@
T0MMY
that Captain Falcon story was certainly whimsical and dramatic, but trying to imply that the Jigglypuff shouldn't have won on time or that the Cpt. deserved a second chance at victory due to "skill" which apparently didn't apply to keeping their percent down is ludicrous.
I believe you missed the moral of that story entirely: The game itself decides what happens; competitions should not be based on our
subjective opinion of who is "winning".
Captain Falcon knows this.
Furthermore time is actually an incentive to approach, as both players have a clear understanding of the % win rule. Where as without time, players have almost no reason to be the aggressor ever, as the player defending will pretty much always be in an advantageous position.
The entirety of Smash 64 says otherwise.
Without time and the percent rule this will lead to two players who sit around waiting for the other player to give up their options--unless of course the TO notices this and decides this is stalling, but then who is decided is stalling and why?
I've actually run tourneys without time and this does not happen. Just saying the sky is falling doesn't mean it is true.
Lastly sudden death as a solution to timeouts is a horrible idea. Not only are the dropping bob-ombs random and uncompetitive, the percent hike can be extremely disfavorable in multiple MUs rather than a neutral opportunity for both players.
I'm going to analyze this:
You started with a conclusion first: Sudden Death as a solution to timeouts is a horrible idea.
To support this your first premise was: Bob-ombs are random and uncompetitive.
Second premise was: Percent hike can be disfavorable rather than neutral
Usually I see starting with a conclusion and then trying to find reason to support it is actually a weak position. I find it to be a stronger position to have clues that lead to a conclusion. To illustrate this, think of a detective trying to solve a case of murder - a proper detective does not first make an accusation of murder without any evidence! No, they look at the evidence - this leads to evidential proof in which a murderer will be unable to deny their actions because all reasonable doubt has been removed. Deductive logic, it's elementary!
Regardless, I will proceed and draw my own conclusions based on the evidence being put forth.
Before doing so I must stress that fallacy will destroy an argument and render it illogical - thus a weak argument to be replaced by a stronger argument.
What we have here is a "suspect" - Sudden Death.
Sudden Death has been accused of beign a "horrible" solution to timeouts.
But first we have to ask why there needs to be a
solution to timeouts at all?
This is what is called leading. We have already been lead to assume that there is a problem and that timeouts is the problem. Next is declaration that Sudden Death is "horrible".
Sorry, but this is the exact reverse of how logic should progress.
However, just to see how far this rabbit hole goes, we'll assume there is a "problem" and that Sudden Death is "horrible".
In order to progress much further a complete examination is required:
- How is Sudden Death "uncompetitive" (please define "competitive" as it is being used).
- What is the point in describing the bob-ombs as "random"?
- What is the point of how % is disfavorable MUs?
Lastly, there's no reason what-so-ever to assume it would stem timeouts. If anything it would encourage them even more as a player that has made it extremely difficult for himself to win can even the odds by waiting out Sudden Death.
This is a double-standard. To say that there's no reason to assume it could be a solution to a supposed timeout problem and then go and assume the opposite (bias) that it would encourage a player to "wait out". This is laudable to assume a player can just "wait" for time to run out without their opponent taking actions to end their stock and win the game. That would not only be unusual in a competition but has not and in all practical cases would not happen. Set aside the double standard and see this assumption for what it is.
With time and the percent win rule we have clear definitions of the way matches should progress in a way that can fairly assess the skills of respective players with as little random elements as possible.
If it is so clearly defined, then what happens when time runs out and both players have the same damage percent?
