Bowser and the Suicide Clause

[Jexulus]

I want to establish a few opinions I hold about the discussion: 1) This is not a black-and-white problem. There are multiple, complex factors that contribute to this problem, and why it's being so hotly debated in the first place. Any presumption that the solution is obvious from both sides is evidence of a misinformed way of thinking and does not bring us any closer to solving the problem at hand. 2) This problem is arisen from inconsistencies in tournament rulesets, enforcement thereof, and the game's own programming. The first step to finding a fair solution to this problem is to establish who/what makes the final say: the game itself, or the human element that builds rules around it for the sake of fairness, consistency, and timeliness in a tournament environment.

Now, here is my opinion about the topic itself: In the vast majority of instances, even in instances similar to this one, the game's results screen should hold the final say. This is, of course, provided that the game is consistent in its judgment and does not display an obvious flaw in programming. Herein lies the problem: in this particular instance, the game displays different results dependent on an arbitrary factor; that is, the result that comes from a KO boundary changes depending on what stage you're on. This requires that multiple parties (each and every combatant, each and every TO, etc.) possess knowledge of an entirely separate stage list in order to react accordingly. Failure by even one party, which is highly likely, causes confusion within all parties involved and disrupts the flow of the tournament.

Long story short: due to an obvious flaw in how the game determines what to do next (declare a winner or move to Sudden-Death) in this instance due to an arbitrary factor, we cannot rely on the game's judgment, especially in a tournament environment. Any rules concerning this need to be determined by factors other than what the game tells them.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

This is, of course, provided that the game is consistent in its judgment and does not display an obvious flaw in programming. Herein lies the problem: in this particular instance, the game displays different results dependent on an arbitrary factor; that is, the result that comes from a KO boundary changes depending on what stage you're on.

But if you get the same result on the same stage every time, then it's 100% consistent. Know the stages. Know the game. Ignorance should never be an excuse.

And even if the results were random? Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't throw the match away on a coin-flip move. Why shouldn't you be laughed out of the room for SDing but still saying that you "deserve" a win?

 

[Sodo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdiTO7Aji_g

Under suicide clause logic, FOW should have won this game. After all, he initiated the killing blow. But he died first, and so he lost. Did FOW "deserve" to win this game? If you ask me, no. He got horribly unlucky with the star KO, but that's the way the game works. And it seems most people agree, because nobody has bothered to bring up "Hey, shouldn't FOW have won for initiating the killing move?" But how is this scenario any different from Bowser's scenario?

I see what you're saying and I agree that FOW lost. He died first, as unfortunate and cool as that set was.

Back to the point, Bowser Koopa Klawing someone and then killing both of the characters is completely different. I'm sure you can see that. One is a character knocking someone into a Star KO and the other is falling into the blast zone. With Bowser, both characters are going into the blast zone. If somehow Koopa Klaw initiated a Star KO I'd see your point but these situations are night and day as far as I'm concerned.

 

[HeavyMetalSonic]

I once went to a local "tournament" where I was told chain-grabs were out, but the wobble was in. I didn't really find this fishy (my fault) so I went for a wobble on the first stock of the second game and lo and behold my opponent reaches over and ****s my inputs up.

If he'd done that to me, I would've reached back over and wrapped the wire around his neck. I hate people who do silly crap like that. UGH.

I'll be honest, I don't get why Sakurai decided to change how Bowsercide works anyway... It should be a set direction that Bowser carries the opponent in, rather than a struggle between the two players and it's affected by their % as to how the move plays out. And then he messes about with who gets killed first, it's like he wants people to claw each others eyes out... And it's too much to take into account... x.x

I honestly don't know how I feel about Bowsercide. Yes, it's infuriating when someone spams it near the edge of a stage, but then I would've been stupid enough to sit there and let myself get cornered and then command grabbed. But then there are people like the OP who have clearly thought out how they want the match to go in their favour, they've weighed up the options and know the outcomes. People like THAT should be rewarded the win (This is before it got changed so that Bowser gets killed first).

Ugh, I don't know. It's not like you can have someone sit there and say "Well this Bowser player clearly outplayed you, so they get the win".

