Should 2 stocks, 5 minutes be better than 3 stocks, 8 minutes?

[JetpackX]

UPDATE: Sorry for the double post

If 2 stocks, 4 minutes actually happens. expect people to complain about the game being too fast

>lol smash 4 too fast

 

[Hitzel]

3 stocks or no stocks as far as I'm concerned. There's plenty of arguments for 3 stocks but I'm not seeing anything for 2 stocks other than "omg nobody knows how to kill".

I think it's more along the lines of standard online matches having 2-Stocks.

 

[Turokman5896]

Toss in my two cents: look at other fighters. Compared to smash, they have shorter, quicker rounds. Two stocks should be fine. Two stocks, best two out of the three games. I believe that if players really want to kill earlier they have to go offstage, so limited stocks will ensure there is a. Great risk/reward with offstage play.

Honestly that is the best option as of now.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Two quick things I want to address quickly about this quote:

1) Brawl is considered the slowest game in the series, and a very large amount of people agree that 3 stocks is too long

2) This isn't Brawl. Too much differs between the games to pretend that the same (objectively broken) ruleset will fit both games

Two quick things in return:

1. A very large amount of people agree that 2 stocks is too short, even for Brawl.

2. I was one of, if not the, first players on this forum to make it absolutely & abundantly clear that the release build of this game bore no resemblance to any of the past iterations.

I respect your ideas, but I severely doubt that the smash community as a whole will be willing to change the ruleset at all after the first big tournaments agree on one, regardless of the change.

Shortly after Brawl came out, there was a very vocal concern that a "Meta Knight Banned" rule should be implemented because the game would be better off with it in place. While a large portion of the community agreed that a Meta Knight banning should be explored and tried out, those in charge of the inital ruleset and those who were supportive of those people continuously declined the change on the premise that the game/meta was too new. A few years later when the game is officially not new anymore, the same ban proposal gets kicked aside because nobody wants to have to pick a new character/relearn the game after spending the entire "game is new" period as Meta Knight. When the ban was finally implemented, it took less than two weeks until entire regions dismissed the ruleset as a joke and started running MK legal tournaments again.

But banning a character is a large change to make. Surely when we propose a slightly smaller change a shorter time after release, the community will be much more willing to switch, right?

GOML wasn't the first 1 Stock Brawl tournament. A 2011 tournament called Concentrate II had a similar tournament to GOML, that being a 1 Stock 3 Minute Brawl bracket with Nairo, ADHD, Ally, Salem, and many others in attendance. While people pushed for 1 Stock to become the norm, the ruleset committees and TOs said the same thing they did to the Meta Knight ban. The game was either too new (when the ruleset was first proposed back in late 2010) or too old for people to accept the change (GOML and Concentrate II).

Can the community change from 3 stocks to 2 stocks in Smash 4? Probably. Will they accept it after we have APEX 2015 using 3 stock for the reasons you mentioned? Absolutely not, or at least not as anything other than a side event.

A debate over what the community would do won't get us anywhere because I think it's a bit subjective as to your opinion on the the human psyche as a collective. So I'll just leave it at saying I respect your opinion too, but I disagree.

Thankfully, we don't need to convince the players to switch to 2 Stocks 5 Minutes. Thanks to Nintendo, everyone who currently owns the game is already using this ruleset. Look on the streams going on as we speak. All of the competitive players are either in the lab looking at frame data, or they're grinding competitive games using the final result of the 'transition' process you were suggesting we use.

Continuing to watch the stream, is the 2:5 ruleset getting in the way of anything in normal play? Sure, a few of ZeRo's first games online had him camped out by DHD or Villager, but if you watch him (or any of the other streamers that have spent more than 5-6 hours playing in matches) now, matches are taking much less time and potential campers are losing to fairly easily executed approaches and pressure. Comebacks are still happening where they should (mid percent last stock player is able to even up the stocks and threaten to win the game with one more good read/combo). Players still have a good amount of time to read opponents (read the comment from whoever was talking about street fighter), and the matches are taking enough time to give both players enough time to interact. If you don't believe me on this one, take a look for yourself on Twitch.tv.

