The Fandango Time-out Clause and the Concept of Lose Conditions (Updated OP)

[~ Gheb ~]

I might try that one out in the future.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No wonder you're so Grim.

Oh, I see what you did there.

However, the other part of my name is 'Fandango', a very lively folk dance. The two names balance each other out.

Anyways... glad to have gotten past that..... wish my other thread was as popular as this one. XD

Your other thread will never get as popular as this one, because this one is partially about me. And I am amazing.

 

[Yikarur]

awful.
1. Timeout is a legit winning condition, Timer is not only for tournaments, Timer are there so that you have to approach your opponent.
2. the %-keep rule is awful and very subjective too, when I'm at 189% and it will be rounded down then I recovered 9%, nice! My Opponent only recovers 2% =)!
If we round up players get undeserved damage, if we round down player recovers undeserved, absolute subjective.
3. Stale Move list IS a valid argument against it, you're counterpoints makes no sense. "My moves are fresh but the moves of my opponents too 8)" We give characters an undeserved advantage AGAIN and this point is really character depending, every character has different traits that support them differently in this points, stupid.
4. You could basically chainge the timer to 13 instead, it's the same without complicated stuff lol

this rule is really really bad and adds more complicated problems than it solve's

there is nothing wrong with our current timeout rule, A Timer is necessary in every Tournament play and it's even funnier that this "new rule" uses our current rule too lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Two questions.

1. Why aren't we just flat-out agreeing with the game and calling it a draw?
2. How about the extra time needed for this (maximum of 15 minutes more per set)? How is that equated into the tournament system?

 

[Luxor]

Plenty of sets go to time that the players are trying to play out; this gives them extra time to finish and more incentives to approach and get a STOCK lead. Ultimately, any ruleset is arbitrary, but I like this one. % Timeouts still work too, by necessity, but the key thing is that they're discouraged to fit in with our idea of Smash as a competitive game.

 

[AMKalmar]

A while ago I was thinking about how it's impossible to determine who has the lead in the instant that the timer expires, and even if you could determine who has an advantage, you cannot know who would win the game. To determine a real winner, you'd have to let the game play out to completion, or continue the game with some sort of sudden death match like this rule (which may actually take longer than letting a game play to completion). So I thought of this rule: In the event that the timer expires, the player that was previously in the lead is declared the winner. I never posted the idea since the first player to score a KO wouldn't lose the lead until they lose 2 stocks, which would result in really, really campy campiness'ses...

Now that I think about it, percent lead could be just as campy. So... it could work.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

1. Timeout is a legit winning condition

Debatable.

Considering that we're using the timer only to keep tournaments from taking forever, one could easily argue that running the clock is an illegitimate way to win because it abuses a necessity within the tournament setting rather than fulfilling an actual win condition.

Two questions.

1. Why aren't we just flat-out agreeing with the game and calling it a draw?

Interesting idea. But you should also think about the consequences of it - how does it affect a set? What if a best of 3 set is 1-1 and the 3rd match goes to the timer with stock equality?

If you have a good answer then I might actually give that one a shot as well.

 

[Ussi]

You know....

You could just EXTEND the timer by 5 minutes and almost get the same result except for stale move refreshing and having to restart positioning.

 

[gallax]

You know....

You could just EXTEND the timer by 5 minutes and almost get the same result except for stale move refreshing and having to restart positioning.

Haha, How true this statement is.

 

[C.J.]

Except this rule is only trying to change winning by percent. It's not trying to mess with timeouts while you have a stock up... which adding 5 minutes to the timer does.

 

[AMKalmar]

I think my rule's pretty okay.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Interesting idea. But you should also think about the consequences of it - how does it affect a set? What if a best of 3 set is 1-1 and the 3rd match goes to the timer with stock equality?

If you have a good answer then I might actually give that one a shot as well.

What I meant was just cut directly to what we'd normally do in the case of a draw, i.e. 1-stock, 3-minute rematch.

 

[Yikarur]

every rule that allows a tie with stock equality destroys the gameplay because when you're down at one stock, there is no forced interaction,
additionally if you have 200% and your opponent just respawns it's a tie.
That just doesn't work
%lead based wins leads to dynamic battles because the non-lead one needs to approach.
With Stock ties no one needs to approach.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

You know....

