3v3/4v4 Tourney Ruleset Discussion Thread

[MajorMajora]

While not my original intention of this thread, there has been a separate but valid discussion that's been raised that appears to be much more interesting to the community. Therefore I changed the name of the thread and the OP.

The ruleset currently being discussed was proposed by Nintendrone and is as follows:

Rules:

• 2-3 stocks
• 8-10 minutes (3v3), 10-12 minutes (4v4)
• Have AA's custom sets
• No equipment
• Transfers allowed based on TO
• Team attack on
• Share stock allowed

Stages (3v3):
You'd have to remove 1 or add 3 for striking purposes.

• Big Battlefield
• Omega stages (scaled up)
• Kongo Jungle 64
• Pyrosphere
• Norfair
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Town and City
• Smashville
• Duck Hunt
• Windy Hill Zone

Stages (4v4):
You'd have to remove 1 or add 3 for striking purposes.

• Big Battlefield
• Omega stages (scaled up)
• Pyrosphere
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Town and City
• Windy Hill Zone

Procedure (Game 1):

1. Decide on controller ports.
2. Select characters in a double-blind pick.
3. Select custom moves in a double-blind pick.
4. Strike stages, starting with whoever picked controller ports last, who strikes 1 stage. They then alternate with 2 strikes. Once 2 stages remain, 1 strike decides the stage.

Procedure (Games 2+):

1. The winner of the previous game strikes "x" stages, where "legal stages = 4x+1". The loser picks out of the remaining stages.
2. The winners pick characters, then the losers.
3. The winners pick custom moves, then the losers.

 

[Nintendrone]

I'm shocked that there haven't been notable side events with trios and quads yet. That said, your proposed ruleset is not very good, imo. Just because there's more players doesn't mean that any of the stages you listed are any less terrible; they still have all of their problems from before, which become exacerbated once players get picked off.


I've been thinking of a possible ruleset for this myself:

Rules:

• 2-3 stocks
• 8-10 minutes (3v3), 10-12 minutes (4v4)
• Have AA's custom sets
• No equipment
• Transfers allowed based on TO
• Team attack on
• Share stock allowed

Stages (3v3):
You'd have to remove 1 or add 3 for striking purposes.

• Big Battlefield
• Omega stages (scaled up)
• Kongo Jungle 64
• Pyrosphere
• Norfair
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Town and City
• Smashville
• Duck Hunt
• Windy Hill Zone

Stages (4v4):
You'd have to remove 1 or add 3 for striking purposes.

• Big Battlefield
• Omega stages (scaled up)
• Pyrosphere
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Town and City
• Windy Hill Zone

Procedure (Game 1):

1. Decide on controller ports.
2. Select characters in a double-blind pick.
3. Select custom moves in a double-blind pick.
4. Strike stages, starting with whoever picked controller ports last, who strikes 1 stage. They then alternate with 2 strikes. Once 2 stages remain, 1 strike decides the stage.

Procedure (Games 2+):

1. The winner of the previous game strikes "x" stages, where "legal stages = 4x+1". The loser picks out of the remaining stages.
2. The winners pick characters, then the losers.
3. The winners pick custom moves, then the losers.

 

[MajorMajora]

I'm shocked that there haven't been notable side events with trios and quads yet. That said, your proposed ruleset is not very good, imo. Just because there's more players doesn't mean that any of the stages you listed are any less terrible; they still have all of their problems from before, which become exacerbated once players get picked off.


I've been thinking of a possible ruleset for this myself:

Rules:

• 2-3 stocks
• 8-10 minutes (3v3), 10-12 minutes (4v4)
• Have AA's custom sets
• No equipment
• Transfers allowed based on TO
• Team attack on
• Share stock allowed

Stages (3v3):
You'd have to remove 1 or add 3 for striking purposes.

• Big Battlefield
• Omega stages (scaled up)
• Kongo Jungle 64
• Pyrosphere
• Norfair
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Town and City
• Smashville
• Duck Hunt
• Windy Hill Zone

Stages (4v4):
You'd have to remove 1 or add 3 for striking purposes.

