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

[Thinkaman]

Let me recap where we stand.

We have ran 3-stock best-of-3 Brawl tourneys for 6 years. These usually ran about 5-6 minutes per game, and have been fine. No tourney I ran ever ran over.

Naturally, initial Smash 4 tourneys have been run 3-stock best-of-3 as well. To the surprise of no one, this worked fine. The games seem slightly faster on average than Brawl.

It is being proposed that this status quo be changed.

Now, this is a fine thing, to re-examine out standards and practices--there is no reason the way we have done things in the past is the way we should do them in the future.

But that is not what is being said here. We are being told that it is objectively imperative to switch to 2-stocks, to address a multitude of imaginary problems.

• 3-stock games are "too long"? It was fine in Brawl, and Smash 4 is unambiguously shorter/faster.
• 3-stock games are boring to viewers? No only is this asinine, but why on earth would 2-stock be any different?
• 3-stock games are problematic for TOs? Incomprehensible madness.

The statements being made are so divorced from the actual reality of playing, watching, and hosting smash that it's impossible to read them as anything but a naive outsider telling a community how they should be running, with only the vaguest of ideas as to how things actually work.

I hope you take the opportunity of Smash 4 to join the community, attend events, and get involved with the scene. Smash is a really fun competitive game, and I hope you'll have as much enjoyment and make as many friends as I have.

 

[wannabe33]

Clarifications:

But that is not what is being said here. We are being told that it is objectively imperative to switch to 2-stocks

Who is saying this? I haven't and no one else in this thread seems to be saying it. The argument is that a 2-stock moveset would preferable, not that a 2-stock ruleset is imperative to adopt.

Other corrections:

1. Smash 4 is not unambiguously shorter or faster than Brawl.
2. 2-stock might be more interesting to viewers since the matches are shorter and switch around faster.
3. "Incomprehensible madness" is not an argument.

 

[Overswarm]

Wannabe, what thinkaman is saying is your proposal of "switch to 2 stock" holds as much validty as saying "switch to 1 stock" or "turn on final smashes". You're attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist with an unproven solution.

 

[UltiMario]

IMO someone should try putting together the data from the Crossfire 4 matches. Even with relatively campy characters, the games felt like they went super fast, I'd really like to see the real numbers though.

 

[Shaya]

A thing that's of importance is, how long should a match take?

If smash 4 has long living + good zoning characters, that unlike Brawl are very reactive and "fast paced" (as we see with Rosalina, Pac, Villager, etc) we may get a standard meta where matches are taking up like 6+ minutes out of 8. That doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing though, it could be the way the game is meant to be played. The only problem here is how the community tends to run tournaments for multiple games, and people also have a preconceived perception of how long a smash game should be + how long a set should be "oh like 10 minutes ish", so if we have 6 minute match standards in best of 3, people are going to be conflicted with the result.

Brawl taking a long time is "boring" is hardly a relevant criteria for another Smash game taking a long time being "boring".

 

[wannabe33]

Wannabe, what thinkaman is saying is your proposal of "switch to 2 stock" holds as much validty as saying "switch to 1 stock" or "turn on final smashes". You're attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist with an unproven solution.

I don't think that's what Thinkaman is saying. A one-stock ruleset has obvious disadvantages neither a two- nor three-stock ruleset have, including:

-making meaningful comebacks impossible
-making the average match length abrupt
-providing little time to make in-match adjustments, reads, etc.

Also, there have been plenty of successful two-stock Smash 4 tournaments and locals, so both two- and three-stock tourneys work. The question is which works better.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Has anyone even considered that on the 3DS there is a setup for every player so tournaments will run 5 times as fast as Melee tournaments? Why on earth do we need to shorten tournament time when we have 100 setups at a 100 man tournament? You could have 7 stock matches and a 100 man tournament will still be faster than a 3 stock brawl tournament with 100 people.

Keep it at 3 stocks. Even if matches last long, tournaments will still be ridiculously fast on the 3ds. then when the wii u comes out we have a lot of data at 3 stock to determine if matches are longer or shorter than Brawl 3 stock matches.

Hell, I propose we do 4 stocks. On the 3DS it can be done EASILY. If anyone else is for 3 stocks, join me in making proposing 4 stocks a thing, that way we end up with 3 in seemingly a compromise. Because that's the only thing this 2 stock movement has going for it - hype and momentum, without data or evidence to back it up.

Clarifications:


Who is saying this? I haven't and no one else in this thread seems to be saying it. The argument is that a 2-stock moveset would preferable, not that a 2-stock ruleset is imperative to adopt.

Other corrections:

1. Smash 4 is not unambiguously shorter or faster than Brawl.
2. 2-stock might be more interesting to viewers since the matches are shorter and switch around faster.
3. "Incomprehensible madness" is not an argument.

1. Where is your evidence for that claim? So far the evidence on the OP shows that they are way shorter than Brawl.
2. 2 stocks being interesting to viewers is claim you are making without evidence. I'd like to propose that 3 stocks are far more interesting to viewers.

Personally, what I find many people are not taking into account on average match time is lack of ledge stalling. This is saving matches a LOT of time of would be people repeatedly grabbing the ledge. Once people realize you can punish someone hard for trying to grab the ledge a 2nd time, it will be even less prevalent. I've been watching a lot of videos, where out of habit, players are too scared to punish the re-grab, but in 3 months, everyone will be used to the lack of invicinbility and punish those hard, and in turn, we are going to be doing that way less.

