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

[Supermodel From Paris]

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?

There is an enormous difference between taking your own stock from yourself and losing to an early play by your opponent. Can you not see that?

Also, can you chill with the personal insults?

 

[DJ Dong]

There is an enormous difference between taking your own stock from yourself and losing to an early play by your opponent. Can you not see that?

Also, can you chill with the personal insults?

It's still a simple mistake that everyone makes. It's the exact same thing. Just one costs you more.

Even if you, for no reason at all, discriminate against self-destructs when we use this logic, we still come to the conclusion that more stocks are better. As you acknowledged again, mistakes happen over the course of games. Skill is determined by who makes the least amount of mistakes.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

It's still a simple mistake that everyone makes. It's the exact same thing. Just one costs you more.

Even if you, for no reason at all, discriminate against self-destructs, when we use this logic we still come to the conclusion that more stocks are better. As you acknowledged again, mistakes happen over the course of games. Skill is determined by who makes the least mistakes.

What? Your stock count directly affects the game's win condition. If you just throw one away that is literally throwing away a percentage of the currency you have left. That is a significantly thing from just being read by your opponent a few times and losing. In Brawl (and in Smash 4) you need to be read (hard) several times to die. Getting outplayed (even if very quickly) is not the same thing as throwing away your own life or currency. In one case both players were playing the game and one played better, ergo a stock was taken by one player. In another, one player killed himself for whatever reason; that's on him and only him. He has no one to blame but himself. It's not our problem.

The idea is to have as many stocks as we can get away with, without 3-match (2-1) sets dragging on for 15 minutes every time. There needs to be a minimum so that a single big play by one player (i.e. ZSS suit pieces or an MK gimp in one-stock brawl) doesn't end a set instantly, but is also an upper limit for practical reasons: there isn't unlimited time in a day nor do people have unlimited attention spans.

About the "minimum limit" and why it is desirable: In other fighting games this argument doesn't happen because you have a life bar that only depletes when your opponent hits you. If a player takes you down to 1 health without taking any damage, he has outplayed you up until this point. But this works in reverse... it is always possible for you to win. It is always possible for you to outplay your opponent, even after he has outplayed you. A life bar gives equal opportunity.

Now imagine we're playing smash. Stocks are our life currency in the smash series. If we're playing a set and you take my stock very quickly, you have outplayed me. But it's always possible for me to take your stock very quickly too; your taking of my stock does not preclude my taking of yours. When commentators say "X player has a big hill to climb" or whatever, they are misspeaking, because player X only has as high a hill to climb as player Y had. Player Y is just closer to the top.

A 1-stock match has no hill to climb, no race to finish; the above scenario is simply not possible in a one-stock world. A 3-stock match turns a sprint into more of an endurance race. There's nothing inherently wrong with that but if you want the game to appeal to spectators and finish on time, it isn't ideal.

 

[Chauzu]

I do think we should at least consider 2 Stock 5 Minutes, if we want to attract new players more easily. Being as close to "official" Nintendo rules as possible makes the transition much easier has been said before.

And I think it also might be more exciting to watch shorter matches - more action, more new games coming up all the time, and less long, semi-boring games that kills hype. And believe me if we do 3 stock 8 minutes we will be having games going to time. I've played a lot as Duck Hunt and if I face a good Pac-Man I basically know we're going to end up with running out of time in For Glory.

But 5 mins is at least a shorter time than 8 mins or 10 mins.

 

[viewtifulduck82]

I think a lot of people in here saying 3 stocks 8 minutes either haven't played the game themselves, or they're too stuck to what they're used to to change so radically. Also, you simply cannot use possible SDI's as a counterpoint against 2 stocks 5 minutes because an SDI is the player's fault, and they deserve to be punished for it.

 

[LiteralGrill]

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.

We only have a timer because we need tournaments to end on time. No timer IS the best option but it is unrealistic and leads to really long events (look at smash 64 where a timer with stocks is impossible and tournaments go on way too long).

 

[Kerreb17]

I just wanted to quickly say something about the "camping" argument in the past couple of pages.

In a genre of (fighting) games where your win condition is directly related to your health, it would make sense to protect yourself from losing health. After all, if you lose too much health, then you lose, plain and simple. The ideal solution, then, becomes "don't get hit," which encourages spending time away from your opponent and spacing them out. So, in other fighting games, what alleviates this? What makes the games into trades of blows and exciting action instead of campfire songs? Well, there are three things, and they all work in tandem: the timer, the player and the genre's standard rectangular stage.