• Big Battlefield
• Omega stages (scaled up)
• Pyrosphere
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Town and City
• Windy Hill Zone

Procedure (Game 1):

1. Decide on controller ports.
2. Select characters in a double-blind pick.
3. Select custom moves in a double-blind pick.
4. Strike stages, starting with whoever picked controller ports last, who strikes 1 stage. They then alternate with 2 strikes. Once 2 stages remain, 1 strike decides the stage.

Procedure (Games 2+):

1. The winner of the previous game strikes "x" stages, where "legal stages = 4x+1". The loser picks out of the remaining stages.
2. The winners pick characters, then the losers.
3. The winners pick custom moves, then the losers.

3v3's already exist. The purpose of this is to look into the possibility that could come from team matches on large stages. What you proposed just now is interesting, sure, but not what this is about.

You say that it's terrible. I don't see the evidence backing it up. I only saw this kind of match once. It was on class tournaments, i think, in a 4v4 side tourney, and I saw nothing quite so degenerate about it.

I'll say it once more "While I'm happy to discuss possible problems coming from stages, do not dismiss a stage until there is sufficient evidence available to warrant banning it."

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Circle camping is just as much a thing as it is in 1v1.

 

[MajorMajora]

Circle camping is just as much a thing as it is in 1v1.

"While I'm happy to discuss possible problems coming from stages, do not dismiss a stage until there is sufficient evidence available to warrant banning it."

Show a video of this being a problem before asserting that it is.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

"While I'm happy to discuss possible problems coming from stages, do not dismiss a stage until there is sufficient evidence available to warrant banning it."

Show a video of this being a problem before asserting that it is.

No. We've done this dance for Melee, Brawl, and Smash 4 1v1s. The end result of a competitive 4v4 match is still a 1v1, so there's no extra data that needs to be found.

 

[Dream Cancel]

Shifting the burden of proof, eh...? Perhaps you should consider the opposite.

Spoiler: Please stop stifling discussion

"While I'm happy to discuss possible benefits coming from stages, do not accept a stage until there is sufficient evidence available to warrant allowing it."

No party has to carry the burden of proof. This is a discussion thread, not the debate hall. Shutting down opposing views based on a "lack of evidence" (even if it's anecdotal in nature) is immature and stifles the sharing of ideas. Please give others the benefit of the doubt and try to understand their reasoning before passing judgement on their opinion(s).

Anyways, I generally agree with Nintendrone's ruleset and stage lists, and his procedure seems like a very good ruleset. (Definitely a good start) However, I have certain preferences like 3 stock over 2 stock, and I have a distaste for Windy Hill Zone nor am I the biggest fan of Duck Hunt. Hmmm, oh well, they are still respectable stages.

Great Cave Offensive? Palutena's Temple? Are you serious...? I can understand Gaur Plain and Hyrule Temple to an extent, but why those two?

 

[MajorMajora]

Okay, some explanation appears to be needed on my part.

1. I'm open for discussion, but stating things everyone has said a million times in an unproductive manner is not helpful, it's just irritating. He said circle camping would be a problem, but he gave no reasons why it should be a problem. I've had discussions about circle-camping in this topic and how it could potentially not be a problem, but he gave me no way to continue the topic. He never said how, when, or in what context circle camping is a problem, or how that would actually lead to degenerate gameplay. Circle camping itself is not degenerate inherently, but, in the context of 1v1's, it causes degenerate things to occur. Will it occur in 3v3's and 4v4's? SImply saying it will and not saying why adds nothing to discussion.

2. @ Dream Cancel You clearly have not read the OP. This is specifically focused on 3v3's and 4v4's on large, HT sized stages. That was the topic of the thread. Of course I dismissed Nintendrone's post, it had nothing to do with the topic. I agree it was very well thought out and I'm sure it would be successful, but it would not accomplish the goals this thread set out to do.

