Why We Use Stock and Time

[Boigahs]

I have personally gimped Mew2King in a 1v1 in Brawl; in a one stock match I would have won that game. I am not as skilled as Mew2King.

This is why we run best of three and double elimination tournaments. And I'm very sorry to say this, but you gimping mew2king is a completely valid way to close out a round. His performance wasn't up to snuff, he made a mistake, or he wasn't taking the match seriously, and he suffered for it. That's what happens. If he really is better than you, he'd kick your ass in the following rounds, or when/if he sees you again in Losers or Finals. If you consistently gimped him and he got eliminated from the tourney, then you're better than him. We already have several tournament rules to allow people to come back from their mistakes; we don't need more.
Timeouts may be due to the game being new, which happens with a lot of fighting games, so it's best to wait instead of making radical changes to the ruleset. At the very least, don't change the timer and the stock count at the same time. Only changing one variable is a necessity in gathering valid data.

edit: accidentally ****ed up the quotebox. whoops.

 

[Overswarm]

This is why we run best of three and double elimination tournaments. And I'm very sorry to say this, but you gimping mew2king is a completely valid way to close out a round. His performance wasn't up to snuff, he made a mistake, or he wasn't taking the match seriously, and he suffered for it. That's what happens. If he really is better than you, he'd kick your *** in the following rounds, or when/if he sees you again in Losers or Finals. If you consistently gimped him and he got eliminated from the tourney, then you're better than him. We already have several tournament rules to allow people to come back from their mistakes; we don't need more.
Timeouts may be due to the game being new, which happens with a lot of fighting games, so it's best to wait instead of making radical changes to the ruleset. At the very least, don't change the timer and the stock count at the same time. Only changing one variable is a necessity in gathering valid data.

edit: accidentally ****ed up the quotebox. whoops.

Surely you realize your argument could be applied to playing tournaments out via sudden death or using items. Items were banned due to Eddie, a Ganondorf player, getting hit by a spawning explosive item. This is a one-time thing and results post-item tournaments were roughly the same.

You don't observe variance and say "he'll get 'em next time". You find a way to eliminate it. We can easily do so and have a tried-and-true method of doing so that has no displayed drawbacks.

 

[Boigahs]

You don't observe variance and say "he'll get 'em next time". You find a way to eliminate it. We can easily do so and have a tried-and-true method of doing so that has no displayed drawbacks.

I don't think you understand. Adding more stocks is just another way of saying "he'll get 'em next time." The whole point of playing Best of Three and doing Double elimination is the tried-and-true method of eliminating "variance." You do understand how double eliminination and best of three work, right? If you lose one round, you get two more rounds to beat the guy. If you lose the match, you get sent to losers and get to fight your way back up. Those are more than enough to ensure that someone doesn't win a tourney by one lucky hit.
Besides, if we REALLY wanted to eliminate this "variance" you're so afraid of, then we'd play on 20 stock, first to ten, quadruple elimination so that we're absolutely sure the guy that won was really better.

 

[Pazx]

Besides, if we REALLY wanted to eliminate this "variance" you're so afraid of, then we'd play on 20 stock, first to ten, quadruple elimination so that we're absolutely sure the guy that won was really better.

If you actually watched the video you'd see that Overswarm said something very similar, it's just not feasible.

 

[HavocThunder]

This touches on what I feel is a very important issue when dealing with stock count. Aside from general freedom of movement, I think the biggest thing that separates Smash from traditional fighters is how we score points/KOs. In Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, MVC, Guilty Gear etc. anything can theoretically kill you. For better or for worse, this is a core skill that competitive smash has always tested. KOing your opponent isn't just hitting them, its hitting them the right way at the right time. Lowering the stock count tests that core concept less than ever.

This is also important for regarding timeouts. In a traditional fighting game, damaging your opponent is the only proof of who is better or winning. A timeout is a much simpler concept as lower health definitively equates to being closing to losing. In Smash, percent plays an important role in KOing, but being at a higher percent doesn't necessarily mean you would be KOed before your opponent. A Bowser at 110% vs a Jigglypuff at 70% hasn't really been proven to be worse yet. Matchups, positioning, edgeguarding all come into play here. Another unique trait of Smash we risk dampening with lower stock and time.

We should be careful not to sacrifice the things that make Smash special just to fit with the format of other communities and tournament series. We should celebrate and promote what makes Smash special instead of asking how we can be more like other communities.

It's interesting how this is a problem the community created for itself, so perhaps we sacrificed the things that made Smash special. You'll be surprised to learn that in the rules for any Smash tournament, the player with higher percent wins over the player with lower percent when time's up. Smash, from the very beginning, actually has a different rule and agrees with you, you don't have a life lead when time's up unless you killed someone already. "Camping" is a problem the community created a long time ago, trying to mimic other fighting games.

