Are our players afraid of commitment?

[Big-Cat]

I know a lot of people prefer 3 over 2 stocks. One reason I commonly see is the comeback factor. Another reason is because of things like early deaths and such. I think, "So what?" A stock is a stock regardless of whether we have 2 or 99 stocks. The other reason and this make me think that a lot of players really don't want to feel penalized for their mistakes and feel safer with an extra stock to spare. You can see this in other parts in the game.

The increased lag on aerials has been a big issue for some. You can't approach with aerials as much as you could in previous games. There's more of a commitment to them this time around. If you want to auto-cancel your aerials, you have to do them within a certain time frame. This makes sense. Good balance should be where certain options are not too versatile and outperform other options entirely. Some people seem like they're afraid to go for the ground approach as an alternative. At worst, you see a LOT of rolling because it's "safe" in comparison to walking or running.

Speaking of running, this is another thing I see popping up. People are still adapting to the fact that running requires more of a commitment than ever. This is made worse by the fact that most people go for running over walking in just about any situation simply because one is faster. People look for any kind of micromovement AT out of running and you've got things like perfect pivoting which I don't think will go very far.

Finally, time limits being set at a higher time than at something lower like five minutes. I see people say that a lower time limit means more timeouts and more camping. I understand the concern with camping, but timeouts have always been a viable tactic. In most games, it's not always that easy to do. Camping, on the other hand, is hard to do unless you zone out the opponent very well in this game. Things like SH lasers and missile canceling are gone, and planking has walked the plank. Maybe I'm not seeing this from the perspective of a long time Smash players, but grow some balls and look for opportunities to make them cut that **** out.

PS. Just for the sake of comparison even though they are all different games, most other fighting games have a max time for any given match (not set) of five minutes. Street Fighter does 2/3 at a max time of 297 seconds, three seconds shy of five minutes and 99 seconds per round. Tekken does 3/5 with a max time of 5 minutes, a minute per round. Virtua Fighter goes for 3/5 with a max time of 3 minutes 45 seconds at 45 seconds per round.

 

[Zelder]

2 Stocks leads to most fights ending with both players at 100+%, playing super defensive and trying to fish out a killing move. It's the right strategy, but I don't think it's a lot of fun to play or watch.

And we shouldn't encourage time outs. They're a viable strategy yeah, but it's both terrible to watch and to have happen to you.

 

[Big-Cat]

2 Stocks leads to most fights ending with both players at 100+%, playing super defensive and trying to fish out a killing move. It's the right strategy, but I don't think it's a lot of fun to play or watch.

Tell that to Street Fighter EVO matches. To me, it's most hype as a spectator when it's anybody's game.

 

[Zelder]

Tell that to Street Fighter EVO matches. To me, it's most hype as a spectator when it's anybody's game.

Yeah but Street Fighter is a fundamentally different game, with fewer evasive options comapred to Smash. When it's happening in Street Fighter, it creates kind of a "Mexican Standoff"/"Desperate Scramble" situation that is indeed quite hype, but in Smash 4, it's simply less entertaining to watch with the myriad rolls/shields that accompany high %, last stock play.

 

[Johnknight1]

If both players are close, then that's the desired outcome for the viewer. Regardless of offense vs. defense (unless someone takes a fundamentally wrong approach to it), the best players will continually win these situations regardless of what sort of game, activity, or sport is involved in these close down-to-the-wire situations.

If they're far apart, the person behind can't camp. They gotta go for the victory hard. They have to, in many ways, offensively force things. The person behind has to walk a thing line of pressing things offensively and trying to remain careful, all while balancing out how to deal with an opponent who got them in this predicament, the opponent changing for the change in situation and your strategy, as well as the background threat of time if we keep the timer on say 6 minutes for 2 stock rather than 5.

The longer time allows players more chances to throw more Hail Mary's, sure, but it also allows them to throw all kinds say passes to get them closer to score a touchdown to close the lead gap.

That can lead to comebacks, which can lead to exciting comebacks and exciting moments if the game and situation allows it. With a smaller timer, however, the threat of time is more ominous and harder to stop. After all, you can beat an opponent, but you can't beat (them after) a time limit.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I've seen comebacks with 2, 3 and even 4 stocks. The comeback point is moot.

And one of the arguments I see the most is "it's really difficult to come back with something like an SD". A game lenient with mistakes is fine, nobody plays perfect anyway. But lenient to something as big as an SD? I think it's asking for too much.

The way I see it most people want the game to be less punishing with their own mistakes, and imo, that would only lower the quality of each game.

 

[Nixon Corral]

I've seen comebacks with 2, 3 and even 4 stocks. The comeback point is moot.

And one of the arguments I see the most is "it's really difficult to come back with something like an SD". A game lenient with mistakes is fine, nobody plays perfect anyway. But lenient to something as big as an SD? I think it's asking for too much.

The way I see it most people want the game to be less punishing with their own mistakes, and imo, that would only lower the quality of each game.

I agree with everything you said and would also add that SDs are pretty difficult to incur in SSB4. All the more reason not to add a handicap for them.

 

[T0MMY]

I'm fine with timeouts, although I don't think it should be encouraged to the point where it is the main strategy. Right now that is not the case, but it certainly feels like it's getting too close to it.
Really, the only issue I bring up when discussing timeouts is the %-based out-of-game ruling that gives the bracket win to the person who has less damage. I am against that ruling because Damage % does not reasonably indicate a winner in Smash - it was adopted from traditional fighting game rulings back in the day even though it was not reasonably applicable back then in Smash and continues to be unreasonably applied to this day. A player in Smash can be KO'd at 0% (or theoretically does not get KO'd up to 999%).

