Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[∫unk]

Even when everything is broken there's those little rising and falling platforms near the edge of the stage which are really good for air camping cause it goes so high.

 

[Vermanubis]

Can someone explain to me -in depth- why the Ganoncide rule exists as it does, as well as the rule in relation to other suicide moves whose odds of winning/tying are more favorable? If I'm going to make a strong case against this, I want to hear every piece of reasoning. The Ganon boards and myself plan on making a fully formal counterpoint to the rule, so any unincluded information about the rule's conception will be taken as negligence, which will make the rule look very sloppy.

Thanks.

 

[Rickerdy-doo-da-day]

Something I've been wanting to question about the new suicide rule - if it causes the game to end up as a tie, then am I correct in assuming you use the 'Resolving Ties' rule of 1 stock, 3 minutes on the same stage, same characters?

What if a player keeps on using Koopa Klaw/Swallow/Flame Choke to force a suicide, resulting in a tie continuously?

Or am I missing something?

 

[BBQTV]

don't worry ganon mains your not alone! kirby mains hate that rule too, so why don't we work together! we must put our evil and good aside untill we conquer this greater evil!

 

[MetalMusicMan]

If someone seriously gets koopa claw suicide killed multiple times in a row at the ennd of a match then it is their own fault.

 

[Vermanubis]

If someone seriously gets koopa claw suicide killed multiple times in a row at the ennd of a match then it is their own fault.

Why doesn't this same logic apply universally?

 

[Rickerdy-doo-da-day]

If someone seriously gets koopa claw suicide killed multiple times in a row at the ennd of a match then it is their own fault.

Whats to stop me from spamming it over and over again to constantly reset the match back to a 1 stock 3 mins same stage and chars situation?

Yes its their own fault but it could potentially make matches go on for a long time. I'm mainly looking at Kirby/DeDeDe's Swallow because that always leads to a suicide, rather than Koopa Klaw/Flame Choke which is a bit random as to whether its a suicide or definite winner

I know it looks like I'm discussing something thats probably unlikely happen but I'm curious as to what would happen if this kept on going. Would the tie resolver rule keep being played until a definite winner emerged?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well, first you have to actually hit with it...

 

[Crow!]

You could ask the same question should the game repetitively go to time with both players at the same percentage. Yes, in theory it can happen and in theory it could wreck the tournament with endless delays. However, in practice it's not going to happen unless both players are intentionally trying to make it happen. At which point the TO would have to treat it as he would treat people trying to sabotage the tournament in any other way.

Same goes with repetitive Koopa Klaw overtime resets. Unless the Bowser's opponent just sucks in comparison to the Bowser, he should not be blundering into the Klaw each time he gets the lead. And whenever Bowser has the lead, he shouldn't be choosing to suicide to reset, either. So if it keeps on happening, someone apparently is attempting to wreck the tournament instead of winning, and the TO would just have to treat it as such.

 

[BBQTV]

of course without that rule the one who did the suicide would just win......

 

[-LzR-]

I think it's a fairly common rule that if a suicide move is done on that match, the suicider wins, right?

 

[BBQTV]

yes it is.

 

[Vermanubis]

I think it's a fairly common rule that if a suicide move is done on that match, the suicider wins, right?

Yes. I know of virtually no regions who endorse this BBR suicide rule. I'm doing testing on Ganonciding in Stamina Mode, and so far, things are looking good for the Ganons. His win/loss/tie ratio varies with every character depending on percents.

So far, the Ganon boards, among other testing volunteers have concluded thus far that the outcome of a Ganoncide is entirely random. Each character has a loose (and I mean VERY loose) pattern of outcomes depending on a number of variables, and the patterns vary from character to character.

For example. Regardless of port, Ganon wins 9/10 times against Diddy Kong, regardless of percent. He wins roughly 7/10 times against Bowser. But he never wins against Meta Knight; only tie and loss.

