The 8:00 rule

[K@0S]

I'm posting this because at the next big tourney TSL4, hosts think that if the time limit is expired, sudden death should be played OR maybe a 1 stock match (I'm talking about Brawl).

I strongly disagree with that rule, and a "debate" started in the french forum between me and several people (including a host, but overall people who almost don't play Brawl), in which I was almost the only one defending that this rule was stupid.

The arguments in favour of that rule were :
- If I loose by 1%, I loose the match, which isn't fair
- If my opponent has a feather-weight character with 80%, and me a heavy character with 90%, I loose which isn't fair.
- You can come back easily with a combo so it's not fair
- If the limit expires it means that someone was stalling so he should be punished

My main argument that this rule put the winner of the match at a disadvantage.

The original rule is that the one who is loosing by % looses the match. With that rule, the one who is winning has a tactical advantage, because his opponent must try to come back, and shouldn't wait him to approach, which is something fundamental in that game.

The 8 minutes limit will almost never expire. But with that rule, you avoid stupid situations. Imagine 2 characters who are greatly advantaged when the opponent approaches (Snake, Wario, ...). With the one stock/sudden death rule, the loser will wait for the winner to approach because he prefers to play a 1 stock 0% match / a sudden death than the current match in which he is loosing.

I don't want to see people camping against me even when they are loosing. If they camp when they are winning, then I should comeback.

IMO the only counter-argument which can be taken into account is that one : "If my opponent has a feather-weight character with 80%, and me a heavy character with 90%, I loose which isn't fair.". But then, should we make a % chart for every match-up ? Impossible, for several reasons. It would be subjective, and in a tournament it would be too hard to implement it, whereas % are objective values.
And it may be a little flaw, but it's almost nothing when you compare it with what would be a match without that rule with certain players.

By the way, what would be the rule in that one-stock match ? (let's be serious and let's not talk about the sudden death)
Time again ? Same problem.
No time (which is even worse imo) ? Then who should approach (neither the winner nor the loser O_o) ?

In the end, the rule used everywhere since the beginning of Brawl doesn't exist for nothing, and I hope that I will find some support here.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I think that you should win based on % and if you both have the same %, you play the one stock match. The person who loses that match, loses the game.

 

[Marc]

I don't get why they don't just use the same rule as in Melee, which is look at stocks first, then percentage.

 

[captain smashie01]

'Loser' not 'looser'
'looser' means 'more loose' as in 'less tight'
otherwise, good points

 

[-Jumpman-]

Just to add someting to captain smashie, it's "light", not leight.

Anyway, I don't think looking at % isn't fair. If you win by 1%, you played better, simple as that.

 

[K@0S]

I don't get why they don't just use the same rule as in Melee, which is look at stocks first, then percentage.

In melee they (the hosts) use sudden death... See their arguments.

Please use arguments too, because I want the hosts to be convinced and a lot of melee french players think stock then % is bad..

 

[Tero.]

I don't get why they don't just use the same rule as in Melee, which is look at stocks first, then percentage.

This.

porc/salepate wtf are you thinking?

 

[K@0S]

If you speak french a bit

http://www.cubeforum.fr/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1318&p=62300#p62300

As you can see I try my best..

Just to add someting to captain smashie, it's "light", not leight.

I wanted to say feather-weight but I failed :/

 

[Marcbri]

I don't get why they don't just use the same rule as in Melee, which is look at stocks first, then percentage.

This is clearly the correct option, I don't see anything negative about it. and if both players have the same percentage then a 1 stock play-off match is played, since sudden death is random.

 

[Marc]

Sudden death is too fundamentally different from how smash is played usually and results aren't very reliable. Meaning that it's decided by whoever hits first or gets hit by spawning bombs.

Items aren't acceptable usually, why would they be in sudden death?

Looking at percentage takes less time than playing sudden death.

Btw, did I understand correctly that the hosts also want to play out the sudden death for Melee? =/

 

[porc]

We didn't know it was a standard to look at percentage.

We just thought about playing sudden death rather than looking at % 'cause it was the better of two evils... We thought ending a match over a little difference in % is really really ugly, especially in a certain case of match up's.

I've seen several opinions and the problem seem to be that some people see the game in stock only (like Salepâte and I do), and some think % are important.


