Why We Use Stock and Time

[Overswarm]

and what that means for Smash 4's settings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whAmI2HdBqw


Apex's 2 stock 6 minute settings and Evo's proposed 2 stock 5 minute settings were deeply troubling to me, especially since we've been playing 3 stock in my region since the game's release and having no issues with low setup counts for 50 to 80 man tournaments.

I then realized a lot of people don't know why we use stock or a timer in the first place, so I thought I'd go over the concept.

 

[Shadó Chimera / シャドーキメラ]

Is there data that shows that 2 stock matches last longer than 3 stock matches?

 

[MajorMajora]

Enlightening.

 

[popsofctown]

Is there data that shows that 2 stock matches last longer than 3 stock matches?

There might be some leftover data from Melee or Brawl, but I doubt Smash 4 has enough of a sample to work with yet

 

[Overswarm]

Is there data that shows that 2 stock matches last longer than 3 stock matches?

Yes, although more should always be collected! There's a thread in one of the Smash 4 forums with a guy taking a more concerted approach using just Smash 4 data.

I did something similar in Brawl. People considered the ratio to be the most important part, but what we found is that timeouts only occur when the timer gets close to 0 naturally; most people are willing to camp at around the 1 to 1:30 minutes left range.

 

[Thinkaman]

People considered the ratio to be the most important part, but what we found is that timeouts only occur when the timer gets close to 0 naturally; most people are willing to camp at around the 1 to 1:30 minutes left range.

This.

 

[Gawain]

Yes, although more should always be collected! There's a thread in one of the Smash 4 forums with a guy taking a more concerted approach using just Smash 4 data.

I did something similar in Brawl. People considered the ratio to be the most important part, but what we found is that timeouts only occur when the timer gets close to 0 naturally; most people are willing to camp at around the 1 to 1:30 minutes left range.

I really don't think timeouts are the issue here. It's more about how long the games take overall, and how long that will take in a tournament. I was at Evo 2014, and Melee went WAY over it's scheduled time. Smash has always had this issue of brackets running on forever and it's mostly because the rounds go on so long. Smash fans are (mostly) used to it, but regular fighting game players, who are used to seeing 90 second Bo3 per round or some variation like life carryover, don't like it. Whether Smashers want to accept it or not, Evo is a lot more about traditional fighters than Smash. It's got roots in Street Fighter. So their opinion is extremely important in regards to the Evo series.

What I'm trying to say, is if Melee takes that long, Smash 4 has the possibility of running much, much longer than that. The 5 minute time limit is probably partly because that's just what lots of people have been doing for a while now, and partly because they're worried about it going on a long time. Especially with Melee there too. And it's not like the worries are unfounded. Smash 4 at Apex took quite a long time. I don't even remember what time it was when Melee finally started and ended, but it was super late.

Also I'm not sure if I agree that lower time will increase tournament length overall. If that were the case, why don't people try to time each other out in fighters with 90 second timers more often? I think the issue with time is that matchups involving tournament-popular characters like Rosalina are just going to take a long time, regardless of what you set the timer to. It's just the nature of the matchup. The 5 minute threshold at least puts a limit on it, making it easier to plan the rest of the event around it. If what you are saying was true, then there'd be no timer in any fighting game.

 

[Judo777]

I really don't think timeouts are the issue here. It's more about how long the games take overall, and how long that will take in a tournament. I was at Evo 2014, and Melee went WAY over it's scheduled time. Smash has always had this issue of brackets running on forever and it's mostly because the rounds go on so long. Smash fans are (mostly) used to it, but regular fighting game players, who are used to seeing 90 second Bo3 per round or some variation like life carryover, don't like it. Whether Smashers want to accept it or not, Evo is a lot more about traditional fighters than Smash. It's got roots in Street Fighter. So their opinion is extremely important in regards to the Evo series.

What I'm trying to say, is if Melee takes that long, Smash 4 has the possibility of running much, much longer than that. The 5 minute time limit is probably partly because that's just what lots of people have been doing for a while now, and partly because they're worried about it going on a long time. Especially with Melee there too. And it's not like the worries are unfounded. Smash 4 at Apex took quite a long time. I don't even remember what time it was when Melee finally started and ended, but it was super late.

