Blast Zones and Game Time is Fine (Compiled Data from Tourney Locator's Invitation Tourney)

[LordVacation]

Some pleb was killed at 4%?
Was he even there?
His thumbs fell off?
He let his new born sister play for him?

 

[Muster]

Little Mac is in this game. I have personally seen a tournament match end in under one minute as Little Mac got an f-smash read off a roll, acheived his OHKO, and then killed the respawning player the moment his invincibility was gone.

People are asking for two stock in a game where a character literally has a OHKO.

Variance has a name, and his name is Mac.

I cannot agree with this statement any more. Not only will kills just come earlier and earlier due to keeping fresh kill moves, gimping, and successful edge guarding when they come into play, but taking off an extra stock early becomes as easy as down tilt press b with little mac. This game is only going to go faster, and throwing the stocks under the bus this early is anything but wise.

Some pleb was killed at 4%?
Was he even there?
His thumbs fell off?
He let his new born sister play for him?

It could happen to anyone, don't be a **** about it.

 

[LordVacation]

It was you, wasn't it?
Seriously though it's a joke, calm down...
Unless this is your first day on the internet? You'll come to expect these things

 

[Pazzo.]

Thanks for posting this! Let's give them all a hand. *claps*

 

[Chauzu]

About Little Mac:

Yeah the KO punch is big but surely the difference isn't that big from being 2-stocked to going 3-1 down in stocks? Little Mac already has an insane momentum it will be very difficult to turn around.

But also, KO Punch meter is pretty short from my experience? Shouldn't it be possible to play a bit campy for a bit waiting it out? That's usually what I do in For Glory. Going off stage and using the ledges have proved efficient.

 

[Muster]

It was you, wasn't it?
Seriously though it's a joke, calm down...
Unless this is your first day on the internet? You'll come to expect these things

No, i'm just looking out for you.
It's going to be incredibly ironic when you get down tilt OHKO'd playing against a little mac, and that statement would just sting more for yourself as you fly off the screen at breakneck speeds.

Smash isn't most fighting games. In fact, it's a platformer first.
Besides that, most traditional fighting games have 3 games in a set and best-of-3 sets, whereas Smash has 3 games in 1 set (this is outside of like top 8 and not counting 1 stock Brawl).
Those traditional fighting game sets take up roughly 3-5 minutes, roughly the same time as a Smash match.
Seeing as how we can have up to 3 sets in a traditional fighting game and up to 3 matches in a traditional Smash set, this means they're about equal in match duration.

Strange how other people try to come off as knowing other fighting games, but getting facts wrong about them. Thanks for clearing things up!

 

[LordVacation]

...Looking out for me?
Jeez... thanks...
Fairly sure Mac's one hitter would do more than 4%, hence why I made the comment I did asking how someone could die from like, Mario's fireball it seems.
Especially in competitive play; where by the way, people say a lot worse than I did

 

[Muster]

...Looking out for me?
Jeez... thanks...
Fairly sure Mac's one hitter would do more than 4%, hence why I made the comment I did asking how someone could die from like, Mario's fireball it seems.
Especially in competitive play; where by the way, people say a lot worse than I did

I used the OHKO as an example due to the similarity to the situation of the 4% kill. The person in question had an advantage of the other player being off stage, and messed up on gimping them then likely got grabbed out of their up b which takes away the recovery, which is a very similar situation to coming off of invincibility to be killed so quickly by a one-two from little mac.

 

[LancerStaff]

Everyone at this event was already using VI, even if they didn't understand it. The commentators even talked about it, calling it "Down DI".

The game hasn't changed, only our understanding of it.

People had heard about "down DI" but not the more important "up DI" used to escape combos.

No, it hasn't changed, but people are still attempting to play it like the old games.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Little Mac is in this game. I have personally seen a tournament match end in under one minute as Little Mac got an f-smash read off a roll, acheived his OHKO, and then killed the respawning player the moment his invincibility was gone.

