Why 3v3 For 1v1s Is The Best Ruleset

[PrincesInPink~VictorF]

Alright so the 3v3 (no main + it's echo) would add such a variety to the high level of play with the simple understandable ruleset of, "you get 3 characters and if you win a game with one you can't play them the rest of the set." this makes best of 3s interesting cause you could counter pick a character if you one the first game. then in best of 5s it all comes down to (hopefully) the top players' hype characters, not just top teir. if this aswell as smash meters are implemented into the competitive scene then this will be a NEW smash and can co-exist next to melee with it having variety (3v3) and hype (smash meters) then melee still being its highly technical phenomenon it is to watch.

 

[smashingDoug]

Something like this would be nice, so we don’t see the same characters be played,

Like are you good with the character or are you good at the game (all characters)

 

[CrusherMania1592]

Wait for the 3 vs 3 to be all top tiers only

 

[Competitively]

Wait for the 3 vs 3 to be all top tiers only

The thing Is that majority’s of top tiers have very different play styles. It’s gonna be very difficult to learn 3 completely differently playstyles.


I agree on this rule set. I also had an idea earlier that For stage transition the loser will pick the first and the winner will pick the second. The stage would be set to transition halfway through the match.

That’s just my thoughts though.

 

[DarthEnderX]

Wait for the 3 vs 3 to be all top tiers only

Not ideal, but still better than watching Bayo vs. Bayo.

 

[Untouch]

Wait for the 3 vs 3 to be all top tiers only

I heard an argument that having 3v3 means picking a riskier character where the matchup isn't known would be a lot better as you're only risking 1 stock versus an entire match and I kind of agree. Even without that you'd get 3 top tiers vs just mirror matches of the 1.

Anyways from what I've gathered here are my pros and cons so far.

PROS

• Would promote variety in higher levels of play and put an end to mirror matches, even with the same characters on each teams.
• Would lessen the impact of tiers, causing unorthodox picks to be more viable.
• In higher levels of play, most players play more than 3 characters, this is pretty necessary anyways.
• Would increase the skill ceiling as players would need to deal with more matchups.
• Not a huge difference in play between 3v3 and 1v1, won't be huge pains transitioning over.

CONS

• While at higher levels of play, players need to learn more than 3 characters, many lower skill players don't want to, increasing the barrier of entry.
• Echoes will likely cause drama (they shouldn't but you know how the community is).
• We don't really know how squad strike works yet, could work much different than we though.

 

[staindgrey]

I don't entirely agree with the concept, though I see its purpose. It would make the potential of a Bayo vs. Bayo finale go away, sure, but it also comes with a host of its own problems.

For example, say we used it in Smash 4. If two players have Bayo in their 3, and they don't play Bayo vs. Bayo, there's a high chance that each match would go to the heavily favored Bayo against the weakest of the other player's 3, because they don't want to risk losing with their second best character against Bayo. Thus leaving a third match with the two players' second best character after two equally one-sided Bayo matches.

I'd rather keep things how they are, with the meta developing naturally around counterpicks. It's more interesting to me if a player chooses to counterpick, rather than being forced to. Injustice 2 has developed a surprising amount of character variety due to the heavy emphasis on counterpicking, and I really enjoy watching it.

Other than Starfire. **** Starfire.

 

[Galgatha]

I would actually enjoy this, alot. And I personally agree that I think this would greatly increase character viability due to either counter-picking or picking a not well known fighter for a matchup advantage.

I could see this still going the likes of "most people don't select fighters from below high tier", but at least it would be an improvement.

 

[Keeshu]

Alright so the 3v3 (no main + it's echo) would add such a variety to the high level of play with the simple understandable ruleset of, "you get 3 characters and if you win a game with one you can't play them the rest of the set." this makes best of 3s interesting cause you could counter pick a character if you one the first game. then in best of 5s it all comes down to (hopefully) the top players' hype characters, not just top teir. if this aswell as smash meters are implemented into the competitive scene then this will be a NEW smash and can co-exist next to melee with it having variety (3v3) and hype (smash meters) then melee still being its highly technical phenomenon it is to watch.

