Congratulations, you've done something that is obvious to everyone. Yes you can survive the water landing in it on the right side. Chances are though, you won't. Anywhere else? Death seems very very likely.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Meta Australian Smash 4 General Ruleset Discussion
- Thread starter Attila_
- Start date
One stock promotes adaptation as you get more opportunities to revise your mistakes and start from scratch. Being down a stock and unable to return to neutral doesn't teach you anything because the game is tilted against you. But having 5 games to learn from is really helpful for adapting. Consider my bam at against tibs, or tinmam beating me at BAM. You get even more chances to learn.
@
Shaya
: you've confused your emotional and logical attachments... emotions dictate 3 stock, but logic suggests 1 stock.
@
Shaya
: you've confused your emotional and logical attachments... emotions dictate 3 stock, but logic suggests 1 stock.
Logic states that this game is not slower than Brawl (tournament data from Japan and the US), nor do we have a reason to think that less stocks balances characters/match ups.
Meanwhile, I personally enjoy playing on 2-stock over 3 stock for no other reason other than it's pacing feels better.
Meanwhile, I personally enjoy playing on 2-stock over 3 stock for no other reason other than it's pacing feels better.
Last edited:
Like I said last time, I don't think that we need to play one stock out of necessity, but because it might actually make a better game.
And this game definitely feels slower than brawl, unless you use little mac.
And this game definitely feels slower than brawl, unless you use little mac.
S.D
Smash Master
Agree, game slower than Brawl, people just confused by increased ground speed on most characters.
1. Agreed, similar to reason 1 I had in my last post
2. some follow up Questions:
a) how long after a so called OP flow-chart is found (either customs or no customs) do you allow the meta to find a solution before you start to ban things involved in the flowchart. How do you justify a flowchart being OP?
b) if an OP flowchart is found involving a particular special how is banning just that special worse than banning all customs. How would banning all customs be better for the game when compared to banning a whole character?
We knew MK was the best character within the first couple of months of Brawl but I feel that MK should not have been banned within the first 6 months. I do agree however that MK should've been banned after 6 or so months after the Meta had some time to find solutions that creates a balanced meta and that 3+ yrs before discussion actually got done on the topic was definitely to long to wait.
3. well no wonder you had issues CPing customs and an emphasis on game 1. with the correct procedure and regulation I feel there is no more emphasis on game 1 than what already exists.
4. well the netplay online tourneys are going to be default only as far as i am aware.
5. Agreed, mainly due to your arguments made about ferox regarding no 'stand and spam' available.
6. this is not even a Modified DSR, its literally no DSR, I am more in favour of modified DSR (cant pick the stage last won on) over no DSR but can see reason for no DSR as well and dont really mind either way
7. I agree with shaya as there is no reason to think that less stocks balances characters/match ups. regarding adapting, the way i see it is 1 stock Bo5 gives me 2 stocks to figure out my opponent, 2 stock Bo3 gives 3 stocks.
8. I think a demo is unnecessary, allowing them to read the description on the specials customization screen is enough imo.
eg. Villagers N2 Garden description implies its harder to pocket and says it hits foes
his D2 Timber Counter says the sapling trips and the tree attacks back when hit.
no need to waste time with a demo, especially since some things about some specials cant even be seen when used against the punching bag.
9. similar to reason 2 of my previous post.
just FYI the spiky thing on RBF killed Ricky's Pit in a tourney set played at Tom's, problem was we couldn't even see that it was there. Not fun but still i think this stage is better than tomodachi life but not by much.
Also how exactly is this game slower than brawl, I feel its comparable to brawl as in about the same.
Last edited:
Anything used more than 45 times in a match should undergo immediate ban-trial, involving a TO meeting for 72 hours, before trialing a ban of the move in a minimum of 14 countries of 43 States (whichever comes first). Should the results of these dictate a majority in favor of the ban, or community will then adopt the ban as policy. The same process should apply to any stage that presents with players spending less than 28% of their time in the air, and equal ground and air time is needed to make the game fair. Any players spending more than 71% of game time in the air must play from the other side of the room, but can counter pick binoculars instead of stages if they lose a match.