You could just EXTEND the timer by 5 minutes and almost get the same result except for stale move refreshing and having to restart positioning.

I agree full heartedly.

 

[T-block]

Let me make one thing clear: I understand the point about percents not being an accurate representation of who is closer to winning. I do not support this rule, not because I think percents is an accurate indicator, but because it doesn't accomplish its goal of removing incentive to time out.

Please do not counter my points with these points and your "two-minute example". I've been aware of the idea for a long time, and I agree with it. My argument against this rule focuses on showing that it does not adequately remove the incentive to time out.

So instead you create a double standard that states:

1) In the event the game tells you SUDDEN DEATH GO! you play a tiebreaker
-----Unless that SUDDEN DEATH GO! was the result of a timeout

Doesn't this create the same exact problem, it's just rarer to have it result from anything other than a timeout?

I'm not sure which point of mine you're addressing...

Tons of text that doesn't really make a great point:

Spoiler

Also note that it's a double-edged sword against MK. He is also freshening his opponents moves. Null. Point. Regardless. Unless you want to argue the ever-so-specific "He's been keeping track of the past 9 moves for 2 characters that have connected, or hit an object on the stage. In the case of Snake - he is counting explosions hitting explosions as part of stale moves. He's also been counting every pummel, and knows which pummels AREN'T counting for the stale list move and which ones ARE counting for the stale move list - by some miracle unknown to mankind. Because of this, he has deemed it in his best advantage to time out his opponent and freshen both of their movesets. Possibly resulting in him dying in 1 hit as well."

You really think that is a realistic argument? Also in the event of a 1% difference and time runs out - who's to say that in 1 second one of them wouldn't have died regardless of stale moves? You're awarding a winner, by not set definition of the game, due to a 1% difference.

Keep in mind that Brawl round's %'s down. For all we know it was 129.9% to 130%, and you are now awarding a win over a 0.1% difference. Do you realize how laughable this is when the game treats it as a tie?

Basically - by keeping the current timer in the game - you are going against your reversal of the Win-By-Suicide clause, which might I add, was unwarranted to ever begin with. (Much like this timer!)


You are arguing such a specific occurrence that is so unlikely to happen its near-laughable. Yet you allow this exact problem to exist, in other rare-but-still possible situations?





Brawl is not a traditional fighter. The % is not equivalent to a life bar* and should, unless absolutely necessary, dictate who wins.

*unless in stamina mode


The only reason we resort to "the old time clause" under the Fandango time clause, is because holding 1 stock for 5 minutes is going to prove pretty **** hard, the timer is just there to force conflict and get the match done. (Causes the same issue we currently have) However this scenario is rarer. Not only do I have to time you out with 8 minutes, our moves are on a clean slate, I have the % lead, and I can probably kill you before you can kill me. It'd be easier (and less risky) to simply kill you.


Likewise - unless time is running short, the current match will always be a battle to conflict with your opponent due to the Fandango clause. Why settle for a tiebreaker if you can win? Effectively it at least gets matches down to 1 stock. It's very less likely to go to time if conflict is being pushed as important. We start off, 3 stocks each. Settle for a tiebreaker of 1 stock? No thanks, I'm taking one of yours off. It's not 3-2. I can attempt to time you out now (which I can do after 1% in game currently). You manage to kill me and now it's 2-2. Back to conflict! You must die! Good, now it's 2-1.

You killed me again. It's 1-1. I still have a % advantage, and my moveset JUST got refreshed. Time to damage you as much as possible or kill you.

For some reason you're trying to time me out. I hope you realize you're freshening up my moveset. Whatever, if you want the timeout I'm just going to hit you with any move possible. Wrack up as much damage as I can. Forget about keeping my KO move fresh at this point.

I'm at 94% and you're at 131% and time ran out. Whatever, since my moves are fresh I can deal more damage with my damage racking moves, and my KO move is fresh. You may be in KO %'s. I'm pretty close too, but you're still closer. All I need is 1 good hit. Thanks for freshening up our movesets.