People are asking for two stock in a game where a character literally has a OHKO.

Variance has a name, and his name is Mac.

And we'll see how that plays out over time in multiple brackets for the next few months. But, I hardly think that anecdote is scary enough to justify it changing anyone's minds on the matter right now.

 

[Overswarm]

And we'll see how that plays out over time in multiple brackets for the next few months. But, I hardly think that anecdote is scary enough to justify it changing anyone's minds on the matter right now.

OR

or

We could just do 3 or 4 stock, 8 minutes, and see if time is actually an issue

 

[Jack Kieser]

That logic goes both ways, OS.

OR

or

We could just use For Glory rules, and see if time being too short is really an issue, or see if comeback potential is really an issue, or see if results variance is really an issue, etc.

 

[Muster]

The 3 stock 8 minute format is what was used for tournaments prior.
The For Glory format is what is used for online 1v1 matches on final destination only.
I personally think we should go with what was used in tournaments prior, and not what is being used for a quick online session.
If it really is an issue, jumping down to 2 stocks shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Conda]

The 3 stock 8 minute format is what was used for tournaments prior.
The For Glory format is what is used for online 1v1 matches on final destination only.
I personally think we should go with what was used in tournaments prior, and not what is being used for a quick online session.
If it really is an issue, jumping down to 2 stocks shouldn't be a problem.

Precisely.

The main worry I have is that we let matches become too short - Smash will lose a lot of good competitive qualities if this happens.

Look - Smash's 3-4 stock matches allow Smash to really become the unique fighting game it is. Smash is fundamentally different than other fighters, and has so many map-based and platforming mechanics in its fighting system, that we have to let players interact and strategize around these elements during a match. Reducing match time reduces the amount of mechanics within's Smash system that flourish and have an effect on the fight - the mechanics that make it unique and interesting fighter to begin with.

There is stage control, respawning mechanics, gimping, spatial-based mindgames, and more There is a huge stage-centric aspect to Smash that other competitive fighters don't have, and it is de-emphasised in short matches because fights become more about the aggressive-skillset, and less about the strategic, tactical, and creative skillset. Certain strategies, playstyles, creative styles, and tactics won't come to life in super short matches.

Quick matches will get us rock-em-sock-em matches where players are more aggressive, but unique playstyles and pace variation won't be as useful a skillset to master. Playing uniquely and formulating unique and skill-based tactical ways to defeat their opponent will likely not help you as much - instead, fights will be about aggressive dexterity, much like the more traditional competitive fighting game.

Stage control, spatial patience, and movement-based tactics are a cornerstone skillset in Smash that many players excel at, allowing them to compete with the more dexterity-based players.


TL:DR

With shorter matches, super-aggressive gimping and speed-based knockouts will be a skillset that is much more valuable, reducing the variety and interestingness of the competitive scene. The variety of skillsets and playstyles on display will be much lower.

There is no reason why matches should be much shorter than those in Melee and P:M, as Melee and P:M embrace and incorporate the full spectrum of Smash mechanics into its competitive matches.

---HOWEVER---

If 2-stock matches end up resulting in a good average 3.5~ minutes in length, then that would mean perhaps matches are at a good length and can allow Smash's qualities and player skillset-differences to flourish and impact fights as in Melee/P:M. Then I'd be all for 2-stock matches.

The main worry I have is that matches become too short. 2 minute matches do not allow all of smash's good competitive mechanics to flourish and don't allow for different smash skillsets to be as effective.
Just my thoughts.

 

[Keitaro]

I appreciate you collecting this data. However I still yet to see the real benefit in choosing 3 stocks over 2 stocks. This proves that 3 stock matches aren't too long, however 4+ minute matches on average still don't run well with bigger tournaments. As shown at CEO and EVO, both Melee and PM already have stretched their time constraints for both tournaments even with their faster paced games.