Also I'm not sure if I agree that lower time will increase tournament length overall. If that were the case, why don't people try to time each other out in fighters with 90 second timers more often? I think the issue with time is that matchups involving tournament-popular characters like Rosalina are just going to take a long time, regardless of what you set the timer to. It's just the nature of the matchup. The 5 minute threshold at least puts a limit on it, making it easier to plan the rest of the event around it. If what you are saying was true, then there'd be no timer in any fighting game.

Because timing people out in other fighters is significantly harder than in smash. In other fighters you have a health bar, so at the end of a match any slight hit or clip can kill you. Factoring in high damage combos, you have to completely avoid the opponent on a significantly smaller screen than in smash. Running away is hard, and most timeouts involve the player keeping the other player out with pokes and zoning rather than straight up avoidance. You have to remain offensive (in some sense, you are attacking) to time someone out.

In smash there is a gigantic space to play in. Completely avoiding the other player is completely possible (obviously MU dependent). More so any slight hit or clip will NOT kill you. You have to land kill moves (typically slow moves with high startup or specific postioning) to take a stock, so timing out with a stock lead is even easier. They really aren't even remotely similar in that sense.

 

[popsofctown]

I think the model is something like this, with different numbers:
There's default playstyle where you are dishing out about 2% per second and taking 2% per second on average. After 300 seconds that's usually plenty and someone will die.

Then there's an alternate playstyle where you are dishing out 0.5% per second and taking 0.75% per second. It's not in your favor as much as the default level of aggression, which is why you don't literally jab your opponent once and begin looking at the timer.

But the lower the timer is overall, the more likely it is that one player will have an edge with a small amount of time left, and say, "Hey, there's only 4 seconds for every 1% of lead I have, it's in my favor to go for that advantage in the other since it's less volatile".

If players always look at the clock and never see 4 seconds for every 1% of lead they have, they'll never adopt that strategy. So they'll stick to the strategy where they deal about as much damage as their opponent and try to edge out ahead.

When you pull the timer lower, the 2%-2% trades are more and more volatile and able to generate leads that correspond to the amount of remaining time and invite cautious play.

What's about worse than matches taking longer (on average, not on max) is that the 0.5% vs. 0.75% playstyle is not as much fun to practice, use, explore, and develop.

 

[Gawain]

Because timing people out in other fighters is significantly harder than in smash. In other fighters you have a health bar, so at the end of a match any slight hit or clip can kill you. Factoring in high damage combos, you have to completely avoid the opponent on a significantly smaller screen than in smash. Running away is hard, and most timeouts involve the player keeping the other player out with pokes and zoning rather than straight up avoidance. You have to remain offensive (in some sense, you are attacking) to time someone out.

In smash there is a gigantic space to play in. Completely avoiding the other player is completely possible (obviously MU dependent). More so any slight hit or clip will NOT kill you. You have to land kill moves (typically slow moves with high startup or specific postioning) to take a stock, so timing out with a stock lead is even easier. They really aren't even remotely similar in that sense.

Fair enough in some regard. I don't think it ultimately means anything in regards to the current concern of Evo though. I don't really see how the timer actually impacts things much other than putting a hard cap on round times. I dont think the psychological aspect is as big as it's being made out to be. If we have a higher timer and more stock, what's stopping the player in the lead from seeing the same advantage in the timer as he would were he in the lead with less time?

Someone else seemed to mention that the campier play netted more damage on the camper over time as well? I don't think that really is true for the matchups in this game that actually have the potential to go over time. I would hardly say playing reactiactively is suboptimal for Rosalina and the like.

 

[Overswarm]

http://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/2wdbbx/why_we_use_stock_and_time_overswarm/

A reddit thread, for those who are inclined to that sort of thing

 

[Raijinken]

Time planning is best done in a worst-case scenario, which means that we're looking at (just for matches, not counting striking, character picks, fingerwarming, coaching, etc) a maximum of 18 minutes for a Bo3 with 2/6 in place, versus 24 minutes for a Bo3 with 3/8 in place. Again without looking at in-between activities, a 3/8 set in worst-case takes time that could handle a 33% increase in matches completed under a 2/6 ruleset (three matches in 24 minutes compared to 4 matches in the same). From that stance exclusively, it's fairly clear that 2/6 is more efficient.

