Bowser and the Suicide Clause

[Darklink401]

Tradition totally matters in cases of ambiguity like this.



No, they boil down to "this has been part of Bowser's toolkit for 6+ years prior already and the risk vs. reward ratio of Bowserciding factors in the difficulty of pulling it off".



TBH, I don't think Sakurai intended to change this at all.

Again, THIS is the bug they tried to fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

And thanks to the fact that Sakurai supplies us with squat for patch notes, we have no idea what part of the change (if any) was intended.

Bowser has been Bowserciding for 6+ years, AND he was Bowserciding when SSB4 launched. To suddenly and abruptly change that would be strange but not unheard of, but to change it so it doesn't even work consistently on different stages says to me that this was a bug unintentionally introduced by Sakurai.

Hypothetical situation: what if a bug was introduced that allowed, say, DK to vanish off the side of the stage and be invincible for the duration of the match (after he acquired a percent lead, of course)?

Should we "go with what the game says" and simply watch as the entire metagame fell to DK?

Let me put this anyone way: can SOMEONE come up with a theory as to why Bowsercide works differently on different stages?

If so, what differentiates the "SD" stages from the "Bowser dies first" stages?

So even if you have great recovery, not in every stage will you live as Bowser dies?

 

[S_B]

So even if you have great recovery, not in every stage will you live as Bowser dies?

Correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u72TSl6Kqs

The list of stages on the first page separates the stages where Bowser and the victim die simultaneously (sending the game to sudden death) and the stages where Bowser dies first and the victim pops in the air for a moment before falling.

If Bowser died first on EVERY stage, I wouldn't be putting forth this argument. It'd be pretty clear that that's how it was supposed to go.

But since it's arbitrary as to what happens on a last stock Bowsercide, I can only conclude that this MUST be a bug (again, unless someone can put forth an argument explaining what meaningful criteria is being used to decide who dies on which stage).

 

[Darklink401]

Correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u72TSl6Kqs

The list of stages on the first page separates the stages where Bowser and the victim die simultaneously (sending the game to sudden death) and the stages where Bowser dies first and the victim pops in the air for a moment before falling.

If Bowser died first on EVERY stage, I wouldn't be putting forth this argument. It'd be pretty clear that that's how it was supposed to go.

But since it's arbitrary as to what happens on a last stock Bowsercide, I can only conclude that this MUST be a bug (again, unless someone can put forth an argument explaining what meaningful criteria is being used to decide who dies on which stage).

Huh...

That is odd as hell.

Has anyone tried this on custom stages?

 

[1FC0]

Tradition totally matters in cases of ambiguity like this.

The ambiguity is created when we make rules that ignore the result screen for no good reason. Ambiguity is probably the most important reason to be against the Bowsercide clause. If the game says that Bowser loses then he loses, if the game says that Bowser wins then he wins. Where is the ambiguity? Even if you do not like that it is stage dependant then you should probably vote for Bowser losing every time, since that prevents the ambiguity of going 100% against the result screen. (Giving him a win when the game says he loses.)

No, they boil down to "this has been part of Bowser's toolkit for 6+ years prior already and the risk vs. reward ratio of Bowserciding factors in the difficulty of pulling it off".

Both bad arguments. SSBB is irrelevant. I do not want arbitrary rules just to make characters seem more like they were in SSBB or in previous patches. If a character lost something then that is tough luck. R.O.B. lost a lot of nice things too but you do not hear me asking for rules to give R.O.B. the tools that he lost back.

And the risk/reward is a bad argument too. So many characters have moves with a much worse risk/reward ratio, so if Bowser gets a special rule then why do they not?

TBH, I don't think Sakurai intended to change this at all.

Again, THIS is the bug they tried to fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

And thanks to the fact that Sakurai supplies us with squat for patch notes, we have no idea what part of the change (if any) was intended.

Again, why would what Sakurai wants matter? Did we ban bucket breaking? Did we ban Mortar Sliding? Did we ban Chain Jacket? Did we ban Flying Ganon? Did we ban Instant PKMN Switching on Smashville? No. Glitch or intended never mattered. Why? Because we play for the fun of competition, not to obey the devs.

Before you bring it up, glitches like Infinite Cape were banned for being broken, not for being glitches. MK was almost banned himself for the same reason even though he was no glitch at all.

Bowser has been Bowserciding for 6+ years, AND he was Bowserciding when SSB4 launched. To suddenly and abruptly change that would be strange but not unheard of, but to change it so it doesn't even work consistently on different stages says to me that this was a bug unintentionally introduced by Sakurai.

Again SSBB does not matter. In SSBB who won was port based, which is unfair since we do not want counterpicking with controller ports. Counterpicking with stages is fine.

Hypothetical situation: what if a bug was introduced that allowed, say, DK to vanish off the side of the stage and be invincible for the duration of the match (after he acquired a percent lead, of course)?

Should we "go with what the game says" and simply watch as the entire metagame fell to DK?

