Brawl 1-Stock Ruleset: For Better or For Worse?

[prog]

Nevermind, not going to get involved.

 

[Doser]

If you want evidence that the melee documentary was Anti-brawl, consider Prog's comments on PM. As further evidence he went on FB to later say he regretted those comments, and how he was goaded into saying anti-brawl comments.

No I wanted evidence that it was a "crusade", a few comments that could potentially hurt some brawl players feelings does not a co-ordinated assault on the community make.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Hold your horses there. I never said I was goaded. I was talking about my own experiences in the community during that time, what we were hoping for and what was delivered. I apologized on Facebook because I (still) regret those comments and probably should have used more tact when talking about the game. I've said before that it doesn't reward the style I like to play in any fighter. The documentary wasn't meant to be anti-Brawl, it was meant to tell the story of the Melee community, and Brawl's release through the scope of the Melee community of that era certainly left a huge footprint.

For posterity.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I would rather see the game I love die than see its ruleset being catered to the people who have never cared for the game before or have spent the past 6 years bashing it.

That is an extremely xenophobic view you have. I know it's a shame that your secret exclusionary club is opening its doors to outsiders, but bashing them about it won't help matters.

 

[pidgezero_one]

This thread smells like brawl kids.

Wow, I can make broad insulting statements and not add anything to the discussion too!

See my avatar and try to calm your nerves :'(

 

[prog]

For posterity.

And there it shall remain, then. Have issues with me or my comments, PM me.

 

[TreK]

To someone who's even remotely good at Brawl, 1 stock Brawl is not even nearly as interesting to watch as 2 stock Brawl or even 3 stock Brawl. It kind of screws over the concept of sacrificing play time for better viewer experience.

Well since you guys feel like experimenting, try 2 stocks next time.

 

[CyberZixx]

This thread smells like documentary kids

Now that is new term. "documentary kids". Smash's version of 09'ers.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

You'd have to be delusional to think that the Smash Documentary was somehow a crusade against Brawl. If you are referencing some other articles/videos then please display them and show how it's a focused attack on Brawl.

I've never even seen the damn documentary and I'm not going to watch it. Please, the Melee community's utterly petulant, sulky self-important docu-drama can go **** itself for all I care.

I was referring to the series of articles and interviews on sites you might have heard of like IGN, where top players and Melee community personalities made sure to let everyone know how much Brawl hurt them.

In these articles, the Melee community appropriated the term "Smasher" for themselves and subtly removed Brawl players from the label. We aren't to be included. Fine. I don't really like you or your game anyway. But guess what? I donated $20 to your MLG charity drive. I wonder if you would have donated for Brawl. I believed in the Smash community, you only believe in Melee.

 

[Djent]

To the people worried about the amount of time players have to adapt:

If we can determine a sample of "representative" competitive 3-stock matches, then we can determine roughly how much more variable 1-stock matches are in comparison. To do this, we'd need to know the % of time that the first person who won the match won the first stock. And if we know that, I'm sure there's a way to mathematically estimate the difference in variability between the two formats.

Believe it or not, comparing 1st-stock victories to match victories has been done before, and the result made 1-stock formats look far less random than people imagine (especially when played as Bo5s). In @Tuen's analysis, only about 1/4 matches had outcomes different than the first stock would predict. Of course, this data is old as **** now, so we should probably repeat the methods using data from at least the past two APEXes. If we do, we can easily make a new estimate (one I suspect will not differ significantly from the old one; though obviously it's still worth checking).

However, it's worth noting that human psychology might scale in unpredictable ways, confounding this methodology. Back in the golden days of AiB, HugS writing a blog that touched on the "last stock" mentality he and other players had observed in themselves. If this is true, it should actually make play more interesting, but it could also produce different results than the first-stock analysis would predict. I think there's a good deal of person-to-person variability with this confound, so it's hard to even imagine a way to systematically address it.

Furthermore, playing the first stock of a 3-stock match is different than playing a 1-stock match, in the same way game 1 of a Bo3 is different than game 1 of a Bo7. When people realize they have more time to adapt, the optimal strategy is sometimes to use that time to play experimentally and "learn" your opponent. This is another psychological factor that simply looking at the 1st stock of a 3-stock set won't accomplish.

Despite these issues, looking at the disparity between 1st-stock leads and winners in the 3-stock format should tell us something about variance in the 1-stock format.

TL;DR: Empiricism plz, especially since we (mostly) already know how to figure out the answer.