In short, 3 stocks seems to be "okay", but I don't see a reason to not try out 2 stock matches either. There are quite a number of benefits of running 2 stock while not so much when running 3.

 

[Overswarm]

3 stock is better than 2 stock in every conceivable way except for the amount of time a game takes on average is increased by a whopping minute and half to two minutes.

If your tournaments are running over, it's because your TO didn't run his tournament properly. There is absolutely no way a tournament should run over on time unless the TO didn't plan for it successfully. If you try to cram in half a dozen games into one day and allow signup overlap, you're going to run out of time.

Altering rulesets so you can play more games is a bad idea. How would you feel if people wanted to play hackeysack at your tournaments so they reduced Melee to 1 stock? That's basically what you're suggesting here.

 

[Life]

The biggest flaw I can find in Jack's logic is that he doesn't question the origins of the For Glory ruleset. I would argue that it wasn't made for the actual tournament-going crowd, but for the casual-competitives, the type of people who play only with top tiers on FD and get really invested in winning and losing against their friends, but who don't actually come to tournaments. I don't have any definitive statements from Sakurai that this was the case, but it's the impression I get based on the differences between For Glory and grassroots rulesets for past games.

Casual-competitive players favor Final Destination, so the mode happens on Final Destination (either that, or Sakurai took the no-items fox-only meme too seriously). These players want to prove they're good, so Global Smash Power exists. And where will these players play? At home, where they might be interrupted by family or pets or whatever; or on the train or subway commute where they might only have five minutes to squeeze in a match; or on their lunch break at work, where the faster format lets them do a few matches with several friends each rather than everyone playing once before they have to go back to work.

For these players, short sets are ideal, because they have external conditions and responsibilities that can't always wait.

At tournaments, we use more stages, we know how good we are from external record-keeping (i.e. results) rather than internal, and we play in large groups at a venue that someone rented out for the day or the weekend.

For us, a longer set is ideal, since it reduces variance and also gives players more time to adapt.

Why, then, should tournaments use a ruleset designed for another setting?

 

[Player-1]

I appreciate you collecting this data. However I still yet to see the real benefit in choosing 3 stocks over 2 stocks. This proves that 3 stock matches aren't too long, however 4+ minute matches on average still don't run well with bigger tournaments. As shown at CEO and EVO, both Melee and PM already have stretched their time constraints for both tournaments even with their faster paced games.

In short, 3 stocks seems to be "okay", but I don't see a reason to not try out 2 stock matches either. There are quite a number of benefits of running 2 stock while not so much when running 3.

I think PM at CEO had a lot to due with the large stage list (striking 7 stages, banning 2 every match, coaching in between games, etc.) With Smash 4 we have like 3 or 4 legal stages with probably no stage bans so I don't think time in between games will be anywhere as long. Though I agree with 2 stocks is still worth a look at the very least.



For those of you that are arguing for 2 stocks because it's "Nintendo sanctioned" and the default in For Glory modes, do you also agree that every stage should be FD and custom movesets shouldn't be legal?

 

[Keitaro]

3 stock is better than 2 stock in every conceivable way except for the amount of time a game takes on average is increased by a whopping minute and half to two minutes.

If your tournaments are running over, it's because your TO didn't run his tournament properly. There is absolutely no way a tournament should run over on time unless the TO didn't plan for it successfully. If you try to cram in half a dozen games into one day and allow signup overlap, you're going to run out of time.

Altering rulesets so you can play more games is a bad idea. How would you feel if people wanted to play hackeysack at your tournaments so they reduced Melee to 1 stock? That's basically what you're suggesting here.

For the record, as I mentioned to you in another thread, I'd personally be able to plan around 5 stock Smash 4 tournaments just fine. I don't have the problem specifically when it comes to time management with multiple games.