But that's not the only stance. Again, players play more defensively when they have more to lose per mistake. I'm not sure about data, but there's a fairly justified opinion floating around that a player will play more aggressively (if it suits their character) when there is more leeway for error. When a mistake will cost you 50% of your total endurance, one will be far less adventuresome when the same mistake could cost at most 33.3repeat% of your total endurance. It remains to be decisively seen (at least in my experience) whether or not the supposed increased aggression from 3stock makes average time less. But it's useful to note that, if such an aggession disparity is proven, then playing with a 6 minute limit means it takes less defensive play to push players toward the time range in which stalling becomes a far more likely solution to the match.

In other words, if we run with the given assumptions, compared to 3/8, 2/6 would result in more defensive play that more quickly reaches the critical point that results in a match going to time due to a time-out strategy. Thus, it would stand to reason, you would have a greater number of games going to time (whether that is desired or not depends almost wholly on a player's experiences, tastes, and the movement speed of their main, but it's fair to say spectators on the whole don't like stalling as a strategy) if you use a 2/6 setup.

Where it matters is whether or not the average match length, weighted by resolution method, is shorter or longer than 3/8. If timeouts only happen in 5% of 3/8 games, and the otherwise average is 3 minutes (depends on matchup, naturally), your average match time is only 3.15 minutes over all. If we say 10% of 2/6 games go to time, and the otherwise average is 3 minutes, you end up with an average of 3.3 minutes per game. Of course, those timeout frequencies and average match lengths are just guesses, but they could analyzed better with actual data, which itself could quite possibly vary region-to-region.

Basically, it's rather impossible to judge meaningfully without real data from both rulesets. Personally, I err on the side of 3/8, but I run a 2-8-person event with only loosely preferential time constraints, not a large tournament. I'd rather some of the larger recurring tournaments toy around with the rules over multiple weeks and keep data on it than for us to jump to 2/6 based on theory alone.

 

[Octagon]

I think the for glory way, 2 stock 5 min is perfect. It gives plenty of time for the two fighters to finish the match, and even if they are playing campy they will probably lose to time if that's all they are doing which is their punishment for being campy. The whole whoever has more percent at the end of time when at the same stock works perfectly and that must keep going

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Smash fans are (mostly) used to it, but regular fighting game players, who are used to seeing 90 second Bo3 per round or some variation like life carryover, don't like it. Whether Smashers want to accept it or not, Evo is a lot more about traditional fighters than Smash. It's got roots in Street Fighter. So their opinion is extremely important in regards to the Evo series.

As someone who primarily plays and helps run tournaments for other fighting games and has only recently gotten acquainted with competitive Smash, I just wanted to comment further on this point.

Street Fighter 4 has a maximum of 99 seconds per round across a maximum of 3 rounds per game. (under 5 minutes max)
Marvel vs. Capcom 3 has a maximum of 99 "seconds" (about 200 real-life seconds) per a single-round game. (under 3.5 minutes max)
Tekken Tag Tournament 2 has a maximum of 80 seconds per round across a maximum of 5 rounds per game. (6 min 40 sec max)

Every other modern fighting game I know of falls somewhere within that range, and it's extremely rare for a match in any of those games to run out the clock in every round. The classic Smash standard of 8 minutes per game just looks absurd in comparison. To put it in perspective, the only mainstream fighting game I know of that had the potential to go beyond that length was Capcom vs. SNK 2, which had 99 seconds per round over a maximum of 5 rounds (8 min 15 sec max). And even though 5 straight time-outs in a single game were just as rare in CvS2 as they are in most other games (probably more so, in fact, due to the way that life carryover was diminished if a round went to time-out), that game was nevertheless infamous for being a time-waster in tournaments. I know that at least one year's EVO ran the CvS2 tournament in a single-game format. Not best of 5, not best of 3, but just a single game per match. Only grand finals were run 2 out of 3.

