Objectively Defining Degenerate Gameplay - Brainstorming

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

So, with this new craze about everything being objective that the Stage Discussion boards are rife with now-a-days, this topic came to my attention.

I support SuSa's new stage-ban criteria (any stage that directly and randomly affects the win criteria), but it leaves out a lot of stages that we have had previously banned simply under "degenerate gameplay" or "skill marginalizing".

Those stages (excluding ones already banned by SuSa's criteria) would be the following:
Green Hill Zone (Walk-Off and Check-point Camping)
Hanenbow (Circle Camping)
Mushroomy Kingdom 1-1/1-2 (Walk-Off Camping, Run-away Camping)
Rumble Falls (Run-away Camping)
Shadow Moses Island (Walk-off/Wall Camping)
Skyworld (*MU Specific*)
Big Blue (Non-Permanent Circle Camping and Road Gimps)
Temple (Circle Camping, Run-away Camping)

So, previously these stages would all fall under the "degenerate" criteria and be banned accordingly. However, this criteria is obviously subjective and has thus been the cause of many debates.

So, I ask you dwellers of the Stage Discussion boards, under what criteria should the above stages be banned from an OBJECTIVE point of view?

Ripple · Nov 15, 2010

banning criteria is always subjective.....

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

Well, sort-of.

What is warranted to be banned is subjective, yes.

But the actual method of what fits that criteria can be objective.

Compare: "Ban all stages with damaging hazards" and "Ban all stages that make the game boring".

The first is objective, the second subjective.

The only subjective part is "should stages with damaging hazards be banned?"

Vyse · Nov 15, 2010

I think it's first important to define what we want to happen ideally, which is for one player to win by removing the opponents stocks. Timing out the opponent is a strategy spawned from a construct in the ruleset that is designed to prevent tournaments from finishing too late. The timeout procedure is a necessity of logistics, not because we should be encouraging winning by excessive stalling.

To that end, I believe stages which provide a continuous means to a character to run away need to be banned. That is, stages with defined loops (spear pillar, temple) and stages that continually introduce new elements and remove elements of a stage by moving the "stage camera" (rumble falls, rainbow cruise).

They provide a continual means of running away. Running away is a perfectly legitimate strategy, but not when the person running away can create a situation where they can run to higher/lower ground without passing by the opponent.

An opponents efforts to corner an opponent running away are undone when the opponent can simply wait for new ground to advance to.

This is just something I've been thinking lately. I am an originalist at heart, but if I had to give an objective opinion, this would be it.

Now walls and walkoffs are a conundrum indeed :/

Objective reasoning with which to ban these are hard, except that they contain over-centralising strategies, but is that warrant enough for a ban?

Why do we NOT want to reward locks or chain grabs?

EDIT:

A list of objective criteria is a very good idea, and I direction I've wanted since making this thread here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=282897
I fully support this.

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

Because they turn the game into Super Chain Grab Brothers Brawl, just as legalising Hyrule Temple would change the game into Super Circle Camp Brothers Brawl.

There is nothing technically wrong with it, every stage in Brawl is competitive excluding the random ones. But do we want our game to revolve around those strategies?

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Degenerate to gameplay is what I banned stages for.

Where it is "If your opponent is simply faster than you. They will win."

Which turns into:
Pick Wario/Squirtle/Jigglypuff and/or Sonic.

Hit opponent once.
Run
Win.

It's not testing any actual skill from either opponent. It's testing "Who can get the first hit and run?"

Vyse · Nov 15, 2010

The key difference is that Super Chain Grab Brothers Brawl still revolves around the primary win condition of taking all the opponents stocks, and that's why I'm having trouble defining a clear cut criteria in my mind which should remove it.

Aside from saying "No stages that overcentralise chaingrabs and locks"

SuSa said:
Degenerate to gameplay is what I banned stages for.

Where it is "If your opponent is simply faster than you. They will win."

Which turns into:
Pick Wario/Squirtle/Jigglypuff and/or Sonic.

Hit opponent once.
Run
Win.

It's not testing any actual skill from either opponent. It's testing "Who can get the first hit and run?"

What's your opinion on stages that feature moving cameras in regards to this?

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

@SuSa
But then comes the arguments about what fits that criteria?

A good example of this is with the stage 'Distant Planet'. It is very arguable as to whether circle camping is prominent on the stage or not.

If I said "Oh, this stage turns the game into 'The Faster character wins" and you say "No, it doesn't", then we run into all sorts of problems.

@Vyse
Yeah, that's why I made this thread. So people could brain-storm ways to create said criteria.

Vyse · Nov 15, 2010

GrimFandango said:
@SuSa
But then comes the arguments about what fits that criteria?

A good example of this is with the stage 'Distant Planet'. It is very arguable as to whether circle camping is prominent on the stage or not.