This stochasticity is ludicrous. It's one thing to honor the results screen, but when it is literally entirely random and clearly a matter of lax programming, to the point that every character follows different patterns based on ports, percentages (ones that don't even make sense) it should not be so.

BBR, I could introduce a myriad of reasons to you right now as to why the rule is silly. But since only statistical evidence will be listened to, we Ganons are quickly discovering that Ganoncide outcomes are largely governed by randomness. This lead to a number of bad things. Fighting over ports is one among many. It is just simply easier and more convenient for everybody to just make a solid rule instead of leaving the outcomes to the birds and potentially creating problems amongst players.

So, the only reason I can see for not amending it at this point is, frankly, arrogance and pedantry. Virtually no non-BBR member agrees with the rule, most TOs I've spoken to have no intention on adoting the rule, and it's just making everybody a little bit pissy. Is the BBR afraid that if it capitulates, it'll be underminining its own "authority" and become vulnerable?

 

[-Vocal-]

don't worry ganon mains your not alone! kirby mains hate that rule too, so why don't we work together! we must put our evil and good aside untill we conquer this greater evil!

Kirby never wins, but he never loses either, so Ganondorf is in a far deeper hole than you are. (I haven't had time to test this as extensively as I'd like to, but if you can provide data saying otherwise I would greatly appreciate it )

Yes. I know of virtually no regions who endorse this BBR suicide rule. I'm doing testing on Ganonciding in Stamina Mode, and so far, things are looking good for the Ganons. His win/loss/tie ratio varies with every character depending on percents.

So far, the Ganon boards, among other testing volunteers have concluded thus far that the outcome of a Ganoncide is entirely random. Each character has a loose (and I mean VERY loose) pattern of outcomes depending on a number of variables, and the patterns vary from character to character.

For example. Regardless of port, Ganon wins 9/10 times against Diddy Kong, regardless of percent. He wins roughly 7/10 times against Bowser. But he never wins against Meta Knight; only tie and loss.

This stochasticity is ludicrous. It's one thing to honor the results screen, but when it is literally entirely random and clearly a matter of lax programming, to the point that every character follows different patterns based on ports, percentages (ones that don't even make sense) it should not be so.

BBR, I could introduce a myriad of reasons to you right now as to why the rule is silly. But since only statistical evidence will be listened to, we Ganons are quickly discovering that Ganoncide outcomes are largely governed by randomness. This lead to a number of bad things. Fighting over ports is one among many. It is just simply easier and more convenient for everybody to just make a solid rule instead of leaving the outcomes to the birds and potentially creating problems amongst players.

So, the only reason I can see for not amending it at this point is, frankly, arrogance and pedantry. Virtually no non-BBR member agrees with the rule, most TOs I've spoken to have no intention on adoting the rule, and it's just making everybody a little bit pissy. Is the BBR afraid that if it capitulates, it'll be underminining its own "authority" and become vulnerable?

Dude, I addressed this in the thread - it doesn't matter if the move is random. Ganondorf has a bad recovery with the added trait of randomly causing death in certain situations - ok. The character is bad (sorry ), the BBR isn't supposed to fix that.

 

[Shaya]

There's two things to consider:

1. Honour the victory screen
2. Alter random

now with the former, you've literally told me that Ganondorf has a "better" advantage over Diddy kong than MK. This may not have been intentional but this is part of his gaming code.

The latter has various implications;
even though adopting the rune for ganondorf is the least abrasive, one can compare it to "hacking" to remove tripping; are the same people wanting a "make ganon slightly more viable rule" also against tripping? I know it's somewhat of a slippery slope argument, so let's not get too sensitive about it.

But yeah... as you've put it... they are actually reasonably consistent results.
Also suicide moves... whilst I'm not sure about them really existing in any other fighting game, are blatantly against the rules in things like Pokemon.

