Bowser and the Suicide Clause

[Raijinken]

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.

The idea of trying to implement a rule where it isn't needed is crazy.

If a game goes to Sudden Death, in all other cases, it is done by stock, then percent, then rematch. This should be no different.

And on the subject of "Bowser mains should know it and so should everyone else who might play against a Bowser," that's relevant to every character matchup, and has never (to my knowledge) resulted in a specific ruling against the game's decision in any case.

 

[S_B]

And on the subject of "Bowser mains should know it and so should everyone else who might play against a Bowser," that's relevant to every character matchup, and has never (to my knowledge) resulted in a specific ruling against the game's decision in any case.

I've never actually tested to see what happens on different stages when, for example, D3 takes a player off the bottom inside him.

Does it ALWAYS go to SD? I need to go test this now...

 

[Raijinken]

I've never actually tested to see what happens on different stages when, for example, D3 takes a player off the bottom inside him.

Does it ALWAYS go to SD? I need to go test this now...

If I'm reading correctly (AKA if the wiki is right about this particular thing), DDD always loses in Smash4, as do Kirby and Wario.

The wiki's rarely completely right, though. And I don't play as or against Dedede enough to want to test every stage and Omega form.

 

[1FC0]

I've never actually tested to see what happens on different stages when, for example, D3 takes a player off the bottom inside him.

Does it ALWAYS go to SD? I need to go test this now...

Sometimes Bowser loses and sometimes it goes to SD depending on stage.

Personally I am against an SD clause but if there must be one then only for Bowser and making him lose to be as consistent with the game as possible is my second choice.

The idea of trying to implement a rule where it isn't needed is crazy.

If a game goes to Sudden Death, in all other cases, it is done by stock, then percent, then rematch. This should be no different.

This pretty much sums up my view on this too. Except basing it on percentage is not that desirable in Smash since some characters die earlier in general but by lack of better alternative this is a good rule.

 

[Raijinken]

Sometimes Bowser loses and sometimes it goes to SD depending on stage.

Personally I am against an SD clause but if there must be one then only for Bowser and making him lose to be as consistent with the game as possible is my second choice.


This pretty much sums up my view on this too. Except basing it on percentage is not that desirable in Smash since some characters die earlier in general but by lack of better alternative this is a good rule.

I agree on that. As has been stated accurately by several, percent doesn't indicate an actual lead in Smash. I'd be interested in considering other potential sources of tiebreaker, though.

 

[S_B]

Okay, JUST tested it:

-D3 and Kirby ALWAYS die first when taking someone off the stage inside them (including the sides of the stage).

-When DK has someone in cargo throw, he dies second if he's facing the blast zone while carrying them. If he's facing AWAY from the zone (like a platform carries him off the side), he dies first. If he hits the bottom, he dies first.

So it looks like the ONLY character that's still inconsistent is Bowser... Sigh.....

But the suicide clause would literally only be for Bowser at this point. Given this is the case, I'd guess that he's SUPPOSED to die first on all stages but Sakurai's QA just sucks (as usual).

Something to note, though: on the stages that go to SD with Bowser, if Bowser Bowsercides again during SD, it awards the win to Bowser.

Yeah, I have...no idea at this point...

YES! I found the video:

https://youtu.be/Kyh9wTTMuGc?t=8m32s

Can anyone confirm if that still happens to Kirby? I don't have the move unlocked...

EDIT2: OKAY, so this just got weirder...

If Kirby OR D3 is FACING the blast zone when a platform takes him off stage, it DOES still go to SD! However, if they're facing AWAY from the blast zone, they die first.

WTH, man...

 

[dav3yb]

Okay, JUST tested it:

-D3 and Kirby ALWAYS die first when taking someone off the stage inside them (including the sides of the stage).

-When DK has someone in cargo throw, he dies second if he's facing the blast zone while carrying them. If he's facing AWAY from the zone (like a platform carries him off the side), he dies first. If he hits the bottom, he dies first.

So it looks like the ONLY character that's still inconsistent is Bowser... Sigh.....

But the suicide clause would literally only be for Bowser at this point. Given this is the case, I'd guess that he's SUPPOSED to die first on all stages but Sakurai's QA just sucks (as usual).

Something to note, though: on the stages that go to SD with Bowser, if Bowser Bowsercides again during SD, it awards the win to Bowser.

Yeah, I have...no idea at this point...

YES! I found the video:

https://youtu.be/Kyh9wTTMuGc?t=8m32s

Can anyone confirm if that still happens to Kirby? I don't have the move unlocked...

EDIT2: OKAY, so this just got weirder...

If Kirby OR D3 is FACING the blast zone when a platform takes him off stage, it DOES still go to SD! However, if they're facing AWAY from the blast zone, they die first.

WTH, man...

Kirby and Dedede are probably more dependent on which way theyre facing because when they die, they spit the opponent out, so if they're facing the blastzone, they'll get spit into it and die at the same time. If they're facing away, they get spit away from the blast zone. I suspect that dying off the bottom would spit them along the edge of the blast zone when Kirby or Dedede die, leaving the opponent alive for a brief time.

Also I recall testing having bowser suicide in sudden death and it awarding the win to the opponent. I'm much less worried about the kirbies and wario since they have control over releasing the opponent, so their gimp strategy should be to spit them out far enough to not be able to recover, for them id say in the event of a double ko id have the players play a tiebreaker game, as i feel them dying together on a stage that isnt town and city would be very rare.

 

[T0MMY]

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.

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.

I feel like we generally agree on the major topic of interest, but I think we differ on some specifics:

I stated for my opinion that I am completely against %-based win rewards (as they are arbitrary and inappropriate considering the nature of the game); I am ok with a 1-stick rematch, yet theorized years ago the problem of a continuous rematch creating a stalemate situation; and I so far believe that playing out Sudden Death is the strongest argument because it is by design of the game, software authority, and solves any issues brought up with ties and stalemates without creating more issues - deviating from the game authority requires sound reasoning when warranted and as of yet there has never been a successful argument for that case so it remains the default that we competitively are required to play out Sudden Death.

Keep in mind I personally do not like playing out Sudden Death as a matter of opinion and was indoctrined into %-based ruling when I started playing competitively so accepted it "newb blind", but through the awesome power of reasoning I can determine that this is not competitively viable and can only be accepted when it can clearly be demonstrated as warranted and reasonably argued for (which it has yet to be done successfully).

What are your specific opinions on these matters I bring up?

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

I don't assume without reason (that would be presumptuous), instead I ask for clarification.

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).

I disagree.
A) "he initiated" does not hold because the strategy of jumping into his attack could actually be an initiation of the suicide knowing how the mechanics works in the player's favor - KNOWING the game better should NOT be a punishment!
B) There are times when you should NOT wiggle out of a suicide! Strategically valid to remain in the character if you know your opponent will be KO'd first or if it results in a simultaneous KO which would then even the match.

Both the reasons are brought into question and therefore the conclusion cannot be fully assumed true. This ruling would be inadequate, would you want to attempt to fix the reasoning and stay with the conclusion or change the conclusion?

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?

Good points.
My answer is always to go by the strongest argument for rulings. First we start with the game as designed, and when an issue actually comes up to be a real problem then we can make rulings to resolve the issue.
Right now I think Playing out Sudden Death is the strongest argument. This resolves both issues you brought up.

 

[S_B]

I don't assume without reason (that would be presumptuous), instead I ask for clarification.

If you want to email the TO, be my guest.

Right now I think Playing out Sudden Death is the strongest argument. This resolves both issues you brought up.

That will NEVER happen. Sudden death is what the competitive world refers to as "degenerate gameplay", in that it's not a true test of competitive ability. In the event of a SD, under most rulesets, the players play a 1-stock match on the same stage with the same characters. Refer to the video I linked earlier for an example of this actually happening.

And sadly, D3 and Kirby CAN force a SD by inhaling on a Town and City platform and allowing it to carry both them and their victim off screen while they're facing the blast zone (or Kirby's jumping inhale works too).

Though, just spitting them out before they hit the blast zone would win them the game so I doubt they'd do this intentionally...

