Should the stock count be lowered?

[Arcansi]

At a high percentage on the last stock. Also, I'm completely aware that stuff like this already happens, but it would be a much larger issue in 1 stock.

See the 10 mins thread.

How come now randomness and inconsistency is uncompetitive, but it wasn't when I was arguing against it?

If your referring to my Marvel argument, it's because marvel is a different game. Marvel is however, less competitive then brawl, I'm pretty sure.

If not, idk what your talking about.

It's still not the issue at hand, though.

Nah, but a benefit is a benefit.

Have you seen Marvel tourneys? The top 4 are never the same!

Didn't Justin Wong and then Combofiend win/get top in a LARGE amount of Marvel tournaments in a row.

We have to wait for UMVC3 meta to calm down, though.

I saw, and you made zero sense. There is absolutely no way that refreshing the opponents health and lowering the amount of combined stocks will ever be beneficial to the losing player in any way.

You have to explain why my example is wrong, not just say 'I'm right'. There's a fallacy for this, and it probably goes something like 'argumentum ad ignoramus'.

 

[TreK]

Could I get an as-exhaustive-as-possible list of the pros, the cons, and the not-pro-and-not-con-but-still-necessary-to-be-aware-of stuff of a 1 stock best of *whatever* ?

So far here is my list, and due to its shortness I feel like I missed something :

Pros :
-shorter set duration
-easier to watch (debatable : if I'm against a Falco, I'll camp like crazy at every match instead of only after every death because I'll be at chaingrab %
-more potential for stage play
-less reward for using planking related tactics

Cons :
-less overall stock pool (4 minimum instead of 6 minimum) which implies more importance to random events and thus less consistency
-higher punition for losing a stock to a random event in pools

Other changes, no good and no bad :
-Faster adaptation time needed due to the constant change in stages, characters and the shorter set length.
-ZSS gets buffed a lot for being able to gain control over her armor pieces for a longer proportion of the set
-PT gets buffed a lot for being able to use solo pokémons at the cost of having to deal with fatigue if the opponent gets campy
-Falco gets buffed a lot for being able to chaingrab you if he loses a stock instead of just when he kills you
-Samus, Sheik, DK, Lucario, Diddy, ROB can't charge stuff/set stuff up between stocks anymore
-Character that are better on neutrals will get CPed faster, characters that are good on CPs will get their CP faster. Three already-top tiered characters profit of this (MK, Marth, Wario), so you can't say it helps balancing the game.

Please tell me what I've missed so far.

 

[Ussi]

Don't think Falco gets buffed CG wise.. You either avoid it or don't.

1 stock promotes fast adapting, 2 stock os a good medium for people used to 3 stocks and giving some room to adapt

 

[The Ben]

Cons :
-less overall stock pool (4 minimum instead of 6 minimum) which implies more importance to random events and thus less consistency
-higher punition for losing a stock to a random event in pools

- How is this a bad thing? I've heard this point repeated multiple times on SWF but how is variance a bad thing?
- The "punition" isn't higher because everyone is in the same position. Everyone is on equal footing still.

 

[Arcansi]

- How is this a bad thing? I've heard this point repeated multiple times on SWF but how is variance a bad thing?
- The "punition" isn't higher because everyone is in the same position. Everyone is on equal footing still.

It should be noted that losing a game because of randomness in 1 stock is always better then losing it because of randomness in 3 stock.

 

[TreK]

Don't think Falco gets buffed CG wise.. You either avoid it or don't.

Let's put up an imaginary situation :
-in a 3 stock match, I 1 stock a Falco. It means I took him 3 stock and he took me 2 stocks.
-right after, we play 1 stock matches and get a similar result : he beats me 2 times, and I best him 3 times in a row.

In the 3 stock match, he had 3 opportunities to chaingrab me : one at the beginning of the match, and two whenever I died.
In the 1 stock match, whenever I won a match, he got another chance to CG me : he could have CGed me 5 times in the exact same situation but with a different ruleset.

