-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Thoughts on # of stocks?
- Thread starter Empire~
- Start date
GdspdUblkprzdnt
Smash Journeyman
It's so hard to tell. Three stocks feel enough for the most common matchups but I've seen some where three feels like one too many.
D
Deleted member 269706
Guest
I feel like 3 is pretty ideal. With two matches can go wayy to fast, and if someone gets gimped or screws up and loses that first stock early on, the match is basically already over. Three stocks keeps everyone on their feet, but also allows players to understand their opponent better by spending more time observing their patterns and such.
WootSnorlax
Smash Apprentice
I do like 3 stock, but to be honest it seems like 2 stock is going to be the standard. 3 stock matches feel a lot more rewarding than 2 stock matches in my opinion but it does take way more time to do. Also with the amount of campy characters in this game it can make 3 stock matches take way longer than it should.
digiholic
Smash Ace
I feel like with 3 stocks, people will feel safe enough to try some off-stage play, which I think has been severely under-utilized in high level play due to the crippling disadvantage if you get counter-gimped. I think with 3 stocks, we might even see matches going faster, at least less people surviving to 150%.
missla
Smash Rookie
Most of the tournaments I've been to are three stock, which does make it carry on a bit. But I think it's fairest that way. It gives enough time to figure out your opponent's strategy and fix what you're doing that's not working. Three stocks also helps you not to be entirely sunk if you accidentally SD'd from a miscalculation or from the wrong button press registering ("NO, Little Mac, you were supposed to COUNTER, not...Jolt...Haymaker...").
ParanoidDrone
Smash Master
I'm honestly fine with either 2 or 3 stocks. I'm used to 2 from FG, although that's its own entity, while 3 stocks is longer but prevents an early gimp or SD from basically deciding the match.
LunarWingCloud
Smash Lord
Despite the faster pace of the action, actual kills come later, so with 3 stocks matches hover around Brawl length so that's fine.
I've always leaned toward 2. The arguments that getting gimped or something early basically ending a match is part of the reason I like it. Every part of the match, especially the beginning, is vital. The whole "feel your opponent out" part of matches is boring, but so is the part where you actually have them figured out. With the exception of perfectly even fights, I find 2 stocks faster paced and more interesting overall.
The main downside is that it's easier to get a win from luck, but playing 2/3 fixes that for the most part. In 3 stock, even getting hit is beneficial because the name of the game is conditioning and reading, but I feel 2 stock focused more on reflexes and maximizing every second of the fights.
Plus, tournaments take too long as it is, do we really need that extra stock to find the better player? Seems like a bit of a waste of time
Edit: sorry bout the auto correct errors, hope I got most of them, but will check again when the sun's up
The main downside is that it's easier to get a win from luck, but playing 2/3 fixes that for the most part. In 3 stock, even getting hit is beneficial because the name of the game is conditioning and reading, but I feel 2 stock focused more on reflexes and maximizing every second of the fights.
Plus, tournaments take too long as it is, do we really need that extra stock to find the better player? Seems like a bit of a waste of time
Edit: sorry bout the auto correct errors, hope I got most of them, but will check again when the sun's up
Last edited:
2 stocks always make me play super defensively and I end up SDing by accident from the stress. 3 stocks are what I've been playing since Brawl, so It is much more open to studying your opponents, and engaging in more edge guarding off stage. Please bring back 3 stocks CT and VGBC!!!
BBG|Scott-Spain
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2014
- Messages
- 286
What happened to the other thread on this subject?
dragontamer
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 514
- NNID
- dragontamer5788
I have a feeling that offense will get better over time.
Frame data has only just begun to be hacked, and frame data will tell us precisely the best move to punish various attacks.
We are all severely undertrained in our punishes at the moment.
Frame data has only just begun to be hacked, and frame data will tell us precisely the best move to punish various attacks.
We are all severely undertrained in our punishes at the moment.
Disclaimer: Most of you are likely better than I am, and I don't get to play competitive players too often.
