Proposed Change to Tiebreaker Cases Due to Timeout

[Big O]

@ Big O

Our systems are virtually identical. Here is your ruleset in my language...

1. A set is defined as a finite and predetermined number of games.
2. A game can be ended either with a player 1 win, player 2 win, or tie if the game goes to sudden death.
3. If a player is ever leading by more games than there are games remaining in the set, the set ends immediately.
4. The winner of a set is the player with the most wins at the end of the set.
5. If players have an equal number of wins, both players lose.

All you've done is trade a tiebreaker match for weird 'both players lose' tech. This would lead to weird tournament brackets where players are randomly given buys because both of their possible challengers lost. Do you really think it would be fair for two players to both lose because they couldn't quite finish their last game? If they both have 2 wins and both players have been playing aggressively all game, but the kill has remained elusive, you really think both players deserve to lose? Remember, the alternative is as simple as a 3 minute tiebreaker game.

EDIT: The system outlined here isn't quite identical to your system. There is no easy way to translate your system from a system that cares about losses to a system that cares about wins. The question I pose still stands. Here is your system...

1. A set is defined as an odd, finite, and predetermined K number of games.
2. A game can be ended either with a player 1 loss, player 2 loss, or mutual loss if the game goes to sudden death.
3. If a player ever has floor(K/2)+1 losses, the set ends immediately
4. The winner of a set is the player with the fewest losses at the end of the set.
5. If players have an equal number of losses, both players lose.

I was going to point out that your translated ruleset is slightly different, but you edited that in the middle of my post.

I have played like 3k games at least and have never had a 2 stock 6 minute or a 3 stock 8 minute match go to time. I've also never had a 2 stock 5 minute match go to time in For Glory either, but have had a number of "last 10 seconds" games usually against campy DHD's. While I won't project my experience as standard, I think especially in a 2 stock 6 minute meta that timeouts are largely due to long periods of inactivity and deliberate camping/stalling.

I would bet that the potential for losing because of stalling in stalemate situations would encourage players to actually attempt to finish the game. Mutually assured destruction is a very powerful motivator. While your example scenario would suck to be in with my ruleset, the fact that that can happen would largely dissuade players from being overly timid/cautious like that in the first place.

So what if we are in grands with a reset bracket and that ends in a timeout making both players lose grands?

If the draw happened in the last match before a reset occurred, the one on winner's side would win. If it happened after the bracket reset, then we would have to have a tiebreaker match or just decide by % or w/e. I would probably be for a tiebreaker 1 stock match with 3 mins. Maybe have handicap to like 50% to speed things along if necessary.

 

[nodle]

I was going to point out that your translated ruleset is slightly different, but you edited that in the middle of my post.

I fixed the post as quickly as I could. The essence of the two versions is the same though. Your ruleset is ultimately just trading the option of a tiebreaker match for the option of a double loss set.

I have played like 3k games at least and have never had a 2 stock 6 minute or a 3 stock 8 minute match go to time. I've also never had a 2 stock 5 minute match go to time in For Glory either, but have had a number of "last 10 seconds" games usually against campy DHD's. While I won't project my experience as standard, I think especially in a 2 stock 6 minute meta that timeouts are largely due to long periods of inactivity and deliberate camping/stalling.

I would bet that the potential for losing because of stalling in stalemate situations would encourage players to actually attempt to finish the game. Mutually assured destruction is a very powerful motivator. While your example scenario would suck to be in with my ruleset, the fact that that can happen would largely dissuade players from being too overly cautious like that in the first place.

Sure, but My ruleset avoids the problem entirely while providing almost identical incentives. Lets take some hypotheticals...

1. I'm up in games. Our systems have identical incentives.
2. I'm down in games. Our systems have identical incentives.
   
3. I'm tied in games and greater than 1 game away from losing. Our systems have identical incentives.
   
4. I'm tied in games and we are in the final game of the set. Your system strongly disincentives time outs. My system offers no incentive for time outs. If a timeout occurs, you end up in exactly the same position in another shorter game.

