Blast Zones and Game Time is Fine (Compiled Data from Tourney Locator's Invitation Tourney)

[Xenigma]

So basically both 2 stock Bo5 and 3 stock Bo3 are equally viable? Going by the averages of 2:40 and 4:30, a 2 stock Bo5 would range from 8 minutes to 13:20 in length, and a 3 stock Bo3 ranges from 9 minutes to 13:30; the difference between the two is negligible. The only real question seems to be if players would prefer Bo3 or Bo5, and while tradition suggests the former, I imagine the benefits of faster individual games and parity with For Glory would prove beneficial to attracting new competitors.

 

[Johnknight1]

As has been said before more succesful fighting games have shorter matches than the avarage of 2+ mins we see on display here.

Smash isn't most fighting games. In fact, it's a platformer first.

Besides that, most traditional fighting games have 3 games in a set and best-of-3 sets, whereas Smash has 3 games in 1 set (this is outside of like top 8 and not counting 1 stock Brawl).

Those traditional fighting game sets take up roughly 3-5 minutes, roughly the same time as a Smash match.

Seeing as how we can have up to 3 sets in a traditional fighting game and up to 3 matches in a traditional Smash set, this means they're about equal in match duration.

 

[Bladeviper]

I think someone brought this up but i think 2 stocks in group then switching to 3 after thats over might be a way to go

 

[kirbykid]

This is all very good data and nicely organized. We need more of this.

 

[Overswarm]

I think someone brought this up but i think 2 stocks in group then switching to 3 after thats over might be a way to go

Why?

Seriously, why?

Why do people keep saying this?

Why would you suddenly decide two stock instead of 3?

Why not one stock? Best of 1? Time matches?

You're all literally posting in a thread that shows that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the stock count would need to be lowered from 3 and could in fact be raised to four. If your end goal is "faster matches" then you're gonna need to explain why you aren't moving to one stock.

Given that I've already seen matches take less than 60 seconds in the grand finals of Jed's tournament and a whopping 5% of all matches were timeouts (that's 3 out of 24, 2 of which were the same guy), I really don't understand this kneejerk reaction to 2 stock.

The game hasn't even been released yet. Why do you want to cut off its legs so early I do not understand.

 

[Bladeviper]

Why?

Seriously, why?

Why do people keep saying this?

Why would you suddenly decide two stock instead of 3?

Why not one stock? Best of 1? Time matches?

You're all literally posting in a thread that shows that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the stock count would need to be lowered from 3 and could in fact be raised to four. If your end goal is "faster matches" then you're gonna need to explain why you aren't moving to one stock.

Given that I've already seen matches take less than 60 seconds in the grand finals of Jed's tournament and a whopping 5% of all matches were timeouts (that's 3 out of 24, 2 of which were the same guy), I really don't understand this kneejerk reaction to 2 stock.

The game hasn't even been released yet. Why do you want to cut off its legs so early I do not understand.

its not about faster matches its about cutting down time at tournaments.

 

[kirbykid]

Why?
Seriously, why?

Why do people keep saying this?
..

The game hasn't even been released yet. Why do you want to cut off its legs so early I do not understand.

I sense/feel your frustration.

It hasn't been long with Smash 4 and we're already seeing a lot of concerning ideas, motions, and decisions being made. There are multiple things that concern me.

1) The goal of chances and what values these changes have in mind
2) The data that informs the change
3) A plan (or lack of a plan) to re-investigate the issue and possibly change things back.

The bottom line is everyone is moving rapidly in all directions. And smash is the kind of game that is "pruned" or "cut off" by default. The basic idea of limiting stages, stock, items, time, etc. are all decisions that shape the gameplay one way or another.

The problem I see is not whether or not these suggestions and changes are good. The problem is do we have the organization and the patience to move forward well.

The Smash community is very large and complex. Of course, I'm working on Project Smash to help. In the meantime, what do we do in the meantime?

 

[Roxas215]

Why?

Seriously, why?

Why do people keep saying this?

Why would you suddenly decide two stock instead of 3?

Why not one stock? Best of 1? Time matches?

You're all literally posting in a thread that shows that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the stock count would need to be lowered from 3 and could in fact be raised to four. If your end goal is "faster matches" then you're gonna need to explain why you aren't moving to one stock.

Given that I've already seen matches take less than 60 seconds in the grand finals of Jed's tournament and a whopping 5% of all matches were timeouts (that's 3 out of 24, 2 of which were the same guy), I really don't understand this kneejerk reaction to 2 stock.