The rule set is aimed at not being convoluted; the simpler the better.
Things like "In the chance of there being a tie (time goes out same stock/percent, both players die at the same time") having a blanket rule that covers all ensures the rule set is simple to understand.
Adding "except in the case of ganondorf, who should either be granted the sudden death rule or be given the win" complicates the already (seen as) over bearing rule set.

Unfortunately ganon isn't viable...
and having this extra rule is similar to "infinite on DK from Dedede" is banned.
Slight alteration to make a character(s) slightly better. Sure a local scene may have these changed rules to make ganon more viable... but having the rule doesn't really fit the notions of competitive play.

A ganondorf player being aware of what characters they have a good chance of winning/going sudden death against can be implied as an extra skill barrier for those players.
You take the chance of using it. As the results are "random". Should a G&W who's about, inevitably be shuttle looped to die off stage be given the win if he side-bs? What if G&W got a nine, he would have won. But randomly he didn't get a nine... so he should win because the gamble he took didn't pay off for him... right?

 

[-Vocal-]

There's two things to consider:

1. Honour the victory screen
2. Alter random

now with the former, you've literally told me that Ganondorf has a "better" advantage over Diddy kong than MK. This may not have been intentional but this is part of his gaming code.

The latter has various implications;
even though adopting the rune for ganondorf is the least abrasive, one can compare it to "hacking" to remove tripping; are the same people wanting a "make ganon slightly more viable rule" also against tripping? I know it's somewhat of a slippery slope argument, so let's not get too sensitive about it.

But yeah... as you've put it... they are actually reasonably consistent results.
Also suicide moves... whilst I'm not sure about them really existing in any other fighting game, are blatantly against the rules in things like Pokemon.

The rule set is aimed at not being convoluted; the simpler the better.
Things like "In the chance of there being a tie (time goes out same stock/percent, both players die at the same time") having a blanket rule that covers all ensures the rule set is simple to understand.
Adding "except in the case of ganondorf, who should either be granted the sudden death rule or be given the win" complicates the already (seen as) over bearing rule set.

Unfortunately ganon isn't viable...
and having this extra rule is similar to "infinite on DK from Dedede" is banned.
Slight alteration to make a character(s) slightly better. Sure a local scene may have these changed rules to make ganon more viable... but having the rule doesn't really fit the notions of competitive play.

A ganondorf player being aware of what characters they have a good chance of winning/going sudden death against can be implied as an extra skill barrier for those players.
You take the chance of using it. As the results are "random". Should a G&W who's about, inevitably be shuttle looped to die off stage be given the win if he side-bs? What if G&W got a nine, he would have won. But randomly he didn't get a nine... so he should win because the gamble he took didn't pay off for him... right?

As great as this post is, and as much as I agree with it (I do) and have said the majority of it (everything but the Pokemon part and the skill part), I can already feel them misplacing the emphasis of the G&W example -.-

Been there done that, you could say.

 

[BBQTV]

ohko moves are not allowed in pokemon and you cant compare to suiciding in smash but you can compare it to explode which is allowed and a true suicide move while ohko moves are moves that ohko

 

[Ganonsburg]

So, the only reason I can see for not amending it at this point is, frankly, arrogance and pedantry. Virtually no non-BBR member agrees with the rule, most TOs I've spoken to have no intention on adoting the rule, and it's just making everybody a little bit pissy. Is the BBR afraid that if it capitulates, it'll be underminining its own "authority" and become vulnerable?

I'm not going to start arguing my points, because I'm going to let Verm be the Ganon spokesperson for the SD rule. However, I want to bring this paragraph back up to everyone's attention because, in all honesty, the BBR is just making itself look foolish. And we don't care if you say, "Ganon's not viable." He's a character in this game. As long as he's not screwing it up for the rest of the characters, it doesn't matter how viable he is.

But if everyone is universally in acceptance of one rule, and the only group that does not accept it is the group making the ruleset for everyone, then that group needs to change its attitude because that group is doing it wrong.

