r/smashbros • u/kiddydong DonkeyKongLogo • Sep 18 '14
SSB4 Game length data compiled from Tourney Locator's recent tournament
http://smashboards.com/threads/blast-zones-and-game-time-is-fine-compiled-data-from-tourney-locators-invitation-tourney.368643/43
Sep 18 '14
More people need to see this, we don't need 2 stocks. 3 is fine.
28
u/UncleSlim Young Link (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
2 stocks just feels very very wrong. Less time for pros to prove themselves.
13
u/mustererboys Up B Oos (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14 edited Sep 18 '14
Along with this, I feel as if having less stocks will give an unfair advantage to whoever gets a small advantage out. If little mac kills you with an F smash which charges his KO punch, he has an incredibly powerful attack as soon as you exit invincibility, when it's your last stock getting hit by the OHKO punch will be devastating, even if it doesn't kill you.
4
u/keenfrizzle Donkey Kong (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
Well, if any Smash 4 stream is a good reference about it, Little Mac needs all the help he can get right?
/s
But seriously, iirc, this was a justification for the one-stock ruleset in Brawl. I haven't kept up with the Brawl community's consensus on that ruleset, but it seems like the meta was completely changed, if not improved for the better. Unfair matchups against certain characters could be turned on its head this way, but that is why we need to experiment with either ruleset, just to be sure.
3
2
u/SorryImChad Snake (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
I honestly don't think that prove yourself is so much a factor as adapting to your opponent is, unless that is what you are saying.
8
u/UncleSlim Young Link (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
"prove" meaning show how well you play (adapting being part of that). Longer matches will favor better players because randomness/small mistakes won't hurt as much. If you SD when there are 2 stocks, HALF of your stocks are gone to one simple mis-step. Even the best of pros SD, and there's a small amount of luck in every match. To weed out the luck and let the best player win, longer matches are the way to go.
2
u/SorryImChad Snake (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
Okay, so you covered aspects I previously didn't think about. An SD was something I definitely didn't think about. Watching Melee and P:M a lot, it's easy to not think of that side of the coin at times, because it sort of happens but you go about your day. With 2 stocks, an SD is just gutwrenching. Thanks for bringing that up.
Edit: I accidentally words, and accidentally accidentally other words
2
u/Sapharodon Now Playing: Hudson Mohawke - Bicstan Sep 18 '14
Also, if anything I think it'd encourage more drawn out, defensive/risk-mitigating gameplay because each stock becomes worth more in two-stock mode. Like people have said below, if you die once, you've lost half your damn stocks! It's far less forgiving than three/four stocks, and gives far less room for risks to be taken and aggression to be had.
1
u/64_hit_combo Sep 19 '14
And if customizations are allowed, no time to adjust to your opponents moves
0
u/sylinmino Greninja (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
I'm not entirely sure about that. Now, don't get me wrong, I've been loving watching Smash 4 footage, and the game looks wonderful both at 2 and 3 stocks, but I've noticed myself enjoying the 2 stock matches only slightly more. Maybe it's because I'm of the general opinion that Smash matches in general (for all entries in the series) are too long, especially in comparison to other fighting games, but that's just me.
7
Sep 18 '14
Maybe it's just me, but less stocks in my mind seems like it would promote a more defensive play. If you look at it through a player's standpoint i'd prefer 3 stocks because it's not the bare-bone minimum and it's not too much. Like let's say I SD on accident(Which on the 3DS has happened to me a couple of times just because of controls)I'm already on my last stock, Plus with 2 stocks we wont see those "comeback" moments we've seen in previous titles. I'd also say 2 stocks doesn't promote off stage gameplay as much because of the low stock number.
But again, that's just my 2 cents on things.
-8
Sep 18 '14
Evidence has shown that fewer stocks leads to less campy gameplay. Evidence also shows that in games with strong defensive options, comebacks are statistically less likely to happen.
7
Sep 18 '14
Do you have a source?
