Anime Weekend Atlanta Results - 9/28/13

[TheReflexWonder]

I just don't understand the point of a 2 stock 5 minute ruleset which just promotes timeouts and makes results more inconsistent. Just out of curiosity, how many timeouts happened this tourament because if I went to this tournament or any player using ICs, Falco, TL, Wario, DK, or DDD, the games would all go to time.

I've already explained why this is hardly any different from a time-out aspect; time per stock amounts to basically the same thing. I don't understand why this continues to be an argument against it when the comparison is being made to 3-stock, 8 minutes (rather than 3-stock, 10 minutes). If the issue is with time-outs, then the current system is just as bad/vulnerable to it.

A couple matches in Grand Finals went to time, but Wario vs. Meta Knight is one of the most inherently-slow matchups in the game at high levels of play and would likely go to time, anyway. There may have been a couple others, but with Wario, Meta Knight, Ice Climbers, Falco, and Diddy Kong being prevalent in Top 8 (DRN went MK but didn't win with him), I'd argue that the game would go just as slowly either way--This just cuts out three minutes of boring BS that would've ended up the same way, regardless.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

trying to change the game's ruleset because of outside logistical factors like tourney running time is ridiculous.

What are TOs supposed to take from that idea? "Cap your number of entrants and ignore the people who are letting you host your event somewhere or don't host events?" That isn't realistic in many cases. As always, if you don't like the way the rules of the event, you could always just not go.

TOs don't change rulesets because they're lazy; they do it so that they can fit into any time constraints while still making sure people come and have a good time. It's a delicate balance, and it's not to be taken lightly regardless of what camp you're in.

 

[IceArrow]

Why can't we just all use the same ruleset that is the most fair. Tournaments are not meant to be incredibly quick. 3 stock 8 minutes is also the best way to make sure gimps, SDs, or getting grabbed by Ice Climbers are not that important as they are with two or one stocks.

How I would play if its 2 stocks 6 minutes the match would only take 4 minutes because timeouts are a lot less plausible. In a 5 minute match I would always go for the timeout.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Tournaments wouldn't be incredibly quick as a result of two-stock, 5/6 minutes. They just wouldn't be incredibly slow. Again, hour-long Grand Finals should never be a thing, and close regular sets aren't much better in that respect.

More stocks/time also means that ICs have more chances to grab you, and it means you only have to separate/kill them once, so it amounts to the same thing in the end.

 

[IceArrow]

I main ICs, I usually get a grab from a surprise, after that they will make sure they won't get grabbed the same way. I'm a very Desynch oriented ICs so more stocks hurt my ICs which is why I go for timeouts once I get the lead with my desynchs. 2 stocks and 5 minutes would give me a huge advantage over players with higher skill than me.

Grand Finals are rarely an hour. At Massquerade 2 (My last tournament with SKTAR2 ruleset) the GFS lasted 10 minutes probably.

 

[NH Cody]

the ultimate purpose of a tournament is not to "have a jolly old time" or do "fun third events" or "be able to go out for dinner with your friends afterwards" or any of that nonsense. it's to see who's playing best on that particular day and improve. Yes, we all love doing captain falcon FFAs with items on Big Blue. but no one cares about that. the hardest tourneys where the best players were performing at their highest level, like some of the NY/NJ tourneys (apex) and california regionals (e4u) went until extremely late at night. 3 stocks 8 minutes is the optimal way to test brawl skill. anything other than that just to "save time" or "go to bed by a certain hour" would only make tourney results even less indicative of skill differences

 

[TheReflexWonder]

If people are getting surprised like that enough for it to be a regular occurrence at the beginning of your sets, then they're probably not that great to begin with.

In terms of Grand Finals here, it's common for Reflex vs. Kismet games to take 6-7 minutes, and it's even more common for sets to take ten games. I've been a part of it and I've seen it elsewhere. Maybe it's less of an issue for other populations, but that doesn't make it inherently better either way.

As far as the end result of tournaments is concerned, I'm still convinced that very little of worth is lost as a result of the potential change. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. As far as the bottom line of tournaments is concerned, a vast majority of players will never see themselves in a placing position, so improving and enjoying the experience despite that is a very real, important part of why they go to tournaments. Ignoring that will kill your scene.

