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

[wannabe33]

We really should invalidate that first villager/palutena match. They were deliberately playing the game like that and their methods should not reflect those of other villager and palutena players. Though this is showing to me that villager is rather easy to camp with.

Hard to say. You're right that the first Villager / Palutena was a total campfest, but as we saw from the second match of that set, Villager was better off camping rather than trying to approach. So that timed out camp game might have been the "optimal" approach for both players.

Palutena seems like the anti-Mac, really: when she's involved, expect a long battle. (Except that one Mac / Palutena match fittingly.)

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

Hard to say. You're right that the first Villager / Palutena was a total campfest, but as we saw from the second match of that set, Villager was better off camping rather than trying to approach. So that timed out camp game might have been the "optimal" approach for both players.

Palutena seems like the anti-Mac, really: when she's involved, expect a long battle. (Except that one Mac / Palutena match fittingly.)

That may also be specific to their matchup.

 

[Thinkaman]

We really should invalidate that first villager/palutena match. They were deliberately playing the game like that and their methods should not reflect those of other villager and palutena players. Though this is showing to me that villager is rather easy to camp with.

Pwing actually had a 5 dollar bet going out of the game, and was trying to stall as much as possible--even when he was losing.

It was a hilariously fun match to watch nonetheless.

 

[wannabe33]

I've gotta go grab a late dinner, so if someone could tell me the time results of the Losers Final set, I'd appreciate it.

 

[wannabe33]

Here's the data:

Rather than make a new thread, in the interest of data compilation I'll be making notes of how long some of these Shockwave 2 tournament matches last. This tournament is three stocks, eight minutes. All updates will be edited into this post.

Character / Character // time left // time taken

Toon Link / Dark Pit // 2:36 // 5:24
Toon Link / Dark Pit // 2:51 // 5:09
Villager / Palutena // 0:00 // 8:00 [note: final stock count was 2/2]
Villager / Palutena // 1:46 // 6:14
Megaman / Samus // 1:53 // 6:07
Megaman / Samus // 3:12 // 4:48
Little Mac / Toon Link // 6:05 // 1:55 [note: "Little Mac factor" of quickening matches is in effect]
Little Mac / Toon Link // 5:13 // 2:47
Sheik / Sheik // 2:45 // 5:15
Sheik / Sheik // 1:30 // 6:30
Mario / Sheik // 2:16 // 5:44
Mario / Sheik // 2:17 // 5:43
Little Mac / Palutena // 2:49 // 5:11
Little Mac / Palutena // 5:40 // 2:20
ROB / Sheik // 4:00 // 4:00
Luigi / Sheik // 2:36 // 5:24
ROB / Sheik // 0:01 // 7:59
Villager / Mario // 4:35 // 3:25
Villager / Mario // 2:49 // 5:11
Villager / Mario // 5:25 // 2:35
Palutena / Sheik // 0:00 // 8:00
Sheik / Sheik // 0:51 // 7:09
Villager / Sheik // 3:41 // 4:19
Villager / Sheik // 5:02 // 2:58
Sheik / Little Mac // 5:52 // 2:08
Sheik / Little Mac // 6:11 // 1:49
Sheik / Little Mac // 6:03 // 1:57
Sheik / Little Mac // 4:00 // 4:00
Villager / Little Mac // 3:51 // 4:09
Sheik / Little Mac // 5:45 // 2:15
Sheik / Little Mac // 4:03 // 3:57

Average Match Length: ~4 minutes 40 seconds
Average Stock Length: ~1 minute 33 seconds

Curious! With the two (practically three) time-outs and multiple super long matches, we still end up with approximately the averages seen in the original post. Good news for the pacing of competitive Smash 4!

...But now we need to talk about Little Mac.

Little Mac is a fast forward button. He dies super early. He can be gimped super easy. He punishes super hard. He kills super early (in no small part because of his OHKO punch). Were he a great character we'd see frequently in high level tourney play, his results being included in the data wouldn't be a problem. That doesn't appear to be the case -- Little Mac is, by most reputable accounts, not especially viable. Theorycraft says as much- no recovery in a game where everyone has incredible recovery; no air combat in a game that practically demands offstage edgeguarding; dies early in a game where everyone dies late- but so does ZeRo. So does m2k. So do all other professional Smashers I've heard comment on the issue. Hell, so does Bwett himself.

Yet despite his unpromising future, Little Mac here is present in 11 of the 31 matches. In other words, a likely low tier dramatically sped up 35% of the matches. So, for the sake of thoroughness, let's compare the unadjusted data [UD] with some Mac-Adjusted Data [MAD]:

Average Match Length: ~5 minutes 30 seconds
Average Stock Length: ~1 minute 50 seconds

As you can see, compared to UD, MAD adds nearly a minute to total match time. I think most people would consider five and a half minutes an unacceptable duration for a Smash game, yet that's the tournament average for games not involving Mac.

Truth be told, whether or not Mac ends up tournament viable isn't super relevant. He's an outlier variable skewing the data; an average game length of five and a half minutes is too long, and too long is boring, and boring is bad. Now consider the possibility that camp and spacing characters (Pac-Man, Villager, Palutena, Robin, ROB, etc.) get stronger, as I suspect they will. Matches will go on even longer than they currently do. Unacceptable.

Finally, keep in mind that the transition to WiiU Smash 4 won't necessarily pick up the pace. On the one hand, players will have more responsive controls; on the other hand, players can vector better and will SD less often. Maybe it'll speed things up and maybe it'll slow things down. Hard to say.

