Backroom Reform: Current Topic -> Success?

[AvaricePanda]

let's get mad at each other over nothing cause it's the internet guys! admitting you're wrong is absurd you have to throw around insults and make sure everyone knows you're always right.

...

also swordgard, that doesn't even make sense.

"(@ flayl) it's amazing you think that Bowser deserves a free win every time he side-Bs people which IIRC has been a rule since Melee, a rule since the majority of Brawl's release, a rule that many people support, a rule that can be backed by legitimate arguments, and a rule that isn't as concretely wrong as Sonic's homing stall being circumvented by spotdodging which is not true and can not argued to be true."

 

[Shaya]

"(@ flayl) it's amazing you think that Bowser deserves a free win every time he side-Bs people which IIRC has been a rule since Melee, a rule since the majority of Brawl's release, a rule that many people support, a rule that can be backed by legitimate arguments, and a rule that isn't as concretely wrong as Sonic's homing stall being circumvented by spotdodging which is not true and can not argued to be true."

Your argument is invalid.
Please provide me examples of other competitive games which give wins to suicide move users.

 

[Spelt]

...Mele e?

 

[-Vocal-]

...Mele e?

You didn't read the quote

 

[Spelt]

Why can't we compare to melee?
if we're going to compare to any competitive game it should be melee.
though that's even a stretch.

 

[-Vocal-]

Why can't we compare to melee?
if we're going to compare to any competitive game it should be melee.
though that's even a stretch.

Oh I don't know, I was just pointing out that Shaya had already mentioned it. I'm just lurking on this discussion for the time being

 

[Shaya]

How did it apply?
can you show me an official rule set / at least one used at a major tournament that specified what happened when a suicide move was used?

Kirby's up throw occurred in melee, but I don't recall it being explicitly stated in the rule set that he won from it.

 

[AlphaZealot]

No ruleset in Melee ever talked about how to break a tie, let alone a suicide-KO tie. I remember including a note in the MBR ruleset v1.0 that tie's should be broken (my suggestion was 1-stock overtime same characters, same stage) but I never saw people actually state anything in their rulesets.

If Melee rulesets do have suicide KO rules now (I don't think they do, but there are a lot of tournaments out there) it was a rule adopted in conjunction with the rule coming out for Brawl. In other words the rule did not exist before Brawl existed.

 

[AvaricePanda]

No ruleset in Melee ever talked about how to break a tie, let alone a suicide-KO tie. I remember including a note in the MBR ruleset v1.0 that tie's should be broken (my suggestion was 1-stock overtime same characters, same stage) but I never saw people actually state anything in their rulesets.

If Melee rulesets do have suicide KO rules now (I don't think they do, but there are a lot of tournaments out there) it was a rule adopted in conjunction with the rule coming out for Brawl. In other words the rule did not exist before Brawl existed.

oh okay, I didn't know this actually (why I put IIRC lol). thanks.

Your argument is invalid.
Please provide me examples of other competitive games which give wins to suicide move users.

but I don't see how my argument is invalid because I was wrong with one statement that wasn't my main point. My point was that people shouldn't act like a jerk to people because they disagree with something that can be legitimately disagreed on. OS saying that you can spotdodge so Sonic's HA stall doesn't work is wrong and you can't believe it's right because it isn't. My saying Melee gave the suicide initiator the win was wrong because it didn't. Someone believing that the initiator of Ganon's side-B should get the win is not wrong nor right, it's an opinion with legitimate arguments either way and doesn't warrant a condescending insult.

 

[swordgard]

oh okay, I didn't know this actually (why I put IIRC lol). thanks.



but I don't see how my argument is invalid because I was wrong with one statement that wasn't my main point. My point was that people shouldn't act like a jerk to people because they disagree with something that can be legitimately disagreed on. OS saying that you can spotdodge so Sonic's HA stall doesn't work is wrong and you can't believe it's right because it isn't. My saying Melee gave the suicide initiator the win was wrong because it didn't. Someone believing that the initiator of Ganon's side-B should get the win is not wrong nor right, it's an opinion with legitimate arguments either way and doesn't warrant a condescending insult.

I think landing ganons uptilt should grant instant win of the set.

Both are arbitrary rules that change who the game chooses to be the winner towards whom you feel should be the winner. If you want side-B to be always a win, the lets also have Punch Time! rule.

 

[BSP]

I do agree with the BBR's stance on Suicides now. By doing anything besides honoring the game's decision, we're arbitrarily buffing or nerfing some characters. That's the way I see it. Bowser's suicide claw rule probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I think landing ganons uptilt should grant instant win of the set.