Further, buttons from controllers may be removed in favor of banning characters imo. This week deepen the meta as players will have to adapt to custom controllers also. And finally, the players must be blinded to which buttons are missing from the controllers, and find out during the game.
Does that suit, @
Gords
?
Further, buttons from controllers may be removed in favor of banning characters imo. This week deepen the meta as players will have to adapt to custom controllers also. And finally, the players must be blinded to which buttons are missing from the controllers, and find out during the game.
Does that suit, @
Gords
?
one stock
more stocks is always a better gameplay experience and sample size. The reason we wanted less for Brawl is because matches took too long and people were getting bored. When we switched to 1 stock for Brawl, there wasn't ever a good reason why we shouldn't have done 2 stock instead. 2 stock finishes within 8 minutes, the delegated appropriate match time for a smash tournament.
Are 2 stock Smash 4 matches going past 8 minutes more than a tenth of all matches? If not then what's your argument? Changing Brawl to 1 stock from 3 never benefited the metagame in a theoretical, but was considered a negligible sacrifice (as results were mostly the same) to make camping/timeout-strats less appropriate and save time and help people stay awake.
Whether the game is slower than Brawl in the sense that games take longer or may be campier isn't objectively bad (I'm fine with this, Melee vets gonna Zzz, whatever) and if you're trying to make it play out faster by going to 1 stock, then you are sacrificing integrity in other areas. Best of 3 sets with 2 stock matches don't take longer than 24 minutes in-game time, and the timer is firstly used a tool to enforce this, not a tool to discourage/encourage/optimise timeouts and camping.
There is a very poor argument supporting one stock for this game, Attila, which is only emphasised by the fact you've only supported the idea with quips like "it might actually make a better game". Surely that's not convincing anyone
more stocks is always a better gameplay experience and sample size. The reason we wanted less for Brawl is because matches took too long and people were getting bored. When we switched to 1 stock for Brawl, there wasn't ever a good reason why we shouldn't have done 2 stock instead. 2 stock finishes within 8 minutes, the delegated appropriate match time for a smash tournament.
Are 2 stock Smash 4 matches going past 8 minutes more than a tenth of all matches? If not then what's your argument? Changing Brawl to 1 stock from 3 never benefited the metagame in a theoretical, but was considered a negligible sacrifice (as results were mostly the same) to make camping/timeout-strats less appropriate and save time and help people stay awake.
Whether the game is slower than Brawl in the sense that games take longer or may be campier isn't objectively bad (I'm fine with this, Melee vets gonna Zzz, whatever) and if you're trying to make it play out faster by going to 1 stock, then you are sacrificing integrity in other areas. Best of 3 sets with 2 stock matches don't take longer than 24 minutes in-game time, and the timer is firstly used a tool to enforce this, not a tool to discourage/encourage/optimise timeouts and camping.
There is a very poor argument supporting one stock for this game, Attila, which is only emphasised by the fact you've only supported the idea with quips like "it might actually make a better game". Surely that's not convincing anyone
Last edited:
DD_
Smash Journeyman
This is correct! we currently have no way of ensuring people aren't using equipment so we have just outright banned customs until at least with wiiu version comes out. It is also a good coincidence that most of the net play crew prefer to not play with customs or are like myself and not really fussed either way.
We might trial one stock this week because we don't have the custom counter picking stuff going on, but I'll have to see what Star, Lex and the rest of the crew think
No. Brawl moved to one stock because the stock lead was too strong, so comebacks were virtually impossible.
I feel that smash 4 is very similar in that regard.
I feel that smash 4 is very similar in that regard.
Jamwa
Smash Champion
As I said, arguments can be made for both sides.
In one stock, I feel safe gameplay is promoted over adapting/mixups/conditioning
I wouldn't ever say there's more of a chance to adapt over one stock. i mean we can theorize about it, but i'm never going to feel that way about it.
yeah sure you can start from scratch each game but then the opponent does as well and all that conditioning is gone in a sense.
being down a stock teaches you a bunch. you learn what they've been doing for the match thus far, and you don't need a new game to think about that sort of thing. if you cant revise your strategy in the 5 seconds of death to respawn then what is 2 minutes going to do inbetween a match? all it does is allow players to clear their mindset, something which doesn't necessitate 1 stock over 3. adjusting your mindset from being behind is something players must do in every other smash game.
if I stopped playing after losing the 1st stock in a match ever then i'd have missed out on winning a majority of the games i've ever won. like probably 70% (edit: i just called the prime minister of science and he can confirm this statistic)
I'm used to the flow of a game where I can come back and i've developed a lot of my playstyle around it.
take Chappos for example. his comeback factor is insane in project m, and to say something similar to that doesn't exist due to the consistency required from a slower game that is without combos isn't entirely true.
being behind in a match has never stopped the better player from winning.