Also I'm not sure if I agree that lower time will increase tournament length overall. If that were the case, why don't people try to time each other out in fighters with 90 second timers more often? I think the issue with time is that matchups involving tournament-popular characters like Rosalina are just going to take a long time, regardless of what you set the timer to. It's just the nature of the matchup. The 5 minute threshold at least puts a limit on it, making it easier to plan the rest of the event around it. If what you are saying was true, then there'd be no timer in any fighting game.

The reason why people don't time each other out more in Smash is because there's no good reason to do it on the stages that are currently legal. All the larger stages where you have more reasons to do that are banned. If someone finds a good reason to not aggressively fight on a legal stage, it gets banned. Pilotwings, Wrecking Crew (it's not even that big), Palutena's Temple, Gaur Plains, etc. It's a witch-hunt, even though the problem is solved just by having a reasonable time limit in the first place. I bet there'd be a lot more legal stages right now if the time limit was cut down to 2 minutes a stock at the very least (Like Melee with 4 stock. 8 min.)

EDIT: Of course, banning big stages will not stop the people crazy enough to camp on smaller stages, so it makes no sense anyways.

 

[Charey]

The stages that banned for camping would let someone win from timeout with ANY time limit.

Let's say the limit was two hours on Palutena's Temple and I am facing a bowser. If I really wanted the win I would pick fox, shoot once then run away, no matter how much timer is left Bowser could never catch me making it a garrenteed win with zero skil required.

 

[popsofctown]

The stages that banned for camping would let someone win from timeout with ANY time limit.

Let's say the limit was two hours on Palutena's Temple and I am facing a bowser. If I really wanted the win I would pick fox, shoot once then run away, no matter how much timer is left Bowser could never catch me making it a garrenteed win with zero skil required.

It's conceivable that some of the stages that are somewhat large but not circle campable could naturally gravitate towards a different timer setting than the smaller stages, due to more spacing opportunities and ability to play conservatively. Consider an extreme example, an FD stage that is 5000 meters long. No character can circle camp the stage, it's not sufficiently circular. But Marth could slowly retreat with carefully spaced aerials against Mario for 2500 meters, run out of stage, roll behind Mario, and do it against for another 5000 meters. Eventually the game will end when Mario predicts enough roll-behinds and punishes them, or Marth gets enough aerials to connect on Mario if Mario gets too close. But it could take hours.

Out of the stages in the game, the difference might only be about a minute. Given the choice between using a different timer whenever a certain stage is used and banning the stage for simplicity, I think we have enough stages to opt for banning.

Kongo Jungle's unusually high ceiling and unique edgeguarding/edgestalling mechanics probably put it at the top of the most-watched list.



This might be a little offtopic from what was really being talked about but whatever.

 

[RedNova]

It may be a little extreme, but I think that players would camp less if they know that their win is not guaranteed.

Like, if we ignore the rule of -% win, the final sudden death could be treated like a normal SD, with a tie breaker. That way we can honour the belief that percent isn't the only thing that matters at the time of picking a winner.

Now, the obvious problem that I can see with this rule, is tournaments lasting even longer, or the possibilty that one could time out the tiebreaker itself. I know it doesn't seem plausible enough, it was just an idea.

 

[Charey]

There would still be camping, just by the person who is already behind instead. Stalling to SD or a one stock tiebreaker is easier then trying to catch up when you get behind 50 or more percent and it resets any lead that was gained.

 

[thehard]

I would really like to 3 stock 8 min. be standardized, but I feel the proper time to push for that is after EVO. It's when I'd like to see more experimentation in the Smash 4 scene as a whole. We have to find out what works best for our game, tradition be damned, esports be damned.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I like playing to the clock. I hope whatever ruleset becomes the standard doesn't make timeouts prohibitively restrictive.

 

[Judo777]

I feel like this is simple. Play the most stocks you can, before you run into time constraints in the tournament. More stocks DOES test who is better, almost unquestionably (best player WILL win a 99 stock match), now just decide how long is too long, from a tournament organization standpoint.

 

[Boigahs]

If you actually watched the video you'd see that Overswarm said something very similar, it's just not feasible.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying; either that, or I am just extremely confused. I'm not suggesting that we actually run those rules. That would be insane. I'm saying that we already have elements in place to "eliminate variance," and that turning them up to 11 won't change much. We already have double elimination, and we already do best 2 of 3. There is no reason to add more stocks for the same reason there is no reason to have quadruple elimination or best 3 of 5. "Variance" is not an issue, and we don't need to fix what isn't broken. If a player doesn't play his best for one reason or another and he manages to lose 2 games to two different opponents, it sucks, but it's on him.