I think both of our systems disincentivize timeouts sufficiently to end there use in tournaments by everyone other than trolls. So we should decide between them using other metrics. The rulesets are similar in complexity. Your ruleset takes superficially shorter amounts of time. If I'm correct in believing either rule set ends tournament time outs, then the rule sets both end up being just straight best of K sets. My system has two notable advantages. One, its a positive measure. It asks players to win a set, your system asks players to not lose a set. Winning feels a lot better than not losing. Two, on the super rare occasions where a time out actually occurs, my system lets us enjoy a hyped tiebreaker match, where your system just forces a weird buy into the tournament.

 

[Big O]

I fixed the post as quickly as I could. The essence of the two versions is the same though. Your ruleset is ultimately just trading the option of a tiebreaker match for the option of a double loss set.



Sure, but My ruleset avoids the problem entirely while providing almost identical incentives. Lets take some hypotheticals...

1. I'm up in games. Our systems have identical incentives.
2. I'm down in games. Our systems have identical incentives.
   
3. I'm tied in games and greater than 1 game away from losing. Our systems have identical incentives.
   
4. I'm tied in games and we are in the final game of the set. Your system strongly disincentives time outs. My system offers no incentive for time outs. If a timeout occurs, you end up in exactly the same position in another shorter game.

I think both of our systems disincentivize timeouts sufficiently to end there use in tournaments by everyone other than trolls. So we should decide between them using other metrics. The rulesets are similar in complexity. Your ruleset takes superficially shorter amounts of time. If I'm correct in believing either rule set ends tournament time outs, then the rule sets both end up being just straight best of K sets. My system has two notable advantages. One, its a positive measure. It asks players to win a set, your system asks players to not lose a set. Winning feels a lot better than not losing. Two, on the super rare occasions where a time out actually occurs, my system lets us enjoy a hyped tiebreaker match, where your system just forces a weird buy into the tournament.

Deciding sets by losses as opposed to wins is the same thing as far as the player is concerned. Outside of the rare double loss due to timeouts in the final game, one player wins and one player loses. The player doesn't care about any vague philosophical differences the nuance between the rules might imply, they just care about the end result. The person with more wins always wins anyway, so the end result is the same.

Well to be honest, I doubt a tiebreaker match between players who weren't intentionally stalling, but time out anyway due to overly timid play would be hype to begin with. All that really does is put them back in that same situation and gives them no real incentive to break the stalemate they found themselves in. It just ends up costing time.

While our systems are pretty similar, your system is a lot more prone to long drawn out sets. In yours if they tie game 2 in a Bo3, there is a game 3 to play and a potential tiebreaker after that if there is a tie in wins. In mine, the set just ends right there. Because of the threat of ending things immediately upon timeouts, timing someone out won't take an unnecessarily long toll on tourney time like they could in tie = draw systems.

I would say my system discourages timeouts more than yours in final games and less for sets where someone is down a game (losing player is discouraged more, winning player discouraged less). I also feel that in my system there is a much greater sense of urgency to the timeouts than in your system where ties are just empty games, which is less hype imo than timeouts with bigger stakes.

 

[Ghostbone]

What if both players are no shows in a winner's bracket match? That doesn't sound like an impossible scenario either, so I doubt that hasn't happened and hasn't been resolved before. Set draws by timeout could be handled similarly.

Then they'd both be DQ'd completely from the bracket, and there would be a bye in losers.
Are you implying that if a timeout occurs in winners side then both players should be DQ'd from the tournament? That sounds completely ridiculous.

I don't really see how it would favor the losing player over the winning player with the proposed system. If they are losing in games, timeouts are the same as a draw until match point, which would then lead to elimination. For example, if you are down 1 game in a Bo3 you lose immediately following a timeout, while in a Bo5 you would need to reverse 3-0 them afterwards (and never get timed out too). In both of those situations the losing player during the match gets the same result after a timeout (elimination for Bo3 and reverse 3-0 to win for Bo5).

