You have it correct, sir.
And yep, it is pretty stupid and with some of the stuff in Brawl, I wouldn’t be surprized if it was intentional.
…Or just up your Bowser game. 
nah. what I meant is that it’s not important IMO. have 1P slot all day long if you want, even if I’m Bowser too
Oh my jesus you are retarded. When has this thread EVER been about bigger/smaller hitframes on ANYTHING?
Did you read ANY of this?
In pretty much any capcom game I can remember, players had the opportunity to switch sides between matches for these very reasons of player side inequalities. I don’t see why this is any different.
Nobody is talking about banning bowsercide, we’re talking about the ability for a player to switch controller ports. Otherwise, if you’re playing bowser, you will make sure to sit down asap and grab controller port #1 to get every advantage you can in your match (like the gimpyfish videos I linked earlier). Whether or not you use this advantage to bowsercide win is irrevelant, it’s the fact that you HAVE this advantage for an entire match that is unfair.
I’d say just give the loser an opportunity to switch controller ports, and call it a day. In the case of wireless remotes, it’s easier to have the non wireless remote just unplug and go into a higher port to get the same end result, but its not impossible to just remove batteries and re-sync
yours sounds more rational. it may be unfair, but it’s just such a small difference IMO that I’m not sure if it worth governing. personally if it were me, I’d let any Bowser who played me get slot 1 100% of the time, and if I were the Bowser I’d take 2P 100% of the time.
Tripping and port priority? What were they thinking ; - ;
seriously. I bet there’s gonna be pro matches that are lost sheerly because of one very bad trip.
I had this happen to me actually in Bowser mirror matches with someone online and I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why everytime I bowsercided it went to sudden death but every time he did it, he would win.
It’s a really stupid inconsistency like with Duck or whatever in KOFXI being better on the 2P side for no reason.
Controller port switching for the loser seems to be the only way to go, if requested.
wow… nintendo pulled a shiesty one this time around eh?
I think a better solution would be for the TO to decide if doing a Bowsercide when both players are on their last stock should result in sudden death (or whatever system is used to resolve ties, such as a 1-stock playoff) or the person who initiated the suicide-kill winning. This rule should apply to all suicide kills as well, such as Ganoncides and Kirbycides.
On the other hand, having the rule be first-come-first-served could be a good thing from a TO standpoint. I would be overjoyed to see people rushing to their station to get there first when their match is called rather than having to search for players.
I can’t believe you guys think that port priority is intentional… This is obv. a small flaw in the way they coded the game, something I can already easily see in my head (since I’m already a programmer). They probably didn’t discover this issue because they were testing more for smoothness and FUN.
Here’s how I picture it: At every “frame” the players are checked in a specific order to see if they are “off the screen” and KO’d. This order is apparently 4th,3rd,2nd,1st (simple loop). They also have it in their code that when a character is KO’d, everything they are holding is KO’d. Usually this is items, but also handles any PLAYERS that are also in their hands.
In the situation of Bowserside, both players are going to “die” in the same frame. But when Bowser is in 1st, he’s checked LAST. Since the other player is always below him, they will die first and he takes the win instantly. But when Bowser is 2nd vs. 1st, the 2nd player “dies” before the first player. But the coding that KO’s whatever is in their hands kills 1st WITH 2nd, resulting in sudden death.
I can easily see how this was missed. As for the solution, I suggest that Bowser always gets the win, and that he should just get to stylishly kill the other guy in SD. In Melee, you could do the “Bowserside” tactic with Kirby’s back throw (D@mn you Brian!) and Kirby would ALWAYS win the tiebreaker, regardless of port slot. I say Bowser carries on the suicidal tradition.
Oh really?
I can’t find where exactly right now, but they mentioned specifically on the smashbros.com dojo site that this was the way things are. If the developers were acutely aware of it and left it as is, even announcing it to the fans on the dojo, I think its very very very safe to say that it is intentional.
I’m saying that they might NOT have been aware of this, thus unintentional. You may program something a specific way, but you may not know all of the intended side effects when in an interactive environment in video games (why do you think there’s so much testing?).
I’m just explaining what I think is going behind the curtain and why they could have easily missed it in their testing. Heck, I bet a majority of their testing was in timed points matches instead of stock, where the issue of Bowserside never really takes place…
Chippy
interesting theory. not sure if it explains it right though (ex. if it checks for 1P last, then wouldn’t 1P win all the time regardless of who did it?) but that seems to be in the ballpark
ChipmunkDJE: I believe they actually just codes it so the person closest to P1 has priority. This was true in Melee as well, as some hits done at the same time, instead of clanking, would always go to P1. It seems they just resolved priority issues by giving each port an assigned priority, with 1 being the highest, 4 lowest. It doesn’t come into play much and is usually barely noticable, except for Bowsercide of course.
Brahma: I don’t remember this is Melee, as my friend would repeatedly “Kirbyside” me and always win…
I’m just defending Nintendo in that it probably wasn’t fully intentional, just something they never would have thought about fully.
omfg: It checks 1st last, but 1st is in the hands of 2nd-4th when they die, so it kills 1st player at the same time. Covered in the line “They also have it in their code that when a character is KO’d, everything they are holding is KO’d. Usually this is items, but also handles any PLAYERS that are also in their hands.” With the way programming works, I’m not surprised that it would be handled in this way.
Chippy
Chip: It didn’t affect suicide priority in Melee (i.e. who dies first, which was consistent in Melee), only attack priority.
Just want to chip in.
The topic at hand isn’t why it happens, how it happens, or how much it affects the game.
The topic at hand is how to make it fair, right?
So why not simply always give the win to the player who initiated the bowsercide, even if it was P2 and sudden death begins? The tourney could just ignore the sudden death and assign a win to the bowser. What’s wrong with that solution anyway?
(I believe Keits already suggested that)
there are lots of side dependant inconsistancies in other fighters, not to mention player side dependancy.
this is nothing new, loser can switch sides, done.
Whoever init Bowserside should win. It’s just a “flaw” that they go to sudden death. At least, that’s where I place my vote.
Chippy