4v4 - Quartets Discussion (Or other variants)

[LancerStaff]

Biggest obstacle is stage choice. 8 on FD is just too much, but the bigger stages are too easily circle-camped. It might just be sBF only, and/or bBF and Jungle Hijinks if we go with time instead of stocks.

I'm really curious as to what stages are allowed with 8-players.

 

[popsofctown]

Circle camping is a 1v1 specific phenomenon. You can't circle camp multiple people, the chasers can divide up and go in opposite directions of the "circle" and force interaction.


While it's possible that stock mode 4v4 could boil down to a 1v1 circle camp, that's probably ok. If you don't want to lose to that, don't let your team's fastest character die early and/or win by a stock margin that's large enough that you can keep two people in play OR win by enough of a percent margin that your team's ganon is left 1v1ing a sonic with 50% more damage that has to come to him anyway.

If circle camping is occasionally a wincon because people strategically jockey about these conditions, it'll be ok.

 

[Book Jacket]

The tactics are gonna be awesome. Mac on point, Megaman on ranged support, maybe a little bit of freelancing pick-up-the-slack shulk play.

RosaLuma players would be an excellent asset.

Team names at tournaments

3v3s where each team has one Amiibo

Hyrule Temple legal

Wombo dombo combo

new stage control dynamics

elaborate traps

I WANT IT ALL

 

[Mr. Johan]

Circle Camping could be negated by playing with just time on, no stocks. Everyone stays alive to fight for another stock and keep the chaotic flow going, and it prevents the game from degenerating to Player 2 Sonic vs. Player 7 Robin remaining on Temple.

There's a few more kinks to figure out, but this could be really fun given the right conditions.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

4v4 doesnt seem practical.
3v3 might take off though.

 

[Ganreizu]

Can quartets please be what we call them? It sounds boss as ****.

Please?

My only issue with the mode is the fact that legitimate OHKO's exist in this game, and more than one character has it. Ness, G&W, villager, counter characters...all of them are stupidly good in theory at quartets.

 

[smashmachine]

Biggest obstacle is stage choice. 8 on FD is just too much, but the bigger stages are too easily circle-camped. It might just be sBF only, and/or bBF and Jungle Hijinks if we go with time instead of stocks.

I'm really curious as to what stages are allowed with 8-players.

how are you gonna circle camp in 4v4 m8

besides I think time is a better option for this anyway

 

[Mr. Johan]

For the sake of getting knowledge out, here are the stages, that we know of, where 3v3 and 4v4 are playable on.

-Battlefield
-Big Battlefield
-Mario Galaxy
-Bridge of Eldin
-Hyrule Temple
-Yoshi's Island Melee
-Great Cave Offensive
-Onett
-Castle Siege
-Palutena's Temple
-Gaur Plain
-75M
-Windy Hill

And the stages on Omega Mode:

-Battlefield
-Big Battlefield
-Mushroom Kingdom U
-Luigi's Mansion
-Jungle Hijinx
-Bridge of Eldin
-Hyrule Temple
-Pyrosphere
-Norfair
-Yoshi's Island Melee
-Halberd
-Kalos Pokemon League
-Onett
-Castle Siege
-Palutena's Temple
-Skyworld
-Gamer
-Garden of Hope
-Gaur Plain
-75M
-Wrecking Crew
-Windy Hill
-Wily's Castle

As far as normal stages go, Windy Hill, Castle Siege, and possibly Gaur Plain could see some use in a 3v3/4v4 scenario along with Big Battlefield and the two Temples, giving a solid 7 stages to go between including regular Battlefield. As for Omega, that's self-explanatory.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

If you ask me it's really weird that a) the Omega stages aren't an all-or-nothing deal for 8 player battles and b) the list of valid Omegas is different from the list of normal stages. Seriously, what?

