A Deep Analysis of the Bowsercide Rules

[Big Sean]

Hey my name is Big Sean . I am one of 2 Bowser's to make it out of pools at evo. I've watched the rules bowsercide rules debate get more and more nuanced and complicated. I've read every comment I can find and have considered a ton of arguments This is my attempt at the most thorough unbiased description of the current state of this rule.

This document is designed both for discussion about the rule as well as a reference for TO's to get get caught up on the discussion in case you are asked to make a ruling.

Flying Slam Introduction

Bowser's side + b is a command grab that kills opponents ~130%. It's arguably Bowser's most important kill move. In addition the move can be controlled to bring both players offstage. With some minor exceptions, the player with the lower percentage (aka the winning player) decides which direction the Flying Slam will go. How far an opponent can force the opponent offstage is directly related to the difference in percentages of the players. For instance to pull someone offstage when hugging the edge might only need a percentage difference of 15%. From center stage it might require a difference of 90%.

What makes the subject complicated is that when flying slam is pulled offstage, the winner is undefined. What exactly happens at the result screen has changed over time.

A History of Bowsercide

Pre 1.04 - Bowser won every time. At equal percentages players had equal control. There was a bug involving magicant where Bowser would fall forever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

1.04 - Magicant bug was fixed. Now Bowser either loses or ties depending on the stage. On the stages he loses, some characters with high vertical recoveries can recover back to the stage. About half the omegas cause a loss and half cause a tie. Many stages with platforms have Bowser winning on the main stage but losing if starting from the air or a platform

1.06 - Bowser was given significantly more control over flying slam.

1.1.1 - When Bowser dies or ties or ties is now entirely random. Stages Bowser use to lose every time now allow him to tie. Stages where Bowser used to tie every time now allow him to occasionally lose. Platforms don’t seem to affect this behavior.

New Random Behavior: http://gfycat.com/MeagerSkinnyAnteater

Bowsercide Rulings

Historically Suicide KO's have been given to the initiator regardless of what the results screen says. This was because port priority and ganoncide inconsistincies would occasionally cause KO moves to lose in buggy ways. Since the initiator of the move actually got the read to make the suicide KO, it was believed that he deserved the win regardless of the win screen.

Since 1.04 there has been has been some interest in revisiting the rule specifically for Bowser. Some people that the move is easier to perform than ganoncide and so doesn't always deserve a win. Others believe that the rule should be changed because occassionaly characters can come back from a bowsercide (https://gfycat.com/RectangularFlusteredHummingbird.)

Regardless of the reason, most locals, regionals and nationals have unique rules. Some tournaments try to avoid the situation entirely by not issuing a rule. This is a bad idea. Even if you don't issue a ruling, you are implicitly giving a rule. Implicit rules are almost always worse than than just committing to a ruling, as I will demonstrate.

My ultimate goal is to simply have TO's and players aware of what the different kinds of rulings mean. Ideally tournaments in the future TO's will choose rules that aren't considered bad, and ideally considered good, but I'm not going to hold my breath lol.

Rules that follow the results screen

There really is only one rule that follows the results screen. If the the results screen names a winner, that person is named the winner. If it goes to sudden death, then sudden death is played. We can call this "The For Glory Rule." No TO would actually use this rule but its useful to study this rule to see how other rules compare to it.

Let's say we are in a last stock situation and both players have a perfect understanding of Bowsercide. We can do a pseudo game-theory analysis of what we expect to happen. Here we are assuming the player with the lower percentage always gets a bowsercide if they want one and the randomness of bowsercide is a tie 50% of the time.

if opponent is winning -> they won't risk losing their advantage by bowserciding. There is a 50% chance that they end up in a janky sudden death situation, whereas there chances of winning when they are ahead are greater than 50%.

if bowser is winning -> bowser won't risk losing his advantage because a bowsercide has a greater than 50% chance of losing.

end result -> because both players are avoiding bowsercide, bowsercide itself is never viable. In addition the flying slam move itself is always viable on the last stock.

Flying slam being viable on the last stock is not a property of all the rules as we will see. I consider "The For Glory Rule" jank but fair. Jank because bom-oms decide who wins. Fair because flying slam, being bowser's most useful kill move, is still intact.

Rules that ignore the results screen in the case of a tie

Bowser loses in the event of a tie (aka "bowser always loses")

Let's do the same kind of game theory analysis on this rule:

if opponent is winning -> they will always go for the bowsercide. there is nothing to lose, and the stock to gain.

if bowser is winning -> bowser should never go for the bowsercide.

end result -> flying slam will only be used by bowser when he's ahead. Bowsercide is still in play but only for the opponent.

Compared to the "For Glory Rule" baseline this is actually a nerf for bowser. It all has to do with his most important kill move being removed 50% of the time and specifically not useful in any clutch situation. A comparison can be made by saying that Nario's ZSS can only use up + b when he's already winning.

Pros

• There is a pure consistent ruling. Instead of a random number generator deciding the match, both players can have a game plan at all times and know what will happen when they make a decision. Compared to the "For Glory Rule" it's like moving from the last transformation of Halberd to omega Halberd. Most people, but not everyone, prefer RNG jank-less rules.
  
• Some people believe that instead of the current bowsercide behavior being a big bug, the behavior of bowsercide hints that maybe nintendo intended for the balance of bowsercide to be Bowser always loses. Maybe just the sudden death is a bug? People who believe this may prefer this ruling since it would mean that this rule is as close to what nintendo ended as possible.

Cons

• Arbitrarily nerfs Bowser more than the "For Glory Rule" baseline.

Person with lower percentage wins in the event of a tie (aka "The Implicit Rule")

This is the rule that TO's decide on, when they don't decide on a rule. When you do the game theory analysis you get the same results as Bowser loses every time. Namely Flying Slam is nerfed, and Bowsercide is only useful for the opponent. I recommend that if you use "The Implicit Rule" to actually make it explicit in your rules. There have been cases where no rule was written but the intention was something else entirely. Don't make your Sub-TO's forced to make a incorrect call based on a incomplete value judgement.

Pros

• Can be seen as fair since the rules are the rules that anyone else uses for every other case in the tournament.

Cons

• RNG decides the results
• Unnecessary nerf to Flying Slam.

Replay as 1 stock 3 minutes
This is the modern version of "The For Glory Rule." The game theory analysis is identical, but it feels less jank since bom oms aren't involved.

Pros

• This is a common tiebreaking rule just like "The Implicit Rule" but this time doesn't unnecessarily nerf flying slam.

Neutral

• Removes bowsercide from smart play, which presumably means nobody will bug the TO about what to do if it happens.

Cons

• RNG decides the results

Bowser wins in the event of a tie

This has the same game theory analysis as "The For Glory Rule" but makes it even more unlikely that the opponent will go for a Bowsercide.

