Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[ParanoidDrone]

Wait there are over 500? Damn the person I heard it from was way off then. You have a pretty good point though.

Everyone has 3 options per special move, but 1 of each is just the standard so there are 8 more to find per character, except for Palutena and the Miis who have theirs available from the start. 48 * 8 = 384 moves you need to find.

 

[Ben Holt]

Wait there are over 500? Damn the person I heard it from was way off then. You have a pretty good point though.

I just multiplied 48(Characters minus Miis) by 12(Number of move options).
Also, as a separate theoretical point, I don't think there would be any shame in banning particular moves that may make a character significantly unbalanced. I haven't seen any moves that fit this description, but I wouldn't be opposed to banning particular moves IF they are broken.

So in my opinion, custom moves are a good thing that create a more diverse, balanced, and fun metagame.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I just multiplied 48(Characters minus Miis) by 12(Number of move options).
Also, as a separate theoretical point, I don't think there would be any shame in banning particular moves that may make a character significantly unbalanced. I haven't seen any moves that fit this description, but I wouldn't be opposed to banning particular moves IF they are broken.

So in my opinion, custom moves are a good thing that create a more diverse, balanced, and fun metagame.

You forgot that everyone has their standard moves unlocked from the start. That reduces the amount of stuff to find by a third.

 

[Ben Holt]

You forgot that everyone has their standard moves unlocked from the start. That reduces the amount of stuff to find by a third.

I'm not referring to unlocking them. I'm talking about the number of moves which you must learn to play against.

Also, for those wanting to adjust the damage ratio, this ain't Melee, and we shouldn't try to make it Melee.

3 stocks, 8 minutes is, in my opinion, ideal.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I'm not referring to unlocking them. I'm talking about the number of moves which you must learn to play against.

Also, for those wanting to adjust the damage ratio, this ain't Melee, and we shouldn't try to make it Melee.

3 stocks, 8 minutes is, in my opinion, ideal.

Oh. Oops, sorry.

 

[Roge9]

About custom moves: couldn't you have both the 3ds version and the WiiU version be separate tournaments? The 3ds side-tournament can be for custom moves and the wiiu can just be the plain non-custom version.

 

[MysteriousSilver]

I'd very much prefer custom moves to be available in the Wii U version if at all possible, since we get to use real controllers for grown ups when playing it. Once the Wii U version comes out I don't suspect I'll be touching this version again except for giggles.

IF it isn't a logistic nightmare, custom moves add so much; more depth in learning matchups, the potential to fix "holes" in a character's game plan and make them more viable (Palutena with Rocket Jump all of a sudden has a great OoS kill option, just as an example. If she ends up being a character with problems killing, that could change things) and allows people to look for a more interesting playstyle that fits what they want to do. In the end I think this will lead to more competitive depth and more fun overall--just so long as unlocking everything and setting up moves before a match isn't horrific.

 

[KiBom]

I'd like to point out that learning another 100 moves might sound like a lot, but it really isn't too crazy. When you consider that we have tilts, throws, smashes, aerials, jabs and regular specials for all characters that number is already around 1000.

 

[Leebee]

learning about new moves isn't much of a burden of knowledge. there's plenty of videos and descriptions of all of the custom moves out right now.

I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to be able to use the best version of your character. overall, custom moves will benefit more characters than the few. they should be legal; hopefully by the time the WiiU version comes out, TOs will have them all unlocked/transferring the move data will make things simple.

 

[Tesh]

considering 3ds outsold wiiu five times over i thinkits very likeli any wii u owner has a 3ds or a friend with one. if transferring customs works i think this will be no problem

if not, i wonder if classic is the only way on wii u to unlok them

 

[KiBom]

considering 3ds outsold wiiu five times over i thinkits very likeli any wii u owner has a 3ds or a friend with one. if transferring customs works i think this will be no problem

if not, i wonder if classic is the only way on wii u to unlok them

Nintendo has already said custom characters (and almost definitely) their moves would transfer over.