The timer forces players who are losing to put extra effort and risk into forcing the winning opponent into a losing position. The losing player will always have to fight back, as long as the timer is short enough. Consequently, the winning player has to have good defense in order to maintain the lead. Matches don't usually go into time, though, because the winning player wants to kill the other player more quickly so that they have a larger lead and a more secure victory. Otherwise, why not just have 1-hit kills like Divekick? (Divekick is a great game, but, like Smash, it isn't exactly standard. That's not a bad thing, as you all know.)

Skilled players can craft near airtight defenses if they're using the right characters, while those same skilled players can break apart otherwise strong defenses with rushdown. This is the balance in fighting games. Your skill lies in how well you can balance offense and defense, and how well you can read and respond to your opponent. And the key is that you're always alert, and always playing your best. In a tournament setting, you'd be hard-pressed to find players who are "taking it easy" when they're in the lead. Why? Because the opponent, trying so desperately to make a comeback, is always a threat. As long as you can't evade them, you have to deal with their attacks, and that makes the whole fight work.

The stage itself is important as well. In standard fighting games like SF4, SG, BB, and such, there is a limited amount of space (hard walls and usually low jump heights) that you can use to run away from the opponent. This makes running away from them not that great of an option unless there is very little time left, where the winning player realizes that he has a better chance of winning by letting the clock run than by getting through the other player's defense and winning that way. Some characters (such as Dictator) have full screen teleports, and even then those matches aren't "campy." It's because there's no room to run around. You're constantly in each other's face, something that the game reinforces by limiting how far away you can be from your opponent at any given time (the screen won't expand even if there's supposed to be walking room behind you, so you'll hit an invisible wall).

So, understanding those three elements, what can we determine about our own beloved franchise? Smash can accommodate a timer (somewhat unconventional, but it exists) as well as player skill, but the nature of Smash is to have open stages with plenty of room to move. The screen won't lock to keep you a certain maximum distance away from your opponent. You can move towards, away, up, down, and all around relatively easily, outside of the opponent's pressure or zoning. Knowing this, I think you have to recognize that Smash as a game series, because of its stage design, is inherently campy. The only upside is that there's a limited amount of land to stand on, but all of that extra air space is great for avoiding your opponent.

Consequently, Zoning exists in every fighting game. SF4 focuses on pokes when both players are walking back and forth, SG relies on a hyper rush / hyper keepaway dichotomy, SWR makes you back up your projectile zoning with meaty melee attacks, etc. Smash's zoning is different, and it can't be similar to the rest because of the stage layout. The top players in every game realize that getting your safe space and reading your opponent is the smartest and safest tactic, and so it exists in every fighting game known to man. Smash is no different, and we shouldn't expect it to be.

tl;dr - Smash, like every other fighting game, has the concept of zoning. It's very different, however, due to its stage design, and so we can't necessarily expect Smash to be as fast nor as energetic as other fighting games. It's just different. It may be hyper defensive by comparison, but that comparison isn't necessarily a fair one.

 

[Thinkaman]

Here's something crazy:

Smash has often done Bo3 sets for most games, and Bo5 games for finals. This is common and accepted; it has some problems, but the pros outweigh the cons.

The biggest flaw is that it is kind of weird for the finals to be a "different game" than the rest of the tourney. Because of our stage selection rules--primarily DSR--Bo5 set gameplay is non-trivially different than Bo3. For example, in Brawl, Frigate was a common stage in many Bo5s, but rare in Bo3s.

We might consider running finals as a Bo3 with more stocks/time, rather than a Bo5. It fulfills the same purpose, but is more exciting, faster, and is much closer to being the "same game" as the rest of the tourney. (Exact same stage protocols)

Following that train of thought, we could run 2-stock, 3-stock, and even 4+ stock sets at various stages of a bracket.

Any thoughts?

 

[hichez50]

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.

You can always increase set count. 3/5 and 4/7 are always options.

 

[ElectricCitrus]

If we do go to two stocsk five minutes I would definitely want us to go to 3/5 because a best of three with just two stocks will likely end too quickly.

With spectator sports you want speed, but you don't want so much speed no one can have time to get invested in the match. Some of the most hype moments have come from three stock matches that went down to the wire.