I'd also like to expand on Shaya's arguement. In essence, sex with a ugly person may be boring for 8 minutes, but you can't extrapolate that to assume sex with a hot person for 8 minutes would also be boring, and propose that you only do it for 5 mintues. Brawl is that ugly peson and and Smash4 is that hot one.

 

[Gea]

People are looking more at the entire game's ruleset, not just the 3DS ruleset.

A thing that's of importance is, how long should a match take?

This is the most important thing that has been asked in any ruleset thread so far. I guess it really comes down to how much weight you want to put on trying to have a game that runs around the same timeframe of other games. Smash has traditionally been an insulated community but has recently been branching out. While I definitely do not advocate harming the results of our game in order to achieve this goal, I think it is at least something to consider. Saying that your Brawl tournaments never ran over is a great, admirable thing, but it's avoiding the idea that maybe there's an advantage in not having an event run quite as long as Brawl tended to. Like I said, a consideration, not something to define the ruleset by.

 

[wannabe33]

Has anyone even considered that on the 3DS there is a setup for every player so tournaments will run 5 times as fast as Melee tournaments? Why on earth do we need to shorten tournament time when we have 100 setups at a 100 man tournament? You could have 7 stock matches and a 100 man tournament will still be faster than a 3 stock brawl tournament with 100 people.

Keep it at 3 stocks. Even if matches last long, tournaments will still be ridiculously fast on the 3ds. then when the wii u comes out we have a lot of data at 3 stock to determine if matches are longer or shorter than Brawl 3 stock matches.

Hell, I propose we do 4 stocks. On the 3DS it can be done EASILY. If anyone else is for 3 stocks, join me in making proposing 4 stocks a thing, that way we end up with 3 in seemingly a compromise. Because that's the only thing this 2 stock movement has going for it - hype and momentum, without data or evidence to back it up.



1. Where is your evidence for that claim? So far the evidence on the OP shows that they are way shorter than Brawl.
2. 2 stocks being interesting to viewers is claim you are making without evidence. I'd like to propose that 3 stocks are far more interesting to viewers.

Personally, what I find many people are not taking into account on average match time is lack of ledge stalling. This is saving matches a LOT of time of would be people repeatedly grabbing the ledge. Once people realize you can punish someone hard for trying to grab the ledge a 2nd time, it will be even less prevalent. I've been watching a lot of videos, where out of habit, players are too scared to punish the re-grab, but in 3 months, everyone will be used to the lack of invicinbility and punish those hard, and in turn, we are going to be doing that way less.

I'd also like to expand on Shaya's arguement. In essence, sex with a ugly person may be boring for 8 minutes, but you can't extrapolate that to assume sex with a hot person for 8 minutes would also be boring, and propose that you only do it for 5 mintues. Brawl is that ugly peson and and Smash4 is that hot one.

1. The data doesn't suggest Smash 4 matches are "way shorter than Brawl." It suggests that the average Smash 4 match is slightly shorter than Brawl while the average Smash 4 match that doesn't include Little Mac is notably longer.

2. I'm collecting data in another thread. A small sample size would be meaningless, but if a couple hundred people vote that'd be strong evidence one way or the other.

Ledge stalling being cut saves time, but better all-around recoveries and safer edgegrabs add time. We don't know definitively how this balances out.

 

[Kuraudo]

I can't say I have much to contribute to this that hasn't already been said. But y'wanna know how Brawl tournaments get run on time? Being on schedule and forcing people to play their matches when instructed to. Less people waiting to be able to play on stream, more DQ'ing people that are not in attendance, and reducing friendlies until the end of the tournament where the brackets are reaching their end. Doing that, 3-stock is easier to run on time, I've discovered.

 

[Thinkaman]

I can't say I have much to contribute to this that hasn't already been said. But y'wanna know how Brawl tournaments get run on time? Being on schedule and forcing people to play their matches when instructed to. Less people waiting to be able to play on stream, more DQ'ing people that are not in attendance, and reducing friendlies until the end of the tournament where the brackets are reaching their end. Doing that, 3-stock is easier to run on time, I've discovered.

I've seen tourneys do both 2-stock pool sets and "best-of-2" pool sets, and still run over because the pools were poorly managed. Management is the #1 factor for time, by a mile.

As I mentioned in another topic, the best thing about DQing people who aren't on time for their matches is that you will never have to do it, because everyone will then be on time.

This is the most important thing that has been asked in any ruleset thread so far. I guess it really comes down to how much weight you want to put on trying to have a game that runs around the same timeframe of other games. Smash has traditionally been an insulated community but has recently been branching out. While I definitely do not advocate harming the results of our game in order to achieve this goal, I think it is at least something to consider. Saying that your Brawl tournaments never ran over is a great, admirable thing, but it's avoiding the idea that maybe there's an advantage in not having an event run quite as long as Brawl tended to. Like I said, a consideration, not something to define the ruleset by.

I agree that eliminating event overtime is an important goal for building an inclusive community. We aren't all young adults with cars and no responsibilities the next day, and we can't be excluding people who don't fit that lifestyle at this moment of their lives.

We talked endlessly about how the majority of problematic factors are unrelated to match length. However, if we are actually looking to alter actual set length, the biggest culprit that affects scheduling is best-of-X. When I schedule a Bo3, it could be a 10 minute set, or it could be a full 30 minute set. The possibility of the 3rd game (or 4th+5th, in a Bo5) compounds the variability of time.

3rd games are uncommon but not rare. You will get a few happen, though only a few.

If you are really pushed for time, you can trim an entire third off your entire pools time without reducing playtime for most players by running any Bo2 variant. There two ways of doing this:

• No counter-picking, both neutrals, allow ties
• Winner of second match wins entire set; winner of first match gets full counterpick rights for it

The second seems strange, but in practice that's what a counterpicking Bo3 boils down to. The only time a true Bo3 actually works out differently is when both players win the other's counterpick, which is very rare.

