc King]

That doesn't even make sense. We've all seen King Dedede drooling while eating!

Dedede King. Have it your way!

 

[Retro X]

I vote yes, because the Japanese have it on 10 minutes, and they're better/cooler than us.

 

[allshort17]

If you guys are curious, a place in Georgia started hosting tournaments with a two stock, 6 minute, 3 of 5 set every game ruleset. Ask some people how they thought of these tournaments either. And they aren't all randoms coming to these tournaments. Players like Reflex and Kismet have come.

My thoughts, I believe we should just set the game to 2 stocks, 6 minutes because I felt like it encouraged more offensive play, while still punishing very have for making mistakes that lead to things like 0-deaths or SD's. However, there has been a rise in desire for 1 stock tournaments (still unsure about the timer) in GA/AL so check to see what results come out of that.

 

[Kink-Link5]

This math is wrong because stocks run simultaneously and not independent of each other. 9 minutes for 6 stocks divided among 2 players is 3 minutes per stock per player. Since both players are trying to work 3 stocks independent of each other that is all that matters. Your math would be right if stocks either didn't run independent of each other or if both players were trying to get rid of the same stocks.

I can do theory smash too.

Even with stocks running at the same time, if we can assume an average kill percent of let's say 140%, then with 9 minutes and /6/ stocks to go through, both players together must get a total of 280% built up in a 3 minute time frame, requiring each player to deal 1.555...% a second, assuming every of those percents are a trade. This is not taking into account the breaks in action, air stalling, projectile/shield bouts, etc. that cause very few percents to built up over a long period of time. It is also not taking into account that most attacks landed are not trades, or that most attacks have a very short stack of follow ups. In the end there are far too many variables to assume "3 minutes per stock" because that also assumes both players KO each other once within a 3 minute time span, which has been shown multiple times false.

1:48 seconds is more accurate for the sake of accounting times between damage, momentum, and breaks. It accounts for the work-put-in for a stock that each player does. If both players always hit each other for the same percent at the same time in a perfectly symmetrical way, then 3 minutes per stock would be accurate, but they don't, and every match is not one player wailing on another every stock, which would also make 3 minutes per stock accurate.

 

[SpiritX]

Yes, give me more time to camp.

 

[Gea]

If you guys are curious, a place in Georgia started hosting tournaments with a two stock, 6 minute, 3 of 5 set every game ruleset. Ask some people how they thought of these tournaments either. And they aren't all randoms coming to these tournaments. Players like Reflex and Kismet have come.

My thoughts, I believe we should just set the game to 2 stocks, 6 minutes because I felt like it encouraged more offensive play, while still punishing very have for making mistakes that lead to things like 0-deaths or SD's. However, there has been a rise in desire for 1 stock tournaments (still unsure about the timer) in GA/AL so check to see what results come out of that.

Keep current timer, 2 stocks. Extension of time without the tournament running any longer if matches do go to time.

 

[M@v]

I personally haven't seen too many issues with the 8 minute timer, but I can certainly see the arguments for a 10 minute one. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing 10 minute timers as an optional modification if a host wants to run an experimental unity event

 

[-LzR-]

First I want you to explain why timeouts should be limited in the first place. Is it too cheap for your salty mind? :3

 

[Tesh]

^Its the same reason people want every 70% of the remaining stages banned. Trust me on this, people aren't voting yes because Wario/GnW/Toon Link are ruining tournaments with their timeouts.

I don't see how running another lap around Rainbow Cruise is gonna solve anything.

 

[Yikarur]

As a TO, 10min timer is a bad idea.

1. People who go into a match WANTING to timeout will time out whether its 8 or 10min. If a time out will get you a win, you will do it. PERIOD.

2. Every match that goes over 8min adds more time to the overall time the tournament will run. Dont care if its 10 people or 100 people. Brawl is slow enough as it is, don't make it slower.


Anybody who goes to my events will NEVER see a 10min timer. PERIOD.

always those 2009 opinions, it's clearly stated that 10 minutes shorten tournament length because it's heavily discourages timeouts.
Mew2King is absolutely right about this topic and I'm happy that europe widely adopted the timer increase

 

[Luigi player]

always those 2009 opinions, it's clearly stated that 10 minutes shorten tournament length because it's heavily discourages timeouts.
Mew2King is absolutely right about this topic and I'm happy that europe widely adopted the timer increase

too bad nobody cares about europe

 

[Yikarur]

well is 2/3 of the big communities decided to something and the US doesn't adopt because they're so proud to be americans then we should be the one feeling superior
US Mentality is terrible.