Conclusion: The data here is very unpromising for a three-stock ruleset in my estimation. Not only is a five and a half minute MAD average too long for viewers, it's too long for most tournaments. Key matches might have to be shown off-screen. Custom moves might have to be banned simply because they'll take too long to select and counterpick. More data is needed, but I hope more people are leaning towards a two-stock ruleset.

 

[Thinkaman]

Wait, did you include the first 8 minute match in the average? It shouldn't be included for obvious reasons. (As explained, the loser had a $5 bet going to run out the clock, and thus continued to stall even when he was behind. This is why the entire 8 minute match was only 1 stock.)

Also, this whole "let's exclude the data for the character that disagrees with my predictions" thing is insane. I dunno if you were actually watching the tourney rather than just recording times, but Bwett was decisively three-stocking some fine players.

Maybe I want to exclude Palutena, the factor in most of the longest games?

After all, Palutena's custom moves are really good, and seem to shift her radically away from being a campy character. This campy Palutena is likely to be rare in a real tourney environment for that reason. But we still include her data, because she was in this tourney regardless of what the future might be, and I don't get to pick and choose the reality I live in.

Finally, what on earth is wrong with 5 minute games? All of these matches were exciting and thrilling to watch, even the "campy" Villager ones.

No offense, but if you were bored watching this tourney, it's time to find a new hobby. Good luck though--StarCraft, League, and DotA, and most other similar hobbies all have much longer games.

I also have no idea why if 3-stock games are boring, the same game played for 2-stocks would be any different. Surely the multiple 3-stock comebacks we saw in this very tourney are more exciting?

Tbqh, I don't have much of an opinion or preference on stock-count; I only made this topic to dismiss misinformation about game length/blast zones. But much of the reasons being given for either stock count are ridiculous.

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

Holy ****, based. Thanks so much!

 

[wannabe33]

Wait, did you include the first 8 minute match in the average? It shouldn't be included for obvious reasons.

Also, this whole "let's exclude the data for the character that disagrees with my predictions" thing is insane. I dunno if you were actually watching the tourney rather than just recording times, but Bwett was decisively three-stocking some fine players.

Maybe I was to exclude Palutena, the factor in all the long games?

After all, Palutena's custom moves are really good, and seem to shift her radically away from being a campy character. This campy Palutena is likely to be rare in a real tourney environment for that reason. But we still include her data, because I don't get to pick and choose the reality I live in.

Finally, what on earth is wrong with 5 minute games? All of these matches were exciting and thrilling to watch, even the "campy" Villager ones.

Of course I included the first 8 minute match. I also included matches that had a high number of SDs.

You're free to produce some Palutena-Adjusted Data if you'd like- I mentioned in an earlier post that she seems like the anti-Mac when it comes to pace- but there's little disagreement so far that Palutena is tournament viable. We will be seeing her, and seeing her frequently, along with plenty of other camp and spacing characters. (Custom moves Palutena has improved options all around, not just in her rushdown capacities. Plus, in a custom moves tourney, she'll have to deal with improved campers and spacers, so this'll probably be a wash even if rushdown Palutena proves more fearsome than spacing Palutena.)

The reason why it makes sense to exclude Little Mac is that a) he's an outlier and confounding variable, b) there's good reason to suspect he won't be tournament viable despite some early success, and c) including Mac into the data doesn't give us an adequate picture of how long most Smash 4 matches go. It's misleading to take Mac matches, take non-Mac matches, and then pretend Smash 4's pace is somewhere in the middle. That's not how it works. Matches with Mac are short, and matches without Mac are long. That's the relevant takeaway here.

There's a bevy of things wrong with five and a half minute matches. They're too long (take a poll of Smash viewers and players about whether they'd prefer three and a half or five and a half minute matches and see what sort of results you end up with; it'll be lopsided). They're a strain on tournament organizers. They'd lead to key matches being played off-stream. They might force custom moves to be abandoned for purely practical reasons.

I suppose my question for you is: why would you want three stock matches given this data?

EDIT: Two points in response to your own edits.

1. This tournament wasn't boring and no one said otherwise. It was very exciting. The question is whether it would be just as, or more, exciting with two stocks. Two stocks over three confers many practical advantages for tournament organizers and the viability of custom moves, as I've said.

2. I don't recall seeing a single three-stock comeback.

 

[Thinkaman]

Of course I included the first 8 minute match.

What the hell?

If you can't see what is wrong with this (including a game where one of the players spent the game not trying to win) there is no point to continuing this conversation. You have a blinding agenda and zero credibility.

There's a bevy of things wrong with five and a half minute matches. They're too long (take a poll of Smash viewers and players about whether they'd prefer three and a half or five and a half minute matches and see what sort of results you end up with; it'll be lopsided). They're a strain on tournament organizers. They'd lead to key matches being played off-stream. They might force custom moves to be abandoned for purely practical reasons.

What on earth? What bizzaro world tourney is this, where five minute games are a problem?

In the Midwest, we used to have a ton of Peach melee players. We had tons of games last 6-7 minutes at every tourney, and somehow there were no riots and events ended on time.

Most my matches were 4-5 minutes in both Melee and Brawl.

I suppose my question for you is: why would you want three stock matches given this data?

Given this data that suggest these games are on average much shorter than 3-stock Brawl, which was completely fine at every Brawl tourney I ever attended?

