What if matches were 3 stocks?

[Ryzol_]

If matches were 3 stocks over 6 mins. would that be a positive or negative change? It has the big advantage of making tournaments faster to run. Are there any disadvantages to this? How was 4 stocks 8mins decided to be the magic setting?

 

[mhenlo]

how many major tournaments would have different results???

 

[jugfingers]

the more stocks, and more matches that are played the more accurate the results.

the only reason less stocks and less matches are used is due to time constraints.

3 is too few for tournament play

 

[edgeluca]

3 feels like way too few, despite being only one less. 5 is too much.

Spoiler

especially for puff dittos

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

if we only have 3 stocks how can we 4 stock someone or make a hardcore comeback?

 

[Jonas]

yeah...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lIcE_-tWv8
If this was 3 stocks, EK would have won. There are also matches like Shiz vs M2K. The question ins if we're producing more accurate results or just turning matches into endurance tests.

 

[425]

Three would just look and feel totally wrong. Like has already been said, no epic comebacks. You need that fourth stock to get the best winners and most exciting matches.

 

[X1-12]

How was 4 stocks 8mins decided to be the magic setting?

APPARANTLY it was 4 stocks because back in the day either east coast or west coast played 3 stocks, and the other played 5 stocks so they ended up settling on 4 stocks

A.) I don't know if this is true, but someone asked about it in the QnA thread and got this answer
B.) I dunno which coast was 3 stocks which was 5 (providing this is true)

 

[Magus420]

East coast was 5, west coast was 3, and NYC coast was 10.

 

[vZakat]

The only time I would suggest 3 stocks is for pools and only first round pools (if there's more than 1 round).

 

[Purple]

If matches were three stocks, they'd just be faster. Honestly I feel that games change dramatically from the next to last stock, to last stock. People just naturally get extremely defensive and more reactive on their last stock from what I've seen.

Obviously, if this was to happen, the immediate affect would be weird. Considering matches would feel abrupt. But after a while it will change into what I said in the first statement.

 

[ru5514n]

Without 4 stock matches, the Wombo Combo might have never happened.

Think about it.

 

[Kanelol]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYnz-CsHmdk

That is all. 4 just feels like a good number. 4 strikes the perfect balance between a stock not mattering at all and a stock mattering way too much.

 

[Purple]

The conversation is a what if scenario. Asking what's wrong with 3 stocks, not exactly what makes 4 stocks better.

 

[Jonas]

Matches could practically be one stock. It would be like other fighters where the game resets when one of the players die. It's just the thing with Smash, you can survive for so long if you play smart and DI correctly. In other fighters a jab can kill you if you've taken enough damage. That's not possible in Smash (unless you're at like 300% or so). The upper limit for how much damage you can take is very vage.
On the other hand, a single attack can kill you at as low as 0%. Gimps can easily happen if you mess up somehow, and with Melee's speed and technical gameplay, it's very easy to mess up.
4 stocks just seems to be the right balance between unfair punishment for a few mistakes and tedious, exhausting matches.

Roxy brings up a valid point though. The last stock is the last stock, whether it's the fourth or the third or the eighth, and a lot of players naturally start playing more defensively and carefully on their last stock.

 

[Pi]

The conversation is a what if scenario. Asking what's wrong with 3 stocks, not exactly what makes 4 stocks better.

Everything that makes 4 stocks better is what is wrong with 3 stocks

 

[Dogysamich]

To straight up answer the topic, if matches were 3 stocks, the game would be faster. Plain and simple.

For discussion's sake, the ONLY reason why the standard is 4 stock is because that's what people have settled to. The only reason. You could do however many you wanted to, and the only thing that stops the change is that people will complain that it's "not normal".

 

[M15t3R E]

This is Melee, son. 3 stocks would be over too quickly.

Spoiler

4 stocks in melee is still quicker than 3 stocks in brawl

 

[Nø Ca$h]

iirc in the beginning of time, EC and WC had diferent rules. EC wanted 5 stock no items and WC wanted 4 stock w/ items. i believe they comprimised or something

 

[Purple]

tl;dr

it doesn't really matter how many stocks are used. They will have the same outcome; only difference is that the games will be faster or longer dependent on the stock amount.

And brawl matches are longer than melee sometimes. It really depends on the MU, I'll go as far as to say most braw matches go even with melee or are faster when it comes to timing.