If we are to reward the better player based on employment of certain competitive skills then the %-based win ruling is anti-competitive. To put it in perspective, this story says it all:

Captain Falcon hates %-based wins

 

[ぱみゅ]

Percentage rules are there because they're the easiest to implement. Any other rule is arbitrary and has no standpoint (though I'll admit % is quite arbitrary too). Sudden Deaths are random, 1-stock Rematches are time-consuming. Rematches with high-percentages are something I'd like to see but any non-300% number is arbitrary, and 300% feels silly in theory.


The best reasoning I have heard so far pro-percentage lead is that "is further than the starting point, 0%"

 

[stancosmos]

I know a lot of people prefer 3 over 2 stocks. One reason I commonly see is the comeback factor. Another reason is because of things like early deaths and such. I think, "So what?" A stock is a stock regardless of whether we have 2 or 99 stocks. The other reason and this make me think that a lot of players really don't want to feel penalized for their mistakes and feel safer with an extra stock to spare. You can see this in other parts in the game.

The increased lag on aerials has been a big issue for some. You can't approach with aerials as much as you could in previous games. There's more of a commitment to them this time around. If you want to auto-cancel your aerials, you have to do them within a certain time frame. This makes sense. Good balance should be where certain options are not too versatile and outperform other options entirely. Some people seem like they're afraid to go for the ground approach as an alternative. At worst, you see a LOT of rolling because it's "safe" in comparison to walking or running.

Speaking of running, this is another thing I see popping up. People are still adapting to the fact that running requires more of a commitment than ever. This is made worse by the fact that most people go for running over walking in just about any situation simply because one is faster. People look for any kind of micromovement AT out of running and you've got things like perfect pivoting which I don't think will go very far.

Finally, time limits being set at a higher time than at something lower like five minutes. I see people say that a lower time limit means more timeouts and more camping. I understand the concern with camping, but timeouts have always been a viable tactic. In most games, it's not always that easy to do. Camping, on the other hand, is hard to do unless you zone out the opponent very well in this game. Things like SH lasers and missile canceling are gone, and planking has walked the plank. Maybe I'm not seeing this from the perspective of a long time Smash players, but grow some balls and look for opportunities to make them cut that **** out.

PS. Just for the sake of comparison even though they are all different games, most other fighting games have a max time for any given match (not set) of five minutes. Street Fighter does 2/3 at a max time of 297 seconds, three seconds shy of five minutes and 99 seconds per round. Tekken does 3/5 with a max time of 5 minutes, a minute per round. Virtua Fighter goes for 3/5 with a max time of 3 minutes 45 seconds at 45 seconds per round.

A stock isn't just a stock. Losing a stock in a 99 stock match is losing 1% of the match, losing it in a 2 stock match is 50%. It's far more significant to suicide in 2 stock because it almost always means you lose the game. That being said, i agree with 2 stocks. As you get better at the game, you should also get better at not killing yourself. It's the players that need to adapt to the game, not the other way around. Blaming your loss of the amount of stock in a game is cowardly. Also the time should be higher for smash 4. More defensive game = longer matches. Time outs should be a viable strategy, but it should be kept balanced like the rest of the game.

 

[Big-Cat]

Defensive or not shouldn't affect the time limit THAT much. Marvel matches can take ****ing forever and that game has all sorts of **** flying.

 

[Asdioh]

So what are you saying? Should we do 2 stock? 5 minutes? I admit as time goes by, I mind 2 stock less than I originally did. I would prefer 3 stock, but that's not always feasible at tournaments.
In that case, what about Melee? Why is it still 4 stocks 8 minutes? I guarantee you Melee will be more problematic at Apex because of the massive number of entrants, and matches will likely take long with the current ruleset.

Also interesting thread Tommy, that poor ref though
What should we do instead of % at end of match though? Total Damage Dealt maybe? That would be just as arbitrary. I also don't agree with sudden death because it can lead to the same situation % based wins do, except instead of the would-be-winner stalling the remaining time out, it would be the would-be-loser. The guy at 100% on his last stock would be running away from the guy at 0% on his last stock, and then get a free chance to even the odds in sudden death, which would be even less fair. In addition, sudden death has no time limit, and has bobombs spawn, which are easily avoided, so it can be even stallier.

 

[TL?]

Where do I even start? The idea that people's preference of stocks is based on them being "scared" makes absolutely no sense and just comes off as condescending. It's a perfectly valid stance to prefer 3 stock, as is preferring 2 stocks. Pretending that those who disagree with your preference are "just scared" is extremely disingenuous. I'm not sure how you expect to have a constructive argument with that kind of opening.

Camping, on the other hand, is hard to do unless you zone out the opponent very well in this game. Things like SH lasers and missile canceling are gone, and planking has walked the plank. Maybe I'm not seeing this from the perspective of a long time Smash players, but grow some balls and look for opportunities to make them cut that **** out.

The idea that timeouts only happen when projectile based characters are involved is just plain wrong. Maybe you should have tuned into KiT last weekend to see some sonic timeouts. Plenty of matchups in this game can play out somewhat slowly, and with a lower clock they tend to timeout. But players just need to "grow some balls" and take some unnecessary risks right? So we can implement a shorter timer that doesn't properly accommodate high level play? It seems like it would be a lot more reasonable to adjust the timer to the flow of the actual game, instead of expecting people to play some arbitrary way.

For events that run 2 stock, the standard seems to be going towards 6 minutes because it's not super long and it doesn't cause a lot of timeouts. Obviously timeouts are a part of any game with a timer and will never go away completely, but most players would prefer if they were rare. The comparisons to other fighting games are meaningless. The rules for smash need to be made to accommodate our game and not try to mimic what is best for other games.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Finally, time limits being set at a higher time than at something lower like five minutes. I see people say that a lower time limit means more timeouts and more camping. I understand the concern with camping, but timeouts have always been a viable tactic. In most games, it's not always that easy to do. Camping, on the other hand, is hard to do unless you zone out the opponent very well in this game. Things like SH lasers and missile canceling are gone, and planking has walked the plank. Maybe I'm not seeing this from the perspective of a long time Smash players, but grow some balls and look for opportunities to make them cut that **** out.