If they are even in games, it is the same as a draw with the added danger of being eliminated should you continue to keep having timeouts. If game 1 goes to time in a Bo3, game 2 would effectively match point. If game 1 goes to time in a Bo5, it would effectively transition to a Bo3 set. A timeout at game 3 of an even set would make game 4 match point. At this point, you could say that my proposed system would give the losing player an advantage compared to the % tiebreaker, but if you gave counterpicking rights to the player with the % lead after a timeout I think the overall result would be the same. The "loser" according to the % lead would have to beat the winner on his cp to win the set. This just makes that happen game 2 instead of game 3.

If you're losing game 1, you'd rather go for the tie than lose the game, that way you only have to win one game rather than two games in a row. Even if your opponent gets counter-pick advantage, they'd get counterpick advantage on game 3 if you won game 2 anyway, there's no reason not to go for the timeout if you're losing game 1. If you're losing game 3, you can run the time and force your opponent to blindly rush at you because otherwise you're both out of the tournament, even when you're both in winners, according to your rule. Seems pretty ridiculous.

All that said, there is no reason to switch from % based tiebreakers if people feel it is a good enough way to determine who is winning. For those that don't feel it is as fair as it could be or feel timeouts should be discouraged, it is interesting to brainstorm solutions that are to our liking. I just thought it would be interesting to have a system that potentially makes timeouts actually cut down tourney length and discourages them at the same time.

Again, % might not be perfect, but all your rule does is switch the incentive to time out from the more often winning player (lower %) to the more often losing player (higher %), plus adds in ridiculous double DQs from winners bracket because you can't have both players go to losers, they'd have to continue to do tiebreakers, which just adds a tonne of time to the tournament with no benefit.

Like trust me, there are definitely players who will use the threat of a double loss to force their opponent to blindly rush in and approach in any situation (as they should, if they don't approach it's a 100% chance of loss, if they do then it's slightly higher). You'd turn high level games into games of chicken.
That's ridiculous for a competitive game and I can't support any ruleset that incentivises that.

 

[Big O]

Then they'd both be DQ'd completely from the bracket, and there would be a bye in losers.
Are you implying that if a timeout occurs in winners side then both players should be DQ'd from the tournament? That sounds completely ridiculous.

If you're losing game 1, you'd rather go for the tie than lose the game, that way you only have to win one game rather than two games in a row. Even if your opponent gets counter-pick advantage, they'd get counterpick advantage on game 3 if you won game 2 anyway, there's no reason not to go for the timeout if you're losing game 1. If you're losing game 3, you can run the time and force your opponent to blindly rush at you because otherwise you're both out of the tournament, even when you're both in winners, according to your rule. Seems pretty ridiculous.

Again, % might not be perfect, but all your rule does is switch the incentive to time out from the more often winning player (lower %) to the more often losing player (higher %), plus adds in ridiculous double DQs from winners bracket because you can't have both players go to losers, they'd have to continue to do tiebreakers, which just adds a tonne of time to the tournament with no benefit.

Like trust me, there are definitely players who will use the threat of a double loss to force their opponent to blindly rush in and approach in any situation (as they should, if they don't approach it's a 100% chance of loss, if they do then it's slightly higher). You'd turn high level games into games of chicken.
That's ridiculous for a competitive game and I can't support any ruleset that incentivises that.

I was not familiar with how the brackets are run in edge cases like that. That would be pretty harsh, but I think the threat of that happening would prevent such games from timing out in the first place. The double DQ from winner's scenario would also only happen if a timeout happened when it is match point for both players.

I suppose with the "nothing to lose" mentality, the losing player could leverage aggression by running the clock in a double match point game. In such games I guess making those be based on % instead of making them double losses makes more sense.

