Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Pyr]

http://youtu.be/T98uKLWpl9E?t=6m58s

Irrelevant. Chu could of done that with either system.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Is there no rule saying players can't take too long to do their bans/counterpicks/etc.? I mean, by all means let them think about it a bit but I can't imagine needing more than a minute or so.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Irrelevant. Chu could of done that with either system.

Its irrelevance is relevant.
It's implying that no matter the system, any action at any point is prone to waste time.

Is there no rule saying players can't take too long to do their bans/counterpicks/etc.? I mean, by all means let them think about it a bit but I can't imagine needing more than a minute or so.

There is no such rule.
There is neither behavior rules (for example, from that video, Omni's screaming/putting his hand in front of Chudat. For another example, Ally's infamous "look-at-your-opponent's-controller-during-techchases")

 

[Indigo Jeans]

That seems silly though. There are already widely implemented rules punishing players for arriving to their matches late under the pretense that they are holding up the tourney. Actually sitting down at the setup should not be a free pass. A reasonable time limit on counterpicking and banning wouldn't be unreasonable, as we already have time limits on the matches themselves.

Then again I guess pulling a chu isn't so common as to warrant such a rule anyway. Though when it does happen that just means nothing can rightly be done about it.

But I don't know anything about TOing so shrug

 

[DunnoBro]

http://youtu.be/T98uKLWpl9E?t=6m58s

What delicious cherries you've picked for us all!

 

[Terotrous]

http://youtu.be/T98uKLWpl9E?t=6m58s

Imagine how long it would take if he could take 5 minutes to choose every strike!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The idea of time constraints being a serious issue for stage striking is IMO misguided. Especially if you're considering fringe cases like ChuDat - the correct answer to what he did there was for the TO to step in around minute 2 and say, "You have 30 seconds, then you get a match loss for intentionally stalling the tournament." No need for a hard-and-fast rule, either - you can do it on a case-by-case basis, being more lenient to people who legitimately don't know the rules, and less to people like ChuDat who are just being ***** for no reason. I remember running a tournament with 9 starters and no significant issues in terms of time (although a fair amount was saved by the german tradition of "Smashville?" "Smashville.").

 

[Vinylic.]

I am suggesting reconsideration of the current ruleset after Top 8. Bo5sin every set has taken way too long to finish, and I would rather go for Bo5s in WFs, LFs, and GFs alone or something better. It was really displeasing for me and the viewers. Plus, the amount of time it took for Warm-Ups/Button Checks? That took almost 3 minutes.

Multiple people have suspected and have been complaining about coaching too.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I am suggesting reconsideration of the current ruleset after Top 8. Bo5sin every set has taken way too long to finish, and I would rather go for Bo5s in WFs, LFs, and GFs alone or something better. It was really displeasing for me and the viewers. Plus, the amount of time it took for Warm-Ups/Button Checks? That took almost 3 minutes.

Multiple people have suspected and have been complaining about coaching too.

AFAIK BO5 in W/L/GF only is the standard, I have no clue why Apex decided to do it for the entire top 8.

Agreed rules on coaching and handwarmers would not go amiss either.

 

[HeroMystic]

AFAIK BO5 in W/L/GF only is the standard, I have no clue why Apex decided to do it for the entire top 8.

Agreed rules on coaching and handwarmers would not go amiss either.

TCU did the same thing since it was 2-stock and not 3-stock.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Buttonchecks shouldn't really last long, one minute is plenty of time to notice stuff.

As for coaching, I'm divided for and against it. It consumes time, and is annoying that someone that is not playing is telling your opponent your habits. But at the same time, is a great way for newcomers to approach and learn more about the game, get involved, etc.
I'm talking about coaching between games, not during them.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The coaching thing is so strange to me. Like, sure, coaching should be allowed in the sense that players giving other players advice is fine (and near impossible to ban), but time is not allowed for coaching. Why would you ever want to hold up a tournament to players can talk to each other in the middle of sets? That's insane to me. Hand-warmers are unnecessary; we don't need them at all. If you need to verify your buttons work, hit the "test" button when setting your controls, but you had better keep it quick and even allowing that seems very generous to me since it's not exactly rocket science to pick the right stuff or to bring a controller that is going to work correctly in general.

