Can we have a rule against animated deaths?

[Judo777]

Honestly, the time taken by the game to confirm a death from the upper blast line due to star and screen knock-out animations is simply arbitrary. I find it difficult to defend their existence beyond aesthetics and status as a tradition in the series. Once a player has gone past any of the blast lines it should be immediately counted as a death. There is no compelling argument against this.

However, I will admit that this change wouldn’t be much of an improvement to the game. There is no reason to be hyperbolic here; matches are rarely close enough to warrant this kind of change in mechanics. If it existed as a rule outside the game then it would simply be another arbitrary method of determining the victor and I can easily foresee various problems arising from trying to enforce it.

The outcome of a match is determined by a countless number of varying factors. It isn’t as important to look at the climatic blow that sends a player hurtling beyond the blast line as it is how they got in that situation to begin with. Don’t get too caught up in the small details of what could have happened if things in a single moment were different and try and look at everything as whole. Some matches are incredibly close and it’s hard to truly say which player deserved to win. However, the game will always determine a winner. Draws simply do not happen. In the end it’s important to keep in mind that a loss is not always a sign of inferiority. The odds won’t always be favorable. It’s best to just respect it as a game well-played and keep trying.

I agree with most every point you are making. Except (which I may be misinterpreting) that you said the second they cross the blastzone, they should be counted as dead. I mean technically you are right, in that they are dead, but this cannot be a deciding factor in the games outcome. The same argument could be said about a hit on character that is unsurvivable (A Ganon ftilt at like 60% straight up kills little Mac because he can't recover), but you can't say that in a similar situation, Little Mac should be counted as dead even if Ganon hits the blast zone first.

And perhaps that's what you are saying, and I agree with the rest of your post. The incident in the OP was unfortunate, but as stated, he was technically forced into a situation that resulted in a 100% chance that he would die, and a 50/50 chance that the other player would die first. And the other player got lucky. That stuff happens, unfortunately we can't remove all of the luck from the game. To be honest tho I am so used to upper blastzone KOs ALWAYS being a cinematic finish, that when watching the match it didn't occur to me the other outcome was possible. I just assumed once launched that the outcome I saw was guaranteed and I expected it.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

I'm not for making exception-rules like this, generally speaking. That said, if we ever modded Smash 4, I wouldn't shed a single tear to see it go.

A lot of people think the scoreboard is the end-all, but at the end of the day, this is a casual party game that we are trying to make competitive by creating our own ruleset. Either we treat it like a competitive game, or we treat it like a party game and start going to sudden deaths every time the timer runs out.

 

[LancerStaff]

Honestly, the time taken by the game to confirm a death from the upper blast line due to star and screen knock-out animations is simply arbitrary. I find it difficult to defend their existence beyond aesthetics and status as a tradition in the series. Once a player has gone past any of the blast lines it should be immediately counted as a death. There is no compelling argument against this.

However, I will admit that this change wouldn’t be much of an improvement to the game. There is no reason to be hyperbolic here; matches are rarely close enough to warrant this kind of change in mechanics. If it existed as a rule outside the game then it would simply be another arbitrary method of determining the victor and I can easily foresee various problems arising from trying to enforce it.

The outcome of a match is determined by a countless number of varying factors. It isn’t as important to look at the climatic blow that sends a player hurtling beyond the blast line as it is how they got in that situation to begin with. Don’t get too caught up in the small details of what could have happened if things in a single moment were different and try and look at everything as whole. Some matches are incredibly close and it’s hard to truly say which player deserved to win. However, the game will always determine a winner. Draws simply do not happen. In the end it’s important to keep in mind that a loss is not always a sign of inferiority. The odds won’t always be favorable. It’s best to just respect it as a game well-played and keep trying.

Your post made me think... Rather then a toggle, just take the stock as soon as you go off the top and add in additional time to respawn if you just explode to make it equal to the others. This both solves luck issues like in the OP and Jigglypuff's rest problems. Wouldn't say this is impossible after Sakurai fixed the screen splat problem.

 

[Thor]

This thread is dumb.

When they have no stock icons left, they lose.

