Timeouts and the 2 Stock Format

[Speed Boost]

I just watched a Hammer Dash Sonic use a hit and run game to win a bracket match at Smash Attack 9. They won 2-0 without a timeout in either match, but the time definately was used as leverage against their opponent.

I started thinking about what we could change to take away that leverage and let a match scaled unimpeaded to its conclusion. Not because I'm saying the strategy is cheap or the Sonic player did something wrong, but the average viewer doesn't seem to apprecite it. I don't particularly like seeing it and it's overall the opposite of hype.

If we want to continue to grow interest in Smash 4 as a spectator sport we have to do what we can to make matches appeal to the broadest portion of our fanbase possible. This is especially true in top cut matches. How many people still bring up the Dabuz v Abadango match as a black eye for Smash 4 spectating? The crowd was literally booing and the Twitch viewers didn't feel any different.

I think it would be worth testing untimed matches in top cut to ensure those matches unfold without time as leverage. With a 2 stock format we don't have many matches that go to time and most fans would rather see those matches come to their natural conclusion when the tournament is on the line IMO.

What do y'all think? I can certainly understand why you wouldnt consider changing it without the viewership and entertainment value in mind, but that is a very important element IMO.

EDIT: BAD IDEA...THE RULES WE HAVE ARE PROBABLY WHAT IS BEST FOR PACE OF PLAY...OH WELL

 

[Ghostbone]

With no time neither player is forced to approach and you'll literally have campy matchups go indefinitely.

 

[Speed Boost]

With no time neither player is forced to approach and you'll literally have campy matchups go indefinitely.

You may be right. No time may be the wrong way to go about it. What about having them actually have to go to Sudden Death? That would force the leader to close out the stock to avoid a 50/50 for the game. Any ideas?

 

[Ghostbone]

You may be right. No time may be the wrong way to go about it. What about having them actually have to go to Sudden Death? That would force the leader to close out the stock to avoid a 50/50 for the game. Any ideas?

Why should the person winning have to approach.

It just means that if you fall behind it gives you incentive to time out your opponent as sudden death is basically a coin flip.

 

[Speed Boost]

Why should the person winning have to approach.

It just means that if you fall behind it gives you incentive to time out your opponent as sudden death is basically a coin flip.

Right again. I thought of situations I face on FG like that after posting. That is why I thought no time because then the clock doesn't give either leverage.

 

[T0MMY]

I started thinking about what we could change to take away that leverage and let a match scaled unimpeaded to its conclusion.

Why start thinking with a preconception (i.e. how to take away a viable strategy)?

If it is the conclusion has already been made then it would be a weak logic process, imo, to present an answer when there was no problem to begin with. That would lead to a kind of justification that would be asserted which results in a "grasping at straws" argument - like I said, not the strongest process to work with.

the average viewer doesn't seem to apprecite it.

And...

I don't particularly like seeing it and it's overall the opposite of hype.

These kinds of reasons will not stack up to rigorous critique - it is impractical to assume the Competitive Community would say standards should be debased simply on speculative assessment of a limited audience sample and a reason of "I don't like it".
But that's standards; it really wouldn't apply to house rules, locals, and small events.
However, if you're watching a large event online and coming here to say you want the rules to change because you don't like it then you'll have to take a ticket and get in line for your complaint to be addressed.

Does this mean your opinion that non-timed rounds is not warranted? Absolutely not. In fact, I think it's viable enough to try out in an experiment so we have very real results (actually, I have already done this at tournaments I have hosted).

With no time neither player is forced to approach and you'll literally have campy matchups go indefinitely.

Did you mean to say "infinitely"? Because pretty much any match is indefinite (that is "unclear") since we don't know the exact time a round will end (unless we're psychic?).

Why should the person winning have to approach.

If they are "winning" then they wouldn't have to approach - when time runs out they'll have won.

It just means that if you fall behind it gives you incentive to time out your opponent as sudden death is basically a coin flip.

Are you implying this "incentive" is unwarranted (all bans in game must be warranted). And Sudden Death is NOT a coin flip - if it were then it would be a 50/50 chance one of us would win. If you believe it is a coin flip decision then I would ask you to unplug your controller in sudden death against me and see what happens, I'd be happy to put money down on this.

 

[salaboB]

Why should the person winning have to approach.

It just means that if you fall behind it gives you incentive to time out your opponent as sudden death is basically a coin flip.

Why should the person losing be forced into an even more disadvantaged position?

 

[Speed Boost]

@ T0MMY

I would like to address my entertainment justification. Coming from a fan of the NBA and the NFL for decades I have seen countless rules changes and tweeks in sports to provide maximum entertainment value to the fans. Both leagues have mostly made changes to increase parity and make the game higher scoring and faster paced, which is not unlike what most Smash spectators want. They want to see close matches with good pace. Give the people what they want if you want lots of views and big prize polls.

