Are Sudden Deaths Even Good Tie-breakers?

[FloatingMew]

I think the best tiebreaker would be a One-stock Mini-match. It wouldn't take long and it would be an efficient test of skill. Sudden Death encourages the usage of strong projectiles and campy playstyles. Characters like, Bowser Jr. and Rosalina would have an advantage against characters such as Marth or Captain Falcon. The bombs also make the match uneven as nobody knows where they will land, leaving the entire match at that point to luck rather than skill.

 

[XxBHunterxX]

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.

What's the penalty for having the match last 8 minutes? Since normal matches don't usually make it to 5 there shouldn't be an issue and for the few that actually do the other 3 will take care of it everyone, gets a fair shot.

Also for glory is a competitive mode so why have sudden when even the competitive player follow the low% rule? I thinks it's more fair to have the lowest % win rather than have a victory stolen by someone who chose to stall out the time because they knew they would lose otherwise, but that's just me

 

[Tino]

It's called "Sudden Death" for an obvious reason...although it would've be a lot more interesting if Bob-ombs hadn't start raining down on the stage and ruin everyone's chances of KOing the other player themselves.

 

[SevenYearItch]

At immediate thought, a 1 stock match sounds fair right? Quick match because of one stock! What you fail to put into the equation here is the discussion is about people WHO COULDNT FINISH THEIR STOCKS IN THE FIRST PLACE WITHIN A TIMED BASIS! The 1 stock would drag in this case. They clearly don't have the skill/will to KO their opponent, so 1 stock would last a lifetime here.

 

[Funkermonster]

 

[XxBHunterxX]

At immediate thought, a 1 stock match sounds fair right? Quick match because of one stock! What you fail to put into the equation here is the discussion is about people WHO COULDNT FINISH THEIR STOCKS IN THE FIRST PLACE WITHIN A TIMED BASIS! The 1 stock would drag in this case. They clearly don't have the skill/will to KO their opponent, so 1 stock would last a lifetime here.

So what's the harm in a 1 stock match with no time limit or just 5 minutes? It's not like you're holding up a line, in most cases you would just have a rematch anyway so I don't see the point in the game trying to quickly declare a winner when there's no real reason to do so

 

[SevenYearItch]

So what's the harm in a 1 stock match with no time limit or just 5 minutes? It's not like you're holding up a line, in most cases you would just have a rematch anyway so I don't see the point in the game trying to arbitrarily declare a winner when there's no real reason to do so

Get better at the game. Why would we give these people another FULL STOCK when they couldn't even waste the ones they had in the first place. If you got suckered into Sudden Death, then you probably don't care much how it ends. The real solution is to just end it in regulation time.

 

[XxBHunterxX]

Get better at the game. Why would we give these people another FULL STOCK when they couldn't even waste the ones they had in the first place. If you got suckered into Sudden Death, then you probably don't care much how it ends. The real solution is to just end it in regulation time.

Well whose it hurting to give them another stock? Would it some how make the match unfair? Some characters have a huge advantage in SD, and let's be honest no one really likes SD because of how random it is

 

[chipndip]

What's the penalty for having the match last 8 minutes? Since normal matches don't usually make it to 5 there shouldn't be an issue and for the few that actually do the other 3 will take care of it everyone, gets a fair shot.

Also for glory is a competitive mode so why have sudden when even the competitive player follow the low% rule? I thinks it's more fair to have the lowest % win rather than have a victory stolen by someone who chose to stall out the time because they knew they would lose otherwise, but that's just me

Sudden Death is a blanket solution that covers ANY mode. So it has to be acceptable for ANY play mode. If the game was a 1v1 game all the time, I'd be singing different tunes. But it isn't and I'm not.

If a game's using 2 stocks, 5 minutes is more than enough time. If it's 3 stocks, then do 8, but 2 stock/5 min best o' 3 is a great rule set in my book.

Well whose it hurting to give them another stock? Would it some how make the match unfair? Some characters have a huge advantage in SD, and let's be honest no one really likes SD because of how random it is

Who it hurts: Everyone in the room waiting on you to hurry the hell up to finish that damn stock.

 

[supercoolmayo]

Yeah sudden death is the only way to do it. Love the adrenaline rush

You can't do one stock, cuz it took the two players forever to kill each other anyway.