 

[Shaya]

explosion isn't allowed if it's the last pokemon you have.
Exploding if its your last pokemon against your opponent's last pokemon is banned in pokemon tournaments.

I would call it a suicide move, wouldn't you?

-

And ganonsburg, do you also want to ban falco and dedede chain grabbing you?
I think that if we add one rule solely for the sake of ganondorf (inb4 mk IDC ban, which is for the sake of his opponents), it would be a nice step towards adding rules until ganondorf is viable.

The game has already decided that your best bet as a character is to use side b against diddy kong and bowser, and not to use it at all against meta knight.
If there was no consistency at all (100% random for all characters) than I'd probably be more inclined, honestly.

-

I would like some examples of games which involve suicide moves/tactics that are legal to use to end the match, which results in the initiator being declared the winner

Game names, official competitive / tournament rule sets for them, justifications, videos, etc.

 

[Vermanubis]

There's two things to consider:

1. Honour the victory screen
2. Alter random

now with the former, you've literally told me that Ganondorf has a "better" advantage over Diddy kong than MK. This may not have been intentional but this is part of his gaming code.

This I realize. But therein lies my argument. If this coding was universal, that'd be one thing. But the fate of a set can rest on an incredibly variable factor. If it was the same for all characters, I'd have no leg to stand on. But it's not.

The latter has various implications;
even though adopting the rune for ganondorf is the least abrasive, one can compare it to "hacking" to remove tripping; are the same people wanting a "make ganon slightly more viable rule" also against tripping? I know it's somewhat of a slippery slope argument, so let's not get too sensitive about it.

It's not about making him more viable. It literally breaks him. And though you admitted it was fallacious to a degree, I still want to address the fact that tripping and Ganonciding aren't comparable. Tripping is a constant; we know it will happen, just not when. Ganonciding is not a constant, as we don't know if, when or how it'll happen. Tripping makes sense. Ganoncide and suicide results in general don't.

The rule set is aimed at not being convoluted; the simpler the better.
Things like "In the chance of there being a tie (time goes out same stock/percent, both players die at the same time") having a blanket rule that covers all ensures the rule set is simple to understand.
Adding "except in the case of ganondorf, who should either be granted the sudden death rule or be given the win" complicates the already (seen as) over bearing rule set.

This I completely understand. But my counterpoint is that while ostensibly, this is less convoluted, it ultimately brings up a lot of issues internally. Externally, it's simple and concise. But when there is so much confusion and nonsensical outcomes regarding the suicides moves, I find it to be best to mandate a solid rule, rather than allowing it to be so random.

Unfortunately ganon isn't viable...
and having this extra rule is similar to "infinite on DK from Dedede" is banned.
Slight alteration to make a character(s) slightly better. Sure a local scene may have these changed rules to make ganon more viable... but having the rule doesn't really fit the notions of competitive play.[/quiote]

Define "competitive play". Is this a universal notion, or just the BBR's notion? Also, I'd argue about Ganon's viability. I suspect a lot of the lax reasoning on BBR's part is either "this character is good enough without this move" or "this character sucks, so who cares if we make them worse?". I cannot speak for other Ganons, but I myself am a fierce competitor. Even with Ganon's disabilities I've managed to place in a tough region and take out some of the best.

However, that all would change were this rule implemented globally. It would mean my last stock was virtually null if knocked offstage. My main grievance is that no one outside of BBR agrees with the rule, yet if it were implemented, dedicated mains of Ganon who already have it hard enough would virtually lose any chance at viability due to his inability to recover last stock. So it is, in essence, screwing Ganon/Bowser mains for the sake of organization and semantics. I hate to put it that way, but it's true.

If no one placed as Ganon and kicked *** with him, I'd say whatever. But they do.

A ganondorf player being aware of what characters they have a good chance of winning/going sudden death against can be implied as an extra skill barrier for those players.
You take the chance of using it. As the results are "random".