We remove sudden death because it vastly changes things and generally leads to degenerate play (in Brawl it was literally "Grab the edge and get planking", in Melee Sheik did the same thing).

We have the suicide rule because Ganondorf would randomly send it to sudden death or lose (maybe have been port priority, not sure, but it's agreed that sudden death is problematic).

This is based on how you KO the opponent - you couldn't KO them off the top and you died first (or timer ran out), you lost the stock first (or lost by timeout), plain and simple.

This thread might be workable in the PM/mod boards (as in, all deaths should be the blastzone explosion kind), but we never needed to change this for 64, Melee, or Brawl, and we don't need to change it for Smash 4 either.

EDIT: This would also interfere with DBZ moments - sorry, but if my Link dair trades with Falco fsmash and I have twist DI, I deserve to lose by dying off the bottom (or the sides) even if he technically died in a long animation off the top - since I couldn't make it back, by the logic of "counted as dead once inescapable death" I should be counted dead on the spot and we have to go to a sudden death which means replay 1-stock 3 minutes. It happens, but that's a part of how you choose what moves to use.

 

[SuperDavio]

People always argue the differing animations making it so the game should decide, but I just wanna say one thing.

Only off the top of the stage do you have multiple possibilities after being KO'd. The sides and bottom follow the same rules.

 

[T0MMY]

The 3 rules of Smash:

1) Choose Characters
2) Choose Stage
3) Play the Game

There's no "this makes me mad, so I say who wins" rule.

 

[TurnUp]

Results screen > all.

Funny you mention this, because APEX Smash 4 rules ruled a bowsercide as a win for Bowser on the both last stocks despite results screen and that Villager can even recover from it, which was completely stupid but no one really abused or played Bowser at all.

 

[S_B]

This really seeps into "scrub ruling" territory in every way.
We allow the game to decide the winner for us. That's just how it is.

Except in the case of suicide clauses when we don't...

If SSB were a competitive game, we'd be able to turn off star/screen KOs in an option like we do with items.

And no, it's not a competitive game. It's a party game that we're bending into a competitive game, directed by a man who hated the competitive scene so much he added tripping to the game out of spite.

SSB isn't Street Fighter. We already make the game competitive by banning stages, items, etc. We go through ridiculous lengths to ensure that as much randomness is removed from the game as possible already.

Ruling that a player is dead at the time the death animation starts makes sense, especially since SSB4 now has randomized death animations off the top.

And if people argue about who won, save the replay...

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, here, but we've already implemented a pile of rules in an effort to negate randomness in the game. Why are we drawing the line at this one?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Except in the case of suicide clauses when we don't...

If SSB were a competitive game, we'd be able to turn off star/screen KOs in an option like we do with items.

And no, it's not a competitive game. It's a party game that we're bending into a competitive game, directed by a man who hated the competitive scene so much he added tripping to the game out of spite.

SSB isn't Street Fighter. We already make the game competitive by banning stages, items, etc. We go through ridiculous lengths to ensure that as much randomness is removed from the game as possible already.

Ruling that a player is dead at the time the death animation starts makes sense, especially since SSB4 now has randomized death animations off the top.

And if people argue about who won, save the replay...

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate, here, but we've already implemented a pile of rules in an effort to negate randomness in the game. Why are we drawing the line at this one?

This is not an accurate depiction of the situation at all. Sakurai's reasons for adding tripping had nothing to do with spite at the competitive scene; there were game theory concepts behind it that didn't pan out but were interesting. We obviously don't remove as much randomness as possible; Villager who has a random reward on uair and dair is still a legal character. In fact, there's not a particular reason the existence of random mechanics would be considered anti-competitive in general; the overwhelming majority of competitive games are non-deterministic in fact. We pretty much allow whatever that can be picked or done by just one side; we only have to make rules as they pertain to settings that apply to both players since clearly they can only be set to one thing at a time (like if you want to pick "all items" and I want to pick "no items", clearly a rule must be implemented to decide what happens since we both can't pick those things at the same time). The only thing we really ban is equipment, and we also have one arbitrary rule that we don't play out sudden deaths since sudden death is a very poor tiebreaker for our purposes. Some places have a suicide move rule, but those rules are poorly conceived and shouldn't exist.