 

[M15t3R E]

At first I thought it might be difficult to station 8 people around one TV, but there could be four people in front and four people standing behind. We'd find some way to make it work. We have to figure out if it's better suited as a side event (perhaps a crew battle) or if it should replace our standard 2v2 team battles.
The competitive community does not like time mode at all. We should keep it as stock battles but find a reasonable time limit. In any case, it needs to be done. It would be a battle of non-stop action. You'd have to watch its replay a few times to catch everything. There will be so much going on that amateur commentators might become overwhelmed! I can't wait.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Heh, I got beaten to the punch on that stage listing, but I'd point out that there are probably a few more with unlockable stages (DK64 and Pac Land aren't on that SSS at all). Also, I'm not sure why people think bigger is better on 8 player stages; small stages with large player counts emphasize skillful team play a lot more IMO since you have to actually play well specifically accounting for your teammates to accomplish stuff. I'd still never want to play on Temple, but Yoshi's Island (Melee) with 8 players sounds like the best thing ever especially at making sure teams of four players who are good at singles but are otherwise not a team will lose as often as possible to teams that are good at working together.

I'm unconvinced that walk-offs would be any kind of a problem at all on the scale of 4v4; I'm thinking your core stages would be the two BFs, Mario Galaxy, Eldin, Yoshi's Melee, Onett, Castle Siege, Windy Hill, and "any omega form" for 9 stage striking if unlockables don't give us more to work with in this mode. Temple, Palutena's Temple, and Great Cave Offensive are going to be poor stages no matter what, Gaur Plains is probably still pretty bad, and while 75m is near and dear to my heart, polarizing is the word that comes to mind.

 

[Masonomace]

Small-sized stages for 4v4 I feel is a no-no, especially if Team Attack is on. Medium to Large sized stages are basically the way to go, but 4v4 as a serious game mode is stretching it. I'm gonna go with 3v3 being the most serious choice, though 4v4 would be a great side-event no doubt.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Small-sized stages for 4v4 I feel is a no-no, especially if Team Attack is on. Medium to Large sized stages are basically the way to go, but 4v4 as a serious game mode is stretching it. I'm gonna go with 3v3 being the most serious choice, though 4v4 would be a great side-event no doubt.

Why? Small stages with team attack on (team attack should always be on) in 4v4 will maximally emphasize skillful teamwork. Yeah, it makes it really easy to hit your teammates, and that's the point; you have to play legitimately well not to do that, and that's a better skill test than a bigger stage that makes it easier to avoid your allies (also emphasizes other important team skills like attacking in parallel, making "unsafe" attacks safe by having yoru partners punish the punish attempts, controlling space with multiple characters, setting up guess situations and having multiple characters cover every possible guess, etc.). It also makes things really chatoic, and keeping track of a ton of stuff happening at once in a small area is another great skill test. I always like the smallest possible stages in doubles, and while none of the stages allowed in this mode seem as small as I'd really like, I see small size as a positive. I likewise don't see what's so non-serious about 4v4; coordinating four people is a huge skill test, and if you have enough players to really run this properly (a lot of locals just won't be able to), I could see stuff getting real fast especially since this mode will almost doubtless be the kind of mode where being good at singles isn't enough to win (very important to justify the event existing, both proves the event has a unique skill test and further makes the tournament meaningful for a greater percentage of the players).

I have seen it suggested that even in doubles bigger stages are somehow preferable, and I've never really understood that outlook. Is there any really hard, objective reason small stages are bad with lots of players?

 

[SFA Smiley]

How does everyone feel about character locking to 1 of a character per team.

Its more dynamic, less dumb than 3gws and a pika or 4 sonics vs 4 sonics

8 rosalina battles

Essentially the quad mk problem that was an "issue" in brawl

I think 1 character per team is the way to go.

At work on my phone so I can't really debate or anything right now though

Also seems more strategic and FUN

 

[Nebulax]

Heh, I got beaten to the punch on that stage listing, but I'd point out that there are probably a few more with unlockable stages (DK64 and Pac Land aren't on that SSS at all). Also, I'm not sure why people think bigger is better on 8 player stages; small stages with large player counts emphasize skillful team play a lot more IMO since you have to actually play well specifically accounting for your teammates to accomplish stuff. I'd still never want to play on Temple, but Yoshi's Island (Melee) with 8 players sounds like the best thing ever especially at making sure teams of four players who are good at singles but are otherwise not a team will lose as often as possible to teams that are good at working together.