However, the big companies that increase the outreach of the community may have issues with that. I believe it is simple minded to think "oh just do one game and 3 stocks and screw everything else" as there will be many big and small events that have multiple games. Unfortunately the only smash only event to have a huge presence to the world is the one ran by Nintendo. The next events to come close are Evo and MLG. Then Apex, CEO, etc. These other events run multiple games. So simply saying "only run Smash 4" is an answer that not only does not appeal to every tournament organizer, but barely any of the bigger ones that also tend to have the ability to help our game reach more people around the world.

Brawl decided to stick to what they were used to and we all saw what happened to that. All I'm saying is that we should try some stuff out before making any final decisions. If someone wants to try 3 stock they are welcome to. 2 stock? Go ahead. Even give 1 or 4 stock a chance if you'd like. Whichever choice helps increase the life of this game is all that matters to me at the moment. If 3 stock proves to do that then I'm all for it. The same goes for 2 stock though.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Keitaro, what are you saying how dare you the game has been out for a week we should have a rulset by now >_< >_< >_<

[/sarcasm]

 

[Life]

Sure, people will say that it's too early to decide on whether to ban the third stock, but in a couple years they'll instead cry that third stock mains will be too used to their characters and will stop coming to tournaments if we ban the third stock! The third stock will take over the game if we don't take quick action!

(Also sarcasm.)

 

[Infinitysmash]

Infinity from TLOC here.

Just wanted to stop in and say thank you for putting the data together like this. I appreciate the effort on your part, especially since it was voluntary :-)

 

[Xyro77]

Good to know that 3 stocks 7min is STILL amazing even in smash 4.

 

[BooSex]

Hey guys, for the people who were interested in the data of the Clash Tournaments tourney that was run, I have thrown it together;

Kill Percents:

17%
43%
51%
60%
76%
77%
78%
79%
80%
87%
93%
94%
97%
97%
97%
100%
101%
102%
102%
103%
103%
103%
104%
104%
105%
108%
109%
115%
115%
117%
120%
121%
121%
121%
122%
124%
125%
125%
129%
130%
130%
131%
131%
132%
132%
132%
132%
133%
133%
134%
134%
134%
135%
135%
136%
137%
137%
137%
139%
139%
139%
140%
140%
140%
141%
141%
141%
142%
142%
142%
143%
143%
144%
145%
145%
146%
146%
147%
148%
148%
149%
150%
150%
152%
152%
153%
154%
154%
156%
160%
161%
162%
163%
163%
165%
165%
169%
170%
172%
174%
175%
176%
178%
180%
181%
182%
182%
183%
185%
186%
187%
190%
191%
202%
215%

Average: 135%

Note: Same as the data in the OP, this is post-hit kill percent

Match Length:

1:38
2:44
3:10
3:17
3:26
3:27
3:36
3:53
3:55
3:55
4:15
4:21
4:25
4:27
4:46
4:47
5:08
5:13
5:24
5:27
5:30
5:44
6:09
6:18
6:28
6:38

Average: 4:32
Average per Stock: 1:30

So the data is essentially the same. Even then, Chibo, who has a campier playstyle than others, was in a large portion of these matches. So stats could probably be lower at a larger tournament.

I think this further proves the point that the change to 2-stock format is completely unneeded.

 

[DMG]

This is still a pretty opinionated debate. You can make arguments for smaller (and larger) stock counts that have nothing to do with tournament time issues. The Swiss format would take care of most time issues, since you could just require that every player have his own 3DS/game to participate and cap how long "rounds" take. Swiss doesn't work for most normal Smash tournaments due to our constant lack of enough setups or space for bulky setups: that would hopefully be a non-issue for Smash 3DS.


If tournament time issues are out of the picture, there are still other fairly valid reasons you would consider changing stocks. Making the game more accessible to spectators, aligning the game to what players feel gives a better match quality, etc.