Because of the time you posted this and the title, I thought you were talking about squad strike, but apparently you're talking about something else since you're talking about not being able to use a character after you win with them in a set. Which means you're not talking about Squad Strike because that's multiple characters in a single match. The thing you mention seems similar to Nintendo's invitational ruleset except you made it so winning characters can't keep playing. I think I'd be fine with watching matches be played like that.

As for Smash meters, I really want them in, buuuuut I'm a bit skeptical at the moment because it doesn't look very balanced at the moment. However if it turns out to be alright, I don't see why not have it in because it could make things interesting.

 

[Galgatha]

Because of the time you posted this and the title, I thought you were talking about squad strike, but apparently you're talking about something else since you're talking about not being able to use a character after you win with them in a set. Which means you're not talking about Squad Strike because that's multiple characters in a single match. The thing you mention seems similar to Nintendo's invitational ruleset except you made it so winning characters can't keep playing. I think I'd be fine with watching matches be played like that.

As for Smash meters, I really want them in, buuuuut I'm a bit skeptical at the moment because it doesn't look very balanced at the moment. However if it turns out to be alright, I don't see why not have it in because it could make things interesting.

I feel like they were talking about Squad Strike (which was what my reply is too) and then throwing in some of their own rules. Squad Strike however, I beleive, can easily be used in tournaments.

 

[CostLow]

I prefer the squad strike concept over the rules described here. What I like about it is that can still choose the level to which you refine each member of your team. Most likely you won't just pick top tier characters because they will each play so differently that it likely won't be comfortable to switch between them.

If you stick with the rules described here then most likely the only diversity will come in the form of a single character preference. The other two will almost certainly be high tier characters because they are reliable without as much training usually.

Here is what I assume will be common with each version of 3v3:

Squad Strike scenario: P1 chooses X,Y,Z, P2 chooses A,B,C > X (top tier with lots of training behind it) defeats A (high tier with moderate training) > X loses to B (high tier character with moderate training shown to do well against X) > Y (top tier with little training picked because top tier) loses to B > Z (top tier with little training picked because top tier) defeats B > Z narrowly defeats C (mid tier character with moderate training shown to do well against Z)

OP's scenario: P1 chooses X,Y,Z, P2 chooses D,E,F > X defeats D (same top tier with moderate training > Y defeats E (high tier with moderate training) > Z defeats F (high tier with moderate training).

The only way I think OP wouldn't end so unevenly is if P2 stuck with the same top tier fighters and just devoted more time to each. Sure, P2 would be seen as the better player but the game would be turned into rock, paper, scissors (Bayo, Cloud, Diddy). Squad strike could end up that way to an extent but counterpicks will be a part of the framework of the match, rather than just grabbing the next top tier fighter and trumping whatever your opponent chooses unless they also go top tier. You will basically have to go all top tier because each stock means you lose that top tier fighter as your safe bet. You'd need to replenish your competitive advantage after each stock, rather than allowing yourself to settle into doing as much damage as possible with your favorite fighter.

TL;DR - I like the options available in the King of Fighters type 3v3 more than the locked in switch proposed by the OP, but still would enjoy that over the current 1v1 meta.

 

[PrincesInPink~VictorF]

The thing Is that majority’s of top tiers have very different play styles. It’s gonna be very difficult to learn 3 completely differently playstyles.


I agree on this rule set. I also had an idea earlier that For stage transition the loser will pick the first and the winner will pick the second. The stage would be set to transition halfway through the match.

That’s just my thoughts though.

to say that you could just fill your three with top tiers cause they dont take time to learn is simple ignorance and only applys to smash 4 and brawl where the 2 best characters in the game so happen to be the 2 easiest
i wanted to implement stage transition at first aswell however, the problem comes when you say "half way through the match" because this is impossible to calculate cause if it goes off the timer matches dont last the full 8 minutes (place holder time) every match; say they last 5-6 on average so whoever picked the stage that comes first has the huge advantage of having the majority, if not all, of the game played on their stage.
as a after thought though if the stage could transition after half the stocks were gone, then maybe.

