Official + Smash 4 [VIC] General Thread - Next events: MILTIM 11 JUN, CWMELEE+PM 18 JUN, CW S4ROA 25 JUN

[Deez1]

..........

 

[tibs7]

Dates are amazing! time to win again.

I would do both tournament and comp but the tan i get would legit sweat off :'(

 

[Villyness]

Think V's gonna get her rematch~

DOES MEAN... A REVISIT?! :O :O

Cause screw the rematch it'd be hype af to see you guys again. ^^

...well no, I still want the rematch so I can 2 stock your Rosa.

But it'd still be awesome seeing you again. :D

 

[Attila_]

I don't think I can make that Saturday at all.

Literally worst.

 

[Splice]

ok we get it
you guys are trying to test which Baranyay we love more

but if you really want a date change, nothing less than a flex-off will make things happen

 

[Jamwa]

do i have to pay venue fee for both days? i just wanna enter s4 doubles without going broke




weekend pass when
shoutouts to new bowser sig its rlly gud^

 

[Splice]

shoutouts to new boswer sig

^

fixerino'd

Also, this new arrangement does cost more $$$ for ppl who play S4 and other games but since we'll have the venue fee for x2 days, It might be a necessary cost.
Although, since we more than cover than venue fee + most people will only go one day, I think there should be some kind of deal. If not this time, at least in future after we maths it based on who goes which days this time

 

[Invisi]

Now that Smash 4 has its own day, you guys should give 3 stock a try at some point. It would be interesting to see which option people prefer, and I do anticipate you'll find that people generally prefer playing 3 stock rather than 2.

 

[Attila_]

Now that Smash 4 has its own day, you guys should give 3 stock a try at some point. It would be interesting to see which option people prefer, and I do anticipate you'll find that people generally prefer playing 3 stock rather than 2.

No

 

[Deez1]

..........

 

[Invisi]

No

The impression I got from the Melbourners in Perth last week was that your tournaments simply don't have enough time to facilitate a 3 stock format, and thus it's never been given a proper trial. Is this correct, or have you tried 3 stock before and dismissed it as a result? If there have been 3 stock tournaments run and the community has decided against it then that's understandable, but if this has not happened then a casual dismissal of the idea is simply hubris.

 

[Snoc]

Big words aside, no one in melbourne cares for 3 stock.

 

[AzuraSarah]

Big words aside, no one in melbourne cares for 3 stock.

I disagree, I care for three stock and I think you'll find some others will as well.

With pools though we probably still don't have time for three stock.

 

[Attila_]

2 stock games already take long enough; average game is about 5 minutes.

Even if we had enough time, consistent 7.5 minutes games sound real tedious.

If we trial 3 stock, i will time out everyone until my point is proven. Srs

 

[Shaya]

If we trial 3 stock, i will time out everyone until my point is proven. Srs

BRING IT ON.
=)
Timing out in this game is definitely no where near as easy as Brawl and you know it.

I agree some of the less.. fun characters to play against are a drag with an extra stock. I know that feel.
I've had a healthy dose of both 2 stock/3 stock tournaments. I probably prefer 3 stocks overall, but 2 stocks has it's merits as a less forgiving hence "inferred" hype towards it.

 

[M]

Winners semis being a best of 5 is also unnecessary.

 

[Jei Jei]

^ yes

Ricky are you also coming back to Melbourne?

 

[Attila_]

BRING IT ON.
=)
Timing out in this game is definitely no where near as easy as Brawl and you know it.

I agree some of the less.. fun characters to play against are a drag with an extra stock. I know that feel.
I've had a healthy dose of both 2 stock/3 stock tournaments. I probably prefer 3 stocks overall, but 2 stocks has it's merits as a less forgiving hence "inferred" hype towards it.

Disagree. The game is naturally slower, so it's pretty easy. Most of my serious games last around 6 minutes (2 stock); this wasn't the case for brawl. If we add another stock, I'll be timing people out without even trying.

Winners semis being a best of 5 is also unnecessary.

