3 stocks or 2?

[PND]

Your math about comebacks is completely flawed. You can't break a match down into statistics like "Player A is down 50% of his resources, and has a 25% of winning the match with two stocks versus 30% with 3 stocks" because player psychology is way too important of a factor.

One player might be down a stock and think "I'm down on resources, I should dig my heels and play safe. Keep winning small exchanges and trades until I close out the gap."
Another player, equally skilled, might think "Okay, that didn't work. I only need to kill him twice, time for some big plays."

Player A might make more comebacks with 3 stocks
Player B might make more comebacks with 2 stocks.

One player might think "Okay, down a stock, time to do this. I've still got two in the tank. No need to get desperate."
Another, equally skilled, might think "Do I really want to play like this for three whole stocks? I could just give up so I can get to my counterpick quicker."

Player A might make the comeback with 3 stocks, but perhaps not with 2.
Player B might have made that comeback if it was only 2 stocks, but perhaps not with 3.

As for timeouts, if you dial the clock down, I promise you I will go into every match, every set, every tournament with the intent to time out players. You are completely wrong on that front. It will not make the game more exciting at all. If matches are already taking 5 minutes for two stock and going to time, one extra minute will not in any way, shape, or form make up for the extra stock.

You're right, as the game develops, players will find more efficient ways to kill. That's also what they said about Brawl. The truth is: as players discover more efficient ways to kill, they will also discover more efficient ways to not be killed.

We can't make a safe bet that "Oh, I think matches will go faster as we get better." Because the opposite could be just as true. As offensive play and offensive strategies emerge, so will defensive ones. And historically, Smash is very, very defensive. (Even Melee)

We need to plan for the game we have now, not the game we might have in 5 years. Right now, I firmly believe 2 stocks is the best for the current metagame.

 

[TunaAndBacon]

Though I personally prefer three, I think two is where this game should be right now. 3 stocks IMO gives people more room to style, make mistakes, and have cool comebacks. But hype isn't where the focus should be right now, we gotta make a healthy meta first.

 

[Rᴏb]

From a spectator's point of view, 2 stocks is a no-brainer.

 

[Lozjam]

Your math about comebacks is completely flawed. You can't break a match down into statistics like "Player A is down 50% of his resources, and has a 25% of winning the match with two stocks versus 30% with 3 stocks" because player psychology is way too important of a factor.

One player might be down a stock and think "I'm down on resources, I should dig my heels and play safe. Keep winning small exchanges and trades until I close out the gap."
Another player, equally skilled, might think "Okay, that didn't work. I only need to kill him twice, time for some big plays."

Player A might make more comebacks with 3 stocks
Player B might make more comebacks with 2 stocks.

One player might think "Okay, down a stock, time to do this. I've still got two in the tank. No need to get desperate."
Another, equally skilled, might think "Do I really want to play like this for three whole stocks? I could just give up so I can get to my counterpick quicker."

Player A might make the comeback with 3 stocks, but perhaps not with 2.
Player B might have made that comeback if it was only 2 stocks, but perhaps not with 3.

As for timeouts, if you dial the clock down, I promise you I will go into every match, every set, every tournament with the intent to time out players. You are completely wrong on that front. It will not make the game more exciting at all. If matches are already taking 5 minutes for two stock and going to time, one extra minute will not in any way, shape, or form make up for the extra stock.

You're right, as the game develops, players will find more efficient ways to kill. That's also what they said about Brawl. The truth is: as players discover more efficient ways to kill, they will also discover more efficient ways to not be killed.

We can't make a safe bet that "Oh, I think matches will go faster as we get better." Because the opposite could be just as true. As offensive play and offensive strategies emerge, so will defensive ones. And historically, Smash is very, very defensive. (Even Melee)

We need to plan for the game we have now, not the game we might have in 5 years. Right now, I firmly believe 2 stocks is the best for the current metagame.