I'm too tired to think about the possibilities of this in detail... But whatever people decide, a rematch should've been issued to resolve the issue given the TO's information. If you're told by someone who's organised the event that they were the rules, he should be there to enforce them. I hope he doesn't get to be a TO again, and I hope things like this don't happen in the future and are more clear. But then it's the competitive scene, it's bound to happen... -.-

 

[misterbreadcrum]

Idk. If OP was really so far ahead in percentage, he probably made a mistake in even initiating the Bowsercide. Simple mistakes can and often do lose you a game, and even a set.

 

[Zigsta]

Idk. If OP was really so far ahead in percentage, he probably made a mistake in even initiating the Bowsercide. Simple mistakes can and often do lose you a game, and even a set.

It wasn't a mistake. I intentionally Koopacided both games I referred to in the first post.

 

[misterbreadcrum]

It wasn't a mistake. I intentionally Koopacided both games I referred to in the first post.

Which was probably the mistake. A lead of over 100% damage would not have encouraged me to do something so risky. But that's just me.

 

[TheGreatMetagod]

Which was probably the mistake. A lead of over 100% damage would not have encouraged me to do something so risky. But that's just me.

It wasn't supposed to be risky. It was supposed to be a win. TO misinformed the OP.

Edit: Sorry, talking about different games. Apparently, the opponent was able to control Koopa Claw despite being at a higher percentage. Control is supposed to go to whoever has the lower percentage. Still, not supposed to be a risk.

 

[misterbreadcrum]

It wasn't supposed to be risky. It was supposed to be a win. TO misinformed the OP.

Edit: Sorry, talking about different games. Apparently, the opponent was able to control Koopa Claw despite being at a higher percentage. Control is supposed to go to whoever has the lower percentage. Still, not supposed to be a risk.

OP says otherwise, so it's honestly a pretty gray topic in my opinion. I still personally would not have gone for a Bowsercide at the edge, a grab or really almost any other move would have probably finished her off if timed correctly.

It doesn't matter who controlled the Bowsercide. Had he been able to go mid-stage and (definitely) kill Nayni, he still would have Koopacided. OP meant to pull this off, and so did Nyani because of a TO's miscommunication to OP.

 

[TheGreatMetagod]

Next round I don't even remember the name of the person I played, but I felt completely out of it. His Mario barely beat me game one. Then game two he shield in the middle of the stage, and I Klaw him when he's at 140% and I'm at 20%. I aim in the center of the stage towards the platform, and he aims offstage...and thanks to Smash 4 mechanics, sometimes the game randomly lets Bowser's opponent have more control over Klaw even when there's a vast chasm in percentages. I unplugged my controller and said "good game" even though my opponent AND his friends were laughing at me. Because he made a poor move (shielding) and I got punished for it.

What do you mean, "OP said otherwise"?

Edit: I see. You were referring to the first match.

 

[misterbreadcrum]

What do you mean, "OP said otherwise"?

I was referring to your previous edit.

Anyway, I don't want to send the wrong message. I understand why OP is upset, he has a right to be. I just wanted to play devil's advocate and point out that this wasn't exactly a foolproof play in the first place. Always two sides to a coin.

 

[Pazx]

Which was probably the mistake. A lead of over 100% damage would not have encouraged me to do something so risky. But that's just me.

Please explain how "If I do this move I will literally win the set according to what a TO told me" is risky.

 

[TheGreatMetagod]

I was referring to your previous edit.

First match he intentionally went for a Bowsercide because he was told by a TO that it would be a win. He was robbed of his (rightful) win.

It was a later match that he tried to aim Koopa Claw towards center stage, and was unable to control it (despite being at a lower percentage than the opponent.) Just clearing up the confusion. He DID Bowsercide the first match (the one you're referring to) on purpose.

 

[misterbreadcrum]

I'll just go ahead and repeat myself.

Anyway, I don't want to send the wrong message. I understand why OP is upset, he has a right to be. I just wanted to play devil's advocate and point out that this wasn't exactly a foolproof play in the first place. Always two sides to a coin.