 

[IceArrow]

So you are saying people I'm playing just shouldn't get grabbed by a Desynch? That makes no sense at all.

Also having shorter sets will hurt the players trying to improve.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

No, I'm saying that not already being reasonably ready for it until the shock value wises them up is essentially being bad at the matchup. Desynch mix-ups should be just as threatening on the last stock of the last game as they are in the beginning, or the player is just ignorant of what the opponent is capable of and should know how to play the matchup before he gets 0-to-deathed once.

 

[IceArrow]

At the end of sets they know what desynchs I will try to get grabs with. I camp because if I manage to get the lead then it will just lead to more grabs. The first stock in a set is the most important for a Desynching ICs. Also my Desynchs lead to frame traps or if I read correctly I get the grab.

 

[DeLux]

Ice Arrow that's wrong

By far and away the most important stock to any ice climber, whether desynced based or not, is the last one. That's the one that determines if you win or lose, not the first one.

 

[IceArrow]

Lol, well obviously but the 1st stock determines the momentum of the whole set.

 

[Player-1]

SKTAR 1 had a 3 stock 10 min tournament and we had enough time for doubles and all brawl too, SKTAR 2 had time for all brawl, Apex 2012 had time for all brawl/crews, all of my local tournaments have plenty of time for side events. All of these are 3 stock tournaments that have enough time for all of these side events, I'm not seeing any problems...

 

[hichez50]

SKTAR 1 had a 3 stock 10 min tournament and we had enough time for doubles and all brawl too, SKTAR 2 had time for all brawl, Apex 2012 had time for all brawl/crews, all of my local tournaments have plenty of time for side events. All of these are 3 stock tournaments that have enough time for all of these side events, I'm not seeing any problems...

Apex 2012 can be held as exception. I just don't see the problem with running 2 stock tournaments. Also there is nothing wrong with 8 minutes timers. Timing someone out should be a viable strategy. Timing someone out for 8 minutes isn't an easy feat.

the ultimate purpose of a tournament is not to "have a jolly old time" or do "fun third events" or "be able to go out for dinner with your friends afterwards" or any of that nonsense. it's to see who's playing best on that particular day and improve.

You assume that everyone wants this. Sure I try my best and try to improve, but for this past year is has been mostly just for fun. I would rather have fun third events. While results are defiantly inconclusive if a shorter stock count promoted community growth then I would say it is well worth it. In a nut shell I go to tournaments just to play the game with other people. The tournament part to me is a bonus.

I think we should try it. It could only benefit the community. We won't have to have speculate what 2 stocks will do to results as much in smash 4. Additionally, we will have fun play the game. Also it would help if the community would have a set of guidelines of what each rule-set tests. Worse case scenario everybody hates it and we never have to do it again.

If it doesn't happen now it should defiantly happen after Apex. After that I assume that people will literally be playing brawl just for fun, assuming that Smash 4 is marginally better than brawl.

 

[NH Cody]

1. you don't even know smash 4 will be competitive at all (btw yes I'm calling it right now that they purposely made it noncompetitive somehow) and 2. competitive brawl doesn't have to cater to casuals. if you want to "have fun" and "hang with other people" then that's just fine and dandy, but it's no reason to cut the stocks and timer short

 

[hichez50]

Quest it is too late for me, but competitive play to a certain extent should be casually inviting.

 

[Player-1]

What? How it can be held as an exception? It was the largest brawl tournament in history with like 10 other events being ran with round robin pools taking up even more time. That would be the tournament to not have time for side events like all brawl, but it wasn't. And what about all of the other brawl tournaments in the whole word that have time for the main event and all of its side events? Since when did not having enough side events become a problem? And whose to say that casuals want more side events over 3 stock tournaments?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Number of set-ups, space, and time to host the event matter a lot. Those events tend to start significantly earlier than ours, and they have multiple days to work with. We generally don't.

I know that there are an awful lot of friendlies that I don't end up having because the tournament has to be taken care of. People often ask about stuff like crew battles and when we're going to eat, and we've abandoned the idea multiple times as a result of people not wanting to get home at 3AM.

