Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[clydeaker]

I've noticed a pattern that every version of Super Smash Bros. has a different official rule set stock, for example:

N64 - 5 stock [8-ish optional minutes]
Melee - 4 stock 8 minutes (Project M)
Brawl - 3 stock 8 minutes
Wii U - 2 stock 6 minutes unofficially (3DS)​

(Next thing you know the Next Super Smash Bros. will use one stock. Ha ha!)

I understand competitive Melee came first, then Brawl, Smash 64, project M, and finally Smash 4, but thats not the point I'm trying to make. The point is each game seems to be getting slightly slower and harder to get a KO in. Each of these rule-sets generally use an 8 minuet timer for a match and each meet up is best 2 out of 3... that is except for Smash 4.

Most if not all Smash 3DS & Wii U tournaments I've been too, seen on YouTube, or even read about have been 2 stock, 5-6 minutes, and best of 2 out of 3 or best 3 out of 5 (although finals could be best 4 out of 7). Now I understand that because it's 2 stock best of 3 out of 5 (6-10 stock total) instead of 3 stock best of 2 out of 3 (6-9 stock total) it uses about the same amount (usually slightly more) time and stock as Brawl rule set, but allows more character match-ups and stage choices. That's all fine and dandy, however you don't have as good of a chance to make a comeback with 2 stock. Your only choice is to hopefully win your future matches if you have a slip-up or two. Heck even the default game rules have stock set to 3. The point is every single Smash games competitive matches are timed to be a maximum of 8 Minutes and each round is best of 2 games out of 3. Smash 4 is a bit slower like Brawl and fits 3 stock 8 minutes quite nicely.

In my opinion 2 stock is cheep compared to Brawls 3 stock, let alone Project M, Melee, and Smash 64's 4-5 stock games. The only reason I know of why the community unofficially choose to use 2 stock is because online For Glory mode used 2 stock for quick online games. I guess I kind of understand why Smash 3DS would use 2 stock instead of 3 because it's on a hand held device and is more popular with For Glory mode than multilayer smash, but Smash Wii U is different. Smash Wii U is generally considered the competitive choice over Smash 3DS fro multiple reasons. Not everything that applied to Smash 3DS should apply to Smash Wii U.

As you can see from The Ultimate Smash 4Ruleset Poll Results, the majority of the Smash 4 community agrees that Super Smash Bros. for Wii U should use 3 stock 8 minutes for singles.

The results as of May 23rd, 2015

Although 3 stock may be more accurate than 2 stock, it's more time consuming. It all depends on what's more important to you, accuracy or time.

<------2--------Stock--------3------>
<---Less---Accurate---More--->
<---Less------Time------More--->​

This topic is kind of in a gray area. It's easy to understand why 5 stock best of 7 may be too long and why 1 stock best of 1 may not be accurate enough. Everyone has there own cut-off line. Personally I feel like 3 stock best of 3 is were we can all meet up in the middle of the gray and agree on a standard set stock, but that's just my opinion.

<---1---2---3---4---5---> Stock #
<---1-------3--------5---> Best of #​

Here's a proposals:
edit: I copied this from a latter post because it's a good proposal that both sides of the argument can at least somewhat agree on.
What if we were to use both 2 and 3 stock? The basic idea is that Pools will use 2 stock and Finals are 3 stock. This way pools won't take up so much time, and finals will have more accurate results.

POOLS:

- 2 stock. (4-6 total)
- 5-6 minutes. (10-18 total)
- Best of 2 out of 3.
(Estimated average play time: 6 min.)​

Main Tournament:

- 3 stock. (6-9 total)
- 8 minutes. (16-24 total)
- Best of 2 out of 3.
(Estimated average play time: 8 min.)
OR
- 2 stock. (6-10 total)
- 5-6 minutes. (15-35 total)
- Best of 3 out of 5.
(Estimated average play time: 8 min.)​

(Note: both options arguably take up the same amount of time, but 2 stock best of 3 may be slightly more time consuming over all)

Tournament Finals:

- 3 stock. (9-15 total)
- 8 minutes. (24-40 total)
- Best of 3 out of 5.
(Estimated average play time: 12 min.)​

Remember not every tournament will have the same amount of participants. You might need to use a slightly different variation of this proposal depending on how big your tournament is. According to SmashBoards rankings categories there are a total of 8 different types of tournaments: Unranked, Pools, Teams, Online, Local, Regional, National, and International. Each of them will require slightly different rules in order to get the best possible time and accuracy for each match-up.