Now, then. From what I've seen of both Melee and Brawl competitive gameplay, you have both fast and slow (respectively) practically built into the metagames. They rarely venture too far from those set speeds. For Smash 4, on the other hand, I often see people lament the strength of the defensive options. But I've seen sets that move very fast (usually those involving characters that can be more aggressive, like Sheik, Sonic, or Falcon), and sets that then move relatively slow. It never really gets as fast as Melee/PM can, but at the same time it doesn't seem like it ever gets as slow and defensive as Brawl.
Personally, I think that this is part of the reason why people still can't settle on 2 or 3 stocks post-vectoring. Games can go by extraordinarily fast or take forever depending on the matchup and the playstyle of the characters. You have some true combos, and you also have a lot of reads. That balance is part of what I think makes many of the game's characters so viable. But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?
Now, then. From what I've seen of both Melee and Brawl competitive gameplay, you have both fast and slow (respectively) practically built into the metagames. They rarely venture too far from those set speeds. For Smash 4, on the other hand, I often see people lament the strength of the defensive options. But I've seen sets that move very fast (usually those involving characters that can be more aggressive, like Sheik, Sonic, or Falcon), and sets that then move relatively slow. It never really gets as fast as Melee/PM can, but at the same time it doesn't seem like it ever gets as slow and defensive as Brawl.
Personally, I think that this is part of the reason why people still can't settle on 2 or 3 stocks post-vectoring. Games can go by extraordinarily fast or take forever depending on the matchup and the playstyle of the characters. You have some true combos, and you also have a lot of reads. That balance is part of what I think makes many of the game's characters so viable. But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?
Mega Rayquaza
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2014
- Messages
- 23
3. It lets people have a better chance at coming back. 4 just seems like.........too many. The game isn't that slow.
EarthBoundEnigma
Smash Journeyman
More sets and fewer stocks is the most scientific way to do it. You can control for variables like stages, flukes, and mistakes.
Raijinken
Smash Master
I read a good argument saying that 2 is best for the highest level of play, but 3 is best for the new competitor experience. I'd personally favor a hybrid approach (for instance, 3 for pools or lower brackets, 2 for the higher brackets), but if I had to pick one, I'd run 3. 3's good for Brawl, and we're faster than Brawl. Concerns about tournament length are very solvable with methods other than reducing the stock count.
This captures my view pretty perfectly.
Last edited:
Prawn
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,031
I agree. For everyone complaining of how long tournaments take, almost every tournament Ive gone to could have been improved with more setups/a better TO calling matches and staying on top of people to play. Fix that ****, don't make the game suffer
missla
Smash Rookie
I agree. It almost feels like the more competitive and technical you are, the longer the game takes because of footsies and that kind of thing. Nonetheless, I still think 3 stock is just enough to be comfortable and show the true skill of the player. Even the most professional players can make mistakes, accidentally SD, walk into an obvious read, or something else stupid that they would never normally do, and having only two stocks makes the mistake look a lot worse than it actually is because then you have to stress out about only having one more stock left.
I'm sorry, the tournament length comment was just an offhanded thing. The main purpose was to say "if the extra stock doesn't add anything, why would we add it?"
The bulk of my reasoning for 2 stocks is that 3 stocks have 2 parts, sometimes 3 if we're lucky.
The first is when both players spam their weaker or more predictable moves to try to condition responses while giving away as little of their actual play style as possible. Examples of this include diddy kong spamming fair so he can grab more confidently later in the match, lucario aggressive using dash attacks and aerials to test their defenses so his camping game works better later, and so on. This pay off the game is never as interesting because both players are purposefully playing wise than they actually are, and I'm arguing that this stage of fights is not only unnecessary, but detrimental to the community.
The second part isn't much better. Both players pull out their stronger combos and finishing moves, and whoever did a better job conditioning will land theirs and the other won't. The match will be a little back and forth, but you can usually see a clear winner and that takes a lot of the hype out of it as the other player gets more and more frustrated. A lot of matches just end here in a very anti climatic way.
The third part it's the comeback. If it the other player can get over the conditioning from the beginning and get a solid read on their real play style, they can then start getting some momentum. They're probably down by at least a stock by now, so they'll have to play big. They land a strong combo, predict a fast fall and land a smash, and they're back in it. The first player adopts a slightly less aggressive strategy, and they both then go all out, trying for punished whenever possible, using their best moves, and using everything they know about their opponent to get any kind of advantage. This is the part of the match everyone lives for; the stakes are high and nobody's holding back. It doesn't matter who wins, just that it comes down to the wire and whoever wins does it in as awesome a way as possible.