I don't entirely agree with the concept, though I see its purpose. It would make the potential of a Bayo vs. Bayo finale go away, sure, but it also comes with a host of its own problems.

For example, say we used it in Smash 4. If two players have Bayo in their 3, and they don't play Bayo vs. Bayo, there's a high chance that each match would go to the heavily favored Bayo against the weakest of the other player's 3, because they don't want to risk losing with their second best character against Bayo. Thus leaving a third match with the two players' second best character after two equally one-sided Bayo matches.

I'd rather keep things how they are, with the meta developing naturally around counterpicks. It's more interesting to me if a player chooses to counterpick, rather than being forced to. Injustice 2 has developed a surprising amount of character variety due to the heavy emphasis on counterpicking, and I really enjoy watching it.

Other than Starfire. **** Starfire.

your first point of getting two one sided bayo matches are irrelevant because that's the mind games behind the players "do i WASTE BAYO LIKE AN IDIOT on a low tier or save her as my third to hopefully clutch..."
then i was reading the rest and realized you LIKE WATCHING INJUSTICE 2 and it made sense why your points suck...

I prefer the squad strike concept over the rules described here. What I like about it is that can still choose the level to which you refine each member of your team. Most likely you won't just pick top tier characters because they will each play so differently that it likely won't be comfortable to switch between them.

If you stick with the rules described here then most likely the only diversity will come in the form of a single character preference. The other two will almost certainly be high tier characters because they are reliable without as much training usually.

Here is what I assume will be common with each version of 3v3:

Squad Strike scenario: P1 chooses X,Y,Z, P2 chooses A,B,C > X (top tier with lots of training behind it) defeats A (high tier with moderate training) > X loses to B (high tier character with moderate training shown to do well against X) > Y (top tier with little training picked because top tier) loses to B > Z (top tier with little training picked because top tier) defeats B > Z narrowly defeats C (mid tier character with moderate training shown to do well against Z)

OP's scenario: P1 chooses X,Y,Z, P2 chooses D,E,F > X defeats D (same top tier with moderate training > Y defeats E (high tier with moderate training) > Z defeats F (high tier with moderate training).

The only way I think OP wouldn't end so unevenly is if P2 stuck with the same top tier fighters and just devoted more time to each. Sure, P2 would be seen as the better player but the game would be turned into rock, paper, scissors (Bayo, Cloud, Diddy). Squad strike could end up that way to an extent but counterpicks will be a part of the framework of the match, rather than just grabbing the next top tier fighter and trumping whatever your opponent chooses unless they also go top tier. You will basically have to go all top tier because each stock means you lose that top tier fighter as your safe bet. You'd need to replenish your competitive advantage after each stock, rather than allowing yourself to settle into doing as much damage as possible with your favorite fighter.

TL;DR - I like the options available in the King of Fighters type 3v3 more than the locked in switch proposed by the OP, but still would enjoy that over the current 1v1 meta.

the first scenario you describe is simply someone getting beat by someone better lol simple as that, you either save your best most reliable character for last or risk them getting knocked out

 

[CostLow]

PrincesInPink~VictorF - I wish you had something to add to the conversation that was worth the quote notification I just received.

Actually, the first example was exactly meant to show that skill would matter in Squad Strike. My second scenario was to show that in the suggested 3v3 format, you almost have no choice but to go with all top tier fighters because there's no point in training with a slightly weaker fighter that yiu enjoy more because the other fighters can't act as a safety net.

 

[staindgrey]

your first point of getting two one sided bayo matches are irrelevant because that's the mind games behind the players "do i WASTE BAYO LIKE AN IDIOT on a low tier or save her as my third to hopefully clutch..."
then i was reading the rest and realized you LIKE WATCHING INJUSTICE 2 and it made sense why your points suck...