3 Stock will only get implemented into the meta game if tournaments (mostly major TO) start using 3 stock instead of 2. I recommend you consult with your local tournaments to see if they are willing to use 3 stock. I understand some of you have already done that, but if we all can do this the meta game will change in our favor.

Spoiler: 2 Stock Vs. 3 Stock Videos

Let's Talk: 2 VS 3 Stock Debate - ZeRo
by ZeRo.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twPZVXKeDOk.

Two Stocks VS Three Stocks - Smash 4
by Omni.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubHMpz4CMAA.

Let's Talk: 2 Stock vs 3 Stock
by imESAM.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_hYwuqrk6k.

2 Socks Vs. 3 Stocks! Ft. LoF Keitaro
by LeapofFaithNAKAT.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnU5lvXQmCY.

Project SMASH Roundtable - 2 Stock vs 3 Stock
by Tourney Locator.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF_7FSk4DLo.

There is one more thing I would like to show on the topic of stock. Although this is very unlikely you can still win a 3 stock, best 2 out of 3 match even if you loose more stock than your opponent. The outcome can be even more drastic with 4 or 5 stock or best of 4 out of 7. For example:

Players A I B
Match 1 -3 I -0/-1
Match 2 -2 I -3
Match 3 -2 I -3
Total -7 I -6/-7​

This can easily be the outcome if player B had 1 or 2 slip-ups (accidental deaths) even though player B could very well be the better player. It's kind of cool to think an underdog can still win against a pro even if they loose the first match and loose more stock over all. Just goes to show you shouldn't give up and can still win even if at first it seems the odds aren't in your favor.

Here are some more threads on the subject of Smash 4s competitive rule-set and stock specifically:
- Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion.
- Smash 4 Ruleset Poll Discussion.
- Is there any data proving 2 stock is actually faster than 3 stock?.
- 2 stock or 3 for Smash WiiU tournaments?.

What do you think? Should we use 2 stock or 3 stock? and how much time for each?

 

[Shouxiao]

3 Stocking someone is more hype than 2 stocking someone.

The pace of a 3 stock 8min match is very different than 2 stock 5/6mins.

Stalling is not likely to be an issue.

Players can be more aggressive. Once one stock is lost in a 2 stock match one has to play far more defensive.

Self Destructs are rare but if they happen for what ever reason on a 2 stock match that person is really in a bad spot.

Players can go for kills that take them and opponent out. That is not going to happen much when there is only 2 lives. The only time it makes sense to do in 2 stock is if one player has both their stocks while the other has 1.

I stated this later in the thread but these are also important points. Tournaments take longer because of the large increase in entrances. Simply look at the amazing entrants numbers for EVO this year.

Melee Evo 2013 had 709 players. Melee Evo 2014 had 970. Melee Evo 2015 has 1869 which is more than double last year.

Having 3stock and 8mins is not going to take up so much extra time that people spend dusk to dawn trying to finish pools or finish top 8. In fact having 3stock and 8mins might not even take up extra time at all.

Even if 3stock and 8mins are a bit longer that does not mean it is a bad thing. We live in a time where every major tournament/event is streamed on Twitch.tv and places like Niconico. More viewers for Smash 4 is not a bad thing. Seeing more potential for things like kills that takes out both players and 3stocking are moments worthy of highlights.

 

[kinbobbobkin]

I felt that 3 stocks is a much better choice because it show both players' strategy outcomes. 2 stock feels too quick.

But here's a question:
How would you solve the stalling in the last minute of the match(what would the rule be?)

 

[RayNoire]

3 stocks is better for playing; 2 stocks is better for watching.