 

[Ben Holt]

About custom moves: couldn't you have both the 3ds version and the WiiU version be separate tournaments? The 3ds side-tournament can be for custom moves and the wiiu can just be the plain non-custom version.

No. That would screw over Wii U players. Custom moves aren't at all overpowered. They actually create a more diverse metagame with more strategies, resulting in more fun matches for both the players and spectators.

 

[KiBom]

Another thing about custom moves is that it can breath new life into a scene. When a metagame stagnates, existing players slowly lose interest. But when some new strat becomes popular, those existing players have a higher chance of coming back and becoming interested in the game again. I bet a lot of Yoshi players were pretty excited when Amsa started to break out and started watching more competitive Melee because of it. The same will happen when innovative players use custom moves that we don't see all the time.

 

[JingleJangleJamil]

No. That would screw over Wii U players. Custom moves aren't at all overpowered. They actually create a more diverse metagame with more strategies, resulting in more fun matches for both the players and spectators.

I think I'm on the side on having custom moves for competitive play now.

 

[Chimera]

There were some forum creating/thread merging going on so I don't know if my opinion was posted in this thread or not. Anyway, I feel like 2 stocks is pretty absurd. I think it discourages risk-taking, and would diminish comebacks.

 

[Illuvial]

I don't see the qualms over 3 stock in this game when 3 stock took about as long in Brawl matches (and I'm positive Brawl took longer). 5-6 minutes in super lame MUs and 3-4 matches in standard MUs, sometimes even less time than that. Why was it a problem in Brawl but not a problem here?

Honestly 3 stocks should be standard as it allows the perfect amount of time to adapt and take necessary risks. IN a 2 stock meta people will be so damn cautious and lamer with their play so it will make sets less interesting. Just look at 3DS tournaments that have already gone down, 3 stock tournaments have more WOW moments and 2 stock tournaments just seem to bore for the most part.

I just don't think 2 stocks gives players enough time to really learn their opponent and learn the player MU on that stage. The whole "time constraint" complaint is BS, because again, Brawl was just as slow if not much slower in terms of how long matches went on for.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I am seeing many complaints about 2 stock being "too short" or inhibiting player's ability to "learn the matchup". Last I checked, the tournament is the time to deliver the goods. It is not meant for learning the matchup. By that logic, we should switch the sets to be more like volleyball: instead of winning best of 3 or best of 5, you have to keep playing you until are ahead by 2+ matches in the set. Increasing the number of stock and the number of matches in a set reduces the viability of a player whipping out a secret weapon: the opponent has time to learn the matchup and nullify the surprise attack.

Have you guys not seen how long 2 stock matches are? And you want to go back to 3 just like Brawl had it? The matches were longer than Melee matches despite having fewer stock. The best thing that ever happened to Brawl was the introduction of the 1 stock format. That tournament had so much hype because every ounce of damage mattered. I don't think Smash 4 needs a 1 stock format because it fixed many of Brawl's problems with defensive play.

I think the 2 stock match is spot on.

 

[Jaxas]

I don't see the qualms over 3 stock in this game when 3 stock took about as long in Brawl matches (and I'm positive Brawl took longer). 5-6 minutes in super lame MUs and 3-4 matches in standard MUs, sometimes even less time than that. Why was it a problem in Brawl but not a problem here?

Honestly 3 stocks should be standard as it allows the perfect amount of time to adapt and take necessary risks. IN a 2 stock meta people will be so damn cautious and lamer with their play so it will make sets less interesting. Just look at 3DS tournaments that have already gone down, 3 stock tournaments have more WOW moments and 2 stock tournaments just seem to bore for the most part.

I just don't think 2 stocks gives players enough time to really learn their opponent and learn the player MU on that stage. The whole "time constraint" complaint is BS, because again, Brawl was just as slow if not much slower in terms of how long matches went on for.

I do agree with you that 2 stocks seems too short, which is unfortunate...
Because the time constraint is a problem. Just because Melee/Brawl ran for X amount of time doesn't mean that that's an acceptable time, since we're looking to grow the scene. Current tournament times are prohibiting that, unfortunately.

