Can we have a rule against animated deaths?

[S_B]

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.

I'd need another person to really test it, but I set damage to 999% and launched enemies off the top of the screen for 5 minutes straight or so, but I get the feeling that training mode doesn't do star KOs anyway since I never got one in all the time.

Another person could do things like try to Nair just before hitting the blast zone or something.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'd need another person to really test it, but I set damage to 999% and launched enemies off the top of the screen for 5 minutes straight or so, but I get the feeling that training mode doesn't do star KOs anyway since I never got one in all the time.

Another person could do things like try to Nair just before hitting the blast zone or something.

I've heard that star KOs are more likely as target velocity decreases. In other words, try killing at the bare minimum % necessary and see what happens.

 

[DavemanCozy]

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.

The game decided that Bowser won before the patch, no? What an odd thing patches are.

I'm not a big fan of the Apex ruleset, personally. I don't really care about the 2-stock thing that most people get their panties up in knots for, but I don't really like their stage list nor that clause either. I think that the game deciding who wins should be the standard. Obvious exception to the in-game sudden death.

 

[S_B]

The game decided that Bowser won before the patch, no? What an odd thing patches are..

Well, we're pretty damn sure this is what they were trying to fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

...Since that bug is a literal show-stopper but no one cares about Bowser losing when he should win.

And we KNOW he should win because A) the game shipped with him winning and B ) one of his specials is balanced around the opponent having all of the control in the flying slam, meaning that the move would be completely unusable if Bowser was always meant to die first and no one would ever choose it over the standard side-b.

 

[LancerStaff]

Well, we're pretty damn sure this is what they were trying to fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

...Since that bug is a literal show-stopper but no one cares about Bowser losing when he should win.

And we KNOW he should win because A) the game shipped with him winning and B ) one of his specials is balanced around the opponent having all of the control in the flying slam, meaning that the move would be completely unusable if Bowser was always meant to die first and no one would ever choose it over the standard side-b.

Unless they nerfed Bowser to nerf Bowser like people asked. They could of just made it so Flying Slam just wouldn't catch the Flying Man, but they instead nerfed Bowser.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Well, we're pretty damn sure this is what they were trying to fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llwSOCOhJ_8

...Since that bug is a literal show-stopper but no one cares about Bowser losing when he should win.

And we KNOW he should win because A) the game shipped with him winning and B ) one of his specials is balanced around the opponent having all of the control in the flying slam, meaning that the move would be completely unusable if Bowser was always meant to die first and no one would ever choose it over the standard side-b.

As stupid as that bug is, I thought it was also because with the Flying Fortress custom, Bowser could make it back to the stage if he was fast enough with the double jump after the opponent died.

 

[S_B]

Unless they nerfed Bowser to nerf Bowser like people asked. They could of just made it so Flying Slam just wouldn't catch the Flying Man, but they instead nerfed Bowser.

Like I said, it works differently on different stages, with no rhyme or reason.

And I'm guessing making Bowser die first was much, MUCH easier than making the flying man/nabbit ungrabbable in the game's logic.

And again, if they did that to balance Bowser, they completly, 100% ignored one of his custom moves because it's now entirely worthless. Why would Bowser want a move that, if he uses it while he and the enemy are on the same stock, hands them the win?

As stupid as that bug is, I thought it was also because with the Flying Fortress custom, Bowser could make it back to the stage if he was fast enough with the double jump after the opponent died.

Maybe?

I'm leaning toward it just being a quick fix to the glitch, because A) the flying fortress gimps the hell out of Bowser's punish game and has no hitbox and B ) D3 and Kirby can do things that grab enemies and carry them over the edge and then allow them to escape as well and that didn't get nerfed (they could've made it so anyone doing that would ALWAYS die by adding a ton of lag to the "break out" animation when it happens in the air, like D3 would be stunned for a whole second or two if someone mashes out when he's falling, guaranteeing he'll die).

In either case, we'll find out come the 15th because the Bowser boards are hopeful that this will get fixed back to the way it was where Bowser lives or at least dies 2nd so he cannot recover from it but would win if he takes someone over the edge on the last stock.

We're kinda getting off topic here, though...

 

[Shaya]

You're continuing to argue situations which the game decides the winner for us, for the sake of saying that it wasn't intended or it isn't fair?

Bowser had his side-b nerfed for the purpose of ending games with it. You can't say "we know he should win". Actually we know specifically he shouldn't win. If it was a temporary bug fix, it'll be reverted in some way.
You're also frequently reading what you want to read when you reply to people rather than what they're saying.