Bo5s are great though; I'd actually prefer everything bo5, but time disallows this. More likely that the better player wins.

 

[Shaya]

Although no one's done any recent statistics, someone who was a real stream monster at some point gave pretty solid indications that time per stock in 3 stocks is on average 15-30 seconds faster than time per stock in 2 stocks settings.

I just don't know if I see any time outs anymore that don't either involve customs or Sonic. The stress of ledge camping villagers, high aura rollsphere, mac getting 2 real KO punch opportunities is amplified in 3 stocks and worst case scenarios are "worse" literally, sure. But I think I prefer playing against Mac/Lucario in 3 stocks over 2 just because 1 mistake against characters that are unmatched in reward is just that overwhelmingly more likely to decide a match.

2 stocks is better for weaker players to compete against better ones, as for every stock we add, the more consistent the result of a match will be. That game that goes 1-1 may've been a 2-0 with 3 stocks, and while I have anecdotes of "I would've won that game if it were 2 stock" (both my matches against Ignis at T+S were me getting 2 stocks first IIRC but losing on the third) there's just no way for me to logically deduce that the larger opportunity to outplay an opponent is giving me losses I shouldn't have.

Disagree. The game is naturally slower, so it's pretty easy. Most of my serious games last around 6 minutes (2 stock); this wasn't the case for brawl. If we add another stock, I'll be timing people out without even trying.

Bo5s are great though; I'd actually prefer everything bo5, but time disallows this. More likely that the better player wins.

So if you aren't timing out people already, chances are you won't be timing out people in 3.
And I don't want to be rude, but you're contradicting yourself with that edit. Worst case scenario for a best of 5/2stock is 30 minutes, while worst case scenario for best of 3/3 stock is 24 and 3 stocks is going to result in the better player winning more often on a match by match basis. It's also a total of 10 stocks vs a total of 9 stocks except the former is up to 6 minutes worse and will likely be more stalled with the counter picking process.
Overall you want to see more "stocks" played so there are more accurate results, but you'd prefer going to best of 5s over adding another stock in a match?

 

[M]

Ricky are you also coming back to Melbourne?

That depends on how successful Kira is at convincing me.

 

[Snoc]

1 stock Bo5 when??

 

[Shaya]

I did forget a good consideration The first stock of a match is the most important and tends to last the longest.
So yeah.. more "first stocks" could perhaps favour the better player over adding a stock to a match?

Either way isn't it interesting that right now in terms of consistency the 3 stock scene does better at 2 stock tournaments while the 2 stock scene does better at 3 stock tournaments?
I was going to say we do better at opposing cities, but then Perth happened I guess?
Maybe we should forget Perth and just keep reminding you to come beat us with our own rules more often~

 

[Attila_]

I did forget a good consideration The first stock of a match is the most important and tends to last the longest.
So yeah.. more "first stocks" could perhaps favour the better player over adding a stock to a match?

Either way isn't it interesting that right now in terms of consistency the 3 stock scene does better at 2 stock tournaments while the 2 stock scene does better at 3 stock tournaments?
I was going to say we do better at opposing cities, but then Perth happened I guess?
Maybe we should forget Perth and just keep reminding you to come beat us with our own rules more often~

That was more the point.

More 'first stocks' lead to better results. Even a better player is at a distinct disadvantage if they lose the stock lead; they have a better chance of mounting a come back with more games, rather than more stocks within the same game.

So..... One stock anyone?

 

[Jei Jei]

So..... One stock anyone?

Bye guys, leaving smash scene forever.

 

[Shaya]

In 2 stocks though, the likelihood of losing first stock and bringing it back is a lot less likely than 3. Anecdotes I'm sure you could relate to, I bet you've been at a stock deficit before in Brawl and brought it back.

And don't you dare say one stock.
ONE STOCK LITERALLY TURNED ME INTO A BRAWL HATER.
It's all your fault attila.... the best game ever made RUINED :<

[I have not played more than 10 minutes of brawl singles since that tournament fyi]

 

[KuroganeHammer]

2 stock is fun, but you can't really argue that the better player won't win more often in 3 stock.