Every once in a while, different communities lobby TOs for longer match lengths for their games. You might recall that the MvC3 standard was best of 3 games per match early in that game's life, but it was moved to best of 5 nationwide at some point. The main reason the MvC3 community could get away with this is because that game is generally a fast-running game in comparison to other fighters. (Individual games in MvC3 are only a single round and, as pointed out above, have a max length of 200 seconds.)

If I was running EVO and had to make cuts for time somewhere, Smash would be the first thing I'd look at. Both of them. It wouldn't be fair to cut down any of the other fighters instead when their game lengths already have a lower max run time.

 

[Teshie U]

Because timing people out in other fighters is significantly harder than in smash. In other fighters you have a health bar, so at the end of a match any slight hit or clip can kill you. Factoring in high damage combos, you have to completely avoid the opponent on a significantly smaller screen than in smash. Running away is hard, and most timeouts involve the player keeping the other player out with pokes and zoning rather than straight up avoidance. You have to remain offensive (in some sense, you are attacking) to time someone out.

In smash there is a gigantic space to play in. Completely avoiding the other player is completely possible (obviously MU dependent). More so any slight hit or clip will NOT kill you. You have to land kill moves (typically slow moves with high startup or specific postioning) to take a stock, so timing out with a stock lead is even easier. They really aren't even remotely similar in that sense.

This touches on what I feel is a very important issue when dealing with stock count. Aside from general freedom of movement, I think the biggest thing that separates Smash from traditional fighters is how we score points/KOs. In Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, MVC, Guilty Gear etc. anything can theoretically kill you. For better or for worse, this is a core skill that competitive smash has always tested. KOing your opponent isn't just hitting them, its hitting them the right way at the right time. Lowering the stock count tests that core concept less than ever.

This is also important for regarding timeouts. In a traditional fighting game, damaging your opponent is the only proof of who is better or winning. A timeout is a much simpler concept as lower health definitively equates to being closing to losing. In Smash, percent plays an important role in KOing, but being at a higher percent doesn't necessarily mean you would be KOed before your opponent. A Bowser at 110% vs a Jigglypuff at 70% hasn't really been proven to be worse yet. Matchups, positioning, edgeguarding all come into play here. Another unique trait of Smash we risk dampening with lower stock and time.

We should be careful not to sacrifice the things that make Smash special just to fit with the format of other communities and tournament series. We should celebrate and promote what makes Smash special instead of asking how we can be more like other communities.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

We should be careful not to sacrifice the things that make Smash special just to fit with the format of other communities and tournament series. We should celebrate and promote what makes Smash special instead of asking how we can be more like other communities.

It's not about making Smash like other games. It's about being fair to every game. And Smash might be "special," but it doesn't deserve special treatment.

Personally, if players hypothetically wanted to run first-to-10 pools in Swiss format or something else similarly crazy, then I'd be all for it... if time and resources allowed for it. But sometimes time is short and cuts have to be made somewhere even when it goes against established norms, and a good TO tries to give equal treatment to everybody. In the circles I hang out with, it's pretty common for people, TOs and players alike, to look at the Smash rules and ask "Why on earth do these people believe they deserve 8-minute games?"

 

[Pyr]

We should be careful not to sacrifice the things that make Smash special just to fit with the format of other communities and tournament series. We should celebrate and promote what makes Smash special instead of asking how we can be more like other communities.

You look at it incorrectly. For one, it'd be to keep things from being insane from a time frame standpoint.

And second, smash would literally not change at all with less stocks and less time per match and set. Comebacks would still happen. SDs would (justifiably) still be a large penalty. It's still more then enough time to adapt to a play style. Core concepts are still tested in much the same way. Smash keeps everything that makes it Smash regardless of stock count... Except the insane tournament run times of course.

Edit: If you really need stock count, single match sets for early rounds and best of 3 for later ones is the way to go. As it stands, gaming is in the spotlight more then it was 8 years ago. Accommodations should be made if we want Smash to do well in the environment it's in today. It sucks. It'll make people uncomfortable. But it's a fact. If a major event isn't going to pick you up, then what's the point of putting time into this over another, more successful game?

Guess it'll depend on what people want in general and at large. Right now, I've seen the answer go along the lines of "more exposure."

 

[Pyr]

Accidental double when editing.

 

[Pazx]

Is there an issue with 2 stock 8 minutes?

