Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
Guys, Bowser can jump out of his suicide move regardless of port, it's a moot issue now. >_>
-
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)
- Thread starter Jack Kieser
- Start date
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Link to evidence please.
I remember seeing this but don't think it was consistent enough to actually do.
It also doesn't stop DDDcides, Bite-cides, Kirbycides, MK's uthrow suicide (same with Kirby) on stages like RC, and Ganon's suicide (which is random between lose/draw)
I remember seeing this but don't think it was consistent enough to actually do.
It also doesn't stop DDDcides, Bite-cides, Kirbycides, MK's uthrow suicide (same with Kirby) on stages like RC, and Ganon's suicide (which is random between lose/draw)
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
Hehe.
I <3 PAL. Bowsercide is always a win for bowser xD
NTSC noobs.
I <3 PAL. Bowsercide is always a win for bowser xD
NTSC noobs.
MetalMusicMan
Sleepwalk our lives away.
Long time no see, David 
Stocks in Brawl =/= how many times you play a set in other fighters.
Stocks in Brawl = Rounds (not sets) in traditional fighters.
The choice of how many games to play in a set is rarely, if ever, included in any game. It is always exterior to the gameplay itself, because the ruling does not effect the gameplay.
Sets are there so you can play the game more times in order to get a better measurement of who has a higher win ratio, and thus more skill. This is why normal sets are best 2/3 and grand finals, which are more important, are 3/5.
Moving on,
IDC and Sudden Death are two very good and common examples. Why? Not because we banned them, but because of why we were able to ban them in addition to the necessity of doing so.
Banning IDC and ignoring sudden death are perfect examples of when it is acceptable to ban things. You can look at the banning of game-breaking glitches or characters in other games and make a direct parallel to IDC. Why? Because they are CONCISE. You can define whether or not someone is using the IDC, and you cannot IDC on accident. This makes it perfectly capable of actually being banned.
You cannot, however, really say that someone who has grabbed the ledge more then 30 times wasn't just doing so to avoid being attacked when they would have otherwise died. They may very well not have been playing with the intention of planking.
Sudden Death being removed is the same situation-- it's concise and can be easily removed, though I do not think that our grounds for removing it is particularly just. Sudden Death is a less than desirable means to solve the issue of ties, for sure. However, its inclusion would not annihilate competition in the way that people seem to think it would.
As for your argument about infinites, it's very short sighted :\
I could easily say that you are a "dumb noob" for playing Sonic and running around the entire game, making it difficult for me to kill you. I could easily say that no one wanted to watch that, so you shouldn't be able to do it.
Whether someone wants to watch it or I think "you are a noob" is irrelevant, though. The only thing that matters is who wins, because this is a competition. The moment that you start banning things "because they are gay", you have removed any value that competition has.
All of these cries for something being "cheap" or "lame" are commonplace in a competitive environment, and they can be applied to anything that the naysayers want in order to justify their own frustrations. This line of thinking is childish, illogical, and of no value to anyone of intellect.
Also, keep in mind that when dealing with suicide KO's, the port only even matters AT ALL on the last stock.
Should we give Falco the win if he Phantasm-spikes someone off stage, but falls to his death before his opponent? Falco clearly initiated the move, and his opponent was going to die, but he died first. HOW LAME! HE WAS ROBBED OF HIS KILL!
No, we don't do that. It would be silly. We go by what the game says.
The controller port SHOULDN'T matter, but you know what? That's just how it works, so we have to deal with it.
Just to debunk this right off the bat:
Stocks in Brawl =/= how many times you play a set in other fighters.
Stocks in Brawl = Rounds (not sets) in traditional fighters.
The choice of how many games to play in a set is rarely, if ever, included in any game. It is always exterior to the gameplay itself, because the ruling does not effect the gameplay.
Sets are there so you can play the game more times in order to get a better measurement of who has a higher win ratio, and thus more skill. This is why normal sets are best 2/3 and grand finals, which are more important, are 3/5.
Moving on,
In the most dire circumstances, it can be acceptable. You want to avoid it at all costs if possible, however.
IDC and Sudden Death are two very good and common examples. Why? Not because we banned them, but because of why we were able to ban them in addition to the necessity of doing so.
Banning IDC and ignoring sudden death are perfect examples of when it is acceptable to ban things. You can look at the banning of game-breaking glitches or characters in other games and make a direct parallel to IDC. Why? Because they are CONCISE. You can define whether or not someone is using the IDC, and you cannot IDC on accident. This makes it perfectly capable of actually being banned.
You cannot, however, really say that someone who has grabbed the ledge more then 30 times wasn't just doing so to avoid being attacked when they would have otherwise died. They may very well not have been playing with the intention of planking.
