[26.03] X3: Eiki, Couldn't think of a good thread title.

Doqtor Kirby

Doqtor Kirby

Resident Design Nitpicker
Minus Backroom
ejkkej.png

X Series III :: Brawl Minus Event
Saturday, 26 March, 2016 :: 12:47 PM PST 3:47 PM EST
Brax :: Chat :: Smash Flash 2 Event
_________________________________________________________________________________________________​
It didn't go down, it didn't go up either. THIRD TIME'S THE CHARM! LET'S GET IT!

Basic rules:
  • 4 stocks
  • 7 minutes
  • No items
  • Dave's Stupid Ass Rule (DSAR): You can't pick a stage you won on in the set
  • Sets are best of 3 games, winners, losers, and grand finals are best of 5. Salty Suites are best of 7 unless specified otherwise.
  • Game 1 characters are double-blind. After game 1, the loser of the previous game announces the stage choice, the winner announces a character counterpick if desired.
  • f a desync occurs, the match is replayed. If continuous desyncs occur, the player with the most stocks and least percent wins. If there is a discrepancy, it's the TO's decision.
  • If timeout occurs, the player with most stocks/least percent wins. If there's same stocks and percent, see me.
  • In all cases of discrepancy, the ingame Results Screen decides the winner. If Sudden Death occurs, same stock/percent rules apply.
  • Stalling is banned. This should be pretty self-expanatory.
  • Gentleman's Clause is allowed. All rules can be thrown out the window if both players agree.

Stage Legality
3 Stage Bans in the counterpicking process
Starter:
  • Battlefield
  • Final Destination
  • Pokemon Stadium 2
  • Smashville
  • Fountain of Dreams
Counterpick:
  • Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
  • Spear Pillar
  • Lavander Town
  • Castle Siege
  • Lylat Cruise
  • Halberd
  • Warioware

Make it happen!
_____

Bracket: http://x-series.challonge.com/eiki_m
Time: 26 March 2016, 12:47 PST [GMT-08]
Congregation: irc.stormbit.net #brawlminus

Full details on bracket page.
 
Last edited:
Bent 00

Bent 00

Longtime Limit Breaker
Gotta agree, it's a pretty bad rule. The initiator winning in this situation is standard in most tourneys for a reason... but it's Doq's tourney, so whatever.

BTW, why the early start time? I'd recommend starting it at 8PM EST, same time as the official tournaments. Seems to be a more convenient time for more people.
 
Last edited:
Thor

Thor

Well-Known Member
I've been to scrubby tournaments with absurd rulesets [2 FFAs to decide the top players to compete for 1-4, and an FFA of them to decide who will 1v1 for 1st and 2nd], but this SD clause might take the cake.
 
Doqtor Kirby

Doqtor Kirby

Resident Design Nitpicker
Minus Backroom
The way I see it is a combat to players who are trying to explicitly suicide clause their way to victory, instead of winning outright. If you're trying intentionally to be a douchebag by constantly trying to swallowcide or something you deserve to lose.

And in a game like this I don't think A. it happens often, if at all and B. it's not ever a good option and C. if you're resorting to suicide KOs, you are playing this game WRONG and should stop immediately.

That said if this alone is turning you away: I'm already regretting adding Minus to the XTS game roster, and Melty Blood deserves it more.
Bent 00 said:
BTW, why the early start time? I'd recommend starting it at 8PM EST, same time as the official tournaments. Seems to be a more convenient time for more people.
Click to expand...
It coincides with the start time of the Flash 2 event.
 
B

baltarc

Active Member
The way I see it is a combat to players who are trying to explicitly suicide clause their way to victory, instead of winning outright. If you're trying intentionally to be a douchebag by constantly trying to swallowcide or something you deserve to lose.

And in a game like this I don't think A. it happens often, if at all and B. it's not ever a good option and C. if you're resorting to suicide KOs, you are playing this game WRONG and should stop immediately.
Click to expand...

So you're basically saying that suicide KOs should be invalid because:
1. If they're allowed, players will focus centrally on using them to win matches at the expense of other tactics
2. Getting a suicide KO is "playing like a douchebag" and playing like a douchebag means you deserve to lose
3. Suicide KOs are a niche or bad option anyway
4. Using suicide KOs is "playing the game wrong"

Well first off points 1 and 3 contradict each other directly. If they're a niche/bad option, why the hell does it matter if players try to primarily use suicide KOs to win? They'll just get bodied because it's a bad option.

Point 2 is pure opinion. Suicide KOs require that you outplay your opponent. Last I checked, outplaying someone doesn't make you a douche. Also, playing like a douche doesn't mean you deserve to lose; the only thing that makes you deserve to lose is playing badly. If player A picks Sonic and runs back and forth across the stage, taunts, and camps the entire match, most would call that playing like a douche. But if his opponent player B can't find and exploit the obvious weaknesses in this tactic, it's player B that deserves to lose.

Point 4 is completely ridiculous. The goal of the game is to win. You win when the game tells you that you won. If the game tells you that you won after a suicide KO, how the hell is going for that KO "playing wrong"? That's dumb.

tl;dr bad rule, bad justification
 
Pin Clock

Pin Clock

Project Leader
Minus Backroom
Doq, you should not be telling people how to play the game. In tournaments, you generally are playing to win, and if suicide kills are a legit tactic to win, then that should be an available option. You should only put a rule on something if it can potentially harm the game environment, like the chaingrab clause in the official ruleset being put there to pretty much stop Pichu due to having a powerful chaingrab on the entire cast thanks to an oversight.