EDIT: I thought of some more things to control for:

-Skill difference (is most easily remedied by using matches from later in bracket, which we have more recordings of anyway).
-Character matchups (we could use mirrors or matchups otherwise accepted to be roughly "even" by SWF Matchup Chart standards).
-Stage differences (I honestly don't see this being an issue on static stages, but we should probably exclude stuff like Halberd/Delfino/etc. when legal).

There may be other things I haven't thought of yet. I still think this is doable, but at this point we'll definitely need more than just the matches from the past two APEXes in order to get large enough samples.

 

[pidgezero_one]

Human psychology plays to it in more ways than people realize. Time between games = break in focus, and short interrupted bursts of concentration are inferior performance-wise to longer periods. 1 stock is still great though

 

[Doq]

What's next? 7-stock Melees?
But in all seriousity, 2 stocks is the way to go.

 

[EazyDI]

I actually don't mind that Melee and PM are getting more popular... :3 No disrespect to Brawl tho, still a smash game.

Melee has always been relatively popular, PM is the game that REALLY blew up.

 

[BlueXenon]

That is an extremely xenophobic view you have. I know it's a shame that your secret exclusionary club is opening its doors to outsiders, but bashing them about it won't help matters.

I don't want brawl's ruleset to be catered to the people who have called brawl every bad name they can think of. Brawl's ruleset should be catered to the people who have always been loyal to the game and everyone else is welcome to play it that way.

 

[EZVega]

What I've done for my tourneys was:
-3 stock
-5 mins (fights usually end before time is up anyway)
-Up the Damage Ratio to 1.5

Plenty of time to finish the matches in time for the next event and it generally makes the atmosphere for Brawl players less tense than they should be. I would suggest bumping the damage up. It's pretty fair, I believe.

 

[pidgezero_one]

I don't want brawl's ruleset to be catered to the people who have called brawl every bad name they can think of. Brawl's ruleset should be catered to the people who have always been loyal to the game and everyone else is welcome to play it that way.

However I'm extremely skeptical as to how loyal its players are going to remain when Smash 4 comes out.

Everyone is welcome to their own opinions on the game but if you were just gonna ditch it for smash 4 anyway I don't really care what you think about the ruleset

 

[Kink-Link5]

I don't want brawl's ruleset to be catered to the people who have called brawl every bad name they can think of. Brawl's ruleset should be catered to the people who have always been loyal to the game and everyone else is welcome to play it that way.

And it is better to cater to the few people inside an exclusionary bubble? If players are truly loyal to the game, they won't let a ruleset change stop them from playing. If a community of one hundred people has forty leave and eighty new people come in with the change, the change is good for the community. If forty people would rather their community die than let it be "tainted by the outsiders," then they don't need to be a part of that community. Everyone can enjoy the new format and the loyalists are welcome to play that way.

The same held true when Brawl was released and several Melee players left the scene entirely. The community at large was moving towards Brawl events, and many Melee players wanted nothing to do with it. Many have since come back to the scene as Melee's popularity reserged and Melee-Brawl events have taken place. If a few sour apples want to ruin everyone else's fun, they can grumble to themselves as the majority enjoy the changes being made.

 

[BlueXenon]

If a community of one hundred people has forty leave and eighty new people come in with the change, the change is good for the community.

I don't mind changing the ruleset so more people play the game, but I do mind changing the ruleset so that it appeals to people who have literally thought of brawl players as an inferior race.

 

[link2702]

you know guys...you'd save yourself a lot of trouble and could of possibly salvaged this game if you'd just stopped the issue first hand....

All y'all had to do was keep the masked bat banned. The brawl community killed itself by being stubborn and not wanting to ban a broken character.

the counterpick system would of worked, you would of been able to keep more stages legal, people would of been more interested in matches due to it not being the same single handful of characters who stood a chance against metaknight, and the game might very well of went down a different path.

But what does the community do instead? starts putting more and more ridiculous ruleset changes up all in an effort to "attempt" to slightly nerf MK just enough to keep him legal, instead of just getting rid of the real issue out right.

Now its doing it once more.....

 

[Kink-Link5]

I don't mind changing the ruleset so more people play the game, but I do mind changing the ruleset so that it appeals to people who have literally thought of brawl players as an inferior race.

I don't see how that is remotely related to what I or you have thus far said, but okay. I don't know of a single person that "literally thinks of Brawl players as an inferior race." Making up exaggerated shadows to fight for purely cynical reasons is hardly better than the exaggerations themselves.

