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

[T0MMY]

What happens if the game goes to time (which will happen much more often with a shorter timer) and a winner can't be decided?

What-if scare tactics don't have much weight in a logical argument, especially not this one that makes the case for a game that somehow cannot decide a winner: LOOK AT THE GAME END SCREEN (you know, the part that says "This game's winner is...")

Note: Unless there's something like a glitch that prevents the game from functioning then a TO/referee should always reasonably be able to know who the winner is.
Note2: And yes I understand about time-outs and a kind of double-KO, so pointless to try to press that matter.
Note3: The game has a built in function (i.e. Sudden Death* that determines a winner); SSB4 has no known edge-hog mechanics problem to nullify bomb dropping nor "planking" to be used against the opponent(s).

*The mantra "get better, noob" will be there for those of us who aren't strong enough to play out Sudden Death.

 

[Gea]

The stock count is the whole point of the difference - 3 and 4 stock matches cannot solely consist of "gimp and suicide" as the two KOs. .

Are you saying that 3-4 stock matches don't (especially in Melee and 64) have games where every KO is a gimp? Likewise, gimps are more important in a best of set as I already said.

 

[Chiroz]

The downtime is very little unless you allow people to literally do whatever between matches. The time between the two is nearly identical when you factor in slightly shorter stocks (according to the current data we have). It's a myth that you'd be adding 5 minutes to a set. Look at average downtime between matches. It's surprisingly short in most cases. In fact, loading screens take up more time than stage selection in a lot of cases. Initial strike and ban take up the most time. You aren't going to reban or strike, just choose your stage.



The funny thing is that you're getting just as much time to "feel out your opponent" and more chances to adapt in a best of 5 set. If you figure out your opponent but cannot overcome the stock deficit in that match, it has way more impact in a best of three.

It's not a myth that you'd be adding 5 minutes, it's actual mathematically proven. Stop acting like it's not. Look into any of the 3 tournaments which have occurred. All of them (including the Japanese 2 stocks bo3) have 1-2 minutes of "in between matches". You can LOOK that up.

Difference between 3 stocks bo3 and 2 stocks bo5 was already mathematically PROVEN (no myth) to be equal to the time of 1 extra stock plus 1.75 times the time of 1 counter pick phase. That's going to be at least 3-4 minutes extra minimum on average. (With a maximum possibility of lasting up to 10 more minutes)



You can argue for your idea but don't lie saying a mathematically proven formula is "a myth".

2 stocks bo5 adds time, about a full hour or more to any big event tournament. (And that's taking into account things like players just deciding to do other stuff between matches or taking breaks which will be more common when its 3 matches per set).

 

[Gea]

It's not a myth that you'd be adding 5 minutes, it's actual mathematically proven. Stop acting like it's not. Look into any of the 3 tournaments which have occurred. All of them (including the Japanese 2 stocks bo3) have 1-2 minutes of "in between matches". You can LOOK that up

Oh boy, this again. I actually did sit there and timed from the results screen starting to the next stage loading (did not count the training stage since the WiiU version will not have this) of both pools and bracket matches in the Invitational listed in Thinkaman's topic. Guess what? While the first intermission was ever so slightly longer between matches from what I saw, none of the 7 matches I looked at (do your own dirty work if you want a larger sample size) had any downtime over a minute except GF which had one instance of > 1 minute between matches within a set due to, get this, them wanting to change stuff on the stream. Nothing to do with the players. In fact, the range I saw was between 22-43 seconds. Unlike you, I did not pull a number out of my ass. This number will ever so slightly raise when the WiiU gets a full stage striking list + custom controls + ban, but that affects both sets in equal time lost (before game 1 and after game 1).

We'll take a safe estimate of 40 seconds between matches (the results screen being roughly 7 seconds of this). In a 2/3 you see roughly 1:00 per set of downtime. Anywhere from 40 seconds to 1:20. In a Bo5 the range is 1:20 - 2:40. Difference added is 1 minute. In a 64 man bracket with 8 setups you can optimally have 18 rounds of play in a double elim bracket unless I stupidly counted wrong.

Now the issue here is thus:This is theory in a vacuum (also 8 setups is pathetic for 64 man) However, even if the average time between matches was doubled, that's still less than an hour added. I really, really implore you to look at actual data for yourself by watching tournament sets. Pre-game and post first game are the longest gaps in a tournament set. Period. Very, very few sets will last for more than a minute between matches in any Smash title and if they do it's stream shenanigans or other horrible things like rulesets allowing for coaching.

Even the Japanese matches, eh? Even with loading issues it takes less than a minute.But maybe I'm just cherrypicking.

 

[Chiroz]

Oh boy, this again. I actually did sit there and timed from the results screen starting to the next stage loading (did not count the training stage since the WiiU version will not have this) of both pools and bracket matches in the Invitational listed in Thinkaman's topic. Guess what? While the first intermission was ever so slightly longer between matches from what I saw, none of the 7 matches I looked at (do your own dirty work if you want a larger sample size) had any downtime over a minute except GF which had one instance of > 1 minute between matches within a set due to, get this, them wanting to change stuff on the stream. Nothing to do with the players. In fact, the range I saw was between 22-43 seconds. Unlike you, I did not pull a number out of my ***. This number will ever so slightly raise when the WiiU gets a full stage striking list + custom controls + ban, but that affects both sets in equal time lost (before game 1 and after game 1).

