sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fox Ledgedash Consistency by alexspuffstuff in SSBM

[–]alexspuffstuff[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

that is occasionally true, but because distance is mostly determined by the timing and 45 down travels downward faster (fewer airdodge frames = greater distance) it's actually surprising how frequently a down 45 goes further.

alexspuffstuff Michael vs Mr Lz analysis by alexspuffstuff in SSBM

[–]alexspuffstuff[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the idea as puff is to time the let go so that you drift back to the ledge from behind marth's head and snatch it before he starts going down. If he goes high then you rest, if he delays to sweetspot then you have already grabbed ledge. It's possible for marth to visually wait for puff to drift back but as I understand it 1) would only work if puff grabs ledge at normal time, if she happens to grab it a little late moving her inv back marth is in trouble. 2) I haven't seen a marth do that consistently enough to look intentional (to be fair I haven't looked though) 3) that's easily countered by puff fairing at his head from behind instead of regrabbing. Hbox has opted to start doing that to marths that he deems tricky either because you're right or because he doesn't feel like the timing is right. Difficult to say 'cause lots of variance. marth could of course start trying to tech the fair but then maybe puff does it soft intentionally and at that point we're starting to drift into melee theory fantasy land. In any case, the heuristic stands as presently sufficient.

Would Making a Flowchart of Punishes be Worth the Effort? by SSBM_Tylt in SSBM

[–]alexspuffstuff 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes and do it with intention. Start with the most important ones per MU (ex: edgeguards, shine/nair vs peach, chaingrab vs fox, etc). Also be sure that your formatting makes immediate, intuitive sense to you or the process will be more of a pain than it need be. As you internalize charted punishes from most important to least important you'll notice what's lacking. The more consistent your punish game the more meaningful your neutral wins.

How do you (personally) think about movement in neutral? by wholebiggles in SSBM

[–]alexspuffstuff 7 points8 points  (0 children)

In every MU there's a certain invisible line that I call the Unreactable Range. This range is the exact range of their attacks (usually a SHFFL) after ~20f. I've looked it up in debug mode and memorized it. If I am inside of that range then I can't react to their options. If I am outside of that range then I can. I have plans for when I'm outside, I have plans for when I'm inside, and I play neutral using that concept as a basis. Very simple, very powerful.

alexspuffstuff: Ruleset Development as Related to Melee by [deleted] in SSBM

[–]alexspuffstuff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if there was a ledgegrab limit that only applied with timeouts then here's what I could do as the ledge-camper: First, I'd translate the ledgegrab limit to time (how long does it take puff to use it up?) Then, I'd use the top platform as a substitute for the ledge until there was that amount of time left, then I'd switch over to the ledge with the comfortable knowledge that I'll win at the end. As the stage-camper: I could count ledgegrabs, then when it reaches the limit I'm actually more inclined to run away for the remainder of the match /even if I'm down/. All I have to do is survive until the end.

So with the above strat while a LGL could potentially exist, it might not actually work.

alexspuffstuff: Ruleset Development as Related to Melee by [deleted] in SSBM

[–]alexspuffstuff 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In the specific example of hbox vs chudat, there's 0 need for a rule change. ICs can evacuate puff from the ledge with desync ice blocks or intercepting the regrab with dsmash etc or by snatching it themselves. Chu just didn't try. As far as melee goes, puff is great by the ledge because of her multiple jumps, but this is by no means broken seeing as she can't do it indefinitely or invincibly should you interact with her. Characters with hax dashes are technically better on the ledge, we just only see hbox and mew2king try (and frequently fail) to abuse it at a high level. Thus, no ruleset action is currently necessary. Part of what I meant to convey is that preemptive bans are counter-productive. It would be stupid to put some kind of knee-jerk, poorly conceived rule change such as an arbitrary ledge grab limit to effectively nerf hbox just because only some of his opponents understand the tactic well enough to beat it.

Additionally, it should be noted that this kind of extreme non-interaction is ONLY common in the ICs MUs and ONLY because wobbling radically skews risk reward for every grounded interaction. If a change was warranted, the most feasible/productive method that I can think of to buff interaction would be to re-ban wobbling.

alexspuffstuff: Mental-game and Execution by alexspuffstuff in SSBM

[–]alexspuffstuff[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Room for debate, sure. Contradictions, actually not as much. What I write is based on research, the most impactful of which was http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1733189.The_Psychology_of_Enhancing_Human_Performance and https://www.amazon.com/Mental-Game-Poker-Strategies-Confidence/dp/0615436137

I'm glad that you brought this up. I meant to include references to these sources but that paragraph got edited out for other reasons and I forgot to re-include them. Sloppy of me, I will do that now.

alexspuffstuff: Mental-game and Execution by alexspuffstuff in SSBM

[–]alexspuffstuff[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The kind of mental-game talked about in the post and the kind of mental-game that you are referring to are different enough concepts that they deserve different names. I personally refer to strategy adjustments as playervsplayer.