Alternatively, you can do Bo1 sets! This obviously has no counter-picking, and only works in an extra-deep swiss. No tourney I am aware of has ever done this before, primarily because no one ever had enough setups to consider swiss. But with 3DS, it's actually a really interesting option to consider.

I might make a topic about set formats.

 

[Overswarm]

Hell, I propose we do 4 stocks. On the 3DS it can be done EASILY. If anyone else is for 3 stocks, join me in making proposing 4 stocks a thing, that way we end up with 3 in seemingly a compromise. Because that's the only thing this 2 stock movement has going for it - hype and momentum, without data or evidence to back it up.

My first tournament is 4 stocks, so we'll see. :B

 

[Untouch]

Crossfire had me thinking, the games with better players went by much quicker than the games with people camping.
I don't think 5 minutes is enough, though, for 2 stocks. It was getting close to time very often, where 7 minutes 3 stocks rarely went near it. It's weird though, since 2 stocks 5 minutes gives you more time per kill.

 

[Kuraudo]

As an added note, the only times that I can see someone holding up a match being acceptable are based on two factors.

1.) If you can set up another match, be it in winners or losers to compensate and give that player a grace period.
2.) If said player actually takes the time to tell the TO or a volunteer running the event to say you're gonna be going out (be it for food, a smoke, a drink of water, SOMETHING) and you'll be right back.

Obviously this has its limits, but yeah. Still! Enforcing DQs and keeping people on time is a must, but we also gotta make sure we're fair because we can't just be gaming 24/7 after all.

 

[Conda]

Let me recap where we stand.

We have ran 3-stock best-of-3 Brawl tourneys for 6 years. These usually ran about 5-6 minutes per game, and have been fine. No tourney I ran ever ran over.

Naturally, initial Smash 4 tourneys have been run 3-stock best-of-3 as well. To the surprise of no one, this worked fine. The games seem slightly faster on average than Brawl.

It is being proposed that this status quo be changed.

Now, this is a fine thing, to re-examine out standards and practices--there is no reason the way we have done things in the past is the way we should do them in the future.

But that is not what is being said here. We are being told that it is objectively imperative to switch to 2-stocks, to address a multitude of imaginary problems.

• 3-stock games are "too long"? It was fine in Brawl, and Smash 4 is unambiguously shorter/faster.
• 3-stock games are boring to viewers? No only is this asinine, but why on earth would 2-stock be any different?
• 3-stock games are problematic for TOs? Incomprehensible madness.

The statements being made are so divorced from the actual reality of playing, watching, and hosting smash that it's impossible to read them as anything but a naive outsider telling a community how they should be running, with only the vaguest of ideas as to how things actually work.

I hope you take the opportunity of Smash 4 to join the community, attend events, and get involved with the scene. Smash is a really fun competitive game, and I hope you'll have as much enjoyment and make as many friends as I have.

This is essentially exactly how I feel about this. Couldn't say it better myself.

 

[UltiMario]

IMO someone should try putting together the data from the Crossfire 4 matches. Even with relatively campy characters, the games felt like they went super fast, I'd really like to see the real numbers though.

I went and did this myself.

(all games with Jigglypuff timer had 15 seconds subtracted from the total time)

Peach vs Donkey Kong - 3:10
Little Mac vs Donkey Kong - 2:06
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 3:03
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:28
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:22
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:28
ROB vs Sonic - 3:10
ROB vs Sonic - 3:44
ROB vs Sonic - 3:46
Little Mac vs Diddy Kong - 2:17
Little Mac vs Diddy Kong - 3:01
ROB vs Diddy Kong - 3:32
ROB vs Diddy Kong - 4:09
ROB vs Sonic - 2:35
ROB vs Sonic - 3:42
ROB vs Sonic - 2:56
ROB vs Sonic - 3:40
ROB vs Sonic - 4:18
Sheik vs Sonic - 4:06
Sheik vs Sonic - 3:43
Sheik vs Sheik - 1:36

Average time for a 2-stock match: 3:08.4

I was too lazy to do individual stock times, but this data puts an average stock between 1:02.8 and 1:39.2 , which is not bad at all.

 

[Sliq]

You're a ****** if you think 3 stock worked for Brawl but it won't for Sm4sh.

Sm4sh is much faster from a core gameplay stance that you'll find a lot more people will be relentlessly aggressive as opposed to the 0% aggression rate in Brawl.

But I'm also basing this off of nothing so what the **** do I know.

Edit: Mods are ******* for word policing the word *******.

 

[Overswarm]

sliq play me in smash 4 on Friday

also come down to my house in taylor mill and play us on Friday

 

[Chiroz]

I went and did this myself.

(all games with Jigglypuff timer had 15 seconds subtracted from the total time)

Peach vs Donkey Kong - 3:10
Little Mac vs Donkey Kong - 2:06
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 3:03
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:28
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:22
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:28
ROB vs Sonic - 3:10
ROB vs Sonic - 3:44
ROB vs Sonic - 3:46
Little Mac vs Diddy Kong - 2:17
Little Mac vs Diddy Kong - 3:01
ROB vs Diddy Kong - 3:32
ROB vs Diddy Kong - 4:09
ROB vs Sonic - 2:35
ROB vs Sonic - 3:42
ROB vs Sonic - 2:56
ROB vs Sonic - 3:40
ROB vs Sonic - 4:18
Sheik vs Sonic - 4:06
Sheik vs Sonic - 3:43
Sheik vs Sheik - 1:36

Average time for a 2-stock match: 3:08.4

I was too lazy to do individual stock times, but this data puts an average stock between 1:02.8 and 1:39.2 , which is not bad at all.