 

[wannabe33]

You have a blinding agenda and zero credibility.

You're going to need to tone down the aggression. It's unprofessional and hurts your case.

I see little reason to exclude a match that went unusually long (excessive camp) while including matches that went unusually short (multiple SDs), but I've whipped up the numbers anyway. Excluding the first eight-minute match, the UD average match length is around 4 and half minutes, while the MAD average match length is around 5 minutes 20 seconds. In other words, the change is negligible. Unsurprising given this is a fairly large sample size we're dealing with.

What on earth? What bizzaro world tourney is this, where five minute games are a problem?

In the Midwest, we used to have a ton of Peach melee players. We had tons of games last 6-7 minutes at every tourney, and somehow there were no riots and events ended on time.

In addition to toning down the aggression, you're going to need to tone down the passive aggression. It's unprofessional and hurts your case.

Five to five and a half minute games are long. Melee matches that go on five to five and a half minutes are atypical and considered boring by many spectators. Based on this data, this would be the norm for Smash 4 three-stock. This ruleset would not invoke riots; it would, however, run the risk of being less interesting for spectators, less interesting for players, more of a headache for tournament organizers, a drain on streamed matches, and potentially cost us custom moves. If there are offsetting benefits for these costs, I haven't seen them as you haven't given any.

Given this data that suggest these games are on average much shorter than 3-stock Brawl, which was completely fine at every Brawl tourney I ever attended?

1. Brawl matches didn't last an average of five and a half minutes.
2. Brawl didn't have custom moves and a Smash 4-size selection of counterpick stages and characters, which translates into more time spent in between matches.
3. There's no reason to emulate a Brawl ruleset if a new two-stock ruleset offers advantages with no drawbacks.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

5 minutes is too long and gets boring? God, there are so many follow up comments to that, most of them jokes, that I think I'll just say that that's ridiculous. You know what else is 5 minutes? Smash run. And I'm seeing a lot of people claim that is too short.

Rather than turning Mac into an outlier, what if that was his niche? Mac makes for fast games. It's still too early to declare him a bottom tier option and his popularity is going to get him into tournaments anyways for at least the near future. I think this analysis is somewhat rash in its points.

Also, yeah, exclude that 8 minute stallfest.

 

[wannabe33]

5 minutes is too long and gets boring? God, there are so many follow up comments to that, most of them jokes, that I think I'll just say that that's ridiculous.

Jokes aren't a substitute to arguments. I assumed a general preference for three and a half minute matches over five and a half minute matches was common sense, but if there's genuine disagreement, I might make a poll and collect more data.

Rather than turning Mac into an outlier, what if that was his niche? Mac makes for fast games.

I don't agree it's too early to speculate about Mac's viability, but I do agree that fast matches are a Mac niche. And this doesn't matter much. To repeat myself:

"...including Mac into the data doesn't give us an adequate picture of how long most Smash 4 matches go. It's misleading to take Mac matches, take non-Mac matches, and then pretend Smash 4's pace is somewhere in the middle. That's not how it works. Matches with Mac are short, and matches without Mac are long. That's the relevant takeaway here."

 

[Thinkaman]

Obviously you include the legit 8-minute games where both players went all out, but the one where pwing lost by spending the entire 8-minutes stalling with 1 stock because someone paid him $5 to do so? I'm not complaining, because it was actually really interesting to watch, but at a super-serious national tourney an outside bet won by the loser would be classified as sandbagging or match-fixing, and he'd be disqualified.

(Of course, this was just a friendly weekly; pwing was fine in taking the bet, it was amusing.)

I still don't understand how it's so axiomatic that 5-minutes = evil.

I thought every single game of that tourney was fantastic and interesting. All my friends I linked it to, who both play smash and don't, thought it was too. We were screaming over skype at all the crazy gimps and comebacks. The chat was on fire!

Any suggestion that not only was this actually a boring and dreadful event, but that this is also self-evident, is just so far outside my experience that I can't even comprehend it.

Also, the average Brawl games in my experience were around 4-5 minutes. Some matchups were shorter (ICs, Olimar, Ganondorf), some were longer (Sonic, Snake, ROB).

 

[UltiMario]

You're going to need to tone down the aggression. It's unprofessional and hurts your case.

You need to tone down on the fallacy use, it's unprofessional and hurts your case.

The point he's trying to make is that you're cherry picking the data to try and make a point, and even worse, you're adding outliers into your data. The 8 minute match was not a match people were playing to win in. It is no different than if 2 people idled for 8 minutes while they were doing something, and then you used that as part of your data. If the game went to time legitimately, then your point would be valid., but they didn't.

You know what game has 5 and a half minute games? Melee. Well, when you delete all the fast characters from the game, and only leave the floaty battles left in your data, at least. If I delete everything except games involving Jiggs, Peach, and Young Link... you probably average 7 minute games.

You can cherry pick data all you want, but that data is factually incorrect by doing so. There's zero validity in saying that the aggressive characters like Mac will vanish, and that the game will become a campfest, increasing the time of games for the same reason it's invalid to assume that the campy characters will phaze out, leaving only very fast games. Both conclusions can be reached with fallacies, and of course, both are incorrect.

The only correct conclusion that this data provides "at the beginning of Smash 4, we average about 1:30 per stock" and that this really isn't terribly fast or horribly slow.