What I hate about this stock debate, is that it is 99% opinion backed. The only question that appears to be solved (or even provided any data whatsoever), is whether 3 stocks would take up too much time for this game. The answer to that should have been obvious though to anyone that gave thought to the Swiss format, since you can run tournaments much faster (and arguably more satisfying for players who normally lose 0-2 or 1-2 in tourney brackets a lot). Tournaments running on time for the 3DS version was basically the least important question: hell I could probably manage a 5 stock tournament with Swiss format and run it on time! Now that it's solved, we're still not very far on answering the stock count debate.


What would also be important, would be gathering polling information from Smash 4 players and stream monsters/watchers over which formats they prefer and why. Along with testing out different options for tournaments:

1. Try out different stock counts. Anything from 1-6, because why not?

2. Try out extended set counts. All sets 3/5. If you want to lower stock count as compensation for this, that's probably fine.


This post and the data collected is great, however it's far from answering the total debate. The game deserves some experimentation, some more data collection, and some polling from people interested and participating in the game to figure out what might be best. Until then, we are going to be stuck with plebeian arguments and one-liners from Smashers such as "2 stocks is way too fast" or "3 stocks is perfect". ****ty Middle School levels of thinking and expression are ruining us.

 

[Jack Kieser]

And DMG is still pretty kick-ass. :D Good post.

 

[Azizibesmashing]

what the crap am i looking at? this is to much for my mind to relish.. what is all this?

 

[Keitaro]

Hey guys, for the people who were interested in the data of the Clash Tournaments tourney that was run, I have thrown it together;

Kill Percents:

17%
43%
51%
60%
76%
77%
78%
79%
80%
87%
93%
94%
97%
97%
97%
100%
101%
102%
102%
103%
103%
103%
104%
104%
105%
108%
109%
115%
115%
117%
120%
121%
121%
121%
122%
124%
125%
125%
129%
130%
130%
131%
131%
132%
132%
132%
132%
133%
133%
134%
134%
134%
135%
135%
136%
137%
137%
137%
139%
139%
139%
140%
140%
140%
141%
141%
141%
142%
142%
142%
143%
143%
144%
145%
145%
146%
146%
147%
148%
148%
149%
150%
150%
152%
152%
153%
154%
154%
156%
160%
161%
162%
163%
163%
165%
165%
169%
170%
172%
174%
175%
176%
178%
180%
181%
182%
182%
183%
185%
186%
187%
190%
191%
202%
215%

Average: 135%

Note: Same as the data in the OP, this is post-hit kill percent

Match Length:

1:38
2:44
3:10
3:17
3:26
3:27
3:36
3:53
3:55
3:55
4:15
4:21
4:25
4:27
4:46
4:47
5:08
5:13
5:24
5:27
5:30
5:44
6:09
6:18
6:28
6:38

Average: 4:32
Average per Stock: 1:30

So the data is essentially the same. Even then, Chibo, who has a campier playstyle than others, was in a large portion of these matches. So stats could probably be lower at a larger tournament.

I think this further proves the point that the change to 2-stock format is completely unneeded.

I hope you do realize that this actually doesn't prove much.

Your data has no comparisons to Brawl, Melee, PM, or other fighting games and stands by a subjective opinion that "1 minute and 30 seconds per stock for 3 stocks is better than the same data for less stocks" Maybe even a comparison to average attention span of a human can double your arguments validity.

Actually that will likely make your argument worse as I already know many people with not enough attention span to read our posts, let alone stay interested in 4.5 minute matches.

 

[Morbi]

Honestly, the issue is entirely subjective as alluded to by DMG. The data is interesting to observe; however, the meta-game is about a week old at this point, the data is not relevant at the current time. Perhaps if consistent results occur for another month or two, the results will appear more compelling. As a stream-monster, I prefer two-stocks for overt reasons. It is more manageable to watch multiple matches, and typically, the sets are that much more exciting as players cannot rely on their third stock. Obviously, we have to consider more than just the spectators though. I do maintain that treating this Smash as one of the prior entries is fallacious, it is its own game and its stock count should be determined by its own merits in my opinion. Defaulting to three stocks as it is similar to Brawl is not ideal in the slightest. It is quite clear, blatantly apparent even, that most people are interested in two stocks at the current time. So I personally find it best to test that method more extensively to see if it "works."

