"So as you can see, the player who sits out in the beginning (theoretically if everything remains consistent) actually gets the advantage, not the person winning from the start. That's why we put in place the rule that the person who wins gets to sit out first next round."
Yes, like I said Before...... the player who is winning from the start (the supposed stronger player... cuz he was 1st last match) is winning at the end. How is my statement wrong? My argument is that a game should make consistent winning harder (a edge to the weaker player), but in your game you force the weaker two parties to fight from the start. Sure, if all the players were at even skill, the winning would most likely continue to win for the next 5-6 rounds with the life advantage/damage advantage they get to jump into. A huge upset is possible in smash, oh course, by why make a huge upset the only possibility to change the order? Getting 1st is the only way to get the edge, 2nd and 3rd start on equal ground.......... while the winner waits.... to start winning again. "oh darn, I won last game, my prize is that I get to start by killing someone who's already at 100% for fighting 3rd place. Ho Hum."
I'm saying that this barrier (3 lives of opponents -2 fresh, 1 polish off kill-) forces the turn order to continue with no purpose. And that the Match up chart does produce a accurate picture for duels, but not group play, so keep match ups out of true FFAs.
If this system of FFA was actually fair in any way, it would be a timed match, not a stock count. On time, it counts kills to lives (so the edge is given to the players who start fighting for the first kill), in stock its survival..... in ordered fights. Why am I wrong here? Please, try to explain why this is fair in the slightest why my original suggestions were wrong?
Dude, anyone that comes to da Bay Area normally plays me. I've played battlecow when he was out on the coast with ballin. Dawg, stop thinking the only big fish are online, I got an aim, but f@k kbs+ssb, can't throw down your sticks, or take rips with the person your playing with.
Listen, this is a side statement, correct me if I am wrong. The only reason why people generally don't think regular FFA is fair (in friendly matches), is because of combos being interrupted, and people ganging up on the strong. I personally think people get too butt hurt about ganging up, and should take a 2vs1 match as an honor, not a loss. If a player can be so strong, it requires the concentration and teamwork of 2 or more people, they win the moral victory, don't belittle it by complaining in the end, it was the fight that mattered. FFAs give the possibility of everything, including 2vs1/3vs1 matches. Without that being possible, its not an FFA..... its just not. I am, prepared for any sort of crazy house rules that people play with, items, handycap, w/e, give me the challenge. Without that kind of spirit, what can you actually learn?
.......... but sense
....... no one actually can play a real FFA apparently
.... Lets get back to the point
.. the system presented
I think that with all of the damage carried over between each duel.... why not just separate it back into 2 duels to show an accurate rating of the games across? Where you actually can compare yourself to the people you were fighting.... instead of just take a turn at a time... with 1 life..... Why not circular dueling with time on infinite? Or just 1 stock duels? the system should be questioned, the purpose of the system should be questioned. Stop insulting me for asking questions, you were just being hella defensive en ****e kk. And I will nvr learn to read or spell in this giant ocean of emoticons and shorthand. Peace Dawg? or do we gotta fight this out for like another 6 pages?
