• 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!

Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
I can't really see 3 stock / 6 minutes working unless we want a lot of games going to time.

Like for example I main Duck Hunt and played a good Mega Man in For Glory. Mega Man's projectiles not only shut down Duck Hunt's projectiles but make approaching hard. Duck Hunt can short hop side special to get past though so it becomes a bit like chess with trying to win ground. Out of 20 games we had like 4-5 going to time, and if we had played 3 stock / 6 minutes, like 12-14 would have gone to time.

Ofc this was on Omega Stages so I can't really comment on how it would play out on Battlefield but I can't see it being that more fast paced so that we avarage taking a stocks every two minutes (this due to overall lack of kill options, espescially from Mega Man's side). And the game is still fresh and this might change but I just have a hard time seeing it being a succesful format. I'll happily be proved wrong though, I'm all for shorter games and I feel like 8 minute time limit is too long!

I feel like that is inherently part of that match up. When you pit together 2 campy characters you will get a campy match with a long time.

In my personal opinion I would prefer making these kind of match ups go into time by having a shorter clock (6 minute) than making every other match up that is not like this only last 2-3 minutes (which is too short in my opinion).
 

SamuraiPanda

Smash Hero
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
6,924
Less variance in match outcomes is the purpose. I was about to slam this discussion into the ground with some numbers, but well, I suppose I'll post what I was going to anyway with full disclosure.

Let's assume once in a set players in both formats (3 stock Bo3 versus 2 stock Bo3) make a full stock mistake, somehow dying at the very start while inflicting no damage on the opponent but otherwise the two play equally. It's about fair to say there's a 25% comeback chance in the 2 stock game while there's a 33% comeback chance in the 3 stock game. The odds of the player who messed up winning the 3 stock set overall are 41.25%. The odds in the 2 stock set are 37.5%. These numbers were supposed to be a lot different and prove my point; they may actually have ended up as a compelling argument for your point since it's not hard for me and probably everyone else to see that it's not actually a very big difference (it's actually only 40.625% for a 2 stock Bo5 if you're curious).

I will at least add that the communities for MvC3 and Killer Instinct, the traditional fighters most analogous to 2 stock smash, found match variance unacceptably high with Bo3 and went to Bo5. Other than relying on their experiences and my own vague intuition, I don't think I have a real argument at this point though.

I can at least claim the little moral victory in that, if you have sloppy TOing, I don't think 2 stock will save very much time. I mean, if a player you need for a match takes a half an hour to start playing and the TO lets him get away with that, that takes a half an hour no matter what the rules are. Your point that we can't just make all TOs instantly perfect and that we will necessarily have a lot of inexperienced TOs in a new game in a large community is a pretty fair point, but I definitely still feel that as we prepare the BR styled materials we'll inevitably make as a community for this game that a strong emphasis to TOs about how to run events more quickly (good, clear explanations of where time is commonly lost and how to avoid it) should definitely be included and will probably do the most good of all the things we could do.
Yeah, I was going to address variance in that sentence but I deleted it because I thought the post was getting long.

I agree that variance is less of an issue with longer sets and more stocks. But it does come down to what the community feels is an acceptable level of variance. Like you said, MvC3 and KI players found it an unacceptable level of variance. Shouldn't we give it a chance to see if Smash players find it unacceptable as well for the potential gains it could bring? As stated in the OP, its much easier to go UP a stock (or convert to bo5) than it is to go DOWN a stock. Starting at 2 stock is the logical solution that could help solve a potential issue and is easily fixed later in the game's lifespan if seen to be a poor decision.

I will concede to your victory that yes, if a TO waits for matches for 30 minutes then 2 stock bo3 won't make a huge impact on overall time. However, I'd argue that TOs only usually allow top players that sort of leeway (yes there are biases) and because every other match would be run faster then there still be a decent net reduction in overall tournament time. And hey if its running fast enough then maybe top players won't leave to get food in the middle. Although thats just wishful thiinking.

I do think a takeaway we can have from this discussion is that perhaps there should be guidelines set forth by the new BR (or whoever) for how to TO a tournament correctly to reduce new/young TO blunders.
 

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
Yeah, I was going to address variance in that sentence but I deleted it because I thought the post was getting long.

I agree that variance is less of an issue with longer sets and more stocks. But it does come down to what the community feels is an acceptable level of variance. Like you said, MvC3 and KI players found it an unacceptable level of variance. Shouldn't we give it a chance to see if Smash players find it unacceptable as well for the potential gains it could bring? As stated in the OP, its much easier to go UP a stock (or convert to bo5) than it is to go DOWN a stock. Starting at 2 stock is the logical solution that could help solve a potential issue and is easily fixed later in the game's lifespan if seen to be a poor decision.

I will concede to your victory that yes, if a TO waits for matches for 30 minutes then 2 stock bo3 won't make a huge impact on overall time. However, I'd argue that TOs only usually allow top players that sort of leeway (yes there are biases) and because every other match would be run faster then there still be a decent net reduction in overall tournament time. And hey if its running fast enough then maybe top players won't leave to get food in the middle. Although thats just wishful thiinking.

I do think a takeaway we can have from this discussion is that perhaps there should be guidelines set forth by the new BR (or whoever) for how to TO a tournament correctly to reduce new/young TO blunders.


Just for clarification's sake. 2 stock Bo5 would take much longer than 3 stocks Bo3. Not just because the sets themselves would be longer, but also because there would be many more times that you have to "set up" and "counterpick" and many more breaks and such.

Also the "setting up" to "playing a match" time ratio would probably become unbearable to watchers as setting up would probably take up about half as much time as a match does and you would have to set up 3-5 times per set.



If we do start out with 2 stocks Bo3 to help TOs manage time and make tournaments more watchable because of long timers then we need to keep these goals in mind and remember that making it 2 stocks Bo5 would be making it considerably worse than 3 stocks Bo3.

When/If the time came when players couldn't bare 2 stocks best of 3, the only logical step would be 3 stocks best of 3 (If we keep our initial goals present at the time).
 
Last edited:

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
7,878
Location
Woodstock, GA
NNID
LessThanPi
top players... I love em but I hate em. If I had a nickel for every time someone posted what zero or M2K said on stream like these guys were handed stone tablets written by God himself.

We need to hold top players just as responsible as anyone else. What kind of example does that show new players? either that they don't matter or that once they get good they can stall the tournament as long as they want.


3 stock 8 minutes is basically what I don't want to see. If it takes on average 1 minute and 20 seconds for a stock to drop that game's time limit shouldn't be twice that. Some characters and players are going to prefer a time out strategy, because they zone well and have trouble killing or gain power over time, that's their winning strategy and regardless of it it is for 8 minutes or for 3 that is what they will employ to win. Personally I think it is just too long for people to sit through and find interesting, I think that is part of why time outs are so unappealing in our game. because we've designed the rules to make them that way. Factually the average person's attention span is tiny. Most people don't watch you tube videos for more than 3 minutes (I think that's why all of mine fail?).Why ruin everyone's fun (subjectivity alert) by making matches where camping is the winning strategy for one or both of the parties last 8 minutes, let those players winning strategy become just as reasonable and tolerable to watch, and to achieve (camping is WAY harder than it looks) as victory by KO.
 

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
top players... I love em but I hate em. If I had a nickel for every time someone posted what zero or M2K said on stream like these guys were handed stone tablets written by God himself.

We need to hold top players just as responsible as anyone else. What kind of example does that show new players? either that they don't matter or that once they get good they can stall the tournament as long as they want.

3 stock 8 minutes is basically what I don't want to see. If it takes on average 1 minute and 20 seconds for a stock to drop that game's time limit shouldn't be twice that. Some characters and players are going to prefer a time out strategy, because they zone well and have trouble killing or gain power over time, that's their winning strategy and regardless of it it is for 8 minutes or for 3 that is what they will employ to win. Personally I think it is just too long for people to sit through and find interesting, I think that is part of why time outs are so unappealing in our game. because we've designed the rules to make them that way. Factually the average person's attention span is tiny. Most people don't watch you tube videos for more than 3 minutes (I think that's why all of mine fail?).Why ruin everyone's fun (subjectivity alert) by making matches where camping is the winning strategy for one or both of the parties last 8 minutes, let those players winning strategy become just as reasonable and tolerable to watch, and to achieve (camping is WAY harder than it looks) as victory by KO.


I agree with this. I think we should just lower the clock. Characters that are campy will still be campy whether its 2:30 minutes per stock or just 2:00 minutes per stock.

The majority of the match ups take about 1:00-1:30 minutes per stock. If this ratio stays relatively the same in the next months having 3 stocks/6 minutes isn't that much of a stretch in the realm of good matches.
 
Last edited:

Chauzu

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
506
Location
Sweden
top players... I love em but I hate em. If I had a nickel for every time someone posted what zero or M2K said on stream like these guys were handed stone tablets written by God himself.

