St.Louis Area Discussion Thread

[Tmacc]

And sometimes, it's just the person. For example, even though the Luigi-D3 match up is said to be about even (no infinite involved), and the D3-Olimar matchup is about 35-65 to Olimar, I love playing Olimar and hate playing Luigi. So I worked alot on the Luigi-D3 matchup. So sometimes, there's just a character we hate playing against, regardless of matchups. I think we all have that, in some shape or form, right?

 

[alt-F4]

I think that this is one of the most player skill dependent match ups... cause diddy, when played well is a force, but when played poorly is lame and predictable (sorry guys for not giving you proper experience *sadface*). Falco when played right has the tools to completely pick apart a poorly played diddy... chaingrab -> spike and reflector/laser camping. the more predictable the diddy, the harder he gets punished with the aforementioned things.

however when a diddy is played well, unpredictably, then the match up is even. diddy can punish a lot with defensive banana game and you arent used to getting punished... cause you play me (come on i cant even punish properly in SF4 and whiffed shoryukens give me tons of time ;P) you are getting punished for your off the ledge game cause when it comes down to it, i am TERRIBLE off the stage. I do the exact wrong thing every time; i jump into characters i shouldnt (and spikes for that matter), fastfall into DDD, and always use terrible moves to momentum cancel... seriously i use fair for snake and bair for ROB WTF!?!?!?!?.

like i did last night to you will i can keep a banana behind me when you are chain throwing and tech/pick up banana and try to hit you with it to regain some control. (seriously last night was the best i have done against your falco in a long time....most likely ever). once you get comfortable with QTP's diddy it wont be quite so crazy. your falco is just too complacent from easily punishing everything i ever do.

edit: man a lot of that got posted while i was typing (got distracted by stuff) and all my points seem to have gotten made

 

[MetalMusicMan]

And sometimes, it's just the person. For example, even though the Luigi-D3 match up is said to be about even (no infinite involved), and the D3-Olimar matchup is about 35-65 to Olimar, I love playing Olimar and hate playing Luigi. So I worked alot on the Luigi-D3 matchup. So sometimes, there's just a character we hate playing against, regardless of matchups. I think we all have that, in some shape or form, right?

Oh yeah, most definitely. I loathe fighting Marth no matter what character I am, hahaha. I don't think Diddy will be quite as bad as Marth for me once I learn to fight him, but he is definitely irritating. Then again, so is every good character.

your falco is just too complacent from easily punishing everything i ever do.

CURSE YOU, STEVE!!! lmfao





heavy rain heavy rain heavy rain heavy rain heavy rain

 

[Tmacc]

Haha, I can't wait to play with you guys! Finally, people who know what they are talking about with this game. Glad I'm in STL!

 

[Tmacc]

MMM, let's discuss the Falco-D3 matchup. What do you think about it? I have trouble with this match up sometimes, but usually do well in it. I just have to play uber smart and patient.

 

[Teh Future]

lol you guys are bad against nabababananas. And Steve wtf your so wrong I used to be pretty bad against diddy and I haven't had any problems with Diddy since I played you lots.

steeeeeep it up stl mirirtte

 

[alt-F4]

lol you guys are bad against nabababananas. And Steve wtf your so wrong I used to be pretty bad against diddy and I haven't had any problems with Diddy since I played you lots.

steeeeeep it up stl mirirtte

also WTF was up with rob diddy last night mirite!?!?!!??

for some reason i play a ton more patiently against you. I think falco just gets in my head, i focus so much on how much reflector can screw me that i run right into it.

Tmacc as you will soon learn from me, just cause i know what im talking about (not completely but i would say i have a decent understanding of the game/characters) my application has some sort of disconnect in it... i am working on it though.

seriously sooooooo much better at SF4 than smash ;P

 

[MetalMusicMan]

MMM, let's discuss the Falco-D3 matchup. What do you think about it? I have trouble with this match up sometimes, but usually do well in it. I just have to play uber smart and patient.