 

[Thinkaman]

The point he's trying to make is that you're cherry picking the data to try and make a point, and even worse, you're adding outliers into your data.

Not to nitpick, but we should include outliers. What we shouldn't include is invalid data.

Either way, I think we've all moved past this particular matter.

 

[Thinkaman]

Double post thought: I am actually very well aware of the average length of Brawl matches because I played a lot of Pokemon Trainer, and would have to watch the time for fatigue issues. PT was a pretty average character time-wise, overall, and I would generally budget around 100 seconds total per stock.

 

[wannabe33]

Obviously you include the legit 8-minute games where both players went all out, but the one where pwing lost by spending the entire 8-minutes stalling with 1 stock because someone paid him $5 to do so? I'm not complaining, because it was actually really interesting to watch, but at a super-serious national tourney an outside bet won by the loser would be classified as sandbagging or match-fixing, and he'd be disqualified.

(Of course, this was just a friendly weekly; pwing was fine in taking the bet, it was amusing.)

I still don't understand how it's so axiomatic that 5-minutes = evil.

I thought every single game of that tourney was fantastic and interesting. All my friends I linked it to, who both play smash and don't, thought it was too. We were screaming over skype at all the crazy gimps and comebacks. The chat was on fire!

Any suggestion that not only was this actually a boring and dreadful event, but that this is also self-evident, is just so far outside my experience that I can't even comprehend it.

Also, the average Brawl games in my experience were around 4-5 minutes. Some matchups were shorter (ICs, Olimar, Ganondorf), some were longer (Sonic, Snake, ROB).

I didn't realize the bet was specifically about increasing the match length as long as possible. You're absolutely correct that data point should be thrown out.

Five to five and a half minutes is not "evil." It is concerning. The concerns are that

1. it's less interesting to most viewers than a three to three and a half minute match;
2. it's less interesting to most players than a three to three and a half minute match;
3. it would be a strain on tournament organizers;
4. the extra length would lead to key matches being bumped and played off-stream;
5. the extra length might mean sacrificing custom moves

Again, this was an exciting tournament. The questions are a) whether the tournament could have been just as exciting or more exciting with a two-stock ruleset, and b) whether there will be long-term issues with a three-stock ruleset.

I've gotta be honest: my arguments in this thread have been exceptionally clear, and you should be able to defend a three-stock ruleset without misrepresenting those exceptionally clear arguments.

You need to tone down on the fallacy use, it's unprofessional and hurts your case.

The point he's trying to make is that you're cherry picking the data to try and make a point, and even worse, you're adding outliers into your data. The 8 minute match was not a match people were playing to win in. It is no different than if 2 people idled for 8 minutes while they were doing something, and then you used that as part of your data. If the game went to time legitimately, then your point would be valid., but they didn't.

You know what game has 5 and a half minute games? Melee. Well, when you delete all the fast characters from the game, and only leave the floaty battles left in your data, at least. If I delete everything except games involving Jiggs, Peach, and Young Link... you probably average 7 minute games.

You can cherry pick data all you want, but that data is factually incorrect by doing so. There's zero validity in saying that the aggressive characters like Mac will vanish, and that the game will become a campfest, increasing the time of games for the same reason it's invalid to assume that the campy characters will phaze out, leaving only very fast games. Both conclusions can be reached with fallacies, and of course, both are incorrect.

The only correct conclusion that this data provides "at the beginning of Smash 4, we average about 1:30 per stock" and that this really isn't terribly fast or horribly slow.

I have not made a single fallacy, formal or informal, in any of my posts in this thread. I encourage you to try and point out any.

As mentioned in my response to Thinkaman, I misinterpreted his previous comment about the five dollar bet -- I didn't realize he was paid specifically to prolong the match as much as possible. Obviously, with that information, the eight-minute match is invalid and should be discarded. For visibility, here are the new results posted prior:

Average Match Length [UD]: 4 minutes 30 seconds
Average Match Length [MAD]: 5 minutes 20 seconds

Every single point I've made in the past few posts remains relevant.

As for the allegation of "cherry-picking," I will again repeat myself:

"...including Mac into the data doesn't give us an adequate picture of how long most Smash 4 matches go. It's misleading to take Mac matches, take non-Mac matches, and then pretend Smash 4's pace is somewhere in the middle. That's not how it works. Matches withMac are short, and matches without Mac are long. That's the relevant takeaway here."

As you mentioned fallacies, I'll identify a fallacy you made: the fallacy of false analogy. Removing data points for one character, who might well end up tournament unviable, who dramatically speeds up matches, who sped up 35% of the matches in the tournament, is not comparable to removing Melee's entire roster sans slow, floaty characters. The former is a means of better illustrating how long a typical Smash 4 tournament match takes; the latter is a fallacious and failed attempt to be clever.

I'll identify a second fallacy you made: the strawman fallacy. Arguing a misrepresentation is a waste of everyone's time. Nowhere did I say all aggressive characters will cascade down the tier list and Smash 4 would become a camp fest; I argued

1. Little Mac will drop down the tier list (a point bolstered by comments of professional Smashers, including Bwett himself);
2. campy characters will likely move up the tier list and become more prevalent.

You can disagree with either of these, but you'll need to make arguments. In the meantime, notice how the data I collected does not exclude Mario, Sheik, and other characters with good aggressive play. MAD average matches are still five to five and a half minutes. That's a red flag.

