Bowser and the Suicide Clause

[thehard]

The misinformation over the suicide clause WAS the reason he lost.

How can it be his fault when he went for a tactic that was supposed to win him the game, but instead made him immediately lose because of bad TOing? How is that his fault?

After the first time he lost, I mean. He then knew the risk involved. I don't know what to say about the "random" movement with Flying Slam, would have to look more into that.

 

[Flamecircle]

A few things

1) Bowser's suicide move is infinitely easier to pull off than the other characters, which is why the changes sorta make sense

2) what Bowser mechanic allows the opponent more control when their percents are higher? I've never felt that.

3) I find it illogical to give the win to Bowser when the move might not even kill the opponent. Several characters in the cast can escape from the blastzone. Should you get the win even if we see Villager flying up from the suicide move? I'm fine with double-kills going to bowser, though.

 

[Sodo]

I find it illogical to give the win to Bowser when the move might not even kill the opponent. Several characters in the cast can escape from the blastzone. Should you get the win even if we see Villager flying up from the suicide move? I'm fine with double-kills going to bowser, though.

If the move doesn't kill the opponent, then the self-destruct clause doesn't apply.

 

[T0MMY]

Another example of why the standard for rules is simply "play the game" - the moment we start pushing out-of-game rules in there a mess of problems crop up. Rulings such as these can be safely applied when they meet specific competitive criteria and is well communicated.
The rule, the way it was communicated, and the way it was abused was, sadly, an unfortunate string of "scrubby" behaviors.
The best way to fix things is to offer a refund, an apology, and to see the "silver lining" of this situation - Learn from this: a more enjoyable experience by just playing the game as it is designed until a possible necessity for competition to change rulings.

I posted publicly about this (and other) flaws in the rulings for Apex - I have been told I have a good eye for fixing rules to be fair and enjoyable. Please check out my guide on Competitive Philosophy here on SWF and if anyone needs someone who can argue for good rules, let me know.

 

[popsofctown]

Side3 is a great move for people that want to play Bowser without getting pulled offstage for using one of their moves. Wavesliding it into a grab preserves some of the command grab properties. It's not the same as Bowser being coded up better to begin with, but it might be a helpful quality-of-life choice for some.

 

[Cassius.]

Customs aren't legal everywhere. And to be quite honest, I personally wouldn't use them in a casual/house mode setting anyway

 

[TheHypnotoad]

So by adhering to result screen only we let arbitrary Nintendo decisions that makes no sense to decide the outcome.

Everything in this game is arbitrary. Why does hitting someone add percent? Because that's how the game is programmed. Why does having more percent mean you take more knockback upon being hit? Because that's how the game is programmed. Why does falling off the lower blast line make you lose a stock? Because that's how the game is programmed. Why does Bowser's side B cause him to lose if he gets a suicide KO with it on the last stock? Because that's how the game is programmed.

 

[elmike]

That story is the story of the worst TOing I've ever heard about in my life. IMO suicide rules are bad rules and as @DeLux suggested we should just respect whatever the result declared by the game is (if it says sudden death, it's the same as any other same frame KO, a situation that can be resolved in many responsible ways but that any competent ruleset will have a clear ruling for). That's not really what this story is about. This story is about being told factually incorrect information about tournament rules by a TO and having a bait and switch pulled on you after the fact. As small of a thing as it is, APEX really owes you a refund of your entry fee at least as you were not given a fair shot at winning the tournament like all of the other competitors.

You truly have my sympathy for this situation, but I do not agree with your proposed solution of us implementing a rule designed to improve Bowser (the rule to improve those other characters never should have been a rule to begin with; there is no port priority in 4). I do hope this calls attention to what a poor rule a suicide rule is in the first place; I feel that the existence of that rule at all will just inevitably create more terrible situations like this in the future.

A "like" was not enough, so here is my reply supporting what you said! Totally agree!

