The Official BBR Tier List v4 -> Sonic's HA Stall is NOT beaten by spot dodge!!!!!!!!

[Yikarur]

percent/stock tie break is perfect. If we let sudden death play out then it could be that a players wins that doesn't deserve it at all
example:
Player 1 0% 1 Stock Player 2 1% 200% and timeout, player one lost because of some random hit or clash and whatever and loses even though, he was the one who played better overall.
it makes it even possible for the one who isn't winning to time out people (example above. player 2 could've stalled timeout too)

 

[vVv Rapture]

percent/stock tie break is perfect. If we let sudden death play out then it could be that a players wins that doesn't deserve it at all
example:
Player 1 0% 1 Stock Player 2 1% 200% and timeout, player one lost because of some random hit or clash and whatever and loses even though, he was the one who played better overall.
it makes it even possible for the one who isn't winning to time out people (example above. player 2 could've stalled timeout too)

If he's the better player, why is he getting timed out? Or losing in Sudden Death? Getting hit by an attack is not random, so someone losing to getting hit isn't by random chance.

 

[Justblaze647]

the point I'm making is that it can be used to discourage timing out as a legitimate strategy. I don't see how it's any less fair, or introduces any more random elements, than a last stock last hit situation.

Although I know in melee, if you end up in a sudden death situation for too long, it literally starts raining bob-ombs. Is there anything like this in Brawl?

Also, in the event of a sudden death scenario, have a ref watching, and dq the person stalling. simple as that.

Next question, I'm sure: Well, How do you define who is stalling?

My next answer: The person who is avoiding conflict; i.e. ledge-camping, scrooging, making it impossible for direct confrontation.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Haha, but there's a catch to that.

There's no in-game measure of how well someone is playing save for the results screen, and honestly that doesn't matter. What matters is who runs out of stocks first. To win Brawl, you don't "play better," you simply reduce your opponent's stock count to zero. That's it. You can do that in any way you wish that doesn't involve influence outside the game (such as violence or unplugging your opponent's controller) or isn't in direct violation of the rules. Brawl cannot be won by "who played better," because who played "better" is decided entirely upon who won the match. The better player is the player who was able to reach the goals we set for them within the specified parameters. Thus, if in the third game of our set I am at 200% and you are at 0% and I land a meteor that kills you, I played "better," because I reached the goal for this match as specified by the tournament's official rules.

 

[Justblaze647]

"Who won the match" should not be decided by whoever was able to grasp a lead at the end of an eight minute marker. Imo, this can only be defined as inconclusive.

 

[vVv Rapture]

"Who won the match" should not be decided by whoever was able to grasp a lead at the end of an eight minute marker. Imo, this can only be defined as inconclusive.

Why not? If I'm behind the whole game and end up getting a gimp or a spike on my opponent just before the match ends and I win, why should I not get the victory?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

vVv Rapture:

You're missing the point. You are only "ahead" within parameters we have specified (we say "a lower percentage is a lead"). Within the game's rules, there is really only one kind of lead, and that is a stock lead. Again, "playing better" or "being ahead" in this case is arbitrated entirely by the ruleset we have created. The question is not whether or not one was playing better within a set of pre-existing parameters, because obviously they were. Within our current ruleset, M2k timing out Ally on the last stock or whatever means he played better. What we're asking is whether or not these parameters ought to be changed.

I don't know, but I do acknowledge that having a percent lead doesn't necessarily mean you were "ahead;" the only method of scoring any kind of substantial lead within the game's parameters is to remove a stock from your opponent, which can be done at 0%.

EDIT: Oops, misread your post. I'll leave this here anyway though, since it elaborates upon my point. Sorry Rapture.

 

[vVv Rapture]

vVv Rapture:

You're missing the point. You are only "ahead" within parameters we have specified (we say "a lower percentage is a lead"). Within the game's rules, there is really only one kind of lead, and that is a stock lead. Again, "playing better" or "being ahead" in this case is arbitrated entirely by the ruleset we have created. The question is not whether or not one was playing better within a set of pre-existing parameters, because obviously they were. Within our current ruleset, M2k timing out Ally on the last stock or whatever means he played better. What we're asking is whether or not these parameters ought to be changed.