 

[Thinkaman]

Quick reminder: I don't have a strong opinion/preference on stock count. I don't have a dog in this fight.

You are specifically arguing for a change in the status quo, even though the status quo seems fine by your own admission. (This tourney was exciting, ended on time, and the TOs and players were satisfied with the length.) And yet, you are insisting that the burden of proof is on those advocating this happy status quo be continued?

Furthermore, I still don't understand your key premise in all of this; I've heard many reasons in favor of 2-stock matches, but never that 3-stock matches are too boring. Why would a 2-stock match of the same game be less boring than a 3-stock match?

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

I'm sorry, but I still am not seeing how 5 minute matches are bad. I find it especially ludicrous that it would be stressful to the TO. If you set the match timer to 8 minutes you accept the fact that matches could run that long. If you absolutely cannot stand anything longer than 3.5 minute matches, set the timer to that and be done with it.

Show me data that proves it's less interesting for viewers and players to have five minute matches. Show me data that matches won't be streamed and that custom moves would be cut. It's something to consider, but right now there is nothing showing these situations to be definite.

And I advise that right now we don't plan around tier lists, as no official ones exist yet.

 

[wannabe33]

Quick reminder: I don't have a strong opinion/preference on stock count. I don't have a dog in this fight.

You are specifically arguing for a change in the status quo, even though the status quo seems fine by your own admission. (This tourney was exciting, ended on time, and the TOs and players were satisfied with the length.) And yet, you are insisting that the burden of proof is on those advocating this happy status quo be continued?

Furthermore, I still don't understand your key premise in all of this; I've heard many reasons in favor of 2-stock matches, but never that 3-stock matches are too boring. Why would a 2-stock match of the same game be less boring than a 3-stock match?

You've said you don't have a dog in this race several times, and that's fine, but you've argued in the OP and throughout this thread that objections to a three-stock ruleset have been weak. I made several objections to a three-stock ruleset. You said they were weak. Now I'm asking for some justifications about why they're weak. Reasonable request.

There is no "burden of proof" in play here. We have two** options on the table: a two-stock ruleset, and a three-stock ruleset. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. We, as a community, need to weigh the pros and cons and come to a rough consensus about what works best. I've outlined what I take to be significant problems, short-term and long-term, with the three-stock ruleset and can identify no real advantages. I'd like someone to respond to my points and explain why we should stick with three-stock.

**- Technically we have more than two options on the table. I believe you mentioned a two-stock ruleset switching to a three-stock ruleset as the tournament progressed, which has merit.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

Simply put, I feel that 2 stock, 5 minutes is too short and too limiting. 3 and 8 seems to work fine and is still enjoyable.

 

[wannabe33]

Simply put, I feel that 2 stock, 5 minutes is too short and too limiting. 3 and 8 seems to work fine and is still enjoyable.

No worries. I feel 3 and 8 is bloated.

Thing is, we're just two people. If the community at large had a general preference for one or the other, that'd be important to consider, wouldn't you agree? It'd also be important to consider whether two- or three-stock rulesets had innate advantages (for example: there would be many three-stock comebacks, and a two-stock ruleset would prevent these; two-stock would make things easier for tourney organizers). I'm just saying that my personal preference and your personal preference are drops in the bucket and really don't count for much.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

No worries. I feel 3 and 8 is bloated.

Thing is, we're just two people. If the community at large had a general preference for one or the other, that'd be important to consider, wouldn't you agree? It'd also be important to consider whether two- or three-stock rulesets had innate advantages (for example: there would be many three-stock comebacks, and a two-stock ruleset would prevent these; two-stock would make things easier for tourney organizers). I'm just saying that my personal preference and your personal preference are drops in the bucket and really don't count for much.

I think that we really shouldn't build around the TO's, but instead around the players and viewers. Comebacks keep things exciting and unpredictable. Removing them is a bad idea, especially if it's just to lighten the load on the guy who agreed to host the tourney in the first place. When you make a commitment like that you accept that burden. We do need TO's, but everyone keeps telling me how important it is that we keep the viewers, and I see no reason to disagree. It sounds like the biggest issues for TO's right now is just managing time. But there are numerous ways to get that to work out. Really, so long as you aren't running three hours behind you're doing better than some tournaments I've participated in.

 

[Thinkaman]

You've said you don't have a dog in this race several times, and that's fine, but you've argued in the OP and throughout this thread that objections to a three-stock ruleset have been weak. I made several objections to a three-stock ruleset. You said they were weak. Now I'm asking for some justifications about why they're weak. Reasonable request.

There is no "burden of proof" in play here. We have two** options on the table: a two-stock ruleset, and a three-stock ruleset. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. We, as a community, need to weigh the pros and cons and come to a rough consensus about what works best. I've outlined what I take to be significant problems, short-term and long-term, with the three-stock ruleset and can identify no real advantages. I'd like someone to respond to my points and explain why we should stick with three-stock.

All of your complains have seemingly boiled down to "long games are boring", which we have dismissed as a subjective attitude that does not align with experience of both the tourney in question, nor past personal experiences.

My 3 most interesting tourney sets of Brawl, off the top of my head, were also some of the longest. (3 ~6 minute games, all came down to last stock at high %s) I can even remember them--they were against Zeton's Fox (last game on FD, he won with a u-smash read), Bwett's Yoshi (last game on BF, he won with a suicide fair), and Chewy's DDD (last game on Norfair, I won with a drill rest).