The somewhat random nature of off the top KOs (not fully random I think; the nature of your launch seems to have a big impact on the probabilities) is a fairly minor game mechanic that doesn't really disrupt what's going on in general tournament play or create any particular problems. Making a rule to circumvent it would add a considerable burden to players and TOs to communicate and understand this particular rule, especially as it might pertain to edge cases (What if someone dies off the bottom while the other player is within one frame of a cinematic off the top kill such that you're not sure if they have actually crossed the blast zone yet since they're off-screen completely?). The enforcement would be a pain; rewatching entire replays to decide a winner is unreasonable and literally doubles the match time (and either player can prevent a replay save by mashing start with no sign given as to which player did it). Such a rule would add many problems while contributing no solution to any existent problem. We don't need it, and the way things work now is in no way non-competitive.

 

[S_B]

This is not an accurate depiction of the situation at all. Sakurai's reasons for adding tripping had nothing to do with spite at the competitive scene; there were game theory concepts behind it that didn't pan out but were interesting.

Though it's ultimately irrelevant, I swore I remember reading that he did it because he "didn't want Brawl played too seriously".

Regardless, the addition of tripping gives us a pretty good idea of how much Sakurai cared about ensuring the game was competitive.

We obviously don't remove as much randomness as possible

So major tournaments are allowing all items and stages now?

Seriously, yeah, we're all well aware that characters have some random elements tied into their movesets. Some moves even have a good chance of causing the opponent to trip.

But those are all elements within the control of the players and they typically have a risk vs. reward ratio tied into them (ala judge).

Whether a KO off the top becomes a star KO or a screen KO is entirely random and cannot be determined by the players.

The somewhat random nature of off the top KOs (not fully random I think; the nature of your launch seems to have a big impact on the probabilities) is a fairly minor game mechanic that doesn't really disrupt what's going on in general tournament play or create any particular problems.

1. Do you have any evidence that the speed determines this or is that just speculation?

2. There's a video in the OP of it disrupting a tournament, actually...

(What if someone dies off the bottom while the other player is within one frame of a cinematic off the top kill such that you're not sure if they have actually crossed the blast zone yet since they're off-screen completely?)

If their magnifying glass has disappeared, they've been KOed off the top.

The enforcement would be a pain; rewatching entire replays to decide a winner is unreasonable and literally doubles the match time (and either player can prevent a replay save by mashing start with no sign given as to which player did it).

It would very rarely happen, as you said, and it's honestly more likely to happen than needing to invoke the suicide clause since no one plays Bowser in tournaments anyway.

Such a rule would add many problems while contributing no solution to any existent problem. We don't need it, and the way things work now is in no way non-competitive.

Allowing a random element players have no control over to determine the outcome of a match is the very DEFINITION of something being non-competitive.

Someone already said it in this thread: he lost a "coin flip" element and as a result, was robbed of a legitimate victory.

And in no way was what M2K did a "good move" because it was more likely that he would've been immediately KOed and lost the match.

Again, I realize that this will happen quite rarely, but as we've seen from the OP, it CAN happen, and I'm not sure what's making us draw the line here when rules that actively dictate how the game can and cannot be played have been implemented in the past (such as LGLs).

Does it boil down to: we don't know how to verify it if the players disagree and no one saw?

 

[Deleted member 269706]

If the suicide clause or higher damage percentage at end of match can overrule the results screen, then I fail to see why the results screen is so sacred in this specific scenario. (Clarification: Higher percentage thing only applies after sudden death). I too have seen my fair share of matches where players SD as the opponent is dying in the background or up against the camera, and I think it's stupid that the player who is already "dead" still wins the match. I just don't understand why the suicide clause can overwrite the results screen but this is too much to ask for. If there can be one exception, there can be two. But if there can't be two, then there shouldn't be one.

And like @ S_B said, the whole idea behind competitive smash is to remove as much randomness as possible (remove dynamic stages, items, tripping, and maybe even customs?). The entire death sequence of being KOed through the top of the screen is extremely random, and can literally determine who wins and who doesn't even though one of the players is guaranteed dead. That is stupid.