But yes, I agree that shadow people waving their thespian melee scepters over what they see as the Brawl plebeians are bad.

More to the point, any argument being made here is that smash community as a whole has been thus far very divided. If a change in the ruleset is something that brings more people into the Brawl portion of the community to see the differently-paced game in a positive light, it can't be bad. Further distancing and shutting out the bad, **** spewing people of "the Melee community" is no better than what the Melee (and to extrapolate, the Smash) community did when faced with oppression by the Fighting Game Community. With the donation drive showing what passion Smashers have for their game and getting it on screen for the second most viewed finals of all of last EVO, it showed the fighting game community at large what a genuine game Smash is.

Faced with oppression, the Smash community thrived and now has several competitive players with sponsorships from former outsiders. Mango and M2K are having their travel expanses FUNDED, as if they were, you know, actually important members of the larger Pro Gaming community.

Rather than setting up walls and archers against the big mean Melee bullies, Brawl players should rejoice at the fact that there exists a potential for more inclusion and more interest in their game, even if it means a change. Because with that potential, there exists a probability, no, a reality where there is such a minimal segregation between the smash games.

And we all have Jason Zimmermanson from Cinnaminson to thank for it.

you know guys...you'd save yourself a lot of trouble and could of possibly salvaged this game if you'd just stopped the issue first hand....

All y'all had to do was keep the masked bat banned. The brawl community killed itself by being stubborn and not wanting to ban a broken character.

the counterpick system would of worked, you would of been able to keep more stages legal, people would of been more interested in matches due to it not being the same single handful of characters who stood a chance against metaknight, and the game might very well of went down a different path.

But what does the community do instead? starts putting more and more ridiculous ruleset changes up all in an effort to "attempt" to slightly nerf MK just enough to keep him legal, instead of just getting rid of the real issue out right.

Now its doing it once more.....

Metaknight has nothing to do with Blizzard walls for 6 minutes following a chaingrab kill, nor does he have anything to do with stocks in general taking 2:30 to finish out, leading to prolonged games and viewer fatigue. Removing MK just makes viewers have to watch the other same characters doing the same thing for seven minutes.

Besides of course the fact that the top-5 of our thus-far-only data point would contend against the claim that Ice Climbers becomes crazy buffed under the format. The top five were Jason's MK, followed by a single Ice Climber player, Ally's Roster, an Olimar, and another MK. This is no different than the results of traditional tournaments, and got done in a significantly shorter time. Again, with only a single anecdote, any pattern is nonexistent, but if the trend continues -- that is, if the results of the game end up being the same under a faster ruleset -- then there exists a very strong argument for the change over. There was a time when Melee players thought the change to a smaller stage list was radical too, but it has proven a successful model for the game.

 

[P0pz]

The fact that it got mango interested enough to enter brawl singles is success enough IMO.

 

[BlueXenon]

I don't see how that is remotely related to what I or you have thus far said, but okay. I don't know of a single person that "literally thinks of Brawl players as an inferior race." Making up exaggerated shadows to fight for purely cynical reasons is hardly better than the exaggerations themselves.

But yes, I agree that shadow people waving their thespian melee scepters over what they see as the Brawl plebeians are bad.

More to the point, any argument being made here is that smash community as a whole has been thus far very divided. If a change in the ruleset is something that brings more people into the Brawl portion of the community to see the differently-paced game in a positive light, it can't be bad. Further distancing and shutting out the bad, **** spewing people of "the Melee community" is no better than what the Melee (and to extrapolate, the Smash) community did when faced with oppression by the Fighting Game Community. With the donation drive showing what passion Smashers have for their game and getting it on screen for the second most viewed finals of all of last EVO, it showed the fighting game community at large what a genuine game Smash is.

Faced with oppression, the Smash community thrived and now has several competitive players with sponsorships from former outsiders. Mango and M2K are having their travel expanses FUNDED, as if they were, you know, actually important members of the larger Pro Gaming community.

Rather than setting up walls and archers against the big mean Melee bullies, Brawl players should rejoice at the fact that there exists a potential for more inclusion and more interest in their game, even if it means a change. Because with that potential, there exists a probability, no, a reality where there is such a minimal segregation between the smash games.

And we all have Jason Zimmermanson from Cinnaminson to thank for it.

Part of the reason why people are promoting 1 stock brawl is so brawl gets more spectators, specfically on twitch I assume. If you've ever been to a smash stream on twitch, you would understand that what I said is not an exaggeration. I appreciate your reply and I did learn from it.

