New win condition: a margin

[SuperDoodleMan]

I don't like it when tourney matches go down to the wire. Last game, last stock, high percent. It happens all the time, but IMO, games that close aren't truly indicative of who's better. Theoretically, if I played myself, I would break even in the long term, but current tourney rules would declare one of me the victor after some amount of time/stock.

The flow of a match can go back and forth like a metronome, and being able to win by a narrow margin is, in my mind, just as arbitrary as a win decided by random items or stage hazards.

I want to discuss the possibility of deciding the winner by a margin, like in (table) tennis. First to have a 2 stock lead wins the game, for example. The obvious problem is that evenly matched players would take a while for one to become the clear victor.

This is an idea I've been thinking about for a while, and I'd like to get others' thoughts on it.

 

[DanGR]

very interesting idea, but it'll never happen. I like the rules that are in effect as of now. I think every stage with ANY hazards, ANY random occurances, and ANY walls should be banned it tourney play.

 

[DavieBoy]

I can kind of see what you mean, some times matches go down to who ever can land the next smash attack to win. But I do have to disagree with your suggestion simply because matches are done in sets of 3/5/7 and whatnot in order to help eliminate issues like this. I do feel if someone beat a person in the best of 5 he/she mostly likely did play better than the other person regardless of how each match ended.

 

[Bud]

You know at first i thought this post was stupid, but thats a pretty good idea. If you have to win by 2, it would add a bit more satisfaction too a win and also could completely backfire. Is it the first to get 2 stock over their opponent ( like someone could 2-0 someone and win)? or ( game could keep going forever).
Also it may make camping even more beneficial after getting a kill. But its an interesting idea and I am definitely going to start playing like that every once in a while. Though I dont think it will catch on much, however much fun it is.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Umm...
So then we could never watch Azen make a 2 stock comeback against Ken with money on the line like he did at MLG NY Playoffs?

You mention the metronome affect, but then you don't even allow such an affect to take place, 1 stock, 2 stock, those type of comebacks happen frequently.

The percentage system is fine. Both players know if they are low on time then that rule will take affect and both players should adjust their play styles accordingly.

 

[Phantomwake]

This is very interesting, but hardly as definitive as a set amount of stock.

The win by two rule works well for other games/sports because of how competitions are designed to account for potentially long overtimes.

Smash tournaments, do not as they prefer to be as efficient with tv use as possible. What if two people traded stock for an hour as they were so equally matched. (realize this applies to all skill levels)

sure some matches will be shorter because a player could get koed then gimped and lose, but one of the things that makes smash so exciting is when a player is down 3 to 1 and the starts to focus and punishes his opponents mistakes and ends up winning.

Overall not a bad idea, a change many people are unlikely to implement, but IMO not as exciting or as effective in deciding a winner as the current stock system.

 

[KiKaiDa]

So your saying we should change the way all sports are played in the fact that in basketball you don't win unless your winning by a five point margin, football you need to atleast be winning by a field goal, dont even mention how long soccer, hockey, or baseball would be played. Most tournaments use sets and this is such a ******** idea =/.

 

[kamekasu]

Umm...
So then we could never watch Azen make a 2 stock comeback against Ken with money on the line like he did at MLG NY Playoffs?

You mention the metronome affect, but then you don't even allow such an affect to take place, 1 stock, 2 stock, those type of comebacks happen frequently.

The percentage system is fine. Both players know if they are low on time then that rule will take affect and both players should adjust their play styles accordingly.

Exactly.

Not to mention the pressure this puts on tournament directors because of the added time. Considering most tournaments are doing three stocks, most matches will go on forever while trying to decide 'by a margin.' And the arbitrariness of a close match is counterbalanced by the fact that we play in sets, not single matches.

 

[Kasai]

Although I do see where the OP is coming from, the fact that tourneys are in sets of 3 really helps prevent matches coming down to "random" endings. In addition to this, the fact that people can and have made comebacks from 2 stocks behind really proves that margins couldn't always work. Thinking about it theoretically, a "superior" player could make 2 stupid mistakes, killing themselves and still kill an "inferior" player without dying again. This is basically what happens when someone 3 stocks someone else, but without the stupid mistakes at the start.

 

[Chaotic Yoshi]

3 set matches

1st game of a set: Theoritically decides victor of the set. Whoever wins(P1) gets this win + an opportunity to counterpick later in the set. Whoever loses(P2) this only gets one chance to counterpick and then falls victim to being counterpicked after.

2nd game of a set: P2 choses stage and counter character to optimize his chances of winning. If he loses here in optimal conditions, he is the lesser player (Not taking into account bad counter decisions).

3rd game of a set: P1 choses stage and counter character to optimize his chances of winning etc.

Matches's 2 and 3 favour one player over the other.
Match 1 is based on educational guesses and/or random chance of getting a favourable blind pick and favourable neutral stage.

I don't think setting a margin of stock difference will provide a solution, but at least it's caused some thought to be put into the issue.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

It kind of screws characters like Olimar. Olimar is amazing enough to come back from a 2 stock deficit, but can really easily get gimped to be killed at no damage, so he can likely be placed IN a two stock deficit.

