Can we have a serious discussion on Suicide Moves?

[1FC0]

This rule doesn't apply to Bowser.

I know but many people want it to.

 

[anikom15]

I know but many people want it to.

The fact that Ganondorf is included tells me that they had no idea what they were doing when they were making the rules for Smash 4.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The fact that Ganondorf is included tells me that they had no idea what they were doing when they were making the rules for Smash 4.

I thought that was sort of a given by now. Goodness knows the Apex rules have become a punchline all their own nowadays.

 

[T0MMY]

Out of game rules do not get implemented until necessitated (there are strict criteria to be met).

Let the game decide the winner, none of these out-of-game rules are necessary. Arbitrary decisions on who wins or loses will always create one player feeling they had an illegitimate loss.
I suppose the real question is about when Sudden Death occurs due to a tie and every time I find myself asking why it is impossible to reasonably condemn Sudden Death as non-competitive. I can't find a way to do it.
There are other options to use rather than playing out Sudden Death, but none are as strong (none of them can determine a clear winner in every situation like Sudden Death can). It's quite gripping.

 

[deepseadiva]

There are other options to use rather than playing out Sudden Death, but none are as strong (none of them can determine a clear winner in every situation like Sudden Death can). It's quite gripping.

I like the speed of Sudden Death too. And honestly it's really fun.

But a 15 second timer, until someone is randomly chosen to be closer to a bomb spawn is not acceptable.

Basically anything is better than that.

 

[anikom15]

I've always felt percentages to not be completely fair. I'd rather tiebreakers be 1 stock, no time limit match if the game is a deciding game (i.e. game 3).

 

[popsofctown]

I've always felt percentages to not be completely fair. I'd rather tiebreakers be 1 stock, no time limit match if the game is a deciding game (i.e. game 3).

If no time limit matches were feasible for tournament play, we'd use them for all games, not just tiebreakers. The time limit isn't there to create a specific mode of play, it's a necessary evil to make sure tournaments finish on time and resolve slow matchups.

 

[anikom15]

If no time limit matches were feasible for tournament play, we'd use them for all games, not just tiebreakers. The time limit isn't there to create a specific mode of play, it's a necessary evil to make sure tournaments finish on time and resolve slow matchups.

Timing out is fine and can be a good strategy when you have stocks ahead. The idea for a no time limit for tiebreakers is to minimize the chance of getting a tie in a tiebreaker.

 

[T0MMY]

I like the speed of Sudden Death too. And honestly it's really fun.

But a 15 second timer, until someone is randomly chosen to be closer to a bomb spawn is not acceptable.

Basically anything is better than that.

Actually, I disagree. Not anything is better than that. A ruling that cannot reasonably determine a winner is definitely not better than the game's actual design of determining a tie.
The current common ruling is actually a logistical nightmare because %-based wins both do not accurately judge a true winner (Smash's game design can have a stock loss at any percent from 0-999%) AND cannot determine a winner in all cases (Double-KO's, stalling tactics due to %, and the mess that has been suicide rulings).

Not only does the gameplay pick up when the threat of Sudden Death looms but on the rare chance that the game goes to Sudden Death nearly every instance of the event resolves through a player (skillfully) outplaying their opponent through an offense/response test which is exactly what Smash tournaments is about.
In the case that nobody could score the final KO in the next-hit-KO setting and bombs drop it is actually a final test of skill - NOT random chance.
The bombs actually spawn in a very determined area and is based on player damage %. Additionally when they spawn it is well within reaction time, many people have played side games with these bombs to see who can grab them out of the air and throw them at their opponent best. If the spawn-to-collision time is within the same time frame of most attacks then there is no reason behind saying bob-omb spawns are "random".
And finally, the reason of "random" is actually not reason for a ban or else by that reasoning we would have to ban G&W Judgement, Peach veggie pull, the option to choose a random stage or character, and many stages that could be argued as "random" (like Fountain of Dreams).
This all looks to be a reductio ad absurdum and therefor I couldn't support a stance against Sudden Death.

However, there are still very obvious reasons why %-based rulings should NOT be used to determine a winner in competitions. Playing out Sudden Death to bring in the hype doesn't even need to be one of them, but it is a respectable opinion to have (I share the opinion it's fun to watch).

