You’re an idiot. Did you even check the rest of Keits’ videos? It’s almost like you say things without having done any prior research.
Oh wait, you do.
Forcing a sudden death might not be beneficial to the person if they’re a stock up, especially if they’re better than the other player. Matches can be decided by sudden death, so if he forces it into a sudden death there’s a higher chance he’ll screw up there than if he was actually approaching his opponent.
Also, trying to delay and run away usually ends up turning out poorly from what I’ve seen.
The point is you would want to force sudden death if you are the LOSING player not if you are the “better” player. You better believe I would stall if there is 30 seconds left and I am losing by a good bit. At least that way I might could win if I get the first hit then try my hand in trying to hit an opponent who has been doing better than me and is ahead.
I am guessing the last part is for items tournies so I can’t argue that.
Edit: I am just refuting the point for defending the rules you made there not the actual rules.
How the hell do you know? Do not insult me. Imbecile.
I’ve seen all those All-Brawl vids… and I don’t still see how one more stock and one more minute could lead to any akward strategy to win. Every round in Brawl must have more substance, a little more time for someone to dominate. Not just a very short time where probably the must unlucky loose. And, again, I know that the hole set may mean something. But a set of shallow rounds also seems shallow.
If there is all that testing, it would be interesting for us to watch those tests. Maybe that way we can comprehend your reasons. Let us see tests with more time and/or more stocks to see the outcome. The “We worked very hard so it won’t change”, “We tested a lot so shut up”… that’s not very satisfying for items players looking for an interesting ruleset. That’s my point
Looking at this:
" -2 stocks, 3 minutes, 3/5 (this ensures that ‘problem’ situations are not as effective in the overall set, and the short matches ensure that players banking on one strategy (smashball only) might not even see the item they need each round. "
Its ok with the 3/5, I wouldn’t loose that. The thingy about seeking the item they need each round. What if they get the item they seek? They may get 1 stock from their rival with it, but there are other 2 stocks. If they wait for the item again, they won’t see it probably. And there are so many deadly items that one is surely going to appear. And how is the impact of a deadly item in a 2 stock match. Too heavy. So heavy that it can define that round. Is that competitive? Not much.
“-All items set to ON with a medium spawn. (an item will spawn every 10-14 seconds. A full 3 minute match will see only 18 item spawns at most) Edit - ALL items on, now.”
18 item spawns in a 3 minute match is the same as 24 item spawns in a 4 minute match. What’s the point of this? I don’t get it. What’s the good thing about it being 18 items if the match is so short and there are only 2 stocks? The impact these 18 items have is heavy. In a longer match skill can turn the tide. The thing we must be looking for are rounds that are won more by skill than by luck. We don’t have to be geniuses to know this: Which round is probably won by skill, one with 5 stocks, or one with 1 stock? Where is more probable that a lucky guy gets a powerful item and wins?
Which round is more meaningful in terms of skill? The answer is obvious. That’s why I say that at least one more stock would do for rounds to have more meaning.
If your only reason for this ruleset is to have short matches and faster tournaments, then just state it like that. These 2 reasons given here have no sense to me.
Okay, kid. I’m going to explain this to you…slowly…so that even you can understand it despite your obvious mental deficiencies.
Keits has stated that his inspiration for the stocked matches being the way they are was Vampire Savior’s round system which features stocks not unlike those found in Smash. In order to create parallels to more traditional fighting games, and to shorten the length of Brawl tournaments which normally take forever, Keits implemented this method and it has proven flawless. No one has objected to this method of play except for some stupid little kid on SRK who thinks he knows more than nothing. A few people have tried to point out that he is sorely mistaken, but his responses are equivalent of sticking one’s fingers in their ears and screaming “LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” for hours on end.
Now stop posting. No one wants anything to do with you.
How can you be so stupid? Its amazing… Flawless? Who are you to say that? Am I the one who think I know it all?
Where are all those people that agree with All-Brawl rules? There are just a couple of cats that support it. That’s the sad reality of it.
In order to improve the speed of tournaments, skill measurement has been severely compromised …
Smash has items and free movement and it is very different from a traditional fighter. This kind of approach is not appropriate. As I said before, it would be interesting to watch many rulesets being tested.
I said stop posting. Do I have to say it again? You aren’t going to change anything by being a whiny little cunt, so just stop ruining our thread with your mindless bullshit.
Im not going to be mean about it, but dude… the same person is going to win a 2stock/3minute tournament as a 3stock/4minute one. I’m not sure why you think ‘skill is compromised’ or that the above wont be true somehow, but it will be. Again, you are welcome to modify Brawl’s options however you want to and run a tournament. Anyone can. But these are the “Official All-Brawl Rules” that I’ve spend time developing and testing. Its not to say that only this works, but this is what I find to be most practical for a multi-game tournament environment. Also, as an adult with a shortening attention span, I prefer much quicker more exciting matches. Lets face it, if you are two stocks in the lead, you won already anyway if you are willing to turtle/runaway. In 2s/3m, if you get a 2 stock lead, its over. You won for real.
