Are Sudden Deaths Even Good Tie-breakers?

[Starman15]

Last night I won a For Glory match in a very unfair way, when the time ran out it put me in sudden death with a Lucina that started out pretty intense, but in the end, Bob-ombs started dropping and we were both hit. Lucky for me, my opponent reached the blast zone first.

That got me thinking, "Was that even fair? Would I have lost if it weren't for the explosions?" I feel like sudden deaths don't make very legitimate tie-breakers, at least not with bombs falling. I personally think that a good tie-breaker would just be a 1 stock match.

What do you guys think?

 

[many37]

No. IMO, a short match is a good tie-breaker, mostly for 1v1. Sudden Death is more like a random tie-breaker. Since 4 player Free For All (with or without items) has a very random nature to it, Sudden Death is good for that.

 

[SmashBro99]

No, sudden death should be a 1 stock battle starting fresh.

 

[KingTeo]

Yes. It's sudden death. As in "Suddenly: death".

It only happens when

A.) Time runs out - in which case neither of you were able to kill each other in a reasonable amount of time so you apparently need some help

or

B.) You both lost your last stock at exactly the same time - in which case you both deserve to be in second place so whatever the outcome is, it's fortunate for someone, and reasonable for the other.

500

 

[Starman15]

Yes. It's sudden death. As in "Suddenly: death".

It only happens when

A.) Time runs out - in which case neither of you were able to kill each other in a reasonable amount of time so you apparently need some help

or

B.) You both lost your last stock at exactly the same time - in which case you both deserve to be in second place so whatever the outcome is, it's fortunate for someone, and reasonable for the other.

500

I understand why it's called "sudden death". I just don't see how bombs falling from the sky can cause a reasonable outcome. I'm okay with both players being at 300%, I just feel like bombs falling (especially in a mode intended to lack items) kind of ruins it.

 

[many37]

Yes. It's sudden death. As in "Suddenly: death".

It only happens when

A.) Time runs out - in which case neither of you were able to kill each other in a reasonable amount of time so you apparently need some help

or

B.) You both lost your last stock at exactly the same time - in which case you both deserve to be in second place so whatever the outcome is, it's fortunate for someone, and reasonable for the other.

500

It is still not fair because it solves the issue of "not killing one another in a reasonable amount of time" by using luck and probability. Not by skill.

For any mayor competitions (like baseball, basketball, and others), an extra round is used as a tie-breaker. For example, in baseball you go into an 11th inning or more to break a tie between two teams when the game is 10 innings long.

 

[KingTeo]

I understand why it's called "sudden death". I just don't see how bombs falling from the sky can cause a reasonable outcome. I'm okay with both players being at 300%, I just feel like bombs falling (especially in a mode intended to lack items) kind of ruins it.

Death wasn't sudden enough when the bombs start falling At it's core it's just an extra round that shouldn't have happened at all so why not?

499

It is still not fair because it solves the issue of "not killing one another in a reasonable amount of time" by using luck and probability. Not by skill.

For any mayor competitions (like baseball, basketball, and others), an extra round is used as a tie-breaker. For example, in baseball you go into an 11th inning or more to break a tie between two teams when the game is 10 innings long.

But this isn't a major competition. It's a game designed for entertainment. A game that's obviously gone on too long. It was most likely a conscious design choice when they went with sudden death and bombs instead of an extra round. It's objectively funner.

497

 

[Starman15]

But this isn't a major competition. It's a game designed for entertainment. A game that's obviously gone on too long. It was most likely a conscious design choice when they added sudden death and bombs instead of an extra round. It's objectively funner.

497

It's certainly funnier by all means, it just doesn't fit in well competitively, at least not in my opinion.

 

[KingTeo]

It's certainly funnier by all means, it just doesn't fit in well competitively, at least not in my opinion.

