• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

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

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
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.
Honestly, I don't either. Dude, I have a REALLY short attention span sometimes, like I'm a friggin' ferret or something, and even I can get hype enough to watch TSM for 45 minutes (plz notice me, WildTurtle-senpai T_T ). A 6 minute Smash match is not past people's attention span, or at least I'll say that if they're already used to long-form gaming (like LoL or SCII) or to watching Smash (duh).

That being said, for people only used to fighting games, or used to other short-form gaming (although, there's not much else), 6-8 minutes per match / 12-24 minutes per set is kind of long. Especially if the play isn't hype. It really depends on the person and the quality of play.

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?
Totally agree. If our goal is tournament length, we also need to have those discussions, and for new TOs or bad TOs, that discussion totally comes first.

I think the reason some people are content to move onto the match length discussion is because for a lot of TOs (and I've never been to one of your events, but this sounds like it's the case with you, too), they're already well run, well managed events, and those criticisms don't apply. Yet, some people still think your well-managed events are too long. Correct me if I'm wrong @ SamuraiPanda SamuraiPanda , but I think you're one of those people. I would agree. Even well managed events run too long for my tastes sometimes, as an adult with adult things to do.

That being said... not everyone is talking tournament length. And that brings me to...

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!
This is entirely true. Part of this is due to the FGC community. Not a whole lot of people want to watch the games of admitted and obvious sexists (remember Cross Assault?). Or racists. Or people who throw f**k and s**t around every match. Or people who call moves 'gay' on stream. Let's be clear: this is ABSOLUTELY getting better, not just in the general FGC, but here at home, too. But, we ALL have a reputation to repair, and that takes time, AND marketing. Our viewership, not just in the FGC at large, but in Smash, too, would be way better if we could appeal to women more than we already do (god damn, seeing women at the Invitational hyped me so much, I love statistically accurate representation :p ).

Other than that, there's really no rational reason that fighting games can't garner great viewership numbers. We all just have to market better. This isn't affected by match length, but it IS something that would be easier if we were in this fight with the entire FGC, and not just by ourselves. And, that's more likely to happen if we standardize our play pacing.

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.
I don't really know where you get that impression from, because I've never viewed it that way, unless you're talking Smash players vs. FGC players (casual AND professional), in which case, yeah, Nintendo. :p If you could provide some sort of numbers that suggest pro Smash is more played and more watched than traditional FGC content, that'd be helpful (unless, again, that's not what you meant).

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.
Well, being separate from them certainly doesn't help us. After all, you don't see us with the silver bullet that solves playership / viewership problems. It's not like, on our own, we're just freaking EXPLODING with viewers or players. Yes, we're absolutely doing better than we've ever done (SWF milestones yeah), but we're not pulling in LoL viewer numbers, either, and we're nowhere on that path, nor are there signs that we're going to be anytime soon.

Certainly, there are worse things than allying ourselves with the rest of the FGC. We're all fighting games. Their golden boy for the past few years, ChrisG, came from us. We all want better representation in gaming. We all have relatively similar issues to deal with. We all have, in a lot of ways, a shared culture. There are many things we can do worse than having Smash at more FGC events and more Marvel at our events.

After all, say what you want about the FGC and EVO, but they managed to do something no one else, NOT EVEN US, could manage to do: they got Nintendo to officially sponsor a for-money tournament. Seems like they beat us to, at bare minimum, THAT punch, and unless AlphaZealot has some news he needs to share with the rest of us, is more than SWF has managed to do to get official sponsorship at an event. That's some help we sorely need.
 

Thinkaman

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,535
Location
Madison, WI
NNID
Thinkaman
3DS FC
1504-5749-3616
I don't really know where you get that impression from, because I've never viewed it that way, unless you're talking Smash players vs. FGC players (casual AND professional), in which case, yeah, Nintendo. :p If you could provide some sort of numbers that suggest pro Smash is more played and more watched than traditional FGC content, that'd be helpful (unless, again, that's not what you meant).
I don't have hard national data handy, but I Smash was always way bigger at MLG than any other games they ran besides Halo. (And PC games at MLG sort of don't count...)

More significantly, you can go into virtually any city and find smash tourneys, happening semi-frequently. The attendance is also quite remarkable.

Walk onto any college campus. Smash, Smash everywhere! Throw a Smash tourney on a college campus, and get 64 entrants trivially.

I help do community gaming events, and interest in Smash is normally ~8x that of any other fighting game.

At once point, the STL FGC and Smash community did monthlies in the same venue to save money. We always had considerably more people.

Brawl and Melee both sold WAY more than any fighting game ever, including the successful SF4. In fact, Smash 3DS is already about to pass it.