 

[Atrabilious]

Putting aside the mechanics of the Koopa Klaw, the issue is you that you requested rule clarification from a TO and were given mis information. This misinformation directly lead to you losing your match because you acted within what you thought were acceptable boundaries, only to discover otherwise at the end of your match. That's not on you, that completely on the TO. If you had been given correct information then I think it's 100% safe to say you would have approached the conclusion of your match with Nyani in a completely different way. Straight up bad TO'ing.

As far as suicide clauses go... Well, common sense dictates that a successful offense should reward the initiator and not the victim, sadly this is not the case in Smash because I dunno, Sakurai I guess. The only question really is how far do you take the clause. What constitutes as a suicide move and what doesn't? The usual suspects aren't strictly suicide moves by nature, they all have on-stage applications. Do you designate command grabs as the only clause affected moves, or does stuff like Aethercide count? If not, why not? If so, then does any other move that drags the opponent to a blast zone with the initiator count under the clause? It tends to become a convoluted mess, and even if you only limit it to command grabs, you get situations like this topic. Why was everyone but Bowser's command grab kosher? It seems simpler and cleaner to let the results screen decide, IMO.

As far as Bowser's K.Klaw not functioning properly regardless of percentage, I got nothing. Nintendo supposedly read community websites, maybe if you kick up enough fuss about it they'll look into it. I'd suggest maybe tweeting someone but I'm not even sure where you would go to start with. NoA twitter? Sakurai twitter? Does Sakurai even speak English? Hard to really gaug without seeing it.

 

[Praxis]

As I outlined in this thread, I don't agree on making rules to buff specific characters and I think that, since Smash 4 actually seems to have consistency post patch, we should not award the win to Bowser.

We actually did a ton of testing on both Reddit and the thread I just linked to. The result was this: If Bowser's Flying Slam goes offstage and both players die, Bowser will either lose, or the game will go to sudden death. With the sole exception of Ganondorf's side-B, this is consistent across ALL suicide moves, including Kirby's. There is no result in which (again excepting Ganon's) the suicider ever wins. Therefore, a simple rule of "Sudden Death = Suicide Initiator Loses" covers all situations consistently without ever having to ignore the victory screen.

In Melee, you never ignored the victory screen. Suicide rules only covered sudden death. In Brawl, it was necessary to ignore the game's victory screen because the game used Port Priority for it's decisions. In Smash 4, the game seems clearly intended to not let the suicide-initiator win, perhaps in an effort to discourage suicide kills.

Making an artificial "Bowser should always win" rule sets a bad precedent. We shouldn't ignore the win screen, ever, IMO, in Smash 4. The rule should be "Go by the win screen, and if it's sudden death, the suicide initiator loses." This results in consistency in all situations.

That said, your story is terrible and I feel really bad for you The TO should have required a one stock do-over to resolve the situation IMO.

Given what happened, they should at least have refunded you your tournament entry, because you were eliminated due to a TO mistake. Simply unacceptable.

 

[HeroMystic]

Some posters have already stated this, but I want to reiterate that if people are saying Zigsta is at fault then they clearly haven't read the OP. This isn't about the rule itself, it's about a TO giving horrible, game-changing misinformation that resulted in Zigsta making a bad move that cost him the game.

The suicide rule clause as a whole is up for debate (and I personally dislike it), but shame on everyone for not understanding this.

 

[Tagxy]

The reason we don't accept sudden deaths, is because we need official wins and losses to advance bracket. You can't rule both sides a draw, and send both people forward in winner bracket or loser's bracket. It's also inferior to ask players to fight in Sudden Death to determine a winner, over the alternatives of finding a winner based on % or having a 1 stock rematch.

This doesn't set a huge precedent, since we are alleviating an issue for smoother brackets and better tie-breaker choices.

It is black and white. But because the result is so displeasing to our palette we are having this discussion.

I don't think there's a single player who doesn't think Bowser "deserves" to win. But no character, or player for that matter, is owed anything in this game; besides equal access to tools and rules.

