Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Overswarm]

If you don't wait for that stage to show up and centralize some grand finals, that sounds like a Construction to me. Which maybe it is and with Constructions there are no right answers?

Originalists try to keep as much of the game as possible, but they still remove things when they become a problem. Both originalists and constructionists have a similar goal -- create a good competitive game. If you have a character that can kill everyone by pressing A and a stage that will arbitrarily determine a winner by shooting one player constantly with bob-ombs, you ban that stage and character.

 

[popsofctown]

But what if one stage shoots Ganon's foes with bob-ombs, but not anyone else? Shouldn't you try to keep it as a possible stage for game one of a set to leave as much of the original game in as possible? Banning it from game 1 seems like there is some kind of Constructionist process since it takes away some part of game and isn't at ban criterion, Ganon won't actually win off the stage because it only accrues him strategic edge from the extra strike game 1. And it doesn't randomly decide who it helps out either, it always helps out Ganon, every time.

So it seems to me like choosing game 1 between 7 stages, 3 stages, or 1 stage is a choice among constructionist options. The only thing an originalist can really ban from game 1 is a stage that will promote variance if it's actually played.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why do we ban stages? For many reasons, but in the context of this discussion it can be boiled down to "Character X will win on this stage a disproportionate amount due to the stage properties".´

I disagree, and this might be the core of the problem. I think we should ban stages due to degenerate tactics and/or randomness - tactics which severely lower the skill ceiling and thus trivialize competition (which is all about testing who is the more skilled player), or elements which randomize and thus invalidate competition. To take your example below:

If we have a stage where Character A vs. Character B results in a 7:3 matchup on one stage and a 4:6 matchup on another, we can safely assume it is the stage influence that changes the matchup rather than character properties.

If we have 10 stages that result in the 7:3 matchup and 6 versions of the 4:6 matchup, striking from only those stages mean it is permanently a 7:3 matchup.

The stage then has the same effect that a banned stage normally would in that it allows Character X to win on a stage a disproportionate amount due to the stage properties alone.

This would imply the stage should be banned, but we all know that's silly -- we would have caused the issue via a tournament format.

First of all, the example is obviously quite extreme; second of all, this is entirely based on your idea of why stages should be banned, and even then it misses the mark. I mean, Duck Hunt is a really strong stage in the Mac/Sheik matchup, right? But is it really the stage's properties that cause that? Not really. It just has some high platforms that Mac can't get to. And that's literally the most extreme example I can think of in the list.

What's more, the average matchup over all stages (which is what we should be aiming for in any given matchup - I'll get back to this) for that hypothetical rounds out to 5,9:4,1 - not quite 7:3, but getting there. Certainly far better than the alternative, which in your hypothetical is moving from that 6:4 to a 4:6.

The entire point of stage striking is to end up on a stage that is neither good or bad for either character. Characters don't 'deserve' a good stage simply by their good stages being more plentiful than their bad ones. That would defeat the purpose of stage striking in the first place.

See, I disagree. The purpose of stage striking should be to find "even" ground for the first round. A stage which benefits neither character relative to the other stages. Ideally, this would be the "average" stage - if the matchup, averaged over all stages, is 6:4, then the stage you strike to should reflect that to some degree. Unfortunately, we can't take "the average of all stages", we have to take one stage. And the median usually does a pretty damn good job of reflecting the mean. Particularly in WiiU, where there really aren't that many really "hard" counterpicks.

Or maybe the problem is that I'm looking at this differently. If a stage is one character's 5th-best, and another character's 8th-best, then obviously this stage is better for one of the characters almost by definition.

 

[dav3yb]

So I know a lot of people like the idea of 3 stick 8 minutes, but are there any tournaments that stream on a consistent basis that use it?

Also, should pools for a tournament be used for any number of entrants? Or just when it passes a certain number (if so what number is good?) . Even if, say only 6 people enter, would it be better to have 2 pools of 3 and then do some kind of finals? Or would it be better to just do all 6 in a single bracket?

 

[popsofctown]

So I know a lot of people like the idea of 3 stick 8 minutes, but are there any tournaments that stream on a consistent basis that use it?