Well, being separate from them certainly doesn't help us. After all, you don't see us with the silver bullet that solves playership / viewership problems. It's not like, on our own, we're just freaking EXPLODING with viewers or players. Yes, we're absolutely doing better than we've ever done (SWF milestones yeah), but we're not pulling in LoL viewer numbers, either, and we're nowhere on that path, nor are there signs that we're going to be anytime soon.
Absolutely, we have zero ground to look down on other fighting games from. I'm just pointing out that they don't have all the answers.

After all, say what you want about the FGC and EVO, but they managed to do something no one else, NOT EVEN US, could manage to do: they got Nintendo to officially sponsor a for-money tournament. Seems like they beat us to, at bare minimum, THAT punch, and unless AlphaZealot has some news he needs to share with the rest of us, is more than SWF has managed to do to get official sponsorship at an event. That's some help we sorely need.
Traditional fighting games might be a dubious business model and an unsuccessful e-sport, but EVO is absolutely incredible.
 

SamuraiPanda

Smash Hero
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
6,924
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.
This is comparing apples to oranges. Its like comparing football to tennis. One is a sport that has bursts of activity with periods of inactivity while the other has little to no downtime.

These games are not popular because of their time. These games are popular despite their times.

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?
Would be a fantastic thread to start.

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.
Was wondering when someone would make this point.

Correct, traditional fighting games are actually less popular than Smash Bros. In terms of viewership, fighting games are traditionally niche genres. Not because the games are bad, but because they are far too difficult for the layman to understand.

The fighting game episode of Extra Credits touched on this, but the complexity of fighting games is what has stopped the genre from becoming mainstream or wildly popular.

Smash, however, fixes these problems. It is accessible. Has recognizable characters with a rich, deeply entrenched lore. It is easy to understand (don't get back to the platform = death). By all counts, Smash should be a very popular spectator game. Yet we don't pull nearly as much traffic. Why is that?

Smash Bros has never had sponsorship. League of Legends competitive communtiy is funded by the company itself. They pour money into it, feature it heavily in their client, and force feed it to their users. Then a select number of them indulge in this. Can you imagine if the first thing you saw when you loaded Smash was a message that the grand finals of ZeRo vs Mew2King would be streaming live at 9pm your time? It would be HUGE!

We don't have that though. We have Nintendo giving half assed sponsorship only when it benefits them to promote their new title coming out. But if compeititve Smash was even bigger than it is now... they would have to pay attention to us. What would happen if they do?

We need more support behind Smash because Smash succeeds at where traditional fighting games fail. However, those fighting games have been around for much longer than Smash has, and we made up our rules out of thin air. Learning from these games to improve Smash's potential as a spectator sport is something that can only help our scene grow. Fix what needs fixing now that Smash is in a position to be by far and beyond the most popular fighting game of all time.

Yet, some people still think your well-managed events are too long. Correct me if I'm wrong @ SamuraiPanda SamuraiPanda , but I think you're one of those people. I would agree. Even well managed events run too long for my tastes sometimes, as an adult with adult things to do.
Yes. I want to stay to tournaments till the end but I have to wake up at 3:30am on Sunday to get to the hospital and see my patients so I'm leaving at 9pm or whenever I'm knocked out of the tournament. I wish I could stay for the whole thing.
 

Thinkaman

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,535
Location
Madison, WI
NNID
Thinkaman
3DS FC
1504-5749-3616
This is comparing apples to oranges. Its like comparing football to tennis. One is a sport that has bursts of activity with periods of inactivity while the other has little to no downtime.

These games are not popular because of their time. These games are popular despite their times.
Right, they are popular despite their time. In fact, virtually every sport I can think of except horse racing operates on such a time frame.

I'm not saying that longer = better. I am just specifically shooting down the argument that humans can't be bothered to pay attention to something that might last 5 minutes. It's baloney, and undermines your real, legitimate point.

And concerns with tourney length are legitimate; we simply cannot have a community the excludes people from events because we reject people with reasonable schedules, be it high school or patient visitation.

You know me--I am the last person to want things to stay the same just because that's how we've always done it. For example, I think we should run modified swiss pools at every event (dropping people in stages according to setup limitations), all pools sets should be best of 2, and the top players advance to a 4/8 man single-elim Bo3 showdown bracket. (Most e-sports follow this structure, incidentally) This dramatically reduces expected event time, reduces maximum event time even more, and still retains similar levels of fault tolerance as our existing structure.

I don't really care too much if events run 2-stock or 3-stock; I just raise an eyebrow at the notion that all these inefficiencies in our events exists, and the first thing we talk about is modifying game length.
 