Perhaps it's because I go to tournaments for more than just the tournament bracket itself. I imagine a large majority of players are the same way...

 

[Player-1]

Sounds like the tournament just needs to he ran more efficiently since that's not much of a problem at the vast majority of the tournaments I've attended

 

[Sailor Princess Twenty-Two.]

Even with 2 stocks I prefer an 8 minute timer. The whole 2:40 seconds per stock doesn't seem realistic to me, most timeouts don't end with both people at kill percent, and its not rare for the first stock alone to take 4 minutes. With a shortened timer, even with 2 stocks if you get behind instead of "we'll **** I'm a stock down, but I have 5 minutes on the so I'll take it slow and careful to even it out" to "we'll **** I'm a stock down and there's only 2 minutes left on the clock, holy **** I have to make something happen or I'll get timed out."

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Well, then, maybe this game is just awful?

For all it's worth, I know the time-outs in games I was a part of at this tournament had us both at over 100% on our last stocks.

There's nothing wrong with the timer being a force to play with/against. It happens a fair bit of the time in Street Fighter and even sometimes in Marvel, too, with specific matchups.

 

[hichez50]

Sounds like the tournament just needs to he ran more efficiently since that's not much of a problem at the vast majority of the tournaments I've attended

NO CRAP!!!! This is coming from the T.O who always starts events and hour to an hour and a half late. I know your reasoning, but at some point smashers should 1. Learn how to wake up or 2. show up on time. And as said by more people than just myself the way you run tournaments doesn't promote either of those things.

Also on the ASL page M3T makes a good point. Ill post it here.

As ASL we have been the most standardized state in the country. We did what no one else was able to do and banned Metaknight. So why can't we be the leaders of another good ruleset idea? And if we resign ourselves to the mindset that Brawl is somehow already postmortem isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I too have gone through a phase where I felt that Brawl would somehow just go away in the wake of Smash 4. But I think that's a very ignorant viewpoint. Because there are no dead fighting games. There are still players and tournaments for two decades "dead" games and they didn't have half as much going for them as Brawl does when it comes to preexisting players base.

I think we've all run into players at tournaments or casual events who sees Brawl on the TV and asks if we have "The Gamecube one. That's the one I remember playing." The same thing WILL happen with Brawl and what are we going to tell them?.

One more thing to think about: If Smash 4 is going to move Brawl aside then Brawl will only ever get it's light as a side tournament. Then as a side tournament wouldn't the best ruleset be one that expedited the event?

 

[Sailor Princess Twenty-Two.]

I didn't watch all of grand finals, but I saw the last game, and when there was a minute left on the clock redhalberd had close to 0% and you had over 100, and the one approaching was redhalberd, until the timer hit 5 seconds he was committed to fighting. That's as close as you can get to an accidental time out. In sets where someone is starting the entire game with a timeout mindset the first stock is usually the longest. 4 minute first stocks are not uncommon in a true time out set. With a 5 minute timer that's basically the entire set, you might as well run the Juice ruleset.

Also traditional fighters operate on a different time out mechanic, basically each stock has a timer, and at the end of each stock both fighters begin with a completely fresh one. Except that's not the case in smash, and I agree that the clock putting pressure is part of the games mechanic, but 5 feels too short, and maybe 8 is too long, but isn't it a little early to be like 2 stock 5 minutes is the perfect ruleset? No offense but it was a con tournament with only top 8 running best of 3 sets, that's not a large or reliable sample pool.

I'm not against trying out new rulesets but ATM I don't see the significant difference between this offers that 1 stock 3m bo5 doesn't.

 

[IceArrow]

Reflex, players come to compete, not for more friendlies. And every tournament I have ever been to has had time for a 3rd event.

 

[Sailor Princess Twenty-Two.]

No, reflex is correct about the time being an issue, when going to a tournament means losing your entire Saturday for a local, people get bored and want to leave. People don't compete purely for the sake of competition, it's because it's also fun. Tournaments running on until 3 am aren't fun, Apex 2012 wasn't particularly enjoyable since there was nothing to do besides watch if you were no longer in the tournament AND it ran until like 4am everyday.