Also, should pools for a tournament be used for any number of entrants? Or just when it passes a certain number (if so what number is good?) . Even if, say only 6 people enter, would it be better to have 2 pools of 3 and then do some kind of finals? Or would it be better to just do all 6 in a single bracket?

For six players, you definitely want to do Round Robin with grand finals between the two players with the best stats.

The HASL monthly streams 3 stock 8 minutes every month. We usually don't really use the 8th minute, it works fine.

 

[lordvaati]

So After some thought and testing, this is what I ultimately feel the legal stages on 3DS are.

Always a Starter
Final Destination
Battlefield

Starter, could be a Counter pick
Yoshi's Island

Counter pick, Could be a Starter
Prism Tower
Omegas

Always a Counter pick
Arena Ferox
Tamodachi Life

Counter pick,could be Banned
Reset Bomb Forest

Banned, could be Counter pick
Brinstar
Corneria
Mute City
Tortimer Island
Rainbow Plains


Everything else is always banned.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Banned, could be Counter pick
Brinstar
Mute City

wat

 

[popsofctown]

wat

You think Brinstar is a neutral?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You think Brinstar is a neutral?

I think it's a counterpick. Banned most of the time? Wat.

 

[popsofctown]

Well the poster is open to it being a counterpick, I don't think the disagreement is of magnitude great enough to be worth quabbling.

 

[dav3yb]

So when doing pools, how are any tie-breakers usually handled? I was reading a few things, and most of the time it seems just a head to head (best of 3 maybe?) is used. Is that consistent with what most smash tournaments do?

 

[Pazx]

So when doing pools, how are any tie-breakers usually handled? I was reading a few things, and most of the time it seems just a head to head (best of 3 maybe?) is used. Is that consistent with what most smash tournaments do?

Run Swiss instead and you'll have fewer ties and systems in place to resolve ties. If you do run RR PoolsI think it usually goes something like this:

Players will be compared with each other on various criteria in this ordered precedence:

1. Set Wins
2. Wins
3. Losses
4. Head to head
5. One Game Rematch

 

[dav3yb]

Run Swiss instead and you'll have fewer ties and systems in place to resolve ties. If you do run RR PoolsI think it usually goes something like this:

Players will be compared with each other on various criteria in this ordered precedence:

1. Set Wins
2. Wins
3. Losses
4. Head to head
5. One Game Rematch

pools are generally done with round robin though right? i've done swiss things in the past, but not with video games. seems like if you just had 8 people and wanted them to get a lot of play time without a top bracket swiss would be the way to go.

 

[BENovator]

This is a huge thread.

Although the initial post was informative, we're polishing our rules for UGC Niagara (April 24-26) and I'm curious what the most updated rules are and if other tournament organizers might be able to share their preferred collection of rules. Thanks!

PS - Did you hear we guaranteeing $5K for this upcoming 1v1 SSB event in Niagara Falls, Canada? Yes!!

 

[Pazx]

This is a huge thread.

Although the initial post was informative, we're polishing our rules for UGC Niagara (April 24-26) and I'm curious what the most updated rules are and if other tournament organizers might be able to share their preferred collection of rules. Thanks!

PS - Did you hear we guaranteeing $5K for this upcoming 1v1 SSB event in Niagara Falls, Canada? Yes!!

I'm a TO in my region and this is what I prefer, it is line with what many scenes worldwide use. $5K sounds very appealing, sounds like it's going to be a good tournament.

The only issue that I'm unsure of is the order of picking characters/customs. For games following game 1 we have 2 options:

Winner picks character
Loser picks character
Winner picks moveset
Loser picks moveset

OR

Winner picks character and moveset
Loser picks character and moveset

I'll update these rules once I've properly formulated an opinion as to which is superior. Also, port priority is mostly obsolete, so you can ignore that.

Spoiler

Smash 4 Wii U Singles Ruleset and Legal Stage List.