Stage striking, custom moves, etc. don't add meaningfully to time in general; these choices tend to be very fast and obvious to the point that all of it should take less than a minute on a consistent basis. Occasionally you'll have a player who takes an absolute eternity; on smaller scale events you can usually just enforce it on a hand-waving case to case basis ("pick now or I'll pick for you, and you won't like what I pick" is a good line, generally make it clear to that troublemaker that picking stuff expeditiously is an expectation at the event). Having a formal timer rule at larger events might be logical, ideally one you wouldn't actually be attempting to enforce in most cases (enforcement nightmare to actually time every set in the event!) but would whip out if a problem case became known so you could rush the players who need rushed in a more cleanly laid out way.

I'd like to point out that going Bo5 for the entire top 8 to smooth over the inconsistency of 2 stock makes a strong argument for just playing 3 stock. A Bo3 3 stock set tends to run through about the same number of stocks as a Bo5 2 stock set but is effectively much faster since there are fewer between-game lulls in the action, and it also has the shorter worst case scenario (9 stocks as opposed to 10 stocks) which with matches running in parallel in bracket situations is highly relevant. I feel like going Bo5 in all of those games is an admission that 2 stock is too swingy and inconsistent for a Bo3 set to decisively decide the winner, and special procedure for top 8 is really dodgy since almost no real tournaments of any substantial size have seeding that's "fair" all the way out to predicting a top 8 correctly. IMO either run a full 3 stock if you agree or, if you don't agree, run Bo3 2 stock for the entire tournament. If it was fair in the early rounds, it's still fair in the later ones.

 

[Thinkaman]

Many of the "button checks" and "hand warmers" took more time than a 3rd stock would have.

 

[Wilyen]

the general consensus is that the simi and grand finals should be 3o5 not the quarter finals.

coaching should be baned, but breathers between rounds should be allowed. this is common in FGC tournaments to give the players time to think and disrupt the opponents momentum.

 

[Luigisama]

You can prevent coaching like mjg and fow did. When false when to coach mr.r and cyve, Mjg and Fow started the match immediately.

 

[digiholic]

So, if APEX has taught us anything (other than don't trust New Jersey Hotels), it's that at this point, Smash 4 will probably never be able to become the "new melee". Smash 4 will never be that ultra hype combo fighting game that Melee is, and even if it were, Melee players would likely just continue playing Melee anyway. With a new Smash Bros game, it's a time to throw out all of the old rules and start fresh. A lot of our current rules are based off of rules that were in place in older Smash games, and that's missing a lot of potential.

It's important to identify which rules changes we know won't work, and which ones we think won't work. It's hard to distinguish the two at times. For example, we may think that items shouldn't be on, but the Item Standard Play rule set is actually really good (I encourage everyone to try to play some competitive matches with it before commenting on its viability)

So, after some thinking, here are a few things that I think we can all agree are not going to be in a competitive setting:

• Stages:
  • Highly hazardous stages (Pyrosphere, Gaur Plains U, Great Cave Offensive, etc.)
    • No one wants to lose a tournament because the other guy sniped Ridley at the last second and forced him into a 2v1. Some stages are just too hazardous for a 1v1 (or 2v2, or other "one side versus one other side" format). These stages are built for a free-for-all format, where getting caught by something doesn't mean instant death, as your opponents will often be stuck fighting each other rather than capitalizing on your misfortune. If any sort of free-for-all format becomes competitive (a different conversation entirely, and a highly unlikely one), this rule should be reviewed.
  • Stages that encourage toxic or campy play (Palutena's temple, Hyrule Temple)
    • Some stages are too big to allow some characters a fighting chance. This means your opponent can practically instant-win by counter-picking one of these stages and playing a faster character than you. It's important to note that this is because of "circle-camping", where a player is protected by solid walls and has multiple escape routes. This doesn't mean that every large stage is instantly bad. Big Battlefield has no circle-camping spots, nor does Windy Hill Zone, and they should be considered potentially viable.
• Customization:
  • Custom Equipment
    • This is not an issue of balance. This is an issue of availability. While there is a finite, easily collectible list of custom moves, equipment is effectively infinite. Until some way of transferring saves or unlocking a core stock via modding or some other simple method is available, this particular variant should be deferred for the time being
    • Muro brought up the point of a set of equipment attainable through challenges. This is a possibility to consider, as there are some decent options in that list. Do you think equipment might be viable on a competitive level from this list? Maybe one item per player? Share your thoughts.
• Items:
  • The Item Standard Play thread has all the discussion of this and I couldn't even begin to summarize their research here, but what it comes down to is, explosives, low-counterplay items, and random factors are removed. This leaves simple battering items and projectiles. These would give some zone-starved characters options against campers.

