This has bugged me for a while. Whenever I check a 3s tournament thread, I almost always read:
“In case of a tie/double k.o., in-game judgement will be used”
This rule is used almost all the time, and in legit tournaments. I’ve never understood why.
I think 3s players universally agree that the grading/point system in 3s is an extremely inaccurate and flawed way of determining a player’s performance and skill level. I’m sure Kuroda gets D’s and C’s all the time, especially using Akuma (a character who is much harder to get a good grade with than say, Ken or Makoto). This system really has nothing to do with how well the players perform in the match. So why do we use judgement to determine who wins a double K.O. in a tournament match? Neither player earned the win, yet one of them is still deemed the winner. To me that doesn’t make any fucking sense.
Isn’t this the same community that advocates the whole “play to win” concept, no matter how cheap, basic or repetitive a strategy might be? According to that concept, it shouldn’t matter if your performance is an E++, it should only matter whether your strategy is successful against your opponent. Thus, something like judgement (which is based on the game’s grading/point system) should never have any effect on the outcome of the match.
In the most balanced tournament rule sets I’ve seen, anytime an unintentional error, dispute or blunder occurs where the outcome of the match is interefered with… the game/event is scratched, and replayed. So when it comes to judgement, why don’t we just scratch that game and play another to determine the winner?