Stock count, Offstage play, and Hype

[B1gBandJazZ]

Hey guys, just wanted to post some of my thoughts on why 3-stocks for Smash 4 can, and should be, the norm.

Before I go on, *Please take a look* at this extremely hype money match between Izaw (Link) and Haze (Captain Falcon).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBrvgR-c1VQ

It's an incredible Best of 7 set. Here, we see two very high-level Smashers, playing five matches on four different stages, and neither player playing as Diddy Kong (nothing against Diddy players though, haha).
This is probably my favorite video of competitive Smash 4 so far, for a wide range of reasons:


Stock Count


Notice how every game is 3 stocks. Yet, (at least to me), none of the stocks felt like they were dragging or getting boring. In fact, the longest drought (time between a stock being lost) was in game 3, which lasted only 1 minute and 12 seconds. (starts at 8:57)

Game 3 also had the shortest drought in the entire set, lasting a mere 9 seconds (starts at 10:12).
I did some math, calculating the amount of time it took for each player to take the other's stocks:
On average, there was a drought of 41.71 seconds between each stock. In my opinion, that's not too bad.
Speaking of time, I think it's quite interesting to see how long each game took:

Game 1 - 3:43

Game 2 - 2:33

Game 3 - 2:39

Game 4 - 2:58

Game 5 - 2:43

None of these games ever passed 4 minutes in length, which I think is extremely impressive.


Offstage Play


Check out 11:10 in the video. Here in Game 4, Falcon down throws Link and waits for Link's air dodge to go for an Up air. At this point, both players are off stage on the left hand side. For the next 10 seconds, Izaw and Haze battle it out off stage, before going back to neutral.

While this may not be the most entertaining segment of the set, it illustrates a major point of this game that I believe not enough players are utilizing in their play: offstage gameplay.

One of the main criticisms I've seen of Smash 4 is that the recoveries of most of the characters are ridiculously good. Couple this with the ledge trump mechanics, and it would appear that players have incredible difficulty at netting those K.O.'s

This is, of course, if we're talking about just staying on stage and getting our K.O’s by smash attacks and Star K.O’s.

Every iteration of Smash can be boiled down to certain, basic levels of gameplay:

1. Neutral - Players tack on damage and try to gain positional advantage. Keitaro and False from Rush Hour Smash have an excellent video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWXCTKKDV0
2. Punish- Taking advantage of an opponent's mistake(s), and capitalizing on it to rack on huge damage or gain the K.O.
   
3. Ledge - Knocking a player off the stage, and securing the K.O with either an edgeguard or edgehog.

That last part is incredibly huge in this newest iteration of Smash, as now players can utilize their “ridiculous recoveries” and “ledge trumping mechanics” to secure their K.O’s far off the stage. Not only does this allow for quicker matches, but can also lead to some extremely hype offstage play.

Speaking of hype…


Hype

There was some extremely hype highlights in this match. Just check out the sick stomp KO, starting at 10:11, or the insane off stage gimps starting at 13:44, as well as a plethora of hype kills during the montage starting at 17:06. Obviously, both these players are aware of their characters’ offstage presence, what attacks string together with other attacks, etc. There’s a lot going on in just this video alone, and I believe that it’s a great example of how future Smash 4 matches can go if players utilize their offstage gameplay more and take more risks with their edge guards. Just this alone can lead to some hype sets, and I’m quite excited to see how the competitive scene evolves.


Thanks for reading guys, and I’d love to discuss your thoughts on everything I’ve talked about here.


TL;DR: More offstage gameplay and riskier edge guards can lead to hype sets, making 3 stock matches exciting to watch.

 

[Asdioh]

As much as I like 3 stock and offstage play, there are some things to note here:

-The time taken is character dependent. No matter how badly players may want to create hype matches, if they're playing certain characters, it's less likely than in this specific example.

-These two have a bit of a friendly rivalry, from my understanding. Although a big chunk of money was on the line, I'm sure part of their intention to enjoy themselves and creating hype, more than you would see in your average tournament match. Notice the Captain Falcon taunts even when he was losing, he was there for the fun of it.

-Link and Falcon both have bad recoveries, and good ways to edgeguard each other. That makes offstage play much easier and more rewarding. If they were against Sheik or something, going offstage would be high risk for them, so you would see them go there less often.

I highly enjoyed the matches and agree with your points, but I just wanted to point those few things out. If we saw these same players playing against other players/cahracters in a high stakes tournament match, there would certainly be hype moments, but I'd be willing to bet games would take at least a little longer.

So to your points: Stock count, offstage play, and hype:

Stock count: I prefer 3 stocks for sure! But I can understand if some tournaments use 2 stocks instead, because they can end up dragging on a loooong time. Same with Melee honestly, I enjoy watching 4 stocks, but it would also make sense to use 3 when you have a billion players entering.