TL;DR The amount of people who currently own the game are already happily using a ruleset that solves all of the most prevalent issues past games had, without presenting any immediate issues that can be solved by using a 3 Stock 8 Minute ruleset. Therefore we should embrace this ruleset while it is still a possibility instead of "easing into it", something the smash community has a terrible track record of being able to do.

(I am kinda ok with 2 Stock 6 Minutes though if timeouts become a problem though)

Players are "happily" using 2 stock/5 minutes because they don't have a choice. The For Glory mode is defaulted to it without any way to change it. I don't know about you but I can't remember the last time we took Nintendo's standard default in-game as the tournament regulation standard. If we did that I think we'd all be playing 2 minute matches, right? Just because they chose a more closely resembling default, using time and stocks this time around, shouldn't change that. They chose a setup that would be conducive to quick, convenient matches to get your scuffle on with another random player without the hassle of dabbling in the settings to turn off items and define your pick of "legal" stages.

Another thing that seems to be remiss in your words is the fact that I do have the game and I am actively playing on stream in For Glory myself. For almost 5-8 hours at a time.

Some matches are quite quick, combo ability tends to allow players to rack damage, but don't fool yourself in to thinking there aren't players out there taking advantage of the 2s/5m setup. Shulk's that weave green with yellow are nearly impossible to kill, and any character with projectile has the potential to camp you the entire game in order to ease their victory. I've seen first hand how two stocks is surprisingly inefficient for gauging a proper winner between two players. Limited stocks doesn't promote risky play, it promotes safer play. One SD could mean you're either at an extreme disadvantage or you lose the entire match.

Games tend to go quick, within the 5 minute standard For Glory has given us, which should be a sign that we don't need to adopt the 2-stock ruleset, and that 3 stock matches should be fine with 8 minutes.

 

[hichez50]

The entire game? No, if SD's are that insanely punishing then that just encourages hyper-cautious play. SD's happen quite a bit and frankly simply saying "you shouldn't SD" isn't relevant to the discussion. They probably *shouldn't be happening, but realistically they do. Just ask Mew2king. The fact is that you always have to look out for potential SD's and if the ruleset is THAT punishing towards them, then players will decide to not even allow for the possibility of one. In summary, encouraging campy gameplay.

One bonehead mistake shouldn't nullify a narrative of great play. That cheapens the experience.

I can totally see where you are coming from with the rest of your comments. I can accept those. But it is simple "Top players shouldn't be SDing" and we should lower our standards. I'm pretty sure it will encourage more precise gameplay. No top player wants to lose to them self. Top players also know which option may be risky and they can't execute consistently.

This could encourage campy gameplay at a lower levels, but top level is what matters for the most part.

 

[hichez50]

I can totally see where you are coming from with the rest of your comments. I can accept those. But it is simple "Top players shouldn't be SDing" and we should lower our standards. I'm pretty sure it will encourage more precise gameplay. No top player wants to lose to them self. Top players also know which option may be risky and they can't execute consistently.

This could encourage campy gameplay at a lower levels, but top level is what matters for the most part.

Also I feel like there is an attitude that defensive play is bad. It really is just different. *points to the obvious example(SSF4)* Rulesets can only influence how a game is played. It can't straight up change the tools that the developers gave to us. Defensive and Offensive games can be bad if executed poorly.

 

[DJ Dong]

Also I feel like there is an attitude that defensive play is bad. It really is just different. *points to the obvious example(SSF4)* Rulesets can only influence how a game is played. It can't straight up change the tools that the developers gave to us. Defensive and Offensive games can be bad if executed poorly.

I have an issue with the whole 'defensive play' bull****. Nobody can agree on what 'defensive play' even means because it doesn't mean anything. It's a vague blanket term people are using to describe crap that they don't like. It's like when I ask someone what color is an object and they say red. Well, ok. I can see that it's red. But could you be more specific?

And no, it isn't an argument worth having. It would go on for years. Just be specific about what you enjoy/dislike about it, or don't say anything at all.

 

[GrownCannoli]

If this game wants to be as big as Street Fighter 4 or Marvel as far as competitive fighters go shorter rounds are needed. A match with 2 stocks has big comeback potential throughout the whole match and easily the best player will win a set against someone else. Top 8 or Top 3 is 3 of 5.