Both are arbitrary rules that change who the game chooses to be the winner towards whom you feel should be the winner. If you want side-B to be always a win, the lets also have Punch Time! rule.

If the game chooses the winner randomly, why is giving the win to whom we feel "should" be the winner bad?

I'd be fine if the game said he never won, or he won if he was up by percent, or he won only against certain characters because of height or something, but testing that Vermanubis has done and testing that I've done (while not nearly as intensive, I was just trying to see if the game's ruling was consistent) but that isn't the case. Whether or not Ganon wins, loses, or goes to Sudden Death is random. It doesn't matter if he's winning or losing in percents; random percents give random results. IIRC the same percents against the same character even gives different results (although I may not be remembering correctly). His side-B against the same character will give different results.

If Ganondorf does side-B in X situation and wins one game, but does side-B in X situation and loses another game, why should the victory screen be honored? Why should a player be able to lose a game (and possibly a set) for doing an action that brings up the results screen and says he loses, when he could have done the exact same action again under the exact same conditions and the result screen said he won?

 

[Tesh]

If its random, that is part of the character. Its not like we take DDD and say "only Gordos count" or GnW and say "1s don't count. There are plenty of situations in this game where you can make the exact same decision and be rewarded (or punished) by a random amount. Ganondorf's random move shouldn't be corrected by an extra rule if others aren't.

 

[Shaya]

On the other hand someone said that Ganondorf "wins" when he uses side b against diddy 9/10. Seems like the game likes him having a chance against diddy kon.

Sorry for being condescending.

 

[swordgard]

If the game chooses the winner randomly, why is giving the win to whom we feel "should" be the winner bad?

I'd be fine if the game said he never won, or he won if he was up by percent, or he won only against certain characters because of height or something, but testing that Vermanubis has done and testing that I've done (while not nearly as intensive, I was just trying to see if the game's ruling was consistent) but that isn't the case. Whether or not Ganon wins, loses, or goes to Sudden Death is random. It doesn't matter if he's winning or losing in percents; random percents give random results. IIRC the same percents against the same character even gives different results (although I may not be remembering correctly). His side-B against the same character will give different results.

If Ganondorf does side-B in X situation and wins one game, but does side-B in X situation and loses another game, why should the victory screen be honored? Why should a player be able to lose a game (and possibly a set) for doing an action that brings up the results screen and says he loses, when he could have done the exact same action again under the exact same conditions and the result screen said he won?

Part of ****ty moveset. By allowing these type of things, we are saying yes to all sorts of nerfs/buffs to the point where you can no longer draw the line on what should/should not be done. Furthermore we are straying more and more from playing "the game".

 

[Vermanubis]

Next person I see that uses the horribly fallacious comparison to something like utilt or warlock punch, I will do both to IRL.

Ganoncide is a move that ends the match. Warlock Punch and Utilt are not. If Ganondorf is the one who lands the move, he should not be penalized. Simple logic. Of course, I know this won't hold water before the might of the BBR court, but anyone with a brain can see the logic.

 

[-Vocal-]

>Education

So stop saying dumb things like Ganondorf should win. The most you could ever ask for is Ganoncide always being treated as Sudden Death; you could at least argue that point from a philosophical stand point.

 

[Vermanubis]

>Education

So stop saying dumb things like Ganondorf should win. The most you could ever ask for is Ganoncide always being treated as Sudden Death; you could at least argue that point from a philosophical stand point.

Ganondorf should win.

 

[DC.Eden]

When it came to stages the bbr argued that if you were put in the position to get cg'd off or hit by hazards that you were outplayed, thus it's acceptable.

Well if bowser koopa klaw'd you then weren't you outplayed? You should have avoided it imo.

 

[swordgard]

When it came to stages the bbr argued that if you were put in the position to get cg'd off or hit by hazards that you were outplayed, thus it's acceptable.

Well if bowser koopa klaw'd you then weren't you outplayed? You should have avoided it imo.

Except we don't arbitrarily punish or boost people using hasards, they are playing within the boundaries of the game.

 

[Vermanubis]

When it came to stages the bbr argued that if you were put in the position to get cg'd off or hit by hazards that you were outplayed, thus it's acceptable.

Well if bowser koopa klaw'd you then weren't you outplayed? You should have avoided it imo.

The BBR molds the rules to its will. No amount of logic, expositions on the flaw in their dogma or otherwise will subjugate the ultimate authority of the BBR.