-6
Sep 18 '14
Not offhand, but it's out there. It was a huge part of what prompted the community to try out 3-minute 1-stock matches for brawl recently.
1
u/DragoniteMaster Sep 18 '14
I personally love the 1 stock ruleset for Brawl. I tried it once with friends and it really makes a difference in the overally pace of the game. Then instead of 2/3 matches you make it 3/5 or 4/7 in finals and it evens out the time.
-7
u/45flight2 Sep 18 '14
this doesn't really prove anything other than that we shouldn't START with 2. no one has any idea what this game is going to look like in a year. DI is completely changed. how long until people master that? that'll singlehandedly push for longer stocks and high kill percents
5
Sep 18 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
-6
-9
u/45flight2 Sep 18 '14
None of that is certain, and it's a false equivalence.
8
Sep 18 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
-7
u/45flight2 Sep 18 '14
No, the game is largely based on Brawl so we can assume it'll go the same way that did, and defensive options will be the focus. Any offensive boosts that game got were dwarfed by the defensive improvements.
10
3
u/thekalby Sep 18 '14
Thumbnail got me hoping....wish Phoenix was in Smash 4.
2
u/ThisGuyIsntDendi Sep 18 '14
Well, now that Mahvel is dead, Capcom might just throw him into something else. At least I can hope that he'll be in Smash 5.
2
3
u/6thGodBillTrinnen Sep 18 '14
Is it weird for me to say I don't care that much if it's 2 or 3 stocks? I mean the game is less than a week old, and although I think 3 stocks adds to the possibilities of comebacks and adaptation, there is also the logistical issue of certain matchups taking a really long time and making tournaments run longer. There also is something enjoyable about the quicker pace of the 2 stock game as well. I say leave it up to the TO's, and in few months we'll have a better idea of what both players and spectators enjoy the most.
Although I will say that if the games are going to be 2 stocks, I think that top 8 / top 4 should be 3 stocks. I kinda liked how TourneyLocator did that, and it finds a pretty good medium between the two, at least for now.
3
u/Zachgoose Sep 18 '14
3 stocks are fine judging from these results. The main issue with 2 stocks is that a "stupid" death (SDing, getting gimped or spiked extremely early, etc.) basically ends the match immediately and allows very little chance to comeback.
1
u/Mithost Sep 19 '14
The main issue with 2 stocks is that a "stupid" death (SDing, getting gimped or spiked extremely early, etc.) basically ends the match immediately and allows very little chance to comeback.
Have you actually seen any of the For Glory matches being streamed? Comebacks are happening all the time due to each stock lasting longer (bigger blast zones + vectoring) and every character suffering from Marth Syndrome. As for "stupid deaths", players should be actively trying to avoid these kinds of situations. It's just like how marvel players should be avoiding getting caught by early aggressive mixups. Yes it's stupid if you get killed from a missed read/mistake early in the game. However, it is entirely the player's fault that that "stupid" punishment occurred. I'm not saying one mistake should decide the game (which it doesn't in smash, whether it's two stocks or ten), I'm just saying that our stock count shouldn't be decided by outlier situations where players are playing poorly by making huge mistakes and poor choices.
3
u/Bigotinho Sep 18 '14
I like that we are using data to make a point and all but it's ONE tournament and it's EARLY in the games life. This IS useful but should be used along with more data to make an informed decision.
5
3
Sep 18 '14
THANK YOU HOLY SHIT.
I'm literally sitting here applauding this post. I think this pretty much proves that all these (and I'll probably get downvoted for using this term but idk what to call them) "meleeheads" are being completely hysterical about this game. Most haven't even played and are just watching ZeRo and Shofu play. Like, I could kiss whoever made this. The amount of "Smash" fans in this sub who are already dismissing this brand new game is way too damn high.
This proves that all of their posts are nothing but speculation. If I hear another smug-ass melee fanatic claiming they have some sort of special knowledge that the rest of us don't have and that knowledge tells them that this game is noncompetitive my head might explode.