I do not want to see the game stagnate for any reason whatsoever. However, I certainly see issue with, "look at this week one data, three stock games are just fine... your complaints are unfounded."

 

[1MachGO]

While OP's data is cool and all, the game is still hella new and top level players haven't gotten their hands on it for an extended period of time. Ya know... the kind of top level player who is willing to camp out their opponent in a pseudo-competitive-but-primarily-promotional event in front of tens of thousands of people (*cough* Zero *cough*).

I say 2 stock is safe until proven otherwise (though I would personally up the timer). Gimping has a lot of potential in Smash 4, but in light of this new DI info and mega-blast zones... its hard to say just how fast paced this game will be once a meta establishes itself. I want to be optimistic, but if matches are too slow its gonna hurt its growth.

Some other reasons to do 2 stock:
>Gives merit to For Glory mode which will have a lot of benefits for the size and level of competition in Smash 4
>Less stocks is better for overall character viability (This is incredibly understated. Lower stocks are better for low tiers since there is less endurance. Longer matches permit greater benefits from leads than can heighten already crippling weaknesses for low tiers; making their comeback potential very poor or just leaving them exhausting to play in general)

 

[iRJi]

First off, I am happy that you took the time to record the statistics for the event. It helps tremendously in terms of actually trying to find the proper balance for the game. I have my own statistics sheet, and I am updating it for both 2 stocks and 3 stocks.

I think everyone that is debating back and forth about stocks are going about it wrong. Keitaro stated it perfectly, and I am basically reiterating it. The main issue right now is that no one is actually taking the necessary steps to test the times for both formats, with stock count, etc. I have my own statistics sheet, but the goal should be about finding the balance of "Who is the better player" and "What is more relevant to spectators"

Believe it or not, the community just playing tournaments and going out of there way to support them doesn't keep the scene alive or helps it to grow. It only, at best, keeps us maintaining with what we are already working with at the time. This isn't just about preferences, it's about what is going to elevate the game to the next level PAST what we are already doing. Without growing spectatorship, our game does not grow. We need people talking about us. We need people going "Wow, I want to be apart of this atmosphere!" while at the same time setting rules that will allow us to determine the better player on a consistent enough rate.

Please, for the love of smash, keep all of your personal preferences out of it. Do what is best for the game, not what is best for yourselves. Actually play both formats instead of bashing them, and play them for a long period of time. Record what you do. I don't really care what format we choose at the end, because I am going to host what is going to keep the game alive and allow the game to grow, and that, at least in my opinion, should be everybody's goal.

 

[Overswarm]

I hope you do realize that this actually doesn't prove much.

Your data has no comparisons to Brawl, Melee, PM, or other fighting games and stands by a subjective opinion that "1 minute and 30 seconds per stock for 3 stocks is better than the same data for less stocks" Maybe even a comparison to average attention span of a human can double your arguments validity.

Actually that will likely make your argument worse as I already know many people with not enough attention span to read our posts, let alone stay interested in 4.5 minute matches.

If someone can't stay interested in 4.5 minute matches, they probably don't like Smash very much.

 

[DMG]

If someone can't stay interested in 4.5 minute matches, they probably don't like Smash very much.

Those same people might be willing to pay for Twitch Subscriptions and generate Ad Revenue with stream views if the game was shorter though. I don't believe Smash is at the point where our spectator base is completely tapped, and it will never matter if we shrink time limits/have shorter matches. If that were the case, our community would probably be in a recession or stagnant for that to hold true.