So 2 stocks 5 minutes I fully support to be the standard. For now with only the 3ds version in mind.

Because honestly if I saw a defensive best 3 of 5 match in grand finals with a 8 minute timer I would turn it off or do other things while listening. Matches will constantly go to time in this game until we all get better.

 

[Bladeviper]

If this game wants to be as big as Street Fighter 4 or Marvel as far as competitive fighters go shorter rounds are needed. A match with 2 stocks has big comeback potential throughout the whole match and easily the best player will win a set against someone else. Top 8 or Top 3 is 3 of 5.

So 2 stocks 5 minutes I fully support to be the standard. For now with only the 3ds version in mind.

Because honestly if I saw a defensive best 3 of 5 match in grand finals with a 8 minute timer I would turn it off or do other things while listening. Matches will constantly go to time in this game until we all get better.

I dont think matches are going to time as much as you think they are, the day 1 tournament i saw had one match go to time and were consistently taking less than 5 minutes for a round in a set

 

[Hitzel]

I think we can judge how well different stock settings are working directly by gauging the number of ResidentSleepers in chat.

 

[LiteralGrill]

The distinction is that last stock inherently means you lose completely. People will take the opportunity cost of aggressive play on first stock because that'll get them the big advantage. But if they're down to the last stock, they don't have any fallbacks at all. That's the issue, last vs. regular stock differences.

They would not be doing this every stock because not every stock when lost spells a match loss

Then they are BAD PLAYERS. What you continuously have said is they won't use the most effective strategy to win until they are on their last stock. If that is the case they are bad players. You should play that way EVERY SINGLE STOCK so you can have a better chance at winning. Again if campy play is the best strategy there are no rules chances you can make to change that fact. Adding more stocks and time just makes the game take even longer.

Games tend to go quick, within the 5 minute standard For Glory has given us, which should be a sign that we don't need to adopt the 2-stock ruleset, and that 3 stock matches should be fine with 8 minutes.

So we have quick games, why extend the time anyways? If you really think games go quick with two stocks THAT IS A GOOD THING. It means the game is better for spectators and tournaments can end within reasonable amounts of time. Why make it go longer then?

You know why other fighters tend to be better on streams? They are fast paced and have a lot of variety. 90 second matches. Human beings don't have crazy long attention spans. If you want this community to grow and for us to hit the realm of "real e-sports" you have to consider the audience. If these matches are fast paced and not broken there is no reason to raise the stock count just so players "feel better". If this is the standard from the beginning people will get used to it with time.

Heck many new players to the scene who will have been playing in For Glory will ALREADY be used to it. I know it was mentioned earlier but it is a HUGE boon to new players to have the rules be something they are used to. Without the new players and the people who aren't really pro (let's call them what they are, pot fillers) tournaments suck. People don't come and the prize money sucks. You have to consider these people because without the guy who never places and just comes for a fun time to play matches in real life YOUR SCENE DIES.

 

[Bladeviper]

Then they are BAD PLAYERS. What you continuously have said is they won't use the most effective strategy to win until they are on their last stock. If that is the case they are bad players. You should play that way EVERY SINGLE STOCK so you can have a better chance at winning. Again if campy play is the best strategy there are no rules chances you can make to change that fact. Adding more stocks and time just makes the game take even longer.




So we have quick games, why extend the time anyways? If you really think games go quick with two stocks THAT IS A GOOD THING. It means the game is better for spectators and tournaments can end within reasonable amounts of time. Why make it go longer then?

You know why other fighters tend to be better on streams? They are fast paced and have a lot of variety. 90 second matches. Human beings don't have crazy long attention spans. If you want this community to grow and for us to hit the realm of "real e-sports" you have to consider the audience. If these matches are fast paced and not broken there is no reason to raise the stock count just so players "feel better". If this is the standard from the beginning people will get used to it with time.