In all seriousness, this is a terrific point. Though, I know bette than to present logic in this thread, because it gets flipped around and from there things kind of get messy.

 

[Ganonsburg]

>Education

So stop saying dumb things like Ganondorf should win. The most you could ever ask for is Ganoncide always being treated as Sudden Death; you could at least argue that point from a philosophical stand point.

Stop saying that your one set of results is end all be all. Others have shown under other settings that the outcomes are completely different, which shows that in different contexts of the game, that we will probably never figure out fully, Ganon can win, lose, or draw.

Which begs the question: Why should a move that ends the match be determined randomly? The player who landed the move should be awarded the win BECAUSE HE OUTPLAYED THE OPPONENT.

Now for the part of the show where I use BBR logic along the lines of their craptastic Warlock Punch/Volcano Kick example THAT THEY NEVER STOP USING EVEN THOUGH VERM HAS TOLD THEM A MILLION TIMES WHY IT'S ILLOGICAL:

If we want to let matches end randomly, why don't we play RPS or pull out a coin after the end of every match? That would be consistent with this current ruling and is obviously logical because I said so.

 

[Vermanubis]

Except we don't arbitrarily punish or boost people using hasards, they are playing within the boundaries of the game.

As long as timeouts result in the time-outee's win, the timer is an arbitrary buff to characters capable of stalling with ease. Selective logicccc.

Secondly, said non-legal stages are deliberated upon to be deemed non-competitive. Yet with suicide rules, there is no deliberation, just adhering to the game's design

 

[-Vocal-]

Ganondorf should win.

I know Verm *pats head *

In all seriousness I do believe there's a chance you and the guys might be able to get some amendmant by proving there is a glitch; I don't think it would be so drastic as to grant Ganon a win, but it'd be "better" than it is now.

When it came to stages the bbr argued that if you were put in the position to get cg'd off or hit by hazards that you were outplayed, thus it's acceptable.

Well if bowser koopa klaw'd you then weren't you outplayed? You should have avoided it imo.

Hmm...

I got thrown into a blastzone that has a 100% chance of killing me.

Ok.

I got dragged to the depths of hell with a move that has a less than 1% chance of leaving my opponent as the victor.

Wait a minute...

edit: I have more to say to the posts that have happened while I typed this, but I'll wait til I can make a new post.

 

[Vermanubis]

Whether or not it's amended is unimportant, considering no one is, or will, use this ruleset. At this point, we Ganons are just arguing the point for fun. If the BBR is going to be complacent and lax, we'll just squeeze a sweat out of 'em with our sharp-witted inquiries.

Isn't that right. Burg!?

 

[Ganonsburg]

Whether or not it's amended is unimportant, considering no one is, or will, use this ruleset. At this point, we Ganons are just arguing the point for fun. If the BBR is going to be complacent and lax, we'll just squeeze a sweat out of 'em with our sharp-witted inquiries.

Isn't that right. Burg!?

True dat. We're in it for the murder. As annoyed as I am with the ongoing argument, it's simultaneously too fun to stop.

Not only do we squeeze the sweat out of them, we squeeze the purple out of them as we thrust them into Hell.

 

[DC.Eden]

So what you guys are saying is that you're letting the game decide who wins.

Ok then why is it that if you get timed out by a metaknight or a wario, it's their win?
You let the game decide when ganon or bowser wins but during a time out it goes to sudden death and suddenly you're not letting the game decide anymore?

 

[-Vocal-]

Stop saying that your one set of results is end all be all. Others have shown under other settings that the outcomes are completely different, which shows that in different contexts of the game, that we will probably never figure out fully, Ganon can win, lose, or draw.

Which begs the question: Why should a move that ends the match be determined randomly? The player who landed the move should be awarded the win BECAUSE HE OUTPLAYED THE OPPONENT.

Now for the part of the show where I use BBR logic along the lines of their craptastic Warlock Punch/Volcano Kick example THAT THEY NEVER STOP USING EVEN THOUGH VERM HAS TOLD THEM A MILLION TIMES WHY IT'S ILLOGICAL:

If we want to let matches end randomly, why don't we play RPS or pull out a coin after the end of every match? That would be consistent with this current ruling and is obviously logical because I said so.

Go to your Wii. Test things extensively. Post your results.

Then I will believe what you are saying over the data that I have collected.

I'm truly not trying to be a **** but this whole "DATA MEANS NOTHING" argument is annoying. If you think my data is flawed or gives an incorrect impression, then go get data that give the correct one.

