Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[LiteralGrill]

I have ALL that obscure old thread and ruleset debate knowledge.

It would be curious to attempt that kind of a timeout clause in Smash 4, I'm curious as to how it would actually turn out.

 

[Wilyen]

just a random question. how about using use hp instead stock?



got a feeling i'm gonna catch hell for asking this.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

just a random question. how about using use hp instead stock?



got a feeling i'm gonna catch hell for asking this.

Combos don't really end in stamina, and a gimp is an instant game end. Stamina isn't a good mode, but I don't imagine anyone is planning to be cruel about it...

 

[Luigisama]

just a random question. how about using use hp instead stock?



got a feeling i'm gonna catch hell for asking this.

I'm not sure if stamina in smash 4 works similar to brawl, but they ran a side event like that in LI. It was so weird because the moves that once had the weakest knockback did more damage or even had more knockback. If anything sonic seemed to be the best in stamina.

 

[Wilyen]

thx for the replys

do you think 3 stock will help the matches go faster?

 

[Luigisama]

thx for the replys

do you think 3 stock will help the matches go faster?

Hell no. Good players are going to play to win. Not to impress the viewers who want to see an amazing wombo combo or something like that. If anything 3 stocks will only make matches be longer and make more use of rage. At this point if people think that making a ruleset to limit defensive gameplay/camping/playing lame is going to work it won't. This is limit metaknight all over again ban delfino, brinstar, rainbow cruise, ledge grab limit etc to limit him in the game or in this case to limit defensive gameplay.

Also to backup my statement I did enter a tourney where 3 stocks was being used and yes it took long. I think it took 3 hours for a 20ish man bracket to finish.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

The stock count doesn't affect how fast games can go. What does matter is how much time you give the players. If time gets too limited, then it will lead to camping as the better play.

Concerning 2 vs 3 stock, which has been discussed to death, I personally like 3 because it's a better assessment of skill than 2. Whether or not the matches go to time depends on how comfortable players feel with time.

 

[Luigisama]

I forgot to add that 8mins was also set. Nothing is going to hinder playing lame.

 

[Thinkaman]

Also to backup my statement I did enter a tourney where 3 stocks was being used and yes it took long. I think it took 3 hours for a 20ish man bracket to finish.

Uh...

3 hours for a 20-person double-elim bracket is extremely ordinary for any game. That's a 11-stage event! On 4 setups, that's 13 cycles.

180 minutes for a 13 set event is... extraordinarily mundane.

At even a modest 66% efficiency, that's barely 9 minutes total playtime for the average longest set in each round.

As a TO, I would schedule a minimum of 210 minutes for a bracket of that size in either Melee, Brawl, or Smash 4.

----------

Monday night I had a 3-stock Smash 4 tourney for people who didn't drive to Apex. Our 14-person double-elim bracket took 2:20 total. This was in spite of running 3 stocks, having almost every set go to game 3 (it was crazy), and having a reset in grand finals.

This was only possible due to two facts:

• Excellent Efficiency (Good TO match assignment)
• Smash 4, including 3 stocks, not actually taking long

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

The impact stock count has on match length is negligible compared to station efficiency, set length, and tournament structure.

I do not have a strong preference for any particular stock count, but I do have a strong preference for facts being correct and decisions being made for the right reasons.

 

[Radical Larry]

So what are your opinions on the time?
Would it be reasonable to do a 4 minute to 7 minute stock match?

Tell me your thoughts.

FWIW the Smash Ball seems to be a lot rarer than in Brawl. Back then, if you had Smash Balls only then you'd get about one a minute even if they were set to low. In 4, I was doing mindless one stock matches against the AI for the "use all final smashes" challenge and Smash Balls only, high frequency, sometimes took upwards of 4 minutes for one to spawn. I counted.

In my thoughts for Smash Balls, I think that they are definitely more balanced out in this game than the others. The final Smashes themselves are very balanced compared to Brawl (bar Critical Hit), and would offer a new way to play in the game. Their frequency makes them much more competitively viable due to the mere fact they come out within the time you allotted.

As for other items that have the remote possibility of being competitively viable, however, let's state the case of the Beam Sword, which acts normally and doesn't really have any special effects aside from being a long ranged weapon. Still, however, it's unlikely.

 

[Luigisama]

Uh...

3 hours for a 20-person double-elim bracket is extremely ordinary for any game. That's a 11-stage event! On 4 setups, that's 13 cycles.

180 minutes for a 13 set event is... extraordinarily mundane.

At even a modest 66% efficiency, that's barely 9 minutes total playtime for the average longest set in each round.

As a TO, I would schedule a minimum of 210 minutes for a bracket of that size in either Melee, Brawl, or Smash 4.

