The real reason Japan is better than America

[Linkshot]

Bombs spawn at random. Luck favours winner instead of skill.
Though I will note that I think there's enough time to react to a bomb spawn and grab it.

 

[Akaku94]

Or you could just kill him before the bombs show up

 

[Linkshot]

Or you could just kill him before the bombs show up

Ignoring the trollface and responding seriously, if that were a realistic option, the match wouldn't have gone to Sudden Death.

 

[DMG]

Honsetly, at this point I don't see what's so bad about just playing sudden death upon a time-out.

If you think stalling rewarding the winner is bad, stalling rewarding the person who is trailing is even worse. Actually depending on the characters, either side winning or losing could find a reason for wanting it to go to sudden death.

If anything, keep the % rule but have a certain margin you need to be over the other guy. 20% or something, and if that doesn't happen then you do a tiebreaker. The tiebreaker would then be decided by regular % rule because you can't have people doing the tiebreaker over and over without a winner determined after time runs out.

Or scrap the % rule and do the tiebreaker regardless of % if people are on the same stock, and then have the tiebreaker have the % rule if that goes to time. Tiebreaker is inherently better than Sudden Death, there's no reason to use sudden death over a tiebreaker given the conditions of it.

 

[Akaku94]

But if you go with % in the tiebreaker, why not just stall then, too?

 

[DMG]

Because you eventually need a win condition that is absolute (without being awful like Sudden Death "eventually someone will get blown up"). The tiebreaker should be the ending decider, there shouldn't be a "well we tied again, lets do this again". Easiest way to do that is % rule.

The % rule for tiebreaker is completely fine.

 

[-LzR-]

Stock based advantage instead of % would solve a lot of problems, but it might also cause em. Who is gonna approach when both chars are at kill % and neither can outcamp the other?

 

[DMG]

Any rule that tries to decide a winner has problems. Going off stock specifically means you ignore even blatant advantages/leads that people have. As long as the person holds onto their stock, they are considered equal to even someone on a fresh stock. If you go by % after stock, you have to establish a margin to qualify for the win. Either tiny, like having 1%, or massive like you need 60%+ advantage on them.

In either case, if you have a tie or cannot decide a winner through those rules, there is still no point going to sudden death when we can employ a much fairer rematch for the 2 players. Sudden Death shouldn't be an option lol

 

[-LzR-]

This is another thing we have to artificially do to make the game competitive, such is Brawl...
So DMG which do you think is worse, % or stock based leads? Or would you support that certain % like 20? And why?

 

[theONEjanitor]

The stage that flips around gives huge warning (for like 5 seconds) and does it always in the same way

items spawn randomly and a few are capable of taking a stock or dealing huge percent if attacked/picked up on spawn

if smash had fixed item spawn locations for each stage I'd be all for a (selective) pro-item ruleset

but that's not the case

lol it doesn't matter that they "only kinda affective competitive gameplay a little bit (even thought, that's a huge understatement)". the fact is, THEY AFFECT COMPETITIVE GAMEPLAY. you know for a fact that frigate, the stage, has cost people matches MANY MANY times in high level matches. Don't even act like it doesn't.. and its dumb that they're not banned.
The whole "pro items" sentiment that still lingers is so scrubby and nonsensical. They're fun, but they're not competitive. They (along with most stages) were specifically designed by the game's developers to favor the worse player, so games are more even.

 

[Flayl]

When you're done arguing with the scarecrow I'll be here to read a response to my post.

 

[ぱみゅ]

They (along with most stages) were specifically designed by the game's developers to favor the worse player, so games are more even.

So is the "counterpick" thing.

 

[da K.I.D.]

This is another thing we have to artificially do to make the game competitive, such is Brawl...
So DMG which do you think is worse, % or stock based leads? Or would you support that certain % like 20? And why?

I don't think I've ever seen a brawll match everf go to time where the two players weren't on the same stock. So I don't know why this topic was brought up to begin with.

