Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[Illuminose]

The average game time for top 8 was 5:04. The matches were still hype because it's top level Smash 4, but it definitely ran too slow.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The Winners+Losers+Grands Finals lasted about 80 minutes, and Grand was a 3-0.
As hype as it could be, players' endurance played a large role.

 

[2fast]

Upon watching Beast, 3 stocks seems like a double edged sword. As a spectator, ESAM vs iStudying being 3 stocks was absolutely incredible and is one of the most hype sets I've ever seen. But you have the sets like the ones with the Rosalina player (who's name escapes me atm) felt like they dragged on. I don't usually mind watching Mr. R as well but with 3 stocks, shieks lack of kill power was certainly being shown (I feel like 3 stocks might actually make shiek slightly weaker) and it made the shiek matches feel a lot slower. Watching iStudying and ESAM play their matches with 3 stocks was the greatest though.

When it comes to playing with 3 stocks, it certainly feels way better then 2 stocks. I feel way more comfortable while in 2 stocks I feel instantly pressured when I lose my first stock because that's already half the match.

 

[valakmtnsmash4]

I agree that 3 stocks has its downfalls and its strengths. We need to keep in mind the players endurance, not the hype. It looked like istudying was completely drained against Mr. R in grand finals.

 

[Wintermelon43]

I agree that 3 stocks has its downfalls and its strengths. We need to keep in mind the players endurance, not the hype. It looked like istudying was completely drained against Mr. R in grand finals.

I see what you did there.

 

[Xeze]

As much as I love 3 stock, I'm not seeing the US scene switching from 2 stock anytime soon. The grand finals set of Beast 6 killed that chance.
Here in Europe we most likely are going to continue with 3 stock, unless every european country switches to 2 stock.

Smash 4 has fast gameplay but when 2 out of the 3 S-tiers (Rosa and Sheik) cause matches to drag out, a 3 stock scenario is highly unlikely.

 

[Shouxiao]

The length of 3stock and 8mins is not as bad as people think. Most tournaments have others games running and the average top 8 for Street Fighter and Tekken is around 2 to 3 hours. If Smash 4 took 90 mins that would not be so bad.

If endurance is something players lack then they should work on it. If playing long sets can drain a player out and someone knew that weakness it would be easy to exploit. As for Mr. R vs iStudying one has to consider iStudying situation.

If one is in losers finals and goes to grand finals they have to have the endurance to keep playing. The person coming from winner's finals has a break(they watch the match in losers finals and maybe even losers semi finals).

The person is losers finals have to play a lot more matches so naturally regardless of format they are more likely to be tired. That is the thing about losers bracket. When a person is there they have to play a lot more matches or risk getting eliminated.

 

[Xeze]

The length of 3stock and 8mins is not as bad as people think. Most tournaments have others games running and the average top 8 for Street Fighter and Tekken is around 2 to 3 hours. If Smash 4 took 90 mins that would not be so bad.

80 minutes was the length of top 3 (winners finals, losers finals and grand finals). The whole top 8 took like 3 hours. And it was all best of 3, except for top 4.

 

[Shouxiao]

80 minutes was the length of top 3 (winners finals, losers finals and grand finals). The whole top 8 took like 3 hours. And it was all best of 3, except for top 4.

Ah I see. I miss read and type. Still that is the length overall would be on par with other fighting games.

As far as people saying endurance is a real problem I think its them not realizing how double eliminations tournaments work.

People on winner's side have to play less matches and they also get many more breaks in between their matches.

People on loser's side have to play a lot more matches and they get few breaks in between their matches.

It does not matter what format is being used. A player's endurance is significantly tested more the moment they get put in losers. When it comes to Winners, Losers, and Grand Finals the person who makes it to Grand Finals on Winners side gets a break. The person who makes it to Grand Finals on losers side has to play consecutive matches with no break. Also since they made it to Grand Finals on loser's side they still have to win 2 sets.

Anywhere else in a tournament(pools/brackets) a player shall have to play a lot more matches if they are put in losers. If a player lacks endurance then they likely shall not ever make it in losers bracket.

I would also say this. Most of the tournament is going to be best 2 out of 3. The different in time between best 2 out of 3 2stock, and best 2 out of 3 3stock can only be a few mins. If a few mins of time is enough to drain a player's endurance then that is a crippling weakness that player has.