Offstage play: I main Kirby, of course I encourage offstage play!

Hype: Yay hype!

 

[ぱみゅ]

Sorry, this argument is weak.
You can't conclude anything from a couple games from the same two people and characters.
Here is but one example of the complete opposite of your post.

 

[Pazx]

If anything this just displays how good Izaw is. Unimpressed that you're trying to use this to justify 3 stocks. Agree with you that offstage play is important and at this point isn't being done properly.

 

[KurashiDragon]

Kyokuro, that match was..... rather bad. Both players were playing like complete and utter derps. Babe just spammed gordo's all day long and Met was not punishing that in the slightest. I was unsure if Sheik could reflect gordos at the beginning (in which case, in addition to the fact that he got 2 stocked twice, why didn't he switch characters) until I saw Sheik's Fair do so. At that point I just face palmed. Met's Sheik in general was just....... eeeehhhhh. Finally, PS2....... why that was even a stage option, I'll never know but because of this stage, there was a whole lot of camping. All in all, that fight was not very good in the slightest and doesn't actually help your Counterpoint if it was what I thought it was. If your point was that you cant make an argument for Smash 4 mechanics with just one video, I'd agree with you completely. You're video would say that Smash 4 is stupidly defensive and terrible stage options which Smash 4 is not in either case. I'm sorry if this seems rather harsh but I'm not really sure how else to put it. That was a bad match.

 

[κomıc]

That was a really fun match to watch. I love how that Link played. It's a nice break from all the Diddy matches I watched over the weekend.

 

[Chiroz]

Kyokuro, that match was..... rather bad. Both players were playing like complete and utter derps. Babe just spammed gordo's all day long and Met was not punishing that in the slightest. I was unsure if Sheik could reflect gordos at the beginning (in which case, in addition to the fact that he got 2 stocked twice, why didn't he switch characters) until I saw Sheik's Fair do so. At that point I just face palmed. Met's Sheik in general was just....... eeeehhhhh. Finally, PS2....... why that was even a stage option, I'll never know but because of this stage, there was a whole lot of camping. All in all, that fight was not very good in the slightest and doesn't actually help your Counterpoint if it was what I thought it was. If your point was that you cant make an argument for Smash 4 mechanics with just one video, I'd agree with you completely. You're video would say that Smash 4 is stupidly defensive and terrible stage options which Smash 4 is not in either case. I'm sorry if this seems rather harsh but I'm not really sure how else to put it. That was a bad match.

Excuse me if I am wrong, but doesn't every attack in the game have the ability (or possibility) to reflect Gordos? The way I understood it was that Gordo's, just like Pac-Man's hydrant, have an specific amount of HP depending on which throw Dedede used. If enough damage is dealt then the Gordo is reflected. I tested this with Falco's lasers and Greninja's shurikens and it worked (2-3 lasers reflect the Gordo for the strongest throw, 1-2 for the weakest), I then concluded that the hp was about 3-8% depending on which throw was used.

Am I wrong?

 

[ICYoshi]

Excuse me if I am wrong, but doesn't every attack in the game have the ability (or possibility) to reflect Gordos? The way I understood it was that Gordo's, just like Pac-Man's hydrant, have an specific amount of HP depending on which throw Dedede used. If enough damage is dealt then the Gordo is reflected. I tested this with Falco's lasers and Greninja's shurikens and it worked (2-3 lasers reflect the Gordo for the strongest throw, 1-2 for the weakest), I then concluded that the hp was about 3-8% depending on which throw was used.

Am I wrong?

In the most recent patch it takes 2-3% to reflect a gordo back. So most jabs, tilts and aerials will do the job.

 

[moreside]

Stock Count: I like two stocks. Shorter is better, especially in this game. The amount of time a match takes is entirely matchup dependant - if the set you posted was something like Sonic v. Peach, then it would've been much longer. The biggest arguments against two stock are that it's more punishing on SDs and it doesn't allow for comebacks. The first point is null - if you're bad enough to SD, you deserve your loss. The second point is fallacious, comebacks happen regardless of stocks.

Offstage Play: I agree that this is important, but it's not as viable as you'd think. The way air dodging works, you can actually go offstage for an edgeguard and end up losing while the other guy recovers. This is again character dependant, like Dr. Mario definitely can't go offstage against Sheik. I think that offstage play will become bigger as the game progresses, but air dodges and recoveries are just too good - reward vs. risk doesn't balance out a lot of the time.

Hype: Hype is always a positive thing, but again - matchup dependant. For example, Sonic is played in a totally anti-hype way, but sadly it's not the player's fault, it's just the way the game works in combination with the way the character is designed. And then we have Diddy who can win off of a single combo. This is boring to watch, but again, can't fault the player for using their best option.

tl;dr Offstage play and riskier edgeguards just aren't viable most of the time. Two stocks helps fix this problem by speeding up anti-hype matches that would otherwise drag.