 

[Ryzol_]

This is Melee, son. 3 stocks would be over too quickly.

Spoiler

4 stocks in melee is still quicker than 3 stocks in brawl

Too quick is relative. In almost every fighting game out there matches last 30 to 60 seconds, with a maximum of 99 seconds.

 

[Zodiac]

after getting gimped twice in a three stock match your opponent has a bigger advantage than getting gimped twice in a four stock match. in many cases people get two stocks taken off of them and then find a counter to the opponents strategy. In a three stock match they are far less likley to be able to win even if they do have that counter.

 

[Geist]

I had a conversation with someone a while ago about pools in tourneys, and how it lets less experienced players get more bangs for their buck. Pretty much the only argument against it was time constraints.

I'm wondering why no one's suggested that tournys with large pools should just lower stocks to help manage time.

 

[pockyD]

when you change the # of stocks, you alter the dynamics of the game; the amount of risk-taking, the strategic camping, etc.

for example, if stocks were dropped to, say, 2, a large percentage of matches on rainbow cruise or even pokemon stadium would not even allow for one full rotation of stage transitions

is this strictly worse? not necessarily (though I personally favor the higher stock counts), but it will clearly mandate a different style of gameplay, such that I don't feel tournaments should bounce back and forth between the two (for pools vs. bracket, for example)

 

[JPOBS]

I agree with everything pocky has said.

havign a lower number of stocks changes the dynamic of gameplay slightly in an unwanted fashion.
Also, having more stocks allows for greater chance to adjust and adapt to your opponent, 3 stocks limits the amount of time you have to make ingame changes to your playstyle.

Lastly, if its a time management thing, there are other things we can do to reduce the time consumption of running a tourny, without affecting gameplay. Take a page out of plank's book and legitimately DQ people for being late/refusing to play matches/wasting time playing friendlies etc.

edit: 4 stocks > 3 stocks

 

[Purple]

It doesn't change anything guys, what in the world are you guys talking about.

Having a certain amount of leeway changes how people play. The last stock will be extremely defensive, if you play with less stocks, you'll play more conservatively.

 

[pockyD]

It doesn't change anything guys, what in the world are you guys talking about.

Having a certain amount of leeway changes how people play. The last stock will be extremely defensive, if you play with less stocks, you'll play more conservatively.

 

[Lovage]

3 stocks would be shiity

 

[AXE 09]

Is everyone saying that 3 stocks would be better???

I feel that the more stocks that you start out with, the more accurate results you will have. I think this is why winners/losers/grand finals are 3 of 5 instead of 2 out of 3.

I feel that the less amount of stocks you start out with, the more likely that the less skilled player will win.

I always thought that we never played more than 4 stock matches just because of time constraints. I would think that even more stocks would make it more likely that the better player would win, which should happen. What are the odds that the less skilled player would win a 99 stock match with his opponent? But what are the odds that they would win a 3 stock match? You wouldn't want less stocks because that creates more inaccurate results, because the lesser skilled player would be more likely to win due to the higher skilled player maybe messing something up and SDing or something. Basically: the higher the stocks, the more accurate the results. Having more than 4 stocks would just take too long.

 

[Zone]

If this were to happen, a 3 day tournament would turn into a 2 day tournament. And less Melee is never good!!

 

[joeplicate]

they did 3 stock pool matches at super champ combo

not a lot changed, really
but i feel like if you suicide or something it would be harder to come back, and thus gay

 

[Purple]

Having a certain amount of leeway changes how people play. The last stock will be extremely defensive, if you play with less stocks, you'll play more conservatively.

I already said that . I mean, just think of a melee match:the introduction with each player feeling each other out, the good reads, then the combos, then the final stock, the defensive last stocks, the even matchup, and the final kill move, except everything that usually happens in a melee match, happens a bit faster. In Conclusion, the match will be the same, except faster .


You're right Axe, more stocks does mean more accurate results, and 99 stocks would be quite the silly tournament. The difference of 3 and 4, honestly isn't all that big, you guys are looking too hard into what you're used to. Think of if someone was to have only played five stock tournaments? They would think 5 to 4 is just as crazy and insane as you guys think 4 to 3 is. But it's one stock, it's not as huge as you think. Are you saying the same silly gimp will happen three times in a row to a high-level player? Probably not, maybe in one stock if you guys want to think that deeply into it, but i'm sure if I played m2k, regardless of stock, I would lose.

