Stalemates

[The Star King]

All right, I'm going to use this match as an example:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPk1MRX0SD4

I know Chibo got hit at the very end, but suppose that he didn't and the game ended at a tie. The MBR ruleset states that a full game should be replayed. But what happens if they both refuse to approach once again? How do you advance the game without punishing a single player unfairly?

Oh, and to guard against potential stupidity: whether the tie can be prevented or not is irrelevant. Please don't post something like "lol bro Falco could have just shielded the fair and then wavedash low ftilt OOS". This is about if both players choose not to approach.

 

[ajp_anton]

I think our tournaments use stocks -> % -> sudden death.

 

[Strong Badam]

As long as they both aren't at 0% there's most likely a fractional % I can calculate. Otherwise AJP's idea holds true

 

[LittleBoyLarry]

To break ties, just make them play giant melee on a small stage. 1 stock, 1 minute. Only one item: Regular mushroom (set on high)

 

[The Star King]

I think our tournaments use stocks -> % -> sudden death.

A similar thing can happen in Sudden Death, although it's harder because of the falling Bob-ombs. Maybe with two Puffs planking or something.

As long as they both aren't at 0% there's most likely a fractional % I can calculate. Otherwise AJP's idea holds true

Assume they are both at the same exact % >_>

 

[Citizen Snips]

But what happens if they both refuse to approach once again? How do you advance the game without punishing a single player unfairly?

DQ both of them.

Seriously, if you refuse to play your match, you get DQ'd. Why should it be any different just because you hit start at character select?

 

[The Star King]

I knew that proposition would come up. The problem I have with that - assuming neither player is approaching because such action would put them at a disadvantage - is that if one player decides to approach because he does not want to be DQ'd, he will likely lose. His opponent will advance and the approacher will have just gotten PUNISHED for wanting to avoid a DQ.

 

[SamusPoop]

Then this game is broken and both are amazing players who know so.

 

[Dan Salvato]

As long as they both aren't at 0% there's most likely a fractional % I can calculate. Otherwise AJP's idea holds true

SB is right; the percent value is actually a huge decimal, not a two-digit number. If everyone was really dumb and insistent, it could be brought down to this in order to determine the winner.

However, considering nobody has had this issue in the past 10 years, I wouldn't really consider it to be much of an issue.

 

[Habefiet]

RPS.

Seems fair to me. It's how we decide other issues on which neither player will budge, like port priority, isn't it? If neither one will choose to approach, this seems like the best way to go about it.

Either that or have them play a different victory condition. Like. First one to grab the edge on the other player's side wins. Something that forces them to move. But in all seriousness, Rock-Paper-Scissors seems like the most sensible path.

 

[Stratocaster]

The match will be decided by one more game as so:
No Items.
Fox only.
Final Destination.

Spoiler

Seriously though, the only way this is a problem is if neither of the players approach at all from the start or if the players end up with the exact same percent (unlikely). If someone won't approach and tries to stall you out for 8 min, switching to fox could solve something like that. If neither will approach, for 8 min, you deserve to be DQ'd.

 

[Landry]

lol bro Falco could have just shielded the fair and then wavedash low ftilt OOS

 

[KrazyKnux]

I think our tournaments use stocks -> % -> sudden death.

I don't think sudden death is good to use though, because some characters have advantages over others.

I think it's pretty clear that stalling for both players should be called and both players should be DQed. It's really the same thing if two players agree to stand there for 8 minutes, have a tie, and replay the match over and over again. It just so happens that Chibo is using a technique that may (maybe not) put him in an advantageous spot. But the technique isn't banned or limited (ledgegrab rule) so either the Falco approaches or doesn't. Either way, Chibo isn't approaching, so they would both be stalling.

 

[ajp_anton]

I don't think sudden death is good to use though, because some characters have advantages over others.

You think it happens often enough that anyone would give a damn?

 

[stelzig]

some characters have advantages over others.

oh ****. Can't have that.

 

[Beat!]

I don't think sudden death is good to use though, because some characters have advantages over others.

Um, completely irrelevant. Pick a better character if you're worried about that. Not your opponents fault if you refuse to play a good character.

 

[Jonas]

In that case both players are literally evenly matched, to the point where it doesn't matter if random bull**** like falling bob-ombs decides the outcome.

 

[The Star King]

Either you guys are missing the point or ignoring my posts.

I've already said to assume they don't approach in Sudden Death, too (and avoid the bombs). I've already said the problem with DQ's. If you don't agree than address the problems I brought up. I don't even know why SB/IE brought up fractional %s, because my post was obviously talking about true ties. I don't know why Stratocaster brought up switching to Fox when in my original post I said that I don't want to hear about ways to combat camping.