 

[Raijinken]

I feel like we generally agree on the major topic of interest, but I think we differ on some specifics:

I stated for my opinion that I am completely against %-based win rewards (as they are arbitrary and inappropriate considering the nature of the game); I am ok with a 1-stick rematch, yet theorized years ago the problem of a continuous rematch creating a stalemate situation; and I so far believe that playing out Sudden Death is the strongest argument because it is by design of the game, software authority, and solves any issues brought up with ties and stalemates without creating more issues - deviating from the game authority requires sound reasoning when warranted and as of yet there has never been a successful argument for that case so it remains the default that we competitively are required to play out Sudden Death.

Keep in mind I personally do not like playing out Sudden Death as a matter of opinion and was indoctrined into %-based ruling when I started playing competitively so accepted it "newb blind", but through the awesome power of reasoning I can determine that this is not competitively viable and can only be accepted when it can clearly be demonstrated as warranted and reasonably argued for (which it has yet to be done successfully).

What are your specific opinions on these matters I bring up?

The sole reason using Sudden Death does not fully solve the problem is because it has potential to be indefinite. While it's unlikely due to the rain of explosives and general player impatience, it presents a problem similar to the very problem of not running time in a normal game (in most cases, a game will take a reasonable amount of time, and won't end on a draw or anything like that, but "the tournament must go on").

Aside from that, I essentially agree with your reasoning. I suppose my stance is generally built around a lack of "practical" exposure to either sudden death or percent ruling, as even in my limited competitive experiences, I've never had a game run to time, and in casual matches, I've never cared (nor admittedly paid so much attention) who had the percent lead when a "tie" happened.

Given my over-all thoughts on the competitive rules as a whole, I'd support at least giving Sudden Death a run unless we can determine a better means of tiebreaker (a subject which I'm presently starting a thread on).

If you want to email the TO, be my guest.



That will NEVER happen. Sudden death is what the competitive world refers to as "degenerate gameplay", in that it's not a true test of competitive ability. In the event of a SD, under most rulesets, the players play a 1-stock match on the same stage with the same characters. Refer to the video I linked earlier for an example of this actually happening.

And sadly, D3 and Kirby CAN force a SD by inhaling on a Town and City platform and allowing it to carry both them and their victim off screen while they're facing the blast zone (or Kirby's jumping inhale works too).

Though, just spitting them out before they hit the blast zone would win them the game so I doubt they'd do this intentionally...

I agree with the bulk of this, but I thought degenerate gameplay was defined as a condition that results in overly-centralized strategy, which Sudden Death does not. It's just literally a random rain of explosives and the first person to land something that's not a Fox laser (exaggeration) wins.

 

[S_B]

I agree with the bulk of this, but I thought degenerate gameplay was defined as a condition that results in overly-centralized strategy, which Sudden Death does not. It's just literally a random rain of explosives and the first person to land something that's not a Fox laser (exaggeration) wins.

I believe it applies in both cases, but I could be wrong.

Either way, I KNOW SD is abhorred by the competitive community, and for good reason.

 

[T0MMY]

The sole reason using Sudden Death does not fully solve the problem is because it has potential to be indefinite.

That's a very good point you bring up (and one I had to analyze as a TO). Although I've never witnessed this and it is unheard of despite it's very real application - look at For Glory, is there a case where a match never ended? No.
So I do agree with you that there may be a hypthetical indefinite match I think this is in the area of speculation and isn't strong enough to sway the stronger argument (that SD resolves more issues and the issues that arise with it are a practical zero).

While it's unlikely due to the rain of explosives and general player impatience, it presents a problem similar to the very problem of not running time in a normal game (in most cases, a game will take a reasonable amount of time, and won't end on a draw or anything like that, but "the tournament must go on").

Would this again just be speculation?
Just last week we held a local event where the Timer was not used (or was a 99-min timer) and just as a previous experimental tourney I ran some years ago with a 99-min timer, the timing results were EXACTLY THE SAME - in fact we had enough time left over from singles to hold another event.
In fact, the studies have shown that having no timer or a timer that effectively results in time never running out (e.g. 99-min) may actually be FASTER than having a timer. Why? Because there is no incentive to time someone out, there's no practical way to do this. When a player sees less than 2 minutes on the clock with the option of "winning" (illegitimately, imo) if they camp/keep-away for a minute or so they will do this. When that incentive is gone they just try to win as in any normal game.
Same goes with Sudden Death - if someone is given incentive to "win" in an illegitimate way with time-outs or SD's then they will take it and it will happen more often, but if they dread the idea of goign to Sudden Death they will seek to avoid it and it will happen very rarely.
Psychology, it's a thing.

Given my over-all thoughts on the competitive rules as a whole, I'd support at least giving Sudden Death a run unless we can determine a better means of tiebreaker (a subject which I'm presently starting a thread on).

I'll be interested in reading your thread, as this is a ruling I've had to grapple with as a TO for many years.
With my many years as a TO and a competitor I have seen so many players upset over out-of-game rulings that reward a winner for playing in a "dumb" way and I honestly don't understand why we reward that kind of thing. If my choice is to have a very rare chance of a Sudden Death being played out (hardly ever happens) and the players having to compete with actual skills in a one-hit-KO tie-breaker VS illegitimately awarding arbitrary wins... the answer is easy as an honest TO.

If you want to email the TO, be my guest.
Already been doing that and more.
If you do not support the use of the suicide clause, please email them as well, it'd be greatly appreciated.

That will NEVER happen. Sudden death is what the competitive world refers to as "degenerate gameplay", in that it's not a true test of competitive ability.

It's already a standard in some tournaments and should be for the major tournaments, imo.
Where did you find that definition for degenerate gameplay? Because that's not the way it's used that I've seen.

EDIT: Saw you post after I was writing my response:

I believe it applies in both cases, but I could be wrong.
Either way, I KNOW SD is abhorred by the competitive community, and for good reason.

I don't see it applying to both, as I only heard it regarding game elements and strategies that essentially ruin the spirit of the competition.
Terminology is important when defining rules and making rulings, without well-defined conditions we would just have empty variables that we could insert any opinion in to make changes of rules... and opinion is never a reason to make changes in rules.
Speaking of which, saying the community abhors SD is a matter of opinion. It may be true, but disliking something is not a sound reason - we may dislike 3 stocks or abhor 8 minute timers, but that wouldn't be enough to change the rulings on those settings.

 

[S_B]

It's already a standard in some tournaments and should be for the major tournaments, imo.
Where did you find that definition for degenerate gameplay? Because that's not the way it's used that I've seen.

I think it's just far too random and actively encourages camping instead of actually fighting and hoping the rain of bombs hits your opponent before it hits you.

And I've never seen a tournament that had this rule. Every time I've seen a game time out, they've always gone by % lead, not by SD outcome.

 

[LancerStaff]

When was the last time we had a decent tournament that actually tried Sudden Death? Because if we don't have sufficient data, then we can't determine if it's worth enforcing the rule over it.

Because at this point we're enforcing a rule just because. And that's stupid.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Sudden Death is not a good alternative. Is default and everything, but the RANDOM falling Bob-Ombs is something that I'd avoid.

 

[Scidadle]

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but Paragon LA has it so Bowser wins in this kind of situation (http://paragon.vsgaming.org/rules) if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Illuminose]

Having super long timers or no timer at all is not feasible. TOs need a guarantee that matches will end within such and such amount of time so that they can plan and prepare their schedules. I'm not really interested in the Sudden Death vs percent based argument (mostly because it's a waste of time and no respectable TO will ever host a tournament with SD), but wanted to say this.

 

[T0MMY]

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but Paragon LA has it so Bowser wins in this kind of situation (http://paragon.vsgaming.org/rules) if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, I made a post about it - very important!
Here's where we can stop being keyboard warriors about the topic and actually be proactive!
Contact the TO's and tell them to get rid of the ruling!

I think it's just far too random and actively encourages camping instead of actually fighting and hoping the rain of bombs hits your opponent before it hits you.

Is this opinion based on just speculation or do you have some matches that lead you to think this or maybe some data to look at?

When was the last time we had a decent tournament that actually tried Sudden Death? Because if we don't have sufficient data, then we can't determine if it's worth enforcing the rule over it. Because at this point we're enforcing a rule just because. And that's stupid.

My tuornaments do not have any rulings against Sudden Death. I only make out-of-game rulings when something impedes the integrity of competition and nothing has led me to believe a ruling is needed for Sudden Death out comes. Contrary the spectators actually get hyped the rare chance it happens.