We need to hold top players just as responsible as anyone else. What kind of example does that show new players? either that they don't matter or that once they get good they can stall the tournament as long as they want.

3 stock 8 minutes is basically what I don't want to see. If it takes on average 1 minute and 20 seconds for a stock to drop that game's time limit shouldn't be twice that. Some characters and players are going to prefer a time out strategy, because they zone well and have trouble killing or gain power over time, that's their winning strategy and regardless of it it is for 8 minutes or for 3 that is what they will employ to win. Personally I think it is just too long for people to sit through and find interesting, I think that is part of why time outs are so unappealing in our game. because we've designed the rules to make them that way. Factually the average person's attention span is tiny. Most people don't watch you tube videos for more than 3 minutes (I think that's why all of mine fail?).Why ruin everyone's fun (subjectivity alert) by making matches where camping is the winning strategy for one or both of the parties last 8 minutes, let those players winning strategy become just as reasonable and tolerable to watch, and to achieve (camping is WAY harder than it looks) as victory by KO.
I do agree that if we go the 3 stock route I'd agree with 6 minutes or so. Shorter matches is a good thing.

And yes I agree that Duck Hunt vs. Mega Man might not be the most example, it's a kinda odd match-up lol.
 

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
I do agree that if we go the 3 stock route I'd agree with 6 minutes or so. Shorter matches is a good thing.

And yes I agree that Duck Hunt vs. Mega Man might not be the most example, it's a kinda odd match-up lol.
I feel Brawl had too many camping strategies and stalling techniques, even characters without projectiles had ways to stall out a match or camp defensively a stock lead. It lead to much easier timing out of the clock.



In Smash 4 though I feel like characters were balanced to have ways around campy situations. Most have ways around projectiles and also have ways to halt stalling strategies in some way or another. Also most campy characters were nerfed in their projectiles game and their defensive game and almost all known stalling techniques were removed. I feel that trying to purposely run out the clock is a much harder thing to do in Smash 4. As an added bonus, stocks last about 20-30 seconds less on average than Brawl. Allowing for an extra 1-2 minutes of time on a 3 stock match even if camping had remained exactly the same.

The problem is when you have 2 characters whose optimal playstyle is to camp. In these scenarios both of the character's play-to-win strategy is to camp defensively and as such their tools to deal with camping is just camping themselves. These matchups specifically will probably go to time under a 6 minute timer, but I feel like they should go to time. Why make excessively long timers just so that these matchups who want to play this way are disincentivized to play the way they want to play anyways? Going to time isn't such a horrible thing if the clock is short and both players are actually playing a match they like.
 

wmo_

Smash Cadet
Joined
May 21, 2014
Messages
52
Two stock just isn't spectator friendly, or very fun to play. Honestly it's not that exciting coming behind from one stock, whether it's me doing it or me watching a game.

With 2 stock if you get an early lead, you can keep it relatively easy since you only have one stock left. In 3 stock, you have to hold a lead for a considerable amount more but in reality that's making the game more fair. If he's that much of a better player, he should be able to hold the lead consistently. If we make games shorter, it favors the person who gets ahead more. Two stock just seems really dull and boring, playing it and watching it.

An fps game Quake had similar issues for 1v1. For years it was 15 minute games, but about 5 years ago a new version came out that made it 10. What happened? Well we all know people can get an early lead on a game or get a few points ahead, well making the time limit 10 minutes just made it that much harder for the person from behind to come back. In a 15 minute game, you had to hold a lead for a long time in order to keep it. In a 10 minute game, you could get an early lead and win just from running out the clock. It wasn't that easy every time, but you can understand that it didn't make the duels/1v1s as fair anymore. yes they were still fun to play and watch, but for the competitive players it made the game less enjoyable in a way.

source: I come from other games in e-sports like Quake and enjoyed Smash too.

edit: I don't think 3 stock should be 8 minutes, definitely shorter.
 
Last edited:

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
I think we should use For Glory as a base for the time being. Two stocks, five minutes, best two out of three, double elimination. From there, people look to see what they can ADD to the rule set. It'll be a lot easier for players to get behind than to try to ban something. I liken this to a garden. Instead of deciding to remove these flowers or that bush, you're thinking about what kind of flowers or such to add.

Custom equipment is a big no. It adds way too many variables for matchups in a game that has around 50 characters. Custom specials I'm all for, but the issue is definitely how long it takes to unlock them. If this were not the case, I'd be all for it since we can select our customs at the CSS. Miis probably won't happen since we lack default Miis which I find really strange.
 
Last edited:

Pazzo.

「Livin' On A Prayer」
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
9,187
I think we should use For Glory as a base for the time being. Two stocks, five minutes, best two out of three, double elimination. From there, people look to see what they can ADD to the rule set. It'll be a lot easier for players to get behind than to try to ban something. I liken this to a garden. Instead of deciding to remove these flowers or that bush, you're thinking about what kind of flowers or such to add.

Custom equipment is a big no. It adds way too many variables for matchups in a game that has around 50 characters. Custom specials I'm all for, but the issue is definitely how long it takes to unlock them. If this were not the case, I'd be all for it since we can select our customs at the CSS. Miis probably won't happen since we lack default Miis which I find really strange.
Good idea. It's better to have a base, or touchstone to look to for improvement.

2 Stock, 5 Minutes.

I agree with what you have to say about Custom Equipment.. but assuming we're playing on a 3DS, wouldn't it make unlocking Custom Moves all that easier? I'm assuming that people will bring their own handheld to the tournament. And if linking the 3DS to the Wii U unlocks everything you have on the 3DS, it's only a matter of time before one person loads the customs to every Wii U that the TOs own, or the combatants bring. For the first few months, It might be troublesome, but eventually all custom movesets will be unlocked on every SSB4 game disc.
 

AttackstorM

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
1,502
3DS FC
2122-8193-6919
In my opinion I think custom moves should not be allowed in main tournaments because they are not allowed in for glory mode for balance reasons. They sound more like a side tournament kind of thing to me.
 

mimgrim

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
9,233
Location
Somewhere magical
I don't have much to say on the whole stock-time thing. My personal preference would be 3 stock-6 minuets but I'm fine with whatever happens with it.

What I really want to talk about is the stage striking process. I think we should try to get rid of the whole starter-counterpick system and instead have just one single list of legal stages. I know the theory behind having a starter-counterpick system is to get the most fair stage possible for round 1 but having every legal to strike from would accomplish this theory far better.

And about FD and the Omegas. They should be consider as one stage as they all have the same exact principle. Completely flat stage with no platforms. Now I know OP use other platform stages as not being grouped together but I feel the comparison is rather poor as the platform stages have many different variables that make them much more different from each other and usually a character that is good on FD has at least one other platform stage that they are good on because of the layout of the platforms.
 

Joe73191

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
401
Location
Linden, NJ
2 stock 5 min best of 3. At least 4 starter starter stages not counting Omega stages which should all just count as FD. Stages chosen by stage striking. Yes allow custom moves. Whatever someone has unlocked is what they have access to. No complaining because someone has something unlocked that you don't. Yes allow Miis. Different size and weights allow for different types of characters and that isn't a problem.
 

Conda

aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
2,185
Location
Toronto
Hey guys, for those of you who don't know me I'm SamuraiPanda. Old school smasher who played a role in the original rulesets of Brawl and helped TO many different tournaments in the past (although never ran my own). I'd like to open a discussion on the rulesets that we should use going forward with Smash 4. I'll outline each section with a header and give my 2 cents. A lot of this includes options hat we have and then my personal opinion. Some topics are too large to discuss in this thread and I'll try to provide a better place to discuss them.

And if I'm stepping on any toes here Shaya, then just give it a lock. I'll just shift my reasoning to respective threads that already exist later on.

KEEP IN MIND that 3DS tournaments will likely be few and far inbetween once the Wii U version is out, so many of these rules are tailored for the eventual Wii U tournament scene rather than specifically playing to the strengths of the 3DS. Also if you have options or ideas other than those stated here then please share them!

FORMAT

How many stocks/how much time should we run?

Options:
- 3 stock 8 minutes (Brawl rules) best of 3
- 2 stock 5 minutes (Sakurai's For Glory mode format) best of 3
- 2 stock 5 minutes best of 5

Arguments =
- [3 stocks]
Many pro players like M2K advocate that 3 stocks is the most "fair" in a competitive match. They believe this is the best test of skill and allows appropriate time to read your opponent, get read, and read back in return. They believe combacks are more possible and leads to closer matches overall. 3 stocks were first used as tournament standard at the beginning of Brawl's life. IIRC we either rarely used or never used 4 stocks in Brawl tournaments because it was clear at the beginning of the game's lifespan that Brawl was not as fast as Melee and so Melee's rules should not apply.

