• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

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

Trillion

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
609
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
I can tell you dont watch sports either, lol. Its the same and both require a judge to interpret.
I do watch sports. You should read again. The referee does not have to decide what is and is not a complaint, its pretty clear when someone is compaining. A smash bros. judge does have to determine what constitutes stalling (is MK down air camping stalling? planking? etc?). Then, they also have to determine when something is happening enough (if MK drops off the ledge once and then regrabs while doing an up air, then is that stalling? 2 times? 20 times? where is the line?)

In your example, the referee only has to make a judgment call of when something is too much, but does not have to also define it. Since there is more being left open to interpretation for the smash bros. judge, the stalling rule is more vague.

Attacking my understanding of sports does not strengthen your argument. You dodged my point and instead tried to attack me instead of my argument.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
The OP has been updated with more mind-blowing logic. Read the edits in red and discuss. And, REALLY READ THEM. I took a lot of time formulating that post; please don't post or comment on it if you HAVEN'T READ IT AND DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
 

Yikarur

Smash Master
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
4,595
Location
Germany
nobody would ever accept that kind of rule, you should know that, it doesn't matter how much stupid logic you put into your text (you should know, Descartes tried to prove god by thinking)
nobody would EVER accept this. Because it's just not right in the sense of competitive play.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
Except I proved that it DID make sense in competitive play, because of how we deal with DQ's. Didn't you read that?

EDIT: The reason Decartes failed at proving god was because god doesn't exist. Not because you can't prove things with logic.
 

Yikarur

Smash Master
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
4,595
Location
Germany
The sense and the goal of competitive play is to WIN.
we have a winning condition "remove all of your opponent stocks"
it's your GOAL to achieve this condition.
The lose condition is NOT "fail to remove stocks", the lose condition is "loses all stocks".
Your lose condition is NOT logical, it's a concept of yourself, it's a bias try to solve something.
and the sense of competition is that there is a WINNER. You can't just come along and they "when you follow my ideas you both lose!"
and the next in bracket gets a free win?
that's not fair and not in the sense of competition too.
2 Losers and one free win. Great.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
No. His lose/win conditions are 100% valid as dictated by the game.

If we tie on stocks. The game doesn't award me a win. We play out to SUDDEN DEATH, GO!

YOUR lose condition is the biased one.

However that isn't to say that people would support this. Because people simply hate logic.... *rolls eyes* or don't understand it.. (see above post)

EDIT:
The reason we play out the 5 minute tie breaker with the rounded %'s is to avoid "Dude, I hate you. I know I can't win. So I'm going to try and time you out so we BOTH lose."

Because if you get timed out 1 stock in 5 minutes... you probably did deserve to lose. :awesome:
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
Yikarur, what happens if I kill you once, but you kill me twice? Neither of us has removed ALL of the opponent's stocks, but the game still awards you the win. Why?

Because the win / lose conditions don't say ..."ALL of the opponent's stocks", that's why. If it did, then ANY stocks left on both players at time would go to Sudden Death. Think about that. The game, upon seeing that I have 1 stock left and you have 2 left, would force BOTH of us into Sudden Death.

OBVIOUSLY, that isn't the case, so your supposition isn't valid.
 

Yikarur

Smash Master
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
4,595
Location
Germany
Yeah I left out the secondary win condition that comes with the timer on purpose because we were talking about the other one.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Grr... I deleted all my "Timer is not a legit win condition. It's secondary" thing.

Hey Yikarur. Do my 2 minute test

Play a 1 minute 1 stock match. Have one player be Fox, shoot a laser at your opponent for 1 full minute. At the end of this minute - the game makes you play out Sudden Death. It treats this as a TIE.

Play a 1 minute 2 stock match. Kill 1 player 1 time. Let time run out. It awards a win to one player.

The game states that one must have a stock advantage in order to win in the event of a timeout. That is the only criteria.

