The future of Smash 4 is Crew Battles,

[SamuraiPanda]

The future of Smash 4 is crew battles. The scene now has plenty of Smash 4 gaming teams: VGBC, CT, NME, Panda Global, iQHQ, MVG, Gameworks. Crew battles with these gaming teams and with established crews of unsponsored players can be incredibly hype for the players, the spectators, and the viewers. Teams are more exciting than 1v1s in any game or sport that you are looking at. I've discussed this with every team I listed (except CT yet but I'm sure Chibo would be on board) and everyone agrees that this is the future of Smash 4.

Crews should be more important than doubles. They should be the 2nd highlight after singles for every regional tournament. Even locals could benefit by people putting together makeshift crews.

But not in the way Crews are currently done. Crews take too long, have nebulous teams, and aren't structured very well. We need to make a new standard for crews but we have to put our heads together to do it.



So far there have been 2 fantastic ideas I've heard: 1) We use a tennis format for crews: 2 different 1v1 games and a 2v2 game, each worth a point. And 2) Preset stage list/order that every match has to be played on for every tournament (allowing for things like counterpicking with reason and strategy before going in).

My favorite idea so far is a combination of both (1) and (2). I think the (1) is fantastic and puts a nice balance of people that are good on teams but not necessarily 1v1s.

I'll be making a monthly series in Miami, likely in conjunction with Versus, and we'll be testing out whatever crew battle format we create.

 

[Raijinken]

I like the idea of mixing singles and doubles into crew battles (though, unless I'm misunderstanding, it would rather change the current idea of a crew battle). I also like the idea of set stages, but that opens a whole extra can of worms deciding which stage. It also adds some of the saved time back as teams try to strategize. You basically create a draft phase like Dota has, and would have to set hard picking time limits to keep things flowing quickly. This takes moderation, too.

 

[19_]

I'd like to mention that this is the most ideal to make use of 3v3s and 4v4s. However I would understand if it would be to much of a hassle to make it work.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I'd like to mention that this is the most ideal to make use of 3v3s and 4v4s. However I would understand if it would be to much of a hassle to make it work.

The reason why this wouldn't work is because of pacing, hassle, and too much going on at once. I did however experiment with making a custom stage where there are barrels and a platform underneath the stage. The idea was that you'd choose 4v4 and everyone would wait their turn underneath the stage until their crew member died, then use the cannon to shoot to the ledge so there is no down time between deaths.... Then I found out you can't use custom stages in a 4v4.

 

[Teh Sandwich]

4v4 is mad hype though

 

[spiNR]

This definitely piques my interest. Minnesota is having an Arcadian/Draft Crew tournament in two and a half weeks and I am SOOO excited for the crew battles more than anything!

 

[Eonn]

What's the appeal for crew battles? I've watched a few for different regions but always prefer plain 1v1. Maybe it's because Canada doesn't have a crew >_>

 

[Gibbs]

I think 3 person teams in team tennis style 1v1s would be hype as hell. I think fixed stage ordering with blind lineup submission is the way to go. Game 1 smashville, game 2 battlefield, game 3 FD. 3 stock 8 min.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I was thinking tennis style, 1v1 2v2 then 1v1. Each is best of one worth 1 point. Fixed stage ordering announced beforehand, starter-starter-cp (to add a bit of freedom and variety).

And to the earlier comment, crews allows you to get hype about a whole team of people instead of just one person. Regions, states, or gaming teams can have crews and the battles/hype/cheering gets epic. The format is the main issue though.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

OR How about a 5 man crew with one person being labeled as a "captain." If you beat the team captain you're awarded 2 points instead of just one. Would give increased hype/comeback mechanic.

 

[Dsull]

im honestly not sure how i feel about 3v3 or 4v4. I dont even have enough people locally for a 1v1 so i cant even try to play 8man smash to mess with it but i see it just being complete chaos even in teams lol. (and screw computers so dont suggest i try it with them )

 

[Mizzy Moe]

if it would be called a crew battle i would hope there would be a mandatory 4v4 3v3 (depending on how the crew is made but all members at once)

sure it is alot goin on at once and all that but it just adds to the fun and not to mention crew battles are already 4v4 games

 

[SamuraiPanda]

As fun as 3v3 and 4v4 are (although played at a high level camping in these modes is actually the ideal strategy so it would be incredibly boring to watch) I don't think they would have any involvement with the future of crew battles.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I agree that the game lends itself well to crew battle formats of various types. There's an essentially endless wealth of possibilities to make things interesting by having captains/coaches/substitute players/varying team sizes/whatever you can think of.