Very bad example. Your glitch should be banned for being broken. Explain to me how Bowsercide is broken if we follow the game? Does it make Bowser unbeatable? I thought it made Bowser worse, which is the wrong direction for making him broken.

Let me put this anyone way: can SOMEONE come up with a theory as to why Bowsercide works differently on different stages?

If so, what differentiates the "SD" stages from the "Bowser dies first" stages?

Can someone give me a theory why Battlefield has 3 platforms? What differentiates BF from FD?
The difference between the SD stages and the "Bowser dies first stages" is that in the former you get an SD and in the latter Bowser dies first. Good thing that we have counterpicking because all differences between stages are arbitrary.


BTW do you also want a rule against recovering when Bowser Bowsercides a character that can recover from it in a non-SD stage? That would be 2 rules just to bring a rule back from SSBB which we only had for a reason that is not valid anymore! We only had SD clause because of port priority but port priority has been fixed.


BTW do you also want a rule against recovering when Bowser Bowsercides a character that can recover from it in a non-SD stage? That would be 2 rules just to bring a rule back from SSBB which we only had for a reason that is not even valid anymore! We only had SD clause because of port priority but port priority has been fixed in Smash 4.

 

[S_B]

The ambiguity is created when we make rules that ignore the result screen for no good reason.

It's a perfectly good reason.

In any other competitive game, if a bug was introduced that changed a game mechanic in such an arbitrary fashion, something would certainly be done by TOs to account for it.

Can someone give me a theory why Battlefield has 3 platforms? What differentiates BF from FD?

So, in other words, no, you have no explanation for how the game decides to kill or go to SD.

That's because it's a BUG and there is absolutely no basis for it killing Bowser first on some stages and going to SD on others.

Fine: ignore Brawl completely. SSB4 launched with Bowsercide working EXACTLY as it did in Brawl, and it only CHANGED when this was patched out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

And we care about whether or not it's working as intended because the move is balanced around the idea that Bowser is capable of doing this. In its current state, the move is a gigantic liability because it can so readily be used AGAINST Bowser instead.

TOs have been adhering to the "initiator" clause for years. Why change that for a situation that's clearly bugged? Yeah, we used to do it for port ordering. Now we have to do it because Sakurai sucks at QA.

And if it's not bugged, again, find me some criteria for how the game decides which stages to kill or SD on.

 

[1FC0]

It's a perfectly good reason.

In any other competitive game, if a bug was introduced that changed a game mechanic in such an arbitrary fashion, something would certainly be done by TOs to account for it.



So, in other words, no, you have no explanation for how the game decides to kill or go to SD.

I have no explanation for why BF has 3 platforms either. So according to your logic I should ban BF.

That's because it's a BUG and there is absolutely no basis for it killing Bowser first on some stages and going to SD on others.

Fine: ignore Brawl completely. SSB4 launched with Bowsercide working EXACTLY as it did in Brawl, and it only CHANGED when this was patched out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

I already knew that. Even played against it. (And maybe also with.) But why does it matter? Are we trying to undo patches? Is that a goal in itself?

And we care about whether or not it's working as intended because the move is balanced around the idea that Bowser is capable of doing this. In its current state, the move is a gigantic liability because it can so readily be used AGAINST Bowser instead.

Then use balance as your argument, not devs intention. Besides, Smash has never been balanced. Does SSBB Ganondorf not need to be buffed because he was balanced with being crappy in mind?
Also how do you use it against Bowser? Steal the opponents controller and hit yourself with it?

TOs have been adhering to the "initiator" clause for years. Why change that for a situation that's clearly bugged? Yeah, we used to do it for port ordering. Now we have to do it because Sakurai sucks at QA.

We change it because now it is stage dependant and not port dependant. We have counterpicking for that.

And if it's not bugged, again, find me some criteria for how the game decides which stages to kill or SD on.

Find me some criteria for why BF has 3 platforms. All stages are arbitrary. Smash is not like RPS where every element is needed or the game would break.

 

[S_B]

Find me some criteria for why BF has 3 platforms.

Because a developer put them there, intentionally, because they add variety to the game.

We also know that attacks will KO off the top of the screen earlier if you're standing on the top of those platforms, just as we know that characters will catch a ledge they're falling past one, just as we know that some stages are a rectangle which prevents players from going underneath it while others are a trapezoid.

These are all aspects of SSB we know and understand, and each and every one has a clear basis in logic.

Bowser dying first on some stages but SDing on others has zero basis in logic because it defies the consistent workings of SSB that we otherwise know and love. With no gameplay-established reason for the difference, we can only conclude that it's a bug.

And let's think about the initiator clause for a moment...

Why was it added to the game? Because it became clear to TOs that the game itself was awarding victory or SD based upon a piece of criteria that was not consistent with the performance of the player who initiated the suicide.

If you accept that the initiator clause was added because TOs KNEW that, in this case, the game didn't know best, then why is that such a stretch to say the exact same thing now?

