New win condition: a margin

[icewolf2249]

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.

You, my good sir, are made of win.

Honestly, Professional Idiot, either you're really good with sarcasm or that joke went so far over your head that the moon could fit through the gap.

 

[Intercept]

You could integrate the margin system as it pertains to actual wins and not stocks. The first person to be up two matches wins. It would take longer, making it unreasonable, but ideally it would probably most accurately depict skill.

 

[acv]

hasnt anybody thought that then certain characters would have advantage because of this ruleset?

 

[Kirby Redux]

I see what you mean by wanting to have a more balanced way of winning, but the sudden death at the end just should have a longer wait until the bombs start dropping.

 

[Finn Macool]

did you think that the high pressure situations brought on at the end of a game are an important part of deciding who's the better player, the same as in any sport the person who best handles the given situation and the stress is the better player and if you know you're evenly matched but lose a game then its not the same as a random hazard or whatever, because you've got nooneto blame except for yourself

 

[mugwhump]

It should be like tennis, but with less confusing names for scores.

 

[Wave⁂]

This is a good idea, but there would be too much controversy of when to declare a "margin" rule, and too much of a hassle to write down every single nuance of it, and get all of them approved.

 

[Professional Idiot]

You, my good sir, are made of win.

Honestly, Professional Idiot, either you're really good with sarcasm or that joke went so far over your head that the moon could fit through the gap.

Well, I thought that he was being sarcastic, but I didn't know for sure (Text is not exactly the best way to express sarcasm, and there could have been typos), so I made a sarcastically ambiguous post. That, and my user-name is Professional Idiot. I guess it's open to interpretation.

did you think that the high pressure situations brought on at the end of a game are an important part of deciding who's the better player, the same as in any sport the person who best handles the given situation and the stress is the better player and if you know you're evenly matched but lose a game then its not the same as a random hazard or whatever, because you've got nooneto blame except for yourself

Well, I don't think he means that the current convention is pointless. It's just that a marginal win would be a better display of skill. In this way, some characters that lack in quick KO moves and instead rely on racking up damage and finishing it off later would be given better win conditions compared to the characters that usually win. And it's not like you don't need significant skill to win in this manner; if you play decisively, unpredictably, and precisely long enough to lead by a certain margin, you would have demonstrated your skill.

 

[Ryven]

I could see the merit of such a system based on wins in the set, but not on stocks. Length of play time would be the only drawback.

As Finn said, the ability to keep your cool when it's down to the wire is super important. Very specific example: I have a friend I play Lucario dittos with. Our matches generally follow this pattern: we're evenly matched until the last stock, at about 150%, when I win, nine times out of ten. You would expect us to trade off, but he just loses it when it's down to the wire and I'm sitting there calmly waiting for him to commit himself to something he can't follow through. If we change the rules so that I have to be ahead by at least two stocks to win, all of a sudden our match lasts until the time limit, every time.

 

[House M.D.]

when the match is on the line, everyone starts to feel pressure; succeeding under such conditions is generally esteemed and accepted as an important skill in any sport. overemphasis on "fairness" would cause a huge sacrifice.

 

[spacemanspiff]

being a sports fan myself i see where your coming from and its a cool idea. but tennis is one of the few sports that has this rule.

basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, football. all of these major televised events are decided by as little as one point in the last second of the game. it makes it that much more intense in my opinion.

take for example the upcoming nba finals between the LA lakers and the Boston Celtics.

lets say there's 3 seconds left and lakers are down by one. ball goes to Kobe and he shoots. if he scores Lakers win the championship and if he misses they're runners up. there's little things more intense and fun to watch in my books than that.

the same principle applies to smash finals to me. the closer the better. and no you might not be better than the other guy because you won that last close match. but maybe your more composed? and maybe if you win like this over and over again people will start to agree that you are better.

 

[Intercept]

I don't know where you people are getting that there would be less pressure. For someone to lose, there has to be a time before they lose, and people always feel immense pressure in those circumstances. If you lose the first match in a set, tell me you don't feel pressure that whole second match. Of course you do, if you lose this one, it's all over. Likewise, the winner of the first match still feels the pressure. He has so much riding on winning this one match.