The more I think about it, the more I start to think removing the timer altogether might be the cleanest way to get rid of timeouts and the extra rules that go along with them. Longer timers tend to promote shorter games (by making timeouts less viable), so perhaps removing the incentive for running the clock will end up speeding things along too. Extra long timers like 10 minutes might also be enough to effectively remove timeouts.

 

[nodle]

@ Big O

Timers are in place for a specific reason, they enforce round lengths. In long slow matchups, the timer prevents the players from consuming all of a tournaments valuable time, leading to all players spending more time playing smash, and tournaments in general taking less time. This is essential to a healthily run tournament

I have played like 3k games at least and have never had a 2 stock 6 minute or a 3 stock 8 minute match go to time. I've also never had a 2 stock 5 minute match go to time in For Glory either, but have had a number of "last 10 seconds" games usually against campy DHD's. While I won't project my experience as standard, I think especially in a 2 stock 6 minute meta that timeouts are largely due to long periods of inactivity and deliberate camping/stalling.

I think this is the root of your problem. You have never experienced a time out, and assume that time outs can only occur if players intend for them to occur. This is false. Some matchups are slower than other matchups, some players play safer than other players. Telling players to **** off in the event of a time out n the wrong game is a bad idea.

 

[Big O]

@ Big O

Timers are in place for a specific reason, they enforce round lengths. In long slow matchups, the timer prevents the players from consuming all of a tournaments valuable time, leading to all players spending more time playing smash, and tournaments in general taking less time. This is essential to a healthily run tournament


I think this is the root of your problem. You have never experienced a time out, and assume that time outs can only occur if players intend for them to occur. This is false. Some matchups are slower than other matchups, some players play safer than other players. Telling players to **** off in the event of a time out n the wrong game is a bad idea.

I know what the timer does and why it exists. I also have experienced time outs plenty of times in games outside of smash. I do not particularly care whether or not I get timed out either and have willingly timed out people numerous times with Zangief in ST/HDR. That said, I am just brainstorming possible ruleset ideas that discourage them for people interested in that kind of thing.

My point about eliminating the timer or lengthening it to impractical levels is also rooted in shortening tourney time, not some irrational hatred of timeouts. Timers force matches to end, but they can also artificially lengthen game time by giving players incentive to run the clock to achieve their win condition. Like 2 stock 3 minute matches would probably almost always go to time just because of how feasible running the clock would be, but the time is capped at 3 minutes so it would not take up too much time. Players would riot however, since the overwhelming majority of smash players seem to hate timeouts for w/e reason.

To please such players, making timeouts impractical is the goal. To that end, logically there is a sweetspot where the timer is long enough to discourage running the clock to win and still allows slower paced games time to end in a timely fashion. My point is that perhaps this sweetspot is not at 2 stock 6 minutes and is actually closer to 8 minutes, 10 minutes, or even infinite time (no timer). Maybe the worst case scenario of Sonic/DHD ditto stalemates aren't as big of a bottleneck as we have come to fear/expect. In any case, without more testing in tourneys there is no real objective way to gauge which amount of time actually promotes shorter average game lengths and happier players.

 

[Ansou]

The problem is that any TO would pretty much tremble in fear by the mere thought of a match going on forever. I'm not saying that matches would continue forever, but the possibility is there and that is really not something that any TO would be willing to risk. Having 3 stock 10 minutes would be more feasible, but it still comes down to if the TOs are actually okay with that, which I highly doubt.

 

[Damandatwin]

Yeah the idea of someone having to break out a calculator to decide who won a set doesn't sound very hype to me. Pass.

 

[Touchebag]

I'm using match because its the word me and my friends use. Here is ruleset in your vocab...

1. A set is defined as a finite and predetermined number of games.
2. A game can be ended either with a player 1 win, player 2 win, or tie if the game goes to sudden death.
3. If a player is ever leading by more games than there are games remaining in the set, the set ends immediately.
4. The winner of a set is the player with the most wins at the end of the set.
5. If a set ends in a tie, a 1 stock 3 minute Tiebreaker game is played. Follow in game rules regarding Sudden Death.