General Gameplay Rules

1. 2 Stocks
2. 8 Minute Time Limit
3. Items set to "Off" and "None"
4. Customization is set to "On", custom sets are pre-loaded using the Official Standard Custom Moveset Project
5. Equipment is BANNED.
6. Pause set to "Off"
7. All infinites and chain grabs are legal
8. The act of stalling is banned: stalling is intentionally making the game unplayable: Such as becoming invisible, continuing infinites, chain grabs, or uninterruptible moves past 300%, and reaching a position that your opponent can never reach you.
9. Any action that can prevent the game from continuing (i.e., freezing, disappearing characters, game reset, etc.) will result in a forfeit of that match for the player that initiated the action. You are responsible for knowing your own character, and must be wary about accidentally triggering one of these effects.
10. The winner will be declared by what the game says in all situations, except for when players are presented with sudden death:
a. In the event of a match going to time, the winner will be determined by who has less percent (stock difference still takes priority but will be shown in the results screen).
b. If the match ends with both players dying at the same time coincidentally, or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage.
c. If a match is ended via a suicide move which goes to sudden death, the initiator of the move is considered the loser.

Set Procedure

1. Player Priority is determined if it cannot be determined (see below)
2. Each player selects one controller port
3. Each player selects one character and moveset. A double blind pick may be called by either player
4. The first game is played on a Stage selected from the Starter Stage List through the Stage Striking Method. The order of Stage Striking will be 1-2-1 (Player 1 strikes one stage, Player 2 strikes two stages, Player 1 strikes one stage)
5. The first match is played
6. The player that lost the previous match may opt to re-pick controller ports
7. The player that won the previous match may announce two "Stage Bans"
8. The player that lost the previous match announces the stage for the next match from either the Starter or the Counterpick Stage List. Any Stage named as a "Stage Ban" by either player may not be selected. A player may not counterpick to the last stage they have won on in the current set
9. The player that won the previous match chooses their character
10. The player that lost the previous match chooses their character
11. The next match is played
12. Repeat steps 6-11 for all remaining matches in the set

Determining Player Priority
If there is a dispute in controller port selection or initiating Stage Strike use the following method:
Players will use a random method such as Rock-Paper-Scissors, Coin Flip, or Game and Watch Judgment, where the winner selects either first choice in port selection or first choice in stage striking. Whichever player does not receive first choice in port selection will be compensated with first choice in stage striking.
Note: In Doubles, port selection is ordered 1-2-2-1 fashion (with Team-1 having first choice in controller slot select, Team-2 having both second and third choice, and the final slot going to Team-1).

Misc. Rules

1. The Gentleman Rule: Players may play on any stage, including banned stages, if all players in the match agree to it. If there is a dispute, standard procedure is followed.
2. The Colourblind Rule: During doubles matches, a player on either team can elect to have the opposing team change either their team colour or their characters's palette swap so that they match (eg. players on Blue Team must use Blue colours for their character)
3. The Omega Stage Rule: If Final Destination/Omega Stage is selected as a Counterpick by the player who lost the previous match they may select any Omega Stage they wish.

Stage List

Starters (5)

Battlefield
Smashville
Town and City
Final Destination/Omega Palutena's Temple
Lylat Cruise

Counterpicks (8)

Skyloft
Kongo Jungle 64
Duck Hunt
Wuhu Island
Halberd
Castle Siege
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino Plaza


Omega Stage List (9) - Information

Garden of Hope - Straight walls down to the bottom blast zone
Luigi's Mansion - Indented walls under stage
Bridge of Eldin - Wall is comprised of 2 straight walls above and below a curved guiding lip
Kalos Pokemon League - Guiding lip guides recoveries to ledge
Mario Circuit (Brawl) - Floating stage, Small guiding lip, limited wall jump area
Norfair - Floating stage, guiding lip
Temple - Floating stage, flat wall above narrow guiding lip
Lylat Cruise - Floating stage, no guiding lip, no wall cling/jump
Final Destination/Omega Battlefield/Omega Palutena's - Floating, large guiding lip, wall jump and cling

All sets are to be Best Out Of Three, aside from Winners Finals, Losers Finals and Grand Finals which are to be played Best Out Of Five.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@ Pazx no Pokemon Stadium 2? Because that stage belongs on stagelists. Also, I run the former, because I like how it gives you options to lessen the blow of counterpicking in a lot of situations.

I run a set which is mostly similar, but with a few notable changes.