Heck many new players to the scene who will have been playing in For Glory will ALREADY be used to it. I know it was mentioned earlier but it is a HUGE boon to new players to have the rules be something they are used to. Without the new players and the people who aren't really pro (let's call them what they are, pot fillers) tournaments suck. People don't come and the prize money sucks. You have to consider these people because without the guy who never places and just comes for a fun time to play matches in real life YOUR SCENE DIES.

good points. i do think the game could do 3 stocks but 2 is fine imo

 

[WheelerFGC]

I don't exactly have a whole lot to put here, but I've been seeing matches on streams (mainly CT's tournament from yesterday) in which they did 3 stock 8 minutes and It worked well. Granted there were a few matches where it went to about the 2 minute mark, but that happens in P:M matches too. (this is coming from a P:M player, albeit a newer one then you guys.

 

[Qikz]

If this game wants to be as big as Street Fighter 4 or Marvel as far as competitive fighters go shorter rounds are needed. A match with 2 stocks has big comeback potential throughout the whole match and easily the best player will win a set against someone else. Top 8 or Top 3 is 3 of 5.

So 2 stocks 5 minutes I fully support to be the standard. For now with only the 3ds version in mind.

Because honestly if I saw a defensive best 3 of 5 match in grand finals with a 8 minute timer I would turn it off or do other things while listening. Matches will constantly go to time in this game until we all get better.

That isn't entirely true. If anything it removes comeback potential as a fatal error early on leads you to an unwinnable or nearly unwinnable position. It removes the ability to be risky as you can't afford to even lose a stock. You spend 50% of the match in that case on your last stock and that'll overall lead to more defensive play, when what makes Smash interesting is the crazy combos and huge off stage gambits to try and take an extra stock off without losing one yourself.

When people get better 3 stock 8 minutes will be fine. Smash will never be as big as Street Fighter or Marvel, but that's ok. We shouldn't change our communities rulesets to fit in with other games. We're not those games and we don''t have as much wide ranging appeal. If longer timed rounds were that bad, we wouldn't even have a community to begin with.

 

[Mithost]

That isn't entirely true. If anything it removes comeback potential as a fatal error early on leads you to an unwinnable or nearly unwinnable position. It removes the ability to be risky as you can't afford to even lose a stock. You spend 50% of the match in that case on your last stock and that'll overall lead to more defensive play, when what makes Smash interesting is the crazy combos and huge off stage gambits to try and take an extra stock off without losing one yourself.

When people get better 3 stock 8 minutes will be fine. Smash will never be as big as Street Fighter or Marvel, but that's ok. We shouldn't change our communities rulesets to fit in with other games. We're not those games and we don''t have as much wide ranging appeal. If longer timed rounds were that bad, we wouldn't even have a community to begin with.

Do players need the extra stock to make a comeback? In 3 stock, if you lost your second stock trying to make a comeback from losing your first stock, you're in an even worse position than before and by your logic, the situation is even more unwinnable. The player in the lead has already proven that they are the better player by being able to get the lead, hold onto the lead against your attempts, and not losing the lead to SDs. Should we drag on the fight to see if the player who lost the lead and failed once to make a comeback can do it again, or should we reward the person who managed to obtain and maintain the lead?

As of right now, if a player chooses to play overly defensively at any point in a 3 Stock match, the game will usually reach the 6 or 7 minute mark. In most of these situations, the winner has already been decided shortly after the first stock was taken.

 

[Sliq]

2 Stocks is too few. 3 stocks is much more ideal, because any SD doesn't immediately wreck your chances of a comeback.

Do players need the extra stock to make a comeback? In 3 stock, if you lost your second stock trying to make a comeback from losing your first stock, you're in an even worse position than before and by your logic, the situation is even more unwinnable.

With 2 stocks, YOU'VE ALREADY LOST. If you have 3 at least the match isn't over yet.

 

[Hitzel]

I've seen a lot of 2-Stock matches on stream so far where a player SD'd or was KO'd early, yet still mounted a comeback.

Funnily enough, I think the huge blastzones seem to be part of why comebacks are happening so much. Everyone having Marth syndrome allows for a damaged player to do some damage and gimp a recovery before being KO'd.

 

[GrownCannoli]

I really like this discussion and I can see the valid points for both sides of 2 stock vs 3 stock. I feel as 2 stock seems to be winning the debate and is largely helped by the fact that for glory mode is 2 stock and the matches seem satisfying to watch and to the people that are playing them.