Pros

• If you believe the initiator deserves the win, but aren't quite willing to say that he deserves the win even when the screen says he lost, this might be the rule to use.

Neutral

• Bowsercide is out of the equation for ideal play.

Cons

• RNG decides the results.

Rules that ignore the results screen every time:

The sketchy thing about these rules is that occassionally the results screen will say one person wins, but the ruling says another. The positive part of this though is that you get consistent rulings outside of buginess and RNG. I think in general people prefer rulings where there is no RNG. After all there is a reason we are moving away from Halberd in the stage strike list. There is also a reason why we don't use the bomb-omb sudden death mode, and I think a lot of it has to do with random jank rulings.

I think it's important to note the past 4 rules I enumerated also ignored the results screen. The difference was that instead of ignoring wins, we ignored ties. If you are able to overcome the dissonance of ignoring wins, then these next rules might be for you.

Lower percentage wins regardless of the results screen

The game theory analysis is interesting. It nerfs flying slam like some of the other options we saw before. However this is the only rule that makes Bowsercide useful for both the opponent and for Bowser. This is actually a really interesting rule. Overall I think it's a nerf to Bowser, but it is a consistent no rng-ruling that keeps around some of the interesting play of Bowsercide for Bowser.

Pros

• No RNG/Consistent Rules.

Neutral

• Bowserciding is a viable option for both competitors.

Cons

• Flying Slam is unnecessarily nerfed.

Bowser wins regardless of the results screen

This is true to the rule nintendo had before the magicant bug fix. You can make an argument that this was Nintendo's intended rule and everything else after that was a bug. This version also appeals to the player believe that the initiator deserves the win. The game theory analysis again is unique. In a last stock situation, it is never in the opponent's favor to suicide. Bowsercide is a threat for the initiator, just like lower percentage wins. Also flying slam even if it doesn't result in a bowsercide is constantly a useful tool, even in clutch situations.

Pros

• No RNG/Consistent Rules.
• Flying Slam is not unnecessarily nerfed.

Neutral

• Bowserciding is back but only for the initiator

Cons

• Many people consider Bowser undeserving of the win when the screen says he lost.

The match always goes to a 1 stock 3 minute match regardless of the results screen

This rule makes about as much sense as Bowser Always Loses from a "Nintendo's Intent" perspective. It doesn't fall into the pitfall of arbitrarily nerfing Flying Slam however. If you are looking for a consistent ruling that stays close to the behavior of the game, this is as close as it comes.

Pros

• No RNG/Consistent Rules.
• Flying Slam is not unnecessarily nerfed.

Neutral

• Bowserciding is out of the meta. This could be seen as a pro because it means that regardless of how you feel about Bowsercide, you will never actually see it happen if the Bowser is smart.

Cons

• May extend the runtime of a tournament. This isn't a huge concern because if both players are playing optimally a Bowsercide should never occur.

Conclusions

Overall there is no perfect rule. You'll have to decide what kinds of values you personally care about and go from there. The things you want to consider are:

• Do you prefer a rule that allows competitors to consistently know their options regardless of RNG?
• Do you prefer a rule that respects the results screen when the game declares a winner?
• Is it ok that Flying Slam is artifically nerfed by the ruling?
• Does the initiator of the suicide KO deserve the win?
• Is it ok that Suicide KO's are a part of the meta?
• Is it ok that only Bowser can benefit from a suicide KO in a last stock scenario?
• Is it ok that only Bowser's opponent can benefit from a suicide KO in a last stock scenario?

Addendum

My super biased ruling tier list

S+ Tier:

• Initiator Wins. Ignore results screen.

A Tier:

• All matches go to a 1 stock 3 minute match. Ignore results screen.

B Tier:

• Initiator Wins in the event of a tie.

B- Tier:

• In the event of a tie play a 3 minute 1 stock match.
• Lower % wins. Ignore results screen.

Trash Tier:

• In the event of a tie lower % wins
• In the event of a tie, initiator loses.

 

[Pazx]

I was not under the impression that RNG was involved in determining who wins (according to the game), rather it was dependent on which stage was being played on. Other than that, this was a pretty good read, however you mentioned RNG a whole lot so it's a pretty big "but" and makes a lot of your pros/cons somewhat irrelevant.

 

[Big Sean]

I was not under the impression that RNG was involved in determining who wins (according to the game), rather it was dependent on which stage was being played on. Other than that, this was a pretty good read, however you mentioned RNG a whole lot so it's a pretty big "but" and makes a lot of your pros/cons somewhat irrelevant.

If you look at the history of bowsercide section you'll see that between 1.06 and 1.1.1 the behavior was indeed stage dependent. As of 1.1.1 it is entirely RNG dependent.

See: http://gfycat.com/MeagerSkinnyAnteater

 

[wizrad]

Sakurai just needs to actually fix this move. Bowser should always win unless the opponent actually has some way to escape Flying Slam, and I know of no way that this happens apart from Bowser dying first, which shouldn't happen. Sadly, I prefer going with the game's rulings in most instances, so... I'd say Bowser wins in the event of a tie. I can't believe that there's no reasoning behind this on Sakurai's part. It would be much too disappointing.

 

[adom4]

Sakurai just needs to actually fix this move. Bowser should always win unless the opponent actually has some way to escape Flying Slam, and I know of no way that this happens apart from Bowser dying first, which shouldn't happen. Sadly, I prefer going with the game's rulings in most instances, so... I'd say Bowser wins in the event of a tie. I can't believe that there's no reasoning behind this on Sakurai's part. It would be much too disappointing.

They nerfed it for a reason, it was easy as hell to get a Bowsercide in the 3DS days.

 

[wizrad]

Well, then their way of going about it is flawed. I doubt it was anything near requiring the invalidation of the move that we have now.

 

[Raijinken]

I still lean towards the results screen, and if it goes to sudden death, solve it with whatever sudden death rules your tournament plays (percent win, modified tiebreaker, actual sudden death, whatever). I don't see a reason to give Bowser (or any other character) preferential treatment over the game's ruling. Flying Slam comes with its limitations, same as any other move. Unless Sakurai changes that, I don't think we should make an exception.

 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

They nerfed it for a reason, it was easy as hell to get a Bowsercide in the 3DS days.

They fixed a glitch with Bowser on a 3DS stage that caused matches to go on indefinitely. Calling the Bowsercide bug a nerf woefully ignores the evidence.

The opponent being able to attempt a recovery is an issue. 16 out of 55 characters can return to the ledge on Battlefield (the highest ledge in the legal stage list) from the point they are released. In a customs environment, the number jumps to 23. And even 31 on the lowest stages. All Bowser mains keep a mental record of which characters can actually make it back, so we don't dare Bowsercide them when we have earned our stock leads. It's the difference between winning the match because you landed a move, or losing a stock because you landed a move - while the opponent loses nothing. This is what is so unfair about Bowsercide.

