So...the stock count...guesses/predictions?

[Deleted member 245254]

Melee has long been run on 4 stocks. The pace of matches generally tends to be quick, so this is of little consequence, but 4 stocks didn't work out as well for Brawl with the longer life-spans due to things like improved recovery and a "slower" game dynamic. Brawl dropped to 3 stocks eventually to some mild success and it seemed appropriate for a while...yet there were still a vocal community of folks who suggested it was still too much. Recently, there was a tournament in which all matches were played on 1 stock. It received mixed reviews, but its intention rang positively among even professional players.

I'll start this discussion off and say that I think 2 stocks would be a good standard for Smash 4.

Recovery is pretty good, and we are seeing an incredible consistency with high % survival rates. Single stocks seem to take a good deal amount of time. I think it's rather possible to have your opponent downloaded well enough after only a single stock, allowing matches to be exciting from there both for the rest of the first match, and following that match through the rest of the set, and not drawn out due to excessive stock amounts in preceding matches.

At the very most, I think 3 would be acceptable if we would like to play it safe, but definitely not 4. Four stock matches have proven to be heinously long at this point from the plentiful amount of 1v1 footage we now have, and I think it would be really harmful to the Smash 4 tournament scene to obliviously ride in to it's competitive run starting with 4 stocks.

In any case, I'm open to your thoughts and ideas. Go ahead and vote in the poll too. Do you think the 4 stock standard is fine? The Brawl standard 3 stock? How about the "new", compacted yet still decently breathable 2 stocks? Maybe you think screw it, one stock, put it all on the line? Leave a comment.

 

[Phaazoid]

It's still pretty hard to say, given that we don't understand the AT of the game yet. Melee matches were much different early in it's life, we have some things to figure out about this game.

That being said, 4 stocks seemed to work fine with the 8min time limit at the Comicon tournament. I think there were only a few matches that timed out. There seems to be better defensive options this game, but there also seem to be more moves that punish shielding (bowser's down b is an instant shield break, ect).

So I guess I'm saying i's a little early to figure it out perfectly, haha.

 

[Sour Supreme]

I'm going 3.

Pace.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

It's still pretty hard to say, given that we don't understand the AT of the game yet. Melee matches were much different early in it's life, we have some things to figure out about this game.

That being said, 4 stocks seemed to work fine with the 8min time limit at the Comicon tournament. I think there were only a few matches that timed out. There seems to be better defensive options this game, but there also seem to be more moves that punish shielding (bowser's down b is an instant shield break, ect).

So I guess I'm saying i's a little early to figure it out perfectly, haha.

Definitely open to the idea that we know too little, which is why it's more of a guessing/prediction type thing based on what we do know.

 

[Phaazoid]

Definitely open to the idea that we know too little, which is why it's more of a guessing/prediction type thing based on what we do know.

I agree that it's still fun to speculate though.

You have a good point that we've seen a fair amount of 1v1 footage, but from everything we've seen most people agree that this game at least looks faster than Brawl, which uses 3 stocks. However, you seem to be pushing 2 as a standard, with 3 as a starting point to be safe. Is this because you think the game will is slower than Brawl, or just the mechanics are different?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I agree that it's still fun to speculate though.

You have a good point that we've seen a fair amount of 1v1 footage, but from everything we've seen most people agree that this game at least looks faster than Brawl, which uses 3 stocks. However, you seem to be pushing 2 as a standard, with 3 as a starting point to be safe. Is this because you think the game will is slower than Brawl, or just the mechanics are different?

It's not quite an assertion on how I feel the game speed compares, I honestly feel Brawl would do well with 2 stocks as well. I (currently) think 3 stocks is above the threshold for reasonable download time for both games but at varying amounts above. It's not exactly black or white in this case.

On the other end I find a lot of 3 stock Brawl matches to be exciting, but I don't think that would make a 2 stock match any less exciting.

Melee however I believe is much too fast paced for 2 stocks. It's more likely we'd have an influx of matches that people lose before they properly even get their bearings with only 2 stocks.