Not quite. Though the results are semi-consistent, they are still stochastic by and large. And it's not about deciding to use side-b offstage. Few people realize this, but Ganon's side-b is integral to his recovery. It is his only deterrent from being gimped. His Up-b can be punished on hit and miss. So we have two options for recovery: up-b and get gimped due to lack of hitstun. Or side-b and risk everything. It's not about "chance". It's about us NEEDING it to recover properly.

Should a G&W who's about, inevitably be shuttle looped to die off stage be given the win if he side-bs? What if G&W got a nine, he would have won. But randomly he didn't get a nine... so he should win because the gamble he took didn't pay off for him... right?

Read above. It's not about taking a gamble.

 

[BBQTV]

Chu (Kirby) vs Korn (MK)

Tourney match at Chu Dat's Thanksgiving Bi-Weekly

****ing epic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4k58CjiPlM

 

[-Vocal-]

This I realize. But therein lies my argument. If this coding was universal, that'd be one thing. But the fate of a set can rest on an incredibly variable factor. If it was the same for all characters, I'd have no leg to stand on. But it's not.

You're right, because everyone's Fair works the same.

Oh wait.

But you must be right since all the other random moves have equal chances.

Oh wait.

Maybe all moves just work differently and independent of one another.

It's not about making him more viable. It literally breaks him. And though you admitted it was fallacious to a degree, I still want to address the fact that tripping and Ganonciding aren't comparable. Tripping is a constant; we know it will happen, just not when. Ganonciding is not a constant, as we don't know if, when or how it'll happen. Tripping makes sense. Ganoncide and suicide results in general don't.

O_o

Victim victory from Ganonciding is a constant; we know it will happen, just not when.

>.>

You really don't see that?

This I completely understand. But my counterpoint is that while ostensibly, this is less convoluted, it ultimately brings up a lot of issues internally. Externally, it's simple and concise. But when there is so much confusion and nonsensical outcomes regarding the suicides moves, I find it to be best to mandate a solid rule, rather than allowing it to be so random.

At the same time we should hack Peach's Turnip Pull (not to mention her Fsmash), Luigi's Green Missile, G&W's Hammer, Olimar's Pikmin Pull, and King DDD's Waddle Dee Throw.

Oh wait.

Maybe random moves should all just stay the way they are.

Define "competitive play". Is this a universal notion, or just the BBR's notion? Also, I'd argue about Ganon's viability. I suspect a lot of the lax reasoning on BBR's part is either "this character is good enough without this move" or "this character sucks, so who cares if we make them worse?". I cannot speak for other Ganons, but I myself am a fierce competitor. Even with Ganon's disabilities I've managed to place in a tough region and take out some of the best.

However, that all would change were this rule implemented globally. It would mean my last stock was virtually null if knocked offstage. My main grievance is that no one outside of BBR agrees with the rule, yet if it were implemented, dedicated mains of Ganon who already have it hard enough would virtually lose any chance at viability due to his inability to recover last stock. So it is, in essence, screwing Ganon/Bowser mains for the sake of organization and semantics. I hate to put it that way, but it's true.

If no one placed as Ganon and kicked *** with him, I'd say whatever. But they do.

I'm not going to answer this one; it regards the BBR opinion, and while I do have a response I can't speak when it's concerning them.

Not quite. Though the results are semi-consistent, they are still stochastic by and large. And it's not about deciding to use side-b offstage. Few people realize this, but Ganon's side-b is integral to his recovery. It is his only deterrent from being gimped. His Up-b can be punished on hit and miss. So we have two options for recovery: up-b and get gimped due to lack of hitstun. Or side-b and risk everything. It's not about "chance". It's about us NEEDING it to recover properly.

Man, I sure wish Olimar had a free pass back to the stage.

Oh wait.

No I don't, because that would be balancing the game and making up for what he can't do without a rule to help him.