- [2 stocks bo3]
(a) Competitive Smash Bros tournaments take a VERY long time. Absurdly long compared to other modern fighting games. 8 minutes is the length of a best of 3 set normally. Smash tounaments run all day and night while other fighters can be fit in half a day's time. 2 stocks would alleviate a lot of that. It would be easier to find venues because they don't need to be open so early/late, more players would have time to attend, etc
(b) It is much easier to go UP on stocks later in a game's life than go DOWN on stocks. This is because the relative impact on competitive gameplay of going UP on stocks is much less than the impact of going down.
(c) [thanks to @popsofctown for this] Players in the future who have trained on For Glory mode and are now looking for in-person tournaments to test their mettle will find this to be easiest to transition to, and players who want to practice online will be able to practice in this format as well.

- [2 stocks bo5]
The time equivalent of 3 stocks best of 3. This format is simply a variance on the current default Brawl ruleset that some believe could lead to more exciting matches, larger variety of stages/counterpicks/characters used, and other various things which would improve the overall competitive metagame. Still has the advantages of B and C from the previous argument.

My personal preference = 2 stocks bo3 at the beginning of Smash 4's lifespan. Even if Smash 4 turns out to be a SIGNIFICANTLY faster game than we currently have, I think 2 stocks would help alleviate many of Smash's underlying tournament issues. I believe that fatigue in tournaments is a very important and very real problem in Smash. The number of people getting to grand finals and just wanting to split because its 2am and they're exhausted would be cut down, and I've seen perfectly legitimate grand finals have absolutely no hype at all because a best of 5 set followed by a reset to another best of 5 set when each game was nearly 8 minutes long is draining to both players and viewers. Additionally, finding venues that are open early/late enough and running tournaments all day long would be a concern of the past.

EDIT: And I just noticed this thread discussing the stock issue. By virtue of the fact it already exists, you can discuss it there if you like. I do find it to be a central issue to this thread, however.

EDIT2: Thinkaman and Amazing_Ampharos also made another wonderful thread with sexy, sexy data as usual.

How should we run the tournaments?

Options:
- Swiss format for pools/early matches, then top 8/16/whatever uses traditional double elimination
- Double elimination for full tournament
(Open for more suggestions)

Arguments =
- [Swiss to double elim]
This format favors the 3DS. To be honest it is not very viable for tournament play on the Wii U simply because of time it would take to run a tournament. Inifinty, a TO from Texas, did a great write up on why Swiss would be ideal for 3DS (among other things). Some arguments brought against this idea by people who have run large scale Mario Kart and Pokemon 3DS tournaments are that Wifi instability is very difficult to deal with, and Wifi tends to become unstable with a large number of people connecting at the same time. The conversion to double elim later on is to preserve hype and interest.

- [Double elim]
Traditional format, time tested to be more-or-less one of the best ways of testing skill (Swiss is superior here though) while running a smooth and fast tournament. For logistical issues, this will likely be the de-facto format for Wii U tournaments in the future.

Personal preference = Double elimination. People playing the 3DS version are practicing Smash 4 for the eventual Wii U release. I don't think people should have to adapt to new formats they are uncomfortable with just for a month.


STAGES

What stages should we use?

Let's not discuss this huge topic here. Please refer to this thread for further discussion.

How should stage selection work?

Options:
- Random stage selection from a given "starter" list
- Rock Paper Scissors for first stage selection from a given list prior to selecting characters
- Stage striking
- For Glory Mode (IE ONLY FD AND OMEGA STAGES)
(Open to more suggestions)

Arguments =
- [Random stage]
You will have to pick a character for your first match with enough versatility to fit all stages in this "starter" list and not be signfiicantly weak to one. Limits character selection.

- [RPS]
Both you and your opponent have time to consider who to play on the given stage. Player who wins the RPS can clearly choose the stage best for them.

- [Striking]
This is the given format for Smash tournaments now for a reason. While not a perfect solution, it is by far the best option we've had in tournament play since the inception of competitive Smash bros.

- [For Glory Mode]
(thanks to @popsofctown for this) Players in the future who have trained on For Glory mode and are now looking for in-person tournaments to test their mettle will find this to be easiest to transition to. This severely limits viable character choice and limits variety in competitive play. It may allow for a larger early and middle-lifespan fanbase, but it would likely severely hinder the longevity of the game.

Personal preference = Yeah I didn't really hide that clearly stage striking is the best from this list in my opinion. I'd find it hard for anyone to argue that one of the other points here is superior to striking. There are other suggestions I've seen floating around for a ruleset superior to stage striking but nothing viable quite yet.

How should stage banning work?

This is really up to the TO for how many stages they allow you to ban. I believe this should reflective of the number of stages they have but again its up to them. However, in this section I'd like to address a big issue people have been sleeping on (IMO). Omega stages, which are the "FD" versions of almost all the stages in the game. They have SLIGHTLY different properties form FD. There may or may not be differences in blast zones (yet to be tested extensively) but stage length is the exact same among all of them. They have 5 different platform types apparently though; Pillar, Floating, and Wall formats. The exceptions being the Mother stage and Arena which may have slightly different properties to these three (thanks to @ ParanoidDrone ParanoidDrone for the info).

How should we address Omega stages in tournament play? Specifically in banning?

Options:
- Banning FD bans FD+all Omega stages
- Banning Omega bans ALL Omega stages, but they are separate from FD
- Omegas are all individual stages
(Open to more suggstions here)

Arguments =
- [Ban FD+Omega together]
When banning stages in competitive play, you are USUALLY banning to get rid of a "type" of stage. When someone bans FD against the Ice Climbers, that means they want a stage with platforms to utlize vs the ICs. Similarly, some characters will be extrodinarily strong on flat stages vs flat+plat stages and otherwise. Little Mac is the perfect example of a character who will without a doubt thrive on a flat stage. By combining the ban, you are allowing players to ban the entire flat stage "type" at once. In tournaments with only 1 stage ban but allowing FD and Omega, how can ban out that type?

- [Banning Omega bans ALL Omega stages]
Yes Omega stages have different properties between them so lumping them all together may be "unfair" to certain stages. However this may be the best solution for the aforementioned "type" banning.

- [Omegas are individual stages]
If you run this, then your tournament better have 20 stage bans.

Personal preference = Banning Omega bans ALL Omega stages. This does not mean you cannot ban individual Omega stages you may not like (Warioware's Omega seems HUGE) but it allows you to ban the full "type". Lumping FD+Omega together IMO causes an unfair lumping. Not all Flat+plat stages are lumped together (i.e. Brawl Smashville and BF) so why should one ban cover every single version of a single, often-used type? Given, if there is only one version of a single type on a stage list (i.e. only one walkoff stage) then they suffer from that issue.


CUSTOM EQUIPMENT

This discussion should be focused in this thread. My favorite quote from the thread that perfectly reflects one of the biggest reasons I'm personally against equipment is from @Tristan_win :


CUSTOM SPECIALS

Discussion regarding SHOULD they be allowed should go to this thread. I also believe that Thinkaman's thread regarding the issue is a wonderful overview of the potential merits they could have for the competitive scene.

CAN they be allowed in tournaments?

Oh boy this is a loaded question that proves a large dichotomy between 3DS and Wii U. As it is now, YES they are easily possible for the 3DS and should be a TO decision whether they are or not.

However, for the Wii U to have Custom Specials usable in tournaments there will have to be a quick way to unlock everything for every Wii U. Likely if the 3DS can transfer unlocked specials over to the Wii U (and can do so for multiple Wii Us) then logistically they could work. If every Wii U requires as much time as it currently does on the 3DS to unlock custom special attacks for every single character in the game, then it is unlikely for custom specials to ever be legal in large-scale tournaments simply due to the difficultly and time required for unlocking for all of the Wii Us.

Miis Plz??
Should they be allowed in tournaments?

Ugh another loaded question. I wish this had its own thread to discuss I could redirect to.

Okay, again I'm going to talk about the LOGISTICS of Mii fighters in Wii U tournament play. There is NO ISSUE with Mii fighters for the 3DS and that is a TO-dependent decision to make. There IS however an issue for Wii U tournaments:

The balance of the Mii fighter depends on the height (and width??) of the Mii fighter.

Taller ones have longer reach and shorter ones are faster. If you were to main the Mii fighter, you would have a specific size you want to use. Logistically allowing Mii fighters for the Wii U would require standardized Miis to be used. And how to you make sure that PlayerXX who graciously brought his Wii U for you to use in your tournament is using the CORRECT standardized Mii and didn't paste the standardized Mii's face on a different size body? As a TO, checking every Wii U has the correct standardized Miis is absurdly difficult. And then you have to figure out WHO makes the standardized Mii and which Mii becomes the standard. That is a huge logistical nightmare.

There are TWO scenarios (I can think of) where the Miis would pose no issues being part of the Wii U tournament scene. The first lies in the reliability and speed of connecting a 3DS to the Wii U. If you can quickly connect to sync your Mii fighter via your 3DS without adding much time to a tournament, then they could work. The second is if they give us premade Miis with the Wii U version (they did not for the 3DS version).