 

[deepseadiva]

An acceptable hierarchy of win conditions for tie breaking should be:

1. stocks
2. percentage
3. who's birthday is closest to today
4. who has more twitter followers
5. who can taunt three times first
6. bomb omb mini game coin flip

Not:

1. stocks
2. bomb omb mini game coin flip

 

[popsofctown]

Timing out is fine and can be a good strategy when you have stocks ahead. The idea for a no time limit for tiebreakers is to minimize the chance of getting a tie in a tiebreaker.

It's smart to choose one's battles. I don't choose this one.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

It's smart to choose one's battles. I don't choose this one.

Valid point. What to do in the general event of sudden death is so far down on my internal list of "things I care about right now" that it basically doesn't register. As long as it's not literally random (as in the players flip a coin or play RPS or something) then I can work with it.

 

[1FC0]

The bombs actually spawn in a very determined area and is based on player damage %. Additionally when they spawn it is well within reaction time, many people have played side games with these bombs to see who can grab them out of the air and throw them at their opponent best. If the spawn-to-collision time is within the same time frame of most attacks then there is no reason behind saying bob-omb spawns are "random".

How do you know how that they spawn? If you read it somewhere could you link me to it since I am pretty interested in knowing the details.

 

[anikom15]

Actually, I disagree. Not anything is better than that. A ruling that cannot reasonably determine a winner is definitely not better than the game's actual design of determining a tie.
The current common ruling is actually a logistical nightmare because %-based wins both do not accurately judge a true winner (Smash's game design can have a stock loss at any percent from 0-999%) AND cannot determine a winner in all cases (Double-KO's, stalling tactics due to %, and the mess that has been suicide rulings).

Not only does the gameplay pick up when the threat of Sudden Death looms but on the rare chance that the game goes to Sudden Death nearly every instance of the event resolves through a player (skillfully) outplaying their opponent through an offense/response test which is exactly what Smash tournaments is about.
In the case that nobody could score the final KO in the next-hit-KO setting and bombs drop it is actually a final test of skill - NOT random chance.
The bombs actually spawn in a very determined area and is based on player damage %. Additionally when they spawn it is well within reaction time, many people have played side games with these bombs to see who can grab them out of the air and throw them at their opponent best. If the spawn-to-collision time is within the same time frame of most attacks then there is no reason behind saying bob-omb spawns are "random".
And finally, the reason of "random" is actually not reason for a ban or else by that reasoning we would have to ban G&W Judgement, Peach veggie pull, the option to choose a random stage or character, and many stages that could be argued as "random" (like Fountain of Dreams).
This all looks to be a reductio ad absurdum and therefor I couldn't support a stance against Sudden Death.

However, there are still very obvious reasons why %-based rulings should NOT be used to determine a winner in competitions. Playing out Sudden Death to bring in the hype doesn't even need to be one of them, but it is a respectable opinion to have (I share the opinion it's fun to watch).

This is a well thought out post, but the primary problem with bob-ombs is that a bob-omb falling on my opponent's head does not feel like a win.

 

[popsofctown]

@ ParanoidDrone : I actually just meant that particular line of discussion with that particular poster. Stage legalities and procedures and custom move legalities and procedures do eclipse the importance of this issue, but I have a low sense of efficacy for all of them so I'm willing to burn more time here.


Sudden Death is a poor tiebreaker not because it fails to test any skills, but because it doesn't test skills pertinent to the competition for which it is designed to break ties. Chess ties are resolved by playing more chess until a player wins the set. Close tennis games are finished by playing more tennis. This solution fosters a better competitive environment because the practice strategy is singular, instead of being split among the two skills. Players have more consistent outcomes when they both have a high amount of skill in the event they are competing with, or at the very least they have a better time. A 1 stock rematch of an obscure anime fighter wouldn't be as satisfying as a one stock rematch of the smash game you were playing.