I think Melbourne should give it a try; or at least poll their players on what stock number they prefer before writing it off completely.

 

[Pudgetalks]

2 stock is fun, but you can't really argue that the better player won't win more often in 3 stock.

I think Melbourne should give it a try; or at least poll their players on what stock number they prefer before writing it off completely.

I'd rather have 2 stock pools, than 3 stock double elim.
3 stock aint bad but after T&S where I versed 2 mad campy players I just wasn't feeling it.

 

[AzuraSarah]

I'd rather have 2 stock pools, than 3 stock double elim.

This. Three stock is good, but Pools are better.

 

[Shaya]

That idea's been brought up before as a consideration in Sydney I think. We're usually good for set ups but often pools can take a long time to finalize here.

 

[dreadtech]

It's times like these where I truly believe we're just a bunch of brats playing a children's game.

Well Played Sakurai....Well Played....

 

[Attila_]

Probably fair to say that supporters of three stock don't really understand how strong the stock lead is in this game... Comebacks mid game are almost impossible unless there is a significant skill difference.

Comebacks are MUCH easier to make by adding more games.

Actually, I'm genuinely curious. What do people see the advantages of three stock to be?

 

[Jei Jei]

I don't see an advantage. Let's stick to 2 stock, we like 2 stock. It works.

 

[Invisi]

Probably fair to say that supporters of three stock don't really understand how strong the stock lead is in this game... Comebacks mid game are almost impossible unless there is a significant skill difference.

Comebacks are MUCH easier to make by adding more games.

Actually, I'm genuinely curious. What do people see the advantages of three stock to be?

In my view, the main advantage of 3 stock is that it feels better to play. You spend more time playing the game without adding filler counterpicking time like you would in a 1 stock format (the extra time you spend not playing the game is also my main reason for disliking 1 stock; it makes the set feel less fluid and less fun overall).

I am aware that this is a completely subjective viewpoint, and that you do not hold the same view. However, when we tried both 3 stock and 2 stock in Sydney, a majority of people agreed that they preferred the feel of 3 stock. At the end of the day we're here for fun, so if more people will have more fun with 3 stocks then that's enough of a reason in itself to use a 3 stock format.

The more tangible (though in my opinion less important) reason I support 3 stocks is how it affects early kills. For the most part, this affects characters like Puff (Rest) (hence my bias) and Mac (KO punch), but also affects kills like gimps and spikes, or even SDs. A 3 stock format makes these kills less impactful when there is a skill disparity between the players, and more impactful when the players are evenly matched.

If a weaker player lands a lucky early kill on a stronger player (or a stronger player merely SDs for some reason), the stronger player will have a much better chance at fighting back 2 stocks to 3 rather than 1-2. Admittedly, the previous statement overlooks the circumstances of how the early kill happened (ie the argument that a weaker player should not be early killing a stronger player whatsoever, so how can you say the player is weaker), but these situations do happen in tournament, even if they are rare (eg Ricky SDed twice in bracket vs Poppt at Perth, costing him one game in each set).

More importantly than the above, let's now assume two players are evenly matched for the most part. Games go down to the wire, but if one player were to land an early kill on the other, that would put a huge swing on that game. As a Puff player, I am not landing rests every stock, but a 3 stock format gives me an extra chance to land this game changing move and swing the game in my favour.

Overall though, the most important thing is what format people prefer playing. You have made your preference clear, but as far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the Melbourne community at large has not had a chance to try both formats and decide for themselves.

I'd rather have 2 stock pools, than 3 stock double elim.
3 stock aint bad but after T&S where I versed 2 mad campy players I just wasn't feeling it.

This is very understandable, and I agree with this. I figured I'd bring up the 3 stock idea in case you did now have the time to try it. If you don't have the time without sacrificing pools, then I think most people would prefer pools too.

