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

[vVv Rapture]

What does a loss serve in the best 2/3? What if we're tied 1:1 and we both lose? We're now 2:2. Do we both win by losing?

Depends on what everyone thinks would work better. To be honest, if it's 2:2, then either both would drop the set and a bye would be produced.

Ugh, then what if it's Grand Finals...or we could make the set larger by redoing that match, but then people would just time out to get an entire match replay.

Time is really ****ing annoying.

I am challenging the concept that a player is at an advantage regardless of %. A player is only at an advantage if they have a stock advantage.

So why is it bad the player with lower % is being forced to approach? He's not at any form of advantage dictated by the game.

So long as 1 player is being forced to approach, times cannot go on indefinably.

Agreed. I don't think there is an advantage with percents, only with stocks.

Also note:
Special Brawl --> Sudden Death

Has.
No.
Bombs.

Oh gawsh, maybe a useful discovery?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Just a thought... When you think about it, the "winning" player in brawl is the one who is given the incentive to approach. Not the "losing" player.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Just a thought... When you think about it, the "winning" player in brawl is the one who is given the incentive to approach. Not the "losing" player.

That was sort of one of my reasons for proposing my idea. It gives the winner more incentive to approach to get that last kill rather than losing, since they are in a better position to kill with being at less percent in most cases.

 

[SuSa]

Only given a mental position and our currently flawed timer.

According to the game it's a tie. Neither player is given an advantage. Neither player is given a disadvantage. It is not treated as such because it does not exist.

Who is being forced to approach is irrelevant. If I'm "winning" by 10% and now YOU'RE trying to time me out. It's a mental disadvantage because I feel I may lose in the continuation after. So I'll approach and try to kill you. Considering I have a % lead, this shouldn't be that hard? Should it?

If I die, well it's because I just got outplayed by my skillfull opponent and look. My opponent has an advantage dictated by the game.

I see no reason why, so long as one player is forced to approach, that it is a "flaw". It's not.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't even know what's going on in this thread anymore.

 

[Veel]

Well, with my proposition, both players are forced to approach or forfeit a loss regardless of what the percents are.

What if a player is up a game? Given this scenario the player has an incentive to camp as a loss for both players would win the set

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why don't we just keep cycling the tie breaker matches rather than having a percentage win at the end of the first one.

It is highly improbable someone could survive for two tie breaker matches, let alone more.

 

[Tagxy]

That comparison is pretty unfair...

The rules for which referees are required in professional sports are much more well-defined than a "don't stall" rule in Brawl. It's difficult enough to even define stalling, let alone judge it consistently. Is MK's d-air camping stalling? Is perfect planking stalling? Ask different people, and you'll get different answers.

A referee is necessary to enforce certain rules because those rules are necessary for proper play. Brawl as it is functions fine without judges, but why would we introduce a need for judges with a rule that doesn't even fix what it was intended to fix?

Im just going to assume you dont watch sports for this statement, lol. And the fact that you can't define stalling yet know its illegal only support my point, we only accept it because its too impractical to have a judge at every station.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Why must I be at work on an iPod??? Why are people trying to adjust tje main match timer? Adding an arbitrary 5 minutes onto every match affects all matches not just matches with stalling. Why should we force people with a stock lead to play longer? This rule isn't targeting going to time with a stock lead!

 

[vVv Rapture]

What if a player is up a game? Given this scenario the player has an incentive to camp as a loss for both players would win the set

If the set is 0-0, both players would be up 1-1 and Game 2 could either be another striking scenario.
If the set is 1-0, the end result would be 2-1, so whoever had the first win would claim the set (assuming best of 3)
If the set is 1-1, the end result would be 2-2, so a tiebreaker could be played or both player's lose the set entirely.

 

[Trillion]

Why must I be at work on an iPod??? Why are people trying to adjust tje main match timer? Adding an arbitrary 5 minutes onto every match affects all matches not just matches with stalling. Why should we force people with a stock lead to play longer? This rule isn't targeting going to time with a stock lead!

If they have a stock lead, then adding 5 more minutes shouldn't make a difference.

