An argument against deciding with % damage

[habaker91]

Most tourney's decide matches that end with the clock running out through what character has a higher precent... but this is extremely unfair to characters who are heavy, and can kill quickly.
Ganondorf's tend to kill opponents at much lower %, and die at higher %...so proportionately a gandondorf could be farther from death than a sonic, but the sonic would still win because the sonic has less damage.

Heavy characters have enough going against them as it is

 

[ParanoidDrone]

But having to work out the proportional "near-deathness" of each individual character matchup is more trouble than I, at least, am willing to go through. % damage is the simplest way to quantify how close a character is to death.

EDIT: Characters that specialize in gimp kills complicate matters further, as a gimp can happen at pretty much any %. So by your argument, such characters would automatically win in the event of a tie by the argument that they can just get them offstage somehow and spike/wop/whatever.

 

[habaker91]

sudden death?

 

[goodoldganon]

Matches rarely are decided by percent remaining.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Is there a way to force it outside of Special Brawl? The Bob-ombs won't fall either, since it's not "Sudden Death" Sudden Death, but just a mode where you start at 300%, so it sort of kills the point imo. If nothing else, "proper" SD kills stall and does things that may get me infracted if I post them here.

 

[DethSmasher]

sudden death is almost winner at random. and by your logic that gannon is screwed out by % damage< then in sudden death sonic would be sxrewed cause any of his attacks would still be difficult to ko gannon at 300%. so there is no really really 10% fair way, but its a game and you delt more damage than your opponent, so thats it.

 

[tedward2000]

The event of winner by %, is extremely rare. And being a tournament, the winner would be chosen with absolute fairness in mind.
theres no need to worry about this
-t2

 

[Cecilia K.]

OP, this argument is dumb. This is one of the negative effects of playing a heavy character.

 

[Kasai]

There are way too many things to consider when doing this and WAY too many "buts" when deciding on a win.

% of both characters - first, there would have to be exact weight for every character and in addition to this, a formula that would determine which one is "closer to death."

Kill power of both characters - think of a G&W...he can kill at low %s which would even more so throw off the "who's closer" argument.

Gimping would have to be considered...

I don't even want to get started with lucario =/


The way I see it, very few matches are decided by % because 8 minutes is a long time for a 3 stock match. If a heavy character is killing at that low of %'s that it makes a serious difference, there shouldn't be any time running out.

 

[Vyse]

OP, this argument is dumb. This is one of the negative effects of playing a heavy character.

This is quite true.

This situation is as Cecilia says, don't play a heavy character if you're afraid of losing by timeout damage.

However, this isn't a big enough factor for anybody to really consider since it rarely happens.

 

[Dpete]

Sounds good on paper, yet too many complications. Rack this up as an advantage to damage building characters, even if it is one on the lamest advantages to have

 

[PK-ow!]

I am enjoying how every other person here has put the words in habaker's mouth that the percent's should be normalized by character weight.
Except Cecilia K. But Cecilia K has made a question-begging "counterargument", so Cecilia K loses many points.

habaker was pointing it out one of the imbalances of the current system - not suggesting any way of fixing it.

I must agree though that a rescaling system would be infeasible, and that no other solution comes to mind. And I can take the word of more experienced people that "it rarely matters."

But rareness of mattering shouldn't be relevant. I mean a rarely violated moral law (e.g. torture) is no less sought upheld by upstanding people with the capacity to do so.

If we see this as an injustice, we can presume it would be acceptable only as the least evil of all conceivable alternatives - that it rarely matters in itself should not give us the high of thinking it unimportant.

 

[habaker91]

thanks dude...Indeed, i haven't a clue how to fix this

 

[Organous]

The thing about this is that, even with as many options as Smash Bros. has, literally any option you choose is going to either help one particular character over another or simply be impractical. I really wish that Brawl had kept a bonus point system ( I can't comment on Melee because I'm the furthest from that game's tournament scene). That would seemingly be a fair method of tie-breaking, because if you were scared of the clock running out on you, any character would have the answer of trying anything he could think of to bring the score up.

This from someone who has never been to a Smash tournament, only Soul Calibur.

 

[fatmactk]

Don't let it come down to a tie...

 

[Repulse X]

Yeah this rareellyyyy happens anyway...not that big of a deal

 

[0RLY]

Most of the time, if a match does end in a draw, the winner will be decided in another one stock game, instead of sudden death.

 

[meta master]

what if you're just a few % higher

 

[Yuna]

"This gimps my character/these characters, hence it has to be banned/changed".

Tournament rules are not written to maximize the amount of viable characters, only to prevent minimization of such.

 

[Rocann]

a tourney I would run would then just run a 1 stock match