Should Time-Outs be a valid strategy?

[HeroMystic]

This correlates with the debate between 2-stocks vs 3-stocks, but I feel this is a valuable discussion that has been swept under the rug a few times.

To cut to the chase, the concept of 2-stock/5 mins is to keep matches short and straightforward, while 3-stock/6 mins is to allow players to feel out their opponents and adapt to their style. One of the underlying reasons why 2-stocks is appealing though is that camping is less powerful than it is with 3-stocks.

Timing out your opponent is more or less synonymous with camping in most fighting games. Taking a lead, and forcing your opponent to act aggressively, pressuring him with the power of the clock to take risks to get a hit confirm has been a strategy that is used frequently, but frowned upon by spectators. Smash in general however has a severe dislike of this for multiple reasons, but the two main reasons are:

-Our game clock is much longer (6-8 mins vs the traditional 99 seconds).
-It's "boring".

While the second reason is extremely subjective, it is a common reason as to why we've went out of our way to limit stalling, even going as far as to make an anti-stalling rule.

So within this debate between stocks and timers, there is also the argument that increasing the timer weakens time-outs as a decisive strategy, which begs the question, is time-outs a bad thing for our metagame?

 

[Cheezy23]

I think it depends on what "bad" is considered to be.

I think that if someone wants to take the safest route to winning and knows they can pull it off, I believe the should camp. Especially if they have a decisive lead.

And I think that it's hard to keep camping once you start. Especially if I'm fighting Sonic or Fox or someone of that quick nature, camping is rough simply because they can out speed you 80% of the time.

Honestly, I think it boils down to a subconscious idea, no matter how un-intentional it is, that camping is "cheap." When in reality, projectiles that can actually kill are few and far between, and when they do kill (such as Thoron) they're hard(er) to land.

We'll see, some new tech or something will pop-up and change the entire meta game in a few months.

 

[Locke 06]

Money is on the line. You're facing Little Mac and counterpick him to one of the following stages: KJ64, Duck Hunt, or Battlefield (assuming 2 bans, you can choose any 1). Subsequently you get any type of lead (single fox laser would do the trick). Why wouldn't you sit on a platform he can't reach on the ground? The result is either a time out, or an aerial approach.

Little Mac is an extreme, but this is a general example of a stalemate. Ike charging quickdraw vs inhale is another. I don't have the answer to whether time-outs are good or bad, but time-outs are necessary as a strategy.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Good to see a topic dedicated to this debate, it's come up recently in the stage thread too.

I'm in the camp that finds a win by timeout to be generally boring compared to a "proper" victory, but that's subjective and it's also true that in certain cases there's a sort of tension where it's not certain if the stalling player can keep it up for the necessary amount of time. I seem to recall a Brawl video where Zero was trying to stall out the clock with Meta Knight but messed up at the last second and got hit for enough damage to lose.

At the risk of contradicting myself in other posts I've made on the subject, I'm not inherently opposed to winning by timeout. However, the ruleset as it stands makes such a victory unpalatable because it requires 8 minutes of keepaway, and I don't think many people would find that fun including the competitors themselves. And I'm not convinced that reducing the time limit will really help. On paper at least there is definitely a tradeoff between shortening the time limit to make winning by timeout less painful and a shorter time limit making a timeout victory more feasible (and thus a better option) in the first place.

So...yeah. I don't have much of a stake either way and I've never really had the patience to try and stall for long periods of time anyway. But this promises to be an interesting discussion.

 

[Muro]

So long as the game itself is fun to watch timeouts shouldn't be a problem for viewers. The problem is the kind of gameplay that tends to produce timeouts is not very fun to watch...

 

[WillLi]

Personally I think time outs are totally valid in terms of strategy. And honestly my opinion is that if the rules don't mesh well with someone fighting for a time out, there is most likely something wrong with the rules. If you look at every sport, there are strategies for wasting the clock to try to win. Even in boxing where you can just beat someone till they can't get up, they still have rules for victory by time out. The reason for this is that while it looks boring, timing out with a victory requires you to control the flow of the match in your favor, which while not always 'difficult' is definitely a skill in it's own respect.

 

[MegaMissingno]

I would like to see someone compose a ruleset that can clearly and unambiguously define all forms of stalling and ban it. Hard mode, do it without needing a referee watching every single setup. Timeouts aren't pretty, but there's no way to eradicate them aside from just disabling the timer, which is an even stupider idea. They're something we have to live with.