Sudden Death is vastly different from the standard game. If you programmed an A.I. (with or without a human reaction time restriction, which Ninty ought to have done for lv9s btw) to fight stock matches and a different one to fight Sudden Death's, you'd hardly be able to reuse any lines of code. Fullhop, what's that? I can't perfect shield bob-ombs while doing that. Why would I ever jab, he's at kill % already.

Rematches should always be as close to the original game as possible. This game actually doesn't need any rematches though, except for % ties. If you feel like you have enough time to resolve timeouts by 1 stock rematch instead of least % wins, then instead invest that time in allowing Bo5's before L/Winner's Finals/ Grand Finals, enhanced strategic stage picking procedures that consume more time, or whatever else you can think of, they will use that time and go even further towards giving you more accurate results about who deserves to win the tournament. Timing someone out doesn't entitle your set to deserve more time for accurately determining its winner. Getting to Loser's Semifinals does entitle you to that moreso.

 

[anikom15]

@ ParanoidDrone : I actually just meant that particular line of discussion with that particular poster. Stage legalities and procedures and custom move legalities and procedures do eclipse the importance of this issue, but I have a low sense of efficacy for all of them so I'm willing to burn more time here.


Sudden Death is a poor tiebreaker not because it fails to test any skills, but because it doesn't test skills pertinent to the competition for which it is designed to break ties. Chess ties are resolved by playing more chess until a player wins the set. Close tennis games are finished by playing more tennis. This solution fosters a better competitive environment because the practice strategy is singular, instead of being split among the two skills. Players have more consistent outcomes when they both have a high amount of skill in the event they are competing with, or at the very least they have a better time. A 1 stock rematch of an obscure anime fighter wouldn't be as satisfying as a one stock rematch of the smash game you were playing.

Sudden Death is vastly different from the standard game. If you programmed an A.I. (with or without a human reaction time restriction, which Ninty ought to have done for lv9s btw) to fight stock matches and a different one to fight Sudden Death's, you'd hardly be able to reuse any lines of code. Fullhop, what's that? I can't perfect shield bob-ombs while doing that. Why would I ever jab, he's at kill % already.

Rematches should always be as close to the original game as possible. This game actually doesn't need any rematches though, except for % ties. If you feel like you have enough time to resolve timeouts by 1 stock rematch instead of least % wins, then instead invest that time in allowing Bo5's before L/Winner's Finals/ Grand Finals, enhanced strategic stage picking procedures that consume more time, or whatever else you can think of, they will use that time and go even further towards giving you more accurate results about who deserves to win the tournament. Timing someone out doesn't entitle your set to deserve more time for accurately determining its winner. Getting to Loser's Semifinals does entitle you to that moreso.

These things don't break ties though. I believe percentage comparisons are not acceptable. They are arbitrary, perhaps complete nonsense. How would you break ties? A whole match? A whole set? The tennis system where you have to 'score' twice in a row?

In sports that have a sort of overtime, the game is slightly different. I think this is comparable to the slight difference of an untimed one-stock match vs. a timed two-stock match.

 

[T0MMY]

How do you know how that they spawn? If you read it somewhere could you link me to it since I am pretty interested in knowing the details.

Wish I could, but I've been looking at how to handle ties/stalemate for a long time and I'm not sure where all the info I've read over the years is actually located.
However the best evidence is repeatable evidence you can do with your very own copy of Smash. Just choose whichever game you'd like and take it to Sudden Death and you can see for yourself the bobombs will only spawn in specific areas at the exact same time. I believe it's only about 15 seconds that the players are given to be able to take out their opponent and if they fail at that then the bombs will spawn to keep a stalemate situation from occurring.

This is a well thought out post, but the primary problem with bob-ombs is that a bob-omb falling on my opponent's head does not feel like a win.

I present to you two opportunities to contrast with your argument of feeling.

First is that the common arbitrary %-based ruling can be just as unfulfilling or less so when your opponent loses despite the game stating otherwise (not due to your skill, but due to a random rule). So it would appear to be a catch-22 to feel cheated out of win for one and not the other.