Sudden Death is not a good alternative. Is default and everything, but the RANDOM falling Bob-Ombs is something that I'd avoid.

Is default and everything. Ok, so it makes sense to use it.
But the randomness is what you want to avoid? Then I'd suggest banning Peach, Game & Watch, Duck Hunt, and a few other characters.

Having super long timers or no timer at all is not feasible. TOs need a guarantee that matches will end within such and such amount of time so that they can plan and prepare their schedules. I'm not really interested in the Sudden Death vs percent based argument (mostly because it's a waste of time and no respectable TO will ever host a tournament with SD), but wanted to say this.

No respectable TO should be using %-based rulings, so which is the worse option? Obviously %-based ruling is worse since it is anti-competitive.
I never had a problem with no time used, and often people will forget to set the timer when they set up their system and nobody notices the entire tournament until I see it and set it, which makes me wonder why we use the timer if it really doesn't do anything more than motivate people to try to time people out with the anti-competitive %-based win ruling. Get rid of one of them and it's obvious which one is the weaker of the two to get rid of.

 

[Illuminose]

%-based ruling seems like a bad option...until you look at the other ones that we have available. The % lead doesn't mean that much, but it's the only method we have of determining who had the lead. Anything that takes more time is not a viable solution because it increases the burden of time on TOs and kills the ability to account for sets going to time as you have these additional tiebreakers to account for. Sudden Death is not an option. It simply isn't. Players who play defensive characters and have matches that go to time which must be ended in Sudden Death will not come back to your tournaments. Heck, players who take the time to look and see Sudden Death mentioned in the rules will outright not go to your tournament. I don't really care about your high and mighty crusade -- this community will never support Sudden Death. Why? It gives an advantage to the loser. It motivates the losing player to time out the match and gives them an opportunity to invalidate everything with random bob-ombs. The random nature of Sudden Death is enough on its own.

I already stated why no timer is not a viable option. If the reasoning cannot penetrate your thick skull, then I don't know what to say.

 

[S_B]

Is this opinion based on just speculation or do you have some matches that lead you to think this or maybe some data to look at?

The opinion is based on the fact that "first hit wins" is not a true competitive test of skill, which is the entire point of tournaments. Also, random bombs spawning on your character and causing instant death makes this even further non-competitive.

This is and has been the evaluation of the competitive scene for over a decade now and I'm confident that they're not going to change their stance on this.

 

[T0MMY]

The opinion is based on the fact that "first hit wins" is not a true competitive test of skill

Opinion doesn't set standards.

But If we rationalize this proposed opinion we'd see that "first hit" does not accurately describe the scenario at hand since the participants would have had an entire round of play in an attempt to eliminate their opponents' stocks given a set time (let's say 3 stocks at 8 minutes) - they would have both had to have failed at this task in a tied-game fashion.
The software functions in such a way that Sudden Death is the given tie-breaker; not only is this the way the game was designed to play, but it is also a much stronger way of determining a winner than a %-based out-of-game ruling that in no way accurately reflects a winner in a game like Smash Bros where any opponent could be KO'd at any given percent.

Also, random bombs spawning on your character and causing instant death makes this even further non-competitive.

Bombs drop in a stale-mate situation; in order for this to occur, a tied-game must happen (a rarity) and then only after which a tie-breaker must not happen given a set and constant time at which point a stalemate is identified and a final test is given to determine a winner: Honestly, testing someone's reflexes, knowledge, and application of strategy in the stalemate situation is far superior than an arbitrary out-of-game decision on damage % that promotes camping and keep-away stall tactics.

Again, if you are against "random" then you will also have to make rulings against Peach, Game & Watch,and Duck Hunt using "random" attacks (they spawn using RNG) - and would also have to make specific rulings against Stages with random events. In fact, the assertion against random is so onerous that it demands a case must be made to demonstrate that random is actually non-competitive in order to even start with the assumption that "random" bombs is reason not to allow the game to function as designed. That's a tough case to have to argue, but I would look forward to your conclusion. Good luck.

Spoiler

Keep in mind what you are picking at is the extreme of the situation - Sudden Deaths rarely occurs and the stalemate situation in Sudden Deaths occurs even less - now compare this result to the extreme of the %-based ruling (only fair, right?), where the extreme of the %-based ruling is a fatal error! No winner could be determined! That is, all I simply have to ask is "what if damage % is tied? Then who wins?"

This is and has been the evaluation of the competitive scene for over a decade now and I'm confident that they're not going to change their stance on this.

I am as confident in the stubbornness of the community as you are, but that doesn't mean I have to fall for a argument traditionalis fallacy - I can stand confident in siding with logical rulecrafting and promote that playing the game as intended is the strongest argument so far until a sound argument can be given if warranted (and we don't even have a warrant for Sudden Death at this point!)

 

[Pazx]

I think the main argument against Sudden Death is the IMMENSELY high variance in results, not the randomness.

Also for the record most rulesets that use the % lead rule state that if percentages are equal then a 1 stock rematch is played using the same characters and stage.

 

[S_B]

Opinion doesn't set standards.

It does when it belongs to TOs.

There's zero point to arguing this. It's not going to change anytime soon. Standard ruleset is that you either go by percent lead at the end of a match or do a 1-stock rematch on the same stage with the same characters.

Take it up with TOs if you don't like it (spoiler: they're not going to start allowing SDs to play out).

 

[Illuminose]

The potential of Sudden Death encourages the winning player to fight, but it also encourages the losing player to stall. You're simply swapping the roles. There's no effective difference.

 

[S_B]

The potential of Sudden Death encourages the winning player to fight, but it also encourages the losing player to stall. You're simply swapping the roles. There's no effective difference.

And during the SD itself, it encourages both players to run to opposite sides of the stage and hang from the ledge, hoping the bombs kill their opponent first.

There's just no way TOs are ever going to go for this.

The ultimate truth of the matter is that SSB is not a fighting game. It's a party game that we're attempting to twist and mold into a competitive game which is the real reason we have rules that supersede what the win screen says.

Sudden death was put in the game to bring a swift conclusion to a match, not to determine which player is the best on a competitive level or anything of the sort, which is why we don't use it to decide the outcome of matches.

 

[LancerStaff]

And during the SD itself, it encourages both players to run to opposite sides of the stage and hang from the ledge, hoping the bombs kill their opponent first.

There's just no way TOs are ever going to go for this.

The ultimate truth of the matter is that SSB is not a fighting game. It's a party game that we're attempting to twist and mold into a competitive game which is the real reason we have rules that supersede what the win screen says.

Sudden death was put in the game to bring a swift conclusion to a match, not to determine which player is the best on a competitive level or anything of the sort, which is why we don't use it to decide the outcome of matches.

Completely wrong, but whatever.

People said the same thing about customs...

Debatable, but irrelevant.

Thing is that SD vs % lead isn't just switching the winner or loser camping... With Sudden Death on, the one who's ahead is encouraged to finish quickly and typically has less risk throwing out kill moves since the % will quickly be moot. The loser isn't even in complete control because there's no way of knowing he'll win or not. If it's close then it's basically SD already. Why wouldn't it be worthy to even test it?

 

[T0MMY]

It does when it belongs to TOs.

No, a Standard is NOT built by opinion:
TOs are held to a competitive standard! They don't simply change a standard by whim.
Whenever a TO deviate from competitive standard the attendees can hold them to their actions and the competitive scene could judge whether or not to support the event based on the judgements.

Take it up with TOs if you don't like it (spoiler: they're not going to start allowing SDs to play out).

Spoiler: I already got it changed with TOs I've rationalized with. You know why? Because there's no way to argue for the anti-competitive %-based ruling, it's anti-competitive to award wins arbitrarily based on nothing more than opinion. Stronger arguments always win.

The potential of Sudden Death encourages the winning player to fight, but it also encourages the losing player to stall. You're simply swapping the roles. There's no effective difference.

So this argument is silly because it argues by way of saying "there's no difference" as if it wins at default.
If there's no difference in strategy that doesn't mean there's no difference in standards for competition.
There's no %-based tie-breaker used in logic, so trying to bring it to a tie won't help here.

And during the SD itself, it encourages both players to run to opposite sides of the stage and hang from the ledge, hoping the bombs kill their opponent first.

It also encourages the smarter opponent to trump that strategy considering you lose your invinciiblity re-grabbing the edge. Oh, depth developing in the SD meta? The hallmark of competition? What now?