I apologize for the clipped nature of this post, but I just felt that all of your main points were easily answered, and some of them feel like things I've said before.

 

[Vermanubis]

You're right, because everyone's Fair works the same.

Oh wait.

But you must be right since all the other random moves have equal chances.

Oh wait.

Maybe all moves just work differently and independent of one another.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at.

O_o

Victim victory from Ganonciding is a constant; we know it will happen, just not when.

>.>

You really don't see that?

You're targeting a specific facet Ganonciding; of course a facet of it is a constant.

At the same time we should hack Peach's Turnip Pull (not to mention her Fsmash), Luigi's Green Missile, G&W's Hammer, Olimar's Pikmin Pull, and King DDD's Waddle Dee Throw.

Oh wait.

Maybe random moves should all just stay the way they are.

Didn't you use this same logic before? I thought I diffused it when I stated that these were all observable and obviously made to be a part of the game. Whereas Ganonciding is indeterminable and is obviously very flawed, because I highly doubt programmers intended to give a different result based off of infantesimal variables and character. Same premise. Different ends. Remember?

Man, I sure wish Olimar had a free pass back to the stage.

Oh wait.

No I don't, because that would be balancing the game and making up for what he can't do without a rule to help him.

For one who promotes the scientific method, you sure do make a lot of fallacies and errors in reasoning. Olimar doesn't have a free pass back to the stage. Why? He obviously wasn't intended to. Ganondorf, on the other hand, does have a pass back to the stage, however, what governs this pass is an unobservable factor. It is not making up for what he can't do, rather, using what he can do against him, since there's no true way to determine whether he was intended to win or not.

I apologize for the clipped nature of this post, but I just felt that all of your main points were easily answered, and some of them feel like things I've said before.

They were things you said before. But as hard as it may be to accept, your points are very flimsy and riddled with sophistry, so if needbe, I will correct them.

 

[-Vocal-]

I don't quite understand what you're getting at.

What I'm getting at is you're boo-hooing because Ganondorf's suicide move doesn't work like the others.

Your point is? Pro tips: different moves work differently.

You're targeting a specific facet Ganonciding; of course a facet of it is a constant.

And you were targeting a specific facet of tripping >.>

Victim victory from Ganoncide is random is the exact same way tripping is - you don't know when it's going to occur.

Didn't you use this same logic before? I thought I diffused it when I stated that these were all observable and obviously made to be a part of the game. Whereas Ganonciding is indeterminable and is obviously very flawed, because I highly doubt programmers intended to give a different result based off of infantesimal variables and character. Same premise. Different ends. Remember?

And I replied by saying what you doubt about programmer intentions doesn't mean diddly squat. Remember? Here's an idea: let's start making rules based off of what we think game creators were trying to do without proof that that's what they wanted.

Or let's not.

For a little while, I actually did believe there was proof that the developers intended otherwise - that being that Ganoncide in PAL versions always gave victory to Ganon. However, as this was false, there is no proof of your claim.

We should make a rule because of what you think a programmer was trying to do? Come now, be sensible.

Side note: there are other moves in the game that work the way you'd like Ganondorf's to, thereby proving it can be done and coded.

For one who promotes the scientific method, you sure do make a lot of fallacies and errors in reasoning. Olimar doesn't have a free pass back to the stage. Why? He obviously wasn't intended to. Ganondorf, on the other hand, does have a pass back to the stage, however, what governs this pass is an unobservable factor. It is not making up for what he can't do, rather, using what he can do against him, since there's no true way to determine whether he was intended to win or not.

>.>

Um, duh - of course Olimar doesn't have a pass. If someone wants to edgeguard him, they can try and maybe succeed.

This rule you're trying to get the BR to implement means "Let Ganon return to the stage or accept a loss." That's a free pass.

They were things you said before. But as hard as it may be to accept, your points are very flimsy and riddled with sophistry, so if needbe, I will correct them.