Second (and a little deeper here) is that bob-ombs only drop after TWO tests have failed to determine a winner (the initial round of competition and then the first stage of Sudden Death which has no bombs). At this point it is a reasonable stalemate situation and there cannot be a determined winner. To keep this from happening a final test of skill will happen which is a test of reflexes (movement, defense, and other options the player has) all while a final-hit situation still plays out. Although you may not feel it is your skill that wins out, but it is no different than your opponent SD'ing at 0% due to their lack of skill being tested while you survived.
It would appear that you shouldn't feel cheated from this win due to you actually winning out from outplaying your competitor.

If it still seems like either way you would be left with an "empty win" at least the benefit of Sudden Death is that both you and your opponent should be happy you have a last-chance redemption to get that KO in Sudden Death rather than conclude an empty victory on such a low note (arbitrary decision).

If you could now compare these two options I provided with your primary problem of feeling like it wasn't a deserved win and realize that feelings are not universal then see what is universal is adhering to the standard play of competition so that competitors can feel secure they are both being given that much respect.

 

[anikom15]

Feelings are very important when humans are involved. If people don't feel like something is fair, they won't want to take part of it.

 

[Pazx]

If Bowser Bowsercides in Sudden Death I think he's awarded the win (someone check pls I know there's a result one way or the other) so perhaps 1 stock 3 minute rematch in the case of sudden death is the best choice, and if it happens again THEN we use something more arbitrary like initiator loses/%.

 

[popsofctown]

If Bowser Bowsercides in Sudden Death I think he's awarded the win (someone check pls I know there's a result one way or the other) so perhaps 1 stock 3 minute rematch in the case of sudden death is the best choice, and if it happens again THEN we use something more arbitrary like initiator loses/%.

Why don't you do 1 stock rematch for timeout wins? % wins is equally arbitrary in those cases.

 

[bpjk27]

Why don't you do 1 stock rematch for timeout wins? % wins is equally arbitrary in those cases.

And what if the rematch goes to time?

 

[Deleted member]

Not familiar with the competitive scene, but I suppose I'm not really seeing the issue of that Bowser wins in a tournament following something I have in mind. From reading this thread, some characters can survive Bowsercide, which to me, leads me to believe for example, that they would indeed win the match in an obvious way as it wouldn't lead to Sudden Death.

There is also the other suicide mechanics like Kirby, where one direction can either mean Sudden Death or that Kirby loses, it is easily discernible that if it leads to Sudden Death via these means that the initiator of the suicide mechanic is the reason this happened, even if the other person broke out at the last second, it wasn't enough to escape said suicide move and thus the initiator won the match since it went to Sudden Death.

If Kirby does it in the wrong direction, it is easily discernible that Kirby lost because the other person will still be alive at the end of the match.

 

[popsofctown]

And what if the rematch goes to time?

The Bowsercide rematch can go to time too.

 

[anikom15]

And what if the rematch goes to time?

Don't have a timer?

 

[Pazx]

Don't have a timer?

We have to have a timer. In Smash 64 (which doesn't have a timer) games have literally gone for hours.

 

[anikom15]

We have to have a timer. In Smash 64 (which doesn't have a timer) games have literally gone for hours.

Well, if you have a timer than you can get infinite ties. That's just how it is.

 

[cot(θ)]

A one-stock rematch solves nothing.

The reason we have a timer is to impose a strict limit on the amount of time a game can take. If you have 1-stock rematches, you're basically increasing that limit by whatever the timer is in the rematch (which absolutely needs to have a timer). It's basically the same as if you increased the timer by 3 minutes, except now the person who at a disadvantage (like being pressured, edgeguarded, or on his way to a star KO) gets his disadvantage wiped out 3 minutes before the timer runs out. Seriously, WTF? The only way it's at all fair is if the characters are at the same percentage, AND a percentage is equally valuable for both characters, AND the game is in Neutral.

 

[B!squick]

As a Bowser main I'd be happiest just having custom moves on and using Dash Slash over a possible Koopanasia (pronounced as a play on euthanasia if you're having trouble with that; Bowsercide doesn't seem appropriate anymore).

 

[Mr_Kristopher]

Isn't Ganonside an exception? I could have sworn that Ganonside has Ganondorf win the match.

</not a ganon main>

Yes using Ganon's sideicide does give him the win. (I do main Ganon)

 

[wizrad]

Here's a trivial idea: in the case of sudden death, both players are awarded a victory. It might already be in this thread somewhere, and I haven't really thought about it much, but how do y'all think it would fare?