 

[Uncle]

I finally read through the whole thread. I'm a little late to the party, but here's what I have to say.....

When Zigsta first posted on the Bowser board about what happened to him at APEX 2015 in a nutshell, I was saddened to hear about how he was eliminated. Now that I've read the full story, I'm even more saddened, and slightly pissed off to boot. This was not only a failure of TOing, but a failure of sportsmanship with the given pop-off/laughing examples. Zig didn't deserve the crap that he got.

Personally, I don't care if tournaments go with "All Suicide Initiators Win" or "All Suicide Initiators Lose." There are reasonable arguments for both rulings. All I'm asking for is equal treatment for all suicide moves. If you're gonna have initiators win, then don't exclude Bowser. If Bowser loses, then it's only fair that all other suicide initiators lose too.

Whatever you do, be clear and be firm with your ruleset. Don't just take the game's own ruling at face value. We can't trust the game itself to tell us what's competitive and what isn't. Remember, every single official Smash Bros. game was never competitive on its own. WE made them competitive with our self-imposed rulesets.

If you want "natural" Smash Bros., then play out your sudden death matches, throw your counterpick systems out the door, and make every stage legal.

 

[Pazx]

@ Uncle (and everyone else I guess): We cannot always give the win to the initiator as seen here:

Otherwise, carry on.

 

[Uncle]

@ Pazx : We're only concerned with cases where the Bowsercide victim can't jump out. Like Zigsta posted in the opener, Battlefield is one of the stages where the Bowsercide victim can always jump out if you input correctly. If the fight is on a stage where the victim cannot jump out and the tournament's rule is "Initiator Wins," then Bowser should be declared the winner.

 

[Charey]

@ Pazx : We're only concerned with cases where the Bowsercide victim can't jump out. Like Zigsta posted in the opener, Battlefield is one of the stages where the Bowsercide victim can always jump out if you input correctly. If the fight is on a stage where the victim cannot jump out and the tournament's rule is "Initiator Wins," then Bowser should be declared the winner.

How can you tell if someone could have jumped out? Bowser dieing ends the match before you see if the other person survives.

This is the reason I disagree with Kirby or Dedede having a suicide clause as well. Although it's worse with those two because you can escape from the grab while in the magnifying glass.

 

[Zigsta]

How can you tell if someone could have jumped out? Bowser dieing ends the match before you see if the other person survives.

This is the reason I disagree with Kirby or Dedede having a suicide clause as well. Although it's worse with those two because you can escape from the grab while in the magnifying glass.

It's entirely stage dependent as to whether or not the opponent can jump out.

I agree with Uncle that if there is going to be a Suicide Clause, Bowser needs to be included. If people say "but wait, some characters can get back!", then adjust Bowser's ruling to be that he gets a win if it goes to Sudden Death.

I forget who said it, but someone is this thread said he doesn't want to memorize extra stuff when fighting Bowser. Well...tough stuff. Bowser in Brawl had specific grab releases that applied only to certain characters. Any competent Bowser main either had to memorize the grab release followups OR have the PDF list saved on a smart phone. Part of playing high level Smash is knowing extra information about this game in order to give yourself an advantage over your opponent--in my mind making a ruling where Bowser loses no matter what based solely on the argument of not wanting to memorize stages (if you hate memorizing, save the list as a Note on your phone!!), that's just downright lazy.

I believe Praxis stated that rules shouldn't be in place that buff certain characters. But on the flipside of that statement, not including Bowser in the Suicide Clause HURTS Bowser. No other suicide move allows the opponent some degree of control, and with Klaw's wonky percentage mechanics now, no Suicide Clause inclusion for Bowser effectively takes one of his moves away and flat-out rewards players who make bad options, like shielding on a platform above Bowser. In Brawl, that was a free Klaw.