 

[deepseadiva]

I just don't understand why the suicide clause can overwrite the results screen but this is too much to ask for.

Suicide clause existed in Brawl because winner was determined by port priority. That doesn't exist in Smash 4, so the suicide should have never existed in Smash 4.

Percent wins do not override a win/lose result screen. Percent wins only happens during a tie aka Sudden Death.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Suicide clause existed in Brawl because winner was determined by port priority. That doesn't exist in Smash 4, so the suicide frankly should not exist in Smash 4.

Percent wins do not override a win/lose result screen. Percent wins only happens during a tie aka Sudden Death.

I agree with the first statement you made for the most part, but I don't understand why a Ganoncide should be a victory, whereas a Bowsercide should be a loss? That just seems kind of twisted in my opinion, but that's not what the debate is about. I wouldn't be for this "proposed rule" if we didn't have a suicide clause, but because we do follow the suicide clause, I feel like it makes more sense to follow this same rule. Ultimately, this wasn't too different from a suicide induced death.

And the percent win statement I made was referring to sudden death situations. I should've made that more clear.

 

[deepseadiva]

I agree with the first statement you made for the most part, but I don't understand why a Ganoncide should be a victory, whereas a Bowsercide should be a loss?

That whole clause ruling is a mess. Rules are supposed to add clarity. Adding in a layer of interpretation, like a grandfather'd suicide clause, or this ko rule, removes clarity and only adds to the mess.

 

[S_B]

That whole clause ruling is a mess. Rules are supposed to add clarity. Adding in a layer of interpretation, like a grandfather'd suicide clause, or this ko rule, removes clarity and only adds to the mess.

Look, I'm not fond of throwing additional rules on top of SSB, but the ugly truth is that we ARE trying to turn a party game into a fighting game.

Rules like the suicide clause and LGL were created because it was clear that the game wasn't going to manage to be competitive on its own because rewarding the win to the player who genuinely deserved it isn't high on the priority list for a party game.

I hope whoever directs the next SSB game really, REALLY cares about ensuring that it's playable as both a competitive 1v1 game (with no additional rules, like SF) and a party game but we just haven't found that director yet.

The real point here is that, in maybe a hundred other cases, the video on the OP would've awarded the win to Ness' team. Thanks to the roll of an RNG, he lost.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I agree with the first statement you made for the most part, but I don't understand why a Ganoncide should be a victory, whereas a Bowsercide should be a loss? That just seems kind of twisted in my opinion, but that's not what the debate is about. I wouldn't be for this "proposed rule" if we didn't have a suicide clause, but because we do follow the suicide clause, I feel like it makes more sense to follow this same rule. Ultimately, this wasn't too different from a suicide induced death.

And the percent win statement I made was referring to sudden death situations. I should've made that more clear.

Because a Ganoncide always results in the game declaring Ganondorf a winner. A Bowsercide (and any other suicide move for that matter) results in the game sometimes declaring sudden death and sometimes declaring Bowser the loser, depending on the stage. If we want to avoid playing out sudden death, then it's more consistent to declare the initiator of a suicide move to be the loser in the event of sudden death (and only in the event of sudden death) and follow the results screen otherwise.

Like, seriously. Be Ganondorf vs. a level 1 or something and Ganoncide. You'll win every time. Repeat as Bowser and you'll either lose or go to sudden death depending on what stage you're on.

 

[S_B]

Because a Ganoncide always results in the game declaring Ganondorf a winner. A Bowsercide (and any other suicide move for that matter) results in the game sometimes declaring sudden death and sometimes declaring Bowser the loser, depending on the stage. If we want to avoid playing out sudden death, then it's more consistent to declare the initiator of a suicide move to be the loser in the event of sudden death (and only in the event of sudden death) and follow the results screen otherwise.

Like, seriously. Be Ganondorf vs. a level 1 or something and Ganoncide. You'll win every time. Repeat as Bowser and you'll either lose or go to sudden death depending on what stage you're on.

Eh, this is a bug that was added when they fixed this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

God willing, they'll fix this in the next patch so Bowser wins.