MK wouldn't care if his opponent's moves get refreshed, because it benefits him more. Read the scenario carefully - MK is at 150%, you are at 120%. MK has connected with d-smash four times recently. It is NOT hard to keep track of that. If we were to reset the match, MK's kill power would greatly improve. So, in this scenario, if you were MK and there were one minute left on the timer, would you really not stall to the end?

The opponent is still not being "rewarded" for running away when they are at a % disadvantage. It is more advantageous for them to try to wrack up damage on their opponent than it is to run away, until both are within KO %'s. That's when it becomes a slight issue. Why do I say slight?

He's within KO %'s. All I gotta do is hit him before time runs out. With how much conflict is now enforced, even if I have a stock advantage I'm unlikely to try and time you out (lest you kill me and I lose the win)

Now you're making a very dangerous assumption in ruleset creation. You're assuming that you can predict the intent of the player. All this "now he's at this percent. what does he do? this. then this happens. then this" sounds great and all, but it all falls apart if he DOESN'T do what you're expecting. If everyone acts in line with your prediction, then generally everything works out, but I shouldn't have to explain in detail that it is still reasonable to intend to win through ways other than direct conflict even with this rule.

Let's say we're nearing the end of 8 minutes, and I have a 30% lead on you. You don't have to approach because you won't lose if time runs out here. I time you out, and under the old rule I would have won. Under this rule, we go to a 3-minute rematch. Now, the percent rule comes back into play, with me in the percent lead. Incentive to time out is restored, and you now have to approach. If this overtime match then goes to time, would you be satisfied with the result? What if you almost caught up, and I'm now only in the lead with 10%? Would you then say "NOW you win, gg"?

You might then say "the OP says 5-minutes", but what's the difference? It makes it harder to time out? Possibly. But then surely 8 minutes would make it even harder? You can't rely on the number of minutes to justify the rule.

 

[Tagxy]

BPC thats what this rule does. In the case of overtime, it treats percentage as a stat. Its like carrying your penalties in a sport over into overtime.

awful.
1. Timeout is a legit winning condition, Timer is not only for tournaments, Timer are there so that you have to approach your opponent.

I dont think there are many people who will agree. Its not legit in the context of brawl or in practice at all. It's simply the only thing we've been able to do so far.

every rule that allows a tie with stock equality destroys the gameplay because when you're down at one stock, there is no forced interaction,
additionally if you have 200% and your opponent just respawns it's a tie.
That just doesn't work
%lead based wins leads to dynamic battles because the non-lead one needs to approach.
With Stock ties no one needs to approach.

This might be a decent assumption if we had no experience with brawl before. But theres been plenty of time for us to know that a percent lead forcing interaction is either miniscule or just doesnt occur. Theres also no real evidence that ties with stock equality would destroy gameplay.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Interesting idea. But you should also think about the consequences of it - how does it affect a set? What if a best of 3 set is 1-1 and the 3rd match goes to the timer with stock equality?

If you have a good answer then I might actually give that one a shot as well.

Run tournaments in Swiss format loooool

 

[Tagxy]

Let's say we're nearing the end of 8 minutes, and I have a 30% lead on you. You don't have to approach because you won't lose if time runs out here. I time you out, and under the old rule I would have won. Under this rule, we go to a 3-minute rematch. Now, the percent rule comes back into play, with me in the percent lead. Incentive to time out is restored, and you now have to approach. If this overtime match then goes to time, would you be satisfied with the result? What if you almost caught up, and I'm now only in the lead with 10%? Would you then say "NOW you win, gg"?

The timer is there entirely for practical purposes. The rule simply solves another practical issue.

If we could have a judge at every station watching every match, the timer becomes significantly less relevant. However that's impractical. But in this case when a match goes to timeout its highlighting matches that potentially have issues with stalling, and allows a judge to sit there and watch in the event its occuring. There was no practical way to do this before with dozens of matches occuring at once. But in addition to this giving much greater emphasis to stock victories, if the overtime match finishes in an additional timeout without stalling as deemed by the judge, we have a significantly more potent result. It's also why simply adding 5 minutes to the timer isnt nearly the same.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC thats what this rule does. In the case of overtime, it treats percentage as a stat. Its like carrying your penalties in a sport over into overtime.

