4v4 - Quartets Discussion (Or other variants)

[Masonomace]

Personally, I wouldn't mind 4v4 Peaches versus 4 Marios. However I say that because I'm very aware of my own character watching my own percentage. It's one thing to worry about Double Wario or Double Meta Knight, but can you really pay attention to your own Peach at all times, 24 / 7 within the match full of your 4-man Peach team? The real reason I want character duplication banned be a guideline, is to prevent 8 players playing the same character, because if you thought keeping track of yourself in chaos within your 4-man Peach team was bad, then think of the hectic sloppy chaos you have to keep track of the other 4-man enemy Peach team.

Sure, bend the rule to be more specific like this instead:
-Both teams cannot choose the same character. 8 duplicated characters is banned.

But if we do that, then we may as well just ban character duplication all-around to make it easier. Or not, since this mode will require a lot of awareness & skill to execute these matches to be fun, hard, exciting, & stressful.

 

[The_Altrox]

I think we should consider Time for this. I like stock, but lopsided 1 vs. 4 matches wouldn't be epic unless that one guy makes a comeback. That being said, 3 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 feels more viable and interesting than 1 vs. 2 in regular teams.

In time, it would be which team can effectively kill more than the other without disadvantaging the losing side. It would be cool if matches could be played to a certain amount of kills like in shooters. I feel like that could work perfectly here.

 

[M15t3R E]

I think we should consider Time for this. I like stock, but lopsided 1 vs. 4 matches wouldn't be epic unless that one guy makes a comeback. That being said, 3 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 feels more viable and interesting than 1 vs. 2 in regular teams.

In time, it would be which team can effectively kill more than the other without disadvantaging the losing side. It would be cool if matches could be played to a certain amount of kills like in shooters. I feel like that could work perfectly here.

Thinkaman made an excellent point earlier when he stated that, in time mode, teams will just pile on the weakest player on the other team. Besides, stock matches are MUCH more fun, hyped, and easier to follow.

 

[Masonomace]

The other problem with Time mode, is that there's no Score Display count during the match. It shows the +1 or -1 when KOing someone or Dying from someone KO'ing you or you SD'ing, but total scores aren't shown until the very end of the match where everyone's clapping & the victory theme is happening. If we could see what the scores were visually around our avatar displayed by the % health in mid-match, then maybe I'd consider Time mode.

 

[Berserker.]

The other problem with Time mode, is that there's no Score Display count during the match. It shows the +1 or -1 when KOing someone or Dying from someone KO'ing you or you SD'ing, but total scores aren't shown until the very end of the match where everyone's clapping & the victory theme is happening. If we could see what the scores were visually around our avatar displayed by the % health in mid-match, then maybe I'd consider Time mode.

There's a way to display the score

 

[Masonomace]

There's a way to display the score

It may be a new feature within the "More Options" tab then. Hopefully, this is correct so that Time mode might just be a maybe.

 

[Berserker.]

It may be a new feature within the "More Options" tab then. Hopefully, this is correct so that Time mode might just be a maybe.

It is

Check it out in the rules menu

 

[The_Altrox]

teams will just pile on the weakest player on the other team.

So? I get your point, but there's something to be said in that scenario: that you're only as good as your weakest player, which may encourage others to tow the line and defend their team from losing points.

 

[Thinkaman]

So? I get your point, but there's something to be said in that scenario: that you're only as good as your weakest player, which may encourage others to tow the line and defend their team from losing points.

MOBAs have had to bend over backwards and add increasingly aggressive diminishing returns to avoid the really unpleasant gameplay experience this induces. Trust me, it's not fun!

This is in spite of MOBAs having the advantage of being focused on external objectives, a big mitigation factor that Smash doesn't enjoy in any mode.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

If one posits that 4v4 will necessitate larger-than-average stages to make room for all the players, then wouldn't these same stages be too big for potential 1v1 scenarios once the teammates have been killed? It sounds like it would be a delicate balancing act to figure out which stages are workable.

 

[Piford]

If one posits that 4v4 will necessitate larger-than-average stages to make room for all the players, then wouldn't these same stages be too big for potential 1v1 scenarios once the teammates have been killed? It sounds like it would be a delicate balancing act to figure out which stages are workable.

No its easy 75m the only legal stage. /s

 

[Beethro]

how would banning dupes affect pit and pittoo who are outside of b and side-b, the same character

 

[Jaedrik]

Well, everyone, it seems that 4v4 will be at the next KTAR (or is it SKTAR?) 11!
So, we'll see what happens then.

 

[Shadowmin]

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)


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.

With that Logic, Robin should also be banned as leader, since his Nosferatu (excuse spelling) can heal. Same with Jigglypuff, I think.

 

[NAKAT]

MAKE THIS A MAIN EVENT! WE NEED TO DO THIS!

 

[deepseadiva]

Basically main events are based on popularity. Unless some inherently broken aspect of 4v4s is found, this is for sure a new tournament mainstay.

I love this game. <3

 

[M15t3R E]

Well, everyone, it seems that 4v4 will be at the next KTAR (or is it SKTAR?) 11!
So, we'll see what happens then.