First and foremost: 3 stocks, 8 minutes. Please run 3 stocks. Please. 2 stocks is just worse. At least Pazx has the right idea of running 2 stocks 8 minutes, because 2 stocks 5 minutes just leads to campier play, but it still has issues regarding recovering from gimps and how rage works in this game. If you can stomach it, run 3 stocks. If you can't, 2 stocks 8 minutes is not a bad idea (beats the **** they're running at Evo any day of the week), and 1 stock 3 minutes Bo5 (also known as "Mahvel Rules", because you get hit once and you die) might be worth testing.

Another thing is Full List Stage Striking. FLSS is a thing that should be considered. In Munich, we strike from the entire stagelist (although this does require an odd number of stages, hence my insistence on Pokemon Stadium 2). This allows for a more neutral game one, as no character is artificially given a "better" stage than they should get. It also helps break up the monotony of starting every game on smashville and battlefield. If you don't want to opt for striking from all 11 or 13 stages (if it's less, someone somewhere ****ed up, here's looking at you, EVO and APEX). If you don't like that idea, the higher you go, the better your situation starting is. Overswarm recommends 9 starters. Whatever you decide on, please, for the love of god, do not do FD/SV/BF. That starter list is abysmal. How to strike with 11 or 13? Like this:
11: 1-2-2-2-2-1
13: 1-2-2-2-2-2-1
Keep in mind that because of the order, 13 is quite a bit better than 11. But either way, it beats 9, 7, 5, and *shudders* 3.

Then there's the list of stages overall. I run that list, plus the aforementioned Pokemon Stadium 2, which is a great stage that scrubs love to complain about. As said, if you have less than 11 stages on your list, you're leaving something out. If you have less than 13, you're probably leaving something you shouldn't out.

 

[Pazx]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Full List Stage Striking.

In the future I'll be pushing for both PS2 and FLSS but at the moment Australia is preparing for the biggest Smash tournament in the southern hemisphere of all time and it's already predicted to have a pretty shoddy ruleset for Sm4sh (very conservative, think 3 starters conservative + no customs) and the view of prominent members of my scene is we should have a similar ruleset until that time is passed. We have a slightly smaller major with a better ruleset/stagelist coming up a few months later though so I'm not worried about making a fuss and dissenting now (thus jeopardising my scene and my own reputation) when I'll get a more liberal (read: good) ruleset to make suggestions after May.

I am, however, a supporter of PS2 and given that this was my preferred ruleset I'll add it to my post. I'd also prefer 9 starters or FLSS but like... Baby steps.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Do you have any say on the ruleset for that tournament? I'd start lobbying, personally. Lord knows I piss off enough of the German community with my antics. :D

How does 2/8 run, anyways?

 

[T0MMY]

This is a huge thread.

Although the initial post was informative, we're polishing our rules for UGC Niagara (April 24-26) and I'm curious what the most updated rules are and if other tournament organizers might be able to share their preferred collection of rules. Thanks!

There really is no Standard to "update" at this time, however the bigger tournaments are making some steps towards that:
Apex started things off with 2 stock 6 minutes and EVO as well as CEO tweaked it back to 2 stock 5 minutes.
3 stock and 8 minutes is very much acceptable.

Items: OFF; No items
Team Attack: ON
Pause: OFF

Every other game setting at default is about as acceptable as you can generally get.

As far as Stages go, most tournaments have had 3 Stage Starters (FD, BF, SV) with some offering 5 Stage Staters (FD, BF, SV, T&C, LC).
Counterpick Stages are a total of 7 (FD, BF, SV, Twn&Cty, LyltCrs, DkHnt, CstlSg) to 9 (FD, BF, SV, T&C, LC, DH, CS, KongJngl64, DlfnPlz).

All sets first 2 wins out of 3 rounds with Upper (winners) Finals, Lower (elimination/loser's) Finals, and Grand Finals being first 3 wins out of 5.

Not sure how far you are willing to push the game settings and rulings, but these rules cover just about everything you'd need as long as you just let the game run itself as normal. Think about how you want to handle ties or stalemates, there's plenty of debate about this considering most of the time TOs will defer to a %-based win ruling that does not accurately determine a winner, however it is the most common way of handling the situation if it occurs despite its obvious flaws including it will keep you from looking like you're using some kind of experimental ruleset or being a rebel of some kind.