I'll go ahead and do it for you

Peach Average Stock Time: 1:35
Little Mac Average Stock Time: 1:16
Donkey Kong Average Stock Time: 1:19
Diddy Kong Average Stock Time: 1:37
Yoshi Average Stock Time: 1:18
Sheik Average Stock Time: 1:23
Sonic Average Stock Time: 1:47
ROB Average Stock Time: 1:47


I am not sure if this is actually helpful specially since the only 2 characters with enough games to actually get good data out of (Sonic and ROB) only played each other over and over (which basically means we also don't know which of the 2 is skewing the average).

 

[Baky]

I went and did this myself.

(all games with Jigglypuff timer had 15 seconds subtracted from the total time)

Peach vs Donkey Kong - 3:10
Little Mac vs Donkey Kong - 2:06
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 3:03
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:28
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:22
Little Mac vs Yoshi - 2:28
ROB vs Sonic - 3:10
ROB vs Sonic - 3:44
ROB vs Sonic - 3:46
Little Mac vs Diddy Kong - 2:17
Little Mac vs Diddy Kong - 3:01
ROB vs Diddy Kong - 3:32
ROB vs Diddy Kong - 4:09
ROB vs Sonic - 2:35
ROB vs Sonic - 3:42
ROB vs Sonic - 2:56
ROB vs Sonic - 3:40
ROB vs Sonic - 4:18
Sheik vs Sonic - 4:06
Sheik vs Sonic - 3:43
Sheik vs Sheik - 1:36

Average time for a 2-stock match: 3:08.4

I was too lazy to do individual stock times, but this data puts an average stock between 1:02.8 and 1:39.2 , which is not bad at all.

90% of your list has rushdown characters as one of the players. These stats are inherently bias since the majority of the cast won't operate in that fashion. If it were between two defensive characters, (the majority of the cast), I'm sure the stats would be skewed in a completely different direction.

Notice how your most defensive matchups among the bunch has two of the longest times 3:32 and 4:09

 

[wannabe33]

90% of your list has rushdown characters as one of the players. These stats are inherently bias since the majority of the cast won't operate in that fashion. If it were between two defensive characters, (the majority of the cast), I'm sure the stats would be skewed in a completely different direction.

Notice how your most defensive matchups among the bunch has two of the longest times 3:32 and 4:09

Apparently we aren't allowed to adjust for tournament results with disproportionate rushdown representation. It makes you "wildly biased."

 

[UltiMario]

90% of your list has rushdown characters as one of the players. These stats are inherently bias since the majority of the cast won't operate in that fashion. If it were between two defensive characters, (the majority of the cast), I'm sure the stats would be skewed in a completely different direction.

Notice how your most defensive matchups among the bunch has two of the longest times 3:32 and 4:09

Melee ALSO has a disproportionate amount of rushdown representation, and nobody would call a tourney of mostly Fox/Falco/Falcon/Marth/Sheik a biased look at average game time in Melee.

People are automatically assuming that camping is going to be king since this game looks like Brawl and Brawl is campy as hell.

We do not know that, and as it stands, there is 0 trend to show that there is a defensive bias to the game. You can actually find more evidence right now that the game is being biased towards offense, with these time lists having tons of offensive characters in them, and with the Japanese tourney metagame being very notably offensive right now, and even M2K calling the best character in the game SONIC of all things.

These results are not biased. Biased results would be me deleting everything that wasn't a rushdown character, and highlighting matches that are invalid (aka not tourney matches) because they're fast (basically what wannabe was doing, but for offense). These are unbiased, real results. If you want to see a tourney where people are playing campy characters, then go find results where the campy characters are actually doing well.

 

[wannabe33]

We do not know that, and as it stands, there is 0 trend to show that there is a defensive bias to the game.

You don't actually believe this.

Mechanically, Smash 4 is nearly identical to Brawl: defensive neutral, quick shields, negligible shield stun, limited combos, ledge snap, super safe / multiple air dodges. The relevant differences are buffed rolls, guaranteed ledge grabs, improved recovery for most characters, and vectoring; other than big lag when airdodging into the ground, those changes reward defense over offense even more than Brawl does, and the bloated blast zones make characters live longer. There is plenty of reason to suspect Smash 4 has a strong defensive bias.

If that's not enough, consider which characters have shown early potential in tournament play. Greninja, Robin, Pac-Man, ROB, Zero Suit Samus, Duck Hunt Dog, Little Mac, Sheik, Diddy Kong, Palutena, Villager, Rosalina & Luma. Notice a trend? ZSS, Sheik, and Mac aside, all of those characters involve major spacing and projectile / camp play as key parts of their game. Factoring in pessimism about Mac's long-term viability- even pessimism from Mac players!- that's a grand total of two rushdown characters who've shown early promise.

Mechanics and early impressions point towards defense, defense, defense.

 

[suarsuar]

Thank you kindly @ Thinkaman , this will do wonders for all of these tournaments popping up around the world.

 

[UltiMario]

You don't actually believe this.

What I don't believe is theory, what I believe is much more important: tournament results.

Greninja, Robin, Pac-Man, ROB, Zero Suit Samus, Duck Hunt Dog, Little Mac, Sheik, Diddy Kong, Palutena, Villager, Rosalina & Luma. Notice a trend? ZSS, Sheik, and Mac aside, all of those characters involve major spacing and projectile / camp play as key parts of their game.