 

[GangsterPuff]

Why not just make 3 stocks, ban ICs CG, MK, reduce ledge grab limit even more, and limit usage of projectiles and items?

 

[Hitzel]

As long as the sets require more wins (best of 7 instead of 3), I don't see much of a problem with this format. Most other fighting games go onto a new "round" each time a character dies, so saying that there's no adaptation possible with one-stock is a pretty silly thing to say.

Now of course, the way you respawn and keep fighting in Smash is something that makes it unique, but since camping with a stock lead is one of the major problems being dealt with it the first place I think it's safe to not care.

Thinking about this makes me kinda realize that the time-limit default ruleset to Smash Bros is pretty similar to this, lol.

 

[DakotaBonez]

Was against it til I actually saw it in action. Much more entertaining.

 

[Vinylic.]

If it's for the viewership, then I approve. I don't really want it to go any farther than that.

 

[Da Black Rabbit]

I enjoy watching PM and Melee far more. 1 stock does bring a certain amount of intensity, though.

 

[TheLegendaryKRB]

I like it for Brawl not anything else.

Im starting to rethink this ruleset. After ICs will **** in this ruleset. How about 2-stocks maybe???

 

[rawrimamonster]

Honestly with the way that brawl has come along I feel it's become a necessity because of the nature of the game and how players play it. As an outsider to Brawl, I simply do not understand the hype behind watching a MK swipe at a climbers shield forever while they wait for handoffs. It's more irritating to watch than the game is to play. I understand you dudes are playing to win, but you gotta realize that the way you play is reflective of your game.

I respect your dedication to keeping your game going, and how hard some of you are working to better it in the eyes of nonsmashers and others in the community. But you have to realize most of us already made up our minds about it years ago and there are even people still leaving Brawl behind even now.

I'm not trying to be an ass, troll, hate you, or your love for your game.... but at this point from what news I've been seeing constantly, the brawl community is drowning with a ball and chain wrapped around its ankle. The drowning being you're fighting back against yourselves, your playstyles, and a community thats falling apart at the seams, and the ball and chain being a game in the smash series that was never meant to be viewed in a competitive manner.

I know the level of intelligence and needed game knowledge that is needed to play Brawl at a high level is indeed respectable, but the game itself, by its very nature is fighting back hard against you guys. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at yknow. The game is meant to be a insult, a spit in the eye, to the competitive community. I just think it's time to accept it and let it go or become a side event like 64, because interest has (from what i've seen personally) moved on to other games. :\

 

[Splice]

A common complaint from people is that the 1 stock format doesn't allow you to adapt. These matches are usually first 3/5 or 4/7 if we're using 1 stock. Why can't people adapt across games? If you dropped first stock theres a large chance you'll take % before landing the kill.
You could end up quite far behind. Being 50% behind at the start of a stock can be a lot more in this game than Melee/PM.

I prefer to try and adjust any decisions/ideas and habits that got me hit and killed in game one, go straight to game two with a fresh mindset and a fresh stock and be able to actually use those adjustments to win the game, rather than trying to employ them in a game I'm already quite far behind in. There is more time to adjust in a 3 stock set because the set takes more time, but with a bo5 for 1 stock there is sufficient leeway to pickup on something they are doing that you shouldn't be losing to and fix the problem.

You need to try as hard as you can in every game to give yourself the opportunity to adjust when something new beats you.

We've done this in Melbourne, Australia, for our last two tournaments, one of which was a Major. The top 3 was as hype as ever and I saw people have plenty of time to pick up and alter things in their game.

 

[Joe73191]

IC climbers will be too OP in a one stock format, 2 stock is preferable. I like the idea of removing tripping on everyone but metaknight. This will placate the ban metaknight crowd. I think it's funny how even in official brawl tournaments brawl still needs to be moded to be played competitively.

Honestly with smash 4 around the corner and the rise of PM I don't think brawl should be saved but for the sake of the brawl crowd if you really want to save it you should lower the time limit. Force the players to rush and stop camping and playing defensive. A short time limit can do that or maybe rather than stock matches brawl would benefit from timed matches. It would force brawl players to be more aggressive and focus on getting kills. Or who knows maybe stamina matches. Anything that would really spice things up and change things would help at this point. Honestly though the best way is a short time limit. Time limit = number of stocks + 1 minute. start with 1 stock 2 minutes, start with 2 stock 3 minutes, 3 stock 4 minutes. This would make brawl much faster paced.