 

[JohnnyB]

Clearly the suicide clause should not have existed in brawl either because you know which controller port you're using and if you bowsercide it's your fault when you lose.

This is getting old and I'm starting to think the best solution is to just ban klaw and make dash slash the standard side b because this move is clearly inconsistent and buggy (right down to never being certain if you or your opponent will control the move).

 

[LancerStaff]

Bowser dying first on some stages but SDing on others has zero basis in logic because it defies the consistent workings of SSB that we otherwise know and love. With no gameplay-established reason for the difference, we can only conclude that it's a bug.

Can you mind read Sakurai? Do you know exactly what he was thinking when he tinkered with the move?

 

[S_B]

Can you mind read Sakurai? Do you know exactly what he was thinking when he tinkered with the move?

I'm thinking he was trying to fix this bug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8
...And broke Bowsercide by accident and then never cared enough to fix it because it's not a "show stopper".

I don't need to read Sakurai's mind to understand why he did anything else in the game. Even random things in the game like GW's judge ability have obvious reasoning behind them.

Is there any logic behind Bowser dying first on some stages and SDing on others? Is something different about those stages? Is Bowsercide easier on some and harder on others? (no, no and no, BTW)

Controller port dictating winner wasn't even random, it was consistent and the reasoning was that the game had no better logic for determining a winner, and we STILL decided that that was dumb and put in a clause to circumvent it.

The current setup of arbitrary Bowsercide rulings is even sillier, but we're going to say, "Well, that's what the game wants..."?

 

[1FC0]

Because a developer put them there, intentionally, because they add variety to the game.

We also know that attacks will KO off the top of the screen earlier if you're standing on the top of those platforms, just as we know that characters will catch a ledge they're falling past one, just as we know that some stages are a rectangle which prevents players from going underneath it while others are a trapezoid.

These are all aspects of SSB we know and understand, and each and every one has a clear basis in logic.

Bowser dying first on some stages but SDing on others has zero basis in logic because it defies the consistent workings of SSB that we otherwise know and love. With no gameplay-established reason for the difference, we can only conclude that it's a bug.

And let's think about the initiator clause for a moment...

Why was it added to the game? Because it became clear to TOs that the game itself was awarding victory or SD based upon a piece of criteria that was not consistent with the performance of the player who initiated the suicide.

If you accept that the initiator clause was added because TOs KNEW that, in this case, the game didn't know best, then why is that such a stretch to say the exact same thing now?

Because we do not have port counter picking but we do have stage counterpicking.

Any stages including BF is arbitrary. Everything that you said are just the results of the arbitrary decisions that make BF how it is. BF is not needed for balance, it just adds something to the game. Perhaps you like what BF adds, and dislike what Flying Slam adds, but that is no reason to change Flying Slam with a rule IMO.


Perhaps I could summarize my reasons for not supporting this rule into the following paragraph:

A rule like SD clause IMO should normally only be made when something is way OP, adds an unfair advantage (like port priority, not like Bowser losing from his own Bowsercide because if Bowser is that bad pick another character and if he is not use his other options) , or adds a significant luck based element. Flying Slam is none of that. Previous games, previous patches, devs intentions, things only working on some stages (for example: Citycide, Quick PT switching, wall jumping, Invisible Shadow Sneak, Drawing with Bowsercide ) , characters being too weak, moves being too bad, I normally consider all those things to be bad reasons for a rule like this.

What makes a good reason for a rule like this is subjective so I guess that if you disagree with this we differ on opinion. Most of your points seem to indicate that I am just more conservative with rules than you are.

The only good argument IMO that I have read is that Bowser supposedly loses control randomly even when he has less damage. If this happened often enough then I might consider it a major luckbased element and support the Bowsercide clause, since Bowser losing based on pure luck after hitting a move is pretty borderline for me.

 

[S_B]

Any stages including BF is arbitrary. Everything that you said are just the results of the arbitrary decisions that make BF how it is.

I would say they're decisions that make it fun to fight on, actually. I'm quite certain that they spent hours of time playtesting various stages and decided that BF's layout is fun and enjoyable, hence why it's been in so many of the SSB games.

BF is quite deliberate and it makes sense: it's one of THE most popular stages in casual and competitive play alike.

BF is not needed for balance, it just adds something to the game. Perhaps you like what BF adds, and dislike what Flying Slam adds, but that is no reason to change Flying Slam with a rule IMO.

Except that a near-identical situation to FS's current predicament has existed in the past and it was rectified with a ruling by TOs.

I mean, precedent is king when it comes to LAW and I'm assuming that SSB tournaments tend to lean toward precedent because rules are typically only instated after much deliberation and consideration.