I think this debate about stock vs time and appropriate ruleset for 4v4 has run its course. We'll have to leave it up to Keitaro then. I'll be waiting patiently and when it happens, watching intently.

 

[BBG|Scott-Spain]

I suggest 2 stocks each character.

We are so in there...

 

[Gamingboy]

I think I mentioned this elsewhere and somebody else mentioned this already on this thread, but I think what would be REALLY cool about this is that it could allow for big battles between different crews, cities, regions or even countries.


There could be a World Cup of Smash where the top 8 or so Smash countries (whatever they are) have their four best smashers face each other. Two pools of four, followed by knockout rounds featuring the top two teams from each pool.


It could be interesting especially because, much like other international events like the World Cup or Olympics, the "best" smashers might not necessarily make the best team, since they might have play styles that don't complement each other well, or they might have grudges against each other, or they might not be able to practice with each other very often because they live in different places or have different specialties (one might usually only play Melee, another might be focused only on the Wii U, etc.).

I mean, it'd be hard to do, but I figure it could be done if it was part of a larger Smash event like Apex or if Nintendo sponsored it, flew people in and had it at E3 (although they'd probably have items on, because Nintendo's tournaments are meant to double as advertisements that can show as many features as possible).

Draw up your "Dream Teams" now.

 

[S2]

Since it's been mentioned, if player confusion is really an issue, people can just use nametags. That''s a better solution than putting forth arbitrary rules that limit character choices.

 

[Thinkaman]

Since it's been mentioned, if player confusion is really an issue, people can just use nametags. That''s a better solution than putting forth arbitrary rules that limit character choices.

This only slightly mitigates the clarity issue, while not touching the broader concerns about matchup variety and possible balance concerns. (Villager seems problematically self-synergistic.)

Honestly, Doubles matchups in both Brawl and Melee have been consistently way more interesting when different characters are used. We've never had a rule against it because it's not worth it for doubles. But for quads, this issue is both far bigger and far more likely to manifest.

I'm not totally sold on this restriction, but I definitely see major, reasonable upsides.

Additionally, I can't imagine it actually proving to be that high of a cost. People in the same crew having duplicate mains is extremely rare, and this is likely to be more true than ever in Smash 4 due to roster size and likely superior balance.

 

[M15t3R E]

What about the restriction of limiting the number of same characters on a team to 2?

 

[S2]

This only slightly mitigates the clarity issue, while not touching the broader concerns about matchup variety and possible balance concerns. (Villager seems problematically self-synergistic.)

Honestly, Doubles matchups in both Brawl and Melee have been consistently way more interesting when different characters are used. We've never had a rule against it because it's not worth it for doubles. But for quads, this issue is both far bigger and far more likely to manifest.

I'm not totally sold on this restriction, but I definitely see major, reasonable upsides.

Additionally, I can't imagine it actually proving to be that high of a cost. People in the same crew having duplicate mains is extremely rare, and this is likely to be more true than ever in Smash 4 due to roster size and likely superior balance.

I'm still not seeing what the upside is to banning multiples of character beyond personal preferences for forced character variety. If duplicate mains amongst crew players is "extremely rare", then why even bother with putting a rule down in the first place?

 

[Gidy]

3v3 Big Battlefield and Omega FD only

 

[popsofctown]

I'm still not seeing what the upside is to banning multiples of character beyond personal preferences for forced character variety. If duplicate mains amongst crew players is "extremely rare", then why even bother with putting a rule down in the first place?

The idea is that the only reason you would end up seeing duplicates in the first place is villager spam

 

[Masonomace]

The idea is that the only reason you would end up seeing duplicates in the first place is villager spam

Yes, Two sets of Villager Timber Pocketing I suspect will be some sort of ****ery.

It'd be hilarious to see a grounded ZSS use her Side-B.
Another ZSS SH > Side-B above her.
The 3rd ZSS do a FH > Side-B above that.
And finally a ZSS doing FH > DJ > Side-B to cover that opening.

Although the 4th Side-B coverage is very unnecessary, it was for laughs at what kind of walls will be made with 4-man dupes teams.

Or, replace the Side-B's with Neutral-B projectiles, & the grounded ZSS use Side-B whip for poking & zoning.

 

[Book Jacket]

I think duplicate characters lends itself with little problems to doubles, but it creates a much more shenanigan-focused meta for anything more. For that reason, I think we should ban duplicate characters in 3v3s and 4v4s. Obviously, this won't eliminate shenanigans outright (Pika + GW), but it will reduce their prevalence.

Different topic, I think I'll prefer the 3v3 dynamic. 3 is just a great team number. I think it'll promote the best level of team synergy. Four is a little much, it'll be easier to feel a disconnect with that sort of team. But with 3, I dunno. It just works. I've been thinking of getting into being a TO (even though I won't be able to do that for a while), and if I do, I think I will run trios instead of quartets.

 

[popsofctown]

Would be cool if you could have 3 players with 4 stocks each against 4 players with 3 stocks each. The trio could very well win.

 

[Metal B]

With that Logic, Robin should also be banned as leader, since his Nosferatu (excuse spelling) can heal. Same with Jigglypuff, I think.