Assuming I'm good enough to dodge CGs half of the time, and each CG is 60%... This is a 60% potential bonus to his damage output out of a match.
Average damage taken in a bo 5, 1 stock match that goes to game 5 would be around 5 times 140. Which means in the 1 stock match, almost a tenth of his damage output is a direct consequence of a ruleset change. I call this a buff, for it might really well give Falco the edge over my character.

This is an important matter because it buffs an already top tiered character. I'm all for ZSS and PT's buff, but this one is unnecessary so I'm very neutral.

It should be noted that losing a game because of randomness in 1 stock is always better then losing it because of randomness in 3 stock.

Hmm, could you detail that part please ? You got the opposite conclusion out of the exact same datas as me so I find it disturbing.
Edit : oh nevermind, got it.

I've heard this point repeated multiple times on SWF but how is variance a bad thing?

This is a matter of making it possible for top players to travel and play in different states/countries and still being top players.
Sure, a random Ness that wins a tournament gets us hyped. But the best japanese players that come to US gives us a lot more hype doesn't it ?
Now if the japanese players didn't get through pools because of our way of conceiving a stage list, it would have been a problem.

 

[Mithost]

I would just like if the URC would make a "secondary" or multiple rulesets for certain things. One for 3 stock MK banned which would be "Primary", one for 1 stock, which could be a "secondary" ruleset, and maybe even one with MK legal.

This would make it so if a US state says they use the URC ruleset, they might be able to favor a certain ruleset, but if you are a top 3 stock ruleset player in California, you would be a top 3 stock player in New York as well, even if New york favored a secondary ruleset over the primary, it could still be used.

Sorry for the run-on sentence, I was needed elsewhere

 

[Tesh]

Could I get an as-exhaustive-as-possible list of the pros, the cons, and the not-pro-and-not-con-but-still-necessary-to-be-aware-of stuff of a 1 stock best of *whatever* ?

So far here is my list, and due to its shortness I feel like I missed something :

Pros :
-shorter set duration
Not necessarily
-easier to watch (debatable : if I'm against a Falco, I'll camp like crazy at every match instead of only after every death because I'll be at chaingrab %
-more potential for stage play

-less reward for using planking related tactics

Cons :
-less overall stock pool (4 minimum instead of 6 minimum) which implies more importance to random events and thus less consistency
again, the sets don't have to be shorter
-higher punition for losing a stock to a random event in pools
if anything, i would expect it to make pools more accurate
Other changes, no good and no bad :
-Faster adaptation time needed due to the constant change in stages, characters and the shorter set length.
-ZSS gets buffed a lot for being able to gain control over her armor pieces for a longer proportion of the set
-PT gets buffed a lot for being able to use solo pokémons at the cost of having to deal with fatigue if the opponent gets campy
PT always has to deal with fatigue against campy foes, the animation takes so long that its often necessary to land would would be a killing blow to safely switch, especially with random load times
-Falco gets buffed a lot for being able to chaingrab you if he loses a stock instead of just when he kills you
-Samus, Sheik, DK, Lucario, Diddy, ROB can't charge stuff/set stuff up between stocks anymore
Don't forget Snake, most of these characters can use a "gtfo move" and fully charge these moves, or simply charge here and there while jumping around. I agree with you though
-Character that are better on neutrals will get CPed faster, characters that are good on CPs will get their CP faster. Three already-top tiered characters profit of this (MK, Marth, Wario), so you can't say it helps balancing the game.
Thats arguable. Assuming DSR was more or less used, it would mean MK gets his death trap CPs for less of the set and other well rounded characters will do better. I'd rather deal with MK on RC/Brinstar for 2/7th or 2/9s of the set than 1/3.

Please tell me what I've missed so far.

I added my thought in red.

Don't think Falco gets buffed CG wise.. You either avoid it or don't.