That's what I'm saying. I was saying in my last post that if someone wins the game before the timer ends by taking their opponent's last stock, no matter what kind of deficit they were at (as you said, that's not really actually there according to the game), they get the win. So I'm agreeing with you. It doesn't matter who someone thinks has the lead, all that matters is getting the stock.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

That's what I'm saying. I was saying in my last post that if someone wins the game before the timer ends by taking their opponent's last stock, no matter what kind of deficit they were at (as you said, that's not really actually there according to the game), they get the win. So I'm agreeing with you. It doesn't matter who someone thinks has the lead, all that matters is getting the stock.

Oops I misread your post! Sorry Rapture.

 

[Justblaze647]

Why not? If I'm behind the whole game and end up getting a gimp or a spike on my opponent just before the match ends and I win, why should I not get the victory?

I think you misunderstand me. What your saying is someone experiencing a turn-around and winning the game. Key word here is winning. What I am talking about is someone being 'in the lead' by percentage at the end of the eight minute marker.

I am referring to a time out; you are referring to a match victory.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Best solution IMO: Any time the game goes into sudden death, the sudden death is not played out. Instead a 1 stock match will be played (No time limit such as to discourage timing out again).

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Best solution IMO: Any time the game goes into sudden death, the sudden death is not played out. Instead a 1 stock match will be played (No time limit such as to discourage timing out again).

Without a time limit, how do you guarantee the match will end? Force the players to attack each other and administer an electric shock if they refuse?

 

[vVv Rapture]

Oops I misread your post! Sorry Rapture.

No prob.

And for some reason, this reminds me. I want to play Apples to Apples again next time I'm at a LI tourny. I think I was winning because I took BBW's winnings and ****.

@Blaze: Oh okay, I see your point. My bad. All these misunderstandings. xD

@Ganons: I'd like that. Essentially the same SD the game gives, but starting at 0% and no Bomb-ombs.

EDIT: @ SFP, they'd have to attack or it'd be stalling. And they can't stall after having a percent lead since they still wouldn't win and would be stalling and can't after having a stock lead because the game would be over.

 

[Chuee]

Without a time limit, how do you guarantee the match will end? Force the players to attack each other and administer an electric shock if they refuse?

LOL
That would be the best tournament ever.

 

[Exalted]

Without a time limit, how do you guarantee the match will end? Force the players to attack each other and administer an electric shock if they refuse?

Electric shocks can solve anything.

 

[Kofu]

Electric shocks can solve anything.

See: Milgram Experiment.

 

[Justblaze647]

Electric shocks can solve anything.

Spoiler

nope

Edit: I wish I knew how to use collapse tags

Edit2: YES!!! I GET IT NOW!!!!

 

[Poltergust]

Actually, I like how this would work out.

OK, let's say you tie with someone in stocks at the end of a match, but they had a 20% lead on you because they ran away the last 20 seconds of the match. You would feel terrible losing that way, right? And since your opponent only ran away for a short amount of time it wouldn't be classified as stalling.

So now we go to SD. Obviously, it's a bad idea to play here, so we end the match.

However, now you have another opportunity to win in a 1-stock, no time limit match on the same stage, and this time someone HAS to get KO'ed. Why, you ask? Because a referee MUST watch over the match and call out if someone is stalling.

To be honest, I have never seen anyone lose a match because someone called them out on stalling. That's because I never see anyone officially referee a match. I mean, we can't have a referee for every match we have, and people don't usually call one out in the middle of a match.

If we make it so that the 1-stock, no time limit match has to have a referee accompany it, then I believe that this kind of system would work out well. Now if you want to win by time-out, you need to get and maintain the stock lead.

...I hope I explained my thoughts well. I'm usually not coherent with long posts and sort of get lost in my words. =/

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Actually, I like how this would work out.

OK, let's say you tie with someone in stocks at the end of a match, but they had a 20% lead on you because they ran away the last 20 seconds of the match. You would feel terrible losing that way, right? And since your opponent only ran away for a short amount of time it wouldn't be classified as stalling.

So now we go to SD. Obviously, it's a bad idea to play here, so we end the match.

However, now you have another opportunity to win in a 1-stock, no time limit match on the same stage, and this time someone HAS to get KO'ed. Why, you ask? Because a referee MUST watch over the match and call out if someone is stalling.

To be honest, I have never seen anyone lose a match because someone called them out on stalling. That's because I never see anyone officially referee a match. I mean, we can't have a referee for every match we have, and people don't usually call one out in the middle of a match.