Now, what does this leave us with? Excluding the above, and only the above, we're left with many unexplored and potentially viable changes to experiment with. Changes such as:

• Walk-off stages
  • Smash 4, as far as we know, has no infinite horizontal combos. The reason walk-offs have been banned in the past is because of Waveshines and chaingrabs. Smash 4 has neither of these things. The argument could be made that player could potentially camp the edge and score an easy backthrow kill from right next to the blast zone, and you'd be right, if it weren't for...
• Other Unorthodox Stages
  • Some stages are just... odd. Not completely unfair, not completely without counterplay, just... odd. Stages like Luigi's Mansion, Mario Circuit U, Pilotwings, Wuhu Island, and Windy Hill that have a few inklings of hazards or other issues, but not persistent or uncounterable. For example, the "Hyrule Effect" can be avoided on Luigi's Mansion by destroying the stage, and Mario Circuit's hazards aren't entirely game-ending and can easily be played around, like Halberd's.

• Items
  • That's right, I think we should, at least for the time being, try competitive Smash with a limited Item set. They would open up a large new chunk of diversity in characters and strategies, as well as giving players capable of adapting on the fly more options over people who tend to stick with a static strategy in all matchups (HOO-HAW!) and diversifying Smash 4 as the "Strategy game" over Melee's "Skill game". With items on the board, stage control becomes drastically more important. In Smash 4, center stage control is not as important as it was in previous games. With so many safe defensive options beyond just not being in the way of the attack, a player can make do with a very small chunk of space with proper use of projectiles and defense (*cough*Dabuzz*cough*). This means that if an opponent is chilling at an edge, or on a far platform, or by the blast zone, you have plenty of space for items that might swing the game in your favor to spawn.

• Custom Moves
  • Unlike equipment, custom moves can easily be collected, especially with the Standardized Custom Moveset Project being a thing. This gives new diversity to the cast, as characters previously considered unusable in a competitive setting suddenly become completely viable (Ganondorf, Samus, Ike). This gives a boost in effectiveness to every character, by being able to pick the top choice of three for each move, however, characters with bad defaults tend to have nowhere to go but up, while characters that are already strong probably have their best options already laid out in front of them. Basically, allowing custom moves makes the worst characters much better, and the best characters only a little bit better, effectively evening the playing field.

• New Rules for Stage Selection
  • Who says we need to have a pick/counterpick distinction? With a larger variety of stages available, round one could be a full-list stage strike, and subsequent rounds can be dealt with by our current ban/pick setup. Once striking has already started, striking a larger stage list doesn't take up much more time. Logistically, the way to keep track of this is with the Random Stage Select screen as a visualization for striking. This has the added benefit, since Omega stages are on a separate tab from normal stages, you can set up the Omega stage random select as the "master list", and re-set the normal stage random list in between sets for the next round's FLSS. No outside pen or paper necessary.