1 stock promotes fast adapting, 2 stock os a good medium for people used to 3 stocks and giving some room to adapt

1 Stock definitely eliminates some things (for better or for worse).

Let's put up an imaginary situation :
-in a 3 stock match, I 1 stock a Falco. It means I took him 3 stock and he took me 2 stocks.
-right after, we play 1 stock matches and get a similar result : he beats me 2 times, and I best him 3 times in a row.

In the 3 stock match, he had 3 opportunities to chaingrab me : one at the beginning of the match, and two whenever I died.
In the 1 stock match, whenever I won a match, he got another chance to CG me : he could have CGed me 5 times in the exact same situation but with a different ruleset.

Assuming I'm good enough to dodge CGs half of the time, and each CG is 60%... This is a 60% potential bonus to his damage output out of a match.
Average damage taken in a bo 5, 1 stock match that goes to game 5 would be around 5 times 140. Which means in the 1 stock match, almost a tenth of his damage output is a direct consequence of a ruleset change. I call this a buff, for it might really well give Falco the edge over my character.

This is an important matter because it buffs an already top tiered character. I'm all for ZSS and PT's buff, but this one is unnecessary so I'm very neutral.


Hmm, could you detail that part please ? You got the opposite conclusion out of the exact same datas as me so I find it disturbing.
Edit : oh nevermind, got it.


This is a matter of making it possible for top players to travel and play in different states/countries and still being top players.
Sure, a random Ness that wins a tournament gets us hyped. But the best japanese players that come to US gives us a lot more hype doesn't it ?
Now if the japanese players didn't get through pools because of our way of conceiving a stage list, it would have been a problem.

Didn't really understand the part about Falco.

Having a very different ruleset does make it more difficult to play with other regions, but the farther people are willing to travel, the earlier they are probably willing to brush up on any relevant differences. Its not like we would be switching to 1.5 damage ratio coin brawl on box shaped custom stages.

 

[Pippy]

(sorry if this has already been answered) May I ask why we would do this. I mean, it doesn't seem like there are any problems with the current rules, so why fix it when it isn't broken? It seems to me that his just creates more problems then it fixes, as really the only reason to do this is because some people think Brawl takes to long. (and if you're going to whine about that, go play some stall in Pokemon, then come to me about that) However, this creates problems like hax being a bigger issue, Falco and CGs in general becoming broken, states that won't cooperate, etc.

 

[-LzR-]

Falco on 3 stock game, if he gets a chaingrab off on each stock means he pretty much got at least one stock for free when you add the damage together so it's pretty much equally effectiveas it is in 3 stock so Falco is not buffed.

 

[Pippy]

However, getting the CG off is difficult on a good player that knows it coming, so in a 3 stock match, you can still come back with your other 2 stocks if you get caught, whereas with 1 stock, it's GG.

 

[Tesh]

Or you could tech it and then come back anyway.

Or land your own stupid lock on Falco (pretty much everyone has one) first.

 

[Ussi]

However, getting the CG off is difficult on a good player that knows it coming, so in a 3 stock match, you can still come back with your other 2 stocks if you get caught, whereas with 1 stock, it's GG.

Falco can't kill you out of the CG and he also has a hard time killing..

 

[Pippy]

It still puts you at a huge disadvantage, which is much easier to overcome in a 3 stock match.

Btw, no one has yet to tell me why we should do this?

 

[Arcansi]

Pippy, lets assume the chaingrab was hard to come back from, okay?

So he gets the chaingrab and kills you early, perhaps he's at 75%.

What's to stop him from doing the chaingrab again now that your at 0% again?

And how is that different from a 1 stock game? He's easier to kill? Sure, but taking his one stock won't mean anything unless you win.

1 Stock games better test skill (more accurately, a game where it goes to last stock last hit shouldn't have 1 player winning 50% of the match and the other winning 0% based off of it.)

and it removes a LOT of the use for stalling, because you can only stall safely when you have a stock advantage.

 

[Pippy]

Pippy, lets assume the chaingrab was hard to come back from, okay?