As someone who has "mained" both of those characters for a long time, I think it's unquestionably in Falco's favor. I used to think it was something wild like 70:30, but honestly, it's probably more like 60:40.

DeDeDe get's really owned by lasers and the chain grab absolutely owns him as well. He's so easily hit by lasers and has such a hard time catching or even approaching Falco at all, so Falco has less trouble with stale moves from his Bair and can actually have an easier time killing DeDeDe than he usually does most people, despite D3's weight.

Additionally, Falco can really mess up DeDeDe because his close range pressure is much more versatile than the penguin's. All D3 can really do is grab, while Falco can jab, grab, up tilt, short hop nair / dair / bair, laser, phantasm away, etc.

DeDeDe can wrack damage with B-throw and Bair ledge guarding, and can avoid getting killed by Falco fairly well if he spaces correctly and manages to avoid or deal with the laser spam. F-tilt spacing is very good as you work your way in through the lasers. Attempting gimps off stage is good, but D3 can also have success waiting on stage for Falco to recover and predicting / punishing his Phantasm.

Ultimately though, Falco's CG, Lasers, and Jab give him a very solid advantage in this matchup, at least 60:40, maybe more.

Tmacc as you will soon learn from me, just cause i know what im talking about (not completely but i would say i have a decent understanding of the game/characters) my application has some sort of disconnect in it... i am working on it though.

seriously sooooooo much better at SF4 than smash ;P

...and I'm good at both, hooray! /dances in front of Steve


lmfao

 

[Teh Future]

wow will that game looks super gay what you just hit buttons when it pops up and cool stuff happens like God of War (lol that game is also terribad) what a piece of ****. Be a man and buy Mass Erect 2 when it come sout next week

 

[MetalMusicMan]

wow will that game looks super gay what you just hit buttons when it pops up and cool stuff happens like God of War (lol that game is also terribad) what a piece of ****. Be a man and buy Mass Erect 2 when it come sout next week

You're only 7 years old, of course you don't care about a good story! Good stories don't have Thomas the Train in them!

 

[Tmacc]

As someone who has "mained" both of those characters for a long time, I think it's unquestionably in Falco's favor.

I used to think it was something wild like 70:30, but honestly, it's probably more like 60:40. DeDeDe get's really owned by lasers and the chain grab absolutely owns him as well. Because he's so easily hit by lasers and has such a hard time catching or even approaching Falco at all, Falco has less trouble with stale moves from his Bair and can actually have an easier time killing DeDeDe than he usually does most people, despite D3's weight.

Additionally, Falco's can really mess up DeDeDe because his close range pressure is much more versatile than the penguin's. All D3 can really do is grab, while Falco can jab, grab, up tilt, short hop nair / dair / bair, laser, phantasm away, etc.

DeDeDe can wrack damage with B-throw and Bair ledge guarding, and can avoid getting killed by Falco fairly well if he spaces correctly and manages to avoid or deal with the laser spam. F-tilt spacing is very good as you work your way in through the lasers. Attempting gimps off stage is good, but D3 can also have success waiting on stage for Falco to recover and predicting / punishing his Phantasm.

Ultimately though, Falco's CG, Lasers, and Jab give him a very solid advantage in this matchup, at least 60:40, maybe more.

I completely agree 40-60. Most say 35-65, but I think it's a little closer than that. Waddles are actually a big help in this matchup, IMO. They help block lasers, and can help keep Falco off his game. Furthermore, D3 really needs to get good grabs in this MU. Usually, good tech chases help me alot. And you are COMPLETELY right about ftilt. That move is a MUST in this MU for spacing Falco. Keep him as far back as possible until you are ready to get your grab, because, as you said, Falco has so many close quarters options. Gotta keep him off his feet, and the D# must keep hi playing to YOUR game, not the other way around.

 

[Teh Future]

story or not that looked ****ing dumb. "oh **** this guy is chasing me with a knife!!!!"