 

[OnettGirl]

This is indeed a weird subject for many.

Time outs may be boring to some but i've seen some pretty intense time outs. The example ParanoidDrone used being one such example. I for one also don't believe that shortening the time limit will help, I just think it'll make it worse. The only thing I can compare it to is the comparison that's been made countless times before. In American Football quite a few matches come down to one team running out the clock for as long as possible to end the game. Stalling has been a viable strategy used in many sports and I don't see why the same can't apply here.

I think that's the key word, "strategy". It takes some semblance of skill on both sides of the field and can lead to a number of mind games. As the person being the proverbial cat in this game of cat and mouse you need to know how your character can deal with these kinds of situations. You also need to be able to stay patient and watch your opponent for patterns or chances for an opening. On the other side the mouse needs to know what their options are and keep those options open so they don't get pushed into a corner [much like the Zero example where he had a multitude of different options but ended up choosing the wrong option and totally blowing it at the last second, which cost him the game.] Heck, I don't even think timing out is really that easy of a strategy to begin with. There are a number of characters that can keep up with most of the cast such as the aforementioned Sonic and Fox, another example that comes to mind being Shulk under Monado speed/jump.

I can't really say if their a good or bad thing because frankly I don't know. None of us know. We haven't really been able to see if time outs are that big of a deal in terms of tournaments. However, weather or not they are "bad" for the game they should be a viable strategy left open for someone to take.

 

[mimgrim]

I've always viewed time outs as a valid strategy to win. I actually enjoy watching the last minute of a match because it is intense as all hell. But I also enjoy enjoy watching campy matches as well because the intensity behind those matches is real. I think people undervalue just what goes on during a more campier match or when the clock gets to the last minute and just how intense it an be for the players, which in turn gets me tensed up.

 

[OmegaSorin]

You do what you have to do to win.

Frankly put Time outs are just as viable a strategy as any other. If your opponent becomes aggressive chances are they will make mistakes making it a good idea to try and psyche your opponent out -using- the time out strategy. What people don't seem to realize is that Smash, and hell, any other fighting game is generally all mentality. Yeah, there's some training and stuff in it, but you also have to keep your cool and not give into the emotions that tell you to slobberknock the enemy across the stage. People who only spectate can think its boring all they want but frankly speaking, they are spectators, in tournaments you are there to win, not please the spectators. While it would be nice to do both, sometimes you can't please them.

So honest answer is that Timing your opponent out is as viable a strategy as any other strategy, boring or time clock be damned.

Yeesh. Lol

 

[Muro]

Even in boxing where you can just beat someone till they can't get up, they still have rules for victory by time out.

Except in boxing you can have 2 guys going at it super aggressive and still end with a timeout. That's a very satisfying experience for viewers, but I've never seen that in smash, usually matches go to time because of little interaction and super defensive play.

 

[WillLi]

Except in boxing you can have 2 guys going at it super aggressive and still end with a timeout. That's a very satisfying experience for viewers, but I've never seen that in smash, usually matches go to time because of little interaction and super defensive play.

Boxing is only an example. There's many other sports, and even in boxing too, out-boxers who don't have much power don't get too aggressive. And honestly, "it's not fun for the spectators" is kind of a bad criteria. Cricket and Baseball are pretty boring to your average spectator, but to fans they're exciting. And that's not just physical sports too, there's Chess and even StarCraft for E-spots. All of them can be very boring to a spectator who doesn't know too much about the game. Why should smash have to be fun to any and all spectators? If you can appreciate the value of the skill required to pull off the time out then even a campy match that ends in a time out will be exciting, cause you know one mistake can ruin it.

 

[|RK|]

Boring as hell, but valid.

 

[Nobie]

If there's a clock, people will try to run it down. If there isn't a clock, people will try to stall until the opponent gets sick of it. It's a part of human nature you can't stop.

Ironically, the bob-ombs falling in sudden death are designed to mitigate stalling.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

If there's a clock, people will try to run it down. If there isn't a clock, people will try to stall until the opponent gets sick of it. It's a part of human nature you can't stop.

Ironically, the bob-ombs falling in sudden death are designed to mitigate stalling.

So what you're saying is that the game needs to start dropping Bob-ombs if neither player damages the other for a certain amount of time?

I kid, I kid. But that would be kind of funny.