 

[SevenYearItch]

Well whose it hurting to give them another stock? Would it some how make the match unfair? Some characters have a huge advantage in SD, and let's be honest no one really likes SD because of how random it is

We're talking about this being competitively viable because you're looking for proper wins and not just fun, so therefore it hurts the people waiting around watching you two not finish the stocks you started with, then GIVEN A NEW ONE to play with for an hour. Others would be waiting to play their game or advance the bracket in competition.

 

[K-45]

I think there shouldn't be a sudden death. Ithe should be base on who has the most damage losses if they have the same amount of stock/points

 

[XxBHunterxX]

We're talking about this being competitively viable because you're looking for proper wins and not just fun, so therefore it hurts the people waiting around watching you two not finish the stocks you started with, then GIVEN A NEW ONE to play with for an hour. Others would be waiting to play their game or advance the bracket in competition.

Wait I'm talking about for glory why are you talking about tournaments they already have a rules for that, the lower percent wins so SD doesn't happen anyway

 

[BBC7]

Sudden Death sucks, I faced a Sonic player that lagged the game and then stalled in order to beat me.

 

[SevenYearItch]

Wait I'm talking about for glory why are you talking about tournaments they already have a rules for that, the lower percent wins so SD doesn't happen anyway

If you change it in one facet they're going to change it in ALL facets of it. So you have to take it all into consideration because to them For Glory = Competitive tourny folks. It would end up being the norm

 

[XxBHunterxX]

Sudden Death is a blanket solution that covers ANY mode. So it has to be acceptable for ANY play mode. If the game was a 1v1 game all the time, I'd be singing different tunes. But it isn't and I'm not.

If a game's using 2 stocks, 5 minutes is more than enough time. If it's 3 stocks, then do 8, but 2 stock/5 min best o' 3 is a great rule set in my book.


Who it hurts: Everyone in the room waiting on you to hurry the hell up to finish that damn stock.

Are you talking about tournaments? Cause I'm not and most tournaments I know use the percentage to determine the winner any way so they don't use SD.

What're we discussing here?

 

[SevenYearItch]

Are you talking about tournaments? Cause I'm not and most tournaments I know use the percentage to determine the winner any way so they don't use SD.

What're we discussing here?

I'm saying, in the game, if they change the way For Glory does Sudden Death then it would be changed for every single mode. Therefore, when playing in ANY OTHER PLACE OTHER THAN FG you would end up with that 1 stock rule. I have seen games go to Sudden Death in tournament play on stream with pro players. 1 stock is a dumb way to settle it. Shouldn't be giving more stocks to people who can't kill anyways.

Simple again: Don't go to Sudden Death, win the game

 

[XxBHunterxX]

If you change it in one facet they're going to change it in ALL facets of it. So you have to take it all into consideration because to them For Glory = Competitive tourny folks. It would end up being the norm

I'm sorry I really don't know what you mean, who's "them"? And why are they changing things

 

[Dsull]

No, i hate sudden death. Considering projectiles can kill rather than doing nothing more than a ministun and damage, characters with a quick and long projectile can win almost automatically.

Also theres this video of me facing another lucario for a damn good example of why sudden death is lame. I killed him in less than half a second because of my aura being maxed out and my UpB is WICKED fast with that much aura.
I would much rather the game go to whoever has less damage at the time out, rather than sudden death.

 

[SevenYearItch]

No, i hate sudden death. Considering projectiles can kill rather than doing nothing more than a ministun and damage, characters with a quick and long projectile can win almost automatically.

Also theres this video of me facing another lucario for a damn good example of why sudden death is lame. I killed him in less than half a second because of my aura being maxed out and my UpB is WICKED fast with that much aura.
I would much rather the game go to whoever has less damage at the time out, rather than sudden death.

I hope it goes to less damage at time out. I'm gonna main the hell out of Duck Hunt Duo and just rack damage until time runs out from the opposite side of the stage

 

[Dsull]

I hope it goes to less damage at time out. I'm gonna main the hell out of Duck Hunt Duo and just rack damage until time runs out from the opposite side of the stage

Duck Hunt is one of the prime suspects that auto win in most sudden deaths. Its really hard to get by his projectile spam without getting tapped at ALL and his projectiles can send you flying with fairly low damage, so auto-kill at 300%.
If a DH loses sudden death, either you got severely outplayed, you screwed up, or you faced someone that managed to get a projectile pass your own projectiles, which is unlikely since his obliterate just about EVERYTHING in the air

 

[XxBHunterxX]

I'm saying, in the game, if they change the way For Glory does Sudden Death then it would be changed for every single mode. Therefore, when playing in ANY OTHER PLACE OTHER THAN FG you would end up with that 1 stock rule. I have seen games go to Sudden Death in tournament play on stream with pro players. 1 stock is a dumb way to settle it. Shouldn't be giving more stocks to people who can't kill anyways.