To rebuttal some opinions on comebacks and the way you chose to play your stocks, you have to think of the entire match while playing and not in just one game. If I was in a set up 1-0 or even neutral I would still play risky if I was down 1 stock to 2 in a game. I still have another match to play regardless and if I take risk I might be rewarded with a comeback in that game.

In a set you basically have 3 first stocks to play however you chose. And to the people talking about SD.... This is a TOURNAMENT standard discussion. If you SD in a tournament match you deserve to lose the stock and be down in that game.

(Keep in mind the game just came out. We might need 6 stocks in a year. Who knows lol)

 

[Kirsche]

I've seen a lot of 2-Stock matches on stream so far where a player SD'd or was KO'd early, yet still mounted a comeback.

Watching a professional streamer like zero come back does not reflect how it will affect torunaments.

Imo comebacks in a 2 stock game is unreasonably difficult, the difference between coming back against 2 stocks with one is hugely different than coming back against 3 stocks with two at ANY level of play. Watching a professional streamer like zero come back does not reflect how it will affect torunaments.

I don't see what the fuss is all about anyway, people were fine with an 8 minute time limit in brawl and that was much more stall heavy than this game. At worst we see top players duke it out for a bit longer. At best we see exciting, risky play early on where people put their stock on the line to get off stage kills.

Edit: regarding tournament players and how they shouldn't SD, mistakes happen and yeah they deserve to be down, but they don't deserve to face a hopeless fight. In that invitational tournament recently they had 3 stocks in the finals and it was fine, and this is likely before ideal strats for each of their characters will come out, which will make games quicker as people understand kill tactics better. There's hard proof that 3 stocks can work, but outside of watching zero stomp scrubs online 2 stocks haven't been tested.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Then they are BAD PLAYERS. What you continuously have said is they won't use the most effective strategy to win until they are on their last stock. If that is the case they are bad players. You should play that way EVERY SINGLE STOCK so you can have a better chance at winning. Again if campy play is the best strategy there are no rules chances you can make to change that fact. Adding more stocks and time just makes the game take even longer.




So we have quick games, why extend the time anyways? If you really think games go quick with two stocks THAT IS A GOOD THING. It means the game is better for spectators and tournaments can end within reasonable amounts of time. Why make it go longer then?

You know why other fighters tend to be better on streams? They are fast paced and have a lot of variety. 90 second matches. Human beings don't have crazy long attention spans. If you want this community to grow and for us to hit the realm of "real e-sports" you have to consider the audience. If these matches are fast paced and not broken there is no reason to raise the stock count just so players "feel better". If this is the standard from the beginning people will get used to it with time.

Heck many new players to the scene who will have been playing in For Glory will ALREADY be used to it. I know it was mentioned earlier but it is a HUGE boon to new players to have the rules be something they are used to. Without the new players and the people who aren't really pro (let's call them what they are, pot fillers) tournaments suck. People don't come and the prize money sucks. You have to consider these people because without the guy who never places and just comes for a fun time to play matches in real life YOUR SCENE DIES.

Ideally it is better to make stocks go on longer since over time it would show who the better player is. That is why 3, 4 and 5 stocks are done in the other games.

Would 3 stock still work as a spectator sport? I think it would still work. If 2 is preferable over 3 or 4 would depend how fast matches would go as people got better at the game.

 

[Senario]

The funny part here is that we are getting each new game where killing is slower so 64 had 5 stocks, melee had 4, brawl had 3, and now smash 4 seemingly is shaping to be probably a 2 stock game lol. Anybody up for 1 stock matches?

 

[Fenrir VII]

To be clear... this proposal isn't actually suggesting that this game's matches will take LONGER than Brawl's, right?
As I understood it, this was just a time saving idea in general, not necessarily a comparison with previous games.

