Bowser and the Suicide Clause

[dav3yb]

So is this clause still a thing needed? Or have they glossed over the inconsistencies in varying stages/outcomes?

 

[ぱみゅ]

It should not exist.
Being inconsistent through stages is a move trait that Bowser mains should learn.

 

[dav3yb]

So how do you determine the outcome of a double ko?

 

[Raijinken]

So how do you determine the outcome of a double ko?

If it's not the last stock, doesn't matter.

If it's the last stock, go by what the game says.

If it takes it to Sudden Death, go by who had the percent lead.

If the percent was tied, do the tiebreaker match.

 

[T0MMY]

If it's not the last stock, doesn't matter.
If it's the last stock, go by what the game says.
If it takes it to Sudden Death, go by who had the percent lead.
If the percent was tied, do the tiebreaker match.

I can't see how a ruling could be made based on % regarding suicide rules. If a character is up a stock then they clearly win with a full stock remaining. If they were down a stock they would clearly lose with their opponent having one full stock remaining. If the stocks were tied and a simultaneous KO happens then there are no stocks and no damage since last stocks were exhausted.

Additionally I don't support %-based wins - arbitrarily awarding wins/losses from unnecessary and arbitrary rules is uncompetitive. This ruling does not accurately reflect who is "winning"; even if weights of the characters were somehow factored in there is still no way to reasonably determine who would take the stock in a game like Smash Bros.

 

[Raijinken]

I can't see how a ruling could be made based on % regarding suicide rules. If a character is up a stock then they clearly win with a full stock remaining. If they were down a stock they would clearly lose with their opponent having one full stock remaining. If the stocks were tied and a simultaneous KO happens then there are no stocks and no damage since last stocks were exhausted.

Additionally I don't support %-based wins - arbitrarily awarding wins/losses from unnecessary and arbitrary rules is uncompetitive. This ruling does not accurately reflect who is "winning"; even if weights of the characters were somehow factored in there is still no way to reasonably determine who would take the stock in a game like Smash Bros.

I agree on your tiebreaker point.

However, considering all the other time complaints and randomness complaints that get considered in rulesets, I am a bit inclined to prefer percent-lead over playing out Sudden Death, which has a tendency to throw all consideration about who was "winning" out the window. I saw the new Tournament Mode has some "whichever player was more active" system in place of Sudden Death, but without knowing what all it considers (much less even having access to the same system), it'd likely be too arbitrary to be valid.

 

[T0MMY]

I agree on your tiebreaker point.

However, considering all the other time complaints and randomness complaints that get considered in rulesets, I am a bit inclined to prefer percent-lead over playing out Sudden Death, which has a tendency to throw all consideration about who was "winning" out the window. I saw the new Tournament Mode has some "whichever player was more active" system in place of Sudden Death, but without knowing what all it considers (much less even having access to the same system), it'd likely be too arbitrary to be valid.

I never support %-based rulings, it's adopted from a translation of some Traditional Fighters health tie breakers and has never been analyzed or discussed. But I was hoping you'd clarify how damage % could even be used in case of a tie with suicide KO's considering both players would have no damage at the end of a simultaneous KO (since they both had just been KO'd and their damage is reset).

As for the More Active ruling, I will reserve my judgement on that until more is understood about it. As a default I am so anti-% that I would probably be inclined to accept whatever we understood about it right now (using whatever stats at the end of the game to determine a winner, like attacks scored and ground/air movement or idle time). At least that has some kind of merit to it rather than an arbitrary out-of-game ruling with no foundation that has never been analyzed and blindly incorporated into major rulesets.

 

[Raijinken]

I never support %-based rulings, it's adopted from a translation of some Traditional Fighters health tie breakers and has never been analyzed or discussed. But I was hoping you'd clarify how damage % could even be used in case of a tie with suicide KO's considering both players would have no damage at the end of a simultaneous KO (since they both had just been KO'd and their damage is reset).