Just my two cents.

 

[Xenigma]

The only fighting game I know of that runs 3/5 matches consistently is Marvel 3, and that's because games are extremely fast and even in that format matches often end within 10 minutes or so. Would 3/5 Smash 4 matches be remotely as fast even with 2 stock 5 minutes? Are that many games needed to ensure the more skilled player wins? I'd guess it proves overly long, though it's hard to say for sure given Smash 4 is still so new.

 

[DJ Dong]

What? Your stock count directly affects the game's win condition. If you just throw one away that is literally throwing away a percentage of the currency you have left. That is a significantly thing from just being read by your opponent a few times and losing. In Brawl (and in Smash 4) you need to be read (hard) several times to die. Getting outplayed (even if very quickly) is not the same thing as throwing away your own life or currency. In one case both players were playing the game and one played better, ergo a stock was taken by one player. In another, one player killed himself for whatever reason; that's on him and only him. He has no one to blame but himself. It's not our problem.

A 1-stock match has no hill to climb, no race to finish; the above scenario is simply not possible in a one-stock world. A 3-stock match turns a sprint into more of an endurance race. There's nothing inherently wrong with that but if you want the game to appeal to spectators and finish on time, it isn't ideal.

"self destructs shouldn't be taken into consideration because I say so"

Again, you're discriminating against self destructs for no reason at all. I don't even understand how or why you would type so much with one single point that isn't even valid. You literally just repeated the same garbage.

"I'm going to ignore how brawl was very successful and claim that I know what the spectators enjoy without even giving them the chance to decide"

Well, the world doesn't revolve around you.

You can always increase set count. 3/5 and 4/7 are always options.

Intermissions kill hype and momentum. Both of which are large contributing factors to the outcome of many games, and the viewer interest.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

"self destructs shouldn't be taken into consideration because I say so"

Again, you're discriminating against self destructs for no reason at all. I don't even understand how or why you would type so much with one single point that isn't even valid. You literally just repeated the same garbage.

"I'm going to ignore how brawl was very successful and claim that I know what the spectators enjoy without even giving them the chance to decide"

Well, the world doesn't revolve around you.



Intermissions kill hype and momentum. Both of which are large contributing factors to the outcome of many games, and the viewer interest.

If you understand my point so poorly... If you don't understand the difference between being outplayed and an SD in this discussion, then you didn't read the post or you lack the intellectual capacity to understand it. Either way, talking about this subject with you is pointless. Have you even been to a tournament?

 

[Kerreb17]

Again, you're discriminating against self destructs for no reason at all. I don't even understand how or why you would type so much with one single point that isn't even valid. You literally just repeated the same garbage.

The reason he keeps repeating "the same garbage" is because you don't seem to understand his point. He's saying that, if you SD, you made a technical error and should be punished for it. Trying to justify higher stock counts by leaving room for mistakes (read: SDs) that skilled players shouldn't even be making in the first place makes no sense. Hold players accountable; we won't give them leniency just because you want there to be unnecessary wiggle room.

You can make your point. That's fine. Nothikg wrong with that, as long as you have a point. I wish you wouldn't insult your opponent's intelligence instead of making a solid argument. It doesn't reflect well on you. Not saying you don't know what you're talking about, just that you might want to make an argument without vitriol. That would certainly help your case.

 

[1MachGO]

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.)

The "cutoff" would be the point where confrontation becomes easier than camping out. In Melee, most matches complete in half of the allotted time. I guess the formula would be double the average amount of time it would take to get x # of stocks (through aggressive play).

From what I've seen in Smash 4, games tend to complete in 3 to 4 1/2 minutes with aggressive play. 7 or 8 minutes with 2 stock would probably be the best, imo, to prevent the prevalence of camping. 3 to 4 1/2 minutes is also a good match time length.

 

[Maddiexoxo]

i like 3 stock 8 minutes

 

[DJ Dong]

The reason he keeps repeating "the same garbage" is because you don't seem to understand his point. He's saying that, if you SD, you made a technical error and should be punished for it. Trying to justify higher stock counts by leaving room for mistakes (read: SDs) that skilled players shouldn't even be making in the first place makes no sense. Hold players accountable; we won't give them leniency just because you want there to be unnecessary wiggle room.