Also, who are the offenders here? Which suicides go to sudden death? Dedede, Kirby, and Bowser? What about Wario? Charizard's up-throw on moving platforms? Doesn't MK have a similar throw? Do Kirby's throws suicide on moving platforms? This is a very strange and complex area of the game.

 

[MarioMeteor]

This seems like a very unnecessary change to make. If you actually get Inhaled offstage, you either deserve your loss, or your opponent deserves the victory. There is a reason to ignore the game, that reason simply being that the game's rule is stupid.

 

[SteadyDisciple]

On topic, I believe that going with what the game says about suicides and how each counts on the results screen really seems like the way to go. Doing otherwise now that there's nothing like port priority going on just seems like the most logical choice.

Slightly off topic, in the event of a tie I can see why people would dislike the RNG of Sudden Death bombs. However, if the bombs are people's primary complaint about Sudden Death, I may have a solution. Bear in mind that I am by no means a competitive player, so if there are any glaring flaws with this idea please feel free to point them out.

From the character select screen it is very easy to go in and turn on the "handicap" mode. By doing this, it is possible to set both/all players to start at 300% (the same as sudden death mode), but without bombs ever spawning. I would put forward that doing a single stock match starting at 300% would be as close as we can get to a Sudden Death style match without the lucky elements involved.

 

[FallenHero]

I think that the results screen should always decide the winner, though it won't stop me from feeling that the person who killed with the suicide move should have won. The only exception I would want for this rule would be if someone gets a star KO and dies from going into free-fall, because it was not in the player's control that the game would randomly decide to make it a star KO instead of a regular KO from the top. If the player loses by doing a suicide move, too bad, you should have known that you would have died first even though IMO you should not die first from a suicide move.

 

[Charey]

Here's a trivial idea: in the case of sudden death, both players are awarded a victory. It might already be in this thread somewhere, and I haven't really thought about it much, but how do y'all think it would fare?

Also, who are the offenders here? Which suicides go to sudden death? Dedede, Kirby, and Bowser? What about Wario? Charizard's up-throw on moving platforms? Doesn't MK have a similar throw? Do Kirby's throws suicide on moving platforms? This is a very strange and complex area of the game.

Charizard, Kirby and MK cannot suicide with up throw, if the platform moves out from under them they will "land" at the height the platform was at when the throw was input.

ROB however can suicide with up-throw.

 

[Yikarur]

The victory screen should always be honored.

We use the following rule in germany:
- If Bowsercide results in sudden death, Bowser loses (because its either lose or sudden death -> consistency!)
- In case of a stock percent tie or a simultanous death a 1 Stock rematch is played, if that rematch ends in a tie as well the sudden death is played out

I think of removing the Bowsercide rule, because it's an out of game decision. The Sudden Death -> Rematch clause is much less arbitrary.

 

[wizrad]

Charizard, Kirby and MK cannot suicide with up throw, if the platform moves out from under them they will "land" at the height the platform was at when the throw was input.

ROB however can suicide with up-throw.

Actually, I looked into it and, if timed right, Kirby and Meta Knight can suicide with their up throws. Link has to be holding a bomb or Megaman has to have a Crash Bomb on you. If it explodes at the right time, both players die. But that's probably a glitch.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Actually, I looked into it and, if timed right, Kirby and Meta Knight can suicide with their up throws. Link has to be holding a bomb or Megaman has to have a Crash Bomb on you. If it explodes at the right time, both players die. But that's probably a glitch.

Not a glitch, it's an exploit on the fact they are out of the screen. It shouldn't be happening too often.

 

[S_B]

I suppose the real question is about when Sudden Death occurs due to a tie and every time I find myself asking why it is impossible to reasonably condemn Sudden Death as non-competitive. I can't find a way to do it.

I realize this post is nearly a year old, but the reason we don't honor sudden death is because it severely favors one character archetype over all others (that being fast, quick characters).

Middle-heavyweight characters are balanced around the idea that it will take a certain % before they're KOable, meaning a light, quick character will have to rack up that % first.