 

[Sinister Slush]

US Mentality is terrible.

It's been more then A Decade with melee/Brawl and you're Just realizing this?

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I'm still waiting on a no timer tournament and see how that works out.

 

[Luigi player]

I'm still waiting on a no timer tournament and see how that works out.

Yeah, it would be finished even faster than with 10 mins, since it discourages timeouts even more! ... right?

 

[Kink-Link5]

^Its the same reason people want every 70% of the remaining stages banned. Trust me on this, people aren't voting yes because Wario/GnW/Toon Link are ruining tournaments with their timeouts.

I don't see how running another lap around Rainbow Cruise is gonna solve anything.

Neither the timer nor RC are the single cause of the problem, rather they both contribute to it and both should be resolved, along with the absurd number of other "viable" stages in the current URC ruleset. Take a tip from the MBR, fewer, better neutrals with very few CPs is the way to go about it. Either 5 Neutrals and 1/2 CPs, or 3 Neutrals (FD, SV, BF) and 3 CPs (YI, HB, PS1).

I still say 2 stocks 12 minutes, and leave 1 stock, 3 minutes to tie breakers.

 

[Yikarur]

Apex Stagelist + PS2 da bess

 

[Kink-Link5]

Elaborate, s'il vous plait, I didn't follow Apex Brawl.

 

[xDD-Master]

Apex Stagelist + PS2 da bess

Germany <3

 

[The Ben]

always those 2009 opinions, it's clearly stated that 10 minutes shorten tournament length because it's heavily discourages timeouts.
Mew2King is absolutely right about this topic and I'm happy that europe widely adopted the timer increase

Why yes, having to account for longer rounds does indeed make a tournament shorter!

 

[Cygnet]

For the purposes of this post, assume a 10 minute timer, but also define a time-out as going over 8 minutes, not 10 (meaning that the increase in timer caused more campy play and wasted tournament time).

Because the difference between 8 and 10 minutes is 2 minutes, or 20% of a 10 minute timer, a 10 minute timer would save time if it deterred at least 20% of timeouts that would have occurred under an 8 minute timer. As in, 20% of games would actually be played less campy.

One side says that those who play to time out will play as campy as possible, which means that 0% of games would be played less campy, so if they're right, the timer should still be 8 minutes.

The other side says that people only start camping to time out when they notice that the timer is running low, which will happen much more infrequently during a 10 minute timer match, meaning that not only does the timer not reach 10, but it doesn't reach 8 because there is less stalling than under an 8 minute timer.

So it comes down to, do you think people stall because they can and because they go into the match knowing they will stall, or do they make the conscious decision to change playstyles once they notice the timer getting low? Do you think 20% of games will actually discourage the stalling that would've happened?

(I think statistical analysis would make a lot of sense here.... do any numbers on the matter exist, or are they on the way?)

EDIT: I guess what I really mean is that M2K's argument must refer to timeouts as matches going over 8 minutes, not time outs under a 10 minute clock. If 10 minute clocks are used but every match is 9 minutes long, it's technically not a timeout but the tournament is slower, people played campier, etc. (And the 20% bit, if that's even logically sound.)

 

[The Ben]

Because the difference between 8 and 10 minutes is 2 minutes, or 20% of a 10 minute timer, a 10 minute timer would save time if it deterred at least 20% of timeouts that would have occurred under an 8 minute timer. As in, 20% of games would actually be played less campy.

This is 100% wrong because it doesn't (nor is there a way to) account for which 20% you're talking about. Increasing the time literally can't make tournaments shorter because the TO still needs to account for the increase in time and if even 1 match goes beyond the original time limit (8 minutes) then the tournament ended up longer for it since you can't arbitrarily assume the matches that lasted under 8 minutes would've lasted 8 minutes without the 10 minutes rule, and the one game that went over has to be assumed to otherwise have lasted no longer than 8 minutes. The only way your statement could possibly be true is if the 20% that are deterred are 100% of the 20% that ended up being stalled, and only if no games got lengthened past 8 minutes at all.

Basically M2K's argument doesn't break down on a mathematical level. His proposal is that currently G+T=A, but G+(X+T) ≤ A. The latter statement isn't true unless X is a negative number.

Edit: I misread that. Your math is still wrong though because that 20% length in game has no relation to the amount of games that get stalled, and negating 20% of stalls leaves 80% of stalls and any 1 stall still makes the tournament run longer with an increased time. You literally would need to stop 100% of stalling for an increased timer to shorten tournaments.