Simple again: Don't go to Sudden Death, win the game

Okay I see what you mean now, that makes sense. I still stand by the thought if increasing the time limit cause that that will most likely take care of the need for SD all together unless neither player is playing

 

[SevenYearItch]

Duck Hunt is one of the prime suspects that auto win in most sudden deaths. Its really hard to get by his projectile spam without getting tapped at ALL and his projectiles can send you flying with fairly low damage, so auto-kill at 300%.
If a DH loses sudden death, either you got severely outplayed, you screwed up, or you faced someone that managed to get a projectile pass your own projectiles, which is unlikely since his obliterate just about EVERYTHING in the air

Oh I know, but he's going to be broken in both situation. Just have to get the kills before SD. In the situation where its the least damage wins, if you're not getting by the projectiles before now you're going to lose to it anyways because of them racking up damage and you never touching them. It would suck either way with those characters anyways

 

[Zero Suit Roxas]

Sudden Deaths shouldn't put everyone's damage to 300%, since it takes the advantage away from players who were winning and probably would have won. This is precisely what happened with me against a Palutena who would have been KO'd by a smash attack until she started dodging and running until time ran out. Then she killed me with the Sudden Death.

I feel like regular matches with one stock (as suggested by other people above) is almost exactly like Sudden Death, since it gives both players the same advantage over each other: nothing. Instead, they should keep the same damage they had when the timer ran out but the damage they deal is doubled or multiplied by some other number. That way, it's less on luck/speed and more on strategy. Bob-ombs would still be able to come in and help if it takes too long.

 

[chipndip]

Sudden Deaths shouldn't put everyone's damage to 300%, since it takes the advantage away from players who were winning and probably would have won. This is precisely what happened with me against a Palutena who would have been KO'd by a smash attack until she started dodging and running until time ran out. Then she killed me with the Sudden Death.

I feel like regular matches with one stock (as suggested by other people above) is almost exactly like Sudden Death, since it gives both players the same advantage over each other: nothing. Instead, they should keep the same damage they had when the timer ran out but the damage they deal is doubled or multiplied by some other number. That way, it's less on luck/speed and more on strategy. Bob-ombs would still be able to come in and help if it takes too long.

This at least makes a bit more sense, and could translate to other modes better. It'd still heavily favor projectile spammers though.

 

[Locke 06]

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.

Baseball games end at 9 innings... so... I feel like going in to the 10th inning is a much better example.
Also, do you watch Soccer/Hockey? Do you like shootouts? Because nobody does.

 

[XxBHunterxX]

Sudden Deaths shouldn't put everyone's damage to 300%, since it takes the advantage away from players who were winning and probably would have won. This is precisely what happened with me against a Palutena who would have been KO'd by a smash attack until she started dodging and running until time ran out. Then she killed me with the Sudden Death.

I feel like regular matches with one stock (as suggested by other people above) is almost exactly like Sudden Death, since it gives both players the same advantage over each other: nothing. Instead, they should keep the same damage they had when the timer ran out but the damage they deal is doubled or multiplied by some other number. That way, it's less on luck/speed and more on strategy. Bob-ombs would still be able to come in and help if it takes too long.

I like it, the only thing I would change is the damage multiplier because I don't think the opponent who's high on damage deserves a come back mechanic but for the most part it would work

 

[aozf05]

I think a normal one stock match on 2 minutes should be the tie breaker. And if they still can't get that kill, then go by percentage from that match.

Also, keep in mind that this is for non-tournament competitive play. It's an informal match of skill. The current Sudden Death format is not skill based at all. It's all luck, which is why it is so unfitting as a tiebreaker for a match of skill. To talk of fun or of people waiting to play in this particular instance is irrelevant because I think in such a situation, most players and observers would want to watch the outcome to see who is truly the more skilled player.

 

[chipndip]

I think a normal one stock match on 2 minutes should be the tie breaker. And if they still can't get that kill, then go by percentage from that match.