 

[FallenHero]

The biggest problem with 3 stock format is that most players are already used to the 2 stock format. 3 stocks would probably encourage more aggressive play style for most players if that was the way it had always been, but players who are used to 2 stocks usually just end up playing about the same as they do when they play in a 2 stock format. Unfortunately the only real reason I can think of for why the 2 stock format began to be used in the first place was because Sakurai decided to make it 2 stocks on FG (which was probably a good idea to keep potentially laggy matches going on for too long). I feel like the longer 2 stocks is the standard, the more difficult it will be to make 3 stocks the format. Sucks that trying to make a change in the meta is pretty much always an uphill battle.

 

[Shouxiao]

The biggest problem with 3 stock format is that most players are already used to the 2 stock format. 3 stocks would probably encourage more aggressive play style for most players if that was the way it had always been, but players who are used to 2 stocks usually just end up playing about the same as they do when they play in a 2 stock format. Unfortunately the only real reason I can think of for why the 2 stock format began to be used in the first place was because Sakurai decided to make it 2 stocks on FG (which was probably a good idea to keep potentially laggy matches going on for too long). I feel like the longer s stocks is the standard, the more difficult it will be to make 3 stocks the format. Sucks that trying to make a change in the meta is pretty much always an uphill battle.

Yeah you have a point. This and the stage list are going to be the most difficult things to change. Not a fan of For Glory like rulesets in tournament. Honestly in the era that we are in I think 3stock would only benefit Smash 4.

The Winners+Losers+Grands Finals lasted about 80 minutes, and Grand was a 3-0.
As hype as it could be, players' endurance played a large role.

I agree that 3 stocks has its downfalls and its strengths. We need to keep in mind the players endurance, not the hype. It looked like istudying was completely drained against Mr. R in grand finals.

If endurance is a complaint that people have then that is truly a crippling weakness. If a player has no endurance then there is no way they can survive in loser's bracket. The different in time if any between a 6min set and a 8min set is little(just a few mins).

An early elimination that sends someone to loser's bracket would lead to near double amount the games sets to play. Getting sent to losers mid way would still increase the amount of matches by a good amount.

In top 8 if one gets to Grand Finals from losers side not only have they just played and won loser's finals. They have to win 2 sets and they get no break between sets. They have to have endurance to win 3 consecutive sets with no break and 2stock format would not change that.

Also people on Winner's side gets many breaks in between their matches. People on Loser's side get fewer to no breaks in between matches. A player's endurance get tested significantly more the moment they are sent to losers.

 

[adom4]

I don't know what the viewers prefer but after playing 3 stocks at Beast 6 i can definitely say i prefer playing 3 stocks, i can't put a finger as to why i prefer it but it just feels a lot better than 2 stocks.

 

[Teshie U]

Boring stuff is boring longer and fun stuff is fun longer.

Watching Ranai vs ZeRo/Dabuz I just wanted more, but watching most sets involving Mr. R or Dabuz I start to wonder why we don't play 1 stock.

Thats the way its going to go. If the meta becomes more interesting to watch, 3 stock will get stronger. As the game dwindled (just as brawl did) people will be more likely to choose less of the game.

 

[doUevenhoistbro]

#free3stocks #****2STOCKS

 

[Bigchill]

3 stocks and no time limit

 

[Pyr]

No time limit is an even worse idea than 3 stocks for the main purpose 2 stocks fulfills.

 

[Shouxiao]

3 stocks and no time limit

Any format needs a time limit. Things can not go on forever.

As for ruleset I still say 3stock is the best.

As for people who say 3stock 8mins is an endurance test I question if they can even survive in loser's bracket(even if sent there from top 8). Loser's bracket is an endurance test(even with 2stock) but its good to have another chance instead of being eliminated if things were single bracket elimination.

As for time 3stock 8mins is not as long as people make it out to be. It is on par with other fighting games. The possible different in time between a 6min set and 8min set is only a few mins(6) at most. Most tournaments are going to have best 2 out of 3 brackets. Things only become best 3 out of 5 until finals or in some cases top 8.

2stock with 3 out of 5 for the whole tournament? Lets be realistic. That would basically put a target on Smash 4's head. Melee and all the other fighting games community would be after Smash 4 so fast.