Sudden Death provides a very clear winner and loser. How is the result screen based on sudden death inferior while the ones for suicide moves are not?

 

[Angbad]

Unless the game goes to Sudden Death, I think that the results screen should be the decider of who wins. The way the game is programmed is that if Bowser does a side B and suicides, he loses. If we're playing outside of the boundaries set by the game, well then we're not really playing the same game anymore, are we? It's not "Smash 4," it's "Smash 4 except that Bowser's side B makes him win with a suicide." We can make our own arbitrary rulesets if we want, but if one of those rules directly contradicts the game itself, then you're not playing the same game.

Sorry, but you knew that the results screen would declare you the loser, and you chose to do it anyway. I agree that the TO ****ed up and you got unfairly screwed in that regard, but I think that we should remove suicide clauses entirely.

This logic is so stupid. Some stages declare bowser the winner and some others don't. It's stupid programming and Bowser should definitely be the winner.

 

[deepseadiva]

Sudden Death provides a very clear winner and loser. How is the result screen based on sudden death inferior while the ones for suicide moves are not?

We do not play out Sudden Death.

Do we need a discussion why a 1-stock, 300%, 15 second-until-bombs-begin-randomly-spawning minigame isn't used competitively?

 

[Piford]

With the sole exception of Ganondorf's side-B, this is consistent across ALL suicide moves,

In Smash 4, the game seems clearly intended to not let the suicide-initiator win, perhaps in an effort to discourage suicide kills.

This is exactly it. The only reason Ganondorf is not included in suicide moves resulting in loss is because Ganondorf's opponent can force him to use them move if Ganondorf is using Flame Choke to recover.

 

[Tagxy]

We do not play out Sudden Death.

Do we need a discussion why a 1-stock, 300%, 15 second-until-bombs-begin-randomly-spawning minigame isn't used competitively?

The argument against a suicide clause is that it contradicts the result screen. If we're going to weigh the competitive merits of changing the results screen to ignore sudden death, then its fair to do the same for suicide moves.

I dont really care either way Im cool with both, but I think people make a way huger deal about them existing then they are.

 

[deepseadiva]

The argument against a suicide clause is that it contradicts the result screen. If we're going to weigh the competitive merits of changing the results screen to ignore sudden death, then its fair to do the same for suicide moves.

By "result screen" we mean a report from the game saying win/lose/draw.

Sudden Death reports a draw and then switches to a minigame. We don't ignore that. We just don't play the minigame and attempt another win/lose result screen.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

This logic is so stupid. Some stages declare bowser the winner and some others don't. It's stupid programming and Bowser should definitely be the winner.

And some stages have hazards, and some stages have platforms, and some stages have walls. It's called stage knowledge, and it seems that it now has extra significance for Bowser mains. It may be somewhat nonsensical, but it's still in the game.

And it can actually be used to Bowser's advantage. Consider this scenario: Bowser and the opponent are on a stage which causes Sudden Death upon a Bowsercide. The Bowser main knows this, because they've done their research, but the opponent doesn't. The Bowser is at 140% and the opponent is at 20%, and they're both on their last stock. Bowser could use side B, and the opponent, having less damage, would be more in control. However, they think that Bowser will lose if he Bowsercides on this stage, so they purposefully steer off the stage, they both get KO'd, and it goes to Sudden Death, thus forcing them to play a 1 stock match where both of them are now at 0%. The Bowser main knew it would cause Sudden Death, so they used it to their advantage to nullify the opponent's lead.

Some posters have already stated this, but I want to reiterate that if people are saying Zigsta is at fault then they clearly haven't read the OP. This isn't about the rule itself, it's about a TO giving horrible, game-changing misinformation that resulted in Zigsta making a bad move that cost him the game.

The suicide rule clause as a whole is up for debate (and I personally dislike it), but shame on everyone for not understanding this.

Most of us agree that Zigsta isn't at fault, but that doesn't mean that we can't use this thread to also discuss suicide clauses in general.