 

[Mithost]

For everyone talking about how "comebacks are impossible" in a 2 stock match, I highly recommend that you watch some more matches of varying skill levels and reconsider your stance on this. Yes, SDing at literally 0% before you get any reasonable damage on your opponent will put you at a huge disadvantage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. This situation (among many others) is why we play multiple games a set; To make sure a single fluke or outlier doesn't solely decide your entire placing in the bracket. Even if the mistake costs you the entire game, there are a dozen other mechanics we have in place to make sure that, if you are actually on somewhat equal footing to your opponent, should be able to recover and win the match. If there really were absolutely no comebacks, we'd be running one stock Bo1 tournaments.

To be clear... this proposal isn't actually suggesting that this game's matches will take LONGER than Brawl's, right?
As I understood it, this was just a time saving idea in general, not necessarily a comparison with previous games.

You are correct. We are suggesting that smash matches in general take slightly too long, and that this is the perfect (and probably the only) time to remedy that issue.

 

[ElectricCitrus]

Why not keep three stocks and do like seven or six minutes? That way you promote more aggressive play but end up avoiding the problem of two-stocks being on the very low side.

Why must is be 2-stocks 5 minutes. Why can't it be any other combination of time and stocks.

I'm kind of tired right now so feel free to show me why 3 stocks seven/six minutes wouldn't work.

 

[Xenesis]

Heck many new players to the scene who will have been playing in For Glory will ALREADY be used to it. I know it was mentioned earlier but it is a HUGE boon to new players to have the rules be something they are used to. Without the new players and the people who aren't really pro (let's call them what they are, pot fillers) tournaments suck. People don't come and the prize money sucks. You have to consider these people because without the guy who never places and just comes for a fun time to play matches in real life YOUR SCENE DIES.

I think this point is being incredibly understated here!

The more you can do to reduce friction between the casual fanbase who wants to play more seriously and the 'real' competitive community the healthier your game will be in the long run. Otherwise you risk becoming like Smogon (of the Pokemon scene) which is sliding into complete irrelevance as people jump onto the official VGC rules and their resistance to what is now seen as the accepted standard and official competitive format (VCG) is mostly causing an insular sounding box where they're becoming steadily more divorced from their potential sources of players.

 

[Mithost]

Why not keep three stocks and do like seven or six minutes? That way you promote more aggressive play but end up avoiding the problem of two-stocks being on the very low side.

Why must is be 2-stocks 5 minutes. Why can't it be any other combination of time and stocks.

I'm kind of tired right now so feel free to show me why 3 stocks seven/six minutes wouldn't work.

The shorter the timer, the easier it is to intentionally timeout once you have a lead. If after the 5 minute mark I think about timing out, I'm much more likely to go for the timeout if I only need to run away for 1 minute instead of 3 or 4. With the increase in timeout viability, more people will go into the match with timeouts in mind, and the game will actually slow down instead of the alternative.

 

[ElectricCitrus]

Oh fascinating, I hadn't considered that. But surely going to seven minutes wouldn't make THAT much of a difference. Besides if someone runs away for more than like 20 seconds that's pretty blatant match stalling, which is and can be punished.

 

[1MachGO]

The shorter the timer, the easier it is to intentionally timeout once you have a lead. If after the 5 minute mark I think about timing out, I'm much more likely to go for the timeout if I only need to run away for 1 minute instead of 3 or 4. With the increase in timeout viability, more people will go into the match with timeouts in mind, and the game will actually slow down instead of the alternative.

^^^This. A longer timer will actually decrease the average match time since it discourages the most time consuming strategy: camping.

I believe that 2 stocks with 7 or 8 minutes would make the best ruleset. Sure, the potential match time would still be very high, but I can't see camping being a realistic strategy when the pressure of time can't be utilized to abuse a lead; taking stocks will be much faster.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

^^^This. A longer timer will actually decrease the average match time since it discourages the most time consuming strategy: camping.

I don't think this is strictly true, or else logically not having a time limit at all would be the best possible option which I'm pretty sure isn't the case.