 

[Stryker]

Obviously, to them Brawl isn't inferior. Just because it is to you or whatever statistics you tout does not mean it is for everyone, everywhere. People have different priorities for gameplay, and it is quite apparent that theirs are a world or two away from yours. That doesn't mean they are wrong or you are wrong, it just means you have different opinions. These kinds of things are a matter of perspective, just like basically everything else in the world.

I don't care what you think about Brawl or where it's going. You can feel free to keep your biased Melee elitist complex. But you don't need to make other people feel crappy about themselves (yes, that is what ****ty, negative statements like yours do to people) because of your differences. Try to be a bit civil; just because nobody knows who you are on the internet doesn't give you free reign to be an ***.

The way I see it, the fact that this article exists - and that a bunch of Brawl players have already commented on it, both for and against - is evidence that Brawl is not dead, or even dying. Statistically it is less-popular than Melee, yes, but "smaller" is not the same as "dead."

I've literally never touched Melee in my life. Never owned a Gamecube. Assumptions make an ass out of you and me bud.

Secondly, did you happen to read the article at all?
" Essentially, Brawl’s popularity is diminishing."
Diminishing, dying, getting smaller, slice it any way you like, thats what the article is saying. The fact that this article exists is due to brawls dying popularity, as it states so right in the article.

"The 1-Stock Ruleset was put in place as a response to the recent decline in interest for Brawl tournaments. It is meant to differentiate Brawl from the other games in the series, including the upcoming Super Smash Bros. 4."

DECLINE IN INTEREST BRO. THAT MEANS ITS NOT AS POPULAR.
K glad we got some reading comprehension going on with this article.

Getting back to my original post that this is responding to, I acknowledged a blanket negative statement made about all brawl players was out of line and baseless. I also talked about how brawlers were perceived by the rest of the community and that the game was dying. I don't think any of that was uncivil, but I certainly am being so now.

Just as you have the right to like (What I believe to be) a terrible game, I have the right to the opinion that it is, in fact a terrible game, and to express them so long as I'm not attack anyone, which my last post didn't.

As for some input towards the format? I think it's probably all been said. Smash is a game fo creativity and adaptation. You don't exactly have much time to do that with a single stock. I personally would prefer three but then the matches would take too long for my taste. So, two for spectators sake, but three for the competitive side if you really want to see who is the best.

 

[7dogguy]

I would say 2 stocks at the least, 1 stock isn't enough time to build excitement or hype in my opinion.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I find it kind of funny that so many people are of the presumption that Ice Climbers will become buffed, win more, or be more broken by this ruleset when no data has been collected to back the thought up. There has been one major sanctioned tournament with the ruleset, and it still had just one IC in the top 5 and two MKs, no different than in any ordinary tournament.

Do Ice Climbers seem a more lucrative character choice in this format? Sure they do. Instead of having to wait around for two minutes to get a chain grab, then blizzard wall with intense positioning for another six, the match ends after just the grab part.

However, a full stock differential in Brawl is a much larger concern than in other smash games, to the point that the person on the losing end absolutely has to approach, capitalize, and finish the opponent only to STILL be behind by percentage afterward. The ends of this amount to an Ice Climber that gets an early kill being in such a position that they can play more patiently, waste more viewing time, and generally make a joke out of their opponent in a scenario they are 80% likely to win no matter what. If the opponent mucks up their attempts to regain a lead, IT'S ANOTHER STOCK. If the opponent tries to chip away at Ice Climbers through attrition, IT'S ANOTHER SIX MINUTES OFF THE CLOCK.

I would argue, in fact, that this ruleset DISFAVORS Ice Climbers, from a theoretical standpoint at the least. In a normal set of three stocks, three games, a stock disadvantage means a lot longer time spent waiting out the game -- I've iterated this, but don't mean to drag on about it. It also means the Ice Climber player that got a chain grab is already in a very, very winning position for the game -- again, just to reiterate. The battle Ice Climbers fight for the rest of a game after a chain grab is NOT the same battle their opponent is fighting. Now, look at it in the context of 1-stock, 7-games. Ice Climbers get a grab, bam, dead Wario, or Fox, or whoever. Now that player is up one game in the set, but that chain grab and kill has no physical impact on the next game. They now have to fight the same battle as their opponent for the next game.

The difference between these two scenarios highlights my point: In a three-stock or two-stock setup, if Ice Climbers get a grab, it sets them in an advantageous position for a third of the set (a fifth in finals) or, in another view, in a position that they are already half-way toward winning the set (a third of the way in finals). In a one-stock setup, a chain grab is a (mostly) assured game win, but only impacts one-seventh of the set, or wins them one out of four needed games.