If they have a stock lead, then:
a.) they should be able to win since they have a stock lead
b.) if they can not win with the stock lead, then deciding a match by stock lead at time out is a confusing rule
c.) using the concept of "why should we force people with a stock lead to play longer?" begs the question of "Why aren't we playing a one stock match? since anything more than a one stock match forces the person with the stock lead to play longer."
d.) If we are not supposed to be using time out as a win condition, then the concept of "why should we force people with a stock lead to play longer" is contradictory to that sentiment. If time out isn't supposed to be a win condition, then stock lead shouldn't determine a winner at time out either since you should be trying to eliminate all of your opponent's stocks or else you are again just manipulating the time out in a different way.

 

[Vyse]

BPC brought up making it a draw if people go to time...

Why not maybe increase the timer to 10 minutes, but if the match ends with both players at the same stock, then its a draw? And if its a draw...they both lose?

I thought about this being a possibility too, but discarded when I realised that it begins to mess with counter-picking.

After a draw would you pick the next stage by striking?

 

[vVv Rapture]

I thought about this being a possibility too, but discarded when I realised that it begins to mess with counter-picking.

After a draw would you pick the next stage by striking?

That's what looks like could be the best option, since if we did it CP-style, someone could intentionally get a draw to ensure the set number of wins increase and get the CP for potentially the last game.

So yeah, striking would be the best option IMO.

 

[SuSa]

This is why I wanted Jack to edit the OP.


@Stock/Time arguments

Enter a 1 minute Brawl with 1 stock. Damage one player. Let time run out. Who is declared the winner? Nobody.

Enter a new 1 minute Brawl with 2 stocks. Have one player SD. Let time run out. Who is declared the winner? The player with the stock advantage.

Thus % is not an advantage and does not equate to a win. A stock lead equates to a win.

People arguing about "Well if 3>2 why should 3 be punished" the answer is he wouldn't. According to the game itself he wins.

Under this premise, % is not an advantage or disadvantage so it is..............

Irrelevant who is being forced to approach when stocks are tied. Both are at an equal advantage/disadvantage.





Mindblowing concept. Why? Because it's different.

 

[Crow!]

Incidentally, I kind of like the basic idea of trying to take the game's natural decision of "ties go to sudden death" and replace the sudden death with something which actually works. Unfortunately, the "sudden death" in this case is... just continuing the game in the same way we did before. And using the same win condition that we used before.

And that's really the biggest problem here. It's trying to fix the "problem" of using percents to determine a winner when the game goes to time, but it still uses percents to determine the winner when the game goes to time. It just hides that fact behind an artificial checkpoint in the middle of the game.

 

[SuSa]

Yeah. I was speaking to Raziek over AIM.

Pretty much dropping this argument, as I see the flaw. (Which Crow! just pointed out as well)

EDIT:
Funnily enough, we could use a 3 minute coin match as a tiebreaker. Most coins would always be the winner.

/trolling

 

[Trillion]

and that's really the biggest problem here. It's trying to fix the "problem" of using percents to determine a winner when the game goes to time, but it still uses percents to determine the winner when the game goes to time. It just hides that fact behind an artificial checkpoint in the middle of the game.

this this this

is what i've been getting at

 

[vVv Rapture]

We should just take out the timer and, instead, slap each player on the back of the head after each minute passes. Eventually, people will get really annoyed and will approach anyways to end the game and avoid head injury.

 

[SuSa]

Alternatively use coin matches to dispute ties. Most coins wins.

 

[Remzi]

So uhh, why not just keep the same rules and do 13 minute matches? What does this actually accomplish?

 

[vVv Rapture]

So uhh, why not just keep the same rules and do 13 minute matches? What does this actually accomplish?

Yeah that point as been made already.

Quite a number of times.

 

[SuSa]

Numerous times.

Coin matches. I'm tellin' ya guys.

 

[Remzi]

Yea I figured somebody probably mentioned it but I got lazy when I saw three pages. Is there a legitimate response to that question, though?

 

[Raziek]

The only legitimate response to it is that we don't want to penalize someone who has a stock lead at 8 minutes, so you'd need a referee to watch the match and call it at 8 minutes. And what if someone dies IMPERCEPTIBLY close to 8 minutes, but we can't tell, because the game didn't end via time??

Basically, enough holes have been blown in this idea that it doesn't warrant replacing the existing rule.