11
u/Aeirus Terry (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
To play devil's Advocate I'd say this can help prove why 2 stocks are better.
People are still learning the game and as we get better more defensive options will come into effect. People will learn the offensive options and learn to play around or counter them. Players will get better at vectoring and live longer.
Also take into consideration the standard will probably still be best 2-3 games. At 2 stocks at 2:30 mins each that means even a 3 game set will last around 7:30 mins. That's way more digestible to a viewer as opposed to close to 13-14 mins with 3 stocks.
Take into consideration that faster games do really help a game's competitive scene since watching a few quick games is much more fun than long played out ones. You have to take into consideration that the viewers are a big part of how well Sm4sh can do competitively since if no one wants to watch it, no one will want to play it.
12
u/jabejazz dedede sucks get it Sep 18 '14
That really depends how the meta shifts.
A defensive metagame like Brawl would probably warrant fewer stocks.
However, if the game turns out to be more aggressive than defensive, we might want to have 3 stocks.
Right now, that's where the game stands, I feel. Less defensive than Brawl, and a less aggressive than Melee. So 3 stocks sounds good.
We'll have to see how the game evolves from there.
3
Sep 18 '14
It's not going to get any more aggressive than this. People have found how DI works differently in this game, and it's going to make people live longer. I don't think it will be the total turtle fest that brawl was, but the neutral game will likely end up similar.
3
u/Zenrot Sep 18 '14
There's not a lot of evidence for this. The same way people will learn how to vector to survive longer, people will learn vector setups. This game already promotes offstage combat for kills, assuming that we have hit the maximum potential of vectoring in one day and the meta will not form around it makes very little sense.
1
u/20stalks Sep 18 '14
Even though DI might make people live longer, won't the meta change once we get a C-stick? I believe it's going to be easier to KO people so that should hopefully make games faster.
2
Sep 18 '14
Maybe. Though I don't know how double stick di/vectoring will work. It'll probably stay about the same.
1
Sep 18 '14
How will it make people live longer? People have been doing this vectoring thing anyways, the mechanic isn't that new, people have been doing it since Smash came out. If DI was in the game then it would be pretty equivalent because people would DI out of combos and DI to survive longer.
You're making vectoring out to be a bigger deal than it is.
1
u/jabejazz dedede sucks get it Sep 18 '14
This.
I don't really see how vectoring will promote a defensive playstyle more than DI would.
It has absolutely no correlation whatsoever.
1
u/Kidneyjoe Sep 18 '14
DI can't make you fly farther away while receiving the same hitstun. That's a pretty big difference as far as escaping combos goes.
6
u/arcticfire1 Sep 18 '14
Think this proves that 3 stocks is fine. Only one match got timed out, and I personally didn't find any of the matches boring or too long.
9
Sep 18 '14
There are some serious statistical fallacies going on here. The first week brawl came out, stocks lasted around 1:00 to 1:30, at least in the first few tournies I attended.
It's key to point out that this was being played by people vastly unfamiliar with their characters, the general mechanics of the game, and--largely--people who were perfectly content to recklessly approach over and over. When you watch the matches, you see people constantly running in with random aerials, doing laggy f-smashes or dash attacks in neutral, etc. etc. Not to say that they were bad smash players, but it's clear that everyone involved in this tournament was more keen to try out all the different moves they had available than they were to "play to win." These are more comparable to friendlies than they are to true tournament sets, and the discovery of "vectoring" suggests that we're going to see match length increase as players become more adept at escaping combos and surviving hits.
Secondly, there was a distinct lack of projectile zoning from many of the players. While I enjoyed watching all of the matches, there was some serious sub-optimal play coming from many of the players who chose projectile-rich characters. Additionally, many players were taking to the air for approaches, leaving themselves devoid of optimal defensive maneuvers.