Solid retort. Really. A well-thought-out answer all around.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

PrincesInPink~VictorF

Do not multi-post. If you want to reply to someone after making a post, just quote that person, copy it in the dialog box, click edit on your previous post, and paste it in. Or just wait till someone else posts. Multi-posting can lead to warnings and infractions. As well, while you are entitled to your opinion, attacking users for thier preferences is not tolerated. Think before you post. And that goes also for anyone else in this thread. Keep it civil and it stays open.

 

[Untouch]

Imagine if this mode was the standard up until now, it was in 64, melee, brawl and 4 and standard 1v1 wasn't., then in ultimate a 1v1 mode like we have now was added. Would the community want to move over to this mode?

 

[CostLow]

Imagine if this mode was the standard up until now, it was in 64, melee, brawl and 4 and standard 1v1 wasn't., then in ultimate a 1v1 mode like we have now was added. Would the community want to move over to this mode?

I'm not exactly sure which mode you are asking about moving to so I'll respond to both versions.

3v3 to 1v1: I doubt the community would choose to limit their options. In fact, I can't really think of a reason why we any community would want to move from an option with more options to one with fewer options.

1v1 to 3v3: Obviously, some would like to transition but there are still going to be those who don't really want that kind of change. I don't think anyone would think of 1v1 as an upgrade but 3v3 may be seen as an unnecessary change.

In the end, I don't think it's necessary to change just because it's available, but I do think it could be worthwhile to give it a shot and see if it really does enhance the competitive scene.

 

[Carfax]

Forced character switch after winning is a really arbitrary rule. Hardly anybody does it casually despite it being a rule aimed at casual play. Squad strike is a different story because it's a mode included in the game.

 

[PrincesInPink~VictorF]

PrincesInPink~VictorF
you almost have no choice but to go with all top tier fighters because there's no point in training with a slightly weaker fighter that yiu enjoy more because the other fighters can't act as a safety net.

That is just plain and simply ignorant and stupid to say. its players that are bad at the game and casual at heart who think that because they simply dont want to put in the time and effort to be good with a mid or low tier so youll play the game just enough to be mediocre with a high tier and never make it out of pools...

 

[TheFacelessOne]

I would also like to add in that counterpicking would become less relevant since if the winner is no longer allowed to play that character then a low tier counterpick would only be allowed to be used once. Not only would it likely take away hype moments where a low tier in a players arsenal (who counters said top tier) is able to win them the match (since they'd be removed upon winning once) but it would incentivize players to pick characters that cover more matchups overall (Most likely high-top tiers). To top it off, it also mudies the idea of counterpicking since the loser not only knows they won't have to deal with the character that beat them but doesn't know how the winner's new character fares against him.

Also, how do you factor in resets in grand finals. would the player in losers need to know 6 characters then? Or would all eliminated characters come back in?

If you want the idea of 3v3s to work, I'd go with squad strike. The player still needs to know 3 characters (possibly a 4th for a niche counterpick) which raises the ceiling a bit, but at least counterpicking can still exist along with variety. For example, if they did happen to include a low tier in their squad, they can move them up to the start to strike out a high-top tier they counter.

 

[CostLow]

That is just plain and simply ignorant and stupid to say. its players that are bad at the game and casual at heart who think that because they simply dont want to put in the time and effort to be good with a mid or low tier so youll play the game just enough to be mediocre with a high tier and never make it out of pools...

Again with insults. Can you just not quote me if that's what you're about?

Anyways. You made almost no sense just now. If you only get to use a character for one-third of the matchup then there is no point in putting time into anything outside of high tier. It's just not worth your time or energy. You have a finite amount if time that is just as finite as everyone else. If you don't want your lower tier fighter being a guaranteed loss you'll have to devote a disproportionate amount of your time away from the other two fighters that you must also use. If you choose to go with the higher tier fighters you'll just be another player with the same figjters thus making the competitive scene less enjoyable for more people and decreasing the rewards for success in the competitive scene. If you can carry over a successful fight with that weaker fighter to another fight it greatly increases the value of your training time with the fighter and opens up many more options for the competitive scene thus creating a more enjoyable scene with greater rewards for winning.