 

[Tagxy]

By "result screen" we mean a report from the game saying win/lose/draw.

Sudden Death reports a draw and then switches to a minigame. We don't ignore that. We just don't play the minigame and attempt another win/lose result screen.

Honestly this sounds a bit like denial. There's no result that says draw or indication that sudden death is a minigame, thats just a kind interpretation that side steps the more unpalatable reality that we object to how the game's determined who wins and we've chosen to ignore it. This is something we all do when we choose to play competitive smash, adding a suicide clause is just another level of it. I understand some people draw the line before the suicide clause but for others its right after.

 

[deepseadiva]

So suicides should always go to the initiator unless it's Sudden Death, in which case we play that out?

I know that's not the real conclusion you wanted to reach @ Tagxy but that's what you're saying.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Honestly this sounds a bit like denial. There's no result that says draw or indication that sudden death is a minigame, thats just a kind interpretation that side steps the more unpalatable reality that we object to how the game's determined who wins and we've chosen to ignore it. This is something we all do when we choose to play competitive smash, adding a suicide clause is just another level of it. I understand some people draw the line before the suicide clause but for others its right after.

I think the reason people don't like Sudden Death is that the bomb drops are random. Bowsercide will always cause Bowser to lose on some stages, and always cause Sudden Death on some stages. This is constant, not random.

 

[Zigsta]

Thanks to everyone who's replied thus far! In only 24 hours, this thread has gotten over 1300 views and nearly 60 posts. Even if some posters disagree on my stance for Bowser's inclusion in the Suicide Clause, I'm very grateful that my disaster can be used as an example moving forward. I know my OP is a long one, so I really do appreciate everyone's time reading it.

While I do advocate Bowser being in the Suicide Clause--as well as the Suicide Clause in general--I know it's a tricky ruleset to discuss.

 

[Tagxy]

Random doesnt mean uncompetitive hypnotoad.

So suicides should always go to the initiator unless it's Sudden Death, in which case we play that out?

I know that's not the real conclusion you wanted to reach @ Tagxy but that's what you're saying.

I personally wouldnt be entirely against sudden death, but I know the community wouldnt have it at all.

In any case, the real point is were all compromising a some point. Its just a matter of degrees.

 

[◥θ┴θ◤ | JJ]

By the way, I personally messaged a TO before Apex, and tagged a few on a status in Facebook where I asked in the case Bowser does a suicide Side B, who wins, and they told me that they forgot to add that Bowser wins in the rules, but that he should take the win.

Really unfortunate.

And this was overlooked when the situation arose?

That's just unacceptable.

 

[Morbi]

I actually remember this when it happened, Nyani was popping off on Twitter, so proud of her victory over a technicality. Honestly, I am not sure why it is so controversial to give the person who initiated the final hit resulting in the victory screen the win. It seems like common sense. Out of nowhere we have purists who assert that the victory screen is somehow determinate of who actually EARNED the knock-out despite precedent to the contrary. Regardless, I hope that Bowser is included in the Suicide Clause from this point forward. He is basically the most prominent example of a suicide kill, I am surprised that such an oversight was even possible.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Out of nowhere we have purists who assert that the victory screen is somehow determinate of who actually EARNED the knock-out despite precedent to the contrary.

"Somehow" determinate?

 

[Morbi]

"Somehow" determinate?

Indeed. The victory screen is not necessarily relevant. If your match goes to time (which, if I recall correctly, forces you into a sudden death which you then quit out of), it is not necessarily a draw just because the victory screen indicates that it is a "no contest." So if the victory screen states that Bowser lost, it does not need to be the case if he initiated the KO.