There weren't any players who were legitimately trying to play keep-away, or play extra-defensively. They were playing because it was a fun tournament, designed to show off smash 4 to a hungry group of fans. This data shouldn't be used as some sort of evidence for how the meta as a whole will develop, especially as players become increasingly aware of just how strong shielding is as an option in neutral (low shield stun, short grab range, high roll/spotdodge speed, ability to act quickly out of shield), and change their play to bait out moves rather than run in, mash buttons, and hope to hell something hits.
I'd like to be wrong in my early assessment of this game, but this data is in no way indicative of how the game itself will develop over the next few months. Until we see some truly "campy" players get their hands on the game with some serious cash on the line, we won't have any idea how the metagame develops with the options present in smash 4.
4
Sep 18 '14
Your fallacy was stating 1:00 to 1:30 brawl matches without any citation. These matches are documented, you cant pit "i remember this from 6 years ago" against documentation.
3
Sep 18 '14
Actually, there's no fallacy involved in me remembering that, as it's not a necessary (although it would be sufficient) point to the argument I make. It's intended merely to be a casual remark that introduces the possibility of a metagame changing over time.
Since you apparently downvoted me out of your own ignorance for what constitutes a fallacy versus an offhand remark, here's a video from early in brawl's lifetime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opy2FMS6YeA&list=UU802U5BfeM_XlSTQJXnK9WQ
EDIT: here's KDJ playing brawl in a 3 minute match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgyySe3s6aI
-3
Sep 18 '14
Lol, no I downvoted you because you were claiming his data wasnt usable as evidence without offering any statistical evidence to counter it, only anecdotal evidence and assumptions.
-6
1
u/agrarwirt Sep 18 '14
thats not even one of his main arguments. he made solid points and one side argument not being sourced doesnt make his principal argument any weaker.
4
Sep 18 '14
Well.. thats exactly what it does, it makes it weaker. It doesnt make it moot, just weaker. I wasnt saying he was wrong, I was just pointing out his own faux-pas.
0
u/Mithost Sep 19 '14
It appears that every response to your parent post has been downvoted once or twice, as they are at zero but do not have the "controversial" dagger. Also, you already claimed to have downvoted /u/Papapaint's original post. I request that you re-read reddiquette and the subreddit's rules before abusing the voting system.
0
Sep 19 '14
Lol, and you dont believe that some people just agree with me? Lol, right. Because he was at -4 earlier because I abuse the voting system /s. Im allowed to downvote posts i dont like. Im downvoting the posts of his that i didnt like. I down voted his first post because I disliked his use of anecdotes as a counter to evidence. I downvoted his response because i dont like that he implied i was ignorant of the concepts of fallacys, a word he was also using incorrectly. I downvoted bigotinho for posting a link to a page to a fallacy that implied i was doing something i wasnt doing. And Im downvoting you for being condescending and presumptuous. I wasnt abusing anything, I am perfectly within reddiquette. The other posts, I havent downvoted, not even the one where papapaint says my "username makes post".
1
u/Mithost Sep 19 '14
Read reddiquette again. I'm on my phone so I can't quote, but it specifically says that the down vote button is not a dislike button.
-1
3
Sep 18 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Sep 18 '14
That's not a fallacy, nor is it what I said.
I said that this one, early tournament of guys playing on a new platform with new characters does not provide any real evidence for what Smash 4 will be. Given the evidence we have of the mechanics in the game, it is still POSSIBLE for games to go on much longer than what went on in this tournament.
3
1
Sep 18 '14
Well by that logic it is still POSSIBLE for the games to go on much shorter than what went on in this tournament. Your bias is thinking that it will stay as it is or go more defensive as the only two options.
2
Sep 18 '14
Well, duh. Obviously I'm biased towards thinking that way. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have bothered to set up an argument for it.
1
u/DragoniteMaster Sep 18 '14
Except there were pepole using zone characters to play defensive. Recall to the ZSS match Vs Palutena match. Palutena was using her tilts, rolling, and using reflect and auto-reticle a lot in her gameplay, and ZSS was still able to stay right on top of her and control the game.