A rule like SD clause IMO should normally only be made when something is way OP, adds an unfair advantage (like port priority, not like Bowser losing from his own Bowsercide because if Bowser is that bad pick another character and if he is not use his other options) , or adds a significant luck based element. Flying Slam is none of that. Previous games, previous patches, devs intentions, things only working on some stages (for example: Citycide, Quick PT switching, wall jumping, Invisible Shadow Sneak, Drawing with Bowsercide ) , characters being too weak, moves being too bad, I normally consider all those things to be bad reasons for a rule like this.

I understand that, but I just don't see how that differs from the port ordering rule.

-If you're player 2, use suicide moves at your own risk.

-If you're Bowser, use klaw at your own risk.

What's the difference?

In both cases, the player KNOWS the risks involved and in both cases TOs feel that the game bases who wins on bad criteria. Thus, the clause was created.

It's actually WORSE for Bowser, as Ganoncide is rarely unintentional, but you can use klaw with 0 intention of suiciding with it, yet it can be used against you in those cases.

The only good argument IMO that I have read is that Bowser supposedly loses control randomly even when he has less damage. If this happened often enough then I might consider it a major luckbased element and support the Bowsercide clause, since Bowser losing based on pure luck after hitting a move is pretty borderline for me.

Also true and it also sucks, and given Sakurai's record on bugs, it wouldn't surprise me if this happened.

The move is actually a decent move to use to KO people with (on stage). It's very hard to land which plays into the risk v. reward aspect of it and I just can't believe that it was meant to be as massive of a liability as it is now. :\

Let's just say there's a reason Bowser mains would LOVE to see customs on because they can bid farewell to the kurrent krappy klaw forever...

 

[Charey]

I don't think it matters much either Bowser always win or always loses on a Bowserside, you can figure out how to deal with it either way.

What matters is that we have a consistent ruling so we know how to react to a klaw because the game isn't giving us a consistent rule on different stages.

 

[S_B]

I don't think it matters much either Bowser always win or always loses on a Bowserside, you can figure out how to deal with it either way

Ideally, they'd patch it so we don't have to worry about, but you know Sakurai...

What matters is that we have a consistent ruling so we know how to react to a klaw because the game isn't giving us a consistent rule on different stages.

This.

And if customs become legal across the board, I suspect you'll see dash slash almost universally replace klaw.

 

[dav3yb]

Clearly they should have left the move alone and just REMOVED THAT STUPID FLYING MAN.

 

[LancerStaff]

I'm thinking he was trying to fix this bug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

You "think" and not "know." Try again.

 

[S_B]

You "think" and not "know." Try again.

Okay, I KNOW that that was the bug they went in to fix, I KNOW that the easiest solution was to make it so Bowser dies first in a Bowsercide and I KNOW that Sakurai could give two s**ts about Bowser's moveset working properly or not, and I KNOW that because, if he did care, the results would at least be consistent across all stages.

It takes a special kind of horrendously bad QA to not pick up on a bug like this, seriously...

If you think it was an intentional change, find me an interview where Sakurai has said something to that effect. He very well could have, but I don't think we've seen anything even loosely resembling a "patch note" to date (at least nothing with any details beyond "we balanced sum stuf, k").

 

[LancerStaff]

Okay, I KNOW that that was the bug they went in to fix, I KNOW that the easiest solution was to make it so Bowser dies first in a Bowsercide and I KNOW that Sakurai could give two s**ts about Bowser's moveset working properly or not, and I KNOW that because, if he did care, the results would at least be consistent across all stages.

It takes a special kind of horrendously bad QA to not pick up on a bug like this, seriously...

If you think it was an intentional change, find me an interview where Sakurai has said something to that effect. He very well could have, but I don't think we've seen anything even loosely resembling a "patch note" to date (at least nothing with any details beyond "we balanced sum stuf, k").

You know now? Do you have proof of anybody from Nintendo saying that?

And they haven't supplied any patch notes so they don't upset the casual fanbase.

 

[S_B]

You know now? Do you have proof of anybody from Nintendo saying that?

You can use deductive reasoning and occam's razor to figure these things out, provided you don't have the intellect of a cantaloupe...

-The bug was fixed in the same patch that made the change to Bowsercide

-This also ADDED the bug that Bowsercide now behaves differently on different stages

The fact that there are no patch notes or any explanations for changes just further corroborates the fact that Sakurai doesn't give a ****.

Saying "BUT U DUNT NO!!!" after that is the exact same thing as insisting that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You can't prove it DOESN'T exist, but you have all of the evidence you need to draw conclusions about its existence (spoiler alert: it doesn't).

All the evidence points to this being because of a bug fix causing another bug and Sakurai not giving a ****, and given his track record, it isn't exactly hard to believe.

And they haven't supplied any patch notes so they don't upset the casual fanbase.

TF2 and WoW are both insanely casual games, yet both supply patch notes for their players.

Once again, Sakurai doesn't give a ****.

 

[LancerStaff]

You can use deductive reasoning and occam's razor to figure these things out, provided you don't have the intellect of a cantaloupe...