We'll take a safe estimate of 40 seconds between matches (the results screen being roughly 7 seconds of this). In a 2/3 you see roughly 1:00 per set of downtime. Anywhere from 40 seconds to 1:20. In a Bo5 the range is 1:20 - 2:40. Difference added is 1 minute. In a 64 man bracket with 8 setups you can optimally have 18 rounds of play in a double elim bracket unless I stupidly counted wrong.

Now the issue here is thus:This is theory in a vacuum (also 8 setups is pathetic for 64 man) However, even if the average time between matches was doubled, that's still less than an hour added. I really, really implore you to look at actual data for yourself by watching tournament sets. Pre-game and post first game are the longest gaps in a tournament set. Period. Very, very few sets will last for more than a minute between matches in any Smash title and if they do it's stream shenanigans or other horrible things like rulesets allowing for coaching.

Even the Japanese matches, eh? Even with loading issues it takes less than a minute.

You're taking away the training room without adding in time for extra loading from the Wii U. You're also not taking into account any kind of striking which currently doesn't exist.



I wasn't counting 8 setups for 64 man. I was counting the sets you have to play for any semi-big tournament, if you do not have enough setups for a set of all players you get even more added time.

Also that's not how you average that time. If it was 40 seconds. The average of a 2/3 is 40 + 0.5 * 40 which is 1:00. The average for 3/5 is 80 + 0.75 * 40 + 0.5 * 40 = 130 or 2:10 which is a minute and 10 seconds, not only a minute. You also have to add in the extra stock on average that a 3/5 will bring. Which brings the timer to around 2:40 (average stock time is like 1:24 if I recall correctly).



You want real data? Fine. Just give me some hours I am currently busy. I'll get actual numbers from a complete tournament.

 

[Gea]

The striking process length remains the same no matter how many games of a set you are using. How do you not understand this?

I was counting the sets you have to play for any semi-big tournament

Meaning what? This is vague and says absolutely nothing.

You're taking away the training room without adding in time for extra loading from the Wii U.

On which we have zero actual data. Add five seconds, it still doesn't matter.

You are right that I averaged incorrectly. It still ultimately doesn't matter. This is all evading the point: if time isn't an issue, running Bo5 does not add a significant increase of time due to downtime between matches within a set. If time IS that much of an issue, you're better of doing 2 stock best of 3. If you value less variance in results, this gives an increase with very little additional time added. Way less than 3 stock best of 5 or any other proposed alternative while having the benefit of being able to easily be modified without any real damage to the ruleset. The whole idea that it's trying to "solve a problem that doesn't exist" is a downright stupid comment when there is no set ruleset developed yet and this has clear advantages.

 

[Mithost]

That's true, but the simple fact is that neither you or I know the answer. Hence I'd like to take a wait and see approach.

A wait and see approach would be a decent option, but as proven before, smash players are not often willing to change after a certain amount of time has passed, regardless of how much better an alternative might be. This is one of the main points Gea and I have both brought up earlier in this thread. If we wait a year or a year and a half with 3 Stocks and games are constantly going to 6+ minutes with people living until 150-180 percent, how willing will the community be willing to try out 2 stocks? Same issue was present in Brawl with the MK ban and the initial talks of timer/stock changes back in 2010. Everyone knew there was an issue with how the ruleset dictated and influenced play, but almost every attempt of changing it was either relegated to an "experimental" side tournament with 8-20 players or, when integrated into the main ruleset, was simply ignored by half of NA and the rest of the world.

We can wait and see, but regardless of what we find out by waiting, people will be thoroughly against a change in the ruleset they have been using for the first year of release. If we make that first ruleset something more easily malleable (Bo5 standard with possible decrease to Bo3 in case of slow sets), it will be much easier (read 'physically possible') to solve any issues if they arise.

 

[Conda]

Here's the thing:

We'll see the effect 2-stocks has on the meta. People are gonna play For Glory so we can see how it looks on that end with its data.

But in the meantime, to have comparative data, so we have to use 3-stocks for the tournaments we can.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

A wait and see approach would be a decent option, but as proven before, smash players are not often willing to change after a certain amount of time has passed, regardless of how much better an alternative might be. This is one of the main points Gea and I have both brought up earlier in this thread. If we wait a year or a year and a half with 3 Stocks and games are constantly going to 6+ minutes with people living until 150-180 percent, how willing will the community be willing to try out 2 stocks? Same issue was present in Brawl with the MK ban and the initial talks of timer/stock changes back in 2010. Everyone knew there was an issue with how the ruleset dictated and influenced play, but almost every attempt of changing it was either relegated to an "experimental" side tournament with 8-20 players or, when integrated into the main ruleset, was simply ignored by half of NA and the rest of the world.

We can wait and see, but regardless of what we find out by waiting, people will be thoroughly against a change in the ruleset they have been using for the first year of release. If we make that first ruleset something more easily malleable (Bo5 standard with possible decrease to Bo3 in case of slow sets), it will be much easier (read 'physically possible') to solve any issues if they arise.

We started off with 4 stocks in Brawl and everyone changed to 3 after a month or two after it came out in the US, so if the need presents itself it will happen. I disagree that people won't change as evidenced y the fact that they did easily in Brawl.