...Regarding stage selection. I don't think the higher-seed/rock-paper-scissors-winner should be allowed to get a free stage counter pick. The point of neutral stages is that they don't bias the match, so the tiebreaker game should go to a neutral stage. A normal rule in Smash is that players can't pick a stage they have won on without mutual agreement of players.

As I said. This is pretty much the same system we discussed (and liked) in the previous thread but we still have a major problem with point 5 in that list.

Even if we disregard the problem with finding a neutral tiebreaker stage (if there was a truly neutral stage we would play on it exclusively) we still have the problem that the games SD rules (minus the Bob-ombs) of 300%, 1 stock still heavily favours certain characters. For instance Link have an incredibly quick, long range projectile that is lethal in this "standard" Sudden Death in his bow. How would a Bowser or Ganondorf ever win an SD match against him?

I much prefer @ Raijinken 's system of keeping the current score and just adding 50 or so percent. A Ganon at 300% have basically lost to a Link at 300% before the match starts. A Ganon at 50%+50%=100% still have a fighting chance against a Link at 20%+50%=70% but half of the match "has already been played" so to speak, thus shortening the tiebreaker time.

 

[nodle]

As I said. This is pretty much the same system we discussed (and liked) in the previous thread but we still have a major problem with point 5 in that list.

Even if we disregard the problem with finding a neutral tiebreaker stage (if there was a truly neutral stage we would play on it exclusively) we still have the problem that the games SD rules (minus the Bob-ombs) of 300%, 1 stock still heavily favours certain characters. For instance Link have an incredibly quick, long range projectile that is lethal in this "standard" Sudden Death in his bow. How would a Bowser or Ganondorf ever win an SD match against him?

I much prefer @ Raijinken 's system of keeping the current score and just adding 50 or so percent. A Ganon at 300% have basically lost to a Link at 300% before the match starts. A Ganon at 50%+50%=100% still have a fighting chance against a Link at 20%+50%=70% but half of the match "has already been played" so to speak, thus shortening the tiebreaker time.

You would only ever be going to SD if at least 1 gamein the main set ends in a tie, both players won an equal number of games, and then the players proceeded to tie in the tiebreaker game. At that point, I'm not too concerned about balance anymore, I just want someone to win. SD (including the bombs) forces that to occur. SD isn't essential to the system though. We could just as easily use the percent rule to break ties in the tiebreaker game, or use any other system that we can guarantee results for.

Raijinkin's system potentially requires K tiebreakers per K game set as It has no obvious implementation at the set level. This seems very undesirable.

 

[Touchebag]

You would only ever be going to SD if at least 1 gamein the main set ends in a tie, both players won an equal number of games, and then the players proceeded to tie in the tiebreaker game. At that point, I'm not too concerned about balance anymore, I just want someone to win. SD (including the bombs) forces that to occur. SD isn't essential to the system though. We could just as easily use the percent rule to break ties in the tiebreaker game, or use any other system that we can guarantee results for.

So you're saying that the tiebreaker game should be a completely normal 1 stock game? That can also tie. And is going to take time. And can potentially add yet another game to the set (the game will be quick but the setup takes time). We cannot use a system that takes much more time than the current. It won't happen. Two potential extra games on top of at least one match going to time is not something that TOs are ever going to accept.

Raijinkin's system potentially requires K tiebreakers per K game set as It has no obvious implementation at the set level. This seems very undesirable.

Why not use his system instead? He proposed this system in the last thread and I interpreted that as a way to play this tiebreaker (after I posted the same basic system as you). The tiebreaker should be fast. Hence the need for SD like rules. Percentage leads could be used only in this game to decide a timeout since it will very rarely happen.