 

[MysteriousSilver]

I

I am seeing many complaints about 2 stock being "too short" or inhibiting player's ability to "learn the matchup". Last I checked, the tournament is the time to deliver the goods. It is not meant for learning the matchup. By that logic, we should switch the sets to be more like volleyball: instead of winning best of 3 or best of 5, you have to keep playing you until are ahead by 2+ matches in the set. Increasing the number of stock and the number of matches in a set reduces the viability of a player whipping out a secret weapon: the opponent has time to learn the matchup and nullify the surprise attack.

Have you guys not seen how long 2 stock matches are? And you want to go back to 3 just like Brawl had it? The matches were longer than Melee matches despite having fewer stock. The best thing that ever happened to Brawl was the introduction of the 1 stock format. That tournament had so much hype because every ounce of damage mattered. I don't think Smash 4 needs a 1 stock format because it fixed many of Brawl's problems with defensive play.

I think the 2 stock match is spot on.

I think most people mean the other players habits etc. when they say this, not character matchups, but I can't speak for them.

For the record I am 100% in favor of three stocks. Two leaves no room for come backs in the event of a big mistake or SD. Instead of gradually gaining ground any combacknhas to be effectively one player playing a perfect stock since one death = 50% of the damn match.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I

I think most people mean the other players habits etc. when they say this, not character matchups, but I can't speak for them.

For the record I am 100% in favor of three stocks. Two leaves no room for come backs in the event of a big mistake or SD. Instead of gradually gaining ground any combacknhas to be effectively one player playing a perfect stock since one death = 50% of the damn match.

I disagree. I actually think it is easier to comeback in a 2 stock match. Also, it is really really really hard to SD in Smash 4. XD

 

[MysteriousSilver]

I guess I don't understand. How would a comeback be easier when you have less time to make it?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I guess I don't understand. How would a comeback be easier when you have less time to make it?

I just find that taking 2 stock is a more manageable task than taking 3 stock while avoiding death for that much longer. I know that mathematically, 3 stock leaves more room for yourself (you live longer), but I'm looking more at the offensive angle: there is less to take to close the gap.

 

[Phyr]

I should write a translation to another huge post i did in my own region's forum. I'm on for most of the things but there are others i strongly disagree.

Specially the most blatant thing is the reason OP hates equipment.

There would be no layer of depth eliminated. In fact there would be another layer of depth created. One for analyzing and understanding the stats the enemy uses and Two learning to calculate the new combo/kill percentages based in that data. Pokemon works like this and is one of the most skillful things in the game.

The real reason why equipment should be banned are random effects. Most of them are truly powerful and are purely chance based. We could ban these but there would be the issue of the randomnization.

About stages and the rest of the ruleset i promise tomorrow i'll make a better post summarizing all my points about what i think MUST be in the ruleset and then a quick analysis about the viable options that are open to debate.

Just to clarify. People, you shouldn't mistake "difficulty" or "effort" to learn with "randomness". If there are things who can be known by logical analysys and data analisys on a given match, then is good as long as it doesn't overcentralize the game. I think this is the most important thing there is to say about this discussion and every opinion who doesn't adress this should be considered invalid or we won't go anywhere or reach any good conclusion.

 

[Rango the Mercenary]

I am definitely not a fan of doing 2-stock matches with friends or in tournament matches. I'm comfortable with 3-stock battles. I'll do 2-stock in For Glory, but when it comes to play other people, 3-stock is good leeway in case someone gets gimped or SD's. 8 minute time limit is fair as well.

As for stages, I tell people any stage is fine. I don't like limiting us to Omega versions only. Or at the very least, Battlefield + Omega stages.

 

[kataridragon]

I don't think custom moves are a bad idea but in practice I don't think it will work out as everyone plans.

It will messup the speed of tournaments. If at the character select screen you could choose I think it would be fine but otherwise it would be a bad idea.

Also the second player to choose his custom moves could counterpick his specials in accordance to the first players. This would give the second chooser a huge advantage in the meta game.

I think these things need to be heavily considered before we jump on this idea with open arms.