It's a good option because it lets players who outsmarted their opponents win games, which is why in the official ruleset, the initiator of the suicide move wins, rather than the victim.
 
Thor

Thor

Well-Known Member
Doqtor Kirby said:
The way I see it is a combat to players who are trying to explicitly suicide clause their way to victory, instead of winning outright. If you're trying intentionally to be a douchebag by constantly trying to swallowcide or something you deserve to lose.

And in a game like this I don't think A. it happens often, if at all and B. it's not ever a good option and C. if you're resorting to suicide KOs, you are playing this game WRONG and should stop immediately.

That said if this alone is turning you away: I'm already regretting adding Minus to the XTS game roster, and Melty Blood deserves it more.

It coincides with the start time of the Flash 2 event.
Click to expand...

A) If they're trying to suicide clause to victory, that's really, really obvious. Just stand at the center of the stage and mash buttons if someone gets you in a moving grab. It won't work until you're at death percent for other moves anyway.
B) It's an outright win for some. They died before you [at least that's what Smash 4 Ganondorf does].
C) Minus has ways around it anyway - it's possible to frame-perfect detonate Ganondorf's side+B so that the opponent dies and you don't. Not a suicide, but I'm sure you'd try to lump it under this clause, which is stupid when they clearly didn't suicide.
D) What if I am trying to recover as Bowser, misinput side+b, and the opponent jumps in it and we both die? I should be penalized because I missed an input in a way that killed both of us? That's really, really stupid.
E) No, you don't deserve to lose. If you deliberately cheat, you deserve to be awarded a loss, but using any and every move to score a KO is a legitimate means of winning the game. If I'm trying to intentionally be a jerk by killing someone with nothing but Falcon Punches, I shouldn't be awarded a game loss because I managed to kill them with nothing but Falcon Punches. But that's what you're saying with Ganondorf's side+B, which is absurd.
F) It happens enough. It happened with myself vs LB in grand finals of one of the tournaments, and it's in the highlights video. It was the best option at the time because I combo'd into it, so it's a good option sometimes. And if it's never a good option, people who win with it are deliberately using a suboptimal strategy [as would securing all kills with Falcon Punches]. which would suggest if they pull it off, they deserve the win they earned, and also a slow clap for managing to pull that off.
G) Resorting to suicide KOs isn't wrong by any stretch. The goal is to remove 4 stocks before the opponent takes 4 stocks from you. If I can sacrifice my high percent stock to take a low-percent stock, that's not playing the game wrong, it's genius.

Also, if suicide kills are wrong, then here's a scenario: I am down as Ganondorf. I do a very low side+b, looking to walljump out of it, but my opponent purposefully falls in the grab, killing us both before I can press A. As a result, my opponent just intentionally initiated a suicide move, so they should lose. I input the button, but my opponent was the one being a jerk and trying to win with a suicide clause, not I, so I shouldn't be penalized and they should.
 
Last edited:
Doqtor Kirby

Doqtor Kirby

Resident Design Nitpicker
Minus Backroom
Well then how about this yung compromise:
- Suicide Clause: The results screen decides the winner. If there is Sudden Death, then normal tie-game rules apply.

I honestly think sacrificial KOs are legitimately stupid (and should be removed, but my opinion sucks). There also shouldn't be such a clause, and the game should be the deciding factor anyway.
 
Pin Clock

Pin Clock

Project Leader
Minus Backroom
Then the one who legitimately outsmarted his opponent still has a chance of losing. Really the best solution to suicidal moves is "don't get hit by them" because they're usually easy to read or you're right in Bowser's face when he leaves Hitstun for whatever reason, but that move has anti-suicide mechanics in it anyways that both players should be informed of.
 
bandeaux

bandeaux

Oh, you know, that one DK main.
gotta agree with simply just going for initiator = winner. like many above have simply stated, you shouldn't be penalized for outplaying and KOing your opponent.
 
Doqtor Kirby

Doqtor Kirby

Resident Design Nitpicker
Minus Backroom
The conjecture though is that there doesn't need to be an excess in rules and clauses that modify an already fine game.

If you want to use suicide moves so bad, pick the higher port (in the case of wifi, host the match).

I'm not changing it again, and the existing rule is final.
 
Pin Clock

Pin Clock

Project Leader
Minus Backroom
Doqtor Kirby said:
1. If P2 did the suicide move Sudden Death should occur, not P1 auto-winning.
2.
Click to expand...
"All sudden deaths are not to be played, simply do another game with same characters/stage, 1 stock"

So while Player 1 just wins Player 2 just gets extra hassle. And if both want to do suicide moves they have to fight for a port. It's far less complicated to just let the initiator of the move win.
 
Doqtor Kirby

Doqtor Kirby

Resident Design Nitpicker
Minus Backroom
Pin Clock said:
"All sudden deaths are not to be played, simply do another game with same characters/stage, 1 stock"

So while Player 1 just wins Player 2 just gets extra hassle. And if both want to do suicide moves they have to fight for a port. It's far less complicated to just let the initiator of the move win.
Click to expand...
"If Sudden Death occurs, same stock/percent rules apply."
"If there's same stocks and percent, see me."

Except I haven't explained this part yet as it's not needed, and we can cross that bridge when we arrive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top