----------

Monday night I had a 3-stock Smash 4 tourney for people who didn't drive to Apex. Our 14-person double-elim bracket took 2:20 total. This was in spite of running 3 stocks, having almost every set go to game 3 (it was crazy), and having a reset in grand finals.

This was only possible due to two facts:

• Excellent Efficiency (Good TO match assignment)
• Smash 4, including 3 stocks, not actually taking long

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

The impact stock count has on match length is negligible compared to station efficiency, set length, and tournament structure.

I do not have a strong preference for any particular stock count, but I do have a strong preference for facts being correct and decisions being made for the right reasons.

I agree with everything you are saying, but the topic at had is running the game faster so that viewers are not bored and to prevent campy play style. I could careless how long it takes for a tourney to finish. But I feel the 3 stock move will only make people hate smash4 and they will have reason to call it "brawl 2.0".

Those matches only took long because of this random bo5 rule added for top 8. When in reality if you think about it smash4 was on a roll(of course there were dqs) and pools were finishing really fast. Hopefully bo5 isn't a regular thing.

At this point it is the competitor's perspective v.s the viewer's perspective.

 

[CrusaderVX]

I feel the less stock and time you have, the more it will encourage campy playstyles in an attempt to not lose. A person would rather timeout 6 minutes rather than 8. As a viewer, the entertaining matches have been with the 3 stock/8min rule. As a player, the most fun I had with matches were with the 3 Stock/8 minute rule.

Maybe it's personal preference, but I agree with M2k's stance on the 3/8 rule set.

 

[cot(θ)]

I'd like to propose a finer-grained rule for banning Omega stages.

This thread has done some good work on determining what the differences are between Omega stages. I'd like to build on that to create some satisfactory rules regarding banning Omega counterpicks.

The basic idea I want this rule to convey is that people want to ban stages for different reasons. And there are definitely different reasons to ban different subsets of Omega stages.

I propose that a single ban can optionally cover:
- FD and all Omega stages,
- Omega stages belonging to a single classification, or
- FD or a single Omega stage.

For example, a Robin player might ban FD and Omegas, to make sure some platforms will be in play. A Sonic player against a Little Mac might ban Straight Wall Omegas to keep the flat stage, but hinder Little Mac's recovery. A Ness player might ban Omega Lylat Cruise for the edges.

Thoughts? Refinements?

Note that this doesn't really work for stage striking - so it probably still makes sense to keep Omegas as a counterpick only.

 

[Muro]

I understand people saying 2 stock is better because 3 makes tournaments run late. However, aren't people saying 2 stock is better for viewership or "less boring" essentially saying "the less we see of sm4sh the better"?

Another thing I'd like to talk about. I think all final destination and omega stages should be banned, not because of the layout, but because of the size. They're too big and make avoiding a fight a viable strategy to win, when you have a lead.

This may seem too radical, but I guess we already do that with big battlefield. The layout isn't really problematic but running away and avoiding interaction is too easy. Obviously there's a point in stage size between battlefield and big battlefield where we say "nope that's too big", I think omega stages are already past that point. Thoughts?

edit: for the sake of arguing let's say the layouts are actually equal. 3 normal sized platforms, same distance from the ground, same distance from each other, in the middle of the stage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I understand people saying 2 stock is better because it makes tournaments run late. However, aren't people saying 2 stock is better for viewership or "less boring" essentially saying "the less we see of sm4sh the better"?

Another thing I'd like to talk about. I think all final destination and omega stages should be banned, not because of the layout, but because of the size. They're too big and make avoiding a fight a viable strategy to win, when you have a lead.

This may seem too radical, but I guess we already do that with big battlefield. The layout isn't really problematic but running away and avoiding interaction is too easy. Obviously there's a point in stage size between battlefield and big battlefield where we say "nope that's too big", I think omega stages are already past that point. Thoughts?

No. FD is not "too big". The thing about Big Battlefield isn't just its large size, it's the platform layout that adds a second dimension to runaway, and makes it way too easy to avoid confrontation. Oh, so you're running away on FD. Congrats - your options are really limited. There's no platforms to force your opponent to follow you into the air; every time they force you to the edge of the stage, you're going to have to get around them somehow, presumably by rolling past (unsafe) or jumping over (also unsafe). And the stage isn't even of the size where "running your opponent to the ledge" takes very long, either. Even the slowest characters can cross it in a few seconds.

 

[Muro]

First, for the sake of arguing let's say the layouts are actually equal. 3 normal sized platforms, same distance from the ground, same distance from each other, in the middle of the stage.

Secondly, I disagree, I think in a game where defensive gameplay is already so rewarding those stages stay past the point dividing viable stages and banned stages, due to size.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Okay, then it should be pretty straightforward to show off people running away and camping out FD/Omega. After all, enough people play there.