If they went and made Bowser consistently die first every single time, then we would suck it up and drop this issue. They finally gave us a consistent verdict. But we've been stuck in this limbo of wondering what they would really decide if they could. It's been a year since this variant of the bug emerged and we're still dealing with misinformed people thinking it was some kind of nerf and won't take this bug seriously. And them giving us more control over flying slam in 1.06 is the biggest evidence to support them never fixing the bug, they can't. They've tried. Now the opponent has a harder time taking us over the edge so the issue doesn't come up as often. It should be up to the competitive community as a whole to decide a verdict, as long as the information is out there.

When the Diddy grab glitch emerged in 1.11, people immediately got to work on debating rules in case it didn't get fixed days later (it did get fixed days later). A near impossible task, since it involved Diddy blocking a multihit move. A very character dependent means of activation that neither attacker nor defender should be held accountable for. But damn it, I saw people trying. And nobody argued this was a "buff" for Diddy. That would be ridiculous.

 

[Big Sean]

They nerfed it for a reason, it was easy as hell to get a Bowsercide in the 3DS days.

Most Bowser mains think that instead of a nerf the current behavior is actually a side effect of fixing this bug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8. As a programmer myself it seems unlikely that the pre 1.1.1 design document would say something like "lose if battlefield, tie if omega battlefield, lose if on platform, on and as of 1.1.1 make it more random." Instead they would say "Bowser loses every time" or "Bowser ties every time." The current behavior is, at least in my opinion definitely a bug. If you feel like it was Nintendo's intention to make Bowser lose every time, then I have listed rules that you may like. If you feel like it was Nintendo's intention to make sudden death the default then I have potential rules listed. If you feel like it was Nintendo's intention to make the random current tie/lose situation, then I have options for tie breaking rules. If you (like the authors of the current sudden death rules) don't care what Nintendo thinks, then I have rules for you too :D.

I still lean towards the results screen, and if it goes to sudden death, solve it with whatever sudden death rules your tournament plays (percent win, modified tiebreaker, actual sudden death, whatever). I don't see a reason to give Bowser (or any other character) preferential treatment over the game's ruling. Flying Slam comes with its limitations, same as any other move. Unless Sakurai changes that, I don't think we should make an exception.

Cool I'm glad you said this because this is the overall thinking of The Implicit Rule which is the rule I consider the worst rule of the 7 I named. I think the intention of what you are saying is that "let's just let the current behavior be what it is, and not have any special exceptions" and that's certainly commendable. Unfortunately the truest current behavior, the one I call The For Glory Rule is one that Flying Slam is useful even in losing clutch situations. Now because tournaments introduce artificial tie breaking rules, they aren't just transparent opinionless agents, but in fact can have a role in actually actively nerfing Bowser more than what Nintendo has already done.

Specifically some tournaments say that in the event of a tie, the lower percentage wins. This actually results in flying slam being useful only half the time and never in clutch situations . On the flip side if your tournament as sudden death tiebreaker, has a 1 stock 3 minute match, then interestingly enough this will not artificially nerf Bowser. I see the appeal of not making a decision. Unfortunately by not making a decision, you can create an implicit rule that says "Bowser is only allowed to use his most important kill move when he is winning." If you are trying to stay true to what the current state of the game is, then The Implicit Rule actually achieves the opposite.

 

[LancerStaff]

The results of Bowserside aren't stage dependent but depth dependent. Even between omegas there's otherwise negligible differences in blastzone size that alter how Bowserside interacts. Since it's not fully understood, I'll just fudge the numbers in effort to explain...

Let's say Battlefield is 10 units above the bottom blastzone and Bowser dies first when used off of there. But then the side platforms are 11 units above the blastzone and it ties. Do it in the air and it's effectively random.

The reason this happens is because the game doesn't calculate what happens between frames. If it sees Bowser past the bottom blastzone it'll kill him. If Bowser falls X amount every frame then if he approaches the blastzone just right he'll touch it at the same time (in computer logic) as the person he grabbed and kill both. But since both people don't die at the same time we know that the person Bowser grabbed is in fact above Bowser. So either A: Bowser should always die first and they botched it, or B: It's impossible to make them die at the same time but they didn't want Bowser to outright win sometimes.

Either way, the intent is obvious. They did not want Bowser winning with Flying Slam.

 

[Raijinken]

Most Bowser mains think that instead of a nerf the current behavior is actually a side effect of fixing this bug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8. As a programmer myself it seems unlikely that the pre 1.1.1 design document would say something like "lose if battlefield, tie if omega battlefield, lose if on platform, on and as of 1.1.1 make it more random." Instead they would say "Bowser loses every time" or "Bowser ties every time." The current behavior is, at least in my opinion definitely a bug. If you feel like it was Nintendo's intention to make Bowser lose every time, then I have listed rules that you may like. If you feel like it was Nintendo's intention to make sudden death the default then I have potential rules listed. If you feel like it was Nintendo's intention to make the random current tie/lose situation, then I have options for tie breaking rules. If you (like the authors of the current sudden death rules) don't care what Nintendo thinks, then I have rules for you too :D.



Cool I'm glad you said this because this is the overall thinking of The Implicit Rule which is the rule I consider the worst rule of the 7 I named. I think the intention of what you are saying is that "let's just let the current behavior be what it is, and not have any special exceptions" and that's certainly commendable. Unfortunately the truest current behavior, the one I call The For Glory Rule is one that Flying Slam is useful even in losing clutch situations. Now because tournaments introduce artificial tie breaking rules, they aren't just transparent opinionless agents, but in fact can have a role in actually actively nerfing Bowser more than what Nintendo has already done.

Specifically some tournaments say that in the event of a tie, the lower percentage wins. This actually results in flying slam being useful only half the time and never in clutch situations . On the flip side if your tournament as sudden death tiebreaker, has a 1 stock 3 minute match, then interestingly enough this will not artificially nerf Bowser. I see the appeal of not making a decision. Unfortunately by not making a decision, you can create an implicit rule that says "Bowser is only allowed to use his most important kill move when he is winning." If you are trying to stay true to what the current state of the game is, then The Implicit Rule actually achieves the opposite.

I'm personally not a big fan of many, or to my direct knowledge, any of the actual tiebreaker rules currently run. Sudden Death carries its own limits, so does any external ruling to avoid it. I don't think there is an objectively fair solution one way or the other.