One of Bowser's customs is a klaw that makes him lunge forward to grab but gives ALL control to the opponent, making it impossible for him to Bowsercide them.

They wouldn't have given him this move if they intended Bowser to die first. It's such a massive liability that no one would ever use it...

 

[Sixfortyfive]

People ought to stop using the Suicide Clause to prop up their argument, because that is also a remarkably scrubby rule that has no business existing in the first place.

 

[RedBeefBaron]

Posting my vote.

Yes, for sure.

 

[S_B]

People ought to stop using the Suicide Clause to prop up their argument, because that is also a remarkably scrubby rule that has no business existing in the first place.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

But the fact that the people who actually run tournaments saw the need to step in and change things says a lot about how "competitive" SSB is designed to be.

The rules we create for SSB set a future precedent, and I'm quite certain that TOs knew and understood that before creating them.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

The rules we create for SSB set a future precedent, and I'm quite certain that TOs knew and understood that before creating them.

When rules from one game are carried over to a different game that does not exhibit the original justification for the rule's existence in the first place, it suggests that the people implementing the rules actually don't understand what they're doing.

 

[S_B]

When rules from one game are carried over to a different game that does not exhibit the original justification for the rule's existence in the first place

Except that it does?

SSBB: Ganondorf died depending on port choice or went to SD. Rule added to give him the win.

SSB4: After the glitch was fixed and the new bug was added, Bowser dies first or goes to SD, depending on stage.

I expect it'll be fixed on April 15th anyway, however, so it'll soon be a moot point.

it suggests that the people implementing the rules actually don't understand what they're doing.

And I'm sure you know better than everyone who has ever organized a tournament with 1,000+ entrants...

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

This is just what we need: a ref for every single match played to make human/subjective judgment calls on something as simple as who won the match.

 

[deepseadiva]

And I'm sure you know better than everyone who has ever organized a tournament with 1,000+ entrants...

This is called appeal to authority and is a fallacy.

TOs in the past have also: banned Rosalina, banned all stages beside Final Destination, etc. You can call out horrible rules without suffering the position of TO. You're not making a valid point here.

 

[S_B]

TOs in the past have also: banned Rosalina, banned all stages beside Final Destination, etc. You can call out horrible rules without suffering the position of TO. You're not making a valid point here.

The suicide clause was adopted by major tournaments if I'm not mistaken. I cannot account for every tournament played ever and I don't intend to.

No one batted an eyelash when there were small tournaments allowing customs from day 1. The hoopla only started when big tournaments like Apex and Evo made them legal.

This is just what we need: a ref for every single match played to make human/subjective judgment calls on something as simple as who won the match.

And this is the only argument I've actually seen put forth against the rule that holds any merit.

However, how did the suicide clause work if no one else was watching the screen? How were TOs certain that Gdorf had used Ganoncide when the win screen showed him losing?

On a side note, has anyone really, REALLY put themselves in FOW's shoes?

You just pulled out an epic comeback victory against two of the best SSB players in the world (one of whom won Apex's SSB4 singles), leaped from your chair with glee, only to discover that the 5% chance or whatever it is happened to trigger which resulted in M2K dying a star KO death instead of the immediate death it would've given him the other ~95% of the time and...you lost.

I doubt anyone here has had defeat snatched from the jaws of victory on such a scale before...

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

As much as I support the general removal of randomness from the game to make it more "competitive", I really do not support this ruling on any level. As it stands, the way someone dies off the top is of random length. The only scenario where this even matters is where both players are on their way to being KO'd. Frankly, I am fine with it being a dice roll. It is an inherently risky maneuver. I actually think it is good design here to remove certainty. People think that "randomness" is the problem here, but it's not. The game could have just as easily decided that Star KOs happen 100% of the time. Then all these "close" matches would have been guaranteed losses for the ones falling down. Those players should be grateful the game grants them a statistical opportunity to kill quickly off the top. Instant KO off the top is a fairly recent development anyway. Hence why I support the idea of it being luck-driven.

 

[S_B]

The game could have just as easily decided that Star KOs happen 100% of the time. Then all these "close" matches would have been guaranteed losses for the ones falling down.