Heed my warnings.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Nint ran 4 stock on 6 min I believe or it was 8. Anyways it seemed they went to SD a fair amount of times despite FS presence. Which leads me to think 4 is too long. The only benefit was that with a timer in place matches weren't really "too" long.
3 stock should be fine with the appropriate timer.
2 stock is simply quick

So far only thing I see against equipment is accessibility. Has anyone even shown equipment to be unbalanced?

Pokemon has a ton of moves, and massive RNG but maintains a competitive scene. Smash has 12 moves per character with very little RNG. Custom moves shouldn't be a problem outside of accessibility and if players can EV train, egg move breed for their desired results....smash shouldn't have that as too much of a problem by comparison.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

3-stock is good leeway in case someone gets gimped or SD's.

Why is this a good thing?

 

[KiBom]

Why is this a good thing?

I agree. Gimping is an important thing to know how to do and how to counter, and SDs are a sign of lack of skill.

 

[Ben Holt]

Why is this a good thing?

So that players can make more risky plays. 2 stock matches become more stale due to everyone playing it safe.

 

[JingleJangleJamil]

I agree. Gimping is an important thing to know how to do and how to counter, and SDs are a sign of lack of skill.

Well SDing is an accident most of the time. It is not that easy to be perfect.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

So that players can make more risky plays. 2 stock matches become more stale due to everyone playing it safe.

I have not witnessed people being less aggressive because its 2 stocks. People that went ham when it was 3 stocks still go ham on 2 stocks. People who are campy when it was 3 stocks are still campy with 2.

I firmly believe the "2 stocks will be less aggressive" idea is purely on paper and has no basis in reality.

 

[Cosmo!]

I support 2 stock personally. Matches take long enough that 3 stock feels excessive -- IE it feels that there is enough gameplay per stock, that the person who took the second stock first, will likely also take the third stock first. 2 stock then simply reduces frustration of being behind and slowly losing the final stock, and moves along the tournament more quickly.

 

[Ben Holt]

I have not witnessed people being less aggressive because its 2 stocks. People that went ham when it was 3 stocks still go ham on 2 stocks. People who are campy when it was 3 stocks are still campy with 2.

I firmly believe the "2 stocks will be less aggressive" idea is purely on paper and has no basis in reality.

I wasn't talking about aggressive play. I was referring to high risk - high reward plays, which 2 stocks certainly does deter.
Not to mention, 2 stock is not enough time to adapt. 3 stock is golden.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I wasn't talking about aggressive play. I was referring to high risk - high reward plays, which 2 stocks certainly does deter.
Not to mention, 2 stock is not enough time to adapt. 3 stock is golden.

I adapt plenty in 2 stock, not sure what you're talking about here.

And I think the opposite, high-risk high-reward is more prevalent in 2 stock because the reward is so much higher. Every hit matters more in 2 stock.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I was about to respond with the same words.

Where is this idea coming from that 2 stock matches dramatically alter players' approaches? It feels like a gut reaction response to this discussion. "If there are fewer stock, players will be scared." This just isn't true. Everyone makes risky plays all the time. It's how you turn a match around.

I wasn't talking about aggressive play. I was referring to high risk - high reward plays, which 2 stocks certainly does deter.
Not to mention, 2 stock is not enough time to adapt. 3 stock is golden.

3 stock is garbage. Again, 3 stock Brawl matches tend to last longer than 4 stock Melee matches. There just isn't a lot that goes on. From there, Smash 4 makes many characters live to 150+ without trouble. Everyone can recover from ungodly distances, and sometimes players just struggle getting that final hit. Giving players time to adapt is not some virtue of tournament play.

 

[Deleted member]

I honestly think that the 2 stocks, 5 minutes formula will work best as it currently stands for this game. I've fought a fair share of some campy playstyles and aggressive ones alike, and either way you paint it, this will cut down significantly on tournaments that go past their originally planned run time.

Some people may say that this is an option that benefits the TOs more than the players, but does it really? You still have the same amount of games to figure out your opponent, and with how long it can take to kill a character, being down a stock doesn't have as harsh of an effect in this game.

