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.