As for the More Active ruling, I will reserve my judgement on that until more is understood about it. As a default I am so anti-% that I would probably be inclined to accept whatever we understood about it right now (using whatever stats at the end of the game to determine a winner, like attacks scored and ground/air movement or idle time). At least that has some kind of merit to it rather than an arbitrary out-of-game ruling with no foundation that has never been analyzed and blindly incorporated into major rulesets.

In such cases, I believe (like with any suicide situation), it's only appropriate to defer to the game's ruling, including a sudden death call on the rare occasion it happens.

Cargo Hold, Inhale (K), Inhale (D), and Flame Choke all have documented (if relatively obscure, and, if I recall, occasionally random) results for who loses in a suicide.

My testing seems to indicate that it is (still) impossible to suicide with an up-throw from Metaknight, Kirby, or Charizard, as well. However, R.O.B. does not follow this trend. Tested on the Smashville platform, Kirby, Charizard, and Metaknight all stop at the starting altitude and then release the opponent for damage. ROB is the sole exception that continues traveling downward (this got me killed once in Luminose, only reason I was aware to test this situation). However, this grab still deals no damage, like the other listed suicide moves. I think it still relevant to use the game's ruling in such scenarios, though to my knowledge (I neither play ROB, nor know ROB players, nor frequent his discussion boards), this is a relatively unexplored area in terms of consistency. A quick test against Mario on Smashville caused ROB to die first (Mario took 3%), but one test can't confirm whether or not such a result is consistent. The option itself is unavailable on most legal stages anyway (Smashville, T&C, Delfino, super good timing on Halberd's takeoff, very situational timing on Lylat).

All that said, under the current rules, if their damage is equal and the game sends it to Sudden Death, a 1s3m tiebreaker would be played.

 

[dav3yb]

The more I think about it, the more i feel like with this particular case, i'd rather see the clause say if you suicide with bowser, and it sends both players to SD, bowser loses, because in all other cases, given it doesn't kill both at the same time, bowser always dies first.

 

[Raijinken]

The more I think about it, the more i feel like with this particular case, i'd rather see the clause say if you suicide with bowser, and it sends both players to SD, bowser loses, because in all other cases, given it doesn't kill both at the same time, bowser always dies first.

A better ruling would be to say "What the game says, goes."

Mostly because it means you don't have to worry about any sort of inconsistencies in enforcement or even having the rules in general (like including ROB in the suicide clause when it's not well-known he can do so). Especially when it's been shown through the balance patches and changes that death order is actually considered a part of the move (i.e. with Bowser, as it killed the opponent first in 1.0), there's no reason to make a rule when the property is explicit.

 

[dav3yb]

A better ruling would be to say "What the game says, goes."

Mostly because it means you don't have to worry about any sort of inconsistencies in enforcement or even having the rules in general (like including ROB in the suicide clause when it's not well-known he can do so). Especially when it's been shown through the balance patches and changes that death order is actually considered a part of the move (i.e. with Bowser, as it killed the opponent first in 1.0), there's no reason to make a rule when the property is explicit.

does the result in a rob getting pushed off stage during an up throw change from stage to stage? or is it consistent throughout? Thats where the main issue seems to come into play with bowser, since on some stages it kill him first, and some kill both characters and kicks it to SD.

 

[Raijinken]

does the result in a rob getting pushed off stage during an up throw change from stage to stage? or is it consistent throughout? Thats where the main issue seems to come into play with bowser, since on some stages it kill him first, and some kill both characters and kicks it to SD.

I've only tested ROB on a few (I don't use him regularly), but Smashville, Peach's 64, and Lylat all killed ROB first and dealt 3% to the opponent.

 

[dav3yb]

I've only tested ROB on a few (I don't use him regularly), but Smashville, Peach's 64, and Lylat all killed ROB first and dealt 3% to the opponent.

If it kills rob first across all the stages, then its consistent enough to not even need a clause for him then. Not to mention that bowser/opponent have control over his side-b. the only way rob is going to go off the edge is getting pushed off by mario's flud/some other windbox, or doing what you did on stages with moving platforms and catch people at the edge. It's probably 100 times less likely to ever happen with rob than with bowser since you have control over flying slam.