But that's my problem. There's no reason to, because the game counts it as a draw. You could be at 999%, your opponent at 0% (so he was using lazer a lot), if you have the same stock count, you're in the exact same boat-it's a tie.

 

[Tesh]

I agree that percents aren't an accurate picture of who is closer to winning. The developers obviously knew this. I think this rule is a horrible way to "fix" it though.

If the timer isn't a legit win, why would it be a legit win 5 minutes later?

 

[Yikarur]

the developer knew "it's more fun if the game ends in sudden death I mean haha look at this! BOB Ombs! and you fly instantly lolol and the loser feels funny too! Thats how we wanted this game, everyone should have fun!"

 

[Tagxy]

But that's my problem. There's no reason to, because the game counts it as a draw. You could be at 999%, your opponent at 0% (so he was using lazer a lot), if you have the same stock count, you're in the exact same boat-it's a tie.

Thats my point. If were going to say the game doesnt give relevance to an opponent being at 0% vs 999% (which it doesnt) and is essentially a 'draw', then a continuation match with equal stocks but previous percents is also a 'draw'. Its important to emphasize that the only relevance percent holds is as a statistic at the end and beginning of the match.

 

[T-block]

The timer is there entirely for practical purposes. The rule simply solves another practical issue.

If we could have a judge at every station watching every match, the timer becomes significantly less relevant. However that's impractical. But in this case when a match goes to timeout its highlighting matches that potentially have issues with stalling, and allows a judge to sit there and watch in the event its occuring. There was no practical way to do this before with dozens of matches occuring at once. But in addition to this giving much greater emphasis to stock victories, if the overtime match finishes in an additional timeout without stalling as deemed by the judge, we have a significantly more potent result. It's also why simply adding 5 minutes to the timer isnt nearly the same.

Wait, so you're saying the appeal of this rule is that it allows us to see which matches need a judge? When was there ever a judge in the first place?

There are a host of problems that arise from getting a judge to "call the stall", but I'm not going to get into that here.

 

[SuSa]

What I meant was just cut directly to what we'd normally do in the case of a draw, i.e. 1-stock, 3-minute rematch.

This gives the loser incentive to time out once he's at 1 stock.

If I'm at 1 stock my opponents at 3 and I'm just playing to time him out, not actually fight him, he gets punished by losing 2 stocks.

Then I time him out in a 1 stock 3 minute match.

EDIT:
@T-Block
The same can, and is, said about a lot of referees in professional sports. ("Judge Bias")

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Um... What? No, your opponent wins because he has 3 stocks and you have one. In this case, the game decides a clear winner.

 

[T-block]

That comparison is pretty unfair...

The rules for which referees are required in professional sports are much more well-defined than a "don't stall" rule in Brawl. It's difficult enough to even define stalling, let alone judge it consistently. Is MK's d-air camping stalling? Is perfect planking stalling? Ask different people, and you'll get different answers.

A referee is necessary to enforce certain rules because those rules are necessary for proper play. Brawl as it is functions fine without judges, but why would we introduce a need for judges with a rule that doesn't even fix what it was intended to fix?

 

[SuSa]

MK wouldn't care if his opponent's moves get refreshed, because it benefits him more. Read the scenario carefully - MK is at 150%, you are at 120%. MK has connected with d-smash four times recently. It is NOT hard to keep track of that. If we were to reset the match, MK's kill power would greatly improve. So, in this scenario, if you were MK and there were one minute left on the timer, would you really not stall to the end?

4 times recently doesn't imply 4 times in a row, but for the sake of this argument we'll use it.

Yes this is incentive, but it's highly dependent on my opponent. What if my opponent was Snake and his up tilt was also 4 moves stale? By timing him out I'm netting him a 1 hit KO on me if I do so. Am I willing to risk trying to time out for 1 minute and then risk losing for getting hit?

There are far to many factors at play in your example of incentive, as it's extremely biased towards the loser in assuming only their KO moves are stale.