-The bug was fixed in the same patch that made the change to Bowsercide

-This also ADDED the bug that Bowsercide now behaves differently on different stages

The fact that there are no patch notes or any explanations for changes just further corroborates the fact that Sakurai doesn't give a ****.

Saying "BUT U DUNT NO!!!" after that is the exact same thing as insisting that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You can't prove it DOESN'T exist, but you have all of the evidence you need to draw conclusions about its existence (spoiler alert: it doesn't).

All the evidence points to this being because of a bug fix causing another bug and Sakurai not giving a ****, and given his track record, it isn't exactly hard to believe.



TF2 and WoW are both insanely casual games, yet both supply patch notes for their players.

Once again, Sakurai doesn't give a ****.

The salt is real.

That's not proof, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people arguing against you. Considering you just called everybody who disagrees with you a fruit, I doubt anybody will even try to get intelligent discussion out of you now.

And then there's the fact you had to go back and correct yourself in attempt to prove me wrong, well...

Patch notes weren't given because every fanbase ever will ***** and moan about it until the next one. Right now the only people complaining about it are on Smashboards. I would much rather not have the community riled up even further, myself.

 

[Judo777]

For clarity, we DID have port counter picking in Brawl. It was relevant for Bowser (aka irrelevant lol) and for Snake (because of how knockback with grabs worked). Basically whoever chose port forfeited their right to stage strike first or second to the opponent (if I choose port, my opponent gets to pick stage strike order between he and I).

And we DID buff Ganon in Brawl..... it was via....... the suicide clause (Ganon always lost suicides, or tied depending on port).

 

[cot(θ)]

That's not proof, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people arguing against you.

Actually, you're the only one who disagrees that the Bowsercide issues are a bug that was introduced in the balance patch (whether it was specifically to fix the Flying Man bug is another issue, and doesn't really matter).

People with sense are trying to argue about whether or not this is a good reason to have a suicide clause, and you're doing nothing but hurting your own cause by trying to use such inane arguments.

 

[LancerStaff]

Actually, you're the only one who disagrees that the Bowsercide issues are a bug that was introduced in the balance patch (whether it was specifically to fix the Flying Man bug is another issue, and doesn't really matter).

People with sense are trying to argue about whether or not this is a good reason to have a suicide clause, and you're doing nothing but hurting your own cause by trying to use such inane arguments.

I'm arguing that we don't know if Bowserside was supposed to be nerfed or not. I have acknowledged that the move is now buggy from the beginning.

 

[cot(θ)]

I'm arguing that we don't know if Bowserside was supposed to be nerfed or not. I have acknowledged that the move is now buggy from the beginning.

Bowser dying first on some stages but SDing on others has zero basis in logic because it defies the consistent workings of SSB that we otherwise know and love. With no gameplay-established reason for the difference, we can only conclude that it's a bug.

Can you mind read Sakurai? Do you know exactly what he was thinking when he tinkered with the move?

Stop contradicting yourself. You're inhibiting useful discussion by avoiding the main issue and making useless jabs at the other side.

No wonder this thread isn't getting anywhere. The one person who thinks the suicide clause should be a thing can't make his point because he's wasting all his time replying to you.

 

[S_B]

The salt is real.

How do you read this and infer "salt"? Honestly, this entire thing doesn't affect me even one bit, since I'll never take Bowser to a tournament. I just feel like, unlike most games, Nintendo doesn't pay enough attention to competitive aspects of the game and we sometimes need to create rules to compensate for that (something the competitive community has already done several times in the past, including LGLs and suicide clauses).

And really, is that anything NEW? Melee was a happy accident, seeing as how Sakurai never intended wavedashing to be in the game, and he deliberately sabotaged Brawl with tripping to ensure it wasn't "played too seriously".

Sakurai not giving a **** may as well be chiseled in stone at this point. It took Namco taking over most of the development to even get a 1v1 online mode into the game...

That's not proof, otherwise there wouldn't be so many people arguing against you. Considering you just called everybody who disagrees with you a fruit, I doubt anybody will even try to get intelligent discussion out of you now.

There's like, three people arguing against me (or were)? And I'm pointing out that there's a pretty clear line of reasoning behind why Bowsercide now functions the way it does.

And FYI, people are sent to the electric chair without "proof" of any kind. Enough evidence to push the decision beyond "reasonable doubt" is all you need in a court of law and that's good enough for me.

Is there any reason to doubt Sakurai doesn't care, when he's repeatedly crapped all over the competitive side of SSB for years?

Patch notes weren't given because every fanbase ever will ***** and moan about it until the next one. Right now the only people complaining about it are on Smashboards. I would much rather not have the community riled up even further, myself.

And people DON'T complain about not knowing what's changed?

Seriously, that's like saying it's better that someone sneezes on a muffin, puts it back on the tray and DOESN'T tell you which one instead of telling you. Also, I assure you, casual players who were using Bowsercide certainly noticed when it changed...

People eventually figure out what's changed anyway and THEN complain about it. All patch notes do is save us the trouble from having to arduously go through every character and figure it out for ourselves...