 

[Teh Sandwich]

Smash 4 is legit. i have never had a game that I felt truly camped out; like I had no option to approach. On both ladders and in person tourneys. No character has a flawless projectile game. In fact, most of the top characters (diddy, sheik, Zss, sonic) all rely upon a strong offensive game... I think that the people who complain the most haven't actually taken the time to learn this game; just head straight for the boards to talk ****.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Smash 4 is legit. i have never had a game that I felt truly camped out; like I had no option to approach. On both ladders and in person tourneys. No character has a flawless projectile game. In fact, most of the top characters (diddy, sheik, Zss, sonic) all rely upon a strong offensive game... I think that the people who complain the most haven't actually taken the time to learn this game; just head straight for the boards to talk ****.

Play any good Sonic and you'll probably change your mind quite quickly.

Many characters are predisposed to a campy playstyle. Diddy, ZSS, and Sonic thrive off the fact that they utterly dominate the mid-range, which does allow them to create offensive positions better than other characters, but more often than not, it means that they cause the game to go to a standstill. That's just kind of how speed/mobility disparities work in Smash, period, really.

 

[David Viran]

Play any good Sonic and you'll probably change your mind quite quickly.

Many characters are predisposed to a campy playstyle. Diddy, ZSS, and Sonic thrive off the fact that they utterly dominate the mid-range, which does allow them to create offensive positions better than other characters, but more often than not, it means that they cause the game to go to a standstill. That's just kind of how speed/mobility disparities work in Smash, period, really.

Diddy and zss matches don't really relay on stalling very much but certain sonic MU's, that is what sonic kind of has to do. Have you seen zero's diddy or leon's zss they are pretty aggressive.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Those characters have the flexibility to do as they please, is the thing. Problem with that is how playing reactive/defensive is safer and more reliable, which generally proves to be more useful at a high level.

You never have to camp; people do it because it's safe and reliable; they do it because it seems to be the best possible strategy.

Yes, they have the tools to go in once they are in, but before then the best strategy is often to wait, wait, and wait some more.

 

[KiteSC]

Those characters have the flexibility to do as they please, is the thing. Problem with that is how playing reactive/defensive is safer and more reliable, which generally proves to be more useful at a high level.

You never have to camp; people do it because it's safe and reliable; they do it because it seems to be the best possible strategy.

Yes, they have the tools to go in once they are in, but before then the best strategy is often to wait, wait, and wait some more.

Also that mind set is usually what happens when a game is just starting out and hasn't been learn properly yet. Unless the game specifically rewards heavy defense, people later figure out how to properly deploy offense. But until then, taking advantage of mistakes is easier since no one is playing perfectly yet.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I dunno in this game. Trying to camp too hard with mobility is kinda scary. Every time you jump you have to face a potentially unsafe landing due to how airdodge landing lag works, and ledges are no longer fortresses. That makes running away like in Brawl a lot harder, and while you can kinda do it some, I feel like trying to do it too much just makes you lose. I play really defensively with Rosalina, but that's more about Luma mechanics than about her (not very impressive) mobility.

I actually think offense and defense have a good balance in this game. Like let's really look at Zero Suit Samus. On one hand, ZSS has really great tools for a defensive playstyle like Reflex is talking about. Her general mobility is already good and her down special is just such a good escape that is so often safe. She has long limbs, a tether attack, and a good projectile. That lets her play a really patient game really well. On the other hand, Boost Kick is just such a ridiculous move in ambiguous situations, and her frame advantage on a lot of stuff makes it really easy for her to create those situations just by going in. Seriously, character can kill at stupid early percents with the move, and there's pretty much a direct correlation to how good it is versus how aggro the ZSS plays. Her grab is really bad. She can pressure well with her normals when she's pushing aggro to make that not such a big deal, but if she slows the game down and plays more defensively, it's going to really hurt her ability to deal with opposing defenses. I'm more scared of the aggro ZSS mostly because that's what DeLux does locally and he wins a lot, but I see a lot of merit to both schools of thought and think it just shows depth in the game that there's that kind of flexibility. I see similar kinds of parallel arguments being able to be raised for a lot of characters; I think the game does impose some limits both on going in too hard and in playing too passively, but I feel like in the middle there's a lot of wiggle room to be more of an offensive or defensive player.

As per the other side of the topic, I really prefer 3 stock since not only is the game usually running at a decent clip but Lucario and Little Mac are just too high variance of characters for 2 stock in my opinion. With those two in play and how ridiculously explosive they can be when things are going well for them, it's too easy to just lose a game from one mistake in 2 stock, and I really don't like that. I don't think it has a lot to do with offense vs defense here; I just find 3 stock games more consistent.