Objectively Defining Degenerate Gameplay - Brainstorming

[napZzz]

call a ref when the clock is about to hit 30 seconds and there shouldn't be an issue. Or tell someone to do it for you

when someone is gonig for a time out, its obvious as **** so you should know ahead of time

 

[SuSa]

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.

He was at 34% I was at 35% not the other way around! I SHOULD'VE WON!


Yah. Happens in our current set as well. Call a Ref at 1 minute left or have the audience do it.

Again, I recommended volunteer refs (players who are NOT in a match) to go around looking for games that may time out, then watch them.

If a player is caught lying - they are DQ'd from the tournament.

call a ref when the clock is about to hit 30 seconds and there shouldn't be an issue. Or tell someone to do it for you

This pretty much. Just yell out "I NEED A REF OVER HERE"

 

[Damix91]

Wouldnt saving the replay stop all issues of foul play. Both players have to press start to skip the results screen. The player found lying about the percents couls be auto-disqualified without the 1 stock 5 min match.

 

[napZzz]

only hacked wii's can do that though on a timeout replay, and that wont always happen

 

[Life]

Significant difference, though: under this rule, you'd get DQ'd for the disagreement (remember "reasonable doubt"). Instantly knocked from the tournament because some guy was a jerk.

For something like 1% lead wins, you lose one game.

I wouldn't know about the IDC example, I'm not aware of such ever happening and I certainly don't know what I'd do as a TO.

Anyway, I admit defeat on the point.

Also, regular Wiis can save all replays under BPC ruleset--*mangled*

 

[Jack Kieser]

And then, you'd still need to re-watch all 7 minutes of match, since Brawl can't fast-forward in replays. ...as far as I know.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Also note that time outs will be much less frequent with my clause.

 

[Damix91]

What about just having the players SD in the Sudden death

Rewatching isn't the end of the world if they were going to play a 5 min match anyway and the 5 min match wont need to be played because the liar will be DQed

 

[SuSa]

Remove the DQ, have it as loss of the set then.

That way if you're in winners, you just lose and go onto losers.

Like you currently do.

EDIT:

Also note that time outs will be much less frequent with my clause.

This. It's more beneficial for me to take the stock off of you, than lose my momentum and risk losing in the tiebreaker. I'd be less inclined to want to time you out, this timeouts that result in a tiebreaker would be rarer.

Remember - this timeout clause only matters if we have the same amount of stocks. If I have a stock lead, we don't get taken to Sudden Death. I am declared the winner if I have more stocks.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Lol @ Damix. You don't understand anything we're talking about, do you? xD

 

[Damix91]

Sorry just trying to help, spell it out for me then.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, so we currently have...

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 automatically loses the set."

Changes in bold. Any more edits?

 

[SuSa]

What about just having the players SD in the Sudden death

Rewatching isn't the end of the world if they were going to play a 5 min match anyway and the 5 min match wont need to be played because the liar will be DQed

Replays can be 3 minutes long.
A timeout takes 8 minutes.

8 > 3

You can't even save the replay.

EDIT:

The Awesome Fandango Time-Out Clause of Epicness

"If a main set match goes to time, a 1 stock, 5 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 automatically loses the set."


Changes are in bold and red.

 

[napZzz]

this isn't even a problem as long as you let someone know with around 1 or 2 minutes less a time out might happen

watch a match like ally vs. m2k 1 from apex II, it was obvious as the match was closing up even in the last few minutes a time out would happen and if this rule were in place someone could've been called over to show it

I think it should be 5 minutes and a small LGL should be applied just to prevent a time out in the tie breaker from the time out...lool

 

[Grim Tuesday]

NO!
NO LGLS!

Oh, and I didn't mean to sound rude at all Damix. I just thought it was funny that we were having this massive conversation, and then you come in with like... 1 sentence xD

So... what happens if someone times out the tie-breaker game?

 

[Damix91]

Sorry, someone suggested changing the timer to 5 min and i didnt know replays couldnt be saved after sudden death.

 

[SuSa]

this isn't even a problem as long as you let someone know with around 1 or 2 minutes less a time out might happen

watch a match like ally vs. m2k 1 from apex II, it was obvious as the match was closing up even in the last few minutes a time out would happen and if this rule were in place someone could've been called over to show it

I think it should be 5 minutes and a small LGL should be applied just to prevent a time out in the tie breaker from the time out...lool

A LGL should never be enforced. It is not needed. A match should rarely go to time. If it does, you have 1 stock at a certain %.

Are you going to risk planking with 1 stock for 5 minutes if you risk SD'ing/getting spiked and losing the match?

I sure as **** wouldn't.

Currently you are rewarded a WIN if you manage to survive a minute or two by planking because you're ahead by 1% or more.

In this system, you have a TIEBREAKER at rounded %'s and you must survive FIVE WHOLE MINUTES without dying.

Practically nobody would want to time out the other player in this ruleset unless they are a stock ahead and will therefore win the set.

It enforces conflict until you actually have the lead.

Our criteria to win:
"Have more stocks than your opponent, whether this be removing all 3 stocks from your opponent - or being a stock ahead when time runs out."

Why?
WE RESPECT THE GAME RESULTS SCREEN.

We treat Sudden Death (due to it being random/lucky player wins) with TIEBREAKER MATCHES.

The issue is under the CURRENT ruleset+clause, the timeout is a DOUBLE STANDARD to tiebreakers. We award a win, when the game says its a tie (by our standards)

Why are we rewarding a TIE with a WIN?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I would if the other player was better then me, SuSa.

 

[Jack Kieser]

A LGL should never be enforced. It is not needed. A match should rarely go to time. If it does, you have 1 stock at a certain %.