I was merely calculating average players when it comes to mindset. Whilst mind games are very prevalent and playing Smash is dependent on reads, you can still use averages nonetheless. Not only that, but why was 3 stocks fine for Brawl, the slowest and campiest smash game competitively, yet Smash 4 is more offensive. Not only that, but the Roster has characters that are very screwed when it comes to balance. Diddy and Sheik gimp very early, Little Mac's KO punch largely skews tons of matchups at 2 stocks, and characters such as Bowser and Ganondorf will benefit greater from 3 stocks. And whilst talking about the "current meta game", you know that these rules will be impossible to change in the future. And if you insist, than we may change the time to 7 minutes, which is the current ratio(7.5 minutes isn't an option, but 30 seconds is negligible) of stock to time, and still faster than Brawls. But know that very few matchups actually last that long. Most will be done within 4 minutes. 3 stocks will be more healthy for the balance of the game, I think that takes priority over everything else.

 

[LunarWingCloud]

Except it's easier and faster to kill in Smash 4 than in Brawl....

I agree and yet disagree. The damage-racking in this game is much faster, much closer to Melee. HOWEVER, between the defensive game being very potent and the fact that you have to get crazy high percents to kill more often than not, you're still looking at Brawl-esque match speeds. I say 3 stock works in the end. 2 isn't good because everyone is prone to mistakes and I also feel like 2 teaches bad habits to players. If you have only 2 stocks, many players will not be as aggressive because one wrong move screws the whole match for you. With 3+ stocks it teaches a mindset that you can go in and even if you make a tiny mistake you can still come back from it, which can help to avoid hyper-defensive gameplay. 2 vs 3 is a matter of what you want the competitive mindset to be, and I personally think 2 stocks would not make a very fun meta for Smash.

 

[chipndip]

I really want to understand all this talk about "Too unforgiving in case a character SDs." type of stuff. It's unfortunate that it happens, but we shouldn't be setting our tournament format around it.

Been wondering that myself. If this is TOURNEY level play, something as basic as self-destructing shouldn't be that common that the whole format is based around it.

 

[chipndip]

2 isn't good because everyone is prone to mistakes and I also feel like 2 teaches bad habits to players. If you have only 2 stocks, many players will not be as aggressive because one wrong move screws the whole match for you. With 3+ stocks it teaches a mindset that you can go in and even if you make a tiny mistake you can still come back from it, which can help to avoid hyper-defensive gameplay. 2 vs 3 is a matter of what you want the competitive mindset to be, and I personally think 2 stocks would not make a very fun meta for Smash.

I disagree entirely. I'm normally for defensive play, but in this game, I play very fairly aggressive for the most part. However, most of my match experience comes from either playing friends or FG mode. That's basically it, but I still lean on offense. It doesn't matter about stock count. What matters is what works. If people see that going in and getting your hits in is what works, hyper-offense will dominate the meta. If people see that countering attacks with OoS grabs and jabs is what works, they'll do that. If people see that walling all day is what works, they'll do that too. Besides, by the time opponents get to KO range, they'll be playing more careful unless they have a stock lead, regardless.

 

[ATH_]

For the Wii U version, 3 stocks with 8 minutes work best. This was a topic before though, iirc. Or possibly it was just the ruleset discussion entirely.

 

[dguy6789]

3 stocks without a doubt.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Honest question, how many have you have played in a serious Smash 4 Wii U tournament? By "Serious," I mean: Competitive players present, more than 30ish people, in an actual venue? Because I have. It was a 2 stock tournament.

It didn't finish.

Even with 2 stocks on the line, the matches were very drawn out and defensive. I ended up timing out 3 opponents -- and I didn't go into the match planning to time them out, by about the halfway mark of the match it was clear that it was my best path to victory. Beyond that, I had countless matches finish within a minute left on the timer. I was not an outlier, either, this was the general trend among the top players of the tournament. Conversely, I finished a couple matches in under a minute, too, but I play Jiggs/Mac. You give me a solid read and I will kill you early. High level players don't hand me those kinds of opportunities often.

By the time top 5 rolled around, the TO reduced it to 1-stock to try and speed things along. I ended up placing 5th. My best friend knocked me out and placed 4th. I'm pretty sure his set was the last set played in the tournament, it was an hour past the venue closing and we got kicked out. I'm pretty sure top 3 just split because they didn't feel like relocating to someone's basement. I'm not sure if they ended up playing it out afterall, it didn't sound like they wanted to, and I left after my friend got knocked out and we got kicked out of the venue.