 

[Gawain]

My two cents: I've been to Evo and other large scale tournaments many times, and one of the things that I've ALWAYS been an advocate for is reducing the number of stocks in Smash games. The standard in pretty much every fighting game is best of 3 @ 90 seconds per round. What this means is that a set never really strays far from the ~15 minute mark. Smash on the other hand takes far longer on average. In the case of campy sets, like HBox vs Armada's Evo 14, they take WAY longer than they should in my opinion, and it kills hype. And a lot of people share this opinion. Smash sets generally take around 21-23 minutes when people are equally skilled, but they can take longer than that. I am of the opinion that 3 or even 2 stocks per round is ideal. The timer is a much more complicated problem. Since Smash takes place on bigger fields, a 90 second timer is highly inappropriate. But a timer like 5 minutes may be too small and encourage campy play styles. I do not believe there really is an ideal answer to this problem, but if it were my call to make, I would probably do 2 stocks at 8.

TLDR: I believe 2 or 3 stocks is better, and that the timer is a more complicated issue, but that leaving it at 8 is probably fine.

 

[1MachGO]

I don't think this is strictly true, or else logically not having a time limit at all would be the best possible option which I'm pretty sure isn't the case.

This is a slippery slope. Longer timer being superior =/= no timer is the best option.

 

[kingtrace]

From the high level play I'm seeing on streams so far, three stocks with 8 minutes would probably be the right balance for this game. You can easily take two stocks in the five minutes provided, and I honestly think it makes for a less interesting overall game. With three stocks, players have time to scout out strategies and take a little damage without having to worry about it being match ruining.

Also, since the vast majority of this forum thinks custom moves should be allowed, I really think limiting this to two stocks is silly, because the opponent may very well suddenly pull out a special that is not what you expected and take a stock, and leave you with less space to recover from the disadvantage.

Three stocks worked well in Brawl, and this game has a faster pace, though not as fast as Melee or M, so 3 stocks seems right to me.

 

[GTZ]

2 stocks is too short.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

This is a slippery slope. Longer timer being superior =/= no timer is the best option.

But at what point does lengthening the timer stop being healthy? The slippery slope is obvious, I wasn't actually trying to argue for no time limits. But if a short time limit is seen as inferior to a longer one, but no time limit is inferior to, say, 8 minutes, then where's the cutoff?

(Tournament logistics probably play the biggest role in all of this, but I'm thinking in a vacuum where one doesn't have to worry about getting kicked out for staying too long.)

 

[Xenigma]

Judging by the For Glory streams I've seen over the weekend, 2 stocks 5 minute seems like a great format. Cuts down overly long match times, gives enough time to discourage camping (unless the game proves far slower than expected), doesn't appear to ruin comeback potential, better mirrors fellow tournament games like SF and Injustice, and provides a great transition point for new players from For Glory to tournament play. Maybe the game evolves where such matches are in fact too fast, but as a starting point, I don't see it couldn't be tried.

 

[Signia]

Two minutes per stock should be the standard. It's day 4 and people are learning how to rack up damage, play offensively, and get kills.

3 stocks, 6 minutes Bo3 (max time: 18 min)

or

2 stock 4 minutes Bo5. (max time: 20 min)



Yes, I know that isn't enough time to complete campy matchups. BUT THOSE MATCHUPS ARE NOT TO BE COMPLETED. Campy matchups that take long need to just END. Embrace occasional time-ups in slow matchups between defensive players like in every other fighting game community. It's more difficult to stall in this game with the way the ledges are.

 

[TeaTwoTime]

I was all for 3 stocks at first, and I could still totally get behind 3 stocks, but between what I've seen on stream and what I've read here, I'm starting to feel that two stocks makes a lot of sense. There is no requirement for the community to adopt the official For Glory rules by any means, but at the same time, why shouldn't we? It would make the transition between practise and tournaments smooth, it would help to prevent uninteresting games from dragging on (though ideally there would be none of these) and it would allow tournaments to run more quickly. The Bo3/Bo5 formats prevent a single SD from determining the victor in a set and I personally don't think SDs should be accomodated for by the rules anyway.

That said - I would like to see how 3 stocks/8 minutes works, and if the game proves to be quick enough for 3 stock games to be every bit as exciting as they need to be, then I'd support it staying on as the official ruleset.

 

[DJ Dong]

Judging by the For Glory streams I've seen over the weekend, 2 stocks 5 minute seems like a great format. Cuts down overly long match times, gives enough time to discourage camping (unless the game proves far slower than expected), doesn't appear to ruin comeback potential, better mirrors fellow tournament games like SF and Injustice, and provides a great transition point for new players from For Glory to tournament play. Maybe the game evolves where such matches are in fact too fast, but as a starting point, I don't see it couldn't be tried.

