So, The Bear and the Mouse fight once more.
Guess so. I like a good discussion. If I am being a ****, feel free to call me out on it though.
Passive can only work in stock (with no timer) until it's you and one more person are left. The whole point of stock is to be the last man standing so you're more encouraged to be on the offensive, but Brawl's backwards design makes it where defensive play is better.
Not sure if we are saying the same thing or not, so let me clarify.
First, when I mean passive, I mean not attacking and running. Active of course is being in the fight and trying to take people out.
Second, stock allows you to be passive because you can let others fight. Times doesn't because you have to be getting KOs to win. This is what this argument is about really.
Also, this is all assuming 3-4 players. 1v1 is the same for stock and time.
What I said was deliberately a reductio ad absurdum. It was not meant to be a truthful statement because, as you said, it's only good if you get the first K.O. and run away.
If it wasn't truthful, why say it?
1. I can camp with items if I want to considering they go so far when you toss them. Just ask Peach and Snake.
2. Every thing has a risk, but that doesn't mean you can't have a backup plan if something happens to you unexpectedly. This is why it's good to keep it safe and safely attack the opponent to get an extra point or two in case something goes awry. Also, I CAN be active in fighting, but I can ALSO be passive. Just ask Meta Knight.
3. And you might not die. As I already said, lot's of things can happen. It's all a matter of adapting to changes. Just ask Charles Darwin.
1)You have to be active to get them. They don't spawn away from the enemies. Also, throwing items means you lose it. Not a long term strategy
2)Again, when I say passive it means your running away. Active means your going into the fight. Like I said, the strategy was you get one KO and stay on it. If you have to become active to get more, why not be actively fighting the whole time. By criticism is why not just fight the whole time. Why stay back and take more of a risk. Typically, you win by getting a lot of KOs.
3)Again, the whole idea was winning by getting 1 KO and sitting on it. Which dying makes you lose. Adaptation is fine, but than why not adapt and abandons the tactic all together. What I'm saying is that it's impractical to play by getting 1 KO and sitting on it. Even sitting on a few wont make you win. If you have to risk death than you might as well try to get some more out of it. Again, it's better to be in the fight and have a high KO count than banking on not dying.
Depending on the character, you don't need to be super active when it comes to playing against a group of players. I could just wait until someone is knocked back and steal the K.O. for myself.
Most KOs are made from powerful attacks, not from hitting them over the edge. You may never get that opportunity. Your looking at it from a 1v1 point of view.
Yes, you can KO someone off the stage, but that also means someone can just kill both of you. Meta-Knight may try to poach a kill but Ganondorf could just kick you down (and he may have gotten a KO before that).
The big picture is this: It's better to be active than passive. As I've pointed out, it's not practical to try and wait for the moment. You have to make your own. Also, Smash is not a game where you have a strategy. Smash Bros is about going with the flow of a fight. Yo have to play it out. Which is why it's better to be engaged in the fight and get your own kills.
I'm going to have to side with Kuma on this one. (I saw his posts before I realized I haven't logged on.)
Time is a campfest, as long as you get that one KO.
I can tell you never played time. Let's talk about the math of time than.
The mode works in that your kills minus your deaths is your score. Player with the best score wins. If you have 1 kill, you have to have 0 deaths and the best score you can have is +1. But your score can also be much lower. Since 1 KO is set, than you can have any number of deaths. If you have 4 deaths, than your score is -3. Even if you only have one death, your score is 0. This is awful because you have to hope that +1 is the highest score or you tie.
There are three outcomes in terms of score with 4 players
-One player has a high positive score and three players all have different negative scores/0
-Two players have a positive score and two players have a negative score.
-Everyone has 0
Also note that the total of all the scores must equal 0. If a self destruct happens, than the total score will be 0 minus the number of self destructs. Of course, it may be a little off because self destructs can also be a point for someone else. But you get the idea. Now let's look at how the score can be distributed among the firs two items. I will also say how it would work in our scenario (where someone wins with one KO).
-One player has a high positive score and three players all have different negative scores/0
In this set up, the top player's score will equal the total score of every other player (not including their self destructs). Typically, the positive player will have a very high score or a player or two got a 0. A close game could be scores of [-1,0,0,+1]. Again, they all equal 0. Of course, it can be a huge gap [+3,0,-1,-2]
For our scenario: This is possible, but unlikely. This means, in order for our Kuma to win, he needs to never die, and everyone else does nothing. This is possible in a 2 or 1 minute match and very rare (if not impossible) in a 3 minute match. It wont happen in a 4 or more minute match, so we can throw this out.
-Two players have a positive score and two players have a negative score.
This happens when two players go possitive while the other players go 0 or negative. These are the closest of all of them because everyone is a KO or two away. Sometimes a list minute KO turns the ranks. Tis can look like this: [-2,-1,+1,+2] Let me point out this.
Every KO is a difference of 2 points. Someone loses a point and someone gains a point. If the "+1" score player didn't get KOed, he'd have a 2. If he was KOed by our winner, than that move decided the match. These are unique in that any number of KOs or deaths make the game.
For our scenario:If this happens, Kuma will likely lose. Look at our set up. Someone had a +2. Kuma, can, at best, get 1 KO. So Kuma can have any of those scores except +2. Which means he loses. he could tie and win, but that is up to chance.
-Everyone has 0
Always funny, everyone ties. These are the closet matches because sudden death decides the winner. Not that you can have any number of KOs as long as the deaths are the same.
For our scenario: Kuma ties and gets to fight everyone, but so does everyone else. Basically, the strategy does nothing because he just gets as much chance to win as anyone else.
One last important point.
The longer the match, the more KOs and deaths. All of the set ups I maade can happen with any time limit. But as the match goes on, the total number of death and KOs will go up and up. So it's not uncommon to have 3-8 KO for a 4 minute match and 3-8 deaths. Again, this means you can't win with just one KO.
Not let's look at stock real quick. To win at stock, you just need more lives. You have to have at least one and everyone else has 0 (or have the most when the time runs out). KOs mean nothing. Everyone can die by self destructs. This means that you can easily camp and do nothing because you just have to be the last one left. You don't even have to throw a punch. You'll need to do something, yes, but generally other players can do the work for you and it works. Basically, time is less campy because you have to have something to show. Stock you just have to be standing. It doesn't matter what you did so long as you are standing. Time is scored based on what you did (KOs-falls-self destructs). If you did nothing, your score will reflect that.
