>Matches are too long.
I disagree. They're fine.
>An effect of the amount of time and number of stock in a match combined with the reduced stage list is that we have an increased separation between viable and non-viable characters.
&
>The current non-viable characters are not viable because they simply do not have as many options vs viable characters.
Isn't this a contradiction? If non viable characters can be lamed out of winning by simple tactics, then that will happen regardless of stock count/timer/stage.
>Given two players ... a mistake, lets say an SD by the better of the two, at 4 stock each is often not a big deal.
Maybe not, but if the 'worse' player is more consistent and safe, they may get an advantage from the 'better' player killing themselves with misteching.
>The lesser player will often slack off slightly, the better player will turn it up slightly, and the match will be restored to even relatively quickly. Such is the nature of the game.
Rather large assumption on the psychology of both players. I could easily state the contrary in that the good player would get frustrated and make more mistakes and the worse player would be inspired by this to try harder to get momentum.
>On the other hand, an SD by the lesser of the two, will often seal his fate.
What if the players reacted as they did in the first example? The better player slacks off and starts sandbagging while the worse player tries harder and it begins to even out that way.
This entire argument about accident forgiveness is fallacious. You aren't forgiving an accident when you are moved closer to defeat for making a mistake.
>Similar to this idea, comeback potential in a 4 stock game is much lower between two equally skilled players.
As... it... should be? If you could have epic 4 stock come backs every game, then that would be weird considering nothing changes character wise from stock to stock. They had that potential all along. By cutting the number of stocks back, you are just eliminating comebacks altogether. If you can only ever get a 1 stock lead, then, yeah, more "comebacks" will happen, but it won't be nearly as impressive or noteworthy. If you take a game down to 2 stocks, then more people would lose outright INSTEAD of having comebacks from the other person being inconsistent/lazy or you pulling out last minute tactics after conditioning them for 3 stocks. Why is this even a consideration? It doesn't seem like an important enough reason to change the rules, imo.
>All of this summed up leads to a great divide between our competitive community and that of other FGC's.
A) Smash is not a traditional fighter. It makes sense that we would not be similar to games that are.
B) Why does that matter? We are suppose to support smash by diluting it to be more like everyone else? That seems counterproductive. You should grow the community by touting the aspects of the game that are DIFFERENT from other games, not try to force it to feel like others.
>Individual match importance goes down when you increase the number of matches in a set.
This also reduces the point of proper counterpicking. If you want to talk about accident forgiveness, imagine throwing 2 matches and then being Mr. Tryhard for the rest and winning. This does little to resolve the issue that you brought up and, actually, encourages people to throw matches on stages/with characters they don't like because they'll have plenty more games to actually try on.
>helping us move away from the idea of "I only lost the set because (insert counterpick) is stupid/unfair/etc," and more towards "That counterpick/character/strategy was really good!
Why does that not apply right now? I'm not following you. What character gets completely countered by all the neutrals? If you strike 2 stages from the list that counter you, that's 3 left to do well on (hopefully). After losing your first game, they ban your favorable stage and you get to pick the next one. You're telling me that you can't possibly find a stage out of the remaining that doesn't counter you? If you get 2-0'ed, then you had 2 opportunities to play on stages that don't counter you and YOU STILL LOST, the other player is obviously just better. Having more matches in a set wouldn't change that scenario and, in fact, would cause more stages to be used per set forcing players to HAVE to play on stages they do poorly on, even if, due to the inflation of matches per set, they are worth less.
>This also reduces accident forgiveness and increases comeback potential by increasing the importance of individual stock.
By reducing the importance of individual matches, by proxy you automatically reduce the importance of individual stocks. If spilling a glass of water doesn't matter, then spilling drops of water out of it won't matter either, they don't matter more.
>Players will have to know what characters are good on what stages, and might need to expand their arsenal of strategies/stages/characters.
This is already true, do you not think?
Additionally, I disagree with having a lower stock and time limit. In the current state of the game, a player can camp someone else with Fox with some degree of ease. The only thing that makes it truly hard is keeping it up for 8 whole minutes in order to win. That means using tons of different mobility and mindgame strategies in order to pull it off. By decreasing the time limit and stock count, you make it so that a fast character can get an easy lead and then play keep away for the remaining 120-60 seconds, a feat much easier than the converse.
Furthermore, being a player of a character with longer recovery, you are forcing more games to go to time. While I've already had the discussion about this not necessarily being a bad thing, it is in smash. In traditional fighters, you have a health bar that goes down with each hit directly tethered to the victory condition of KOing the opponent. In smash, you can win at 300% by gimping someone at 5%. By having more games go to time, you force characters like Peach and Samus to completely change their strategy to remain viable. For example, if Samus is playing against Falco, Falco can rack up some easy damage with camping lazers. Samus is SUPPOSE to be a tank and live to high percents, while Falco dies at lower percents to a few good hits. So a match between those two on their last stocks with Samus at 120% and Falco at 50% is still pretty even due to the nature of the characters. By making time outs more prevalent and leaving the rules about lower percent = victory, you give an unfair advantage to characters that are more "all out" over those that are more back-loaded and surviving.
As long as you are comparing Smash to traditional fighters, yeah, you'll see great differences. Smash is not one of those games. Personally, I've played many games competitively. For one, Star Craft. That game has matches that last anywhere from 20minutes to over an hour; the game is a test of stamina, forcing the player to endure the stress of managing everything in that game over long periods of time. Additionally, I've played FPS games like CS, UT, Halo, and TF2 competitively where matches go for a half hour or more over the span of several objectives. All three of those games, despite having long matches, still, usually, do best out of 3 sets. That means a SC set could, potentially, last 3 hours. Yet, they see that as part of the game, being able to preserve your strength and last through the long battles. I see smash no differently. It's not, not, NOT, NOT a traditional fighter. It's something else, and part of that something else has always been the long game times and number of "health bars" (Stocks) used per. It's not something wrong with smash, it's something that characterizes it and the competitive field around it.
I would consider testing this, it could be fun and I would love to be wrong on my gut reaction to hearing this. But, my feelings tell me this will not produce the results you are looking for.