*hits square and does twenty backflips out of a building and lands on a tree branch*

omg that looked so cool see how good I am????????

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I completely agree 40-60. Most say 35-65, but I think it's a little closer than that. Waddles are actually a big help in this matchup, IMO. They help block lasers, and can help keep Falco off his game. Furthermore, D3 really needs to get good grabs in this MU. Usually, good tech chases help me alot. And you are COMPLETELY right about ftilt. That move is a MUST in this MU for spacing Falco. Keep him as far back as possible until you are ready to get your grab, because, as you said, Falco has so many close quarters options. Gotta keep him off his feet, and the D# must keep hi playing to YOUR game, not the other way around.

weeee matchups are fun

story or not that looked ****ing dumb. "oh **** this guy is chasing me with a knife!!!!"

*hits square and does twenty backflips out of a building and lands on a tree branch*

omg that looked so cool see how good I am????????

lol, david it's not a game of skill you ******.

 

[alt-F4]

willie when i was trying to think of what i could say to tmacc i came up with almost all those things... woot its like i know what to do... i just cant seem to put it together right.

CURSE YOU BRAIN

on a side note why are you bothering arguing with stl's most prominent troll.

david:

NEON NIGHT RIDERZ FOR LYFE

....well that took FOR-EV-ER

 

[Teh Future]

^rofl well worth it though I must say

will that game looks so bad. go watch the departed or seomthing

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Oh my god don't even get me started on how terrible The Departed was at the end.

David you are the best troll in the world. lmfao.

 

[Cook]

Will, you're just bad against Diddy. Nicole would always **** you if she wasn't ******** about getting chaingrabbed-death a million times. On the OTHER hand, I beat her Diddy with Falco plenty. I MUST BE THE BETTER FLLLLLACCCCCOOO!!!

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Will, you're just bad against Diddy. Nicole would always **** you if she wasn't ******** about getting chaingrabbed-death a million times. On the OTHER hand, I beat her Diddy with Falco plenty. I MUST BE THE BETTER FLLLLLACCCCCOOO!!!

I think there is a flaw in your statement, hahaha. I keed, I keed, hugs and kisses Nicole.

Yeah, I am bad against Diddy. Once again, not arguing that



Quoting for great justice:

david:

NEON NIGHT RIDERZ FOR LYFE

....well that took FOR-EV-ER

 

[MetalMusicMan]

How do you guys feel about Stingers' suggestion on changing the rule-set to playing out sudden death?

- Change the timer from 8 minutes, to 10. This will make it less likely for accidental time outs to happen while still making it realistic for a tournament to finish on time if it happens to happen.

- In the event of a time-out, you play out the sudden death. The sudden death is the final ruling. Think about it, matches simply don't last 10 minutes unless you want them to last 10 minutes. Now, if you force a match to the timer, you have to play a virtual coin toss in order to decide who moves on. It's the risk you were willing to take when you grabbed the ledge for 4 minutes so you wouldn't get hit.

At first, it sounded surprisingly practical to me, actually, and seemed like it would be a good way to combat all of the people complaining about ledge grabs without enforcing something dumb like a ledge grab limit.

The main problem though is that whoever is "losing" might actually have better chances in a sudden death, and that might favor the person who is losing %-wise, versus the person who is winning. That seems unfair and is probably the nature of why we don't play out sudden deaths to begin with.

Probably not a good idea, but a very interesting one.

 

[Infern Angelis]

Whatever is decided, you can expect alot of people to be mad lol

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Whatever is decided, you can expect alot of people to be mad lol

lmfao, yeah


It's a very interesting idea but it's very flawed as it just rewards the loser too much, so I don't see it getting implemented. I just thought it was kind of an interesting suggestion.




pew pew pew formatting 5 computers at the same time, maximum nothing-to-do-velocity!