I'd kind of like to see Sm4sh grow as a spectator game, so I'm more inclined to go with the latter.

 

[[Deuce]]

3 stocks is better for playing; 2 stocks is better for watching.

I'd kind of like to see Sm4sh grow as a spectator game, so I'm more inclined to go with the latter.

Not necessarily. a lot of lengthier games get viewer counts into the hundreds of thousands

 

[Teh Sandwich]

I was always dead set on 3 stocks, but recently I've been doing 2. My state had a couple 2 stock tourneys, and it's starting to grow on me.
I don't see the whole "2 stocks will make each player play more defensive" argument. I think 2 stocks are more hype. An early kill, or a gimp is much more rewarding.

 

[Xermo]

brawl tried 2 stock once. Salem ended a game in 20 seconds.

 

[NegaNixx]

brawl tried 2 stock once. Salem ended a game in 20 seconds.

And Axe Fourstocked somebody (Leffen?) in under a minute in Melee? That's not a point against 2 stock.

 

[DarkBlueSpark]

And Axe Fourstocked somebody (Leffen?) in under a minute in Melee? That's not a point against 2 stock.

Pretty sure it was Silentwolf at EVO, but yeah.

I'm all for trying 3 stocks. 2 stocks feels a bit short, but the matches do last awhile. 3 stocks would be more exciting to me personally though.

 

[NegaNixx]

Pretty sure it was Silentwolf at EVO, but yeah.

I'm all for trying 3 stocks. 2 stocks feels a bit short, but the matches do last awhile. 3 stocks would be more exciting to me personally though.

Thanks for the correction. Yeah I like three stocks but some match ups will take forever. Duck Hunt vs. Villager come to mind. But I'd love to see Match Ups like Marth vs. Falcon or just really volatile contrasting match ups would be a lot better with three stocks from a spectator standpoint

 

[RayNoire]

Not necessarily. a lot of lengthier games get viewer counts into the hundreds of thousands

I guess. Smash just seems more suited for short matches. Our collective attention span isn't very high (as Dabuz could attest).

 

[Xermo]

And Axe Fourstocked somebody (Leffen?) in under a minute in Melee? That's not a point against 2 stock.

I wasn't trying to make a point.

 

[T0MMY]

To explain my vote: I personally hold the opinion of liking 3 stocks, but I think 2 stocks should be used for reasons of standard. So I have a contradictory result and not only that but attendees at my tournament seem to feel the same way. Attendees generally do not like having to play through an 8 hour tournament, it's exhausting, so 2 stocks is favored for time (as a TO I agree, the work is taxing so efficiency is most welcomed). However 3 stocks just "feels right" when competing.

To reconcile, I have been providing a 3-stock, Best of One (a.k.a. "BoO") preliminary bracket (usually Swiss for smaller weeklies). If the match is a blow-out it's hype seeing someone get 3-stocked; additionally, if the game is a snooze-fest there is no chance it could be THREE snoozers in a row (like how it can be with a Best of 3 set). TOs can set as many rounds of Swiss as they'd like or have Round Robin Pools - everyone is getting a rotation in with a satisfactory pacing.
Once the dust has settled then the top players are taken out of the Swiss/Pools and matched against each other in a final bracket, Best of Three (a.k.a: "BoT") and 2 Stock. Having this a single elimination bracket helps significantly, there is no Lower Bracket and "Winners Finals" is "Grand Finals" so there is no possibility of "resetting the bracket" and final round is the only Best of Five - however if a double-elimination is desired then that is the TO's decision (I run with the Single-elim in my weeklies and it works great for the few hours we have).

So, seemingly contradictory, but explained why I voted "other" instead of 3-stocks as I like, or 2-stocks as I think should be standard.

Additionally, the Ultimate Smash 4 Ruleset Poll should be analyzed for what its worth - it's not really an ultimate vote from the Smash Community (opinions are ever-changing) and it's not really a poll, it's a survey (to the general public shot out to social networks - see about half surveyed said they don't play the game competitively or never touched the game before).

What really matters to me are what my attendees are interested in when they come to my events.