MysteriousSilver

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
774
Location
Lincoln, NE
My scrub opinion is largely irrelevant (and to top it off I only skimmed the thread!), but I really don't care what's good for spectators. I think we should focus on what's good for the game and the actual playing community, and if that happens to be good for viewership that's great! But I think any decision that's focused on what will be more enjoyable for streamers is the wrong one if it interferes at all with what's optimal for play, even a little bit.

I'm not saying that longer sets are better for the game, exactly, just that if they are, that's what we should focus on. Although I'm not enthused by the idea of getting less playtime for my pot monster money.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Tuen

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
1,396
3DS FC
0559-7294-8323
It is good that you cleared up misconceptions regarding time per stock. I would love to see this compared to early Brawl tournaments as well for a comparison of how much faster it could become. I do believe the game will end up fairly fast because of the new edge trumping mechanic, assuming people are gimpable after a trump.
I did a study on timeouts/comebacks using the APEX video set (3 years, 198 matches). I'll check up on that when I get home and post some comparison figures for Brawl if the spreadsheet still exists.
 

Smooth Criminal

Da Cheef
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,576
Location
Hinckley, Minnesota
NNID
boundless_light
Tuen's gonna start hitting us with data now? We get John Numbers, Kid Goggles, and Cassio in here, it's like old times.

Oh the nostalgia.

Smooth Criminal
 
Last edited:

Dr. Tuen

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
1,396
3DS FC
0559-7294-8323
Tuen's gonna start hitting us with data now? We get John Numbers, Kid Goggles, and Cassio in here, it's like old times.

Oh the nostalgia.

Smooth Criminal
Whelp. Looks like I don't have times recorded. Not an issue, I can comb through it this weekend. Good to see I'm remembered favorably :-).
 

wannabe33

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
128
Oh there's a Shockwave tourney on today. Hopefully I didn't miss too much. Think this'll be the last batch of data I bother to get since the WiiU version is just a month away and I'm sure the pace will differ.

Earlier, I had requested "comeback data," but no one seemed to have any handy. So I'll be keeping track today. If anyone ever overcomes a 3-1 stock lead, regardless of percentage, I'll bold the result.

Characters Used -- Time Left -- Time Taken
Lucario / Toon Link -- 2:44 -- 5:16
Little Mac / Toon Link -- 6:33 -- 1:27
Little Mac / Captain Falcon -- 4:21 -- 3:39
Sheik / Shulk -- 5:31 -- 2:29 [adjusted for Jiggs]
Sheik / Little Mac -- 4:58 -- 3:02 [adjusted for Jiggs]
Sheik / Little Mac -- 4:32 -- 3:28 [adjusted for Jiggs]
Little Mac / Lucario -- 4:46 -- 3:14 [afj]
Little Mac / Lucario -- 3:39 -- 5:21 [afj]
Little Mac / Toon Link -- 5:13 -- 2:47 [afj]
Little Mac / Toon Link -- 4:37 -- 3:23 [afj]
Little Mac / Palutena -- 5:18 -- 2:42 [afj]
Little Mac / Palutena -- 4:32 -- 3:28 [afj]
ROB / Sheik -- 4:19 -- 3:41 [afj]
Dedede / Sheik -- 2:52 -- 5:08 [afj]
Dedede / Yoshi -- 5:03 -- 2:57 [afj]
Dedede / Yoshi -- 6:07 -- 1:53 [afj] (Damn Yoshi is hype as hell)
Palutena / ZSS -- 3:58 -- 4:02 [afj]
Palutena / ZSS -- 1:59 -- 6:01 [afj]
Palutena / ZSS -- 1:29 -- 6:31 [afj]
Yoshi / ZSS -- 5:09 -- 2:51 [afj]
Yoshi / ZSS -- 4:27 -- 3:33 [afj]
Little Mac / Sheik -- 5:59 -- 2:01 [afj]
Little Mac / Sheik -- 4:16 -- 3:44 [afj]
Little Mac / Sheik -- 5:22 -- 3:38 [afj]
Little Mac / Sheik -- 4:09 -- 3:51 [afj]
Little Mac / Sheik -- 3:18 -- 4:42 [afj]
Little Mac / Yoshi -- 5:22 -- 2:38 [afj]
Little Mac / Yoshi -- 4:14 -- 3:46 [afj]
Little Mac / Yoshi -- 4:29 -- 3:31 [afj]
Sheik / Yoshi -- 4:26 -- 3:34 [afj]
Sheik / Yoshi -- 5:38 -- 2:22 [afj]
Sheik / Yoshi -- 4:39 -- 3:21 [afj]
Sheik / Yoshi -- 3:41 -- 4:19 [afj]
Sheik / Yoshi -- 4:55 -- 3:05 [afj]

Doesn't make much sense to calculate Mac-Adjusted results here, does it? 18/34 matches involved Mac. 25/34 involved either Mac or Sheik. 29/34 matches involved either Mac, Sheik, or Yoshi. 33/34 matches involved a rushdown character. Offensive characters may or may not have a real future in Smash 4, but boy do Texas Smashers love their offense. Good on them, made for a pretty decent tourney with a great final set.