If I said "Oh, this stage turns the game into 'The Faster character wins" and you say "No, it doesn't", then we run into all sorts of problems.

@Vyse
Yeah, that's why I made this thread. So people could brain-storm ways to create said criteria.

But then, at least we're arguing using a set, defined criteria, rather than some lofty idea about competitive gameplay one way or another.

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

Fair enough.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Vyse said:
Aside from saying "No stages that overcentralise chaingrabs and locks"

What's your opinion on stages that feature moving cameras in regards to this?

Moving cameras are completely fine, both players know to expect it - can expect it - and are almost always given visual cues to expect it. This same thought applies to transformations that happen on PS1/PS2.

Also what is bad with chaingrabs and locks? =\ Overcentralizing or not - you're just nerfing it for no real competitive reason...

This is why I haven't really supported bans on stages with perm walkoffs, including Bridge of Eldin.

However I don't know how the bridge being blown up and all that and whether or not that's predictable or not.

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

The bridge being blown up is 100% random.

If we are allowing stages that allow for chaingrabs and locks, why shouldn't we allow for stages like Hyrule Temple?
It's almost the same reason for banning:
1 hit = game over on temple.
3 grabs = game over on Bridge.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

No matter what matchup (spare dittos), one character will always outspeed the other.

Not every character has a chaingrab/lock.

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

What is speed?

Ground speed, air speed, attack speed, what?

And not every character can lock/cg, but for every MU that DOES involve CGing (of which there are quite a few), it becomes as skill-less as Temple matches.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Both ground or air, depending if the circle is ground based or air based.

Why are you going into that matchup then? =\ It's like going Ganon vs IC's...

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

In order to define "degenerate gameplay", wouldn't we need to know which skills the game requires of its players? Because a "degenerate tactic" is one that marginalizes all other in-game skills, to the extent of my knowledge. Maybe I'm just not thinking straight because I'm tired... :/

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

Yes, you're right.

Basic things like spacing, stage knowledge, timing... what else?

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Quick shot in the dark right here.

I was having an AIM convo with BPC, and I think I proved that timing your opponent out is a secondary objective - not a primary one.

Let me explain:

1) When you have the same amount of stocks as your opponent, in the result of a tie, the game says it is a draw. It is the player's subjective view that one player should be rewarded in this scenario. This is bad.

2) In order for the game to say I have won, I must have more stocks than you. Which means, my primary objective (before I can even time you out) is to kill you at least once and then I must survive until time runs out.

Currently all draws (except time outs!) result in a tiebreaker match. Why is this an exception?

Any disagreements to this logic?

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

That's pretty much the gist of it. It goes back to the concept of "letting the results screen decide the winner"; if the game doesn't say there was a winner, there wasn't a winner. So, when stocks tie, the game always takes you to sudden death, which would be fine if the game didn't also start you out at 300% and have Bob-Ombs dropping all over the field.

...which is why a 1 stock, 3 minute match should be fine. Only use the "lowest % wins" tiebreaker in that match, or we all try to come up with a better tiebreaker.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

I agree with that, but now we have to decide what hurts gameplay more on a competitive level.

This system:
I'm in the lead, but since we are tied on stocks and time is running out - you run away to try to time me out. Now, because I'm in the lead, I have to kill you before time runs out - otherwise my advantage is thrown away and we are reset on neutral terms. (Can anyone name a system that "resets the situation" if the winner is in the lead? I'm sure there's a game SOMEWHERE that does this that's competitive..)

tl;dr
You gain an advantage by not being in the lead?

Current system:
I'm in the lead, and if I can avoid you until time runs out - I win the match. Because I am in the lead, I have the advantage of winning by timing you out.

tl;dr
You get an advantage for being in the lead.

IMO there needs to be a way to decide on a better tiebreaker...

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

Whatever each player's percentage was at the end of the last match is carried over to the nearest 10% for the tie-breaker match.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

I like that idea quite a bit actually. (It can be replicated by placing a handicap on the characters)

Regardless of stocks - stocks are reduced to 1? Or is it same stocks?

Because this essentially turns into "Do as much damage as you can do, or KILL THE OPPONENT BEFORE TIME RUNS OUT"

That's. Genius.

Raziek · Nov 15, 2010

That's..... actually not bad.

I like it, but I may be jumping to conclusions.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Effectively, it's telling the winner:

"If you are going to time them out, take the lead by a stock."

It's telling the loser:

"If you don't want a large disadvantage in the tiebreaker, do as much damage to the winner"

So the tl;dr is:
It promotes conflict.

If a timeout happens when one is ahead by 1 stock or more, the game actually says "Dude, you're the winner. Congrats" - so that's a void issue.

I can't find anything.... inherently wrong with this... it's FAR better than our current system that says "Dude, you're 1% lower than your opponent. Congrats, you win."