Apparently you guys prefer the % rule, so I guess we'll have to do a survey. Most French players supported our idea in the French board.


EDIT :
Here is a post by Thieum Mc Cloud on the French board that I think is really interesting :

The % rule is no good, it seems natural and logical at first sight but it's really totally stupid. It's not like every character has a life bar fixed at 100% and can't die at 98% or survive up to 150. Not only it's not the case, but every character has a different tolerance to % (a hit that would kill a Jiggs at 80% won't necessarily kill a Ganon at 100%)) independently to suicides or bad DIs. Percentage isn't an indicator of who is leading. It's just like judging a game of chess by looking at the number of pieces left for each player, no it doesn't work that way !

 

[Blad01]

We just thought about playing sudden death rather than looking at % 'cause it was the better of two evils...

Yes, both rules, or even every rule I can think of has flaws, unfortunately...

For now, the best rule I can imagine is :

- Look at stock first, then %
- For the difference of weights issue... Keep a 10% margin ? If the heaviest of the two characters has 10%+ more than the other character, he loses.
Example : DK (100%) vs Jigglypuff (91%) -> 9% margin. 1 stock rematch.
DK (105%) vs Jigglypuff (91%) -> 14% margin, DK loses.

The 10% margin is a bit random though...

- 10:00 time limit, to dissuade run-out-the-clock tactics, planking... (+ a rule on stalling)

This is just a quick proposition, this ruleset still has several flaws. But I do see the necessity to make a better ruleset on the time limit, especially for Brawl.

 

[Blinky]

Any system which is relying on the other characters to determine how to act in a time out is horrible. Not only do you need to consider weight, but recovery, ability to put % on the opponent, killing ability, if you really want it to be truely fair, but this is an impossible task , and one that should not be undertaken.
The best method is stock first, percentage second, whoevers got more stocks, or more percentages if stocks are even. All other possible systems are bad, but this is the best out of them.
Before anyone says "some characters live longer than others" etc, consider this, comebacks happen, it would still be possible to win on 1 stock left when the opponent has 3 stocks, no matter what system you do, its going to be unfair, and you'll have to live with it.

 

[Marc]

The % rule is no good, it seems natural and logical at first sight but it's really totally stupid. It's not like every character has a life bar fixed at 100% and can't die at 98% or survive up to 150. Not only it's not the case, but every character has a different tolerance to % (a hit that would kill a Jiggs at 80% won't necessarily kill a Ganon at 100%)) independently to suicides or bad DIs. Percentage isn't an indicator of who is leading. It's just like judging a game of chess by looking at the number of pieces left for each player, no it doesn't work that way !

You know about the benefits and drawbacks of your character before you pick it, including their prowess when it comes to running the clock. That's the same as saying it's unfair for Kirby to play against Ganondorf because Ganondorf is stronger... Percentage is something both players can control and if it starts to get close to a time-out, the one who's behind will actively try to turn things around. Also note that with the prospect of a sudden death (AKA bomb dodging) it becomes beneficial to run the clock against someone who's better, as it ups your chances to pretty much 50/50.

It's true that in smash percentage says less than in other fighters, but that doesn't mean we should settle for a solution that's almost the same as flipping a coin. And yes, I'd rather look at pieces left rather than determine the outcome randomly in the chess example.

 

[K@0S]

- 8 or 10 minutes (hosts decide, I prefer 8 minutes but I don't care too much)
- Stock then %
- In both players have the same % (personally I never sew this happen), play a 1 stock match, 3 minutes.

I'm already debatting about it a lot on the french forum so I won't post here too much.

 

[Marcbri]

- 8 or 10 minutes (hosts decide, I prefer 8 minutes but I don't care too much)
- Stock then %
- In both players have the same % (personally I never sew this happen), play a 1 stock match, 3 minutes.

I'm already debatting about it a lot on the french forum so I won't post here too much.

I agree with this, with 8 minutes too. 10 is way too much.

 

[Greward]

The % rule is unfair, in a DDD vs falco matchup (for example) the DDD will live until 200% and falco will die at 120%. And "pick another character" is a dumb argument, with these stupid arguments we wont arrive to any conclusion. 1 stock match 3 minutes is way better and just. If the tourney has enough time to do the 1 stock match, i think it should be done. And time running out when both have the same stocks wont happen so much.