In regards to my phrasing of "somehow," I was implying that it is utterly arbitrary who appears as the winner or that the entire concept of "going with" whatever the screen goes with is an arbitrary ruling with no real merit.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

The very existence of a suicide clause is an eye-rollingly bad instance of "playing the game you wished you had" instead of the game that you do have, and I just rarely see eye-to-eye with people who are eager to mess with rules as fundamental as the match win condition simply because it doesn't suit their personal tastes. Messing with the rules to that degree feels inherently anti-competitive. There are a lot of "house rules" in competitive Smash that I'd rather do without, and this one is a huge offender.

Adhering to precedence on the suicide clause is a poorly thought out justification, too. The reason why it even made sense in Brawl (port priority) doesn't apply to Smash 4. Why defer to precedence when the original justification no longer applies to the new game?

(As an aside, this is an entirely different discussion than that of Zigsta's dilemma. That dude got straight robbed of his victory.)

 

[Morbi]

I am not sure, I think of it this way: if you were to invite someone uninitiated with Smash and allow them to watch the "How to Play" video of the game. Start up a one stock match with Bowser and Mario, use his side-special and initiate a Bowsercide, and of course, subsequently turn off the television so that the victory screen does not introduce a bias. Then ask them, "who won that match." Anyone with any semblance of logic or reasoning would assert that the Bowser won the match. No question. Unless, they thought it was a trick question, I suppose.

If you were to then show them that same scenario where Bowser loses on one stage, and incites sudden death or a victory on the other. They would probably ask, "why is that?" You would not have a feasible response.

I am not sure why the victory screen is being hailed as a be all, end all indication of victory despite the notion that we all have brains and can think for ourselves.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I am not sure, I think of it this way: if you were to invite someone uninitiated with Smash and allow them to watch the "How to Play" video of the game. Start up a one stock match with Bowser and Mario, use his side-special and initiate a Bowsercide, and of course, subsequently turn off the television so that the victory screen does not introduce a bias. Then ask them, "who won that match." Anyone with any semblance of logic or reasoning would assert that the Bowser won the match. No question. Unless, they thought it was a trick question, I suppose.

Presuming that I didn't know anything about the specific move, I'd assume:

- Whichever character's hurtbox touches the blast zone first would probably be the first character to die and, thus, be the character who loses. Or maybe it would be a draw if they both touched the edge at the same time. I'd have to know more about the hurtboxes to say for sure either way, and I'd expect that the result might vary depending on the grabbed character's size.

I think that's what "anyone with any semblance of logic or reasoning would assert." But that's neither here nor there...

If you were to then show them that same scenario where Bowser loses on one stage, and incites sudden death or a victory on the other. They would probably ask, "why is that?" You would not have a feasible response.

My response would be "deal with it, and learn the intricacies of your game."

Even port priority wouldn't completely convince me otherwise (although I at least understand the logic behind the rule in that case). I play other fighting games where combos behave differently depending on whether player 1 or player 2 performs them (SFA3), and I also play games where moves behave differently depending on whether they're performed from the left or right side (MvC3). Knowledgeable players of these games either (1) don't care or (2) jockey for side before the start of a match, and everyone moves on with their lives.

The idea that players should be able to dictate that the game "shouldn't" work the way that it does is bizarre. If a 1.0.6 patch dropped where suicide moves always granted the win to the initiator, or where they always granted a loss, or where they always went to sudden death, my response in all 3 hypothetical situations would be the same: that's what the game says. Vetoing the rules because that's not what you're used to or what you expect or what you think should happen, more than anything else, comes off as arrogant sour grapes to me.

 

[Morbi]

Presuming that I didn't know anything about the specific move, I'd assume:

- Whichever character's hurtbox touches the blast zone first would probably be the first character to die and, thus, be the character who loses. I'd have to know more about the hurtboxes to say for sure either way, and I'd expect that the result might vary depending on the grabbed character's size.

But that's neither here nor there...


My response would be "deal with it, and learn the intricacies of your game."

I play other fighting games where combos behave differently depending on whether player 1 or player 2 performs them (SFA3), and I also play games where moves behave differently depending on whether they're performed from the left or right side (MvC3). Knowledgeable players of these games either (1) don't care or (2) jockey for side at the start of a match, and everyone moves on with their lives.

