Meta Australian Smash 4 General Ruleset Discussion

[Attila_]

I liked it better when we were going in circles over custom moves.

I think the consensus was to try both.

 

[Luco]

I don't understand what gameplay is sacrificed at all. The 'adapting' is nonsense anyway, as a 2 stock bo3 and a 1 stock bo5 have virtually the same play time but with the opportunity to fix your mistakes and implement changes from an even position; this seems to promote competition imo. In a bo3, you have a much smaller window to change things up.

I did make what I at least thought was a pretty valid response to this, but I guess people really don't read my posts ahaha, they're probably too long or something, I thought it was pretty good ahah @.@

 

[Shaya]

Luco, the issue with what you write is that you fill in the gaps with so much superfluousness that it's a strain to actually understand what your point actually is at all while it's being read, making it ultimately boring/a chore and easy to give up on.

You wouldn't write an essay like this in school. My high school English teacher would eviscerate me for not having cohesion, structure nor a thesis presented early on or in conclusion. You're looking for an emotion or rhetoric to connect with your audience ("like farming") but aren't successful in giving us any reason to tag along in the first place.

 

[Splice]

Luco, the issue with what you write is that you fill in the gaps with so much superfluousness that it's a strain to actually understand what your point actually is at all while it's being read, making it ultimately boring/a chore and easy to give up on.

You wouldn't write an essay like this in school. My high school English teacher would eviscerate me for not having cohesion, structure nor a thesis presented early on or in conclusion. You're looking for an emotion or rhetoric to connect with your audience ("like farming") but aren't successful in giving us any reason to tag along in the first place.

Yeah, you gotta spice it up somehow. Even if you can't do it academically you could just toss in a few words that will turn into asterisks, for example "fist-****ing" then a couple of people will read your stuff, Try it!

@Attila; sounds like having both is gonna be the strategy here for a while, for a lot of issues (custom moves or none, this stage or that stage, one stock or two stock). We need to reach consensus and see how we feel about these things in practice, not in theory. I was never against a one stock tournament; we need to do all the experimenting upfront. It does look very bad on paper, nobody wants it, and I think it will be inferior, but I'm also happy to be proven wrong if a large portion of us can see merit in one stock after playing in it. But the theory-work that you've provided around one stock is subpar so far and doesn't justify it.
Unless this experimental one-stock tourney convinces enough people to merit trying it again, there isn't much reason to discuss it further or hold on to the idea and I hope you realize that.
_______________________________________________________

How are we going to hold all these experiment tournies? I'd like to volunteer the idea of hosting 8 man invitationals at my place weekly throughout december trialing different ruleset combinations; custom moves one stock, custom moves two stock, no custom moves one stock, no custm moves two stock, etc.

Note that it looks like it'll be easy to find at least 5 stages from what I've seen on the Wii-U version so hopefully that'll be worked out pretty fast and painlessly.

 

[Luco]

Right, though I see it as trying to differentiate what i'm saying so my post doesn't come across quite so bluntly as "Camping was nerfed, players fight more and are rewarded more for close-quarters fighting and thus the stock lead isn't as big a deal as it otherwise would be."

Which I know everyone's going to say is much better; but actually trying to support it is hard without resorting to a style of writing that tries to pinpoint exactly what i'm thinking without much care for how others see it. And I know that's not the purpose of writing an argument; it's simply hard not to or to leave myself open.

I'm so sick of being told "no it's not" in an argument that I supplement it with whatever I can use. So something as basic as the above statement doesn't get me anywhere and my thought processes are so scattered it's difficult to write succinctly.

I'll try to, though. Would anyone care if I wrote the post again? Editing sucks because very few people read it if it's on a separate page and saying "I edited the post" feels just as silly.

And i think it's a worthy point to write about.

 

[Splice]

Right, though I see it as trying to differentiate what i'm saying so my post doesn't come across quite so bluntly as "Camping was nerfed, players fight more and are rewarded more for close-quarters fighting and thus the stock lead isn't as big a deal as it otherwise would be."

Which I know everyone's going to say is much better; but actually trying to support it is hard without resorting to a style of writing that tries to pinpoint exactly what i'm thinking without much care for how others see it. And I know that's not the purpose of writing an argument; it's simply hard not to or to leave myself open.

I'm so sick of being told "no it's not" in an argument that I supplement it with whatever I can use. So something as basic as the above statement doesn't get me anywhere and my thought processes are so scattered it's difficult to write succinctly.