Is there data that shows that 2 stock matches last longer than 3 stock matches?

A far better question would be "Is there data that shows matches with a 6 minute timer last longer than matches with an 8 minute timer?"

 

[ATH_]

Thank you for the video, it helps me explain to people really well why we use certain methods. ^^

 

[Greave]

I have one issue with your video. It's definitely NOT just preference/precedent as to why we use Stock matches over Time. Stock is objectively a more precise method to determine victory. The few times my friends and I experiment with Time matches, it always goes to Sudden Death because we're of roughly equal skill, and we net KOs at more or less an equal rate.

As for the rest of the arguments, that's something difficult to reason out with logic, since it all depends on player behavior in real-world conditions. The answer pretty much just relies on the data, not the theory. So if your data is correct in the video, then I agree with you

 

[1MachGO]

and what that means for Smash 4's settings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whAmI2HdBqw


Apex's 2 stock 6 minute settings and Evo's proposed 2 stock 5 minute settings were deeply troubling to me, especially since we've been playing 3 stock in my region since the game's release and having no issues with low setup counts for 50 to 80 man tournaments.

I then realized a lot of people don't know why we use stock or a timer in the first place, so I thought I'd go over the concept.

2 stock 8 minutes would likely provide the best experience. In order to mitigate camping you need to have a timer which is disproportionate to the amount of "effective" time it takes to get a stock (probably double). With 3 stock, you might actually need a timer closer to 10 minutes.

3 stock 8 minutes likely wouldn't have changed the pace of a match like Abadango vs. Dabuz. Assuming their pace with ample time was to take a stock after 2 minutes and 25 seconds, there would only be 3 minutes after the first two stocks. That extra 30 seconds would be enticing to just camp out.

Furthermore, its hard to say if stocks following the first one wouldn't be slower by default. If it took someone 2 minutes and 25 seconds to take a stock, not only would they be vulnerable to KOs from accumulated damage/trading, but it took them such a long time to secure a lead that they might opt for more defensive strategy in the long run.

I am also not so sure about the argument that more stocks = less variance = good because there are other factors at play. While I agree that, logically speaking, you'd have a higher chance of winning a 1 stock match against a significantly better player than a 99 stock one, the meta will ultimately optimize towards whichever ruleset is created and there WILL be consistent winners.

In other words, different stock counts reward different strategies much like the timer. Sure, more stocks dampens "mistakes" and rewards adaption, but it also generates greater separation in viability. While Melee's 4 stock 8-minutes ruleset "works" for viewers and players, the added length has reduced the effectiveness of many characters. If Sheik can get more hits and more meaningful openings than Captain Falcon, then Falcon requires substantially more effort to play once you add more stocks.

TL;DR/Conclusion: To truly mitigate camping, the timer has to be disproportionately longer than the amount of time it takes to get a stock. Furthermore, less stocks are better for low tiers and long term character variety. Smash 4 should take advantage of that while it has the chance.

 

[Raijinken]

Different games of comparable genres don't necessarily cater to, or require, comparable rulesets. League games run 35-45 minutes, with surrenders sometimes ending them around 20. Dota matches can run anywhere from 15 minutes to 75 minutes in a normal pro game, even longer in certain metagames or in certain situations with certain teams. Chess tournaments normally use something between 10 and 20 minutes timer, Go matches can take more than a day.

If the type of ruleset Smash needs or wants in order to best show each player's complete mastery of the mechanics and field simply aren't compatible with those of the rest of the FGC, I see zero reason to cater to their trends. Split the event off, have it take place on a different day, or just make it its own sub or separate event. There should not be a willingness to water down our experience to suit the habitualized impatience of other communities.

I have one issue with your video. It's definitely NOT just preference/precedent as to why we use Stock matches over Time. Stock is objectively a more precise method to determine victory. The few times my friends and I experiment with Time matches, it always goes to Sudden Death because we're of roughly equal skill, and we net KOs at more or less an equal rate.

As for the rest of the arguments, that's something difficult to reason out with logic, since it all depends on player behavior in real-world conditions. The answer pretty much just relies on the data, not the theory. So if your data is correct in the video, then I agree with you

Try keeping track of percent entering Sudden Death, and determine the winner that way. The extremely wide majority of tournaments don't treat Sudden Death as a valid determiner. It does tend to become (even like stock mode) favored towards lighter fast characters who can tack on a percent lead with a combo they aren't susceptible to, and then dally it out for the short time remaining.