Ask questions here whenever you think of something and I'm sure a few people may have something to add to this (I can't even say I support all these "standards" myself, but they are what most the bigger tournaments have already started rolling out).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

T0MMY's list excludes a large number of stages that are competitively viable and should be more widely accepted, including at least one that has absolutely nothing wrong with it, and one which can trivially be adapted to and most people say "I'd rather not learn how to play, ban plz".

 

[T0MMY]

T0MMY's list excludes a large number of stages that are competitively viable and should be more widely accepted, including at least one that has absolutely nothing wrong with it, and one which can trivially be adapted to and most people say "I'd rather not learn how to play, ban plz".

Probably shouldn't call it my list. I was simply updating what the recent notable events have used. Just because you think there should be more stages doesn't mean that my info was incorrect. It wasn't an invitation for stage discussion (there's a thread for that).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Probably shouldn't call it my list. I was simply updating what the recent notable events have used. Just because you think there should be more stages doesn't mean that my info was incorrect. It wasn't an invitation for stage discussion (there's a thread for that).

Right, but if we're recommending rules to a new TO, we should be recommending the best ruleset, not "the ruleset that goes along with APEX's horrible, horrible baggage". The fact that the largest tournaments almost all have really crappy rulesets should not be a reason for more people to emulate that.

 

[T0MMY]

Right, but if we're recommending rules to a new TO, we should be recommending the best ruleset, not "the ruleset that goes along with APEX's horrible, horrible baggage". The fact that the largest tournaments almost all have really crappy rulesets should not be a reason for more people to emulate that.

He was asking about an update of rules used, it's $5k in prizes of course it's going to emulate the other big paying tournaments.
Please note that I said I didn't fully support all the rules used in these tournaments, but giving a subjective opinion like "best" or "horrible" isn't very good to help the guy out.

I'll state that my preferred set of rules is this:
1) Agree to characters
2) Agree to Stage
3) Play the Game

There are very few rules outside that which come into play and usually rare occasions.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This was a post asking about pool tiebreakers.
EDIT: it's right up the page. Dammit I'm dumb.

 

[T0MMY]

EDIT: it's right up the page. Dammit I'm dumb.

Not sure what you're referring to. But I think it's funny you have this idea I am against a large stage list when my tournaments I usually have more stages available than even the most fringe stagephiles. The only Stages I say should be outright banned are the ones that could prevent the tournament from running on time (due to promoting stalling tactics or other oversights).
What I am against is the idea of an unfair competition. I do see how the loser being given the advantage of stage choice is very unfair - why should the person who lost be given special treatment? It makes even less sense when we're supposed to be rewarding winners; seems downright counter-competitive when I think it through.

So, I open up nearly every stage to the competitors and they seem to enjoy seeing which stage they agree to play on. It's usually a variety of Stages with most of them playing on the usual three: FD, BF, SV - possibly due to familiarity from the usual counterpick system. But the more the other stages are used the more they will be familiar with them and if they are competitively viable then the competitors themselves will get to choose which Stage they will compete on - not the TO, you, me, or some kind of oligarchy of a backroom.

Hope I cleared things up.

Oh, and was your reply (#1110) referring to Pokemon Stadium 2? Because I still think PS2 is one of the stupidest Stages to compete on, lol!
But please note the difference between my opinion and my argument/practice. I'll strike PS2 when I compete, but I won't have it banned in tournaments I host nor advocate for a ban in tournaments I do not host..

 

[dav3yb]

@ Pazx Your rules considers the INITIATOR of a suicide move the looser? That seems a bit odd to me. Unless I'm reading it wrong.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

@ Pazx Your rules considers the INITIATOR of a suicide move the looser? That seems a bit odd to me. Unless I'm reading it wrong.

The reason is thus:

When Ganondorf suicides with his side special, the game considers him the winner.

For literally every other suicide move in the game, the game will either go to sudden death or give the win to the "victim" depending on which stage they're fighting on. (Seriously, try doing a Bowsercide on various stages, both Omega and non-Omega.)

Therefore it's more consistent on a per-character basis to consider the initiator to lose. Because if you considered them to win, then they would literally win and lose based on what stage they were on at the time.