 

[DarkBlueSpark]

Thanks for the correction. Yeah I like three stocks but some match ups will take forever. Duck Hunt vs. Villager come to mind. But I'd love to see Match Ups like Marth vs. Falcon or just really volatile contrasting match ups would be a lot better with three stocks from a spectator standpoint

No problem. That's true, but how often would those matchups really happen? Not enough to discount 3 stock matches. We're never going to find a perfect format, only the best format.

 

[Monk of MaZe]

I think 3 stocks is a pretty good idea but I'd prefer if the matches remained at 6 minutes.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Where is the option for "I don't mind either way"?

 

[clydeaker]

Where is the option for "I don't mind either way"?

Sorry, I didn't add that one. Is there any way I or a moderator can add the option "I don't mind either way"?
That's a good idea so we can see how big of a deal it really is rather than make people choose a side. Thanks for bringing that up.

 

[David Viran]

I think 3 stocks is a pretty good idea but I'd prefer if the matches remained at 6 minutes.

There was a thread that had the average of 3 stock matches and the average was around 4 minutes.

 

[Trav MC]

We need to go on strike I've been testing it all week and it's so much more hype . We must change over to 3 stock 8 min. That is all

 

[Zelder]

I would be willing to offer up my first born son, and maaaaybe my second born son in exchange for 3 stock 8 minutes.

 

[Trav MC]

I'll sacrifice my daughter if that's what it takes

 

[dav3yb]

I'll probably be talking to a friend and fellow TO about trying out 3s8m at some future locals. We're going to be trying to run something pretty big in October this year, and I'd like some testing time with an altered format.

 

[ぱみゅ]

And here I thought I was too serious about this game.....

It isn't THAT big of a deal, specially if your only reasoning is the very objective "is more hype".
3 stocks allows players to take more risks, make more mistakes, and play longer. The division between "good" and "better" players is clearer and is less prone to human error.
2 stocks forces a thoughtful and precise gameplay as mistakes get punished harder, but at the same time that sums up for a less predictable metagame where undergrounds actually stand a chance if they capitalize on a favorite's error.

I don't prefer one over the other, but I don't think 3-stock arguments are good at all.

 

[kinbobbobkin]

And here I thought I was too serious about this game.....

It isn't THAT big of a deal, specially if your only reasoning is the very objective "is more hype".
3 stocks allows players to take more risks, make more mistakes, and play longer. The division between "good" and "better" players is clearer and is less prone to human error.
2 stocks forces a thoughtful and precise gameplay as mistakes get punished harder, but at the same time that sums up for a less predictable metagame where undergrounds actually stand a chance if they capitalize on a favorite's error.

I don't prefer one over the other, but I don't think 3-stock arguments are good at all.

I feel like having 2 stocks makes the game more quicker, but some people don't like quick games because it doesn't create excitement for them. IMO I think that 3 stocks help people think of strategies on their opponents.

 

[Zelder]

And here I thought I was too serious about this game.....

It isn't THAT big of a deal, specially if your only reasoning is the very objective "is more hype".
3 stocks allows players to take more risks, make more mistakes, and play longer. The division between "good" and "better" players is clearer and is less prone to human error.
2 stocks forces a thoughtful and precise gameplay as mistakes get punished harder, but at the same time that sums up for a less predictable metagame where undergrounds actually stand a chance if they capitalize on a favorite's error.

I don't prefer one over the other, but I don't think 3-stock arguments are good at all.

If the division between good and better players is more clear under a 3 stock setting, shouldn't that be the only argument that matters in a tournament setting? If a tournament's purpose is to determine who the best player at that tournament is, then you'd want conditions that most consistently bring out the best player.

 

[PokemonyeWest]

As a spectator, I would enjoy watching three stock matches more than the usual two stocks. I like watching longer matches and sets.

As a player, I don't have any preference. I always play three stock/eight minutes in friendlies but I play so much online that I'm not against playing a two stock match either.

 

[Purin a.k.a. José]

3 stocks and 8 minutes is a way better option.