TBH, I'm not sure why they changed it from previous iterations of SSB.

And yeah, the consistent performance of top screen KOs would have ensured that he lost, but that's really no more of a reason to be against the rule than it would be if KOs were always the other way with a small chance of being insta-KOed instead of star/screen KOed.

Either way, I think it's pointless to really discuss it further.

Has there been precedent for similar rules in the past? Yes. Have those rules required a third set of eyes on the screen to ensure fairness? Yes.

Are people eager to implement more rules like that? Maybe.

Are TOs eager to do so? They're really the only people who matter in this case so I guess it'd be nice if we could hear from some of them (if they even post here).

But people are going to complain regardless. Some of the best players in the world are currently calling for the banning of ALL customs, and some of the biggest tournaments now have customs enabled.

This is actually a VERY minor issue compared to the ****storm that may go down at Evo, heh...

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Instead of complaining that top-of-screen KOs result in a dice roll, why not avoid the dice roll entirely and try to kill off of different sides of the screen if you're so concerned? If you choose to roll the dice, then you ought to live with the consequences.

Also: Street Fighter IV has a similar issue where a player might successfully land an Ultra in the final seconds of the match, but the full damage won't be applied before the time expires due to how long the cinematics last, and the difference between the damage being cut short at time-over will sway the outcome of the match.

Marvel vs. Capcom 3, on the other hand, does allow all "capture state" moves (normal throws, level 3 hypers, etc.) to apply all of their damage even after time expires, as long as the move connected with the opponent while the match was still in progress.

The SF4 players don't complain about how time-overs unfairly screw them over or implement rules to override the result screen and make it act more like MvC3; they're just smart enough to use the final seconds acquiring damage through other means than to use a move that won't do enough damage in time.

I generally err on the side of "playing the game that you're given" over "playing the game that you wished you had" when possible, and especially in instances like this.

Are TOs eager to do so? They're really the only people who matter in this case so I guess it'd be nice if we could hear from some of them (if they even post here).

Well, I can tell you that a rule like this would only be implemented at our locals in Atlanta over my dead body.

 

[S_B]

The SF4 players don't complain about how time-overs unfairly screw them over or implement rules to override the result screen and make it act more like MvC3; they're just smart enough to use the final seconds acquiring damage through other means than to use a move that won't do enough damage in time.

Well, if it's consistent, they know they HAVE to do it before the timer runs out.

As for trying to KO off the sides, sure, in a perfect world but it's just not a reasonable option all the time, and it's not like players can decide how all of the hitboxes on their moves work. Many characters have moves that (often inexplicably) launch opponents upwards.

I mean, specifically playing to avoid star KOs would hamper more than not doing so. :\

I generally err on the side of "playing the game that you're given" over "playing the game that you wished you had" when possible, and especially in instances like this.

I truly do understand that, but some of the decisions that went into the design of SSB4 no doubt make many competitive players wince and this is one of them.

I'd love to see a "tournament mode" which disables all stage hazards and random KO styles for this reason alone.

Well, I can tell you that a rule like this would only be implemented at our locals in Atlanta over my dead body.

I did get the distinct impression that you weren't fond of the idea...

The other thing to consider here is that we already DO need to have a judge watching each screen. Otherwise, when a match goes to SD because it timed out, how do they know who had the % lead?

 

[Sixfortyfive]

In my rush to make my previous post, I actually forgot the most obvious issue with a rule like this: It inserts human error where there was none before.

Think about the edge cases for a rule like this: one player dies at the bottom of the screen at virtually the same time his opponent hits the top border of the screen, and nobody actually knows whether the player at the top is still in play (hasn't touched the blast zone yet) or whether he's sailed off into a star KO animation but simply hasn't fallen into view in the background yet. Let's say that this is either one frame before or one frame after the top player has hit the blast zone.