Need more people to talk about how bad the timers are.

3 Stock is just as good as 2 stock, but I don't feel it necessary. If people want 3 stock though I don't really see an issue. It's fine. I just don't think Smash 4 should ever play with an 8 minute timer. *Ever*.

 

[Asdioh]

Need more people to talk about how terribad the timers are right now. They're absolutely horrendous.

Can you explain though? Are you talking about 2 stock 6 minute timers being horrendous? Is 3 stock 8 minute just as bad? Why are they horrendous? I haven't seen any timeouts yet, but I heard something about Sonic timing people out this past weekend. I would chalk that up more to Sonic being cancer incarnate in Smash though, rather than the timers themselves being a problem.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Can you explain though? Are you talking about 2 stock 6 minute timers being horrendous? Is 3 stock 8 minute just as bad? Why are they horrendous? I haven't seen any timeouts yet, but I heard something about Sonic timing people out this past weekend. I would chalk that up more to Sonic being cancer incarnate in Smash though, rather than the timers themselves being a problem.

Timing people out isn't a bad thing.
If anything the some of the matches should have timed out earlier.
Modest timers encouraging approaching and moving the pace. If you have all the time in the world, you have *all * the time in the world.

Spoiler

To put it another way.
Xsmash GF. The timer is 6 minutes which isn't a biggie however times of matches was
3:19
3:36
3:33
3:32
5:03
3:19
4:37
5:08

The average time for a match was 4 Minutes and 1 second.

Not saying to have a 4 minute timer (at all). However given you mentioned Sonic as a particular time waster, might as well of looked at his MU times. When I have a moment I'll look into it more. However for those whom were hating on Sakurai (outside of thread)...For Glory's 5 minute timer actually coincides with the expected time of a tournament match...so far if we're talking specifically 2 Stock. So leads one to wonder how the move to 3 stock, sends us up to 8 minutes really, as I know even with "sonic" average MU times will still be decent. We just have a lot of extra time that drags out most games.

 

[Big-Cat]

@ TL?
The most I said about players being scared is being scared of committing to something. Telling players to grow balls against campers was hyperbole, but it still rings true. If you don't want them to camp, try to stop them. Projectiles were but one example of camping. There's also running around the stage and not getting hit.

The stocks part was explained by @ ぱみゅ . Some are wanting more leniency for their mistakes, and that' asking for too much.

 

[Raijinken]

It's scary being at 100+% when both you and your opponent are in Rage mode. But really, it's no more concerning than being at a comboable percent in any past game that could result in you dying from a mistake.

People just aren't used to this new type of risk, I guess.

 

[Shaq]

Nah homie it's just that aint nobody wanna watch 8 min of ****** runnin away and chillin in shield.

If we lucky they play Diddy and they do the whole dthrow combo **** and end it quick, sorta.

 

[Nobie]

When it comes to committing to attacks, I think players are afraid of it, and they often blame the game for this rather than themselves. "Offensive pressure just isn't possible, and it's basically about shielding and grabbing," they claim, as if a game where the threat of grabs against your mighty shield won't also open up opportunities for your other attacks.

I've discussed and argued with people about the concept of aggression in Smash Bros. before, and I've come to the conclusion that a lot of Smash players think the only form of aggression is rushdown, and that unless rushdown is super safe it simply isn't worth it. It's as if at the same time they're lauding the value of aggressive play, they're also ironically afraid of aggressive play if it incurs risk. The idea that aggression can be careful and measured, and that it can be part of your playstyle even if it's not the only component is somehow a "problem." Part of it, I think, is that a lot of Smash players only play Smash and aren't aware that other games, not even exclusively fighting games, rely on interesting defensive play, or a constant shift between offense and defense.

I'm aware that the Smash series in general is actually pretty defensive, but this is not the perception people have. Someone once asked, what's the point of trying so hard to get in and attack the opponent if your reward is hitting them for a bit of damage? It was all for nothing, they said, ignoring the fact that the "bit of damage" they did put them one step closer to winning, and that they likely have positional advantage after successfully scoring the hit. That's the mindset floating around, though.

As for the whole camping/timeout thing, I think one significant difference between Smash and other fighting games is the fact that stocks can act as buffers, limiting the ability for someone to catch up to a life lead. In other fighting games, if someone has a 90% life lead, you know you have to deal 90% damage, and as long as you hit them enough times to exceed that difference, you've entered a winning position. In Smash, however, if the opponent has a stock lead, it doesn't matter how much damage you deal because they will have the advantage until that stock is gone. In a game like Melee, where deaths came quickly, this wasn't as much of an issue, but in Smash 4 where things like meteors can be recovered out of at lower damage, the more stocks you have the more potential there is for the timeout to occur because that lead can grow even wider. This doesn't make timeout strategies a bad thing, but it does make it a potentially more frustrating task for those playing catchup.

 

[Thinkaman]

Two important points:


People often conflate playing to win and good ruleset/game design in a bad way.

There's nothing wrong with doing something lame to win, including timing someone out. Make no mistake: Timing someone out is super lame, a pretty massive game design failure--the players are literally not playing the "main" intended game, the one everyone showed up to play. But again, the player deserves 0% of the blame for this, and wins by timeouts or chaingrabs or other lame things should always be regarded as 100% legitimate and respected. (Difficult as that may be sometimes!)

But that does not mean the game design and ruleset policy should promote lame strategies; quite the opposite! The game+ruleset holds 100% of the responsibility for preventing lame, degenerate gameplay.

The ruleset should minimize timeouts, period. We want as few timeouts as possible, for multiple reasons, but mostly because they are lame. This is not the only or even most important criteria in our rules, but it is a criteria.


Lower time limits result in more camping and more timeouts.
Higher time limits result in less camping and less timeouts.
Higher time limit games/sets/tourneys are on average shorter than those with a lower time limit.