 

[Luggy]

Right before the announcement of the rules of this year EVO :

: With our new game engine, as well as considering the DI and vectoring, with think 2 stocks and 5 minutes would be ideal for players. What do you think, players of EVO ?

: Well, seems all right, but players want more time. Could we have 6 minutes instead of 5 ?

: If it's for tournaments, then yes, this is possible. By the way, what does the fans wants in terms of time and stocks configuration ?

: Hum...3 stocks and 8...minutes.

: ...

: ...So...?

: Meh, screw this, we keep those rules. It will make more debate material for the fanbase.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

In all seriousness though, 3 stocks 8 minutes is the best.

 

[Zelder]

3 Stocks and 8 minutes would be less ideal for online play, because it could potentially lead to more disconnects. So I'm okay with the stock limit being as it is online.

 

[Hippieslayer]

"I've noted this pattern which is a lack of a pattern"

 

[ぱみゅ]

If the division between good and better players is more clear under a 3 stock setting, shouldn't that be the only argument that matters in a tournament setting? If a tournament's purpose is to determine who the best player at that tournament is, then you'd want conditions that most consistently bring out the best player.

It's obviously the only argument that matters. More stocks sure means less chances for outlying results. We could technically set it to 4, 5, 10, 50, or 99 stocks in order to get more consistent results, the more the better.

But anyway, my only problem with consistency is how it pans at the long term: results become predictable. After few years the slightly better players will get slightly better results CONSISTENTLY, leaving less and less room for slightly less skilled players to get better results, and this somehow often ends up discouraging them, slowly making them stop attending tournaments. I've seen that happen.
Two stocks allowing less room for error would make the metagame either a) force players to play near-perfect to succeed, or b) get more upsets, the final results become less predictable and more interesting to watch AND to play (trying to catch others offguard) event after event. Of course it also has its downsides, but we can't really predict metagame's actual advance.

In my opinion upsets are not a bad thing.


Don't get me wrong, I'll repeat myself by saying I don't prefer any over the other, but I see good and bad points of both, and I feel the obligation of defending the one with the lower odds here.

 

[MoosyDoosy]

I thought the argument for lower stocks in games like Brawl was that there were more opportunities for more player interaction. In Melee or PM, a stock can be taken off of a single grab which is low player interaction. In Brawl, there's a lot more player interaction as it's more of a game of pokes and projectiles. I think Sm4sh strikes the balance between the two games where a grab can lead to a stock loss or at least a lot of damage (Cap Falc, Diddy, Sheik, etc) and combos exist although not as extreme as Melee. Sm4sh also isn't exactly the snooze fest that Brawl is since approaches are actually encouraged and projectiles aren't as good.

So to strike the medium, I'd say 3 stocks is the best choice. I've never been a fan of 1 stock Brawl because BS can lead to a quick stock loss but 4 stock like Melee/PM is definitely way too much.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

Ideally, the stock count would be infinite, for an infinite amount of time. That is the only real way to convey which of the competitors is absolutely superior.

For the smoothest tournament experience and to retain the attention spans of the most spectators, games would be 1 stock, 2 minutes.

Which element do we actually care about more? What compromises are we willing to make? I think the best way to frame the question is, how long of a game can TOs and spectators handle while preserving the greatest degree of competitive legitimacy?

Very few people think the correct answer is 2 stocks, 5 minutes, Bo3. And if so few people are in favor of that ruleset, why aren't more TOs willing to break out of this arbitrary box?

 

[MoosyDoosy]

Ideally, the stock count would be infinite, for an infinite amount of time. That is the only real way to convey which of the competitors is absolutely superior.

For the smoothest tournament experience and to retain the attention spans of the most spectators, games would be 1 stock, 2 minutes.

Hello????? Having infinite stocks and infinite time wouldn't prove which of the competitors is absolutely superior, it would favor the player with the greater endurance. What we're aiming for is a balance between stocks, time, endurance, preparation, gimmicks, tech, mind games, skill, and all the other things that go into every Smash game.