If we make it so that the 1-stock, no time limit match has to have a referee accompany it, then I believe that this kind of system would work out well. Now if you want to win by time-out, you need to get and maintain the stock lead.

...I hope I explained my thoughts well. I'm usually not coherent with long posts and sort of get lost in my words. =/

This just doesn't work, thnough. Who has to attack? Why are you stalling just because you're not attacking? What if you're just playing defensively? Aren't both players afforded the right to try to force the other player to approach?

A timer is just needed, even with a referee. The question is how to interpret a time-out correctly.

For the record, I'm not necessarily against rule arbitration. In many sporting events, rules are basically arbitrary. Why can't you hit that guy? Why can't you run outside of that line drawn on the court? Why can't one be offside? These things are deemed "unfair." But why can't we do everything possible to win? Because the rules say so, basically. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. We just need to be certain we are using the best rules. In professional soccer, there is a small amount of controversy in regards to the offside rule; many believe that modifying it would increase the amount of score opportunities (as you know soccer is sort of "campy" and goals are very rare in professional soccer, with only 3-4 being scored in an entire 90-minute period). The concept of "unfairness" is mocked a little bit in professional gaming but in professional sports it is everywhere. There are all kinds of rules in place to make sure everyone is warm and fuzzy when time is called.

My suggestion is actually to make brawl a time game. Games are 3-4 minutes apiece instead of 3 stock games. Whoever has the highest score at the end wins the match. This dramatically reduces the effectiveness of planking and stalling, and makes the game slightly more aggressive.

This isn't a perfect solution and I doubt anyone will ever go for it, of course.

 

[Poltergust]

Well, the referee is the one who is supposed to know what stalling is. He or she is supposed to know who is stalling and who isn't. That's why the ref is there. Determining what is stalling or not is not up to the players, but the ref who is focusing on the match at hand.

I mean, we all ask questions here about what is stalling and what isn't, but we can never come up with a good definition as to what constitutes stalling. Why is that? I believe that one can only see stalling only when they are playing a match; there are simply too many ways to stall a match out, with an infinite amount of situations to do so. That's why the ref is necessary; they see the match along with the players. They can tell if someone is intentionally stalling or not.

That's why I think the system would work. I'm not 100% sure about having time or not, but having a 1-stock match as a tiebreaker for same-stock timeouts with a mandatory ref would work out quite well.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

My suggestion is actually to make tie-breaking matches timed games. Games are 1-2 minutes apiece instead of 1-3 stock games. Whoever has the highest score at the end wins the match. If no one scores, highest ledge grab count loses. This dramatically reduces the effectiveness of planking and stalling, and makes the game slightly more aggressive.

This isn't a perfect solution and I doubt anyone will ever go for it, of course. I'm not sure if it would make the game "better," just a little more "fair," whatever that means.

 

[Poltergust]

I dunno. I don't like the idea of timed matches in general. It forces you to play aggressively and dangerously, so I doubt that the better player would consistently win a game like that. Brawl is a defensive game, after all.

Besides, when someone does manage to kill his opponent all they have to do is run the clock out.

Again. =/

From what I'm seeing, timed matches don't seem to fix anything.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I dunno. I don't like the idea of timed matches in general. It forces you to play aggressively and dangerously, so I doubt that the better player would consistently win a game like that. Brawl is a defensive game, after all.

Actually, that's the point. You can still play defensively, but if you are forced to play a tie-breaking match, you have to engage in combat.

Besides, when someone does manage to kill his opponent all they have to do is run the clock out.

Again. =/

This is actually a good thing! Someone has struck the final blow. Someone landed a kill. That's great. Match resolved. I'm not seeing the problem.

This new rule would not be put into place to avoid time-outs. Time-outs are fine. There is nothing wrong with them.

This rule is designed to dramatically reduce the effect of planking and stalling by reducing (but not eliminating) the reward. You can still time-out, but you have to actually land a kill first. No problem there.

 

[Poltergust]

But... this can work just as well (if not better) in a 1-stock tiebreaker.

 

[-LzR-]

There is nothing wrong with the current timeout rule. If you have less %, you are somewhat in the lead and you win. What is the problem here? Should we ban timeouts JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THEM?
That is not good logic IMO.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

But... this can work just as well (if not better) in a 1-stock tiebreaker.