Obviously this is only true at non-extremes. It is also usually a small effect in the context of an entire event. But this "Laffer Curve" is definitely very real.

In STL, our 3-stock Smash 4 games take about 4 minutes on average. We have never had a 3-stock Smash 4 game go to 8-minutes, and only once pass 7 minutes. (I think it was Mega Man Duck Hunt? Can't remember.) But we held a 3-stock 5-minute tourney once (don't ask), and a majority of games went to time.

This is because everyone who knew what they were doing would stall heavily for the last 90 seconds or so when in the lead.

It might seem contradictory, but if you want shorter average match length, you should always err on the side of a higher time limit.

 

[2busywinning]

Either 2 stock or 3 stock, the best player should usually win the majority of games. I understand the rare occasion of an SD here and there but that's why most tournaments have SETS so that you can't just SD once and lose out.

Maybe I'm one of the more apathetic players that will just try and adapt to what rules are put in place as opposed to whining a/b them...

 

[CorruptoR]

Timing people out isn't a bad thing.
If anything the some of the matches should have timed out earlier.
Modest timers encouraging approaching and moving the pace. If you have all the time in the world, you have *all * the time in the world.

Spoiler

To put it another way.
Xsmash GF. The timer is 6 minutes which isn't a biggie however times of matches was
3:19
3:36
3:33
3:32
5:03
3:19
4:37
5:08

The average time for a match was 4 Minutes and 1 second.

Not saying to have a 4 minute timer (at all). However given you mentioned Sonic as a particular time waster, might as well of looked at his MU times. When I have a moment I'll look into it more. However for those whom were hating on Sakurai (outside of thread)...For Glory's 5 minute timer actually coincides with the expected time of a tournament match...so far if we're talking specifically 2 Stock. So leads one to wonder how the move to 3 stock, sends us up to 8 minutes really, as I know even with "sonic" average MU times will still be decent. We just have a lot of extra time that drags out most games.

I much rather dragging the game out 1 minute then having someone lose a game because they are pressured because of timer. If the average game is 4 minutes having a 5 minute timer is a HORRIBLE idea. Stalling for 1 minute is not that hard as opposed to 2 minutes.

If someone has a 50% or more lead and they see there's less than a minute to go, you better bet that he will stall the hell out of the game. Or at the very least, take a super defensive position and force the opponent to take huge risks.

Average games of 4 minutes means that there's quite a few games that go to about 4:30 or so. All these games would of been time outs if the timer was set a 5 minutes.

Also, in my opinion, the timer is here to prevent both players from permanently camping and waiting for the opponent to approach. It gives players who would do this a reason to at some point have no choice but to take action. Its here to stop games from never ending, not changing completely the way the game is played.

 

[T0MMY]

So what are you saying? Should we do 2 stock? 5 minutes? I admit as time goes by, I mind 2 stock less than I originally did. I would prefer 3 stock, but that's not always feasible at tournaments.

I'm in the same place as you; I think I prefer 3 stocks, but don't mind 2 stocks. I also see how it works better time-wise for tournament scheduling, so I am a little m ore inclined to have a smooth running event over a little more gameplay or a slightly better chance at a comeback (really, with rage effect comebacks may have enough going for it already).

I've suggested 2-stock 5-min pools and 3-stock 8-min for double-elim brackets (after most of the lower-level players who don't know how to KO have been eliminated from their pools), so best of both worlds?

In that case, what about Melee? Why is it still 4 stocks 8 minutes? I guarantee you Melee will be more problematic at Apex because of the massive number of entrants, and matches will likely take long with the current ruleset.

I have found 3 stock to work just fine with Melee and it is the default setting and was the standard for pretty much the world up until west coast USA pushed for 4-stock and got it (East Coast got their demand for items OFF, thankfully).
It's really up to the Melee community to ask for 3 stocks and see how much better it works out for them.
Also I heard Japanese players don't like 4 stock due to a general social disliking of the number 4 which has connotation of death kind of like how westerners associate the number 13 with something unlucky.

Note: I found 3 stock also works great in SSB64 (wanna know the story behind why a high number of stocks is used in that game?)

What should we do instead of % at end of match though?

Good question, you may want to refer to this thread where it was discussed in much detail.
According to the conclusions of that thread, ultimately there are two competitively viable solutions to the flawed %-based ruling that were brought up:

• 1-stock rematch
• Sudden Death

The 1-stock rematch has a flaw: What to do if the rematch ends in a tie? (Have usually seen Sudden Death played out if tie)

Sudden Death, surprisingly, I find to be the most competitively viable IMRO (in my reasonable opinion), because it both functions as the game was intended to be played (which is a competitive principle) and provides strongest solutions with minimal detriments. If the community wants to side with reasonable competition it is up to the individuals of the community to ask their TO's to do away with the %-based ruling and see how the original design of the game or a stronger alternative such as 1SR works out better for them.

I also don't agree with sudden death because it can lead to the same situation % based wins do, except instead of the would-be-winner stalling the remaining time out, it would be the would-be-loser.

Follow me logically here for a moment:
If you do not agree with Sudden Death because it leads to the same stalling problems then it reasonably follows that you do not agree with %-based wins because it leads to the same stalling problems.

Logically this entails that you would not use either and thus have no way to determine a winner in such a situation. As a TO for Smash tournaments you would have a (sense of or expected) duty to make a "call" as to what has to be played out.

That process of logic is not the best way I have found of examining competitive rulings.
What I do is ask which is the stronger solution for competition?

In order to implement an out-of-game ruling it must solve a competitive problem, meet competitive criteria, and make improvements without causing more problems than it solves.

But before we start implementing out-of-game rulings we must first examine if there is a need to do so.

Is it necessary to implement the out-of-game %-based win ruling?
No.
The game functions competitively without it by default, therefore any move to implement the ruling must have reason (meet competitive criteria) - I do not believe it has met the criteria.