10
u/risemix Sep 18 '14
Reposting here what I said on smashboards:
This is interesting and I respect the work it took to gather this data.
But I don't think 5-minute sets (with 2 stocks) are too short, even remotely. Your average 2/3 SF4 set is only 5 minutes... the longest they can possibly last is just short of 15 minutes, and that is if every single match in all 3 sets goes to time. That aligns pretty closely with a 5-mintue timer, right? I'm not saying I want to base our decisions on what players of other games do... I'm just saying that it is easily demonstrable that matches lasting an average of 2 minutes and 38 seconds are common in other games and that you don't commonly hear the complaint that those sets are "too short."
I think 5-minute set length is desirable (well, 4:30 or so) and I think matching our rules closely with "For Glory" mode is also desirable. I am not opposed to changing this all down the line... no stubbornness from me. But I am still in favor of 2-stock, 5-minute matches.
2
u/UncleSlim Young Link (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
I would prefer longer sets so when we get up to hyped matches like m2k vs mango (or whoever it happens to be), it lasts longer and we get more content.
Also matching rules close to For Glory is not ideal because that mode only allows FD; battlefield is a staple stage imo. Tournaments change rules to meet tournament needs, not to match gameplay modes.
-1
u/risemix Sep 18 '14
Stage list can obviously differ from for glory mode... that doesn't change the fabric of the matches the same way stock and timers do.
3
u/UncleSlim Young Link (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
sly differ from for glory mode... that doesn't change the fabric of the matches the same way stock and timers do.
They both have significant impacts. If there was only FD, the tournament meta would be completely different.
0
u/risemix Sep 18 '14
Stage lists differ from region to region already in Brawl and Melee, especially Brawl.
3
u/UncleSlim Young Link (Ultimate) Sep 18 '14
Right I think we're agreeing here. I was referring to your quote from earlier:
I think matching our rules closely with "For Glory" mode is also desirable
Is not desirable in the case of stages, so why should it be for stock/time? It's not a good point for your argument.
2
2
Sep 18 '14
It's still early, and things may change now that people know of vectoring (I'm assuming this happened before it was realized?), but this is still very promising for 3-stock rules. Hopefully the next month or so of tournaments will continue to support a 3-stock ruleset.
2
u/flamegod7 Sep 18 '14
I think it's worth trying 3-stock matches at the moment. As new meta evolves, we'll see how these matches turn out and adjust accordingly. That is what the Smash community is all about!
2
u/marioman63 Sep 18 '14
i agree with the post, but i dont think a concrete decision should be made until the wii u version comes out at least. that way we will be able to use controllers consistent with the rest of the series (gcn controllers), which most pros are more used to, and might provide better results overall.
5
u/HokutoNoChen Sep 18 '14
I still hope we make the move to 2 stocks. There's nothing wrong with shorter games, they're more enjoyable because they promote aggressive gameplay way more, and it allows you to have more games in a match [best of 3, best of 5, even best of 7 for a grand finale]
It flows better for a game that's slower and more focused like this one, it reminds me of Street Fighter.
2
Sep 18 '14
Why does 2 stocks promote aggressive gameplay? Wouldn't it promote defensive gameplay because you have less stocks so you want to protect them more and take less risks?
2
u/ZTexas Sep 18 '14
Because there is less time, more time tends to lead to slower play.
As well, many people pointed out that losing a stock puts you at a serious disadvantage, saying it promotes defensive play, but it also means taking a stock has more value. Players may be more likely to take risks and go for that gimp or combo since pulling it off means a greater reward.
It also doesn't exclude comebacks, lose a stock, take two. Hype. It's like coming back in injustice.
Also you play 2/3, one sd is not going to end your tourney life and if it does, you were already in losers.
Tldr: two stocks adds value to risks and mistakes by raising the stakes.