I may not have the ultimate solution but, as you said it's worth testing regardless of your view on entertainment value. I do agree with the obvious potential flaw of no timer @ Ghostbone pointed out though.

 

[Ghostbone]

Did you mean to say "infinitely"? Because pretty much any match is indefinite (that is "unclear") since we don't know the exact time a round will end (unless we're psychic?).

No
Indefinite: lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time (from google)
A match with a time limit lasts less than or equal to that time limit, it has a definite limit. (though yes it's indefinite within those 5 or 6 minutes)
A match without a time limit can last an indefinite amount of time.

Why are you arguing about definitions when it's pretty obvious what I meant anyway.

Are you implying this "incentive" is unwarranted (all bans in game must be warranted). And Sudden Death is NOT a coin flip - if it were then it would be a 50/50 chance one of us would win. If you believe it is a coin flip decision then I would ask you to unplug your controller in sudden death against me and see what happens, I'd be happy to put money down on this.

What relevance does unplugging my controller have.
It's like rock/paper/scissors, every option is the same and thus the optimal strategy is randomly choosing one of the 3 leading to a 50% winrate. You can't then say that since rock/paper/scissors is 50/50 then if one player doesn't play then they still have a 50% chance to win, that doesn't make sense.
In sudden death every option kills and it comes down to chance who wins (excluding characters with killing projectiles I guess), yes I'll lose if I unplug my controller but if we're both playing and of close enough skill that the game timed out with both of us on the same stock, then sudden death will basically determine the winner randomly, and that's bad for competition.

Maybe you can clarify your point but I don't understand it as is.

Why should the person losing be forced into an even more disadvantaged position?

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that any other ruleset leads to degenerate gameplay (at top level).
It's a standard in all fighting games that if you're lower on health when the time runs out you lose (yes % isn't the same but it's close and easy to enforce). There's no other option.

 

[MajorMajora]

The problem is one of logistics. If a match could go indefinitely, it would cause scheduling problems, as TO's plan for the worst case (all games going to the last round, full time out on all matches).

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

listen, brawl has dealt with this before and from my experience some people have forgotten or never new, but if you want to nerf time outs then what you have to do is increase the timer. North American brawl ran with 8 Minutes and Japanese played with 11, both using 3 stock. What this resulted in was American's being much more campy and Japanese being much more aggressive. Because in a close match you would find your self with little time remaining on the last stock and it being a good option to wait out the last minute if you have the percent lead, but in japan when you found your self with 4 minutes to go not just 1 then timing out with only 1 stock while you opponent is at 110+% doesn't seem as appealing, you are essentially giving him 4 minutes to make a come back.


PEOPLE SHOULD CONSIDER INCREASING THE TIMER TO REDUCE TIME OUT STRATS.

 

[Speed Boost]

The more I think about this, the more I like the rules we have in place. It was a cool thought experiment, but ultimately a short timer will at least promote more aggression and better pace in most matches. There will always be a few outliers but no time would probably just make it worse.

 

[Infinite901]

Smash 64 does not have an in-game timer for stock matches. As a result, many tournaments end up having no time limit on battles.

There was one infamous Bo3 set that took over 50 minutes. Game 1 alone took over a half hour. (incidentally, this was also a major reason for the banning of Hyrule Castle) Smash 4 being more defensive than 64 means that it would never work. It's a nice thought, but it would end up even worse.

 

[Raijinken]

With time, only the losing player is forced to take risks, which is exceptionally biased if they're playing a defensive character who shouldn't be starting the fights to begin with. Even if they're not, the safety afforded the winning player (more specifically, a player with a full stock lead) makes the game exceptionally one-sided from a mindset and tactical stance.

Of course, no one accepts just saying "You have to fight or you're disqualified." So we're stuck with a bad solution one way or another.

 

[Speed Boost]

It just comes back around to the defensive options being to good in Smash 4. If rolls and shields were worse than it would be harder to run away when you have the lead. I guess the time isn't the problem, it's the game.

That is not to say that it couldn't be fixed. The could easily balance defensive options with a patch.

 

[Raijinken]

It just comes back around to the defensive options being to good in Smash 4. If rolls and shields were worse than it would be harder to run away when you have the lead. I guess the time isn't the problem, it's the game.

That is not to say that it couldn't be fixed. The could easily balance defensive options with a patch.

Dodging is a super easy way to get punished while you're in the lead. Shielding is less so, but the fact of the matter is that if you get any lead, there's no reason to fight. And when we've still got several strong characters who are offense-heavy, I'm inclined to blame the characters more than the mechanics. Removing defense just makes Sheik stronger, after all.

 

[Speed Boost]

Dodging is a super easy way to get punished while you're in the lead. Shielding is less so, but the fact of the matter is that if you get any lead, there's no reason to fight. And when we've still got several strong characters who are offense-heavy, I'm inclined to blame the characters more than the mechanics. Removing defense just makes Sheik stronger, after all.