You can make your point. That's fine. Nothikg wrong with that, as long as you have a point. I wish you wouldn't insult your opponent's intelligence instead of making a solid argument. It doesn't reflect well on you. Not saying you don't know what you're talking about, just that you might want to make an argument without vitriol. That would certainly help your case.

People are punished enough at losing a stock when they start with three. And you seem to be implying that better players never self destruct. As I said, the more stocks you have, the more time we have to determine who is better. A player's skill is determined by how many mistakes they make. The less they make, the more skilled they are. Everyone is going to make mistakes and you have to accept that, as well as make leniency for it. If not, we should make all tournaments 1 stock, single elimination, one game.

I don't insult people. I just point out the mundanity of what they're doing.

If you understand my point so poorly... If you don't understand the difference between being outplayed and an SD in this discussion, then you didn't read the post or you lack the intellectual capacity to understand it. Either way, talking about this subject with you is pointless. Have you even been to a tournament?

"If you understand my point so poorly... If you don't understand the difference between being outplayed and an SD in this discussion, then you didn't read the post"

How is it that you can comprehend how terrible your own logic is, but you turn it around and try to apply it to others?

You are clearly the one that doesn't understand the difference between being outplayed and an SD. "outplay" is a vague term we use to describe when someone understands what their opponent is doing and reacts accordingly. An SD is a hand error on the controller that costs a stock point. The reason why we must understand this difference is because absolutely everyone makes hand errors once in awhile. Everyone has an error on at least that level. Yes, more skilled people obviously don't as often, as that's how we determine skill. But even the most skilled will flub and SD. This is why we must give enough stocks to make up room for error and decide a clear winner.

Because, and I will say it again:

Skill is determined by how few mistakes you make. The less mistakes you make, the more skillful of a player you are. No one is perfect.

 

[Kerreb17]

And you seem to be implying that better players never self destruct.

Trying to justify higher stock counts by leaving room for mistakes (read: SDs) that skilled players shouldn't even be making in the first place makes no sense.

See, I never said that. I said that they shouldn't be self destructing, not that they can't.

As I said, the more stocks you have, the more time we have to determine who is better. A player's skill is determined by how many mistakes they make. The less they make, the more skilled they are. Everyone is going to make mistakes...

Agreed, for the most part. We're on the same page here, but...

and you have to accept that, as well as make leniency for it. If not, we should make all tournaments 1 stock, single elimination, one game.

...here's where we disagree. This is hyperbole, and you know it. We agree on the definition of skill, and yet we draw two completely different conclusions about how that should be reflected by stock count. We agree that you are and should be punished for losing a stock, but we disagree on how much. It's all subjective unless we have hard proof, and I have none. I admit that. Will you do the same?

But, while I'm still here, if you want me to use the same logical fallacy, I will. How about we just give everyone 30 stock an no time limit? That way, we'll know for sure at the end of one game who the better player is, right?

I don't insult people. I just point out the mundanity of what they're doing.

How is it that you can comprehend how terrible your own logic is, but you turn it around and try to apply it to others?

Right back at ya, kiddo.

"Outplay" is a vague term we use to describe when someone understands what their opponent is doing and reacts accordingly. An SD is a hand error on the controller that costs a stock point.

If you make a blatantly unsafe approach to an opponent in a standard fighting game, or your finger slips off of the thumbstick and you stop blocking, you're going to lose health, most likely through a full punish by your opponent for a significant amount of damage. Consider this the standard fighting game's punishment for your hand error.

In Smash, however, you lose a stock. The severity of the penalty in Smash is dependent on how much percent you had when you SD'd. Compare that to getting punished by your opponent in a standard fighting game. What's the difference? (note: I'm saying that you make a bonehead play that any novice could punish, so it's not reliant on your opponent as much as you choosing to make that unsafe approach in the first place)

Everyone has an error on at least that level. Yes, more skilled people obviously don't as often, as that's how we determine skill. But even the most skilled will flub and SD. This is why we must give enough stocks to make up room for error and decide a clear winner.

As a skilled player, they would naturally make less errors than the less skilled ones, as you admit. You're saying that you need to give (my opinion: unnecessary and much too lenient) extra stocks just in case they make a mistake, which they shouldn't (but they still can, against what words you tried to put in my mouth earlier). I don't think that logic makes much sense, but, then again, this is a subjective argument on both of our sides.

