Giving FFA a chance - I swear I'm sane

[Warchamp7]

If you've gotten to the point of reading this sentence, you're brave, or curious if I tossed my entire bag of marbles off a cliff. I assure you, I held on to a couple.

It's an idea I've bounced around in my head for quite a while, but never really taken the time to present it in any particular manner.

With the Invitational, E3 show floor and the Best Buy demos all running 4 person FFA, my local game store running a few casual FFA events and Sakurai's statements of focusing Brawl and Smash 4 around four person matches, I felt now was a good time to put this idea to paper and spark a proper discussion of it. I also have thrown the idea out to a few friends recently, who also expressed it not being a completely terrible idea.

Here are the facts, Brawl and Smash 4 have been said by Sakurai to be focused around four player matches. As has been noted before, with Brawl we simply tried to shoehorn the agreed upon Melee ruleset into it, with that being 1v1 stock matches. Brawl's gameplay in a 1v1 scenario currently lends itself to very calculated and generally defensive play. Those coming from Melee much prefer it's high pressure and aggressive nature, which leads to all the arguments we have.

For Nintendo's Smash 4 events, they've been running timed matches and determining the winner by score. For the Invitational, players had 4 stocks and top 2 were determined by the last person standing, and then second place by final score. Both of these formats have the fundamental flaw of rewarding firstly survival, encouraging defensive or even straight up avoidance, and then secondly, simply scoring the killing blow, which again, encourages calculated and defensive play until an ideal moment to strike.

What I propose is an adjustment to the above:
- 4 player FFA
- Timed match
- No stock limit
- Winner determined by % damage dealt

This has the adjustment of rewarding players for being active and getting involved in the fight. In a 1v1 situation determined by %, evasive playing is rewarding once you've gained the lead. This is ideal even in a stock match once you have a stock lead. Simply standing by and avoiding players in a 4 person match nets you absolutely no reward as each player has two other targets to aim for, and you make no progress towards victory. Mobility is no longer as important as it was in Melee, which is fitting as Brawl and Smash 4 do not have the same wealth of options. Instead, it encourages aggression in an alternative way while also discouraging evasive play.

One other addition that could be coupled with this is subtracting % damage taken from the damage dealt, to result in a 'final score'. This is something that could be added if it's found too advantageous to simply pick a bruiser character and try to favourably trade at every opportunity possible. I don't think it would be necessary, but it's something that could be added to adjust it.

Looking to have an intelligent discussion on this. We're obviously in a solid place when it comes to Melee, and we're already experimenting with an alternative Brawl ruleset, but I'd like to discuss the idea of trying a Brawl event with this ruleset, as well as possibly approaching some early Smash 4 events with this.

 

[Strong Badam]

Warchamp what are you doing, pls

 

[blakinola]

I don't think you're crazy for this. The game was never balanced around 1v1 but we've forced this format and it worked best in melee, but horrendously in brawl and we may see more of the same for Smash 4. Team battles shine most here. If I was drinking I'd even go to suggest turning items on but I can totally roll with your idea because it's deviating from what we've established is the norm (a norm that for all intents and purposes goes against what smash bros was designed for imo)

 

[KuroganeHammer]

No

No, no, no, no, no.

No.

I'm sorry.

No.

This would make as an interesting side event AT BEST, there's too many things that could go wrong, plus it breaks the spirit of 1 vs 1 skill competition.

Also, what, why is blakinola here. League of Legends is that way -->

 

[UltiMario]

I'm sorry but even if you think you haven't, I can very much confirm that you have in fact gone insane.

 

[Scaremonger]

If it's determined by percent dealt, what's to stop every match from being 4 links seeing who can dodge projectiles the best?

 

[Warchamp7]

there's too many things that could go wrong, plus it breaks the spirit of 1 vs 1 skill competition.

In regards to the former, this is a discussion, so bring up those things that can go wrong. I've found a lot of people initially opposing this are thinking of it from a 1v1 mindset placed into a 4 player scenario.

In regards to the latter, that sentiment itself is part of the problem when it comes to trying abstract rulesets.

If it's determined by percent dealt, what's to stop every match from being 4 links seeing who can dodge projectiles the best?

Four different players coming to that decision?

 

[CaSTEELO]

 

[PillsBuryDopeBoy]

While some might see this as dumb or weird, I think this could be quite an interesting idea. All about the Warchamp crazy train cho cho!

 

[wiiztec]

I don't think you're crazy for this. The game was never balanced around 1v1 but we've forced this format and it worked best in melee, but horrendously in brawl and we may see more of the same for Smash 4. Team battles shine most here. If I was drinking I'd even go to suggest turning items on but I can totally roll with your idea because it's deviating from what we've established is the norm (a norm that for all intents and purposes goes against what smash bros was designed for imo)

Items are for stompfests fool

 

[KuroganeHammer]

In regards to the former, this is a discussion, so bring up those things that can go wrong. I've found a lot of people initially opposing this are thinking of it from a 1v1 mindset placed into a 4 player scenario.