 

[T-block]

Im just going to assume you dont watch sports for this statement, lol. And the fact that you can't define stalling yet know its illegal only support my point, we only accept it because its too impractical to have a judge at every station.

Give me an example then of a rule that's even cloudier than "Don't stall."

 

[Trillion]

Give me an example then of a rule that's even cloudier than "Don't stall."

I'm with you on this. I have no idea what that dude is talking about. I don't think I've heard of a rule in any sport that is less well defined than "don't stall."

 

[AMKalmar]

Guys I am disappoint that nobody talked about my suggested rule. I just want to hear some thoughts.

In the event that the timer expires and both players have the same number of stocks remaining, the player who previously had the stock lead is declared the winner. In the event that neither player has lost a stock... pancakes for everyone [and I am declared the winner]!

 

[SuSa]

I didn't understand it until you phrased it that way.

What if, in the super-duper extremely unlikely to happen event, they timed out both at 3 stocks? (Pancakes don't work)

Also it's harder to prove who previously had the stock lead without a ref watching the entire match.... or the crowd. I'd support it only with the intention that the Smash Community generally is pretty mature and sucks it up when they lose.
Except Cheese

(Remember that a % lead is not an advantage so don't even bring up "well what if it's 20% to 140% but the 140% guy was the last one with a stock advantage" - the guy with 20% should have killed that guy)

EDIT:

Also what if both players died at nearly the exact same time - and it's impossible to tell who died first?

 

[Captain L]

I don't support giving the win to whoever was previously in the lead. In a match where both players go down to their last stock with only a few minutes remaining, whoever lost their stock first is FORCED to approach the entire time, no matter how many hits they can get on the other player. Unless they outright kill him they cannot remove that disadvantage. The person who got their second KO first on the other hand, can just stall the match out not caring if he takes bits of damage here and there because regardless of how much damage he takes, he'll still be the winner in the end if he can run the time.

Getting such a huge disadvantage for having your second stock KOed first does not seem very balanced. It's bad enough that you're now a stock behind but you'll be forced to approach for the rest of the match even if you can make a comeback.

 

[Raziek]

Guys I am disappoint that nobody talked about my suggested rule. I just want to hear some thoughts.

In the event that the timer expires and both players have the same number of stocks remaining, the player who previously had the stock lead is declared the winner. In the event that neither player has lost a stock... pancakes for everyone [and I am declared the winner]!

"
Raziek91 10:31 pm
(10:31:30 PM): Oh god, that one's got more holes than swiss cheese
(10:31:40 PM): It completely ignores who is in the lead at the time
(10:31:48 PM): Hypothetical right away that destroys it:
(10:32:03 PM): Snake and MK are both at two stocks, high percent
(10:32:12 PM): Snake kills MK with u-tilt, gaining the stock lead
(10:32:29 PM): MK quickly kills snake with a grounded Up-B, and they're now even at 0-0
(10:32:39 PM): MK gets a **** combo, and is now ahead 120-0
(10:32:42 PM): Time runs out
(10:32:48 PM): Snake wins for taking the stock first?
(10:32:51 PM): What is this ****"

Hroom, I have spoken.

 

[Ussi]

I thought of a sudden death rule..

In times of ties, handicap matches of both people starting at 100% (regardless of previous %) tie breaker. It'll be a less severve sudden death without bom-ombs.

This has nothing to do with %leads or not, this is just a alternative to %ties that rarely happen and suicide kills (swallow).



Now on topic to %lead, its hard to determine a different thing. Honestly it forces the one losing to approach. The only way i see this changing is if you can give someone the incentive to approach outside of %leads. Dont see one for now

 

[AMKalmar]

Good point Susa, we'd have to have a secondary rule to handle the unlikely scenarios that players died at the same instant, or if neither player lost a stock.

"
Raziek91 10:31 pm
(10:31:30 PM): Oh god, that one's got more holes than swiss cheese
(10:31:40 PM): It completely ignores who is in the lead at the time
(10:31:48 PM): Hypothetical right away that destroys it:
(10:32:03 PM): Snake and MK are both at two stocks, high percent
(10:32:12 PM): Snake kills MK with u-tilt, gaining the stock lead
(10:32:29 PM): MK quickly kills snake with a grounded Up-B, and they're now even at 0-0
(10:32:39 PM): MK gets a **** combo, and is now ahead 120-0
(10:32:42 PM): Time runs out
(10:32:48 PM): Snake wins for taking the stock first?
(10:32:51 PM): What is this ****"

Hroom, I have spoken.