• Sudden Death
  • I think it's got a bad rap for no real reason. I understand that some characters have advantages over others in Sudden Death, but characters have advantages over others in every other facet of the game and we allow that, right? You could say that it encourages camping to run out the clock, but so does having an instant decision made that declares someone the winner. The difference, though? In the new system, with Sudden Death playing out, the losing player is the one trying to avoid conflict, instead of the winning player. What does this mean? It means if the player manages to land a hit on the player trying to stall out the clock, he could potentially get the kill and end the game. In the current system, if the winning player starts trying to stall out the clock, the other player needs to get several lucky hits in to even stand a chance of ending the game favorably. Additionally, with the lack of certainty in Sudden Death, players are less likely to go for the stall, since, instead of being a guaranteed win based off of percentage, it's a veritable toss-up. This leads to all-around faster and more aggressive play in order to avoid the "Sudden Death Gamble".

• Stock Count
  • Now, this one has already been innovated in that it's been reduced to two. However, with the possibility of new changes on the horizon, this number should be re-evaluated. It's possible that the faster gameplay of unbanning certain stages and allowing items and Sudden Death might warrant adding a third or possibly even fourth stock back into the game. (But let's be real, best of 5 should be reserved for finals and finals only for the sake of time)

This is, in no way, attempting to say that this is the absolute necessary rule set that is objectively better, but what I am saying is that we should try a radical new rule set and ban as unassailable problems arise, rather than presuming problems and removing potential solutions before they've been thoroughly tried and tested.

I would appreciate that any discussion be open-minded, but I will accept any arguments against any of my points as well. Before commenting against, or in favor of, any points posed by anyone in this thread, please try to be aware of any cognitive bias you might have and ask yourself if you really know something won't work, or if you just think it won't.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

http://smashboards.com/threads/competitive-smash-ruleset-discussion.368605

 

[ATH_]

Smash 4 has never tried to be the "new melee" lol.
They are two entirely different games and should be treated as such. I personally am fine with how things are right now and I think that goes for most of the community as well.

 

[digiholic]

Smash 4 has never tried to be the "new melee" lol.
They are two entirely different games and should be treated as such. I personally am fine with how things are right now and I think that goes for most of the community as well.

Exactly, they should be treated differently. However, the current rule sets in place for tournaments are effectively "Melee rules, but less stocks".

 

[chaosmasterro]

This is actually a very interesting idea. I think people need to start playing around with different things. I'm not completely sold on items yet because I haven't been playing with items since 06. But having custom moves and new stages will definitely change the game up. Though without walk off stages I feel Mac may just become invincible.

 

[digiholic]

This is actually a very interesting idea. I think people need to start playing around with different things. I'm not completely sold on items yet because I haven't been playing with items since 06. But having custom moves and new stages will definitely change the game up. Though without walk off stages I feel Mac may just become invincible.

It's a distinct possibility that some characters drastically gain advantages on walk-off stages, but, if all of these changes were to come out simultaneously, you could easily strike them (less than half of the stages are walk-offs), try to outplay him with items when he counter-picks, then counter-pick another non-walk-off stage to take the set.

 

[ATH_]

Exactly, they should be treated differently. However, the current rule sets in place for tournaments are effectively "Melee rules, but less stocks".

Different characters, different stages, different amount of time/stocks depending on which you prefer, different mechanics, and different overall game. But oh, we use stage striking (WHICH ORIGINATED FROM BRAWL) and suddenly we're using "Melee rules"?

 

[digiholic]

Different characters, different stages, different amount of time/stocks depending on which you prefer, different mechanics, and different overall game. But oh, we use stage striking (WHICH ORIGINATED FROM BRAWL) and suddenly we're using "Melee rules"?

I said "Melee Rules" not "Melee characters, mechanics and techniques." The stock match + time limit format, the items set to off, the deciding of games that go to time based off of percentage, the general rules for which stages are allowed and which ones aren't, all from Melee. Brawl introduced stage striking, yes, but that doesn't mean we have to continue it.

 

[deepseadiva]

Rules are partly popularity-based. Mostly, the rules are based on objective criteria (timers to control tournament length), but honestly we're playing an invented game with invented rules made to taste.

No one wants to play with items. People seem okay with two stocks. Custom moves might need convincing.

Some of your suggestions are still not objectively viable for competition still... sudden death and equipment will never ever be used and weaken your overall suggestions.