But you're not supporting it; you're hiding what you're saying in layers of fluff, and no-one wants to peel the onion so that's why people aren't saying "no it's not" anymore.

 

[Luco]

But you're not supporting it; you're hiding what you're saying in layers of fluff, and no-one wants to peel the onion so that's why people aren't saying "no it's not" anymore.

It's also my actual thought processes being... kinda tangental at best.

And i'd like to point out that i'm trying to be more specific in what I say, ironically, which is getting me nowhere. Case in point - "I think even after everyone stopped crying about how camping was "oh so very nerfed", there was a general acceptance that camping as a means to circumvent allowing the potential 'better player' to have a chance at killing you was significantly less of an issue this time around."

It wasn't exactly fluff because I could have been talking about camping in general and I wanted to address the issue that it was used for maintaining a lead. This sentence could have been rewritten: "I think even after everyone stopped crying about how "crazy nerfed" camping was, there was a general acceptance that you couldn't use it to effectively maintain a lead anymore."

 

[dreadtech]

Honestly as a TO if there ever was a time to throw rulesets out the window and try new ones now is the time, no one will endlessly jibber jabber as long as we say 'this is to test the boundaries and see where this ruleset takes us"

Hell if every ruleset we produce under the sun still comes up with V as the winner then it quashes alot of debate in terms of custom moves.

 

[Invisi]

I don't understand what gameplay is sacrificed at all. The 'adapting' is nonsense anyway, as a 2 stock bo3 and a 1 stock bo5 have virtually the same play time but with the opportunity to fix your mistakes and implement changes from an even position; this seems to promote competition imo. In a bo3, you have a much smaller window to change things up.

Personally, I'm going to echo what Shaya has said about 2 stock just feeling right. It's all to do with pacing, not just in game but a balance of in game vs between game. I feel as though 1 stock really does not give you enough time to get into the game, it's just over way too quickly. Heck, you spend more time in character selection than you do actually playing! That's no fun for anyone.

Sure, the actual gameplay time of a 1 stock Bo5 vs a 2 stock Bo3 is pretty much the same, but 1 stock has so much more filler in between. For you, this may be a chance to re-evaluate the situation and come back to a fresh playing field, but personally I find that to be far from the case. Character selection is a completely different state of mind to actually being in the game, and being forced to switch rapidly between the two makes it much harder to focus on actually playing the game.

This seems to be the point that Jamwa is trying to convey, and I'm sure that a number of other people who haven't tried to articulate their views yet would agree with this.

 

[Attila_]

@ Splice : I think lots of events are needed. Thanks for putting your hand up. We gotta get people together and play a lot of games.

@ Luco : the font color makes it hard to read on my phone in the sun. Full srs.

@ Invisi : I don't find a Pit trying to time me out fun, so I guess we're just into different things then.

 

[Luco]

firstly, @ Attila_ : Ahh, soz buddy. Check this out when you get into better conditions. =)

Okay so my rewritten argument:

The main changes to smash 4's general mechanics have created a shift in our meta that doesn't revolve around camping in the same way as Brawl. As such I propose that stock leads are less effective than they once were and thus a multi-stock game wouldn't necessarily be of detriment to our scene. (it's short but works, calm the heck down i'm new at doing this kind of thing outside of relating it to analysis of texts! SCREW YOU ;_; )

So as time passed over the first few weeks, people stopped crying about all the 'camping nerfs' they'd made to the game. Still, though, it was accepted that camping couldn't be used to maintain a stock lead as heavily as before. This has been seen through the decrease in viability of characters whose camping game is much slower (, ), or who have less things to camp with ( mostly) or who have just been nerfed out of existence ( :'( ). Even newer characters like have polarising match-ups and can't really be happy campers versus most of the cast who now have counters, reflectors and absorption.

Due to this, our meta is shifting towards a closer, more interactive game where most of the fighting is done up close. This kind of game forces players to make decisions that actually make a difference and is at the heart of this game's depth - something Brawl had but couldn't fully achieve due to greater imbalance amongst the cast and things like random tripping that made actually fighting physically stupid at times. This kind of playing field achieves a greater semblance of balance which i don't think anyone's willing to argue with - already our tiers are being called much closer than they ever were in previous games. Anyway, as part of this even playing field, playing defensively is a part of the game that any and every fighting game has elements of. If you're at high percents you naturally go for being safer whilst attempting to chip in damage. A stock lead is certainly a big deal in smash - but not like I feel people like PCG are making it out to be. You have to remember that having a stock/life lead in ANY game, especially fighters, is big. This is because taking a stock off someone is a reward and they now have to make up the extra effort if they want to stay on par.