 

[Laem]

Let me cite this little gem from the Apex 2015 Ruleset (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/74563582/Apex/Apex2015_Rulebook.pdf):
Additionally, stalling by excessive unwillingness to
engage the opponent is disallowed at the risk of being forced to forfeit the
match by the TO. If there is no movement from either player, the losing
player is considered to be stalling.

 

[LancerStaff]

It's a valid strategy by the virtue that it can't be topically banned, really.

 

[Emblem Lord]

The real reason people don't like time outs in our community is because lets face it, most of the people playing this game are kids/teenagers. I have been/am apart of several fighting game communities and that stigma against runaway simply does NOT exist for the most part. Defensive/runaway/camping is seen as legit and viable. And games where it's not viable tend to be very frowned upon. That's one of the main reasons Third Strike was so hated. Because it made traditional zoning unusable and extremely weak at a high level.

The smash community is very young so alot of the younger crowd think its cool and skillful to just go in and press buttons, so they can do combos. They do not see the skill in intelligent zoning/camping. Also in this game some camping strategies are very powerful and hard to stop. Brawl has very abusive camping strategies that are virtually impossible to stop simply because the game doesn't have competition in mind.

Camping is legit and yes it should be a valid strategy.

 

[Muro]

fans of real sports also don't like defensive strategies. just because you're boring doesn't mean you're deep.

 

[HeroMystic]

fans of real sports also don't like defensive strategies.

...Says who?

 

[Muro]

says a fan of real sports...

 

[MegaMissingno]

The real reason people don't like time outs in our community is because lets face it, most of the people playing this game are kids/teenagers. I have been/am apart of several fighting game communities and that stigma against runaway simply does NOT exist for the most part. Defensive/runaway/camping is seen as legit and viable. And games where it's not viable tend to be very frowned upon. That's one of the main reasons Third Strike was so hated. Because it made traditional zoning unusable and extremely weak at a high level.

The smash community is very young so alot of the younger crowd think its cool and skillful to just go in and press buttons, so they can do combos. They do not see the skill in intelligent zoning/camping. Also in this game some camping strategies are very powerful and hard to stop. Brawl has very abusive camping strategies that are virtually impossible to stop simply because the game doesn't have competition in mind.

Camping is legit and yes it should be a valid strategy.

While that is true to an extent, you have to bear in mind that camping in Smash and turtling in Street Fighter look very different. In SF and similar titles, you don't get very much room to run away, and the corner is not a great place to be, so instead of just running you have to work harder to actively shut them out. You need to use carefully timed and spaced fireballs and pokes to keep them at bay, and when cornered you'll often need to get a knockdown to escape. Many times they will still get in your face in the end, so you have to actively defend incoming high/low mixups and sometimes crossups the whole time. I actually find turtles plenty exciting in traditional fighters because it's still very active, whereas it bores me here because it's so passive.

And the biggest difference to bear in mind is 99 seconds vs. 5-8 minutes. If those games had timers as long as we do, you bet your ass they'd start to hate it just as much.

 

[WillLi]

says a fan of real sports...

Those aren't real fans. If you can't appreciate the game as a whole you're not really a fan. You're just a person who likes watching. There's a difference between a 'fan' and 'spectator' just like there's a difference between a 'fan' and a 'super fan'. Yeah any one will tell you offense looks more interesting. But Offense doesn't win sports, defense does, any coach or real fan will tell you that.

I even tell my brothers, about smash, the first thing people learn after the basics is offense. Then they learn the defense. And those defensive moves are what separate the "good players" from the "Competitive players".

Edit: You might not like to watch it, but if you invalidate it just because it 'looks boring' then you're denying the participants' skill and effort just because you're bored. That's not very fan like.

 

[T0MMY]

The responses here I see answer a very different question.
The answer is "yes, timeouts are valid", well yes they are a valid way of winning in some current rules. But the question is asking should they be?
When answering if they should or should not be there would be reasoning involved why or why not. This is the very important act of thinking I'd like to see done here more.

For myself, I think they should be valid but not the way it is being done currently.
Why?
Because there's a huge issue regarding %-based wins and how they are not competitively viable.
Damage Percent does not define a "winning" character in a game where anyone can be KO'd at any percent and weight class makes a huge difference in surviving at certain percentages. Is someone going to start with Lucario at this point? The amount of problems this has determining a "winner" seem to be too much to ignore and there's been a lot of discussion about how to best address this for competitions (mostly looking at alternatives to the rule itself).