 

[alt-F4]

It seems like a good idea when you first think about it, but my concern is that some characters seem like they would get much better in sudden death. not that snake is good as it but in SD grenade camping and snake dashing seem very solid to me. i also think samus, link, and toon link would be good at this dueto projectiles and zair to stall until the kill is set up. (not quite sure on this but it seems like it to me)

I think a lot more matches would go to time with people defensively trying to time out for the purpose of activating the coin flip scenario.... why try to kill 3 times when you only have to do it once. bad players would then flock to mk not cause he is a good character, but because he can run away better. maybe to snake cause he can live forever and hide off stage with C4 jumping for a bit. as well as all of his moves knocking away he could just hit opponents away staling his moves but they still have to fight their way back through grenades to get him... only to be knocked away again. who cares if they live to 1000 in SD all your moves are fresh and your opponent is at 300 sounds pretty ****ing good to me.

overall i think this would change brawl playstyle from slow methodical cerebral playing to the horrifyingly long, boring, drug-out matches the melee players already think are going on (luv you melee guys ;D). i hope this runaway stuff can be resolved but as it stands i find it the lesser of two evils.

oh btw i think i am going to start contributing to smash debates from here on out... just talking about things might help me understand them more. even though i am a weak willed, non-confrontational kind of person ;P

 

[Cook]

I think sudden death almost sounds better than the current rule. But I think playing out a one-stock match is even more fair. The reason I like sudden death is because it punishes people who decide two or three minutes into the match that they're going to run out the clock because it takes away their guaranteed victory. Also because the percent rule is sometimes unfair. If it's MK vs. Snake and Snake has 91% and MK has 90% Snake is definitely winning, but he would lose if the match timed out. The problem with sudden death is that it is basically random, but I guess that is just incentive to get the match done before time. I think if sudden death were implemented then the time limit should be increased. Like I said, though I think a one stock match is most fair. The only time it isn't fair is if you have 0% and your opponent has 100% when the clock runs out. Not really fair to just reset. Of course, if you were winning by that much you should be able to win anyway, but still. Maybe it should be one stock, starting at whatever percent you were at when the match ended. I dunno, it's hard to come up with a rule that is always fair, so you just have to decide what sounds most fair.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

The reason I like sudden death is because it punishes people who decide two or three minutes into the match that they're going to run out the clock because it takes away their guaranteed victory.

See, that's what I thought initially, but then you think about when MK, Wario, Peach, etc. is at 150% and Falco, Diddy, etc. is at 20% and they decide to time out the Diddy or Falco... then it goes to sudden death and both characters are at 300%... so it's even... that seems like a TERRIBLE idea because it's a huge reward for the loser and a punishment for the winner.

The ideal situation is what you are talking about, and like I said that's what I thought at first, but in practice, I think you would see more of what I mentioned above... and that would be a very bad and unfair thing.

 

[Cook]

Yeah, that's why I think extending the clock would be necessary if sudden death was played out.

 

[alt-F4]

like i said before i think the SD rule would make things go from bad to worse... (i hope there is enough new material in this post to constitute it)

as it stands in order for metaknight to be effective in running away he NEEDS to be ahead that is all there is to it. with SD in place that stipulation is removed meaning he can run at any point in time during the match. if the mk wants to play aggressive or campy at the beginning of the match, while still approaching overall, but then realizes the match isn't going in his/her favor switch to runaway for the second half and hope you can trick them into one lightning fast dsmash or an oos shuttleloop. this would cause a stagnation in gameplay because at any point during any match someone can reset to one hit mode while subjecting the tourney to 10 min long matches.

the current ruleset means that if the player that is behind wants to not loose he has to approach and go for dmg... this in and of itself could be seen as a strategy of putting your opponent in an unfavorable position to capitalize upon.

now personally i hate the runaway, but i think things would only get worse if we did this.

noob point of view FTW

 

[Nicole]