Habefiet's suggestion - well, it's an idea. I never really liked RPS as a solution in general, though, because it's a skill in its own (yeah, seriously). I want to come up with something better.

 

[Biglard]

I've never really played a sudden death after a tie, but from what I've seen in TAS matches for instance, it looks mad hard to avoid bobombs ad libitum... So from this point on, the winner will be randomly chosen by the game in my opinion.

Maybe it would be possible though if the two characters had a strategy to remain invincible 60 frames out of 60 forever, two Sheiks upbing on the ledge on both sides of the stage for instance, but at this point the first to fail would lose.

 

[Blistering Speed]

I say we lynch the ****ers who make this question anything other than hypothetical.

 

[SamusPoop]

This is a terrible what if. If this happened and I ran the tournment I'd dq them if they didn't finish the match within so much time so the greatest risk would not to take a risk. Also this would work better with bowser vs fox on hyrule. Bowser runs down to the bottom platform about his size. If fox trys to attack he'll get up-Bed or hit by up-b. yeah there's double jump and not attacking but its extremely risky even still and the most likly thing to do but still bowser's up-b gets enough inv. at the begining to be fine. If fox hung out on the edge wellthen bowser would too and lose again.

 

[HomeStylePie]

Ban Chibo from melee tournaments.

 

[KrazyKnux]

You think it happens often enough that anyone would give a damn?

No, I don't, but that doesn't mean that I can't answer the OP's hypothetical situation.

oh ****. Can't have that.

Um, completely irrelevant. Pick a better character if you're worried about that. Not your opponents fault if you refuse to play a good character.

No, you guys are completely missing the point. The fact is, when a match starts with 300% the metagame is completely changed. It's not that a character is better than another in general, it's just that some characters may have an unfair advantage when this situation arises. Sudden death shouldn't be played.

@The Star King, you must have ignored my post cause that's the best option you've got short of doing sudden death or RPS, which isn't really ideal.

 

[Beat!]

when a match starts with 300% the metagame is completely changed. It's not that a character is better than another in general, it's just that some characters may have an unfair advantage when this situation arises. Sudden death shouldn't be played.

Well, then it's up to the potentially disadvantegous player to approach BEFORE time happens. I repeat:

Pick a better character if you're worried about that.

Not saying Sudden Death is an ideal solution in any way, but I completely disagree with your reasons for not wanting it.

 

[Cactuar]

TO can easily review this match and point out that it was Chibo who was stalling the match.

What happens in any fight sport when one person is constantly running away from the other or making no effort to progress the match? That person gets warned for stalling, then gives up points on subsequent offenses. On stage is the neutral position. Any argument made against that is done by an individual wanting to be difficult.

At even percent and stock, someone sitting on the ledge can be called out for stalling the match. + or - that, the person with a disadvantage must approach if the person with the advantage chooses to be a ******.

Hell, if we wanted to, we could make up rules for things like "if you make no attempt to hit or control the opponent for x amount of time after being warned for stalling, you lose a stock/the match," and disregard who is winning or losing. It really isn't hard. It's just something no one wants to due because projectile characters obviously have it easy.

And just for situational complete-ness, stalling can only be called if the opponent goes far out of a threat zone (the other side of the stage), and the person on the edge does not come back on. In that case, you are purposefully allowing the person on the edge to regain some control of the stage and saying "come onto the stage, I won't prevent it". There is no reason for them to sit on the edge other than to abuse bull**** and run out the time.

 

[Smasher89]

I think we play one stock 5 min if both players are at the same % when time is over. After that, it shouldnt be another timeout. (beat my 11 min record for one match win, wasnt me who picked ganon on kongo XDXD that stage is nice if people wont switch characters lolol)

 

[stelzig]

No, you guys are completely missing the point. The fact is, when a match starts with 300% the metagame is completely changed. It's not that a character is better than another in general, it's just that some characters may have an unfair advantage when this situation arises.

No, you are completely missing the point. It's not that a character is different in general, it's that a character is different in any given situation, peroid... That does not matter and is not an argument.
If you don't want the situation to arise because it gives "an unfair advantage" then avoid the situation during your match or consider a different character to begin with to cover the situation.

But it's like... Not a bigger "unfair advantage" than a single percent lead before the situation. Nor is it a bigger "unfair advantage" than the advantage some characters gain from the lowest percent wins rule - some characters live longer than others percentwise.

 

[Strong Badam]

but cactuar thats arbitrary

 

[KrazyKnux]

Well, then it's up to the potentially disadvantageous player to approach BEFORE time happens. I repeat:

Not saying Sudden Death is an ideal solution in any way, but I completely disagree with your reasons for not wanting it.