My stance stems from what I feel is a realistic if resigned approach to how balance functions in Smash. If we are willing to make rule exceptions for some cases, we should be willing to do so for all. ROBiciding killed ROB first in 100% of the tries I ran, but it's still a suicide initiation. Kirby and Dedede die first and some opponents can recover. The only way I see to rule on that with anything approaching consistency is to let the game rule on our behalf, as it does for virtually all other in-game interactions. Sometimes this will work against Bowser. Other times, depending on if/how the tournament implements sudden death rules or tiebreakers, it can work in his favor (at a tournament which plays Sudden Death, for instance, it could work in Bowser's favor if he were significantly behind in percent, landed the slam, and brought it to sudden death where any clean blow of his is now lethal. Even if a tournament runs percent-rule, a Bowser playing from a lower percent is entitled to gambling on that drop, or he can aim for a platform for a safer kill).

In some ways, it makes sense for a high-power high-reward move to only be worthwhile in a winning scenario. It's risky, regardless of character, to pursue an option when behind, which will almost certainly result in loss should it fail. Gambits can be taken or avoided at the player's will, and no player should feel that Ganondorf is at fault if an attempted gimp kill turns into a Ganoncide leading to Ganon winning, for instance. That's a risk taken by the gimper. Bowsercide is similar: If you pursue that option from a position at which the enemy is likely or certain to direct the move offstage, resulting in your defeat, that is your choice to make. There will still exist safe places to use Flying Slam on most standard legal stages (I'm inclined to say Battlefield is the most likely to lack safe spots, or at best have only narrow ones), even if you're behind, without giving your opponent the power to bring you offstage.

I don't necessarily like how it hurts Bowser's options to impose, or fail to impose, rules about how the results of a Flying Slam are to be interpreted. But I think it is more important to be unbiased in rulecraft to avoid the slippery slope that is crafting case-wise exceptions.

In other words, "Bowser is allowed to use his most important kill move at any time. Counsel advises against doing so when the opponent is likely to drive you to your death."

 

[Ajimi]

First, the OP is almost entirely based on the fact that since 1.1.1, the result of a Bowsercide is random. But I have never seen that stated anywhere before, and it is a crucial information to be sure of. Is there a reliable source for that ? (I do not consider a single gfycat in training mode to be one (even if it's a start), sorry.)

Second, I am completely against introducing a rule specific to any character, moreso to a specific move. I agree that the outcome of suicide moves as a whole has to be discussed, but they have to be treated all the same way. If I recall correctly, a Kirbycide loses or goes to sudden death depending on which way Kirby is facing, which is just as dumb and ambiguous as a Bowsercide, but nobody is asking for a specific rule. Bowser has not by any means the right to be treated differently than any other character with a similar move just because his suicide is the easiest to pull out (and thus the more common).

Third, we shall not go against the game internal mechanics unless we have a very good competitive reason to do so. Things like "developers intended to…" or "it's unfair if…" are subjective, therefore irrelevant. We start with the game as-is. The question "what do we do" is important in the case of sudden death (which is generally already established as uncompetitive), but we have no reason to go against the results screen when the game provides one.

Fourth, maybe this is debatable but… How do you apply the "lowest percent wins" rule if both characters are dead ? In the case of a timeout, it's easy, the percentages are both on screen and frozen. If the characters are dead, the percentages are physically non-existent. Not only we have to keep track of the percents before the match is even finished, but for example if Bowser has a Pikmin attached to him that is dealing damage, what do we do if his percentage increase juuust before reaching the blastzone and the number is still changing ? The sudden death in case of a suicide move should be treated either as a clear result (win/loss) or as a tie (rematch), but I don't see the percentage rule as a viable option.

So then, with all that in mind it reduces drastically the number of possibilities. In my opinion, we have to decide on something for all characters, only in the case of sudden death, either a win, a loss or a rematch, and to leave the rest to the game. Thus :
- Win : I think it's completely arbitrary.
- Loss : still arbitrary, but at least it makes the moves consistent. See that except Ganoncide (which always win), all other suicides moves are either sudden death or a loss. Giving a win makes the possible results the complete opposite of each other, either a loss (via the game) or a win (via the ruleset). Giving a loss makes a consistent result in all cases.
- Rematch : the "purest" since we go by the game and that's all. A non-timeout sudden death is thus treated always the same way.

Initially, I support the purest rule (we go by the game), so I think a rematch should occur. However, if (and only if) the result of a Bowsercide is truly random then I think a loss should be given, for the sake of having a consistent result while still staying as close to the game as possible.

 

[Ajimi]

Sorry to double-post, but LancerStaff . You seem well aware of the technical side of things, so please explain to me : what supposedly changed in 1.1.1 compared to previous versions then ? Your explanation is great and makes sense, but it can be applied for every version of the game post-1.0.4 .

 

[Big Sean]

The only way I see to rule on that with anything approaching consistency is to let the game rule on our behalf, as it does for virtually all other in-game interactions.

I think this logic makes sense. What I don't think follows is that then we should follow the tiebreaker rule of the tournament. When you follow the differing rules of the tournament what you get is inconsistency not consistency. If you wanted a rule that matches the actual game you would choose either do the normal sudden death or a rematch with 1 stock. You can also value not having special exceptions to rules, but unfortunately this is a situation where you can't have your cake and it eat it too. You either value what the game has to say about Bowsercide, or you value not having special exceptions.

First, the OP is almost entirely based on the fact that since 1.1.1, the result of a Bowsercide is random. But I have never seen that stated anywhere before, and it is a crucial information to be sure of. Is there a reliable source for that ? (I do not consider a single gfycat in training mode to be one (even if it's a start), sorry.)

Not really. I mean there are a lot of posts on the Bowser boards about people trying to find any patterns in 1.1.1 and coming up short. This isn't something that would be revealed in a frame data listing after all. I have personally spent hours testing every legal stage and a ton of characters at various percentages from various heights and failing to come up with anything consistent.

 

[Ghostbone]

We should always follow the results screen unless there is a really good reason not to, if Bowser dies first, that's his fault as a character.

If both players die at the same time (sudden death), then it should be treated exactly the same as any double KO, you do a 1 stock 3 minutes rematch.

There doesn't need to be a specific suicide clause, you just need a double KO/tie clause that every tournament should have, and that also covers any suicide shenanigans that go to sudden death.

If we want to remove RNG from the equation, we have to always give Bowser the loss. Bowser never wins, he only loses and ties, and sometimes players don't even die from bowsercide, or they die later than Bowser. And making the match a tie when the results screen says Bowser loses is really unfair in those cases for the other player. I assume Bowser mains don't want this, and it is pretty arbitrary, so just sticking with what the game says is adequate.