The game hasn't even been released yet. Why do you want to cut off its legs so early I do not understand.

Faster matches isn't the issue. Time management at tournaments are. Were not gonna make the same mistakes we made with brawl.

 

[Overswarm]

its not about faster matches its about cutting down time at tournaments.

Faster matches isn't the issue. Time management at tournaments are. Were not gonna make the same mistakes we made with brawl.

None of my tournaments ever ran over on time. Zero.

Those that do? They run multiple games!

Sooner or later, something's gonna have to give. You now have a game with a 1:1 setup to player ratio and that is the game you want to cut the stock down on? Start doing 2 stock Melee and 2 stock PM instead, they're the ones with limited setups.

 

[Bladeviper]

None of my tournaments ever ran over on time. Zero.

Those that do? They run multiple games!

Sooner or later, something's gonna have to give. You now have a game with a 1:1 setup to player ratio and that is the game you want to cut the stock down on? Start doing 2 stock Melee and 2 stock PM instead, they're the ones with limited setups.

id rather it be 3 stocks, i was just spit balling ideas to cut down on time.

 

[Overswarm]

id rather it be 3 stocks, i was just spit balling ideas to cut down on time.

Most people aren't, and the same people that will suggest 2 stocks before the game is released in the US are the same people that won't be willing to change to 3 stocks after they've made the switch.

 

[Roxas215]

None of my tournaments ever ran over on time. Zero.

Those that do? They run multiple games!

Sooner or later, something's gonna have to give. You now have a game with a 1:1 setup to player ratio and that is the game you want to cut the stock down on? Start doing 2 stock Melee and 2 stock PM instead, they're the ones with limited setups.

Melee and Pm are way more exciting to watch. Not to mention with PM's incoming across the board recovery nerf matches are gonna be even faster.

Smash 4 early stock is fine. Once u hit over 130 or so it becomes a game of ping pong until someone dies. As a player 2 stocks just feels alot better then 3. (This is my opnion of course but everyone i talked to which were most of the people at pierce's invitational agree 2 stocks is where we should be at)

Obviously its too early to make a decision at all. But i greatly favor 2 stocks.

 

[Bladeviper]

Melee and Pm are way more exciting to watch. Not to mention with PM's incoming across the board recovery nerf matches are gonna be even faster.

Smash 4 early stock is fine. Once u hit over 130 or so it becomes a game of ping pong until someone dies. As a player 2 stocks just feels alot better then 3. (This is my opnion of course but everyone i talked to which were most of the people at pierce's invitational agree 2 stocks is where we should be at)

Obviously its too early to make a decision at all. But i greatly favor 2 stocks.

about asking people from the invitational, i would also like to hear from the people that played at the ct tournament since that was 3 stocks and it did go by pretty quick barring like the rob vs dhd match up

 

[Roxas215]

about asking people from the invitational, i would also like to hear from the people that played at the ct tournament since that was 3 stocks and it did go by pretty quick barring like the rob vs dhd match up

I can confirm Chibo wants 2 stocks. Anyone else at that tournament i haven't talked to.

 

[Conda]

Excellent data here, as usual when you and Ampharos team up. I was also curious about this tournament as they ran 2 stock swiss and 3 stock brackets.

However I do believe at the same time, 2 stock should be looked on more heavily as the standard because of For Glory mode. It allows players to practice this format and for new players to transfer into the competitive scene easier becuase they are familiar and comfortable with the stock format. Additionally (as I mentioned in my other thread) Smash runs the longest tournaments by far among fighting games. I think adopting a 2 stock format could help significantly with tournament times, finding venues open early/late enough, etc.

It is good that you cleared up misconceptions regarding time per stock. I would love to see this compared to early Brawl tournaments as well for a comparison of how much faster it could become. I do believe the game will end up fairly fast because of the new edge trumping mechanic, assuming people are gimpable after a trump.

For Glory mode doesn't allow practice with custom movesets, nor does it allow for platform stages. The competitive ruleset will include both of these things.

Because of this, it's unrealistic to think For Glory mode should be some guiding light as to how the competitive community should format their competitive rules. r/SmashConnect lets players practice online with actual competitive rulesets - there's no reason to feel we are bound by For Glory's rules.

 

[Conda]

I can confirm Chibo wants 2 stocks. Anyone else at that tournament i haven't talked to.