In one stock, I feel safe gameplay is promoted over adapting/mixups/conditioning
I wouldn't ever say there's more of a chance to adapt over one stock. i mean we can theorize about it, but i'm never going to feel that way about it.
yeah sure you can start from scratch each game but then the opponent does as well and all that conditioning is gone in a sense.
being down a stock teaches you a bunch. you learn what they've been doing for the match thus far, and you don't need a new game to think about that sort of thing. if you cant revise your strategy in the 5 seconds of death to respawn then what is 2 minutes going to do inbetween a match? all it does is allow players to clear their mindset, something which doesn't necessitate 1 stock over 3. adjusting your mindset from being behind is something players must do in every other smash game.
if I stopped playing after losing the 1st stock in a match ever then i'd have missed out on winning a majority of the games i've ever won. like probably 70% (edit: i just called the prime minister of science and he can confirm this statistic)
I'm used to the flow of a game where I can come back and i've developed a lot of my playstyle around it.
take Chappos for example. his comeback factor is insane in project m, and to say something similar to that doesn't exist due to the consistency required from a slower game that is without combos isn't entirely true.
being behind in a match has never stopped the better player from winning.
Last edited:
Venks
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 375
- NNID
- VenksUSA
I don't want one-stock because it is an indirect nerf to my character.
Little Mac needs to receive 100% damage or deal 300% damage to obtain the KO Punch. Obviously receiving and dealing damage allows him to get it earlier, but none the less it's always late stock when Little Mac obtains the attack.
If I'm losing a match because I lost my first stock to a gimp at 12% then I'm at a severe disadvantage. But if I manage to take my opponent's first stock I still have a really good chance to make a come back if I have the KO Punch.
This will obviously never happen in a one-stock game. If my opponent manages to throw me off stage at low percent and makes one good read then I've lost the round.
And of course if it's the other way around and I'm dominating the match then I won't obtain the KO Punch because my opponent will die before I obtain it. This is extremely unenjoyable as Little Mac is such a unique character because of his special attack. Little Mac even has his own special display built into this game purely for his KO meter.
Little Mac needs to receive 100% damage or deal 300% damage to obtain the KO Punch. Obviously receiving and dealing damage allows him to get it earlier, but none the less it's always late stock when Little Mac obtains the attack.
If I'm losing a match because I lost my first stock to a gimp at 12% then I'm at a severe disadvantage. But if I manage to take my opponent's first stock I still have a really good chance to make a come back if I have the KO Punch.
This will obviously never happen in a one-stock game. If my opponent manages to throw me off stage at low percent and makes one good read then I've lost the round.
And of course if it's the other way around and I'm dominating the match then I won't obtain the KO Punch because my opponent will die before I obtain it. This is extremely unenjoyable as Little Mac is such a unique character because of his special attack. Little Mac even has his own special display built into this game purely for his KO meter.
Last edited:
The crux of the issue right here. Whether or not 1 stock is a more competitive or optimal format is completely irrelevant if no one is going to enjoy it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember anyone other than Attila so far advocating for 1 stock in preference to 2 or 3 stock. If there are other people who actively want 1 stock, feel free to chime in and we can have a proper discussion. Right now however, the whole point is moot; even trialling 1 stock is pointless if there is only one person who wants it to happen.
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.
Luco
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 9,232
- Location
- The isle of venom, Australia
- NNID
- dracilus
- 3DS FC
- 2638-1462-5558
I disagree with the use of RBF as a legal stage still...
I don't think it's fair that the cave of immortality will mean the leading player has to spend 10-15 extra seconds just to break it all up (sometimes longer) and i've actually seen it change the outcome of a match. Windmill was usually okay because due to where it was positioned you were still usually able to follow up on moves and often it would help you just as much as the other player. Yet when you consider the spkied monster going down below the stage, this transformation feels like it will automatically be in the higher percent's favour because they're doing a lot of effective damage (i.e. getting the other person to kill percent) for the other person doing damage that will only prolong the inevitable.