 

[S_B]

You're continuing to argue situations which the game decides the winner for us, for the sake of saying that it wasn't intended or it isn't fair?

I'm pointing out that we already have situations in which we ignore the winning screen, situations that ALREADY require a judge be watching every TV, and raising the question of why should we be treating this situation any differently.

If it was a temporary bug fix, it'll be reverted in some way

And the Bowser boards are hopeful that it will, come the 15th.

Right now, we're analyzing the aerial mobility of the move and we're coming to the conclusion that it almost ALWAYS favors the victim in terms of who gets more mobility. That being the case, the move is balanced around Bowser WANTING to take people over the edge, not around Bowser being afraid to use it because his opponent can so easily use it to kill him.

I'm also double-checking on dash slam, because I had heard someone say that it makes it harder to Bowsercide but I want to confirm that.

EDIT: Dash slam stats are in the OP in that post and give a LOT more control to the opponent, meaning that the move is a gigantic liability and no one in their right mind would ever use it if Bowser dies first on death, further evidence that the move was never intended to function this way.

You're also frequently reading what you want to read when you reply to people rather than what they're saying.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you cite me an example?

 

[LancerStaff]

EDIT: Dash slam stats are in the OP in that post and give a LOT more control to the opponent, meaning that the move is a gigantic liability and no one in their right mind would ever use it if Bowser dies first on death, further evidence that the move was never intended to function this way.

Because every custom move is balanced and usable, right?

 

[S_B]

Because every custom move is balanced and usable, right?

Point me to a custom move where using it basically guarantees that you will die and your opponent will win.

There's a colossal difference between "not worth using" and "landing the move literally allows your opponent to kill you".

And if you want to discuss this further, there's already a thread for it. This one has been derailed enough...

 

[LancerStaff]

Point me to a custom move where using it basically guarantees that you will die and your opponent will win.

There's a colossal difference between "not worth using" and "landing the move literally allows your opponent to kill you".

And if you want to discuss this further, there's already a thread for it. This one has been derailed enough...

Spinphony if Jigglypuff is at like 30% or higher. Or Swordfighter's one Fspecial that you're supposed to use to recover but you'll just keep going and slide off the stage and go into helplessness and die if you're opponent doesn't do anything. Could probably find more.

Customs have **** balance.

 

[S_B]

Spinphony if Jigglypuff is at like 30% or higher. Or Swordfighter's one Fspecial that you're supposed to use to recover but you'll just keep going and slide off the stage and go into helplessness and die if you're opponent doesn't do anything. Could probably find more.

Customs have **** balance.

We have STANDARD moves that do that, mainly in Ganodorf and Falcon's side+B's and JPs roll out can get her killed if she doesn't use it over a platform.

But you're not appreciating the difference, here: there is NO move in this game where, when you use it on the same stock as your opponent and land...it...successfully you've just cost yourself the game.

What move does your opponent HOPE you use on them while they stand there and let it hit them, because they know you've just lost as a result of using it?

 

[KFrosty]

I think they need to definitely patch it so that on the last stock, there are no star KOs. Similar to how they did it with the timed matches. No need for this nonsense where someone else shoud've won, but didn't. There should be nothing set to chance if the players are playing in a tournament setting.

 

[deepseadiva]

And we KNOW he should win because A) the game shipped with him winning

Interesting how you want to refer to the game when Bowser is declared the winner, but suddenly we refer to outside rulings when that is changed and Bowser is declared the loser.

 

[S_B]

Interesting how you want to refer to the game when Bowser is declared the winner, but suddenly we refer to outside rulings when that is changed and Bowser is declared the loser.

...because:

1. We've seen the glitch that created this bug when it was patched out

2. Bowser dies first on some stages and takes the game to sudden death on others, further corroborating the fact that this is an unintentional bug and not a deliberate change by Sakurai.

We've tread this road before, and it's frankly a horse that's been beaten into a grease stain. Do we also have to start talking about the suicide clause again? The SD clause? About how SSB's QA is legendarily bad?

About how these rules came into existence because the competitive community ACKNOWLEDGED the fact that SSB is a party game first and foremost and we're trying to adapt it into a competitive game?

It's all in the other thread, which is where this discussion should be happening anyway...

 

[Gotmilk0112]

Results screen > all.

I really don't understand this mentality.

A "star KO" is still a KO. Why exactly is it wrong or bad to count it as a KO right when the animation starts, instead of when it finishes? It should count as a KO right when the animation starts.

