4v4 - Quartets Discussion (Or other variants)

[SvartWolf]

3v3 and 4v4 have the potential to be very interesting metagames. i hope that in the future both the community and nintendo can work together to make it even more interesting.

For example, lets say a 4v4 match on temple. now lets say that there is an option so smash ball can only spawn at 3 specific places in a predictable manner (first place A, second place B, and third place C) within somewhat predictable time windows...

Now you have teams trying to control the terrain when they now a smash ball will appear to unleash a powerful attack on the other team. It's frankly a WHOLE new metagame in so many levels...

 

[Remzi]

No online is understandable, but a bummer. It'll make this difficult to coordinate team practice. But overall? I am HYPED for this.

I wonder how the game will determine who to share stocks from? I'm betting that if there isn't an onscreen indicator when trying to steal a life, it'll be determined by port. That'd be interesting, as teams would probably have a designated stock tank that they put on a certain port.

 

[thesage]

Temple will never be allowed in tournaments even in this mode. It has he cave of life thing going on.

I see Ness being pretty good in this. Pkt to save people (if the other teammates make a wall to protect him), pkt2 to janky kills, pk flash for stage control, psi magnet for stock tanking, pk fire for combos, etc.

 

[allshort17]

Temple will never be allowed in tournaments even in this mode. It has he cave of life thing going on.

I see Ness being pretty good in this. Pkt to save people (if the other teammates make a wall to protect him), pkt2 to janky kills, pk flash for stage control, psi magnet for stock tanking, pk fire for combos, etc.

The cave of life would be negated by the high level of damage than could happen at any moment. Even if players are very good at teching, eventually their percent will get so high that they won't be able to consistently do it.

 

[DavemanCozy]

4 vs 4 could create some crazy combos, setups, and strategies.

In terms of how it would look... I don't know. It would be extremely chaotic, that's an obvious one. It would look hella cool too. I have no doubt it will also be a lot of fun.

In a competitive tournament though? 4vs4 will be 2vs2 on steroids

 

[dansal]

(team attack should always be on)

I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, but is there a thread or post I can read that can better explain the necessity of team attack?

 

[DavemanCozy]

I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, but is there a thread or post I can read that can better explain the necessity of team attack?

Off the top of my head, I can think of two major reasons:

• Projectiles become instantly better when they can only hit opponents and go through your ally. You can use them to let your teammate approach safely, or simply guarantee you'll be hitting your opponent with little thinking.
  Notable examples:
  - Falco's lasers in Melee could be used to hit opponents while your teammate approached safely.
  - Zero Suit Samus's paralyzer shots can do the same thing, except much worse because they leave the opponent helpless for a longer time.
  - Samus's charge shot and missiles
  - Mega Man overall
  
  
• Attacks that cover a long range also become very difficult to deal with, as essentially you can cover a large amount of space without worrying about hitting your teammate. The same thing applies as with projectiles: you guarantee that you are covering space while your teammate runs through the attack: this can create some unreasonable to deal with follow ups.

With team attack on, one can not mindlessly toss out these attacks: they must think of their teammate too, therefore it requires more skill to use these large-hitbox moves and projectiles.

When it comes to For Glory, it makes sense why it would be disabled: can't have random strangers beating up their teammates like you see in online Halo with betrayals just to frustrate people for the heck of it.
When you go to a tournament though, I very much doubt anyone would want to spend money to enter doubles just to throw it away to attack their teammate.

 

[A2ZOMG]

I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, but is there a thread or post I can read that can better explain the necessity of team attack?

No team attack makes team metagames extremely campy. Nobody wants to deal with nonsense where you mass spam multiple projectiles at different angles to prevent approaches.

Now what's going to be really interesting for 4v4 is the implication of customs that are better for FFA settings as opposed to 1v1s. In 1v1s for instance, Mario prefers either Fast Fireballs or default for zoning or edgeguarding. But in a big team setting, suddenly Mario's Fire Orb looks increasingly attractive as a defensive hit confirm option.

 

[Piford]

I think Castle Siege will be locked in the second transformation for 4v4, because the first and third ones are way top small.