It also essentially restarts all momentum, and "adds time to the match" (3-5 minutes) - but also reduces stocks. So if you're both at 2 stocks, now you're at 1 stock. Meaning, unless you think you can kill them once before they kill you, it's in your best interest to take the lead by a stock.

I see no real problems. O_o

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

Oh my god... has someone actually come up with a viable timeout clause?! Ok, ok, ok... let's run through the logic; it can't penalize the leader and give an advantage to the loser.

So, we have two players, down to last stock. Player 1 has 15%, player 2 has 32%. According to our current rules, player 1 would win, in the event of a time out. He's in the lead, but we don't want to have a "time out" win condition, so if he wants to win, he'll need to kill. What is actually being required is simply for player 1 to maintain the momentum he's had so far in the match, so we're not asking something unreasonable. If it's obvious that it's going to time, he has two viable competitive choices: avoid conflict to ensure he has a % lead, or confront to do as much damage as possible, so that it will all carry over to the sudden death.

Player two is losing, by our rules, so he should be in a disadvantaged position; he shouldn't gain by going to time out. So, in this scenario, he has a higher % damage, which will carry over. He doesn't want that. So, NOT engaging isn't really an option, unless the % damage difference between players is negligible, in which case an overtime is useful in determining skill placement anyway. So, not engaging, in this case, isn't an option. Player 2 HAS to engage... which puts him at a disadvantage to player 1! He doesn't WANT it to go to time anymore, because he's started off in a worse situation!

I... I think he's done it. The only caveat is that the players must pay attention to their % at the end of a match. What happens if the players aren't "paying attention" (or so they say) and don't remember what their % is? I mean, as a TO, I think that's BS (players are always acutely aware of their damage), but it's bound to come up.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

In our current time out clause the players have to be aware of their %'s to even decide on the winner.

Most every match has a spectator or two.

TO's can "enlist" judges for matches from volunteers. Not in a tourney match yourself? Go watch other matches. Browse around, see a match with 2 minutes left on the clock? Watch it in case it goes to time.

If you want to john and say you forget you're %. We can DQ you. I think you'd pay a lot more attention to your % when time is running out... because when time is close to running out, each player is watching their % currently to make sure they have a lead... so to not be aware of your % is a horrible argument.

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

That's what I thought, but it's better to address it now, and be clear about it. So, the rule we have so far is:

The Fandango Time-Out Clause

"If a main set match goes to time, a 1 stock, 3 minute tiebreaker match is played on the same stage, with the same characters; both player's ending % are carried over to the tiebreaker match to the nearest 10% using the handicap feature. If this match goes to time, the player with the lowest % at time wins. It is the player's responsibility to keep track of their %'s; if either player cannot or does not give an accurate % at the end of either match, then he/she is automatically DQ'ed."

Sound good? Any edits or changes?

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

I was chatting with Ghostbone about it and he recommends that rather than going to the nearest 10%, we round down. This is so as to not actually give players damage that they didn't take.

Thought both sides have their dis-advantages (with rounding down, a 9% or under lead can be nullified, with going to the nearest 10% a player can be given percentage they don't deserve). Both of those dis-advantages are minor... I'd probably go with the round down one but whatever.

Oh, and no autographs please.

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

Well, by rounding, we are admitting that we HAVE to either give or take away player damage. It's unavoidable, if we want to use the handicap system to carry over damage. What's important isn't necessarily the exact damages, but the relationship between the advantaged player and disadvantaged player. In this case, simple rounding to the nearest 10% may indeed give a player some damage, but it more accurately preserves the advantages/disadvantages earned in the main match. After all, in a pure rounding system, there can never be a discrepancy of more than 5% (either you round 24% down to 20%, giving a 4% discrepancy, or 25% up to 30%, giving a 5% discrepancy), where as always rounding down can produce inaccuracies of up to 9% (if 29% gets rounded down to 20%).

That extra accuracy might be worth giving players a few extra % damage.

And if I can't have your autograph... how about your babies? ^_-

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

Fair enough.

You may have my first born child if you dedicate the next 3 years of your life to spreading the 'Fandango Philosophy of Time Outs'.

Go my star-child, for the first time in your life, you are truly free.

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Rounding down or up as more issues.

Imagine a tie of 21% to 29%. Is it fair we both start on 20% now?

I think it's more fair to round to the nearest ten. Not just round down/up. Although it can be argued 24% to 35% is now a 20% lead instead of a 11% lead. It could be 20% vs 30% which is now a 10% lead. Wouldn't that 10% be closer to the actual advantage?

