Idea to add HYPE! to our tournaments

[CT Chia]

lol 2 stock you never have to use ivysaur

In your case you would never have to use Charizard. Your Ivysaur is too good.

 

[stingers]

lool chibo knows.
hard reads baby

 

[Hive]

2 stocks sounds fun :D looking at the thread a lot of people agree. I personally think it'd be kwl because the added randomness means middle and low tiers can win more (short term advantages can be capitalized on).

but it doesn't really matter does it? You could have 90% of smashboards agree with you. But until there is a viable way for decisions like this to be implemented it just will fall back on theorycrafting, maybe one or two tournaments might try it, but without strong initial momentum, stranded in their decision to be innovative, it will fall back onto precedent and habit. What's holding up smash isn't the ability to come up with innovative ways to help the scene or to figure out what's beneficial, I think its in its ability to actually apply a decision or ruleset change and get it to stick in practice. I've seen a lot of great ideas live and die on the forums :/

 

[Sails]

but it doesn't really matter does it? You could have 90% of smashboards agree with you. But until there is a viable way for decisions like this to be implemented it just will fall back on theorycrafting, maybe one or two tournaments might try it, but without strong initial momentum, stranded in their decision to be innovative, it will fall back onto precedent and habit. What's holding up smash isn't the ability to come up with innovative ways to help the scene or to figure out what's beneficial, I think its in its ability to actually apply a decision or ruleset change and get it to stick in practice. I've seen a lot of great ideas live and die on the forums :/

"To change takes more than to remain. Therefore we lay back in the comfort of our chains." - Machinae Supremacy

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I support this rule change. =D

 

[Kuro~]

I suppport this. It's pretty interesting tbh.

 

[Djent]

So I was just browsing the Brawl forum on SRK, and look what I found in the ISP thread:

ITT: People will be too hung up on convention to seriously consider this post.

I just think it's funny how this idea was proposed for one of the most hated rulesets of all time, and back then it was completely ignored. Even by our community's most open-minded members. (Sorry Jack, I respect your opinions and I'm not trying to pick on you...I just need to do this to prove a point.) But after 3 years of watching degenerate gameplay, even conservative players are jumping on this idea as some brilliant way of saving the competitive scene. Irony at its best, folks.

The saddest part is, that had I been into competitive smash at that time, I too probably would have been in that thread looking for every reason to uphold convention. It also kind of makes you think...how much more wasted potential is contained within this game?

 

[stingers]

well the sf community is generally a lot smarter then us >.> so im not too surprised

 

[Jack Kieser]

You're not picking on me at all. Don't feel bad. You're totally right that, back in '08, 2 stocks was too low. It was also too low when Ganon could get a timer and 0-death you, and when we were still trying to figure out all of the exploits around various items. Although NOW, plenty of evidence has been presented in-tournament to suggest that lowering the stock count / time limit would work, back then (and in the context of item play), it didn't make sense (note: there was also no MK then, and DDD was the most legit threat in the game).

TL;DR: Information changes with time, and so thoughts should change to reflect the most accurate understanding of the universe at the time, instead of holding fast to outdated ideas. Information changed, and so my thoughts changed. It's good for you to bring up that old info, though, because it gives us perspective; how many of us would have thought in '08 that, 3 years later, we would seriously be considering 2 stocks? Not many, yet here we are. Progress is awesome.

Also, hating other gaming communities is ********. Keits is legit, and we **** on him for the longest time because he had the audacity to not agree with us. Hopefully, we've grown since then.

 

[Life]

If we're going to mess with the number of stocks we have, that removes any reason not to just go right to one-stock food, without passing Go nor collecting 200 of your country's currency.

Even if we ignore food for now, if 2 stock is better than 3 stock, why is 1 stock not better than 2 stock?

 

[Kantrip]

Because no one is saying that less stocks is better, merely that two are better than three.

if having 2 eyes is better than having 3 eyes, why is 1 eye not better than 2 eyes?

 

[kid craft 24/sonic master]

So I'll most likely try and test out this using 2 stocks 5 minutes as well as using score 3 minute+items matches. Both imo allow the matches to get hyped up and not last forever. The latter would just need to be thoroughly tested due to the items factor. Though ISP has shown items can be used if put together properly.

 

[Steam]

are we going to change to 2 stocks in dubz too? I like lucario being viable in dubz

 

[V]

Because eyes are completely irrelivent to stocks in smash. I made a proposition for a 1 stock system that included new rules that made it possible for no two sets to be alike while making the game hype enough to gain interest from EVO, MLG, and any other possible stages that size. Sadly everybody has been in this thread and I haven't gotten much feedback.

EDIT: the rules for doubles are perfect as is

 

[Life]

Biologically speaking, 3 eyes is in fact better than having 2, as you gain a greater field of vision and still have good depth perception if you lose one. Meanwhile, having 1 is significantly worse than both because of the lack of depth perception and smaller field of vision.