I find it funny that the most interesting and entertaining part is the on that is least affected by the conditioning and footsie that happens at the beginning.
Now, I'll admit that 2 stock goes through similar process, but increases the pressure at each stage and accelerates the arrival at the most interesting part. I support a 2 stock best of 5 format because it usually follows a process similar to this:
The first match both players still try to feel each other out, but since the reward is a match instead of a stock, both players know better than to not pay the best they can. The result is a pretty defensive match, but the person who wins is usually the one who plays more aggressive without leaving themselves open, and the reward for that is a permanent point toward the win overall victory.
The next match is similar to the second phase of a single 3 stock match, but with key differences. The biggest is that the player who won probably revealed more of their play style, and the player who lost has 30 seconds or so to come up with a way to counter it, so instead of probably being swept because your opponent has made it very hard to have a clue what they're going to do, you have a slight advantage that lets you keep the match competitive.
Assuming the players are fairly even in skill level, they'll go into the third match tied up, and both players having a decent understanding of each other, and you have at least 2 matches of both players using every tool they have and both going for it all.
The question isn't so much whether 2 or 3 stock is better in my opinion, it's really whether 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5 is best, and which number of stocks is more conducive to it.
The bulk of my reasoning for 2 stocks is that 3 stocks have 2 parts, sometimes 3 if we're lucky.
The first is when both players spam their weaker or more predictable moves to try to condition responses while giving away as little of their actual play style as possible. Examples of this include diddy kong spamming fair so he can grab more confidently later in the match, lucario aggressive using dash attacks and aerials to test their defenses so his camping game works better later, and so on. This pay off the game is never as interesting because both players are purposefully playing wise than they actually are, and I'm arguing that this stage of fights is not only unnecessary, but detrimental to the community.
The second part isn't much better. Both players pull out their stronger combos and finishing moves, and whoever did a better job conditioning will land theirs and the other won't. The match will be a little back and forth, but you can usually see a clear winner and that takes a lot of the hype out of it as the other player gets more and more frustrated. A lot of matches just end here in a very anti climatic way.
The third part it's the comeback. If it the other player can get over the conditioning from the beginning and get a solid read on their real play style, they can then start getting some momentum. They're probably down by at least a stock by now, so they'll have to play big. They land a strong combo, predict a fast fall and land a smash, and they're back in it. The first player adopts a slightly less aggressive strategy, and they both then go all out, trying for punished whenever possible, using their best moves, and using everything they know about their opponent to get any kind of advantage. This is the part of the match everyone lives for; the stakes are high and nobody's holding back. It doesn't matter who wins, just that it comes down to the wire and whoever wins does it in as awesome a way as possible.
I find it funny that the most interesting and entertaining part is the on that is least affected by the conditioning and footsie that happens at the beginning.
Now, I'll admit that 2 stock goes through similar process, but increases the pressure at each stage and accelerates the arrival at the most interesting part. I support a 2 stock best of 5 format because it usually follows a process similar to this:
The first match both players still try to feel each other out, but since the reward is a match instead of a stock, both players know better than to not pay the best they can. The result is a pretty defensive match, but the person who wins is usually the one who plays more aggressive without leaving themselves open, and the reward for that is a permanent point toward the win overall victory.
The next match is similar to the second phase of a single 3 stock match, but with key differences. The biggest is that the player who won probably revealed more of their play style, and the player who lost has 30 seconds or so to come up with a way to counter it, so instead of probably being swept because your opponent has made it very hard to have a clue what they're going to do, you have a slight advantage that lets you keep the match competitive.
Assuming the players are fairly even in skill level, they'll go into the third match tied up, and both players having a decent understanding of each other, and you have at least 2 matches of both players using every tool they have and both going for it all.
The question isn't so much whether 2 or 3 stock is better in my opinion, it's really whether 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5 is best, and which number of stocks is more conducive to it.
Last edited:
Tobi_Whatever
あんたバカァ～！？
We could mix it up.
