| 12 months ago :: Dec 15, 2008 - 8:03AM #1 | |
|
Why does it take 3 rounds to win a match now, instead of the traditional 2? |
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 15, 2008 - 8:33AM #2 | |
|
.. |
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 15, 2008 - 8:34AM #3 | |
|
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 15, 2008 - 10:11AM #4 | |
its not its 2. you can create a game where there is 3 to 5. It also lets people adapt your style. And skill will be the the determinant anyway you look at it even if it was one round. |
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 15, 2008 - 10:32AM #5 | |
|
In a perfect world you'd do best 2 of 3 matches, with each match being 2 of 3 games. I guess they couldn't do that, so they did a compromise of 3 or 5 games in ranked to try and cut down on the "random win" factor that ST has sometimes. |
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 15, 2008 - 10:48AM #6 | |
A lesser opponent can still take you by surprise on one or even 2 rounds so this way it leaves it as much to skill as is possible in the absence of being able to play a series of games. You cant change the number of rounds in a ranked match. Also if people adapt to your style too then thats the whole point. It reduces the chance of either party scoring a lucky win.
|
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 16, 2008 - 1:57PM #7 | |
|
It's 3 rounds to win because it gives the players more time to flesh out their opponent's fighting style. Honestly, I always make even player matches be 3 rounds to win. The only reason the arcade machines had 2 was because that was the bare minimum amount of play times players would still find acceptable. It's all about the money. |
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 16, 2008 - 7:13PM #8 | |
|
ok yeah your right you can't change the rounds but. It still takes more skill to adapt in 2 out of 3 then 3 out of 5. a possible 2 chances to see in 2 out of 3. = more "skill". a possible 4 chances to see in 3 out of 5. = less "skill". If you lose to a gief player cause you don't know what to do he did not get lucky. You just lost!!! You can't say things like "if you only had just one more round" cause you don't at least not this match. Saying things like I could not figure out what he was doing. Just means he deserved to win. Just cause you never seen it before does not mean anything. And don't forget you have just the same advantage and disadvage in this area as the person playing you. You want them to know as little as they can about the way you play. Adaption is a skill it is not the same as skill and not one to rely on cause good players and better players play diffrent. |
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 16, 2008 - 7:18PM #9 | |
|
I like the 3 rounds. It gives you the chance to learn an opponents style a bit. I find many players only have 1 tatic and its usually a good one but once you mess that up they get a bit lost . I love coming back from 2 nil down to steal the win after working out the guy is jumping every 3rd fireball . They keep doing it though |
|
| 12 months ago :: Dec 18, 2008 - 2:37PM #10 | |
You can't say 2/3 or 3/5 takes more or less skill. 2/3 both players have less time to adapt and evolve, and in 3/5 both players have more time to adapt and evolve. Evolving one a player find a way around your first strat is a part of skill. Furthermore, in my experience, multiple matches/rounds tends to favor the better players in general. It evens out gimmicks, shenanigans, and other things and shifts the game towards the most experienced and solid players. I like 3/5 for a few reasons. It gives players more of a chance to play the game where they figure out how to get around each others traps and evolve their strategies. It makes each match a bit longer and more satisfying (2/3 can be over pretty quickly, resulting in a lot more time spent at the match making screens.) It also gives you more time to practice against a better player or a player whose strategy you could use practice against when you find one. |
|