In all 3 of those long, marathon sets, a crowd assembled because of how hype the matches were. How do I remember them in such detail, out of the almost 100 tourneys I've attended? Because they were so long and exciting.

Technically we have more than two options on the table. I believe you mentioned a two-stock ruleset switching to a three-stock ruleset as the tournament progressed, which has merit.

And Nintendo is running 4-stocks, those cheeky ********.

Keep in mind, we are actually considering three distinct options.

3-stock Bo3 sets
2-stock Bo5 sets
2-stock Bo3 sets

The latter two often get conflated, but those who support one I doubt would support the other. They have dramatically different rationale for their proposed change.

two-stock would make things easier for tourney organizers

As an experienced TO, individual match length (even as an aggregate average) is not even on my radar of things I am concerned about. My top time concerns are always:

1. Missing players
2. Players using setups for non-tourney games
3. Lunch/dinner breaks
4. Pool captains screwing something up
5. Making sure all possible loser's bracket matches have priority over winner's

I'm already scheduling based on the false, worst-case assumption that every game will go to time, and every set will go to game 3. Anything faster is a bonus.

 

[wannabe33]

All of your complains have seemingly boiled down to "long games are boring", which we have dismissed as a subjective attitude that does not align with experience of both the tourney in question, nor past personal experiences.

My 3 most interesting tourney sets of Brawl, off the top of my head, were also some of the longest. (3 ~6 minute games, all came down to last stock at high %s) I can even remember them--they were against Zeton's Fox (last game on FD, he won with a u-smash read), Bwett's Yoshi (last game on BF, he won with a suicide fair), and Chewy's DDD (last game on Norfair, I won with a drill rest).

In all 3 of those long, marathon sets, a crowd assembled because of how hype the matches were. How do I remember them in such detail, out of the almost 100 tourneys I've attended? Because they were so long and exciting.



And Nintendo is running 4-stocks, those cheeky *******s.

Keep in mind, we are actually considering three distinct options.

3-stock Bo3 sets
2-stock Bo5 sets
2-stock Bo3 sets

The latter two often get conflated, but those who support one I doubt would support the other. They have dramatically different rationale for their proposed change.



As an experienced TO, individual match length (even as an aggregate average) is not even on my radar of things I am concerned about. My top time concerns are always:

1. Missing players
2. Players using setups for non-tourney games
3. Lunch/dinner breaks
4. Pool captains screwing something up
5. Making sure all possible loser's bracket matches have priority over winner's

I'm already scheduling based on the false, worst-case assumption that every game will go to time, and every set will go to game 3. Anything faster is a bonus.

You are again misrepresenting my exceptionally clear arguments.

1. I never said anything resembling "I find long matches boring so we should adopt a two-stock ruleset." I said that most viewers would find five to five and a half minute matches less exciting than three to three and a half minute matches. This is not a subjective claim.

2. This is not the only claim I have made. Happy to repeat myself: the concerns with a three-stock moveset are a) whether viewers will find them as enjoyable, b) whether players will find them as enjoyable, c) whether it will be a headache for tourney organizers, d) whether it will relegate key matches to offstream play, and e) whether it will mean sacrificing custom moves. None of these are subjective claims.

What is entirely subjective are your personal anecdotes about how you enjoyed long matches in Brawl. I agree with you that such subjective attitudes should be discarded.

2-stock Bo5 isn't something I'm interested in discussing for the moment. First thing we need to figure out is 2- or 3-stock.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

You are again misrepresenting my exceptionally clear arguments.

1. I never said anything resembling "I find long matches boring so we should adopt a two-stock ruleset." I said that most viewers would find five to five and a half minute matches less exciting than three to three and a half minute matches. This is not a subjective claim.

2. This is not the only claim I have made. Happy to repeat myself: the concerns with a three-stock moveset are a) whether viewers will find them as enjoyable, b) whether players will find them as enjoyable, c) whether it will be a headache for tourney organizers, d) whether it will relegate key matches to offstream play, and e) whether it will mean sacrificing custom moves. None of these are subjective claims.

What is entirely subjective are your personal anecdotes about how you enjoyed long matches in Brawl. I agree with you that such subjective attitudes should be discarded.

2-stock Bo5 isn't something I'm interested in discussing for the moment. First thing we need to figure out is 2- or 3-stock.

1a. Please present proof of this claim.
1b. Until said proof is presented, that whole claim is subjective.

2. These are valid concerns, but we're already seeing TO's say they aren't worried. We're gonna need to see a lot of evidence that these concerns are all valid before we build tourneys around them.

 

[GrownCannoli]

I just watched a tournament on twitch and they had 3Stock 8 minute rounds and it was pretty boring to watch honestly I can't lie. Rosalina, and Duck Hunt dog were some of the most boring play. Good characters but very boring to watch.

Regardless of numbers and stats I think 2Stock 5 minute rounds are best. Much more exciting to watch.

 

[wannabe33]

1a. Please present proof of this claim.
1b. Until said proof is presented, that whole claim is subjective.

2. These are valid concerns, but we're already seeing TO's say they aren't worried. We're gonna need to see a lot of evidence that these concerns are all valid before we build tourneys around them.

1a. I took this to be a common-sense premise, but since there's some debate around it, I started a poll to collect data. You can find it on the main Smash 4 WiiU thread.

1b. No. Until said proof is presented, the claim is unsubstantiated. Not subjective.