 

[dav3yb]

The reason is thus:

When Ganondorf suicides with his side special, the game considers him the winner.

For literally every other suicide move in the game, the game will either go to sudden death or give the win to the "victim" depending on which stage they're fighting on. (Seriously, try doing a Bowsercide on various stages, both Omega and non-Omega.)

Therefore it's more consistent on a per-character basis to consider the initiator to lose. Because if you considered them to win, then they would literally win and lose based on what stage they were on at the time.

Is it actually stage dependent? I know Ganon's kills you first, but i thought they made Bowser die at the same time. Also, i'd hate to think that people would just jump off the ledge, trying to get grabbed by a Ganon side-b to force him to loose the game instead of grabbing the ledge. I don't see it coming up often, but that really changes the dynamic of how his move works. Also, doesn't the victim of Boswers side-b have some control over where he goes? So people shouldn't really be getting KO'd with that move too much i wouldn't think.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Is it actually stage dependent? I know Ganon's kills you first, but i thought they made Bowser die at the same time. Also, i'd hate to think that people would just jump off the ledge, trying to get grabbed by a Ganon side-b to force him to loose the game instead of grabbing the ledge. I don't see it coming up often, but that really changes the dynamic of how his move works. Also, doesn't the victim of Boswers side-b have some control over where he goes? So people shouldn't really be getting KO'd with that move too much i wouldn't think.

Yep. Some stages a Bowsercide will go to sudden death, others it will give the win to the victim.

My preferred ruling is that the results screen trumps all, and that the win should be given to the victim in the event of sudden death.

 

[T0MMY]

it's more consistent on a per-character basis to consider the initiator to lose. Because if you considered them to win, then they would literally win and lose based on what stage they were on at the time.

The rebuke I would see to this in competition would be: Learn the Stages and the character, then play to win (without relying on hoping a TO will rule against the natural function of the game).

Nothing against your proposed ruling as far as my personal liking of it, but when I look at the reasoning I don't think it is strong enough (competitively speaking) to apply it because Software Authority is a Competitive Principle (let the game determine winner) and shouldn't change until it meets the usual criteria.
Consistency isn't the issue here from what I see (competitively), since we just have to "get gud" at knowing the circumstances and when to initiate a suicide KO and when not to and no out-of-game ruling would be needed.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The rebuke I would see to this in competition would be: Learn the Stages and the character, then play to win (without relying on hoping a TO will rule against the natural function of the game).

Nothing against your proposed ruling as far as my personal liking of it, but when I look at the reasoning I don't think it is strong enough (competitively speaking) to apply it because Software Authority is a Competitive Principle (let the game determine winner) and shouldn't change until it meets the usual criteria.
Consistency isn't the issue here from what I see (competitively), since we just have to "get gud" at knowing the circumstances and when to initiate a suicide KO and when not to and no out-of-game ruling would be needed.

Fair points, but unless I'm mistaken even you believe that sudden death is inadequate as a means of determining a winner. It seems we agree that alternative means must be decided upon, and although there are no doubt other options (like a 1-stock rematch on the same stage), not every TO will be inclined to do so for whatever reason. (Time, effort, whatever.) Declaring a winner in the case of sudden death is fast and simple, if nothing else, and although appeal to tradition is not a valid logical argument, the fact that we already ignore sudden death in order to settle stock ties means the majority of the community is used to it and thus will put up less resistance. (I've noticed the Smash community tends to resist change in general.)

Some additional arguments:

If you insist on following the game results in all cases, then Ganondorf is literally the only character in the game who will ever win upon successful use of a suicide move. All other characters either lose or the game goes to sudden death. Therefore any ruling that overrides the game in the event of sudden death via suicide will not affect Ganondorf at all, and we're effectively dealing with a pool of characters that, according to the game, can never win outright if they suicide on the last stock. That implies to me that such a ruling should make them lose.

Bowser in particular either loses outright or sends the game to sudden death if he Bowsercides on the last stock. If he does so on any other stock, it's possible for some characters with extreme recoveries like Villager to make it back to the stage without dying. It therefore makes little sense to award Bowser the win for a Bowsercide even if it goes to sudden death. Again, if it makes no sense to give Bowser the win, then he should lose.

