Possible Rulesets for Smash 4

[Gary_Guy]

I know the game isn't out yet and things could be changed, but I wanted to start thinking about possible rulesets for SSB4 (both versions). Just gonna throw whatever out. Feel free to contribute.

So lets start off

• 3 Stock
• 5 - 6 mins
• Best out of 3
• No items

Stages

• Battlefield
• Town And City
• Inevitable PKMN Stadium
• Final Destination
• Prism Tower
• Pilot Wings (you'll be fine)

Or alternatively

• No items
• 1 stock
• 1 min
• Wii Fit Trainer Only
• Final Destination

 

[ミスティック Speed]

Or alternatively

• No items
• 1 stock
• 1 min
• Wii Fit Trainer Only
• Final Destination

 

[Gary_Guy]

T-too extreme?

 

[ミスティック Speed]

T-too extreme?

 

[VillagerComesToTown]

Wii Fit Trainer only?

 

[<π]

I actually like the idea of trying to fit one gameplay session into a 5 minute time frame. I want to see a larger stage list though.

 

[Renji64]

2-3 stock shall be the way to go for this game.

 

[Second Power]

3 stocks to start is fine, but the stage list is waaaay to restrictive. Maybe five years down the line it'll be like that, but not at release. Pretty much anything which isn't a walk off/has some weird mechanic should be legal day one.

Also, Prism Tower is 3DS exclusive.

 

[<π]

@RenjiXIII I'm more partial to 3-4 stock. I feel like it gives more opportunity for the best player to really live up to it without excuse, but that may just be nostalgia or habit too.

A high stock count with a low timer would probably make for more exciting matches even if someone is trying to out camp their opponent.

@ Second Power I think even walk offs should be legal at the start. I mean why not?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

@RenjiXIII I'm more partial to 3-4 stock. I feel like it gives more opportunity for the best player to really live up to it without excuse, but that may just be nostalgia or habit too.

A high stock count with a low timer would probably make for more exciting matches even if someone is trying to out camp their opponent.

@ Second Power I think even walk offs should be legal at the start. I mean why not?

Walk offs sort of eliminate a huge element of the Smash formula...off-stage play, with nothing at all to replace it.

 

[<π]

@Zipzo okay, but why is that a problem?

No platforms eliminate a huge part of platform shenanigans, but FD, the only stage in the game without plats is legal. Being unique isn't a strong enough reason to get rid of a stage to me. (but I'm sure you read my thread on stage lists so you know that)

No edge game can make stages with walk offs give some characters a chance in the meta which other wise wouldn't have it (like Lil' mac and link) and help make characters that would have been dominate otherwise weaker pick over all (like Mk for example wouldn't have his amazing off stage/gimping/recovery/planking game on a walk off)

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

So how possible is it for the game to use round robins in more tourneys? I ask because this video:

Seems to hint that SSB item tourneys (or ISP) would be more fair if given round robins rather than single/double elimination. I say hint because SSB is never mentioned, but it deals with a lot of randomness which gets eliminated through SSB's ruleset, followed by using a Melee remix at the end.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

I think we should start with 4 stock 8 minutes. Its easier to recognize the stock count should go down than recognizing the stock count should go up. At least in a 3-4 stock scenario.

its too early anyways.

 

[HeavyLobster]

So how possible is it for the game to use round robins in more tourneys? I ask because this video:

Seems to hint that SSB item tourneys (or ISP) would be more fair if given round robins rather than single/double elimination. I say hint because SSB is never mentioned, but it deals with a lot of randomness which gets eliminated through SSB's ruleset, followed by using a Melee remix at the end.

That video sums up all of my thoughts regarding competitive Pokemon, though ISP could also definitely apply.

 

[Chimera]

@Zipzo okay, but why is that a problem?

No platforms eliminate a huge part of platform shenanigans, but FD, the only stage in the game without plats is legal. Being unique isn't a strong enough reason to get rid of a stage to me. (but I'm sure you read my thread on stage lists so you know that)

No edge game can make stages with walk offs give some characters a chance in the meta which other wise wouldn't have it (like Lil' mac and link) and help make characters that would have been dominate otherwise weaker pick over all (like Mk for example wouldn't have his amazing off stage/gimping/recovery/planking game on a walk off)

This is actually a pretty good point.

 

[<π]

So how possible is it for the game to use round robins in more tourneys? I ask because this video:

Seems to hint that SSB item tourneys (or ISP) would be more fair if given round robins rather than single/double elimination. I say hint because SSB is never mentioned, but it deals with a lot of randomness which gets eliminated through SSB's ruleset, followed by using a Melee remix at the end.