Sudden Death being removed is the same situation-- it's concise and can be easily removed, though I do not think that our grounds for removing it is particularly just. Sudden Death is a less than desirable means to solve the issue of ties, for sure. However, its inclusion would not annihilate competition in the way that people seem to think it would.
As for your argument about infinites, it's very short sighted :\
This argument holds no weight whatsoever.
I could easily say that you are a "dumb noob" for playing Sonic and running around the entire game, making it difficult for me to kill you. I could easily say that no one wanted to watch that, so you shouldn't be able to do it.
Whether someone wants to watch it or I think "you are a noob" is irrelevant, though. The only thing that matters is who wins, because this is a competition. The moment that you start banning things "because they are gay", you have removed any value that competition has.
All of these cries for something being "cheap" or "lame" are commonplace in a competitive environment, and they can be applied to anything that the naysayers want in order to justify their own frustrations. This line of thinking is childish, illogical, and of no value to anyone of intellect.
As for Bowser, Ganon, and suicide kills in general, it is unfortunate that port priority messes with those abilities. None the less, it's your responsibility to know how the move works if you choose to go for it.
Also, keep in mind that when dealing with suicide KO's, the port only even matters AT ALL on the last stock.
Should we give Falco the win if he Phantasm-spikes someone off stage, but falls to his death before his opponent? Falco clearly initiated the move, and his opponent was going to die, but he died first. HOW LAME! HE WAS ROBBED OF HIS KILL!
No, we don't do that. It would be silly. We go by what the game says.
The controller port SHOULDN'T matter, but you know what? That's just how it works, so we have to deal with it.
- Falco shouldn't be able to cancel his Phantasm, but HE CAN, so people do it.
- Lucas shouldn't be able to zap-jump to the top of the screen with his side-b, BUT HE CAN, so people do it.
- Ganon's F-air was meant to auto cancel, but IT DOESN'T-- should Ganon's get a "get away free" card every time they use F-air because of this glitch? NO. That's just how it is.
Yes with the exception that their is NO Gameplay change in other Brawl Versions at all.
=D
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
...
I don't understand, what you were saying
"No, there is no gameplay change in other versions", or
"Yes, that is the only gameplay change between other versions"?
I don't understand, what you were saying
"No, there is no gameplay change in other versions", or
"Yes, that is the only gameplay change between other versions"?
What on earth is with guys who bring this up thinking anybody should be able to do it on command on all stages and on all characters?
Do you even know how it works?
GrimFandango: There is absolutely no difference regarding Bowsercide in PAL. None.
Tagxy
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,482
Having a judge make decisions is relevant to the topic. And theres really nothing else to say, if you watched how the rules are applied youd realize that you were wrong, the level of disagreement on what is or is not a complaint happens nearly every time. I think you already realized you were lacking on this though based on your last response. In any case, since youve dropped the argument, there shouldnt be any disagreement that having a tournament judge determine what constitutes stalling and when its too much is fine.
Trillion
Smash Ace
Hopefully it's not to annoying for me to do this, but I'm moving a chunk of your quote(I'm not gonna make it say anything different than what it did.) for the purpose of explaining my points.
I think I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here or I communicated my thought poorly, so forgive me.
In other fighters they play sets to determine who has the better math up ratio too. Soul Calibur immediately comes to mind for me. There, you set how many fights are played to determine the winner, such as best 2/3. I might have crossed terminology in what I was trying to say. I didn't mean to say that stocks = times you play a set.
I agree that we do not want to have to make 1000 + rules for every single situation and that IDC is a necessary ban. Your argument for saying that we let controller port determine the result is
that "that's just how it works." However, if this is the case then why are we going to say that in the case of a time out, that we ignore the sudden death and the results of that sudden death and instead create a tie breaker? We ignore "how it works" and insert our preferred way instead in this case, but not in the other.
As for the case with Falco's suicide spike, this is not the same. The point isn't to say who initiated the kill move. If Falco falls in controller port 1, then he loses, if the falls in controller port 4, he loses. There is consistency. There is inconsistency based on controller port in this case and it is arbitrary and should be removed. It should either be that they always win or that it is always a tie. The same thing applies to your other 3 situations above. There is not arbitrary inconsistency for any of those. They behave the same no matter the controller port.
As for the problem with ledge grabs. I don't know whether I think that a ledge grab limit is a good idea for exactly the same reasons as you pointed out (it's hard to prove and can even be accidental), but I think that planking should at least be classified as stalling and not allowed. Letting go and then grabbing once or twice as attempts to fake out the opponent for your recovery to the stage is one thing, but I think there is an obvious difference between grabbing the ledge a lot as a necessity and hiding to avoid the fight.