Furthermore, the people who say that Bowser's Klaw is easy to land must not have played Brawl Bowser because THAT was easy to land. Brawl Bowser's Klaw had grab armor and a lot more range, not to mention that you could Koopa Hop with the move, allowing for mixups and baits. Koopa Hopping was ESSENTIAL in the Wario MU, for example, since Wario loved being in the air, and if he ever got Bowser on the ground, he'd get one grab off, downthrow chaingrab, and Waft on Bowser. Smash 4 Klaw is an inferior move in every meaning of the word. Oh, and it's a lot harder to punish rolls with Klaw now, too. My point here is simply that it's not really that easy to land in the first place. If you were having issues with the move against your typical random For Glory Bowser, it's likely because you were shielding near the side of the stage. And even if the Bowser's gameplan wasn't to force to the ledge and to shield there, you're still asking to be Klawed one and the same.

 

[misterbreadcrum]

It's entirely stage dependent as to whether or not the opponent can jump out.

I agree with Uncle that if there is going to be a Suicide Clause, Bowser needs to be included. If people say "but wait, some characters can get back!", then adjust Bowser's ruling to be that he gets a win if it goes to Sudden Death.

I forget who said it, but someone is this thread said he doesn't want to memorize extra stuff when fighting Bowser. Well...tough stuff. Bowser in Brawl had specific grab releases that applied only to certain characters. Any competent Bowser main either had to memorize the grab release followups OR have the PDF list saved on a smart phone. Part of playing high level Smash is knowing extra information about this game in order to give yourself an advantage over your opponent--in my mind making a ruling where Bowser loses no matter what based solely on the argument of not wanting to memorize stages (if you hate memorizing, save the list as a Note on your phone!!), that's just downright lazy.

I believe Praxis stated that rules shouldn't be in place that buff certain characters. But on the flipside of that statement, not including Bowser in the Suicide Clause HURTS Bowser. No other suicide move allows the opponent some degree of control, and with Klaw's wonky percentage mechanics now, no Suicide Clause inclusion for Bowser effectively takes one of his moves away and flat-out rewards players who make bad options, like shielding on a platform above Bowser. In Brawl, that was a free Klaw.

Furthermore, the people who say that Bowser's Klaw is easy to land must not have played Brawl Bowser because THAT was easy to land. Brawl Bowser's Klaw had grab armor and a lot more range, not to mention that you could Koopa Hop with the move, allowing for mixups and baits. Koopa Hopping was ESSENTIAL in the Wario MU, for example, since Wario loved being in the air, and if he ever got Bowser on the ground, he'd get one grab off, downthrow chaingrab, and Waft on Bowser. Smash 4 Klaw is an inferior move in every meaning of the word. Oh, and it's a lot harder to punish rolls with Klaw now, too. My point here is simply that it's not really that easy to land in the first place. If you were having issues with the move against your typical random For Glory Bowser, it's likely because you were shielding near the side of the stage. And even if the Bowser's gameplan wasn't to force to the ledge and to shield there, you're still asking to be Klawed one and the same.

Hit sudden death and just call it a win? Is that how the other suicide clauses are? Seems rather unspirited.
So if you were to write the clause, as unbiased and balanced as you could, how would your write it?

I can't find hitbox/hurtbox frame data for the move in question, do you have it? It still seems like a pretty good move to me - any command grab tends to catch me off guard, and it can be especially tricky to land as Fox against Bowser once you get tossed into the air like that. When you're following a Fox who's landing, what do you tend to expect them to do, and how do you act accordingly?

 

[Terotrous]

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.

The moment you say "unless the game goes to sudden death", we're already playing a different game from Smash 4. Nowhere in the game does it give you the option to hand the win to the player with lower percent in the case of a timeout. It clearly ought to, but it doesn't. As per the design of Smash 4, running away and waiting for time to run out on your last stock when you are losing is a legitimate strategy to give yourself a chance to win in sudden death (and indeed, tons of people do this in FG) but we have collectively decided that we want to change the game and disallow this strategy.

So suddenly now Bowser's control over the move is nearly out of our hands. As Bowser players, we basically can't use Side B at all if you were to shield while being close to the edge of the stage due to his exclusion from the clause/for the people who say we should just go by the game's rulings. This is an issue to me.

