4v4 - Quartets Discussion (Or other variants)

[EmblemCrossing]

At school, one of the clubs invited me and a bunch of my friends to a 4v4 tournament, I didn't expect much out of it, and it didn't go well at all. Here's what they used.

2 Stocks. No time limit. Random Omega forms only. Team attack off. Best of 1. Single elimination.

It was awful. Literally every team consisted of a hard hitter, and a projectile user behind them. Little Mac is a bit more annoying with arrows flying out from his body. Ike can F-Smash without any real risk. And then they gave up with it after our round, so we technically never finished.

I propose: 2 Stock, 7 minutes, best of 3. Team attack on, Final Destination, Big Battlefield, and possibly Temple. With no time limit, some of the matches went on too long. Our match was about 5 minutes. Those who were so good went for around 10. With team attack on, this would make matches go by faster.

 

[Thinkaman]

I'd just like to throw this idea out there: 99 stocks, 4 minutes.

The main reason I see a format like this working is due to the fact that, in the event a match comes down to a 1v1 in a normal scenario, suddenly you're playing that 1v1 on some of the largest stages in Smash history. It could really drone on, or better yet, the winning player may just decide to run out the clock since evasion is reasonably simple under those circumstances.

This doesn't usually happen in 2v2s since all matches are played on reasonably sized stages, but for 4v4s, if all players are present for the ENTIRE game, it's not possible for a match to degenerate into a large scale game of tag. There are too many players to simply just run away.

This is just Time mode.

The problem with Time mode (vs Stock) in 4v4 is the same as 1v1: Every game comes down to the leading side camping, rather than a climatic final KO. Every single game.


I just want to chime in that competitive 4v4 should ideally be played on a separate monitor for each team, and that all players should be required to use correct team-tagged nametags. (If nothing else, for spectator purposes)

 

[John12346]

I recognize that, for 1v1s and 2v2s, time mode can lead to camping and runaway in the event of a lead, but would it actually be possible for all four players to avoid all four opponents? I feel like that actually wouldn't be feasible with that many players running around.

Also the reason I mention 99 stock over time is due to the fact that time doesn't account for the discrepancy that occurs when someone SDs at 0, or gets killed by their teammate.

 

[CAUP]

4v4 is simply incredible.

I loved watching the matches posted in this thread. I too highly encourage TOs to run these tournaments. I would enter and I play Melee!

Don't let these get overlooked. They're a totally new way to play smash.

 

[19_]

A few night ago there was was this awesome stream that had 4v4s. Both temples and even Great Cave Offensive were legal stages.
I managed to find the vod for it here. it starts around 8:07:00.

Large stages look pretty cool to me in this mode.


EDIT: Its gone now

 

[Waluigi is too big]

any reason why we are not trying gaur plains. If we can try great cave offensive we can try Gaur plains.

 

[KingCowman]

I'd just like to throw this idea out there: 99 stocks, 4 minutes.

The main reason I see a format like this working is due to the fact that, in the event a match comes down to a 1v1 in a normal scenario, suddenly you're playing that 1v1 on some of the largest stages in Smash history. It could really drone on, or better yet, the winning player may just decide to run out the clock since evasion is reasonably simple under those circumstances.

This doesn't usually happen in 2v2s since all matches are played on reasonably sized stages, but for 4v4s, if all players are present for the ENTIRE game, it's not possible for a match to degenerate into a large scale game of tag. There are too many players to simply just run away.

So just use time match setting?

 

[KingCowman]

any reason why we are not trying gaur plains. If we can try great cave offensive we can try Gaur plains.

I agree, metal face is the least intrusive boss, in 8 player he goes away really quickly, and doesn't grant any buff for who kills him. Which is a good and bad thing

 

[19_]

any reason why we are not trying gaur plains. If we can try great cave offensive we can try Gaur plains.

I know it seems like metal face may not appear in 8 player, but it should be tested. If there are 4 players remaining (with one stock each because of share stock) in a/an 5-8 player match and metal face still does not show up after 2 night cycles we are golden.