Does it bring more problems implementing it?
Yes.
Which is why we are discussing the flaws here and looking for alternatives.

Also note the ruling is borrowed from Traditional Fighters which had a health bar, completely different mechanics and is therefore questionable in nature to start.

What problem is it trying to solve?
Really, why was it ever implemented to begin with?

The reason I hear usually is:
It wasn't "fair" that time ran out before the player could finish the opponent's stock because the opponent was utilizing movement/defense skills while strictly playing by the game's mechanics and functions correctly.

Hold on, that is textbook definition of SCRUB!

How to be a scrub in 3 easy steps:
Step 1: Lose
Step 2: Cry out "not fair!"
Step 3: Implement out-of-game rules to give you an unfair advantage against opponent (kind of hypocritical, isn't it?)

Spoiler

Step 4 would be "profit" except scrubs usually go on to lose despite the out-of-game rules they sneak in through out-of-game politics and go on to never return to a tournament scene again, but leaving their out-of-game rules behind to have to be cleaned up later. Looks to be the case here.

The guy at 100% on his last stock would be running away from the guy at 0% on his last stock, and then get a free chance to even the odds in sudden death, which would be even less fair.

You will have to explain how it violates the fairness principle.

This is Super Smash bros. at 7 or 8 minutes timer. Is it not?

Super Smash Bros. with a timer set functions in such a fashion. If someone cannot finish that stock in the agreed upon time limit either increase the time limit, remove it, or accept the rules which were agreed upon an "get better, scrub".

What competition does NOT allow for is non-competitive out-of-game rules mucking up the competition. That much is certain that out-of-game rules must adhere to the competitive criteria in order to be competitively implemented.

Is the %-based ruling doing this?

Notice how you say a "free chance to even the odds", that chance would be an opportunity based on skill stemming from playing the game as was designed and as agreed upon.
In contrast, the %-based ruling does not give that competitive chance, it straight-up rewards the stalling player with an outright, arbitrary, out-of-game ruling "win".
Hmm... sounds suspiciously like mucking up competition with out-of-game rules (see how to be a scrub, above).

In addition, sudden death has no time limit, and has bobombs spawn, which are easily avoided, so it can be even stallier.

Points of interest:

1. No time limit
2. Bob-ombs are easily avoided
3. "Stallier"

1) No time limit is not necessarily competitively violating (see above regarding if running the time is a "viable" strat).
In fact it seems to be the strongest solution in that it prevents the replay infinity paradox that players could infinitely rematch due to timeouts.

2) As for bob-ombs being easily avoided: "easy" is subjective and out of place with objective ruling...BUT... Can be better reworded to state:

Knowledge of bomb spawn-points can be improved where both skill of reaction/reflex and skill of evasive strategy can be combined to prevent the KO from bob-ombs.​

In which case all we have is a "the better player wins" situation when the bomb starts to drop, which is what competition is about, but I think this point was a segue into the 3rd point:

3) "Stallier" - As we have found, stalling isn't anti-competitive, and often times should be a competitive strategy. But what we have also found is that out-of-game rulings should be avoided which (unnecessarily) encourage such strategies. Stalling in Sudden Death is not an issue and a rare instance to happen at all in addition it is not an out-of-game ruling, it is playing the game as is designed and no criteria has been met to change it.

These reasons seems to address all three of your points regarding Sudden Death.
Reasonably, Sudden Death is competitively viable. This is not stating that stronger alternatives cannot be used, but does demonstrate that being opposed to it would be unreasonable in a competitive sense.

What do you think?

 

[Asdioh]

Note: I found 3 stock also works great in SSB64 (wanna know the story behind why a high number of stocks is used in that game?)

Yes grandpa T0mmy, please tell me a story

Good question, you may want to refer to this thread where it was discussed in much detail.
According to the conclusions of that thread, ultimately there are two competitively viable solutions to the flawed %-based ruling that were brought up:

• 1-stock rematch
• Sudden Death

The 1-stock rematch has a flaw: What to do if the rematch ends in a tie? (Have usually seen Sudden Death played out if tie)

Sudden Death, surprisingly, I find to be the most competitively viable IMRO (in my reasonable opinion), because it both functions as the game was intended to be played (which is a competitive principle) and provides strongest solutions with minimal detriments. If the community wants to side with reasonable competition it is up to the individuals of the community to ask their TO's to do away with the %-based ruling and see how the original design of the game or a stronger alternative such as 1SR works out better for them.

Alright, I read the whole thread. The whole thread ((╬ಠิ﹏ಠิ))

As far as 1-stock rematch goes, it seems just as arbitrary as percentage based wins, since either way you're ignoring the game's method of determining a winner. If Sudden Death happens in either the rematch or percentage scenario, you're taking away the game's authority by either selfdestructing in Sudden Death, and ignoring the victory screen, or No Contesting and bypassing it altogether.

I understand why you prefer Sudden Death. Unless I'm mistaken, the way Sudden Death is currently played out is the only ingame ruling we as a community ignore.


I'd like to think of it this way: The skillset we are testing in this competition is the ability to KO your opponent x number of times (where x is the stock count agreed upon) before they do the same to you. When matches time out, the percentage each player has (assuming equal stocks) has nothing to do with the skillset being tested. Percentage doesn't actually mean anything in this game, like it may in a traditional fighting game with a healthbar. The game itself does not have any method of determining a winner based on percentage.

The most interesting part is that the Timer itself is the cause of all of these problems, and what you said here gives me hope:

I've run tournaments with varying timers on 3-stock (7, 8, 10, 99, and infinite time). Nothing really changed.

I believe the ideal solution is to have the ruleset be x number of stocks, with no time limit. Technically the time limit could be set to 30, or 60, or 99, or whatever "too high to be practical" number, all for the sake of having an ingame timer. An ingame timer is useful for the sake of keeping track of certain stage or character elements, as well as just to show how long a match has been going on.