What if we did something crazy unusual like 3 stock 4 minutes? Odds of a game ever going to stock are much rarer, but you give the players that distinct life count that CAN end a round earlier than 4m. I'm just kinda spouting off ideas here, I don't believe it would work favorably, but does anyone else have ideas?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Try keeping track of percent entering Sudden Death, and determine the winner that way. The extremely wide majority of tournaments don't treat Sudden Death as a valid determiner. It does tend to become (even like stock mode) favored towards lighter fast characters who can tack on a percent lead with a combo they aren't susceptible to, and then dally it out for the short time remaining.

What if we did something crazy unusual like 3 stock 4 minutes? Odds of a game ever going to stock are much rarer, but you give the players that distinct life count that CAN end a round earlier than 4m. I'm just kinda spouting off ideas here, I don't believe it would work favorably, but does anyone else have ideas?

It would require remembering the % of players at the end of the match, but a 1 stock X minute rematch with the players given a handicap rounded to the nearest 10%?

 

[Shouxiao]

8mins and 3 stock would be the best way to do things. Also sets should be 2 out of 3 and maybe 3 out of 5 for top8 or grand finals.
The 3 out of 5 sets would depend on the tournament though.

 

[Pyr]

8mins and 3 stock would be the best way to do things. Also sets should be 2 out of 3 and maybe 3 out of 5 for top8 or grand finals.
The 3 out of 5 sets would depend on the tournament though.

But why would it be the best way? Time-wise, it certainly isn't, and time is almost the most important factor in tourny creation these days.

People in general here seem to like to say "this is this!" But they always leave out "because of this." People need to break this habit.

 

[Sideslick]

Is there data that shows that 2 stock matches last longer than 3 stock matches?

I think I remember seeing an r/Smashbros post by @SmashCapps confirming this using averages.

3 stocks encourage faster, riskier, more-aggressive play-styles.

What if we did something crazy unusual like 3 stock 4 minutes? Odds of a game ever going to stock are much rarer, but you give the players that distinct life count that CAN end a round earlier than 4m. I'm just kinda spouting off ideas here, I don't believe it would work favorably, but does anyone else have ideas?

I have no idea why, but this sounds ridiculously-interesting. I actually really want to try playing like this in a tournament-setting sometime! No idea if it would work in-practice, but it sounds fun on-paper!

Why not go even further and go 2-stock/3-minute? TOs would love us! We'd get love from ALL the venues!

 

[Boigahs]

I think we should just stick with 2 stock 5 minutes for a while. The game has only been out for a few months. If we keep changing the rules, it'll be impossible to gather data as the game progresses. We could change a rule, and then notice that matches are going faster, but they might just be going faster because people are understanding the game better.
For now, it's best to just wait it out. Once we have a good grasp on the game, we can experiment with this stuff more in-depth.

 

[Overswarm]

I think we should just stick with 2 stock 5 minutes for a while. The game has only been out for a few months. If we keep changing the rules, it'll be impossible to gather data as the game progresses. We could change a rule, and then notice that matches are going faster, but they might just be going faster because people are understanding the game better.
For now, it's best to just wait it out. Once we have a good grasp on the game, we can experiment with this stuff more in-depth.

Or, we could use the best possible ruleset and trim down from there. 2 stock, 5 minutes is not a ruleset created with the best interests of smash in mind.

 

[Pyr]

Or, we could use the best possible ruleset and trim down from there. 2 stock, 5 minutes is not a ruleset created with the best interests of smash in mind.

Well, to be fair, it was created with the interest of reasonable tournament run times, so I'd say that it would be for the best interests of smash.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Well, to be fair, it was created with the interest of reasonable tournament run times, so I'd say that it would be for the best interests of smash.

I'm all for making cuts to match time *when needed* (see above), but if players want longer games and TOs can offer longer games without unfairly shortchanging anyone else then I don't see why Smash players shouldn't push for that.