My problem with 2 stocks is the lack of time for swings (exciting) and for players to adjust within a match.

I'm not sure whether the actual real-world implications will be better or worse, but the above is what I forsee from a purely common-sense standpoint. 2 stocks could be better in the end, but it is a big change.

Brawl was 3-stocks because stocks took way longer than melee. SSB4 shouldn't go all the way down to 2 stocks, when stocks are taken faster in Brawl. That is rewriting the whole competitive smash match flow, which is established at this point and works pretty well. And matches aren't long, just tournaments in my experience. I've found it's due to players getting caught up in playing friendlies with other smashers and TOs having to wait for them until the ladder can continue.

The reason to go for 2 stocks may still be a truthful one, and one I am open to. But we need to make sure it's the right way to go. Things may honestly get too quick, as can be seen on Zero's twitch often.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Normally, OS and I on on the same side of an issue, but in this case, I have to disagree. I'll readily admit, TM and AA's data is promising, but I think if we're going to make the (already pretty big) mistake of having serious tournaments this early in the game's life cycle, we should change as few things as possible... from the way the game is presented to us.

The fact of the matter is that, especially considering how badly we ****ed up Brawl by just copy / pasting Melee's ruleset onto it, we should be ignoring and disregarding 64, Melee, AND Brawl's previous rulesets as much as possible. I mean, completely forgetting those games even existed. If we're going to start treating this game as competitively viable, we need to judge it based on its own merits, not how it relates to previous games in the series.

OS, I know you are pretty derisive towards Sak, in general, but seriously. Hear this out. Most people are going to be practicing this game online, not in person. And, let's be clear: when I say most people, I do not mean Jason, ZeRo, and whoever else holds over from previous games. I'm not talking about the best of the best, who can afford to meet the other best players and entice them into traveling and coming over to play serious matches on one TV. I'm talking about the masses of people paying for our events, the enthusiasts, and the Chris G's and Ally's who will train in For Glory and come to our events expecting to prove themselves.

This game comes with an online ranked mode. We have to assume that this mode is tailored for competitive play as much as Sak and Namco could allow for because we literally have nothing else to go on other than that, and no ranked mode worth its salt is purposefully balanced for not-good-competition. For whatever reason, this is what we're given.And, this is what most people are going to train on and expect to have to deal with at in-person events.

Which means, we're not discussing, in this thread or others, why we shouldn't go down from 3 stocks to 2. We're discussing why we should move up from 2 stocks to 3, because that's what the default is, and that's what everyone's already training for as we speak.

Again, AA and TM's data so far is promising. But, if we're going to change from the For Glory format that everyone is training on right now, we had BETTER have a damn good reason for it. And, I'm personally not convinced that it's a good idea to extend the length of matches for an extra stock when we're not even sure how much of a gain in comeback potential we're going to get with this game. Let the players feel it out. If we start seeing 1 minute matches, gimps galore, and inconsistent event results because there aren't enough stocks to let matches play out, THEN let's talk changing things up. Until then, let it ride.

 

[Gawain]

The fact of the matter is that, especially considering how badly we ****ed up Brawl by just copy / pasting Melee's ruleset onto it, we should be ignoring and disregarding 64, Melee, AND Brawl's previous rulesets as much as possible. I mean, completely forgetting those games even existed. If we're going to start treating this game as competitively viable, we need to judge it based on its own merits, not how it relates to previous games in the series.

QFT. This cannot be stressed enough.

 

[Conda]

Normally, OS and I on on the same side of an issue, but in this case, I have to disagree. I'll readily admit, TM and AA's data is promising, but I think if we're going to make the (already pretty big) mistake of having serious tournaments this early in the game's life cycle, we should change as few things as possible... from the way the game is presented to us.

The fact of the matter is that, especially considering how badly we ****ed up Brawl by just copy / pasting Melee's ruleset onto it, we should be ignoring and disregarding 64, Melee, AND Brawl's previous rulesets as much as possible. I mean, completely forgetting those games even existed. If we're going to start treating this game as competitively viable, we need to judge it based on its own merits, not how it relates to previous games in the series.

OS, I know you are pretty derisive towards Sak, in general, but seriously. Hear this out. Most people are going to be practicing this game online, not in person. And, let's be clear: when I say most people, I do not mean Jason, ZeRo, and whoever else holds over from previous games. I'm not talking about the best of the best, who can afford to meet the other best players and entice them into traveling and coming over to play serious matches on one TV. I'm talking about the masses of people paying for our events, the enthusiasts, and the Chris G's and Ally's who will train in For Glory and come to our events expecting to prove themselves.