 

[9Blades]

First off: WAY too early to tell. We're gonna need about a month after the NA release I think before we really know the best way.

Though I'll say, I'm on the side of 3 stock, it worked in Brawl so why not here? I feel 2 stock would make people play safe more often. The game has potential for a great aerial meta, with moves such as Mario's fair. A 3 stock situation would let people do crazy things off the stage without worrying about an SD immediately taking them to one stock or ending the game.
Plus I'm sure that as the metagame evolves, KOs will happen much faster.

 

[Scourge The Hedgehog]

After watching the CT invitational and messing around with the demo I think 3 Stock, 8 Minutes work extremely well now. So sign me back up on the 3 Stock train.

 

[Signia]

If you guys are worried about how SDs and gimps affect length, you should consider fighting games where those are possible. Soul Calibur and Virtua Fighter have Ringouts or walls that allow huge combos on most of their stages. They play first to three round wins and best of five sets, in 60 second rounds. Maximum time is 25 minutes, but match times are usually 6-12 minutes long.

Now that does that help? No, not really, does it? SDs and gimps have no bearing on this discussion.

Just attempt to make set length similar to them.

8 min Bo3 is 24 minutes max. Bo3 sets on average will last 2.5 matches, but only with perfectly equally skilled players. 50% chance to have two match intermissions of counterpicking and coaching or whatever, 50% chance to have only one. Set lengths of 3 become less likely as skill difference increases. Average number of intermissions is 1.5.
For given average match lengths that's (listing 2 and 3 min for 2 stock Bo3):

2 min? avg is ~5 min sets
3 min? avg is ~7.5 min sets
4 min? avg is ~10 min sets
5 min? avg is ~12.5 min sets
6 min? avg is ~15 min sets
7 min? avg is ~17.5 min sets
8 min? never gonna be the average

5 min Bo5 is also 25 minutes max. Bo5 sets on average will last 4.125 matches, but only with perfectly equally skilled players. 1/4 of the time there's three matches and two match intermissions. 3/8 of the time there's four matches and three intermissions, 3/8 of the time there's five matches and four intermissions. Sets of 4 and 5 become less likely as skill difference increases. Average intermissions is 3.125.

For given average match lengths that's:
1 min? avg is ~4.125 min
2 min? avg is ~8.5 min
3 min? avg is ~12.675 min
4 min? avg is ~18.75 min
5 min? never gonna be the average


2 stock matches are taking 2-3 minutes while rarely going under 1:30 or over 4 min. Extrapolating, 3 stock matches will be about 4.5-5.5 minute matches. So,

2 stock Bo3 takes around 8 min (4 min - 13 min)
3 stock Bo3 takes around 12 min (6 min - 18 min)
2 stock Bo5 takes around 12 min (6 min - 20 min)

If long drawn out matches are too common, we should decrease the timer length, not increase. Let the campy matches reach their boring conclusion earlier. Let timer pressure drive the approach like it does in defensive matchups in other fighting games.

Remember you can't even stall all that well in this game... you don't get invincibility on the second ledge grab before touching the ground, and it's less risky to go deep to hit stallers since you can't get edgehogged.


So, closest to the FGC norm would be playing Bo3 2 stocks 5 min. Even though actual play length is on the short side, our community also wastes time with handwarmers, coaching, counterpicking, and now even custom moves (and button mappings?). If we instead played with a short, simple stage list with no custom moves and we warmed up beforehand, we could probably get away with either of the two other models. 2 stock Bo5 length would be more affected by decreasing the interim length or timer than 3 stock Bo3. Otherwise, they're about equal but with Bo5 having a bit more extremes and variance.

 

[Thinkaman]

Relevant:
http://smashboards.com/threads/blas...m-tourney-locators-invitation-tourney.368643/

 

[Shaya]

DJ Dong, a self destruct is taken under the same consideration as losing your stock any other way by everyone competitive. They're their responsibility and while it may not be "hype" that a player loses a match due to an SD that really is an odd platform for trying to justify a point on why more stocks is better. Yes, more stocks produce more consistent results, as SDs are an inconsistent event that could otherwise have been "come back" from if there were more stocks in a single match, but statistically is is unlikely they will.