No one's saying three stocks is better, we're saying three stocks is no different, no need to get aggressive my friends.

 

[pockyD]

Is everyone saying that 3 stocks would be better???

I feel that the more stocks that you start out with, the more accurate results you will have. I think this is why winners/losers/grand finals are 3 of 5 instead of 2 out of 3.

I feel that the less amount of stocks you start out with, the more likely that the less skilled player will win.

I always thought that we never played more than 4 stock matches just because of time constraints. I would think that even more stocks would make it more likely that the better player would win, which should happen. What are the odds that the less skilled player would win a 99 stock match with his opponent? But what are the odds that they would win a 3 stock match? You wouldn't want less stocks because that creates more inaccurate results, because the lesser skilled player would be more likely to win due to the higher skilled player maybe messing something up and SDing or something. Basically: the higher the stocks, the more accurate the results. Having more than 4 stocks would just take too long.

there are other things to consider though

for example, is a 4-stock Bo3 more accurate than 3-stock Bo5?

 

[Purple]

By axe's logic, I would assume yes, because there are 12 stocks in comparison to 9.

 

[pockyD]

well if you're assuming the set is intensely close, it would be 12 stocks compared to 15

if not, then 8 stocks compared to 9

plus the downtime between games means the 3-stock Bo5 definitely takes longer

however, it has the benefits of more counterpick opportunities and greater stage variety

the only point i had was that stock count and game count don't have to relate directly; you can get interesting metagame changes by increasing one and decreasing the other

 

[Purple]

well if you're assuming the set is intensely close, it would be 12 stocks compared to 15

if not, then 8 stocks compared to 9

plus the downtime between games means the 3-stock Bo5 definitely takes longer

however, it has the benefits of more counterpick opportunities and greater stage variety

the only point i had was that stock count and game count don't have to relate directly; you can get interesting metagame changes by increasing one and decreasing the other

actually, you're right, with six minutes or four minutes actually. Samus would do much better in tournament considering the idea of Samus camping for four minutes doesn't seem so bad.

So with that being said, Would you say less stocks would make it better or mid tiers? Is that acceptable?

 

[Ryzol_]

Is everyone saying that 3 stocks would be better???

I feel that the more stocks that you start out with, the more accurate results you will have. I think this is why winners/losers/grand finals are 3 of 5 instead of 2 out of 3.

I feel that the less amount of stocks you start out with, the more likely that the less skilled player will win.

I always thought that we never played more than 4 stock matches just because of time constraints. I would think that even more stocks would make it more likely that the better player would win, which should happen. What are the odds that the less skilled player would win a 99 stock match with his opponent? But what are the odds that they would win a 3 stock match? You wouldn't want less stocks because that creates more inaccurate results, because the lesser skilled player would be more likely to win due to the higher skilled player maybe messing something up and SDing or something. Basically: the higher the stocks, the more accurate the results. Having more than 4 stocks would just take too long.

Well at some point the number of stocks changes the game drastically. At 99 stocks you've now made endurance a large part of the metagame. This would make melee more tennis like, in that a grand finals event (2-3 sets, with 5 matches 99 stock) would be an all day event. This introduces new tactics based around tiring your opponent.

But fighting games, and melee isn't tennis. They're fast and action packed, and not boring like golf.

On the more stocks = better angle, what about a 2 stock best of 7? That's 14 stocks which is 2 more than the current 4 stock best of 3. I guess what I'm trying to understand is how the game changes when you have many smaller matches compared to fewer larger matches. I mean theoretically people could play best of 1, 12 stock matches, but that has stage fairness problems.

 

[Brightside6382]

1 stock BO5 is the way to go.

 

[dragnet4000]

There are comebacks upon comebacks with four stocks (i.e. M2K, and Amsah, to name a few), and some awesome combo stuff happened (WOMBO COMBO!!!!).

Stick with four, or go to brawl.

 

[Purple]

There are comebacks upon comebacks with four stocks (i.e. M2K, and Amsah, to name a few), and some awesome combo stuff happened (WOMBO COMBO!!!!).

Stick with four, or go to brawl.

Are you saying that nothing can possibly happen on the third stock and that only good things happen with four stocks?

That makes no sense at all, both points actually have no relevance. Just because there are four stocks doesn't mean that combos will instantly happen.

"So many cool comebacks happened with five stocks in SSB64, so melee should be five stocks too!"