So in conclusion, yes, there should be a suicide clause, for the same reason there was in brawl: because Sakurai cares about game balance like Bush cared about Hurricane Katrina victims.

We know that his QA is terrible because he spent most of Brawl's budget on the god-awful SSE and let the actual game suffer hugely with loads of bugs and infinites as result (Miyamoto even cautioned him not to and Sakurai basically replied with, "Screw you, old man...").

The latest Bowsercide change bears all the hallmarks of yet more of his indifference, and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it fixed in the next patch, but then again, I also wouldn't be surprised if it continued to be bugged, or new bugs were added where sometimes whiffing with klaw will rocket Bowser off the top of the screen for no apparent reason.

 

[LancerStaff]

Stop contradicting yourself. You're inhibiting useful discussion by avoiding the main issue and making useless jabs at the other side.

No wonder this thread isn't getting anywhere. The one person who thinks the suicide clause should be a thing can't make his point because he's wasting all his time replying to you.

I was implying that we don't know if it's supposed to just fix the Flying Man glitch (which could of just been done by disabling the ability to grab him, along with Nabbit), if it was supposed to be nerfed to SD only, or if it was to be Bowser looses.

How do you read this and infer "salt"? Honestly, this entire thing doesn't affect me even one bit, since I'll never take Bowser to a tournament. I just feel like, unlike most games, Nintendo doesn't pay enough attention to competitive aspects of the game and we sometimes need to create rules to compensate for that (something the competitive community has already done several times in the past, including LGLs and suicide clauses).

And really, is that anything NEW? Melee was a happy accident, seeing as how Sakurai never intended wavedashing to be in the game, and he deliberately sabotaged Brawl with tripping to ensure it wasn't "played too seriously".

Sakurai not giving a **** may as well be chiseled in stone at this point. It took Namco taking over most of the development to even get a 1v1 online mode into the game...

There's like, three people arguing against me (or were)? And I'm pointing out that there's a pretty clear line of reasoning behind why Bowsercide now functions the way it does.

And FYI, people are sent to the electric chair without "proof" of any kind. Enough evidence to push the decision beyond "reasonable doubt" is all you need in a court of law and that's good enough for me.

Is there any reason to doubt Sakurai doesn't care, when he's repeatedly crapped all over the competitive side of SSB for years?

And people DON'T complain about not knowing what's changed?

Seriously, that's like saying it's better that someone sneezes on a muffin, puts it back on the tray and DOESN'T tell you which one instead of telling you. Also, I assure you, casual players who were using Bowsercide certainly noticed when it changed...

People eventually figure out what's changed anyway and THEN complain about it. All patch notes do is save us the trouble from having to arduously go through every character and figure it out for ourselves...

So in conclusion, yes, there should be a suicide clause, for the same reason there was in brawl: because Sakurai cares about game balance like Bush cared about Hurricane Katrina victims.

We know that his QA is terrible because he spent most of Brawl's budget on the god-awful SSE and let the actual game suffer hugely with loads of bugs and infinites as result (Miyamoto even cautioned him not to and Sakurai basically replied with, "Screw you, old man...").

The latest Bowsercide change bears all the hallmarks of yet more of his indifference, and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it fixed in the next patch, but then again, I also wouldn't be surprised if it continued to be bugged, or new bugs were added where sometimes using klaw will rocket Bowser off the top of the screen for no apparent reason where he dies but his victim doesn't.

I'd say somebody resorting to fruit comparisons is salty, my friend.

Don't even get me started on Melee. 'Twas doomed from the start to never get a "proper" sequel.

And how many arguing with you?

The original SSB was designed exactly to, as you put it, "crap on the competitive side". You wanna derail this further or what?

It's not unreasonable to identify changes in a patch though, especially since we can view the files. And we're not getting many anyway.

Most people aren't even aware of the changes, and the casual players that do notice are happy with the Bowserside nerf. Which was something people were calling for, by the way.

It's funny to watch salty people attempt to pin all the blame on Sakurai, yaknow?

 

[S_B]

I was implying that we don't know if it's supposed to just fix the Flying Man glitch (which could of just been done by disabling the ability to grab him, along with Nabbit), if it was supposed to be nerfed to SD only, or if it was to be Bowser looses.

I agree, they SHOULD have just made them both ungrabbable and left it at that, but it's not a coincidence that the change happens to fix the flying man glitch.

I'd say somebody resorting to fruit comparisons is salty, my friend.

And I'd say you seriously need to go look up the definition of "salty".

But you've already demonstrated that what I said doesn't apply to you because you pointed out that they SHOULD have just fixed the issue by making Nabbit and FM ungrabbable, instead of the ham-fisted fix that was implemented instead...

The original SSB was designed exactly to, as you put it, "crap on the competitive side". You wanna derail this further or what?

I'm not derailing it because this is relevant to the discussion. Sakurai designing the game to not be competitive is the very reason we've had to implement clauses like this in the past.