Given the strongly offense-leaning character of the entrants' choices, I expect the averages here will be significantly lower than my previous data collection as well as the results from the OP. I don't have time to toss this into Excel, so if someone could give me a hand I'd be appreciative.

Forgot to mention: we had ~10 chances for a three-stock comeback and a three-stock comeback happened precisely zero times.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Tuen

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
1,396
3DS FC
0559-7294-8323
So my analysis will take a bit longer. I found what I believe to be a bit of an error on the part of the analysis in the original post. It seems "time per stock" was calculated as [match time]/[player stock count]. This doesn't account for the varying number of stock taken in each match. In a 3 stock match, the minimum stock taken is 3, but the maximum is 5.

Anyways, I seek to do an analysis of the time it takes to take each stock. I have done this for 95 APEX 2012 matches, and have to re-do the data posted originally.

For now, I have average match times. It's presented alongside the existing data for comparison.

Smash 4, 2 stock: 2:38
Smash 4, 3 stock: 4:27
Brawl, 3 stock: 4:30

I don't think this properly speaks to the pace of the game though. I want to separate the time it takes for each player to take stocks. For example, if Player 1 plays player 2 and takes the first stock at the 1 minute mark, then that player took 1 minute to take the stock. If player 2 takes until the 3 minute mark to respond and take the first stock, that stock took 3 minutes. The match could end at 3:30 with Player 1 winning, with the second stock taking 2:30 to take. This would yield an average stock-take time of 2:10 and a "total time spent taking stocks" of 6:30, even though the match was 3:30.

I think this will be a more appropriate way to assess the average time per stock. It accounts for 5 minute matches which represent a drawn-out 3-stock, and such.

Look for the update soon.
 

Thinkaman

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,535
Location
Madison, WI
NNID
Thinkaman
3DS FC
1504-5749-3616
So my analysis will take a bit longer. I found what I believe to be a bit of an error on the part of the analysis in the original post. It seems "time per stock" was calculated as [match time]/[player stock count]. This doesn't account for the varying number of stock taken in each match. In a 3 stock match, the minimum stock taken is 3, but the maximum is 5.
I am glad you considered this. This was deliberate; I considered the alternative but it's misleading and serves no actionable purpose.

All discussion has centered around match time. Data includes matches in which a variety of stocks are taken, because in smash matches a variety of stocks are taken.

Additionally, even if we were for some reason motivated to distinguish 1-stocks from 2-stocks, this is inherently problematic. Is a 2-stock at a very high % different from a JV 3-stock? There were clearly nontrivial differences in gameplay and interaction, which must undermine the motivation for distinguishing matches in the first place.


At the end of the day, all that matters is the reality of "If you set the stock count at X, matches average at Y length."
 
Last edited:

DoomLich

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
9
My scrub opinion is largely irrelevant (and to top it off I only skimmed the thread!), but I really don't care what's good for spectators. I think we should focus on what's good for the game and the actual playing community, and if that happens to be good for viewership that's great! But I think any decision that's focused on what will be more enjoyable for streamers is the wrong one if it interferes at all with what's optimal for play, even a little bit.

I'm not saying that longer sets are better for the game, exactly, just that if they are, that's what we should focus on. Although I'm not enthused by the idea of getting less playtime for my pot monster money.
There was a day when competetive gaming was an underground affair only followed by the hardcore, but since then top level gaming has become a spectator sport. That's a very good thing; it brings in interest and new competitors, it allows for higher profile competitions, and it makes proficiency more than just a cause for baseless bragging rights. Without spectators, the competitive scene becomes insular, malnourished, and worst of all stagnant.
What's best for spectators is, with a few exceptions, what is best for competitors. If it's not undermining the competitive nature of the game, a scene should aim to attract and retain interested viewers. Anyone who competes on a popular stage needs to accept that part of the job description being a showman. This is true of esports more than anything else, as flash and spectacle are one of the biggest draws of the medium.