The timer doesn't exist to keep matches short, it exists to put pressure on players who are taking too long. Increasing the timer decreases the pressure, and the match slows down. Every other fighting game has much stricter time limits than Smash 4, and yet Smash 4 still meets with more time overs. There are so many more elements to what causes a time over than "oh the timer isn't the right length." The game is still new and developing. Time overs happen to every new game, and changing tourney rules constantly won't fix it. It's better to let the game develop and see where it goes, rather than trying to make theories and hypothesize about an "optimal ruleset" and fix what isn't broken. Also, if you're worried about time-overs in low-level play, that is going to be unavoidable. If the players are skilled enough to camp, but not skilled enough to deal with camping, you're going to get a lot of camping; increasing the timer won't affect it.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

What is a stock? I ask this? Is a stock just an extra life or just an extension to a health bar? I always question in relation to other fighting games what is a stock even?

The way we treat it now it's like a stock was just a health bar getting lower when by it's very nature it doesn't work like a normal health bar.

 

[Yikarur]

Germany runs 3 Stocks 9 Minutes.
No Problems.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

The only problem is that I can't time people out reasonably as a win condition.

 

[Yikarur]

Timeout shouldn't be your primary win condition anyway. And it can easily happen in this game with 9 Minutes if you try.

 

[Judo777]

Something I noticed. Went to a 2 stock tournament last week. Played against a player that I wanted a flat open stage against. He banned Duck Hunt and FD, game 1 went to Smashville and I won. Game 2 was BF I lost. I would have used my traditional counterpick against MK in Brawl, Castlesiege, but was deterred because I was almost certain we wouldn't even make it to the 3rd transition (which is like FD).

Not sure 2 stock games even allow most players to reach 3rd transition very easily.

 

[BaeBraham]

One of the biggest arguments for 2 stock tournaments have been time issues. But anytime I see data that was compiled from tournaments it always showed similar time results in the end between 2 and 3 stock tournaments.

3 stock tournaments also give you more time to get a feel for your opponent and any unfamiliar MU's. If your the better player, then even if you're unfamiliar with the MU once you gauge your opponent you should be able to outperform him. It's just too hard to do that with only 2 stocks, because you can't risk losing a stock to get a feel for your opponent.

Plus dood I like having three stocks so when I get bodied I can get three stocked.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

One of the biggest arguments for 2 stock tournaments have been time issues. But anytime I see data that was compiled from tournaments it always showed similar time results in the end between 2 and 3 stock tournaments.

3 stock tournaments also give you more time to get a feel for your opponent and any unfamiliar MU's. If your the better player, then even if you're unfamiliar with the MU once you gauge your opponent you should be able to outperform him. It's just too hard to do that with only 2 stocks, because you can't risk losing a stock to get a feel for your opponent.

Plus dood I like having three stocks so when I get bodied I can get three stocked.

If you're unfamiliar with the matchup, can you really call yourself the better player?

 

[Pyr]

One of the biggest arguments for 2 stock tournaments have been time issues. But anytime I see data that was compiled from tournaments it always showed similar time results in the end between 2 and 3 stock tournaments.

3 stock tournaments also give you more time to get a feel for your opponent and any unfamiliar MU's. If your the better player, then even if you're unfamiliar with the MU once you gauge your opponent you should be able to outperform him. It's just too hard to do that with only 2 stocks, because you can't risk losing a stock to get a feel for your opponent.

Plus dood I like having three stocks so when I get bodied I can get three stocked.

If you're unfamiliar with the matchup, can you really call yourself the better player?

To add, if you can't feel out your opponent faster then they can feel you out, are you really the better player?

 

[BaeBraham]

If you're unfamiliar with the matchup, can you really call yourself the better player?

MU knowledge extends far beyond just character MU knowledge in a tournament match. Especially when you start attending regionals or higher and you are forced to play many different people than you usually see. MU knowledge extends to stage+character+individual. I've been told time and time again by high level players that you are never just playing the character, you are playing the individual playing the character, and beyond that.

You could know both the character MU and even that MU paired with the selected stage and still get bodied because you have never played the individual before. And although that means you are both at a disadvantage, any unintentional gain (so any gain that wasn't made by skill, just a stroke of luck or whatever you would call it) can completely change the match regardless of skill.

So if anything unfortunate happens and you lose your stock (like say you misread your opponent and get punished hard, losing a full stock super early- total hypothetical situation, but just to give an example), now you are at an extreme disadvantage and you probably have no room to continue trying to gauge your opponent. You literally have to play perfect and hope that you can get some reads on an opponent whose play style you still haven't figured out in the slightest. Which doesn't even make sense because most reads are based off of learning your opponent. And you haven't done that yet.

An argument could be made that you have multiple rounds to learn your opponent and not just your 2 stocks, but that definitely wouldn't hold up because in a tournament you're going to have to re-gauge the MU every time you play a different stage. Which should be every round. So you may never get the opportunity to learn that very unique MU.