 

[Big Sean]

Ghostbone , Ajimi

I added 1 more rule that I had forgotten. Namely All matches go to a 1 stock 3 minute match. Ignore results screen. I think if you want a consistent rule that stays true to what the game actually plays like, this is as close as it gets. Let me know if you guys think this is a better alternative to Bowser Always Loses.

 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

First, the OP is almost entirely based on the fact that since 1.1.1, the result of a Bowsercide is random. But I have never seen that stated anywhere before, and it is a crucial information to be sure of. Is there a reliable source for that ? (I do not consider a single gfycat in training mode to be one (even if it's a start), sorry.)

Second, I am completely against introducing a rule specific to any character, moreso to a specific move. I agree that the outcome of suicide moves as a whole has to be discussed, but they have to be treated all the same way. If I recall correctly, a Kirbycide loses or goes to sudden death depending on which way Kirby is facing, which is just as dumb and ambiguous as a Bowsercide, but nobody is asking for a specific rule. Bowser has not by any means the right to be treated differently than any other character with a similar move just because his suicide is the easiest to pull out (and thus the more common).

The accounts of people claiming something changed in 1.11 are subjective and don't have evidence. We had mutterings of changes that were debunked in every previous patch. Only in 1.11 did everybody who bothered to test (myself included) return to their notes and started coming up with random results on the same stage/platform. Before this, we were convinced it was height dependent. I still think it is, but when I first got two different verdicts using the same situation, I put down the controller and tried not to tear my hair out. All of my data on verdicts was potentially wrong and it was futile to continue testing when there was a margin for error that could be literally anything the game wants to have as a factor.

I don't like comparisons to Kirbycide though. Or any move that allows the victim to break free early. It's just not the same, and for Kirby and Dedede's case, you can make it back to the ledge from any position. You wouldn't die with the victim, you'd spit them out instead. This second option is also a feature of the move and conventionally the better choice. Only Ganon's flame choke is similar in function to Bowsercide with one major difference. Instead of both characters controlling the move, nobody has control beyond the point where the victim is grabbed. This is another common misconception by the way. That some people claim they are "breaking free" of Bowsercide. The move doesn't work like that.

Third, we shall not go against the game internal mechanics unless we have a very good competitive reason to do so. Things like "developers intended to…" or "it's unfair if…" are subjective, therefore irrelevant. We start with the game as-is. The question "what do we do" is important in the case of sudden death (which is generally already established as uncompetitive), but we have no reason to go against the results screen when the game provides one.

Are they subjective though? I know our various literature and arts teachers told us not to fixate on "authorial intent", but that implies every gameplay decision in Smash 4 was potentially made during a whirlwind of logic-less emotion and passion, like in a piece of art. Sorry programmers, coding isn't art, it's logic. So we can look at the facts surrounding this game's authorial intent and implement those into the discussion. Facts like how Bowsercide used to be reversed to favor Bowser in pre-1.04, and how Bowsercide always gave the win indiscriminately in the previous game have to be considered in this discussion.

 

[Ghostbone]

Facts like how Bowsercide used to be reversed to favor Bowser in pre-1.04, and how Bowsercide always gave the win indiscriminately in the previous game have to be considered in this discussion.

Bowsercide didn't give Bowser the win in Brawl lol

 

[Raijinken]

I think this logic makes sense. What I don't think follows is that then we should follow the tiebreaker rule of the tournament. When you follow the differing rules of the tournament what you get is inconsistency not consistency. If you wanted a rule that matches the actual game you would choose either do the normal sudden death or a rematch with 1 stock. You can also value not having special exceptions to rules, but unfortunately this is a situation where you can't have your cake and it eat it too. You either value what the game has to say about Bowsercide, or you value not having special exceptions.



Not really. I mean there are a lot of posts on the Bowser boards about people trying to find any patterns in 1.1.1 and coming up short. This isn't something that would be revealed in a frame data listing after all. I have personally spent hours testing every legal stage and a ton of characters at various percentages from various heights and failing to come up with anything consistent.

My aim for consistency is limited to ruleset craft, not the game's own enforcement (or lack thereof), but I get the point you were trying to make. As for the tiebreaker rules, obviously there should be a widespread rule in place (a global rule rather than regional preference). But, if we cannot even get TOs internationally to agree on how to break ties, how are they to agree on which rule to apply to a suicide clause? I can't imagine a suicide clause that sends the game to a tiebreaker sending it to a different tiebreaker than the regular tiebreak rules. Thus, it needs to at least be consistent within each tournament's own rules. Global consistency is the next, and target, step.

 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Bowsercide didn't give Bowser the win in Brawl lol

My mistake. It was port priority in Brawl. Bowser only wins if he has a lower controller port, otherwise it's sudden death. According to Smashwiki, Tourney rulings generally gave him the win in cases of sudden death in order to coincide with the Smash Dojo's description that states Bowser earns the win. Is this accurate? I skipped Brawl and wouldn't know from experience what tourneys ruled and why.

 

[Ghostbone]

My mistake. It was port priority in Brawl. Bowser only wins if he has a lower controller port, otherwise it's sudden death. According to Smashwiki, Tourney rulings generally gave him the win in cases of sudden death in order to coincide with the Smash Dojo's description that states Bowser earns the win. Is this accurate? I skipped Brawl and wouldn't know from experience what tourneys ruled and why.

It was probably 50/50 between having rules in favour of Bowser/Ganon and not (iirc it tended to be tournaments that banned D3 infinites too that had suicide clauses)

The Brawl dojo mentions nothing about always winning, it just mentions that both players can influence the trajectory.
Since the common mode of smash is time, and often FFA, it's not that unlikely that they didn't ever specifically balance it for last stock usage.
I'm pretty sure if Bowser has a higher port, depending on the stage the opponent could actually buffer a jump out of bowsercide so they always won (i know in low gravity situations like spear pillar/PS2 you can easily recover from a bowsercide), but maybe i'm confusing that with Smash 4 Bowsercide.

 

[KingKong_ad]

My mistake. It was port priority in Brawl. Bowser only wins if he has a lower controller port, otherwise it's sudden death. According to Smashwiki, Tourney rulings generally gave him the win in cases of sudden death in order to coincide with the Smash Dojo's description that states Bowser earns the win. Is this accurate? I skipped Brawl and wouldn't know from experience what tourneys ruled and why.

Im brawl days, bowser was winning everytime because you could jump out after the opponent died but bowser didnt have the recovery to come back if not in a transition stage (delfino, castle siege). But if you didt try to jump out of it, it was port dependant AND character dependant AND stage dependant. So in some stage, with the last port against a thin character on certain stages it would go to sudden death. The rules at that time gave the win to Bowser.