In regards to the latter, that sentiment itself is part of the problem when it comes to trying abstract rulesets.

I am not against diversity, many other players aren't either.

There's just no way this idea will be taken seriously.

Maybe I'll run it as a side event here though. I'm sure the more casual players will love it.

 

[Scaremonger]

Four different players coming to that decision?

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but in smash bros games, basically every kill move is punishable in some way. Even Fox's upsmash is punishable to an extent, although less so than other kill moves. If you give no reward for killing, the game indirectly favors running away and racking up damage in the least punishable way possible, which would be projectile spam and campy tactics in general. This would also give any character that can rack up damage easily but kind of has trouble killing in certain scenarios a big advantage that they might not necessarily need.

If you really want to do it based on percent, then I'd suggest having that as the foundation of the system, but maybe put in another factor, possibly a 50% bonus for a kill or something. This would both reward doing the work to rack up the damage while also discouraging camping or playing in a way that entirely focuses on kill stealing.

Also, I originally mentioned 4 Links because I thought this was about PM at first. Lol.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

imagine Zelda in a FFA

THREE PEOPLE FIGHTING?
THIS EDGE OF THE STAGE IS NOW MINE
DINS FIRE
46% DAMAGE YES.

 

[Sashimi]

One thing that I'm wondering about KOs...

If the goal is to do the most damage, and stocks/KOs don't mean anything, at what point does the audience get excited? Seems like the hype is gone in this situation.

 

[Problem2]

Free-For-All is just always a bad tournament format due to alliances that form. If you want to get your 4 player fix in Smash Bros, you play 2v2 teams.

 

[Saito]

This sounds like the most fun thing.

Unfortunately the player jumping would be real.

 

[blakinola]

Also, what, why is blakinola here. League of Legends is that way -->

I played smash waaaaay before league haha. Just re-embracing my roots. *dusts off pants*

 

[blakinola]

I only ever played 1v1 if I had one person to play with.

Since the game is balanced around free for alls, what's something we can do to circumvent that? (in the end we always find a way to tailor the game to what we need competitively) I highly doubt we'll see the changes to the game we'd like. No reason to cater to us, after all :Sadface:

 

[arcticfox8]

It's not a bad concept at all, but as other people have mentioned I don't know where the hype would be.
I'd be down for it honestly, but it'd be too different for a lot of people.

 

[JCOnyx]

How about the player with the highest score wins, and in the case of a tie in FFA, the winner goes to the player who racked up the most percent. This would award the player who actually committed to dealing damage instead of the campy interceptor.

But I'm going to agree with everyone else here, 2v2 would almost always be preferred in this situation. I would be down to trying this out though.

 

[TheKmanOfSmash]

As a competitor, this is something I personally would not take seriously over the traditional singles format, whether that be due to bias or me being the kind of person I am or w/e. But I can totally see this being a side event that I would probably enjoy participating in.

However, I find really troubling the thing you define as a "flaw" and how you attempt to "fix" it.

From how I interpreted your post, it seemed to me that you have the perception (or you think everyone else has the perception) that Smash is supposed to be a game that promotes approaching, attacking, making commitments, etc. And your ruleset where one wins by damage dealt certainly does incentivize people to at least make an attempt do those things. As much as I would like to see these things happening, your ruleset does not do service to the actual objective of this game which is to knock your opponent off the screen. This is the fundamental thing that Smash is about and has always been about regardless of the iterations of the game, regardless of the type of game modes (except for some, like Break the Targets and Coin Matches), regardless of whether singles, doubles, or FFA are being played, regardless of whether people are playing aggressively or camping for 8 mins, the one who knocks their opponent off the stage the most wins. That's the way the game was fundamentally designed.

Now we're free to alter the rules of the game to play it in whichever way we want. That was also by design, too. But when you create a ruleset that completely dumps and disregards the original objective of the game (winning by most damage dealt instead of by stock count), then you run into some serious problems:


1. There is no incentive to edgeguard opponents or getting kills. Why attempt to gimp someone or kill someone when that process will give you virtually no reward under the current ruleset? If anything, it rewards the one being gimped or killed, because after they die, they start their stock with invincibility and 0%, making it extremely easy for them to hit you and other players.

2. Speaking of being gimped/killed, what's to stop someone from constantly SDing to get invincibility and to re-spawn at 0% all the time?

3. Using evasive strategies is not discouraged but encouraged, imo. Hit-and-run strategies are incentivized far more than trying to get aggressive combos. If I saw someone comboing another player, that means that he's dishing out way more percent than me and it's in my favor to interrupt that combo. It's much more beneficial to commit to a hit-and-run strategy where I can maximize the amount of damage I do to other players while minimizing the amount they can do to me. And I was just thinking about projectile-less characters. Defensive, projectile characters may be OP in such a ruleset because they can dish out damage from afar and run away the whole match. Good luck seeing the next Wombo Combo or the next m2k vs Shiz 4 ever happening again.