With sudden death, that balancing factor is completely negated, meaning that heavy/mid weight characters are purely at a disadvantage.

If you play a fast character like Fox or Shiek, you'd do everything you could to steer the game to a sudden death because you have such a massive advantage over any character slower than you. It's the same reason we don't play out SD after a timeout because, again, it would encourage players of fast characters to try to time out the game so they could win with a single confirm.

 

[T0MMY]

I realize this post is nearly a year old, but the reason we don't honor sudden death is because it severely favors one character archetype over all others (that being fast, quick characters).

I interpret the "favors one character [...]" phrase to mean this is an argument by way of a violation of Fairness Principle.
Perhaps it was not fully disclosed in this discuss, or perhaps you missed it, but I will state the importance of the Fairness Principle here:

Fairness is applied only for competitors, NOT applied to in-game characters, Stages, or any kind of "balance" of the meta game.
All options must be available to all competitors when possible.

This means that one cannot argue that certain characters will do better in general given certain circumstances that are available to ALL players - for instance an argument that Little Mac is at a major disadvantage on Duck Hunt cannot be a violation of competitive principles due to fairness because the Little Mac player has every option available to choose from the rest of the characters on the CSS just like their opponent had the same options available - if they feel they are ONLY good with Little Mac and would be at a disadvantage playing any other character than it comes down to some advice that should be given: "Git Gud".

The players should be aware that a game can be tied due to time expiring (the use of a Timer should be stated in the rules and made publicly available), they should also be aware that in case of a double-KO on last stocks would result in a tie-breaker. The players are choosing their characters knowing ahead of time what the risks and rewards of playing the character could be with EVERYTHING, strategy should be across the board and without exception! The competitor must weigh the odds and make the best decision for the round of competition, the players should NOT be given out-of-game rulings to help competitors win, THAT would be a violation of competitive principle of Fairness!

If you play a fast character like Fox or Shiek, you'd do everything you could to steer the game to a sudden death because you have such a massive advantage over any character slower than you.

This statement sounds like it is trying to make a case that playing to a character's advantages when being completely informed of the rules used ahead of the time (e.g. using timer) is somehow wrong?
If this is the case I think you may have a differing opinion on what actual competition is and may have to review the principles you are basing this statement on so we can compare. Fairness is a foundation to rulings, so it is important to clarify exactly what the definitions are so we can work within that parameter.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of this now that we've reached this point.

 

[S_B]

This statement sounds like it is trying to make a case that playing to a character's advantages when being completely informed of the rules used ahead of the time (e.g. using timer) is somehow wrong?

Not at all, only that this is one of the reasons that the rules are what they are and why most tournaments don't allow SD to play out.

Most tournaments want to avoid what's called "degenerate gameplay". Examples of degenerate gameplay include camping near a walk-off in the hopes that your opponent will come close enough that you can grab them and throw them off the side, and custom villager's ledge camping shenanigans. Pilotwings was also banned in most tournaments because the engines on the single winged plane are a great camping spot and likewise encourage degenerate gameplay.

There's nothing wrong with using all of the advantages the game affords you in order to win. In fact, that's what TOs expect players to do, but I don't think there's ever been a point in SSB's competitive history when TOs of any major tournaments have allowed the game to decide everything. They've always allowed only certain stages, they don't allow items, and they typically don't allow the game to decide the winner in the event of a timeout, either.

There are rules outside of the game that influence how things happen inside because there's more going on than just people playing a game. A tournament usually has prize money, sometimes sponsorships, and is often streamed on twitch and later uploaded to youtube, both of which generate revenue for the TOs.

Ergo, TOs need to ensure that they're putting on a good SHOW so they can keep running the tournaments.

Now, you can run a tournament that allows SD to play out, all items on high, etc., but it won't attract any high level players, nor is it going to gain many subs on twitch/youtube because people want to see a competitive match play out between two skilled players, not a random ****-show.

Thus, this is why we have rules like this: if people outside the game feel that it makes the game less competitive and therefore less fun to watch, they're not going to use the game's default rules.

What makes the gameplay fun to watch comes first. "What the game designers intended" comes second.