Hype would be guaranteed for sure.

 

[wizrad]

I haven't seen a single Smash 4 crew battle yet. I think 5v5 should be the standard, though, as 5 is enough people to make the 'crew' factor more significant than the 'best player' factor, while making things not take forever in a tournament. I also think that 2 stock should be used to keep things going, but that's debatably necessary.

 

[snuffysam]

As fun as 3v3 and 4v4 are (although played at a high level camping in these modes is actually the ideal strategy so it would be incredibly boring to watch) I don't think they would have any involvement with the future of crew battles.

While I agree 4v4 is SUPER campy, 3v3 never seemed too bad to me. Maybe I just haven't seen enough 3v3 matches though, or maybe the ones I watched were all with characters who can't camp.

 

[Pazzo.]

This seems like a doable idea.

I personally love crew battles above doubles in most tournaments.

 

[Kropso Jr.]

I like the idea of a tennis setup... There could be 3 singles on a team with 2 doubles and 7 people per crew... That'd be a great idea for crews

 

[iVoltage]

Were do you even go about joining or finding crews?

 

[Deleted member]

Regardless off the chaos, I think 3v3 or 4v4 is a better idea and more fun.

 

[M15t3R E]

3v3 or just the traditional 1v1 format works well. Not sure why we need to make the tennis format the norm.

 

[Baconbasket]

Were do you even go about joining or finding crews?

I'm wondering the same thing...where do you find these? I think I'd be a damn good asset to one.

 

[snuffysam]

I'm wondering the same thing...where do you find these? I think I'd be a damn good asset to one.

My guess is that groups like CT and TSM would have their own crews by default, and that everyone who isn't signed would have to form their own and register on a per-tournament basis. And in that case, I assume you'd want to form a crew with local players, unless you don't care about the online lag you'd get when practicing long-distance.

 

[Octagon]

I just had my first crew battle with my friends and it was more hype than all the tournaments we had at each others houses. The finals felt like we were all in it because both teams were cheering on their player and it was one of the most hype things i've ever participated in. I don't think crew battles are the entire future of Smash 4 but they do have their place in the metagame

 

[Octagon]

I'm wondering the same thing...where do you find these? I think I'd be a damn good asset to one.

My crew is just my group of friends who play smash with me. We host tournaments and ****. Our crew name is the IJLSSB (International Justice League of Super Smash Bros.)

 

[snuffysam]

It's also worth mentioning that the issue of assembling a crew is heavily dependent on what we eventually decide the standardized ruleset should be.

For example, how many people should be on a crew isn't really decided yet. 5? 7? And which of your friends you want on which crews will probably depend on which match-types we go with. Will it be mostly singles or mostly doubles? Will there be a 3v3 match? What about 4v4?

I know that at least in my circle of friends, we have one person who's the best at singles matches, but I'm the best at doubles matches, and I'm usually paired up with the person who is best at singles when we do said doubles matches. So the match types would determine whether it's worth it to send the best-at-singles person out to singles, or send the second-best-at-singles-but-still-pretty-good person out to singles and have the best-at-singles person go on a doubles team with me.

 

[pmart]

Well, I don't know if my opinion is just to weird or random, but I really thing 4v4 with some twisted rules could be good.
Please, read all the rules before judging it. Thanks.

These are the rules I'm thinking about:

There will be 3 matches on 4v4. Only the last one will decide who wins. The other two build a handicap.
The first two matches would be 4min - 1stock.
Since the time is short, and in teams you can lend a stock, I think it would be cool to have itens on, with only the Rally-x Flag (The item that gives it's user a extra live).
The team who wins the match then choose one character. One player of the other team will have to use this character on the next games.

The last match would be 2stocks - 10min. Who wins this match, wins the set.