And I agree. But "competitive viability" wasn't a concern during it's creation. As far as I'm led to believe. 496

 

[SmashBro99]

Also I'm pretty sure I was playing FG and was ahead an entire stock (I still had 2, my opponent had 1) and they spammed projectiles and rolled to the other side of the stage until time was up and I still had to do Sudden Death...anyone else come across that?

 

[JayFresh]

It feels right to me, if they changed it someone like wii fit trainer or duck hunt dog could run to ledge, and fairly safely short hop off and fire frisbee/soccer balls / suns and re grab ledge and just repeat till they land one shot

 

[many37]

But this isn't a major competition. It's a game designed for entertainment. A game that's obviously gone on too long. It was most likely a conscious design choice when they went with sudden death and bombs instead of an extra round. It's objectively funner.

497

Well true but the mayor competitions we know today started a long time ago just like Smash started: as silly games designed for entertainment. Design-wise, competitions today evolved through the years to become what they are today and the same thing is happening to Smash.

 

[KingTeo]

Well true but the mayor competitions we know today started a long time ago just like Smash started: as silly games designed for entertainment. Design-wise, competitions today evolved through the years to become what they are today and the same thing is happening to Smash.

But it's not. competitions strive to be as fair and as skill-based as possible by nature. Smash on the other hand, began as, strives for, and continues to be a game based around for fun and casual play. Just because the game accommodates competitive play a little bit more this time around doesn't mean that it is by nature a competitive game. The Sudden Death mode only serves as an example illustrating that point.

496

 

[S_B]

I'd say there shouldn't be any bobombs in glory mode.

 

[Wanderer from Roseyard]

According to Sudden Death, the whole preceding fight matters not and the winner is whoever gets first strike. If that's how it's going to be, you might as well play in 1 HP stamina all the time.

I don't really have a better solution in mind though.

 

[Kikaioh]

Doesn't sudden death only happen when there's a time limit? I thought time limits were usually turned off during competitions, and set to just stock matches (though maybe I just never noticed).

I like how the bombs help end the match within a certain timeframe, I think it's better than dragging a match out. It's like the game's saying "you're taking too long!", and I agree for the most part.

 

[mountain_tiger]

As someone who has been playing fighting games more or less exclusively since, well, forever ago, the way Sudden Deaths work in this game rubs me the wrong way.

In literally any other fighting game, if time runs out and you have more health, you win. Yet here, if you have the same number of stocks and they're at a far higher percent than you... it gets reset entirely for sudden death. I really don't like that, especially since some characters do orders of magnitude better in sudden death than others.

I'd much, much prefer that time outs simply led to whoever has taken less damage winning right away (obv this is assuming the same stocks taken on both sides)

 

[many37]

But it's not. competitions strive to be as fair and as skill-based as possible by nature. Smash on the other hand, began as, strives for, and continues to be a game based around for fun and casual play. Just because the game accommodates competitive play a little bit more this time around doesn't mean that it is by nature a competitive game. The Sudden Death mode only serves as an example illustrating that point.

496

I agree on that. But you still can't deny that the competitive aspect of Smash is emerging and has been emerging in some shape, way, or form. Even if Sakurai is somewhat opposed to Smash being a competitive game (evidenced by how the game presents itself) and he prefers it to be a more casual game, the fans have pushed the game to become competitive. Examples of this are Project M, EVO competitions, local tourneys, and online tourneys.

Even Nintendo is acknowledging this point (that Smash is pushed by the fans to be competitive) by financing SSBM's EVO participation last year, by implementing a seemingly robust Tourney mode on the Wii U version (which they are still working on), by spending money on making a GameCube adapter for the Wii U (due to high fan demand), and by hosting not one, but two national tourneys in less than a year.

EDIT: There is a reason why Nintendo and Sakurai prefer Smash to be a casual game. It is because the group of casual fans dwarfs the group of competitive fans in sheer size alone. They will have more profit if they focus on the casual market. However, the competitive fans are the ones who stick with Nintendo till the end, through good or bad simply because they do not look for just a time killer but look for an experience that both Nintendo and Sakurai are able to provide.