Really, which would you rather be at the mercy of in a situation like this? If your goal is to eliminate "randomness," then which of these is more problematic:

- a computer algorithm that you might not be able to influence in your favor 100% of the time, but can at least give you consistent odds once it's fully understood
- a referee who certainly is not capable of giving you a definitive answer on a frame-sensitive situation like this, and whose competency varies wildly from person to person and match to match

Think of every sporting event you've ever watched that was soured on a bad ref call. One of the greatest strengths of video games is that you just don't have to deal with crap like that. Why introduce it to Smash Bros in situations where there's literally no need for it?

The other thing to consider here is that we already DO need to have a judge watching each screen. Otherwise, when a match goes to SD because it timed out, how do they know who had the % lead?

Doesn't the replay save function make this simple enough to solve?

 

[S_B]

Think about the edge cases for a rule like this: one player dies at the bottom of the screen at virtually the same time his opponent hits the top border of the screen, and nobody actually knows whether the player at the top is still in play (hasn't touched the blast zone yet) or whether he's sailed off into a star KO animation but simply hasn't fallen into view in the background yet. Let's say that this is either one frame before or one frame after the top player has hit the blast zone.

I believe (and I'll need to double check) that once they've touched the blast zone and are being star KOed, their magnifying glass vanishes immediately.

But yeah, it could hypothetically be tricky if the person is flying upwards and you'd have to determine which frame they crossed the top border on as someone else fell off the bottom. Though, this circumstance would be even rarer than the one we're discussing...

Doesn't the replay save function make this simple enough to solve?

I mentioned this exact point earlier and someone (forget who) said, "What if one player mashes start to skip the replay save and both players claim to have not mashed start?"

Is that seriously a thing? Like, have we ever seen someone who's that much of a poor sport in any major tournament?

It could happen NOW, what with SD endings on timeout, but does it ever?

 

[90007000]

I agree. Animated deaths are useless.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

can literally determine who wins and who doesn't even though one of the players is guaranteed dead. That is stupid.

If you die between your opponent hitting the blastzone and the game being over, one of two things almost certainly happened:
1. You killed yourself, which I have no sympathy whatsoever for
2. You were also guaranteed dead. FOW was dead the moment he hit M2K. Should we institute a rule about being in specialfall under the ledge?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Dear recovering players: you deserve to die if you knowingly attempt an attack that takes your last jump.

Dear edge-guarding players: stop dying to the recovering player.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

If you die between your opponent hitting the blastzone and the game being over, one of two things almost certainly happened:
1. You killed yourself, which I have no sympathy whatsoever for
2. You were also guaranteed dead. FOW was dead the moment he hit M2K. Should we institute a rule about being in specialfall under the ledge?

1. No one intentionally kills themselves without the intent of sandbagging
2. Had M2k gone through the upwards blast zone and not gone into the Star KO animation, FOW would have won that match. Are you saying that M2K should have won regardless of what happened even though FOW was guaranteed dead? Trades happen all the time, whoever crosses the blast zone first should be considered the loser regardless of the extra few seconds it takes to "erase" the stock.

Lets assume in a rather common scenario that both characters are off stage and on their last stock. Instead of using a recovery, player one decides to throw out in aerial in hope that it will kill player two, but by throwing out this attack player one will be unable to recover due to the lag on his move. In this scenario, player one is guaranteed to die as he will not recover, but he could still win the match if player two hits the blast zone first (be it by stage spike, standard spike, or just enough knockback). Are you suggesting that player one should be the loser in this scenario because he was the one who was guaranteed to die originally? The little risks are what used to make people win matches, now it's just going against them.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

1. No one intentionally kills themselves without the intent of sandbagging

And yet there's a "top 10" video featuring a lot of people doing exactly that, very stupidly.

2. Had M2k gone through the upwards blast zone and not gone into the Star KO animation, FOW would have won that match. Are you saying that M2K should have won regardless of what happened even though FOW was guaranteed dead? Trades happen all the time, whoever crosses the blast zone first should be considered the loser regardless of the extra few seconds it takes to "erase" the stock.

Yes, but M2K didn't. And therefore the game didn't take his stock yet. Players who hit the upper blastzone are guaranteed dead. Players in specialfall below the ledge are guaranteed dead. The game doesn't end the stock immediately, but that doesn't change how dead they are.