 

[Blad01]

One of my posts on the french forum :

Apart from that, I've been thinking to this rule; and I am for the "stock first, % then" rule too. The only way to improve it is to put more time (10:00 if possible, see my last post).

And about the difference of weights issue :
- The player knows when he chooses his character its advantages and disadvantages, including the weight, its relation with the time, etc.
- Even if a heavyweight can take more %, nevertheless he has to be touched to take %. If he receives more damages than his opponent, then he plays less well on the %.
- Finally, and it is the most solid argument, a heavyweight will be longer to eject on its first two stocks, so if in the last stock he has more % than an opponent with a lighter character, he really badly played.

 

[-Jumpman-]

No need to set the timer to 10 minutes. People will stall more and tournaments will take too long.

 

[Marcbri]

The % rule is unfair, in a DDD vs falco matchup (for example) the DDD will live until 200% and falco will die at 120%. And "pick another character" is a dumb argument, with these stupid arguments we wont arrive to any conclusion. 1 stock match 3 minutes is way better and just. If the tourney has enough time to do the 1 stock match, i think it should be done. And time running out when both have the same stocks wont happen so much.

so are you saying I'm falco at 10% and someone is at 150% and time's over we have to do a play-off? that's ********. the one with more % wins, no johns, don't get hit, pick a heavier character, wathever.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Smash is not a fair game. You have to accept that. The fact that DDD lives to higher percentages than Falco is just the game. Don't play if you disagree.The person who has the least % wins the match, simple as that.

 

[Red Arremer]

Characters have advantages and disadvantages. If you find being a heavy weight with the same damage percentage as a light weight is at a disadvantage in the end because they'd survive longer, then play a light weight, simple as that.
There's a reason why there's tier lists etc. after all.

Besides, there are characters that are dependant on patience games and have running out the clock as one of their strategies, for instance Wario or Jigglypuff. Taking the %-lead as advantage over someone else, a perfectly fine concept, away, would eliminate these perfectly valid strategies (if they're dumb or not is not the debate here).

If you think the clock gives light weighted characters such an advantage, then remove it. So everyone is forced to beat each other, it would remove stalling and your huge fears of people running out the clock while in 1 set (out of several) having a %-lead.

Or, alternatively, you just quit johning about "unfairness", pick a light weighted character and run out the clock yourself. And if you don't want to play a light weight, then shut up.

Weight differences are part of the game. I could argument perfectly fine why projectile-based moves or moves having disjointed hitboxes are "unfair" the exact same way you hold your argument why light weights have an advantage at even %.

 

[Tero.]

Why are we discussing a rule that is established for like 5 years anyway?
Thats stupid.

8 min.
First # of stocks
then %

period.

 

[K@0S]

I think (hope) that I've brought enough arguments in the french forum for them to change their opinion..

 

[Blad01]

No need to set the timer to 10 minutes. People will stall more and tournaments will take too long.

I think / hope (lol) that a 10:00 would be dissuasive rather than encouraging to stall.

Why are we discussing a rule that is established for like 5 years anyway?
Thats stupid.

8 min.
First # of stocks
then %

period.

On a side note, and for our future discussions, I don't think that the amount of time a rule has been used in tournaments necessarily shows how good it can be. A rule that has been used for a long period of time is necessarily the best.
(No hard feelings Tero, I know that here it means that the best rule has been established by the SBR ages ago)

 

[-Jumpman-]

I'm sure there's a reason why eight minutes is considered the best. You're absolutely right it's not necessarily the, a large amount of people think it is though. No need to discuss this.

 

[Marc]

Timers serve two purposes:
1. Promote activity.
2. Have your tournament finish in a reasonable amount of time.

Ideally, matches shouldn't run the clock when both players are playing regularly. Eight minutes is a lot of time, but it's short enough to pressure players into action in matches where one or both players are very defensive. Big events also benefit from having eight rather than ten minutes, so increasing the time should only happen if matches run the clock on a regular basis.

 

[Rici]

I really don't see how being able to survive at higher % is a valid argument.

If I gave you 150% and you gave me 130%, it still means I dealt MORE damage than you did.