There doesn't need to be a one-size-fits-all ruleset for every tournament. Just because EVO might tell you to suck it up and deal with the realities of sharing a stage with 8 other huge tournaments doesn't mean that you need to make those situational compromises a standard. The "best interests" of Smash are what the Smash players want.

 

[Pyr]

I'm all for making cuts to match time *when needed* (see above), but if players want longer games and TOs can offer longer games without unfairly shortchanging anyone else then I don't see why Smash players shouldn't push for that.

There doesn't need to be a one-size-fits-all ruleset for every tournament. Just because EVO might tell you to suck it up and deal with the realities of sharing a stage with 8 other huge tournaments doesn't mean that you need to make those situational compromises a standard. The "best interests" of Smash are what the Smash players want.

Sometimes the best interest of the game's overall health across all aspects shouldn't fall to the players. The average player is kinda bad and makes very bad decisions for the short term and, for the most part, fail to look at the long term.

Fact of the matter is that everyone wants to keep playing Smash competitively, but the community tends to be so short-sighted that it can't see the fact that, in the fighting game world, match time and outside, non-smash viewers matter. The rest of the FCG set a standard before us and, a year from now, when the game isn't still shiny new, we gotta follow it. Else we lose outside viewers, then venue spots, then major tournament spots. In the past, we could build ourselves and support ourselves. The world of gaming has evolved since Brawl was released, and in a big way. I doubt we can support ourselves by ourselves 2 years down the line. Not this time. Not with the things out now that takes viewership away at a whim.

So, in short, Smash players want to play the game. If they read this here, they want to do it in a tournament setting. Now, we can all but guarantee that'll be possible long term, or we can stick to some standard we're used to and risk it.

Our choice, I guess? I just want to play, and all the hype can be had for everything still. It'll just be in more manageable packages.

 

[Overswarm]

Smash dwarfs the FGC in every meaningful way. We have been having giant tournaments, regional tournaments, and local tournaments alike sans-sponsorships for over a decade. This newfound "we esports now" mentality seems to come with the unfounded notion that it is required we damage the game to hold onto it.

It's the other way around. People like Smash. If someone else wants to use that for their advantage (see: large tournaments with sponsors) they should adapt to us. Not the other way around.

 

[Gawain]

Smash dwarfs the FGC in every meaningful way. We have been having giant tournaments, regional tournaments, and local tournaments alike sans-sponsorships for over a decade. This newfound "we esports now" mentality seems to come with the unfounded notion that it is required we damage the game to hold onto it.

It's the other way around. People like Smash. If someone else wants to use that for their advantage (see: large tournaments with sponsors) they should adapt to us. Not the other way around.

Not really in every way. Smash is less established. It hasn't been around as long. Personally that is a horrible way to go about it. People asked for Smash to be included at Evo. You don't ask to be included into someone else's event and then try to force them to adopt your traditions and culture. That's exactly the reason people in Scandinavia, England et al are pissed off at immigrants; the same logic applies here. Many have been around for more than 2 decades. To think that they rely on Smash is pretty haughty as well, so I don't really see that as a valid argument for making everyone else bend over backwards.

Attitudes like that are a good way to be left out of big events. Could we just make our own? Yeah, but if we wanted to do that why do we ask every year for inclusion at these big events?

 

[Iceweasel]

2 stock is too restrictive. Everyone, even top level players, occasionally make tech errors. Everyone, even top level players, occasionally get hard read by their opponents. If you make a tech error at a critical moment, like recovering, or your opponent can get a few really good reads, you have no chance to bring it back in a 2-stock environment. You can get close, but your chance of pulling it off is nearly zero. I say make it 3 stock for now, and depending on how the meta develops we can maybe see 4-stocks.

I've seen "Let's wait to see how 2-stock affects the game". Well, we have. it leads to players being campy and defensive because there is so little room for error. If 2 stock becomes standard, it will lead to players ditching it faster than Melee fans running away from Brawl.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

I'd say 4-stock, 6-minute matches are plausible as an option; it's not so hazardous to screw up during as, say, a 2-stock, 4 minute match, but not as relaxed and less worrying to mess up in as a 6-stock, 8-minute match. It'd discourage camping but wouldn't be so lax as to encourage being a daredevil because you'd be bored otherwise.