I see people here comparing it to other "random" things, but it's just not the same in my eyes. A counter not hitting is not "random" in the same way that Star KO is. Judgement is not "random" in the same way as Star KO is.

I think they need to definitely patch it so that on the last stock, there are no star KOs. Similar to how they did it with the timed matches. No need for this nonsense where someone else shoud've won, but didn't. There should be nothing set to chance if the players are playing in a tournament setting.

Or just do this. Seems like a reasonable and easy-to-implement idea.

 

[S_B]

I really don't understand this mentality.

I don't, either.

Saying "results screen > all" is like saying, "We're all vegetarians." while we're at an all-you-can-eat BBQ buffet, stuffing our faces with honey-glazed ribs.

The SD clause has been around for ages and SD clause > results screen, and in Brawl, the suicide clause > results screen.

I'm not sure "results screen" has ever > "all"...

 

[deepseadiva]

It's all in the other thread, which is where this discussion should be happening anyway...

All the terrible rules can be shutdown in the same thread IMO. They all have the same faulty reasoning anyway

 

[S_B]

All the terrible rules can be shutdown in the same thread IMO. They all have the same faulty reasoning anyway

Remind me if I'm forgetting any.

Argument 1: "Results screen > all!"

Counterpoint: The results screen has likely never been guaranteed to dictate the winner of the game in any major tournaments, even going as far back as SSB64, or at least once we decided "degenerate gameplay" was a bad idea for the competitive scene.

In the event of the game going to time and players having equal stocks, the winner is declared by the judges to be the player with the lower % when the game ends, thus circumventing the results screen.

Argument 2: "We'd need a judge on every screen to determine this!!!"

Counterpoint: We already need a judge on every screen, thanks to the SD clause.

Argument 3: "We should let the game decide! If you lose the coinflip and your opponent gets star-KOed, tough luck!"

Counterpoint: The competitive scene has done everything it can in an effort to remove degenerate gameplay from the game. If the game does not behave in a consistent fashion, a rule has always been created in the past to remove the game's ability to randomly influence the outcome of games that are beyond the players' control.

For example, when a game goes to SD due to timeout, we do not allow the victor to be decided by who gets KOed by a bobomb first because it would be allowing the entire outcome of the game to be decided by one random event and this isn't Mario Party.

Argument 4: "It's impossible to tell exactly who died first!"

Counterpoint: It's perfectly possible: when a player has been KOed off the top of the screen and has begun their death animation, their magnifying glass vanishes, meaning they have hit the KO wall and would have been immediately killed, if not for the ~5% chance that they will take an extra 2-3 seconds to be KOed.

Argument 5: "There are other random elements in the game! What about G&W's 'judge' or tripping when you're hit?"

Counterpoint: These are mechanics that players have direct control over, and they feature a "risk vs. reward" element. Unlike star/screen KOs which players have no control over and occur randomly beyond the influence of player input (that we know of thus far).

Argument 6: "If you don't want to risk star KOing your opponent, hit them off the side/bottom of the screen!"

Counterpoint: By general rule of thumb, the competitive scene does not embrace mechanics players would be better off ignoring that could still damage their chances of winning. For example, actively trying to avoid KOing enemies off the top would be tournament suicide, yet the game can still arbitrarily punish you for doing so.

Argument 7: "_______ is a pro player and _____ disagrees with this rule!"

Counterpoint: We just had a massive, unwarranted saltstorm from a number of top players who flew off the handle about customs, yet Evo is still going to run them.

Given history and precedent, it's more unusual that there ISN'T a rule to cover this situation than there being a rule...

If someone can present a solid argument as to why we should never have a rule like this, I'll listen, but I've just not (yet) seen any argument made that isn't easily countered by one of the above points.

 

[LancerStaff]

We have STANDARD moves that do that, mainly in Ganodorf and Falcon's side+B's and JPs roll out can get her killed if she doesn't use it over a platform.

But you're not appreciating the difference, here: there is NO move in this game where, when you use it on the same stock as your opponent and land...it...successfully you've just cost yourself the game.

What move does your opponent HOPE you use on them while they stand there and let it hit them, because they know you've just lost as a result of using it?

Claiming rollout is broken just because you used it in a bad spot and died can apply to virtually every special, customs included. Actually, I can't think of a special that can't be used five pixels away from the blastline and still die...