There's just no way TOs are ever going to go for this.

Not with that attitude X^D
But, for real, I'm already making it happen: I challenge any TO to give me sound reasoning why Sudden Death needs to be changed by way of out-of-game ruling - for that we need warrant and reason.
Note: I'm sorta ok with 1-stock rematch (1SR), but that has inherent issues far worse than Sudden Death (1SR is an option, albeit not the strongest one)

The ultimate truth of the matter is that SSB is not a fighting game.

SSBU won Best Fighting Game, Video Game Awards 2015
SSB3DS nominated Best Fighting Game VGA 2015
Wikipedia defines Fighting Game, includes SSB
The game's director and creator, Masahiro Sakurai, described it as a Fighting Game
Nintendo recognizes at a fighting game
Even people in the Traditional Fighting Game Community now recognize Smash as a "Fighter" (owing to Smash's inclusion and huge showing at Evo as well as Ryu as a playable character).

But, really, what does it matter if it's a fighter or not when it comes down to rulecrafting? Doesn't matter.

Sudden death was put in the game to bring a swift conclusion to a match, not to determine which player is the best on a competitive level or anything of the sort, which is why we don't use it to decide the outcome of matches.

Proof? Sources? Or just opinion?

 

[S_B]

Completely wrong, but whatever.

SSB is a party game first and a competitive game DISTANT second.

Sakurai friggin' SAID this in an interview when he said that the highest level he balances around is FG.

This is a DRAMATIC departure from competitive fighting games where the game is built from the ground up to be a 1v1 game.

Let me put this another way: if SSB4 were being balanced around the competitive scene, there's NO WAY Sheik would be in the position she's in right now.

Whenever a TO deviate from competitive standard the attendees can hold them to their actions and the competitive scene could judge whether or not to support the event based on the judgements.

I quite agree, and I'm sure that attendees would be rips**t pissed if a TO decided to actually let SD play out to determine the result of a match.

Spoiler: I already got it changed with TOs I've rationalized with. You know why? Because there's no way to argue for the anti-competitive %-based ruling, it's anti-competitive to award wins arbitrarily based on nothing more than opinion. Stronger arguments always win.

What are you referring to? Letting SD play out?

So this argument is silly because it argues by way of saying "there's no difference" as if it wins at default.
If there's no difference in strategy that doesn't mean there's no difference in standards for competition.
There's no %-based tie-breaker used in logic, so trying to bring it to a tie won't help here.

The reason many tournaments use the 1-stock, no time limit rematch rule is because letting percentage decide DOES result in campier gameplay. That said, it still exists in many tournaments when the match goes to time.

It also encourages the smarter opponent to trump that strategy considering you lose your invinciiblity re-grabbing the edge.

You're inventing hypotheticals now. Some characters have attacks that will KO from the ledge at 300% and can be spammed (like villager's slingshot).

And honestly, I don't really know what tournament players will do in a SD situation because I've never seen a tournament play out SD (and for good reason).

And I challenge any TO to give me sound reasoning why Sudden Death needs to be changed by way of out-of-game ruling - for that we need warrant and reason.

Like you said: it's opinion. It was the OPINION of pro SSB players and TOs that sudden death is not a competitive means for deciding the winner of a match. Probably because the player who's actually playing better can have a bomb suddenly spawn on their head and lose through absolutely no fault of their own.

It's the same reason many stages with hazards are banned: if the hazards add too much of a random variable to the gameplay, it's no longer competitive since the outcome is being decided by randomness.

I'm sorta ok with 1-stock rematch, but that has inherent issues far worse than Sudden Death.

Like what...?

SSBU won Best Fighting Game

Yeah, because that's the category it falls into when it has to be placed on a shelf in a Gamestop.

As I said earlier, Sakurai isn't designing the game with the competitive crowd in mind. The most competitive he ever envisioned SSB4 getting is FG. He added tripping to Brawl JUST to ensure that it "wouldn't be played too seriously".

This isn't Street Fighter or another 1v1 fighting game designed to be played at tournament level. If it were, we'd probably be able to edit the variables in SD to make it start at 0% with no bombs.

But, really, what does it matter if it's a fighter or not when it comes down to rulecrafting? Doesn't matter.

It does.

See above.

Proof? Sources? Or just more opinion?

SD introduces a massive random variable into the equation (that being bombs), and even without that, the competitive scene of SSB is built around the idea that there is skill in both damage racking AND kill confirms. SD removes the damage racking variable entirely, making nearly every attack a kill confirm.

SD also completely destroys fighter balance. Fighters that are slower but more powerful are balanced around the idea that it takes more damage to KO them. In SD, the fastest character with the best frame data (ie Sheik) suddenly becomes S-tier because she only needs to land ONE attack or grab to win the match.

This would promote even MORE campy gameplay as fast characters would try to run out the clock because they know they have a sizable advantage over slower, more powerful characters in SD (and really, heavies have enough problems in this game...).

Really, SD isn't going to make ANYTHING better. A 1-stock rematch with no limit is the best way to go because there's no clock to run out, no random variables deciding the winner, and the game balance isn't completely thrown out the window by negating the advantages of playing a heavier character (which are already fairly slim).

 

[thehard]

Got an email saying that the Paragon suicide clause was removed from the final ruleset!

 

[S_B]

Got an email saying that the Paragon suicide clause was removed from the final ruleset!

That's for the best.

What are they doing in the event of SD?

 

[LancerStaff]

SSB is a party game first and a competitive game DISTANT second.

Sakurai friggin' SAID this in an interview when he said that the highest level he balances around is FG.

This is a DRAMATIC departure from competitive fighting games where the game is built from the ground up to be a 1v1 game.

Let me put this another way: if SSB4 were being balanced around the competitive scene, there's NO WAY Sheik would be in the position she's in right now.

You weren't paying attention. You're completely wrong about Sudden Death being about camping, if Smash is a fighting game or party game is irrelevant. Arbitrary rules are arbitrary until proven necessary. Has ignoring SD been proven unnecessary in Smash 4? Nope. It makes us look like fools to grandfather in an old rule just because, especially now that ledges have been nerfed.

 

[S_B]

Arbitrary rules are arbitrary until proven necessary.

First of all, these rules are anything but arbitrary. They were implemented after years of testing and the competitive community coming to general consensus about what's competitive and what isn't.

Second, precedent is 90% of US law, and for good reason. Once the country adopts a policy on what is and isn't legal, it's very, VERY difficult to change said precedent (look at legalizing marijuana as an example, or gay marriage). I have to believe that any organization that creates a ruleset will likely follow the same trend of taking a long time to be convinced to implement a rule and an equally long time to be convinced to remove it.

That said...

Has ignoring SD been proven unnecessary in Smash 4? Nope. It makes us look like fools to grandfather in an old rule just because, especially now that ledges have been nerfed.

In this case, the rule about not playing out an SD needs to be proven UNnecessary in order for TOs to start ignoring it.

Sure, ledge stalling has been addressed, but it was far from JUST ledge stalling that kept TOs from allowing SD to play out.

For one, the random variable of bombs makes SD too random. Stages with too many random hazards are banned for the same reason.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, SD MASSIVELY favors fast, weak characters over slow, powerful characters because it completely negates all weight advantage by making nearly every move and throw into a kill confirm.

If SDs started being played out, the motivation to stall would increase for anyone who is:
-playing a light, fast character
-playing a character with spammable projectiles that can KO at 300%
-playing a character with good frame data that can easily land hit confirms

Anyone maining a heavyweight (those poor, brave SOBs...) would be screwed over so hard by this change. If they ACTUALLY had equal stocks and a sizable % lead against a player using a light, fast character, that player would then have ALL the motivation in the world to just stall, camp, and run out the clock because they know it would effectively put the heavyweight player at immediate kill % and a MASSIVE disadvantage.

The 1-stock rematch is the best way to reduce campy behavior. It can still happen if one player has way more % and wants to run out the clock because the 1-stock rematch resets the percentages, but at least both players then start on equal footing instead of slower characters being effectively robbed of all of their advantages: hitting harder and being heavier are both meaningless when everyone dies in one hit anyway.

 

[T0MMY]

Got an email saying that the Paragon suicide clause was removed from the final ruleset!

