-
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!
San Antonio Smash 4 Thread
- Thread starter Espy Rose
- Start date
nikoryan
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2013
- Messages
- 36
I'll be honest I feel like the only reason I beat paw is because the kirby ZSS match up sucks for him.
He still has a winning record of 2-1 against me.
I'm pretty much trash when I face top players.
0-3 slush
0-1 castro
0-1 megafox
I lost to Sylveon on anther's ladder if that means anything lol.
Trying to remember my other losses I have..
0-1 Turbo
0-1 Whiteout
1-2 Speedy
I also got dead last at SAM3.
I feel like it's a mental thing for me and it's really frustrating. I'm sure all of you have experienced it but it's difficult for me to play consistently well and I choke. I'll get there though!
He still has a winning record of 2-1 against me.
I'm pretty much trash when I face top players.
0-3 slush
0-1 castro
0-1 megafox
I lost to Sylveon on anther's ladder if that means anything lol.
Trying to remember my other losses I have..
0-1 Turbo
0-1 Whiteout
1-2 Speedy
I also got dead last at SAM3.
I feel like it's a mental thing for me and it's really frustrating. I'm sure all of you have experienced it but it's difficult for me to play consistently well and I choke. I'll get there though!
Last edited:
I was thinking of adding Speedy over you for HM, but I honestly again didn't look at the stats for 8th and under. Just opinions.
Nike.
Smash Hero
Omg thank you shade. That was a nightmare to do before, espy knows lol.
Hey Espy, were there any grammatical errors on my part?
Hey Espy, were there any grammatical errors on my part?
I don't think there should be any + - or NEW in the rankings still, cause it's like 2-2 and jumping up to 2-6 lol
Add that stuff after 2-7.
Add that stuff after 2-7.
Castro please, that makes us like 3-1 in sets.Did KJ beat Jband? Darn I missed that. KJ has also lost to Turbo and Iam so keep that in mind.
I beat KJ, Turbo, Iam, and KO in the last weeklies I went to if that matters for anything.
I haven't seen much of Shade outside that one set out of three that he beat me. Who else has he played?
I don't feel bad about the drop to Shade, I think I still outplaced him that night. I'd like to play him again to settle the score.
But yeah I did slip up at the Finals and lost to Sylveon or Jopan but I am back beating Sylveon as of Los2.
I don't think I've been knocked out by Paw too much lately save for last night, i usually meet Kprime on one side of the bracket now.
I pretty surprised I'm up that high given my inconsistent performances. But if I look again the only people I don't have a positive record against are espy, megafox, slush, kprime, paw, and Iam . Haven't fought santi and don't think I've fought sylveon before.New Rankings below:
Tiers separated based on large point differences.
This is mainly for the final tournament at the end of the season right? Attend half the weeklies and be in top 10 and you're in?
Some problems arise cause since San Japan happening we can't have a weekly so we have 13 only. Will be figured out eventually, but yes it's for the top 10.
Shade.
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 30
When there's more "new" people than not it is pretty irrelevant. I figured I might as well, for people that wanted to see how different the spread is after a lot of people are added, and it was convenient to keep the table format lol
When you think about it, it implies that the movement of players means they dipped down or showed up as NEW from 2-5 to 2-6 when the rankings hasn't been done, again, since 2-2. Which was a rough draft and only showed most people that entered all 2 and some that entered only one weekly thus far at the time of 2-2 but had a base value.
So yeah, that's my thought process on the whole adding movement thing.
So yeah, that's my thought process on the whole adding movement thing.
Last edited:
ProofByContrapositive
Smash Ace
KJ the only sets we have had are at SAM1 and the weekly. Where did you get the other 2?
Nike.
Smash Hero
There's been something on my mind about the Season 1 Finals Format. I'm not sure they were exactly flaws in the way I did them, but watching it play out made me rethink a few things. I figure now's a good time to address them.
If we started the Season 2 Finals right now (assuming everyone already qualifies), this is what the bracket would look like:
The Top 6 seeds get an auto bye into Winners Quarters. On top of that, Whoever loses in bracket B and D (the 5 and 6 seeds) gets an auto bye in their first round of losers bracket.
In Round 2 Losers Bracket, seeds 5 and 6 will only have played 1 set. The other 4 players in the same round will have played 2 or 3 sets. Someone potentially going 1-2 in overall sets could get last place while others who went 0-2 in sets could get an auto bid into top8. I'm beginning to think that this is too big of an imbalance.
The current bracket heavily rewards the top6 seeds. This is the original intent but I didn't realize how hard it is for the bottom 4 seeds. Rewarding byes to players make sense but I think that it needs to be in multiples of 4 or 8 players, not 6.
The idea of also paying all 10 players, as well as playing out tie breakers, also seemed to irk me. Calculating percents was a nightmare and took many drafts on my part. There was criticism on payouts as a result, and I found myself agreeing with some of them.