And why should a move that ends the match be determined randomly? Because THAT'S WHAT THE MOVE DOES. Why is that a hard concept to grasp? The move decides randomly - ok, it's bull**** design for a game, but that's what it is.

As long as timeouts result in the time-outee's win, the timer is an arbitrary buff to characters capable of stalling with ease. Selective logicccc.

Secondly, said non-legal stages are deliberated upon to be deemed non-competitive. Yet with suicide rules, there is no deliberation, just adhering to the game's design

So you're comparing

a universal rule
that was put in place to make tournaments a feasible reality that would not take days to complete

with

a specific rule that applies only to a subset of characters
that would be put in place only to help them.

Just making sure I'm hearing your analogy properly.

edit: Sudden Death is seen as detrimental to competitiveness and detrimental to all characters, which is why it is removed.

 

[Ganonsburg]

It's only a specifc subset of characters because not everyone has a suicide move. Just like not everyone has retardedly good speed or really fast moves that are good for timing others out.

And no, it wasn't a data means nothing. It's a "Your data shows this, and theirs that."

 

[Vermanubis]

The whole "Ganon is throttling the **** out of his opponent and smashing them into the cosmic asphalt but the game says it was actually the opponent magnetizing Ganon to their neck *trollface*" argument is annoying, too.

 

[DC.Eden]

edit: Sudden Death is seen as detrimental to competitiveness and detrimental to all characters, which is why it is removed.

The BBR now recommends that the game's verdict should always be honored; a victory screen should decide the winner. Any Sudden Death (excluding time-outs) should be treated as a tie; which are resolved with a 1 stock, 3 minute, same characters, same stage rematch.

Why does this exclude time outs?

 

[-Vocal-]

It's only a specifc subset of characters because not everyone has a suicide move. Just like not everyone has retardedly good speed or really fact moves that are good for timing others out.

And no, it wasn't a data means nothing. It's a "Your data shows this, and theirs that."

Where is this other data? How extensive is it? A link would be greatly appreciated - the more knowledge is added to the conversation, the more educated people can be about their positions.

And my point is that cast-wide rules are fine - subset-wide rules are not. It's the same reason MK specific LGLs are wrong if the ruleset has a philosophy of not trying to balance the game. Rules that apply equally to all characters that are implemented for a good reason are alright. I'm not saying that all characters benefit equally from the rules, but no rule would ever fit that qualification. Rules that do not apply equally i.e. those that apply only to a subset of the characters are trying to balance the game by either making that/those character/s better or worse.

Though my point stands on it's own, I'd genuinely like to know how you feel about an example of mine; I just thought of it now. On Rainbow Cruise, there are doughnuts at the end of the side scrolling segment at the top. If a player grabs another player while standing on these blocks and forces both of them to fall to their doom and the game calls a Sudden Death, would you say that the player that grabbed the other should be declared winner? (Mind you this is something I've been wanting to test for a while now - that being what happens when a grab pair crosses a blastline, as I think the answer may be related to suicide moves.

The whole "Ganon is throttling the **** out of his opponent and smashing them into the cosmic asphalt but the game says it was actually the opponent magnetizing Ganon to their neck *trollface*" argument is annoying, too.

**** graphics - they don't mean anything. Perfect example: Koopa Klaw. Bowser is clearly on top of his opponent. If he's in Port 1, he wins; however, if he's in Port 4, it's a Sudden Death.

Graphics mean nothing. Programming is how the game works.

edit@DC: As I heard Shaya explain the reasoning before, the BR chose the honor the old tradition of fighting games that in the case of a time out, the character with the most vitality left (in Brawl, the lowest percentage) wins. You could argue with them about that one if you like.

 

[Vermanubis]

Where is this other data? How extensive is it? A link would be greatly appreciated - the more knowledge is added to the conversation, the more educated people can be about their positions.

And my point is that cast-wide rules are fine - subset-wide rules are not. It's the same reason MK specific LGLs are wrong if the ruleset has a philosophy of not trying to balance the game. Rules that apply equally to all characters that are implemented for a good reason are alright. I'm not saying that all characters benefit equally from the rules, but no rule would ever fit that qualification. Rules that do not apply equally i.e. those that apply only to a subset of the characters are trying to balance the game by either making that/those character/s better or worse.

Though my point stands on it's own, I'd genuinely like to know how you feel about an example of mine; I just thought of it now. On Rainbow Cruise, there are doughnuts at the end of the side scrolling segment at the top. If a player grabs another player while standing on these blocks and forces both of them to fall to their doom and the game calls a Sudden Death, would you say that the player that grabbed the other should be declared winner? (Mind you this is something I've been wanting to test for a while now - that being what happens when a grab pair crosses a blastline, as I think the answer may be related to suicide moves.