THAT STATED, I see it as a rather fun stage to play on. if it were to be legal I wouldn't complain - however I think based on our usual criteria for banning stages it shouldn't be considered on the same level as say Ferox, which whilst giving people the ability to use cave of immortality, still requires far more effort on the part of the losing player to make up that effective damage on the other person without the spiky monster present. :o
I don't think it's fair that the cave of immortality will mean the leading player has to spend 10-15 extra seconds just to break it all up (sometimes longer) and i've actually seen it change the outcome of a match. Windmill was usually okay because due to where it was positioned you were still usually able to follow up on moves and often it would help you just as much as the other player. Yet when you consider the spkied monster going down below the stage, this transformation feels like it will automatically be in the higher percent's favour because they're doing a lot of effective damage (i.e. getting the other person to kill percent) for the other person doing damage that will only prolong the inevitable.
THAT STATED, I see it as a rather fun stage to play on. if it were to be legal I wouldn't complain - however I think based on our usual criteria for banning stages it shouldn't be considered on the same level as say Ferox, which whilst giving people the ability to use cave of immortality, still requires far more effort on the part of the losing player to make up that effective damage on the other person without the spiky monster present. :o
This is actually the worst reason ever.
Back when brawl began to decline, we began discussion to change the ruleset, first with the implementation of a more conservative stage list. Plenty of people cried, 'oh, you're nerfing my character!' or 'oh, we should try to keep the game Nintendo intended!', but once the rules changed, they began to see that it was helpful to meta and made more of the community want to play the game.
Next was the 10 minute timer and a further narrowing of legal stages. Similar whinging started, but (very) quickly quietened down.
And then the most controversial change, the one stock ruleset. It met much opposition from veteran players, but the stats show that it DEFINITELY increased tournament entrants, and it was visually obvious that more non-brawl players were interested in watching the game.
And so after all that opposition, we finally developed a popular, healthy ruleset, and maintained (some) of our community.
It should also be mentioned that states that were slower to adopt such a ruleset declined much faster than Victoria, despite originally having similar tourney numbers.
That all being said, I definitely feel that we lost a lot of players while trying to develop this ruleset, so I'm trying to cut to the chase. If smash 4 has the same issues that brawl did (and it looks like it does), similar changes will be made in the end regardless.
So let's speed things up and keep as many players as we can.
Otherwise, Venks raises a valid point, Little Mac does become a minor casualty. But at the same time, you can consider a 2/3 stock ruleset to be an indirect buff for him, which can equally be interpreted as unfair. If he's already high tier, why do we need to make him better?
@
Jamwa
: PM has a MUCH higher comeback potential that smash 4, namely because combos, hard edgeguards, and the fact that fill always recovers into fsmash. It's a pretty unfair comparison. But you can definitely say that in high level brawl, comebacks shouldn't happen. A stock lead is very strong; you can't get it back against a good player. And if you're the type to muck around on your first stock, you'd be a better player if you learnt to take every stock seriously anyway.
Jamwa
Smash Champion
@
Yeah it's hard to comeback, but its not impossible. I personally found comebacks something integral to my own gameplay and style due to mindgames and stuff which i could explain but it's hard to argue against the "well if everyone was playing perfectly" thing which is what i feel the "combacks dont exist in brawl" argument it based off anyway. theoretical vs what actually happens. i dont feel 1 stock is going to impact results (apart from myself maybe since i based so much of my game on it. i tried 1 stock in brawl and didnt like it), only enjoyment of the game.