Now, despite the tourney "only" being two stocks, there were still incredible comebacks. Hell, I staged two of them. In one, my Mac was down to kill percent against a Megaman player still on his first stock-- I had no idea what to do in this match up. My first stock was gimped early, and through a battle of attrition I managed to bring him to kill percent. A couple solid reads later and I took his stock, but was sitting at 120ish %. I read his grab attempt, spot dodge to jab racked up a few percent when I heard the *ding!* Ran in, read that he expected the punch and would roll back to avoid it, grabbed him and pummeled him into aerial grab release -> KO punch. The crow went wild. I carried the momentum into the next match and two stocked him.

By the second stock, I had time to adapt to his style and learn a matchup I was unfamiliar with. 2 stocks is plenty of time to learn a player.

True, Mac's KO punch may skew results about comebacks. I also had an incredible Jiggs comeback with a last minute Wall of Pain. I also saw an incredible Link comeback, a ZSS comeback, a Yoshi comeback, a Diddy comeback, and a DeDeDe comeback. 2 stocks doesn't decrease the chance of comebacks, I hate that sentiment getting thrown around here. I saw more comebacks at this tournament than I have ever seen at a Brawl tournament, with all three of its stocks.

With two stocks, there are less what I call "dead stocks". You're clearly going to lose this match due to a smart character pick / stage pick, you're down, and the battle is way too uphill. Now you're not dragging your feet for an extra stock only to lose anyway -- you're getting back to the match you want to play, quicker. With only two stocks, you also get to the "between match" moment quicker, where you can think over the match that just happened, get some quick coaching, and formulate a plot. It gives commentators time to catch up and talk about factors outside of the match, or give some better feedback as to things that happened during the match. It speeds up the set and keeps viewers interested. And maybe, just maybe, it will let an event finish on time.

Now I'm clearly on the 2-stock side of the fence. If you have been to a tournament that was 3 stock and ran smoothly, please, let me know how it went. If you haven't been to a serious tournament, go to one. Then report back with your findings. But most of all: please, please, PLEASE if you aren't competitive, if you haven't been to a Smash tournament or plan on going to one, do not try and influence tournament format.

[/anecdotalwallofrant]

Sounds like your TO botched it with time and you guys stalled out longer than the proven average being around 4 minutes.

 

[wmo_]

something about 2 stock just doesn't seem exciting. plus I can see why it's harder to come back in a 2 stock game vs 3. I don't think early leads should be rewarded that much, obviously they deserve something but I feel it's more fair with 3 stock.

 

[Ultrashroomz]

2 stocks is kinda short, and doesn't give any room for error.

3 stocks is slow at times, but I think it's more suitable.

 

[Conda]

Currently both are played with and we're seeing what sticks after a while. Both have pros and cons. Learning via experience and research is what the TOs and community has decided is the best approach. Very impressive way to go about it, proud of us.

 

[zephyrnereus]

after joining, helping out, and winning in a local tournament, I say the best option at the moment is 2 stocks, especially in the earlier stages of the tournament. here was my scenario:

16 participants in a single elimination, best 2 out of 3 tournament. we only had one WiiU because the other person who was bringing a set up did not come. we only had 3 hours to finish it.

the first round consisted of 3 stock and it lasted nearly 2 hours. after that we all decided to switch to 2 stock. the two major reasons were:

1. we were running out of time.
2. people were growing bored of waiting for their match to play/watch.

after switching to 2 stocks, people started fighting more aggressively, spectators grew more excited and we managed to finish on time before the place closed. unfortunately the finals had to be shortened to a 2 of 3 instead of a 3 of 5, but it was still pretty hype.

after that, I think that the first rounds should be 2 stock, where as the semis and finals could possibly go to 3 stock. reasoning is because tournaments already take a long time to play out and we have to keep in mind that players and watchers are going to spectate, and for a viewer, a 2 stock match is much more pleasing due to variety. we get to watch a different matchup, or even just a different stage, and that's usually enough to not tire out the viewers.