In other words, the casual market is very lucrative but unstable and the competitive market is very non-profitable but highly stable.

 

[XxBHunterxX]

it's actually annoying when you play someone with the intent of spamming because you need to deal with them more carefully meaning 5 min is not enough.

I actually played a mega man who saw that there was 20 seconds left and he was no where close to winning, so he went for the ledge and kept failing low and coming back to the ledge so he could get the invincibility. One second left I pretended like I was going low so he'd do his up B sooner short hoped into Dair

 

[mangamusicfan]

I would be better of you start with 1vs1 stock

 

[LancerStaff]

They should just let whoever had less % win. No extra rounds, no infinite ledge camping, no crying fowl.

 

[hotdogturtle]

Doesn't sudden death only happen when there's a time limit? I thought time limits were usually turned off during competitions, and set to just stock matches (though maybe I just never noticed).

No, this is entirely wrong. Tournaments play stock matches with a time limit, and if the game ever goes to sudden death (timeout while both players have the same stock count) then the sudden death is completely ignored and the person who had lower damage wins. If there's a damage tie, or if both players die on the same frame, then the sudden death is ignored and they start a 1 stock match on the same stage as a tiebreaker.

Sudden Death is pointless as a tiebreaker because it ignores the entirety of the match leading up to it, and randomly gives each player a 50% chance of winning regardless of what happened in the match.

 

[AlexAnthonyD]

Straight up less% win makes more sense because then at the last 20 seconds of a match there would be more of an aggressive pickup rather than stalling to go into a likely overtime.

The first time one of my sudden deaths lasted long enough for bombs to start falling, I believe my 5th occurance I was trying to bait my opponent near the ledge while they were hanging, I had no idea the bombs were coming. Needless to say I was not pleased and in a no item mode I thought it was pretty silly. I'm not mad that it's there but I would be the first to cast my vote to change the way it is. Either no bombs at all, at 300% the match wont last long anyway, or just as others have said less% wins once time expires. If the percentages are exactly the same, than go to the traditional 300% faceoff, but of course with no bombs.

I don't even remember if the bombs were in past smash bros versions, I never really played enough timed matches to get to SD that often. When it did it usually ended in a few seconds anyway.

 

[chipndip]

I understand why it's called "sudden death". I just don't see how bombs falling from the sky can cause a reasonable outcome. I'm okay with both players being at 300%, I just feel like bombs falling (especially in a mode intended to lack items) kind of ruins it.

Someone could get in Sudden Death and just kite all day or cower at the other side of the stage throwing projectiles. That wouldn't be fair to up-close fighters that have to brave the storm of projectiles to even TRY to land a hit if there's no detriment to playing keep-away all day.

The threat of bomb-ombs raining in and deciding the match for you is the threat that should push you to end the round as fast as you can. Sudden Death means get someone the hell out of here...quickly. It's not another stock we should wait up to 2-3 minutes for you to settle. It's short, efficient, and breaks the tie without necessarily flipping a coin.

Straight up less% win makes more sense because then at the last 20 seconds of a match there would be more of an aggressive pickup rather than stalling to go into a likely overtime.

Anyone saying "less % wins" is saying something contradictory to Smash in general. We all know that damage totals mean nothing on their own in this series. The only thing that decides winners in this game are stocks...or points...or coins. For all we know, you can lose a stock with hardly any damage at all, so why decide the match on something that's never used to decide the match, and something that OBVIOUSLY won't translate to multi-player battles that well?

 

[Lord P Wallington]

Not at all

 

[hotdogturtle]

It's short, efficient, and breaks the tie without necessarily flipping a coin.

It virtually is a coin flip because your actions have no effect on the outcome; the game chooses it on its own.

 

[Untouch]

No, it favors projectile characters.