That's possible, too. Didn't consider that. Whoever lands the kill first. If no one does, highest ledge grab count loses but ONLY in the tie-breaking round, not in regular matches. No ledge grab rule in standard matches at all.

There is nothing wrong with the current timeout rule. If you have less %, you are somewhat in the lead and you win. What is the problem here? Should we ban timeouts JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THEM?
That is not good logic IMO.

We are not banning time-outs. Time-outs are fine. We are reducing the reward for timing out and thus reducing the reward for planking.

Alternatively, 1-minute coin match :D

 

[Poltergust]

There is nothing wrong with the current timeout rule. If you have less %, you are somewhat in the lead and you win. What is the problem here? Should we ban timeouts JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THEM?
That is not good logic IMO.

I don't have a problem with timeouts themselves, just the way they are obtained.

Sometimes you can have an extremely close match that goes to the last hit and it would time out there. That's perfectly acceptable by my standards. Time outs with different stocks are also fine because your opponent at least put some effort into KO'ing you.

However, when people time out it's usually because of the other player intentionally avoiding combat for most of the match. They abuse the current timeout system to win matches. That's why I feel that it should be revised somewhat.

That's possible, too. Didn't consider that. Whoever lands the kill first. If no one does, highest ledge grab count loses but ONLY in the tie-breaking round, not in regular matches. No ledge grab rule in standard matches at all.

Or we can have a referee look over the match, therefore we don't need to look at the ledge-grab count.

Alternatively, 1-minute coin match :D

No. D:<

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Poltergust, does this rule address your concern?:

In the event that a match ends in a time-out, the player with the highest stock count wins. If the stock count is tied, a new one-stock 2-minute match will be played with handicaps equal to the percent at which each player ended; the winner of this tie-breaking match will be declared the game's winner. In the event that this match goes to time, the player with the least ledge-grabs will be declared the game's winner.

Incidentally, a 1-minute coin match would actually solve every problem.

 

[Poltergust]

Poltergust, does this rule address your concern?:

In the event that a match ends in a time-out, the player with the highest stock count wins. If the stock count is tied, a new one-stock 2-minute match will be played with handicaps equal to the percent at which each player ended; the winner of this tie-breaking match will be declared the game's winner. In the event that this match goes to time, the player with the least ledge-grabs will be declared the game's winner.

Not at all. Having handicaps just seems detrimental to me. Besides, they only go by 10s. What if you had 89% at the end of a match? Do you round up or do you truncate?

And like I said earlier, having a referee would eliminate the need to pay attention to edge-grabs, because it would be the referee who would tell us who is stalling or not, not some arbitrary number.

I'll continue this tomorrow. I need to go to sleep.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

A 1-minute coin match solves the entire problem, actually, since planking isn't very effective in coin matches. If you're hit while attempting to confront a planking MK, you can just grab your own coins and suddenly he has to jump onto the stage. Kind of neat.

 

[-LzR-]

Why are we nerfing planking? We are now again artificially nerfing MK but still don't want him banned. lol

 

[Orion*]

dabuz would beat everyone in coin brawl

dat jew money

 

[Laem]

Play a 1 stock 3 min coin match
First to lose a stock loses
In case of a time out, player with the most coins wins.

its like
getting hit makes you have a lead
but get hit a tad too much/hard, and you lose anyway

 

[dean.]

Can you even configure coin matches to have stock?

 

[-LzR-]

No because that would kill the point of coin matches.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Don't need a stock.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Why are we nerfing planking? We are now again artificially nerfing MK but still don't want him banned. lol

This is false. We haven't actually touched planking. You can plank to your heart's content. The reward isn't as substantial though, because if your planking causes the game to go to time and we're on the same stock, you must play a tie-breaking match in which planking is not possible.

 

[DanGR]

We haven't actually touched planking.

The reward isn't as substantial though

>___>

Am I missing something?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

>___>

Am I missing something?

Yes. You can plank all day, all night. You can hit someone once and run away if you so desire. But it isn't going to help you as much. Planking itself wasn't touched, but it's rewards were.

 

[DanGR]

Lemme guess.

If we made a rule saying you can't jump 5 times in a row while airborne, you're going to deny that we're touching MK, because we're not actually physically altering the character? (which is impossible for us to do, btw, without hacking the game)

What would you call "touching" a character?