With this rules that I said, I think a few more things would enter the smash scenario, being more fun to watch:
1 - The hype would gradually build until the last round
2 - By choosing a character for the other team, lots of strategies would be possible, and it would force the crew to have diferent players on it, so one could do well with this forced character.
3 - By inserting the item that gives lives on a quick match, there could be a some new strategies to the game, were a team would protect one player so he could get the flag, getting in a defensive state while the other would need to get agressive.
4 - Also by getting this item on the game, it would focus the attention of both the players and the spectators on one point, witch is really good for a sport.

All of these would make the game more team based, with a little more luck involved.
What do you guys think? I've played this rules a few times with friends, and I find it really intense.

*ps: I'm not a native english person, so sorry for my poor english.

 

[snuffysam]

Well, I don't know if my opinion is just to weird or random, but I really thing 4v4 with some twisted rules could be good.
Please, read all the rules before judging it. Thanks.

These are the rules I'm thinking about:

There will be 3 matches on 4v4. Only the last one will decide who wins. The other two build a handicap.
The first two matches would be 4min - 1stock.
Since the time is short, and in teams you can lend a stock, I think it would be cool to have itens on, with only the Rally-x Flag (The item that gives it's user a extra live).
The team who wins the match then choose one character. One player of the other team will have to use this character on the next games.

The last match would be 2stocks - 10min. Who wins this match, wins the set.

With this rules that I said, I think a few more things would enter the smash scenario, being more fun to watch:
1 - The hype would gradually build until the last round
2 - By choosing a character for the other team, lots of strategies would be possible, and it would force the crew to have diferent players on it, so one could do well with this forced character.
3 - By inserting the item that gives lives on a quick match, there could be a some new strategies to the game, were a team would protect one player so he could get the flag, getting in a defensive state while the other would need to get agressive.
4 - Also by getting this item on the game, it would focus the attention of both the players and the spectators on one point, witch is really good for a sport.

All of these would make the game more team based, with a little more luck involved.
What do you guys think? I've played this rules a few times with friends, and I find it really intense.

*ps: I'm not a native english person, so sorry for my poor english.

Personally, I feel like adding items of any kind makes it too random. It's impossible to know when or where the items will spawn. If only we could set specific spawn points for items, and set them so that they will spawn exactly, say, every minute, it would be fine. But as it stands, I think it would be hard to get that approved competitively.

With that said, your ruleset has a lot going for it. Forcing someone on the other crew to use a certain character is an interesting mechanic, as you said, and there certainly would be a lot of great on-the-fly strategies.

IMO it would be a fun spectator sport, but not the be-all-end-all competitive crew battle we want to implement.

-----

So after looking at everyone's input, I think I've finally decided on what I'D like to be implemented, although of course more suggestions is better.

For normal pool and bracket play, there would be a best 2 out of 3 system. The first match would be a 3v3 match, the second would be a doubles match, and the third (if necessary) would be singles. There would be 6 people on a team, and no player would be allowed to compete in more than one match per set.

For finals/grand finals, there would be a best 3 out of 5 system. The first match would be doubles, and each subsequent match would be singles. Like before, no player can compete in more than one match per set. In the case of a bracket reset, the players who were in matches before the reset can now be in matches again.

I feel like there's a lot of room for strategically arranging your teams with this system. Do you put your worst player in 3v3 and best player in 1v1, or vice versa? And what happens if your opponent does the same thing? And the bracket reset will help you see how your opponents play, and who you should send against whom.

 

[Browny]

Except crews are usually stacked to all hell in any given region, its like all the top players are on the same team.

So many 'crews' don't have any purpose since they dont actually do anything, outside of be partially sponsored. I'm all for more crews, but until the problem of them being a total monopoly of the best players, its kind of pointless.

 

[snuffysam]

Except crews are usually stacked to all hell in any given region, its like all the top players are on the same team.

So many 'crews' don't have any purpose since they dont actually do anything, outside of be partially sponsored. I'm all for more crews, but until the problem of them being a total monopoly of the best players, its kind of pointless.

I think once crews start actually mattering, we'll see more teams try harder to get the good players. If I remember my sports history correctly, most team sports started out the same way, with all the best players being on a small number of teams. As the sport in question became more popular, more good players started cropping up, and teams were willing to pay more for a good player.