I don't think that anyone denies that this aspect of the game is stupidly designed and if any of us had the option to make balance changes we'd make it so that all suicidal KOs always award the win to the initiator. However, we don't. We can either play the game we have or try to alter it into something we like, but neither option pleases everyone.

 

[Cassius.]

the move's range has been severely (i cannot emphasize that word enough) nerfed, both on the ground and in even moreso in the air compared to the previous version's.

The fact that grab armor doesn't exist as well makes it a less viable move to use, since you cannot opt to trade with hits and have the grab go through. I've had both grounded and aerial side b's whiff POINT BLANK before. The move sucks. Its only saving grace is that it's still relatively fast, it's a command grab (that's still a good thing to have, but apparently not anymore according to this thread), and it actually can grab airborne opponents while you are grounded--something they added to his move in Smash 4. Additionally, I forgot to mention that thanks to being able to turn around and execute a forward tilt/b (no idea what the actual name of this mechanic is), bowser can actually do a side b in the opposite direction while he is in the middle of dashing. He couldn't do this in Brawl. While dashing, he could only side b in the direction he was facing.

As for fox vs bowser (this is the incorrect thread for this so im not going to say more than this), landing options are pretty limited in this game. Fox/any character really is either going to retreat to the ledge to escape (most) pressure, side b through me to get space, airdodge (obviously a risky idea but it works on occasion), come down with an attack (it's bowser, bad idea) or fast fall and try to execute an option once he is grounded. Bowser is big enough to cover multiple landing options, but the issue (obviously aside from the fact that he sucks lol) is with characters who can easily change the place where they land via superb air speed, causing a move to whiff by a hair, or a move that just places them in another location, or some other unique move they have (peach float, multiple jumps) This requires a read, of course.

 

[Raijinken]

Regardless of character-specific mechanics, either the clause should apply equally to all characters for whom it is an option (including ROB, Metaknight, Charizard, and Kirby uthrows on moving platforms), or should not be applied at all.

 

[Jexulus]

I forget who said it, but someone is this thread said he doesn't want to memorize extra stuff when fighting Bowser. Well...tough stuff. Bowser in Brawl had specific grab releases that applied only to certain characters. Any competent Bowser main either had to memorize the grab release followups OR have the PDF list saved on a smart phone. Part of playing high level Smash is knowing extra information about this game in order to give yourself an advantage over your opponent--in my mind making a ruling where Bowser loses no matter what based solely on the argument of not wanting to memorize stages (if you hate memorizing, save the list as a Note on your phone!!), that's just downright lazy.

Are you referring to this?

This requires that multiple parties (each and every combatant, each and every TO, etc.) possess knowledge of an entirely separate stage list in order to react accordingly. Failure by even one party, which is highly likely, causes confusion within all parties involved and disrupts the flow of the tournament.

If you are, then I won't argue that; since I know very little about the high level competitive scene. It isn't part of my point; this is:

Long story short: due to an obvious flaw in how the game determines what to do next (declare a winner or move to Sudden-Death) in this instance due to an arbitrary factor, we cannot rely on the game's judgment, especially in a tournament environment. Any rules concerning this need to be determined by factors other than what the game tells them.

That's all I care about right now. The key to solving this problem is determining whether we rely on the game to tell us if someone lost in this particular scenario. I'm arguing that we shouldn't due to an obvious flaw in how the game registers who dies, specifically how it differs depending on what stage you're on. I won't have much else to say in this discussion once we reach a consensus on that front. My argument is for the sake of consistency across the board to avoid confusion in a tournament environment, not for the sake of the character itself.

 

[1FC0]

While I do think we should go by what the result screen tells us, I do think it's really unfair that the opponent can make Bowser commit suicide when they should be the ones getting punished for being grabbed. It's not a good thing to have a move of a character be made completely useless just because an opponent can make you kill yourself with it, especially because the Klaw is a solid kill move as it is.

Why is that? If the game decides that Bowsers B> can be a double edged sword then the player should take that into consideration. If Bowser hits with B> and loses because of it then it was his oversight and he deserves the loss.

Off course in this specific case it was different. If a TO said that Bowser would win then Bowser should have won . So in this case it was that TO who was at fault for saying something that is not true about the rules.