 

[Phaazoid]

It's not quite an assertion on how I feel the game speed compares, I honestly feel Brawl would do well with 2 stocks as well. I (currently) think 3 stocks is above the threshold for reasonable download time for both games but at varying amounts above. It's not exactly black or white in this case.

On the other end I find a lot of 3 stock Brawl matches to be exciting, but I don't think that would make a 2 stock match any less exciting.

Melee however I believe is much too fast paced for 2 stocks. It's more likely we'd have an influx of matches that people lose before they properly even get their bearings with only 2 stocks.

As an argument against 2 stocks, that would make SD's destroy half of a game. As we've seen, they are still possible, even with buffed recoveries and ledge snaps. One of the reasons I like having 4 stock games is that one mess up doesn't always cost you a game, and long comebacks are even more hype.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

As an argument against 2 stocks, that would make SD's destroy half of a game. As we've seen, they are still possible, even with buffed recoveries and ledge snaps. One of the reasons I like having 4 stock games is that one mess up doesn't always cost you a game, and long comebacks are even more hype.

Solid point. SD's do happen, and long come backs are hype.

If I were to be swayed I would only be content at most with 3 stocks, however. Four has just seemed like an exceptionally long choice. If you watch the 2 and a half hours or so of compiled 1v1 footage from SDCC, you can see a pretty consistent drag to 4 stock matches. This isn't to say there aren't any matches that stray close to a fast match speed that is easily worthy of 3 stocks, but for the most part...they drag.

One could also argue that we want to discourage the flexibility of allowing top players to think an SD is "OK".

 

[Phaazoid]

Solid point. SD's do happen, and long come backs are hype.

If I were to be swayed I would only be content at most with 3 stocks, however. Four has just seemed like an exceptionally long choice. If you watch the 2 and a half hours or so of compiled 1v1 footage from SDCC, you can see a pretty consistent drag to 4 stock matches. This isn't to say there aren't any matches that stray close to a fast match speed that is easily worthy of 3 stocks, but for the most part...they drag.

One could also argue that we want to discourage the flexibility of allowing top players to think an SD is "OK".

I definitely agree with starting at 3 stocks. 4 stocks seems like it might be a bit of a high place to start, 3 seems more reasonable. I do think it might eventually switch to 4 stocks if the meta speeds up. Alternatively, I don't think it would ever go down to 2 stocks, for several reasons, including the ones I already stated.

I think there is something fun about 1 and 2 stock matches, they have a certain do or die feel to them, but I don't think their place is as a standard in tournaments, they feel more like a side event sort of thing, due to their less involved nature.

 

[Scourge The Hedgehog]

I'll also have to agree with three stocks being the starter. Depending on how the final product looks it may be moved to four stocks. I doubt we'll see it go to two stocks but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[mr_mann55]

One thing i would like to see is to lower the time limit to say 6 minutes. This would ideally lower stalling and would make for some tense moments when time is almost up. And who doesn't like Sudden Death? A regular 1 stock match afterwords would even work.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

Four stocks seemed a little long, sets are going to take forever if that's going to be the standard. Of course matches might speed up once people get a better grip of the game, but I feel like that since we do have campy characters in the game (ZSS) it's best to keep it as three stocks.

 

[Mota]

Start with 3. If games develop into being too long or too short, adjust accordingly.

 

[Chimera]

I like the idea of starting at 3, but moving to 4 if 3 is too short. Any less than three I think is too short.

 

[KingBroly]

I'd guess 4 because Nintendo has set that standard.

 

[Jerm]

I'm personally going to start off with 3 since that's how I've been doing it in brawl for the past 6 years. If I feel my matches are too long/ too short then I will bump it down/ up a stock respectively.

One thing i would like to see is to lower the time limit to say 6 minutes. This would ideally lower stalling and would make for some tense moments when time is almost up. And who doesn't like Sudden Death? A regular 1 stock match afterwords would even work.