 

[Ghostbone]

Im brawl days, bowser was winning everytime because you could jump out after the opponent died but bowser didnt have the recovery to come back if not in a transition stage (delfino, castle siege). But if you didt try to jump out of it, it was port dependant AND character dependant AND stage dependant. So in some stage, with the last port against a thin character on certain stages it would go to sudden death. The rules at that time gave the win to Bowser.

Oh was that it, it was the inverse of what I said, bowser could jump out of bowsercide guaranteeing him the win instead of getting a tie.

Memory too fuzzy.

 

[Ajimi]

Not really. I mean there are a lot of posts on the Bowser boards about people trying to find any patterns in 1.1.1 and coming up short. This isn't something that would be revealed in a frame data listing after all. I have personally spent hours testing every legal stage and a ton of characters at various percentages from various heights and failing to come up with anything consistent.

The accounts of people claiming something changed in 1.11 are subjective and don't have evidence. We had mutterings of changes that were debunked in every previous patch. Only in 1.11 did everybody who bothered to test (myself included) return to their notes and started coming up with random results on the same stage/platform. Before this, we were convinced it was height dependent. I still think it is, but when I first got two different verdicts using the same situation, I put down the controller and tried not to tear my hair out. All of my data on verdicts was potentially wrong and it was futile to continue testing when there was a margin for error that could be literally anything the game wants to have as a factor.

Well okay. I will test it a bit myself to be sure, but RNG it is then. It's kind of sad.

I added 1 more rule that I had forgotten. Namely All matches go to a 1 stock 3 minute match. Ignore results screen. I think if you want a consistent rule that stays true to what the game actually plays like, this is as close as it gets. Let me know if you guys think this is a better alternative to Bowser Always Loses.

How "ignore result every time" can be closer to the game than "ignore result in case of sudden death only" ? If the game clearly states "you lose", do you actually have a very good reason to say "nope, I didn't" ?

I don't like comparisons to Kirbycide though. Or any move that allows the victim to break free early. It's just not the same, and for Kirby and Dedede's case, you can make it back to the ledge from any position. You wouldn't die with the victim, you'd spit them out instead. This second option is also a feature of the move and conventionally the better choice. Only Ganon's flame choke is similar in function to Bowsercide with one major difference. Instead of both characters controlling the move, nobody has control beyond the point where the victim is grabbed. This is another common misconception by the way. That some people claim they are "breaking free" of Bowsercide. The move doesn't work like that.

Are they subjective though? I know our various literature and arts teachers told us not to fixate on "authorial intent", but that implies every gameplay decision in Smash 4 was potentially made during a whirlwind of logic-less emotion and passion, like in a piece of art. Sorry programmers, coding isn't art, it's logic. So we can look at the facts surrounding this game's authorial intent and implement those into the discussion. Facts like how Bowsercide used to be reversed to favor Bowser in pre-1.04, and how Bowsercide always gave the win indiscriminately in the previous game have to be considered in this discussion.

You are right on some points, but still. Bowser does not deserve by any means a special treatment.

And yes, everything outside the game is subjective. It doesn't matter how the move worked before, or in previous games, or what the developers wanted, or what you think is fair. To take your own wording, competition is not art either. A competitive ruleset should be built with logic only, with the game at it's core.

 

[Big Sean]

How "ignore result every time" can be closer to the game than "ignore result in case of sudden death only" ? If the game clearly states "you lose", do you actually have a very good reason to say "nope, I didn't" ?

I think you are jumping to conclusions a little fast. You said specifically

However, if (and only if) the result of a Bowsercide is truly random then I think a loss should be given, for the sake of having a consistent result while still staying as close to the game as possible.

So now we are at a point where you know it's RNG based. The game goes to SD half the time and loss half the time. What you suggested was that if we were to have consistent results, then we should ignore the SD that happens 50% of the time. What i'm saying is that equivalently we can ignore the loss that happens 50% of the time. It's completely symmetrical but leads to properties that more closely mirror The For Glory Rule.

 

[Ajimi]

Ignoring only SD is ignoring what the game says 50% of the time, knowing that we already ignore it whatever happens for various reasons. Ignoring the loss 50% of the time + ignoring SD 50% of the time = ignoring what the game says 100% of the time, including a perfectly clear results screen that poses no competitive issues by itself (contrary to SD).

So no, those two options are clearly not "completely symmetrical", and the first one is, well, 50% closer to how the game naturally works than the second one.

 

[Big Sean]

Ignoring only SD is ignoring what the game says 50% of the time, knowing that we already ignore it whatever happens for various reasons. Ignoring the loss 50% of the time + ignoring SD 50% of the time = ignoring what the game says 100% of the time, including a perfectly clear results screen that poses no competitive issues by itself (contrary to SD).

So no, those two options are clearly not "completely symmetrical", and the first one is, well, 50% closer to how the game naturally works than the second one.

Are you saying that because we ignore the natural SD to do a 1 stock 3 minute match that we are ignoring that we are completely ignoring what the game has to say about SD's? Ok let's say we take that logic as fact. You would then have to agree that that the following rule is actually completely symmetrical:

In the event of the SD, play out the natural Sudden Death minigame. Otherwise play a 1 stock 3 minute rematch.

That would then be completely symmetrical to Bowser always loses. It also maintains the natural properties of The For Glory Rule namely that bowsercide isn't viable for either party, and Flying Slam isn't nerfed 50% of the time. Since bowsercide isn't viable for either party it also makes it so that if both players are playing optimally, then this rule should actually never come in to play. Making it more of an obscure fact than something that actually happens in real matches.

 

[Ajimi]

Well it's symmetrical if you want, but even so this rule doesn't make much sense.

We ARE ignoring SD whatever happens in a competitive setting, the main reason for that being the random nature of the bob-ombs spawning. So it makes actual sense to ignore it regardless of any possible suicide clause, and consequently every suicide clause should ignore it too in order to be competitively viable.
A result screen is, well, a result screen, which is just a way for the game to display some unbiased information to the players. Unless you have some wonky and uncompetitive mechanic up your sleeve (see: Brawl's port priority), it should NOT be ignored.

If the possible outcome of a Bowsercide was "50% win, 50% loss", then maybe doing a rematch every time would be a good ruling. If the outcome was "50% win, 50% tie", then I would be for giving the win every time.
But it is not, it's "50% tie, 50% loss". We have no reason to bypass the only clear result the game may give us, and thus if we want a consistent ruling, the tie has to be teated as a loss.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the only way to die is by touching the blastzone. If this is true, then if Bowser loses, it means he touched the blastzone before the opponent. In other words, in a last stock situation, the opponent never actually dies. This becomes apparent when you buffer a jump against Bowser and find that Bowser will die and you will not. You are essentially saying that you should be awarded a win when my character never even died. How is that fair in any way whatsoever? I don't give a damn about RNG, you are not telling me that I lost when your character died and mine didn't.