 

[1FC0]

If it kills rob first across all the stages, then its consistent enough to not even need a clause for him then. Not to mention that bowser/opponent have control over his side-b. the only way rob is going to go off the edge is getting pushed off by mario's flud/some other windbox, or doing what you did on stages with moving platforms and catch people at the edge. It's probably 100 times less likely to ever happen with rob than with bowser since you have control over flying slam.

Bowser has more control than the opponent since 1.0.6 so now it makes even more sense to make Bowser lose when it ties.

 

[Ghostbone]

Bowser mains don't deserve to win when the game doesn't say they do.

It's like me claiming that since I pulled off some cool combo that I deserve the win even if I SD during it. (or maybe I spike someone with ZSS but die first because she goes down so much faster)
It's just unjustified entitlement.

 

[S_B]

I can't see how a ruling could be made based on % regarding suicide rules.

The suicide clause they have is only for when it goes to SD, I'm assuming. Otherwise, the situations they described make no sense.

If DDD pulls someone down with him and they wiggle out before he hits the blast zone and he dies first, they wouldn't award him the win, I'm sure (at least I'd HOPE...).

That said, if he inhaled someone and they DIDN'T wiggle out and both players hit the blast zone at the same time, yeah, the win should go to D3 because A) he initiated and B) the other player didn't take the necessary steps to save him/herself from it (which they could've done by either not getting hit or wiggling out in time).

My guess is they won't be awarding the win to Bowser if he dies first.

 

[Raijinken]

The suicide clause they have is only for when it goes to SD, I'm assuming. Otherwise, the situations they described make no sense.

If DDD pulls someone down with him and they wiggle out before he hits the blast zone and he dies first, they wouldn't award him the win, I'm sure (at least I'd HOPE...).

That said, if he inhaled someone and they DIDN'T wiggle out and both players hit the blast zone at the same time, yeah, the win should go to D3 because A) he initiated and B) the other player didn't take the necessary steps to save him/herself from it (which they could've done by either not getting hit or wiggling out in time).

My guess is they won't be awarding the win to Bowser if he dies first.

The suicide clause (referring to the older version stating "The suicider loses, period") has always felt very... Pokemon-inspired to me. Except in Pokemon it's coded to the game and has been since Stadium, whereas for Smash it's still a community rule.

The anti-Sudden Death clauses make more sense, but they're still counter to the game's ruling in a lot of cases.

 

[Ghostbone]

The anti-Sudden Death clauses make more sense, but they're still counter to the game's ruling in a lot of cases.

Rules in the case of sudden death are required because sudden death is uncompetitive though.

 

[S_B]

The suicide clause (referring to the older version stating "The suicider loses, period") has always felt very... Pokemon-inspired to me. Except in Pokemon it's coded to the game and has been since Stadium, whereas for Smash it's still a community rule.

The older version? When was the first suicide rule created?

I see Brawl's referenced most commonly because it was created for Ganonciding and controller port nonsense.

Everything was fine when SSB4 shipped, but then they fixed the flying man glitch, horked flying slam in the process and never really bothered to fix it since.

I just wish it was CONSISTENT: either SD all the time or kill Bowser first all the time, none of this stage-dependent nonsense...

And it sucks for Bowser players and anyone who may be FIGHTING Bowser players because EVERYONE needs to know which stages will kill Bowser first and which will go to SD (which will likely award Bowser the win).

Otherwise, they may steer Bowser off the ledge intentionally and cost themselves the match.

 

[Raijinken]

The older version? When was the first suicide rule created?

I see Brawl's referenced most commonly because it was created for Ganonciding and controller port nonsense.

Everything was fine when SSB4 shipped, but then they fixed the flying man glitch, horked flying slam in the process and never really bothered to fix it since.

I just wish it was CONSISTENT: either SD all the time or kill Bowser first all the time, none of this stage-dependent nonsense...

And it sucks for Bowser players and anyone who may be FIGHTING Bowser players because EVERYONE needs to know which stages will kill Bowser first and which will go to SD (which will likely award Bowser the win).