 

[DMG]

I think I've timed someone out with a stock advantage, although it was more along the lines of we're same stock, the other guy got too aggressive last 20 seconds, I killed him and there was no real hope for him to make a comeback

 

[Cassio]

If you think stalling rewarding the winner is bad, stalling rewarding the person who is trailing is even worse. Actually depending on the characters, either side winning or losing could find a reason for wanting it to go to sudden death.

Any rule that tries to decide a winner has problems. Going off stock specifically means you ignore even blatant advantages/leads that people have.

Hmm, youre not considering one very important factor here. Victory by stock is not an arbitrary decision. It is the fundamental victory condition for all smash games period.

On the other hand using percent to determine a victor is completely arbitrary. You arent ignoring someone that is blatantly winning because percent was never a real victory condition, and trying to determine who may or may not be winning is too circumstantial regardless of what advantages or leads they may have (look at the screen in the background ). Sudden death is a perfectly fine way to settle the only victory condition that ever mattered in the game, stocks. I think the japanese handle it best, they dont play the initial sudden death and instead go to the sudden death special mode. Watch the end of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H_Jil1CBNs

 

[DMG]

That was the point, initial sudden death is awful and there's no reason to use it lol. A tiebreaker of some kind that doesn't involve exploding bombs everywhere is preferred.

I didn't talk about arbitrary either did I? Going off stock alone, even if it's what the game normally does, does ignore blatant leads/advantages people can reasonable have. Leads or positional advantages being circumstantial doesn't change the fact that when they do happen, going only off of stock can favor the loser. My point was that people specifically hate the % rule because it promotes stalling with the lead, when there's no real solution to fairly judge the winner of a match WHILE taking away all total incentives to stall. Going by %, margin, or stock, all of them give people reasons to stall to get something in their favor.

 

[-LzR-]

I don't see a problem in wanting to keep the lead.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I don't see a problem in wanting to keep the lead.

The problem is that in Brawl there's a difference between a "lead" and a "percent lead". Jigglypuff can have a 1% lead against Snake yet she's by no means closer to actually winning .

Brawl simply isn't an exclusively percent based game - knockback infliction and knockback resistance are essential factors within the build-up of a stock and using % as the only factor in case of a timeout establishes a secondary wincondition that is only marginally related to the primary wincondition. You can not balance off the value of a stock with the value of percent for you can survive to 200+% one stock and lose the next one at 60% right after that.

That's where the core of the whole problems with timeouts lie. If somebody claims that timing people out in Brawl is legit way to win then they're ignorant to the fact that a legitimate way to determine the winner in case of a timeout has yet to be found / used.

 

[Damix91]

The problem is that in Brawl there's a difference between a "lead" and a "percent lead". Jigglypuff can have a 1% lead against Snake yet she's by no means closer to actually winning .

Brawl simply isn't an exclusively percent based game - knockback infliction and knockback resistance are essential factors within the build-up of a stock and using % as the only factor in case of a timeout establishes a secondary wincondition that is only marginally related to the primary wincondition. You can not balance off the value of a stock with the value of percent for you can survive to 200+% one stock and lose the next one at 60% right after that.

That's where the core of the whole problems with timeouts lie. If somebody claims that timing people out in Brawl is legit way to win then they're ignorant to the fact that a legitimate way to determine the winner in case of a timeout has yet to be found / used.

Having said that timing out with a stock lead is more easily quantifiable and should be a legitimate win condition

 

[Linkshot]

It is already. When you time out with a stock lead, the game specifically says you won. I'd be up for switching to Super Sudden Death as the tiebreaker.

 

[kraftydevil]

on practice, learning, and the Japanese culture

I would suggest Japan are better because they practice harder. Its speculation but you must all know the difference in work ethic in that part of the world. A lot of top players in the West barely practice.

I agree and would go on further to say that not only do Western players not practice, but they don't know how to practice correctly. What they call practice is likely just going through the motions.

True practice involves breaking up strategies into small chunks, doing sets of repetitions, and THEN applying them to gameplay.

If you just play the game, it will not be enough because Japanese culture is highly dedicated to education and learning, whether it be math or video games. We are beat intellectually from the day we are born because of the norms in our very different cultures.