Swordfighter's wonky recovery move is just as dependent on your opponent as Dash Slam is. Only difference is that your opponent just has to do nothing for it to fail, which is arguably worse then an actual response like with Dash Slam.

 

[S_B]

Swordfighter's wonky recovery move is just as dependent on your opponent as Dash Slam is. Only difference is that your opponent just has to do nothing for it to fail, which is arguably worse then an actual response like with Dash Slam.

Which recovery move are you referring to?

I still don't think you're really getting the gist of this, here...

Bowser's dash slam punishes you for using it CORRECTLY because of the way the current buggy mechanics work. Under the circumstances when the game first shipped, everything about the move made sense. It was a sidegrade in that:

1. It deals less damage than regular klaw (12% as opposed to 18%)
2. It's easier to land, due to Bowser lunging forward when he uses it
3. More control is given to the victim, making it much harder for Bowser to use it to carry enemies off the stage and kill them
4. It's trajectory is more horizontal than vertical when the opponent is launched at the end

Under the original ruleset it's a sidegrade because, although the move allowed the opponent to better steer it, they would NEVER intentionally use it to steer Bowser and themselves OFF the stage. Under the current circumstances, using it is literally suicide.

Again, there are plenty of moves that players can use to kill themselves if they're used incorrectly. Shiek's bouncing fish can accidentally send Shiek across the side KO wall and kill her if used incorrectly. An opponent could even airdodge it and CAUSE Shiek to hit the KO wall where she would've otherwise not had she hit her opponent, but that's not what we're talking about, here.

In order for the analogy to mirror Bowser's situation, Sheik would have to LAND the bouncing fish hit, effectively playing the game well, and in reward for landing the hit, she dies.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

 

[LancerStaff]

Which recovery move are you referring to?

I still don't think you're really getting the gist of this, here...

Bowser's dash slam punishes you for using it CORRECTLY because of the way the current buggy mechanics work. Under the circumstances when the game first shipped, everything about the move made sense. It was a sidegrade in that:

1. It deals less damage than regular klaw (12% as opposed to 18%)
2. It's easier to land, due to Bowser lunging forward when he uses it
3. More control is given to the victim, making it much harder for Bowser to use it to carry enemies off the stage and kill them
4. It's trajectory is more horizontal than vertical when the opponent is launched at the end

Under the original ruleset it's a sidegrade because, although the move allowed the opponent to better steer it, they would NEVER intentionally use it to steer Bowser and themselves OFF the stage. Under the current circumstances, using it is literally suicide.

Again, there are plenty of moves that players can use to kill themselves if they're used incorrectly. Shiek's bouncing fish can accidentally send Shiek across the side KO wall and kill her if used incorrectly. An opponent could even airdodge it and CAUSE Shiek to hit the KO wall where she would've otherwise not had she hit her opponent, but that's not what we're talking about, here.

In order for the analogy to mirror Bowser's situation, Sheik would have to LAND the bouncing fish hit, effectively playing the game well, and in reward for landing the hit, she dies.

Do you see what I'm saying now?

I believe it to be Slash Launcher. Away from SSB so I can't tell for sure.

And I'm pretty darned sure Spinphony can be punished after a successful hit almost every single time.

Dash Slam still has a few uses outside of that one situation anyway, such as recovery and when you're ahead. Spinphony is a turd in every situation ever, and you don't see people asking for a special scrub rule.

 

[AKC12]

Here's a perfect example that shows you can distinguish who hits the ceiling KO plane first. You may need to view the replay if it is close, but it is way more important to make sure that the right player wins.

https://youtu.be/DGUkmReJNXA?t=16m8s

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I really don't understand this mentality.

A "star KO" is still a KO. Why exactly is it wrong or bad to count it as a KO right when the animation starts, instead of when it finishes? It should count as a KO right when the animation starts.

Because the game doesn't count it as a KO until you die.

You know, this was never an issue in any of the previous games. At all. You know why? Because we all understood that you didn't die the moment you hit the blastzone. Now sometimes you do. Oh well, so what?

 

[S_B]

Here's a perfect example that shows you can distinguish who hits the ceiling KO plane first. You may need to view the replay if it is close, but it is way more important to make sure that the right player wins.

https://youtu.be/DGUkmReJNXA?t=16m8s

Yup, Shulk definitely died first as his magnifying glass vanished long before Diddy's did.

Also, he was at 181% so it stands to reason he'd make it there first.

and you don't see people asking for a special scrub rule.

Probably because JP is not literally committing suicide when she uses the move.