Yes, and Greninja and Diddy Kong have a very strong offensive presence to their game that much outweighs their ability to camp. Having a projectile doesn't make them campy. Let's also add in to where Villager actually has NOT been doing ANYTHING in tournament but Sonic has been, and out of these 12 characters we have, we have a 50/50 split on offensive/defensive characters... and right now the offensive characters have been winning while the defensive ones aren't taking 1st place.

Mechanics and early impressions point towards defense, defense, defense.

They do, they really do. You look at everything on paper, and this game is going to become worse than Brawl's level of camping, and we'd need dozens of rules to keep this game playable.

Then you actually play the game, and see the results of good players playing the game... and suddenly all that has been getting thrown out the window. Despite the entire game feeling like its designed to make defense the only option, it's just not. Offense is currently king, and you don't have anything but theory to argue otherwise. Come back when you actually have tourney results to back up claims.

 

[wannabe33]

What I don't believe is theory, what I believe is much more important: tournament results.



Yes, and Greninja and Diddy Kong have a very strong offensive presence to their game that much outweighs their ability to camp. Having a projectile doesn't make them campy. Let's also add in to where Villager actually has NOT been doing ANYTHING in tournament but Sonic has been, and out of these 12 characters we have, we have a 50/50 split on offensive/defensive characters... and right now the offensive characters have been winning while the defensive ones aren't taking 1st place.


They do, they really do. You look at everything on paper, and this game is going to become worse than Brawl's level of camping, and we'd need dozens of rules to keep this game playable.

Then you actually play the game, and see the results of good players playing the game... and suddenly all that has been getting thrown out the window. Despite the entire game feeling like its designed to make defense the only option, it's just not. Offense is currently king, and you don't have anything but theory to argue otherwise. Come back when you actually have tourney results to back up claims.

You and Thinkaman struggle with reading comprehension. Arguments I did not make in my previous post:

1. Tournament results don't matter.
2. Greninja and Diddy Kong are campy.
3. Smash 4 will be campier than Brawl.
4. A campier Brawl would not be playable.

Do you put words into the mouths of everyone you talk to?

Speaking of data: I'm not sure you're aware, but there have been dozens of Smash 4 tournaments. Taken in bulk, those characters who have proven successful are the ones I listed. The ones I listed, with a couple exceptions, focus on spacing and camp. Characters that focus on spacing and camp tend to slow down the pace of play. A slower pace of play means longer matches.

If you want to focus on just tournament results (which strikes me as silly, since the meta is in its infancy), that's your prerogative. Based on those results, you should conclude that spacing and camp play are given an edge in Smash 4 considering spacing and camp characters have done better than average -- where this "offense is king" rhetoric comes from, I'm not sure. I think most people, myself included, would find it prudent to focus on tournament results and theory. We know Brawl's mechanics. We know Smash 4's mechanics. We know how much overlap is shared between the two. We know how Brawl's meta developed. Why in the world wouldn't we make reasonable predictions about the future?

Anyway, this question was never tackled, so I invite someone to give me an answer:

We've had two-stock tournaments. We know two-stock tournaments work.
We've had three-stock tournaments. We know three-stock tournaments work.

The advantages of a two-stock ruleset have been outlined by myself and others. The advantages of a three-stock ruleset seem to be as follows: [1] there's no reason to change the ruleset from Brawl; [2] a three-stock ruleset provides more room for comebacks. We've talked [1] but haven't talked much [2]. I don't recall seeing more than a handful of three-stock comebacks in any of the tournaments I've watched, if that. Anyone have data?

 

[wannabe33]

Another Smash 4 tournament, another chance to get data. First Smash 4 @ Xanadu tourney on VGBC. Interesting to see that it's featuring a two-stock ruleset; on his Reddit AMA earlier today, ZeRo mentioned he also preferred two-stock, so maybe this is a sign of things to come. We'll see.

As usual, I'll be updating this post with match results, time left on the clock, time taken, and average stock / match times at the end of the event. Stay tuned.

EDIT: Apparently GimR is having big issues with lag (on local play no less -- 3DS version is so awful), so tournament might be postponed / canceled.

 

[Overswarm]

My matches are going 60 seconds a stock. When I've played campy characters vs. campy characters they end in 6 minutes and its a 4 stock game.

 

[Thinkaman]

My matches are going 60 seconds a stock. When I've played campy characters vs. campy characters they end in 6 minutes and its a 4 stock game.

I played a lot of 4 stock games yesterday, and this was my experience (~60 seconds a stock); even my campy WFT didn't go above 6 minutes.

I still like the pacing of 3-stock a little bit more; I like the "3-act" feel for intangible reasons. It might just be habit from Brawl.

 

[Overswarm]

I think 4 stock would be better in virtually every way save one: Wii U won't have the ability to have a 1:1 setup ratio and the 3DS and Wii U will likely use similar rulesets.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Posted this elsewhere, think it works here too:

To be honest, I'm enjoying 2 stock more than 3 stock right now. I live a busy life and 3 stock tournaments are a longer commitment for me. Also, the pace of a 2 stock match is much higher. The peak of excitement during a 2 stock match happens pretty quick and as a spectator keeps my interest the entire time rather than looking away when a match starts then looking back when its finally down to the last stock.

Every hit counts more in a 2 stock match. Every correct read is weighed heavier. Every factor has a bigger impact on the game... I think thats healthy for the game.

------

Also, I find it absurd you guys are even considering 6 minutes for a single game to be an acceptable time. I don't care how many perfect tournaments you guys can run, you would be hurting competitive Smash by trying to make this a standard.