 

[smashmachine]

Temple will never be allowed in tournaments even in this mode. It has he cave of life thing going on.

I see Ness being pretty good in this. Pkt to save people (if the other teammates make a wall to protect him), pkt2 to janky kills, pk flash for stage control, psi magnet for stock tanking, pk fire for combos, etc.

4v4 would be a very different metagame, stuff that would have been instant bans before (stages being way too big, circle camping, even hazards to some extent) aren't a problem any more

 

[Raijinken]

I'll be sorely disappointed if this doesn't become at least a popular streamed side event. I already prefer doubles, this is even better.

 

[HiNiTe]

Temple will never be allowed in tournaments even in this mode. It has he cave of life thing going on.

I see Ness being pretty good in this. Pkt to save people (if the other teammates make a wall to protect him), pkt2 to janky kills, pk flash for stage control, psi magnet for stock tanking, pk fire for combos, etc.

Temple is big enough (but not TOO big like Palutena's Temple) to be somewhat viable in a 4v4 setting. If people want to "camp" in the cave, everyone else will go there and eventually players will start flying all over the place; it wouldn't be a feasible fighting area.

Also, Gaur Plain is banned. Metal Face is a random stage hazard, unfortunately.

 

[DelxDoom]

SMOBA
smash multi opponent battle arena

1v1 tournament except with 3 (or 2) CPU teammates each

Possible, but not necessary: use handicap to make CPU teammates easier to KO.
Probable rules:
teams cannot use more than 1 of the same character
CPU level is choosable

 

[DavemanCozy]

SMOBA
smash multi opponent battle arena

1v1 tournament except with 3 (or 2) CPU teammates each

Possible, but not necessary: use handicap to make CPU teammates easier to KO.
Probable rules:
teams cannot use more than 1 of the same character
CPU level is choosable

first match played on Find Mii

This could be a possible use of those Amiibos too

 

[Tristan_win]

I hate to be that guy but I think the majority of the 8 man capable stages should be banned. The reason why is because even with the increase of eight players it doesn't prevent people from running away. This will become especially true once you get down to two or three remaining players.

As much as we all love Temple and want it in it should still be banned. = (

 

[Gunla]

I think Castle Siege will be locked in the second transformation for 4v4, because the first and third ones are way top small.

Hate to break it to you, but it appears that won't be the case.
Castle Siege appears in it's first form around 0:19.

 

[A2ZOMG]

I hate to be that guy but I think the majority of the 8 man capable stages should be banned. The reason why is because even with the increase of eight players it doesn't prevent people from running away. This will become especially true once you get down to two or three remaining players.

As much as we all love Temple and want it in it should still be banned. = (

Says who we're playing this on stock?

 

[Mr. Johan]

Temple is big enough (but not TOO big like Palutena's Temple) to be somewhat viable in a 4v4 setting. If people want to "camp" in the cave, everyone else will go there and eventually players will start flying all over the place; it wouldn't be a feasible fighting area.

Also, Gaur Plain is banned. Metal Face is a random stage hazard, unfortunately.

He only comes out at night.

That said, I did completely space out on Metal Face when I listed Gaur Plain as a possibly viable stage. I doubt everyone's going to stop what they're doing just to wreck Metal Face before he causes damage.

Hell, he probably has a point counter too like Ridley does. Yeah, my mistake.

 

[Nebulax]

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).

Which image? I know I'm going a little off topic, but I'd like to see it myself, just to get a taste.

 

[Piford]

Hate to break it to you, but it appears that won't be the case.
Castle Siege appears in it's first form around 0:19.

Darn, that first form is too small.

 

[Cactusblah]

3v3 and 4v4 tournaments must happen. The Smash 4 hype has reached new levels. We esports now.

 

[Thinkaman]

I strongly advocate the use of stock in 4v4. All the same reasons we use stock in 1v1 still apply.

Elimination and the possibility of circle camping on larger stages may cause some to reconsider, but we still don't want every single game to come down to a final 30-60 seconds of lame duck camping by the winning team.