This could be compared to a long-distance running race. Two kids are vying for 1st position and one kid gets a lead on the other. He's now a comfortable distance ahead and the other kid has to push himself if he wants to stay in the running to win the race. That doesn't mean that 'to make it more even' you make all races 50m sprints; because that completely changes the game anyway, benefiting sprinters and penalising short distance runners.

That analogy brings me to another main point - that no matter how you change the ruleset you also change the characters it benefits and disadvantages. Having multi-stock smash doesn't invalidate most of the cast and a 2-stock ruleset allows for many characters to gain the most of their advantages whilst not severely limiting many characters (if any). A game with a decent set of stocks like this still allows for comebacks if you really want them; it's just they also give a good field on which the better player can maintain a lead. I feel it's a rather strong middle road.

Attila, I think your position comes from a place where you want these kinds of upsets and comebacks to be more possible; and I see the merit in that claim and agree that it could potentially add diversity to who's getting results in our tournaments. However to be totally honest, I don't think it's needed - smash 4 feels balanced enough so that no one character or player should be winning all the time - basically, a one stock ruleset is more appropriate for a game where unbalance severely affects results in a way that can't be mitigated by banning characters. Unless smash 4 turns out to have some horrific, unbalancing strategies, I doubt we will need the one stock ruleset in the same way it was argued we needed it in Brawl.

Yet in the end I conclude that whilst I certainly feel 2 stock is a more competitively viable option, I would be perfectly willing to have 1-stock trialed and would enjoy it. I don't think this part of our ruleset needs to be so strictly defined just yet while we're figuring out the game. I understand the need for an early ruleset but we don't need to be cut-throat on what we decide just yet. Our player base is only getting stronger with the release of a smash 4 marketed partially towards competitive gamers and I think you're under-estimating our ability to find what will be best for the game. Trust me, we can take a bit of a breather in between release of the games/just after the release of the wii U version if we need to.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OH RIGHT! Tl;dr - smash 4 is a vastly different game from Brawl and its mechanics favour a more even playstyle and meta game. As such our ruleset should be based more on trying to cater to as many characters as possible and giving them viability ( and for instance) rather than a stock lead which is an element contained in many fighters.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And by the way I did enjoy Brawl's one-stock. I actually really did. That's why i'm fine with trying out one stock here too. I'll come back down to melbourne and upset against ALL the top players, ALL OF THEM!

And in case you still got bored,

****ing **** off you ****ing ****s!

See I never swear! Don't tell anyone I actually typed out the asterisks instead of letting the words get censored.

EDIT: I put WAYYYYYYY too much effort into that. Gosh darn it guys

 

[Attila_]

I think smash 4 can be campier than brawl, definitely. Not even olimsr can live up to villager's camp game.

I think aerial camping is harder due to the airdodge nerf, but it still a thing. Chasing certain characters in the air is still impossible. #diddykong

I also think the rolling buff helps campers too, since escapes are made harder to punish, espc when mixed in with projectiles.

That all being said, most "top tiers" at this point seem to be hype offense characters, so maybe I'm wrong here. But vertical spacing definitely seems as potent and unpunishable as ever.

 

[Luco]

I think smash 4 can be campier than brawl, definitely. Not even olimsr can live up to villager's camp game.

I think aerial camping is harder due to the airdodge nerf, but it still a thing. Chasing certain characters in the air is still impossible. #diddykong

I also think the rolling buff helps campers too, since escapes are made harder to punish, espc when mixed in with projectiles.

That all being said, most "top tiers" at this point seem to be hype offense characters, so maybe I'm wrong here. But vertical spacing definitely seems as potent and unpunishable as ever.

Villager's camp game is over-rated, I think. I think the thing that makes it for him is his custom down special Timber Counter, but aside from that there's many characters who can, as I mentioned, reflect or negate or counter those projectiles.

I actually think the rolling buff is more for more options in the close up game ironically. It means you can actually roll away/behind/around some characters and not be immediately countered by a Marth Fsmash to the face. That could go both ways.

 

[Venks]

I thought the general consensus for custom moves was that we'll do what ever Apex ends up doing and experiment with rulesets before that time?