 

[JancroFin]

That's a decent list, but I think for equipment to really take off, we'd need some generic non-effect moves that just tweak stats. It's certainly worth discussing at least. Some of those might be too strong, but that's up for debate. I'll add it to the OP.

There's the possibility of allowing one piece of equipment on that list for a character. That might be interesting. Gives you access to a unique effect without getting bogged down by so many that it becomes hard to follow.

Another way to incorporate equipment would be to limit the end result. For example, no single stat can be boosted more than +30 and your total stat boosts between the three stats can't be over +50, also Shield Exploder and any Healing effects are banned. That both regulates the what can happen, and allows flexibility to account for the random nature of what equipment people get.

 

[digiholic]

Another way to incorporate equipment would be to limit the end result. For example, no single stat can be boosted more than +30 and your total stat boosts between the three stats can't be over +50, also Shield Exploder and any Healing effects are banned. That both regulates the what can happen, and allows flexibility to account for the random nature of what equipment people get.

That's an idea I see a lot, but I think the biggest problem with that is that there is no Smash 4 Backroom to decide these rules. Without one central ruling, different tournaments can have different rules and banned effects, and people could be unknowingly breaking the rules and there's no real way for his opponent to know.

I think that an equipment meta could develop when two conditions are met:

• A Smash 4 Backroom decides on a consistent rule set for equipment tournaments
• A way to share custom builds over the internet is released.

The second point is important, I feel, because not every Wii U competitor will have a 3DS to store their builds on, and even if they do, might not have the right equipment for the build they want.

 

[Robert26]

anyone wanna smash on the wii u. my gamer id is morphius88. hit me up, ill be on around 6. thx and I look forward to the challengers:-)

 

[M15t3R E]

anyone wanna smash on the wii u. my gamer id is morphius88. hit me up, ill be on around 6. thx and I look forward to the challengers:-)

Wrong place for that. If you want anyone to accept your request, try posting your information in one of the stickied threads in the Smash 4 online section. http://smashboards.com/forums/wii-u-3ds-online-discussion.516/

 

[Robert26]

Wrong place for that. If you want anyone to acccept


thx a lot, im new here.lol

 

[JancroFin]

That's an idea I see a lot, but I think the biggest problem with that is that there is no Smash 4 Backroom to decide these rules. Without one central ruling, different tournaments can have different rules and banned effects, and people could be unknowingly breaking the rules and there's no real way for his opponent to know.

......


The second point is important, I feel, because not every Wii U competitor will have a 3DS to store their builds on, and even if they do, might not have the right equipment for the build they want.

Well, we can solve both of these problems by making custom tournaments 3DS only. We already have such tournaments with established streaming setups. All we have to do is have the guy playing the Sonic/Jigglypuff timer act as the referee as well. It'll also serve to give that half of Sm4sh more visibility in the competitive scene, especially for players who have a 3DS but not a WiiU.

As for the lack of a Smash 4 Backroom, well, we can Field of Dreams it: if you build it, they will come. If custom tourneys become popular enough, people will want a standardized ruleset, and then a group will have to come together and make one.

 

[popsofctown]

We need to go to one stock so that there is more time for coaching between games without tournaments running too late.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

I vote no stocks, and that Smash just be a coach battle.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Do we have a frame of reference for how long a PM or Melee tournament with about equal number would take.

People seem insistent Smash 4 takes longer but if ran at the sane tournament Do we know any reference for this?

 

[smashmachine]

Do we have a frame of reference for how long a PM or Melee tournament with about equal number would take.

People seem insistent Smash 4 takes longer but if ran at the sane tournament Do we know any reference for this?

no idea for a full tournament, but average game length for Apex top 8 was basically equal for Melee and Smash 4

note that this already has Smash 4's ridiculous time between matches removed to make it more fair, cause hopefully we never see that again

 

[mackejn]

Tentative EVO2015 rules are out. They're talking no customs, 2 stock, 5 minutes. Curious to see hoe many time outs happen this time around. Rules aren't locked till late March I think.

 

[RobinOnDrugs]

Why exactly does the current ruleset have 2 stocks instead of 3 when people say Brawl is slower?

Just curious.

 

[JancroFin]

Why exactly does the current ruleset have 2 stocks instead of 3 when people say Brawl is slower?

Just curious.

"Because For Glory" is what i see thrown around the most. Not sure if it's accurate.

 

[mackejn]

As far as I know, 2 stock is because early TOs and high level players decided they wanted 2 stock because it was faster and they were worried about games taking too long.

 

[smashmachine]

Why exactly does the current ruleset have 2 stocks instead of 3 when people say Brawl is slower?

Just curious.

Evo already considers Melee too long, don't hold your breath on that

 

[KH1COM2]

Why exactly does the current ruleset have 2 stocks instead of 3 when people say Brawl is slower?