Yeah, I agree that the disadvantageous player needs to approach before time is called, but that's only because it should be considered stalling if neither player approaches. The disadvantage should come from the fact that the player needs to approach someone who is tough to approach (stalling in that manner, for example) not from this random 300% sudden death match which may be an autowin for certain characters. Again, sudden death isn't an ideal way to settle it, for this very reason.

The problem with calling stalling for Chibo comes from the fact that the technique isn't limited or banned, and any effort to claim stalling could be argued that the Falco is doing the same thing. And it's a bit sketch to change tournament rules midtournament. Which technique are we particularly upset about: Chibo grabbing the ledge over and over again, or the fact that the Falco is spamming lasers on the stage and staying back? The obvious answer is the ledgestalling because of the advantage it creates (but that's another argument altogether), so then perhaps it should be limited in some way, hopefully in a way that doesn't change the metagame. For example, "In the case that excessive stalling happens in a match that ends in time (and tied percent), the ledgegrab rule can be called which states that the player with fewer ledgegrabs wins." Or something of the sort.

If you don't want the situation to arise because it gives "an unfair advantage" then avoid the situation during your match or consider a different character to begin with to cover the situation.

I'm arguing that this situation shouldn't arise in any case, so the character needn't try to avoid it by approaching in the actual match. The problem is inherently character-based as to why this situation is bad, but so is the match in the first place (hence why link wouldn't want to play a sheik.) The fact is, we don't want to change the metagame to decided who wins.

-.-

Edit: Let me make that a little more clear. I'm not saying saying sudden death is bad merely because some players have an advantage over others. Well duh, that's kind of the game we play. I apologize for not making this clear earlier. What I meant was that it gives certain characters different advantages that don't exist in the metagame to begin with, and we want to avoid that as much as we can. Since sudden death is so drastic and changes the metagame too much, that's why I think it shouldn't be played. So i hope you agree with my points now, because hopefully it's a bit more clear =D

 

[Cactuar]

We should just have a vote to make me Emperor of Melee and make my word law.

**

 

[Mr Postman]

I think our tournaments use stocks -> % -> sudden death.

Is this why armada beats hbox in sudden death?

 

[Smasher89]

Sudden death should never be played, it´s "random", but i think it encoureges stalling even more(it does work that way in brawl atleast, since the bombs has set droppositions onstage), take the ledge for 15 seconds, then bombs falls and kills your opponent. Meaning both players can take a ledge and stall forever.

 

[CT Chia]

As far as I know the rule generally for an exact tie is a 1 stock (usually 3 minute) rematch. If it happens again, it happens again. That's what I would have done at that tournament (I was the host)

 

[Varist]

YEAH, WHAT YOU WOULD'VE DONE.

HAD YOU NOT LOST

LIKE A *****.

lololol this chiboguy

 

[Metà]

We should just have a vote to make me Emperor of Melee and make my word law.

**

I am ok with this.

 

[The Star King]

Sorry I haven't been keeping up with my own thread. You kids started arguing about stuff like Sudden Death and I was like eh.

@The Star King, you must have ignored my post cause that's the best option you've got short of doing sudden death or RPS, which isn't really ideal.

You must have ignored my post because you did not address the issues that DQing both players brings up.

TO can easily review this match and point out that it was Chibo who was stalling the match.

What happens in any fight sport when one person is constantly running away from the other or making no effort to progress the match? That person gets warned for stalling, then gives up points on subsequent offenses. On stage is the neutral position. Any argument made against that is done by an individual wanting to be difficult.

At even percent and stock, someone sitting on the ledge can be called out for stalling the match. + or - that, the person with a disadvantage must approach if the person with the advantage chooses to be a ******.

All right, fair enough. How about a virtually equal position, i.e. two Falcons dashdancing back and forth on Final Destination?

Thank you for actually both understanding the thread and responding intelligently BTW.

As far as I know the rule generally for an exact tie is a 1 stock (usually 3 minute) rematch. If it happens again, it happens again. That's what I would have done at that tournament (I was the host)

Kind of sad that my very example missed the point of this thread. Say what you want about Brawl's combos, guys, but I have a feeling THIS particular Brawl player has mastered the namesearch -> quick skim -> bad post combo.

 

[KrazyKnux]

That's not a valid argument against DQing both of them. Sure the player is put at a disadvantage, but the tactic isn't limited or banned and neither player is approaching, so both players are stalling. You must have ignored my previous post which stated what we can do to avoid the rare event something like this happens and not change the metagame at all.

Let's just be honest here, everyone stopped arguing with me about sudden death because I was right. It's pretty clear this is the best way to deal with this extreme case.