2. What TOs? Where? If there was a body of TO testimonials confirming five to five and a half minute matches wouldn't be a strain on time, wouldn't relegate key matches to offstream play, and would be compatible with custom move selections and counterpicks, that'd be a significant point in a three-stock ruleset's favor.

This idea that three-stock tournaments should be the "default" until some arbitrary amount of evidence constituting "a lot" is presented is wrongheaded.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

I just watched a tournament on twitch and they had 3Stock 8 minute rounds and it was pretty boring to watch honestly I can't lie. Rosalina, and Duck Hunt dog were some of the most boring play. Good characters but very boring to watch.

Regardless of numbers and stats I think 2Stock 5 minute rounds are best. Much more exciting to watch.

Rosalina is boring? Who were you watching?

1b. No. Until said proof is presented, the claim is unsubstantiated. Not subjective.

Either way, it is not a fact and there is no reason to treat it as such.

 

[Boshi PV]

I like the 3 stock matches more so in my opinion it leads to a better match as both players are given slightly more time to learn how one another plays. For the most part I mean

 

[響「Hibiki」]

wannabe33 has a very fitting username.

I don't understand why people are trying so hard with this **** when the game has only been available to a few players in the Western scene, instead of giving it a few weeks with people trying out different rulesets and THEN deciding what the most appropriate stock count should be.

Hope you guys keep on collecting data.

 

[wannabe33]

I don't understand why people are trying so hard with this **** when the game has only been available to a few players in the Western scene, instead of giving it a few weeks with people trying out different rulesets and THEN deciding what the most appropriate stock count should be.

Hope you guys keep on collecting data.

That's exactly what people are doing. There're tourneys for three stocks and tourneys for two stocks. People are collecting data for both. The meta is developing. In the meantime, people are having friendly dialogues about the pros and cons of each ruleset. There won't be a formalized community ruleset for months and months and months.

 

[yume_nikki]

I don’t think excluding a character form the tourney data will give us any meaningful result.

Smash 4 seems to be the game with greater differences between campy and rushdown characters, and we know barely nothing about the tier list.

In two years, 80% of the players could be Villager or DHD mains, and 2 stock matches would be the norm. Or Sheik and Greninja could also be the most used top tiers, which would allow us to considerate shifting to 4 stock.

The only thing we can state objectively with the collected data is that 3 stock matches are fine.

 

[wannabe33]

But Sheik, Mario, etc. matches don't seem to be all that short, at least based on the data in this thread. Little Mac has an especially polarizing effect on pace.

At the very least, it's useful to observe how different the length of camp matches are compared to aggressive matches. That way, if the meta does develop in one direction or another, we can use more specific data rather than unsorted data. (I mean if everyone played at the same pace as Little Mac, I'd be here arguing for four stock matches.)

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

I'm sorry, but I still am not seeing how 5 minute matches are bad. I find it especially ludicrous that it would be stressful to the TO. If you set the match timer to 8 minutes you accept the fact that matches could run that long.

I'm hoping that this hasn't been discussed yet, because otherwise my post will seem redundant and stupid. Anyway, when I read this it made me think about who longer matches could really put stress on; the players. Especially for players who are naturally more aggressive in their playstyle. Not everyone has high levels of endurance. This is not a justification, of course, as if a player gets tired/unfocused/whatever after a certain amount of time that's their problem and they should work on that.

As I do not 100% know the origins of the 8 minute time limit (I know, I'm dumb), my interpretation could be highly incorrect but what I always assumed is 8 minutes was chosen to be intentionally generous. For Melee anyway, because again as of my understanding, the Brawl ruleset was adopted from Melee (and then had a stock count drop later). Last set of match-length data I saw for Melee the average match time was somewhere between 3 and 3 1/2 minutes. That's not even half of the limit. (The Project M average match time from the same event, CEO 2014, was higher but still under 4 minutes. I believe the data for both were taken from the Top 8, so it's possible that further down the bracket matches were longer.) Matches really aren't expected to last 8 minutes but in the event that something out-of-the-ordinary happens, the ruleset will accommodate.

At the end of the day, some people like longer matches, some don't. For me personally, it just depends on what's actually happening in the match. This applies both to viewing and playing.

If you absolutely cannot stand anything longer than 3.5 minute matches, set the timer to that and be done with it.

This is taking the topic a bit lightly. The reason everyone's making such a big deal over this whole "are matches too long?" drama is because it's a question of what the standard ruleset in tournaments will be. I could lower the timer in my own practice matches, but it does no good to prepare me for tournaments that do not use my (hypothetical) preferred time limit. Which would be all of them. What if I make my own tourneys that use a highly-different time limit to what most do? Congratulations, Rascal, you are one in a/several thousand TOs to actually use such a ruleset and people will think you're a horrible representative of your local Smash community who couldn't run a tournament if you tried. It's a question of scale.

Rosalina is boring? Who were you watching?

Every Rosalina player on VGBC and TLoc. (Seriously, there was one VGBC stream where upwards to 1000 people left and watched other streams because they were sick of Rosalina.)

 

[Overswarm]

Does no one else remember that you have an 8 minute timer in all of our smash games and you can use that timer however you wish?

The only time that timeouts are actually an issue is if it's happening despite players not wanting it to occur (e.g., Peach vs. Samus type stuff). If someone wants to time someone out, they're free to use the 8 minutes however they'd like.

 

[Mithrilangel]

Awesome thank you!