 

[Muro]

• • Custom Equipment
    • This is not an issue of balance. This is an issue of availability. While there is a finite, easily collectible list of custom moves, equipment is effectively infinite. Until some way of transferring saves or unlocking a core stock via modding or some other simple method is available, this particular variant should be deferred for the time being.

There's a finite set of equipment without random stats easily attainable from the challenge rewards.

 

[digiholic]

Some of your suggestions are still not objectively viable for competition still... sudden death and equipment will never ever be used and weaken your overall suggestions.

Equipment is listed under things that will not be competitively viable, and I think I made a fairly good case for Sudden Death. It's something to be considered. Do you have any arguments against Sudden Death other than "no one does it"? That's the sort of thinking that I'm trying to get us to break away from. Arguments like that stifle discussion rather than encourage it. If it's been fully explored and discussed and decided against in the long run, then that's fine, but shutting down that discussion preemptively means we're missing a potential solution to the stalling problem.

There's a finite set of equipment without random stats easily attainable from the challenge rewards.

I hadn't thought about that, that's a good point. Is there a list of equipment that's available from challenges? If it's varied enough, that's something to be considered, but if it's a small set, it might not be worth the extra setup time.

 

[Muro]

I hadn't thought about that, that's a good point. Is there a list of equipment that's available from challenges? If it's varied enough, that's something to be considered, but if it's a small set, it might not be worth the extra setup time.

here's all I know of. There's likely more you can get as reward for events, but since it's character dependent (from what I've seen) I didn't bother to collect the stats etc.

Challenge   Name                                          Stats           Description
A1       Double Final Smasher Protection Badge      0a/-42s/+43d   After using a Final Smash, you have a 20% chance of being able to use it again
A2       Vampire Brawn Badge                         +25a/0s/-38d    recover damage relative to damage dealt
B2          Moon Launcher Protection Badge              0a/-30s/+37     1.3 attack power when launching enemies upward
B6          Item Hitter Agility Badge                   -40a/+33s/0d     1.5 attack power to battering items
D7          Caloric Immortal Protection Badge        0a/-38s/+26d      5 second invincibility after eating
E1          Desperate Specialist Agility Badge         -33a/+25s/0d    gradually increases attack defense and speed for 20 seconds when damage reaches 100%
E4       Perfect-Shield Helper Brawn Badge      +20a/0s/-35d     makes it easier to perfect shield
E5          Unharmed Attacker Agility Badge            -27a/+32s/0d     1.5x attack while at 0%
G1          Trade-Off Attacker Protection Badge        0a/-25s/+28d  start with 30% and have 1.15x attack.
I5          Unharmed Swift Striker Agility Badge       -27a/+23s/0d   gradually increases attack and speed while at 0%
J3          Speed Crasher Agility Badge                  -25a/+20s/0d      dash deals damage
K7          No-Flinch Smasher Protection Badge         0a/-29s/+15d  super armor while charging smash attacks
K9          Hyper Smasher Brawn Badge          +16a/0s/-28d            charge smash attacks for longer, smash attacks  get 1.3x power
L6          Nimble Dodger Agility Badge             -23a/+23s/0d    gives a little extra time to dodge an enemy attack
M2          Air Attacker Brawn Badge                +20a/0s/-19d       1.15 attack when in mid-air
N6          Shield Regenerator Protection Badge          0a/-16s+/10d    shield regenerates faster

 

[ATH_]

I said "Melee Rules" not "Melee characters, mechanics and techniques." The stock match + time limit format, the items set to off, the deciding of games that go to time based off of percentage, the general rules for which stages are allowed and which ones aren't, all from Melee. Brawl introduced stage striking, yes, but that doesn't mean we have to continue it.

These parts of the rules have been created over the course of 15 years. I think they are very trustworthy when it comes to being objective and competitively fair. They shouldn't be compared because they use a similar ruleset. The game has the same rule mechanics, so it makes sense to use the same or similar rulesets.

 

[digiholic]

These parts of the rules have been created over the course of 15 years. I think they are very trustworthy when it comes to being objective and competitively fair. They shouldn't be compared because they use a similar ruleset. The game has the same rule mechanics, so it makes sense to use the same or similar rulesets.