Let's say the person who lost the first match wins the second match. Then it's back to one match determining the whole thing, and the person who won the first match will be under more pressure since he didn't finish the last match.

Of course, that's not the margin system, but still an example of how pressure is constant. In the margin system there would be a lot of pressure, though both people MIGHT NOT be experiencing it at the same time. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, even the person winning can be under pressure.

 

[Intercept]

being a sports fan myself i see where your coming from and its a cool idea. but tennis is one of the few sports that has this rule.

basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, football. all of these major televised events are decided by as little as one point in the last second of the game. it makes it that much more intense in my opinion.

take for example the upcoming nba finals between the LA lakers and the Boston Celtics.

lets say there's 3 seconds left and lakers are down by one. ball goes to Kobe and he shoots. if he scores Lakers win the championship and if he misses they're runners up. there's little things more intense and fun to watch in my books than that.

the same principle applies to smash finals to me. the closer the better. and no you might not be better than the other guy because you won that last close match. but maybe your more composed? and maybe if you win like this over and over again people will start to agree that you are better.

There's a key difference between basketball and smash though. Basketball is a spectator sport, the players get paid because people watch it. Smash generally does not work that way, it doesn't get it's prize pools from advertisements, and people don't get paid regardless of whether they win or lose. When only winners get paid, it's best to make sure the money goes to who is the better competitor.

 

[harvman11]

I think the current system is perfectly fair, if you're both very evenly matched throughout the game and both end up with 1 stock at high percents, then the person who is playing better is going to be able to avoid the other person's smashes and land one of their own. This is like saying if a basketball game is tied at the start of the 4th quarter, another quarter should be added, which is just ridiculous imo.

 

[Intercept]

I think the current system is perfectly fair, if you're both very evenly matched throughout the game and both end up with 1 stock at high percents, then the person who is playing better is going to be able to avoid the other person's smashes and land one of their own. This is like saying if a basketball game is tied at the start of the 4th quarter, another quarter should be added, which is just ridiculous imo.

Aren't basketball games generally played in halves? Again, as I said earlier, spectator sports aren't really comparable. If two teams are tied with 5 seconds left, does the team that has the ball last really deserve to win/get the extra chance to win the game right then? Likely not, but one of the teams will break down before the other if they have to keep going, allowing the more athletic team to win.

 

[RedPeppers]

I like where the OP is coming from, but I think it would be difficult to apply to a match in terms of stocks. It could however easily be applied to winning a set by a certain number of matches. That has it's problems as well; however, fatigue levels would skyrocket, and it would extended the length of tournaments astronomically. Also if Brawl ends up like Melee was at the end where you have PC vs M2K frequently it would be somewhat difficult for either of them to win due to their extremely close skill levels.

 

[spacemanspiff]

There's a key difference between basketball and smash though. Basketball is a spectator sport, the players get paid because people watch it. Smash generally does not work that way, it doesn't get it's prize pools from advertisements, and people don't get paid regardless of whether they win or lose. When only winners get paid, it's best to make sure the money goes to who is the better competitor.

this is true. I still think the way things are done now is the best. but for an alternative i'd say that it should be similar to the last set of a tennis match. first to however many games... but you cant win by a margin of 3-2, 6-5, or whatever it may be you must win by 2 games. so 3-1, 4-2, 6-4 etc. regardless of stock count.

 

[Amide]

Then I would feel even worse after losing, and while it brings the excitement level down, and it would take longer, it really would determine who's better.

 

[0RLY]

I think it would just be better to restrict a suicidal kill to end a match. Like swallowcides/bowsercides/etc.

 

[Intercept]

BTW, I agree this would take too long, and would have to be done by matches and not stock, as I said earlier in the thread. THEORETICALLY, it would be the best way to determine who is more skilled.

 

[spacemanspiff]

^ this is true. slightly unpractical but yes. the best way.

and to ORly:
no... you should be punished for your mistakes. its not the other guys fault you killed yourself... and if it is his fault... then it wasn't a suicide... he killed you