Another point is that just as a single chain grab can mean death, a single Nana gimp means the one niche Ice Climbers hold in the 1-stock set up gives them their very weakness in it.

Yes, I'm aware that with a stock difference, there is a CHANCE to come back against Ice Climbers, but it gives them such a disproportionate advantage that it is a dreg to overcome and makes for such long and miserable spectator involvement that that 20% chance is worth sacrificing. Letting the situation come back to a neutral point for characters after a KO solves the dreg and keeps the Ice Climber player having to play the same game as their opponent seven times, instead of three.

 

[Deleted member]

I like it because it speeds up an already slow game. Maybe increase standard matches from 3 to 5 instead of just finals? I'm also for the idea of trying 2 stock which sounds like it could fix a lot of the issues 1 stock had like SD kills being OP and lacking skill like M2K said. It's a better middle ground and is still more entertaining then standard brawl.

Plus these matches are more hype and more entertaining to watch then 3 stock brawl, which I have never even bothered to watch.

 

[Wasp]

well the only good side of 1 stock to me is that you'll play more cautious... you'll only get one chance... there's no payback... but the match will be too short imo. I still prefer the 3 stock.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I like it because it speeds up an already slow game.

There's nothing wrong with Brawl being a slow-paced game. There are a plethora of slow games that are competitive and popular. Brawl's pace is not an issue except in regards to your own expectations. SF4 is a relatively slow game at top levels and might even be considered "campy" but remains very popular among the FGC. Yeah, there are people that dislike the game for its pace and people who have stuck with previous titles or play other games like Marvel, but SF4's pace from a design perspective is not a problem. And neither is Brawl's.

Brawl's competitive issues are what they are (random elements, frame delays) but let's not try to paint its slow pace as an objective fault, please. The cool thing about Smash games is how different they all are from one another. If you want Melee, you have it, and in fact you have it twice now (with the Project M fan mod).

When Brawl came out, the community mostly kept Melee's rule set with only minor considerations for Brawl's different pace and gameplay style. Brawl is a 2-stock game, not a 3- or 4-stock game. 1 stock is an "improvement" but it's too extreme a change and not necessary.

Smash 4 might be the real 3-stock game, based on video footage and based on what we know about its mechanics, but it is still too soon to say.

 

[TheQuasiZillionaire]

I've literally never touched Melee in my life. Never owned a Gamecube. Assumptions make an *** out of you and me bud.

Well, my bad on that, but even if it was incorrect it was a pretty safe assumption at the time.

Secondly, did you happen to read the article at all?
" Essentially, Brawl’s popularity is diminishing."
Diminishing, dying, getting smaller, slice it any way you like, thats what the article is saying. The fact that this article exists is due to brawls dying popularity, as it states so right in the article.

Yes, I read the article. Last time I checked, articles were not scholarly documents. And besides, "diminishing popularity" still does not imply impending death. There are die-hard Brawl-ers just like there are die-hard Melee-ers, there just aren't as many of them.

I also talked about how brawlers were perceived by the rest of the community and that the game was dying. I don't think any of that was uncivil...

[...] So, maybe people who play brawl aren't derpy, but the are making the choice to play an inferior game. You have to understand how that looks to everyone else. (It looks kind of dumb.) It's sad to see people cling to the worst version of something we all love and doing stuff like this just to try to stay relevant.
Just let your game die with grace. It's going to when smash 4 comes out anyway. Brawl was never competitive [...]

You basically followed a half-assed not-really-apology with a smack-in-the-face insulting of what those same people hold dear. You took your own word as truth, and talked as if everyone who plays Brawl is ********. Not exactly the epitome of civility if you ask me.

 

[I Dair You]

When i play Brawl, i use the no tripping + no random 1-3 frame lag codes. it makes it much more fun. if anybody wants s link to my custom gct to try out, just message me. also, leave the stocks at 3. Its how its always been, Brawl is a game moreso about brainpower and adapting, as opposed to overpowering your opponent with tech skill. I enjoy all smash games, and Brawl is definitely the most unique.

 

[LancerStaff]

I like this because it speeds Brawl up and limits the amount of time spent camping, but it prevents comebacks and makes the ICs stronger, or at least makes them appear to be stronger leading to a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

I also like the actual act of change and hope it will lead to other games being more open to change, but in the end I believe 2 stocks would be the better option.