Again, if we're using the argument of "It's always been that way, why change it" then we're not discussing any potential improvements. If the end result of this thread is that everything stays exactly the same, that's fine, but I think that we should at least be discussing the potential for change. It's been 15 years of unquestioning support. I think it's fine to question authority. If the rules are truly the best and most fair rule set, then it'll stay, but if they're not the best, we won't find out by just sitting on them and not being open to criticism.

I want to emphasize, I am not saying that things must change, or even necessarily that they should change, just that they could change. Change will not come without questioning a few practices that we've had for a very long time. If you want to argue against any of my points, go ahead.

here's all I know of. There's likely more you can get as reward for events, but since it's character dependent (from what I've seen) I didn't bother to collect the stats etc.

That's a decent list, but I think for equipment to really take off, we'd need some generic non-effect moves that just tweak stats. It's certainly worth discussing at least. Some of those might be too strong, but that's up for debate. I'll add it to the OP.

There's the possibility of allowing one piece of equipment on that list for a character. That might be interesting. Gives you access to a unique effect without getting bogged down by so many that it becomes hard to follow.

 

[ATH_]

Again, if we're using the argument of "It's always been that way, why change it" then we're not discussing any potential improvements. If the end result of this thread is that everything stays exactly the same, that's fine, but I think that we should at least be discussing the potential for change. It's been 15 years of unquestioning support. I think it's fine to question authority. If the rules are truly the best and most fair rule set, then it'll stay, but if they're not the best, we won't find out by just sitting on them and not being open to criticism.

Ah, you see, that's not my point at all. I for one am the kind of person who hates the "it's always been this way" argument because it's stupidly biased and all around our society.
What I'm saying is that it IS balanced and it IS competitive. It is most likely the best we'll get out of rulesets because of the game's limitations itself. 15 years of unquestioning? I would use this thread and many others as evidence that it has NOT been unquestioned. If you knew anything about the Melee and Smash 4 community, you'd know that the Melee rules went under SEVERE changes multiple times and eventually settled for it's current ruleset due to Brawl's stage striking method and many other factors. People have tried to give possible changes, such as Character draft banning, Full stage striking, Dave's Stupid Rule, All Starter Striking, and things similar. Not to mention Customs, Equipment, and using 5+ Player Smash as a Hazards Off option.

Trust me, there have been LOTS of changes and possible ways to change it. The reason why it doesn't change NOW is not because "it's always been this way", it's because in most people's minds we have found the optimal ruleset. I am VERY open to new ideas and considerations, but if something isn't competitively balanced, then it shouldn't be considered.

However, I am interested, as said, what ideas do you have in particular to change the current ruleset?

 

[SpandexBullets]

Equipment is a must have for me.
I'm currently trying to nail down 3 great effects with little to no stat changes, and while that seems tedious, it only has be done once.Current focus includes (but not limited to): Dodgy dodger, Smooth landing, Anchor Jump. I have 2/3, and they work really well together - just need that third piece...and hey, just gotta get it once! Then I can share it with local players and see if anyone wants to pursue something like this.
Plus, we are vastly underrating all the creative possibilities given with smash 4.
I think everybody should with the equipment available should be testing out how certain effects work with certain stat boosts/custom moves.
We might not make a melee-esque game, but we might end up with more than one.

I also have an itch to alter stats of certain characters along with specific movesets. I want to make clones.

 

[digiholic]

Ah, you see, that's not my point at all. I for one am the kind of person who hates the "it's always been this way" argument because it's stupidly biased and all around our society.
What I'm saying is that it IS balanced and it IS competitive. It is most likely the best we'll get out of rulesets because of the game's limitations itself. 15 years of unquestioning? I would use this thread and many others as evidence that it has NOT been unquestioned. If you knew anything about the Melee and Smash 4 community, you'd know that the Melee rules went under SEVERE changes multiple times and eventually settled for it's current ruleset due to Brawl's stage striking method and many other factors. People have tried to give possible changes, such as Character draft banning, Full stage striking, Dave's Stupid Rule, All Starter Striking, and things similar. Not to mention Customs, Equipment, and using 5+ Player Smash as a Hazards Off option.