Socially/aesthetically speaking, it's subjective. If we all had three eyes, it wouldn't be nearly as uncanny as it seems to us two-eyed folks. Likewise, if we were all cyclopean, it would seem unnatural to have more than one eye.

Meanwhile, I see no reason why having two stocks is superior to having one stock, except by criteria that make three-stock superior to both.

"Games take too long!" --> One-stock games are even shorter.
"Too much variance in one-stock!" --> Three-stock would logically have less than two.

However, let me argue for one-stock on its own merits (Bo7, for the sake of the argument):

First, one-stock games are very quick. If your opponent is going for a time-out (which is a legit strategy IMO, but for the rest of you who find it boring), it'll take three minutes, as opposed to the 8 minutes it takes now or 5-6 it would take under a two-stock rule (and 9 or 10 if the increased-timer crowd were to have its way).

Second, greater stage variety. With shorter games, we can afford to do sets longer than best-of-three; longer sets combined with DSR means that stuff like "Brinstar should be banned because MK is unstoppable there" or "It's too easy to get killed by the cars on PTAD" is even less justified. Any one stage has much less an effect on the match.

I'd add the inability to have a stock lead as well, but that really only shines when food is added and I'm only arguing for one-stock ATM anyway.

Holy carp I got ninja'd.

 

[Kantrip]

So more eyes are better then, why aren't more stocks better?

Spoiler

I should have trollfaced the original post too, I apologize.

I find 1 stock to be a little bit extreme, as it can make gimmicks such as Ice Climbers' chain grabs the deciding factor for a game, with only a single grab. This removes skill from the game, as a mediocre player who focuses on the chain grab can suddenly take games off of top players with a single grab, and it can put way too much pressure on each game. Sure, there are more games per set, so losing one doesn't matter as much, but the momentum would stay the same with the counterpick system.

Example: Ice Climbers vs. any character

Game 1: Battlefield - Ice Climbers manage to get a grab off, they don't drop it, they win the first game.

Game 2: Ice Climbers ban Brinstar, opponent goes MK and beats them on Rainbow Cruise. 1-1 set.

Game 3: Opponent bans FD, Ice Climbers get a single grab on Smashville. 2-1 ICs.

Game 4: Opponent wins as MK on their CP again.

Etc. Etc. Ice Climbers won the first game, so as long as they get a single grab on each of their counterpicks, they win the set.

 

[V]

That could happen yes but a good player won't lose to an IC who can only grab and that's it. How often does an IC take the first stock with a CG before they lose nana/popo/both. I would actually like to see that data. We would have to test these rules on a large scale level to see if anybody becomes over dominant or if things balance out.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Momentum carries FAR less across multiple games than it does across the same game.

1-stock doesn't put focus on chain-grabs, gimps, etc... at all. If anything, it makes them worse.

 

[Kantrip]

Eh, I would prefer 2 stocks. Comebacks are one of the things that hype me up.

@Grim Tuesday - When a single mistake can mean the entire game... meh. It's nice to see players who perform really well while they are down a stock and make a comeback after an early CG or gimp or other similar lock. With this new set, it's no longer watching comebacks in a match, it's watching counterpicks that set the game back on equal footing. It's not the same.

 

[san.]

It's unlikely to go through that many stage transitions in a 1 stock match.

If you lose a stock, reevaluation is decreased since you're going to go to another stage.
Lack of a comeback factor, and instead of gimps being strong punishes, instead they'll be absolutes.

Characters like PT/Lucario are affected at 1 stock, but not at 2, also. I don't really think Lucario would be worse, just that everything would happen in 1 stock. PT would be able to use one character, but that's a good thing I guess.

People don't want it short, it's just that they don't want matches long and drawn out.

2 stocks aren't really fixing problems directly, it's a suggestion towards what the title is talking about: adding hype and making it more interesting to watch/play.

 

[Eddie G]

Alright, we're starting to reach a point where it looks like we're trying just a bit too hard to change the format here.

 

[Life]

You know, if ICs got a grab every stock in the current ruleset, they'd look just as OP. Jussayin.

 

[Tesh]

Comebacks are hype, but hardcore camping making even the smallest comebacks also dehypes significantly.

 

[Eddie G]

You know, if ICs got a grab every stock in the current ruleset, they'd look just as OP. Jussayin.

Don't get grabbed, or play a character better equipped to not get grabbed. I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[Life]

Um.... yeah? That's exactly what I'm saying...

So more eyes are better then, why aren't more stocks better?

Spoiler

I should have trollfaced the original post too, I apologize.

I find 1 stock to be a little bit extreme, as it can make gimmicks such as Ice Climbers' chain grabs the deciding factor for a game, with only a single grab. This removes skill from the game, as a mediocre player who focuses on the chain grab can suddenly take games off of top players with a single grab, and it can put way too much pressure on each game. Sure, there are more games per set, so losing one doesn't matter as much, but the momentum would stay the same with the counterpick system.