If 2stock is to save time then what shall a community due as it grows? Smash has grown rapidly over the past few years. It would be realistic to say that sooner or later tournaments are going to be running a whole extra day to get things done due to the increase in number of entrances.

 

[clydeaker]

Wow. Most people want 3 stock 8 minuets.

 

[Redline!]

First of all, I want to establish my position relative to ZeRo's now-infamous video.

ZeRo agrees with me that 3-stock can be better for players, while giving TOs a hard time and being "less hype" for spectators.

But even before discussing how subjective "hype" is, and how much faster Smash 4 has gotten in the past few months, ZeRo's argument contains a fatal flaw.

The audience means nothing.

ZeRo is arguing from the position of a sponsored player. His literal job is to play well enough to represent his sponsor and their interests and serve as advertising. His priorities are:

1. Winning.
2. Making sure as many people watch him win as possible.

But those are not the best interests of our community or our developing metagame. The best interests of our community is maximizing the development of the game and giving our players the best possible experience.

Smash-as-a-spectator-sport should have ABSOLUTELY NO INFLUENCE AT ALL on our ruleset. It should mean NOTHING. Every time we make a decision about rulesets for the sake of audience pleasure, we are ACTIVELY COMPROMISING the competitive integrity of the game to the benefit of no one.

The only cogent arguments to be had over 2stock vs. 3stock are:

• How does stock count affect ingame play and balance?
• How does stock count affect tournament organization?

and most importantly

• What stock count/ruleset best balances practical, organizational concerns with providing an accurate, fair, and consistent environment for satisfying, competitive play?

I don't know the answers to those questions definitively. 2stock6minutes may very well be the answer to that last question after all.

But we did not arrive at 2stock6minutes by looking to answer that question. We arrived at 2stock6mintues because of memes and money. No real research, no impartiality, and certainly no democracy.

Personally, I enjoy both formats, but with caveats.

The Pause Rule, for instance, makes absolutely no sense as-is in a 2stock meta; a punishment devised in Melee that enacted a 1/4 game penalty now exacts a penalty of more than 1/2 of a game, especially with rage in play. Additionally, Smash 4's buffer system (which in my opinion is 90% a good thing, for the record) and general jank has been known to cause bizarre near-0% no-fault SDs; these SDs often have a demoralizing effect that can, both emotionally and practically, make comebacks extremely difficult, and which are profoundly unsatisfying to see decide games or sets.

On the other hand, a 3-stock meta could exacerbate stalling tactics and keep-away play. Is Rosalina hurt by the relatively reduced impact of an early Luma Uair kill, or is she empowered by her ability to run away with a small lead, or is she incentivized to play more aggressively to secure a 2-stock lead instead?

We don't know until we try. And compare.

 

[Ravengeance]

I'm prob super late to the party but it isn't so much the time limit as much as average time a match takes. You compare the Melee roster of characters used and you have such a high amount of spacies whose matches are always short and then you throw in sheiks falcons marths and edgeguarding tools and the speed melee is played and the average 4 stock match of melee is faster than the average 2 stock match of sm4sh.
I still think 3 stocks is better than 2 and probably always will. Making it 3 stocks lessens the affect of RAGE in the game and makes it a closer judgement of skill. But to put it frankly in sm4sh 1v1 3 stocks just takes too long. You have to go 2 stock in a tournament setting. Doubles is still 3 stock so that's good. 2 stock singles matches do technically make the game more exciting. But with so many entrants in tourneys I believe you gotta keep it at two stocks, solely bc of time.

But like if I play a friendly I'm down for 3 stocks always.

 

[Floor]

Looking here, people are bringing up endurance for the player, which never considered. For me, I look at it as more of a risk question. 2 stocks makes a screw up more detrimental while players are more willing to take a risky gimp/spike if they have 3 stocks.

I perfer 2 stocks over 3 because it forces players to play more carefully while making the rewards greater. If i want to spike someone in a 2 stock match, I could effectively be half way to winning the match due to a risk i took while risking half the match if I miss and my opponent counter edge guards. 3 stocks seems to be lower risk lower reward while 2 stocks is higher risk, higher reward to me.

 

[Zeldageek123]

To be honest, I see 3 stock and 8 minutes as the more favorable option purely because of the competitiord. Longer matches with 3 stiocks are more comfortable and allow for a little bit of error. It also allows for comebacks and ultimately determines the best player because of their ability to emdure and adapt. I can see why it coukd drag on, but it's only in the best interest of the players. For spectating, 2 stock is a lot quicker and is much more accessible. It also shortens tourney lengths, which could be useful in larger tourneys.