Personally, I'm a bit annoyed they don't have premade Miis for us to use. I have 0 Miis on my 3DS because I think they are stupid. I would have much rather have had them give me ones to use.
Honestly this is the first post that argued well enough why 2 stocks would be a better format. 3 stocks is superior for match pacing and variety, but the time issue is real. Players doing finals matches at 8pm while energized rather than 12am while tired is a big difference. At impulse 2013, things ran late and even the competitors got tired - we felt like things need to wrap up.
 
Last edited:

Conda

aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
2,185
Location
Toronto
Just for clarification's sake. 2 stock Bo5 would take much longer than 3 stocks Bo3. Not just because the sets themselves would be longer, but also because there would be many more times that you have to "set up" and "counterpick" and many more breaks and such.

Also the "setting up" to "playing a match" time ratio would probably become unbearable to watchers as setting up would probably take up about half as much time as a match does and you would have to set up 3-5 times per set.



If we do start out with 2 stocks Bo3 to help TOs manage time and make tournaments more watchable because of long timers then we need to keep these goals in mind and remember that making it 2 stocks Bo5 would be making it considerably worse than 3 stocks Bo3.

When/If the time came when players couldn't bare 2 stocks best of 3, the only logical step would be 3 stocks best of 3 (If we keep our initial goals present at the time).
I think we need to talk about 2 stock 5 matches as a potentially great 'finals' structure, however. Instead of best of 3, it's best of 5 (just for finals matches, of course). Would be very interesting for the final match, though I'm not sure if a split setup is the norm in other fithers.
 
Last edited:

Gea

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,236
Location
Houston, Texas
Couple of small points here: First is that anyone advocating 3 stock ~6 minutes has not been watching the current streams. Even if the game does speed up, way too many 3 stock matches would currently be going to time with no real camping employed. From what I've seen, something like roughly a quarter of Smash 4 tournament matches have reached over 6 minutes using 3 stock ruleset. Meaning that you'd see a sharp increase in timeouts and it would become a more viable strategy.

2 stock 5 minutes makes a lot of sense for a very specific reason. If time is not an issue at your tournament and you wish to have less variance, do sets 3/5. If you have lots of other events at the venue, a switch to 2/3 is far less drastic than going "oh crap we're going to do a stock less now" or "we have to do best of one" or "scrap double elimination, it has to be single." All of these scenarios have cropped up at events for previous games, and they are way more jarring than simply reducing set count to 2/3 from 3/5. If the game becomes far too campy, reducing the set time to 2/3 would similarly not result in the long Brawl sets because they simply could not happen.

So, just as much stability with the flexibility built in. Ontop of this, other people have added that you will see more counterpicking and stage selection which promotes stage diversity but also lessens the overall impact of each stage. A criticism of 2 stock is that it reduces potential for a comeback. In a 3/5 set, this actually increases greatly the potential for a comeback within the set and allows someone who has "figured out" their opponent to apply their deconstructions from a more winnable scenario than from a 2 stock deficit.

Let's be clear here: some people certainly are posting under the premise that Brawl's sets were not too lengthy. Finals sets would often take close to an hour. God help you if someone resets the bracket. If that's what you want, fine, but it's definitely a large percentage of time if you're talking about trying to finish an event in ~8 hours. Additionally, the criticism that there is more downtime between matches is a fair one, but the more you have to counterpick, the less time it should take.

In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that the only fair criticism of 2 stock matches over 3 is that they prefer 3 stock because that's what they are used to and that's what Brawl used.
 
Last edited:

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
I think we need to talk about 2 stock 5 matches as a potentially great 'finals' structure, however. Instead of best of 3, it's best of 5 (just for finals matches, of course). Would be very interesting for the final match, though I'm not sure if a split setup is the norm in other fithers.
Grand Finals are already Bo5.






Couple of small points here: First is that anyone advocating 3 stock ~6 minutes has not been watching the current streams. Even if the game does speed up, way too many 3 stock matches would currently be going to time with no real camping employed. From what I've seen, something like roughly a quarter of Smash 4 tournament matches have reached over 6 minutes using 3 stock ruleset. Meaning that you'd see a sharp increase in timeouts and it would become a more viable strategy.

2 stock 5 minutes makes a lot of sense for a very specific reason. If time is not an issue at your tournament and you wish to have less variance, do sets 3/5. If you have lots of other events at the venue, a switch to 2/3 is far less drastic than going "oh crap we're going to do a stock less now" or "we have to do best of one" or "scrap double elimination, it has to be single." All of these scenarios have cropped up at events for previous games, and they are way more jarring than simply reducing set count to 2/3 from 3/5. If the game becomes far too campy, reducing the set time to 2/3 would similarly not result in the long Brawl sets because they simply could not happen.

So, just as much stability with the flexibility built in. Ontop of this, other people have added that you will see more counterpicking and stage selection which promotes stage diversity but also lessens the overall impact of each stage. A criticism of 2 stock is that it reduces potential for a comeback. In a 3/5 set, this actually increases greatly the potential for a comeback within the set and allows someone who has "figured out" their opponent to apply their deconstructions from a more winnable scenario than from a 2 stock deficit.

Let's be clear here: some people certainly are posting under the premise that Brawl's sets were not too lengthy. Finals sets would often take close to an hour. God help you if someone resets the bracket. If that's what you want, fine, but it's definitely a large percentage of time if you're talking about trying to finish an event in ~8 hours. Additionally, the criticism that there is more downtime between matches is a fair one, but the more you have to counterpick, the less time it should take.

In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that the only fair criticism of 2 stock matches over 3 is that they prefer 3 stock because that's what they are used to and that's what Brawl used.

I have been watching the streams. Way more matches end under 3 minutes than those that go over 4. Specially matches without Rosalina, DHD or R.O.B. who are the 3 main camp offenders.



Also 2 stocks best of 5 takes waaaaay more time than 3 stocks bo3. You yourself said: Grand Finals take 1 hour! That's because of the fact that its bo5 instead of bo3.

Just averaging game length you will see that the average for a 2 stocks bo5 is about 2 minutes greater than an average 3 stocks bo3 (It's already been done in other threads). And that's without taking into account that there could be 1-3 more counterpick/ban phases which would add about 5-15 more minutes (And that's if you never take a break between matches). For a total average of about 10 more minutes per round. (And probably about 20 minutes for GF since people will demand you do bo7).

I can see the argument for 2 stocks bo3 as it would lower the tournament's required running time, but there is absolutely 0 logical argument or reason for 2 stocks bo5.
 
Last edited:

Road Death Wheel

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
2,149
Location
Canada,Ontario
NNID
Kairos-Xman
3DS FC
2406-5636-9789
In my opinion I think custom moves should not be allowed in main tournaments because they are not allowed in for glory mode for balance reasons. They sound more like a side tournament kind of thing to me.
yeah like what about palutena? would we just have to ban her cuz shes similar to mii fighters in the respect of completely different special that are very very broken. no we can't have this type of double standard i think custom moves are not balanced and should not be used for tournament use.
 

Conda

aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
2,185
Location
Toronto
Grand Finals are already Bo5.









I have been watching the streams. Way more matches end under 3 minutes than those that go over 4. Specially matches without Rosalina, DHD or R.O.B. who are the 3 main camp offenders.



Also 2 stocks best of 5 takes waaaaay more time than 3 stocks bo3. You yourself said: Grand Finals take 1 hour! That's because of the fact that its bo5 instead of bo3.

Just averaging game length you will see that the average for a 2 stocks bo5 is about 2 minutes greater than an average 3 stocks bo3 (It's already been done in other threads). And that's without taking into account that there could be 1-3 more counterpick/ban phases which would add about 5-15 more minutes (And that's if you never take a break between matches). For a total average of about 10 more minutes per round. (And probably about 20 minutes for GF since people will demand you do bo7).

I can see the argument for 2 stocks bo3 as it would lower the tournament's required running time, but there is absolutely 0 logical argument or reason for 2 stocks bo5.
Haha yup i just had a huge derp moment.
 

ParanoidDrone

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
4,335
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Couple of small points here: First is that anyone advocating 3 stock ~6 minutes has not been watching the current streams. Even if the game does speed up, way too many 3 stock matches would currently be going to time with no real camping employed. From what I've seen, something like roughly a quarter of Smash 4 tournament matches have reached over 6 minutes using 3 stock ruleset. Meaning that you'd see a sharp increase in timeouts and it would become a more viable strategy.
Not trying to argue for or against it, but why is making timeout a viable strategy such a bad thing, given that the time limit itself is not excessive? You said it yourself that 25% of the matches go past 6 minutes, so setting the time limit there would actually cut those matches short.
 