Is it worth trimming down the game to attract more attention? Who knows. Somebody should... idk, test it? Heck, maybe spectators want more stocks? We're not going to know, unless we put a whole lot of effort into understanding what people want AND how our community can deliver.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm not in the business of supporting twitch streamer ad revenue -- my goal is to have good tournaments. If my goal was to support twitch streamers with ad revenue I wouldn't even suggest public tournaments, just invitationals with top names only.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

This is still a pretty opinionated debate. You can make arguments for smaller (and larger) stock counts that have nothing to do with tournament time issues. The Swiss format would take care of most time issues, since you could just require that every player have his own 3DS/game to participate and cap how long "rounds" take. Swiss doesn't work for most normal Smash tournaments due to our constant lack of enough setups or space for bulky setups: that would hopefully be a non-issue for Smash 3DS.


If tournament time issues are out of the picture, there are still other fairly valid reasons you would consider changing stocks. Making the game more accessible to spectators, aligning the game to what players feel gives a better match quality, etc.


What I hate about this stock debate, is that it is 99% opinion backed. The only question that appears to be solved (or even provided any data whatsoever), is whether 3 stocks would take up too much time for this game. The answer to that should have been obvious though to anyone that gave thought to the Swiss format, since you can run tournaments much faster (and arguably more satisfying for players who normally lose 0-2 or 1-2 in tourney brackets a lot). Tournaments running on time for the 3DS version was basically the least important question: hell I could probably manage a 5 stock tournament with Swiss format and run it on time! Now that it's solved, we're still not very far on answering the stock count debate.


What would also be important, would be gathering polling information from Smash 4 players and stream monsters/watchers over which formats they prefer and why. Along with testing out different options for tournaments:

1. Try out different stock counts. Anything from 1-6, because why not?

2. Try out extended set counts. All sets 3/5. If you want to lower stock count as compensation for this, that's probably fine.


This post and the data collected is great, however it's far from answering the total debate. The game deserves some experimentation, some more data collection, and some polling from people interested and participating in the game to figure out what might be best. Until then, we are going to be stuck with plebeian arguments and one-liners from Smashers such as "2 stocks is way too fast" or "3 stocks is perfect". ****ty Middle School levels of thinking and expression are ruining us.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the post, but you're saying that you hate how this argument is mostly opinion based, so the real data you want to compile are the opinions from players and viewers? Isn't that what this thread is already doing?

If the data shows that 3 stocks don't make matches run over time (not tournaments but matches), then that means 3 stock is perfectly viable and shortening it to 2 stock is pointless. Why would you take away an extra chance at a comeback or a switchup? What benefit would there be to shortening matches? If anything, the logical progression for this game is for it to become faster as people become more accustomed to it. Then 2 stocks are going to fly by very quickly.

However, you do make some very good points. It may be that 4 stock also doesn't take a match to time. In that case, 4 stock should be chosen as there is no reason to cut a match shorter than the allotted time given. However, as you said, that will require testing and I do think that should be the focus of this discussion.

Also, you raise an interesting point. If swiss makes tournaments run faster and the 3DS avoids all of the normal pitfalls tournaments have, then why would you not run every tournament like this? Just a thought.

Also, am I the only one who feels like 2 stocks down in 30 seconds is too fast?

Tld;dr: The data shows that 3 stock, 8 minutes is a perfectly viable system. If there are other formats that are also viable, they will need to be tested for and we should prioritize that.

 

[DMG]

a

That is exactly the point though: I'm not putting down 3 stocks as a viable amount. I'm saying that the argument right now is silly, since both sides are basically throwing out opinions. The argument about 3 stocks "taking too long" may be completely resolved, but that is not the only factor or reason people are looking at alternative stock counts. Even with this data, it doesn't resolve the more arbitrary factors and arguments that are still out there for both sides.