That seems quite interesting and exciting, may try 6 min at some point!

 

[LiteralGrill]

One thing i would like to see is to lower the time limit to say 6 minutes. This would ideally lower stalling and would make for some tense moments when time is almost up. And who doesn't like Sudden Death? A regular 1 stock match afterwords would even work.

A LOT of people don't like Sudden Death because it really can make the player who was doing better lose for no reason. Less time on the rules actually makes for MORE stalling since it's easier to do with less time to have to do it with.

I'd guess 4 because Nintendo has set that standard.

That's honestly a bad reason. We should use FFA like they do as well right?

Now for me, I think 3 is the way to start. It's easier to add stocks later then to remove them. Take a look at smash 64 for this. A LOT of folks want to try and keep tournament sets a bit shorter by lowering it to 4 stocks instead of 5 but now it is so ingrained people wont do it even if it is good for their game. If the games are going way too fast and people notice it they/ll be more likely to change it to go up. We tried something like this with PSAS and when people saw the lower version just felt wrong they all demanded it go up.

 

[pizzapie7]

It should be 3.

 

[HeavyLobster]

It has to be 3 stocks. We're not getting Melee-level combos, and recoveries seem even better than Brawl's. It'll be faster than Brawl, but Brawl could drag on at times even at 3 stocks. This could change depending on what's changed from the demo and metagame developments, but for now Smash 4's pace seems best suited for 3 stocks.

 

[Raijinken]

Once I get past my party mode play, I'll probably set 3s 5m as starting standard and then adjust accordingly.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

One thing i would like to see is to lower the time limit to say 6 minutes. This would ideally lower stalling and would make for some tense moments when time is almost up. And who doesn't like Sudden Death? A regular 1 stock match afterwords would even work.

How would making timeouts easier lower the incidence of stalling? Stalling wants to timeout.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I agree with the majority that 3 stock 8 minute is the best way to start. It's not only really familiar with an 8 minute timer being proven good for effective TOing, but 4 stocks with that time limit seems likely to lead to a lot of timeouts in the early metagame while 3 stocks seems like it won't cause that too often. I also really don't like formats of less than three stocks; you just don't get the flow and long term reads from a game that short.

I will say for a lot of people suggesting shorter timers that you have to think about the time to stock ratio. If you have less than 2 minutes per stock, I can pretty much guarantee that you'll have tons of timeouts since slower paced players not even trying to run the clock often take a few minutes per stock. Where in the 2-3 minutes per stock spectrum we want to fall depends on the exact pace of the game; Melee was great with exactly 2 (though that was a limit even for Melee as match-ups like Young Link vs Jigglypuff tended to use most of it) while Brawl often ran into time over even with the 8/3 ratio and in fact had many advocates for 9 or even 10 minute timers for 3 stocks (generally not taken up because it extended tournament duration to the point of being problematic for TOs). We don't know what the true game speed of smash 4 will be and probably won't be sure until the middle of next year. 8/3 just seems like a good conservative starting point if we presume it's going to be in-between Melee and Brawl, and if we find the time excessive, we can consider transitioning to 7/3 or 8/4 down the road.

 

[Ussi]

I'd like stocks to go down to 2 stocks so games are 2-4 minutes long. I'd rather games be quicker as more people will be better at the game then. (More people are able to focus for 2-4 minutes than 4-6 minutes)

Its also more exciting for upsets. Just make it Bo5 instead of Bo3


Also if we do 3 stocks, PLEASE can we do 6 minutes instead of 8 minutes and follow a 2 minute/stock rule

 

[TTTTTsd]

Three stocks. Not saying the game is slow, but with the focus on interesting edgeguarding and the potential that kills may require more effort, I think 3 would keep things spicy in this regard.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Also if we do 3 stocks, PLEASE can we do 6 minutes instead of 8 minutes and follow a 2 minute/stock rule

I thought AA explained quite nicely why this is a bad idea:

f you have less than 2 minutes per stock, I can pretty much guarantee that you'll have tons of timeouts since slower paced players not even trying to run the clock often take a few minutes per stock. Where in the 2-3 minutes per stock spectrum we want to fall depends on the exact pace of the game; Melee was great with exactly 2 (though that was a limit even for Melee as match-ups like Young Link vs Jigglypuff tended to use most of it) while Brawl often ran into time over even with the 8/3 ratio and in fact had many advocates for 9 or even 10 minute timers for 3 stocks (generally not taken up because it extended tournament duration to the point of being problematic for TOs).