I'm unconvinced that walk-offs would be any kind of a problem at all on the scale of 4v4; I'm thinking your core stages would be the two BFs, Mario Galaxy, Eldin, Yoshi's Melee, Onett, Castle Siege, Windy Hill, and "any omega form" for 9 stage striking if unlockables don't give us more to work with in this mode. Temple, Palutena's Temple, and Great Cave Offensive are going to be poor stages no matter what, Gaur Plains is probably still pretty bad, and while 75m is near and dear to my heart, polarizing is the word that comes to mind.

There's a Donkey Kong 64 stage? Are you talking about the DK stage from smash 64? Where was that in the direct?

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

me and my friends discussed limiting it to 1 character per team and no duplicates. Then I had the idea that we should do 4v4 draft mode along with a character ban or 2 depending on how people feel. Seeing as we're all used to stages banning out a character for 4s might not be so bad. And if a character can only be drafted once we'll see tons of different match ups come up.

There is a lot of room here for quartets to become a series event.

 

[Metal B]

There's a Donkey Kong 64 stage? Are you talking about the DK stage from smash 64? Where was that in the direct?

It wasn't directly shown in the Direct, but there is an icon of the stage on one stage select image. There actually more hidden stages accidental shown, which weren't part of the Direct (for example Pokemon Stadium 2 , which can be seen on one of the icons in Event Mode).

 

[Masonomace]

Why? Small stages with team attack on (team attack should always be on) in 4v4 will maximally emphasize skillful teamwork. Yeah, it makes it really easy to hit your teammates, and that's the point; you have to play legitimately well not to do that, and that's a better skill test than a bigger stage that makes it easier to avoid your allies (also emphasizes other important team skills like attacking in parallel, making "unsafe" attacks safe by having yoru partners punish the punish attempts, controlling space with multiple characters, setting up guess situations and having multiple characters cover every possible guess, etc.). It also makes things really chatoic, and keeping track of a ton of stuff happening at once in a small area is another great skill test. I always like the smallest possible stages in doubles, and while none of the stages allowed in this mode seem as small as I'd really like, I see small size as a positive. I likewise don't see what's so non-serious about 4v4; coordinating four people is a huge skill test, and if you have enough players to really run this properly (a lot of locals just won't be able to), I could see stuff getting real fast especially since this mode will almost doubtless be the kind of mode where being good at singles isn't enough to win (very important to justify the event existing, both proves the event has a unique skill test and further makes the tournament meaningful for a greater percentage of the players).

I have seen it suggested that even in doubles bigger stages are somehow preferable, and I've never really understood that outlook. Is there any really hard, objective reason small stages are bad with lots of players?

I want to answer your questions, but frankly I'm not big on Doubles, sticking mostly with Singles. I'm still in hype-shock that 8-player mode actually exists, my dream that's probably the majority of what we all wanted since Smash 64 being able to play more than 4 players is happening. . .I'm still thinking about it, & it's overwhelming.
Playing a 4v4 match on per-say a stage like BF just seems too hectic for me with little space to work with on a small stage like that, & too many factors to worry about. We don't know where the spawn points will be, & depending on the spawn point plus what kind of character you're playing whether it be a zoner or bruiser, may put you in a horrible position at the start of the match that now there's no Neutral Game, it's just unorganized & careful positioning means so little making stage control the biggest game-changer that could decide the fate of the match. However that was all just for BF. I'm basically okay with any stage that isn't considered as small as BF.

This mode reminds me of League of Legends, which I was okay with at first, but if we're already thinking of doubles teams like Pikachu + G&W being ban-worthy, then we might need some strict rules for this game mode, like character-specifics & stocks on ofc, but with a stock time limit like 5 minutes just because the flow & pace of the match may progress much quicker than regular matches.

And despite me saying in my past post that middle to large sized stages are the way to go, I was wrong to keep that post & not make edits to it, because I don't like large stages during Doubles. Though players sometimes perceive large & think of stages that are too large like Hyrule Temple. I'm very much okay with the entire Omega list for 3v3 / 4v4.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

I feel like Masonomace has a point there. This mode is very easily prone to absolute chaos. I feel that to make the best of it for any competitive play, we're going to have to enforce some set of limitations to dial back the chaos. Any less would lead to it being just a big ol' slugfest.