So he gets the chaingrab and kills you early, perhaps he's at 75%.

What's to stop him from doing the chaingrab again now that your at 0% again?
-Skill. Normally you'll be able to avoid it, but every once in a while you'll screw up and get caught. In a 3 stock match, you can still come back from that, but in a 1 stock match, it's a different story.

And how is that different from a 1 stock game? He's easier to kill? Sure, but taking his one stock won't mean anything unless you win.
-Don't get what you're saying here.

1 Stock games better test skill (more accurately, a game where it goes to last stock last hit shouldn't have 1 player winning 50% of the match and the other winning 0% based off of it.)
-The player who lands the killing blow wins. Whats wrong with that. Plus, I'd say 1 stock matches are a worse test of skill. Random hax like tripping and just general mistakes become much more costly. That's not skill, is it?

and it removes a LOT of the use for stalling, because you can only stall safely when you have a stock advantage.[
-You can't just dodge the opponent and "make the game unplayable". That's against the rules. So that shouldn't be a problem.

My comments are under your points.

 

[Mithost]

The game becomes a higher risk, higher reward situation. Better players are rewarded more, and less experienced players are punished a bit more*. If tripping becomes a problem, people will learn to avoid dashing as much, use the C-stick more, and be more careful about grabs.

According to the ruleset, there is nothing wrong with avoiding conflict with another player as long as it does not violate the LGL/IDC/going-somewhere-another-player-cant-reach rules. It's still here. In 3 stock, if a player manages a stock lead, they can proceed to camping/avoiding conflict. In 1 stock where timeouts are percent lead driven, the opponent might only have to land a single weak hit to end the camping and bring the game back to offensive play. Even if someone find a perfect situation where they can bypass the rules to not get hit, they only get 25% of their victory instead of 50% due to a "stupid" tactic.

 

[Arcansi]

My comments are under your points.

Yo that's super annoying. Could you not do that? No offence, but now I have to like, copy/paste each one instead of just copy/pasting the quote code.

-Skill. Normally you'll be able to avoid it, but every once in a while you'll screw up and get caught. In a 3 stock match, you can still come back from that, but in a 1 stock match, it's a different story.

In a 3 stock match, the stock difference is going to contribute a LOT to the other player winning the game, in fact, it's garaunteed to be at least 33% on paper, not including momentum/feeling shifts, or free damage he gets for having an extra stock.

In a one stock match, momentum is forcably stopped (stop in gameplay) and he wont get any free damage on you, at all.

-Don't get what you're saying here.

Once he kills you, the situation restarts in both 1 stock and 3 stock. Except in 1 stock, the kill is documented and the killer has no advantage.

-The player who lands the killing blow wins. Whats wrong with that. Plus, I'd say 1 stock matches are a worse test of skill. Random hax like tripping and just general mistakes become much more costly. That's not skill, is it?

First things first, general mistakes are a direct, probably the most direct, way to test skill. The more of these you make, the less you deserve to win, because your making general mistakes. It should also be noted that tripping will RARELY decide a match. However, if it would the game is much more consistent in allowing you to get back that game and still win, whereas in 3 stock your opponent just won 50% of the match.

Also, whoever lands the killing blow 3 times wins in 3 stock.

-You can't just dodge the opponent and "make the game unplayable". That's against the rules. So that shouldn't be a problem.

If this was actually true, Will vs Rich Brown would've never happened.

The game becomes a higher risk, higher reward situation. Better players are rewarded more, and less experienced players are punished a bit more*. If tripping becomes a problem, people will learn to avoid dashing as much, use the C-stick more, and be more careful about grabs.

This is actually wrong. The game just becomes more consistent overall. Noone is punished, unless you count losing more definably punishment.

According to the ruleset, there is nothing wrong with avoiding conflict with another player as long as it does not violate the LGL/IDC/going-somewhere-another-player-cant-reach rules. It's still here. In 3 stock, if a player manages a stock lead, they can proceed to camping/avoiding conflict. In 1 stock where timeouts are percent lead driven, the opponent might only have to land a single weak hit to end the camping and bring the game back to offensive play. Even if someone find a perfect situation where they can bypass the rules to not get hit, they only get 25% of their victory instead of 50% due to a "stupid" tactic.