I get the impression you have little to no experience in competitive Smash. Let's look at Hungrybox. He's one of the greatest Melee players ever playing a character that requires a lot of training to keep it the powerhouse it is in his hands. If he then had to give up that character after winning with it he'd be at a disadvantage for the other two stocks. Obviously, he's not interested in losing like that so he has only one real option. Drop the one hard but guaranteed win and two losses for an easier win that would leave time for training up the other characters so that he would more consistently pull off the wins he needs to be successful. Then, even the greatest melee player would be just another top tier warrior (making the meta that much more one dimensional). Let's not even get into the guys like Axe who have a great version of a bad character and struggle against a lot of actual competition because they only get to play the character right now in ideal scenarios. If you think skill would fix your 3v3 format you haven't given it anymore thought than, "I think I'm cool so this must be a great idea."

 

[Untouch]

Yeah when I say 3v3 I mean squad strike.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I think one-stock 3v3 squad strike would be interesting personally.

If they do it in tournaments it’s no different than doing a best 3 out of 5, which may take some time to finish.

maybe squad strike top 8?

 

[Jakisthe]

I don't understand these "but they'll just use 3 top tiers" arguments at all, to be honest. If a matchup is either AvA (where A is the best character in the game), or A/B/CvA/B/C (where B and C are the second and third best characters), then, on the assumption that squad strike works where each character lasts one stock and it rotates to the next character automatically in a set order, then this could result in matchups, in a single round, of:
AvA
AvB
AvC (if player 1s A character is great)
BvB
BvC
CvC (if they both whittle each other down to their last stock/character)

That's in contrast to a more normal 1v1, where it's just:
AvA

So, in my eyes, 3v3, or at least how I understand Squad Strike to work, is unquestionably going to lead to more variety, even if it's a mirror matchup of the top characters in the game.

I'm not sure how it would preclude counterpicks either, since if player 1 has a great A which can wipe all of player 2s A/B/C team, then maybe player 2 can pull a pocket G out which can clear out player 1s A and lead the rest of his team open. This is, again, at minimum at least as interesting, and almost certainly going to involve a deeper meta beyond that, since now you have to think about BvG, CvG, etc etc.

 

[CostLow]

J Jakisthe - if you are referring to my only top tiers argument I think that all you are missing is the one fundamental difference between the fun and dynamic 3v3 you are picturing compared to what PrincesInPink is proposing.

The difference is that his version would force both players to switch characters and not repeat them between each stock in a match. So it would make for 3 simple one stock fights with the player wielding a new fighter in each stock. This really wouldn't leave room for counter picks because you both have to switch, thus my earlier comment about top tier "rock, paper, scissors".

You are right about Squad Strike being fun and exciting for gamer and spectator alike, but the concoction PIP put together would never stick (especially with Smash Meters thrown in the mix lol)

 

[TheFacelessOne]

Yeah when I say 3v3 I mean squad strike.

I don't understand these "but they'll just use 3 top tiers" arguments at all, to be honest. If a matchup is either AvA (where A is the best character in the game), or A/B/CvA/B/C (where B and C are the second and third best characters), then, on the assumption that squad strike works where each character lasts one stock and it rotates to the next character automatically in a set order, then this could result in matchups, in a single round, of:
AvA
AvB
AvC (if player 1s A character is great)
BvB
BvC
CvC (if they both whittle each other down to their last stock/character)

That's in contrast to a more normal 1v1, where it's just:
AvA

So, in my eyes, 3v3, or at least how I understand Squad Strike to work, is unquestionably going to lead to more variety, even if it's a mirror matchup of the top characters in the game.

