Should SDs be so harsh?

[stelzig]

I hate when people SD or something of the like after I screw up even though I know the intention is good. Makes me feel obligated to do the same thing to them, and I just don't see the point. I remember making it a thing in mkds to never pass people who stopped if I got hit by a blue shell just before the finish line. And those blue shells are much more bull**** than SD's to begin with, I just don't want my opponents to compensate for something and be "polite". Luckily the SD thing in melee isn't that common anyway.

I did agree to restart a pools match with ice after I SD'd against him for the second time (he asked if we should start over both times), but that was mostly because I wanted to play more with him than just 2 stocks ^x^ (it was also tournament so I guess I would be stupid to say no)

 

[Blistering Speed]

I'm going to find the OP, push him off a cliff, and say that he SD'd. I want him dead, and I want it ironic.

 

[Kal]

I don't think that would constitute irony.

 

[Blistering Speed]

You can't use the word irony on the internet without someone being a moron about semantics.

 

[Beat!]

I wouldn't call it "ironic" as much as "murder".

lololol

 

[-ACE-]

Anyone who said an SD is the players fault, you contributed nothing. That is beyond obvious and irrelevant. Anyone who said this thread is dumb, you're dumb. Those who acted as if the OP was suggesting that a player should not suffer consequences as a result of an SD, try to improve your reading comprehension skills. If cactuar made a thread that suggested this there would be so many meatriders, lmao. No offense to cactus. This is obviously about # of stocks, and to me it boils down to whether or not you want to see melee evolve into a game of extreme caution (or at least take a step in this direction) or not. Personally I'd rather see top players go at it knowing that an SD isn't virtually a guarantee that you will lose the match. They will take risks. This is what makes melee melee. Melee with 1-2 stocks would have somewhat of a brawl-like effect on the metagame imo. Scared to death of SD's = cautious and arguably boring play. SD's should cost a stock, but if you SD by accident at the beginning of the match, you shouldn't also lose the entire match automatically (i know you don't automatically lose, but at top level play, 1 stock vs 2 stock low% its close enough imo).

 

[jbro]

You can't use the word irony on the internet without someone being a moron about semantics.

I don't know you but I like you.

As for the SD "issue," I think everyone can agree that **** happens.
I know we try to make the game as fair as possible for everyone, but if there isn't that "no one knows what's gonna happen next" left in the game, it loses a ton of its excitement.

 

[Metal Reeper]

This is the worst ****ing thread in history. If you SD it's you're dam fault deal with it and play on.

 

[Beat!]

This is the worst ****ing thread in history. If you SD it's you're dam fault deal with it and play on.

I find this post funny for a number of reasons.

 

[Aber]

If you die you die. That's the game. Survival. I don't understand why this thread even exists.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

This isn't the thread to discuss Cactuar's ruleset, but it is an example of a ruleset in which SDs aren't as harsh as they currently are, since a match loss is not as harsh. As another point, less harsh SDs would likely result in players taking some really cool and interesting risks that we currently don't see.

It's also worth noting that as the number of stocks goes up, the relative disadvantage you're put at in that particular round for SDing goes down. For example, it's generally easier to come back if you're down 3 stocks to 4 than if you're down 1 stock to 2.

Anyways, as Ace notes, since this topic is about rulesets, particularly Cactuar's as opposed to the usual ones, I see little reason to leave this thread open since we already have a thread for that discussion. Those of you who wish to continue discussing this may do so there.