This way, percentage based wins are not an option, therefore, stalling for timeouts is not an option. This is the ideal test of the skillset that is intended to be tested: KOing your opponent before they KO you. Sudden Deaths are extremely rare (requires a simultaneous KO on both players' last stocks) and in this case should simply be played out. It would be even more "hype" as you say.


The only problem with this is that even if there is no ingame timer, there is still a real life timer in tournaments. This is where my reasoning becomes fuzzier, help me out here because I may make some poor analogies.

1. Infinite stalling is technically possible in other games like Street Fighter, but you don't see it, do you? Both players could just stare at each other for the 99 seconds of a round, every time, and never do anything, but you don't see that happen.

2. You probably won't see it happen in Smash either, but there is little evidence (at least that I know of) of timer-free tournaments showing results either way. "Stalling" is significantly easier in Smash, for a couple reasons. The obvious reason is that stocks exist, and there is no percentage based win ruling that the game can determine. Secondly, it's much easier to "run away" from your opponent in Smash, due to the fact that the characters are much smaller in relation to the stages than in other fighting games, and mobility is higher, and indeed certain characters can outspeed others to extremes.

I've been spending too long trying to finish this post so yeah

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The only problem with this is that even if there is no ingame timer, there is still a real life timer in tournaments. This is where my reasoning becomes fuzzier, help me out here because I may make some poor analogies.

1. Infinite stalling is technically possible in other games like Street Fighter, but you don't see it, do you? Both players could just stare at each other for the 99 seconds of a round, every time, and never do anything, but you don't see that happen.

2. You probably won't see it happen in Smash either, but there is little evidence (at least that I know of) of timer-free tournaments showing results either way. "Stalling" is significantly easier in Smash, for a couple reasons. The obvious reason is that stocks exist, and there is no percentage based win ruling that the game can determine. Secondly, it's much easier to "run away" from your opponent in Smash, due to the fact that the characters are much smaller in relation to the stages than in other fighting games, and mobility is higher, and indeed certain characters can outspeed others to extremes.

I've been spending too long trying to finish this post so yeah

I just had an interesting thought. Currently there's a lot of emphasis on the player in the lead being able to run away and force an approach. This is a direct result of our rules which say that in the event of time, the victory goes to stock lead, then % lead if stocks are even.

In a match with no time limit, this dynamic changes. You can stall all you want, certainly. Literally forever, or at least as long as player stamina permits. But if timeout is no longer a win condition, then even the player in the lead must eventually go on the offensive again if they want to actually win the game.

So the question then becomes "will players abuse the lack of a timer to run away/stall/etc. for whatever reason despite the same lack of a timer forcing them to attack eventually in order to actually win?" I don't know the answer but perhaps others have some insight. T0MMY's anecdote suggests the answer is "no," which is encouraging.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

But if timeout is no longer a win condition, then even the player in the lead must eventually go on the offensive again if they want to actually win the game.

Nope. Without a timer % lead doesn't require anyone to approach anyone else.
Basically as current if I jab you once and your at 3% and im at 0%. I can win by timeout if I don't do *anything*, which forces you at 0% to be proactive as if you aren't you lose the game via %. I don't know why this is a bad thing it gives reason for you to engage.

The only problem with this is that even if there is no ingame timer, there is still a real life timer in tournaments. This is where my reasoning becomes fuzzier, help me out here because I may make some poor analogies.

1. Infinite stalling is technically possible in other games like Street Fighter, but you don't see it, do you? Both players could just stare at each other for the 99 seconds of a round, every time, and never do anything, but you don't see that happen.

2. You probably won't see it happen in Smash either, but there is little evidence (at least that I know of) of timer-free tournaments showing results either way. "Stalling" is significantly easier in Smash, for a couple reasons. The obvious reason is that stocks exist, and there is no percentage based win ruling that the game can determine. Secondly, it's much easier to "run away" from your opponent in Smash, due to the fact that the characters are much smaller in relation to the stages than in other fighting games, and mobility is higher, and indeed certain characters can outspeed others to extremes.

You win by health lead in Street Fighter if you don't KO. A Jab could make you the victor so *why not* go for it. Once you have the health lead the other person is going to want to take that lead away. It's as simple as some characters spamming projectiles and you get hit by that 1 and now you have to attack on them to win.
It doesn't play out like a battle of tag...but it's like a battle of tag. People want to extend leads just as much as they want to hold them so even if they're ahead they often still attack. You could by silly get one hit and camp but then if they get 2 hits on you at the end of the map you lose given you gave yourself such a 1-hit lead to work with.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Nope. Without a timer % lead doesn't require anyone to approach anyone else.
Basically as current if I jab you once and your at 3% and im at 0%. I can win by timeout if I don't do *anything*, which forces you at 0% to be proactive as if you aren't you lose the game via %. I don't know why this is a bad thing it gives reason for you to engage.

If they want the game to ever end, then yes someone does have to approach. The question is if this outweighs a player's desire to stay safe or not.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

If they want the game to ever end, then yes someone does have to approach. The question is if this outweighs a player's desire to stay safe or not.

Not really. Most characters in Smash at this point have a projectile.
The person with an inferior projectile game is often forced to approach. Especially under % lead if they take any damage.

We'll all do it regardless since I assume given we're playing a fighter we *like* fighting, it's just a simple statement that without % lead their is less necessity to approach when behind.

 

[digiholic]

I just want 3 stocks so I have enough time to read my opponent's play styles. Mega Man has too many options I need to feel out to get it done in 2 stocks.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Not really. Most characters in Smash at this point have a projectile.
The person with an inferior projectile game is often forced to approach. Especially under % lead if they take any damage.

We'll all do it regardless since I assume given we're playing a fighter we *like* fighting, it's just a simple statement that without % lead their is less necessity to approach when behind.