And the only reason you want this rule is because without a special rule, Bowsercide is useless. But why should I care? If the move is bad, don't use it. If you're winning in percent, then Flying Slam is actually a very good move; it does a lot of damage and kills very early. If you're losing in percent, then just don't use it. Should we buff moves like Sing and Falcon Punch, too? Those moves are way worse than Flying Slam. How about, if I land a Sing then you have to stay still for an extra 5 seconds even after waking up, and if I land a Falcon Punch I automatically win the game. Is that fair?

I also find it funny that you say rules that follow the results screen "arbitrarily nerf Bowser." Those rules do not nerf Bowser; they don't change anything about Bowser. Your rule arbitrarily buffs Bowser. I can't imagine how many mental hoops you have to jump through to come to the conclusion that going by what the game intended is a nerf.

And you say that following the results screen implies that we should also play out Sudden Death, but that isn't true. The thing about Sudden Death is that we cannot choose to have the game not go to Sudden Death when there is a simultaneous K.O. We are always forced into this janky RNG situation, and so we decided that we shouldn't bother with it. The difference here is that you can choose to not use Flying Slam. If you use Flying Slam and the RNG decides that you lost, then that's your own fault. RNG that is out of our control needs a rule regarding it; RNG that is within our control does not. If Game & Watch gets a 1, that's his own fault, he knew there was RNG involved and took the risk anyway. This is obviously a much less extreme example than Bowsercide, but the concept is the same. My point is that saying we should follow the results screen does not imply that we should also play out Sudden Death.

 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Im brawl days, bowser was winning everytime because you could jump out after the opponent died but bowser didnt have the recovery to come back if not in a transition stage (delfino, castle siege). But if you didt try to jump out of it, it was port dependant AND character dependant AND stage dependant. So in some stage, with the last port against a thin character on certain stages it would go to sudden death. The rules at that time gave the win to Bowser.

So, Bowsercide was always bugged, even in Brawl. But with the Bowser wins or ties verdicts. That's less cut and dry than I was hoping.

Right, well I guess I'm in favor of Bowser always losing. I really dislike the idea of tiebreaker matches, because that lengthens a set, and looks like a friendly match to people not aware of the rule. And also makes it feel like the match where the bowsercide happened didn't matter if the Bowser could reset his odds with a lucky Bowsercide. Bowser mains were experiencing hell before 1.06, when he had much less control over the slam than the opponent did without a massive % advantage. The pre-1.06 Flying Slam was clearly designed for Bowser to have difficulty suiciding, but had the side effect of victims forcing Bowsercide that Bowser didn't want. The move itself was a gamble. I chronicled the old values in a spoiler in this thread.

Things have changed though. No more horror stories of losing intense sets because the opponent forced a Bowsercide for a victory. And we have a single patch to thank for that. If Bowser had this much control, and still was given the win half the time, the obvious answer would be to rule ties in his favor. But at the same time, this character would be frought with bad players that just want to use the bugged move for cheap wins. That's annoying to watch. I will still Bowsercide when I have a stock lead if I know they won't make it back. And when I don't have a stock lead, Flying Slam is one hitbox alteration away from being not just Bowser's best non-custom move, but one of the best moves in the game for beating shields and getting the kill when you need it.

 

[KingKong_ad]

Im just curious about a thing, grounded sideb leading to a bowsercide always gave me a sudden death on some stages even with a lot of try (100+). Even if it rarely happens that it gives the win to the opponent, I will still go for the bowsercide knowing it gives me the win in 95%+ if the rules say Im winning if its a sudden death.

 

[Big Sean]

We ARE ignoring SD whatever happens in a competitive setting, the main reason for that being the random nature of the bob-ombs spawning. So it makes actual sense to ignore it regardless of any possible suicide clause, and consequently every suicide clause should ignore it too in order to be competitively viable.

Third, we shall not go against the game internal mechanics unless we have a very good competitive reason to do so. Things like "developers intended to…" or "it's unfair if…" are subjective, therefore irrelevant. We start with the game as-is. The question "what do we do" is important in the case of sudden death (which is generally already established as uncompetitive), but we have no reason to go against the results screen when the game provides one.

Ok so I really just want to follow your logic and make sure it's consistent here. To you the only thing that matters is that we follow what the game says, unless you deem their to be a "very good competitive reason to do so." You personally believe that the bom omb mini game is one of these rare reasons. Given that, then you should also believe that 1 stock rematches are the closest competitive equivalent to playing out the bomb omb. Not exactly the same but as close as you are willing to say we should be.

Ok now given that you value not looking at developer intent but looking at what the game actually is, I can't see why you don't want to consider the metagame implications of what the game actually is and trying to make it as close as possible to that.

Bowser Loses Every Time

• Agrees with the game 50% of the time.
• Creates a drastically different metagame than what the game actually is.

Bowser Ties Every Time

• Agrees with the game 50% of the time.
• Creates exactly the same metagame that what the game actually is.
• (optional) we can replace the bom omb mini game with 1 stock rematch. Something you consider to be the closest viable equivalent.

So in order for you to think the first rule is better than the second, you would have to believe that the differences between 1 stock rematch and the bomb omb mini game is so large that it's worth imposing an artificial unnecessary metagame shift. Why is that? Why is a metagame shift away from what the game actually is, not important at all to you? Or alternatively if you consider the difference between the bomb omb mini game and 1v1 rematch to be so large, why would you support the 1v1 rematch in the first place?

You are essentially saying that you should be awarded a win when my character never even died. How is that fair in any way whatsoever? I don't give a damn about RNG, you are not telling me that I lost when your character died and mine didn't.

First of all, calm down this is the internet. Second I'm not suggesting a rule, I layed out 8 completely different rules, the pros and cons and all of them and then said there is no perfect rule and you should pick a rule based on your values. Clearly you value following the rule screen in the case that it actually names a winner. That's totally fine I named 5 rules that do just that, pick one of those.

I also find it funny that you say rules that follow the results screen "arbitrarily nerf Bowser." Those rules do not nerf Bowser; they don't change anything about Bowser. Your rule arbitrarily buffs Bowser. I can't imagine how many mental hoops you have to jump through to come to the conclusion that going by what the game intended is a nerf.

Again not "my rule." More like a rule that many people have suggested other than me, because i've never written a single Bowsercide rule. Second if you actually read my post you'll see that I name 5 completely different rules that respect the results screen, and 3 of them I say don't arbitrarily nerf Bowser. Again most of the rules that respect the results screen are the opposite of what you just said. In fact if your local scene does not even have a Bowsercide rule, chances are that by not naming one it has probably accidentally created a scenario that does not arbitrarily nerf Bowser.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

You did say in your OP that you support a rule that would have Bowser always win, don't be disingenuous and claim you aren't subtly trying to convince us to support your rule. I can't blame you for it, you are a Bowser main. But don't act like you don't have an agenda when you obviously do.