Also, keep in mind that this is for non-tournament competitive play. It's an informal match of skill. The current Sudden Death format is not skill based at all. It's all luck, which is why it is so unfitting as a tiebreaker for a match of skill. To talk of fun or of people waiting to play in this particular instance is irrelevant because I think in such a situation, most players and observers would want to watch the outcome to see who is truly the more skilled player.

You have to remember that the Sudden Death tie breaker applies to just about any match scenario you can think of. Time or stock, team or FFA, 2-4 players. There isn't an extra version of Sudden Death that just comes out of nowhere because there's less people playing. It's a blanket solution to the problem: ties.

 

[AlexAnthonyD]

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

4 minutes per stock seems a bit much and then how would you in fact deal with a SD if it were to occur? I do like this outcome as I see your point in that a SD would be a factor for only the campiest of players, certainly occurring less than 1% of the time.

 

[Zero Suit Roxas]

This at least makes a bit more sense, and could translate to other modes better. It'd still heavily favor projectile spammers though.

Maybe instead of the Bob-ombs coming down and hitting wherever they just spawn on the ground so everyone has an equal chance in spamming projectiles?

I like it, the only thing I would change is the damage multiplier because I don't think the opponent who's high on damage deserves a come back mechanic but for the most part it would work

It might work, since it'll make the opponent with high damage will be easier to KO, but I see your point. The thing is, sudden death is supposed to be quicker than the standard match.

I think a normal one stock match on 2 minutes should be the tie breaker. And if they still can't get that kill, then go by percentage from that match.

Also, keep in mind that this is for non-tournament competitive play. It's an informal match of skill. The current Sudden Death format is not skill based at all. It's all luck, which is why it is so unfitting as a tiebreaker for a match of skill. To talk of fun or of people waiting to play in this particular instance is irrelevant because I think in such a situation, most players and observers would want to watch the outcome to see who is truly the more skilled player.

Starting both people over doesn't necessarily fix the problem that one person probably had a damage advantage over the other person. This is kind of another version of the current Sudden Death, but it just takes much longer. Sudden Death is supposed to quickly break ties. Two minutes to break a tie isn't very effective.

 

[many37]

Baseball games end at 9 innings... so... I feel like going in to the 10th inning is a much better example.
Also, do you watch Soccer/Hockey? Do you like shootouts? Because nobody does.

Oh my bad. I haven't watched a baseball game in years. Thanks for the correction.

Oh and I don't watch either Soccer or Hockey. I only watch it during the final game of the World Cup

 

[Gamingboy]

No, but it's the better thing for "For Glory" since it still has entertainment in mind- competitive players will impose their own rules during tournaments and Sakurai and friends know it, so they designed it to draw in people just looking for fun without items. And consider what would be more entertaining at the end of a "tied" game: one more chance to smash the other opponent, or a tie-breaker based on who had less damage or whatever?

 

[JonJon]

I think who ever happens to land a hit first is not a fair way to decide it. It should be a 1 stock battle with 100 percent or something.

 

[tm730]

No, i hate sudden death. Considering projectiles can kill rather than doing nothing more than a ministun and damage, characters with a quick and long projectile can win almost automatically.

Also theres this video of me facing another lucario for a damn good example of why sudden death is lame. I killed him in less than half a second because of my aura being maxed out and my UpB is WICKED fast with that much aura.
I would much rather the game go to whoever has less damage at the time out, rather than sudden death.

nothing wrong with this...it's his/her mistake

 

[XxBHunterxX]

I think who ever happens to land a hit first is not a fair way to decide it. It should be a 1 stock battle with 100 percent or something.

That's an even better idea

 

[M15t3R E]

NO
In Brawl, typically when a sudden death would result, it would be canceled and the game would be determined by number of stocks then percentage. I see no convincing reason to abandon this standard.

 

[tm730]

I dont mind sudden death to be honest. it's a decent tiebreaker.

 

[RedBeanPorridge]

My only issue with it is the bombs that come out eventually. Knowing this I'm always the one trying to go in for the first strike afraid that the bombs might get me if I play too defensively. However if I'm up against a smart opponent it always ends in my attack whiffing and them punishing me. sigh.

 

[JetSetWoodo]

I don't really have a problem with Sudden Death, rather with how it's handled. Personally I'd prefer if the damage was set to about 100% rather than 300%, just so you still have a chance to recover if you're sent flying. At 300% they usually last about 5-10 seconds so there's no time to really get excited about it.