Agreed that projectiles skew the risk/reward of approaching, but that's not what I'm talking about. Without a timer, the idea of a % lead is completely meaningless.

If running away until time runs out is no longer a win condition, then what incentive does a player have to run away?

 

[digiholic]

Agreed that projectiles skew the risk/reward of approaching, but that's not what I'm talking about. Without a timer, the idea of a % lead is completely meaningless.

If running away until time runs out is no longer a win condition, then what incentive does a player have to run away?

If I'm someone like Mega Man who can outmaneuver many characters by taking to the skies with Rush and tossing metal blades, and I can hit maybe one out of every ten metal blades I throw completely safely, I'd be crazy not to do that in a tournament if time is not a factor.

Basically, if someone has a way to needle opponents slowly and avoid conflict, with no time limit, that becomes the dominant strategy.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Agreed that projectiles skew the risk/reward of approaching, but that's not what I'm talking about. Without a timer, the idea of a % lead is completely meaningless.

If running away until time runs out is no longer a win condition, then what incentive does a player have to run away?

You dont have to run. You just don't have to approach.
Given that doing nothing isn't a commitment it's the safest option. If you have safe options from a distance then hell you just spam that until they approach. You're never at a "disadvantage" so it's always the right move given no time limit and no stock requirements. By nature the person without the projectile should approach but if Im playing Kirby and there is no timer I rather just hold crouch until you get tired of pressing B/A.

Someone eventually gives, but these moments of "who makes the move" can happen several times in a singular match.

 

[T0MMY]

Yes grandpa T0mmy, please tell me a story

Back in my day we didn't have these fancy Wii U pads and no such thing as Nintendo WiFi Network, we had to play with our N64 controllers in person and no johns, sonny, no matter how bad those N64 controllers are they were all we got. Isai said "Don't get hit" and thus laid down the law (mind you, this was before Lucario where you actually do want to get hit and build aura, but that's beside the point, whipper snapper).

hahaha

But the reason why SSB64 has like 5 stocks (although it's dropped to 4 a lot of times) is because Isai beat people way too fast back when there was really no competition. They had it set to 5 or 10 stocks so the round didn't end so fast and someone would have 10 tries to take a stock off him (which is why you'd hear of Isai 10-stocking people).
He also played on Hyrule Castle, which is a big stage so a bit more play time.
These rules followed over to tournament play via the fallacy of authority and/or fallacy traditionalis and has slowly been evolving to a more competitive ruleset (removing Hyrule from starter, making Dreamland the starter, and reducing stocks to 4 with 3 on the horizon).

My posts regarding rules usually gets ridiculed until years later when they become standards - see my opinions on Hyrule and number of stocks in SSB64.

Alright, I read the whole thread. The whole thread ((╬ಠิ﹏ಠิ))

As far as 1-stock rematch goes, it seems just as arbitrary as percentage based wins, since either way you're ignoring the game's method of determining a winner. If Sudden Death happens in either the rematch or percentage scenario, you're taking away the game's authority by either selfdestructing in Sudden Death, and ignoring the victory screen, or No Contesting and bypassing it altogether.

Whoa, you sir are a respectable Smashboards member for putting some effort into hearing someone out for that much info and responding reasonably.
And you are correct that the 1-stock rematch is about as arbitrary as the %-based win in regards to implementing an out-of-game ruling. The advantage is that it's not as arbitrary - that is, the arbitration as to who wins is determined by the same set of skills we are testing in the tournament in the 1-stock rematch round, rather than arbitrarily saying the random damage % when time hits 0 should determine a winner despite many game mechanic inconsistencies (weight of characters, Star-KO/foresight-KO).
But you are still correct, which is why I cannot say I am 100% in support of the 1-stock rematch, but do support it instead of the %-based ruling.

I understand why you prefer Sudden Death. Unless I'm mistaken, the way Sudden Death is currently played out is the only ingame ruling we as a community ignore.

Uh, I probably wouldn't go so far as to say it's the only one. I think ignoring win situations that the game dictates and instating an out-of-game ruling on suicide attacks winning is used all too often (and is even more scrubby than the %-based ruling).

The most interesting part is that the Timer itself is the cause of all of these problems, and what you said here gives me hope: I believe the ideal solution is to have the ruleset be x number of stocks, with no time limit.

I actually prefer no time limit as well, competitively.
It's shown to be competitively stronger, but what it really comes down to is a TO decision, and as you mentioned there is a possibility where two players could stand there and do nothing forever - granted that's really not going to happen, but it's something to prepare for in case it does.

So the question then becomes "will players abuse the lack of a timer to run away/stall/etc. for whatever reason despite the same lack of a timer forcing them to attack eventually in order to actually win?" I don't know the answer but perhaps others have some insight. T0MMY's anecdote suggests the answer is "no," which is encouraging.

The real question isn't if players will abuse the no-timer setting, but how it could be competitively settled if does become an issue.
Although I am unsure how it could be abused to win, the good news is that TO authority pertains to their event, it's the TO's home he builds and has say on the event itself and others are welcome to the home he built if they respect those rules.
One point of authority the TO has a big say in is timing/scheduling issues. And such a circumstance of players stalling infinitely in a non-timed match means he has all the reason to step in and DQ the player(s) in question (pretty sure a warning would suffice though).

My anecdote is circumstantial, but at least I tried out different timers and found my competitors to play the same (and one campy person who timed people out still played in a campy fashion and profited, just without a time-out win).[/quote]

 

[Asdioh]

But the reason why SSB64 has like 5 stocks (although it's dropped to 4 a lot of times) is because Isai beat people way too fast back when there was really no competition.

I... should have guessed this.

fallacy of authority and/or fallacy traditionalis

And this is exactly the problem we're seeing with Smash 4. I was randomly watching some Smash4 stream one day, and I made mention of how I preferred 3 stocks, and it was disappointing that Brawl would be at Apex with more stocks than Smash 4. The players could not fathom why I felt this way, and were quick to cite "other tournaments" as good reasons to use 2 stocks.