I'm pretty torn on it, but personally, I prefer 3 stock/8 minutes to anything else. Tye scene will grow regardless of the stock number and time limit.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

for me the battle between 2 stock vs 3 stock is a nonexistent issue if we can go bo5.

 

[Leftiez]

Personally, I prefer 2 stock. But I also see 3 stock smash as a somewhat impossible goal. The smash 4 community has been using 2 stock all along, and 2 stock even appears on For Glory. Every large tournament and most high level competitive matchups are 2 stock. So for a community as a whole to make a shift like that would be difficult at this point. Also, while it's true that 3 stock leaves room for error, it would also make games considerably more boring than they already are considered to be.

 

[paperchao]

Personally, I prefer 2 stock. But I also see 3 stock smash as a somewhat impossible goal. The smash 4 community has been using 2 stock all along, and 2 stock even appears on For Glory. Every large tournament and most high level competitive matchups are 2 stock. So for a community as a whole to make a shift like that would be difficult at this point. Also, while it's true that 3 stock leaves room for error, it would also make games considerably more boring than they already are considered to be.

Europe I hear is 3 stock, so it differs between regions

 

[LeBoyRoy]

Tbh I prefer 3 stocks because if one player is much better than the other then there is more time for the bad player to try and come back

 

[Pyr]

If one player is truly that much better, the bad player will not come back. 2 stock, 3 stock, or 99 stock.

 

[Pazx]

Perhaps the discussion we should be having is 2 stock bo5 versus 3 stock bo3.

 

[Shouxiao]

Perhaps the discussion we should be having is 2 stock bo5 versus 3 stock bo3.

If a tournament has games other than Smash, then one can pretty much expect the ruleset to be BO3 regardless of 2stock or 3stock. Few exceptions exist.

Now if a tournament is Smash games only then you can expect BO5.

Being realistic, at most Smash would only get BO5 for top 8(if that). In almost all cases it is BO3 until Finals/Grand Finals.

 

[ぱみゅ]

That's only bad planning from TOs.
My tournaments are almost always 24-32 people, and I've always ran Bo5 at top 8 (and that's a very important percentage for how small the community is). And it is also important because we usually get about 3-5 setups.
TOs not doing something similar for bigger events with a lot more setups means they are not willing to do their job properly.

 

[Shouxiao]

That's only bad planning from TOs.
My tournaments are almost always 24-32 people, and I've always ran Bo5 at top 8 (and that's a very important percentage for how small the community is). And it is also important because we usually get about 3-5 setups.
TOs not doing something similar for bigger events with a lot more setups means they are not willing to do their job properly.

BO3 is basically the FGC(Fighting Game Community) standard. I understand why tournament organizers use it. Well not only is Smash 4 and Smash Melee being played. There is Street Fighter, Tekken, Guilty Gear, and other games being played. On finals day, top 8 for all games is either from morning to night or noon to night(this is using USA time as an example). Think of the time if everything was BO5.

Street Fighter V and Tekken are the only games that always have BO5 at top 8. The reason for this is because Capcom and Namco have pro player tours that follow their official guidelines. Big tournaments for Street Fighter V for example follows the Capcom Pro Tour ruleset.

The only way I see Smash 4 ever getting BO5 top 8 at all tournaments is if Nintendo made a pro tour similar to what Capcom and Namco does.

At Smash only events BO5 is much earlier then top 8 if not for the whole tournament.

 

[ぱみゅ]

It is also FGC's standard not to mess with the game's default settings (time, handicap, special options, etc.), a lot of them don't even need to have a ruleset at all, and we clearly do much more than that.
Using other games as comparisons is generally not good unless it clearly draws the whole logistics game back. And the difference between 3sBo3 and 2sBo5, logistically speaking, is trivial.
Actually, logistically speaking 2sBo3 is the most optimal way, but this game has so many variants it doesn't really work.


* Ahem *
What I ultimately mean is that we need to draw our own standard (SPECIALLY because Nintendo doesn't really hold "official" events), so we'd rather not involve the FGC, Melee, Brawl, or any different game or competition to make the decisions that benefit us.
If other games run or don't run Bo5's, don't change the default settings, or run single-elimination, is their own problem, not ours.