Otherwise, they may steer Bowser off the ledge intentionally and cost themselves the match.

I'm actually mentally double-checking myself and I'm fairly sure I've actually been mistaking the Smash suicide clause for Pokemon's. For years. I feel stupid now.

But not as stupid as the rule when the result is not Sudden Death.

 

[Ghostbone]

Otherwise, they may steer Bowser off the ledge intentionally and cost themselves the match.

Any tourney that enforces this is ******** as the result screen never results in a win for Bowser.

If it goes to sudden death you do a 1 stock 3 min rematch generally, and if Bowser loses then you just win.

Why people feel so entitled to ignoring what the game engine says confuses me.

 

[T0MMY]

Any tourney that enforces this is ******** as the result screen never results in a win for Bowser.

If it goes to sudden death you do a 1 stock 3 min rematch generally, and if Bowser loses then you just win.

Why people feel so entitled to ignoring what the game engine says confuses me.

It's because it's grandfathered in from Melee into Brawl into the most recent game and it's never been thoroughly discussed, just blindly followed. Smash is not a healthbar-based traditional fighter, any player could lose a stock at any percent damage and each character has different weight which affects their survivability. Saying Jigglypuff is just as likely to have lost at 50% vs Bowser at 50% makes absolutely no sense even if trying to justify it with some kind of conceptualized "lead".

I am more in favor of playing out Sudden Death than arbitrary %-based wins. Software authority first and foremost.
There was a time when I was more in favor of a 1-stock rematch, but theoretically that could take a very long time to play out and has happened in practice if suicides are consistently performed (anyone see the match with Poyo's Kirby that happened not long ago?).

 

[dav3yb]

I think i'm going to start adjusting any rulesets i use with this clause to read: The result screen will determine the outcome of a match. In the event the game goes to sudden death, Bowsers OPPONENT is declared the Winner.

something along those lines anyways.

speaking of which, has there been much testing as far as other characters and what happens when they hit the blast zone with another character trapped on them? It seems like Ganon is always victorious, so i don't see an issue there. but what about Dedede or Kirby, or Wario? I might get a friend online soon to just run though a handful of tests to see what might happen, but I think everything i've seen so far is that kirby and dedede also die first, due to the opponent being in a semi-invulnerable state after being spit out when they die. I just don't want to clause anyone else if its not needed.

 

[Ghostbone]

Sudden death for timeouts is different bh.

For timeouts, a % clause is required (and at least a little justified by the game since the pokemon stadium regards the person with the lowest % as in the lead) in order to prevent abusive playstyles rewarding the losing player.

For suicide moves resulting in a double KO, it's clear that the match is tied in that scenario (same as if two people traded aerials and died on the same frame), so a rematch is justified.

 

[dav3yb]

Sudden death for timeouts is different bh.

For timeouts, a % clause is required (and at least a little justified by the game since the pokemon stadium regards the person with the lowest % as in the lead) in order to prevent abusive playstyles rewarding the losing player.

For suicide moves resulting in a double KO, it's clear that the match is tied in that scenario, so a rematch is justified.

But what if you run into the situation of constant double ko's, even in the rematch? or is this not meant to apply to smash?

 

[Ghostbone]

But what if you run into the situation of constant double ko's, even in the rematch? or is this not meant to apply to smash?

Incredibly unlikely.

Literally never held up a tournament ever.

 

[Raijinken]

I think i'm going to start adjusting any rulesets i use with this clause to read: The result screen will determine the outcome of a match. In the event the game goes to sudden death, Bowsers OPPONENT is declared the Winner.

something along those lines anyways.

speaking of which, has there been much testing as far as other characters and what happens when they hit the blast zone with another character trapped on them? It seems like Ganon is always victorious, so i don't see an issue there. but what about Dedede or Kirby, or Wario? I might get a friend online soon to just run though a handful of tests to see what might happen, but I think everything i've seen so far is that kirby and dedede also die first, due to the opponent being in a semi-invulnerable state after being spit out when they die. I just don't want to clause anyone else if its not needed.