More than anything, I want to see competitive Smash take off as an accepted spectator sport with money going to our players, streamers, and overall scene. That is the best way to make Smash bigger than it ever was before. I feel like this is not the goal with some of the members here which confuses me to no end.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Posted this elsewhere, think it works here too:

To be honest, I'm enjoying 2 stock more than 3 stock right now. I live a busy life and 3 stock tournaments are a longer commitment for me. Also, the pace of a 2 stock match is much higher. The peak of excitement during a 2 stock match happens pretty quick and as a spectator keeps my interest the entire time rather than looking away when a match starts then looking back when its finally down to the last stock.

Every hit counts more in a 2 stock match. Every correct read is weighed heavier. Every factor has a bigger impact on the game... I think thats healthy for the game.

------

Also, I find it absurd you guys are even considering 6 minutes for a single game to be an acceptable time. I don't care how many perfect tournaments you guys can run, you would be hurting competitive Smash by trying to make this a standard.

More than anything, I want to see competitive Smash take off as an accepted spectator sport with money going to our players, streamers, and overall scene. That is the best way to make Smash bigger than it ever was before. I feel like this is not the goal with some of the members here which confuses me to no end.

I'm going to give it to Thinkaman and Overswarm on this point: yes, people are suggesting a stock change to "fix" a problem that isn't really a problem, at least as far as running events goes. Matches aren't "too long", in the sense that 3-stocks makes events hard to run or somehow meaningfully impacts event length in a way that 2-stock would fix (except in the sense that Panda is talking about, adult players having responsibilities that makes all-day events out of the question). And, yes, I *do* agree with Panda that we should be considering our entire playerbase, not just 16-year-old kids whose parents drop them off at the arcade at 11 AM and wait outside in the car at night until the event is done.

That being said, and I know this will rustle some jimmies... yes, I think we absolutely consider making our match and event time more closely mirror that of other fighting games. Yes, I think we should self-standardize a bit. No, I don't think going to 2-stock will kill the spirit of Smash and make us just like USF4.

I don't get to go to events too often anymore, and it's been years since I've run an event. I'd love to, honestly, but here in Seattle, it's all Melee all the time, and I love Melee (before the demo release, it's been the only Smash game booted in my apartment in over 2 years), but I'm just ready for something new, and I'm not convinced that the scene up here is willing to do something different. Most of my Smash enjoyment comes from streams at this point, streams and playing with my close friends and girlfriend.

But, as great as our scene's streams are, they're also lacking for me. I love Mahvel and SF4, and I want to see more Smash (specifically, more Smash 4) at big FGC events alongside the other games I like to watch. I want to see more cross-game players and watch rivalries span multiple games, see Justin get wrecked in SF, then an hour later watch him get the runback in Marvel. I want to see Yipes commentate a Smash match.
I think the FGC has finally gotten past that stupid "Smash ain't a real fighting game" phase and is ready to include us, but running our events is still weird and different and standardizing our pacing would do wonders to help in that regard.

But, aside from that, I'm just sick of having to wonder whether Smash will be included in things. EVO is 9 months from now, and I already know that they'll have SF, Marvel, something by Arc System Works, a KoF game, either Injustice or MK... but, I honestly can't say whether Smash will be included again. And if it is, I don't know if it will be Melee or Smash 4. And, even so, will we have to raise 90k again, or will it just be a staple game? Will Mr. Wizard have to convince Reggie again? Will Nintendo be a sponsor? I'm really sick of seeing Smash be such an unpredictable part of the FGC. If standardizing our pacing helps with that by making it easier for FGC events to include us, I'm ok with that, personally. We're not really losing that much, but we're gaining a ton.

I totally get that we grew up in the back of people's vans and in basements and we have a rough and tumble and uncouth history, but I'm ready for Smash to grow up. I'm an Enforcer for Penny Arcade, and I was talking to an attendee in the League room this past year. The lights, the spectacle, the crowd, all of that was great, but he said something that stuck with me: seeing the commentators up there on the big screens in suits and ties and vests acting like adults just made everything seems so much more legitimate, like it wasn't just games. And, now, yes, Yipes is still hype as hell, but when I watch James Chen and UltraDavid commentate an event, I can tell that the rest of the FGC is growing up, and is ready for that, too.

I'd really like Smash to be a permanent part of that. And, if that means, oh my god we might need to go down to 2 stocks, well, I don't really see that as a big deal.

 

[Jaxas]

I'm going to give it to Thinkaman and Overswarm on this point: yes, people are suggesting a stock change to "fix" a problem that isn't really a problem, at least as far as running events goes. Matches aren't "too long", in the sense that 3-stocks makes events hard to run or somehow meaningfully impacts event length in a way that 2-stock would fix (except in the sense that Panda is talking about, adult players having responsibilities that makes all-day events out of the question). And, yes, I *do* agree with Panda that we should be considering our entire playerbase, not just 16-year-old kids whose parents drop them off at the arcade at 11 AM and wait outside in the car at night until the event is done.

That being said, and I know this will rustle some jimmies... yes, I think we absolutely consider making our match and event time more closely mirror that of other fighting games. Yes, I think we should self-standardize a bit. No, I don't think going to 2-stock will kill the spirit of Smash and make us just like USF4.

I don't get to go to events too often anymore, and it's been years since I've run an event. I'd love to, honestly, but here in Seattle, it's all Melee all the time, and I love Melee (before the demo release, it's been the only Smash game booted in my apartment in over 2 years), but I'm just ready for something new, and I'm not convinced that the scene up here is willing to do something different. Most of my Smash enjoyment comes from streams at this point, streams and playing with my close friends and girlfriend.