Note, it's actually illegitmate. It's what's called a secondary win condition, and it only exists because it has too.

Illegitimate as in essentially unearned, most of the time. Not as in doesn't count. If we could ban it for good we would, but there's no way to draw a line that makes sense in all situations, so we work with what we've got.

 

[The Ben]

Illegitimate as in essentially unearned, most of the time. Not as in doesn't count. If we could ban it for good we would, but there's no way to draw a line that makes sense in all situations, so we work with what we've got.

How is outsmarting your opponent and timing them out not earned? Who is we?

 

[Arcansi]

How is outsmarting your opponent and timing them out not earned? Who is we?

It's in the same way earned as Viscant & Steinmania's victory over Renic & Maximilian was at the Cross Counter invitational.

They won because of an infinite that was supposed to be regulated, but Mike Ross & Gootecks forgot to put the regulation in the rules.

Except, replace with Mike Ross & Gootecks with 99% of Brawl TO's, and forgot with 'can't effectively regulate'.

I mean, we should see how many times people time out in Japan's free tournaments, or even their ones for actual money. If it's outsmarting them, even in their more honor-bound society, it should be completely legitmate, right?

Right....

 

[Jeffbelittle]

It's in the same way earned as Viscant & Steinmania's victory over Renic & Maximilian was at the Cross Counter invitational.

They won because of an infinite that was supposed to be regulated, but Mike Ross & Gootecks forgot to put the regulation in the rules.

Except, replace with Mike Ross & Gootecks with 99% of Brawl TO's, and forgot with 'can't effectively regulate'.

I mean, we should see how many times people time out in Japan's free tournaments, or even their ones for actual money. If it's outsmarting them, even in their more honor-bound society, it should be completely legitmate, right?

Right....

It may be really early in the morning for me, so this isn't necessarily your fault but: What were you trying to say here? In lamen's terms.



On a different note->


Seems most people are only thinking about Chaingrabbing when it comes to the stock count. Not sure that's the only thing we should evaluate.

Less stock lives also means camping is more effective. In a 1 stock match, Falco would really be S tier. Lasers racking up easy damage + chain grabs? FFFF that. When there are 3 lives in a match things like Fox's lasers become less of an impact on the game. If all Fox had to do was spam the laser key on you, side b away, and spam it one more time: Fox would have a 30% on you in a 1 life situation. That's crazy! What about Zero Suit Samus? If the ONLY life you had was the one where she had her armor to throw at you, that'd be nuts unfair.

Aside from camping: what about suiciding? If it's 1 stock matches everytime, can bowser or other suicides force a sudden death EVERY GAME? The game's not balanced around SD.

 

[The Ben]

It's in the same way earned as Viscant & Steinmania's victory over Renic & Maximilian was at the Cross Counter invitational.

They won because of an infinite that was supposed to be regulated, but Mike Ross & Gootecks forgot to put the regulation in the rules.

Except, replace with Mike Ross & Gootecks with 99% of Brawl TO's, and forgot with 'can't effectively regulate'.

So you're saying people can sit and watch a game for infinites but not sit and watch a game for stalling? If Smash TOs can't even run a small tournament properly I fail to see why anyone should take your community seriously. On top of that, you're still wrong. No TO forgot to make it against the rules to intentionally time people out since it isn't even an established community standard. If it were we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I mean, we should see how many times people time out in Japan's free tournaments, or even their ones for actual money. If it's outsmarting them, even in their more honor-bound society, it should be completely legitmate, right?

Right....

Wtf does Japan have to do with anything? Timing out is legit in pretty much every competitive fighting game.

 

[Arcansi]

It may be really early in the morning for me, so this isn't necessarily your fault but: What were you trying to say here? In lamen's terms.