My points are not flimsy nor are they riddled with sophistry. That's all that needs to be said about that.

 

[Vermanubis]

My points are not flimsy nor are they riddled with sophistry. That's all that needs to be said about that.[/COLOR]

Airtight defense.

Also, before you bust a nut, I read your post. Although it was filled with a lack of comprehension for what I was saying (hence why I am not bothering replying anymore at this point), I do realize you probably spent a good minute or so thinking everything through.

 

[-Vocal-]

Airtight defense.

Also, before you bust a nut, I read your post. Although it was filled with a lack of comprehension for what I was saying (hence why I am not bothering replying anymore at this point), I do realize you probably spent a good minute or so thinking everything through.

My reasoning speaks for itself. No need to add extra words of defense.

And you're JUST NOW realizing that I've thought this matter to hell and back!?



@Myself:

Well Michelle, it's because people don't realize the immense amount of work and thought that I've put into this

 

[Vermanubis]

My reasoning speaks for itself. No need to add extra words of defense.

And you're JUST NOW realizing that I've thought this matter to hell and back!?



@Myself:

Well Michelle, it's because people don't realize the immense amount of work and thought that I've put into this

And I greatly appreciate all that you have done. I really do. You have earned my respect in that regard and I think all the other Ganons thank you as well. But you have a habit of making counterpoints that are either impertinent, or only vaguely similar to my original ones, so at this point, I'm not trying to piss you off, I just don't know what else to say, because it'll keep going in circles. I guess the hardest fallacy to overcome with this rule is the circular logic used behind it.

Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because. Basing the conclusion of the credence of the premise.

Neither of us are going to make sense to each other, evidently, so let's just not waste any more energy.

 

[-Vocal-]

If you think that's how it is, then I can respect your opinion.

 

[Orion*]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet_
Really, saying "the better player didn't win" is pretty much the most simple tenant of scrub logic.

oh and read this,

LOL no. beating someone, and outskilling them are VERY different.

as an example, lets say my dedede beat san, or my metaknight beat boss. that does not mean i have more skill than them, in fact i am quite sure that they both outskill me in most areas of this game.

skill =/= winning

and until people start to learn this we will not grow as a community. i play to win in tournament yes, but i play to LEARN outside of that

 

[-Vocal-]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet_
Really, saying "the better player didn't win" is pretty much the most simple tenant of scrub logic.

oh and read this,

LOL no. beating someone, and outskilling them are VERY different.

as an example, lets say my dedede beat san, or my metaknight beat boss. that does not mean i have more skill than them, in fact i am quite sure that they both outskill me in most areas of this game.

skill =/= winning

and until people start to learn this we will not grow as a community. i play to win in tournament yes, but i play to LEARN outside of that

So wait, he countered his own post...with his own post?

BPC step it up bro

 

[Vermanubis]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet_
Really, saying "the better player didn't win" is pretty much the most simple tenant of scrub logic.

oh and read this,

LOL no. beating someone, and outskilling them are VERY different.

as an example, lets say my dedede beat san, or my metaknight beat boss. that does not mean i have more skill than them, in fact i am quite sure that they both outskill me in most areas of this game.

skill =/= winning

and until people start to learn this we will not grow as a community. i play to win in tournament yes, but i play to LEARN outside of that

Exactly. Too much emphasis on this ******** dogma that a win's a win and nothing beyond that matters. Oh, hey, I SDed three times. Oh, hey, too bad, you didn't win that's all that matters.

Some ridiculous ideology that anything but an everything goes mentality is scrub talk.

 

[Raziek]

Guys, you do realize that if the more skilled player chooses to handicap themselves by playing a bad character, that this is THEIR FAULT, right?

You might be the more skilled player, but if you aren't playing to win, the victory screen is all that matters.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, a tournament is a test of skill, but not a test of who is MORE SKILLED.

This makes little sense when you first read it, but think about it.