But, as great as our scene's streams are, they're also lacking for me. I love Mahvel and SF4, and I want to see more Smash (specifically, more Smash 4) at big FGC events alongside the other games I like to watch. I want to see more cross-game players and watch rivalries span multiple games, see Justin get wrecked in SF, then an hour later watch him get the runback in Marvel. I want to see Yipes commentate a Smash match.
I think the FGC has finally gotten past that stupid "Smash ain't a real fighting game" phase and is ready to include us, but running our events is still weird and different and standardizing our pacing would do wonders to help in that regard.

But, aside from that, I'm just sick of having to wonder whether Smash will be included in things. EVO is 9 months from now, and I already know that they'll have SF, Marvel, something by Arc System Works, a KoF game, either Injustice or MK... but, I honestly can't say whether Smash will be included again. And if it is, I don't know if it will be Melee or Smash 4. And, even so, will we have to raise 90k again, or will it just be a staple game? Will Mr. Wizard have to convince Reggie again? Will Nintendo be a sponsor? I'm really sick of seeing Smash be such an unpredictable part of the FGC. If standardizing our pacing helps with that by making it easier for FGC events to include us, I'm ok with that, personally. We're not really losing that much, but we're gaining a ton.

I totally get that we grew up in the back of people's vans and in basements and we have a rough and tumble and uncouth history, but I'm ready for Smash to grow up. I'm an Enforcer for Penny Arcade, and I was talking to an attendee in the League room this past year. The lights, the spectacle, the crowd, all of that was great, but he said something that stuck with me: seeing the commentators up there on the big screens in suits and ties and vests acting like adults just made everything seems so much more legitimate, like it wasn't just games. And, now, yes, Yipes is still hype as hell, but when I watch James Chen and UltraDavid commentate an event, I can tell that the rest of the FGC is growing up, and is ready for that, too.

I'd really like Smash to be a permanent part of that. And, if that means, oh my god we might need to go down to 2 stocks, well, I don't really see that as a big deal.

I think he hit the nail on the head, so I'm going to TL;DR version it (because I know a lot of people who won't read it otherwise).

Basically, we don't need to go down to two stocks as far as Smash, the self-contained game, is concerned, but if we want to grow the scene and become significantly more "official" (welcomed continuously to larger tournaments), then we need to address the out-of-game problem of how long sets take. Shorter sets = larger playerbase and viewership, which is a good thing.

 

[Jack Kieser]

No, not a good TL;DR.

Tournament length isn't an issue, really. Match length mirroring other game's pacing is the issue, since it makes it more likely that players at large events will cross-play games including Smash, making it more reasonable for Smash to be included at FGC events writ large, vastly increasing our playerbase and viewership.

 

[Gawain]

I honestly don't understand the argument about reducing the blastzone sizes. They would have to nerf certain moves if they did that. I'm already blastzoning people by true combo'ing into Falcon's knee by starting the combos at the 40-70 percent range. Reducing that would make it even easier. Those are already ridiculously low percentages. Furthermore, some moves like the raptor boost are single input punishes that are KOing guys at the 110-130 percent range. On Final Destination format stages. And you want to reduce the blastzone sizes? That's just going to centralize the gameplay around the single hit strong moves. It would make the already strong characters even stronger.

 

[Conda]

I'm going to give it to Thinkaman and Overswarm on this point: yes, people are suggesting a stock change to "fix" a problem that isn't really a problem, at least as far as running events goes. Matches aren't "too long", in the sense that 3-stocks makes events hard to run or somehow meaningfully impacts event length in a way that 2-stock would fix (except in the sense that Panda is talking about, adult players having responsibilities that makes all-day events out of the question). And, yes, I *do* agree with Panda that we should be considering our entire playerbase, not just 16-year-old kids whose parents drop them off at the arcade at 11 AM and wait outside in the car at night until the event is done.

That being said, and I know this will rustle some jimmies... yes, I think we absolutely consider making our match and event time more closely mirror that of other fighting games. Yes, I think we should self-standardize a bit. No, I don't think going to 2-stock will kill the spirit of Smash and make us just like USF4.

I don't get to go to events too often anymore, and it's been years since I've run an event. I'd love to, honestly, but here in Seattle, it's all Melee all the time, and I love Melee (before the demo release, it's been the only Smash game booted in my apartment in over 2 years), but I'm just ready for something new, and I'm not convinced that the scene up here is willing to do something different. Most of my Smash enjoyment comes from streams at this point, streams and playing with my close friends and girlfriend.

But, as great as our scene's streams are, they're also lacking for me. I love Mahvel and SF4, and I want to see more Smash (specifically, more Smash 4) at big FGC events alongside the other games I like to watch. I want to see more cross-game players and watch rivalries span multiple games, see Justin get wrecked in SF, then an hour later watch him get the runback in Marvel. I want to see Yipes commentate a Smash match.
I think the FGC has finally gotten past that stupid "Smash ain't a real fighting game" phase and is ready to include us, but running our events is still weird and different and standardizing our pacing would do wonders to help in that regard.

But, aside from that, I'm just sick of having to wonder whether Smash will be included in things. EVO is 9 months from now, and I already know that they'll have SF, Marvel, something by Arc System Works, a KoF game, either Injustice or MK... but, I honestly can't say whether Smash will be included again. And if it is, I don't know if it will be Melee or Smash 4. And, even so, will we have to raise 90k again, or will it just be a staple game? Will Mr. Wizard have to convince Reggie again? Will Nintendo be a sponsor? I'm really sick of seeing Smash be such an unpredictable part of the FGC. If standardizing our pacing helps with that by making it easier for FGC events to include us, I'm ok with that, personally. We're not really losing that much, but we're gaining a ton.