The point that is trying to be made to you is that an SD is less common than say a debilitating chain grab or zero to death or anything else that skews a match up severely, to the point that 1 stock matches over X matches may have multiple more wins for a losing character than with the same amount of stocks played with 10 per match. The speed at which a stock can go by both characters (like say the prevalence of death combos in Smash 64) is also usually considered, as that will be more apparent/have a common impact than how often someone suicides.

We don't make rulesets to alleviate people's mistakes. We have rulesets to determine the best player on the day of the event, if you make mistakes that cost you a stock/match/set, you weren't the best on that day and that is your fault, not the games nor the rules.

 

[Marcbri]

I'm seeing two viable options at the moment, either 3 stocks, 8 minutes, best of 3 or 2 stocks, 5 (maybe 6?) minutes, best of 5. I see a lot of people complaining that 2 stocks is too short, but maybe having 2 stock matches in a best of 5 setting could help in making matches faster and more interesting to watch while giving players about the same amount of stocks.

I still find 3 stocks 8 minutes to be perfectly viable so the best thing we could do now is try stuff constantly and try to find which one we like best. If we stick to something now without trying other options we'll end up like in Brawl, where it was impossible to change stuff because everything was already decided from the beginning. When people saw other ways to play the game years later the community was too afraid to change.

 

[Chauzu]

I agree that SD shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion. In For Glory I've had several cases where I've failed my recovery (I blame the 3DS stick...) in the beginning and it's not like I play the rest of the match thinking "if only this was 4 stock...". In the end it is the mistake of the one who did it and with 2 stock you need to be careful with them.

If we did 2 Stock 5 Minute we'd also most likely do best of 3/5 and this would make the SD even less relevant, since this setup leaves room for error. I also think that best of 3/5 opens up more room for experimentation during a game, as you are capable of losing a game without being in a horrible situation.

 

[Smasher89]

2stock 5min Bo5 feels like something that could be a nice standard. For singles that is, based on alot of for glorymatches. Havent played teams yet so cant give any oppinion on that si

 

[Muster]

2 stocks should be confined to pools at most. There's no reason to bring down the stocks in the bracket other than cutting down on game time just for the sake of it, which is a poor reason to go down to a lower stock format.

 

[Qikz]

I think one of the only reasons I can think of for having lower stocks is if there were to be a low amount of machines to play on which can make getting through everything much harder. You'd think with Smash 4 being handheld however that everyone would have their own setup (their device) and it wouldn't be a huge problem to fit all the games in at the right times.

From everything I've seen on Streams and now thanks to the help of @ Thinkaman it would seem that 3 stocks 8 minutes will be fine and that's off the basis of data.

 

[slimjim]

Well my vote is for 5:00 2-stock matches due to the discovery of VI by Strong Bad which is going to make games last longer. Also on the 3ds at least, we have the option to run a swiss-style (following by top 8-16 double-elim) tournament. Many people would rather run a swiss 5:00 2-stock than a strictly pools (followed by) double-elim 8:00 3-stock.

 

[Roko Jono]

I'm kind of on the side of 3 stock, though I'm open to 2 stock. I'm not on the side of 8 minute matches though. That is long as hell :[

 

[MikeKirby]

When I first saw some of the community vouching for 2 stock/X minutes I was appalled. However, after playing the demo and watching more respectable players play to win (minus the money), I can say that the 2 stock ruleset sounds very much viable. Yes, there is more of a combo game in Smash 4. However, once your opponent reaches a certain threshold percentage it becomes a footsies game due to moves no longer being able to string together. Combined with the large blast zones, you got people living past 150%.

I'm ok with 3 stocks but please once someone has compiled enough concrete tournament data, upon the Wii U release, don't keep vouching for more "test" time because that'll be our downfall in the long run.

 

[hiramsthoughts]

I honestly feel it should. 3 stocks 8 minutes doesn't seem too long on single battles but when you're deciding the who the winner is by the outcome of a best of three matches, 3 stocks 8 minutes goes way too long.

 

[wannabe33]

Here's something crazy:

Smash has often done Bo3 sets for most games, and Bo5 games for finals. This is common and accepted; it has some problems, but the pros outweigh the cons.

The biggest flaw is that it is kind of weird for the finals to be a "different game" than the rest of the tourney. Because of our stage selection rules--primarily DSR--Bo5 set gameplay is non-trivially different than Bo3. For example, in Brawl, Frigate was a common stage in many Bo5s, but rare in Bo3s.