I love extra credits! (the pro gaming video they have at the end is really good and relevant to us as well) I think I kind of want to model my youtube channel around theirs with my topics focused more around competitive smash brothers.

I don't know what a good structure for items on tournaments would look like. After a certain point pure round robin because too big to manage when we have a limited number of set ups and time.
Maybe a series of round robin pools where X players advance to a winners pool and Y players into a losers pool?

Or maybe the method we are using now is enough? There are already so many tests; or as Extra credits put it "samplings" in the multi stock, best of 3, double elimination standard we have been using. maybe thats enough. each stock is a fresh chance to bring it back. in a best of 3 game you have between 8-12 chances to win. double elimination you have at least 16 to prove you aren't just lucky.

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

Actually, I looked at their pro gaming video after you suggested it, and the four hurdles they spoke of show the exact things SSB needs to do to be truly recognized. It makes the Melee documentary and SSB4 invitational look super shrewd in hindsight and likely the stepping stones needed to get in that direction. I reckon that much of the design to the game is good, and that accessibility to depth is an important thing. It's why I don't miss wavedashing, while my eyes are interested in the pivot/turn canceling that SSB4 offers.

I felt like I've seen a lot more single elimination in tourneys than double, and even with 3/4 stocks I still count it as a single game, as momentum is a big factor in determining the outcome of the match from what I've seen. Best of three is at least ideal in weeding out luck in victories, so perhaps that's fine for the no item play we have now.

If ISP becomes a thing though, they need to really note that they don't play with broken things like Pokeballs or stars (though I like messing with those on my spare time because comedy and stage control). I'm still with you that stage variety should be a thing, because I believe it will help with character variety, and therefore make SSB a more entertaining spectator sport.

 

[D-idara]

I believe that with the new game mechanics and the elimination of chaingrabs we should give walkoffs a chance...

 

[Raijinken]

My group is going to start off with:
No items
3 Stock
5 minutes
All non-giant, non-"oddball" stages legal (so we may knock out Palutena's Temple and Mario Galaxy, but will probably keep ones with hazards and walkoffs, at least initially)

Odd ones for the 3DS version would include Balloon Fight and possibly the Gameboy.

 

[Chimera]

I believe that with the new game mechanics and the elimination of chaingrabs we should give walkoffs a chance...

We don't know that chain grabs have been eliminated. Also, what new mechanics would make walk-offs better?

 

[Raijinken]

We don't know that chain grabs have been eliminated. Also, what new mechanics would make walk-offs better?

At least from what I've seen, a lot of characters now have ways to apply some ranged pressure, which can punish someone who attempts to camp the walkoff. Otherwise, walkoffs will be no worse than they were in past games - don't use an unsafe approach, knock the camper into the wall.

 

[HeavyLobster]

2-3 stock shall be the way to go for this game.

There's no reason to think that this game needs to be less than 3 stocks based on what we've seen. The game is substantially faster than Brawl which was generally fine at 3 stocks. Based on the demo, it's going to probably be 3 stock, maybe 4 if the final build is substantially sped up.

 

[Renji64]

There's no reason to think that this game needs to be less than 3 stocks based on what we've seen. The game is substantially faster than Brawl which was generally fine at 3 stocks. Based on the demo, it's going to probably be 3 stock, maybe 4 if the final build is substantially sped up.

Matches seem like they are gonna take a long time since.

 

[<π]

Too steep of a skill curve makes game intimidating, making it easier to wade into the depth of a game isn't a bad thing. and it doesn't mean a game can't be played competitively.

Crazy complex games like League of legends for example can't survive off of just the top level tournament players. In order to stay relevant and continue to grow they need to find ways to make that walk into committed player a more comfortable one. In doing that they have no intention of removing the depth of top level play.

Personally (I don't know for sure) I think that was the goal with brawl. In order to be a contender in melee you had to just down a series of (very un-intuitive) cliffs to do even very simple things like move your character effectively, simplifying these aspects, normalizing them were an attempt to make that walk into "deep" a simpler one. Thats GREAT for a communities growth... at least in my mind.

There is one more really great video I liked a lot. And think it pertains to the topic

 

[Raijinken]

Too steep of a skill curve makes game intimidating, making it easier to wade into the depth of a game isn't a bad thing. and it doesn't mean a game can't be played competitively.

Crazy complex games like League of legends for example can't survive off of just the top level tournament players. In order to stay relevant and continue to grow they need to find ways to make that walk into committed player a more comfortable one. In doing that they have no intention of removing the depth of top level play.

Personally (I don't know for sure) I think that was the goal with brawl. In order to be a contender in melee you had to just down a series of (very un-intuitive) cliffs to do even very simple things like move your character effectively, simplifying these aspects, normalizing them were an attempt to make that walk into "deep" a simpler one. Thats GREAT for a communities growth... at least in my mind.