And in reference to the campy players, do you think you would attribute this more to the 3 stock format, or the custom legal format? If the latter (which I expect is the case), there is no reason to assume 3 stocks customs off will have the same impact.

 

[Snoc]

so should we play with 10 stocks in melee because fox can shine gimp people at 0%?

FOR FUN

 

[Invisi]

so should we play with 10 stocks in melee because fox can shine gimp people at 0%?

FOR FUN

If you, and the majority of the scene, think that 10 stocks is more fun than 4 stocks, then yes (assuming time permits).

 

[Attila_]

You don't have to try everything to see if you like it.

We never ban tested items, and we never will.

I think you kinda missed the point of my last post; less stocks more games allows greater comeback potential. While it has more filler in terms of downtime, it has less filler in terms of wasted time playing matches that are already decided.

I'll make a larger post transferring this when I get on a computer.

 

[Shaya]

I think you kinda missed the point of my last post; less stocks more games allows greater comeback potential.

Despite the fact first stocks mean a lot, I kinda doubt it's allowing notably greater anything. If it takes you 2 stocks to figure someone out, it's possible you'll bring back game 1 with 3 stocks or use that time to learn/adapt in a less consequential way for the second match. Another game is always a fresh start to things, more so than a fresh stock (but don't we love the hype produced in a comeback within a single game?), but it is adding a lot of unnecessary time.

And Attila, are you going to hold onto that slippery slope logic forever?

 

[M]

less stocks more games allows greater comeback potential.

This is actually very character dependent. Some characters (extreme examples being Mac, Wario, Lucario) usually rely heavily on a match being drawn out into multiple stocks.

 

[Pudgetalks]

In my view, the main advantage of 3 stock is that it feels better to play. You spend more time playing the game without adding filler counterpicking time like you would in a 1 stock format (the extra time you spend not playing the game is also my main reason for disliking 1 stock; it makes the set feel less fluid and less fun overall).

I am aware that this is a completely subjective viewpoint, and that you do not hold the same view. However, when we tried both 3 stock and 2 stock in Sydney, a majority of people agreed that they preferred the feel of 3 stock. At the end of the day we're here for fun, so if more people will have more fun with 3 stocks then that's enough of a reason in itself to use a 3 stock format.

The more tangible (though in my opinion less important) reason I support 3 stocks is how it affects early kills. For the most part, this affects characters like Puff (Rest) (hence my bias) and Mac (KO punch), but also affects kills like gimps and spikes, or even SDs. A 3 stock format makes these kills less impactful when there is a skill disparity between the players, and more impactful when the players are evenly matched.

If a weaker player lands a lucky early kill on a stronger player (or a stronger player merely SDs for some reason), the stronger player will have a much better chance at fighting back 2 stocks to 3 rather than 1-2. Admittedly, the previous statement overlooks the circumstances of how the early kill happened (ie the argument that a weaker player should not be early killing a stronger player whatsoever, so how can you say the player is weaker), but these situations do happen in tournament, even if they are rare (eg Ricky SDed twice in bracket vs Poppt at Perth, costing him one game in each set).

More importantly than the above, let's now assume two players are evenly matched for the most part. Games go down to the wire, but if one player were to land an early kill on the other, that would put a huge swing on that game. As a Puff player, I am not landing rests every stock, but a 3 stock format gives me an extra chance to land this game changing move and swing the game in my favour.

Overall though, the most important thing is what format people prefer playing. You have made your preference clear, but as far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the Melbourne community at large has not had a chance to try both formats and decide for themselves.



This is very understandable, and I agree with this. I figured I'd bring up the 3 stock idea in case you did now have the time to try it. If you don't have the time without sacrificing pools, then I think most people would prefer pools too.

And in reference to the campy players, do you think you would attribute this more to the 3 stock format, or the custom legal format? If the latter (which I expect is the case), there is no reason to assume 3 stocks customs off will have the same impact.

Yeah nah it's almost certainly due to the fact it was customs lol.
Still the 3 stocks made it grueling

 

[Deez1]

..........