Now you're making a very dangerous assumption in ruleset creation. You're assuming that you can predict the intent of the player. All this "now he's at this percent. what does he do? this. then this happens. then this" sounds great and all, but it all falls apart if he DOESN'T do what you're expecting. If everyone acts in line with your prediction, then generally everything works out, but I shouldn't have to explain in detail that it is still reasonable to intend to win through ways other than direct conflict even with this rule.

Same in the current timeout clause, it's just easier. It's ignoring what the game says (that it's a draw) and the difference can be as little as 0.1% and you'd never know.

"Oh, I'm in the lead by 0.1% run!!!!!!!!! Game. Good Game. I know the game said a draw, but we give me the win. Why? Who knows. This game could have gone either way, but whatever."

Let's say we're nearing the end of 8 minutes, and I have a 30% lead on you. You don't have to approach because you won't lose if time runs out here. I time you out, and under the old rule I would have won. Under this rule, we go to a 3-minute rematch. Now, the percent rule comes back into play, with me in the percent lead. Incentive to time out is restored, and you now have to approach. If this overtime match then goes to time, would you be satisfied with the result? What if you almost caught up, and I'm now only in the lead with 10%? Would you then say "NOW you win, gg"?

Precisely this because there isn't a less arbitrary way. Quite frankly, if you could only manage to get closer by 20% in 5 minutes you weren't going to win anyways.

You might then say "the OP says 5-minutes", but what's the difference? It makes it harder to time out? Possibly. But then surely 8 minutes would make it even harder? You can't rely on the number of minutes to justify the rule.

How is 8 minutes fair under the current ruleset? Why 8? Why not 10? 20? 30? 99?

It's because we've deemed 8 minutes to be ideal. Possibly 10 - but currently most use 8.



Anyways. I've found a larger flaw to anyone who reeaaalllyy wants to push it.

Starting from square 1 I don't think I can beat my opponent in a 3 stock match. So I play with the intent of timing him out. We go to time, both at 2 or 3 stocks. He's at 110% and I'm at 160%. Now I just hope I can hit him before he hits me, and I win.

 

[Rickerdy-doo-da-day]

As people have already said, why don't you just make the timer 13 minutes if you're going to introduce this rule?

By 'starting a new game', you break the flow of gameplay (johns galore but that's not really an issue). You also get rid of the staleness of moves for free and reset any stage advantages someone had

For example, I could be at 100% and my opponent is at 70%. I get a lucky spike but time ends just before he dies
Under the current ruleset, I lose due to percent lead
Under a 13 minute/longer time ruleset, I win due to taking off his last stock
Under this time ruleset...well, who knows. If my opponent is Falco, I'm not going to be impressed with having my stage advantage reset and have to approach him all over again when under a longer time ruleset, I would have won. BUT if we were still using the current ruleset, I would have lost anyway so I guess this is good cause it gives me another chance?

Its the opposite for my opponent - under the current ruleset, he would have won but now, he's got to endure a minimum of 5 minutes before he actually wins. But he should be grateful that the timer wasn't longer otherwise it would have been Game Over for him


This is the problem with coming up with a new way of determining win criteria. It inevitably benefits and harms someone at the same time and there's a million situations you could come up with to slag off the win criteria

 

[SuSa]

new way of determining win criteria.

We aren't. We are obeying what the game says. HUGE difference. The game says its a draw, yet we award a win. This is the only time we ignore that the game is telling us it's a draw.

Double standard.

Adding more time doesn't remove the above problem.

 

[T-block]

4 times recently doesn't imply 4 times in a row, but for the sake of this argument we'll use it.

Yes this is incentive, but it's highly dependent on my opponent. What if my opponent was Snake and his up tilt was also 4 moves stale? By timing him out I'm netting him a 1 hit KO on me if I do so. Am I willing to risk trying to time out for 1 minute and then risk losing for getting hit?

There are far to many factors at play in your example of incentive, as it's extremely biased towards the loser in assuming only their KO moves are stale.

I only wanted to show that this incentive could exist, not that it WILL exist, so you're not really addressing my point. Yes, your MK vs. Snake scenario could happen, in which case neither party really has much added incentive to bring the match to time as far as stale moves is concerned. But what if Snake brought MK up through grenades? Then MK has incentive to time out, as you admitted.