I totally get that we grew up in the back of people's vans and in basements and we have a rough and tumble and uncouth history, but I'm ready for Smash to grow up. I'm an Enforcer for Penny Arcade, and I was talking to an attendee in the League room this past year. The lights, the spectacle, the crowd, all of that was great, but he said something that stuck with me: seeing the commentators up there on the big screens in suits and ties and vests acting like adults just made everything seems so much more legitimate, like it wasn't just games. And, now, yes, Yipes is still hype as hell, but when I watch James Chen and UltraDavid commentate an event, I can tell that the rest of the FGC is growing up, and is ready for that, too.

I'd really like Smash to be a permanent part of that. And, if that means, oh my god we might need to go down to 2 stocks, well, I don't really see that as a big deal.

One of the best posts I've read on this forum. My passion for Smash comes from the same place - wanting to see competitive Smash grow up. It's why I invested money and time into creating my youtube channel and am taking competitive Smash coverage and commentary seriously - because I want it to be taken seriously.

That's my angle, and that's where my passion for Smash bros is. I'm going to be working for the community day and night, and my goal is to help in making Competitive Smash a staple competitive fighting game, especially for spectators and viewers in the public.

 

[wolfos144]

I really agree with Jack. In USF4, the time time limit for matches was generally 99 seconds. That was the time limit, so matches often ended before that. I really like the fast-paced style of that game, and it would be great if we could apply it to Smash 4. In my opinion, Melee's 8 minute time limit is just atrocious, and it should be changed as well, but it's far too late to change anything now. But things should change for Smash 4.

 

[Gawain]

I really agree with Jack. In USF4, the time time limit for matches was generally 99 seconds. That was the time limit, so matches often ended before that. I really like the fast-paced style of that game, and it would be great if we could apply it to Smash 4. In my opinion, Melee's 8 minute time limit is just atrocious, and it should be changed as well, but it's far too late to change anything now. But things should change for Smash 4.

I cannot agree with this more. I am a frequent Evo attender. I participate in the FGC pretty actively. I love Melee, and all the Smash games really, so the time doesn't bother me, but Smash tournaments take way, way longer than they need to. For Smash fans who have been following these rules since forever, it doesn't matter. But when you have a tournament series featuring other famous fighting games, and you've got huge audiences who are getting new exposure to Smash, you really don't want them watching a best of 3 between Hbox and Armada that goes for 6 minutes every round. It bores everyone and cuts into the time slotted for other tournaments. There is no reason to have these times either, its just tradition.

 

[Thinkaman]

Also, I find it absurd you guys are even considering 6 minutes for a single game to be an acceptable time. I don't care how many perfect tournaments you guys can run, you would be hurting competitive Smash by trying to make this a standard.

More than anything, I want to see competitive Smash take off as an accepted spectator sport with money going to our players, streamers, and overall scene. That is the best way to make Smash bigger than it ever was before. I feel like this is not the goal with some of the members here which confuses me to no end.

I agree with these goals and community objectives completely, but think there's some gaps in the logic.

6 minutes is unacceptable? League of Legends, DotA2, and even Hearthstone have waaay longer matches, and are the most successful, most widely spectated e-sports. I don't buy the human attention span argument for a second.

I once again agree 100% on the need to keep tourney times short. This is critical if our events are to remain accessible.

But restructuring the gameplay around that goal seems backwards, when long tourneys are the result of delayed start times, AWOL players, unorganized meal breaks, all compounding in a bloated large-pools-into-large-double-elim-bracket-with-Bo5-finals environment. There is so much overhead here; why aren't we talking about these things?

Edit: I'm going to go out on a limb and and say something radical...

Emulating other traditional fighting games to try and become a legitimate e-sport is dubious, because traditional fighting games are not actually successful e-sports. It is a stunning unsuccessful genre of games, in which only Capcom posts decent results.

After all these years, they have never grown past the grassroots events and content. All fighting games combined reach barely 5% of MOBA spectator traffic on a good day, except for EVO. MLG has largely failed to make them catch on, even with publisher sponsorships!

Smash has always drawfed the TFG community in size and scope (only natural; Smash is WAY more accessible and less insular), but has always been nagged by this sense of insecure inferiority.

This isn't to put down TFGs, their passionate community, or exciting culture. I'm just saying that emulating their procedures do not actually pursue the goals we all agree on.

 

[Gawain]

I agree with these goals and community objectives completely, but think there's some gaps in the logic.

6 minutes is unacceptable? League of Legends, DotA2, and even Hearthstone have waaay longer matches, and are the most successful, most widely spectated e-sports. I don't buy the human attention span argument for a second.

I once again agree 100% on the need to keep tourney times short. This is critical if hour events are to remain accessible.

But restructuring the gameplay around that goal seems backwards, when long tourneys are the result of delayed start times, AWOL players, unorganized meal breaks, all compounding in a bloated large-pools-into-large-double-elim-bracket-with-Bo5-finals environment. There is so much overhead here; why aren't we talking about these things?

That's an interesting and strong point. Still, I think the comparison to League and Dota and whatnot isn't quite fair as they're completely different types of games with completely different types of audiences. A comparison to fighting games is probably more fair (though still inaccurate to some degree)

As for your last statement, that's something I feel that needs to be addressed by TO's more strictly in order to resolve. These things should be set up ahead of time and then enforced. Otherwise it doesn't really mean anything, and I feel like thats the core of the problem. Though, this is a problem in the FGC as a whole; AWOL players and whatnot is incredibly common, in every single scene.