Tie breakers, another idea that seemed to benefit the final, was wonky and repetitive. There are 3 total tie breaker sets to play. They are 5th, 7th, and 9th place. However, some of the tie breaker sets had already occurred in bracket. Sylveon vs Castro happened twice and Incendiary vs Jopan happened twice. I don't think this is a positive. Paw vs Santi for 5th place, 2 players who hadn't yet played, was good. But repeating sets is not something I intended, nor something I wish to see again. On top of that, very few people actually watched the tiebreakers.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
A proposal: Increase the number of entrants to 12 and decrease the payout to top8 without tiebreakers.
The top4 seeds receive a bye first round. 5th and 6th seeds must play a match in the first round. However, they are against the lowest seeds in the bracket, so they should win in theory regardless.
When everyone begins to play each other in Losers Bracket, there's no byes in the same round happening. 5th and 6th seeds (if they lost in Winners Quarters) would need to play. Again, assuming theres no upsets anywhere, they would be against the bottom 2 seeds in the tournament and should still advance into the top8. This removes the huge advantage they get in this round, which I think is a proper balance.
2 players being added to the bracket isn't a lot. I learned that some players hovering into the 8-15 range last season were stressing about trying to get into the tourney. San Antonio became like 15-16 players deep. Some players even expressed quitting because they just spent 4 months trying to make the final and fell just short. Allowing 2 more players in will probably help the overall competitiveness of the players in that range. Odds are they will be going 0-2 in the bracket, but now they at least get the opportunity to experience the tourney as a player.
I'm not too sure how this will be received, but changing the payouts to top8 is an option. There's a couple more sets happening in Losers Bracket, so losing tie breakers isn't an issue as far as time constraints. Two less players would be receiving money. Because there not going to be in the Non Top10 Tourney, they might not be receiving any payouts at all the entire season. It's kind of a trade off for ensuring that all available players in losers bracket don't get any auto byes.
If top10 payouts was still desired then the 4 players placing 9th would do tie breakers. If this were to happen, we could already use any matches that were played earlier in bracket (meaning there aren't duplicate sets) as part of that mini round robin.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Thoughts? I'm not sure if this makes me sound high, but let me know if it does. The final is still over 2 months away so if we were to make any changes to the structure, we could (or leave it as it is).
If we started the Season 2 Finals right now (assuming everyone already qualifies), this is what the bracket would look like:
The Top 6 seeds get an auto bye into Winners Quarters. On top of that, Whoever loses in bracket B and D (the 5 and 6 seeds) gets an auto bye in their first round of losers bracket.
In Round 2 Losers Bracket, seeds 5 and 6 will only have played 1 set. The other 4 players in the same round will have played 2 or 3 sets. Someone potentially going 1-2 in overall sets could get last place while others who went 0-2 in sets could get an auto bid into top8. I'm beginning to think that this is too big of an imbalance.
The current bracket heavily rewards the top6 seeds. This is the original intent but I didn't realize how hard it is for the bottom 4 seeds. Rewarding byes to players make sense but I think that it needs to be in multiples of 4 or 8 players, not 6.
The idea of also paying all 10 players, as well as playing out tie breakers, also seemed to irk me. Calculating percents was a nightmare and took many drafts on my part. There was criticism on payouts as a result, and I found myself agreeing with some of them.
Tie breakers, another idea that seemed to benefit the final, was wonky and repetitive. There are 3 total tie breaker sets to play. They are 5th, 7th, and 9th place. However, some of the tie breaker sets had already occurred in bracket. Sylveon vs Castro happened twice and Incendiary vs Jopan happened twice. I don't think this is a positive. Paw vs Santi for 5th place, 2 players who hadn't yet played, was good. But repeating sets is not something I intended, nor something I wish to see again. On top of that, very few people actually watched the tiebreakers.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
A proposal: Increase the number of entrants to 12 and decrease the payout to top8 without tiebreakers.
The top4 seeds receive a bye first round. 5th and 6th seeds must play a match in the first round. However, they are against the lowest seeds in the bracket, so they should win in theory regardless.
When everyone begins to play each other in Losers Bracket, there's no byes in the same round happening. 5th and 6th seeds (if they lost in Winners Quarters) would need to play. Again, assuming theres no upsets anywhere, they would be against the bottom 2 seeds in the tournament and should still advance into the top8. This removes the huge advantage they get in this round, which I think is a proper balance.
2 players being added to the bracket isn't a lot. I learned that some players hovering into the 8-15 range last season were stressing about trying to get into the tourney. San Antonio became like 15-16 players deep. Some players even expressed quitting because they just spent 4 months trying to make the final and fell just short. Allowing 2 more players in will probably help the overall competitiveness of the players in that range. Odds are they will be going 0-2 in the bracket, but now they at least get the opportunity to experience the tourney as a player.
I'm not too sure how this will be received, but changing the payouts to top8 is an option. There's a couple more sets happening in Losers Bracket, so losing tie breakers isn't an issue as far as time constraints. Two less players would be receiving money. Because there not going to be in the Non Top10 Tourney, they might not be receiving any payouts at all the entire season. It's kind of a trade off for ensuring that all available players in losers bracket don't get any auto byes.