Remember I'm arguing that incentive COULD exist. Instead of arguing that it WON'T ALWAYS exist, you should be arguing that it could NEVER exist. Since we both know this point holds, however unimportant it may be, you should just concede on this front and move on, no?

Same in the current timeout clause, it's just easier. It's ignoring what the game says (that it's a draw) and the difference can be as little as 0.1% and you'd never know.

"Oh, I'm in the lead by 0.1% run!!!!!!!!! Game. Good Game. I know the game said a draw, but we give me the win. Why? Who knows. This game could have gone either way, but whatever."

Ignoring the fact that it's impossible to discern 0.1% by the players, you're misrepresenting my argument, so allow me to clarify. I acknowledge there are problems with the current timeout rule. But how can you propose an improvement to something to address a problem, and then when confronted with the fact that your improvement doesn't actually address the problem, you say "well the original didn't fix the problem either"?

The current rule has problems. The Fandango Clause attempts to fix the problem. It does not do so adequately. That the current rule has a flaw doesn't justify the fix still being flawed.

Precisely this because there isn't a less arbitrary way. Quite frankly, if you could only manage to get closer by 20% in 5 minutes you weren't going to win anyways.

That's a horrible mindset to adopt when constructing a ruleset, never mind that your claim is untrue:

Diddy at 20% starts an overtime match against Snake at 50%. At the end of 5 minutes, Diddy is at 120% and Snake is at 110%.

How is 8 minutes fair under the current ruleset? Why 8? Why not 10? 20? 30? 99?

It's because we've deemed 8 minutes to be ideal. Possibly 10 - but currently most use 8.

Good. Since we've established that the number of minutes is somewhat arbitrary, you won't be using the number of minutes in an overtime to defend the existance of this overtime.

 

[SuSa]

I kind of dropped it but you cut off that part of my post.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Or...you could just add 5 minutes onto the timer. That's essentially what you're doing doing already but it removes the need to remember what percent you were at.
I dunno how thought out the rule is...

 

[vVv Rapture]

BPC brought up making it a draw if people go to time...

Why not maybe increase the timer to 10 minutes, but if the match ends with both players at the same stock, then its a draw? And if its a draw...they both lose?

If someone told me that I lose if I don't take that last stock away before time runs out, you **** well know I'm going to approach. Threaten the players with a loss. They'll get that stock.

 

[SuSa]

That doesn't fix the double standard.

I'm working on an argument regarding "Giving the loser incentive to time out" under this clause - and in the end it not solving anything.

Yep. I actually think I have something logical to go against both this and the standard. But this is motivation for what I'm thinking...will release when I work out details better.

 

[vVv Rapture]

That doesn't fix the double standard.

I'm working on an argument regarding "Giving the loser incentive to time out" under this clause - and in the end it not solving anything.

Yep. I actually think I have something logical to go against both this and the standard. But this is motivation for what I'm thinking...will release when I work out details better.

How does it not fix it? Explain a bit so I can like...respond to this.

 

[SuSa]

Double standard:
In the event of a draw, we hold a 1 stock 3 minute match.

In the event of a draw, decided by time (still a draw), the winner is that with the lower %.

Why is the above an exception?

Food for thought:

• % is not a distinct advantage in a matchup. It's a mental advantage.
• No matter if I'm at 0% or 999%, I'm still alive. We can still TIE by the game's standards.
• If I am Lucario, I gain an advantage for taking damage up to 170%. Damage is an ADVANTAGE.
• Letting you hit me with your attacks, in order to stale your KO moves, can be a willful take of damage to ensure I live longer by staling your KO moves. This take of damage can be seen as an advantage.

Thus I now challenge the concept:

Why is it bad that the player with less % is being forced to approach? He was never at an advantage to begin with.

 

[Trillion]

I disagree with the rule.

My thoughts about win conditions (skip toward bottom to see specific objections to this rule):


I feel that the timer SHOULD be utilized as a win condition. However, I do also recognize that using the % as a method of determining the winner at time probably is unfair for certain characters.