There is one more really great video I liked a lot. And think it pertains to the topic

That said, even games like League and Dota have a hard time drawing new players, due to the vocal minority of higher skill players refusing to help, insisting that the game must be played one way, and even with League's greater simplicity compared to Dota, the learning curve is still a rather rough and steep hiking trail, if not a cliff.

 

[<π]

That the thing @ Raijinken The competitive smash scene is exactly like that. While smash itself has history done amazingly well and continues to grow. This game series' competitive scene isn't even a percentage of that whole.

Instead of inviting in new players we've folded in on ourselves and literally shun people away because they aren't hardcore enough. I think That's an issue.

 

[Raijinken]

That the thing @ Raijinken The competitive smash scene is exactly like that. While smash itself has history done amazingly well and continues to grow. This game series' competitive scene isn't even a percentage of that whole.

Instead of inviting in new players we've folded in on ourselves and literally shun people away because they aren't hardcore enough. I think That's an issue.

There does exist a bit of a unique divide, though. Unlike Dota, where everyone at any level is playing the same game on the same map with (aside from hero drafting options) the same rules, there are so many various ways to play Smash, and even at the casual level, the majority of players who spend time improving at the game limit themselves to stages that are less disruptive, without items, and with low stock counts. It can be equally daunting to a true beginner, or even someone who sees it as a party game, when even a portion of the "casual" community plays without items and on flat stages.

 

[Renji64]

Too steep of a skill curve makes game intimidating, making it easier to wade into the depth of a game isn't a bad thing. and it doesn't mean a game can't be played competitively.

Crazy complex games like League of legends for example can't survive off of just the top level tournament players. In order to stay relevant and continue to grow they need to find ways to make that walk into committed player a more comfortable one. In doing that they have no intention of removing the depth of top level play.

Personally (I don't know for sure) I think that was the goal with brawl. In order to be a contender in melee you had to just down a series of (very un-intuitive) cliffs to do even very simple things like move your character effectively, simplifying these aspects, normalizing them were an attempt to make that walk into "deep" a simpler one. Thats GREAT for a communities growth... at least in my mind.

There is one more really great video I liked a lot. And think it pertains to the topic

well smash continues to get more simple each installment to the point where there isn't much to practice. Sakurai said smash is a party game i can see why now it getting close to mario party.

 

[Raijinken]

well smash continues to get more simple each installment to the point where there isn't much to practice. Sakurai said smash is a party game i can see why now it getting close to mario party.

But seriously, playable simplicity does not imply lack of potential for skilled play, else the vast majority of games and sports would be "close to Mario Party."

 

[Chimera]

well smash continues to get more simple each installment to the point where there isn't much to practice. Sakurai said smash is a party game i can see why now it getting close to mario party.

rollseyes.gif

 

[<π]

If I have to input a combo squence to walk instead of just holding forward does that add more depth to my game? No, its the exact same level of depth with added complexity.

Appealing to a wider audience by removing unnecessary complexity without removing the depth behind it is a great idea. I understand how as a player who mastered those techniques it can be frustrating to have something you've worked on so hard be shrugged off. but at the end of the day arguing that a game is less deep because it is easier to play isn't the right route to go.

 

[Scourge The Hedgehog]

I agree with the three stocks, 6 minutes, no items. If I recall correctly I believe Brawl started with three stocks as well at least on the west coast. Back in melee days Mute City was a legal stage (on the WC again) and I found it hilarious and fair. I'm not 100% sure on stages.

 

[Raijinken]

I agree with the three stocks, 6 minutes, no items. If I recall correctly I believe Brawl started with three stocks as well at least on the west coast. Back in melee days Mute City was a legal stage (on the WC again) and I found it hilarious and fair. I'm not 100% sure on stages.

A lot of stages, we'll have to see how apparent and dangerous the hazards are. For others, we'll have to see if walkoffs are a manageable strategy or simply a source of campy cheese, and judge from there.

 

[pizzapie7]

If I have to input a combo squence to walk instead of just holding forward does that add more depth to my game? No, its the exact same level of depth with added complexity.

Appealing to a wider audience by removing unnecessary complexity without removing the depth behind it is a great idea. I understand how as a player who mastered those techniques it can be frustrating to have something you've worked on so hard be shrugged off. but at the end of the day arguing that a game is less deep because it is easier to play isn't the right route to go.

I agree to an extent. Something as simplistic as walking doesn't need any complex inputs just for the sake of complexity. But I think there's always going to need to be some type of mechanical depth in a video game. Even if it's as basic as pressing buttons faster than somebody else. Unnecessary complexity is something that fails to add depth while at the same time adding mechanical complexity.