And with that being the case will we be doing the same with stock? Because all of the Clash Tournament matches are three-stock. I personally feel two-stock is just perfect, but I wouldn't be surprised to see three stock at bigger tournaments.
Though if we're lucky we might get 2-stock thanks to For Glory and how it is what most players are now used to.

I think smash 4 can be campier than brawl, definitely. Not even olimsr can live up to villager's camp game.

I think aerial camping is harder due to the airdodge nerf, but it still a thing. Chasing certain characters in the air is still impossible. #diddykong

I also think the rolling buff helps campers too, since escapes are made harder to punish, espc when mixed in with projectiles.

That all being said, most "top tiers" at this point seem to be hype offense characters, so maybe I'm wrong here. But vertical spacing definitely seems as potent and unpunishable as ever.

Camping isn't half as good as it was in Brawl. Like at all. You can't plank and you can't land into the ground safely. Not enough players have adapted to Smash 4's mechanics yet.

Aerial dodges in the air are still strong, but if you're playing someone like Sheik you can up air into their aerial dodge and fAir/bAir before they can start the next one.

Villager definitely has a really strong camp game, especially with custom moves enabled. Seriously just counter pick a reflector and Villager's tools become incredibly limited. I won't explain the differences between standard Lloid and Pushy Lloid because it doesn't seem anyone actually wants to understand the properties of Villager's attacks.

 

[Attila_]

I really don't want to play three stock; those games will go forever. I already time out 7 min on two stock; I can't imagine how long 3 stock games could take.

And planking want good in Brawl because of the LGL. It was dumb, so we made a rule against it. Projectile camping wasn't very strong at all; nothing like smash 4. Although Falco's laser nerf was incredibly harsh.

 

[dean.]

nah falco deserved it.

 

[Luco]

I really don't want to play three stock; those games will go forever. I already time out 7 min on two stock; I can't imagine how long 3 stock games could take.

And planking want good in Brawl because of the LGL. It was dumb, so we made a rule against it. Projectile camping wasn't very strong at all; nothing like smash 4. Although Falco's laser nerf was incredibly harsh.

Pits camping ability has also been nerfed; you'll notice he can't fire off lasers anywhere as quickly and uncharged although he has good control they don't go very far or very fast. Projectiles will certainly be a part of his game but camping? I highly doubt it, really :3

 

[Jamwa]

Let's continue arguing about the meta before it's even released on Wii-U

Villager's projectiles aren't even fast, what's stopping people from power-shielding like every projectile?
You can even hit the missle before it launches .-.

 

[dean.]

Let's continue arguing about the meta before it's even released on Wii-U

Villager's projectiles aren't even fast, what's stopping people from power-shielding like every projectile?
You can even hit the missle before it launches .-.

the custom 'pushy lloid' doesn't blow up on shields like the normal one but keeps going and has multiple hits.

 

[Jamwa]

the custom 'pushy lloid' doesn't blow up on shields like the normal one but keeps going and has multiple hits.

doesn't powershielding alter its trajectory (or reflect, am i thinking of melee?) though?

 

[Shaya]

nah falco deserved it.

Falco wind howling exploding laser is awesome.
Reminds me of what a Wind Mage from Fire Emblem in Smash should've had.

 

[dean.]

doesn't powershielding alter its trajectory (or reflect, am i thinking of melee?) though?

no reflection or deflection at all.
it also has a good bit of health (my dedede tilts or fair don't break it but smashes do) and if you attack it too close to you it blows up and damages you anyway. very obnoxious.

 

[Jamwa]

no reflection or deflection at all.
it also has a good bit of health (my dedede tilts or fair don't break it but smashes do) and if you attack it too close to you it blows up and damages you anyway. very obnoxious.

whats the down side then? bigger startup? slower travel speed? pls

 

[KuroganeHammer]

It's slower and doesn't go as far.

 

[Venks]

Slower isn't necessarily a downside of it though, just a difference.

The downside is distance. Villager can not deal damage or force a block from as far a distance. When playing someone like Lucario this means you can freely charge your neutral B because Villager has no tool to threaten you at this distance.
When playing a fast character like Captain Falcon this also means Villager has to be really careful with Trip Sapling placement. If it's not center stage then Villager can't properly harass. And of course if Villager tries to use the gyroid without the Trip Sapling backing him up then you can easily dash through it and land a dash attack because it has no hit box when first summoned.