The best part about Smash, and the stock format, is that games come down to a dramatic killing blow rather than a boring time-out. This is less frustrating for the loser, more satisfying for the winner, and way more hype for spectators.

Lopsided matches will always happen. The question is, do we want them to end in a 1v4, or 30+ seconds of lame duck? The former seems vastly superior, since it is both generally faster to conclude, and actually possible for the underdog to win if stars align.


Additionally, team time matches mean that a team's results are more heavily weighted by their weakest members vs. the strongest, compared to stock. This also means that ganging up on the weakest member is more optimal, which is less interesting to both play and watch, and a poor experience for new players wanting to try this at events.

4v4 should not focus on which team can exploit the other's weakest member the most.


I agree that team attack will probably be required, though I'd like to test without it. If 4v4 somehow works well without team attack, against all predictions (including my own), it would do wonders for opening the format up to new players. Team attack tends to be a huge barrier to new players, a major turn-off for them--this is why new players tend to prefer team events in every game but competitive Smash Bros.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Sorry I don't see an issue. Football can end up as just one team stalling for time to finish the game....hell if often does. Still competitive, still a spectator sport.
The sole difference being that unlike a normal 1v1, the scope is so large that 1v1 that the 30-60s of lame ducking? Can be 3 minutes of camping.

Even more so you can't really camp as 4 people from 4 other people even on the increased maps, there isn't "That" much space that 4 people can perform such a feat.

Even still 3's will probably outperform 4's.

 

[Thinkaman]

Sorry I don't see an issue. Football can end up as just one team stalling for time to finish the game....hell if often does. Still competitive, still a spectator sport.

And this is one of the biggest problems time-focused sports have. There's a reason virtually all e-sports are objective-focused instead, with a timer serving a secondary purpose.

No one would actually seriously suggest me move competitive Smash 1v1s from stock to time. All the same reasons still apply to 4v4s.

I think it's good that people are suggesting it though. It is crucial that we have conversations like this, and approach new formats critically.

Even more so you can't really camp as 4 people from 4 other people even on the increased maps, there isn't "That" much space that 4 people can perform such a feat.

On Big Battlefield and FD, I think 4v4 camping would be harder than a 1v1.

On old Temple, new Temple, and GCO I think it will prove significantly easier.

 

[A2ZOMG]

I strongly advocate the use of stock in 4v4. All the same reasons we use stock in 1v1 still apply.

Elimination and the possibility of circle camping on larger stages may cause some to reconsider, but we still don't want every single game to come down to a final 30-60 seconds of lame duck camping by the winning team.

The best part about Smash, and the stock format, is that games come down to a dramatic killing blow rather than a boring time-out. This is less frustrating for the loser, more satisfying for the winner, and way more hype for spectators.

Lopsided matches will always happen. The question is, do we want them to end in a 1v4, or 30+ seconds of lame duck? The former seems vastly superior, since it is both generally faster to conclude, and actually possible for the underdog to win if stars align.


Additionally, team time matches mean that a team's results are more heavily weighted by their weakest members vs. the strongest, compared to stock. This also means that ganging up on the weakest member is more optimal, which is less interesting to both play and watch, and a poor experience for new players wanting to try this at events.

4v4 should not focus on which team can exploit the other's weakest member the most.


I agree that team attack will probably be required, though I'd like to test without it. If 4v4 somehow works well without team attack, against all predictions (including my own), it would do wonders for opening the format up to new players. Team attack tends to be a huge barrier to new players, a major turn-off for them--this is why new players tend to prefer team events in every game but competitive Smash Bros.

Honestly, I'm not completely seeing how you believe "lame ducking" is a bigger problem on timer based games.

Let's consider FFA dynamics for a comparison (it's not perfect, I'm aware). The optimal playstyle for winning FFAs is fundamentally opportunism. In a stock based setting, this strictly promotes non-interactive camping when the last man standing is the one who wins.

FFAs promote more interactivity on timer settings when camping is much less likely to actually win you the game. Suddenly it's not a totally bad idea to jump in with a FALCON PAAAUNCH when the objective of scoring KOs is what's promoted.