Also, I mostly mentioned an anecdote because Bo5 Top 8's DOES work as stand-alone, at local and regional levels.
When you involve Large Regionals and Nationals, the line must be drawn much earlier than that, and the fact a lot of big tournaments successfully run Bo5 starting at Top 32 speaks for itself.


TL;DR - You're too dense involving other games, Sm4sh should be analyzed on its own merits and no one else's.

 

[Shouxiao]

It is also FGC's standard not to mess with the game's default settings (time, handicap, special options, etc.), a lot of them don't even need to have a ruleset at all, and we clearly do much more than that.
Using other games as comparisons is generally not good unless it clearly draws the whole logistics game back. And the difference between 3sBo3 and 2sBo5, logistically speaking, is trivial.
Actually, logistically speaking 2sBo3 is the most optimal way, but this game has so many variants it doesn't really work.


* Ahem *
What I ultimately mean is that we need to draw our own standard (SPECIALLY because Nintendo doesn't really hold "official" events), so we'd rather not involve the FGC, Melee, Brawl, or any different game or competition to make the decisions that benefit us.
If other games run or don't run Bo5's, don't change the default settings, or run single-elimination, is their own problem, not ours.

Also, I mostly mentioned an anecdote because Bo5 Top 8's DOES work as stand-alone, at local and regional levels.
When you involve Large Regionals and Nationals, the line must be drawn much earlier than that, and the fact a lot of big tournaments successfully run Bo5 starting at Top 32 speaks for itself.


TL;DR - You're too dense involving other games, Sm4sh should be analyzed on its own merits and no one else's.

When other games are involve people do have to take in consideration how much time they take. Generally speaking all games are double elimination and BO3 until Winners/Losers/Grandfinals at major tournaments. Tekken is not at all tournaments yet due to not being release, so SFV is really the only game right now at all big tournaments that use BO5 for top 8. UMVC3 is BO5 all the way through.

As far as Smash 4's own standard it do have its rulesets with stocks, mii, legal stages, and stuff.

Still Smash 4 is a part of the Smash community and the FGC. In a sense some things to a degree are going to be universal with all fighting games. Double elimination tournaments and BO3 is pretty much standard. When a tournament is focus on one game/game series then BO5 is the standard.

If Smash 4 were to use BO5 for the whole tournament or part way through, the same thing would be done to Melee as well. There is lots of overlap and they are apart of the Smash community. Despite the drama between the communities, Melee and Smash 4 helps each other a lot.

If Smash 4 were to have BO5 be a standard then it would have change its perception in the eyes of the FGC. Smash 4 would have to be like UMVC3 speed for something like that to happen.

 

[paperchao]

Eh, if you want to use the fact standard of bo3 but still want more play time, 3 stock is the way to go, as it usually takes up roughly the same amount of time as bo5. So it can depend on the situation

 

[Shouxiao]

Eh, if you want to use the fact standard of bo3 but still want more play time, 3 stock is the way to go, as it usually takes up roughly the same amount of time as bo5. So it can depend on the situation

In a sense that would be a middle ground.

It is players that want 3stock with the FGC standard of BO3 vs 2stock with BO5. Thing is unless a tournament is dedicated to Smash, most tournaments are having BO3 until Winners/Losers/Grandfinals. This is done for time reasons because other games have to run and finish. That also means at the venue there is significantly more to be done in terms of organizing and setting up everything.

Smash 4 would be up against a lot trying to get BO5 at tournaments that run other games then Smash. Also due to being in the same community Melee would have to get the same treatment.

Lets be honest if Smash 4 got BO5 but Melee did not you know that would be an uproar.

 

[Axel311]

I want to stay at 2 stock, I don't see the need for 3 stock. 3 stock gives more consistency, but isn't 2 stock consistent enough? Look at major tournaments - the top players are almost always placing where you expect. With a couple exceptions, Nairo at Pound for example. But with a few exceptions aside, we generally see players placing where they expect to place. Larry, Nairo, Zero, Anti, Dabuz, Ally ect. are basically always in top 8. And we already run a double elimination format which already covers most variance nicely. And on top of that, later rounds run best of 5. Some nationals run best of 5 for top 16 or even top 32. We've got enough coverage for variance.