 

[Corigames]

Doesn't smash naturally let that happen now with stocks? Most fighters only have 1 life per round whereas we play with 3-4 stocks per. We are already giving a big advantage to frustration and fatigue. I think it's fine how it is.

 

[Zindura]

So you pretty much want to remove one of the greatest thrills of competitive play, right?

 

[Corigames]

Plus, wouldn't this just put more pressure on the person that is behind in one game allowing the other person who is a game ahead to relax a little more? This helps nothing really.

 

[heroboy]

I don't think it's a good idea because theoretically, if two exactly evenly skilled players fought, it would end in a tie every time. And there would be no winner of margin.

 

[TwinkleToes]

Kikai, you're kidding right? All those sports you mentioned have time limits (or in the case of baseball, an inning limit). Are you suggesting that we play time only matches? No? Then don't bring up crap that's not the same.

Alpha, people can still make come backs... and since the required margin of victory is larger (2 stocks instead of 1 or 0), it actually means there will be more come backs.

 

[-Aether]

His point is still valid. When it is down to 150 percent each, it's really only a matter of who gets the good hit in. How about situations where both people are essentially KOed at the same time, but one is "off the top" so the other player loses. Either way, this is similar to playing a one stock match, where it's more of a "who ****s up first" competition instead of a assessment of total skill.

Although in a margin system no comeback would be possible, it would also be the most fair. I would imagine, at least. As to the people saying it doesn't allow the eb and flow of the game, I would like to point out that having a two stock lead means you've controlled the match for a significant amount of time (so much for the eb and flow of that match.)

 

[AlphaZealot]

His point is still valid. When it is down to 150 percent each, it's really only a matter of who gets the good hit in. How about situations where both people are essentially KOed at the same time, but one is "off the top" so the other player loses.

If its tied at 150%, then each person knows the implications of getting that last hit, I see no reason why the person who lands is doesn't deserve to win. In addition to this, if you lose such a situation, don't blame that last hit, blame the 150% you got before such a hit occured, or blame the first 2 or 3 stocks you weren't able to put the opponent away.

If I kill you at the side and you choose to use an attack that kills me over the top, wouldn't that make your attack selection inferior to my own, and my win deserved?

 

[NoVaLombardia]

at first i was thinking this sounds stupid, but what if you made the matches NOT at a best of 3, but best of 1 with this idea.

 

[Pure-???]

I think come of you guys missed the point here. I mean, he more meant if time runs out before stock runs out, obviously if one perosn genuinely got the person down to 0 stock, then they would win.

 

[Zankoku]

I rarely see 2-stock advantages in this game. As such, I cannot recommend such an idea simply because it will take forever before two reasonably equally skilled players come to a conclusion.

 

[Greenpoe]

I think four stock matches (not three) work fine. If that player lands the a strong hit before the other, then they win. End of story. I know the purpose of this topic is refuting that, but the better player has a tendency to win, which is why they are better. If that means landing a smash attack before the other player, then so be it.

 

[KoalaBear]

sounds like a decent idea

 

[Crizthakidd]

in a close match u can decide whos better by seeing who made the first mistake and landed the attack that killed.

 

[Hyrus]

Options are good. There'd be everything to gain from a "lead victory" setting and nothing to lose, since you can just use normal stock if it is preferred. Having the option to chose would be a great thing, just like having the option to turn off tripping and stage hazards would have been a great thing.

I think it's a nice idea.

 

[Foxy_Marth]

That just sounds like way too much of a waste of time.

I think just reccomending a 5 stock match would be better than this

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

If its tied at 150%, then each person knows the implications of getting that last hit, I see no reason why the person who lands is doesn't deserve to win. In addition to this, if you lose such a situation, don't blame that last hit, blame the 150% you got before such a hit occured, or blame the first 2 or 3 stocks you weren't able to put the opponent away.

If I kill you at the side and you choose to use an attack that kills me over the top, wouldn't that make your attack selection inferior to my own, and my win deserved?

what about tripping? I played a local tourney at my school. I'm a zelda main and about 3 matches in, I got paired against one of my friends, a game and watch.

I would have won anyway, but he had 60% damage on his second life after he took off my first:
I spawned from the respawn platform, pursued him (it wqas battlefield, he was on a platform, I was on the ground)

I jumped to land a fresh lighting kick, and he triped right into it giving me a full stock advantage.

I'm not saying there's any good way around this, but when it's down to the wire with 2 equally matched pros and one of them trips causing his demise, how is that fair?

 

[House M.D.]

1) the most exciting moments of matches (especially in brawl) are the down-to-the-wire endings between evenly matched players. this is why tournaments are fun.

2) time constraints; this randomness is inevitable without insanely long tournaments.