1. Intentional timeouts are no more wanted then the rule that would remove them is enforcable.

2. Japan gets less timeouts because they value honor more.

On a different note->


Seems most people are only thinking about Chaingrabbing when it comes to the stock count. Not sure that's the only thing we should evaluate.

Less stock lives also means camping is more effective. In a 1 stock match, Falco would really be S tier. Lasers racking up easy damage + chain grabs? FFFF that. When there are 3 lives in a match things like Fox's lasers become less of an impact on the game. If all Fox had to do was spam the laser key on you, side b away, and spam it one more time: Fox would have a 30% on you in a 1 life situation. That's crazy! What about Zero Suit Samus? If the ONLY life you had was the one where she had her armor to throw at you, that'd be nuts unfair.

There is no difference between him getting 30% on one stock in a 3 stock game, and 30% in one stock of 3 one stock games. In fact, virtually all situations are the same, except fpx will have less reason to camp (won't get stuck at a high percent while up a stock) then otherwise.

ZSS's suit pieces can be picked up and used for yourself, and having suit pieces every game won't make her OP in any way either.

Aside from camping: what about suiciding? If it's 1 stock matches everytime, can bowser or other suicides force a sudden death EVERY GAME? The game's not balanced around SD.

We go with what the game says when a suicide move like that wins it. Also, this would in no way break the game.

So you're saying people can sit and watch a game for infinites but not sit and watch a game for stalling? If Smash TOs can't even run a small tournament properly I fail to see why anyone should take your community seriously. On top of that, you're still wrong. No TO forgot to make it against the rules to intentionally time people out since it isn't even an established community standard. If it were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Wtf does Japan have to do with anything? Timing out is legit in pretty much every competitive fighting game.

1. I've always said they should be able to sit and watch for stalling but I am apparently wrong. This is not something I am against. It should be noted that at this tournament 1 tv was being used at a time, because it was an invitational and there were only 8 teams.

2. I am sure MANY to's would have done so, were there an implementable rule that made sense in all scenarios. If there is one, feel free to enlighten me.

TO's discretion is NOT a good one, btw.

Timeouts happen noteably less in japan, and it's because they value honor more. That's what I'm arguing.

Also, timing out may be legit in the sense of the win is a win, but it's certainly not legit in the sense of wanted and 100% accepted.

I mean, there are SO MANY timeouts in SFxT that TO's are trying to find ways to stop them. It's been noted as one of the games biggest problems.

I mean, after a timeout you don't hear many players going 'Oh dude you did so great, nice clutch crouching block!' as opposed to going 'sick random ultra, you REALLY read that jump' after winning a match where time was close and you were about to lose, or something.

 

[Ussi]

It may be really early in the morning for me, so this isn't necessarily your fault but: What were you trying to say here? In lamen's terms.



On a different note->


Seems most people are only thinking about Chaingrabbing when it comes to the stock count. Not sure that's the only thing we should evaluate.

Less stock lives also means camping is more effective. In a 1 stock match, Falco would really be S tier. Lasers racking up easy damage + chain grabs? FFFF that. When there are 3 lives in a match things like Fox's lasers become less of an impact on the game. If all Fox had to do was spam the laser key on you, side b away, and spam it one more time: Fox would have a 30% on you in a 1 life situation. That's crazy! What about Zero Suit Samus? If the ONLY life you had was the one where she had her armor to throw at you, that'd be nuts unfair.

Aside from camping: what about suiciding? If it's 1 stock matches everytime, can bowser or other suicides force a sudden death EVERY GAME? The game's not balanced around SD.

You aren't considering the fact that BOTH sides have to work less.

 

[8Bitman]

I will love 1 stock vs ICs. I tend to take the first stock then get grabbed 3 times in a row cause i'm bad so my habits start getting read.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is exactly why the rules shouldn't be changed. Some play styles can be abused in just 1-Stock matches. Brawl is a slower game, YOU ALL need to stop trying to make it like Melee, if you hate Brawl/think it's too slow, shut-up and deal with it. OR just don't play the game at all and go back to Melee.