According to my reading, in Smash4, Ganondorf and Diddy (stupid and hard as Diddy's is to pull off) are the only characters who will always win. All others are supposed to lose, but some go to Sudden Death instead, depending on the stage.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I think i'm going to start adjusting any rulesets i use with this clause to read: The result screen will determine the outcome of a match. In the event the game goes to sudden death, Bowsers OPPONENT is declared the Winner.

A rule that says Bowser always loses is just as short-sighted and problematic as a rule that says Bowser always wins, and it's for one simple reason: what if the game gets patched so that it declares Bowser to be the winner in these circumstances? You'd end up nullifying a balance change with a holdover rule that no longer makes much sense and is contrary to the game's inferred intentions.

That's a big part of the reason why the current rule is so problematic in Smash 4 in the first place. In Brawl, a "suicider always wins" rule was justified at least partially based on port priority; it could be argued that always declaring a suicider to be the winner in a double KO was a cleaner solution than making people fight over controller ports. Port priority was eliminated in Smash 4... but the rule persists at least partly because people haven't re-evaluated the justification for the old rule in the first place and how it may not apply anymore.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Incredibly unlikely.

Literally never held up a tournament ever.

It did happen in the Poyo vs. Average Joe match recently. They used the rule that they would play another 1 stock match with no time limit, and in the event of another double KO, the suicider would lose. I think this is fair, because they're holding up the tournament by constantly ending the match with a double KO and should not be allowed to continue.

 

[Pazx]

Here are the rules I currently have in place in regards to this topic:

• If time runs out, the tie is determined by most stocks, and then if still tied, by percentage. If percentage is tied, a 1 stock, 3 minute match is played with the same characters and stage.
  
  
• If a match ends with both players dying at the same time resulting in Sudden Death, a 1 stock, 3 minute match is played with the same characters and stage.
  
  
• If the match goes to Sudden Death due to a suicide move (Ganon’s side-B, Kirby/DDD swallow, holding someone in a grab on a platform as it moves out of the boundaries, etc.) the player who initiated the move is considered the winner.
  
  
• Bowser’s side special is exempt from the previous rule. If a “Bowsercide” brings a game to Sudden Death, the initiator of the move is considered the loser.

Optimal?

A rule that says Bowser always loses is just as short-sighted and problematic as a rule that says Bowser always wins, and it's for one simple reason: what if the game gets patched so that it declares Bowser to be the winner in these circumstances? You'd end up nullifying a balance change with a holdover rule that no longer makes much sense and is contrary to the game's inferred intentions.

Why wouldn't we just change the rules at that point? We can cross that bridge when we get to it, I don't really see why your future hypothetical should have any bearing on our current rulesets.

 

[Ghostbone]

Ignore this

 

[Ghostbone]

• If a match ends with both players dying at the same time resulting in Sudden Death, a 1 stock, 3 minute match is played with the same characters and stage.
  
  
• If the match goes to Sudden Death due to a suicide move (Ganon’s side-B, Kirby/DDD swallow, holding someone in a grab on a platform as it moves out of the boundaries, etc.) the player who initiated the move is considered the winner.

Why are these two things separate
Why have two different rules for the same situation?
(unless the latter is for the rematch? clarification needed)

 

[Pazx]

Why are these two things separate
Why have two different rules for the same situation?
(unless the latter is for the rematch? clarification needed)

The latter rule refers to both characters dying simultaneously due to a suicide move whilst the former rule applies to both characters dying simultaneously in all other situations. I'll see if I can make that clearer.

 

[Ghostbone]

The latter rule refers to both characters dying simultaneously due to a suicide move whilst the former rule applies to both characters dying simultaneously in all other situations. I'll see if I can make that clearer.

But why make the distinction at all?

They both died at the same time, the game considers that a tie, why go by anything different?

 

[1FC0]

A rule that says Bowser always loses is just as short-sighted and problematic as a rule that says Bowser always wins, and it's for one simple reason: what if the game gets patched so that it declares Bowser to be the winner in these circumstances? You'd end up nullifying a balance change with a holdover rule that no longer makes much sense and is contrary to the game's inferred intentions.