 

[Riggy Rascal]

When you get right down to it, the potential for sudden death is only really the flame under your butt to end the game naturally. (Blegh, is that obvious?) I'd have a hard time believing that anyone wants to go to sudden death to find out who the winner is, barring the people that tell themselves toward the end of the game, "man, there's no way I can beat this person, I gotta stall it out and see if I can get the first hit in sudden death". So no, it's not necessarily fair because normally, no first hit dictates who wins.

And to a somewhat lesser extent, damage percentage doesn't either. Yes, that shows that one player got the majority of good hits in, but it doesn't change the fact that they failed to get the kill. That, and we are all aware of the potential for the almighty comeback, and, well, of .

I'd say sudden death is less "the winner is..!", and more "good job, but finish the game next time".

 

[LancerStaff]

Someone could get in Sudden Death and just kite all day or cower at the other side of the stage throwing projectiles. That wouldn't be fair to up-close fighters that have to brave the storm of projectiles to even TRY to land a hit if there's no detriment to playing keep-away all day.

The threat of bomb-ombs raining in and deciding the match for you is the threat that should push you to end the round as fast as you can. Sudden Death means get someone the hell out of here...quickly. It's not another stock we should wait up to 2-3 minutes for you to settle. It's short, efficient, and breaks the tie without necessarily flipping a coin.


Anyone saying "less % wins" is saying something contradictory to Smash in general. We all know that damage totals mean nothing on their own in this series. The only thing that decides winners in this game are stocks...or points...or coins. For all we know, you can lose a stock with hardly any damage at all, so why decide the match on something that's never used to decide the match, and something that OBVIOUSLY won't translate to multi-player battles that well?

Less % is a better win condition then ledge camping for the longest.

 

[Hayzie]

It's fun for adrenaline rush purposes & ****s and giggles, but no... it's far from fair.

 

[Aurafox1]

I wouldn't say so. It gives a heavy advantage to fast characters who are all about evading and raising percentage. Since the target's percentage is already at a critical level they can just send them flying immediately. Heavy characters are all about low-percentage K.O.'s with attacks that are harder to land, so on "equal" ground, they are at a distinct disadvantage.

 

[XxBHunterxX]

I wouldn't say so. It gives a heavy advantage to fast characters who are all about evading and raising percentage. Since the target's percentage is already at a critical level they can just send them flying immediately. Heavy characters are all about low-percentage K.O.'s with attacks that are harder to land, so on "equal" ground, they are at a distinct disadvantage.

You're 100% correct, but if you ever played as Ganonforf or bowser and made it to sudden death neither you nor your opponent deserves the win

 

[Quartzsoldier]

I was in the air once and a bomb appeared inside my character.
Lost

 

[AlexAnthonyD]

Anyone saying "less % wins" is saying something contradictory to Smash in general. We all know that damage totals mean nothing on their own in this series. The only thing that decides winners in this game are stocks...or points...or coins. For all we know, you can lose a stock with hardly any damage at all, so why decide the match on something that's never used to decide the match, and something that OBVIOUSLY won't translate to multi-player battles that well?

Having the lower % be the winner makes more sense than having bombs decide the fate of the match. How does this not translate into multiplayer well? If 2v2 the player with the less % at the end of time wins it for his team, in FFA it's pretty easy to see how you can rank it.

 

[chipndip]

It virtually is a coin flip because your actions have no effect on the outcome; the game chooses it on its own.

Your actions do have an effect. It's when it's taking too long when the game just drops a bomb and sees who's left. It's still a part of Smash Bros as a franchise, as it's always been. Who'd want to sit around while people wait on two guys finishing off a fresh stock for a "sudden death" round? Or who'd want to decide it based on % when the guy that's using a zoner like Toon Link will usually get people to higher %s first with their projectile spam? If someone wants to play it too safe, they can, but it'll possibly come down to the bomb-ombs, which is supposed to urge participants to risk it for the biscuit and hurry the hell up.