 

[Raijinken]

We could, of course, use both. Break ties at the set level, played on the same stage and characters as the last round of the set (this fixes issues of un-justified bias appearing in the tiebreaker), add percent (flat or previous-match derived, either one) to reduce the chance of a repeated time-out, and play.

Two options for time out.

• If it times out, THEN use percent, since at this point there's no reason to give these players any more screen or play time until their next round, if such a round happens.
• Add 50% per tie until someone dies. If nobody dies at 300%, disqualify both players for wasting tournament time. Or, if you want to be nicer instead of setting an example, use percent at that point.

The problem is that any TO would pretty much tremble in fear by the mere thought of a match going on forever. I'm not saying that matches would continue forever, but the possibility is there and that is really not something that any TO would be willing to risk. Having 3 stock 10 minutes would be more feasible, but it still comes down to if the TOs are actually okay with that, which I highly doubt.

I'm fully fine with all of these rules (not that I'm a relevant TO). The only issue with no time is that, like match-fixing, there is a lot of room for players to deliberately screw the system. It takes a willingness to hand out disqualifications on subjective rulings to prevent that, and a lot of people (at least when listening to their logic side) aren't okay with that.

3/10 or 2/8 seems worth testing, to me.

 

[nodle]

So you're saying that the tiebreaker game should be a completely normal 1 stock game? That can also tie. And is going to take time. And can potentially add yet another game to the set (the game will be quick but the setup takes time). We cannot use a system that takes much more time than the current. It won't happen. Two potential extra games on top of at least one match going to time is not something that TOs are ever going to accept.

You get taken to SD automatically and a long SD would take about 10 seconds to finish. Including setup of the tiebreaker, we would be adding at most 4 minutes to the length of a set in the event of ties. The real strength and time saving function of the system is in removing all incentives to time out games, killing the strategy in competition, reducing the number of timeouts.

Why not use his system instead? He proposed this system in the last thread and I interpreted that as a way to play this tiebreaker (after I posted the same basic system as you). The tiebreaker should be fast. Hence the need for SD like rules. Percentage leads could be used only in this game to decide a timeout since it will very rarely happen.

His system doesn't make sense as a set tiebreaker. What percentage would you start at during the tiebreaker, your damage in the first game, second, third? Doing a pseudo SD, wherein each player starts at same damage between 50-100%, makes sense but ultimately just trades rules complexity/setup time for match time. If we were to start both players at 80, how much time would we need on the clock. 1 minute, 2?

 

[nodle]

We could, of course, use both. Break ties at the set level, played on the same stage and characters as the last round of the set (this fixes issues of un-justified bias appearing in the tiebreaker), add percent (flat or previous-match derived, either one) to reduce the chance of a repeated time-out, and play.

That system allows players to play tiebreaker matches on biased counter-pick stages. This is obviously undesirable.

Two options for time out.

• If it times out, THEN use percent, since at this point there's no reason to give these players any more screen or play time until their next round, if such a round happens.
• Add 50% per tie until someone dies. If nobody dies at 300%, disqualify both players for wasting tournament time. Or, if you want to be nicer instead of setting an example, use percent at that point.

The first strategy makes sense. The second one could theoretically take 20 minutes to resolve with fast setup times.

Assuming we go with the first "break ties in tiebreakers with percent", then what do we do in the event of true tie in the tiebreaker. I.E. both players have same percent and time out, or both players die simultaneously.

 

[Touchebag]

You get taken to SD automatically and a long SD would take about 10 seconds to finish. Including setup of the tiebreaker, we would be adding at most 4 minutes to the length of a set in the event of ties. The real strength and time saving function of the system is in removing all incentives to time out games, killing the strategy in competition, reducing the number of timeouts.

Yeah, I know. but the problem is that while there is less incentive to do so people will still do it and then the only thing TOs will take away from that paragraph is

we would be adding at most 4 minutes to the length of a set

That's 4 minutes too many. You cannot seriously expect two extra games, one normal and one quick, plus setup inbetween to take 4 minutes. Dream on. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it would add up 10+ minutes total (keep in mind that with our system you also have to take into account an entire extra game due to the fact that a set cannot be decided with one win and one tie any more).