I'm just talking about balancing it by doing things like shortening invincibility on rolls and slowing regeneration on shields. Some of the rolls in this game are insane, Sheik is one of them.

 

[T0MMY]

Smash 64 does not have an in-game timer for stock matches. As a result, many tournaments end up having no time limit on battles.

There was one infamous Bo3 set that took over 50 minutes. Game 1 alone took over a half hour. (incidentally, this was also a major reason for the banning of Hyrule Castle) Smash 4 being more defensive than 64 means that it would never work. It's a nice thought, but it would end up even worse.

I honestly think that is more of an issue with 5-stocks and non-competitive Stages being used.
3-stocks and banning Sector Z, Hyrule, and possibly Yoshi's have saved my butt regarding tournament scheduling.

No
Indefinite: lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time (from google)
Why are you arguing about definitions when it's pretty obvious what I meant anyway.

I wasn't arguing definitions, I was asking if you meant to use another word.

A match without a time limit can last an indefinite amount of time.

See, this is why I am asking what you mean exactly. Because the definition you are using is simply saying "unknown amount of time".
You equivocally said "A match without a time limit can last an unknown amount of time"
And my respnose is:

How do we ever know how long a match is going to last (unless we are psychic)?

Which is why I asked if you meant to say it could theoretically go on infinitely (which it could, in theory). With a game going on forever a TO would most likely have to step in and do something about it, hence it's a rules issue.
But since you are saying "indefinitely" then all I can reasonably respond with is say "ok..." and move the conversation along.

What relevance does unplugging my controller have.

A coin flip is a 50-50 chance of either player randomly winning. If you say it is such then inputs would have no bearing on a 50-50 random event. To challenge this I simply ask to money match you, we should win about 50% of the time so there's little risk you'll lose much money (given a large enough number of times played). However if it is not a 50-50 coin flip of one of us winning then we could see that with the results.

It's like rock/paper/scissors, every option is the same and thus the optimal strategy is randomly choosing one of the 3 leading to a 50% winrate.

How does 1-in-3 mathematically equate to 50% (i.e. 1-in-2)??

You can't then say that since rock/paper/scissors is 50/50 then if one player doesn't play then they still have a 50% chance to win, that doesn't make sense.

I'm not the one claiming RPS is 50-50, that doesn't make mathematical sense.
You said it's a coin flip - so I challenge you on the grounds it is a coin flip (see above). I am very much willing to put money on this.

In sudden death every option kills and it comes down to chance who wins

I doubt the claim that every option kills.
I base this doubt based on first-hand experience (I have hit someone with a Needle option from Sheik and my opponent did no get killed).
Thoughts?

yes I'll lose if I unplug my controller

Ah, looks like it is not a coin flip.

but if we're both playing and of close enough skill that the game timed out with both of us on the same stock, then sudden death will basically determine the winner randomly, and that's bad for competition.

I am going to make note of some key words here: "basically" and "randomly".

You are not specifically saying Sudden Death does in fact determine a random winner, you are saying it "basically" does - but I may disagree.

What is the winner really being based on?
For the first part of the Sudden Death it is based on core skills (technical expertise, skill, tactics, reads, strategy, etc.) where you can hit your opponent and score a win based on these skills. There's no RNG in place that I can see, and unless you show otherwise we'll continue to the next part:
When both players have failed to take the final stock in the main round and have failed to knock out their opponent in Sudden Death the game is considered a "stalemate" situation where neither player may be able to win and bomb-ombs drop to clear the stage in a "random" event.

I could agree THIS part of the Sudden Death is "random".
But, what is "random"?

Random is something that is not specified* (with regards of how "fast" it is - root word comes from "speed").

Now, it can be argued that it is not random: a player can know when the bombs drop (20 seconds into SD) and know where the area they spawn is (set to a specific height and area of a Stage which is a constant). So, perhaps
It can also be argued that this is actually testing another core skill employed in Smash, that is "reflexes" - when a bomb spawns the player has a chance to react to it. Players who "got gud" at Sudden Death have been able to snatch the bombs that spawned out of the air to use against their opponents (saw it with my own eyes and joined in to find it was pretty fun).
So I could also reasonably argue against it being "random".

But ultimately the "random" argument does not need to be argued either way since it appears to be the case that competition allows for random. Game & Watch's Judgement, Peach's Turnips, etc. Random is part of the game.

So I'm not going to argue either for or against you - I'd just simply ask why "random" is "bad for competition" and see what you have to say on the matter.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that any other ruleset leads to degenerate gameplay (at top level).

I will be awaiting the reasoning behind this conclusion (see the issues brought forth above in bold).

It's a standard in all fighting games that if you're lower on health when the time runs out you lose (yes % isn't the same but it's close and easy to enforce). There's no other option.