So yes, the better player should know the MU. But it may not come down to whoever learns the MU first, it could be the result of someone getting early kills and the better player not even having the chance to come back even if they do finally figure the MU out.

If you have 3 stocks, lose a stock early for any given reason, and then figure out the opponent for that unique MU during your next stock, you still have plenty of cushion to outplay the opponent and comeback.

I'm of course not saying that it's impossible to make a comeback by figuring out the MU in a 2-stock match, it's just going to be much harder if you're playing a higher caliber opponent (higher caliber doesn't have to mean better than you, just a more solid player in general). I came in second at a 2 stock tournament a few weeks ago and in one of my matches I was on my second stock at a high percentage vs my opponent being on his first stock and came back and won both rounds against him after figuring out his game on the stages. But the match wouldn't have been even kind of close if we each had a 3rd stock. It's like Judo said earlier- in a 99 stock match the best player will win every time.

 

[BaeBraham]

To add, if you can't feel out your opponent faster then they can feel you out, are you really the better player?

It should be established that in a 2 stock match, neither player may feel the other player out. That's not at all uncommon at higher levels of play.

That's why some of the people we saw mopping the floor with their opponents at early tournaments for the 3ds as Diddy aren't placing nearly as well anymore. I.e. Jtails- He is an incredible smash player, but you don't see or hear nearly as much about him at more recent major tourneys. I'm fully convinced it's because everyone now knows his full matchup without having to play him, so he is just getting outplayed by better opponents, even one's he has played before.

 

[Jtails]

It should be established that in a 2 stock match, neither player may feel the other player out. That's not at all uncommon at higher levels of play.

That's why some of the people we saw mopping the floor with their opponents at early tournaments for the 3ds as Diddy aren't placing nearly as well anymore. I.e. Jtails- He is an incredible smash player, but you don't see or hear nearly as much about him at more recent major tourneys. I'm fully convinced it's because everyone now knows his full matchup without having to play him, so he is just getting outplayed by better opponents, even one's he has played before.

Not true at all. I haven't been travelling due to work and school keeping me extremely busy. I've still been placing 1st at locals for the most part and 1st at Smash Attack 4. 13th at Apex wasn't bad at all as my last Major. But yeah people are learning how to fight Diddy better. Once again I don't think it has to do with the character but player skill. I also haven't been practicing or playing much at all. but keep track of my progress at the upcoming KTAR 12 my next big event. I agree with you, as the meta progresses it's harder for everyone to win, and harder especially for Diddy to win because it's a match up that is stressed often.

 

[BaeBraham]

Not true at all. I haven't been travelling due to work and school keeping me extremely busy. I've still been placing 1st at locals for the most part and 1st at Smash Attack 4. 13th at Apex wasn't bad at all as my last Major. But yeah people are learning how to fight Diddy better. Once again I don't think it has to do with the character but player skill. I also haven't been practicing or playing much at all. but keep track of my progress at the upcoming KTAR 12 my next big event. I agree with you, as the meta progresses it's harder for everyone to win, and harder especially for Diddy to win because it's a match up that is stressed often.

Well, definitely don't take that as a shot to how well you are doing. As I said, you are an incredible player. I just used you as an example because you really helped prove my point in the post right before that. MU's are more than Player vs. Player or Character vs. Character. It's a combination of multiple elements. It is even harder for players at your skill level because people have plenty of access to all sorts of prior MU's that include you as an individual. People can do their homework on you and have that advantage in a match, where you always won't have that advantage on your opponent.

In regards to the 2-stock or 3-stock tournament, I just felt that was credible evidence for the point I wished to get across.
All of this of course is just an opinion, so take it as you will fellow smashers.

 

[Judo777]

If you're unfamiliar with the matchup, can you really call yourself the better player?

M2K did it for years in Brawl, lol that Oli MU knowledge. It took him quite a while to get the diddy MU down also. And freaking almost no MKs (or people for that matter) know the Pikachu MU (ESAM was the only one) but hes not automatically the better than every MK ever as a result.

@ Pyr if your opponent has a MU advantage, or plays a more auto pilot character (like Brawl Olimar, or Snake) they don't need to feel you out to beat you. Their character will do it for them. That doesn't make them a better player. If it did, then number of stocks wouldn't matter, and we should just play 1.

 

[PMMikey]

What I think is that it should be 3 stocks five min because I've been playing project m and 8 min does seem ridiculous that's just my opinion. With lower time I think players won't rush but see that faster playing is superior.

 

[Yikarur]

How is faster play superior?

 

[PMMikey]

How is faster play superior?

I should have said "in my opinion" sorry, but I just think because the speed of smash 4 is quite slow and I'm not saying that I don't like it blah blah blah I love smash 4 I'd just like to see it go by faster.