Did you get that because you contacted them due to hearing about it from my Suicide Clause campaign? I am happy they listened to us :^)

SSB is a party game first and a competitive game DISTANT second.
Sakurai friggin' SAID this in an interview

As per the "Sakurai says game" I have to ask for the link to your source.

Pretty much the entire rest of your argument seems to be going in a circle where I just repeat the logic behind out-of-game rulings must be accompanied with sound reasoning and warranted regarding %-based rulings and 1SR rulings. So I've collapsed it below. Just remember, speculative theorycrafting and fallacy aren't grounds for changing rules.

Spoiler

This is a DRAMATIC departure from competitive fighting games where the game is built from the ground up to be a 1v1 game.

Yeah, like Street Fighter, which is the quintessential Fighting Game? That was made for a gaming market that existed before any competitive scene existed... so, in other words: no.

Let me put this another way: if SSB4 were being balanced around the competitive scene, there's NO WAY Sheik would be in the position she's in right now.

No, it's obvious both Sheik and Diddy as well as every other "too good" character received their nerfs in tandem with the competitive scene's outcry about them. If anything this is evidence against your argument put forth.

I quite agree, and I'm sure that attendees would be rips**t pissed if a TO decided to actually let SD play out to determine the result of a match.

A lot of attendees get mad about all kinds of rules being changed for the better: Items Off, number of Stock, Customs Off... look at the history of this thread to see people mad about suicide clause being taken away.
Competitive events cater to competitive attendees, the scrubs can be mad and they can play in their casual scene with out-of-game rulings that arbitrarily hand out illegitimate wins based on anti-competitive rules how they'd like.That doesn't change my stance on the argument.

What are you referring to? Letting SD play out?

Yep. And guess what? I am getting Suicide Clause out of the rules, I just successfully had a campaign against it for Paragon. I'm proactive like that.

You're inventing hypotheticals now. Some characters have attacks that will KO from the ledge at 300% and can be spammed (like villager's slingshot).

Congrats, you figured out I just used the same line of reasoning you did - "it could be bad" just gets countered with "it could be good".
Want to see it in action again? In response to Villager hypothetical: Some characters can just end that strat with their own attacks (Pikachu's Thunder Jolt).
Theorycrafting is ok, but the practical execution speaks volumes: Losing to a strat? Git Gud.

And honestly, I don't really know what tournament players will do in a SD situation because I've never seen a tournament play out SD (and for good reason).

Then I'm not sure why you are posting speculation on it, how about you host a tournament and see just what kind of impact playing out Sudden Death has on the results (Hint: nearly none).
Then host a tournament and see what kind of impact a %-based ruling has on results (hint: creates illegitimate wins/losses)
Then do that for 10 years and you're where I'm at now.

Like you said: it's opinion. It was the OPINION of pro SSB players and TOs that sudden death is not a competitive means for deciding the winner of a match. It's the same reason many stages with hazards are banned: if the hazards add too much of a random variable to the gameplay, it's no longer competitive since the outcome is being decided by randomness.

I didn't say that, I simply issued a challenge. Is the challenge too much to step up to? If not, give the proof needed to back up assertions.
Also it was the opinion of pro SSB players to use Items as well as Sudden Death. This is why I don't rely on an argument from authority fallacy.
I also find it to be a contradiction that you bring up Stage Hazards being allowed, that is also another instance where the evidence presented is actually against what you are arguing for - why are bombs blowing up in Halberd allowed for normal play but bombs blowing up in SD not? Contradiction?

Like what...?

Like a stalemate situation, which was predicted to be a possible issue and happened in practice with Poyo vs Average Joe.
The game is designed to make a decision for stalemate situations and it doesn't need us to give arbitrary wins which illegitimizes competition which %-based wins and 1-stock rematches tend to produce.
Like I said, if someone asserts we need to change the game with an out-of-game ruling then a sound reason must be given after it is determined if the assertion is even warranted to begin with.

Yeah, because that's the category it falls into when it has to be placed on a shelf in a Gamestop.

Didn't realize Gamestop dictated our reality. Actually, you might not get the sarcasm here: It doesn't.

As I said earlier, Sakurai isn't designing the game with the competitive crowd in mind.

Sources or it didn't happen.
I'm getting good at this "Sakurai said" game.

This isn't Street Fighter or another 1v1 fighting game designed to be played at tournament level. If it were, we'd probably be able to edit the variables in SD to make it start at 0% with no bombs.

What an odd line of reasoning.

It does.

No, it really doesn't, the "Sakurai said" game doesn't validate it.

SD introduces a massive random variable into the equation (that being bombs), and even without that, the competitive scene of SSB is built around the idea that there is skill in both damage racking AND kill confirms. SD removes the damage racking variable entirely, making nearly every attack a kill confirm.

Why are you trying to push damage-racking as some kind of standard of what is integral to the game? One should be allowed to win an entire competition without dealing any damage to their opponents if they pull it off - my brother went to grand finals after beating some of the best players on the west coast by using Kirbycides (which don't deal damage) that would be so illegitimate if they revoked his wins because he didn't deal enough damage, lol.

SD also completely destroys fighter balance.

So does a lot of things; having something up to standard of our subective opinion of perfectly balancing the game through out-of-game rulings is a nirvana fallacy. In other words: git gud.
BTW: There are too many faster characters and those with projectiles and other attacks that more than compensate for Sheik's speed, all you did was speculate with theorycrafting in a what-if scenario - this type of argument has no grounds in crafting rules. I will point this out every time speculative theorycrafting is employed and denounce it simply as "speculation" to keep the argument healthy.

A 1-stock rematch with no limit is the best way to go because there's no clock to run out, no random variables deciding the winner, and the game balance isn't completely thrown out the window by negating the advantages of playing a heavier character (which are already fairly slim).

Glad to see you are not promoting %-based rulings, which I am completely against. I already stated I am "ok" with a 1SR, although it has its obvious flaws and is actually unnecessary.
Playing the game as designed is still the stronger argument so I'll stand by that as my preferred choice.

 

[LancerStaff]

First of all, these rules are anything but arbitrary. They were implemented after years of testing and the competitive community coming to general consensus about what's competitive and what isn't.

Second, precedent is 90% of US law, and for good reason. Once the country adopts a policy on what is and isn't legal, it's very, VERY difficult to change said precedent (look at legalizing marijuana as an example, or gay marriage). I have to believe that any organization that creates a ruleset will likely follow the same trend of taking a long time to be convinced to implement a rule and an equally long time to be convinced to remove it.

That said...



In this case, the rule about not playing out an SD needs to be proven UNnecessary in order for TOs to start ignoring it.

Sure, ledge stalling has been addressed, but it was far from JUST ledge stalling that kept TOs from allowing SD to play out.

For one, the random variable of bombs makes SD too random. Stages with too many random hazards are banned for the same reason.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, SD MASSIVELY favors fast, weak characters over slow, powerful characters because it completely negates all weight advantage by making nearly every move and throw into a kill confirm.

If SDs started being played out, the motivation to stall would increase for anyone who is:
-playing a light, fast character
-playing a character with spammable projectiles that can KO at 300%
-playing a character with good frame data that can easily land hit confirms

Anyone maining a heavyweight (those poor, brave SOBs...) would be screwed over so hard by this change. If they ACTUALLY had equal stocks and a sizable % lead against a player using a light, fast character, that player would then have ALL the motivation in the world to just stall, camp, and run out the clock because they know it would effectively put the heavyweight player at immediate kill % and a MASSIVE disadvantage.

The 1-stock rematch is the best way to reduce campy behavior. It can still happen if one player has way more % and wants to run out the clock because the 1-stock rematch resets the percentages, but at least both players then start on equal footing instead of slower characters being effectively robbed of all of their advantages: hitting harder and being heavier are both meaningless when everyone dies in one hit anyway.

For a completely different game, yes. People are idiots and would rather carry over bad rules (and pick SV 9/10 times) because muh familiarity.

The US doesn't get completely rehauled, top to bottom, every seven or so years.

SD rounds shouldn't last long enough for bombs to come out. The bombs are a deterrent to camping no matter your position. I don't understand what kind of clowns you're looking at for examples...

Heavies are screwed anyway because % lead favors who has less damage and instead of who's closer to death.

Why even reset %s at all then? That, without a doubt, favors the losing player and just makes things take longer.