3. About the burden of proof: No where have I ever suggested that PT and GCO were viable stages. I simply said it was necessary to test them before deciding their fate. You tell me not to accept a stage without proof, well I haven't. I'm trying to acquire the proof.

No. We've done this dance for Melee, Brawl, and Smash 4 1v1s. The end result of a competitive 4v4 match is still a 1v1, so there's no extra data that needs to be found.

Oh, sorry, I missed this post. I'm sorry for bashing you earlier, you just raised an interesting point here, one I've considered a lot, but I have to disagree. Ask yourself this: How often does a 2v2 end in a 1v1? A decent amount of time, but I'd say less than 50% of the time. Now, add a third player. Things will likely become a 3v2 before a 2v2, and since the team with 3 have an advantage it is more likely things will go to a 3v1 than a 2v2. In other words, the more people on a team, the more likely it will end before a 1v1 occurs. How likely is it? I'd say we'd need to test that.

 

[Dream Cancel]

Okay, some explanation appears to be needed on my part.

1. I'm open for discussion, but stating things everyone has said a million times in an unproductive manner is not helpful, it's just irritating. He said circle camping would be a problem, but he gave no reasons why it should be a problem. I've had discussions about circle-camping in this topic and how it could potentially not be a problem, but he gave me no way to continue the topic. He never said how, when, or in what context circle camping is a problem, or how that would actually lead to degenerate gameplay. Circle camping itself is not degenerate inherently, but, in the context of 1v1's, it causes degenerate things to occur. Will it occur in 3v3's and 4v4's? SImply saying it will and not saying why adds nothing to discussion.

I need to clarify as well.

I assume you know what circle camping is. He didn't give any reasons why it is (not should be) a problem because his proof is in the definition of Circle Camping. (source: Smash Bros. Wiki)

Circle camping

Circle camping, a form of camping that can be unbeatable when it can be utilised by the right character, is when a player constantly flees from their opponent, by going around a certain stage section that prevents the opponent from intercepting them, thus running away around a "circle". Every character can utilise circle camping if the stage allows it, though how effective it is dependent on how fast they and their opponent can traverse the stage. Depending on the stage design, and if the fleeing character is fast enough, the opponent may never be able to reach the fleeing character, as the opponent's character is not fast enough to catch them in a straight chase, and the stage design prevents the opponent from intercepting the fleeing character. Because of this, stages whose design enable possible circle camping are nearly always universally banned. Otherwise, very fast moving characters, such as Fox and Sonic, would be able to utilise game breaking camping on these stages, and be nearly unbeatable by the majority of the cast.

In 3v3's and 4v4's the team with the advantage (whether through stock or percentage) can camp in a variety of different ways. With regards to circle camping, it is easily possible in the 4 stages you have presented to simply get a one-stock lead and camp the time away. I'm not guaranteeing it will occur, however the possibility of it happening is enough to warrant the dismissal of these four stages in competitive play.

2. @ Dream Cancel You clearly have not read the OP. This is specifically focused on 3v3's and 4v4's on large, HT sized stages. That was the topic of the thread. Of course I dismissed Nintendrone's post, it had nothing to do with the topic. I agree it was very well thought out and I'm sure it would be successful, but it would not accomplish the goals this thread set out to do.

I admit I'm guilty of not reading the OP and its' details in entirety.

However, the dismissal of Nintendrone's post is ill-founded. He still contributed to thread:

...That said, your proposed ruleset is not very good, imo. Just because there's more players doesn't mean that any of the stages you listed are any less terrible; they still have all of their problems from before, which become exacerbated once players get picked off.

Nothing to do with the topic, you say...

3. About the burden of proof: No where have I ever suggested that PT and GCO were viable stages. I simply said it was necessary to test them before deciding their fate. You tell me not to accept a stage without proof, well I haven't. I'm trying to acquire the proof.

And I'm mistaken for assuming this. My apologies. (Relates to #2 in regards where I didn't read the OP in full)

As for viability of HT, PT, GCO, and GP, that was mentioned in #1.

 

[MajorMajora]

I need to clarify as well.