**** graphics - they don't mean anything. Perfect example: Koopa Klaw. Bowser is clearly on top of his opponent. If he's in Port 1, he wins; however, if he's in Port 4, it's a Sudden Death.

Graphics mean nothing. Programming is how the game works.

edit@DC: As I heard Shaya explain the reasoning before, the BR chose the honor the old tradition of fighting games that in the case of a time out, the character with the most vitality left (in Brawl, the lowest percentage) wins. You could argue with them about that one if you like.

Which is the same logic that made Green Greens legal.

 

[Ganonsburg]

The BBR now recommends that the game's verdict should always be honored; a victory screen should decide the winner. Any Sudden Death (excluding time-outs) should be treated as a tie; which are resolved with a 1 stock, 3 minute, same characters, same stage rematch.

Why does this exclude time outs?

Because it would make too much sense to include them. I've brought it up before, trust me, lol. They give some BS reason like, "It's a legitimate strategy!"

a la 1:07.

 

[DC.Eden]

edit@DC: As I heard Shaya explain the reasoning before, the BR chose the honor the old tradition of fighting games that in the case of a time out, the character with the most vitality left (in Brawl, the lowest percentage) wins. You could argue with them about that one if you like.

Ok but this isn't a tradition fighter as MANY of you guys have enjoyed pointing out when it came to stages "THIS ISN'T STREET FIGHTER, DYNAMIC STAGES ARE A KEY PART OF SMASH!"

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Let me ask a hypothetical question. What if the game always made ganon lose? Like, every single time. No matter what, ganon dies first. Would you still want this rule? Even though it's obvious that the game is programmed to make ganon lose? It would be ridiculous to request it. In fact, it would mean that this move is not your "don't get in my way or I win" as you think it is, and more a "get in my way to win the game against me". You know, like jumping into the way of ike's quickdraw far offstage.

Now look at the facts. It's almost reasonable to request a tie, as it's a possible outcome. It almost never makes ganon win though. So murder choke is not your "get back to the stage free pass", it's a potential move to tie the game up, at best.

 

[-Vocal-]

Which is the same logic that made Green Greens legal.

I'm sorry, you're gonna have to help me out by directing my attention to a specific quote

Ok but this isn't a tradition fighter as MANY of you guys have enjoyed pointing out when it came to stages "THIS ISN'T STREET FIGHTER, DYNAMIC STAGES ARE A KEY PART OF SMASH!"

Which is why I said you can argue that with them.

 

[DC.Eden]

Let me ask a hypothetical question. What if the game always made ganon lose? Like, every single time. No matter what, ganon dies first. Would you still want this rule? Even though it's obvious that the game is programmed to make ganon lose? It would be ridiculous to request it. In fact, it would mean that this move is not your "don't get in my way or I win" as you think it is, and more a "get in my way to win the game against me". You know, like jumping into the way of ike's quickdraw far offstage.

Now look at the facts. It's almost reasonable to request a tie, as it's a possible outcome. It almost never makes ganon win though. So murder choke is not your "get back to the stage free pass", it's a potential move to tie the game up, at best.

Let me ask a hypothetical question. What if the game always made a character that timed someone out to lose the match ( or you know, call a sudden death like it already does), regardless of percent.

As in a wario times out a snake or a mk times out a falco, it declared the winner of the game to be snake and falco. Would you still give the win to the person who timed someone out? Even though the game OBVIOUSLY was designed for that player to lose?

Hypotheticals are fun.

 

[deepseadiva]

The whole "Ganon is throttling the **** out of his opponent and smashing them into the cosmic asphalt but the game says it was actually the opponent magnetizing Ganon to their neck *trollface*" argument is annoying, too.

Oh god LOL.

That is hilarious.

 

[-Vocal-]

Let me ask a hypothetical question. What if the game always made a character that timed someone out to lose the match ( or you know, call a sudden death like it already does), regardless of percent.

As in a wario times out a snake or a mk times out a falco, it declared the winner of the game to be snake and falco. Would you still give the win to the person who timed someone out? Even though the game OBVIOUSLY was designed for that player to lose?

Hypotheticals are fun.

Of course not. The game says Wario loses so he loses. The same applies to Ganoncide - it says he loses or goes to Sudden Death, so he loses or goes to Sudden Death. You can make an argument over the arbitrariness of determining victor by percentages in the case of a time out (which is also a universal rule), but that's a different discussion.