Making an argument based on what other games (fighting or otherwise) is fallacy.

Additionally:
This "standard" in other fighting games you allude to is an in-game function - I think it is a folly to argue placing out-of-game rulings onto Smash while using in-game rulings as reasoning to do so.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

You equivocally said "A match without a time limit can last an unknown amount of time"
And my respnose is:

How do we ever know how long a match is going to last (unless we are psychic)?

We know how long a match could last at most, and unless you are a tedious pedant, you have no trouble understanding his objective as it was phrased.

 

[cot(θ)]

You equivocally said "A match without a time limit can last an unknown amount of time"
And my respnose is:

How do we ever know how long a match is going to last (unless we are psychic)?

A very common usage of "indefinite" is to mean "unbounded". It's obvious that this is what was meant.

How does 1-in-3 mathematically equate to 50% (i.e. 1-in-2)??


I'm not the one claiming RPS is 50-50, that doesn't make mathematical sense.

RPS, as it's typically played, goes on until one player wins, resulting in 50-50 odds.

Stop intentionally missing the point. As a reader of this conversation, it's really aggravating for you to derail it all the time with your arrant pedantry.

 

[Raijinken]

Additionally:
This "standard" in other fighting games you allude to is an in-game function - I think it is a folly to argue placing out-of-game rulings onto Smash while using in-game rulings as reasoning to do so.

This very statement is why I have suddenly become a supporter of playing out Sudden Death instead of ruling by percentage.

 

[Pazx]

I don't think Sudden Death can be viewed as competitive if we decide certain stages are uncompetitive. Winning via percentage lead is arbitrary but it's better than the alternative.

 

[T0MMY]

We know how long a match could last at most, and unless you are a tedious pedant, you have no trouble understanding his objective as it was phrased.

Thanks!
And so you get the point: SSB64 tournaments evidence that an "indefinite" issue rarely arises (even with 64's ridiculously campy stages and 5 stocks for most of its competitive life) - Smash Wii U would appear to only benefit from starting a few small events off with no time limit and seeing how the rounds play out (no psychic abilities needed).

A very common usage of "indefinite" is to mean "unbounded". It's obvious that this is what was meant.

Cool story.
But I already asked for a clarification and he did not say "unbounded" (I'll put the quote in context for you collapsesd):

Spoiler

(Bold is my emphasis)

No
Indefinite: lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time (from google)
A match with a time limit lasts less than or equal to that time limit, it has a definite limit. (though yes it's indefinite within those 5 or 6 minutes)

RPS, as it's typically played, goes on until one player wins, resulting in 50-50 odds.

Thanks for clarifying the argument that one player in a 2-player game has a 1 in 2 chance of winning (obvious is obvious), but I am refuting the reasoning behind it - the options within SD itself. I do not believe "every option kills" (and gave an example); contrarily the "coin flip" or "RPS" does not hold. Feel free to jump in on either side of the argument, I've got the quote collapsed below for your convenience.

Spoiler

(Bold is my emphasis)

It's like rock/paper/scissors, every option is the same and thus the optimal strategy is randomly choosing one of the 3 leading to a 50% winrate. You can't then say that since rock/paper/scissors is 50/50 then if one player doesn't play then they still have a 50% chance to win, that doesn't make sense.
In sudden death every option kills and it comes down to chance who wins (excluding characters with killing projectiles I guess), yes I'll lose if I unplug my controller but if we're both playing and of close enough skill that the game timed out with both of us on the same stock, then sudden death will basically determine the winner randomly, and that's bad for competition.

Stop intentionally missing the point. As a reader of this conversation, it's really aggravating for you to derail it all the time with your arrant pedantry.

Ad hominems make me happy :^)
(I don't have to do any work arguing against them).

I don't think Sudden Death can be viewed as competitive if we decide certain stages are uncompetitive. Winning via percentage lead is arbitrary but it's better than the alternative.

Stages are a different area - we are allowed to choose which Stages to include, even by the game's functions.
Depends on your definition of "Competitive" - I think it is not only competitive, but possibly the only competitive option and anything less than playing the game as designed to its fullest potential unless warranted is scrubby. What we have here is a game element that is over-ruled without warrant (in my decade-long Smash career I've never seen a viable reason). Unless criteria is met for the out-of-game ruling then I can't support the %-based ruling (which carries with it many additional problems).

 

[Speed Boost]

Thanks!
And so you get the point: SSB64 tournaments evidence that an "indefinite" issue rarely arises (even with 64's ridiculously campy stages and 5 stocks for most of its competitive life) - Smash Wii U would appear to only benefit from starting a few small events off with no time limit and seeing how the rounds play out (no psychic abilities needed).