The criteria that the players added was:
"The one with lower % wins."
 

Raziek

Charging Limit All Day
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,626
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
NNID
Raziek
3DS FC
3866-8131-5247
Uhhh, Jack, there's a massive abuse in your modification.

If you can now award a loss to both players, that means a player can now time his opponent out INTENTIONALLY, and drag them BOTH out of the bracket.

If you can't win, you may as well **** them over, right?

Edit: Before you say "That's impossible", I activate my trap card, "DMG and Orion"!
 

Yikarur

Smash Master
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
4,595
Location
Germany
Grr... I deleted all my "Timer is not a legit win condition. It's secondary" thing.

Hey Yikarur. Do my 2 minute test

Play a 1 minute 1 stock match. Have one player be Fox, shoot a laser at your opponent for 1 full minute. At the end of this minute - the game makes you play out Sudden Death. It treats this as a TIE.

Play a 1 minute 2 stock match. Kill 1 player 1 time. Let time run out. It awards a win to one player.

The game states that one must have a stock advantage in order to win in the event of a timeout. That is the only criteria.

The criteria that the players added was:
"The one with lower % wins."
thanks to prove my point. (even though in my opinion the % Rule is necessary but the Stock Thing is exactly what I wanted to say)
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
Uhhh, Jack, there's a massive abuse in your modification.

If you can now award a loss to both players, that means a player can now time his opponent out INTENTIONALLY, and drag them BOTH out of the bracket.

If you can't win, you may as well **** them over, right?

Edit: Before you say "That's impossible", I activate my trap card, "DMG and Orion"!
Except, that is obviously not playing the game. I mean, as a TO, I have addmitted players into the bracket so that they can try to advance. Now, if two players are in Sudden Death, and there's 30 seconds left on the clock with both players KNOWING the outcome if one of them doesn't win, and one players is doing his best to approach but the other is, like, Scrooging with MK and obviously NOT trying to win, then he's obviously not playing anymore. As a TO, I would just award the other guy the win if his opponent is OBVIOUSLY trying to drag him out of the bracket out of spite. There's nothing that would stop me from exercising executive power like that, considering I can DQ players for other reasons.

Now, if it's a one time thing, then obviously the player getting timed out wasn't skilled enough to secure the win, so he deserves the loss. But, if I notice that, in EVERY match with hypothetical player A in it, it goes to time and both players are awarded a loss... EVERY TIME, even in loser's bracket, over the course of multiple brackets / events (or even twice in the same bracket, once in winner's and once in loser's), I'd simply ban the guy from events outright. He's obviously entering the bracket just to **** with people and not to seriously play, and I wouldn't let a guy like that get away with messing around with other people's money in such a fashion. I'd consider it match fixing.

Simply, NO ONE who is serious about competing would actually do that; I can't imagine a top player doing that, for instance. And, anyone who isn't serious that would try that would probably get wrecked long before the 5 minutes were up.
 

Grim Tuesday

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
13,444
Location
Adelaide, South Australia, AUS
Uhhh, Jack, there's a massive abuse in your modification.

If you can now award a loss to both players, that means a player can now time his opponent out INTENTIONALLY, and drag them BOTH out of the bracket.

If you can't win, you may as well **** them over, right?

Edit: Before you say "That's impossible", I activate my trap card, "DMG and Orion"!
^Above^

and even with that "flaw", this system is much better than what we have in place now.
 

Raziek

Charging Limit All Day
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,626
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
NNID
Raziek
3DS FC
3866-8131-5247
No, it's really not. It's massively complex, and BARELY improves upon a rule that's mostly doing its job. I'll say to you what I said to SuSa:

"
I'm all for logic, but at the end of the day, if it can't play nice with pragmatism, it's not gonna work."