Basically, it's the middle ground between "way too camper-friendly" and "way too daredevil-friendly", and that'd be overall good to keep matches from getting stale.

 

[Pyr]

If you make a mistake or get hard read, you deserve to get punished for it. In MvC, any of them, if you make an input error, it can cost you the entire game. Hell, in ANY game, making an error is costly. To say you can't come back from that mistake in a 2 stock format is the same as saying it for a 4 stock format. Comebacks will happen either way. But to say more stocks should be used because YOUR tech errors will mean less is a very poor justification.

@Iceweasel, let's see the data that says that 2 stocks last longer than 3 stocks. You say we've seen the effect, right? Show me the data to back that claim up. Until then, I'm treating it as bias.

I'd say 4-stock, 6-minute matches are plausible as an option; it's not so hazardous to screw up during as, say, a 2-stock, 4 minute match, but not as relaxed and less worrying to mess up in as a 6-stock, 8-minute match. It'd discourage camping but wouldn't be so lax as to encourage being a daredevil because you'd be bored otherwise.

Basically, it's the middle ground between "way too camper-friendly" and "way too daredevil-friendly", and that'd be overall good to keep matches from getting stale.

The issue is time. 4 stocks in this game, where a stock lasts 1 minute to 1:30, would mean ALL games go to time out. That's not a middle ground. Matches wouldn't go stale regardless of stock count. If they would at 2, they would at 3, 4, and 5. And again, you f***ing up should have very severe consequences. If that means you lose the match, then so be it. You made a mistake and get punished for it.

 

[Djent]

Right, so I agree that decreasing the timer leads to longer average game length. But I'm not persuaded that this effect will be enough to balance out the addition of a stock. We should definitely host more 3-stock events (ideally keeping all other clauses between our 3- and 2-stock events symmetrical).

I'm also not sure if increasing the stock count is better than increasing the game count, especially with rage. I wonder if 1-stock Bo5 couldn't do more to reduce variance than 3-stock Bo3. Carryover effects between stocks (time constraints, psychological momentum, and rage) ultimately mean that stock count increases reduce outcome variance less than they otherwise would. 1-stock Bo5 theoretically reduces variance by offering both players a fresh start each stock. However, I'm not sure if this solution is better with the way we've implemented counterpicking (which could inflate set length artificially). It might be worth a shot anyway.

 

[Boigahs]

Or, we could use the best possible ruleset and trim down from there. 2 stock, 5 minutes is not a ruleset created with the best interests of smash in mind.

Who says? Why are you so convinced that 2 stock 5 minutes is against the interests of Smash? Your definition of "best possible ruleset" isn't everyone's. I see no reason why we cannot "trim down" 2 stock 5 minutes.

2 stock is too restrictive. Everyone, even top level players, occasionally make tech errors. Everyone, even top level players, occasionally get hard read by their opponents. If you make a tech error at a critical moment, like recovering, or your opponent can get a few really good reads, you have no chance to bring it back in a 2-stock environment.

Damn, what the hell do Street Fighter players do when they make a critical mistake? Oh yeah, they lose. That's what should happen if you make a critical mistake. Part of getting good at the game is minimizing those mistakes. It sucks if you lose because you screwed up, but that's what should happen.

 

[Overswarm]

Who says? Why are you so convinced that 2 stock 5 minutes is against the interests of Smash? Your definition of "best possible ruleset" isn't everyone's. I see no reason why we cannot "trim down" 2 stock 5 minutes.

Our goal is to determine who is best at smash brothers between the two players or teams playing against one another. We have a system that tests that pretty well, but 2 stock and 5 minutes adds variance and twists gameplay to be focused almost exclusively on timeouts. The variance is added by the low stock count -- one hard read, one mistake, can lead to a stock loss. I have personally gimped Mew2King in a 1v1 in Brawl; in a one stock match I would have won that game. I am not as skilled as Mew2King. Reason would dictate that the stock count is not sufficient for our goal, that goal being "see who is better". I know I'm not as good as Mew2King, most do, but the tournament would declare me the winner off of that one lucky hit. That's what variance is -- natural fluctuations from the norm.

Two stock is a less extreme version of the same flaw.