How about this:

The % is rounded down as to avoid giving a player more advantage than they have earned (as seen in the example above) - but if the players are within the same 10% difference (eg: 20-29) than it is rounded normally, to the nearest 10%. This is to avoid removing the advantage earned by one player when the %'s are really close. (24% to 25% is now 20% vs 30% under this... which is another problem)

Okay... maybe rounding down is actually a bit more accurate. =\ Even if unfair at given times.

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

I honestly don't think anyone will give a **** about someone getting a 9% lead guys >_>

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

Still fairer than our current system, that gives you a win for being 1% higher - when the game results screen takes you to sudden death (which is a draw, considering sudden death is ****ing stupid and is based mostly on luck for who will win)

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

Exactly.

Just add another bit to that clause above, "If you ***** about your opponent getting a 9% or whatever advantage, the TO will personally back-hand you and remove you from the venue".

napZzz · Nov 15, 2010

Jack Kieser said:
That's what I thought, but it's better to address it now, and be clear about it. So, the rule we have so far is:

The Fandango Time-Out Clause

"If a main set match goes to time, a 1 stock, 3 minute tiebreaker match is played on the same stage, with the same characters; both player's ending % are carried over to the tiebreaker match to the nearest 10% using the handicap feature. If this match goes to time, the player with the lowest % at time wins. It is the player's responsibility to keep track of their %'s; if either player cannot or does not give an accurate % at the end of either match, then he/she is automatically DQ'ed."

Sound good? Any edits or changes?

someone please please please please PLEASE get this rule made OFFICIAL and spread word of it

SuSa · Nov 15, 2010

To be honest, a 9% disadvantage is a lot fairer than a loss. I don't think anyone would complain.

Also 1 stock 5 minutes. The goal isn't to have a second timeout if possible. It'd prove very hard to do a 5 minute match with 1 stock.

Life · Nov 15, 2010

I see another problem.

A and B play their set out.
A is at two stock, 0%
B is at two stock, 70%
Match goes to time.
Ref comes over.

A tells the ref B was at 150%. B says no, that's wrong, he was at 70%. It cannot be proven either way--somebody has to be DQ'd.

Only out is to ask the spectators, and what happens if the spectators disagree with each other (maybe player B is very unpopular for whatever reason)?

I propose that, if we use % handicaps, you either have a specific base handicap (perhaps 50%?) and ignore % leads, or that if there is reasonable doubt about %s, both players revert to a very high handicap (100%+).

And of course, this only applies to games ending in % leads, not stock leads.

napZzz · Nov 15, 2010

SuSa said:
To be honest, a 9% disadvantage is a lot fairer than a loss. I don't think anyone would complain.

Also 1 stock 5 minutes. The goal isn't to have a second timeout if possible. It'd prove very hard to do a 5 minute match with 1 stock.

this is even better!!!!!!!!!!!

Jack Kieser · Nov 15, 2010

So which one, ultimately, is better? Remember, the rule is going to have to be clear and concise. The more we have to explain to people, the worse. We could, theoretically, write a whole bunch of If... else... statements to determine how we round, but that's just going to be unclear and confusing.

As far as I can see, it's not necessarily the difference between player's that's as important as the difference towards yourself. Any system we choose will have discrepancies, because we're rounding, but, just in terms of a single player, in a natural rounding scenario, the discrepancy can't be more that 5%, as opposed to giving or taking away up to 9% damage to any one player. I know I'm restating, I just think we're looking at things from two different angles.

Grim Tuesday · Nov 15, 2010

InferiorityComplex said:
I see another problem.

A and B play their set out.
A is at two stock, 0%
B is at two stock, 70%
Match goes to time.
Ref comes over.

A tells the ref B was at 150%. B says no, that's wrong, he was at 70%. It cannot be proven either way--somebody has to be DQ'd.

Only out is to ask the spectators, and what happens if the spectators disagree with each other (maybe player B is very unpopular for whatever reason)?

I propose that, if we use % handicaps, you either have a specific base handicap (perhaps 50%?) and ignore % leads, or that if there is reasonable doubt about %s, both players revert to a very high handicap (100%+).

And of course, this only applies to games ending in % leads, not stock leads.

This can already happen in the current ruleset.

"It's not fair, I would've won if he didn't extend his dimensional cape for a second to avoid my attack"

"I didn't extend my dimensional cape!"

Objectively Defining Degenerate Gameplay - Brainstorming

Smash Legend

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

Smash Legend

Faith, Hope, Love, Luck

Smash Legend

Banned via Administration

Faith, Hope, Love, Luck

Smash Legend

Faith, Hope, Love, Luck

Smash Legend

Banned via Administration

Smash Legend

Banned via Administration

Smash Legend

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Smash Legend

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Banned via Administration

Smash Legend

Banned via Administration

Charging Limit All Day

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Smash Legend

Smash Champion

Smash Legend

Banned via Administration

Smash Legend

Banned via Administration

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Banned via Administration

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Legend

Information

Network