To SSB4's credit, they fixed the LGL/planking issue by making it so repeated ledgegrabs no longer grant invincibility frames.

It's not unreasonable to identify changes in a patch though, especially since we can view the files. And we're not getting many anyway.

I think you only have the right to say that after you go through and test every...single...move for changes in knockback, damage, frame speed and trajectory changes.

Really, it's a LOT of work...

Most people aren't even aware of the changes, and the casual players that do notice are happy with the Bowserside nerf. Which was something people were calling for, by the way.

This is a statement that is 100% unback-upable.

It's funny to watch salty people attempt to pin all the blame on Sakurai, yaknow?

I wouldn't know, and clearly, neither would you.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

How do you read this and infer "salt"?

Because you keep running your mouth and insulting anyone I see who argues with you.

It's why I haven't bothered doing the same, because I know what I'd be getting in response.

 

[S_B]

Because you keep running your mouth and insulting anyone I see who argues with you.

Two things...

1. "Keep" implies that I've done it more than once. The only half-insult I threw out in this entire thread was the cantaloupe remark, and even that wasn't AIMED at anyone. I didn't say, "______, who has the IQ of a cantaloupe...".

2. I think you have me arguing my point confused with insulting people. Yes, when people make bad/irrelevant points, I have to explain why those don't make sense or don't apply to the situation in order to argue for my point. That's what rebuttals in a debate are all about. If you're going to take those personally, it's for the best if you don't do any internet debating, then.

So I'll summarize my argument once more...

The suicide clause should apply to Bowser because...

-The suicide clause from Brawl was put in place because the organizers of competitive events felt the game was wrong in awarding victory to the victim of the suicide grab instead of the initiator.

-In Brawl, Bowser's suicide grab awarded him the win (or I believe SD when he was a lower port than the victim). When SSB4 was released, Bowser's suicide grab ALWAYS awarded him the win if he and the victim were on last stock.

-It wasn't until the flying man glitch was discovered and patched that this change to Bowsercide occurred, a change which has left Bowsercide bugged, as it gives different results on different stages.

-The fact that this is the case indicates that there was poor QA on the part of Sakurai/Namco, meaning that, although irrelevant, this may not be what their intentions are for Bowsercide. All things considered, poor QA in SSB is absolutely nothing new.

-Bowsercide is a difficult move to pull off, and the potential to kill someone with it is balanced around a number of key factors:
1. Bowser must land the move which has a relatively small hitbox (reduced from Brawl) and can be interrupted by any attack as grab armor is no longer in the game.
2. Bowser must be sufficiently ahead in % in order to steer the move. If he isn't, the opponent will be able to steer the move.
3. Bowser must initiate the move close enough to the ledge in order to steer himself and his opponent over the ledge, even if he does have % advantage.

-The move sometimes fails to function properly and seems to allow the opponent to steer it, even when Bowser has the % lead. This means that using the move on your last stock is a gigantic liability, leaving your opponent actually HOPING to get hit by it so they can use it against you, exactly what Ganondorf faced in Brawl before the clause was put into effect.

-EDIT: Just remembered one more: the move is far more powerful than it was in Brawl, and Bowser can reliably kill with in ON STAGE very easily. If you see Bowser using the move and he and his opponent go OFF the stage, there are fairly good odds that Bowser doesn't want that to happen.

In summary: We were willing to give Ganondorf the win, even though the game said he lost, in Brawl because we felt that the move had enough risk vs. reward that, if Ganondorf landed it, HE should be the one to win, not the victim who was at fault for being hit by it in the first place.

We know that Bowsercide is currently bugged, and even if it wasn't, TOs have stepped in in the past and decided when the game is not awarding the win to the player that should have won. Given all of the evidence and past precedent, I feel it is certainly the case here that the suicide clause should apply to Bowser.

PS. For all of the supposed complaints about casuals hating Bowsercide, folks do realize how stupidly easy it is to Ganoncide people, right? Grab ledge, jump back, toward+B onto the ledge, repeat. I've caught so many people with this, and you can't even STEER Ganoncide. I suspect that anyone salty about being Bowsercided doesn't even realize they can steer the move, as I've used it a number of times to grab people who had the % lead and found no resistance as I carried them over the ledge (even post patch when I had the stock lead).

 

[Rynhardt]

Isn't Bowser's custom command grab (I forget the number, the other grab that isn't default) given a ton of control to the victim no matter the percent? This makes it obvious that the SD was always meant to favor Bowser, and with one being changed without the other, we can assume either the custom was overlooked or that the change had unintended results that weren't considered and just put in to place to fix a casual game mode bug.

An example, I was 0% Bowser and I dash command grabbed a 40% Greninja. We are near the middle of the stage, same stock count, and he steered us to our death for the win.

The way the custom is designed is to make it easier to land but nearly impossible for Bowser to choose to SD with, since the victim is given so much control. This control is given to them under the assumption that they'll steer to the stage because the SD would give Bowser the win. Now steering off will give them almost a 100% chance to win.