 

[Raijinken]

They're boring, but if we're really against them, we should remove timer rules entirely and enforce disqualifications against stalling players.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The responses here I see answer a very different question.
The answer is "yes, timeouts are valid", well yes they are a valid way of winning in some current rules. But the question is asking should they be?
When answering if they should or should not be there would be reasoning involved why or why not. This is the very important act of thinking I'd like to see done here more.

For myself, I think they should be valid but not the way it is being done currently.
Why?
Because there's a huge issue regarding %-based wins and how they are not competitively viable.
Damage Percent does not define a "winning" character in a game where anyone can be KO'd at any percent and weight class makes a huge difference in surviving at certain percentages. Is someone going to start with Lucario at this point? The amount of problems this has determining a "winner" seem to be too much to ignore and there's been a lot of discussion about how to best address this for competitions (mostly looking at alternatives to the rule itself).

Current timeout rules state that if a game goes to time, the winner is decided by whoever has the most stocks, then by whoever has the least damage if stocks are equal. If stocks and damage are both equal, then it goes to a 1-stock 3-minute (?) match on the same stage.

To address your concerns about damage, perhaps the rule can be adjusted to go to a 1-stock rematch whenever the game goes to time on equal stocks, regardless of damage? This is me spitballing for the most part, but maybe worth thinking about.

 

[Raijinken]

Current timeout rules state that if a game goes to time, the winner is decided by whoever has the most stocks, then by whoever has the least damage if stocks are equal. If stocks and damage are both equal, then it goes to a 1-stock 3-minute (?) match on the same stage.

To address your concerns about damage, perhaps the rule can be adjusted to go to a 1-stock rematch whenever the game goes to time on equal stocks, regardless of damage? This is me spitballing for the most part, but maybe worth thinking about.

What would happen if they timed out again under the same rule though? I like it, but it doesn't keep timeouts from happening if one player is determined and has the needed matchup.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

What would happen if they timed out again under the same rule though? I like it, but it doesn't keep timeouts from happening if one player is determined and has the needed matchup.

Not sure. We could apply the old percent win system to the rematch, we could actually use sudden death for a change (although that has its own issues, if a regular match AND a one stock rematch both go to sudden death then I'd be inclined to just get it over with by any means necessary), or someone could have an actually original idea because goodness knows I'm out of them for now.

 

[T0MMY]

What would happen if they timed out again under the same rule though? I like it, but it doesn't keep timeouts from happening if one player is determined and has the needed matchup.

There are so many caveats regarding tie breaking.
And practicality greatly comes into play here where the what-if theorycrafting seems to draw no conclusion, but the reality of how matches play out are completely different then the chicken little scenarios of theorycrafting. So it comes down to how far are players/TO's willing to go with theorycrafting before it impedes competition or if the community would rather just play out Sudden Death from the start (in the question regarding a stalemate nationals usually err to using Sudden Death, but few realize SD is used because general misconception of it not being used at all).

 

[WillLi]

Though not sure if it's a great idea, first idea that comes to my mind for if you tie on the tiebreak would be a stamina match. That way it ends up changing the nature of the game slightly and possibly discouraging someone from timing out again cause maybe they have a better chance in stamina?

 

[OmegaSorin]

says a fan of real sports...

...I want my team to win, so when Basketball has like 20 seconds on the shot clock but only like 15 seconds left in the game and it comes down to a serious one score lead, you better be damned skippy I want my team to stall those 15 seconds by simply dribbling the ball and passing until the game is over. A real fan watches the sport as a whole and wants their team to win at any cost. If you can't appreciate/find interest in your team doing what it takes to win you're not a real sports fan...

They're boring, but if we're really against them, we should remove timer rules entirely and enforce disqualifications against stalling players.

Thats what I'm saying, I mean frankly speaking if it was really all that bad then we would've already gotten rid of it...

Though not sure if it's a great idea, first idea that comes to my mind for if you tie on the tiebreak would be a stamina match. That way it ends up changing the nature of the game slightly and possibly discouraging someone from timing out again cause maybe they have a better chance in stamina?

This is a very interesting idea, Stamina matches have never been a staple for tournament play so I think it would be interesting to see this happen. Then again, I can see why its -not- a part of Competition Play as well.

 

[dragontamer]

I've heard that people should go 3-stock 8-minutes to discourage stalling.

As for stalling itself... its a necessary evil. You should set the rules to discourage stalling, but the timer must be used to end otherwise infinite length games.