Last edited:
TakFR
Smash Lord
Yeah my interest in this game definitely goes down if it actually does turn into one stock, and that's not because I use Little Mac. I used other characters (Dr Mario, Falcon, Link) half of the time last tourney anyway 
Luco
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 9,232
- Location
- The isle of venom, Australia
- NNID
- dracilus
- 3DS FC
- 2638-1462-5558
While not opposed to one stock, I feel 2 stock should be trialed first for the main reason that it keeps pace and allows some level of adaption in game as well as otherwise. there's a difference between not having a ruleset and trialing stuff. 
lso 2 stock I think is balanced for Mac. If he gets the punch on the firsts stock he's likely on high percent anyway and will get killed before the next stock resetting the meter, which means it would be on mostly equal footing until the end of stock 2 if the other person or Mac hasn't been KOed by then.
lso 2 stock I think is balanced for Mac. If he gets the punch on the firsts stock he's likely on high percent anyway and will get killed before the next stock resetting the meter, which means it would be on mostly equal footing until the end of stock 2 if the other person or Mac hasn't been KOed by then.
Venks
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 375
- NNID
- VenksUSA
You're not buffing Little Mac by making a game two or three stocks. The character was designed with the KO Punch in mind. This attack is one of the things that is supposed to offset his terrible recovery. But if we're playing one stock matches you're effectively removing the mechanic from the game. My opponent can still take one of my stocks twenty seconds into the match, but I have no feasible way to do the same in return. That is a substantial nerf to my character.
Nearly a third of my matches are all come backs. Little Mac is a character completely reliant on predictions and reads. I need time to learn my opponent's play style. Even in the matches where I'm winning, the rounds on average go 48.5 seconds. If I was playing a one-stock ruleset I would indeed be spending more time in the character select screen and stage select then I would be actually playing the game.
How am I supposed to learn how my opponent approaches, how they recover from ledge, how they attempt to gimp me, what their favorite set ups are, and what their preferred defensive options are?
This is not really fair to my character at all and is completely detrimental to my enjoyment of the game.
Nearly a third of my matches are all come backs. Little Mac is a character completely reliant on predictions and reads. I need time to learn my opponent's play style. Even in the matches where I'm winning, the rounds on average go 48.5 seconds. If I was playing a one-stock ruleset I would indeed be spending more time in the character select screen and stage select then I would be actually playing the game.
How am I supposed to learn how my opponent approaches, how they recover from ledge, how they attempt to gimp me, what their favorite set ups are, and what their preferred defensive options are?
This is not really fair to my character at all and is completely detrimental to my enjoyment of the game.
Last edited:
S.D
Smash Master
Lol are you joking? Pretty sure Mac has plenty of kill moves outside of KO punch. Ever tried any of his smashes?
Venks
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 375
- NNID
- VenksUSA
That wasn't my point. I never mentioned a lack of kill moves. My point was that without the KO Punch he doesn't have a tool to KO opponents around 30% with one good read. While he is exceptionally easy to KO at low percents with a single good read.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Little Mac is a high risk/reward type character and that by playing with a one stock ruleset you are taking away his most rewarding tool but he continues to have all of the same risks.
What happens to Little Mac is hardly the crux of the one stock issue. It's good to note that it shifts balance though, in other subtle areas, not just the character with the KO punch.
Attila your previous post surmises that a one stock ruleset for a smash game will always increase participation and also that smash 4 will definitely face the troubles that Brawl faced.
There is no evidence to suggest that moving Brawl to 2 stock wouldn't have done the same thing, which Smash 4 is already at.
You also discount every other factor surrounding Brawl and the fact that it was on its last legs; as far as I know, the only people who entered partly due to the one stock change in Victoria were myself and Tak + a few people who didn't actually like the game that said "well **** it's free and no-one gives a ****, I will enter this ****ty Brawl game". 'Stats' alone especially on a topic as up for debate as this one mean absolutely nothing. Stats are no substitute for proof and reason, so just telling me Victoria was healthier than some states of America who didn't choose to adopt this rule may or may not be correlation.
Then, there's the fact that Smash 4 isn't in the same situation as Brawl was at all.
It's fresh, it has a scene that wants to play it and are already attracted to the game. Making Brawl 1 stock got a bunch of people who were "meh" about it to play the game. You've already got a dedicated following for Smash 4 and we also have some people who are "meh" about the game. (pro-tip: it's not only practical but also fruitful to cater to the dedicated following).
Changing Brawl to 1 stock was never really preferred, from what I can tell, by Jei, Dean, Nixernator, Tinman etc., the majority of the competitive players. I preferred it, you preferred it, not really a strong argument for instating it in Smash 4 though.