It matters not to me whether or not someone wants to watch a Dedede chain grab or a Sonic run away. What matters to me is whether skill is being proven and all I want banned is the infinites, not chain grabbing in general. As for the Sonic running around, stages have already been banned that would allow a Sonic to run forever and he still has to fight to win. Our ability to abuse a rule has been removed, but Dedede retains his ability to against 5 characters. You can make the slippery slope argument about where to draw the line at banning things, but I think we are a mature enough community that we can come to reasonable agreements without that. MLG banned infinites and imo you still did pretty dang good at Dallas.
Yeah, been at Mizzou all semester, but this Tuesday I'll be home for Thanksgiving and I'm planning to head over if you guys are playing?Long time no see, David
I think I must be misunderstanding what you are saying here or I communicated my thought poorly, so forgive me.
In other fighters they play sets to determine who has the better math up ratio too. Soul Calibur immediately comes to mind for me. There, you set how many fights are played to determine the winner, such as best 2/3. I might have crossed terminology in what I was trying to say. I didn't mean to say that stocks = times you play a set.
I agree that we do not want to have to make 1000 + rules for every single situation and that IDC is a necessary ban. Your argument for saying that we let controller port determine the result is
that "that's just how it works." However, if this is the case then why are we going to say that in the case of a time out, that we ignore the sudden death and the results of that sudden death and instead create a tie breaker? We ignore "how it works" and insert our preferred way instead in this case, but not in the other.
As for the case with Falco's suicide spike, this is not the same. The point isn't to say who initiated the kill move. If Falco falls in controller port 1, then he loses, if the falls in controller port 4, he loses. There is consistency. There is inconsistency based on controller port in this case and it is arbitrary and should be removed. It should either be that they always win or that it is always a tie. The same thing applies to your other 3 situations above. There is not arbitrary inconsistency for any of those. They behave the same no matter the controller port.
As for the problem with ledge grabs. I don't know whether I think that a ledge grab limit is a good idea for exactly the same reasons as you pointed out (it's hard to prove and can even be accidental), but I think that planking should at least be classified as stalling and not allowed. Letting go and then grabbing once or twice as attempts to fake out the opponent for your recovery to the stage is one thing, but I think there is an obvious difference between grabbing the ledge a lot as a necessity and hiding to avoid the fight.
It matters not to me whether or not someone wants to watch a Dedede chain grab or a Sonic run away. What matters to me is whether skill is being proven and all I want banned is the infinites, not chain grabbing in general. As for the Sonic running around, stages have already been banned that would allow a Sonic to run forever and he still has to fight to win. Our ability to abuse a rule has been removed, but Dedede retains his ability to against 5 characters. You can make the slippery slope argument about where to draw the line at banning things, but I think we are a mature enough community that we can come to reasonable agreements without that. MLG banned infinites and imo you still did pretty dang good at Dallas.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
Wrong, Bowser always wins if he bowsercides in PAL
Edit:...Oh wait no I was wrong >.>...he wins in a lower port and ties in a higher port....
AMKalmar
Smash Ace
I'd take it... with a handfull of salt! °¬°
Nø Ca$h
Smash Champion
just have no timer. players will be more motivated to not try and run it out
Elyssa Xey Hexen
Broken!
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 19,346
My solution does not involve a change with the system at all. It involves a education realignment with our smashers who would do the undesireable. Edumacate the people who are trying to do what we do not want them to do so they are more honorable with our system. Besides, we could just eliminate the pots and say we play for bragginng rates more so than anything else. This whole money on the line thing has made us into a people who are willing to do anything to get money. Even to the point where it degrades the game for others.
But, I am a radical.
But, I am a radical.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
@Nocash: doesn't work
@Xylode: scrub
@Xylode: scrub
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Don't just call him a scrub. That doesn't actually help him.
Xylode, let me explain why that won't work. First of all, you're talking about a massive cultural overhaul. Thousands of people would have to be forcefully re-educated to think that:
A ) money isn't important
B ) doing anything for money is destructive
C ) playing for money is unethical
D ) the metagame and the community's health is more important that a single player's winning or losing
...and as much as I'd like that to be the case, you can't forcefully re-educate people to think that killing the planet is wrong, so I doubt that they'll think that money isn't the object of playing this game.
Also, within the strict context of competition (and war), these players SHOULD be doing everything the game allows them to do to win. They should be utilizing every tool (and the best tools) at their disposal. The only time that SHOULDN'T be the case is in the instances where those tools actually hurt the game (like circle camping). Now, we can argue about how planking is broken, and that there's no point to playing anyone but MK, but the actual truth of the matter is that, aside from how large of ***** people will be to win money, this community is actually MASSIVELY SCRUBBY.