To paraphrase from "The Talent Code", by Daniel Coyle:

44% of a Japanese student's class time is spent inventing, thinking, and actively struggling with underlying concepts, whereas less than 1% of US student class time is spent doing this. The Japanese want their kids to struggle. It even goes to the point where sometimes Japanese teachers will give the wrong answers so that the students will grapple with theory. American teachers, however, act like waiters, as when there is struggle, the teacher tries to move past it to glide to the next topic. But you don't learn by gliding.

I highly recommend getting this book if any of you want to become experts at any skill or talent...including Smash Brothers.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

Final Destination ledges aren't gey at all. Oh boy having no interesting CP stages sounds fun.

 

[Cassio]

That was the point, initial sudden death is awful and there's no reason to use it lol. A tiebreaker of some kind that doesn't involve exploding bombs everywhere is preferred.

I didn't talk about arbitrary either did I? Going off stock alone, even if it's what the game normally does, does ignore blatant leads/advantages people can reasonable have. Leads or positional advantages being circumstantial doesn't change the fact that when they do happen, going only off of stock can favor the loser. My point was that people specifically hate the % rule because it promotes stalling with the lead, when there's no real solution to fairly judge the winner of a match WHILE taking away all total incentives to stall. Going by %, margin, or stock, all of them give people reasons to stall to get something in their favor.

I see. Well stalling will always be a potential issue as long as the timer is around, and thats more or less a necessity with the ruleset.

The problem with trying to determine who is winning at any given point in a match is its too hard to do in a concrete way. Like Gheb mentioned just because you have a lead in percent does not mean you are winning, so even under existing rules its possible for the losing player to stall for a timeout. No matter what alternate criteria we use, the same issues exist as if wed just relied on stocks in the first place. If were not able to judge a winner in a concrete way, then we ought to let the match result speak for itself and go to a tiebreaker.

Also I dont think regular sudden death is bad for a tiebreaker, there are just better options.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I see. Well stalling will always be a potential issue as long as the timer is around, and thats more or less a necessity with the ruleset.

The problem with trying to determine who is winning at any given point in a match is its too hard to do in a concrete way. Like Gheb mentioned just because you have a lead in percent does not mean you are winning, so even under existing rules its possible for the losing player to stall for a timeout. No matter what alternate criteria we use, the same issues exist as if wed just relied on stocks in the first place. If were not able to judge a winner in a concrete way, then we ought to let the match result speak for itself and go to a tiebreaker.

Also I dont think regular sudden death is bad for a tiebreaker, there are just better options.

Currently ending matches based on percent is the most fair way to go about it, since all of the other available options are considerably LESS fair than tiebreaking based on stock, then percent, which is the current standard we use

 

[~ Gheb ~]

That's a completely baseless statement.

 

[da K.I.D.]

That's a completely baseless statement.

Haven't we just had every other possible option shot down by dmg within the last two pages?

Didn't you even say yourself that we haven't found a completely fair way to solve this in the 4 years that the games been out? If its been that long and were still using percent tiebreaks, wouldn't that mean that that's the fairest option that we have?

 

[Linkshot]

If its been that long and were still using percent tiebreaks, wouldn't that mean that that's the fairest option that we have?

I think it just means once we adopt one thing, we really don't want to change it.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I think it just means once we adopt one thing, we really don't want to change it.

How about you answer every question in that post you quoted instead of cherry picking

 

[ぱみゅ]

because that pretty much sums it up. From both sides.

Also, we don't really want to make posts each time biggger and bigger with thousands of quotes.

 

[Cassio]

^Yup. People are incredibly resistant to change.

kid I think you misinterpreted DMGs post the same way I did at first. Tiebreakers after the match ends are fine including special sudden death. The only thing we disagree on is how reliably we can determine who is winning at any given moment to avoid a tiebreaker, or at least in a way that can be written into a ruleset, making it best to go to a tiebreaker as the game deems its necessity. Fact is if you cant determine who is winning a tiebreaker after the match is the most fair thing you can possibly do, and even besides that its what the game itself imposes.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

And even if % were to be the "fairest" time-out clause it would still be arbitrary and not quite fair in the end. Whether you prefer to use % or not doesn't change the fact that as long as % is the determining factor, timing out is not a legitimate way to win.