As we are now it isn't the worst thing to follow the result screen and force Bowser to use the dash slash, but including Bowser in the SD clause isn't to buff a strength, but to remove a glaring weakness that is quite likely a glitch or oversight. The clause would actually prevent a lot of SDs since it is somewhat rare for Bowser to steal a game he wasn't going to win with it (that is Ganon's territory and he's in the clause), and instead most SDs are initiated by the victim.

We could remove the SD clause, that is a completely reasonable thing to do, but if we are going to have it then Bowser needs to be included. The issue is consistency on a move clearly designed with SD property (so don't try saying an offstage spike resulting in a double kill is a gray area that could be included) and it doesn't matter which way we go as long as we get consistency. The fact that the question "But what about Bowser?" comes up so much after being told about the clause should be grounds to reaffirm that consistency in some way on its own, even.

Edit: I don't even play Bowser, I've played maybe ten games as him since the game released. But the idea of any character showing up less because of an inconsistency bothers me no matter who the character is. I don't see why including him would be such a problem.

 

[S_B]

The way the custom is designed is to make it easier to land but nearly impossible for Bowser to choose to SD with, since the victim is given so much control. This control is given to them under the assumption that they'll steer to the stage because the SD would give Bowser the win. Now steering off will give them almost a 100% chance to win.

While this is an excellent point, you're going to need a handwritten letter from Sakurai signed in his blood to convince some of the people on this forum that this was his "true intention".

...Which is actually fine because Brawl's suicide clause ignored Sakurai's intentions anyway and it sets a valid precedent.

Edit: I don't even play Bowser, I've played maybe ten games as him since the game released. But the idea of any character showing up less because of an inconsistency bothers me no matter who the character is. I don't see why including him would be such a problem.

I'm basically in the same boat as I'll never actually take Bowser to a tournament, but yeah, more variety in tournaments is ALWAYS better.

I stopped paying any attention to Brawl's competitive scene when it became nothing but MK and Snake. At this point, getting pretty sick of watching Diddy fight himself...

 

[dav3yb]

So, I'm getting ready to run a pretty small key event, fairly casual as far as things go, and I've been adjusting a few rules to reflect that.

One that is on my mind is the Suicide clause. I feel its fine to have it in place for Bowser, since the game is inconsistent on whether Bowser dies first, or it results in a double KO. However, when it comes to characters like Kirby or King Dedede, I don't really see the point. Are there any results of them causing a double KO and kicking the game to sudden death? They also have a lot more control, being able to spit the inhaled character out before they reach the killbox. So is there any reason to keep the clause around for Kirby or Dedede?

Also, i guess Ganon still takes the win with his side-b right?

 

[Yikarur]

Bowser is the only character with an inconsistent result. You don't need a rule for anyone else.

 

[dav3yb]

Bowser is the only character with an inconsistent result. You don't need a rule for anyone else.

That's what my thought was. But I wasn't sure why apex had them included.

 

[T0MMY]

Attention:

Paragon Los Angeles 2015 is including a suicide clause in the rules for Super Smash Bros. Wii U | See Here |.

For those of you who know, this clause is uneccessary as the game has been balanced to rule specifically for suicides. Including this rule can cause situations where players may feel they have illegitimately lost (or won for that matter!) because of an out-of-game rule.

For those who are concerned about the integrity of competition, I implore you to contact the TO's and express your wishes that this suicide clause be removed.

 

[S_B]

For those of you who know, this clause is uneccessary as the game has been balanced to rule specifically for suicides.

...except that they really haven't.

There's a list of stages where, when Bowserciding, Bowser dies first and the opponent can actually jump up and recover, and another SEPARATE list of stages were both players die simultaneously, resulting in a sudden death.

This is Sakurai's quality control at its finest.

 

[Saviorr]

You "think" and not "know." Try again.

Wow that's obnoxious. Have you ever considered discussing things rationally?

 

[LancerStaff]

Wow that's obnoxious. Have you ever considered discussing things rationally?

Because digging up a half-year old argument made mostly irrelevant by patches is rational.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Attention:

Paragon Los Angeles 2015 is including a suicide clause in the rules for Super Smash Bros. Wii U | See Here |.

For those of you who know, this clause is uneccessary as the game has been balanced to rule specifically for suicides. Including this rule can cause situations where players may feel they have illegitimately lost (or won for that matter!) because of an out-of-game rule.

For those who are concerned about the integrity of competition, I implore you to contact the TO's and express your wishes that this suicide clause be removed.

Time to YOLO Dair with Sonic/Sheik/ZSS. It's a legitimate win regardless if it kills or not, according to that rule.

 

[Saviorr]

Time to YOLO Dair with Sonic/Sheik/ZSS. It's a legitimate win regardless if it kills or not, according to that rule.

Lol good point. It seems silly for people to say one suicide move is a legitimate win but not other suicide moves.