 

[S_B]

As per the "Sakurai says game" I have to ask for the link to your source.

http://www.gamnesia.com/news/sakura...-addressing-the-balancing-in-super-smash-bros

"At the end of the day, I’m aiming for intermediately-skilled players to be able to properly enjoy the game. Fundamentally, my goal with Smash has been to create an “enjoyable party game”. If you want to enjoy thrilling tactical gameplay, you might be better suited for other 2D fighting games."

He flat out TOLD US that SSB4 isn't supposed to be competitive. I don't know what more proof you could ask for than that...

Pretty much the entire rest of your argument...

...Is where I dismantle your bizarre and illogical fascination with "letting the game play out", yes.

Spoiler

Yeah, like Street Fighter, which is the quintessential Fighting Game? That was made for a gaming market that existed before any competitive scene existed... so, in other words: no.

That would be "Karate Champ", actually, and your argument makes no sense.

Games have been balanced for 1v1 combat for 2,000+ years (going back to chess and go). Street Fighter doesn't have items, four player gameplay, etc. and it never did. It's designed for two people to compete against one another using characters in the game and the designers didn't need a "competitive community" to exist in order to establish game balance in their own game (or at least to TRY, no idea how balanced the original SF was).

Any 1v1 fighting game with updates, however, balances around one thing: 1v1 fighting.

SSB4 is balanced around being a party game, which is the very reason we do things like ban certain stages, items, and don't play any of the special smash modes.

No, it's obvious both Sheik and Diddy as well as every other "too good" character received their nerfs in tandem with the competitive scene's outcry about them. If anything this is evidence against your argument put forth.

See above where Sakurai clearly stated who he was balancing the game around. If Sheik and Diddy were considered "too good", it's because FG players were exploiting the hell out of hoo-haas.

A lot of attendees get mad about all kinds of rules being changed for the better

They will also get mad at rules being changed for the worse, as any sensible person would.

Offer Pac-Land as a starter and see how many friends you make...

Competitive events cater to competitive attendees, the scrubs can be mad and they can play in their casual scene with out-of-game rulings that arbitrarily hand out illegitimate wins based on anti-competitive rules how they'd like.That doesn't change my stance on the argument.

There's nothing arbitrary about a 1-stock rematch with no time limit.

Yep. And guess what? I am getting Suicide Clause out of the rules, I just successfully had a campaign against it for Paragon. I'm proactive like that.

Are they actually letting SD play out, though?

I didn't say that, I simply issued a challenge. Is the challenge too much to step up to? If not, give the proof needed to back up assertions.

You're asking for proof to back up assertions when both the original assertions AND yours are based upon opinion.

Also it was the opinion of pro SSB players to use Items as well as Sudden Death. This is why I don't rely on an argument from authority fallacy.

It was at one point the opinion of humans that it was okay to not bathe and be covered in fleas. Things change for a reason.

I also find it to be a contradiction that you bring up Stage Hazards being allowed, that is also another instance where the evidence presented is actually against what you are arguing for - why are bombs blowing up in Halberd allowed for normal play but bombs blowing up in SD not? Contradiction?

Halberd is legal because its hazards are A) sparsely situated throughout the stage and B) have ample warning ahead of time before they fire off.

Now, if you can't tell the difference between two stage hazards with ample warning that are easily avoided and a constant, random rain of bob-ombs blanketing the entire stage, then I'm sorry but you have no business hosting a tea party for teddy bears, let alone a SSB tournament.

The game is designed to make a decision for stalemate situations and it doesn't need us to give arbitrary wins which illegitimizes competition which %-based wins and 1-stock rematches tend to produce.

%-based wins are a terrible idea, I absolutely concur. It favors characters with high evasion and screws over heavyweights (who are screwed enough in this game as it is).

But 1-stock rematches are the epitome of fairness: it's the exact same situation as playing the game normally, only that each player only has one stock. If you're going to call that unfair somehow then what makes TWO stocks fair?

Like I said, if someone asserts we need to change the game with an out-of-game ruling then a sound reason must be given after it is determined if the assertion is even warranted to begin with.

...And it was given back in Melee and we've had it ever since.

If there was some massive, sweeping change to the way SD worked in SSB4 compared to its predecessors, okay, sure: let's reevaluate the rule.

What you're suggesting is like completely rearranging all of the tools in Adobe Photoshop every time a new version releases JUST because it's a new version (yes, they do that, and yes, everyone absolutely hates it).

I'm getting good at this "Sakurai said" game.

Nope. You lost the game in reply #1.

What an odd line of reasoning.

What's odd about giving players a means to adjust variables in SD?

There are plenty of variables in SSB games that we CAN adjust to make the game more competitive: turning items off, legal stages, custom moves (too soon?), game rules (# of stocks, match duration, etc.).

We have the ability to assign players damage handicaps if we so choose, but we of course DON'T choose to do that.

Would you be fine with SD if we could choose to make it a 1-stock, no time limit rematch with no rain of bombs? (I would)

Why are you trying to push damage-racking as some kind of standard of what is integral to the game?

Probably because the entire game is based around racking damage and sending your opponents over the blast zone.

While it's true that the real goal in the game is to send your enemies to the blast zone, having more damage on them makes it easier and it's typically going to be necessary at the competitive level if you're to have any hope of KOing your opponent at all.

We also know that damage racking is definitely one of the balance elements that go into designing characters (even at the casual level), as some characters have a very easy time racking damage but a hard time actually landing the kill confirm while others have a harder time racking damage, but need less damage to KO their enemies.

my brother went to grand finals after beating some of the best players on the west coast by using Kirbycides (which don't deal damage) that would be so illegitimate if they revoked his wins because he didn't deal enough damage, lol.

Kirbicide is easier to do when your opponent has a higher %, as it takes longer for them to mash out of Kirbicide.

Damage racking is most CERTAINLY a factor in character balance. I'd like to see you create a thread on this forum insisting otherwise and see how well that goes over.

So does a lot of things; having something up to standard of our subective opinion of perfectly balancing the game through out-of-game rulings is a nirvana fallacy.

I think it's worked pretty well, considering all of the major tournaments the aforementioned rules have been used at for close to a decade now.

If what you're saying is true, shouldn't the SSB competitive scene have fallen apart by now?

BTW: There are too many faster characters and those with projectiles and other attacks that more than compensate for Sheik's speed

That being the case, the best SSB4 player in the world probably wouldn't then consider Sheik to be the best character in the game.

Oh wait, he does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omU3zzwIMlw

Or are you going to cry about "yielding to authority" now?

all you did was speculate with theorycrafting in a what-if scenario - this type of argument has no grounds in crafting rules. I will point this out every time speculative theorycrafting is employed and denounce it simply as "speculation" to keep the argument healthy.

There's no speculation involved: heavy, slow characters are balanced around the idea that it takes more damage to bring them to a % where you can reasonably expect to KO them. SD completely negates this element of balance.

Furthermore, a blanketing rain of random bob-ombs does not create a situation where the winner of the match is being decided by skill of the player, which is the entire point of playing the game competitively.

Glad to see you are not promoting %-based rulings, which I am completely against. I already stated I am "ok" with a 1SR

...Then why are we having this discussion?

Look, we've both taken pot shots at each other throughout these posts and whatnot so we can call that even (it's just forum arguments after all, no hard feelings from me and I can respect that you definitely feel very strongly about the subject), and I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by insisting that SDs be played out and whatnot, buuuuut...

Playing the game as designed is still the stronger argument so I'll stand by that as my preferred choice.

...Do you really, REALLY want to follow through with this?

Since you're so fond of "challenges", I challenge you to make a post in this, the competitive forum, suggesting a tournament ruleset where SDs get played out and see how well it goes.

You can even take it a step further and argue for items, all stages to be legal, etc.

Hell, you could be right and people might be okay with it, but you won't know until you try...

The US doesn't get completely rehauled, top to bottom, every seven or so years.

Neither does SSB.

The only notable difference in mechanics from Brawl to SSB4 is the ledge changes. SDs play out pretty much the exact same way.

SD rounds shouldn't last long enough for bombs to come out. The bombs are a deterrent to camping no matter your position. I don't understand what kind of clowns you're looking at for examples...

"Clowns" who are good at evasion (and often play characters who excel at evasion) and don't over-commit and get punished for it.