 

[Akaku94]

I would say that within a threshold of say, 60%, the match should go to a rematch. However, that presents the issue of chars like snake that live to much higher % than say, Jiggs. In that respect, Jiggs could be at 100% and be closer to dying than Snake at 160%, so that has its flaws as well.

What we're trying to do is give people as little incentive to time out as possible, correct?

 

[Linkshot]

I think having it decided by the luck of regular sudden death is a good incentive to actually finish the match

 

[Akaku94]

unless you're the worse player... then it's to your advantage to stall so that you have a luck-based chance at victory, rather than skill-based. Going to special sudden death would favor chars with fast moves rather than kill moves, correct?

 

[Gea]

And even if % were to be the "fairest" time-out clause it would still be arbitrary and not quite fair in the end. Whether you prefer to use % or not doesn't change the fact that as long as % is the determining factor, timing out is not a legitimate way to win.

It is as long as the timer exists. The match has to end at some point. So even if you feel cheated or don't agree with the fairness of the outcome, it still very much is a legitimate way to win. It is in the rules, ergo it is legitimate.

In fact, I don't get why the discussion has turned here. Until you present a valid solution, this is the breaks. Imo the current timer + 2 stocks would work better, but good luck getting everyone to agree to that.

 

[DMG]

I would do 2 stock 6-7 min timer actually. That would give people more time per stock, while still giving out quicker games even if it goes to time.

I like 2 stock in general, I'd love to see that become the standard sometime. Brawl does not have room to expand upwards for time commitments lol. Tell people to run 2 stock more.


Depends on what you mean by legitimate. It's legitimate as far as the rule goes: it's not a tricky rule that's hard to interpret or inherently biased vs players or characters. If that is what we use, and a match goes to time, it's fair game unless you were stalling in a broken manner (If you have rules against stalling, and a match still goes to time, I think you're out of room to say the win was illegitimate under the circumstances).


Now if you were to simply say "I think we should use a rematch if the stock count is the same due to the uncertainty/complexity in quantifying the 'real' leader/winner", then fine that is a valid point you can make. But there's no actual room to call the % based rule illegitimate or to say that the strategy of timing someone out is not legitimate.

 

[Life]

If you don't give people a reason to stall, people won't stall.

I'm Incom, representing the One Stock Food Party, and I approve this message.

 

[Linkshot]

I like 2 stock in general, I'd love to see Lucario nerfed.

Did I fix it right?

 

[DMG]

Explain how Lucario would be nerfed?

For Lucario to rubber band, he has to inherently be behind that many stocks, and the smaller the stock gap gets the less strong he will be anyways. If he kills the first guy's stock while he's on his last, he's still on his last stock and his power goes down from killing the other guy anyway.

1. Lucario in 3 stock scenario at 100% damage on his last stock. He kills the other guy for the first time.


2. Lucario in 2 stock scenario at 100% damage on his last stock. He will be weaker than the first Lucario, but his opponent also doesn't have 3 stocks to begin with. He is at the exact same power level as if the guy had already lost a stock and Lucario was trying to take the next one. It may be harder for Lucario to take off the first stock here, but that's because the person inherently is closer to losing all his stocks since he's got 2 instead of 3. Lucario's power level therefore is the same once you get to the same stock margins. And before that, even if he's super powerful from 2 behind, he loses this power and it resets to 1 behind once he kills the other guy.



Shortening stock count would only nerf Lucario if Lucario's power permanently grew based on stock. If you lost your first 2 stock, and retained this power for the REST of the game, yes switching to 2 stock would nerf him. But the game already balances out his power based on the stock margin between players that no matter what count you start at you eventually reach the same power level for killing the other guy.

 

[BSP]

2 stock should be fine. Lives in brawl are pretty long anyway, so 2 would still let us see who's better

I'll keep the idea in mind for my next tournament