This game comes with an online ranked mode. We have to assume that this mode is tailored for competitive play as much as Sak and Namco could allow for because we literally have nothing else to go on other than that, and no ranked mode worth its salt is purposefully balanced for not-good-competition. For whatever reason, this is what we're given.And, this is what most people are going to train on and expect to have to deal with at in-person events.

Which means, we're not discussing, in this thread or others, why we shouldn't go down from 3 stocks to 2. We're discussing why we should move up from 2 stocks to 3, because that's what the default is, and that's what everyone's already training for as we speak.

Again, AA and TM's data so far is promising. But, if we're going to change from the For Glory format that everyone is training on right now, we had BETTER have a damn good reason for it. And, I'm personally not convinced that it's a good idea to extend the length of matches for an extra stock when we're not even sure how much of a gain in comeback potential we're going to get with this game. Let the players feel it out. If we start seeing 1 minute matches, gimps galore, and inconsistent event results because there aren't enough stocks to let matches play out, THEN let's talk changing things up. Until then, let it ride.

I understand this viewpoint, but tournaments will be using custom movesets and stages with platforms. Should all tournaments stop using these things just because "For Glory" doesn't include them in their catch-all general play ruleset? I don't believe so.

I highly doubt "For Glory" was designed to insist its ruleset upon the tournament community. It's a no-items FD-only game mode for people who want item-and-platform-less matches online, which is closer to the tournament ruleset. But it is not trying at all to be the actual definitive tournament ruleset. It is just SSB4's item-less game mode for the mainstream playerbase who will be playing SSB. It is not Smash's attempt at designing a new ruleset for all tournaments to follow.

For Glory will be fine for practicing, but not if your character or playstyle depends on some custom moves, or excels on platform-enabled stages.

For Glory is still a NICHE mode, and should not influence the competitive ruleset. People are taking it much too seriously and into way too much consideration, in my opinion.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I understand this viewpoint, but tournaments will be using custom movesets and stages with platforms. Should all tournaments stop using these things just because "For Glory" doesn't include them in their catch-all general play ruleset? I don't believe so.

I highly doubt "For Glory" was designed to insist its ruleset upon the tournament community. It's a no-items FD-only game mode for people who want item-and-platform-less matches online, which is closer to the tournament ruleset. But it is not trying at all to be the actual definitive tournament ruleset. It is just SSB4's item-less game mode for the mainstream playerbase who will be playing SSB. It is not Smash's attempt at designing a new ruleset for all tournaments to follow.

For Glory will be fine for practicing, but not if your character or playstyle depends on some custom moves, or excels on platform-enabled stages.

For Glory is still a NICHE mode, and should not influence the competitive ruleset. People are taking it much too seriously and into way too much consideration, in my opinion.

You made a very important (and wrong) assumption here, though: that I ever insisted that the For Glory rules will be the end-all-be-all of Sm4sh. I never said that. In fact, if you re-read my post, I lay out exactly what conditions it is OUR responsibility to satisfy before we should legitimately begin discussing deviating from the FG ruleset.

I fully expect that we'll deviate from it, for no other reason than there is nothing wrong with Battlefield. We'll be adding stages left and right. But, unlike past games, where we (should have) started with a full stage list and banned stages as we discovered problems, because of the way the game has been presented to us, we'll have to start from FD and Omega formes and prove that each added stage is worth the effort of adapting because it adds some meaningful amount of gameplay without detracting from what is already there (for instance, fixes a 0-10 matchup without affecting other matchups / gives meaningfully interesting counterplay to a matchup / introduces fun or interesting mechanics without affecting matchups too heavily / etc.). Unlike previous games, we should keep items banned unless we can prove that adding individual items grants meaningful counterplay without sacrificing consistency.

We'll definitely change things... with time. All I'm arguing here is that we should give it time before we change a bunch of stuff, and be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR as to what justifies changing things so that we don't run into the same problems we had in Brawl: TOs changing literally everything they're ordered to change by their player bases (read: top players) and causing a mass schism in the community that kills all real competition.