Cool story.
But I already asked for a clarification and he did not say "unbounded" (I'll put the quote in context for you collapsesd):

Spoiler

(Bold is my emphasis)

Thanks for clarifying the argument that one player in a 2-player game has a 1 in 2 chance of winning (obvious is obvious), but I am refuting the reasoning behind it - the options within SD itself. I do not believe "every option kills" (and gave an example); contrarily the "coin flip" or "RPS" does not hold. Feel free to jump in on either side of the argument, I've got the quote collapsed below for your convenience.

Spoiler

(Bold is my emphasis)

Ad hominems make me happy :^)
(I don't have to do any work arguing against them).


Stages are a different area - we are allowed to choose which Stages to include, even by the game's functions.
Depends on your definition of "Competitive" - I think it is not only competitive, but possibly the only competitive option and anything less than playing the game as designed to its fullest potential unless warranted is scrubby. What we have here is a game element that is over-ruled without warrant (in my decade-long Smash career I've never seen a viable reason). Unless criteria is met for the out-of-game ruling then I can't support the %-based ruling (which carries with it many additional problems).

Sudden Death causes the same issues as playing without sudded death. In both cases one of the players has the option of running away to try to get the victory.

With the existing rules the player with the percentage lead is at least rewarded for winning and being able to successfully apply a hit and run strategy.

With the sudden death rules a player can be on the verge of a JV 2 stock run away and then be given a chance to take victory with one read. How is that a more competitive solution?

In any real sport the leader after time runs out is declared the victor. If the percentage and stocks were tied I could see reason for Sudden Death.

As for the game developers chosing to use a Sudden Death format in the first place? I think it lends it's self well to casual play. I mean the sky starts falling after a few seconds, that's a completely random stage hazard!

 

[T4ylor]

Just going to point out that timeout wins by percents can negatively effect certain match ups, especially Little Mac's. On a stage like Duck Hunt they can get the % and just camp the tree, but without the % ruling that would just lead to a Sudden Death, which is not nearly as bad a position.

 

[Speed Boost]

That's why you ban Duck Hunt if you are Little Mac. It's also why he is a really average character...he can't even punish someone camping in a tree?

 

[cot(θ)]

But I already asked for a clarification and he did not say "unbounded" (I'll put the quote in context for you collapsesd):

In that very quote, he's clarifying that he meant something that does not "have a definite limit".

Thanks for clarifying the argument that one player in a 2-player game has a 1 in 2 chance of winning (obvious is obvious), but I am refuting the reasoning behind it - the options within SD itself.

Feel free to do so. I don't really care. What I had an issue with was the following statements:

How does 1-in-3 mathematically equate to 50% (i.e. 1-in-2)??
I'm not the one claiming RPS is 50-50, that doesn't make mathematical sense.

You're digressing from the main issue to make a really trivial and unnecessary point.

Ad hominems make me happy :^)
(I don't have to do any work arguing against them).

I'm not even arguing against you. I'm just trying to make you stop giving me a brain tumor every time you post.

Spoiler

You know that urge you just got to make a literalist comment about posts not actually giving people brain tumors? That's what I'm talking about. Intentionally missing the point for the sake of being facetious.

Even if you're making good points, they're shrouded in garbage about "RPS being 1-in-3 instead of 1-in-2" or nitpicking about people using words with potentially ambiguous meanings in a totally unambiguous way. The next time you're confused by someone's post, go with the single interpretation that isn't complete nonsense. That would have gotten you through both these cases no problem.

 

[T0MMY]

Sudden Death causes the same issues as playing without sudded death. In both cases one of the players has the option of running away to try to get the victory.

So the very pertitne question needs to be asked: If it is the same thing then why impose a rule that causes the same problem? That is, imo, scrubby for the sake of being scrubby.

With the existing rules the player with the percentage lead is at least rewarded for winning and being able to successfully apply a hit and run strategy.

Ok, here is some reasoning for the out-of-game ruling - to award the player who is "winning".
However, the concept of who is "winning" is arbitrary and does not accurately reflect the game of Smash Bro. as it was borrowed from TFG, which Smash obviously is not. A Jigglypuff at 50% is more likely to lose on a solid hit then Bowser at 51% - and again this is just speculation based on damage %, anyone can be KO'd at ANY percent at any given time.
There is a major flaw in the reasoning of rewarding a player we arbitrarily think may be "winning" based on probability and speculation. So I can't honestly accept this on a competitive level for rules, however the majority of TO's seem to do so (though when I ask why, they seem to be lost as to why it is there and don't want to question it).

If we are going to use rules regarding Sudden Death then we should at least have rules that at least adhere to the principles of competition.

With the sudden death rules a player can be on the verge of a JV 2 stock run away and then be given a chance to take victory with one read. How is that a more competitive solution?

It really isn't my job to argue why someone who fails to take a stock from a player who outplays him in defense when they both know there is a timer being used and compete to a pace they set during the match. That's not how applying out-of-game rulings work - the assertion of out-of-game ruling must be warranted.