4. The opportunities for collusion are limitless. What's to stop two players from teaming with each other to ensure that the other two players lose? How is that fair to those players? In fact, why don't you just play normal 2v2 teams instead of FFAs?



Those are just four examples off the top of my head where problems could arise with that ruleset in place. I think when you completely eliminate the stock element from Smash, especially in a FFA environment, then you are playing a fundamentally flawed game. If you want to win by dealing the most damage, play a game that was designed for that task like any traditional fighter. Or....

You could encourage this same ruleset on something like Stamina mode. By design, Stamina mode is made to give maximum reward to a person who dishes out the most damage and receives the least. And it does not promote SDing to gain invincibility and 0% because you will automatically lose the game. Maybe you can use stamina mode for this kind of ruleset. But then again, why wouldn't you just play Stamina mode normally?

Nice idea but I think it, at the very least, needs some tweaking.

 

[Chesstiger2612]

I see many potential problems and disadvantages, but for Smash 4 it kind of makes sense because Sakurai already said the game is balanced for FFA. Mabe for Smash 4 it would be a nice side event

 

[Sladee]

As a side maybe, but I feel people would just camp.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Yeah being in the center of attention is never a good thing, and someone's gonna end up getting double/triple teamed in certain situations depending on relations/crew/region associations no matter how well you separate them in seeding.

I mean imagine 3 of the 4 players late in bracket are part of the same crew like say, CT. What do you think is gonna happen to the other player?

 

[Deleted member]

your mind is in the right place but i have to agree that it's a bad idea, but for different reasons. as the creator of the rule set we currently use in melee since 2009, and by extension some of the PM rule set, i've thought stuff like this over extensively, especially with respect to brawl. i'll give the tl;dr version and we can go into the tank more if you like.

1. every rule set you make will be legitimate. and in an absolute manner, as opposed to varying degrees. however
2. every rule set you make will test a different skill set for your players. this is also true with respect to the game mechanics.
3. the main issue is not variance. no matter what your rule set is, the best players are generally still going to win.

the point of a tournament is to find out which players are better than their respective peers by a comparison. by having the attendees agree upon the rules, it ensures that everyone considers those results to have legitimacy. FFA tournaments, tournaments with items, team attack off, and on hazardous stages defeat the purpose of a tournament in our community because the community does not consider them as valid for competition.

imo if you want to do FFA tournaments, thats entirely fine, but dont do it by damage given. that is a contrived and awkward solution to something that doesnt need fixed. simply accept that the format is prone to camping and opportunist style play and allow your players to hone and optimize that skill set.

 

[smashmachine]

I can confirm that you are indeed no longer sane.

 

[Nstinct]

I'd first like to acknowledge that it's a very interesting idea, 4-stock FFA or Teams timed no stock matches would definitely promote aggressive play as camping or defense would be the slowest way to earn stocks. But wouldn't "Winner determined by damage" discourage gimping, spiking, meteors, and any way of KOing your opponents? If that were the case you'd want your opponent to be alive as long as possible to rack up damage. Early KOs would give you a measly 20-30% lead. Wouldn't this encourage campers even more, stay a safe distance while hitting your opponent? That would be camper heaven, they wouldn't need to land any finishers because general camping would win it all in itself.

Wouldn't this also promote people to purposely fall of the stage just to avoid getting hit? If KOs don't matter and stocks don't either then they can run out of time by constantly jumping off the stage every spawn.


In a general sense, if none of the above were even an issue, it'd simply seem less exciting to watch if KOs weren't the big payoff everyone's working for or if the loss of stock wasn't dreadful.

 

[metalmonstar]

I don't really like the percent idea. What does that accomplish? Discouraging camping?

FFA will never work competitively because by it is definition it is anti competitive. Competition is about finding who the best player is by setting the game or event up in a way that is conducive for such. FFA already has a random component that would have to be overcome, but the biggest issue is that FFA gives the lesser skilled players a higher shot at victory.

Lets say for instance that in a regular FFA the better player has a 70% chance of winning. The other players have about 30% chance of winning split between them. If they work together though, the better player has a 40% chance and the other players spilt 60% between them. Assuming everyone is rational, they are going to do whatever gives them the best odds. A situation in which a better player does not win consistently is simply unsuitable for tournament play. Randomness can be accounted for with more matches. Players beating the game outside the realm of the game cannot.

 

[DakotaBonez]

Whenever I lose a free for all with my friends I always point at the stats and say
"I still dealt the most damage!"
Or
"I had more KOs!"

Although this may just be me being salty, I always felt that these two stats deserve more recognition, 2nd place should go to whoever won in these stats rather than who hid in the back the longest. But srsly camping can be argued as strategy in free for all.

ANYWAY,

my biggest complaint with FFA is when an attack hits an opponent and causes the game to pause for emphasis or zoom in on a character ( see little mac's OHKO punch), thus disrupting the flow of the other two players.
Also, for attacks that hit multiple times (like DeDeDes side tilt hammer twirl), then DeDeDe and his targets animations get slowed down for emphasis , leaving them vulnerable to the other two players.

Just small things that bug me about free for all.