My posts regarding rules usually gets ridiculed until years later when they become standards - see my opinions on Hyrule and number of stocks in SSB64.

I'm not surprised. The problem we face now is trying to convince people to even try anything different, and this is only a few months into the game's life cycle. Not to mention how hard it's been to get custom moves integrated (although Nintendo themselves made this difficult, so this is easier to understand)

Uh, I probably wouldn't go so far as to say it's the only one. I think ignoring win situations that the game dictates and instating an out-of-game ruling on suicide attacks winning is used all too often (and is even more scrubby than the %-based ruling).

Yeah, I knew about that one. It's listed in Apex's rules, but the impression I got from Apex's rules was "we don't really know or case much about Smash4 so we're just going to copypaste old rules." The suicide rule doesn't even make sense in Smash4's context.

I actually prefer no time limit as well, competitively.
It's shown to be competitively stronger, but what it really comes down to is a TO decision, and as you mentioned there is a possibility where two players could stand there and do nothing forever - granted that's really not going to happen, but it's something to prepare for in case it does.



The real question isn't if players will abuse the no-timer setting, but how it could be competitively settled if does become an issue.
Although I am unsure how it could be abused to win, the good news is that TO authority pertains to their event, it's the TO's home he builds and has say on the event itself and others are welcome to the home he built if they respect those rules.
One point of authority the TO has a big say in is timing/scheduling issues. And such a circumstance of players stalling infinitely in a non-timed match means he has all the reason to step in and DQ the player(s) in question (pretty sure a warning would suffice though).

My anecdote is circumstantial, but at least I tried out different timers and found my competitors to play the same (and one campy person who timed people out still played in a campy fashion and profited, just without a time-out win).

[/quote]
Sounds like the TO just needs to give the "There being no time limit is a privilege, not a right" speech and we're good!

 

[AnchorTea]

2 Stocks leads to most fights ending with both players at 100+%, playing super defensive and trying to fish out a killing move. It's the right strategy, but I don't think it's a lot of fun to play or watch.

And we shouldn't encourage time outs. They're a viable strategy yeah, but it's both terrible to watch and to have happen to you.

I totally agree with you.

Also, your profile pic is really awesome.

 

[Signia]

The reason Smash games take longer is because our version of "knockdown" takes ****ing forever. In 3D fighting games, the action never stops, since you can hit people on the ground. The only respite is when you're comboing or getting combo'd. In 2D fighting games, knockdowns often have a second or two of invincibility before they are forced to get up. In either genre, if there's no knockdown, you need to decide what to do next very quickly.

Now let's look at Smash 4. There's barely any actual knockdown setups, where you knock them down and you're close enough to go for a tech chase, and most moves send players flying far away. There's hardly any "advantage on hit" situations where you hit the opponent, there's no knockdown, and the opponent is in a tricky defensive situation where they must quickly decide or get hit. Instead, when a player lands a hit at low percents, they're not at enough advantage (they don't act earlier enough then the opponent) to actually continue offense without less risk than normal. At high-mid percents or higher, no followups are possible and players just have to wait until the enemy floats back to the stage. At best, they'll reposition and get ready for an edgeguard. Our version of "knockdown," hitting people above us, quickly goes from an interesting advantagous situation with reads and all that good stuff, to... waiting....

There is a massive amount of downtime in Smash games, especially in Brawl and Smash 4. After every solid hit we have to wait.

For this reason, Smash 4 players won't feel like they've interacted their opponent as much as they would in a traditional game with the same amount of play time. Fact is, less meaningful competitive interactions occur in the same time in Smash 4 than any other fighting game I've played.

So, Smash 4 matches need to take longer than for other games.

 

[otter]

I've seen comebacks with 2, 3 and even 4 stocks. The comeback point is moot.

And one of the arguments I see the most is "it's really difficult to come back with something like an SD". A game lenient with mistakes is fine, nobody plays perfect anyway. But lenient to something as big as an SD? I think it's asking for too much.

The way I see it most people want the game to be less punishing with their own mistakes, and imo, that would only lower the quality of each game.

especially in smash 4 where you pretty much have to be asleep to sd.

 

[PCHU]

People don't like to commit unless they're fairly certain what they're going to do is going to yield a positive result.
That's why a lot of Smash 4 play is so defensive and people are constantly repositioning themselves with rolls, because attacking in general requires you to have some sort of commitment or at the very least great mobility/frames in general to keep yourself relatively safe, like with Jigglypuff pressuring shield in the "dead zone" where a lot of characters can't hit her.
Even choppy blockstrings in other games don't tend to be as punishable as a lot of the tools we've been given this time around, so it should really come a no surprise that people are migrating toward more calculated approaches.

As far as timeouts go, it's a lot less...tiring in other fighting games because there's less time given to fight.
It's pretty much whatever to the rest of the FGC because they don't have people stalling the clock for 8 minutes straight.
I've seen some pretty entertaining timeouts, but even so, it's not always what the viewer wants, and what they're given is up to you.

It doesn't matter whether you have a time limit or don't, there will be people who will play to win and execute any strategies they see fit, regardless of what anyone wants.
If it beats everything else, why not do it?
Trying to whittle down the appearance of the inevitable is a nice effort, but sometimes, you just have to put up with it and find ways to push past it.
That being said, 3 stocks is way more fun to me because it feels like a "real match" (whatever that means), but 2 stocks is the FG standard and it seems to be working out well for tournaments, so I don't see any reason to change it.

 

[Octagon]

3 or 4 stock matches on Smash 4 are wayyyyyyyyyyy longer than 3 or 4 stock matches in Melee or Project M, so I see why tournaments use 2 stocks cause it lets the tourney progress faster. Also it kinda resembles for glory