You're trying to make the games something it obviously strayed away from. The game will be much worse if the amount of Time/Stocks are changed even the slightest bit.

If matches come to time, which this is obviously trying to prevent as a side issue, then so be it. Timing out is a liable play style, and now that MK is banned you WILL NOT see it even close to as much. If you get timed out now it's because you suck. Therefore, you should have no say in the first place.

Ideas like this irritate me because the stubborn/much worse players try to better themselves when in reality they won't even benefit from it to begin with. The better players will just get better, and the worse players will just get worse.

I am surprised this thread is still up. Brawl is Brawl, Melee is Melee. Why we are still trying to compare/differentiate them after 4 YEARS, is beyond my understanding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[TreK]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*stuff about brawl/melee*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't recall anyone talking about melee here except for you. 70% or more of the debaters here registered in 2008 or later, which means they probably never even played melee competitively.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is exactly why the rules shouldn't be changed. Some play styles can be abused in just 1-Stock matches. Brawl is a slower game, YOU ALL need to stop trying to make it like Melee, if you hate Brawl/think it's too slow, shut-up and deal with it. OR just don't play the game at all and go back to Melee.

You're trying to make the games something it obviously strayed away from. The game will be much worse if the amount of Time/Stocks are changed even the slightest bit.

If matches come to time, which this is obviously trying to prevent as a side issue, then so be it. Timing out is a liable play style, and now that MK is banned you WILL NOT see it even close to as much. If you get timed out now it's because you suck. Therefore, you should have no say in the first place.

Ideas like this irritate me because the stubborn/much worse players try to better themselves when in reality they won't even benefit from it to begin with. The better players will just get better, and the worse players will just get worse.

I am surprised this thread is still up. Brawl is Brawl, Melee is Melee. Why we are still trying to compare/differentiate them after 4 YEARS, is beyond my understanding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

actually toon link and pit can both time matches out pretty easily if that's their goal. Others prolly can as well, it is NOT an MK only tactic.

 

[Tesh]

I wouldn't say easily unless its against really slow characters that really suck at catching up to them.

 

[Kink-Link5]

TL has a pretty easy time going to time against even like Pikachu though if he really wants to.

 

[The Ben]

I mean, there are SO MANY timeouts in SFxT that TO's are trying to find ways to stop them. It's been noted as one of the games biggest problems.

No it isn't. The problem isn't that there are too many timeouts. Nobody cares about timeouts existing at all. The problem is that the game is designed in a way that actually discourages approaching the opponent.

 

[Jeffbelittle]

No it isn't. The problem isn't that there are too many timeouts. Nobody cares about timeouts existing at all. The problem is that the game is designed in a way that actually discourages approaching the opponent.

This.

The approacher is usually at a disadvantage than the one who is being approached. This promotes an incredibly defensive play style. The only real exception to this is Meta Knight who thrives off offensive tactics, and well- that's irrelevant given the ban. And characters with blind spots such as Olimar when falling.


Whether that's a bad thing or not is completely subjective though.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

This.

The approacher is usually at a disadvantage than the one who is being approached. This promotes an incredibly defensive play style. The only real exception to this is Meta Knight who thrives off offensive tactics, and well- that's irrelevant given the ban. And characters with blind spots such as Olimar when falling.


Whether that's a bad thing or not is completely subjective though.

You do realize he was talking about Street Fighter, not Brawl?

 

[Mithost]

You do realize he was talking about Street Fighter, not Brawl?

His point is pretty much still valid for brawl though.

 

[Arcansi]

No it isn't. The problem isn't that there are too many timeouts. Nobody cares about timeouts existing at all. The problem is that the game is designed in a way that actually discourages approaching the opponent.

You...do you even watch pro SFxT? They gave a 99 second timer (which works for 1v1) to a game that is 2v2 when played correctly. The game favors approaching because of it's design, similar to how SF and (I presume) Tekken were designed, with autocombos and junk.