Just curious.

It takes a lot longer to get KO'd due to the higher percentages and the implementation of the Rage mode. If the entire cast survived about 20-30% shorter, then a 3 stock match would be viable, imo

 

[HeroMystic]

It takes a lot longer to get KO'd due to the higher percentages and the implementation of the Rage mode. If the entire cast survived about 20-30% shorter, then a 3 stock match would be viable, imo

Brawl takes way longer for someone to get KO'd due to momentum cancelling.

The reason why it feels like it takes longer in Smash 4 is because the vast majority of the cast do not have legitimate kill set-ups, but if you wanted to do a side-by-side comparison, characters lived in Brawl far longer than characters do in Smash 4. I've seen matches last under two minutes with 2-stocks.

That said I don't have a preference between 2-stocks or 3-stocks, but if Top 8 ends up being all Bo5 again I'm going to facepalm.

 

[KH1COM2]

Brawl takes way longer for someone to get KO'd due to momentum cancelling.

The reason why it feels like it takes longer in Smash 4 is because the vast majority of the cast do not have legitimate kill set-ups, but if you wanted to do a side-by-side comparison, characters lived in Brawl far longer than characters do in Smash 4. I've seen matches last under two minutes with 2-stocks.

That said I don't have a preference between 2-stocks or 3-stocks, but if Top 8 ends up being all Bo5 again I'm going to facepalm.

You're right. It's been so long that I've played Brawl that I completely forgot that Brawl even had momentum canceling. And I agree: 2 or 3 stocks, it's still satisfying to play. Even more so when you can pull off that JV3/JV4 lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And once again, APEX ****ing ruins the ruleset in Smash and sets that abortion up as the community standard, and others follow along. Can we blame this on Alex Strife or something?

Also, here's a question. It seems to me like some matchups are likely to go to time, and many are not, regardless of the rules.

How do you guys feel about 3 stocks, 5 minutes? Seriously. It's not gonna have a huge effect on matchups like Rosalina-PacMan, which are basically stallfests no matter what, but it will have a significant effect on matchups like Diddy-Shiek or ZSS-Shiek, where it's entirely reasonable to take 3 stocks in 3 minutes.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

And once
again, APEX ****ing ruins the ruleset in Smash and sets that abortion up as the community standard, and others follow along. Can we blame this on Alex Strife or something?

Also, here's a question. It seems to me like some matchups are likely to go to time, and many are not, regardless of the rules.

How do you guys feel about 3 stocks, 5 minutes? Seriously. It's not gonna have a huge effect on matchups like Rosalina-PacMan, which are basically stallfests no matter what, but it will have a significant effect on matchups like Diddy-Shiek or ZSS-Shiek, where it's entirely reasonable to take 3 stocks in 3 minutes.

Again, lowering the time limit is only going to make camping the best option in any competitive fighting game. I mean, hell, as someone who is actively collecting match data info for 3 stock and 2 stock matches, I can say that it's not very common for games to finish under 3 minutes. So far, I'm seeing ranges from 3 minutes to 6 minutes. I'll release the information some more as a fancy infographic, but until then, I can confidently say 5 minutes is still too short for 3 stocks, and even 2 stocks.

(oh, and if you're interested in helping me out in gathering match info, give me a pm )

 

[Thinkaman]

And once again, APEX ****ing ruins the ruleset in Smash and sets that abortion up as the community standard, and others follow along. Can we blame this on Alex Strife or something?

Also, here's a question. It seems to me like some matchups are likely to go to time, and many are not, regardless of the rules.

How do you guys feel about 3 stocks, 5 minutes? Seriously. It's not gonna have a huge effect on matchups like Rosalina-PacMan, which are basically stallfests no matter what, but it will have a significant effect on matchups like Diddy-Shiek or ZSS-Shiek, where it's entirely reasonable to take 3 stocks in 3 minutes.

We did 3-stock 5 min in STL once, and it was awful.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

KK, figured I'd ask anyways.

 

[Thinkaman]

We had tons of timeouts (in 3-sock 5 minutes)--I alone had like 6, both wins and losses.

Our scene hasn't had a single timeout in any other format, including 2-stock 5-minutes or 3-stock 8-minutes.

I want to repeat the three golden observations of tourney running time:

• Actual in-game time is actually a rather small percentage of event time
• A longer match timer discourages camping and actually makes games shorter on average. (To a limit)
• Bo5s hugely inflate event running time--more than any other game-based factor.

2-stock 6-minute games tend to run on average faster than 2-stock 5-minute games, which in turn will tend to run faster than 2-stock 4-minute games.

Our last St. Louis 3-stock (8-minute) tourney actually ran faster than any 2-stock tourney we've had, in spite of a bracket reset. Each setup round took, on average worst-case, 12.7 minutes.