If you lose by 1% then you lose by 1%. Just like how you can lose by 1 stock. It's fair, really.

 

[Laem]

But when ending a match, the winner is decided by amount of stocks, not the amount of damage given/received....so doesnt that mean being able to survive at higher % IS a viable argument..?

 

[xDD-Master]

8 minutes
3 Stocks
--if time ran out--
1) Looking at Stocks
2) Looking at %
3) Looking at character heaviness (Heavier one wins)
4) If it was a ditto: Sudden Death

 

[Luma]

8 minutes
3 Stocks
--if time ran out--
1) Looking at Stocks
2) Looking at %
3) Looking at character heaviness (Heavier one wins)
4) If it was a ditto: Sudden Death

offtopic: who the **** are you? play melee and come to me/milk/tim xDD

ontopic:
well it is true that the rule like it always was can be unfair
BUT
doing it the "french" way could me way more unfair, like peach with 200% on DL stalling the last minute in the air against a fox with like 20%


so you should, like porc already said, the lesser evil

 

[Jonas]

If we play Sudden Death or just a normal 1 stock match, it will defeat the purpose of the time limit. In other words, if we have a time limit, why would we want the match to go on beyond the time limit? It really only exists to make the tournament run as scheduled.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

I don't get why they don't just use the same rule as in Melee, which is look at stocks first, then percentage.

Would you like to know why?

Because brawl players want to do everything by themselves, and create different things for their community. I mean look at chain choking for crying out loud. Its f***ing tech chasing, with ONE CHARACTER, re named, why? So the brawlers can think they're cool.


*end rant about dumb brawl players*


Its been that way for like 6/7 years now, can you at least keep it that way instead of making it ********?

 

[Slhoka]

Would you like to know why?

Because brawl players want to do everything by themselves, and create different things for their community. I mean look at chain choking for crying out loud. Its f***ing tech chasing, with ONE CHARACTER, re named, why? So the brawlers can think they're cool.


*end rant about dumb brawl players*


Its been that way for like 6/7 years now, can you at least keep it that way instead of making it ********?

Sorry if I'm getting it wrong, but the ones originally looking for an alternate rule were porc, Salepâte and me, and we only play Melee.
I can understand that Brawl and its players can be blamed for most problems (ranging from planking to the sinking of the Titanic), but for the present matter, they are not involved.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

No, this happens in America too. Sorry to burst your bubble, but its true. This **** happens all the time here.

 

[Tero.]

Would you like to know why?

Because brawl players want to do everything by themselves, and create different things for their community. I mean look at chain choking for crying out loud. Its f***ing tech chasing, with ONE CHARACTER, re named, why? So the brawlers can think they're cool.


*end rant about dumb brawl players*


Its been that way for like 6/7 years now, can you at least keep it that way instead of making it ********?

Even if that's true for so many things, this time it's a brawl player demanding to leave the rules as they were and melee players trying to change them.

However this isn't about what game we play, it's about the attitudes of the people playing said game.

 

[Smasher89]

1% lead is kinda random, since like fox blaster takes like 2-3% i think, why not expand the rule to 8-14 % lead or something, if both has % closer then that, play a 1 stock match without timelimit...

 

[K@0S]

8 minutes
3 Stocks
--if time ran out--
1) Looking at Stocks
2) Looking at %
3) Looking at character heaviness (Heavier one wins)
4) If it was a ditto: Sudden Death

I play GaW against Samus, we both have 90% when the timer runs out. Because of GaW and Samus' killing power, I was winning, but since Samus is heavier, she wins.

Character heaviness isn't a reliable data in this situation.

 

[Lord Chair]

I play GaW against Samus, we both have 90% when the timer runs out. Because of GaW and Samus' killing power, I was winning, but since Samus is heavier, she wins.

Character heaviness isn't a reliable data in this situation.

Seconded.

Even then, how do you calculate killing power? A careful ZSS shouldn't be hit by GaW's smashes, which leaves him with just Fair and gimping as his most reliable killing options. But then again, not every ZSS plays carefully.

Whole concept doesn't make sense.

 

[Staco]

I also agree that the stock -> % rule isnt the best. Its true that some characters got a lead, even if they have got some more %.

But I dont think that there is any possible rule to fix it.