I thought about it, but you also weakening one other teammate, keep him away from the battle and you both have to stand still. This is enough time, for another player to break through to you. One strong hit can KO the VIP, so you wanna be on the move and have people to defend you.
I also would not rule out Ness and Wii Fit Trainer completely. You need two player to heal Ness (this could be enough time for three player to overpower two) and Wii Fit Trainer needs to stand still (there is a risk and reward system here. since you don't heal much).

 

[TurnUp]

I can imagine that teams would end up working like a team, you would have a possible tank to tank out the damage while the other player get kills, a healer with an absorber, a reflector to defend the team, a plain old KO'er, a gimper and everything else. It could be a very very interesting side event.

One thing for sure is that Game and Watch and Pikachu can't be on the same team, but them being on different teams would make it very risky and interesting.

 

[kackamee]

Hypothetically, I'm also not a fan of character duplicates because of shenanigans like double villager, or even double jigglypuff/Ness. I think having character diversity will be healthier for the game.

I feel that time may actually be the way to go for this. The argument that teams will only focus on the weakest members is just as prevalent in stocks if not more so. Except in Stock, you permenately lose a member and hypothetically will be down 3-4 which will be hard to come back from.
I think in Stock, after the first player goes down, you'll typically know the outcome of the match, which could be a bit less exciting.
In time, I think you'd see more hype comebacks and more late game strategy that comes with more options.

 

[MadKraken]

Like anything else that's new in Smash, I think we should try it out WITHOUT bans at first and see if they're really necessary instead of jumping the gun and unknowingly hinder something that's potentially good.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Should 4v4's even have a timer? I agree that having many fighters on the field would defer players from camping, but I also think that, if the match whittles down to a 1vs1 on a big map, the presence of a timer might encourage players to camp it out and run away until the match ends.

 

[smashmachine]

honestly it would be better if there was a "first to x kills wins" option lol

oh well

 

[Thinkaman]

honestly it would be better if there was a "first to x kills wins" option lol

This is way superior to Time, but still has the disadvantage of focusing the game on the weakest, easiest to kill member of each team.

Great idea though, wish it was an option!

 

[The_Altrox]

This is way superior to Time, but still has the disadvantage of focusing the game on the weakest, easiest to kill member of each team.

Great idea though, wish it was an option!

Start sending letters to uncle Sakurai then?

I suggested this earlier. I don't play CoD much, but it's kind of like that. You're only as strong as your weakest player unless you can find a way to protect him will making kills.

 

[Thinkaman]

It all depends of how much of a team game we want it to be; what balance of emphasis do we want to put on the weakest member vs. the strongest?

I think it's a really frustrating experience both to be held down by a weaker friend, and to be that friend and know that you are causing your team to lose. I'm sure many of us have had both experiences before, in various games.

I personally favor a slight bias of focus towards the strongest players on each team for this reason--it's an overall better experience for the weaker players, stronger players, their opponents, and spectators.

 

[smashmachine]

This is way superior to Time, but still has the disadvantage of focusing the game on the weakest, easiest to kill member of each team.

Great idea though, wish it was an option!

what's wrong with that? besides if this is the case it should be the rest of the team's job to plan around it

 

[Thinkaman]

what's wrong with that? besides if this is the case it should be the rest of the team's job to plan around it

It's not "wrong", but it's an open question.

Should a team game be exclusively a test of who has the weakest player, and the stronger players not matter at all? Clearly not.
Should a team game be exclusively a test of who has the strongest player, and the weaker players not matter at all? Clearly not.

All team games are a balance somewhere between the two, and there are pros and cons to being tilted in either direction.

Important, unavoidable dichotomy: Emphasizing teamwork and emphasizing player agency are fundamentally opposing goals.

 

[Book Jacket]

Hypothetically, I'm also not a fan of character duplicates because of shenanigans like double villager, or even double jigglypuff/Ness. I think having character diversity will be healthier for the game.

I feel that time may actually be the way to go for this. The argument that teams will only focus on the weakest members is just as prevalent in stocks if not more so. Except in Stock, you permenately lose a member and hypothetically will be down 3-4 which will be hard to come back from.
I think in Stock, after the first player goes down, you'll typically know the outcome of the match, which could be a bit less exciting.
In time, I think you'd see more hype comebacks and more late game strategy that comes with more options.

Well the problem is that in time, the weakest player keeps respawning, and so is a continued reliable kill option. So basically, in stock, you have to defeat each member of the opponent's team, but in time, you can just kill the worst player repeatedly and still win.

Stock just seems appropriate, and it more closely mirrors what the rest of the fighting game community does. Each stock is like an open-ended life bar.

I can imagine that teams would end up working like a team, you would have a possible tank to tank out the damage while the other player get kills, a healer with an absorber, a reflector to defend the team, a plain old KO'er, a gimper and everything else. It could be a very very interesting side event.

One thing for sure is that Game and Watch and Pikachu can't be on the same team, but them being on different teams would make it very risky and interesting.

The emphasis on team dynamics is what has me really excited. It just feels so fitting. And awesome. It feels really awesome.