Atilla you took Villager to Yoshi's Island didn't you? That stage's length is smaller than Battlefield or Final Destination and it was definitely making the Pushy Lloid even more useful than it would be on other stages. Not that isn't still useful on Battlefield, but Villager could put the Trip Sapling nearly anywhere on the stage and be able to cover everything with Pushy Lloid.

 

[Invisi]

@ Invisi : I don't find a Pit trying to time me out fun, so I guess we're just into different things then.

The way I enjoy playing smash (and games in general) is very different to the vast majority of people, and that is something I have come to slowly realise over the course of interacting with the scene. It is something I have learned to take into account when presenting my views, and sometimes I have accepted community decisions that I would personally have preferred go the other way. (A quick aside, I don't appreciate my opinion being immediately dismissed because of this).

In this case, however, I am not the one holding a vastly unpopular opinion. If people are willing to give the 1 stock format a trial, then by all means go ahead and see if the community likes it*. But if the community does not want it, then you will have to accept that for the sake of the community. I'm sure you know this already though.

* I realise I probably came off harsher than I intended in my previous post, but I was trying to convey the converse of the starred statement which is also true. If people are not willing to trial 1 stock, then forcing a trial on them is not only futile, but detrimental. I was echoing the sentiment of the Sydney scene which seems to be universally opposed to the idea. As such, I doubt a trial will happen here without strong outside influence.

That said, I notice Billy said he wouldn't mind a trial, so if the rest of your scene is willing then I would imagine a trial might be worthwhile for the Melbourne scene. If it catches on, chances are it'll end up being trialled in other states too in the interests of a nationwide ruleset. Just don't get your hopes up too much =)

 

[Gords]

Now we need to decide if having a lead is extremely strong or not to decide whether one stock is worthwhile.

its not about deciding whether or not the stock advantage is extremely strong or not, but more can it be proven that the stock advantage is too strong to determine if one stock is worthwhile

How are we going to hold all these experiment tournies? I'd like to volunteer the idea of hosting 8 man invitationals at my place weekly throughout december trialing different ruleset combinations; custom moves one stock, custom moves two stock, no custom moves one stock, no custm moves two stock, etc.

I like the idea of experimenting which is what I have been saying from the start of this thread, however I think most experiments should be done with the WiiU version (with the exception of testing stages for a 3DS specific ruleset) where players have more refined control of their characters and will likely become the definitive version of the game.
I do like your 8 Man invitational idea and seems very similar to what is happening with Summoner's Smash Gym brackets, but i still dont want to see rash decisions made based on only a few brackets among a few players. Many people need to play with a certain ruleset to get better data, especially considering customs. This is why even after trialing 3 stock at Smash Gym and seeing it is probably better to have 2 stock over 3 stock I will likely still have 3 stock for my first 3DS tourney (as well as my first WiiU tourney). Time limits, stock counts and stages can be made easily and accurately after a reasonable time (like within a couple of months), but customs need to be involved for a longer period of time to allow the meta to find solutions and playstyles to develop with more cohesion (another reason why the WiiU should be used with a lot more weight in making this data collection)

• I feel like the best way of going about settling on a ruleset is to have it really open from the start, and cut things out little bit at a time. (eg have a few 3 stock events and see its not working for whatever reason, have a few 2 stock events and see its good but with a few little issues, have a couple of 1 stock events and notice that its too much of a cut, settle on 2 stocks.)
• After about 2 months of this kind of tweaking of the general rules and stage lists settle on a standard that should be used over the course of the next couple of months. During this time have several events with and without customs to allow for some meta development (the online community i think is an excellent portal to test no customs as it appears they need to head in this direction anyway and allows live events to focus on the alternative)
• Then after this phase re-evaluate general rules and stage lists making them tight and competitive, make some changes based on the information gained thus far for more specific rules (eg like the LGL in brawl).
• After another couple of months, with the large amounts of data now obtained and time for the meta to develop more integrity definitive decisions can be made on character/custom moves(a few or all) bans. Make some refinement to the general rules and stage lists.

Now by July 2015 we have a solid competitive ruleset which will be based on actual data, tested and can be considered standard with very little change for the next 5+yrs before the next installment is released.
6-7 months is not too long imo to form such a coherent ruleset, a lot better than rushing a ruleset in a couple of months without proper testing and based on conjecture and unsupported opinions, which is likely to end up with positive gameplay aspects/features missing

 

[Invisi]

Y'know, thinking after thinking about what I said last night, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with myself. Now is the time to try new rulesets since there's no established norm that this would be detrimental to. Unfortunately, it probably still is futile as a number of people seem to have made up their mind that they don't like it.