We might consider running finals as a Bo3 with more stocks/time, rather than a Bo5. It fulfills the same purpose, but is more exciting, faster, and is much closer to being the "same game" as the rest of the tourney. (Exact same stage protocols)

Following that train of thought, we could run 2-stock, 3-stock, and even 4+ stock sets at various stages of a bracket.

Any thoughts?

Interesting idea. It'd bring about some major changes, though. For starters, while stocks would carry less significance, individual matches would carry more significance than in a Bo5. The role of counterpicking would also diminish -- I think a lot of competitive players would prefer to give Finals sets more room for adjustments, counterpick stages, counterpick characters, and opponent "downloading." Lastly, more stocks would of course favor characters who can survive longer.

Worth trying, I think, but I suspect Smash 4 will handle Bo3s and Bo5s the way it has with Melee and Brawl.

 

[Groose]

Personally I've always been a fan of snappier matches. I always used to play two stocks in Brawl and three stocks in Melee before I started training to enter tournaments. I'd cast my vote to two-stock matches and best of five, but three stock matches certainly wouldn't be the end of the world.

I am glad that we've practically eliminated four-stock matches from the fray, though. Honestly, I feel even Melee matches can drag on a bit, and a lower stock-count makes everything matter so much more.

 

[Hyena]

I'm a big fan of 5:00/2 stock Swiss opening to a tournament followed by 8:00/3 stock concluding portion. Best of both worlds, and really, at the end of the day, minimal additional complexity. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that a tournament have two distinct phases and that participants grasp that.

 

[Sliq]

I don't understand how people don't make a correlation to double elimination and best of 3 sets to stocks. Like, clearly more stocks are better because the results are more definitive. Measure twice cut once.

The only reason we don't have a massive round robin tournament to decide the winner is time. So if time is not a problem with 3 stock, I have no idea why 2 stock would be preferred.

Just defaulting to 2 stock because that's what Nintendo does by default seems foolish.

But what do I know, I only played Melee competitively for 4 years and Brawl for 3, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Let's remove comebacks from the game. God knows we wouldn't be able to actually handle a game of Smash with hype in it.

 

[Sosuke]

can't wait for smash 5 where it's just a straight up one-life, 99 second fighting game

you know, considering the rulesets so far has been
Smash 64: 5 stocks
Melee: 4 stocks
Brawl: 3 stocks
Smash 4: (potentially) 2 stocks

 

[Accelerator]

I feel like 2 stocks are not enough. In that case, an SD or something is just devastating

How can you SD in Smash4 with this Project M recovery?

 

[Conda]

I don't understand how people don't make a correlation to double elimination and best of 3 sets to stocks. Like, clearly more stocks are better because the results are more definitive. Measure twice cut once.

The only reason we don't have a massive round robin tournament to decide the winner is time. So if time is not a problem with 3 stock, I have no idea why 2 stock would be preferred.

Just defaulting to 2 stock because that's what Nintendo does by default seems foolish.

But what do I know, I only played Melee competitively for 4 years and Brawl for 3, I don't know what I'm talking about.

Let's remove comebacks from the game. God knows we wouldn't be able to actually handle a game of Smash with hype in it.

Perfect response. As a commentator, I can tell you that comebacks and such that are possible with 3 stock matches are very important. Matches WILL get quick, even with 3 stocks and KI happening, because Smash 4 is faster and has combos, unlike Brawl. There is no good reason why we should be going down to 2 stocks when the game is already faster than Brawl.

So what if nintendo made a 2 stock mode default? In SSB64, Melee, and Brawl, TIME was the default. Should we have been playing timed matches, then?
The notion is ridiculous - 2 minutes is the For Glory default because it's a quick online mode, not a tournament mode. 2 stocks don't allow certain things to happen that are at the core of what make Smash Bros the competitive game it is.

 

[wannabe33]

So if time is not a problem with 3 stock,

The worry is that time will be a problem with a three stock ruleset. It wasn't in this particular tournament, no. What about when people master vectoring? What if the metagame trends defensively? What if aggressive edgeguarding proves unsafe? What if campy play proves rewarding?

What we know for sure right now is that Smash 4 blast zones are huge and, in most cases that don't involve SDs and spikes, people live a long time. Maybe this will get better. Maybe this will get worse. Better to err on the side of caution until we get more data and the meta develops.