Then there's the assumption that Smash 4 will turn out like Brawl; this is good, I agree with being relatively hasty. I just think you're too hasty and if we're going to make decisions FAST, then it can't be done by one man; that's far too unreliable. Your individual experience is not a satisfactory measure of how we're going to alter our rulesets. Within 5-6 months of console release, we all knew MK was broken. Collectively, we should have been able to hand a ban effective immediately at that point. You're arguing for one stock, a stance that OUR scene does not agree with, before the console version has even been released.
We can research, understand and come to swift decisions for a good long-term ruleset ASAP; throwing out suggestions like this with literally no substantial support is not helping us achieve that goal. I'm not against a 1-stock experiment tourney but due to 99% of the community being very satisfied with 2 stock I feel like it's nowhere near the top of the list of issues we have.
Attila your previous post surmises that a one stock ruleset for a smash game will always increase participation and also that smash 4 will definitely face the troubles that Brawl faced.
There is no evidence to suggest that moving Brawl to 2 stock wouldn't have done the same thing, which Smash 4 is already at.
You also discount every other factor surrounding Brawl and the fact that it was on its last legs; as far as I know, the only people who entered partly due to the one stock change in Victoria were myself and Tak + a few people who didn't actually like the game that said "well **** it's free and no-one gives a ****, I will enter this ****ty Brawl game". 'Stats' alone especially on a topic as up for debate as this one mean absolutely nothing. Stats are no substitute for proof and reason, so just telling me Victoria was healthier than some states of America who didn't choose to adopt this rule may or may not be correlation.
Then, there's the fact that Smash 4 isn't in the same situation as Brawl was at all.
It's fresh, it has a scene that wants to play it and are already attracted to the game. Making Brawl 1 stock got a bunch of people who were "meh" about it to play the game. You've already got a dedicated following for Smash 4 and we also have some people who are "meh" about the game. (pro-tip: it's not only practical but also fruitful to cater to the dedicated following).
Changing Brawl to 1 stock was never really preferred, from what I can tell, by Jei, Dean, Nixernator, Tinman etc., the majority of the competitive players. I preferred it, you preferred it, not really a strong argument for instating it in Smash 4 though.
Then there's the assumption that Smash 4 will turn out like Brawl; this is good, I agree with being relatively hasty. I just think you're too hasty and if we're going to make decisions FAST, then it can't be done by one man; that's far too unreliable. Your individual experience is not a satisfactory measure of how we're going to alter our rulesets. Within 5-6 months of console release, we all knew MK was broken. Collectively, we should have been able to hand a ban effective immediately at that point. You're arguing for one stock, a stance that OUR scene does not agree with, before the console version has even been released.
We can research, understand and come to swift decisions for a good long-term ruleset ASAP; throwing out suggestions like this with literally no substantial support is not helping us achieve that goal. I'm not against a 1-stock experiment tourney but due to 99% of the community being very satisfied with 2 stock I feel like it's nowhere near the top of the list of issues we have.
PrettyCoolGuy
Smash Ace
I don't think anyone gets the point of one stock really?
My understanding is that in brawl, it is extraordinarily advantageous to have a stock lead. Is it significantly more than a percent advantage?
Anyway, because of the advantage, you manipulate the game to ensure you win by increasing your lead or forcing a time out. There is limited counter play and adaption because most characters are so good at protecting their lead. One stock thus removes this irrelevant period from games and increases the amount of game time spent actually deciding who the better player is.
If you feel weird adapting between games, that doesn't mean you're not adapting. You can use conditioning from previous games, the minute between games doesn't invalidate what happened in previous games.
People constantly talk about it limiting adaption, but this feels like it totally misses the point.
Now we need to decide if having a lead is extremely strong or not to decide whether one stock is worthwhile.
Come backs are hype but I don't see how one stock can actually hinder competition in any game that has any kind of solid advantages in actual game play for whoever is winning.
My understanding is that in brawl, it is extraordinarily advantageous to have a stock lead. Is it significantly more than a percent advantage?
Anyway, because of the advantage, you manipulate the game to ensure you win by increasing your lead or forcing a time out. There is limited counter play and adaption because most characters are so good at protecting their lead. One stock thus removes this irrelevant period from games and increases the amount of game time spent actually deciding who the better player is.