If it weren't, we'd see exponentially more MK mains planking the ledge, gaying people out.
...at least, until this rule is adopted. Just getting people to accept the premises of this thread would be FAR EASIER than re-educating them to think that all of their beliefs are wrong.
Xylode, let me explain why that won't work. First of all, you're talking about a massive cultural overhaul. Thousands of people would have to be forcefully re-educated to think that:
A ) money isn't important
B ) doing anything for money is destructive
C ) playing for money is unethical
D ) the metagame and the community's health is more important that a single player's winning or losing
...and as much as I'd like that to be the case, you can't forcefully re-educate people to think that killing the planet is wrong, so I doubt that they'll think that money isn't the object of playing this game.
Also, within the strict context of competition (and war), these players SHOULD be doing everything the game allows them to do to win. They should be utilizing every tool (and the best tools) at their disposal. The only time that SHOULDN'T be the case is in the instances where those tools actually hurt the game (like circle camping). Now, we can argue about how planking is broken, and that there's no point to playing anyone but MK, but the actual truth of the matter is that, aside from how large of ***** people will be to win money, this community is actually MASSIVELY SCRUBBY.
If it weren't, we'd see exponentially more MK mains planking the ledge, gaying people out.
...at least, until this rule is adopted. Just getting people to accept the premises of this thread would be FAR EASIER than re-educating them to think that all of their beliefs are wrong.
AMKalmar
Smash Ace
I think it's silly when people compare suicides to spikes. In a suicide, the two characters involved are physically attached, so it quite a bit different than other KOs. Theoretically, the results should never differ because the two character's collisions stay in the same location relative to each other. It just bothers my that there's inconsistency. If Ganon grabs you and thrusts you down into the void, you are physically lower than him and as a result, you hit the death boundary first... yet the game usually says Ganon died first... usually. If it were up to me, all suicides would be ties since both characters lose their last stock at the same moment, but I didn't make this game.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
I still want to say it was some sort of programming fault from the creators.
I'd agree all suicide should be ties if we should altar it at all. Only because it's the only possible outcome all 3 share.
Bowser ties or wins (IIRC?)
Ganon ties or loses.
Kirby/DDD/Wario have the opponent inside of them.
But yeah. I didn't make the game either.
But I'm more for the results screen deciding. Even if it's stupid/random.
I'd agree all suicide should be ties if we should altar it at all. Only because it's the only possible outcome all 3 share.
Bowser ties or wins (IIRC?)
Ganon ties or loses.
Kirby/DDD/Wario have the opponent inside of them.
But yeah. I didn't make the game either.
But I'm more for the results screen deciding. Even if it's stupid/random.
Elyssa Xey Hexen
Broken!
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 19,346
I hinted that my idea was radical lol I was expecting everyone would be able to understand that and accept that it was an impossible solution for laughs. Well, the internet fails yet again to convey humor correctly.
Edit: I had something to add seriously to this, but I do not want to add it for fear it will be misunderstood. Need to think it through more.
Edit: I had something to add seriously to this, but I do not want to add it for fear it will be misunderstood. Need to think it through more.
MK26
Smash Master
Mind = ****ing Blown
===
I've played in a match where both players lost their last life (ie crossed a side blastzone) at the same time due to each hitting the other at the same time...where does that fit into the win criteria situation
I wanted to comment on other stuff too but its all been mentioned except for one thing
the "if we time one game we both lose" idea isnt fully factual. it simply means that for one player to advance, he needs to win both of the other games. ie, after a game 1 tie:
P1/P2 wins both of next two games --> he wins set 2-0 after 3 games
Players split next two games --> 1-1 tie, if it occurs in winners bracket, losers' explodes, etc.
Or, in another scenario:
Game 1: P1 wins on a neutral, P2 counterpick
Game 2: Tie, I'm assuming proper form would be to stage strike from neutrals or something, but with an even amount of neutrals remaining iunno \(o_0)/, maybe P2 gets an extra strike
Game 3: P1 wins on a neutral (?), wins set
And then we could get into the not-altogether-too-unlikely scenario of two ties happening in the same set, resulting in one player "winning" the set 1-0 and presumably advancing
Or three ties...but by then I'd just boot both players out for wasting 39 minutes of my time to get absolutely nowhere.
tl;dr adding ties into Smash is like
...
i cant think of a good analogy.
that in itself does not bode well.
AuraStUrm
Smash Journeyman
I absolutely love this idea, but I'm still confused as to how awarding a loss to both players would work within the bracket. Would someone please clarify this for me?
Infernal163
Smash Rookie
I LOVE IT! Especially since I main Wolf, and he's an up-and-at-em character.