 

[Big Sean]

You did say in your OP that you support a rule that would have Bowser always win, don't be disingenuous and claim you aren't subtly trying to convince us to support your rule. I can't blame you for it, you are a Bowser main. But don't act like you don't have an agenda when you obviously do.

Look man if you were wanted a rule where if the game said a player won, then we respect that, and if it said we tied then we go do a 1 stock 3 minute rematch I would totally support that. In fact I would pay money to have that rule. The problem is that's not what's happening. Most TO's are making rules that are much worse than this, and they probably aren't even aware that they are doing it. The point of this post isn't to push the rule that I want, it's education. If a TO wants a rule that arbitrarily nerf Bowser, that's up to them, but I want them to be actively aware that they are doing it and not just do it accidentally.

We should always follow the results screen unless there is a really good reason not to, if Bowser dies first, that's his fault as a character.

If both players die at the same time (sudden death), then it should be treated exactly the same as any double KO, you do a 1 stock 3 minutes rematch.

There doesn't need to be a specific suicide clause, you just need a double KO/tie clause that every tournament should have, and that also covers any suicide shenanigans that go to sudden death.

If we want to remove RNG from the equation, we have to always give Bowser the loss. Bowser never wins, he only loses and ties, and sometimes players don't even die from bowsercide, or they die later than Bowser. And making the match a tie when the results screen says Bowser loses is really unfair in those cases for the other player. I assume Bowser mains don't want this, and it is pretty arbitrary, so just sticking with what the game says is adequate.

I think the rule you named is actually really good and fair for a lot of reasons. Unfortunately you're wrong by saying that most tournaments handle double KO's with a 1v1 3 stock match. Here are the rules for all the smash 4 nationals:

• http://smashboards.com/data/sponsor/Apex2015Rulebookv2.pdf
  
• http://evo.shoryuken.com/additional-rules/
  
• http://www.umsmash.com/rules/
  
• http://paragon.vsgaming.org/rules

Apex and the big house are the only tournaments that even have rules about a sudden death KO. The rule is lower percentage win, NOT a rematch. The other two tournaments don't even have a rule, although Paragon is initiator wins.

Im just curious about a thing, grounded sideb leading to a bowsercide always gave me a sudden death on some stages even with a lot of try (100+). Even if it rarely happens that it gives the win to the opponent, I will still go for the bowsercide knowing it gives me the win in 95%+ if the rules say Im winning if its a sudden death.

Yeah to simplify the discussion I said 50/50 but we don't really know it's 50/50. There are definitely some stages that I thought were different than 50/50 like for instance battlefield where i thought a win could never happen. After I tested battlefield for like ~50 times i got like 5 ties in a row. It's possible that character and distance away from the edge + how long you hold a direction can affect things. It's going to be really hard to prove if one stage is more likely though.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

It's not a nerf if it's how it was intended to work in the first place. This is what I'm saying about being subtle, you use the word "arbitrary" to imply that going by what the game says is not the default (it is), and that we are making a mistake by choosing to go with the results screen (we aren't).

 

[Big Sean]

It's not a nerf if it's how it was intended to work in the first place. This is what I'm saying about being subtle, you use the word "arbitrary" to imply that going by what the game says is not the default (it is), and that we are making a mistake by choosing to go with the results screen (we aren't).

See that's where you're wrong man. There is only 1 rule that describes exactly how it was indented to work in the first place The For Glory Rule. Any rule after that is artificial and arbitrary. Clearly you see that right? If we were to actually respect the results screen every time then flying slam is useful almost always. It's only when a TO introduces the artificial rule that lower percentages win, that they then completely change the intended meta, to make flying slam useful only half the time.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Why would you go by lower percent wins? That makes no sense at all, both characters are dead, there is no percent. The most logical rule would be to declare Bowser the loser if the results screen says so, and to do a 1 stock 3 minute match if it goes to Sudden Death.

 

[Ghostbone]

I think the rule you named is actually really good and fair for a lot of reasons. Unfortunately you're wrong by saying that most tournaments handle double KO's with a 1v1 3 stock match. Here are the rules for all the smash 4 nationals:

• http://smashboards.com/data/sponsor/Apex2015Rulebookv2.pdf
  
• http://evo.shoryuken.com/additional-rules/
  
• http://www.umsmash.com/rules/
  
• http://paragon.vsgaming.org/rules

Apex and the big house are the only tournaments that even have rules about a sudden death KO. The rule is lower percentage win, NOT a rematch. The other two tournaments don't even have a rule, although Paragon is initiator wins.

From the Apex ruleset
"Time Outs / Ties: The winner of a match that goes to time (time out) will be determined by stocks and percentage. When the timer hits 0:00 player with the higher stock count is the winner. If both players are tied in stocks the player with the lower percentage is the winner. In the event of a percentage tie, or a match in which both players lost their last stock simultaneously, a 1 stock tiebreaker will be played with time limit equal to the regular time limit divided by the regular number of stocks, rounded up. Sudden Death is not to be played at all, and will not count."
So you're wrong there.

Evo seems to be super light on rules so idk what's up with that.

For umsmash
"The winner of a match that goes to time (time out) will be determined by stocks and then percentage. When the timer hits 0:00, the player with the higher stock count is the winner. If both players are tied in stocks, the player with the lower percentage is the winner. In the event of a percentage tie, or a match in which both players lost their last stock simultaneously, a 1 stock tiebreaker will be played with a 3:00 time limit. The result of the game’s built-in Sudden Death does not count towards the set count."
So again you're wrong.

Paragon's ruleset doesn't even make sense "no excessive stalling", and making a rule for Ganon when he already wins all the time lmao. Something that non-specific shouldn't be something we strive for lol.
Since it doesn't cover rematches, it can be assumed that if that situation came up the TO would probably invoke a 1 stock 3 min rematch like every other tournament has as a standard.

 

[Big Sean]

Ghostbone oh **** you're right. I think if all tournaments went this route it wouldn't be that bad. Of course I would love a rule that was consistent and didn't rely on a coin flip, but I care a lot more about arbitrarily nerfing Bowser than a consistent non-random ruling.

 

[Ghostbone]

I mean unfortunately the programmers for our game apparently suck and we have random results from bowsercide.
But unfortunately we just have to deal with that, it's effectively no different to random turnips from Villager, trips from MK/DK d-tilt, etc.
We don't need specific rules for Bowsercide in either of the two scenarios though, If it goes to sudden death, you treat it like any other double KO and do a 1 stock rematch, if the results screen says Bowser loses, then Bowser loses.