D
Deleted member 269706
Guest
I'm still iffy on 3 stock.
I'm not denying that it would change the game for the better in some aspects. No, in theory there would be a lot more consistency. In theory, people wouldn't play as safe and would be more willing to take risks. In theory, rage would be less of a factor.
But that's all in theory. Before we saw consistency, we would see a lot of things we deemed as inconsistent from many players. For example, I believe Sheik would preform much worse in a 3 stock format because she has to find an extra kill every single game. We've seen top Sheik players allow their opponents live to obscene percents, not because they wanted to, but because Sheik struggles finding that kill against a safe opponent. Now imagine that Sheik, having a hard time getting a kill going against someone with maxed out rage.
As a matter of fact, this applies to several characters who have a hard time wrapping up stocks. Maybe it's too early to say this, but I think 3 stocks would polarize the tier list. Good characters would be able to get a lead and ride with it, characters on the bottom side of the tier list would have a much harder time keeping up, let alone finding a way to secure a kill. The strong get stronger, the weak get weaker.
And they will tell ya that people will be more willing to take risks, and that players will be more adventurous...but from what I've seen, this is only true half the time. That half tends to be lower level play, or the highest level. I've seen people try and hold onto their lead and their play gets infinitely campier. I've seen games go to time because neither side was willing to commit. The person with the lead saw no reason to risk their stock, they do the optimal thing and hold onto their lead. This is why viewership becomes a problem; because if people actually played more adventurous and were more willing to take risks, we would LOVE watching that! Viewership would increase if anything. The unfortunate truth is, people like holding onto their leads. They get greedy and want that lead to get bigger and bigger so they'll play safer to do so.
Now I'm asking something of you: Be honest with yourself.
Do you want to see Wrath (or any other "campy" Sonic) preform in a 3 stock tournament? Because I tell ya, Sonic would benefit a ton from it; get a lead and run.
Do you wanna see even more people pick up Cloud? Because they would: solid neutral, easy kills.
Do you want to see less "mid/low tier" characters in top 32/16/8? Because they'd have a much harder time making it. Having to win the neutral over and over and finding creative ways to score kills every single game.
Inconsistency sucks, it really does. But it's what allows for our low tier heroes to make it so far. And who doesn't love seeing that happen?
Rage is freakin stupid, but it's taught us a ton about our game and helped us develop our meta. I have no doubt that players will still abuse it in 3 stock play.
I'm still for two stock as it stands. I think eventually making the transition will be necessary, but that time is not now.
I'm not denying that it would change the game for the better in some aspects. No, in theory there would be a lot more consistency. In theory, people wouldn't play as safe and would be more willing to take risks. In theory, rage would be less of a factor.
But that's all in theory. Before we saw consistency, we would see a lot of things we deemed as inconsistent from many players. For example, I believe Sheik would preform much worse in a 3 stock format because she has to find an extra kill every single game. We've seen top Sheik players allow their opponents live to obscene percents, not because they wanted to, but because Sheik struggles finding that kill against a safe opponent. Now imagine that Sheik, having a hard time getting a kill going against someone with maxed out rage.
As a matter of fact, this applies to several characters who have a hard time wrapping up stocks. Maybe it's too early to say this, but I think 3 stocks would polarize the tier list. Good characters would be able to get a lead and ride with it, characters on the bottom side of the tier list would have a much harder time keeping up, let alone finding a way to secure a kill. The strong get stronger, the weak get weaker.
And they will tell ya that people will be more willing to take risks, and that players will be more adventurous...but from what I've seen, this is only true half the time. That half tends to be lower level play, or the highest level. I've seen people try and hold onto their lead and their play gets infinitely campier. I've seen games go to time because neither side was willing to commit. The person with the lead saw no reason to risk their stock, they do the optimal thing and hold onto their lead. This is why viewership becomes a problem; because if people actually played more adventurous and were more willing to take risks, we would LOVE watching that! Viewership would increase if anything. The unfortunate truth is, people like holding onto their leads. They get greedy and want that lead to get bigger and bigger so they'll play safer to do so.
Now I'm asking something of you: Be honest with yourself.
Do you want to see Wrath (or any other "campy" Sonic) preform in a 3 stock tournament? Because I tell ya, Sonic would benefit a ton from it; get a lead and run.
Do you wanna see even more people pick up Cloud? Because they would: solid neutral, easy kills.
Do you want to see less "mid/low tier" characters in top 32/16/8? Because they'd have a much harder time making it. Having to win the neutral over and over and finding creative ways to score kills every single game.
Inconsistency sucks, it really does. But it's what allows for our low tier heroes to make it so far. And who doesn't love seeing that happen?
Rage is freakin stupid, but it's taught us a ton about our game and helped us develop our meta. I have no doubt that players will still abuse it in 3 stock play.
I'm still for two stock as it stands. I think eventually making the transition will be necessary, but that time is not now.