In fact, I've only ever seen a runaway strategy used once, against one character, and that was only because he was running all over everyone and winning games by himself.

His point is pretty much still valid for brawl though.

Not really. Timeouts in SFxT happen A LOT.

 

[The Ben]

You...do you even watch pro SFxT? They gave a 99 second timer (which works for 1v1) to a game that is 2v2 when played correctly. The game favors approaching because of it's design, similar to how SF and (I presume) Tekken were designed, with autocombos and junk.

Tekken Tag had a 99 second timer and it worked just fine.

Which Street Fighter are talking about? Up until AE IV was notoriously slow paced and about having a strong defense. AE offers more variation in play style than super or vanilla but being super defensive is still a valid strategy (as opposed to being THE valid strategy). In fact SFIV boils down to knowing your matchup and what what/when to poke to create an opening. The illusion of aggressive play is that once an opening is found you can typically just go for some mixups or vortexes, but the first 5 seconds are usually half the match.

 

[Arcansi]

Tekken Tag had a 99 second timer and it worked just fine.

Eh, idk then. But doesn't Tekken have longer + more damaging combos? And Rage?

Which Street Fighter are talking about? Up until AE IV was notoriously slow paced and about having a strong defense. AE offers more variation in play style than super or vanilla but being super defensive is still a valid strategy (as opposed to being THE valid strategy). In fact SFIV boils down to knowing your matchup and what what/when to poke to create an opening. The illusion of aggressive play is that once an opening is found you can typically just go for some mixups or vortexes, but the first 5 seconds are usually half the match.

I started watching in AE. Talking about AE 2012. Also, how are the first five seconds half the match? It's like

1. Footsies, someone gets an opening that leads to something.

2. Vortex on get up (3 main options)

a. Player getting up gets away, go to step 1.

b. Player getting up gets hit, go to step 2.

c. Player getting up gets their own hit, go to step 2 with player roles switched.

Is it different from this? I mean, obviously the spacing of footsies will be a bit different each time, but...

 

[The Ben]

Eh, idk then. But doesn't Tekken have longer + more damaging combos? And Rage?

No rage but longer combos. Tekken is a lot like Marvel in that a lot of times 1 combo is enough.

Is it different from this? I mean, obviously the spacing of footsies will be a bit different each time, but...

That's a very simplified version of it. The truth is it differs a bit at B. If the vortex is properly done even on escape you're at the advantage so often B and A are quite literally the same scenario. C mostly happens in matchups where you don't have a lot of safes versus the given character or if the person vortexing(?) starts in a weird position. I'd say 7 out of 10 times the first knock down is the fight.

 

[Arcansi]

No rage but longer combos. Tekken is a lot like Marvel in that a lot of times 1 combo is enough.

So yeah, because in SFxT this is never true, we end up with a ton of timeouts.

That's a very simplified version of it. The truth is it differs a bit at B. If the vortex is properly done even on escape you're at the advantage so often B and A are quite literally the same scenario. C mostly happens in matchups where you don't have a lot of safes versus the given character or if the person vortexing(?) starts in a weird position. I'd say 7 out of 10 times the first knock down is the fight.

Well of course it's super simplified. It has to be or else it'd probably be a couple pages. :D

Also, if your at an advantage how does that essentially mean you get the next hit > combo?

Is it just because mixups/blockstrings are THAT hard to block?

 

[TOPIX]

Are the hosts of Concentrate looking at these numbers? Because I think it's pretty clear what people want when it comes to stock count in tournaments...

 

[The Ben]

Is it just because mixups/blockstrings are THAT hard to block?

No, if anything they might be too easy since you can randomly dp out of them a lot of the time. The reason is that once you get knocked down most good players know where to be completely safe on wakeup and be in a great position footsie wise. Remember how people complained about Sentinel's zoning when MvC2 first came out? Well it's kinda like that, except it's every character.