Anyone who has been on AiB or SWF for the last week has seen a lot of talk about changing the rules of Brawl so that the game is more fast-paced and exciting. This has become even more apparent with exposure to EVO's stream from last weekend and will likely continue as we approach Apex 2012.
This is a sign that the community is aware that something is not comfortable with the current rules that we see at the usual tournaments. If there are problems present, that means we must identify the underlying cause, and then find a solution. Complaint #1: "Boring" Game-play
No one wants to see Meta Knight tornado someone once and then run to the edge and plank for 8-minute, thereby being rewarded a win. Root Cause:
The motivation to play campy\stall is rewarding a win through %-based tie-breaking. Solution:
Repeal the ruling for %-based wins. If a player has to actually KO the opponent they will at least have earned their lead, and this will also motivate aggressive tactics. Complaint #2: Stalling\Time-Outs
Even if someone has a stock lead, they can still run the clock and try to win by a time-out. Root Cause:
The lower the timer the more likely it is for the player to rationalize stalling in order to win (or tie), especially if it seems more feasible to stall out the clock than to KO the opponent. Solution:
At the very least a 10-minute timer should be used as a minimum setting, but getting rid of the timer altogether would prevent anyone from stalling. Some players prefer the clock (to keep track of Wario's D-special). A compromise can be reached to set the clock to 99:00 minutes. Complaint #3: Games take too long
Here's an interesting comparison: SSFIV:AE Evo 2011 Grand Finals
Fuudo vs. Latif
7 Rounds total:
Round 1: @24.s
, 1-0, Fuudo (24.s) @44.s
, 2-0, Fuudo (20.s)
Round 2: @83.s
, 1-0, Fuudo (39.s) @124.s
, 2-0, Fuudo (41.s)
, 1-0, Fuudo (44.s) @235.s
, 1-1, Latiff (67.s) @280.s
, 2-1, Fuudo (45.s)
Now look at the following comparisons in Smash: Brawl Grand Finals - Genesis 2
M2K (MK) vs. Ally (Snake)
Round 1: @80.s
, 1st KO, M2K's stock (80.s) @120.s
, 2nd KO, Ally's stock (40.s) @212.s
, 3rd KO, M2K's stock (92.s) @220.s
, 4th KO, Ally's stock (8.s) @290.s
, Winning KO, Ally's stock (70.s)
As you can see, it isn't necessarily that Smash is 'too slow', but rather that Stocks in Smash are about equivalent to Energy Bars in SF4. This means that one Round
of Smash is equivalent to an entire Set
So the question comes down to this:
Does the Smash community want faster games? 1-Stock, Best of 3 (Finals Best of 5)
Pros: Planking\Scrooging\Stalling is effectively eliminated (assuming the %-based tie-breaker is no longer used). Games are much quicker-paced. Pokemon Trainer can effectively 'main' one Pokemon. Zero Suit Samus gets a slight buff.
Cons: Lucario only gets Aura bonuses from damage.
If 3-stock is desired, then the number of Rounds in a Set must be dropped to 1 with Finals and Grand Finals being a Best of 3 Set. To do compromise with anything else will just result in longer games, longer tournaments, and less hype.
1) %-based tie-breaking motivates stalling-tactics; it needs to go.
2) Timer should be 10-min standard, but 99-min will guarantee stalling is eliminated.
3) The Smash community needs to try out 1-stock 1of3 matches (Finals 1of5) *if* they want 'traditional fighter' paced action.
Smashers, if you want change, than you have to accept the consequences as well.
If you're afraid of change, then the game will forever be stuck in it's own mire of stagnation.
------------------------- (And just for the fun of it)
Melee Grand Finals - Genesis 2
Mango (Fox) vs Armada (Peach)
@38.s, 1st KO (Armada's stock)
@46.s, 2nd KO (Mango's stock)
@84.s, 3rd KO (Armada's stock)
@117.s, 4th KO (Mango's stock)
@142.s, 5th KO (Mango's stock)
@152.s, 6th KO (Armada's stock)
@209.s, 7th KO (Armada's stock)