Now, I'm totally aware this isn't a setting where it's every man for himself given we're talking teams. However, the point I'm getting at is timer-based 4v4s have the advantage of fundamentally promoting KO oriented objectives as opposed to survival based objectives.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

And this is one of the biggest problems time-focused sports have. There's a reason virtually all e-sports are objective-focused instead, with a timer serving a secondary purpose.

No one would actually seriously suggest me move competitive Smash 1v1s from stock to time. All the same reasons still apply to 4v4s.

I think it's good that people are suggesting it though. It is crucial that we have conversations like this, and approach new formats critically.

The stages of 1v1's don't leave us with the same spacing issues. Hence why problematic stages are banned from 1v1 play, and even STILL we apply a timer on top of that.

A timer exclusive for 4's turns it into a straight up TDM akin to other genres. Given that 4's in Smash...doesn't have map objectives for team play....yeah time makes a lot of sense.
Frankly stamina would make sense to me too, but I don't know if Stamina 4's is possible.

 

[Thinkaman]

Honestly, I'm not completely seeing how you believe "lame ducking" is a bigger problem on timer based games.

I'm not sure what the confusion is, this is transparently obvious.

99% of all time-out games (Smash or otherwise) end in a sad, pathetic period in which the game is still going but it is impossible to win.

This is particularly sad in Smash, given the it's core game system (smash KOs) otherwise always provides a potent chance for comeback.

Let's consider FFA dynamics for a comparison (it's not perfect, I'm aware). The optimal playstyle for winning FFAs is fundamentally opportunism. In a stock based setting, this strictly promotes non-interactive camping when the last man standing is the one who wins.

FFAs promote more interactivity on timer settings when camping is much less likely to actually win you the game. Suddenly it's not a totally bad idea to jump in with a FALCON PAAAUNCH when the objective of scoring KOs is what's promoted.

Now, I'm totally aware this isn't a setting where it's every man for himself given we're talking teams. However, the point I'm getting at is timer-based 4v4s have the advantage of fundamentally promoting KO oriented objectives as opposed to survival based objectives.

FFAs are political. 4v4 is as zero-sum as 2v2 or 1v1, regardless of time or stock.

A timer exclusive for 4's turns it into a straight up TDM akin to other genres. Given that 4's in Smash...doesn't have map objectives for team play....yeah time makes a lot of sense.

But good TDM games have elaborate systems of map objectives, map control, and diminishing returns for killing weaker players. Trying to compare Smash to these games falls flat, since none of these are true.

It's totally different to have players respawning indefinitely after a long timer, as they attempt to complete some entirely different objective. Zero elimination makes way more sense in this context.

 

[A2ZOMG]

Actually yeah, if you put it that way, stock is inevitably more meaningfully efficient for teams/1v1s.

 

[Thinkaman]

I think the real questions are: (with my preliminary opinions)

Do we allow teams to have duplicate characters? (probably no)
Do we do exclusive draft, and forbid teams from picking characters the other picked? (no)
Do we do character bans/striking? (hell no)

Characters in smash are not as universal and interchangeable as in DotA or LoL. Forcing someone to not play their main in a fighting game is less acceptable.

 

[A2ZOMG]

Considering how HUGE the Smash 4 cast is...character bans could work. jk

I would agree off the bat that we should force teams not use duplicate characters however. There's a reason we do that in Pokemon.

 

[Thinkaman]

Considering how HUGE the Smash 4 cast is...character bans could work. jk

I would agree off the bat that we should force teams not use duplicate characters however. There's a reason we do that in Pokemon.

Honestly, if nothing else, it's way higher clarity (less confusion) for the players and spectators.

Balance concerns are secondary to that, imo.

 

[The_Altrox]

Do we allow teams to have duplicate characters?
Do we do exclusive draft, and forbid teams from picking characters the other picked?
Do we do character bans/striking?

Duplicate characters... I would say "no" to start. Just imagine eight Sonics on screen. Dear lord.
Second one... no.
Third... no Pikachu and G&W on a team, pls.