 

[Asdioh]

2 stocks gives you less time to adapt to your opponent/character (especially this early in the game when you don't know everything about every character, in the biggest roster yet) and it gives less opportunities to condition your opponent and take risks. I've been to a 3 stock and a 2 stock tournament, the 2 stock was less enjoyable simply because once you lose ONE stock, that's it, you're in danger of losing the game or the set in a matter of seconds. It forces you to start playing more defensively earlier.

 

[Aeon Lupin]

3 if we are going with 2/3 for tournaments.

 

[Cpt.]

At first 2 seemed the way to go since killing is haf, but after seeing rage and how early certain moves can kill, 3 seems like the right amount to me.

 

[Johnknight1]

Honestly I wanted 3 stock for longer matches, but matches tend to drag especially since so many players play so safe. This game is from a design standpoint Brawl 2.0. Having considered that, here's a couple of Brawl stats I hear thrown around:

-Over 75% of match victors take the first stock. In Melee and 64 this statistic was very close to 50%.
-There are basically no comebacks when a player is down 2 stocks. It's probably roughly as rare as a Melee 4 stock comeback. While yes, it is more likely to happen in Smash 4, it's not a high probability at high level play, whereas 2 stock comebacks are.
-The counter-pick process with a lot of stages like Brawl had for the longest time (why they held onto stages that slowed down competitive play like PS1, Haleberd, and Delfino Plaza [as much as I like those stages), I'll never know), and it made tournaments exponentially longer narrowing down stages. These stages also made the average tournament match quite a bit longer, but that's a topic for another thread.
-It was harder for Brawl to get into FGC tournaments with 3 stocks vs. 2 or 1 stock, but the community was too stubborn to abandon it.

In addition to all this, Brawl matches with 3 stocks can drag (they're very long), and become uninteresting for the players, IRL viewers, and stream viewers (all of which are a big reason Brawl nose dived in terms of competitive interest). Smash 3DS had similar problems (stream numbers dropped incredibly after the 1st 2 weeks post-release). Streamers are having issues similar with Smash Wii U.

3 stocks in Smash Wii U DO tend to drag, and almost every major smash figurehead involved in the Smash 4 competitive scene right now realizes it. Brawl stuck to 3 stocks for too long (and it was one of many reasons that game is nationally DEAD), and I fear Smash Wii U will stick to 3 stocks too long as well. Smash Wii U won't have the luxury of time like Brawl had IMO.

Brawl had another problem with time as well as the character counter-pick/selection when no or only 1 Meta Knight is present can be wacky and take quite a bit of time. Not a lot of time but combined with other things it add up, and made Brawl a mini-logistics nightmare to run at major tournaments.

If you add in all the control options and controller setups, the customized moves (which are largely banned now but that likely will be reversed in the future), having to enforce that equipment is off, and making sure pausing and time is off, and we got a lot of things to cover.

After considering all of that, as much as I may not want it from my old fashioned pre-Brawl Melee and 64 competitor point-of-view where I want longer matches with lots of stocks for more in-match adjustments, changes in momentum, and comebacks, given those beliefs and these above points, 2 stock is a better option than 3 stock in almost every single way.

We can have more comebacks at 2 stock (and have them feel more special), more diverse matches and in match adjustments and changes in momentum that have an actual impact (on a regular basis), and all this extra stuff that is necessary for tournament setup won't almost always lead to tournaments going too long (other crap will).

My vote is for 2 stock, although right now I'm beginning to lean towards 1 stock as the tournament standard in all honesty.

Ultimately I think the community will have to wise up to this, especially if they want customized moves legal. I don't see a scenario where the competitive scene for Smash 4 can be growing and thriving and have 3 stocks as the standard and customized moves on (which probably won't happen at majors until this summer), especially given the huge (and awful) stage list a lot of people want. It's too unrealistic, and it will keep Smash 4 out of all the FGC majors that Melee and Project M get into.

 

[Marcbri]

2 stocks feels too short. With 3 stocks we give players more time and the better one will win more often.

 

[Prawn]

2 stock is too short and unforgiving

3 stock is perfect imo

I agree. I've been playing 2 a lot since the game came out and I cannot help but feel that 3 stocks compared to 2 drastically reduces variance and makes the matches feel more complete

 

[cardboardowl]

Honestly I wanted 3 stock for longer matches, but matches tend to drag especially since so many players play so safe. This gam

My vote is for 2 stock, although right now I'm beginning to lean towards 1 stock as the tournament standard in all honesty.

