Pathways Smash XI September

[DeLux]

Right, but why waste our time testing 1 stock bo5? It won't be passed into rules and stuff since it's so inherently different.
That translates into only needing 3 stocks to win a set.

A closer comparative would be testing 2 stocks bo5

Like a current bo3 set, you need to win 6 stocks in order to win the set

 

[_Yes!_]

Watch the stream. The matches are so much more hype.

http://www.twitch.tv/8wayrun

 

[Saffy]

TBH I don't like the 1 stock ruleset.
It's dumb. You have once chance each game. You can not have a comeback at all.

It's seems fun but it seems like a bad option for a competitive game.

 

[_Yes!_]

Guess someone doesn't want DK to be a good character

 

[Saffy]

Guess someone doesn't want DK to be a good character

It would be dumb to pay $10 to play such short matches.

 

[MJG]

It would be dumb to pay $10 to play such short matches.

Th is

 

[_Yes!_]

No one does 10 dollar entry at pways though...I just meant trying it out for free ruhlacksh guys.

 

[Zantetsu]

Stop the Brawl talk, we need more MELEE HYPE!

 

[_Yes!_]

I play both! And 64! and Project M!

Btw can you bring that? I heard you were a member of the backroom.

 

[Zivilyn Bane]

I play both! And 64! and Project M!

Btw can you bring that? I heard you were a member of the backroom.

Being a member of the backroom doesn't give you access to project m.

 

[_Yes!_]

Being a member of the backroom doesn't give you access to project m.

I was under the impression that it does...

 

[Zantetsu]

I'm not even in any backroom, lol.

 

[_Yes!_]

I've been misled!

 

[Terral]

We've had it up on AllIsBrawl. No one seems to care. Roman even posted in it a while back, just so say that he forgot about it. I just forgot to put the link in the topic here, but I added it since you brought it up.
http://allisbrawl.com/ttournament.aspx?id=12575

 

[_Yes!_]

You guys could advertise it! idk many people around here otherwise I would.

 

[_Yes!_]

So I talked to my friend dmbrandon and he helped me out with why 1 stock would be more hype.

one stock allows:
1. MK not to get a stock lead barely, and plank you out.
2. ZSS to be viable, since she has her armor all game.
3. Snake to play more aggressively.
4. SQUIRTLE.
5. Falco, shiek, and MK have the chances to end games in one string, bringing mad hype.
And early gimps in 2 stock, make it impossible to win. While you would lose a game in my version, it's 3/5, and you don't have to try to make a miricle come back and fail, just to frustrate yourself.

I think it'd be worth trying as a free event anyway. I'm not trying to throw money around for a test lol. We could have the prize being the last slice of pizza or something.

Edit: this blog also has some points brought up

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=123614

doesn't hurt to try it anyway. Chibo's testing grounds wasn't that exciting (no offense if you namesearch this Chibo <3 )

 

[Zivilyn Bane]

Wouldn't work cause the last slice of pizza is MINE!!!

Does anybody know how to browse the full smashboards from a mobile device? Mobile smashboards doesn't let me subscribe to nee topics.

 

[Saffy]

I'd do it if it was for free, but overall the idea of doing a bracket with that exact ruleset isn't very competitive at all really. I mean you have one chance, and literally fighting ice climbers would be scary as ****. One grab and you are done, no second chances at it. I think that ruleset benefits Ice Climbers more than any character. Same with Falco's Cg's and snake overall. it's just not really fair overall.
The only good I see about it, is it encourages people to NOT sandbag and camp.l
I won't be at this so I don't care but yeah, to try it out would be fun. But to incorporate it into the Unity Ruleset or something would be dumb.

 

[_Yes!_]

The unity ruleset is a good idea, but the rules they're using are dumb, so it's not like I'm making it worse by presenting this idea.