 

[Luco]

Y'know, thinking after thinking about what I said last night, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with myself. Now is the time to try new rulesets since there's no established norm that this would be detrimental to. Unfortunately, it probably still is futile as a number of people seem to have made up their mind that they don't like it.

I do get the feeling that although peeps have made up their opinions on it now, they'd still be willing to try different stuff. At the end of the day we all enjoy playing smash, changes in our ruleset don't really stop us unless it's absolutely massive. Stocks are almost at that level but nawwww not really I reckon.

 

[Venks]

Even if there is only one frame to punish before shield, the window is still larger than one frame. Most moves in smash (99%?) have hitboxes out for longer than a single frame, giving you room for error. Choose attacks that cover a longer period to lessen the burden of timing. In regards to Mac, it seems like most of his smashes actually are active for a decent time period; time work on some timing.

Yeah that's a good point. I don't need to be frame perfect because I have active frames on my own attacks.
My timing is just always so off. I always seem to hit too early or too late.

I spent an hour practicing this with V and it took ages, but I could get the timing about 20% of the time. Way better than my previous 0%. At first I was attacking way too early. The invincibility lasts almost the entire duration of the animation. The window to hit is so incredibly small. When I adjusted my timing to try and attack JUST before my opponent hit idle I seemed to be off by about four frames. I can only guess this because V suddenly was consistently Perfect Shielding all of my attacks after standing up from the ledge. She definitely doesn't have super timing and was holding down shield to simply get it to appear ASAP.

Took me ages to find the timing. Theoretically it shouldn't be so difficult because I should have more active frames on my attack than she has on her stand up invincibility, but it was still pretty hard. Unless of course I was playing Mega Man. I could get the punish 100% of the time, but usually not off of the initial burst of flames. The delayed hit on Mega Man's down smash does significantly less damage and knock back, but a hit's a hit I guess.

At the CW tournament I would prefer to go into multi-hit jabs if I knew my opponent was going to stand up at the edge. As fast as Little Mac's attacks are I would always seem to hit my opponent's shield. Which is crazy as Little Mac's jabs are insanely fast and all you have to do is hold the button down. No idea what the frame data on the multi-hit jabs are, but in Training Mode when you use the 1/4 speed option while pressing L they would come out after every third press of the L button. Can't wait for the Wii U version to come out so I can have an actual idea what the real numbers are.

But regardless these jabs have amazing shield pressure and are too fast for the opponent to shield grab. And because Smash 4 doesn't push opponents who shield off the stage I can literally hold the attack button down till their shield breaks. But usually my opponent just lets go of shield and let's me get the jab finisher.

This way I can beat out any action my opponent would hope to do at the edge, but when my opponent is at 110% this damage is essentially useless. If I can get the timing down for my smash attacks against the stand-up invincibility my matches would be a lot shorter. But the timing is just a nightmare. Any tips would be vastly appreciated.

I find that Getup attacks on the ledge are REALLY good in the game.... or maybe i just get lucky

I find these just as easy to punish as Brawl if not easier. There is so much more vulnerability after the invincibility wears out in comparison to simply standing up from the ledge. You can just shield-grab the attack or stand out of range and use a smash attack. If I'm playing Little Mac and I predict a get-up-attack around 70% that's a free stock. I can super armor through the hit and knock them to blast zone with side smash which kills really early on the edge of the stage.

I do get the feeling that although peeps have made up their opinions on it now, they'd still be willing to try different stuff. At the end of the day we all enjoy playing smash, changes in our ruleset don't really stop us unless it's absolutely massive. Stocks are almost at that level but nawwww not really I reckon.

I would not want to play 1-stock at a tournament I pay money to enter. I'm fine with trying it on some online tournament or at some local get-together, but it's not something I want to see on the ruleset. This severely impacts the comeback factor of Little Mac who is my main character. I've put 14 hours into him at OZCC, 10 hours on Japanese Smash, and 16 hours with Australian Smash. I could play another character, but doing so would not ideal for me.

I don't see the appeal in playing one-stock. It seems no one but one person wants to play it. All of the tournaments in the US and Japan primarily use three-stocks with two-stocks taking a close second. I've yet to see a single tournament use a one-stock ruleset. D1 is doing the best he can to support a two-stock ruleset.

