Currently, the recommendation for TOs ruling on a tie (both players have equal stock left when TIME is called) is to see who had the lower damage %, and thus that person is declared victor.
I however, submit that allowing for the Sudden Death match to be played out is more appropriate.
Reasoning for:
1.) Sudden Death tests First-Strike capability, something that SHOULD be measured when considering the competitive aspects of a player's skill.
2.) Not all characters work the same.
Example: Snake vs MK --> in this match up, MK will rely on several smaller damage percentage hits to get snake within KO range. Snake will have his heavier hits, albeit more risky because slower, he's got his nades, and he has more straight up KO hits. If a match goes 8 minutes, and both players have equal stock or are on their last stock, it's not difficult to imagine the MK will have landed more blows than the snake, technically. That's MK's "shortcoming" if you will, his necessity. By NOT going to sudden death, you end up punishing the character, even though both players did what they're supposed to do, and played their characters as they were designed to be played, the match goes to snake cause he only has to land say, 12 strikes vs MK's 20 to achieve KO.
3.) No Johns. If you can't KO your oppoenent 3 times before 8 min run out, and then you lose in a 300% battle, it's YOUR fault, not theirs. "What about the bob-ombs?" ... read below in "reasoning against."
4.) Stage viability is increased. There are a few stages that are banned because of their potential for the match to drag out too long. Circling is rendered moot w/a Sudden Death enabled. Circle camp all ya like! So long as you're not winning only by percent, you're not winning. Sudden Death gives you an incentive to NOT circle camp, because you may be weak at 300% brawling. It also makes fair, a terribly unfair strategy that doesn't technically fit under the ban rule of stalling.
Reasoning against:
1.) The Bob-ombs. Yeah these start spawning after a bit. If the match isn't won by the time they spawn, your first-strike capability is so judged. Now you have to try to win amidst the chaos. True there are some stages where you can literally both be standing still, and still not die! But..... that's stalling! So it shouldn't happen. You'll both have to figure a way out to KO the other, w/o dying yourself.
"I shouldn't be punished for being the better brawler by someone who just barely lived long enough to go to sudden death, and then he won because I got hit by a bob-omb."
My response? No Johns.
Other source material:
1.) AA wrote up a piece on Spawn Points in Sudden Death that I only briefly reviewed, and had a little trouble understanding, but I think it could play into this discussion.
And so... discuss!
I however, submit that allowing for the Sudden Death match to be played out is more appropriate.
Reasoning for:
1.) Sudden Death tests First-Strike capability, something that SHOULD be measured when considering the competitive aspects of a player's skill.
2.) Not all characters work the same.
Example: Snake vs MK --> in this match up, MK will rely on several smaller damage percentage hits to get snake within KO range. Snake will have his heavier hits, albeit more risky because slower, he's got his nades, and he has more straight up KO hits. If a match goes 8 minutes, and both players have equal stock or are on their last stock, it's not difficult to imagine the MK will have landed more blows than the snake, technically. That's MK's "shortcoming" if you will, his necessity. By NOT going to sudden death, you end up punishing the character, even though both players did what they're supposed to do, and played their characters as they were designed to be played, the match goes to snake cause he only has to land say, 12 strikes vs MK's 20 to achieve KO.
3.) No Johns. If you can't KO your oppoenent 3 times before 8 min run out, and then you lose in a 300% battle, it's YOUR fault, not theirs. "What about the bob-ombs?" ... read below in "reasoning against."
4.) Stage viability is increased. There are a few stages that are banned because of their potential for the match to drag out too long. Circling is rendered moot w/a Sudden Death enabled. Circle camp all ya like! So long as you're not winning only by percent, you're not winning. Sudden Death gives you an incentive to NOT circle camp, because you may be weak at 300% brawling. It also makes fair, a terribly unfair strategy that doesn't technically fit under the ban rule of stalling.
Reasoning against:
1.) The Bob-ombs. Yeah these start spawning after a bit. If the match isn't won by the time they spawn, your first-strike capability is so judged. Now you have to try to win amidst the chaos. True there are some stages where you can literally both be standing still, and still not die! But..... that's stalling! So it shouldn't happen. You'll both have to figure a way out to KO the other, w/o dying yourself.
"I shouldn't be punished for being the better brawler by someone who just barely lived long enough to go to sudden death, and then he won because I got hit by a bob-omb."
My response? No Johns.
Other source material:
1.) AA wrote up a piece on Spawn Points in Sudden Death that I only briefly reviewed, and had a little trouble understanding, but I think it could play into this discussion.
And so... discuss!
The point is, it's not 100% always the same. Maybe lucas throws PK fire, and I spot dodge it. Maybe Ike quick-draws (aptly named move) but Marth counters! It may seem like the quintessential rock-paper-scissors, but uh... heh, that's what fighting games are ^^ and in this vein, there opens up TWO points in a match that are totally and technically unknown before they happen, the first move of the match, and the first move of SD (which is in essence a 2nd round fight, starting over at 300% each.)