 

[Shadow Blitz]

Ugh I want 6 player or 8 player online so badly so I can actually practice these. From watching, it does look really fun.

Gaur Plains seems to hurt ground based characters pretty harder, why is big battlefield disliked again?

 

[19_]

Ugh I want 6 player or 8 player online so badly so I can actually practice these. From watching, it does look really fun.

Gaur Plains seems to hurt ground based characters pretty harder, why is big battlefield disliked again?

big battlefield and its omega are actually the most popular stages for 4v4.

 

[MajorMajora]

I don't think stock is a problem at all. Yes: a 1v1 is stagnant. But have you considered how uncommon those would be? Before a 1v1 you would have to have a 2v2, and at that point running out the clock isn't an option by the 1 player. And if we do ever get camp offs on the off chance, we can just have a 10-15 minute time limit.

Timed stock is definitely the right way to go.

 

[Teshie U]

I'm all for stock and TA off.

Projetile spam doesn't really stack. Trying to mindlessly spam a bunch of stuff from across the stage will lose to ONE good reflector.

Nothing is really wrong with time, except we kind of waste time on a match where one team is getting slaughtered when it could be done in half that time.

 

[Feryn Hyrk]

So, I tried do 4 vs 4 with team attack on and... man, we can't do it. It will reduce the stage list to only the giant ones and by giant I mean like Palutena's/Hyrules temple size.. in big battlefield and even the big omegas the thing gets frustating to play... it may be good for the viwers to laugh but it's almost umbearable unless there is like 8 mew2kings playing this frame perfectly.

Now with team attack off this becomenos A LOT more fun, you really feel like you're in a group fighting another guild. Then you win and your 3 friends and you appear on the winnign cutscene, man, it's awesome. Trust me.

EDIT

ah, I vote in stock with time too, just like normal battles... it's faster and better to watch since there will be a time near the end when one side will be outnumbered badly and if they still win it will be incredibly hype, and hype matches is what we want, right?

 

[MajorMajora]

So, I tried do 4 vs 4 with team attack on and... man, we can't do it. It will reduce the stage list to only the giant ones and by giant I mean like Palutena's/Hyrules temple size.. in big battlefield and even the big omegas the thing gets frustating to play... it may be good for the viwers to laugh but it's almost umbearable unless there is like 8 mew2kings playing this frame perfectly.

Now with team attack off this becomenos A LOT more fun, you really feel like you're in a group fighting another guild. Then you win and your 3 friends and you appear on the winnign cutscene, man, it's awesome. Trust me.

EDIT

ah, I vote in stock with time too, just like normal battles... it's faster and better to watch since there will be a time near the end when one side will be outnumbered badly and if they still win it will be incredibly hype, and hype matches is what we want, right?

Well, squads have happened before and it worked well enough. It was a bit difficult to keep track of but the commentary helped a lot.

 

[Feryn Hyrk]

Well, squads have happened before and it worked well enough. It was a bit difficult to keep track of but the commentary helped a lot.

My complaint was about team attack on, things get too chaotic with 8 players, team attack should be off.

 

[Kodachi]

4v4 could honestly be insane in this game. The game I mained before ssb4 we would 4v4 all the time, sometimes with specific matchups for balance, other times with any character goes, but either way a blast was had all around, and seeing 2 people work together to beat 4 who don't for example is an amazing sight to see, and an even better one to perform yourself. I really see 4v4 smash as taking off and potentially even usurping 1v1... We will see about that in due time, for now we still need to evolve the basics and the bring forth the meta.

 

[BBG|Scott-Spain]

4v4 could honestly be insane in this game. The game I mained before ssb4 we would 4v4 all the time, sometimes with specific matchups for balance, other times with any character goes, but either way a blast was had all around, and seeing 2 people work together to beat 4 who don't for example is an amazing sight to see, and an even better one to perform yourself. I really see 4v4 smash as taking off and potentially even usurping 1v1... We will see about that in due time, for now we still need to evolve the basics and the bring forth the meta.

I don't know about surpassing 1v1, but I agree with the potential growth of this format. There just needs to be more theory and development involved, just like doubles.