Yeah, you could use a judge, but now it's just MORE complex. I speak as a TO here Jack, this would never fly in real life. Theory Bros. Brawl, it's all good, but we don't have time to **** around with a rule this complex.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
DMG times people out to win. If he can't win by timing out, I have no reservations about him playing as gay as possible... but after meeting the guy, I can't honestly say he'd drag an opponent out of the bracket for no reason, other than "I hate you".

EDIT @ Raziek: Why would you need a judge the whole time? First of all, it's only a five minute rematch, and second, you'd only need one for, like, 1 minute if even THAT, and that's only if a judge is called over because you think your opponent is trying to drag you out of bracket unfairly. Also, I'm also speaking as a TO, dude. I have ran brackets before. I get how nationals work. It's really not that complex of a rule. Go to time, and on the same stock? Play a tiebreaker (1 stock, 5 minute). Start with your previous % rounded. Go to time again? You both lose.

Simple to me.
 

Raziek

Charging Limit All Day
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,626
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
NNID
Raziek
3DS FC
3866-8131-5247
Doesn't change the fact that the potential for abuse exists, AND all the other problems with move staling, moving stages, rounding percentages, and over-complexity ALL still exist.

Edit: AND you're trying to displace a rule that is commonplace EVERYWHERE, and is far simpler, and has existed since the beginning of time.

This is how 99% of smashers will feel while reading this rule:


 

AMKalmar

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
887
Location
Hamilton ON CA
I agree with the OP. The only minor problems being that % isn't carried over exactly and that stale moves and positions are refreshed. It makes sense for both players to lose if neither of them is actually fighting, but as Raziek said, you could camp so hard that you pull your opponent down with you. I don't think that should be allowed to be possible.

Anyways, back to my rule: "In the event that the timer expires and both players have the same number of stocks remaining, the player who previously had the stock lead is declared the winner." This would be supplemented with a secondary rule to handle draws.

I still think this makes sense, just because we don't want to make games any longer than they already are. Also, unlike the current timeout rule, it is fair for every character - the current rule unfairly strengthens characters that KO at higher percents.
 

Luneth

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
468
Doesn't change the fact that the potential for abuse exists, AND all the other problems with move staling, moving stages, rounding percentages, and over-complexity ALL still exist.

Edit: AND you're trying to displace a rule that is commonplace EVERYWHERE, and is far simpler, and has existed since the beginning of time.

This is how 99% of smashers will feel while reading this rule:

it sounds like youre saying dont change because change is bad
 

Tagxy

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
1,482
I do watch sports. You should read again. The referee does not have to decide what is and is not a complaint, its pretty clear when someone is compaining. Wrong A smash bros. judge does have to determine what constitutes stalling (is MK down air camping stalling? planking? etc?). As does a ref Then, they also have to determine when something is happening enough also required by a ref (if MK drops off the ledge once and then regrabs while doing an up air, then is that stalling? 2 times? 20 times? where is the line?)

In your example, the referee only has to make a judgment call of when something is too much, but does not have to also define it. Yes he does, "complaining" is at least as broad as stalling, youd realize this if you actually did pay sufficient attention to sports :/ Since there is more being left open to interpretation for the smash bros. judge, the stalling rule is more vague.

Attacking my understanding of sports does not strengthen your argument. You dodged my point and instead tried to attack me instead of my argument. This is because youre passing off incorrect information, so yes Im going to go after your crediblity.
Responses in red. In any case, this is super theory craft bros at its finest. Exactly the kind of response I would expect from someone who 'reads and thinks' about rules and has no concept of its practical application, which you would have if you followed sports and paid sufficient attention.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,908
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
Except, that is obviously not playing the game. I mean, as a TO, I have addmitted players into the bracket so that they can try to advance. Now, if two players are in Sudden Death, and there's 30 seconds left on the clock with both players KNOWING the outcome if one of them doesn't win, and one players is doing his best to approach but the other is, like, Scrooging with MK and obviously NOT trying to win, then he's obviously not playing anymore. As a TO, I would just award the other guy the win if his opponent is OBVIOUSLY trying to drag him out of the bracket out of spite. There's nothing that would stop me from exercising executive power like that, considering I can DQ players for other reasons.
Personal bias? Letting a TO decide on that is like saying "no excessive camping" and expecting the TO to decide over that. What about a situation where you can't approach your opponent without dying/getting ***** (say, 10 seconds left on the timer, Diddy has his banana fortress set up). Who's stalling, the person who has the advantageous position or the one who won't run into ****? It's a ridiculous rule, completely subjective, and open to tons of abuse.