 

[KirbyandSonicrock14]

Hey if other fighters let time outs be consider legit wins I don't see why not in smash. I mean **** a timeout in smash is better than a time out in Blazblue.

 

[OmegaSorin]

Hey if other fighters let time outs be consider legit wins I don't see why not in smash. I mean **** a timeout in smash is better than a time out in Blazblue.

This is a valid point, 99 Game Seconds is pretty long in fighting games especially, and if you time out in BB then you -clearly- were stalling... Further more it really goes to show how bad a player you are, in a 2D fighter you shouldn't really be capable of stalling that well... Especially since they are flat stages with no platforms unlike the Smash game.

 

[Raijinken]

This is a valid point, 99 Game Seconds is pretty long in fighting games especially, and if you time out in BB then you -clearly- were stalling... Further more it really goes to show how bad a player you are, in a 2D fighter you shouldn't really be capable of stalling that well... Especially since they are flat stages with no platforms unlike the Smash game.

That said, character mobility goes a lot further in Smash towards making stalling possible or not. Even on fully legal stages, some matchups (like Kirby vs Zamus during the E3 Invitational) result in stalling being entirely feasible and unopposable for one player, while the other can't do anything to solve or prevent it. It then becomes a matter of if that sort of option is one we want to encourage. It's still fine to have a time limit for logistical reasons, but if stalling's something we don't want, then instead of giving the win to the player with the percent or stock lead, the win should be given to the player who was most "obviously" trying to actually fight and finish the match (or just force replays until a winner is reached, or actually use sudden death, or whatever). It's a logistical issue in larger tournaments apparently, though, since there aren't enough people to watch every match and make that call (not that Replays aren't a feature of this game).

It's a hard thing to solve, especially when there's no real agreement over whether or not it's even a problem.

 

[KirbyandSonicrock14]

Timeouts is one of the reasons I stopped playing BB. There were just too many time outs against Tager. Sadly, we live in an era, not just smash, but the era of being reckless.

 

[Blazing Ambition]

In tourney: Sure whatever, make your money.
In friendlies: Get the f*ck out of my house.

 

[WillLi]

Timeouts is one of the reasons I stopped playing BB. There were just too many time outs against Tager. Sadly, we live in an era, not just smash, but the era of being reckless.

You know I think that's a good point that needs to be looked further into. How much of the "Stalling is bad" mentality is actually about it being systematically and technically bad for Smash as a competitive game, and how much of that is actually just that us video games were kind of bred to be impatient and reckless with hose we play.

 

[Raijinken]

You know I think that's a good point that needs to be looked further into. How much of the "Stalling is bad" mentality is actually about it being systematically and technically bad for Smash as a competitive game, and how much of that is actually just that us video games were kind of bred to be impatient and reckless with hose we play.

From a "competing" standpoint where approximately anything goes as long as you get your win, it's a valid strategy.

But it's dead boring and anti-hype for most players to watch, so it kinda hurts the viewer base in that regard when it happens.

It depends on which you think is more important for the growth of the game as an esport: one additional rare way for a player to win, or spectators enjoying what they watch. There's not really an objective answer, but I'd err on the side of avoiding watching Kirby flutter around hopelessly trying to hit Zamus while she stalls to the time limit.

 

[WillLi]

From a "competing" standpoint where approximately anything goes as long as you get your win, it's a valid strategy.

But it's dead boring and anti-hype for most players to watch, so it kinda hurts the viewer base in that regard when it happens.

It depends on which you think is more important for the growth of the game as an esport: one additional rare way for a player to win, or spectators enjoying what they watch. There's not really an objective answer, but I'd err on the side of avoiding watching Kirby flutter around hopelessly trying to hit Zamus while she stalls to the time limit.

But at the same time, because the way smash tourneys are run, isn't it pretty easy for spectators to just watch a different match that's more exciting? And eventually if it's all hype and action and tense, wont it get boring for the spectators anyway? Just like any type of entertainment if it's all hype without any lows you can't really appreciate the hype.

Even putting that aside though, it's just about impossible for us to predict how Smash will develop as an e-sport the e-sport phenom is just too new in the first place. But what I'm getting at is, we keep bringing up "It's boring" and other similar statements about time outs, if that's really the main reason that presents a problem because it's not objective in the slightest. I'm starting to wonder the mechanical and technical cons to promoting time out victories. Though at the moment I can only see time as the downside.