It'd be like I said, 1 stock, 10 ledge grab limit, 3 minutes, best of 5 (first to 3 wins).
It's more balanced than what we currently have, and using a character that IC's ***** is a risk you take no matter how many stocks there are. Nana's stupid. It's not hard to gimp her if she's separated. And I would NOT use garbage stages like poke stadium 2

and like i said before, I'd just like to try it out. if people like it then great, if not, that's fine too. it doesn't hurt to try new stuff though

 

[Saffy]

The unity ruleset is a good idea, but the rules they're using are dumb, so it's not like I'm making it worse by presenting this idea.

It'd be like I said, 1 stock, 10 ledge grab limit, 3 minutes, best of 5 (first to 3 wins).
It's more balanced than what we currently have, and using a character that IC's ***** is a risk you take no matter how many stocks there are. Nana's stupid. It's not hard to gimp her if she's separated. And I would NOT use garbage stages like poke stadium 2

Well what if you only use low tiers? lol I use Donkey Kong, so that match up is ... YEAH. Pretty much death to me.

And we wouldn't be able to cp Brinstar OR Rainbow Cruise with that ruleset, which I would think that would be a good stage to counterpick Icies at .

I don't find it balanced at all but that's just my opinion.

Also PS2 *****. <3

Just ban metaknight in doubles, Ban RC/Brinstar with metaknight and keep a 30 ledge grab limit. PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

[_Yes!_]

Donkey Kong gets much better with only one stock, and part of playing a game competitively is being able to counter people. If you use characters that lose a matchup and don't try to compensate by countering that counter, that's your problem.

 

[DeLux]

The problem with one stock matches is that it over centralizes on the random factor of spawn points and stage mechanics

For example, by using this rulesset, you essentially have to remove rainbow cruise, frigate, and delfino from the counterpicks, and the pokemon stadiums, castle siege, and SV would then have to be counterpicks because of the random nature of spawning points and how powerful they become on a match.

It greatly would hamper diversity

 

[Saffy]

Donkey Kong gets much better with only one stock, and part of playing a game competitively is being able to counter people. If you use characters that lose a matchup and don't try to compensate by countering that counter, that's your problem.

Like I said who wants to pay money for 1 stock matches.
But what if your opponent goes mk? Who do you counterpick with? He goes atleast even with every match up? lol

 

[Max Ketchum]

One stock matches hampering diversity sounds hilariously wrong.

A lot of characters get better because of the state of mind they put you in, but the only ones who are objectively superior to their three stock selves are Zero Suit Samus and Pokemon Trainer. Any logic supporting how a character is nerfed or buffed can be applied exactly in reverse to cancel it out.

This ruleset is AWESOME. Please, trust me on it. We had a very successful exhibition bracket yesterday that ran it, and it's very worth experimenting with. It's awesome to play, exciting to watch, and it's something new! :D

 

[_Yes!_]

Rainbow and Brinstar were removed, because after three years they are seen as a burden, rather than counter picks. The rest of your post is completely absurd. Smashville's platform isn't going to decide a match more than one out of 500 times. Pokemon Stadium 2 is already removed. That stage is NONSENSE.

PS1 is fine. And Delfino? I fail to see where you get these points from, and I won't debate you. The fact is, you're not open minded. I've tried both rulesets, and with people who are capable of playing at the absolute highest level of play, and I can guarantee that 1 stock is the best way to go.

doesn't hurt to try FOR FREE laksfjdkl;ajs

 

[DeLux]

That post reflects that he doesn't know a whole lot about the stage mechanics lol
RC/Brinny/PS2 are unity stages. So a deviation to remove them outright hampers diversity.

One stock matches hampering diversity sounds hilariously wrong.

A lot of characters get better because of the state of mind they put you in, but the only ones who are objectively superior to their three stock selves are Zero Suit Samus and Pokemon Trainer. Any logic supporting how a character is nerfed or buffed can be applied exactly in reverse to cancel it out.

This ruleset is AWESOME. Please, trust me on it. We had a very successful exhibition bracket yesterday that ran it, and it's very worth experimenting with. It's awesome to play, exciting to watch, and it's something new! :D

I didn't say anything about character diversity being hampered. It would definitely promote the diversity of characters. But it would come at the expense of adding additional random factors in terms of stage selection.