I'm quite certain that most of the top players in this game can and have gone 30+ seconds in a match without landing a hit on each other and the bombs will certainly be out by then.

Heavies are screwed anyway because % lead favors who has less damage and instead of who's closer to death.

I agree, which is why % lead is generally a bad idea.

Why even reset %s at all then? That, without a doubt, favors the losing player and just makes things take longer.

Because it places both characters on equal footing and adds no other random variables to the match.

 

[LancerStaff]

Neither does SSB.

The only notable difference in mechanics from Brawl to SSB4 is the ledge changes. SDs play out pretty much the exact same way.

"Clowns" who are good at evasion (and often play characters who excel at evasion) and don't over-commit and get punished for it.

I'm quite certain that most of the top players in this game can and have gone 30+ seconds in a match without landing a hit on each other and the bombs will certainly be out by then.

I agree, which is why % lead is generally a bad idea.

Because it places both characters on equal footing and adds no other random variables to the match.

Nope, not even close. SDs don't end up with camping because the ledge is a horrible position now. Why would you camp when you could just finish the match? Do you want a bomb to fall on your head? Most moves will outright KO by then.

Only thing we agree on.

Yes, but you're rewarding the player behind for basically nothing. Why not just increase the timer instead of undoing a bunch of work?

 

[S_B]

Nope, not even close. SDs don't end up with camping because the ledge is a horrible position now.

Sorry, I didn't mean that people will camp, I meant that the mechanics of SD haven't changed beyond how the game handles ledges.

Both players will be at 300% and bombs will drop in all of the SSB games that have had SD, I believe.

Yes, but you're rewarding the player behind for basically nothing. Why not just increase the timer instead of undoing a bunch of work?

SD does this as well, though, especially for characters with better frame data/easier hit confirms.

I don't think we're ever going to find a situation where it's not advantageous for someone to camp, but we can minimize how unbalanced it is by at least not making SD the go-to option for destroying slower characters with faster ones.

 

[LancerStaff]

Sorry, I didn't mean that people will camp, I meant that the mechanics of SD haven't changed beyond how the game handles ledges.

Both players will be at 300% and bombs will drop in all of the SSB games that have had SD, I believe.



SD does this as well, though, especially for characters with better frame data/easier hit confirms.

I don't think we're ever going to find a situation where it's not advantageous for someone to camp, but we can minimize how unbalanced it is by at least not making SD the go-to option for destroying slower characters with faster ones.

That alone solves most issues... Camping isn't effective from what I've seen.

Yes, but it rarely ever gets to that point. If it didn't exist then you truly could camp forever.

But you still need to work for a win in SD, unlike with a % win. The idea is to make running out of time (and camping in SD) completely undesirable to encourage finishing faster and player interaction in general.

Your idea sounds more like it's for making heavies better, if even marginally, rather then solving a problem. Heavies usually don't make it to SD by design. Either they're finished quickly, or they've finished their opponent for taking too long.

 

[S_B]

But you still need to work for a win in SD, unlike with a % win. The idea is to make running out of time (and camping in SD) completely undesirable to encourage finishing faster and player interaction in general.

Yeah, and I dislike % wins though a number of tourneys still use them.

Your idea sounds more like it's for making heavies better, if even marginally, rather then solving a problem. Heavies usually don't make it to SD by design. Either they're finished quickly, or they've finished their opponent for taking too long.

It's not really my idea: several tournaments already use it to decide SDs that came about because of two players dying at the same time (like in that video I linked).

The bombs aside (and you really can't rely on players not reaching the bomb phase), SD is hideously unbalanced against heavy characters because it negates ALL of their advantages by making weight and power irrelevant.

% lead is SLIGHTLY better than this for settling matches because the extra damage heavies do on hit confirms is relevant, though light, fast characters can still run away from them almost indefinitely to ensure that the match ends with them in the lead.

I'm not sure how many tourneys use the % rule vs. the 1-stock rematch rule, but the 1-stock just screws with heavies (and game balance in general) the least.

 

[T0MMY]

He flat out TOLD US that SSB4 isn't supposed to be competitive. I don't know what more proof you could ask for than that...

There's a difference between you claiming it is not made to be competitive and Sakurai saying a goal was "fundamentally" an "enjoyable party game" (yes, it was "party game" in quotes as though it was referencing another person's words or out of context):

Fun and Competition are NOT exclusive.​

That very article you sourced is actually evidence against your argument - "The Act of Balancing"; what is he balancing for? A few reasons, and probably the most expounded reason was for competition!
See spoiler below for a wealth of information on this:

Spoiler

"Generally speaking, the most important resource for balancing is the report we receive from the playtesting team. While the playtesters don’t ever appear in the spotlight, I’m confident they’re skilled enough to perform quite well in a tournament."​

Ultimately your source shows that the game meets the approval for Nintendo's general strategy to appeal to a wide audience, which is why Smash is so successful in a tournament scene (it is popular).

Recently, there was a tournament featuring the top Japanese and American players... the winner was certainly decided by skill.
...people who play the game this way enjoy it from the bottom of their hearts, and make many friends playing this way. Because the game accommodates a wide variety of playstyles, it’s only natural that it captivates so many people in a variety of ways.​

...Is where I dismantle your bizarre and illogical fascination with "letting the game play out", yes.

Sorry, but dismantling logic (aka rationalizing) takes more than just calling it bizzare, you have to... you know, rationalize:

But just for fun, let's look at what you did with the rationalizing...

That would be "Karate Champ", actually, and your argument makes no sense.
Games have been balanced for 1v1 combat for 2,000+ years (going back to chess and go). Street Fighter doesn't have items, four player gameplay, etc. and it never did.

Actually, no, the quintessential competitive fighter I referred to was not Karate Champ, it was Street Fighter (see post here): Karate Champ can't be the quintessential fighter today considering it has practically zero competition going on (was it at Evo? Case in point).

Please don't miss the point that balancing for a competitive scene is not necessary for competitive games to be played competitively - Street Fighter existed before competitive video game scenes came to form.
I also don't agree that competitive games have to be 1v1 either, it's very telling that Street Fighter even has a "multiplayer" entry in its series with "items", your argument seems to be unreal.

A note on fighter history, since you mentioned it:
The original Street Fighter was almost perfectly balanced for 1v1, there were only two characters: Ryuk and Ken. They were identical in their moves and attributes and the only thing that could be considered a balance issue was that P1 may have priority in winning tied games and possible priority in some attacks (can't say I ever verified it in my time spent with the game)

Again, the rest of your argument seems to run in circles and I'll clean up the fallacies in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

SSB4 is balanced around being a party game, which is the very reason we do things like ban certain stages, items, and don't play any of the special smash modes.

Actually the article you linked me to told a different story. It was interpreted to be said the game was fundamentally developed to be fun for a group of people, but "balance" is around competition with 1v1 specifically mentioned, and done so with a group of professionals chosen because of their skill level and how they would perform in a tournament setting.
Sakurai's words, as per your source.

But even if the case were that the game wasn't ever intended for competition your argument still does not hold: We play it competitively, so we use competitive theory to form a competitive standard for our competition.

See above where Sakurai clearly stated who he was balancing the game around. If Sheik and Diddy were considered "too good", it's because FG players were exploiting the hell out of hoo-haas.

I did see above, and noted that the balancing was also taking in consideration posts online, which could explain why I faced very few Sheiks and Diddys on For Glory and even fewer of them that exploited their cheap tactics.

They will also get mad at rules being changed for the worse, as any sensible person would.
Offer Pac-Land as a starter and see how many friends you make...

"Worse" is subjective, and as I stated earlier, opinion doesn't change standards. Your opinion is also not convincing to me personally in this conversation so I'm not sure why you keep trying to work it into some kind of proof.
Also, Pac-Land is a complete tangent, trying to compare SD to Pac-Land only weakens your argument.

There's nothing arbitrary about a 1-stock rematch with no time limit.

Arbitration is a call of judgement. Deciding a 1-stock rematch with no time limit takes a few arbitrations, so there would be something arbitrary about it. But whatever.

Are they actually letting SD play out, though?

Not sure, I guess I'll find out when I am there.

You're asking for proof to back up assertions when both the original assertions AND yours are based upon opinion

Issuing a challenge is not making an assertion. If there was some unfounded assertion please quote it for me and I'll back it up. Now I respectfully ask you do the same.
Please show the proof of your assertion: "It was the OPINION of pro SSB players and TOs that sudden death is not a competitive means for deciding the winner of a match."