Last edited:

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
Couple of small points here: First is that anyone advocating 3 stock ~6 minutes has not been watching the current streams. Even if the game does speed up, way too many 3 stock matches would currently be going to time with no real camping employed. From what I've seen, something like roughly a quarter of Smash 4 tournament matches have reached over 6 minutes using 3 stock ruleset. Meaning that you'd see a sharp increase in timeouts and it would become a more viable strategy.

2 stock 5 minutes makes a lot of sense for a very specific reason. If time is not an issue at your tournament and you wish to have less variance, do sets 3/5. If you have lots of other events at the venue, a switch to 2/3 is far less drastic than going "oh crap we're going to do a stock less now" or "we have to do best of one" or "scrap double elimination, it has to be single." All of these scenarios have cropped up at events for previous games, and they are way more jarring than simply reducing set count to 2/3 from 3/5. If the game becomes far too campy, reducing the set time to 2/3 would similarly not result in the long Brawl sets because they simply could not happen.

So, just as much stability with the flexibility built in. Ontop of this, other people have added that you will see more counterpicking and stage selection which promotes stage diversity but also lessens the overall impact of each stage. A criticism of 2 stock is that it reduces potential for a comeback. In a 3/5 set, this actually increases greatly the potential for a comeback within the set and allows someone who has "figured out" their opponent to apply their deconstructions from a more winnable scenario than from a 2 stock deficit.

Let's be clear here: some people certainly are posting under the premise that Brawl's sets were not too lengthy. Finals sets would often take close to an hour. God help you if someone resets the bracket. If that's what you want, fine, but it's definitely a large percentage of time if you're talking about trying to finish an event in ~8 hours. Additionally, the criticism that there is more downtime between matches is a fair one, but the more you have to counterpick, the less time it should take.

In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that the only fair criticism of 2 stock matches over 3 is that they prefer 3 stock because that's what they are used to and that's what Brawl used.




Just to do the math:

Let's assume that a stock in the new game lasts, on average, 1:30. (There's a thread with numbers that says that they last on average 1:20, but I'll humor you and make it even longer to help out 2 stock bo5, it will still lose out).

1 match with 2 stocks will last on average 3 minutes, while 1 match with 3 stocks will last 4:30 minutes.



There are mandatorily at least 2 matches in 3 stocks bo3, plus a mandatory counterpick/ban phase (which let's say lasts 2 minutes, although sometimes it lasts much more).

That's a mandatory time of at least 11 minutes.

There's a 50% chance of there being an extra match with an extra counterpick/ban phase. That would be on average 0.5*(4.5 + 2) for a total of 3.25 extra minutes or a total of 14:15.




There are mandatorily 3 matches in 2 stocks bo3, plus 2 mandatory counterpick/ban phases.

That's a mandatory time of at least 13 minutes.

There's a 75% chance of there being a 4th match with an extra counterpick/ban phase. This would be on average 0.75*(3 + 2) or an extra time of 3:45 minutes.

There's a 50% chance of there being a 5th match with an extra counterpick/ban phase. This would be on average 0.5*(3 +2) or an extra time of 2:30 minutes.

This is all equal to 19:15 minutes.






Even if you were to lower the counterpick/ban phase to 1 minute (and regulate it) you would still get a total time of 15:00 minutes for 2 stocks bo5 against 12 minutes for 3 stocks bo3. There is literally 0 way of making 2 stocks bo5 last shorter than 3 stocks bo5 because on average, even without any ban/counterpick phases, sets already last longer. Adding in the extra counterpick/ban phases just makes it even longer.








Just to show it with math:



3 stocks last:

Number of stocks * Average Stock Time * (Mandatory Matches + Extra Matches * % an extra match is possible)

This is: 3 * AST * (2 + 1 * 0.5) =

3 * AST * 2.5 =

7.5 * AST

(Where AST is average stock time)




2 stocks last:

Number of stocks * Average Stock Time * (Mandatory Matches + Extra Matches * % an extra match is possible)

This is: 2 * AST * (3 + (1 * 0.75) + (1 * 0.5)) =

2 * AST * (3 + 0.75 + 0.5) =

2 * AST * (4.25) =

8.5 * AST




As you can see even without any type of ban or counterpick phase, 2 stocks bo5 on average will last a whole stock time more than 3 stocks bo3. And this is without taking into account ban/counterpick phases which will add up to 10 minutes more to a bo5 set.

Going into 2 stocks bo5 would add about 15 minutes to every round. The sole purpose of discussing 2 stocks is that "it cuts time". But you want to add a possible 1-3 hours to the tournament just to make it 2 stocks. Ok...
 
Last edited:

Gea

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,236
Location
Houston, Texas
Also 2 stocks best of 5 takes waaaaay more time than 3 stocks bo3. You yourself said: Grand Finals take 1 hour! That's because of the fact that its bo5 instead of bo3.

Just averaging game length you will see that the average for a 2 stocks bo5 is about 2 minutes greater than an average 3 stocks bo3 (It's already been done in other threads). And that's without taking into account that there could be 1-3 more counterpick/ban phases which would add about 5-15 more minutes (And that's if you never take a break between matches). For a total average of about 10 more minutes per round. (And probably about 20 minutes for GF since people will demand you do bo7).

I can see the argument for 2 stocks bo3 as it would lower the tournament's required running time, but there is absolutely 0 logical argument or reason for 2 stocks bo5.
If time is an issue, you can cut time to best of three without a radical change to the ruleset. Maybe I was unclear. I'm not asserting 2 stock Bo5 is faster than 3 stock Bo3 outright. (not enough real data, though you need to recheck your sources. 2 stock have 10 second shorter stocks by the source you are using, complete with explanation as to why this is). They end up roughly equal. Going to 2 stock Bo5 is a way to preserve current (if not increase) consistency in results. If time does become a consistent issue, modifying the ruleset to be 2/3 is, like previously stated, a much less drastic way to find a solution that the community is way more likely to agree to.

By the way, where are you getting that there's a 50% chance of there being an extra match? One other small point. You're putting in a lot of assumptions about the time between matches. If you're having over 2 minutes between matches for counterpicking, you're having some major issues at your tournament. It's unsual for time between matches to overflow a minute, much less multiple unless there are outside influences like people coaching, using the bathroom, etc. Watch the time between matches for yourself.


Not trying to argue for or against it, but why is making timeout a viable strategy such a bad thing, given that the time limit itself is not excessive? You said it yourself that 25% of the matches go past 6 minutes, so setting the time limit there would actually cut those matches short.
Because games going to % is the most fair way of tiebreaking we currently agree to, but does not always accurately reflect who was actually "winning" a match. You raise a fair point that if the community wants to make timeouts a more acceptable way of winning, we could easily just tweak the clock and perserve stock counts (or even increase it). The reality is that the community prefers winner by stock. This discussion came up a few times during Brawl's many tiring debates and really it just comes down to: because we don't want matches to go to time (it takes longer and tests different skills of the players).
 
Last edited:

ParanoidDrone

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
4,335
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Because games going to % is the most fair way of tiebreaking we currently agree to, but does not always accurately reflect who was actually "winning" a match. You raise a fair point that if the community wants to make timeouts a more acceptable way of winning, we could easily just tweak the clock and perserve stock counts (or even increase it). The reality is that the community prefers winner by stock. This discussion came up a few times during Brawl's many tiring debates and really it just comes down to: because we don't want matches to go to time (it takes longer and tests different skills of the players).
I'm sure there are valid reasons I just can't remember, but why don't we use sudden death?
 

Gea

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,236
Location
Houston, Texas
Because someone who wins sudden death despite being at 150% vs 0% when time gongs is considered a less accurate result than basing off of end-game percent. Additionally, sudden death also puts importance on a different set of skills than the default match does. Don't forget that when sudden death drags on, bob-ombs start raining down on the field.
 
Last edited:

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
If time is an issue, you can cut time to best of three without a radical change to the ruleset. Maybe I was unclear. I'm not asserting 2 stock Bo5 is faster than 3 stock Bo3 outright. Going to 2 stock Bo5 is a way to perserve current (if not increase) consistency in results. If time does become a consistent issue, modifying the ruleset to be 2/3 is, like previously stated, a much less drastic way to find a solution that the community is way more likely to agree to.

By the way, where are you getting that there's a 50% chance of there being an extra match? One more small point. You're putting in a lot of assumptions about the time between matches. If you're having over 2 minutes between matches for counterpicking, you're having some major issues at your tournament. It's unsual for time between matches to approach a minute, much less multiple unless there are outside influences like people coaching, using the bathroom, etc.




Because games going to % is the most fair way of tiebreaking we currently agree to, but does not always accurately reflect who was actually "winning" a match. You raise a fair point that if the community wants to make timeouts a more acceptable way of winning, we could easily just tweak the clock and perserve stock counts (or even increase it). The reality is that the community prefers winner by stock. This discussion came up a few times during Brawl's many tiring debates and really it just comes down to: because we don't want matches to go to time (it takes longer and tests different skills of the players).