Simply, NO ONE who is serious about competing would actually do that; I can't imagine a top player doing that, for instance. And, anyone who isn't serious that would try that would probably get wrecked long before the 5 minutes were up.
Sure, but sometimes it just flat-out happens. Wario vs. any safe campy char who has trouble killing. Peach vs. Diddy. Et cetera. There are matchups where it can easily take quite a while to take a stock without putting yourself in a really risky position. And especially when it's last stock, people won't want to run into ****.

And then that brings up another problem. Hypothetically, Diddy vs. Peach, it ends up in a tie and you can't determine that either of them were stalling. How are you going to fix the bracket? Single/Double elimination simply cannot handle ties. What then?
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
Jack, your ignoring your own rule if you are awarding the win by saying, "I'm the TO, and I say you win despite what my rule says"

If your doing that, then why is your rule even there.
 

Trillion

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
609
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Responses in red. In any case, this is super theory craft bros at its finest. Exactly the kind of response I would expect from someone who 'reads and thinks' about rules and has no concept of its practical application, which you would have if you followed sports and paid sufficient attention.
lol dude you are arguing my points by saying "no you are wrong" without actually putting forth any sort of argument. You can say "you are wrong" all you want but if you don't offer any explanation for why, then you have no strength to your argument. Since you lack strength for your argument, you are attacking my credibility instead and failing at it. Regardless, this has become a tangent argument that is not related to the topic any longer, so I'm dropping it as I would prefer to focus on the topic at hand.
 

Orion*

Smash Researcher
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
4,503
Location
Dexters Laboratory
can we please stop using what brawl gives us at a result screen as an argument. its completely worthless, brawl tells us to do a lot of dumb **** that we dont.

edit: like really LOL,

the next time that happens please also include

FFAs
Items
Special Brawl
Target test

i could go on. we changed brawl for the better, thats done.

anyway, both players losing Would be very interesting however what if its gfs?
 

Yikarur

Smash Master
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
4,595
Location
Germany
both player losing would be very bad because you still have to put one player above the other lol (and the idea itself is ******** D: )
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
The game doesn't tell us to use or do any of those Orion. :awesome:

However it does tell us when you win, lose, or draw.

Also I point to the Bowsercide/Ganoncide ruling.
"With respect to the Game Results screen"

Yep.............................
 

MetalMusicMan

Sleepwalk our lives away.
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
5,643
Location
St. Charles, Missouri
can we please stop using what brawl gives us at a result screen as an argument. its completely worthless, brawl tells us to do a lot of dumb **** that we dont.

edit: like really LOL,

the next time that happens please also include

FFAs
Items
Special Brawl
Target test

i could go on. we changed brawl for the better, thats done.

anyway, both players losing Would be very interesting however what if its gfs?
This could not possibly be more inaccurate.

First of all, Brawl doesn't tell us to do "a lot of dumb **** that we don't". Your example of items? Brawl tells us that we can play with OR with out items. It's not as if Brawl said "you must play with items!" and we said, "NO, WE WILL NOT PLAY WITH ITEMS!" and ignored them. We used what Brawl gave us, which was the option to CHOOSE whether or not to play with items.

The same goes for Stocks, Time Limit, game mode, stage selection (and removal), etc. etc. etc.

These are all things that BRAWL HAS AN OPTION FOR, which is why we use them.