While it's true that losing or going to sudden death on a suicide is tied to the stage and thus can fall under the umbrella of stage knowledge, I'm not convinced that memorizing a list of stages that suicide characters can successfully exploit on a mutual last stock is something we should be testing for in competition. For what it's worth, some Omega stages even vary in this way from their normal counterparts.

And even if we do decide that players should in fact be responsible for memorizing such a list, we still need some sort of ruling in place for when the game does go to sudden death in such a manner. It's important that the rules cover all possible situations.

 

[T0MMY]

Fair points, but unless I'm mistaken even you believe that sudden death is inadequate as a means of determining a winner.

Well, I would not make that claim actually.
Considering how long For Glory has been going on with as many games being played worldwide there seems to be absolutely no major malfunctions with it. Which is to say a lot better of a track record than the %-based ruling has (just based on my own personal experience alone, lol).

It seems we agree that alternative means must be decided upon

Not necessarily.
I think other options can be explored but I would not say "must" until the game breaks (competitively) and it must be fixed in order to have a competition at all. So far that hasn't happened so nothing must be done.

although appeal to tradition is not a valid logical argument, the fact that we already ignore sudden death in order to settle stock ties means the majority of the community is used to it and thus will put up less resistance. (I've noticed the Smash community tends to resist change in general.)

Yes, I think that is the most unfortunate problem with trying to play the game competitively. It's really up to the Smash Community to decide they want a more competitively viable game than they've made. Right now the game itself looks to be fine, it's up to us to love what is being done right and change it if needed.

If you insist on following the game results in all cases, then Ganondorf is literally the only character in the game who will ever win upon successful use of a suicide move. All other characters either lose or the game goes to sudden death. Therefore any ruling that overrides the game in the event of sudden death via suicide will not affect Ganondorf at all, and we're effectively dealing with a pool of characters that, according to the game, can never win outright if they suicide on the last stock. That implies to me that such a ruling should make them lose.

Not sure what you are implying here because I am not advocating any out-of-game ruling. I would only do that when it is necessitated.

And even if we do decide that players should in fact be responsible for memorizing such a list, we still need some sort of ruling in place for when the game does go to sudden death in such a manner.

Why do you say we need such a ruling?
The amazing thing is I found out we don't.

 

[Pazx]

My ruleset says the results screen is always followed except for sudden death, then the initiator is the loser. So, Ganon always wins, Bowser always loses.

 

[ぱみゅ]

^That one actually makes a lot of sense

 

[dav3yb]

So just a quick question about character picking. Most competitive rules allows the winner of a match to switch their character prior to a new match, given they pick the character first right? I know traditional fight games generally have the winner stick with their character, but they dont have as many other factors to contend with when it comes to smash.

 

[Pazx]

So just a quick question about character picking. Most competitive rules allows the winner of a match to switch their character prior to a new match, given they pick the character first right? I know traditional fight games generally have the winner stick with their character, but they dont have as many other factors to contend with when it comes to smash.

You're correct, here's the standard procedure for the second game in a set. Winner and Loser refer to the player who won/lost the previous match. Tournaments either use steps 3a and 4a or steps 5 and 6, not both.

1. Winner announces X (usually 2 for this game) "Stage Bans"
2. Loser chooses stage
3. Winner selects character (3a. winner selects custom moves)
4. Loser selects character (4a. loser selects custom moves.
5. (Winner selects custom moves)
6. (Loser selects custom moves)

 

[Epok]

I have a quick question about mii brawler. Is it the actual one inch punch techniqe that's banned, or the whole custom up b itself?

 

[thehard]

I have a quick question about mii brawler. Is it the actual one inch punch techniqe that's banned, or the whole custom up b itself?

It's not banned in any way AFAIK. Thing is the technique is pretty obviously a glitch or an unfortunate physics engine oversight: it's not reliable and only works on a few cast members. Most Mii Brawlers prefer Helicopter Kick over Piston Punch as it is.

 

[ぱみゅ]

One-inch KO moves are actually often seen throughout the cast.

 

[thehard]

One-inch KO moves are actually often seen throughout the cast.

What else acts that way?

Anyway, is it too late to push for a 6 minute timer at EVO?