Ultimately I think the community will have to wise up to this, especially if they want customized moves legal. I don't see a scenario where the competitive scene for Smash 4 can be growing and thriving and have 3 stocks as the standard and customized moves on (which probably won't happen at majors until this summer), especially given the huge (and awful) stage list a lot of people want. It's too unrealistic, and it will keep Smash 4 out of all the FGC majors that Melee and Project M get into.

No way in hell am I supporting 1 stock.

Also 3 stocks don't take forever. Sure smash games take a bit longer than other games, but that's ok. Not everything has to be as fast as others.

 

[ExigeOlimin]

Why don't we wait until the competitive scene matures a bit to find a definitive stock? I mean, if we wait until after a big tournament like Apex, maybe we can see if 1 higher stock is better or not.

 

[SphericalCrusher]

3 stocks. I'm hosting Skatelife Smash tournament this Saturday - got 50 or so players registered and that's what we're doing. I think it works best. Two is too short.

 

[Johnknight1]

No way in hell am I supporting 1 stock.

Also 3 stocks don't take forever. Sure smash games take a bit longer than other games, but that's ok. Not everything has to be as fast as others.

3 stock matches will likely take about on average at least 5 minutes, 10 seconds, and that's not counting all the time on customized moves selection, inputting names, selecting control setup, the stage selection process, the character selection process, and whatever the character/customized move selection process is.

That all adds up to a lot of time, whether in best of 3 or best of 5 sets.

It likely won't be worse than Brawl with 3 stocks (which was 2 stocks too long, which was a big reason Melee TO's didn't host the game; they don't want to stay late when Melee and PM finish quicker and draw bigger crowds and viewership numbers), but it still won't be good in terms of time management.

Everything is about time management, remember that. That's what TO's care about: getting things done right and done right on time with the limited time they have. At EVO there simply won't be ample time for Smash 4 to have top 8 on stream with customs legal, 11 stages legal and say 7-9 neutral stages, and 3 stock best of 5's with UMvC3 or Ultra or even Melee coming after it. It'll take up way more time than any of those games, and that's the point of condensing the amount of TIME it takes.

You should look at competitive game formulas that succeed at time management and people who succeeded at it for inspiration, not ones who failed at it. Don't copy the Brawl formula because that formula was crap and thus failed.

If you want 3 stocks, you better be prepared to not have best-of-3 matches and have only 1, and instead have 1, or you better be prepared to never have customized moves on, or you might even have to better have to prepare for both, at least if you truly want Smash Wii U at (and staying at) majors other smash games are at, and more importantly at major FGC and eSports events.

 

[DakotaBonez]

After playing the 3DS demo, I've become addicted to time matches.
Heartpounding 2 minute matches keep the pace of the game fast.
But as the majority of people favor stock, I say the less stocks the better, from a spectators view, 2 stock would be more entertaining.

(3 would be funner though)

 

[Piford]

I say 3 stock because it allows for epic comebacks, and it doesn't punish stupid mistakes as much (we've all accidentally side specialed instead of up specialed before). It's not like that game takes extremely long in 3 stock matches.

 

[MegaMissingno]

Can we just do 2-and-a-half stocks? Seriously I feel like 2 is too short and 3 is too long, I really don't know what to go with.

 

[Losho]

I think 2 for singles and 3 for teams is perfect for the time being. The meta game can evolve and prove that we need more stocks or time, time will tell but for now 2 for singles and 3 for teams.

 

[Empulsion]

I was quite surprised myself when they made it double stocks only. Especially when you can't choose how much lives you want for classic mode. But I can see the logic behind it. Making a mistake, thats alright. Make two? Match is done. Kinda eliminates long drawn out matches, especially against someone that drags the time on throwing projectiles and running trying to get some sort of percentage. Quickly dispose of them then you can leave and never have to face that again.