Look at my post again, I already did the math for 0 minutes counterpick/ban phases and 2 stocks bo5 is still 2 minutes longer per round. Here's the thing, the only reason people are discussing 2 stocks is because tournaments last too long, you're advocating for making them even longer but still switching to 2 stocks, there's no real reason to do that. None.

There's always a 50% chance of there being an extra match, this is done with the basics of probability.

Assumming 2 players have the same chance of winning a match (they are at the exact same skill level):

The player who wins the first match is non-important so it's not taken into account.

There are only 2 players, so there's a 50% chance of the same player who won match 1 to win match 2. Thus 50%.




In a 5 match set following the same rule:

The first player doesn't matter.

There's a 50% chance of the second player winning the the second match as well as a 50% chance of him winning the third match. The chance of him winning either the first or the second chance is given by the following formula (Chance of the first occurence + chance of the second occurence - chance of both occurrences happening simultaneously) or in plain numbers: (50 + 50 - (50 * 50)), or 100 - 25 = 75%.

You apply the same formula for the 4th match and it gives you 50%.
 
Last edited:

Road Death Wheel

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
2,149
Location
Canada,Ontario
NNID
Kairos-Xman
3DS FC
2406-5636-9789
Look at my post again, I already did the math for 0 minutes counterpick/ban phases and 2 stocks bo5 is still 2 minutes longer per round. Here's the thing, the only reason people are discussing 2 stocks is because tournaments last too long, you're advocating for making them even longer but still switching to 2 stocks, there's no real reason to do that. None.

There's always a 50% chance of there being an extra match, this is done with the basics of probability.

Assumming 2 players have the same chance of winning a match (they are at the exact same skill level):

The player who wins the first match is non-important so it's not taken into account.

There are only 2 players, so there's a 50% chance of the same player who won match 1 to win match 2. Thus 50%.




In a 5 match set following the same rule:

The first player doesn't matter.

There's a 50% chance of the second player winning the the second match as well as a 50% chance of him winning the third match. The chance of him winning either the first or the second chance is given by the following formula (Chance of the first occurence + chance of the second occurence - chance of both occurrences happening simultaneously) or in plain numbers: (50 + 50 - (50 * 50)), or 100 - 25 = 75%.

You apply the same formula for the 4th match and it gives you 50%.
lol the math is real.
 

Gea

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,236
Location
Houston, Texas
lol the math is real.
In a vacuum where all players are assumed equal. I'm like 90% sure that someone (juggleguy?) compiled a ton of tournament data and surprise, it isn't 50% because tournaments are seeded. It's not really even an important point except that using data from a vacuum is doing the same thing as theorycrafting based on framedata. It doesn't necessarily reflect what will happen in real world applications.

Again, I am not trying to outright claim 2 stock Bo5 is any faster, just that it allows us the capacity to easily modify ruleset into a faster one with little detriment. You aren't going to speed up a WiiU tournament using double elimination brackets without reducing match count, stock count, time count (by a lot), or all three. Critics are saying that it's premature to cut your nose off despite your face and go to 2 stock because results would be less accurate, players would get less chances to turn it around, etc. All I'm saying is anyone who looks at the current data and doesn't the potential for Brawl-like times is burying their head in the sand. If you don't take the time to consider the future ramifications of setting an inflexible standard, you're asking for trouble.

It's laughable to think that anyone is going to want to reduce stock count without much screaming unless it's such a dire situation that all matches are going to time. Remember when 2 stock was brought up for Brawl? Why not go to 2 stock best of 5 now, have similarly timed tournaments, reap the additional benefits, and then have an actual plan for the worst case scenario?
 
Last edited:

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
In a vacuum where all players are assumed equal. I'm like 90% sure that someone (juggleguy?) compiled a ton of tournament data and surprise, it isn't 50% because tournaments are seeded. It's not really even an important point except that using data from a vacuum is doing the same thing as theorycrafting based on framedata. It doesn't necessarily reflect what will happen in real world applications.

Again, I am not trying to outright claim 2 stock Bo5 is any faster, just that it allows us the capacity to easily modify ruleset into a faster one with little detriment. You aren't going to speed up a WiiU tournament using double elimination brackets without reducing match count, stock count, time count (by a lot), or all three. Critics are saying that it's premature to cut your nose off despite your face and go to 2 stock because results would be less accurate, players would get less chances to turn it around, etc. All I'm saying is anyone who looks at the current data and doesn't the potential for Brawl-like times is burying their head in the sand. If you don't take the time to consider the future ramifications of setting an inflexible standard, you're asking for trouble.

It's laughable to think that anyone is going to want to reduce stock count without much screaming unless it's such a dire situation that all matches are going to time. Remember when 2 stock was brought up for Brawl? Why not go to 2 stock best of 5 now, have similarly timed tournaments, reap the additional benefits, and then have an actual plan for the worst case scenario?

Because no one wants to do 2 stocks. Everyone wants 3 stocks. The reason 2 stocks is wanted is SOLELY due to it solving time issues. If you make it bo5 it takes away the only reason people want to do 2 stocks and then there's 0 reasons left for it.

Here's the things:

Pros want 3 stocks bo3 because they feel its the best number of stocks.
TOs want 2 stocks bo3 because it would greatly reduce the amount of time needed to run their tournament.

Neither Pros nor TOs want 2 stocks bo5 because it doesn't reduce the time needed for a tournament and it's not the completely subjective (their own opinion) best number of stocks for a competitive match.



Also if you don't take the average and assume equal chances for players to be equal skilled then you can also say that 3 stocks bo7 could last shorter than 2 stocks bo5 and that's technically true. You could win every match in 20 seconds for the bo7 and then last 3 minutes for every match in the bo5.

In order to do correct math you have to average everything and assume "ceteris paribus" (as long as everything else is equal).



Edit: Also when you factor an extra 2-3 ban/counterpick phases into every round the time added by a 2 stocks bo5 is close to 2 hours at the very least (on average). If TOs are making a huge fuzz about time issues now, how do you think they will feel if they have to account for an extra 1-2 hours?
 
Last edited:

Road Death Wheel

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
2,149
Location
Canada,Ontario
NNID
Kairos-Xman
3DS FC
2406-5636-9789
In a vacuum where all players are assumed equal. I'm like 90% sure that someone (juggleguy?) compiled a ton of tournament data and surprise, it isn't 50% because tournaments are seeded. It's not really even an important point except that using data from a vacuum is doing the same thing as theorycrafting based on framedata. It doesn't necessarily reflect what will happen in real world applications.

Again, I am not trying to outright claim 2 stock Bo5 is any faster, just that it allows us the capacity to easily modify ruleset into a faster one with little detriment. You aren't going to speed up a WiiU tournament using double elimination brackets without reducing match count, stock count, time count (by a lot), or all three. Critics are saying that it's premature to cut your nose off despite your face and go to 2 stock because results would be less accurate, players would get less chances to turn it around, etc. All I'm saying is anyone who looks at the current data and doesn't the potential for Brawl-like times is burying their head in the sand. If you don't take the time to consider the future ramifications of setting an inflexible standard, you're asking for trouble.

It's laughable to think that anyone is going to want to reduce stock count without much screaming unless it's such a dire situation that all matches are going to time. Remember when 2 stock was brought up for Brawl? Why not go to 2 stock best of 5 now, have similarly timed tournaments, reap the additional benefits, and then have an actual plan for the worst case scenario?
lol sorry i really my comment ways more aimed at the consistency of the math posts Xd i was not actually supporting anything Xd.
 

Conda

aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
2,185
Location
Toronto
Because no one wants to do 2 stocks. Everyone wants 3 stocks. The reason 2 stocks is wanted is SOLELY due to it solving time issues. If you make it bo5 it takes away the only reason people want to do 2 stocks and then there's 0 reasons left for it.

Here's the things:

Pros want 3 stocks bo3 because they feel its the best number of stocks.
TOs want 2 stocks bo3 because it would greatly reduce the amount of time needed to run their tournament.

Neither Pros nor TOs want 2 stocks bo5 because it doesn't reduce the time needed for a tournament and it's not the completely subjective (their own opinion) best number of stocks for a competitive match.



Also if you don't take the average and assume equal chances for players to be equal skilled then you can also say that 3 stocks bo7 could last shorter than 2 stocks bo5 and that's technically true. You could win every match in 20 seconds for the bo7 and then last 3 minutes for every match in the bo5.

In order to do correct math you have to average everything and assume "ceteris paribus" (as long as everything else is equal).



Edit: Also when you factor an extra 2-3 ban/counterpick phases into every round the time added by a 2 stocks bo5 is close to 2 hours at the very least (on average). If TOs are making a huge fuzz about time issues now, how do you think they will feel if they have to account for an extra 1-2 hours?
edit: These are just my 2 cents from experience and what I've come to learn so far, take what I say with a grain of salt.