 

[Conda]

The problems we had in brawl were not related to the ruleset. Going at Smash 4 with a 'start from scratch' mindset, for no reason other than "hey, for glroy has 2 stocks instead of the standard 3-4" isn't very constructive or worthwhile, imo. I think we are taking For Glory's changes to heart too greatly, making us feel "We have to rethink EVERYTHING" as a result. I don't think there's a point for over-considering drastic ruleset changes (ie, even considering enabling some items because "hey, it's a different smash game" isn't a time efficient way to go about creating a consistent and working tournament ruleset).

This is just my opinion, I mean no offense or aggression. This is a healthy debate. I personally just don't see any justifications for 2-stock and other changes, as the 'cause' of the supporters of said ruleset is a limiting game mode in the game.

 

[Thinkaman]

Before I respond to anything else:

None of my tournaments ever ran over on time. Zero.

This.

The number one cause of tourneys going over time is bad TO procedure.

The biggest problems inexperienced TOs make is:

• Failure to instruct and monitor pool captains.
• Running bracket matches out of order. (Winners first)
• Long, poorly-planned breaks. (2 hour lunch breaks)
• Being very liberal/forgiving with missing players.

I've never had a tourney I've run go over, in part because I instantly disqualify anyone who is not present when their match is called. Because I make sure they have warning when they are up next, I've never actually had to DQ someone either.

Since Smash 3DS should never be setup limited in a general setting, talking about game length as the limiting factor is very out of place.

Those that do? They run multiple games!

This again.

The biggest problem for experienced TOs is holding up an entire bracket for a player in multiple events, bottle-necking all of them.

Note that Swiss works better in this case, since a player can drop a swiss round without ruining their overall chances.

 

[LancerStaff]

Sorry to say, but this "Vectoring" might of just invalidated your data. I really doubt it'll make a difference in terms of how SSB4 will play, but one combo at least is nullified by it.

 

[Thinkaman]

Sorry to say, but this "Vectoring" might of just invalidated your data. I really doubt it'll make a difference in terms of how SSB4 will play, but one combo at least is nullified by it.

Everyone at this event was already using VI, even if they didn't understand it. The commentators even talked about it, calling it "Down DI".

The game hasn't changed, only our understanding of it.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Before I respond to anything else:



This.

The number one cause of tourneys going over time is bad TO procedure.

The biggest problems inexperienced TOs make is:

• Failure to instruct and monitor pool captains.
• Running bracket matches out of order. (Winners first)
• Long, poorly-planned breaks. (2 hour lunch breaks)
• Being very liberal/forgiving with missing players.

I've never had a tourney I've run go over, in part because I instantly disqualify anyone who is not present when their match is called. Because I make sure they have warning when they are up next, I've never actually had to DQ someone either.

You're simply planning correctly. OVERALL time for a Smash tournament to run is much higher than other fighting games. Ending on time means you're running it well but that doesn't change how long it takes to run a Smash tournament. Smash tournies run too long. It requires a LOT of dedication to attend a tournament because of length. This is an issue that has been plaguing competitive Smash for some time now.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Everyone at this event was already using VI, even if they didn't understand it. The commentators even talked about it, calling it "Down DI".

The game hasn't changed, only our understanding of it.

I think he's referring to vectoring getting out of combos therefore making the game more hit-and-run (therefore taking longer to rack up damage) rather than survivability at high percents.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

You made a very important (and wrong) assumption here, though: that I ever insisted that the For Glory rules will be the end-all-be-all of Sm4sh. I never said that. In fact, if you re-read my post, I lay out exactly what conditions it is OUR responsibility to satisfy before we should legitimately begin discussing deviating from the FG ruleset. *SNIP*

I think you have a fascinating idea here Jack. With 64, Melee, and Brawl we started with a party game and made a competitive version out of it. WIth Smash 4 they are actually GIVING us a competitive version saying "please use this. While we can't take it at face value because we know Sakurai's anti-competitive history and Nintendo's complete disregard for grassroots scenes revolving around their game, it certainly begs the argument of our approach. Should we start with Nintendo's version of "competitive Smash" and ADD to it to make it more competitive?

I don't know the answer to that question but I know that I would actually prefer that down-up approach rather than the traditional up-down approach.

EDIT: I am no longer a moderator so I cannot delete my post to merge it with a previous post. I have now triple posted. The old mod inside me is disgusted right now.

 

[Thinkaman]

If we want tourneys to be shorter, which is a fine goal, that is a separate issue independent of Smash 4's game length.

We can, and should, have the same conversation for all Smash events. Smash 4's launch is a useful catalyst that allows us to re-examine convention, but Smash 4 itself is arbitrary to the matter.