3) tournament results are consistent enough (same people win every time) that change is not necessary; double elimination and best 2-of-3 standards are sufficient to combat the problem

 

[icewolf2249]

Because luck is a factor in everything, that's why it's fair. Technically, I'm an extremist in the opposite direction of this thread (I don't like banning maps, items, etc. in general), but I know most people aren't down for a final match on spear pillar (that would be awesome and hilarious, don't deny it). But a two stock advantage almost never happens. You know when it does happen? When one player is substantially better than the other. The pendulum effect you speak of is the essence of a good match-up of skill. Two relatively equal characters should be fighting on equal footing, trading blows and eventually getting in that last kill shot. When well-matched opponents square off, there can only be a very slight margin of victory. If they are equal, a two stock advantage shows up when one player screws up, in which case it really doesn't matter if they lose because they have a two stock disadvantage or because their mistake has wasted one of their precious few lives. As far as I can tell, the only time this idea can be reasonably employed is in situations where it doesn't affect anything.

If something really needs fixing, double elimination, best of 3/5/7, or >3 stock all take care of the problem quite nicely.

 

[randomdragoon]

Table tennis has a 2 point margin rule. But then again, it doesn't play its matches to 4 points (each of its points lasts for a shorter amount of time).

 

[Sneaky Yoshi]

It could be put in for sudden death matches xD (even though they r so rare) you never know, could be half decent idea.

 

[ph00tbag]

I don't like it when tourney matches go down to the wire. Last game, last stock, high percent. It happens all the time, but IMO, games that close aren't truly indicative of who's better. Theoretically, if I played myself, I would break even in the long term, but current tourney rules would declare one of me the victor after some amount of time/stock.

The flow of a match can go back and forth like a metronome, and being able to win by a narrow margin is, in my mind, just as arbitrary as a win decided by random items or stage hazards.

I want to discuss the possibility of deciding the winner by a margin, like in (table) tennis. First to have a 2 stock lead wins the game, for example. The obvious problem is that evenly matched players would take a while for one to become the clear victor.

This is an idea I've been thinking about for a while, and I'd like to get others' thoughts on it.

This is kinda like saying a Soccer/Football/Whatever you like match should go on indefinitely with half-hour OT after half-hour OT. Sure, it would be more likely to produce a winner based on skill, but it would take forever. Penalty kicks aren't preferable from a competitive standpoint, but those hooligans in the stands can only go so long without closure.

 

[GofG]

Howabout the winner has to win by at least one stock? That is, the winner must have at least 1 stock when his opponent has 0 stocks.

I don't think that will cause nearly as much uproar.

 

[Smasher89]

too many people plays 3-stock at the time being, not only that the matches gets really close, tripping at the wrong time is making it more dangerous in 3 then 4 stocks matches...

 

[PKboy89]

They can be dead, even matched...but that still doesn't mean that they should both win...the player who rises above the pressure and gets that final hit in to win is the winner...tournaments aren't about balancing the fight out for two even players and trying to see who is better, they're about winning...I don't care if a player wins by a cheap shot or something, the player won, end of story, onto the next tourney...

 

[Thestlos]

Interesting idea, but it will never see the light of day because things work the way they are now. Don't fix something thats not broken.

 

[The Mechanic]

I don't think anyone should be allow to condemn this idea until they have ACTUALLY TRIED IT!!!
I did what someone suggested with a win by a margin of 1 stock and here is what actually happened in a 2 out of 3 match.

First game it was my Mr.Game vs Ike -- I won by a 1 stock margin.

Second game (G&W vs Link) went like this. At the end of the 3 stock game my brother killed me on his last stock so we played a one stock game. If he wins the one stock game he would get the one stock margin needed to win game two.
It actually went to duce 7 times!! (in 1 stock game continuations of the first 3 stock match so no map or character changes) LOL mad intensity. He won the second game.

and I won the third game making me the winner of the match.

Although very very fun this one match took about 40 minutes. I figure it was a good test because it was between two players who play consistently even on average. Maybe this is not good for tournament play, but the intensity is Much Much greater with two close players with these rules.

I could see this would be very good for training for a tournament because this margin rule-set actually demands your concentration and control to stay up for much longer time.

 

[Eggm]

It would take FOREVER. Also, it takes away having the skill to deal with pressure.

Edit : There'd still be pressure but not as much. Also, I'd be all for this idea in melee. Since melee doesn't take as long and 2 stocks happen more often. Pretty cool idea for a perfect world.

 

[The Mechanic]

EGGM Did you not read my last post? There is PLENTY of Pressure with this rule-set! I even suggested that this rule set be used specifically for pressure training.

It would take a long time though, but I do believe this rule set has a purpose, weather in competition or not to neglect it would be a waste.

Seriously people try this out it is fun, and like I said it probably has training purposes.

 

[Professional Idiot]

Howabout the winner has to win by at least one stock? That is, the winner must have at least 1 stock when his opponent has 0 stocks.

I don't think that will cause nearly as much uproar.

Isn't this the exact same scenario as the case he described? When both players have 1 stock, and one dies, the winner will have a 1 point lead.

Maybe, instead of using only stocks as the unit of skill, the margin is that you win by 1 stock, and have less than 50% or so percent. Or just the latter.