If you feel weird adapting between games, that doesn't mean you're not adapting. You can use conditioning from previous games, the minute between games doesn't invalidate what happened in previous games.
People constantly talk about it limiting adaption, but this feels like it totally misses the point.
Now we need to decide if having a lead is extremely strong or not to decide whether one stock is worthwhile.
Come backs are hype but I don't see how one stock can actually hinder competition in any game that has any kind of solid advantages in actual game play for whoever is winning.
DD_
Smash Journeyman
Smash 4 has items built into the game as well guys! We better put them on!
Last edited:
DD_
Smash Journeyman
I for one support this notion.
Funny how a melee player is the only one who understood my point.
The stock lead is still incredibly strong in smash 4, and timing out is easier than ever.
At the same time, I asked for discussion, and only got opinions and someone crying foul for little mac. Geez.
The stock lead is still incredibly strong in smash 4, and timing out is easier than ever.
At the same time, I asked for discussion, and only got opinions and someone crying foul for little mac. Geez.
DD_
Smash Journeyman
Jamwa
Smash Champion
Sorry for providing opinion brb consulting universe for objective meaning
edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=T1kDlvMJhto
edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=T1kDlvMJhto
Last edited:
Luco
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 9,232
- Location
- The isle of venom, Australia
- NNID
- dracilus
- 3DS FC
- 2638-1462-5558
It should be noted that I actually incredibly enjoyed the one stuck ruleset and the title it/ @Nido gave me! 
(No really I actually do enjoy one stock rulesets, they're fun and crazy and force a different game from the player with the most endurance. Don't get me wrong I actually did a backflip and really enjoyed it)
Haha but in all seriousness, 1 stock in this game can be debated for somewhat similar reasons than in Brawl, yet I don't feel smash 4 particularly needs it quite so much, and i'll elaborate:
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. Most of these moves take longer to use (, ) or there's less of them for crazy stuff to happen ( mostly) or the characters that used them were quite literally nerfed out of existence (... ). Even with the multitude of new characters with ranged moves, camping really hasn't been their main ordeal. Even isn't that happy a camper (HA!), what with so many of the vets and newcomers alike having counters, reflectors, absorption methods and so on.
As a result, a closer, more interactive game has most certainly been encouraged. One which actually forces players to make decisions and has a depth of the same/similar quality I believe Brawl had in many of its match-ups that were largely ignored due to its unbalance, overall gameplay feel (which I actually liked! Hmph!) and of course everyone's favourite random tripping scenarios. This kind of raw battle in wit between players is a more even playing field, and the decision of players to play more aggressively or defensively in this game (not that defensively = camping playstyle necessarily) depending on their percent is a natural part of smash, just as peeps fighting more aggressively and defensively in other fighters can depend on health or whatnot. The stock lead is very strong in this game but for no other reason than it would be in any other game; that there is a demoralising effect, that it means you have to get that kill before you can work on their percent again really to be on equal footing and so on.
The reason kills are so important in this game are because they're actually rewards. If the better player (I dislike the term in this context because in more evenly skilled match-ups the 'better player' completely depends on the contect of the match and what's going on in it at any given time) gets a kill they deserved it and the other player is going to have to work to cross that line of being even again. It would be no different to a long distance running race where the kid in first position got a significant running lead. They earnt that lead and if the other kid wants it they have to work to get it. That doesn't mean you make all races 50m to compensate (which on the other hand completely invalidates the long distance runners whilst giving the sprinters an obnoxious advantage).
Smash is a game where any kind of stock rule will benefit and take away from different characters and their competitive viability. Yet overall I don't feel multi-stock games are invalidating of comebacks, yet they promote the ability of a player doing well to continue doing well.
It feels more like the argument shifts at this point to being whether we want to make upsets more possible. Upsets are great, so there's almost merit to calling for one stock to allow some variability in results; but I feel that would be more appropriate in a game where unbalance severely affected competition results. Personally I don't think smash 4 is quite like that and plenty of people will have the chance to go well in tournament play; but you could also argue otherwise. Then we come to a standstill because the game hasn't been out long enough to judge and everybody's like >:I
But really, I reckon giving both rulesets a go is fine. I don't think there's quite a need to solidify our stock rules just yet and while I understand the need for a solid ruleset early on, I still don't think that means we have to be cut-throat in all our decisions and make them the final say at the get go.