In any real sport the leader after time runs out is declared the victor. If the percentage and stocks were tied I could see reason for Sudden Death.

Are we playing a "real sport"? Or is this a Scotsman argument?
I'm not sure why I should agree with you over the game designers and the function of the game unless given a suitable reason.

As for the game developers chosing to use a Sudden Death format in the first place? I think it lends it's self well to casual play. I mean the sky starts falling after a few seconds, that's a completely random stage hazard!

I see your point with that and would be likely to agree with you. However, this is actually due to what I believe the game sees as a "stalemate" decision, Sudden Death is due to a tie (players did not take the stocks in specified time) and the bombs are after SD hasn't completed in time.
The other point I'd like you to think about is that random stage hazards are used in competition (think Halberd and other stages). Why make exceptions for one but not the other? <= rhetorical.

In that very quote, he's clarifying that he meant something that does not "have a definite limit".

Indeed, that's what we're working with. Could you explain what this means regarding me asking for clarification if he meant another word?

Feel free to do so. I don't really care.

Cool, I will wait for the explanation regarding the reasoning then.

Spoiler

What I had an issue with was the following statements:
You're digressing from the main issue to make a really trivial and unnecessary point.

I disagree that it is a digression on my part when it was stated that the options in RPS are equatable with a 50-50 coin flip because 'every option is the same in Sudden Death'.
This claim that SD is a "coin flip" is the very heart of the argument for why it is not "competitive". Either he must abandon the process or the definitions as I've brought up the very important issue of Sheik's Needles that do NOT KO in SD/300% damage (as was claimed "everything" does and thus the RPS/coin flip).
This is directly related to timeouts, I don't think I need to point out the obvious on how Sudden Death relates to that.

I'm not even arguing against you. I'm just trying to make you stop giving me a brain tumor every time you post.

Try not reading it if the notion of playing out Sudden Death bothers you to the point of hyperbole.

Even if you're making good points

Thanks! I just earned my "loved" award from my good posts - so many people have liked my posts Smashboards gave me an award for it. How cool is that?
I might ask for a brain tumor award to be implemented as well :^)

Moving along, I heard Ryu's fireball (Hadouken) does not KO even in the Sudden Death range of 300%, I haven't tested that out but maybe I can make a list of moves that do not cause a KO on various characters. I think helping understand the metagame behind SD would be beneficial to the questions like the one posted in the OP. Might put it in a more pertinent area though.

 

[Pazx]

Please grow up. This isn't healthy discussion and it doesn't belong here.

 

[T0MMY]

I think the discussion (the timer's effect on competition & SD) is both wonderful and necessary for competitive growth.
This isn't the first time time-outs has been brought up on grounds of competitive value; I am very sure it will not be the last time. I can but only hope that the coin-flip argument will not be brought up again considering it is analogue to "random" and presumptuous that random is anti-competitive (when clearly the standard that random is not only considered competitively viable, but any attempt at removing RNG events like Judgement or Turnips is never conspicuously proposed nor even an attempt to push for a ruling against it anywhere has, as far as I've ever seen in my whole Smash career, ever happened on a large scale).

Ultimately Sudden Death sits longingly awaiting its fair use in competition once its unjust imprisonment gets overturned and a new era of competitive-driven games adorns us with splendor and justice sings its praises on high to the tune of every strong-willed Smasher waving the war-torn banner "get gud".

And now for something completely different.​

How to win at Rock/Paper/Scissors
Rock/Paper/Scissors may be thought by some to be a game of luck, but being able to influence the outcome of the game by the competitors through deep strategy (and some simple tricks) reveal that this simple game has more to it than what might be originally thought.

Flowingdata.com published this infographic:

Spoiler

And if you are feeling up to it, you can test your RPS skills against an AI opponent programmed to record your responses and counter them or go against the advanced AI that uses 200,000 rounds of experience against you.
Find it here

Coin-flips, however, are 50-50 chances barring the unusual circumstance that a coin will land on its edge-side "sitting up" (has happened a couple times in my personal experience).

Some notes 1 and 2

 

[SmashChu]

I think T0MMY has the right idea. At the very least, we have to recognize that there is skill to SUdden Death and there will be issues when we use systems that are contrary to what the game already sets up. In fighting games, the most health is use in time outs because it directly correlates to victory. If you have 80% health and they had 50%, you are ahead. Smash doesn't work like this because, as T0MMY said, two characters can be at different percents and it is unclear who is really ahead. Even in Samsh 4, with rage, we've seem early kills by someone who is at extreme damages (150%+)

I think the issue with running out the clock is due to the made-up rule of damage. Let me explain using this scenatio. Play L and W are on their last stock. Player L just killed W, but L has 80% damage on him. There is only a minute left on the clock.