Sudden death is ********. A 1 stock match could work, though I think that could be kinda gay also, namely because it will take a much longer time and the person who had been winning (like, if I had been at 10% and the other guy had been at 130%) could still lose fairly easily. I do see that determining the winner by percentage at the timeout is a problem, as I could be at 0% and my opponent could be at 9%. Obviously, the outcome of that match would be entirely up in the air as to who would win IF the timer hadn't run out. But sudden death seems even more flawed to me than determining winner by percent. i.e. you're MK, I'm Peach, I've been working my *** off to time you out because it's fawkin' hard for me to kill you, all of a sudden, instead of me winning for outplaying you I have to be at 300% and at the mercy of being hit by ANYTHING you have, which by the way, can hit me ALOT, while I have to play even more cautiously and try to hit you with something that isn't jab, a turnip, or dsmash, three moves that I DO end up hitting MK alot with. Sudden death would help certain already good characters (Snake, MK, Marth, probably DDD) and really hurt several others who are viable but have more difficulty landing moves without proper setups (such as ROB, Peach, Falco, Diddy, ICs)

 

[Nuris]

How about if two people time out, the winner goes to loser's bracket and the loser get kicked out of the tournament. If it's in loser's, they get banned from the tourney for life.

 

[darkatma]

the person who has lower percent should win anyways.
If there are only 2 minutes left there's ample reason to just time the match out. It's strategic. and you win.

 

[Nuris]

the person who has lower percent should win anyways.
If there are only 2 minutes left there's ample reason to just time the match out. It's strategic. and you win.

ur gay
good thing u pleh melee

 

[darkatma]

i would only seriously consider stalling a match out if I were playing against a puff.

 

[Nuris]

thats cuz i rest u EZ

 

[Lixivium]

This is why I've been calling for Bonus Battle tournaments all these years

Let's have judges DQ players for playing sufficiently gay

 

[Tmacc]

I think timeouts should go to lowest percent. It makes the most sense: at the time of the timeout, the player with the least percent was winning, and should thereore win...

 

[Cook]

That's not always true, though. If Snake has 101% and MK has 100% then Snake is winning because he can win with a single move. If an MK player sees that there is a minute left and tornadoes you for 1%, then runs away for the rest of the match then he wasn't actually winning. That rule favors characters that can get in a quick few percent and then run away and also favors light characters over heavy ones. It MAY be the fairest rule, I'm not sure, but it def isn't completely fair. Like I said, I think playing a one stock match would be more fair. I also think the time limit should be increased to lessen the occurrence of accidental timeouts and make intentional timeouts more difficult to pull off.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I'm pretty sure that the current rule of winner being the lowest % is the fairest rule.

I mean I know what you're saying Cookie, but it would just be WAAAAAYYY too hard to enforce what you are talking about with saying "oh, well Snake is really winning because bla bla bla". It's too subjective and it's better to just go by the game's measurement. Obviously, this is why you suggest your 1 stock thing, but that doesn't seem any more practical.

I don't see how playing another 1 stock match would solve ANYTHING, since it could potentially lead to the exact same situation again...

 

[Cook]

The game's measurement is sudden death. The percent thing is something the community came up with. Anyway, I don't think doing a one stock rematch would result in the same problem provided that enough time was given for the rematch and that there are clear rules against stalling. The only problem is see is that it is unfair if one person had a significant lead, which makes me wonder if you should have to start the match with the percent you ended at (maybe rounded down or up to the nearest 10 or something). Sounds like a hassle, but I don't think it would be very hard. But I'm sure no rules will change.

 

[Dekuschrub]

F that dude

SWITCH TO TIME BATTLE

suicide is -2.

SO BALANCEDDDD

 

[MentokJebus]

best way to solve the camping problem:

If timeout occurs with stocks tied in winners bracket the winner is determined by coin flip.

If timeout occurs with stocks tied in losers bracket both entrants lose.

This would discourage stalling/camping and speed up tourneys.

 

[Nuris]

where/when is viperboy's thing this weekend????????????