One thing I feel won't do is having Omega Modes in the first place. It was one thing in doubles to allow Final Destination because there was still ample room for strategy, but with 8 people, I feel we need vertical room to play with or else teammates will just hit each other due to a more limited space.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

4 vs 4 and 3 vs 3 definitely has a lot of potential. We should investigate all options available [stock, time, stamina, ...] to get the maximum out of this new format. Just imagine team Japan [Otori, Choco, Rain, Nietono] vs team America [M2K, Nairo, dabuz, Nakat] in the Grand Finals of Apex 201X! The amount of hype would be almost unbearable.
And that's just the beginning of it all. Unlike others, I actually have high hopes for 2 on 2 on 2 [on 2] working out really, really well too. It's really exciting.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Should've made more objective based maps.
4's will be casual I think unless there is a huge player desire to play it competitively, but getting 4 people together to practice is difficult. Maybe smash ball? Given its relevance in large fights and prevent circle camping if not opting for time?

3's should have the visual clarity to be good to go. I just don't think 4s will work competitively. Team death match is fun and all, if it could be done so all 8 got their own screen maybe.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I think the community should strongly consider coming up with viable custom stages for 4on4 events btw.

 

[M15t3R E]

I feel like Masonomace has a point there. This mode is very easily prone to absolute chaos. I feel that to make the best of it for any competitive play, we're going to have to enforce some set of limitations to dial back the chaos. Any less would lead to it being just a big ol' slugfest.

One thing I feel won't do is having Omega Modes in the first place. It was one thing in doubles to allow Final Destination because there was still ample room for strategy, but with 8 people, I feel we need vertical room to play with or else teammates will just hit each other due to a more limited space.

This is my concern. It's why, on one hand, I'd like to see team attack off for 4v4's. On the other hand I want it on. I guess we'll have to experiment and figure out which is the most reasonable way to go.

 

[Jabejazz]

Maybe smash ball?

Y'know, I really like the idea.

 

[Super1]

Going by League of Legends rules of draft pick, 4v4 has a lot more potential than some might think.

The process would be simple:
1. The game starts by each team banning three characters, alternating picks until both teams have chosen three. Teams would either flip a coin or decide privately who gets first pick. After the team with first pick is decided, the picking switches after each match.

• • EXAMPLE: Team A gets first pick, and already have a strategy of using Samus, Villager, Robin, and Captain Falcon, using projectiles to cover the approach of Falcon so he can rack up kills. Knowing this, they ban Rosalina, who can not only nullify the projectiles for her team, but also reach the projectile users while also keeping Falcon busy for her team to throttle them both.
  • Team B, seeing Rosalina banned, know that their opponents will probably have a team based on projectiles. So to cover their bases, they switch their team comp: Using Wario, Zelda, Bowser Jr and Palutina. Wario and Bowser Jr can plow through any aggressors to get to the projectile users, while Zelda and Palutina can reflect any oncoming ones while unleashing their own. They ban Mac to avoid anyone with super armor.
  • etc etc

2. From there, each team member, one at a time, picks their character from the roster. No duplicates among ALL choices, meaning no mirror matches. The order of who picks among each team is decided by a RNG or something similar. This will allow teams to do counterpicking, which seems a lot more viable in Smash 4 than any other smash so far.
3. Once both teams have their teams completed, they can 'swap' characters with another member on the team. This will allow teams to 'reserve' characters for their teammates so that they won't get picked first, but also encourage more counterpicking.
4. Afterwards, the match starts. I think the following ruleset would work best.

• Two stocks per player
  • Two stocks seems like the best choice because for one, any more and the matches would drag on, two, it gives teams the ability to give their extra stock to a eliminated ally if they have to, which encourages team plays and risk/reward decision making, and three, timed battles are not really enjoyed by spectators and tend to result in the team with the early lead winning. Stock matches tend to force players to be aggressive.
• Fifteen minutes. Ten might be a better choice, but the longer struggle of eight players rather than one on one will require more commitment than the faster duel skirmishes. If it is too long/too short, tweak it by five minutes.
• No items.
• Any large stage with no hazards allowed, like Hyrule Temple for example.