Why would I listen to you? All you do is kiss Keits’s feet. You don’t enrich this discussion with any interesting argument. So please shut that foul mouth of yours. :mad:
Let’s no go into the “You can run with your own rules” solution again please. I appreciate you are being polite, unlike some other people here. Even when I don’t completely agree with it, I respect your ideas, hard work and ruleset. With that said, I would like to discuss those ideas of yours.
Quickness can be exciting for some people. The same excitement you get from a sudden death match. It is ok, but a longer match can result in a change of tactics and comebacks. And that is also exciting and interesting to watch.
Why are you so upset about comebacks? They happen and it would be boring if they didn’t. When items are in play , comebacks are much likely to happen, a heart, a tomato, a smashball, some random event can change the outcome of the match pretty easily. Can you deny that? How can you say someone who is two stock ahead already won? That’s not true even in normal matches with no items who are usually 3 to 4 stocks.
So it all comes to have quick tournaments so other games can be played … hmmm… can I expect more from a forum that is only partially smash and wish to turn it into a fighting game with items? I hope so… :wonder:
To be honest, Morph_ I don’t understand what the issue is.
Instead of having shorter sets with 3 stocks, Keits is promoting longer sets with 2 stocks. In the end, the idea is to both discourage camping by making sudden death come quickly, keep the game as balanced as possible with the spawns (Because the more leeway you give an opponent to be behind in a match, the more of an advantage they will be given; the game is heavily geared towards favoring the losing opponent with items) and make it so that Smash Ball and Dragoon farming don’t have a chance to become a dominant strategy. I find this to be a sound strategy, even though in actuality I play nothing but 3 stock 7 minute matches in my casuals.
If people see that 3 stocks works better from actual tournament data, the support will naturally follow. So the best solution to this problem is just as Keits says- run your tournaments with 3 stocks.
To give the loosing opponent some help is part of dynamic balance in game design. It is not THAT wrong. So the winning player has to pressure and finish him off quickly, otherwise he is at risk.
As I said before, add one more stock and add some extra time according to it. If you are now playing 2 stock, 3 mins, you are giving 1,5 mins per stock. So lets say, 3 stock, 4.5 minutes. If you are just waiting for the dragoon, smash ball or camping, it will also turn into sudden death, cause the time won’t be enough for so much waiting.
My issue is the lacking of substance in each round. As I’ve seen in all those All-Brawl matches, many items often result in a certain death for the opponent. Yes, don’t deny it. They cannot avoid it. They just die. And an item taking away 1 stock in a 2 stock round is too much. Rounds are often resolved in a 1 stock hand to hand combat and the other stock lose on a deadly item. Short rounds are not appropiate for item play. You can have that in non-item play or in a fighting game, but not in Smash. Why do I fight so hard for this? Because I would love to see All-Brawl rules get more popular. Non-item tournaments take away too much from the game. And, as I said before, any person interested in watching these fights so they give them a chance. They click a video, watch a short round with no substance. He will just say “this is crap”. And go away. (All-Brawl rules are still very unpopular). Even if you want to close your eyes, and shut down your ears saying “these rules are tested, ok, etc , etc” as we watch All-Brawl tournaments, this reality I speak of is evident. You could at least test and try for the solution I suggest or if you have done it, show or explain the outcome. I really think 1 more stock could give enough substance to rounds and the other factors won’t be affected.
You keep saying this, so why is the “Run your own tournaments” solution not working for you? If you honestly believe that an extra stock and minute will be better overall, why don’t you show it?
While I kind of see your point, All Brawl is its own ruleset and Keits has already stated that he isn’t going to change how he runs his tournaments. If you like the idea you should try and run some tournaments with your ideas in use.
Seconded on both counts. No easier way than showing what can happen, but in all honesty that’s probably not gonna happen on a tourney level. One of my biggest arguments against early All Brawl (especially during the Evo discussion) was that there were next to no tourney results and/or videos that showcased anything you could really take home and say “Hey Mama look what I did in class today!” with. It’s difficult to get a tourney going with new rules and even more difficult to get GOOD players to show up. Most videos early on were intermediate players at best with the occasional good player showing up and not knowing what to do with items other than throwing them off the stage.
However, it really is the only way to show that what you’re saying is the “better” route (if it is, of course, since I agree with Keits on this one). Took Keits months before a lot of people agreed. Your best way of doing this is to get good, get a buddy that’s good, and start putting videos up on the internet and look into doing tourneys. 'cause no one is going to give you the time of day until you do.
Hey Keits – When’s the next Gamma Bowl, and are you running All Brawl? (Or Itemless Brawl, too.)
Just as an amusing aside, a local tourney organizer for Brawl is running a no-items, stages banned tournament, and I linked this ruleset to him and said he should try running an all-brawl tourney, since the stuff isn’t really broken. He basically replied with ‘yes it is, we play the competition rules. You sound like a scrub, lol’.
Imagine that, being called a scrub by a smash player running a no-items tournament, for suggesting he try items.
None of us care to try to run a winter tournament ever again, so when gamma bowl 2 happen, it will probably be 1.) not in winter and 2.) not in green bay (probably milwaukee instead). And of course I’ll run all-brawl, and probably swf-brawl too.