 

[Masonomace]

I'm very content with stock mode & a stock time limit so that it's not unlimited spare time for 3v3 & 4v4. I'm also fine with TA on because if it wasn't, then that's just projectile-game & obviously characters like Captain Falcon or Ganondorf would just get bodied by the sheer numbers of hazardous projectiles controlling the stage & presence. The number of stocks now, I say 1, 2, or 3 stocks because these matches will be a lot more fast-paced, & the only factor would be the matches ending much quicker if the stocks were reduced. MOBA-inspiring rules sounds fun, but when you think about it, banning a character during draft mode of any sort is just lame when you put it in perspective. It's one thing to be banning character combos like Pika+G&W, because G&W would most likely be banned, Villager too if pocketing certain projectiles, but character banning from MOBA-inspired rules sounds lame, for a game like Smash I don't want characters banning any of my characters. So to recap:

-Stocks allowed, whether it's 1 2 or 3. Anything higher than 3 is fine I guess, but a number going over 5 is too much.
-Stock time allowed, to demote camping & too much stalling of any sort. Keep it fast-paced & constant.
-TA must be on, because TA off just favors projectiles a whole lot more, even if some of them do friendly fire damage.
-Stage bans, striking & Counterpicking is still fine.
-Duplicate characters on the same team is banned. We want variety in the teams for more interesting synergy & setups, right?
-Character banning isn't fit for Smash, imo. So keep it to as less of banning as we can for Doubles, 3v3, or 4v4.
-Other modes like strictly Time Attack, Stamina, or Special Smash of any kind is less convincing than Stock. Stock is what's up.
-Damage ratio be decreased? What do you guys think?
-No handicaps, not even for Lucario.

That's about it, lemme know any decent suggestions I missed.

 

[Thinkaman]

Damage ratio should stay the same. Moving back and forth would be obnoxious and alienating to players new and experienced alike.

 

[Masonomace]

I've sometimes seen TO's set Damage Ratio from 1.0 being our universal default, to 1.1 or 0.9 to slightly affect it, rarely seeing 0.5 or 1.5 to make the matches last longer or end quicker. But that royally screws over our inside knowledge about our character including every character's setups, combos, knockback, etc..

At first I wanted it changed only slightly, but looking ahead farther, it should remain unchanged.

 

[dansal]

In regards to projectiles, I'm not very convinced of their dominance considering the proliferation of anti-projectile specials among the characters. That's probably why there are so many in the first place!

 

[Thinkaman]

He was referring to playing without team attack, which indeed would be a giant ball of projectiles.

 

[S2]

I'm actually not all that interested in trying to put forth hard rulesets for 8-player matches at this point.

If anything, these are going to be side events. It'll probably be easier to decide on this stuff after people have actually tried it. But yeah, it's perfect for crew team battles. Then again, crews may want to have more traditional 1v1 round-robins for them. Crew battles are hardly ever about money, it's more or less pride.

As for stock versus time. I'm sure time is fun, but how many players would be interested paying to enter an event using time over stock? I'd certainly never pay any money to enter a time tournament, even if it was an 8-player smash.

Edit- I'd also throw in there that putting in a rule on duplicate characters would probably backfire. There's no quicker way to get people to not enter that telling them they can't pick who they want because someone else wants that character. I don't think the Moba style captains mode works nearly as well here. Those games are based on specific character roles, it doesn't really translate well into a fighting game.

 

[Thinkaman]

Edit- I'd also throw in there that putting in a rule on duplicate characters would probably backfire. There's no quicker way to get people to not enter that telling them they can't pick who they want because someone else wants that character. I don't think the Moba style captains mode works nearly as well here. Those games are based on specific character roles, it doesn't really translate well into a fighting game.

What does that have to do with anything? You can still pick a team of 5 AD carries in LoL...

Games like that forbid duplicate characters because:

1. It makes the game less confusing to play
2. It makes the game more coherent to watch
3. It allows characters to be designed without worrying about how well abilities stack with themselves, which is a big source of balance problems in that genre.

I don't think #3 applies much to Smash, but #1 and #2 sure do.

 

[deepseadiva]

How necessary is it really to make the game coherent by banning duplicates?

I want to play 4v4 with my band of Peaches.