This data does not show what spectators prefer, or what players prefer. It just shows that you can run 3 stock tourneys without getting boned on time, which could have been obvious to more people IF people were more aware/willing to try the Swiss format. It would be silly to use this as the end-all for the debate, just as it would be silly to prefer x number of stocks with opinions over data. This data doesn't specifically support 3>2, it shows that 3=2 for the specific concern in question: time issues.

 

[Gea]

If someone can't stay interested in 4.5 minute matches, they probably don't like Smash very much.

My question to you is what makes higher stock count preferable to more games in a set? For versions where setups do matter, running 2 stock 3/5 has the benefits of larger stage variety and similar time per stock with the downside of the extra time between matches. For events out of our control like say, EVO, reducing 3/5 to 2/3 is a much less drastic way to modify the ruleset to something managable for the community when avoiding schedule conflicts is nearly impossible.

I also think a lot of people in this thread are coming in with the notion that Brawl's set times were fine. Brawl sets could be very, very long, especially when finals rolled around. The point is I'm unsure why the default is 3 when the benefits of a 3 stock match are arbitrary. There was a better argument for it in Brawl with characters like PT and Lucario, but that really isn't the case here. If anything, running 3/5 sets allows players for more opportunities to turn the set around than a 3 stock 2/3. Just something to chew on.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm not in the business of supporting twitch streamer ad revenue -- my goal is to have good tournaments. If my goal was to support twitch streamers with ad revenue I wouldn't even suggest public tournaments, just invitationals with top names only.

I think the point is that your events can only be so good without good advertising, good marketing, and enough capital to buy consistent setups, streaming equipment, and rent the best venues. Now, that's not to say that, maybe, you're satisfied with your events. That very well may be the case.

But, for a lot of us, our goal isn't one TO being satisfied. It isn't even one TO running good events. Our goal is widespread viewership, membership, and wide and deep player base capable of supporting a game for a decade. And, as much as I'd love to say that the only thing that matters is accurately determining the top player in [SUBJECT HOMETOWN HERE], for a lot of us, that's not the only thing that matters by a long shot.

We've come a long way, as a game and a community, from holding finals in someone's bedroom to the Main Stage at EVO and a Nintendo sponsored invitational event. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say, we'd rather not go back to that bedroom bull**** just so that our rankings can be .001% more accurate. I'd much rather have accurate rankings, hype, worldwide recognition, developer support, and millions of players.

And, as tough and inconvenient as this may be... we're only going to get that by, wouldn't you know it, testing the hell out of things and letting the game grow organically, not by butchering things day one and making some Franken-mess of rules from 4 generations of games because, hey, that's what we're comfortable with and screw change, damnit.

 

[Keitaro]

I'm not in the business of supporting twitch streamer ad revenue -- my goal is to have good tournaments. If my goal was to support twitch streamers with ad revenue I wouldn't even suggest public tournaments, just invitationals with top names only.

I feel you're not understanding this well.

Viewership numbers can get more companies interested in the game. Company support can get sponsors. Sponsors can get us setups, flights, custom controllers, pot bonuses, and ultimately help us connect us with the company that made the game better. The benefits are not aimed towards the streamer as you seem to impose on us.

There's a reason why the Melee community was mostly contacted before the Brawl one for the invitational. It's obvious.

 

[Hitzel]

I strongly think you guys should record how many stocks people are winning by in 2 and 3 stock match tournaments instead of deaths percents and match times.

If we find that 2 and 3 stock matches tend to be won by the same margins (75% 1-stock, 25% 2-stock is the only number I've seen so far) and the number of 3-stocks is negligible later in the brackets, it shows that 2 and 3 stock matches "reward skill" or whatever by the same amount, and therefore 2-stock matches still satisfy important traits desired in a 3-stock setting, while apparently satisfying the audience and appealing to general online players more.

A "comeback" to "no comeback" ratio showing if players are able to come back after a 1-stock or more deficit would be awesome too, but harder to gather from archives and probably better suited for recording during live events.