(No really I actually do enjoy one stock rulesets, they're fun and crazy and force a different game from the player with the most endurance. Don't get me wrong I actually did a backflip and really enjoyed it)
Haha but in all seriousness, 1 stock in this game can be debated for somewhat similar reasons than in Brawl, yet I don't feel smash 4 particularly needs it quite so much, and i'll elaborate:
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. Most of these moves take longer to use (
, ) or there's less of them for crazy stuff to happen ( mostly) or the characters that used them were quite literally nerfed out of existence (... ). Even with the multitude of new characters with ranged moves, camping really hasn't been their main ordeal. Even isn't that happy a camper (HA!), what with so many of the vets and newcomers alike having counters, reflectors, absorption methods and so on.As a result, a closer, more interactive game has most certainly been encouraged. One which actually forces players to make decisions and has a depth of the same/similar quality I believe Brawl had in many of its match-ups that were largely ignored due to its unbalance, overall gameplay feel (which I actually liked! Hmph!) and of course everyone's favourite random tripping scenarios. This kind of raw battle in wit between players is a more even playing field, and the decision of players to play more aggressively or defensively in this game (not that defensively = camping playstyle necessarily) depending on their percent is a natural part of smash, just as peeps fighting more aggressively and defensively in other fighters can depend on health or whatnot. The stock lead is very strong in this game but for no other reason than it would be in any other game; that there is a demoralising effect, that it means you have to get that kill before you can work on their percent again really to be on equal footing and so on.
The reason kills are so important in this game are because they're actually rewards. If the better player (I dislike the term in this context because in more evenly skilled match-ups the 'better player' completely depends on the contect of the match and what's going on in it at any given time) gets a kill they deserved it and the other player is going to have to work to cross that line of being even again. It would be no different to a long distance running race where the kid in first position got a significant running lead. They earnt that lead and if the other kid wants it they have to work to get it. That doesn't mean you make all races 50m to compensate (which on the other hand completely invalidates the long distance runners whilst giving the sprinters an obnoxious advantage).
Smash is a game where any kind of stock rule will benefit and take away from different characters and their competitive viability. Yet overall I don't feel multi-stock games are invalidating of comebacks, yet they promote the ability of a player doing well to continue doing well.
It feels more like the argument shifts at this point to being whether we want to make upsets more possible. Upsets are great, so there's almost merit to calling for one stock to allow some variability in results; but I feel that would be more appropriate in a game where unbalance severely affected competition results. Personally I don't think smash 4 is quite like that and plenty of people will have the chance to go well in tournament play; but you could also argue otherwise. Then we come to a standstill because the game hasn't been out long enough to judge and everybody's like >:I
But really, I reckon giving both rulesets a go is fine. I don't think there's quite a need to solidify our stock rules just yet and while I understand the need for a solid ruleset early on, I still don't think that means we have to be cut-throat in all our decisions and make them the final say at the get go.
Last edited:
DD_
Smash Journeyman
Dude your posts are always way too long can you just like add a TL;DR to everything you post cause I have other things I wanted to do today
How is it funny? It's not surprising at all as I hinted in my post.
it's pretty much a given that the sacrifice of gameplay that 1 stock delivers is something only people who don't intend to take the game seriously would be ok with.
I gave you plenty of substantial discussion but you ignore everything; you're not encouraging discussion at all, you're fist****ing us with your opinion in the form of one-liners with no factual/proven support.
Luco
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 9,232
- Location
- The isle of venom, Australia
- NNID
- dracilus
- 3DS FC
- 2638-1462-5558
I'm too much of a like seeker to post short stuff, I mean gawsh you guys should totally know this by now!Dude your posts are always way too long can you just like add a TL;DR to everything you post cause I have other things I wanted to do today
Umm, I suppose I can try in future. The post above covers several different points though so it's hard to; but if you want I can do it for that one haha.
TakFR
Smash Lord
This thread gave me cancer
DD_
Smash Journeyman
Well look the way things are going we're all going to die of Ebola soon anyway.
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.
Also, as the argument mounted against me regarding custom moves, has anyone here actually tried one stock?