WE ABSOLUTELY DID NOT "CHANGE BRAWL FOR THE BETTER" BY REMOVING ITEMS, STAGES, ETC. THOSE ARE IN-GAME OPTIONS THAT BRAWL PROVIDES US.

Notice that there is no option in Brawl for a Ledge Grab Limit, or a ban of infinites. Those kinds of rules are entirely exterior to the game and should be avoided at all costs. Why? Because we are playing BRAWL. We are NOT playing "Jo-Bob's down-home modified super-fun ultra-awesome version of Brawl!"...


MetalMusicMan said:
some guy said:
"Standard play" is playing with default rules. This means time battle, free for all, items, and all stages. That's really the only standard. Everything else is artificially created. We've come up with a ruleset to foster a competitive environment. People disagree on what stages foster the best competitive environment, but it's selfish to think that the rulset you consider most competitive is somehow standard.
I don't think we have "created a rule-set to foster competition", we've selected the rules which the game offers us a choice from. There's a huge difference in those two options.

If we created a rule-set when the game offered no options, we would be something terrible, like competitive Pokemon, with hundreds of artificial rules and scrubby limits.

Smash, however, is designed to be played many ways, and it's obvious that certain ways (such as Stock battles) are more competitive than others (coin battle, etc.).

Now, you can argue which ways are the best, but we aren't creating those ways, we are using the ones that are available to us. Generally, the less random something is, the better it is for competition, hence choosing stocks over coin battles.



Sorry, I just think we take to much credit for "all that we've done", because it was all there for us to begin with. Obviously we've done things like choose which stages are most competitive and decided that items aren't, but again, those options were there for us to begin with.

Item select and random stage select have been there since the beginning and are in no way "artificially implemented" by us to "create a more competitive game". We chose the competitive options out of the options presented to us, as many options were presented and each of them for obviously different purposes.

Even the stage-striking system, which is so unique to us compared to other fighting games, has been in place for ages in one form or another in First Person Shooters or other genres where the map you play on is just as important as your character.



It's all fundamentally no different than deciding to play timed or infinite-time matches in Street Fighter, or deciding to play first to 3 instead of first to 2 per game in a set. That game has less options to choose from, ours has more.




Now a ledge grab limit or a ban on infinites or a 300% cap on infinites for "stalling", THOSE are artificial rules created by us to foster a different kind of gameplay.
 

Trillion

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
609
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
I have to respectfully disagree with you Will.

First I do agree that Brawl gives us the option to include or exclude things based on preference. So, you are right about the stages, items, stock rules, etc. We did not edit the game by inserting exterior rules... much.


We DO however have some exterior rules.

Such as playing sets. I don't want to start a Brawl vs. "insert fight title here" debate, but some other games do have options to set for number of rounds. Brawl does not. There is no results screen for sets.

Brawl has an option to set which stages you want to be available for random selection, but not for non-random selection. We have inserted an exterior rule for "neutral" stages, counter pick stages, and banned stages. The Brawl disc does not have a "ban this stage" or "make this stage only selectable sometimes" option.

There is no "ignore the sudden death and play a tie-breaker instead" option.

There is no "ban the infinite dimensional cape" option either.


We HAVE created exterior rules in the spirit of competitive play. Ledge grabs should have limits and so should infinites, as well as suicides for the same reason, because it fosters true competition.

Nobody cares how well some noob can do Dedede's infinite down throw on DK, nobody would say that this demonstrates true skill. Saying that a Bowser wins if he suicides in port x, but ties if he is in port y is stupid. Why should controller port mean the difference in a match being won or not? "Joe is better than Bob, since Joe plays in port 4." That doesn't sound very reasonable to me.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Why should Bowser win instead of tie and go onto the tiebreaker match?

Who's to say he wins instead of ties?

That's why we leave it to the port. You know what port you have. You know if you're able to win using the tactic.

Don't use it if you can't win with it.

Simple.
 
Top Bottom