If top10 payouts was still desired then the 4 players placing 9th would do tie breakers. If this were to happen, we could already use any matches that were played earlier in bracket (meaning there aren't duplicate sets) as part of that mini round robin.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Thoughts? I'm not sure if this makes me sound high, but let me know if it does. The final is still over 2 months away so if we were to make any changes to the structure, we could (or leave it as it is).
Last edited:
Nike.
Smash Hero
Also, LOLOLOL at Castro vs Paw in the first round.
ProofByContrapositive
Smash Ace
Holy **** Nike you're smart af
Geoberos
Alicorn or not, my mane mare, my unicorn, Twilight
He has the best TO know how. And Cassie does the numbers. I think I'm down with that.
Back then I did like the idea that there was a sort of reward for those who made the finals.
But if it means decreasing the amount of low-risk byes, it'd be better for the multiple of 4.
Be proud that you'd make the chance for the finals, but it is better for the money split.
Also was at my friend's grad party and Brawl was there.
Holy crap my Smash 4 habits, Down Throw and Up Air suck so much lag and direction.
I had no idea what to do with two bananas anymore.
Back then I did like the idea that there was a sort of reward for those who made the finals.
But if it means decreasing the amount of low-risk byes, it'd be better for the multiple of 4.
Be proud that you'd make the chance for the finals, but it is better for the money split.
Also was at my friend's grad party and Brawl was there.
Holy crap my Smash 4 habits, Down Throw and Up Air suck so much lag and direction.
I had no idea what to do with two bananas anymore.
As legends foretold in the ancient hieroglyphs.
Anyways, while the whole top 12 thing sounds nice and all for lower level players, and not being rude, but you need to enter 7 of these weeklies and somehow not lose hard enough to be last place at them + have enough points to scratch the top 12.
70 bucks spent to attend this and assuming you go 0-2 or even 1-2 in bracket for LoS 2 finals (11th/12th seed) you get nothing out of it outside of having more matches of you losing recorded.
Sure it makes people want to enter the finals, but if they get no reward from it (since top 8 payout) why change it at all.
Dunno, I might be missing some things here or there.
Nike.
Smash Hero
No your not wrong. It's a completely valid reason for not doing the whole thing.
http://smashboards.com/threads/san-antonio-smash-4-thread.371315/page-90#post-19072517
Some of our weeklies have had a little less so far than what LoS season 1 had, so payouts if we stick with top 10 looking smaller so far. Especially since we gotta skip one weekly for San japan.
Some of our weeklies have had a little less so far than what LoS season 1 had, so payouts if we stick with top 10 looking smaller so far. Especially since we gotta skip one weekly for San japan.
Shade.
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2015
- Messages
- 30
Season 1 had a considerable rise in players towards the end but first 6 were generally lower in attendance than season 2 has been so far;
Season 1: 29 20 30 35 31 29
Season 2: 30 31 47 31 40 29
Not having the extra $100ish or whatever from the skipped weekly does count, but it still shouldn't dip below $1000. Probably.
For the final weekly without the top players, those directly below would probably be in the money anyway, which ends up being around $100 pot?? I guess? So idk. As far as how many people get to qualify for the final, it's about whether that fringe of people (9th-12th) would rather have a more condensed opportunity for upsets with great sets and are guaranteed at least a tiny amount of cash, or have an easier shot at being the top dogs for a change and to potentially get more money.
I'm around 10th place, and I think either way would be cool. I'm sure finals in the non-top-ten tourney would still be good, close matches, and money's always good. At the same time, playing y'all good peeps are what makes me interested in and better at this game so do whatev.
Season 1: 29 20 30 35 31 29
Season 2: 30 31 47 31 40 29
Not having the extra $100ish or whatever from the skipped weekly does count, but it still shouldn't dip below $1000. Probably.
For the final weekly without the top players, those directly below would probably be in the money anyway, which ends up being around $100 pot?? I guess? So idk. As far as how many people get to qualify for the final, it's about whether that fringe of people (9th-12th) would rather have a more condensed opportunity for upsets with great sets and are guaranteed at least a tiny amount of cash, or have an easier shot at being the top dogs for a change and to potentially get more money.
I'm around 10th place, and I think either way would be cool. I'm sure finals in the non-top-ten tourney would still be good, close matches, and money's always good. At the same time, playing y'all good peeps are what makes me interested in and better at this game so do whatev.
Last week they did 2stock no customs. Making sure they still aren't before I go.Ultra does 3 stock customs.
Pikabunz
Smash Hero
How much did you sell it for?
Traded for $40 amazon credit on cheapassgamer.
mimgrim
Smash Hero
Hey quick question. At what time do people start show up to Otake Cafe on Thursday for the weekly. I'm actually gonna see about making it this week, if it is still happenin this week that is, for legit this time sibe the P:M scene here in SA seems to be going into limbo.
Mindles
Smash Journeyman
I 0'ed - death shade
You're the 3rd falcon main I've heard say that, the other being Razer and Avoid