With "Damage wins"
Player L - Player L has no choice but to attack since he is behind. If the match ends, he loses.
Player W - Player W has to way his options, but generally, he is not going to take a lot of risk because he's winning. He is encouraged to camp and run the clock out. In fact, because his foe has to attack and come at him, there is no reason not to just camp. Either you build up more damage and solidify your lead or you KO them

With Sudden Death
Player L - Player L has a conundrum. Sudden Death is nice because it puts him and his foe on an even playing field, but Sudden Death posses a ton of risk. One missed grab or wrong move could result in a loss. So he has two choices, attack, maybe KO his foe or perhaps die, or go to Sudden Death and hope he can win there
Player W - Player W has a similar choice. He could go to Sudden Death; however, he is in a better position to just go and KO his foe. He'd only question attack and putting himself at risk of he was close to KO range too, and felt more comfortable playing in a Sudden Death.

The first example had no choice. Because L had to attack, W was encouraged to sit back and let him foe come to him. In the second, the players have more dynamic choices because one may not be better than the other. Sudden Death is very risky, but it can be played well and allows players to make an upset with good reads. Its a larger game of rock-paper-scissor because you have to make an assumption on what your foe will do. At the same time, players can always avoid playing a Sudden Death by just fighting and winning. Also, you can win by stalling alone. Stalling will simply put you at a even playing field.......of 300%.

Also, most people don't know the real reason Sudden Death wasn't used. In Melee and Brawl, you have invincibility when grabbing the ledge. You also couldn't take the ledge when someone is one it. Smash 4 fixes this. Regrabs do not give you invincibility and you can always trump. This means you won't have two player camp the opposite ledge.

Please grow up. This isn't healthy discussion and it doesn't belong here.

So its not healthy because people disagree with one other. Can we only have healthy discussions though group think?

 

[Divemissile]

Sudden death is bad because of circle camping. Kirby/Jigglypuff can circle camp on stages like battlefield or FF until the bombs start dropping and kill the other player.

 

[Illuminose]

No one is ever going to let Sudden Death decide matches. The bombs especially are far too random, and the fact that one hit easily seals the match makes it far too volatile. A percent lead IS still a lead in Smash, even though it means less than in other fighting games. The random-ish and volatile nature of Sudden Death make it so that it will never be used in serious competition. To be completely honest, I think this discussion is a waste of time because it is an extremely radical move that pretty much no one will be convinced by.

 

[Infinite901]

@ T0MMY If the method we use now helps Jigglypuff, then using Sudden Death would help her even more. The optimal strategy for Jiggs, Kirby, Pit, Meta Knight, Villager, and others would literally become camping out the match and scrooging until the opponent dies. This is even more apparent with Pit, as he can throw out one arrow and win. I don't consider that a good measure of skill at all.

 

[Morbi]

No one is ever going to let Sudden Death decide matches. The bombs especially are far too random, and the fact that one hit easily seals the match makes it far too volatile. A percent lead IS still a lead in Smash, even though it means less than in other fighting games. The random-ish and volatile nature of Sudden Death make it so that it will never be used in serious competition. To be completely honest, I think this discussion is a waste of time because it is an extremely radical move that pretty much no one will be convinced by.

I would have to disagree with a percent lead being an objective lead. Honestly, I would define it as more of an indication of a lead. Someone could have been behind a stock but have all of the momentum in their favor, evening up the odds only to have the time run out. Percentages also mean different things for different characters.

Do not get me wrong, I see your point and agree wholeheartedly. But, honestly, we just end the discussion with "a percent lead is still a lead" because it is too much effort to actually determine the winner. I suppose it would be similar to boxing, if I know anything about boxing (which I do not). However, I believe they score the fighters each round and come to a determination after that fight. They do not just say, "well, boxer A hit boxer B more often in the last round, so he wins by default."

 

[T0MMY]

@ T0MMY If the method we use now helps Jigglypuff, then using Sudden Death would help her even more. The optimal strategy for Jiggs, Kirby, Pit, Meta Knight, Villager, and others would literally become camping out the match and scrooging until the opponent dies. This is even more apparent with Pit, as he can throw out one arrow and win. I don't consider that a good measure of skill at all.

If it helps Jigglypuff: Does it, or des it not? Please explain how and let us know why you conjecture it would help her now.
Optimal strategy: Why impart an-out-of-game ruling to put an end to a (supposedly) competitively viable strategy? There needs to be reason to make an impact on the way a competitive game is played out.
And lastly I have to ask why your judgement on what is a good measure of skill is a deciding factor on rules for competition, isn't subjective opinion outside the groundwork of rulescrafting?