But fine, if you're going to insist that customs are garbage, ignore customs completely and look at the default moves.

Bowser and Ganondorf both have suicide moves that fit their characters: they're mean villains, that's their deal.

In order to use his, Ganondorf needs to catch a player with it while over the edge of the stage. The result is that he wins on last stock because he's HOLDING his opponent below him to ensure they hit the blastzone first. What a meanie!

In order for Bowser to use his... (from the thread I quoted above, since I'm sure no one actually looked at it anyway...)

These results are when Bowser is trying to move in the direction he was facing when he got the grab, whether it is left or right.

When Bowser has 80% more damage than the victim, his inputs seem to have no impact at all.
When Bowser has 30% more damage than the victim, Bowser will lose about half of his control.
When both characters have the same percentage, Bowser will lose about 10% of his control.
When the victim has 10% more damage than Bowser, they will land straight down.
When the victim has 60% more damage than Bowser, they will lose about half of their control
When the victim has 100% more damage than Bowser, their inputs seem to have no impact at all

Bowser is facing away from his intended direction: These results are when Bowser is trying to move in the direction he was not facing when he got the grab.

When Bowser has 70% more damage than the victim, his inputs seem to have no impact at all.
When Bowser has 20% more damage than the victim, he loses half of his control
When both characters have the same percentage, Bowser will lose about 20% of his control.
When the victim has 50% more damage than Bowser, they will land straight down.
When the victim has 80% more damage than Bowser, they will lose about half of their control.
When the victim has 120% more damage than Bowser, their inputs seem to have no impact at all.

TL;DR: Bowser has to have a 100%-120% lead on the victim before he can take them over the edge with 0 resistance.

Now, Bowser is the heaviest character in the game, one that was undoubtedly intended to have a lot of damage racked up on him before being KOed. He was EXPECTED to take a lot of damage and be comboed a great deal (and boy, is he ever!). Thus, he's balanced around the idea that he will kill his opponent at lower percents while they have him at higher percents.

Ergo, this move is designed in such a way that it is INCREDIBLY HARD for Bowser to take someone off of the ledge with him. Now, WHY would they make it INCREDIBLY HARD for Bowser to take someone off the ledge if it's something Bowser didn't WANT to do?

Furthermore, why does Bowser die first on some stages and the game goes to SD on others? Still waiting for someone to solve that riddle...

You know, this was never an issue in any of the previous games. At all. You know why? Because we all understood that you didn't die the moment you hit the blastzone. Now sometimes you do. Oh well, so what?

As competitive players, we DEMAND consistent behavior from game elements. We send our opponents to the blast zones as per the game's requirement for us to defeat them. The rest is up to the game to behave consistently.

In EVERY past iteration of SSB, someone hitting the upper blast zone would ALWAYS be sent over the top or screen KOed. It was consistent.

I have no idea what Sakurai smoked the day he decided to make this random (probably whatever prevents him from aging), but the fact that it's random like this means that we either make a rule about it or we're letting a single RNG decide the outcome of entire matches.

I personally wouldn't want to see that in my tournament but it's obviously up to TOs how they want to handle theirs...

 

[NickRiddle]

That awkward moment where there was never a ruling in Brawl where hitting the screen took less time than a normal star-KO.

 

[S_B]

That awkward moment where there was never a ruling in Brawl where hitting the screen took less time than a normal star-KO.

Finally someone making a decent point...

What was the time difference between the two?

I think the issue is that star/screen KOs each take 2-3 seconds longer to kill the player whereas the norm is for the death to be instantaneous.

I mean, I'm usually not one to root for a Diddy player, but Diddy got ROBBED here: https://youtu.be/DGUkmReJNXA?t=16m8s

Ugh, why did Sakurai have to go and randomize this, and after we had just gotten rid of tripping....

In the end, I would still go by whoever's magnifying glass disappeared first.

Your magnifying glass vanishes = you have hit the KO wall and are officially dead.

 

[NickRiddle]

Hitting the screen took a couple of seconds less. If you hit the screen while both of you died off the top, you lost.

 

[Hippieslayer]

lets not remove what is in effect a rare trip effect á brawl which decides games but lets remove customs cause they borke az ***, just checking in

In any case I can understand not removing this for practical reasons (the game decides for us is and has always been a bs argument however), but man the whole thing is so dumb, its like Hello Nintendo? Do you think people will like this randomness deciding games like ever? It doesnt really matter if you are playing it casual or competitively, no one likes this **** who came up with it to begin with?