Well, MK didn't win. Is there any reason why he should win? In the instant that the match ends, neither player has won, and neither player is winning, but snake was winning most recently.

 

[Tagxy]

Give me an example then of a rule that's even cloudier than "Don't stall."

Wow, too easy. In basketball they just instituted a rule that allows referees to give a technical to anyone who "overly complains". Sports are much less clear cut and its very easy to see why, lol.

 

[SuSa]

People need to abandon that having % is a disadvantage. It's a mental disadvantage - and it only increases the likelihood of death. It doesn't - and it will never - kill you.

The game shows this in itself. A stock match where one player is at 0% and the other is at 999% results in.......

A DRAW

It doesn't give the player at 0% the win. Why? Because having a % lead isn't an advantage.

Outside of the flaws I pointed out in his idea - it makes most sense to give the "advantage" mark to the player who previously had the advantage. Namely, the player whom previously had the stock lead.

It doesn't matter who is being forced to approach. They concept is to kill their opponent, and failure to do so means exactly that. Failure.


EDIT:

Getting such a huge disadvantage for having your second stock KOed first does not seem very balanced.

DON'T DIE FIRST THEN.

 

[Captain L]

In best of three sets everyone knows that under our current counterpick system, whoever gets the win on the first match has a large advantage for the rest of the set. You made your post about flipping the game order (which I think is a pretty good idea) so that nobody is instantly put at a disadvantage for losing the first game.


So why should you be put at a disadvantage for losing your second stock first (aside from the game's natural disadvantage that puts you behind a stock)? You said "Don't die first" but at the same time I could just say "Don't lose game one" and then continue using the old counterpick system. Somebody is going to have to die their second stock first, just like they are going to have to lose game 1 first. But now instead of being just one hit away from tying it up they have to kill an opponent twice who has absolutely no incentive to approach ever.


Besides, this still doesn't fix the problem of giving one player the win when the game calls it a draw. It just changes the conditions for a win. There are also no competitive games/sports to my knowledge that would award a loss to the team that managed to tie it up before time ran out.

 

[SuSa]

Last paragraph got me.

I need to change my signature to:
I support 0.0001% of the things I actually argue about. I debate for possible advancements to come out of the said debate.

Meaning:
If you find a hole in the logic. I usually give up right there if I can't try to patch it up.

You found that hole.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Except this rule is only trying to change winning by percent. It's not trying to mess with timeouts while you have a stock up... which adding 5 minutes to the timer does.

Why don't we just keep cycling the tie breaker matches rather than having a percentage win at the end of the first one.

It is highly improbable someone could survive for two tie breaker matches, let alone more.

*cough* >_>

 

[Trillion]

Wow, too easy. In basketball they just instituted a rule that allows referees to give a technical to anyone who "overly complains". Sports are much less clear cut and its very easy to see why, lol.

This rule you have used as an example is not as vague as the rule against stalling.

1.) There is no common definition of what constitutes stalling. It's pretty easy to tell when something is a complaint.
2.) In both cases there is vagueness as to what of an action constitutes too much.

This rule is not more vague.

 

[AMKalmar]

Besides, this still doesn't fix the problem of giving one player the win when the game calls it a draw. It just changes the conditions for a win. There are also no competitive games/sports to my knowledge that would award a loss to the team that managed to tie it up before time ran out.

Yes, other sports instead have something called overtime. Such a thing is actually a regular part of the rules of tennis (deuce) - in order to win a game, you have to be 2 points ahead. While it makes the most sense to do this, we have limited time. That's the only reason we have a timer, the only reason people don't want to extend the timer, the main reason why overtime is undesirable, and the main reason why my rule could work - games don't take any longer than they would under our current ruleset, yet the winner is decided in a manner that is fair.

 

[Tagxy]

This rule you have used as an example is not as vague as the rule against stalling.

1.) There is no common definition of what constitutes stalling. It's pretty easy to tell when something is a complaint.
2.) In both cases there is vagueness as to what of an action constitutes too much.

This rule is not more vague.

I can tell you dont watch sports either, lol. Its the same and both require a judge to interpret.