The for glory streams are mostly veteran, top, or at least experienced players against casuals. It's not worth judging on that.

The fact of the matter is, when we talk about gameplay, the more stocks the better. Sheer gameplay alone suggests we should give people as many stocks as possible.

Now we take into consideration player patience and enjoyment. Okay, we obviously cut down tremendously. So now we have maybe 4-5 at most.

So now we are nearly at rock bottom. How do we come to an agreement now? What are the factors?

1. Tournament length
2. Viewer enjoyment

1. Can tournaments play games at 4-5 stocks?
Probably not. But we know they can run 3 stocks for sure due to Brawl, and Brawl was a slower paced game.

2. Are people entertained while watching?
This is to be tested. But we know people were entertained by Brawl, despite the campiness and unbalance.

Really the only logical conclusion is to start with 3 stocks 8 minutes, purely because of the common arguments against 2 stocks.

1. We don't like to change in increases.
People are generally are afraid of anything in greater amounts.

2. Longer tournaments are a good thing in a lot of ways too.

3. It's easier to recover from an SD. (everyone SD's, get over it)
The general response to this is "well if you SD at 3 stocks then your opponent has 3 and you have 2, as opposed to 1 to 2 stocks". This doesn't refute anything. The idea is that better players will make less errors over the course of a match. The longer the match, the less total sum of errors the better player will have made, thus giving them the win.

4. As shown above, the gap in skill is much more apparent when you have more stocks. Tournaments overall are tests of skill, so why not make it more clear?

5. It kills hype when games are shorter. The time in between games is time the viewer spends doing other things, as well as the general audience and players. Tensions are high when the match is under way.

6. Whatever else I'm too tired to remember.

I actually typed this out once but then re-typed it because SB did maintenance. Whatever.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

2 Stocks is too few. 3 stocks is much more ideal, because any SD doesn't immediately wreck your chances of a comeback.

I don't understand this post. Are you suggesting the smash community should endorse a ruleset with more stocks than is otherwise ideal because a player might make a mistake and self destruct?

I mean no disrespect but this is a pretty scrubby attitude to take. We are competitors. The ideal ruleset doesn't take mistakes into account because mistakes by definition should not usually happen. SDs are flat-out not a consideration.

Stock and time should be about:

1. Ensuring games feel satisfying and convincing whether or not you win or lose. This is why 1-stock Brawl was stupid. You could often lose your stock really early and feel kind of robbed (Zss suit pieces, a fast MK combo/gimp, whatever. You never had a chance to play). 2-stock doesn't have the same effect.

2. Maximizing spectator value. 2-stock matches are well-received in smash 4. So far, twitch stream chats have really enjoyed watching the game with these settings. When they draw on for too long people lose interest.

3. Ensuring tournaments can run their course effectively and on time. We want players to feel like they have time to play friendlies, play their matches, and spectate other matches. Ideally, we also want there to be room for side events like teams, low tier tournaments, and brawl or melee tournaments. A tournament where no one can play friendlies is arguably a worthless tournament... and I have been to many brawl tournaments where it was impossible to play them due to time constraints/requiring everyone to stop playing them by the time losers' finals rolled around.

 

[DJ Dong]

I mean no disrespect but this is a pretty scrubby attitude to take. We are competitors. The ideal ruleset doesn't take mistakes into account because mistakes by definition should not usually happen. SDs are flat-out not a consideration.

Stock and time should be about:

1. Ensuring games feel satisfying and convincing whether or not you win or lose. This is why 1-stock Brawl was stupid. You could often lose your stock really early and feel kind of robbed (Zss suit pieces, a fast MK combo/gimp, whatever. You never had a chance to play). There isn't evidence that 2-stock has this effect.

I was going to, and I still am going to say this:

With that logic, every set in a tournament should only be one game and one stock. Single elimination.

Oddly enough, you proceeded to see how stupid your own logic is. Did you actually think about what you typed as you posted this?