On the other hand three stocks is useful I would think for competitive, and the earlier versions. Melee and 64 3 stock definitely. I find they made the damage ratio decrease as the versions increase. Melee and 64 you can combo and kill quite quickly. Not too sure about brawl but definitely 3DS I find I don't die/kill until 120% or so. Anything less is either luck or good predictability, but either way the chances are slim. Three stock also is useful when two players who are very skilled have time to not only catch up, but its not going to be prolonged, they want each other dead. So there goes the running aspect. I don't know hard to explain. But I like both.

Summery, double stock is good for casual and practicing. Triple for competitive

 

[Pazzo.]

I find 2 stock more exciting. I have to play attention more, and be extremely careful. Beside this, people have mentioned that it's more similar to traditional fighting games.

 

[cardboardowl]

3 stock matches will likely take about on average at least 5 minutes, 10 seconds, and that's not counting all the time on customized moves selection, inputting names, selecting control setup, the stage selection process, the character selection process, and whatever the character/customized move selection process is.

That all adds up to a lot of time, whether in best of 3 or best of 5 sets.

It likely won't be worse than Brawl with 3 stocks (which was 2 stocks too long, which was a big reason Melee TO's didn't host the game; they don't want to stay late when Melee and PM finish quicker and draw bigger crowds and viewership numbers), but it still won't be good in terms of time management.

Everything is about time management, remember that. That's what TO's care about: getting things done right and done right on time with the limited time they have. At EVO there simply won't be ample time for Smash 4 to have top 8 on stream with customs legal, 11 stages legal and say 7-9 neutral stages, and 3 stock best of 5's with UMvC3 or Ultra or even Melee coming after it. It'll take up way more time than any of those games, and that's the point of condensing the amount of TIME it takes.

You should look at competitive game formulas that succeed at time management and people who succeeded at it for inspiration, not ones who failed at it. Don't copy the Brawl formula because that formula was crap and thus failed.

If you want 3 stocks, you better be prepared to not have best-of-3 matches and have only 1, and instead have 1, or you better be prepared to never have customized moves on, or you might even have to better have to prepare for both, at least if you truly want Smash Wii U at (and staying at) majors other smash games are at, and more importantly at major FGC and eSports events.

If you think brawl "failed" bc it wasn't 1 stock idk what to tell you.

It's not a big a deal as you are making it

 

[RESET Vao]

My country (Scotland) has conjured a Smash scene out of nowhere, and a lot of people really wanna get into it. My local fighting game community are having an event next Sunday and the ruleset to abide by has been somewhat of a debate. Most of the guys have natural talent in games and the event should be good since most of them have practiced pretty hard but there's no real Smash experience among them, so it's hard to make judgement calls on what ruleset to use. My first solution was to just see what Smashboards had to say on the subject and it's a little stressful to see that there's no real standard ruleset, although I'm pretty glad to see the community creating a ruleset that is in everyone's best interests.

The debate in this thread that has really made me want to post is whether 2 or 3 stocks are better for comebacks, or for creating a lead to run timer on. There are many factors to consider really but it seems to me that 2 stocks can be very unforgiving. A single read on your part is more likely become a comeback due to the opponent having less resources, and a single mistake on your part can create the lead the opponent planks on. I feel in 3 stock there is more frame of time to make a comeback, and since single reads/mistakes makes slightly less of an impact then the comebacks are more earned.

I understand that 3 stock games in this engine really drag on compared to other fighting games, but we should look out for number 1 and not hinder out metagame's progression for the sake of others. 3 stock is a better ruleset to determine who deserved to win the match more, longer sets are considered a better display of skill, gimmicks run dry and so on. I watch a lot of Street Fighter IV gameplay, and the difference between a best of 3 set (the tournament standard) compared to a longer set such as FT7 (Which is what I'm sure Topanga runs, I can't remember but they're long sets) is phenomenal.

That brings up my other point. I am fine with the game becoming a 2 or 3 stock game, there are pretty good arguments for both. Some people have suggested 2 stocks until Grand Finals, and a lot seem to have agreed. I think that is a pretty bad idea. The Grand Finals of a tournament should be two strong players playing each other at the game they advanced in, not playing a completely different game. The game, and the players mindsets going into it would be completely different if it was a 2 or 3 stock match.