The only rule I am not sure about is weather or not team damage is allowed. I'd say no, since the sheer number of fights would make accidental KO's far more frequent and discourage defending allies or doing interesting combination attacks, in fear that your ally might hit you in the process.

But yeah just my two cents.

 

[Jabejazz]

snip

Kinda funny that the drafting might take longer than the game itself.

 

[Super1]

Kinda funny that the drafting might take longer than the game itself.

Keeping it at a time limit of about 30 seconds per pick would prevent that I think.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I like some of these ideas though I think time battles might be better than stock battles. The draft format for the match seems pretty cool though, I admit. It could possibly make even the character picks somewhat hype.

 

[Terotrous]

Honestly, I think team attack will need to be off by necessity. Even with the bigger stages, there's going to be so many hitboxes out at all times that I'm not sure there's going to be any safe place with Team Attack turned on.

Also, G&W / Villager shenanigans would be OP as hell if it was turned on anyway.

 

[Peugeon]

Can we just take a moment and think about all the Wombo Combo possibilities?

 

[Metal B]

Stock just will end with camping or one party simply dominating the others through numbers.
Time could work. There will be much chaos, that nobody know, who has the lead. There is also no KO stealing in a team.

Another option for 4-vs-4 would be custom rules with a referee. I would suggest a VIP-Match:

1. One player of each team will be declared as the VIP.
2. The game will set as a three stocks Stock-Match with a 15min Time Limit and Team Damage on.
3. Handicap will be switch on. The leader start with 100%, will the rest starts normally.
   (Wii Fit Trainer and Ness are not allowed as VIPs ,since they could Heal themselves)
4. No Omega-Stages and other smaller stages are allowed. (Creating own stages with the Stage Builder would be a good idea. There could be Bases and different ways to enter them.)
5. The team wins, who first completely kick out KO the opponent VIP.

(Another example, how fun it is to create your own rules for Smash)

Honestly, I think team attack will need to be off by necessity. Even with the bigger stages, there's going to be so many hitboxes out at all times that I'm not sure there's going to be any safe place with Team Attack turned on.

Also, G&W / Villager shenanigans would be OP as hell if it was turned on anyway.

The problem would be teams, who could create "Camps" with there characters. Have DK bounce the ground, Ness absorbing partials, Fox deflecting them and Bowser attack all incoming opponents in one cluster.

 

[Jabejazz]

Keeping it at a time limit of about 30 seconds per pick would prevent that I think.

Oh don't get me wrong, I like the idea.

Regarless, I think stocks would create the issue of heavy camping when fewer fighters remain.
Time only will ensure all 6-8 fighters are playing at all times.

 

[Super1]

The problem would be teams, who could create "Camps" with there characters. Have DK bounce the ground, Ness absorbing partials, Fox deflecting them and Bowser attack all incoming opponents in one cluster.

Draft/Banning/Counterpicking with no duplicates as I mentioned prevents this. Only a moron of a team would allow another team to get that comp, and even then a 4 man assault can easily break it if they play correctly.

Regarless, I think stocks would create the issue of heavy camping when fewer fighters remain.
Time only will ensure all 6-8 fighters are playing at all times.

Time is also not as fun to watch, cause if there is a huge lead, you have to watch the match through the entire time limit, which can be grating for both the losing players and the audience.

And if a 8 player fight winds up with only two players left with one stock each, which is the only time camping would be encouraged, then teamwork was obviously not a factor for both teams. This isn't 2v2, where that often happens, 4 man teams have to be based around making a team that can answer to problems, and thus work best together. If there are two stocks left for even one of the two last surviving characters, they can give the stock to another to negate any camping. Hence why characters would have only two stocks each.

 

[Prawn]

4v4 sounds incredible

You need team attack on IMO, I think the chaos is going to work against GaW buckets and stuff. Because it'll be much easier to miss who you're aiming at and hit a teammate.


But yeah haters be damned this sounds awesome

 

[Jabejazz]

Time is also not as fun to watch, cause if there is a huge lead, you have to watch the match through the entire time limit, which can be grating for both the losing players and the audience.