I think Raykz is on to something important and true that I think is only understandable if you attend tournaments in person - a 2 stock 5 set system would take much longer, because in-between match set up time is a real thing that can add up. 3/3 is a much cleaner setup that will cut back on the needless character and stage selection process (3 is enough times for that to happen - 5 is too often)).

Also, 3 stocks highlights aspects of smash's competitive play that are interesting and skill-based. You can't just cut down LoL's format by reducing the % of towers and making minions and heroes move faster - there is a benefit in having some pace.

If tournaments run too long - which they do - we need better and more strict TOs to reminds people that playing friendlies in between sets when you have a match coming up in 15-20 minutes is not allowed. And that going for a french-fry break when you are active in the tournament and haven't played your set yet isn't allowed. We all need to come togethre and make tournaments run faster.

Smash's format does take longer than other fighters, but it has more layers than traditional fighters too. It's like how LoL and DOTA are slower than Starcraft 2 matches on average. They're different games, and LoL/DOTA's team-focused momentum-snowballing NPC-involved nature is going to make it take longer.Smash will take longer than Street Fighter for the same reasons - it has different working parts.

We do need to make tournaments faster, but we need not sacrifice what has made Smash work for the past decade. Brawl's 3 stock limit emulated as best it could the timing of melee tournaments. 2 stocks wasn't seriously considered, because it's too few stocks to be used in a fight. You need that 50% point in a smash match. 2 stocks left in melee feels like a halfway point before the climax. 2 stocks + % feels like the halfway point before the climax.
2 stocks in SSB4 is just the start of the match. 1 stock left, which is the middle-point, is just a "this played will get gimped or combod to death". There is no 'momentum building' act 2 to fights with a 2 stock limit. There is 'beginning' and 'climax'.

Dynamics like these are important in competitive games, and smash has only been getting more popular and successful as a competitive sport.

We are getting to the point of thinking "Smash 4 needs to be much shorter than melee" which I think is taking things too far.

We do need to make modifications, but stock and time limits may not be the way to do that. Maybe it will, but maybe not.
When smashers show up, we need to prioritize the bracket and we can do friendlies after or at an afterparty. Too often have I seen smash tournaments turn into socials (which is an amazingly fun thing, but makes tournaments run much too long and frustrates TOs and players with other engagements). We need to respect and follow the structure of the tournament we are attending, and take it seriously as a functioning community event.

--HOWEVER--
If stocks end up lasting until 15%-200%, due to the new DI mechanics, then we can talk about making 2 stocks matches an option. But I don't believe that will ever be the case, because then gimping and spikes will become the meta, and we'll be back at "2 stocks is too short, games are over after two quick gimps".

I am TOTALLY for quick tournaments (I'm a commentator - we get tired and sore too! :p ), but I understand the cost that comes at, and I'm not sure it's worth it - I believe we can make tournaments run faster in other ways.

Of course even smoothly run tournaments can run long, in which case we need to decide if losing an entire stock is worth it.
 
Last edited:

Gea

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,236
Location
Houston, Texas
Because no one wants to do 2 stocks. Everyone wants 3 stocks. The reason 2 stocks is wanted is SOLELY due to it solving time issues. If you make it bo5 it takes away the only reason people want to do 2 stocks and then there's 0 reasons left for it.

Here's the things:

Pros want 3 stocks bo3 because they feel its the best number of stocks.
TOs want 2 stocks bo3 because it would greatly reduce the amount of time needed to run their tournament.

Neither Pros nor TOs want 2 stocks bo5 because it doesn't reduce the time needed for a tournament and it's not the completely subjective (their own opinion) best number of stocks for a competitive match.



Also if you don't take the average and assume equal chances for players to be equal skilled then you can also say that 3 stocks bo7 could last shorter than 2 stocks bo5 and that's technically true. You could win every match in 20 seconds for the bo7 and then last 3 minutes for every match in the bo5.

In order to do correct math you have to average everything and assume "ceteris paribus" (as long as everything else is equal).



Edit: Also when you factor an extra 2-3 ban/counterpick phases into every round the time added by a 2 stocks bo5 is close to 2 hours at the very least (on average). If TOs are making a huge fuzz about time issues now, how do you think they will feel if they have to account for an extra 1-2 hours?
... or you use data that you've compiled so that you have accurate information with which to discuss. We seed tournaments entirely because we acknowledge that players are not equal. I'm going to ignore your rambling hyperbole at the start there.

PS: Quit assuming things and go watch the actual data linked to you. If you want to do some "correct math," why don't you go data mine to prove me wrong and find out actual average length between each match instead of guessing? After all, Dallas has done us the favor of uploading multiple tournaments with all of the wait time in-between.

This is all ignoring my original point still.

Also, 3 stocks highlights aspects of smash's competitive play that are interesting and skill-based.
Such as?
 
Last edited:

Conda

aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
2,185
Location
Toronto
... or you use data that you've compiled so that you have accurate information with which to discuss. We seed tournaments entirely because we acknowledge that players are not equal. I'm going to ignore your rambling hyperbole at the start there.

PS: Quit assuming things and go watch the actual data linked to you. If you want to do some "correct math," why don't you go data mine to prove me wrong and find out actual average length between each match instead of guessing? After all, Dallas has done us the favor of uploading multiple tournaments with all of the wait time in-between.

This is all ignoring my original point still.
Not sure if you're referring to me. I'm going off of personal experience solely, as well as what I've been told about other local scenes. I make no assumptions as to how anything else is, I'm only offering my 2 cents. :)
 

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
... or you use data that you've compiled so that you have accurate information with which to discuss. We seed tournaments entirely because we acknowledge that players are not equal. I'm going to ignore your rambling hyperbole at the start there.

PS: Quit assuming things and go watch the actual data linked to you. If you want to do some "correct math," why don't you go data mine to prove me wrong and find out actual average length between each match instead of guessing? After all, Dallas has done us the favor of uploading multiple tournaments with all of the wait time in-between.

This is all ignoring my original point still.


Such as?

I don't need "average match length" because no matter what the average time is, 2 stocks bo5 will always last longer on average that's a fact whether you want it or not. Also I did quote the actual average time data mined from the only 2 tournaments that have been done so far. So before you tell me to do something, read.



Whether or not the % for 3 games or 4 games is 50% or not, 2 stocks bo5 WILL STILL have a greater average time. Why? Because that 50% was UNCHANGED between 2 stocks bo5 and 3 stocks bo3.

Changing that 50% would mean either dividing or multiplying by another %. Here's the thing: if you divide or multiply both sides of an equation by the same number you will still get the same ratio! No matter what the average stock time is, and no matter what the % of playing one more match is, bo5 will ALWAYS take longer mathematically speaking.

If you want I can prove it to you too (Just change the 50% in the formulas I wrote down earlier to any other number you so desire).
 
Last edited:

Conda

aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
2,185
Location
Toronto
Sorry Gea but 2stocks 5 matches solves nothing that is problematic about 2 stocks - the lack of match pacing that we have in SSB64, melee, P:M, and brawl. Increasing the amount of matches (BO5) just increases set time drastically while not solving the problem with the individual matches being too short.

Adding to the set-up and counterpicking time simply increases total set time, with hardly any benefits compared to 3 stocks / BO3.

You can have 1 stock BO10, but the time IN BETWEEN matches is added, and that will make it longer than 2 stock BO5 even though the same match time is occurring. I hope this is making sense, this is what is trying to be explained.
 
Last edited:

Gea

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,236
Location
Houston, Texas
I don't need "average match length" because no matter what the average time is, 2 stocks bo5 will always last longer on average that's a fact whether you want it or not. Also I did quote the actual average time data mined from the only 2 tournaments that have been done so far. So before you tell me to do something, read.



Whether or not the % for 3 games or 4 games is 50% or not, 2 stocks bo5 WILL STILL have a greater average time. Why? Because that 50% was UNCHANGED between 2 stocks bo5 and 3 stocks bo3.

Changing that 50% would mean either dividing or multiplying by another %. Here's the thing: if you divide or multiply both sides of an equation by the same number you will still get the same ratio! No matter what the average stock time is, and no matter what the % of playing one more match is, bo5 will ALWAYS take longer mathematically speaking.

If you want I can prove it to you too (Just change the 50% in the formulas I wrote down earlier to any other number you so desire).
Let me try to make this as clear as possible for you:

1. I never claimed bo5 would be faster. If you read it that way, I'll even give you benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to my mistake.

2. I'm telling you to look through that video and do some math because you pull a 2 hour figure out of your asshole (along with what these vague groups of people think)

3. You have done nothing to refute anything I've actually said in favor of this proposed ruleset except to proclaim that these vague groups of people prefer it differently.

Thank you for your most intellectual discussion, I'm done in this topic.

Sorry Gea but 2stocks 5 matches solves nothing that is problematic about 2 stocks - the lack of match pacing that we have in SSB64, melee, P:M, and brawl. Increasing the amount of matches (BO5) just increases set time drastically while not solving the problem with the individual matches being too short.
You need to be specific. You may have a very good point in there, but I don't see it. I could just be slow, so please spell it out for me with a very specific example.