You might be the better player, but if you fail to use all your options to win, you lose, and you were evidently NOT the most skilled at winning the game. Skill is a very abstract concept. We choose to use the stock format to determine the winner of the match. If you were more skilled at the game, but you lost, too bad.

If you do not abuse all your options, you are not the most skilled at achieving the desired victory condition. This includes everything from characters to stages, to mindgames to yelling random **** when you play to distract your opponent.

I'm rambling, but the point is, the victory screen is all that matters.

@vermanubis You're completely ignoring the whole point of competition. To use the tools available to you to best your opponent. That's it. It is not simply, "Who is the better player."

You're dismissing just about every tenant of the concept of DIFFERENT characters and the strengths and weaknesses they have.

If you choose to play a character as awful as Ganon, you might be more skilled, but that isn't what we're judging here.

 

[Vermanubis]

Guys, you do realize that if the more skilled player chooses to handicap themselves by playing a bad character, that this is THEIR FAULT, right?

You might be the more skilled player, but if you aren't playing to win, the victory screen is all that matters.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, a tournament is a test of skill, but not a test of who is MORE SKILLED.

This makes little sense when you first read it, but think about it.

You might be the better player, but if you fail to use all your options to win, you lose, and you were evidently NOT the most skilled at winning the game. Skill is a very abstract concept. We choose to use the stock format to determine the winner of the match. If you were more skilled at the game, but you lost, too bad.

If you do not abuse all your options, you are not the most skilled at achieving the desired victory condition. This includes everything from characters to stages, to mindgames to yelling random **** when you play to distract your opponent.

I'm rambling, but the point is, the victory screen is all that matters.

@vermanubis You're completely ignoring the whole point of competition. To use the tools available to you to best your opponent. That's it. It is not simply, "Who is the better player."

You're dismissing just about every tenant of the concept of DIFFERENT characters and the strengths and weaknesses they have.

If you choose to play a character as awful as Ganon, you might be more skilled, but that isn't what we're judging here.

We were just conjecturing, thank you though, professor.

 

[Hobobloke]

My main grievance is that no one outside of BBR agrees with the rule, yet if it were implemented, dedicated mains of Ganon who already have it hard enough would virtually lose any chance at viability due to his inability to recover last stock. So it is, in essence, screwing Ganon/Bowser mains for the sake of organization and semantics. I hate to put it that way, but it's true.

I just had to point out I am a Bowser main who plays seriously and agrees with the BBR's stance on suicide moves.

 

[Zatchiel]

Say you're Lucas vs Samus on FD, and there is 5 seconds left in a game.
Lucas Usmashes Samus at 120%, but right before she dies, the timer hits 0. Lucas has 150%, who gets the win? If by time out?

 

[Shaya]

timer hit 0... samus wins.

 

[-Vocal-]

Say you're Lucas vs Samus on FD, and there is 5 seconds left in a game.
Lucas Usmashes Samus at 120%, but right before she dies, the timer hits 0. Lucas has 150%, who gets the win? If by time out?

Sounds like Samus, and reminds me a lot Brood v. M2K Game Five - if there had been like 5 more seconds this would've been the case (though I suppose it'd be Samus landing the kill move for this example [HA, Samus killing...])

 

[Spelt]

No game 5 brood still had the lead. if the timer ran out m2k would've gotten timed out.

 

[-Vocal-]

No game 5 brood still had the lead. if the timer ran out m2k would've gotten timed out.

Sounds like Samus, and reminds me a lot Brood v. M2K Game Five - if there had been like 5 more seconds this would've been the case (though I suppose it'd be Samus landing the kill move for this example [HA, Samus killing...])

:X

silly 10chars...

 

[Vermanubis]

I just had to point out I am a Bowser main who plays seriously and agrees with the BBR's stance on suicide moves.

Hang on, buddy, I'm sending an emergency raft to that island you're on ASAP.