 

[Rᴏb]

I'm struggling to understand how the data you compiled represents anything other than the current metagame, which I doubt will be comparable to the metagame months down the line.

Basically what I'm saying is, this data means nothing and assuming that matches are only going to speed up is pretty silly.

 

[Bladeviper]

I think he's referring to vectoring getting out of combos therefore making the game more hit-and-run (therefore taking longer to rack up damage) rather than survivability at high percents.

but it seems vectoring scales with percents which means combo at lower percents will still be useful to rack it up until they hit around 50-60+ percent which after that point seems to rely on reads

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

This.

The number one cause of tourneys going over time is bad TO procedure.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I want to stress this one more time. There should be no issues on time with 3 stock, 8 minutes unless the TO is at fault.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

If anything, this data justifies my feelings that two stock is just too short of a match.

 

[Hitzel]

I'd like to see how this data compared to Melee and Brawl tournaments. As of now, we have nothing to compare it to.

I have no idea why people think this makes 2 or 3 stocks look better, it makes them look equal.

Showing the 1-stock, 2-stock, 3-stock victory %'s would actually mean something, that way we can tell if players are winning by similar margins in 2 and 3 stocks. I have a feeling that the ratio of 1-stock over 2-stock victories will be similar in 2-stock and 3-stock tournaments (with a tiny % of 3's).

But yeah, I'd like to see more data collected to make this data worth using to make decisions, because there isn't enough yet. Really interesting so far.

 

[CrimsonYoshi]

I really like the way this game plays now. It's not about forcing the other guy off all he time, it's about being fast and landing combos before finishing the opponent off over the edge. I once landed a super combo on Pikachu and landed 70 damage...in 10 seconds.

 

[Thinkaman]

I'm struggling to understand how the data you compiled represents anything other than the current metagame, which I doubt will be comparable to the metagame months down the line.

Basically what I'm saying is, this data means nothing and assuming that matches are only going to speed up is pretty silly.

Both Melee and Brawl sped up non-trivially over time. I don't have any hard data to back that up, but enough experience in tourneys for both over the years to feel it was definitely the case. It was very noticeable in both.

 

[Hitzel]

Both Melee and Brawl sped up non-trivially over time. I don't have any hard data to back that up, but enough experience in tourneys for both over the years to feel it was definitely the case. It was very noticeable in both.

Do you plan on gathering more data? Like I said above, I think you should do more comparisons between 2 and 3 stock tournaments (especially win-by-stock ratios) if you want to make this data useful.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

This is interesting and I respect the work it took to gather this data.

But I don't think 5-minute sets (with 2 stocks) are too short, even remotely. Your average 2/3 SF4 set is only 5 minutes... the longest they can possibly last is just short of 15 minutes, and that is if every single match in all 3 sets goes to time. That aligns pretty closely with a 5-mintue timer, right? I'm not saying I want to base our decisions on what players of other games do... I'm just saying that it is easily demonstrable that matches lasting an average of 2 minutes and 38 seconds are common in other games and that you don't commonly hear the complaint that those sets are "too short."


I think 5-minute set length is desirable (well, 4:30 or so) and I think matching our rules closely with "For Glory" mode is also desirable. I am not opposed to changing this all down the line... no stubbornness from me. But I am still in favor of 2-stock, 5-minute matches.

 

[Overswarm]

Little Mac is in this game. I have personally seen a tournament match end in under one minute as Little Mac got an f-smash read off a roll, acheived his OHKO, and then killed the respawning player the moment his invincibility was gone.

People are asking for two stock in a game where a character literally has a OHKO.

Variance has a name, and his name is Mac.

 

[Sluigi123]

2 Stock, 5 Min. seems a little iffy, IMO, because you guys are already making decisions even though the NA version of the full game isn't even out yet, since not that many people got the JPN version of the game, because you need a JPN 3DS. 3 Stock, 8 Min. is fine, because once a lot of people master their mains, secondaries, counterpicks, whoever their character is, along with getting used to using a 3DS, things should go quite smoothly. Sakurai might have it on 2 Stock, 6 Min., is probably because of online reasonings.

 

[HiFlo]

With 2 stock matches the person who is behind is always in the hunt and the person in the lead can't step off the gas, the whole match should be exciting and have a (bigger) sense of urgency.

Best of 3 would kind of go hand and hand with 2 stock matches though.

Someone made a good point that Little Mac would benefit from this ruleset more than most and I agree, but it's not enough to deter me from liking it.