 

[Lake3ly]

I agree. Personally I'd love to see custom specials in tournament play. From a technical standpoint though, it has yet to be seen if Wii U tournaments could possibly run them.

Idrk. I think it hinders more players to join the community if you would have to plan for every special for every character considering there's so many. But it helps keep the game surprising. Definitely an interesting question

 

[Rango the Mercenary]

Why is this a good thing?

Because losing at 2-stock is abrupt, especially if one of your deaths was an SD, which happens frequently in a game that plays on a circular gate - detrimental to the game when the GameCube controller is an octagonal gate that actually READS Up B as Up B and not Side B.

That said, 3 for 3, you have plenty of comeback time and you tell yourself to take less risks on that last stock. Some people might say 2 stock is better since it takes forever to die, but I really don't see it. Seems like Brawl to me.

I was about to respond with the same words.

Where is this idea coming from that 2 stock matches dramatically alter players' approaches? It feels like a gut reaction response to this discussion. "If there are fewer stock, players will be scared." This just isn't true. Everyone makes risky plays all the time. It's how you turn a match around.



3 stock is garbage. Again, 3 stock Brawl matches tend to last longer than 4 stock Melee matches. There just isn't a lot that goes on. From there, Smash 4 makes many characters live to 150+ without trouble. Everyone can recover from ungodly distances, and sometimes players just struggle getting that final hit. Giving players time to adapt is not some virtue of tournament play.

Having been to tournaments, it makes a world of difference. Compare SF2 to SF4. SF2 has smaller lifebars, and stuns come a lot quicker. Matches can be over in an instance due to one mistake. I love SF2, but I hate that about the game when I play SSF4. The longer matches build tension. Tension.

I find 3-stock to be a great balance. 4 is too long, 2 is fairly feasible, but 3 feels the best. Not everything needs to end so quickly. But for the sake of avoiding confusion, I always let players know we're doing 3 stocks when we play. If they want to host a game and do 2-stocks while hosting, that's fine too. But 3 is the standard I go by and it's been working very well so far.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Because losing at 2-stock is abrupt, especially if one of your deaths was an SD, which happens frequently in a game that plays on a circular gate - detrimental to the game when the GameCube controller is an octagonal gate that actually READS Up B as Up B and not Side B.

This little mentality right here is the heart of the problem. Why... on earth... are we determining competitive rules based on people making dumb mistakes? If you SD, you deserve to suffer. You made a mistake. The game did not suddenly cheat you. Also, what does it matter how many stock you have if you SD on your last stock?

Melee was the only game where talk of SDs influencing stock count was tolerated because it was a brutally technical game. Wavedashing off the ledge was a critical component that could easily lead to SD by flubbing the air dodge timing/angle. SDs only happen in Brawl and Sm4sh when attempting an insane edge guard. If you flub your inputs in those snail-paced games, you deserve the death.

I don't think 3 stock is the end of the world, but I still think 2 stock is the perfect amount. I'm just blown away at the justifications for 3 stock. "Tension" is a bad answer too. Melee had good tension. Brawl had long/boring/false tension.

 

[Rango the Mercenary]

This little mentality right here is the heart of the problem. Why... on earth... are we determining competitive rules based on people making dumb mistakes? If you SD, you deserve to suffer. You made a mistake. The game did not suddenly cheat you. Also, what does it matter how many stock you have if you SD on your last stock?

Melee was the only game where talk of SDs influencing stock count was tolerated because it was a brutally technical game. Wavedashing off the ledge was a critical component that could easily lead to SD by flubbing the air dodge timing/angle. SDs only happen in Brawl and Sm4sh when attempting an insane edge guard. If you flub your inputs in those snail-paced games, you deserve the death.

I don't think 3 stock is the end of the world, but I still think 2 stock is the perfect amount. I'm just blown away at the justifications for 3 stock. "Tension" is a bad answer too. Melee had good tension. Brawl had long/boring/false tension.

Okay wait. Melee can get away with SD because it was "brutally technical", but SSB4 players have to be chained to a leash because the Circle Pad misread Up B as Side B and screwed them over?