 

[Untouch]

If you're going to be adjusting for mac, you should be adjusting for villager as well, villager dramatically increased the time of the matches.

 

[Thinkaman]

You are again misrepresenting my exceptionally clear arguments.

Demanding that your arguments are "exceptionally clear" doesn't make them so.

1. I never said anything resembling "I find long matches boring so we should adopt a two-stock ruleset." I said that most viewers would find five to five and a half minute matches less exciting than three to three and a half minute matches. This is not a subjective claim.

You are just making a sweeping declaration as to the opinions of others!

You can't just reframe your opinions as a projection onto others and claim it is suddenly objective fact.

Ancedotal or not, at least I have a mountain of personal experience on my side suggesting that longer matches tend to have WAY more hype and viewership. Or, more accurately, that the quality of viewership depends primarily on how interesting the matchup is and how close the game is.

2. This is not the only claim I have made. Happy to repeat myself: the concerns with a three-stock moveset are a) whether viewers will find them as enjoyable, b) whether players will find them as enjoyable, c) whether it will be a headache for tourney organizers, d) whether it will relegate key matches to offstream play, and e) whether it will mean sacrificing custom moves. None of these are subjective claims.

a) You have continually restated this "concern" as a self-evident objection, placing a burden of proof on the opposition. Ironically, it 3-stock matches that we have a six year history of fun matches with. Perhaps I am concerned that two-stock matches will be as enjoyable to watch? Without the confident history of 3-stock games, and the obvious loss of 3-stock comebacks, isn't this a FAR more valid concern to voice?

b) Ditto, but with more personal experience. I actually preferred 4-stock matches in Brawl tbqh.

c) Sorry, but even expressing this is keeping me from taking you seriously. It is so far divorced from the actual reality of being a TO, that it becomes impossible for me to remain respectful and treat you as anything but an armchair theorist who doesn't actually have a clue how tourney works. I apologize if that seems rude. Have you actually attended tourneys? More significantly, have you actually ran tourneys? I genuinely do not mean to belittle you, but you see how pivotal this perspective is.

d) See previous. Stream schedule aligns with the round schedule in any format. You broadcast one set per round, regardless of length of it or any other set.

e) Ditto again.

2-stock Bo5 isn't something I'm interested in discussing for the moment. First thing we need to figure out is 2- or 3-stock.

But... why? Why do we need to figure that out first?

Isn't it more prudent, particularly given your stated criteria and concerns, to determine if we are doing 30-minute-max sets or 20-minute-max sets?

 

[wannabe33]

If you're going to be adjusting for mac, you should be adjusting for villager as well, villager dramatically increased the time of the matches.

Two relevant differences here:

1. Villager's matches in the data were not unusually long compared to the average; Mac's matches in the data were unusually short compared to the average.
2. There is more reason to suspect Mac will be tourney unviable than Villager, as he has profound weaknesses. [Obviously this is contestable.]

Demanding that your arguments are "exceptionally clear" doesn't make them so.



You are just making a sweeping declaration as to the opinions of others!

You can't just reframe your opinions as a projection onto others and claim it is suddenly objective fact.

Ancedotal or not, at least I have a mountain of personal experience on my side suggesting that longer matches tend to have WAY more hype and viewership. Or, more accurately, that the quality of viewership depends primarily on how interesting the matchup is and how close the game is.



a) You have continually restated this "concern" as a self-evident objection, placing a burden of proof on the opposition. Ironically, it 3-stock matches that we have a six year history of fun matches with. Perhaps I am concerned that two-stock matches will be as enjoyable to watch? Without the confident history of 3-stock games, and the obvious loss of 3-stock comebacks, isn't this a FAR more valid concern to voice?

b) Ditto, but with more personal experience. I actually preferred 4-stock matches in Brawl tbqh.

c) Sorry, but even expressing this is keeping me from taking you seriously. It is so far divorced from the actual reality of being a TO, that it becomes impossible for me to remain respectful and treat you as anything but an armchair theorist who doesn't actually have a clue how tourney works. I apologize if that seems rude. Have you actually attended tourneys? More significantly, have you actually ran tourneys? I genuinely do not mean to belittle you, but you see how pivotal this perspective is.

d) See previous. Stream schedule aligns with the round schedule in any format. You broadcast one set per round, regardless of length of it or any other set.

e) Ditto again.



But... why? Why do we need to figure that out first?

Isn't it more prudent, particularly given your stated criteria and concerns, to determine if we are doing 30-minute-max sets or 20-minute-max sets?

These posts are getting long, so I'm just going to employ a numbered list for readability.

1. My arguments have been clear. I have laid them out clearly with clearly articulated premises and conclusions. Your reading comprehension is not my responsibility.
2. Making a claim about what most people believe is not a "sweeping declaration." It's a claim. Like any claim, it can be challenged.
3. Nowhere did I state that a preference for shorter matches was an "objective fact."
4. You keep bringing up personal anecdotes despite maintaining we should discount subjective factors from this conversation. You're contradicting yourself.
5. "Have you ever ran a tourney?" is about as relevant an objection as "Have you ever ran a game?" Empty rhetoric. You aren't explaining why this wouldn't be an issue. (I'll just say that I do have experience here and leave it at that.)
6. Stock count determines the average length of individual matches, so sorting out what people prefer when it comes to what kind of individual matches should be done before sorting out what people prefer when it comes to how many individual matches. That's just me, though.