 

[Player-1]

NO CRAP!!!! This is coming from the T.O who always starts events and hour to an hour and a half late. I know your reasoning, but at some point smashers should 1. Learn how to wake up or 2. show up on time. And as said by more people than just myself the way you run tournaments doesn't promote either of those things.

What does that have to do with anything about efficiency when more often than not my tournaments are done by like 8 pm at the latest? Hell we could throw 3 more side events without any problems, but no one wants to when I ask them about it. I just don't get why you guys are trying to say we need 2 stock tournaments so we can have side events when that's not even a problem to begin with.

 

[IceArrow]

Just want to point out with all your talking about 3rd events this event didn't even have a 3rd event or even doubles.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Well, that's fine and dandy, but we don't necessarily have the same amount of people, space, or set-ups, so I don't see how it's comparable. I've been to more than my fair share of events that have lasted wayyy longer than anyone would consider reasonable.

 

[Sailor Princess Twenty-Two.]

Just want to point out with all your talking about 3rd events this event didn't even have a 3rd event or even doubles.

This had nothing to do with the ruleset and everything to do with it being a tournament run by convention staff made to fit within the convention schedule.

 

[IceArrow]

I really just care about the 5 minute ruleset. All it does is encourage camping and make sets last longer.

 

[Player-1]

Well, that's fine and dandy, but we don't necessarily have the same amount of people, space, or set-ups, so I don't see how it's comparable. I've been to more than my fair share of events that have lasted wayyy longer than anyone would consider reasonable.

Then the bar for tournament standards should be raised, not lower the bar for competitive play. There is absolutely zero reason we should make a game competitively inferior so we have time to play FFA coin battles. They are called side events for a reason, why are we cutting parts of the main events for side events?

 

[hichez50]

What does that have to do with anything about efficiency when more often than not my tournaments are done by like 8 pm at the latest? Hell we could throw 3 more side events without any problems, but no one wants to when I ask them about it. I just don't get why you guys are trying to say we need 2 stock tournaments so we can have side events when that's not even a problem to begin with.

It doesn't matter what time your tournaments end. Your argument post was about efficiency and people sitting around waiting for an hour for 2 people to show up isn't an efficient use of times.

I don't understand why you guys are so against trying it. I'm not saying we should adopt it. I just think it something that needs more consideration then it is actually given. If you want to postpone it until post-apex I totally understand. Like M3T soon brawl will be the side event and it probably should run faster rather than slower.

 

[Player-1]

I've told you multiple times that I purposely start my tournaments later than what I post on the thread to account for smash lazynesss, either wait my tournaments are going to start around the same time whether I actually post it like that or not so there's literally no harm in what I'm doing. And ya it does matter what time the tournament ends since that's part of efficiency and that's exactly what's been being argued the past 2 pages, are you not paying attention? 2 stock tournaments so tournaments end shorter for side events. And IDK what you're talking about "sitting around waiting for an hour", they're playing friendlies which is what I want at my tournaments, plenty of time for friendlies so people can improve.

2 stock tournaments have been considered in the past and the fact we're playing on 3 stock tournaments means it didn't catch on. If you want to go and run your own 2 stock tournaments then be my guest, but they won't be at my tournaments

 

[hichez50]

I've told you multiple times that I purposely start my tournaments later than what I post on the thread to account for smash lazynesss, either wait my tournaments are going to start around the same time whether I actually post it like that or not so there's literally no harm in what I'm doing. And ya it does matter what time the tournament ends since that's part of efficiency and that's exactly what's been being argued the past 2 pages, are you not paying attention? 2 stock tournaments so tournaments end shorter for side events. And IDK what you're talking about "sitting around waiting for an hour", they're playing friendlies which is what I want at my tournaments, plenty of time for friendlies so people can improve.

2 stock tournaments have been considered in the past and the fact we're playing on 3 stock tournaments means it didn't catch on. If you want to go and run your own 2 stock tournaments then be my guest, but they won't be at my tournaments

Yeah, cuz you are boring. Smh. I give up with this community.

 

[Player-1]

Lmao okay, we'll I think you're boring for wanting 2 stocks

 

[OverLade]

Scoop swag swag swerv

~Halzy