I assume you know what circle camping is. He didn't give any reasons why it is (not should be) a problem because his proof is in the definition of Circle Camping. (source: Smash Bros. Wiki)

In 3v3's and 4v4's the team with the advantage (whether through stock or percentage) can camp in a variety of different ways. With regards to circle camping, it is easily possible in the 4 stages you have presented to simply get a one-stock lead and camp the time away. I'm not guaranteeing it will occur, however the possibility of it happening is enough to warrant the dismissal of these four stages in competitive play.

I admit I'm guilty of not reading the OP and its' details in entirety.

However, the dismissal of Nintendrone's post is ill-founded. He still contributed to thread:

Nothing to do with the topic, you say...

And I'm mistaken for assuming this. My apologies. (Relates to #2 in regards where I didn't read the OP in full)

As for viability of HT, PT, GCO, and GP, that was mentioned in #1.

I'm a bit tired, so I won't say much about the circle camping at the risk of accidentally saying something I don't mean to, but I will say that the passage you quoted was most likely in relation to 1v1's, and also entirely relies upon the assumption that what is said on the wiki is not up for debate. The 2-3 matches I saw in the video I can't be bothered to find right now, I didn't see any problems with circle camping, though I have to admit that that is a horribly small sample size, but it at least shows that there's nothing inherently wrong with the format.

You also quoted the one part of his post that was on topic, and even that being very vague. When I said I disregarded it I meant his ruleset, that I should've been clearer on.

A change of topic, I found a video with 1 match on HT. I haven't watched it but I intend to do so later to see how it goes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7ksv5tkmeI

 

[Ranias]

Camping is boring to watch. A ruleset that encourages it wouldn't be beneficial to the smash scene.

Would time rather than stock be a possibility to discourage camping? It would definitely allow a tournament to keep to schedule at least.

 

[MajorMajora]

Camping is boring to watch. A ruleset that encourages it wouldn't be beneficial to the smash scene.

Would time rather than stock be a possibility to discourage camping? It would definitely allow a tournament to keep to schedule at least.

This is a very interesting question. I guess it depends on how often a camping situation occurs. If it's once in a blue moon we may want to simply do stock and suck it up during the rare times that it does occur. I'm curious as to how time would work.

 

[Nintendrone]

Sorry that my post wasn't fully on topic, but I could've sworn the title of the thread was different when I posted, which seemed to be about trios/quads as a metagame in general. Did you change the thread title at some point?

Unfortunately, adding more players or changing the game mode will not deter circle camping on these stages. As long as the stage allows it and a time limit exists, runaway will ruin these stages.

Also, I fail to see a reason for why a "big stage metagame" has to exist when what we really need is a trio/quads metagame in general.

 

[Piford]

Has 3v3 or 4v4 tournaments set to time been experimented with? With that it will never devolve into a 1v1 and infinite run away or other unbeatable camping situations in a 1v1 would be avoided. I'm still not sure Palutena's Temple would be a good stage for a 4v4 because of how huge it is, but Temple or Gaur Plains might be. These things would need to be tested. I find Mario Circuit (Brawl) to be the best stage for 4V4. Walk-offs aren't really an issue because you can't walk-off camp 4 people simultaneously. I see people using Smashville for 4v4, which I find extremely stupid because it's way to small to actually fight on.

 

[MajorMajora]

Sorry that my post wasn't fully on topic, but I could've sworn the title of the thread was different when I posted, which seemed to be about trios/quads as a metagame in general. Did you change the thread title at some point?

Unfortunately, adding more players or changing the game mode will not deter circle camping on these stages. As long as the stage allows it and a time limit exists, runaway will ruin these stages.

Also, I fail to see a reason for why a "big stage metagame" has to exist when what we really need is a trio/quads metagame in general.

No, I haven't changed it. Don't worry, I do things like that too! And I would be very interested in a more developed 4v4 metagame, but once again, I do think this is different.

I like the idea of a large stage metagame simply because of how unique the gameplay is. Seeing the few games I have has been really thrilling.