One sided matches are boring regardless of the format. Granted one-sided stock matches are shorter, but a ~5 minute game isn't too terrible if we want to have a dynamic 3v3/4v4 tournament.

And if a 8 player fight winds up with only two players left with one stock each, which is the only time camping would be encouraged, then teamwork was obviously not a factor for both teams.

Or teamwork was obviously a factor for both teams, and they ended up pretty even and left with one fighter on each team.

This isn't 2v2, where that often happens, 4 man teams have to be based around making a team that can answer to problems, and thus work best together.

Yes, that would be the general mindset everyone would adopt when playing a team game. That has nothing to do about circumventing the problem of camping.

If there are two stocks left for even one of the two last surviving characters, they can give the stock to another to negate any camping. Hence why characters would have only two stocks each.

Yes. If. The problem of camping is still there, and will happen with a stock ruleset on large stages. Not always, but it will happen.

 

[Super1]

One sided matches are boring regardless of the format. Granted one-sided stock matches are shorter, but a ~5 minute game isn't too terrible if we want to have a dynamic 3v3/4v4 tournament.

Not true at all. I have seen plenty of matches that were one sided slaughters, but still expertly played so well that the hype was booming during said fight. It's when those fights drag on that things become a bore. Which would occur all the time in timed matches.

Or teamwork was obviously a factor for both teams, and they ended up pretty even and left with one fighter on each team.

Not exactly. Again that is thinking in a 2v2 mindset.

Team fights of this caliber would require a lot of coordination and combination attacks to be efficient. It isn't a one man show or a tag team match by any stretch of the imagination, it would be a game revolving around separating teams to secure kills, sticking together, and sneak attacks. It would be a lot easier to be caught by surprise, and formations and game plans would play a huge role in how a match goes. Levels like hyrule temple, with its corridors and isolated areas, is a great example of how the flow of a match in 8 man battles would go.

• Each team clashes with their respective formations. One team manages to break another team's formation and attempts to single out a target. Team members either retreat or attempt to peel the enemies off their ally. A kill is either made or not.

The game will make a HUGE change in its meta with 4v4. As I said, and you agreed, the game will be about keeping eachother alive and filling a specific role so that you can secure kills and prevent deaths. Even if the game somehow came down to 1v1, one stock each with camping occuring, either the game would go to sudden death in less than a minute or two and the two will leave it to the fate of bo-ombs or percentage. (8 player battles would take at LEAST eight minutes with two stocks to reach that point.) Or the two would have to initiate. Either way, it sounds like a very rare occurrence, and one that would not be as major of a problem as one would think.

Yes, that would be the general mindset everyone would adopt when playing a team game. That has nothing to do about circumventing the problem of camping.

See above point.

Yes. If. The problem of camping is still there, and will happen with a stock ruleset on large stages. Not always, but it will happen.

Again, see above point.

 

[allshort17]

Why don't we set the stock limit very high, like 4 or more, and still have a timer of 5+ minutes? That way, teams still have the potential of KO'ing a player, but matches will still have full teams through the majority.

 

[popsofctown]

As someone from a non-urban region.. don't see opportunities with 8 willing people to practice a 4v4 format happening. I hope our region doesn't pick it up, because it will be a format people try to play as if it's singles and not be very competitive for that reason.

 

[Jellyfish4102]

I'm for only one of the same character per team but I thinking banning charachters is a bad idea. It will discourage people who put a lot of work into their main from playing in 4v4s.

What do you guys think about doing 1stock 4v4s? That way once one team has a big lead the match won't drag on but will end quickly. Plus I think it will amplify the importance of each players stock.

 

[Jabejazz]

Not true at all. I have seen plenty of matches that were one sided slaughters, but still expertly played so well that the hype was booming during said fight. It's when those fights drag on that things become a bore.

That's true, there are some occurences of interesting one-sided matches. As a general rule, however, a balanced set is more fun.

snip

We'll just have to agree to disagree. That just sounds like an enormous speculation about the 4v4 metagame to me.

A really similar assumption could've been given about 2v2 vs 1v1.