That aside: As a spectator I really like the pacing and length of 2 stock matches. It's very tense and doesn't outlive that tension. There's an almost instant feeling of pressure; each player is two bad punishes away from a loss, and every one of those big plays feels like a pivotal moment. I recognize with the melee scene that every mistake was just as damning, but if never felt like they were as a viewer. It always felt like the competitors had a huge 3 stock cushion to fall back on when they lost one.
With the 2 stock format, comebacks feel like they're never out of the question, and they're always tense. In a 2 stock game, that comeback feeling starts kicking in when you get 50-100% on a second stock, and it feels like they're one slip away from a loss. It doesn't feel like they have to overcome a big lead; it feels like that player needs to play immaculately, and every extra hit they take is an adrenaline rush. But it never feels like they can't do it, because the goal post is always so close. It's always just a matter of one stock to bring the game back. The combination of the stakes feeling so high, but the comeback being so readily within grasp has me loving every smash 4 match I watch.
2-4 minute length also just feels right to watch. It's never outliving the hype.
As an, admittedly green, competitor it doesn't feel worse from that perspective. I feel like that's enough time for the game to feel satisfying, and once again the relatively small gap between well ahead and on the edge of losing makes me feel like there's a lot of room for playing well to make all the difference. It still feels competitive.
As a player, it doesn't feel any better or worse than 3 or 4 stock, but as a spectator if feels worlds more engaging than a high stock format does.
 
Last edited:

TheBuzzSaw

Young Link Extraordinaire
Moderator
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
10,478
Mmmmm I love data-driven discussion. Obviously, there is disagreement on the interpretation of the data.

As the game evolves, the times could actually become longer or shorter depending on the meta. Does anyone have data on lengths of matches for Melee? We should compare matches in like 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014 or something. My hypothesis is simply that a more offensive meta shortens times; a more defensive meta lengthens times. I'd want to see similar metrics for Brawl. Perhaps we could do some time projections for Sm4sh.
 

Volt-Ikazuchi

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
356
Location
Brazil
Finally some average time per match data. Thanks to everyone involved.

Unfortunately, looks like there's yet another thread discussing rulesets.

Just to give my 2 cents about rulesets, I'll paste what I've posted in the "Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion" Thread.

About the 3DS Version:

First, the 3DS version has SD problems since the controls are unwieldy.
Second, 3DS matches can be run simultaneously since every player has to bring their own setup.

Therefore, a format of 3 Stock, 7 Minutes, Bo3 (Bo5 for Grand Finals) is (In my opinion) the best format available for the 3DS.

About the Wii U version:

First, SD's aren't so common.
Second, it's troublesome and expensive to have many setups for the same tournament.
Third, there are issues with both Schedule time and Streaming time for Wii U tournaments, since they require more things than handhelds, like venues to house the participants and equipment and etc. So things need to run faster.
Fourth, having the same rules of the 3DS version would kill it's tournament scene. No need for that.
Fifth, the Wii U version will be the standard version, so if we want this community to grow, we should at least have some rules similar to For Glory since that is the bn'b of the game.

Therefore, a format of 2 stocks, 5 minutes, Bo3 works perfectly fine for early matches. At top 16 onwards, I recommend changing to 3 Stocks, 7 Minutes, Bo3, to build up hype and extend matches.
The early 2 stock matches will save an average of 1:50 minutes per match, which is vital for large-scale tournaments.


Don't forget that we are dealing with tournament issues here, it's not just about the game and how it feels. It's about the game and making sure tournaments run quickly and smoothly.


Now, with that out of the way, I'm kinda new around here, can I ask some things?

Why don't we have a separate thread just to discuss rulesets?
This is the third thread I've seen discussing this (With most people just throwing out guesses and personal opinions, which only serves to turn threads into mad clusters of trolling and uncivil discussion.)

Why don't we have a thread just for Tournament Streams Data? No Discussion, just videos and numbers.

Seriously, without an unified thread for ruleset discussion, we might as well not have an unified ruleset at all.
 

[Deuce]

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
219
Location
Socal
Will anyone be willing to extract additional information supporting 3 stock matches?

From what I can tell, currently matches are running under 3 minutes on average, for 2 stock matches. Since the game is still in its infancy, I took the liberty of gathering a sample of data on older Melee games, primarily from 2005-2006 games older than that are harder to come by and/or run with significantly different rulesets (5 stock, items, etc)

Results:
4 stock
n=136 games
3m41s average game time
56s standard deviation

35 players sampled

Lurking variables- youtube only, survivorship (popular games), elite player skew

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q_feqh_oScFZpgF-LZcygNK106YULnUglKDzNORcvO8/pubhtml

If we can ascertain that the average for a 3 stock SSB4 game can be roughly around 3:40ish I think we'd be pretty golden
 
Top Bottom