Lets assume in a rather common scenario that both characters are off stage and on their last stock. Instead of using a recovery, player one decides to throw out in aerial in hope that it will kill player two, but by throwing out this attack player one will be unable to recover due to the lag on his move. In this scenario, player one is guaranteed to die as he will not recover, but he could still win the match if player two hits the blast zone first (be it by stage spike, standard spike, or just enough knockback). Are you suggesting that player one should be the loser in this scenario because he was the one who was guaranteed to die originally? The little risks are what used to make people win matches, now it's just going against them.

I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm merely suggesting we let the game decide who won. You know, because it's a video game with clearly defined win and lose conditions. Extra, extraneous rules because we don't like some element of the game are a bad idea. Extra extraneous, unenforceable rules because we don't like some element of the game are a really bad idea.

 

[S_B]

And yet there's a "top 10" video featuring a lot of people doing exactly that, very stupidly

Actually, FOW wasn't even trying to style in that video. He was trying to recover and M2K accidentally gimped him, and I say accidentally because I'm quite sure M2K wasn't hoping that he'd get star KOed and FOW would die because the odds are certainly against that.

Yes, but M2K didn't. And therefore the game didn't take his stock yet. Players who hit the upper blastzone are guaranteed dead. Players in specialfall below the ledge are guaranteed dead. The game doesn't end the stock immediately, but that doesn't change how dead they are

Thing is, yes, FOW in that situation was guaranteed dead, sure, but he hadn't actually HIT a blastzone yet. M2K had.Plus, had FOW's partner been alive, he could've poked Ness and given him another up+b, just like any other character in special fall.

But when someone gets star KOed, they've already left the game. They have HIT the blastzone, there is 100% no coming back from a star/screen KO. No one can poke them and give them another chance.

In this case, the player is DEFINITELY 100% GUARANTEED GONE, but the game RANDOMLY decides that they don't die for another 2-3 seconds.

FOW was the legitimate winner of the game because he fulfilled the necessary requirements for winning: get your opponent to the blastzone before he does the same to you, only the game arbitrarily decided to give M2K another 2-3 seconds.

Extra, extraneous rules because we don't like some element of the game are a bad idea. Extra extraneous, unenforceable rules because we don't like some element of the game are a really bad idea.

And yet, every single game in every single major tournament has these rules applied to it in the form of time out % lead, and as people have been eager to point out in this thread, we DO need a judge watching every single game because if the game goes to sudden death and both players claim they had the stock lead, no one would actually ever know (especially if one player mashed start through the replay which you can do after SD for some reason).

If we can enforce the % lead clause, we can certainly enforce this...

TBH, I agree that it's bad to pile on extra rules to the game, but the truth of the matter is that SSB is a party game that we're trying to turn into a competitive game, and to do that, we sometimes need to ignore what the winning screen says.

 

[LancerStaff]

And we still haven't bothered to test if how you die off the top is a consistent thing or not. If it is, then we don't need to keep debating over this stupid rule. If we can identify what makes you explode instead of a splat/star KO (since the last two take the same amount of time now) then this whole topic is meaningless.

It's worth noting that performing certain actions in Brawl would make you just explode, namely Zairs right as you pass the blastzone.

 

[S_B]

And we still haven't bothered to test if how you die off the top is a consistent thing or not. If it is, then we don't need to keep debating over this stupid rule. If we can identify what makes you explode instead of a splat/star KO (since the last two take the same amount of time now) then this whole topic is meaningless.

It's worth noting that performing certain actions in Brawl would make you just explode, namely Zairs right as you pass the blastzone.

I did some testing in training to see if velocity affected it, but I couldn't get anyone to star KO.

I agree that more testing would be ideal in this situation, but I don't think we're going to find a means of guaranteeing a star KO every time, though.

 

[LancerStaff]

I did some testing in training to see if velocity affected it, but I couldn't get anyone to star KO.

I agree that more testing would be ideal in this situation, but I don't think we're going to find a means of guaranteeing a star KO every time, though.

Was the CPU set to "stand" or "control?" CPUs set to stand can still DI and mess up KO%s and the like, and the angle probably has an effect.