First round 3 stocks
any round after that 2 stocks
best of 5 round 5 3 stocks.
First round 3 stocks
any round after that 2 stocks
best of 5 round 5 3 stocks.
Masonomace
Yeah Shulk, get stuck in!
3.
Given that some matches take longer because of a character MatchUp, 3 feels right. 2 imo feels too short but I've been conditioned to consider 2 okay from playing FG.
Given that some matches take longer because of a character MatchUp, 3 feels right. 2 imo feels too short but I've been conditioned to consider 2 okay from playing FG.
Teh Sandwich
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 145
I'd much prefer 3 stocks. 2 stock matches are over so fast.
Tournaments are only way to long when you try to host: sm4sh, melee, PM, 64, PM doubles, sm4sh doubles all in the same day.. Which is what everyone in CO seems to think is possible for some reason.
Tournaments are only way to long when you try to host: sm4sh, melee, PM, 64, PM doubles, sm4sh doubles all in the same day.. Which is what everyone in CO seems to think is possible for some reason.
Radirgy
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 90
If people are concerned about length then they should blame the people who think it is a good idea to try and run 5 different smash games in non-major tournaments. Like if people are cutting SSBU to 2 stocks for the sake of the other games then they are being pretty unfair on it. If they going to be going that then do what SaX has done and reduce all the other games by a stock as well. If smash 4 has to be 2 stock for the sake of other games then 64, melee, brawl and PM should be cut to 4/3/2/3 stock respectively instead of 5/4/3/4.
I have played in a few 2 stock events now, and I'm pretty much convinced 3 is way, way better. It's not even about tournament time or any of that stuff. Variance, thy name is Little Mac, and you're a character in this game. With 2 stocks, Little Mac gets a 30% KO punch once and pretty much automatically wins the game nearly indepedent of how much otherwise better his opponent is. Conversely, Little Mac gets pushed off-stage at 10% and dies, and in 2 stock you just don't come back from that... ever even if you're way better than the other player. If you want to run 2 stock tournaments, you should probably ban Little Mac, and Little Mac isn't even an overall good character he's just way too swingy to be allowed with only 2 stocks. The fact that that's even a thing is to me a good sign that 2 stocks is a really bad idea. Lucario is also really stupid in 2 stock; his aura mechanics are just plain swingy, and while it mostly averages out in 3 stocks, it doesn't nearly so well in 2 stocks.
Also, the gameplay is just plain worse in 2 stock. You spend the first stock feeling our your opponent and figuring out what spaces you're going to control on the stage (which does NOT carry over in any way from earlier games in the set!) and how things are going to flow. With 2 stocks, that feeling out phase is so magnified and can decide games so easily; being able to adapt quickly is a good skill and all, but it's just too much. 3 stock Bo3 is such a thing because it's pretty good at showing which player is better than the other; going down to 2 stock makes the tournament way worse at that, and that's just a bad thing all around.
Also, the gameplay is just plain worse in 2 stock. You spend the first stock feeling our your opponent and figuring out what spaces you're going to control on the stage (which does NOT carry over in any way from earlier games in the set!) and how things are going to flow. With 2 stocks, that feeling out phase is so magnified and can decide games so easily; being able to adapt quickly is a good skill and all, but it's just too much. 3 stock Bo3 is such a thing because it's pretty good at showing which player is better than the other; going down to 2 stock makes the tournament way worse at that, and that's just a bad thing all around.
ATH_
Smash Ace
This discussion has happened over and over again on this forum.
The solution is simple.
3 stocks if you have less people/more time in a tourney.
2 stocks if you have more people/less time in a tourney.
This is how it's been handled lately and I think it's completely alright.
The solution is simple.
3 stocks if you have less people/more time in a tourney.
2 stocks if you have more people/less time in a tourney.
This is how it's been handled lately and I think it's completely alright.
deepseadiva
Bodybuilding Magical Girl
And GIANT tournaments should be one stock!
Anthonio WIlliams
Smash Cadet
i agree
Anthonio WIlliams
Smash Cadet
It feels like 2 stock matches are too short
and 3 stock matches are too long
and 3 stock matches are too long
So, the best argument against 2 stock is that it "feels" too short. Wow.