Time outs are rare enough that even if we were to reduce the amount by, say, 80% the time added to those games might still take way longer. Our main problem is time. Not fairness of the system. If we had no time constraints we wouldn't even run timed matches. Just stocks until someone dies.

His system doesn't make sense as a set tiebreaker. What percentage would you start at during the tiebreaker, your damage in the first game, second, third? Doing a pseudo SD, wherein each player starts at same damage between 50-100%, makes sense but ultimately just trades rules complexity/setup time for match time. If we were to start both players at 80, how much time would we need on the clock. 1 minute, 2?

How about we start each character with a percentage according to their weight? Heavier characters get more %. Like just above kill percent. The match doesn't need to be that long. A minute will probably suffice since the point is for them to pretty much die within 10-20 seconds.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

Timeouts should be settled with the players' moms being called.

 

[Touchebag]

Timeouts should be settled with the players' moms being called.

And let them have a cage match? Oooh, I like this one.

 

[Raijinken]

That system allows players to play tiebreaker matches on biased counter-pick stages. This is obviously undesirable.

No stage is unbiased, and thus I make no such distinction, but I could see there being a perceived issue if you're big on "neutral stages."

Having players go into their tiebreaker on the most recently used characters and stage (or, if you'd prefer, the most recent tied game's characters and stage) takes away the necessity of choosing a picking process (when nobody won, hence the issue to begin with), or with declaring a specific stage more "fair" for a tiebreaker than another. The options are to come up with a way to determine who gets stage pick, or to random it. Randoming is obviously undesirable, and since we're breaking a tie, so is giving either player the right to choose anew.

 

[Steelballray]

How about a "no excessive stalling" rule? I know that stalling can be overly subjective but I don't know.. It sounds alright.

Although in some matchups, mostly against characters who are dominant up close (Luigi) if you took a stock first you really have no reason to approach or even trade if your character and stage are fit to keep running till the match ends.

 

[Touchebag]

How about a "no excessive stalling" rule? I know that stalling can be overly subjective but I don't know.. It sounds alright.

Although in some matchups, mostly against characters who are dominant up close (Luigi) if you took a stock first you really have no reason to approach or even trade if your character and stage are fit to keep running till the match ends.

In a perfect world maybe but we all know this isn't feasible in practice.

No stage is unbiased, and thus I make no such distinction, but I could see there being a perceived issue if you're big on "neutral stages.

Having players go into their tiebreaker on the most recently used characters and stage (or, if you'd prefer, the most recent tied game's characters and stage) takes away the necessity of choosing a picking process (when nobody won, hence the issue to begin with), or with declaring a specific stage more "fair" for a tiebreaker than another. The options are to come up with a way to determine who gets stage pick, or to random it. Randoming is obviously undesirable, and since we're breaking a tie, so is giving either player the right to choose anew.

What if we used the first (or last) game that was tied as a base for the tiebreaker. If the game was tied that ought to be the most "fair" matchup right? Especially since stalling won't be a viable tactic due to the high percent.

 

[Raijinken]

In a perfect world maybe but we all know this isn't feasible in practice.



What if we used the first (or last) game that was tied as a base for the tiebreaker. If the game was tied that ought to be the most "fair" matchup right? Especially since stalling won't be a viable tactic due to the high percent.

I suggested that in the parentheses of the post you quoted, actually =D

I think that's probably the most reasonable way to do it.

 

[Touchebag]

I suggested that in the parentheses of the post you quoted, actually =D

I think that's probably the most reasonable way to do it.

Yeah, I just modified it to the last tied game. As I understood your post you just suggested the last played game (tied or not). As you said this also removes the need for stage picking. It seems we're making progress but we still need to test this out somehow, though.