Trust me, there have been LOTS of changes and possible ways to change it. The reason why it doesn't change NOW is not because "it's always been this way", it's because in most people's minds we have found the optimal ruleset. I am VERY open to new ideas and considerations, but if something isn't competitively balanced, then it shouldn't be considered

That's fair. I still think that laying out the options and re-evaluating everything from scratch is something that should be done from time to time, if only just so we can double down on our conviction to keep things the same.

However, I am interested, as said, what ideas do you have in particular to change the current ruleset?

Well, the big changes I think should be in place are custom moves, full-list stage strike, and Sudden Death. Walk-offs, items, and potentially equipment I don't think will be used in the long run, but I'm not ready to assume that without data.

I know Sudden Death is controversial, and I would absolutely not advocate for it for Melee, Brawl, or PM, but I think that at least for Smash 4, it shouldn't be ignored. Time stalling is absolutely a viable strategy in Smash 4, especially since the standard is two stock, six minutes. I described my reasons in the OP, but basically, it puts the "stall tactic" in the hands of the losing player instead of the winning player. This has two benefits, for one, the "better" player is now the one that has to have the breakthrough, which means the stall tactic is less likely to be effective. Another is that, assuming the stalling player is as good as or better than the winning player, there is still the chance that a lucky strike will end the stall, rather than just closing the gap slightly, as the player stalling is likely at a very high percentage, trying to avoid dying to have another shot at an equal battle in Sudden Death.

Equipment is a must have for me.
I'm currently trying to nail down 3 great effects with little to no stat changes, and while that seems tedious, it only has be done once.Current focus includes (but not limited to): Dodgy dodger, Smooth landing, Anchor Jump. I have 2/3, and they work really well together - just need that third piece...and hey, just gotta get it once! Then I can share it with local players and see if anyone wants to pursue something like this.
Plus, we are vastly underrating all the creative possibilities given with smash 4.
I think everybody should with the equipment available should be testing out how certain effects work with certain stat boosts/custom moves.
We might not make a melee-esque game, but we might end up with more than one.

So, you're looking to get all three of those effects with a net stat of +0? Godspeed my friend. I have yet to even find all of those. If it works, and there's a way to transfer it to tournaments everywhere, that could certainly be a thing.

 

[T0MMY]

I evaluate a game from ground up each time a new one is released despite being so similar to the others in the series.

I've found that items probably still shouldn't be used due to impeding competition by accidentally picking up a randomly spawned item (at least they don't randomly blow up now).

HOWEVER!

I believe Smashballs are competitively viable. They spawn in a specific area, cannot be accidentally picked up, and must be strategically broken open to gain the Final Smash.
The Final Smashes look to have been balanced from Brawl and then further balanced from the testing (like the Nintendo Invite where ZSS's was OP and appears to be nerfed).

Custom Moves probably won't be used due to logistics and other problems, but keeping it open as an option is there.

And Sudden Death being played out is far more competitively viable than %-based wins. The reason behind using it is that it "rewards" the player who is "winning" - but it cannot work in all cases or even most cases in a game designed the way Smash is!
Think about a character in free-fall getting KO'd at the bottom of the screen at 0% and the opponent on-stage at 1% when time runs out. Who is "winning"? The person who is literally going to lose one second later or the guy with his feet on the stage at 1% when the time runs out?
Same goes with a star KO. It takes a couple seconds to score a KO in the background so if time runs out the moment before the KO is scored who is "winning"? The guy who is at high damage on the stage or the one with a few less percent literally in a death animatino?

Open and shut case. It's up to the Smash Community to grow a pair and give a competitively viable alternative or play out Sudden Death the way the game was designed.

 

[Gunla]

@ digiholic
Merged your previous thread with this thread.

 

[digiholic]

@ digiholic
Merged your previous thread with this thread.

Thank you for that. Sorry for cluttering the board.