If we really want to benefit the community in some way I think it would be better to focus more on experimenting with custom moves or stages.

 

[Lex__]

I don't see the appeal in playing one-stock. It seems no one but one person wants to play it. All of the tournaments in the US and Japan primarily use three-stocks with two-stocks taking a close second. I've yet to see a single tournament use a one-stock ruleset. D1 is doing the best he can to support a two-stock ruleset.

I decided to look into this, as im not so up to date on the rulesets,

Shockwave (Some tourney locator weekly, like S@X)

3 stocks Bo3

KTAR X

2 stocks Bo3

UMEBURA 8 (JP tourney, using for glory ruleset)

2 stocks bo3 (whole way throught the tourney)

(note these are the only tournaments on vods.co that are after the release of the game, im not counting JP US tourneys because they were day 1 tourneys and too new)

 

[DD_]

I would not want to play 1-stock at a tournament I pay money to enter. I'm fine with trying it on some online tournament or at some local get-together, but it's not something I want to see on the ruleset. This severely impacts the comeback factor of Little Mac who is my main character.

Why should we be basing a competitive rule set around the most unskilled/uncompetitive aspect of the game? I'm all for different rule sets but justifying them with lil mac frauding people with a meshed b doesn't sit well.

 

[Attila_]

The game is definitely bigger than little mac.

That is all.

 

[EverAlert]

To be honest, KO Punch is more of a comeback mechanic in 1 stock than anything else, because if you're losing then you're more likely to get it and take that stock. With more stocks it becomes much better as a lead-extending mechanic. Either way you need to make a read or wait for them to make a mistake to actually hit with it though (or just get really lucky, lol).

Also, at about 75% both given and taken you will get a punch; if you're not getting a punch then you must be bodying them. If you're doing well enough with your 1 stock for you to not get the punch, why does it even matter?

 

[Splice]

Venks doing the old "argue against a case by supporting it poorly"

No-one actually cares whether the ruleset hurts your character, there are far more substantial reasons you could use to discredit 1 stock.

 

[TakFR]

I play Little Mac and I don't give a **** about the one stock rule because of my character, KO punch does very little to be honest if you are smart enough to avoid him for 10 seconds. I just really dislike the idea of it in general and my interest in the game will definitely diminish if it is implemented

 

[Venks]

The game is definitely bigger than little mac.

That is all.

Venks doing the old "argue against a case by supporting it poorly"

No-one actually cares whether the ruleset hurts your character, there are far more substantial reasons you could use to discredit 1 stock.

I'm not arguing rulesets over KO Punch. I'm just explaining my bias against one-stock.

My actual argument is that it's not gonna be the ruleset at any big tournaments. We're gonna conform custom/no-custom based off of Apex so why wouldn't we conform with stocks as well?

To be honest, KO Punch is more of a comeback mechanic in 1 stock than anything else, because if you're losing then you're more likely to get it and take that stock. With more stocks it becomes much better as a lead-extending mechanic. Either way you need to make a read or wait for them to make a mistake to actually hit with it though (or just get really lucky, lol).

Also, at about 75% both given and taken you will get a punch; if you're not getting a punch then you must be bodying them. If you're doing well enough with your 1 stock for you to not get the punch, why does it even matter?

I guess? A percentage lead come back isn't really that big of a come back. I mean a win is a win?
Personally I feel it does't have the same "wow" factor as coming back from being a stock behind.

I play Little Mac and I don't give a **** about the one stock rule because of my character, KO punch does very little to be honest if you are smart enough to avoid him for 10 seconds. I just really dislike the idea of it in general and my interest in the game will definitely diminish if it is implemented

You do realize that the KO Punch doesn't go away with time right? It stays indefinitely until you use it or someone hits you with a move that puts you into a tumble animation. And even then when you first obtain the KO Punch there's about a three second "immunity" period where you can't lose the KO Punch from being hit.