Which pro players? Which TOs? Why did they hold that opinion? If they are holding this opinion on something fallable then you are simply pushing a fallacy of argument by authority.

Simply having double standards is not a way to get out of backing up assertions with evidence.

It was at one point the opinion of humans that it was okay to not bathe and be covered in fleas. Things change for a reason.

What you did there was a strawman fallacy. If you are asserting it was okay to not bathe and be covered in fleas then you will have to show the evidence. And nobody was arguing that things don't change for a reason.
My point still stands that you relied on a argument by authority fallacy which discredits your assertion.

Halberd is legal because its hazards are A) sparsely situated throughout the stage and B) have ample warning ahead of time before they fire off.

Then likewise (bombs in Halberd & Sudden Death):
There is no warrant for a change of rules for Sudden Death because its hazards are A) sparsely situated throughout the stage and B) have ample warning ahead of time before they fire off.

Now, if you can't tell the difference between two stage hazards with ample warning that are easily avoided and a constant, random rain of bob-ombs blanketing the entire stage, then I'm sorry but you have no business hosting a tea party for teddy bears, let alone a SSB tournament.

Sorry, they are not constant nor blanketing; The randomness is also wrong because it is 20 seconds exactly before one will drop (I timed it myself and is repeatable through experiment for you to try at home). Who's the one who can't tell the difference between stage hazards?

My tournament attendees and teddy bears both were not impressed with your attempt to clumsily play off the difference between the two hazards, ignoring the rhetorical question that brought about a realization that "environemtnal hazards" is a contradictory notion, but at least appreciated the smarmy attitude you displayed when you thought you had gained an inch - fell right into my trap.

The victory: "It's ok to allow bombs exploding on stages, but not bombs exploding in Sudden Death"

%-based wins are a terrible idea, I absolutely concur. It favors characters with high evasion and screws over heavyweights (who are screwed enough in this game as it is).

Then you concur for all the wrong reasons.

But 1-stock rematches are the epitome of fairness: it's the exact same situation as playing the game normally, only that each player only has one stock. If you're going to call that unfair somehow then what makes TWO stocks fair?

Which is why I am "okay" with it.
But I still believe playing out Sudden Death is the stronger ruling for competition.

...And it was given back in Melee and we've had it ever since.

If there was some massive, sweeping change to the way SD worked in SSB4 compared to its predecessors, okay, sure: let's reevaluate the rule.

What you're suggesting is like completely rearranging all of the tools in Adobe Photoshop every time a new version releases JUST because it's a new version (yes, they do that, and yes, everyone absolutely hates it).

Poor analogyis bad - I didn't say we change the rules evry time a new game comes out, I actually say we should keep a standard on the ruling and not change it. Exact oposite.
And I've used Photoshop for years and don't hate it, I get used to the changes - I git gud.

Nope. You lost the game in reply #1.

You obviously don't know the game then.
It's not about if you can give me a source or not, it's that whenever someone says "Sakurai says" without sourcing then I ask for a source. I'm always a winner as long as I do this.
Extension of the game is in the interpretation, which you seemed to have lost thinking that if he says he wants Smash to be fun then he is somehow saying he does not want it to be competitive.
I agree with Sakurai, the game can be both fun and competitive.

What's odd about giving players a means to adjust variables in SD?

Because the reasoning does not necessitate the conclusion.
Obviously I was not saying additional options would be odd, just the form of the structure of reasoning.

Would you be fine with SD if we could choose to make it a 1-stock, no time limit rematch with no rain of bombs? (I would)

If it was an in-game option I would be perfectly fine with utilizing that option. But this is speculation, the only thing it concludes is that it would verify my position of being "okay" with a 1-stock rematch (lesser of the two evils, the other being the %-based ruling).

While it's true that the real goal in the game is to send your enemies to the blast zone...

Okay then. Case in point.
Overemphasizing Damage is not applicable reason to ignore playing out Sudden Death.

Kirbicide is easier to do when your opponent has a higher %, as it takes longer for them to mash out of Kirbicide.

Cool, thanks for putting out the info I've known for a decade.

Damage racking is most CERTAINLY a factor in character balance. I'd like to see you create a thread on this forum insisting otherwise and see how well that goes over.

I'm sure you would love to see that, because then you would have tricked me into falling for your strawman where you want me to think I am arguing that damage racking is not a factor in balance.
Sorry to disappoint, the point stands that overemphasizing damage is not applicable reason to ignore playing out Sudden Death.

I think it's worked pretty well, considering all of the major tournaments the aforementioned rules have been used at for close to a decade now.

I disagree, and I think it would work better without %-based rulings.

If what you're saying is true, shouldn't the SSB competitive scene have fallen apart by now?

No, it just means we have a faulty ruleset that probably explains the degenerative gameplay and illegitimizes some victories.
Embarrasses the community rather than falls apart.

That being the case, the best SSB4 player in the world probably wouldn't then consider Sheik to be the best character in the game.
Oh wait, he does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omU3zzwIMlw

Considering you were placing Sheik in the context of Sudden Death and he was not then it is not supportive of your speculation. This is why speculation does not make a strong argument.

Or are you going to cry about "yielding to authority" now?

Well at least you are starting to recognize your fallacy, I don't even have to point this one out.
But I think you meant appeal to authority.

There's no speculation involved: heavy, slow characters are balanced around the idea that it takes more damage to bring them to a % where you can reasonably expect to KO them. SD completely negates this element of balance.

Yeah, they were balanced around the idea that they get the KO easier and won't go to Sudden Death, so it completely incorporates the full realization of the game!
See, I can speculate too!
Now we can continue on with this silly speculation game of theorycrafting or cut to the chase and just accept that speculation does not make a strong argument.
I'm going to choose the latter (feel free to take the theorycrafting to another conversation since I'm done with it).

Furthermore, a blanketing rain of random bob-ombs does not create a situation where the winner of the match is being decided by skill of the player, which is the entire point of playing the game competitively.

I disagree with your re-imagining of a real-world event. Don't trope me bro. Let's keep it realistic here: if you do not think it is decided by "skill" then how do you categorize the abilities of "reflexes" "strategy" and "knowledge" that is used to win in that part of Sudden Death?

Then why are we having this discussion?

Going to step back and honestly answer this here:
It is because I stand by my evaluation that Sudden Death is a viable competitive option based on competitive theory.

I honestly believe there is no warrant to introduce an out-of-game ruling for tie-breakers, and furthermore have found that the reasoning that has been given (without warrant, mind you) is logically unacceptable and the practice of %-based tie breakers are causing degenerative gameplay as well as illegitimizes wins/losses.​

The bulk of the discussion is spurred because... and I am being completely honest here in my thoughts on this... is spurred because I see you taking issue with my promotion of Sudden Death viability and it offends you that Sudden Death should be used because you stand against it so strongly (like many people seem to do).
BUT! I think if you follow the argument (the one that is contained int he spoilers above) you may come to understand the viability of playing the game as the game designers intended - not saying it must be used, but at least recognized that it is competitively acceptable (not sure I ever said I am insisting that SDs be played out like you stated, just standing by my analysis of viability until someone can prove otherwise).

Since you're so fond of "challenges", I challenge you to make a post in this, the competitive forum, suggesting a tournament ruleset where SDs get played out and see how well it goes.
You can even take it a step further and argue for items, all stages to be legal, etc.
Hell, you could be right and people might be okay with it, but you won't know until you try...

See, this is the crux of all the argument contained in the spoiler above - we start off with a great idea: you challenge me to stand by my beliefs in competitive viability of SD. But then you twist in a completely off-track concept that all stages and items are to be used. Can you please just realize "WTF was I thinking" here? Thanks.

Now, what I can agree to is that I could make a post showing my analysis on why Sudden Death is competitively viable - not that I am pushing that it be used (whether it should or not, there's something to be said about strategy of introducing rules).

The way you are trying to set me up looks to me like it is more about trying to get me to fail rather than honestly evaluating a system to find out a truth in the matter through proper reasoning. Judging by your history of our conversation this may be the case, that you are more interested in looking like you are right than doing what is right.
So I'm going to leave it there for you to comment on and your final words on the challenge will show your motives and determine where we go from here.