In confusing cases like this where the wrong character dances on the victory screen I think that one would do well to read the written rules so as to have some prove and follow those.

I don't think it matters what the game rewards us with because we, as players/TOs, have been editing this game to where OUR rules determine the winner since smash went competitive. So why start going against this now? If we are going to do what the game says, as you suggested, then we better start doing timed matches with items because that is what the game gives us right off the bat when you begin your first time playing smash.

And we should also use the character that our selector starts on? And not choose a stage but use the stage that the selector starts on? Why not just ignore all the games options as if they are not there and start mashing the starts button as soon as the game starts to see where it leads us? Why not do nothing in a match but wait because standing still and doing nothing is the default thing that your character does.

The game gives us the options of choosing a character, stage, rules, and items. It does not give us an option of Suicide clausing. Your analogy is faulty.

 

[B!squick]

Use more DownB, DAir, and Dash Slash my man. Adapt and overcome, bro! Browser if you will.

The sad truth is that even if Bowser was a part of the suicide clause, there are certain characters that can recover just fine if Bowser dies first. Obviously this means he's screwed if it's not the last stock for both parties, but what if it was? Does Bowser win because the game ended and he did the suicide move or does the guy who could have recovered just fine if it wasn't Bowser's last stock win?

I don't know about the other characters with suicide moves and their customs, but at least with Bowser we can just use Dash Slash and not have to worry about this nonsense anymore. Make it happen, TOs. And give Zigsta his money back. Fast food restaurants shouldn't be offering better customer service than one of the biggest Smash tournaments in the world.

 

[Sodo]

I finally read through the whole thread. I'm a little late to the party, but here's what I have to say.....

When Zigsta first posted on the Bowser board about what happened to him at APEX 2015 in a nutshell, I was saddened to hear about how he was eliminated. Now that I've read the full story, I'm even more saddened, and slightly pissed off to boot. This was not only a failure of TOing, but a failure of sportsmanship with the given pop-off/laughing examples. Zig didn't deserve the crap that he got.

Personally, I don't care if tournaments go with "All Suicide Initiators Win" or "All Suicide Initiators Lose." There are reasonable arguments for both rulings. All I'm asking for is equal treatment for all suicide moves. If you're gonna have initiators win, then don't exclude Bowser. If Bowser loses, then it's only fair that all other suicide initiators lose too.

Whatever you do, be clear and be firm with your ruleset. Don't just take the game's own ruling at face value. We can't trust the game itself to tell us what's competitive and what isn't. Remember, every single official Smash Bros. game was never competitive on its own. WE made them competitive with our self-imposed rulesets.

If you want "natural" Smash Bros., then play out your sudden death matches, throw your counterpick systems out the door, and make every stage legal.

You said it perfectly, and that's what I've been advocating all along. Don't pick and choose what should happen when X occurs in Y circumstance. Make it 100% one way or the other.

 

[-Kagato-]

The move initiator should be given the win regardless of what the game says, especially since the game is bugged right now. To those who say "let the game decide," then that means Bowser players have a whole new tier of counterpicking stages. In my investigations of these stages, it's just like Zigsta said: Some stages go to Sudden Death after Bowsercide and some cause Bowser to die first.

This is the only suicide move that has stage-dependent results. Now you may ask "why doesn't Bowser just CP stages that allow for a sudden death result?" Because unlike every other character in the game that just needs to worry about the stage layout and how it affects their character, Bowser players need to worry about stage layout and Bowsercide results.

The simple fix is this: The player that initiates the move is rewarded the victory. Flying Slam is 100% inescapable until someone is killed when used offstage. There is no last second escapes that award a loss to the move initiator, like Dedede's inhale or Wario's Bite, if the opponent escapes the grab right before the blast zone. You're grabbed and you're going down. Your character model is even on the bottom, for goodness sake.

The results of Bowsercide is clearly bugged or else the results would be consistent on every single stage in the game. The sheer fact that there is no consistency proves that results are bugged and considering originally Bowser won 100% of the time and now the results are either Sudden Death or Bowser loses, it's clear as day that the move is not working as intended right now.