Are you going to risk planking with 1 stock for 5 minutes if you risk SD'ing/getting spiked and losing the match?

I sure as **** wouldn't.

Currently you are rewarded a WIN if you manage to survive a minute or two by planking because you're ahead by 1% or more.

In this system, you have a TIEBREAKER at rounded %'s and you must survive FIVE WHOLE MINUTES without dying.

Practically nobody would want to time out the other player in this ruleset unless they are a stock ahead and will therefore win the set.

It enforces conflict until you actually have the lead.

Our criteria to win:
"Have more stocks than your opponent, whether this be removing all 3 stocks from your opponent - or being a stock ahead when time runs out."

Why?
WE RESPECT THE GAME RESULTS SCREEN.

We treat Sudden Death (due to it being random/lucky player wins) with TIEBREAKER MATCHES.

The issue is under the CURRENT ruleset+clause, the timeout is a DOUBLE STANDARD to tiebreakers. We award a win, when the game says its a tie (by our standards)

Why are we rewarding a TIE with a WIN?

It's still something that has to be clearly cited in the rule. Here's where it breaks down, because we can't just keep doing tiebreakers for eternity if each tiebreaker goes to time... so the only thing we really CAN do is just call it right then and there and declare which player is the winner. Which I can't see happening without resorting to the "lowest % wins" thing.

 

[napZzz]

what if the time out happens with lets say

mk at 0% and snake at 90% going over

mk can easily plank/time the snake out most likely still in the time breaker and win as long as he can plank with no LGL with inbetween air camping so it doesn't count as stalling

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Well, Snake was losing anyway, MK's win probably would have been the result of the last game had it not gone to time.

 

[SuSa]

Jack, I wasn't arguing that clause.

What I am saying is that timing out should be incredibly difficult. It's not a primary objective (I've already shown this) but we need to avoid an infinite loop of tiebreakers.

Therefore 1 stock, 5 minutes, with the current timeout clause enforced for tiebreakers only.

3 minutes - the winner starts, instantly goes and grabs the ledge. Planks 3 minutes. He could plank for 5 minutes, but it'd prove to be incredibly difficult.


As stated - timing out with the same amount of stocks, under this new clause is unwanted. You want to be declared the WINNER if time runs out. Therefore you will SEEK CONFLICT to try and remove 1 more stock off your opponent.

However, it may still go to time, so you go to the tiebreaker. Where the winner has a started advantage of % - and will therefore just go and plank for 3 minutes. I am suggesting 5 minutes. The timer on this is subjective - and I've proven going to time is a secondary objective. Therefore we shouldn't encourage it if possible. Also LGL's are stupid. In a tiebreaker, the winner will just camp for 3 minutes. If I'm up 80% that should be no problem.

 

[napZzz]

You're never too sure though. Comebacks happen, its not impossible, but if all mk has to do is hold one stock for the rest of that period and he can abuse a 0 LGL than it wont even matter, its just wasting even more time

he doesn't need to plank the whole match. You can comfortably air camp or just run and mix in planking to do what you need to do.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I highly doubt MK can plank for 5 minutes and not get hit by a single grenade or nikita.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Jack, I wasn't arguing that clause.

What I am saying is that timing out should be incredibly difficult. It's not a primary objective (I've already shown this) but we need to avoid an infinite loop of tiebreakers.

Therefore 1 stock, 5 minutes, with the current timeout clause enforced for tiebreakers only.

3 minutes - the winner starts, instantly goes and grabs the ledge. Planks 3 minutes. He could plank for 5 minutes, but it'd prove to be incredibly difficult.

Oh, ok. Sorry, I misunderstood. My bad. I agree with what you're saying, though.

 

[napZzz]

I highly doubt MK can plank for 5 minutes and not get hit by a single grenade or nikita.

it doesn't matter. His lead is large enough that he can take a few hits and it wont even matter. Besides, how can snake go for 5 minutes without getting hit a few times (more than that) either

without a LGL this can still just turn into a secondary timeout and it defeats the purpose of the tie breaker for a time out in the first place

 

[SuSa]

You're never too sure though. Comebacks happen, its not impossible, but if all mk has to do is hold one stock for the rest of that period and he can abuse a 0 LGL than it wont even matter, its just wasting even more time

he doesn't need to plank the whole match. You can comfortably air camp or just run and mix in planking to do what you need to do.

If I can just air camp, what's the point of the LGL?

LGL's have shown to be ineffective anyways. I aircamp for a minute or two, then I go and grab the ledge for the last 1-2 minutes.

It's extremely unrealistic for a 1 stock match to last 5 minutes. (Except Lain's IC's vs Shugo's Sonic. Hurhur)

 

[napZzz]

a minor one should still be in place, just to ensure this doesn't happen again

air camping doesn't work for a long time, or just regular running away but when you mix them all together...=/

anyones gonna do what they gotta do if the money is on the line with a rule like this

 

[SuSa]

The only planking that is a problem is MK.

MK is the top character in the game.

What would you rather risk with money on the line:

1) Remove your opponents stock and win the set because you're both at 2 stocks.
2) Go to a tiebreaker and try to plank/camp 5 minutes without messing up a single time because you'll die and lose the set.

EDIT:
Currently performing #2 with an 8 minute timer is **** impossible. You don't see MK's 3 stocking their opponents by camping for 8 minutes? Do you?

 

[Raziek]

Do you guys have a final version of this? I'd like to bring it up in the Back Room, since I can't see any logical problems with the idea.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yes, I do. It's posted in Brawl Tactical. Let me get it.

EDIT: Here you go.

The Fandango Time-Out Clause

"If a main set match goes to time, a 1 stock, 5 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 awarded a loss."

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Sounds fine to me. Do what you want with it Raziek.