I believe Smashballs are competitively viable. They spawn in a specific area, cannot be accidentally picked up, and must be strategically broken open to gain the Final Smash.
The Final Smashes look to have been balanced from Brawl and then further balanced from the testing (like the Nintendo Invite where ZSS's was OP and appears to be nerfed).

Now, that's something. I do think that Smash Balls aren't quite as powerful as they were before, and easily avoidable if you're quick enough. (Ledge snap invincibility plus getup plus shield means you can avoid a good majority of the tough ones)

And Sudden Death being played out is far more competitively viable than %-based wins. The reason behind using it is that it "rewards" the player who is "winning" - but it cannot work in all cases or even most cases in a game designed the way Smash is!
Think about a character in free-fall getting KO'd at the bottom of the screen at 0% and the opponent on-stage at 1% when time runs out. Who is "winning"? The person who is literally going to lose one second later or the guy with his feet on the stage at 1% when the time runs out?
Same goes with a star KO. It takes a couple seconds to score a KO in the background so if time runs out the moment before the KO is scored who is "winning"? The guy who is at high damage on the stage or the one with a few less percent literally in a death animatino?

Open and shut case. It's up to the Smash Community to grow a pair and give a competitively viable alternative or play out Sudden Death the way the game was designed.

I'd be fine with a one-stock rematch even if people are really opposed to Sudden Death. The point is that instead of instantly deciding the game, it resets it to neutral, meaning a player who was losing has a shot to get back into the game, but it's not a guarantee. The problem with a one-stock rematch is time, really. Sudden Death has the benefit of being over and done with in a few seconds at most.

 

[T0MMY]

I used to favor a 1-stock rematch, but it seems about as arbitrary as %-based wins (still favor 1SR more though).

When it came down to hard reasoning I could not refute Sudden Death and still welcome anyone who has a logical argument why %-based wins should be used instead.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hey guys, 11 starters. What's the optimal strike order?

 

[ZephyrZ]

If we're talking about Sudden Death...why not just turn on handicap instead and have the two players fight at 300% or something. That way, you have the basic tie breaker idea down, but no random ba-bombs falling from the sky.

Of course, this idea has probably been suggested before, so I'm sure there's some reason we're not doing that.

HOWEVER!

I believe Smashballs are competitively viable. They spawn in a specific area, cannot be accidentally picked up, and must be strategically broken open to gain the Final Smash.
The Final Smashes look to have been balanced from Brawl and then further balanced from the testing (like the Nintendo Invite where ZSS's was OP and appears to be nerfed).

It would favor characters with better air games, and just because the final smashes are better balanced then in Brawl doesn't mean they're balanced. Compare Jigglypuff's to Lucario's, for instance.
And does it appear at a set time, to? If not, then there's still some random element to it.

For example...
Could we really call it fair if Sonic is getting his rear kicked by a Little Mac, and then suddenly, the Smash Ball pops up? Little Mac will be at a massive disadvantage in grabbing the ball because of his awful air game. It could completely turn around a battle that rightfully belongs to the Little Mac otherwise. I suppose you could argue that all characters are meant to have certain advantages, but an easy Final Smash is far too much of one.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

FWIW the Smash Ball seems to be a lot rarer than in Brawl. Back then, if you had Smash Balls only then you'd get about one a minute even if they were set to low. In 4, I was doing mindless one stock matches against the AI for the "use all final smashes" challenge and Smash Balls only, high frequency, sometimes took upwards of 4 minutes for one to spawn. I counted.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

The problem with Smash Balls is the way they're implemented into the game. Right when it appears, the focus of the game changes from beating each other up to beating up the smash ball. This can potentially slow what many call an already slow game. Furthermore, once that Ball is popped, it becomes a game of cat-and-mouse. I mean, if people get antsy when Little Mac has his KO Punch ready, then people will definitely do their best to run away when their opponent has a Final Smash.

Concerning Sudden Deaths, Jebailey was actually interested in looking for an alternative to the % timeout rule for CEO. @SmashCapps was kind enough to point out the Fandango Timeout Clause from brawl's days.