What if matches were 3 stocks?

[_lemons]

SYAU - why do job applications tend to have questionnaires that repeat the same question and give what if scenarios that are likely to not happen? Isn't that dumb?

between this and linking The Lottery (rofl), you're in the running for king of awful analogies.

 

[Purple]

between this and linking The Lottery (rofl), you're in the running for king of awful analogies.

Not really. Every question has a reason to be asked. Whether or not the question has been asked before doesn't matter, considering it should give the same answer. If I ask a question in the debate, then ask it again, however I get a different answer each time, there is a problem correct?

And the lottery made sense, in both situations (4 stock and the lottery) they did something merely because it's been done for a long time, with no viable reason as to why they should continue except tradition.

 

[_lemons]

Not really. Every question has a reason to be asked. Whether or not the question has been asked before doesn't matter, considering it should give the same answer. If I ask a question in the debate, then ask it again, however I get a different answer each time, there is a problem correct?

And the lottery made sense, in both situations (4 stock and the lottery) they did something merely because it's been done for a long time, with no viable reason as to why they should continue except tradition.

Except in one instance the thing they do is obviously very awful, and in the other situation there's no reason to change it... There's no viable reason to change from 4 stocks. Whether or not there was a viable reason to go to 4 stocks in the first place is a different question, but now that we're here, there's no reason to change it.

 

[Purple]

Actually, digging deeper into the story (apparently) they did it make sure their crops grow greatly throughout the seasons of that year. Just like we do 4 stocks because it's the perfect blend and combos like the wombo combo and comebacks like m2k vs shiz would've never happened. But for both scenarios, both reasons have no relevance to the rewards that were previous mentioned.

I will agree that the reason we are at four stocks really isn't important at all, i've give you that point. However, think if we had all tournaments with three stock for melee instead of four, that shortens down set times and makes the game feel more fast paced correct? With a shorter time period (since eight minutes isn't necessary for three stock), the idea of camping doesn't feel so bad and it can potentially change the validity of a character (for ex. samus). There are many reasons why a slight drop in stock could potentially help.

However, these reasons aren't guaranteed, and I can't say that it will change the metagame (fox will still be fox, falco will still be falco, etc.), plus I never said that we NEED to change to change to 3 stock anyways, it's just a good thing to discuss why would we potentially do it.

tl;dr - if you get the idea of what i'm trying to say, you have no need to insult.

 

[_lemons]

Actually, digging deeper into the story (apparently) they did it make sure their crops grow greatly throughout the seasons of that year. Just like we do 4 stocks because it's the perfect blend and combos like the wombo combo and comebacks like m2k vs shiz would've never happened. But for both scenarios, both reasons have no relevance to the rewards that were previous mentioned.

I will agree that the reason we are at four stocks really isn't important at all, i've give you that point. However, think if we had all tournaments with three stock for melee instead of four, that shortens down set times and makes the game feel more fast paced correct? With a shorter time period (since eight minutes isn't necessary for three stock), the idea of camping doesn't feel so bad and it can potentially change the validity of a character (for ex. samus). There are many reasons why a slight drop in stock could potentially help.

However, these reasons aren't guaranteed, and I can't say that it will change the metagame (fox will still be fox, falco will still be falco, etc.), plus I never said that we NEED to change to change to 3 stock anyways, it's just a good thing to discuss why would we potentially do it.

tl;dr - if you get the idea of what i'm trying to say, you have no need to insult.

I see your point, but I don't think 1 less stock would make any noticeable (or at least any dramatic) changes in the "metagame". And I have no problem with the discussion, I think it's a novel idea, but The Lottery? Really?

 

[Purple]

lol, I just re-read the story recently so I thought i'd use it in the discussion XD.

 

[Ryzol_]

was my post too long

cuz it looks like no one read it

It took me an hour and a half to write that you jerks

I read it. I thought it was a good post with the type of analysis I was hoping for.

Here's the TLDR version:

The stock count controls round length. Since we play in sets under time constraints, the round length controls how many times large leads are reset. Whether the first match is a JV5 or a close match, the score is still 1-0.

This has serious implications. The rules of the tournament are affecting the gravity of any lead. As a TO, you control the degree of slippery slope in the game!

 

[Purple]

so signia, how much would you want in your tournaments?

 

[THeDarKnesS]

SYAU - why do job applications tend to have questionnaires that repeat the same question and give what if scenarios that are likely to not happen? Isn't that dumb?

No, I'm sure they have their reasons. I've heard that they sometimes are used to make sure that the reader is paying attention.

They don't typically do not ask the exact same question anyway. The situation is different. I feel those minor differences may be important.

 

[Purple]

Those minor differences are to see not if the person is paying attention, but to see if the person is consistent. I didn't ask the exact same question each time, I asked it with small changes to see how he felt about each point of anti-coaching.

 

[THeDarKnesS]

Lol, you changed your look. Nice!

 

[Purple]

Getting called a girl is one the most annoying things to have repeated.

 

[Signia]

so signia, how much would you want in your tournaments?

I think we should aim for match length similar to matches in other fighting game tourneys. It's been a while since I've played in a tournament other than smash, but a set in smash seems to take longer than one for other games. However, smash is very different, obviously, but in some important but not so obvious ways that are relevant to finding proper match length.

In smash it's easy to kill yourself. The game itself is very unpredictable (which is bad design) until you get a very deep understanding of the game (because every piece of code is predictable when you fully understand it), and in order really understand it, you need to dig pretty deep, or read a lot of Magus420 posts. A lot of events feel random, and success or failure may feel accidental. Many players might actually like that about this game, but those of us who are truly competitive and like the feeling of defeating an opponent and proving superior will be disillusioned with wins or losses where the loser could not possibly be prepared for what made them lose. Longer sets would make them happen more often, and therefore feel less random, and the match would feel less affected by them, as there is time to make up for it.

On top that, there are so many options available at any given time that possible gimmicks, which are strategies that will work once, but never again (or not for long) against a smart player, are so numerous that they are impossible to prepare for without a lot experience, having seen something similar. That's not such a bad thing though -- there's something to be said for those who are a good at forcing their opponents into unfamiliar situations and for those who can hang in any corner case. The problem is that match length affects the ability to rely on gimmicks, as well as the opponent's experience. How much should "cheap tricks" rule the metagame? It's decided by the match length.

So yeah, telling you what you already all know, that longer matches are better The model other communities use for 2 out of 3 is fine, and having 4 stocks makes the set long enough to make Melee's doses of wtf feel more consistent and less of an impact on the outcome.

Messing with the stock amount wouldn't be so bad though, as long as you adjusted the number of games (I incorrectly called them "rounds" last post) played so that the match length stays the same. Less stocks allows for more stage changes, more beginning stocks, and more character changes. More stocks gives you more new stock invincible stocks. Other changes I already discussed.

tldr;
4 Stocks is fine

 

[Purple]

I read this

I think we should aim for match length similar to matches in other fighting game tourneys.

Then I read this

4 Stocks is fine

Those two points don't match lol.

 

[CableCho57]

Mitchell wouldn't be the best player in the world

 

[CloneHat]

@Signia:

What about the game is unpredictable? I don't see anything that really stands out.

 

[stabbedbyanipple]

I read this



Then I read this



Those two points don't match lol.

Did you even finish the first paragraph?

 

[Purple]

Did you even finish the first paragraph?

lol, I told you exactly what I read, obviously I didn't read the whole thing