• 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!

Competitive 1v1v1 (Or - What to do when you lack setups in a fest)

VirtualVoid

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
333
Location
Israel
Inspired by this thread http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=300336 I've decided to post something we like to do here for fun or in a severe lack of setups in a fest when 2v2 gets old :)
This is a little confusing so try to follow....

Basically, you play a normal 4 stock match with 3 players and assign each player a letter - A, B and C. Player A wins when B runs out of stock, B wins when C runs of stock and C wins when A runs out of stock. When the game ends the same players play another game with the roles reversed (A kills C, C kills B, B kills A). If the same player wins both games, he is declared the winner, if not, the two players that won play a 1v1 between them (We usually do 3 stock matches here).

This kind of gameplay creates interesting interactions, for example: If you are player A and your goal is to kill B, you will also try to save and protect C (Because if he loses all his stock, you lose - B wins), but remember, you are protecting and saving someone that is actually trying to kill you.

This is the basic idea, there are lots of variations on it like having the losing player (The one that died) get up and let someone else join, or have both players that didn't win in the set described above get up, or track points - 3 for the winner of the game, 1 to the player that didn't lose and 0 to the loser, or instead of having the two winners of a set play a 3 stock match, let them play each with how many stocks they had left when they won.

That's it, have fun!
 

Sim

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
167
Location
Quebec City
Really interesting!

Near where I am we're kinda like 3 good players, not 2 nor 4, so it's kinda boring to alternate duels, and it's impossible to 2v2.

Thanks for sharing. :)
 

t3h Icy

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,917
3 FFAs are always awkward, but that's an awesome idea to change that!
 

Metal Reeper

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,285
Location
Abington PA
Hmmm. I wanna try this. I wish Melee had kinda sub games in it like halo 2 did. Like we used to play SWAT. Cat and Mouse. Cops n robbers lol. Zombies :).
 

ss118

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
3,127
Location
Savannah, Georgia
I like the point system, personally. 3 for 1st place, 2 for second, and 1 for last place. Or subtract one point from each player so that the winner gets two points, second gets one, and last gets nothing. In the first case we usually go up to 21, in the second 11.

I do like this idea and will try it, though.
 

VirtualVoid

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
333
Location
Israel
This actually started as a stupid idea I had in Starcraft 1 years ago lol, awesome to see that people like it.

We call it Cutthroat, which is the usual term for 1v1v1.
 

Bones0

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
11,153
Location
Jarrettsville, MD
I was so sure this thread would say something stupid as soon as I saw "1v1v1", but that actually sounds really neat! Now I just need to find a third opponent... -.-
 

rhan

Smash Hero
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
6,107
Location
SoVA 757
I remember doing these with the NC smashers back in 2008.

They're mad fun.
 

CAPTAIN_FALCON23

Smash Cadet
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
36
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
The Cornell Smash Club listserv was starting to discuss this, so I figured I'd transcribe what we have so far over here:

[To extend to a 4-way gametype]
Sounds cool. For 4-way FFA do you think it would be better to have:

A wins if B dies
-> A and C are competing teammates (since D is trying to kill A and C is trying to kill D)
-> B is A's target
-> A is D's target
-> Priorities: kill B, avoid D, save D, save C

Or:

A wins if B and C die
-> Only B is not trying to kill A
-> All other players are trying to kill D
-> Priorities: kill C, kill B, avoid C and D, save D

Or:

A wins if B or C dies
-> Only B has nothing to gain from killing A
-> All other players can win by killing D
-> Priorities: kill B and/or C, avoid C and/or D, save D

I think variant 1 is the easiest to wrap your head around, there are too many dynamics in variants 2 and 3. Plus it encourages more saves, which I'd say is the least developed skill for most players.

You know, in competitive magic, we test new ideas. I think we should
try all of these and see functionally how all of these perform.
Something kinda interesting that people probably look over is that, in
doubles, the smash tier list isn't actually literally the same; this
is the same as how in MvC2 there are teams that have characters that
are good due to assists but are not as good in fighting.

As a result, certain characters might be more prevalent in this set up
than in singles and each of the three modes will probably favor
characters differently.

One problem with the second two variants is that two people win. How
does this effect things? What does this mean?

Also, can the level selection be different? The dynamic levels that
all got banned in singles (Fox conspiracy) are definitely better for
multiplayer settings.
There is little possibility of two people winning a single game--the game is over immediately when the first player reaches their win condition; this is why variants 2 and 3 are different. Simultaneous deaths do require some consideration but it's a minor issue (probably resolved by a 1v1 tiebreaker).

Early ideas about legal stages: walk-off sides and narrow death boxes should still be banned... unless for, say, Mushroom Kingdom II, we have a rule that prevents standing and waiting near the death box, kind of like a no-stalling rule. Stalling includes being offscreen for more than x seconds, for example.
I imagine we could take a look at most of the recently banned stages, i.e. Poké Floats, Mute City, Green Greens.
 

Nintendude

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
5,024
Location
San Francisco
Can we just assume that walk-offs are unfair in this style of match? At first glance, camping and stalling doesn't appear to be a viable strategy because your opponent doesn't have to approach you. Only your attacker must approach you, but you have nothing to gain from using cheesy edge tactics against him because killing him helps your opponent. The more time you spend stalling the more time your opponent has to win the game.

btw nice username Jimmy =p
 

Rykard

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
797
Location
Poughkeepsie, NY
jimmy doesn't want to change his name to aznstorm cause he is too fond of his 05 join date

and this sounds worth giving it a shot :D

we'll record friday and post if you guys want to see them
 

VirtualVoid

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
333
Location
Israel
So we tried using a point system but very quickly we stopped counting and just played normally :p
 
Top Bottom