The player that initiates the attack should be declared the victor.

 

[Teshie U]

Initiating a bad move shouldn't automatically reward you.

Are we going to do the same for suicide attacks that aren't grabs?

What if I "initiate" a bad trade that ties percents in a timeout? Should I win because my character "needs" it or "deserves" it.

It takes two to tango and its entirely possible for someone with a different/more accurate understanding of the rules to intentionally get hit by a suicide move and/or not expect it to be used if it would be the worst possible thing to do.


Honestly, I fully agree we should do away with all the extra nonsense on a per character basis and make it simple. In the event of sudden death, initiator should always win/lose.

 

[Pazx]

In the event of sudden death, initiator should always win/lose.

We have options.

In the event of sudden death, initiator should always LOSE.

Initiator should always win regardless of results screen (is this fair to characters that can recover? no).

 

[-Kagato-]

The only thing that makes this different for Bowser is that some stages go to sudden death and some stages Bowser dies first. Does anyone on this planet even remotely think that was intentional game design?

The easiest solution is to award the victory to the player who initiates the Suicide Grab move. If you can't escape from it (Flame choke/Flying Slam) or you can't escape in time (Inhale/Bite/Nosferatu), then you lost.

"But you CAN escape flying slam on SOME stages" some might say. And my response is the 2nd line of this post: Does anyone on this planet even remotely think that was intentional game design?

 

[Pyr]

Really have never known the debate on this. If you use a suicide move and it goes to SD, initiator wins. Why the **** should anyone be punished for landing a suicide move or going with an option that worked? If you use a suicide move and it doesn't go to SD, it can reasonably be assumed that the non-Bowser player could of survived. What's the argument here?

 

[LancerStaff]

The move is bugged, but the change was obvious and intentional. What'll happen if they fix it so it always results in Bowser's death before the opponent? The move has been half changed already, so we might as well go all the way. It's easy to enforce "Non-Dorf SD move to double KO = Initiator losses" over the opposite. What about those situations when the opponent flys away? If Bowser's supposed to win, what if that happens before the final stocks? Are you supposed to just throw yourself into the hole? See, we don't need ambiguous rules creating confusing and unfortunate situations like this in the first place.

Yes, the rule hurts Bowser and company. The game isn't 100% fair in the first place. We don't need a ton of arbitrarily "fair" rules bogging down the game. Did we make a rule for Melee BF/Omega Lylat's ledges? Did we make a rule for falling out of Zelda or Pit's Fsmashes? Why don't we just handicap Diddy? Because it's all arbitrary out-of-game rules.

The only thing that makes this different for Bowser is that some stages go to sudden death and some stages Bowser dies first. Does anyone on this planet even remotely think that was intentional game design?

The easiest solution is to award the victory to the player who initiates the Suicide Grab move. If you can't escape from it (Flame choke/Flying Slam) or you can't escape in time (Inhale/Bite/Nosferatu), then you lost.

"But you CAN escape flying slam on SOME stages" some might say. And my response is the 2nd line of this post: Does anyone on this planet even remotely think that was intentional game design?

The if the game was designed to go to Sudden Death, Bowser would just lose Sudden Death 99/100 times anyway. "Sudden Death rule," you say. That's an arbitrary rule that the development team do not enforce or even imply.

The game was outright patched so Bowser would not win by Bowserside. The 3DS version was even patched again and Bowser doesn't win Bowserside either.

 

[-Kagato-]

Actually, Bowsercide is bugged on the 3ds as well. He loses on some stages while others go to Sudden Death. I tested just now and wouldn't you know it, Sudden Death on Prism Tower and Bowser dies first on Prism Tower Omega. Sudden Death on Arena Ferox, Bowser dies first on Ferox Omega.

Bowsercide is bugged. Until a 100% definitive patch comes, or patch notes with intended changes are released by the dev team, then do not assume what they had in mind when patching.