 

[Infinite901]

If it helps Jigglypuff: Does it, or des it not? Please explain how and let us know why you conjecture it would help her now.
Optimal strategy: Why impart an-out-of-game ruling to put an end to a (supposedly) competitively viable strategy? There needs to be reason to make an impact on the way a competitive game is played out.
And lastly I have to ask why your judgement on what is a good measure of skill is a deciding factor on rules for competition, isn't subjective opinion outside the groundwork of rulescrafting?

It does help Jiggly, and anyone who can Scrooge easily, which can lead to easy wins in SD. Brawl does have a Scrooge limit, so that might be something to consider. As a Jiggs main I can assure you that I have not lost a single Sudden Death to anyone besides Pit and Meta Knight. (and considering I play on FG fairly often, that's saying something.

It's the optimal strategy because it will be the one that will win the most games. Yeah, I know FG isn't a good testing ground, but this strategy of timing people out and letting the bob-ombs do the work works fairly consistently, and requires much less effort than actual fighting, hence making it the optimal strategy, because the best players will get even better at avoiding the opponent and timing out, and advance that so that it will be the best way to win matches with Jigglypuff (among others).

My measure of skill is completely arbitrary. Everyone's is. Skill is a completely subjective term. However, we, not only as the Smash community but as the competitive fighting game community as a whole, take it to mean (very loosely) whoever is the best at fighting. Not who is the best at running away for 8 and a half minutes. And sure, not using SD will still have that, it's an aspect of this game being more defensive and of needing a time limit; SD would just exemplify it due to not even needing a percent lead.

 

[T0MMY]

It does help Jiggly, and anyone who can Scrooge easily, which can lead to easy wins in SD.

Ok, so you are establishing it does. Just need a few details:
Regarding the method we use now (I am assuming %-based rule) helping Jigglypuff - explain how it does.
Regarding how SD will help her win more - please how it helps more.

Brawl does have a Scrooge limit, so that might be something to consider.

Unless we are dealing with Brawl specifically then I don't think it should be something to consider since it's a different game with different mechanics than the other games (mostly in regards to how SSB4 has built-in edge limits placed).

As a Jiggs main I can assure you that I have not lost a single Sudden Death to anyone besides Pit and Meta Knight. (and considering I play on FG fairly often, that's saying something.

Anecdotally that may be interesting, but anecdotes don't change rules.
For instance I have never lost to a Jiggs in Sudden Death on For Glory. It leads us to a stalemate in our evaluation.

It's the optimal strategy because it will be the one that will win the most games.

This is new information to me. Where can I find the data that has proven this?

Yeah, I know FG isn't a good testing ground, but this strategy of timing people out and letting the bob-ombs do the work works fairly consistently, and requires much less effort than actual fighting, hence making it the optimal strategy, because the best players will get even better at avoiding the opponent and timing out, and advance that so that it will be the best way to win matches with Jigglypuff (among others).

Is it not also a possibility that players will get even better at countering defensive play?
This is where deep gameplay comes from, allowing the game to develop. It would be a travesty to end the metagame with a simple out-of-game ruling just because of speculation from theorycrafting.

My measure of skill is completely arbitrary. Everyone's is. Skill is a completely subjective term. However, we, not only as the Smash community but as the competitive fighting game community as a whole, take it to mean (very loosely) whoever is the best at fighting.

Where did you find this? I am unable to locate this objective anywhere on Smashboards or any kind of stone tablets given from a deity.
What we do have is your measure of skill being stated. And, yes, that is arbitrary, and I agree everyone's is, which leads to the issue of whose opinion is better? What we find is that an opinion derives its power from that which it is grounded in - if grounded in an self-evident truth (something we agree to be an axiom) then it will be stronger than those which are based completely on whimsy.
So anyone who posts an opinion on these boards has to be given "the treatment", that is asked to explain why it is they are posting an assertion about rules and then we get to measure it to the current use and go from there.

SD would just exemplify it due to not even needing a percent lead.

That is one side of things, the contrary is that playing out SD would stop the camping and stalling because it motivates a player to have to take the stock in order to win. Until the game mechanics change from the designers there would need to be more than just a matter of opinion to justify a rules change (until then, I would be lead to believe the %-based ruling is "scrubby").

 

[Infinite901]

@T0MMY You know what? You're right that theorcrafting isn't any good.

So go grab your 3DS, let's fight, right now. If you take a set and beat out my SD-camping, I'll stop pressing the issue. I won't change my mind, but I might have a different perspective.

3282-4624-0341

 

[T0MMY]

@T0MMY You know what? You're right that theorcrafting isn't any good.

So go grab your 3DS, let's fight, right now. If you take a set and beat out my SD-camping, I'll stop pressing the issue. I won't change my mind, but I might have a different perspective.

3282-4624-0341

I would strongly disagree that a limited sample outcome from our engagement could be sufficient to determine the depth of the argument you presented. If an assertion is made it needs to be reasonably valid to be credible.

However, that is not to say I would back down from your challenge:
Friend Code added.