I decided to look into this, as im not so up to date on the rulesets,

Shockwave (Some tourney locator weekly, like S@X)

3 stocks Bo3

KTAR X

2 stocks Bo3

UMEBURA 8 (JP tourney, using for glory ruleset)

2 stocks bo3 (whole way throught the tourney)

(note these are the only tournaments on vods.co that are after the release of the game, im not counting JP US tourneys because they were day 1 tourneys and too new)

Smash 4 3DS HTL Tournament

3 Stocks - Best of 3
8 Minute Timer
Custom moves allowed
No Bans
No Items
Neutrals: Battlefield, Final Destination (all FDs), Yoshi's Island
Counterpick: Prism Tower

Smash Forward 02 and Smash Forward 01

-3 stock
-8 minute timer
-Starter stages: Battlefield, Final Destination, Yoshi's Island
-Counterpick stages: Prism Tower, Brinstar, Rainbow Road
-All omega (final destination) versions of every stage are allowed, and count as Final Destination, except for game one, where only the original Final Destination can be used
-Custom moves are allowed
-Equipment is banned
-All characters are legal
-No items
-Best of 3 for all sets, except for best of 5 for Grand Finals
-The game will continue to play in the event of lag or wireless issues provided that the game continues. Players may agree to restart a game if it is early enough in the match. If an entire match is discontinued, call a TO for a ruling.

Mayhem 10-18 (Spoiler: Mew2King gets bopped by Aphro)

- 2 stock 6 minutes for singles and doubles. Best of 3, semi finals and above best of 5.
- Neutrals: Battlefield, Final Destination (all FDs**), Yoshi's Island.
**You can agree to play on any FD stage, but if one cannot be agreed upon, default FD will be used.
- Counterpick: None
- No Stage bans
- First stage picked by striking from neutrals.
- If time runs out, the winner will be decided by who has more stocks. If both players have the same amount of stocks, the player with the lower percent is the winner.
- Custom Moves banned
- Miis banned
- Equipment banned
We feel it is unfair to allow custom moves at this point, because the moves you unlock come down to RNG. It would not be fair if someone gets certain moves that are really good just by pure chance. Miis seem to have variable weights, speeds, and all their custom moves. We feel it will promote a healthier environment early on if we don't allow them until more people are able to play around with them and test them out.

If you listen to any of the "top/notable" players you'll see a common interest in a 2-stock ruleset. The general consensus seems to be that due to campier characters 3-stock matches can potentially be really long. Barely any players are running to time, but the matches go too long in best of 3. Especially if it goes 2-1 instead of 2-0.
These same players are saying 2-stock "just feels right". It still allows for interesting come backs, but is a lot easier to manage time wise.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

I'm not arguing rulesets over KO Punch. I'm just explaining my bias against one-stock.

My actual argument is that it's not gonna be the ruleset at any big tournaments. We're gonna conform custom/no-custom based off of Apex so why wouldn't we conform with stocks as well?



I guess? A percentage lead come back isn't really that big of a come back. I mean a win is a win?
Personally I feel it does't have the same "wow" factor as coming back from being a stock behind.



You do realize that the KO Punch doesn't go away with time right? It stays indefinitely until you use it or someone hits you with a move that puts you into a tumble animation. And even then when you first obtain the KO Punch there's about a three second "immunity" period where you can't lose the KO Punch from being hit.



Smash 4 3DS HTL Tournament


Smash Forward 02 and Smash Forward 01


Mayhem 10-18 (Spoiler: Mew2King gets bopped by Aphro)


If you listen to any of the "top/notable" players you'll see a common interest in a 2-stock ruleset. The general consensus seems to be that due to campier characters 3-stock matches can potentially be really long. Barely any players are running to time, but the matches go too long in best of 3. Especially if it goes 2-1 instead of 2-0.
These same players are saying 2-stock "just feels right". It still allows for interesting come backs, but is a lot easier to manage time wise.

TL;DR wait til after Apex

 

[EverAlert]

I guess? A percentage lead come back isn't really that big of a come back. I mean a win is a win?
Personally I feel it does't have the same "wow" factor as coming back from being a stock behind.

Of course it doesn't have the same wow-factor, but I don't care about that, I'm making a case against the content of your argument. Anyway, you might see it as relatively minor because you're coming back on percent, but I think the more important part is you can be getting largely outplayed and you're just given the chance to win the game right there. It doesn't matter how much of a loss you're coming back from if you just straight up win the game. Taking games is more important than taking individual stocks.

I mean sure, the wow-factor is less, but the impact on the game is more. Does the wow-factor really matter that much? All of the satisfaction I get out of landing the punch is from making the read personally.

In any case, this has nothing to do with ruleset suitability, lol.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

Out of the some of the (new) Wii U stages we have seen in the live stream, what do you guys think about them?