Also the notion that 1 stock 2 min is the best way to hold the attention spans of the spectators is absolutely false. I would be even more fidgety and be bored out of my mind as the games would probably be a battle of gimmicks and not skill. Which is contradictory from your previous incorrect statement about a way to demonstrate absolute skill.

Absolutely confused about your post.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

When you say that endurance is the deciding factor in an infinitely-long set, you are either an idiot or being intentionally obtuse. No sensible person concludes that the correct solution to Smash tournaments is playing forever. These players spend hours practicing every single day (usually with considerably fewer breaks than in the tournament environment). There is no viable tournament scenario where fatigue should set in before scheduling constraints or waning spectator attention spans, so jettison that thought directly from your brain. If it does, then you're probably not cut out for competitive gaming.

My (very obvious) point was that more sets, more stocks equates to more data from which to extrapolate the superior player. The ONLY relevant factors to counter that truth are what I have already alluded to: tournament scheduling conflicts and spectator interest.

If you get "more fidgety" by watching shorter games, then congratulations. You've effectively invalidated 1 of the 2 only reasonable excuses for 2 stock, 5 minute games. By all means, go forth and explain to Joey "Mr. Wizard" Cuellar that you expect him to adjust his EVO timetable to accommodate for your exact attention span, and all of your problems will be solved.

 

[clydeaker]

Ha ha! wow! I am surprised at how many people agree with me that 3 stock is better than 2. I usually don't get this much positive feedback on my posts. Ha ha! The thing is this will only get implemented into the meta game if tournaments (mostly major TO) start using 3 stock instead of 2. I recommend you consult with your local tournaments to see if they are willing to use 3 stock. I understand some of you have already done that, but if we all can do this the meta game will change in our favor.

 

[MoosyDoosy]

When you say that endurance is the deciding factor in an infinitely-long set, you are either an idiot or being intentionally obtuse. No sensible person concludes that the correct solution to Smash tournaments is playing forever. These players spend hours practicing every single day (usually with considerably fewer breaks than in the tournament environment). There is no viable tournament scenario where fatigue should set in before scheduling constraints or waning spectator attention spans, so jettison that thought directly from your brain. If it does, then you're probably not cut out for competitive gaming.

My (very obvious) point was that more sets, more stocks equates to more data from which to extrapolate the superior player. The ONLY relevant factors to counter that truth are what I have already alluded to: tournament scheduling conflicts and spectator interest.

If you get "more fidgety" by watching shorter games, then congratulations. You've effectively invalidated 1 of the 2 only reasonable excuses for 2 stock, 5 minute games. By all means, go forth and explain to Joey "Mr. Wizard" Cuellar that you expect him to adjust his EVO timetable to accommodate for your exact attention span, and all of your problems will be solved.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for this incredibly respectful response. It's posts like these that don't **** up threads and make them spiral into pointless spats with zero productivity. I'll try and address your points individually in a respectful manner as well.

1. If you look at your first post, you were stating that the "ideal" way to find the superior player was infinite stocks and infinite time. I thought the implication was that the focus was solely on the players and finding out the better player and not the viewer experience. And in a situation with infinite stocks and infinite time, it's inevitable that the players would begin to feel fatigued. If you place this in a tournament setting (which is impossible as I implied and which you seem to respectfully agree with as well), the stress, pressure, and just playing for a long time will inevitably tire the player out. And if you don’t feel fatigued after playing in a high stress, high pressure environment for an extended period of time then I’d like to congratulate you. Unfortunately, not everyone is as pro. But then again, since you clearly are the role model everyone should adhere to, I guess we should base everything off of your experiences only.

2. I’d also like to apologize for not reading into your point on “infinite stocks and infinite time.” Next time I’ll PM you in person to make sure I clearly get any implications in your posts and understand them. If you’d like, I can also try and meet you in person in order to clear any possible misunderstanding in the PM as well. Of course it’s all completely my fault for not understanding your intention in a post in the Internet which is devoid of any of the human emotion and communication that is normally present.