But in a lot of ways mechanical complexity is necessary. Look at plenty of other game genres. Certain high risk/high reward techniques are hard to pull off and easy to mess up but are rewarding to do. In fighting games it'd be impossible to map all the possible moves without using button sequences. Unless you're going to map every single possible output to it's own input button there will always be mechanical depth that can be taken advantage by people who have practiced. I think a lot of the argument that a game is less deep because it's easier to play comes from the fact that making the game easier has to remove potential options, which means you're either removing the things you have to consider when making a decision which streamlines decision making and makes the game less deep.

 

[Doompatron3000]

What is the status of all the "Final Destination" versions on all the stages? Should they all be legal?

 

[Terotrous]

What is the status of all the "Final Destination" versions on all the stages? Should they all be legal?

Aren't they identical except for cosmetic changes?


Anyway, we already know the pokemon stadium stage, it's "Kalos Pokemon League". "Mushroomy Kingdom also looks like it could be legal. It does transform, but all the transformations I've seen look fine, no major hazards or walkoff edges in sight.

 

[Sparklepower]

I believe that with the new game mechanics and the elimination of chaingrabs we should give walkoffs a chance...

I find it hard to believe that there will be zero chain grabs in the new game. Even if the developers intentionally avoid chain grabs some will likely slip by them and be found by players, and who knows if we're going to get any post-release support to patch them out.

There's a lot still to know about the game, and who knows what will change in the finalized version. Making a ruleset now is hard without knowing those changes.

@Zipzo okay, but why is that a problem?

No platforms eliminate a huge part of platform shenanigans, but FD, the only stage in the game without plats is legal. Being unique isn't a strong enough reason to get rid of a stage to me. (but I'm sure you read my thread on stage lists so you know that)

No edge game can make stages with walk offs give some characters a chance in the meta which other wise wouldn't have it (like Lil' mac and link) and help make characters that would have been dominate otherwise weaker pick over all (like Mk for example wouldn't have his amazing off stage/gimping/recovery/planking game on a walk off)

Walk-offs generally encourage heavy defensive and camping gameplay. You need to remember that the purpose of competitive rule-sets is to allow both players to play where they can definitively prove who is the better player with as few things as possible disrupting that. Being able to kill from a grab at 0% is viewed as disruptive.

Even if you don't agree, it's the strong consensus within the community because a lot of people would likely lose sets that wouldn't normally lose because of walk-offs, thus they are never going to be tournament legal.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Walk-offs generally encourage heavy defensive and camping gameplay. You need to remember that the purpose of competitive rule-sets is to allow both players to play where they can definitively prove who is the better player with as few things as possible disrupting that. Being able to kill from a grab at 0% is viewed as disruptive.

Even if you don't agree, it's the strong consensus within the community because a lot of people would likely lose sets that wouldn't normally lose because of walk-offs, thus they are never going to be tournament legal.

A walk-off will not inherently encourage camping if A) chain grabs are no more (or any chain-grabs that do exist are relatively stationary while being non-infinite) and B) the blast line is far enough off-screen that you can't simply fish for a grab and toss them over the blast line without taking constant off-screen damage. That means you can't simply win in percentage and then camp the side while forcing the foe to approach unless the foe is already at a sizable amount of damage, because you'll take constant damage trying to camp within guaranteed-KO range of the blast line.

 

[Sparklepower]

A walk-off will not inherently encourage camping if A) chain grabs are no more (or any chain-grabs that do exist are relatively stationary while being non-infinite) and B) the blast line is far enough off-screen that you can't simply fish for a grab and toss them over the blast line without taking constant off-screen damage. That means you can't simply win in percentage and then camp the side while forcing the foe to approach unless the foe is already at a sizable amount of damage, because you'll take constant damage trying to camp within guaranteed-KO range of the blast line.

Do you have any idea how far off the screen the blast zones would have to be for some throws? And as I stated before, the event of having zero chain-grabs is going to be unlikely. They usually aren't intentional.

It's not just throws either, it's the very fact that there isn't an area of no-stage that can keep you from being combo'd directly off the screen. It's like playing melee if every single character could WoP their opponents off the screen Jigglypuff-style.

 

[Doompatron3000]

Aren't they identical except for cosmetic changes?


Anyway, we already know the pokemon stadium stage, it's "Kalos Pokemon League". "Mushroomy Kingdom also looks like it could be legal. It does transform, but all the transformations I've seen look fine, no major hazards or walkoff edges in sight.

I believe it flattens parts of the stage, and turns off stage hazards, such as Bosses, but, I could be wrong.