My position is that certain characters are more suited to different win conditions. Saying that a player has to always find a way to repeatedly out prioritize MK is one of the reasons that he is so high tier. If you said, play a 2 minute timed match, Fox might be top tier.

The rule set is supposed to determine who has the most skill, but it is choosing to measure skill in such a way that suits certain characters more than others.

Now, I wouldn't say that I think we should have a coin match to determine skill or that we should use stamina (since coin is basically a glorified time match and stamina is a glorified stock match), but I think we need to merge the time out and stock rules in a better way than we already do.



This rule is designed to remove time out as a win condition, but I think it would actually cause more problems than it resolves

Objections to this proposed rule:
1.) Rather than make people continue the match with 5 more minutes added on, why not just make the match have a 13 minute timer instead of 8 and then 5? It's arbitrary.
2.) It would reset the diminished returns on all attacks. Benefiting some more than others
3.) It can still lead to the same problem we already have.
4.) It will cause disputes about what the %s were at the end of the match

I'd finally like to say that, while I do disagree, I also have no better solution, so I'm happy that people are trying to contribute to the competitive atmosphere by attempting to fix ruleset problems.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Double standard:
In the event of a draw, we hold a 1 stock 3 minute match.

In the event of a draw, decided by time (still a draw), the winner is that with the lower %.

Why is the above an exception?

It's not. I was proposing that if both players have the same stock and the game goes to time, both players are awarded a loss for the game. If the game goes to time and Player A has more stocks than Player B, then he wins. He has the game's definition of an advantage (more stocks). If both players have the same amount of stocks when the game goes to time, both players draw and, by my proposition, lose, since neither of them have the game's definition of a lead.

The lose-by-draw rule is essentially provoking both players to fight because, if they don't, both lose. In this case, you could argue that people who are losing could time-out to at least make the other person lose as well, but then that's just more motivation for the person winning to actually earn the win and get all the stocks from his opponent.

Food for thought:

• % is not a distinct advantage in a matchup. It's a mental advantage.
• No matter if I'm at 0% or 999%, I'm still alive. We can still TIE by the game's standards.
• If I am Lucario, I gain an advantage for taking damage up to 170%. Damage is an ADVANTAGE.
• Letting you hit me with your attacks, in order to stale your KO moves, can be a willful take of damage to ensure I live longer by staling your KO moves. This take of damage can be seen as an advantage.

Advantages are technically subjective. You would have to note Lucario's power increase as what it is, an increase of power. Damage gives him an increase in power, which is objective. Even calling an increase in power is subjective, since having a non-concrete advantage is always a matter of opinion.

No matter how ridiculous it sounds, but someone may find it better not to have the power increase. Even though it's not logical or realistic, it's still possible. Hell, sometimes I find using Squirtigue (fatigued Squirtle) when using PT is better in some scenarios than before fatigue sets in. It can be argued whether or not the advantage is actually there and because it can be argued, it's subjective.

Thus I now challenge the concept:

Why is it bad that the player with less % is being forced to approach? He was never at an advantage to begin with.

Well, with my proposition, both players are forced to approach or forfeit a loss regardless of what the percents are. Since the percents are not defined as a lead by the game, then if both players are at the same stock, they are tied/I]. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for it to be assumed a draw if it goes to time, since neither player is technically winning.

The reason why I am saying it could be a loss is because it provokes both players to approach. You cannot say, in the situation of higher or lower percents, who is exactly winning because percent amount is not indicative of how likely someone can die. It is only indicative of how much damage they have and how far they'll get knocked back after an attack, but since people can be gimped/kill at low percents, too, there is no reason to believe that, in all cases, higher percent means more likely to loss the stock/game.

 

[SuSa]

What does a loss serve in the best 2/3? What if we're tied 1:1 and we both lose? We're now 2:2. Do we both win by losing?

I am challenging the concept that a player is at an advantage regardless of %. A player is only at an advantage if they have a stock advantage.

So why is it bad the player with lower % is being forced to approach? He's not at any form of advantage dictated by the game.

So long as 1 player has incentive to approach. What is the issue here?

 

[Steeler]

LET'S JUST DISABLE PERCENTAGE DISPLAY!

caps