The idea that players should be able to dictate that the game "shouldn't" work the way that it does is bizarre. If a 1.0.6 patch dropped where suicide moves always granted the win to the initiator, or where they always granted a loss, or where they always went to sudden death, my response in all 3 hypothetical situations would be the same: that's what the game that you play says. Vetoing the rules because that's not what you're used to or what you expect or what you think should happen, more than anything else, comes off as arrogant sour grapes to me.

Those response do not really apply to the hypothetical scenario, but I suppose you have a point. I am not against learning the "intricacies" of the game myself, but it does not really make sense to forgo a logical Suicide Clause just because the game does not recognize that as a competitively viable technique. Just as it does not recognize that time-outs result in a loss. It is OUR meta-game and WE determine the rules. Not the game. Otherwise, we would most likely be playing on the default setting. But that is neither here, nor there. I understand your opinion and respect it, but at the same time, we have a Suicide Clause for a reason. There is an interest in the concept, sour grapes or not.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

at the same time, we have a Suicide Clause for a reason.

A reason that does not exist in Super Smash Bros. 4.

I think that if you're going to make house rules that veto the in-game rules, then you better have a damn good reason for that rule to exist. And that certainly isn't the case for this one.

 

[Morbi]

A reason that does not exist in Super Smash Bros. 4.

I think that if you're going to make house rules that veto the in-game rules, then you better have a damn good reason for that rule to exist. And that certainly isn't the case for this one.

I suppose not, nevertheless, I would prefer it to be the standard myself (obviously). This debate does not directly apply to me too much as I do not main a character that has a suicide move, but if I lost a set to a suicide move, I would take the loss regardless of rules. But that is just me.

 

[deepseadiva]

Bowser mains in this thread be like

I would prefer

PPPPPPP

 

[Morbi]

Bowser mains in this thread be like

It is mostly a subjective debate, so a lot of the arguments are opinionated. Unless that was a joke, I can't tell.

 

[DD_]

I think that if you're going to make house rules that veto the in-game rules, then you better have a damn good reason for that rule to exist. And that certainly isn't the case for this one.

How DARE you VETO the in-game RULES of smash 4! I bet you're the kind of SCUM who also wants ITEMS turned OFF, certain stages BANNED and Customs/Equipment OFF as well!

There is no case for this! the only case is that Bowser is punishing a mistake made to his face with a move that is unsafe! can be manipulated! and can only be used from a winning or neutral position!

Jokes aside though I'm with you 100% on this Ziggsta, Bowser should be allowed to punish ignorance! Let the Bowsers Koopaside!

 

[Sixfortyfive]

How DARE you VETO the in-game RULES of smash 4! I bet you're the kind of SCUM who also wants ITEMS turned OFF, certain stages BANNED and Customs/Equipment OFF as well!

Putting words in my mouth is cool and all, but if we were to have a conversation on any of those points, then my position would actually be pretty consistent. They'd also all be really off-topic, though.

More to the point, though: I'm aware of good reasons to turn off items or ban certain stages. I'm not aware of a good reason for the suicide clause to exist.

 

[DD_]

More to the point, though: I'm aware of good reasons to turn off items or ban certain stages. I'm not aware of a good reason for the suicide clause to exist.

What more points do you need other than the bare facts:

-You make a mistake in my face
-I punish you with a command grab
-you die as a result

Just use any amount of logic and there is no way you can justify making the other person the winner for that chain of events. If you're all about playing the game as it stands, Bowsers side-b stands as a move where you can take people off the stage.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

What more points do you need other than the bare facts:

-You make a mistake in my face
-I punish you with a command grab
-you die as a result

...But that isn't what happens. You literally self destruct and then tell me that I'm supposed to lose.

"Bare facts." lol

 

[deepseadiva]

...But that isn't what happens. You literally self destruct and then tell me that I'm supposed to lose.

"Bare facts." lol