I'm not sure how it would preclude counterpicks either, since if player 1 has a great A which can wipe all of player 2s A/B/C team, then maybe player 2 can pull a pocket G out which can clear out player 1s A and lead the rest of his team open. This is, again, at minimum at least as interesting, and almost certainly going to involve a deeper meta beyond that, since now you have to think about BvG, CvG, etc etc.

Sorry, I think what I was talking about in my post was lost. I was addressing the op's rules. Those rules don't sound like squad strike at all, just.... something else. I don't think those rules would incentivize counterpicking since their's not much of a reason for the loser to switch their character (cause the one they'd switch to counter is gone). Idk those rules sound arbitrary to me.

Squad strike, on the other hand, isn't arbitrary. I don't see it having these problems. I'd honestly be down to see that.

As for the top tiers thing, more I think about it, the weaker that argument gets. That whole argument in my post sounds with how I worded it.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

J Jakisthe - if you are referring to my only top tiers argument I think that all you are missing is the one fundamental difference between the fun and dynamic 3v3 you are picturing compared to what PrincesInPink is proposing.

The difference is that his version would force both players to switch characters and not repeat them between each stock in a match. So it would make for 3 simple one stock fights with the player wielding a new fighter in each stock. This really wouldn't leave room for counter picks because you both have to switch, thus my earlier comment about top tier "rock, paper, scissors".

You are right about Squad Strike being fun and exciting for gamer and spectator alike, but the concoction PIP put together would never stick (especially with Smash Meters thrown in the mix lol)

I feel like squad strike would encourage more players to pick characters they are comfortable with along side some top tiers.

If you have two solid characters and one you feel good with, it just may prove to be just as, if not more effective than just picking a character that a player has experience with already.

I really like squad strike. I play with so many characters so I already got themes in my head.

 

[Fell God]

I believe it deserves a chance, but with people already being so disturbingly conservative with their ideal rulesets (arbitrarily keeping stagelists small for the sake of keeping them small...why?) it will take a lot of pushing to get it to even be tried.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I believe it deserves a chance, but with people already being so disturbingly conservative with their ideal rulesets (arbitrarily keeping stagelists small for the sake of keeping them small...why?) it will take a lot of pushing to get it to even be tried.

Some stage picks aren’t arbitrary. There are often limits and counter picks because some characters can exploit the designed of the stages. With the strike system set in tournaments, a player can choose a neutral stage that can’t be picked, and assuming whoever’s favor its ok can ban a stage that helps the player.

For example, a Bayo player can pick smashville, win, then ban battlefield, which would make it hard for Bayo to carry players off the top. Some stages also change between games, like Delfino having an incredibly small blast ceiling mid transformation during the first part of the stage, leading to a lot of potential gimps, which wouldn’t be good in a 2-stock game. Bayo also does well on Lylat because the angles of the stage wings allow her to camp with bullets without being punished, at least easily.

It’s just something that comes with tournament experience. But I don’t think people are going to turn away from squad strike so quickly. It’s not that different than just counter picking characters. 5 in 5 will at least be used for crew battles possibly.

 

[Fell God]

Some stage picks aren’t arbitrary. There are often limits and counter picks because some characters can exploit the designed of the stages. With the strike system set in tournaments, a player can choose a neutral stage that can’t be picked, and assuming whoever’s favor its ok can ban a stage that helps the player.

For example, a Bayo player can pick smashville, win, then ban battlefield, which would make it hard for Bayo to carry players off the top. Some stages also change between games, like Delfino having an incredibly small blast ceiling mid transformation during the first part of the stage, leading to a lot of potential gimps, which wouldn’t be good in a 2-stock game. Bayo also does well on Lylat because the angles of the stage wings allow her to camp with bullets without being punished, at least easily.

It’s just something that comes with tournament experience. But I don’t think people are going to turn away from squad strike so quickly. It’s not that different than just counter picking characters. 5 in 5 will at least be used for crew battles possibly.

Er, what I meant was proposed legal stagelists, like banning Prism Tower and hazardless Find Mii before the game even comes out, like....why????