 

[Bladeviper]

It's still pretty hard to say, given that we don't understand the AT of the game yet. Melee matches were much different early in it's life, we have some things to figure out about this game.

That being said, 4 stocks seemed to work fine with the 8min time limit at the Comicon tournament. I think there were only a few matches that timed out. There seems to be better defensive options this game, but there also seem to be more moves that punish shielding (bowser's down b is an instant shield break, ect).

So I guess I'm saying i's a little early to figure it out perfectly, haha.

they used a 6 min time limit im pretty sure at comic con, at least the quarters on up did
edit: and on that note that means most 4 stocks games were finishing in under 6 min since only a few games went to time, so while 3 should be a good start i can see it going to 4 should the timer go back to 8 min with our tournaments

 

[HeavyLobster]

they used a 6 min time limit im pretty sure at comic con, at least the quarters on up did
edit: and on that note that means most 4 stocks games were finishing in under 6 min since only a few games went to time, so while 3 should be a good start i can see it going to 4 should the timer go back to 8 min with our tournaments

Keep in mind that most of those matches involved 1 or more Bowser, a character that wants to get up close and personal, and kills quickly. Matchups between campier characters will likely take longer, so I don't think the comic con tourney is representative of what we'll see in future tourneys.

 

[Bladeviper]

Keep in mind that most of those matches involved 1 or more Bowser, a character that wants to get up close and personal, and kills quickly. Matchups between campier characters will likely take longer, so I don't think the comic con tourney is representative of what we'll see in future tourneys.

they sure will but how many are going to be campier, we cant really say since we only know what less than half the roster can do in and thats not even in full if we are going to test out custom moves. t. link and jiggs in melee is a match up that takes forever so of course it going to be match up based

 

[Ussi]

Yall act like timeouts are bad. Timeouts are also entertaining in their own right, and they aren't common place for now so shortening the timer should be no problem. If anything, it makes campier matches more bearable to watch knowing it won't be a 8 minute campfest.

 

[Book Jacket]

I feel like 3 will do some good justice. It's a nice pace and a good number. It feels pretty good, too. One stock for learning your opponent, one for the informed showdown, and one for do-or-die times. I like the idea of matches with 3 stocks, it just feels right. Gives a little edgy tension for people used to 4 stocks, and still provides for a decent match length. I dunno. I like it.

Aside from that little bit of general dramatic psychological (and other such adjectives) perspective, I think 4 is clearly too long and 2 could work but people wouldn't be happy. If matches were just 2 stocks I think we'd hear a lot of Johns. You know. "I lost because there were too few stocks, 2 is a ridiculous number, I can't fight well with just 2," and so on.

 

[HeavyLobster]

Yall act like timeouts are bad. Timeouts are also entertaining in their own right, and they aren't common place for now so shortening the timer should be no problem. If anything, it makes campier matches more bearable to watch knowing it won't be a 8 minute campfest.

We still don't want people deliberately running away and playing for a timeout. Even if some of them happen to be entertaining that doesn't mean they should be encouraged. In general, playing for the KO is more entertaining than playing for the timeout. Making timeouts too easy to pull off encourages players with a lead to avoid interacting with the opponent rather than risk losing their lead, and no one wants to see that.