Having the lower % be the winner makes more sense than having bombs decide the fate of the match. How does this not translate into multiplayer well? If 2v2 the player with the less % at the end of time wins it for his team, in FFA it's pretty easy to see how you can rank it.

Because some characters thrive at building %, but not finishing stocks (DHD for example). So if it's tied, they're most likely gonna win because that's what they do: build % until just about anything knocks you out at all.

 

[chipndip]

Although, I should make my personal stance known at this point: I don't mind the way it is now, because the point of S.Death is to have some sort of quick conclusion to what would otherwise be a tie game. Not another 2 minute match your friends have to watch because they ran out of stocks 5 minutes ago, and not a system that favors campers that throw projectiles and hope their % is lower in the last 5 seconds or the guy that runs away with a really fast character hoping to not get hit in the last 5 seconds. If the stocks are the same and you don't want to deal with raining explosives, get in there and end the match. That's the point.

Hell, I haven't had a single S.Death since I've started playing this game on stock matches (you know...after the demo)...at all...period. Not saying I'm EVO status, but between me and my opponents, someone's always getting the job done, which is the point.

 

[SevenYearItch]

I never make it to Sudden Death. If you're making it there then the game clearly has to decide a winner for you because you couldn't get the KO on the player for any number of reasons. Only time I've made it there in the past was me trying to get style kills and missing them. Sudden Death isn't competitive at all, but we also very rarely ever see tourny matches go to Sudden Death so thats probably a good reason

 

[XxBHunterxX]

Your actions do have an effect. It's when it's taking too long when the game just drops a bomb and sees who's left. It's still a part of Smash Bros as a franchise, as it's always been. Who'd want to sit around while people wait on two guys finishing off a fresh stock for a "sudden death" round? Or who'd want to decide it based on % when the guy that's using a zoner like Toon Link will usually get people to higher %s first with their projectile spam? If someone wants to play it too safe, they can, but it'll possibly come down to the bomb-ombs, which is supposed to urge participants to risk it for the biscuit and hurry the hell up.


Because some characters thrive at building %, but not finishing stocks (DHD for example). So if it's tied, they're most likely gonna win because that's what they do: build % until just about anything knocks you out at all.

How does sudden death solve the problem of characters spamming to win? If a characters based around zoning then that gives then an even bigger advantage in SD. What's wrong with a 1 stock match with no time limit there for a true winner would have to be decided or just choose the one with the lower percentage or most importantly increase the time to 8 min, that's more than enough to complete the match and it doesn't encourage stalling thus no need for SD

 

[XxBHunterxX]

My thing is just increase the time to 8 minutes because that's the longest a match should be even if you're opponent is zoning that way no one sees sudden death at all, this way people get a true outcome instead of an arbitrary one

 

[chipndip]

How does sudden death solve the problem of characters spamming to win? If a characters based around zoning then that gives then an even bigger advantage in SD. What's wrong with a 1 stock match with no time limit there for a true winner would have to be decided or just choose the one with the lower percentage or most importantly increase the time to 8 min, that's more than enough to complete the match and it doesn't encourage stalling thus no need for SD

If someone's spamming projectiles and running, there's a chance a bomb finishes them off, which is their punishment for dragging out what's supposed to be a quick tie-breaker.

The problem with 1-stock matches is that you can have anywhere from 1-4 (soon to be 1-8) players playing at one time. Just because a competitive community exists doesn't mean this game magically became Street Fighter. Understand that this game caters to many people, and has to compensate for many people. It isn't just our game, and asking for the time to play out an entire fresh stock while people are waiting to play is selfish.

The problem with % wins is that someone can just camp and hide to win in a match with many people, or the guy that plays safe and kites all day would win, even if their KO potential is rather low (thus their design would be based on racking up % for the KO, not for a free win condition if the timer's low).

If we do 2 stock/5 minutes, unless it's two campers, there's very little odds of the game going to time in the first place, even with 5 minutes.