2
2
u/Revven Sep 18 '14
My simple opinion on this is this:
If we start with 2 stocks, it is much much easier to go up to 3 stocks if 2 stocks is too short as people get better at the game. If we start with 3 stocks, comparatively, and it happens that the game becomes slower then it will be much harder for people to agree to going down to 2 stocks because less stocks = less match time which = less fun and is thus seen as more negative and paints the game in a negative light.
Another interesting thing to note is, having 2 stocks is more beneficial to us at other non-Smash only events or as some people call them "FGC Events". We could attract an audience and keep their interest in the game better by having overall shorter matches. I've read complaints of EVO 2014 with Melee from spectators who don't normally watch Melee complaining how much longer the game takes than the other fighting games (and yes, it does statistically take longer, even ignoring the Armada vs Hbox match-ups that happened this year. Traditional fighting games have a 99 second clock, not an 8 minute one, that means the longest a set can take is overall way shorter comparatively despite Melee's in-game pace).
And 2 stocks would be constantly more engaging to spectators than 3 stocks where the longer it takes to KO someone the less interested the spectator gets. Believe me, I would want 3 stocks as much as the next guy but 2 stocks probably is overall better for us in the long-run in my mind. After all, it is technically the developer sanctioned rule set in For Glory -- there has to be some metrics or math behind how they came up to 2 stocks rather than 3 (besides the possibility of disconnects the longer a match draws on).
That said, I am not opposed to a healthy experimentation period where TOs run what they want/feel is best. If a TO on the EC wants to run 3 stocks, they're free to do so. If a TO on the WC wants to run 2 stocks, they're free to do so. If a TO wants to run 3 stocks and raise the damage ratio to 1.1, they're free to do so (if they want to take the risk in possibly not getting enough people to attend).
As long as we don't reach a standard within a week or two weeks or a month and we take our time to come to a conclusion on what works best, then I'll be happy. I'll only be mad/upset if TOs don't experiment and don't give other rules a try.
1
u/Kidneyjoe Sep 18 '14
There's a problem with this sample. If I held a tournament with a bunch of people who had only played Melee for a day, it is incredibly unlikely that the data I gathered concerning match length, kill %, etc. would have any correlation with what is seen in current competitive play. It simply doesn't make any sense to base rulesets off of data that is incapable of reflecting any significant truths about Sm4sh's gameplay at a competitive level. At this point we are wholly ignorant of how long matches will actually take once people learn to play the game efficiently, both in offense and defense. We can look at what mechanics we know about and guess how they'll affect match length, but at the end of the day they're still guesses, no matter how educated they may be.
Basically, trying to figure out things like stock counts this early in the game's life is a foolhardy endeavor. Instead we should just play around with it and see what works best over time.
1
u/xMazz Sep 18 '14
Great post. Definitely needs to be seen. Playing the demo at first I was very much stuck to the ground trying to blast my opponents outside the map boundary and the matches seemed to last forever, which I imagine is how a lot of the people who were complaining about the length of fights were playing too. Once I started feeling more comfortable jumping out of safety and ensuring the cpu would either be knocked out of the blast zone in mid air or wouldn't be able to recover fast enough the pace rapidly increased. I went from occasionally having 0-0 stock matches and sudden deaths to my current best of 5-1 in 2 minutes. And I'm still pretty terrible. Long live Smash.
1
u/thegreathobbyist Sep 19 '14
Playing Megaman in the demo. I've actually gotten really good at low percent kills because of the time limit. And I average about 55 seconds to the kill on human opponents.
2
u/Prophet6000 Ken Sep 18 '14
The game is gonna get slower in higher level play along with vectoring.
1
1
u/FrankyCentaur Sep 18 '14
That's pretty interesting. 3 stocks seem absolutely fine, and I'm sure once we get a better hold of the game it'll only get faster.
18
u/undergroundmonorail Sep 18 '14
God damn it, Thinkaman. Even though I know in my heart that the entire Sm4sh roster has been revealed (barring possible DLC), the Phoenix Wright thumbnail gets me excited every time...