And we did have a player go on a 50+ tourney win streak which shows it's possible to be consistent. I don't see 3 stock doing anything but making tournaments unnecessarily long and more of a test of endurance than skill. I'm already wiped out by the end of a tournament day. I've played in one live 3 stock tournament where I went deep and got 5th, and it was miserable. And also all of this will be a lot more draining on TOs and less watchable for spectators as well.

And if you care about viewership at all and smash 4 community growing and becoming a more legit esport, you simply cannot run 3 stock in a game this defensive with viable run away and camp styles like sonic, villager, olimar, sheik, wario and rosalina.

No need to fix something that isn't broken. Smash 4 is growing wonderfully in all areas.

 

[paperchao]

I want to stay at 2 stock, I don't see the need for 3 stock. 3 stock gives more consistency, but isn't 2 stock consistent enough? Look at major tournaments - the top players are almost always placing where you expect. With a couple exceptions, Nairo at Pound for example. But with a few exceptions aside, we generally see players placing where they expect to place. Larry, Nairo, Zero, Anti, Dabuz, Ally ect. are basically always in top 8. And we already run a double elimination format which already covers most variance nicely. And on top of that, later rounds run best of 5. Some nationals run best of 5 for top 16 or even top 32. We've got enough coverage for variance.

And we did have a player go on a 50+ tourney win streak which shows it's possible to be consistent. I don't see 3 stock doing anything but making tournaments unnecessarily long and more of a test of endurance than skill. I'm already wiped out by the end of a tournament day. I've played in one live 3 stock tournament where I went deep and got 5th, and it was miserable. And also all of this will be a lot more draining on TOs and less watchable for spectators as well.

And if you care about viewership at all and smash 4 community growing and becoming a more legit esport, you simply cannot run 3 stock in a game this defensive with viable run away and camp styles like sonic, villager, olimar, sheik, wario and rosalina.

No need to fix something that isn't broken. Smash 4 is growing wonderfully in all areas.

2 stock bo5 would be a good middle ground tbh, gives everyone shorter but hyper games, while keeping consistency with an extra game, but that's my take on it. Otherwise, 3 stock all the way lol

 

[Shouxiao]

2 stock bo5 would be a good middle ground tbh, gives everyone shorter but hyper games, while keeping consistency with an extra game, but that's my take on it. Otherwise, 3 stock all the way lol

Thing is it would be hard trying to convince tournament organizers. At tournaments mainly focus on Smash BO5 2stock would not be a problem.

At tournaments that have other games then Smash running, Smash 4 would be lucky to even have BO5 at top 8.

Think how hard it would be to get BO5 at a tournament like CEO or EVO.

Said this before but if Smash 4 got BO5, Melee would have to as well or that would just be massive drama in the Smash community waiting to go off.

 

[paperchao]

Thing is it would be hard trying to convince tournament organizers. At tournaments mainly focus on Smash BO5 2stock would not be a problem.

At tournaments that have other games then Smash running, Smash 4 would be lucky to even have BO5 at top 8.

Think how hard it would be to get BO5 at a tournament like CEO or EVO.

Said this before but if Smash 4 got BO5, Melee would have to as well or that would just be massive drama in the Smash community waiting to go off.

And that's where 3 stock bo3 becomes an option, roughly the same time period sets, and gives more consistency with 3 stock, it's these two choices that are most feasible rn

 

[Shouxiao]

And that's where 3 stock bo3 becomes an option, roughly the same time period sets, and gives more consistency with 3 stock, it's these two choices that are most feasible rn

I think 3stock BO3 would be as well.

While this is not true, Smash 4 has the impression that it takes too long. I would say that on 3DS(blast zones pushed out a bit more) and at first due to mechanics this was a bit true but certainly not now.

Really one of the reasons I think 2stock is the norm at many tournaments is just so "Smash 4 can be done with as quickly as possible" to move on to other games. In other fighting games there are matches that drag out but you do not see people complaining that "this game takes too long".

When one thinks about it a 3stock 8min match is only 2mins longer than a 2stock 6min match. A few mins is not going to tire someone out. The overall set at most could only be mins longer sense BO3 is the general tournament standard norm.

3stock 8mins is not the endurance test. Loser's bracket in a tournament is the endurance test due to getting few to no breaks in between sets.