 

[Ussi]

We still don't want people deliberately running away and playing for a timeout. Even if some of them happen to be entertaining that doesn't mean they should be encouraged. In general, playing for the KO is more entertaining than playing for the timeout. Making timeouts too easy to pull off encourages players with a lead to avoid interacting with the opponent rather than risk losing their lead, and no one wants to see that.

if someone is gonna deliberately run for 6 minutes straight, they'll do it for 8 minutes. Trust me on this, no normal person is gonna run away for 6 minutes, they'll run away the last 30 seconds

 

[HeavyLobster]

if someone is gonna deliberately run for 6 minutes straight, they'll do it for 8 minutes. Trust me on this, no normal person is gonna run away for 6 minutes, they'll run away the last 30 seconds

True, but the last 30 seconds happen 2 minutes sooner than they would on an 8 minute timer, meaning this will come into play in situations in which the timer would normally be a nonfactor. I have no problem lowering the timer if matches almost never come close to this kind of situation, but it takes time to gauge average match length, so I prefer a wait-and-see approach.

 

[Ussi]

again, timeouts aren't bad at all. The main issue is if timeouts happen over 30% of the time or something like that. In brawl with 8 minutes, timeouts where like 1-2% of the total of games, that's not really much. Other fighting games timeout much more often than that. And its never a hype killer when timeouts happen in other fighting games, smash will be no different. What made brawl not entertaining what how LONG it took, not how slow it was.

 

[κomıc]

99 stocks.
99 minutes.

300%

Reset Bomb Forest.

This will then give Hades more souls to power his Underworld Army as for every death a new soldier is born. Hence, Hades will return and thus a new sequel to Kid Icarus Uprising will ensue.

 

[CommanderRin]

I'm hoping for 3 stocks to become the norm.

While I was watching the livestream, I felt that the matches would drag on a tad too long, though it was definitely much better than Brawl matches.

Unless everyone uses Bowser, those were some pretty quick games with Bowser dittos.

 

[Flaxr XIII]

I voted 4 because the Bill Trinen matches from Comic Con seemed to go over pretty quickly. But then I remembered that they had items on....

 

[LiteralGrill]

if someone is gonna deliberately run for 6 minutes straight, they'll do it for 8 minutes. Trust me on this, no normal person is gonna run away for 6 minutes, they'll run away the last 30 seconds

I will run away for 6 minutes if I can because I want to win thousands of dollars. Why do you think they made a ledge grab limit in Brawl? Because MK players were trying to get one hit and plank an entire 8 minutes. Giving them 2 less minutes to work with makes it even easier.

Besides we only have timers to help tournaments run faster in the first place and for no other reason. We want to minimize the effects of the timer as much as possible for this reason.

 

[Jellyfish4102]

I think the people living to high prevents won't be an issue for two reasons. First because people aren't used to which moves are kill moves. For example people kept trying to kill with Fox's up smash but in Sm4sh his f smash is more powerful. Second because people weren't edgeguarding as well as they could with more practice with the game.

 

[Ussi]

I will run away for 6 minutes if I can because I want to win thousands of dollars. Why do you think they made a ledge grab limit in Brawl? Because MK players were trying to get one hit and plank an entire 8 minutes. Giving them 2 less minutes to work with makes it even easier.

Besides we only have timers to help tournaments run faster in the first place and for no other reason. We want to minimize the effects of the timer as much as possible for this reason.

key word: if you can

Running away is a skill in itself. Players have to learn to deal with that. Besides, the real nature of run away, is not to run the clock, but to slowly whittle your foe down, wracking up damage slowly but surely, before finishing him off. Keep away is an art, and if you aren't good at it, you'll get caught very easily. This only becomes a problem if one person is zoning well and the other person refuses to approach despite not being in the lead. The reduced timer will make it easier on everyone except the one guy making the match take too long.

When tactics like MK's planking occurs where you can't approach him, that's an issue with the character and game mechanics itself. Planking in general got hardcore nerfed in smash4 so that is a nonissue anyways. General keep away like toon link and hit and run styles like Sonic, are not unhealthy for the game while usually running the clock, and even if they run the clock, its not boring to watch the % war start, otherwise moments like these wouldn't happen if it was boring: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vMiKtp3-GE