About circle camping, I still am not convinced it will be a big deal. Circle camping in 1v1's is a problem because it takes up the majority of the match with a lack of interaction between players. In 4v4's there isn't really ay room to runaway since there are so many threats to keep track of. And even if it does descend into a 1v1 (which I feel would be hardly ever at all), then it would take up a tiny fraction of that game, which is just one game out of so many others. Yeah, it may be a problem, but not one that completely eliminates it as a possibility.

 

[Infinite901]

I'm shocked that there haven't been notable side events with trios and quads yet. That said, your proposed ruleset is not very good, imo. Just because there's more players doesn't mean that any of the stages you listed are any less terrible; they still have all of their problems from before, which become exacerbated once players get picked off.


I've been thinking of a possible ruleset for this myself:

Rules:

• 2-3 stocks
• 8-10 minutes (3v3), 10-12 minutes (4v4)
• Have AA's custom sets
• No equipment
• Transfers allowed based on TO
• Team attack on
• Share stock allowed

Stages (3v3):
You'd have to remove 1 or add 3 for striking purposes.

• Big Battlefield
• Omega stages (scaled up)
• Kongo Jungle 64
• Pyrosphere
• Norfair
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Town and City
• Smashville
• Duck Hunt
• Windy Hill Zone

Stages (4v4):
You'd have to remove 1 or add 3 for striking purposes.

• Big Battlefield
• Omega stages (scaled up)
• Pyrosphere
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Town and City
• Windy Hill Zone

Procedure (Game 1):

1. Decide on controller ports.
2. Select characters in a double-blind pick.
3. Select custom moves in a double-blind pick.
4. Strike stages, starting with whoever picked controller ports last, who strikes 1 stage. They then alternate with 2 strikes. Once 2 stages remain, 1 strike decides the stage.

Procedure (Games 2+):

1. The winner of the previous game strikes "x" stages, where "legal stages = 4x+1". The loser picks out of the remaining stages.
2. The winners pick characters, then the losers.
3. The winners pick custom moves, then the losers.

So much this. However I think Norfair should also be considered for 4v4. Also, I think it's important to get more info on stages that are normally banned that work differently and may have potential with 5+ players. For instance, have people even deeply looked into how 8-player Luigi's Mansion or Kalos League work? How do Wily's Castle, Garden of Hope, Skyworld, Gamer work with 5+ players? This is a sadly unexplored meta and I'm interested in seeing where it goes. Also worth finding out (at least for 3v3's) is whether the likes of Battlefield, Castle Siege, Lylat Cruise and Halberd are truly too small. This is something that heavily requires more attention.

EDIT: I realized after posting this that I was looking at an Omega stage list, then my computer crapped out. I'll go find a regular list.

(Side note, why the hell can Wuhu and Coliseum not be played in 8-Player?)

 

[Nintendrone]

8P Luigi's Mansion cannot have its ceilings destroyed, and permanent caves of life are typically bannable. Kalos, Wily, Gamer, Garden of Hope, and Halberd can only be in Omega with 8 players. Notably, Skyworld maxes at 6 players, but it's just not a very good stage with the choice of either caves of life or no edges and drop-through platforms.

I can vouch for BF, Siege, and Lylat being too small. I've dropped 6 players in them, but I can't see how they'd work out.

Coliseum and Wuhu maxing at 4 annoys me too. There's even a pic on the official site showing 8 players on Wuhu.

 

[Infinite901]

I can vouch for BF, Siege, and Lylat being too small. I've dropped 6 players in them, but I can't see how they'd work out.

I've had a 3v3 on Lylat that went pretty smoothly, but I get the concern.

Also I realized that a lot of those stages I listed were for Omega form. The 8-player stagelist is weird...

 

[MajorMajora]

Changed op to update based on current discussion.

 

[clydeaker]

I love the idea of a 4-on-4 Team Smash battle. Although I can see how some people would dislike these rules (People who don't have enough friends for a 4v4 team). I quite like them. They fit very well in 8-player Smash.

 

[MajorMajora]

Wrong thread please ignore