Matches being 3+ minutes is too short? 2 stock's total time is much closer to Melee's match time than 3 stock currently is. The only claim you've made about why 2 stock matches are inferior is some vague notion about halfway points and excitement. 3 stock matches do not have a definitive halfway point by nature. 1.5 stocks doesn't exist except in averages or post facto. 2 stocks actually do have a very clear mid-way point... after one stock.
 

Conda

aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
2,185
Location
Toronto
Let me try to make this as clear as possible for you:

1. I never claimed bo5 would be faster. If you read it that way, I'll even give you benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to my mistake.

2. I'm telling you to look through that video and do some math because you pull a 2 hour figure out of your ******* (along with what these vague groups of people think)

3. You have done nothing to refute anything I've actually said in favor of this proposed ruleset except to proclaim that these vague groups of people prefer it differently.

Thank you for your most intellectual discussion, I'm done in this topic.



You need to be specific. You may have a very good point in there, but I don't see it. I could just be slow, so please spell it out for me with a very specific example.

Matches being 3+ minutes is too short? 2 stock's total time is much closer to Melee's match time than 3 stock currently is. The only claim you've made about why 2 stock matches are inferior is some vague notion about halfway points and excitement. 3 stock matches do not have a definitive halfway point by nature. 1.5 stocks doesn't exist except in averages or post facto. 2 stocks actually do have a very clear mid-way point... after one stock.
My point was, in a 2-stock match, the 'halfway' point is the 'last stock!' point. Melee has a road before the 'LAST STOCK!' point. As does brawl, and P:M.

SSB4, with a 2 stock ruleset, will have a "LAST STOCK!" feeling as soon as someone gets gimped or killed, which will happen fast many times in competitive high level play no matter what fighting game you play (even brawl at times, the black sheep it was). This makes the "LAST STOCK!" moment less exciting, as it doesn't have any weight. If 50% of the match is the"LAST STOCK!" stretch, then the climax is more like the 'second half' of the match, which defeats any possibility of a 3-act theatrical structure taking place.

The pros are aware of the 'flow' spectator and competitive sports/games need to have, as they perform in them regularly. Commentators know this better than anyone, as they get to see how each player presents their own performance in the stage of a competitive match and set.

2 stocks is like a short film - enough time to set up a premise, and enough time to wrap it up with a quick message, but not enough time to tell a beginning, middle, and end. LoL has this, DOTA has this, Starcraft has this (in SPADES! and it's EPIC because of it), and Melee/P:M have this.

I'd rather not take that amazing quality of competitive spectator sporting and gaming away from Smash 4 until we absolutely need to. If we see 2 stock matches actually still presenting a beginning-middle-end structure to fights due to stocks consistently being 2-minute affairs, then it's something we can consider.

It is a big sacrifice for many reasons, and we can't try to make hasty decisions just because of the time benefits. There's a lot of great elements that will make Smash 4 a great competitive game, and we can't throw some of these elements out the window just yet.
 
Last edited:

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
Let me try to make this as clear as possible for you:

1. I never claimed bo5 would be faster. If you read it that way, I'll even give you benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to my mistake.

2. I'm telling you to look through that video and do some math because you pull a 2 hour figure out of your ******* (along with what these vague groups of people think)

3. You have done nothing to refute anything I've actually said in favor of this proposed ruleset except to proclaim that these vague groups of people prefer it differently.

Thank you for your most intellectual discussion, I'm done in this topic.

Why would there be a discussion if there isn't a group of people advocating for 3 stocks? Wouldn't it automatically be decided to be 2 stocks?

There are many people in this thread advocating for both sides and specifically saying why they are doing so. I don't need to do your research for you. There's also like every single streamer who's still doing 3 stocks instead of 2 stocks. Even after they've played 2 stocks much more extensively in For Glory (ZeRo has played more than 1000 matches in For Glory), once they can change the rules themselves they instantly pick 3 stocks. Doesn't that show they prefer it over 2 stocks?



Here's what's going on with your proposed ruleset. We have 2 groups. The group who likes things how they are and don't want to change and the group that has a problem with time issues and wants change.

You are proposing a new ruleset which not only doesn't solve the problems of the second group, but makes them worse and you are trying to pitch it as a ruleset that solves a problem for the first group, but the first group has never had a problem in the first place with 3 stocks bo3. You are basically trying to fix something that isn't broken for the group that doesn't want to change while further breaking the thing that others want to be fixed.
 
Last edited:

ancara22

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
84
Speaking as a guy who really wants to main Miis, I want to put in my $0.02 on the matter of them being used perhaps for tournaments:

I'd say we likely will need to do some testing to see the variables we have to work with here with them. Still, with what I've seen and heard, we'll likely not have too much of a different in terms of height/size, if what's being said on the Mii Fighters character forum area is right. And it only apparently goes to 5 different sizes tops. Or at least, as far as those who've checked have seen so far. And none of the B moves each of the three styles have gotten seem to have for use seem to be that OP.

Still, with all that said, Mii Fighters are still a massive mystery, in terms of what all can be unlocked for them, damage from moves, how their sizes/shapes affect things, and so on. All because barely anyone is really looking into it. Seriously, everyone else is focused on all the other characters, yet I feel like the only guy wanting to legit go full-on deep with learning about them, and hoping they can be tournament-viable.
 

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
Speaking as a guy who really wants to main Miis, I want to put in my $0.02 on the matter of them being used perhaps for tournaments:

I'd say we likely will need to do some testing to see the variables we have to work with here with them. Still, with what I've seen and heard, we'll likely not have too much of a different in terms of height/size, if what's being said on the Mii Fighters character forum area is right. And it only apparently goes to 5 different sizes tops. Or at least, as far as those who've checked have seen so far. And none of the B moves each of the three styles have gotten seem to have for use seem to be that OP.

Still, with all that said, Mii Fighters are still a massive mystery, in terms of what all can be unlocked for them, damage from moves, how their sizes/shapes affect things, and so on. All because barely anyone is really looking into it. Seriously, everyone else is focused on all the other characters, yet I feel like the only guy wanting to legit go full-on deep with learning about them, and hoping they can be tournament-viable.


Honestly I don't want Mii fighters to be part of the competitive scene, but if they are going to be in it it's probably going to be an average Mii (with fat and height right at the center) with the default specials. I understand that Mii's might have very little difference in weight or size but the problem comes from not knowing. Players should have all the information available always, or at least they want to (in this game), and not being able to know if your Mii's height is 40% or 60% of the max will probably not be allowed. Also having 5 different weights per Mii is going to get complicated to regulate (Did you make a Mii height 1 or height 3? What about fat 2 or fat 3, etc).

Being easy to regulate and being easy to notice what the stats are are 2 things that go hand in hand and are 100% needed for them to be considered into the tournament scene. Basically what I am saying is that if Miis are accepted there will be a very specific standard that your Mii must adhere to. Plus for Wii U tournaments you probably won't be able to use your own Mii and will have to use the ones already in the console.
 

ancara22

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
84
Still, making people have the exact same default Miis with no differences in looks or so forth period kinda defeats the purpose of why they're here to begin with. We need to have some time to both study the Miis more, and also know how well things go with Mii Fighter-allowed tournies before we just try to make it so cut and dry "it has to be exactly like this" before most of us even have gotten the game yet.

In terms of keeping standard sizes and so forth, yeah, I agree. Making sure things are fair for people in terms of what sizes and weights aren't going to make things OP for the character, or bad for people is a GOOD thing. But we shouldn't take away also their looks, outfits or so on completely. Depending on how well/easy it is to have a Mii Fighter be set up from the 3DS version to the WiiU version, and also for other obvious things, if it can be done quickly, I don't see the harm in allowing a person to enter with a unique-looking Mii, as long as it's at one of the agreed sizes and so forth.

As for custom moves, that's a whole nother can of worms, considering on one hand, there have been tournies run with them already that've done well without much issue. And on the other hand, people are worried about too much to memorize, or how it might ruin tournies, or a billion other things I've heard from pros, stream boars and everyone in-between. That kind of thing I'd say we need to wait and see, and go with whatever works best, that also is entertaining. I know most pros focus on either winning most, or getting the prize most or so forth, but for those watching, people enjoy variety, they enjoy excitement. And that seems to be getting that for them.

Either way, for me and for the tl;dr version of this post, we should wait and see instead of instantly trying to be so cut and dry completely with the Miis and so forth, but if it's easy enough to set up for both versions/not too hard to get the obvious, and custom movesets don't cause salt because of reasons, then perhaps hopefully things can work out for the Mii Fighters.....or at least, hopefully without a billion restrictions placed on what's allowed with them, just because of their very existence and so forth, or how guys like VGCBootcamp feel about them.
 
Top Bottom