 

[Pyr]

Wario - Neutral B1 - Wins, released before you hit the blast zone, releases at a low angle. Loses if not released.
DK - Grab + Pickup - Wins, release low. Loses if he holds onto and opponent doesn't mash.
Diddy Kong - Side-B - Wins, opponent will hit the blast zone first. Even so, Diddy can jump off of them.
Ganon - Side B - Wins, always wins if initiated.
Kirby - Neutral B - Wins, enemy falls deeper then Kirby when they get out. Will lose if both characters hit the blast zone at the same time.
D3 - See Kirby.
Rob - U-Throw from a moving platform - Unknown - Didn't have time to test. I'm kinda sure they lose.
Little Mac - His Off-Stage Edge Guarding game - Lolwutyoudoingm8


Honestly, the developer's intentions are clear: If you suicide and you're still in contact with your opponent, you lose. Except Ganon, cause a certain someone plays Ganon.

That said, all characters with a suicide, besides Ganon/Bowser/Uthrow, have a way to kill the opponent and keep themselves safe, making them suicides only if the initiator wants them to be. Developer intentions are clear. I think they're stupid as all hell, but they are clear: initiator loses or SD occurs.

Honestly, Suicides should lead to wins to the initiator cause it means the other person made a huge mistake. They shouldn't be able to make such a huge mistake and not be hugely punished for it.

Edit: Corrected U-Throw section cause I'm a derp.

 

[B!squick]

Pretty sure Kirby's is dependent on which direction he's facing because patching games is hard

Spoiler

for Nintendo

.

 

[LancerStaff]

Actually, Bowsercide is bugged on the 3ds as well. He loses on some stages while others go to Sudden Death. I tested just now and wouldn't you know it, Sudden Death on Prism Tower and Bowser dies first on Prism Tower Omega. Sudden Death on Arena Ferox, Bowser dies first on Ferox Omega.

Bowsercide is bugged. Until a 100% definitive patch comes, or patch notes with intended changes are released by the dev team, then do not assume what they had in mind when patching.

You don't just go from a 100% chance of winning to a 50% chance of loss and 50% of SD leading to loss from a mistake. Four times over too. The 3DS version update, the Wii U release version, the day-one patch, and the 3DS Amiibo update. The game is balanced around having SD, and Bowser will lose any SD against an average character. And most less-then-average ones.

 

[Charey]

Charizard/Kirby/MK cannot SD off a moving platform with up throw, if there is no ground under them they will crash into air at the point the platform was at.

Rob however can roboside with upthrow, but he dies first in training mode (At least in smashville).

 

[-Kagato-]

You don't just go from a 100% chance of winning to a 50% chance of loss and 50% of SD leading to loss from a mistake. Four times over too. The 3DS version update, the Wii U release version, the day-one patch, and the 3DS Amiibo update. The game is balanced around having SD, and Bowser will lose any SD against an average character. And most less-then-average ones.

Are you seriously basing your entire argument on your own opinion on how Bowser players would perform in an actual Sudden Death match?

This is a topic about Bowsercides. Though originally a topic regarding Zigsta's experience, it's still in regards to Bowsercide and the ruling of it. Not Bowser's Sudden Death performance.

 

[LancerStaff]

Are you seriously basing your entire argument on your own opinion on how Bowser players would perform in an actual Sudden Death match?

This is a topic about Bowsercides. Though originally a topic regarding Zigsta's experience, it's still in regards to Bowsercide and the ruling of it. Not Bowser's Sudden Death performance.

Yes. They bothered to make the move never result in a win, but didn't care if it was a draw or loss and Bowser WILL lose draws.

Who's trying to enforce arbitrary rules here? The dev team or the Smash community? Oh, and the DT kinda makes the rules so think carefully.

Bowser's SD performance relates greatly to a move that causes the mode to start, don't you think?

The dev team fully intended something less then a win, a SD won't always happen and it's possible for the opponent to recover if not, and the whole rule wouldn't exist if it wasn't in previous games. EVO won't be enforcing the rule and it's existence caused this whole controversy. Do we have rules for janky moves like Zelda's Fsmash that keep her from being punished for using the move? No. Accept the moves are buggy and bad and move on. Or would you rather memorize which stages arbitrarily make you win ir lose?