Example: Ice Climbers vs. any character

Game 1: Battlefield - Ice Climbers manage to get a grab off, they don't drop it, they win the first game.

Game 2: Ice Climbers ban Brinstar, opponent goes MK and beats them on Rainbow Cruise. 1-1 set.

Game 3: Opponent bans FD, Ice Climbers get a single grab on Smashville. 2-1 ICs.

Game 4: Opponent wins as MK on their CP again.

Etc. Etc. Ice Climbers won the first game, so as long as they get a single grab on each of their counterpicks, they win the set.

^Was replying to this

 

[Ghostbone]

Gimps/chain-grabs aren't broken with 1 stock compared to 3 stocks.
I mean think about it, if you're gimped in a 3 stock match, that's pretty much the game right there if you're now a whole stock ahead, which is basically 1/3 of the set.
Compared to 1 stock, where it's probably only 1/7 of the set.

 

[Kantrip]

This thread is about adding hype back to our game. I don't think games being won by a single grab does this. Comebacks are much more hype, but as we've seen these are very rare due to the campiness of this game. With 2 stocks, a grab can occur off a read by the Ice Climbers or a mistake by their opponent, and it doesn't HAVE to be the game right there. The opponent can than come back on their second and still win the game. This is hype.

ghostbone, you didn't take into account comebacks either. Say you and your opponent are both at high percents first stock. They get a kill move on you off first. With 1 stock, that would be the game right there. With 2 stocks, there is the chance for a revenge kill that evens the game back up and then a comeback. Very plausible, and far more hype.

 

[Tesh]

ICs would be worse. In a Bo9, they won't get more than like...3 good ICs stages.

Meh, Crimson, 3 stock matches can that way too. Ever hear of a "last hit" game. If we played 4 stocks, those games might have a different outcome as well.

 

[Kantrip]

Yes, I have. However, in 1-stock games, these would occur FAR more often. Almost every game could come down to "last hit" as there is no more "last hit last stock". Every stock is the last stock.

Not being able to kill basically screws you.

Snake, for example, can hold grenades and trade hits all day, then just up tilt before he's in kill percents and win the match.

 

[stingers]

Yes, I have. However, in 1-stock games, these would occur FAR more often. Almost every game could come down to "last hit" as there is no more "last hit last stock". Every stock is the last stock.

Not being able to kill basically screws you.

Snake, for example, can hold grenades and trade hits all day, then just up tilt before he's in kill percents and win the match.

how is this strategy different in a 1 stock match then a 3 stock match XD

 

[Kantrip]

The fact that 1 stock puts more emphasis on it and any other strategies like it because you only have to do it one time to win.

Here's another example: Bowsercides and Ganoncides.

 

[stingers]

no you dont, you'd have to do it 4 times to win, in a BO7

 

[Kantrip]

to win the match.*

Not the set. "Taking games off someone" should still be an accomplishment. Otherwise, there is over-centralization going on.

 

[stingers]

taking games off someone has never been an accomplishment

 

[Djent]

I don't think :bowserbrawlides or :ganonbrawlides are going to be a problem in a 1 stock ruleset, because those characters suck massive balls already. Also, it's not at all unheard of for a single mistake to cost you the game in other franchises, so Smash need not necessarily be different.

Also, the fact that certain rulesets emphase different strategies doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered for a tournament setting. The only reason we should worry is if any particular strategy becomes the entire game. :zssbrawl: being better or :icsbrawl: being even more gimmicky might not matter, for instance, if neither actually break the game.

Incidentally, I thought the whole reason we were considering switching off of 3 stocks is because the game is ****ed as it is now. It's only inevitable that any change we make will carry other consequences, be it 2 stocks, 1 stock, food on low, bumpers on high, or whatever the hell we decide is the new "in" solution to Brawl's problems. These consequences can and should be tolerated if the metagame is improved overall.

 

[V]

I think both 2 stock and 1 stock formats should be tested large scale. There's just too much to theorize on each system to conclude which is better, they need testing.

 

[Djent]

V is 100% correct.

 

[-Jumpman-]

Learn to play aggro like Europe, really it helps. Approaching actually isn't such a bad option in Brawl. The risk/reward ratio of many characters is decent, although the ratio might increase with less stocks.

 

[Steam]

Characters like PT/Lucario are affected at 1 stock, but not at 2, also. I don't really think Lucario would be worse, just that everything would happen in 1 stock. PT would be able to use one character, but that's a good thing I guess.

He'd lose his comeback ability for sure... but one stock matches would help his snake MU for example. because the way it is now if he ever falls behind snake in stocks he basically loses. two stock matches don't change too much other than his ability to reverse 3 stock people... which happens a lot actually... dat X-factor.

but I will repeat that this ****s lucario in the booty for dubz.

 

[KillLock]

So far, Alberta is thinking about trying this for our next tournament. hype.