Now you are suggesting that we take into consideration hypothetical patches of which we have no reason to believe that they will actually come. Do you really think it is a good idea to use a ruleset that is less fitting to the game that we actually play just so that it fits a patched version of this game that does not and may never even exist better?

If there comes a patch like that then we can change the rules again. The risk of having to change the rules again is worth having an optimal ruleset for the game that we actually play.

 

[Pazx]

But why make the distinction at all?

They both died at the same time, the game considers that a tie, why go by anything different?

The more I think about it the more it seems like a 1 stock rematch is far more logical, I assume that's what you were encouraging. This means the questions are:

1. How do we resolve multiple consecutive Sudden Deaths? (eg. Poyo vs Average Joe) I know it's uncommon but I feel as though it's necessary to have in writing.
2. Is Bowsercide forcing a 1 stock rematch on some stages and awarding the win to Bowser's opponent on other stages an issue? Alternatively, should the initiator of Bowsercide always be considered the loser for the sake of consistency?

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Why wouldn't we just change the rules at that point? We can cross that bridge when we get to it, I don't really see why your future hypothetical should have any bearing on our current rulesets.

Now you are suggesting that we take into consideration hypothetical patches of which we have no reason to believe that they will actually come.

That's the entire point that I'm making. And you do have reason to believe changes will come; it's already happened!

The in-game rules governing suicide KOs changed from Brawl to Smash 4, and even from one revision of Smash 4 to another... but as this thread demonstrates, people neglected to update the community rules accordingly.

Why put up with haphazard rulings like that when we can just defer to the game instead?

 

[Ghostbone]

The more I think about it the more it seems like a 1 stock rematch is far more logical, I assume that's what you were encouraging. This means the questions are:

1. How do we resolve multiple consecutive Sudden Deaths? (eg. Poyo vs Average Joe) I know it's uncommon but I feel as though it's necessary to have in writing.
2. Is Bowsercide forcing a 1 stock rematch on some stages and awarding the win to Bowser's opponent on other stages an issue? Alternatively, should the initiator of Bowsercide always be considered the loser for the sake of consistency?

I'm ok with a suicide clause in the case of repeated sudden deaths, since they're necessary for a tournament to continue (and having the initiator win in a repeated sudden death seems more reasonable than the inverse)
Bowsercide being different on different stages isn't an issue as it's consistent for each stage. Just some extra game knowledge required of the players.

 

[S_B]

It should not exist.
Being inconsistent through stages is a move trait that Bowser mains should learn.

...As well as everyone who will ever play against a Bowser player because they ALSO need to know whether they should be trying to take Bowser off the edge of the stage or trying to keep him ON the stage and hope they can DI and survive the hit.

Villager, Kirby, MK and a number of other characters DEFINITELY want to know this as they can take Bowser off any stage where Bowser dies first and they can then recover to the stage.

Incredibly unlikely.

Literally never held up a tournament ever.

This actually DID happen numerous times in a custom tournament. I can't remember which one, but it was Kirby vs. DK on customs and Kirby was using the custom inhale that made him leap forward.

He used it at the edge against DK, taking both of them off the side of the stage and going to SD. The TO had them do a 1-stock rematch, then Kirby did it AGAIN, taking them to ANOTHER 1-stock rematch. The Kirby player was told, however, that if he did it again, the win would be awarded to the DK player.

 

[1FC0]

That's the entire point that I'm making. And you do have reason to believe changes will come; it's already happened!

The in-game rules governing suicide KOs changed from Brawl to Smash 4, and even from one revision of Smash 4 to another... but as this thread demonstrates, people neglected to update the community rules accordingly.

Yes but what changes? It could happen that the game gets patched and Bowser always loses, or always wins, or always SDs. Or the Bowserciee could not be patched again. All these situations require different discussions because people may want different rules.

Your idea of playing with suboptimal rules in anticipation of a patch of which we have no idea how it will be and if it will ever come and for which we can thus make no optimal rules is crazy.