Assuming we all agree that the most interesting part of a match up is when both players are fighting their hardest, 2 stock best of 5 is significantly better as around 60% of the fights will be the "best," while in 3 stock best of 3 (3 stock best of 5 isn't an option because of how long it takes), 33% is the most you can expect.
What's more, the part that isn't as interesting is better in 2 stocks. The increased punishment for losing (namely, a match as opposed to a stock) ups the pressure from the very beginning and neither player wastes as much time playing footsie and instead goes straight for kills.
Between that increased pressure, and the 30 seconds between matches that give people more chances to adjust, 2 stock just seems to bring out the best play out of the fighters, while 3 stock seems to promote land slides. I know we all love seeing that comeback victory after being down 3-1, but seriously, when was the last time you saw one of those in person? With the big combos of previous games gone and the name of the game being punishing, it's too hard to come back from 2 stocks down and that last stock really is just a waste of time.
The game's changed, time to change with it
Assuming we all agree that the most interesting part of a match up is when both players are fighting their hardest, 2 stock best of 5 is significantly better as around 60% of the fights will be the "best," while in 3 stock best of 3 (3 stock best of 5 isn't an option because of how long it takes), 33% is the most you can expect.
What's more, the part that isn't as interesting is better in 2 stocks. The increased punishment for losing (namely, a match as opposed to a stock) ups the pressure from the very beginning and neither player wastes as much time playing footsie and instead goes straight for kills.
Between that increased pressure, and the 30 seconds between matches that give people more chances to adjust, 2 stock just seems to bring out the best play out of the fighters, while 3 stock seems to promote land slides. I know we all love seeing that comeback victory after being down 3-1, but seriously, when was the last time you saw one of those in person? With the big combos of previous games gone and the name of the game being punishing, it's too hard to come back from 2 stocks down and that last stock really is just a waste of time.
The game's changed, time to change with it
HierophantGreen
Smash Rookie
3 stocks takes significantly too long. While it works fine in an aggressive match-up, a more defensive orientated match like Palutena vs. Villager, Duck Hunt, ect. take extremely long to finish. 2 stocks has worked wonders so far and the matches rarely go over time or draw themselves out. It's significantly more healthier for the game as a spectator event.
Radirgy
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 90
I feel that argument can be equally applied to melee as well. I remember during evo a lot of street fighter people were angry about melee going overtime and holding up other tournaments, as evo showed us though, while some 2/3 sets can go 15 minutes or more you also have matches such as Axe vs SilentWolf where Axe 4-stocked SW in a minute.
-Fatality-
Smash Journeyman
I think Smash in general takes too long, we're always holding up the other games at tournaments.
I dunno, I think 2 and 3 stock are about the same skill-based, they just value various skillsets more or less.
But 2-stock is much, much better from a TO's perspective, gives them a lot more room to breathe.
Something also worth remembering is that when tournaments are shorter, at all-day events where the tournament would previously take the whole day to happen, now they have time for friendlies, casual side-events, crew battles, etc, and that's nice.
I dunno, I think 2 and 3 stock are about the same skill-based, they just value various skillsets more or less.
But 2-stock is much, much better from a TO's perspective, gives them a lot more room to breathe.
Something also worth remembering is that when tournaments are shorter, at all-day events where the tournament would previously take the whole day to happen, now they have time for friendlies, casual side-events, crew battles, etc, and that's nice.
Mario & Sonic Guy
Old rivalries live on!
A 3-stock 10-minute match seems tolerable, though I've only been able to utilize those rules against a player on my friend list. I'm not sure how this would work out in a competitive tourney, though I guess it can depend on how the match plays out.
Conda
aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
I held a poll here for this a couple weeks back: https://plus.google.com/u/1/b/113677833770074358574/+CobbsGames-SuperSmashBros4/posts/guaexSDT7Rd
bejjingcoke
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3
I do 3 stock, 6 minutes, at my tournaments. The games feel so much more rewarding. 2 stocks almost doesn't even feel worth playing. The game goes by so fast, and a single screw up or sd will cost you the game, most of the time. Also, by making the game 6 minutes, you're looking at 18 minutes max for best 2/3, which is only 3 minutes longer than 2 stock rules.