3. It also seems that you misread my post. I said that “1 stock 2 min” was a very bad idea as it would make many games about gimmicks and not player skill. It seems you thought I said “2 stock, 5 min” when I clearly was addressing your post saying that “1 stock 2 min” was the ideal for streamlining tournaments. It seems that this may be a misunderstanding as well, so I’ll take responsibility for this as well and meet you in person next time to understand your post. Unfortunately, it seems that you misread what I wrote as well, so I’ll have to advise you to check your eyesight. If your eyesight is perfectly fine, I’ll then have to direct you to the nearest psychologist to clear any possibilities of delusional visions.

tl;dr You can’t just post random “ideal” scenarios and assume that people will understand the underlying sarcasm of it and the reason behind your post. I read your post literally because it’s the Internet and the best way to communicate is to state what you think plainly so that people don’t misunderstand what you say. It’s especially important in a forum like this where we’re trying to be productive so I’ll appreciate it if you actually post what you think rather than trying to extrapolate a point from random “ideal” scenarios and expecting people to get it.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

First of all, I'd like to thank you for this incredibly respectful response. It's posts like these that don't **** up threads and make them spiral into pointless spats with zero productivity. I'll try and address your points individually in a respectful manner as well.

1. If you look at your first post, you were stating that the "ideal" way to find the superior player was infinite stocks and infinite time. I thought the implication was that the focus was solely on the players and finding out the better player and not the viewer experience. And in a situation with infinite stocks and infinite time, it's inevitable that the players would begin to feel fatigued. If you place this in a tournament setting (which is impossible as I implied and which you seem to respectfully agree with as well), the stress, pressure, and just playing for a long time will inevitably tire the player out. And if you don’t feel fatigued after playing in a high stress, high pressure environment for an extended period of time then I’d like to congratulate you. Unfortunately, not everyone is as pro. But then again, since you clearly are the role model everyone should adhere to, I guess we should base everything off of your experiences only.

2. I’d also like to apologize for not reading into your point on “infinite stocks and infinite time.” Next time I’ll PM you in person to make sure I clearly get any implications in your posts and understand them. If you’d like, I can also try and meet you in person in order to clear any possible misunderstanding in the PM as well. Of course it’s all completely my fault for not understanding your intention in a post in the Internet which is devoid of any of the human emotion and communication that is normally present.

3. It also seems that you misread my post. I said that “1 stock 2 min” was a very bad idea as it would make many games about gimmicks and not player skill. It seems you thought I said “2 stock, 5 min” when I clearly was addressing your post saying that “1 stock 2 min” was the ideal for streamlining tournaments. It seems that this may be a misunderstanding as well, so I’ll take responsibility for this as well and meet you in person next time to understand your post. Unfortunately, it seems that you misread what I wrote as well, so I’ll have to advise you to check your eyesight. If your eyesight is perfectly fine, I’ll then have to direct you to the nearest psychologist to clear any possibilities of delusional visions.

tl;dr You can’t just post random “ideal” scenarios and assume that people will understand the underlying sarcasm of it and the reason behind your post. I read your post literally because it’s the Internet and the best way to communicate is to state what you think plainly so that people don’t misunderstand what you say. It’s especially important in a forum like this where we’re trying to be productive so I’ll appreciate it if you actually post what you think rather than trying to extrapolate a point from random “ideal” scenarios and expecting people to get it.

Glad to see you're catching up with the conversation. It would be a very mundane life if I spent it explaining myself to every literalist mouth-breather on the internet.

And actually, I can post things with the assumption that, at least, the majority of people will understand that it is hyperbole. I do it quite a lot, in fact. It works out about half of the time. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[RyeSSB]

3 stock prevents more upsets and allows for comebacks to occur more often.

 

[Kugelhagelfisch]

I voted for 3 stocks. The absolute match time doesn't matter much, as it usually only differs by a minute or so, but how dynamic the match is matters a lot as a spectator.
If we're being honest, an all-out projectile match between two villagers is often boring to watch no matter how many stocks are traded.
With 3 stocks players tend to play a lot more agressive. Sometimes because they need to catch up, sometimes because they are taking advantage of their stock lead to end the match swiftly.

I haven't ever seen a timeout in a tournament yet. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it seems to be extremely rare.