Unless there's some specific reasoning that mitigates the addition of the random factors, I don't see it as much of an improvement over the status quo, sorry

 

[_Yes!_]

Doesn't mean you have to lord over a 13 man local monthly dude. Use your rules for your events. Let diverging opinions have a chance to express themselves.

 

[Max Ketchum]

Are you really trying to say that spawn points are game-altering random factors? Seriously?

 

[_Yes!_]

I've never lost a stock because I spawned in a bad position in the 3 years that I've played this game...That argument is really ridiculous Lux.

 

[DeLux]

On one stock, especially in a situation such as in doubles play, spawn points would definitely be game altering random factors.


Yes, I'm not being lord and tyrant over anything. The decision is up to the TO. But I find it curious that you think that you expressing your opinion on the subject is great, and if I disagree with your stance you see it as me trying to kill opinions. That's overwhelmingly hypocritical and you are better than that.

 

[Max Ketchum]

Doubles is not going to become one stock anytime soon.

 

[DeLux]

What would make the win criteria for doubles need to be different than the win critieria in singles if the rulesset doesn't have major flaws?

 

[_Yes!_]

On one stock, especially in a situation such as in doubles play, spawn points would definitely be game altering random factors.


Yes, I'm not being lord and tyrant over anything. The decision is up to the TO. But I find it curious that you think that you expressing your opinion on the subject is great, and if I disagree with your stance you see it as me trying to kill opinions. That's overwhelmingly hypocritical and you are better than that.

The fact that you denounced my proposal as irrelevant was a pretty disrespectful slap in the face, to be quite honest, and so I responded in kind.

Actually, if I came, I had a few ideas that would probably be more relevant than that one to try

That whole BBR RC nonsense

 

[Max Ketchum]

One stock in doubles removes stock sharing, which in turn removes a lot of depth from doubles.

 

[DeLux]

The fact that you denounced my proposal as irrelevant was a pretty disrespectful slap in the face, to be quite honest, and so I responded in kind.

I don't see where I posted that it was irrelevant. I actually went out of way to type my post to exclude that word. I said "more relevant" in the context the BBR RC experimental rulesset system has specific suggested things they would like to see data on that we might move the rulesset towards.

1 stock games unfortunately doesn't happen to be one of them (primarily for the random factors and diversity dampening it creates) that is seriously being considered. The TO is more than free to use the rule. We'd probably undoubtedly have a great time. But it wouldn't really factor into the grand scheme of things. Where if we used one of the suggested one's, you'd be damn sure I'd make sure in the committee what we did/saw mattered since I have access to that platform to make it happen. For the one stock rulesset, even I don't have the sway atm to make a difference in that regard, even if I supported it.

I suggest two stocks because it isn't as much a deviation from the status quo and it mitigates those random factors. From a statistical standpoint (according to Ran, although I haven't been able to confirm the validity of his data), most (read 90%) matches at high levels of play are decided by stock two. By stock 1, he gave me a deviation of around 70%, which is significantly less conclusive.

 

[Saffy]

**** 1 stock.

Ban metaknight.

 

[Zantetsu]

So... how about that Melee, guys?

 

[_Yes!_]

Melee is awesome we should run singles/doubles twice for that.

No offense lux, but I don't really agree with much of the unity ruleset.

 

[DeLux]

Even as a committee member, I don't agree with a lot of it either. Which is why when we test things, it's important we contribute towards things that can actually change. I can throw my rulesset theory at the rest of the committee to the end of time, but without proper testing to back it, it means nothing.

If you give me the data I need, I'll argue whatever agenda is wanted by the public to the end. The one stock rulesset doesn't help me help you. Two stocks might be able to, and that's a huge emphasis on the word might.

 

[_Yes!_]

We'll see what happens then. Until then, Linkz do you have aim or facebook? :D