 

[Prawn]

My country (Scotland) has conjured a Smash scene out of nowhere, and a lot of people really wanna get into it. My local fighting game community are having an event next Sunday and the ruleset to abide by has been somewhat of a debate. Most of the guys have natural talent in games and the event should be good since most of them have practiced pretty hard but there's no real Smash experience among them, so it's hard to make judgement calls on what ruleset to use. My first solution was to just see what Smashboards had to say on the subject and it's a little stressful to see that there's no real standard ruleset, although I'm pretty glad to see the community creating a ruleset that is in everyone's best interests.

The debate in this thread that has really made me want to post is whether 2 or 3 stocks are better for comebacks, or for creating a lead to run timer on. There are many factors to consider really but it seems to me that 2 stocks can be very unforgiving. A single read on your part is more likely become a comeback due to the opponent having less resources, and a single mistake on your part can create the lead the opponent planks on. I feel in 3 stock there is more frame of time to make a comeback, and since single reads/mistakes makes slightly less of an impact then the comebacks are more earned.

I understand that 3 stock games in this engine really drag on compared to other fighting games, but we should look out for number 1 and not hinder out metagame's progression for the sake of others. 3 stock is a better ruleset to determine who deserved to win the match more, longer sets are considered a better display of skill, gimmicks run dry and so on. I watch a lot of Street Fighter IV gameplay, and the difference between a best of 3 set (the tournament standard) compared to a longer set such as FT7 (Which is what I'm sure Topanga runs, I can't remember but they're long sets) is phenomenal.

That brings up my other point. I am fine with the game becoming a 2 or 3 stock game, there are pretty good arguments for both. Some people have suggested 2 stocks until Grand Finals, and a lot seem to have agreed. I think that is a pretty bad idea. The Grand Finals of a tournament should be two strong players playing each other at the game they advanced in, not playing a completely different game. The game, and the players mindsets going into it would be completely different if it was a 2 or 3 stock match.

First time I've seen you post but please do so more often. Very well said.

 

[Johnknight1]

If you think brawl "failed" bc it wasn't 1 stock idk what to tell you.

It didn't fail because of not being 1 stock, it failed because the community:
1. Refused to adapt to maintain growth and not rely on being "the new game" (PM stole that momentum because they allowed it to).
2. The game didn't have a yearly schedule for tournaments.
3. The game couldn't get into tournaments because the game had a notorious reputation for running late due to being 3 stocks.
4. Nobody would stream Brawl for a variety of reasons, and the Brawl community never cared enough to have their own streams in the way that Melee has VGBC, CT, Tourney Locator, Smash Studios, etc.

If Brawl went to 1 or 2 stocks earlier, that would help eliminate the "running late," whereas Melee didn't have that problem. Melee's average 4 stock match was much shorter than the average Brawl 3 stock match. That's a big reason why:
1. Melee streams caught on and people kept streaming Melee (no one wants to stay late or watch something go late).
2. FGC and eSports tournaments would have Melee but not Brawl. TO's don't like games running late or taking more then the maximum time allotted.
3. Melee, 64, and Project M tournaments don't have as many negative reviews of "feeling like a drag" compared to Brawl tournaments.

Considering that Smash 4 has already had several tournaments drag on wayyyyy too long and take hours longer than PM or Melee tournaments with roughly the same amount of entrants, that is an issue. Sorry, but EVO, MLG, and other major FGC and eSports event won't wait 2 extra hours for Smash Wii U's top 8 to finish when compared to all the other games they could run (which include other Smash titles).

It's not a big a deal as you are making it

TIME and EFFICIENCY is all that matters to TO's.

Project M recently had 3 stocks at TBH4 because of TIME ISSUES. There was talk of Melee having 3 stocks at EVO 2014 because of TIME ISSUES. In TBH4's case PM finished about an hour early (thus 4 stock would've likely been better), and in EVO 2014's case Melee started about 40 minutes late but finished only 15 minutes late, or in other words, took 25 less minutes than required.

Considering that Project M 4 stock and Melee 4 stock take nowhere nears as much time as Smash Wii U 3 stock matches will, it is an issue if you ACTUALLY WANT Smash 4 at major events and be run efficiently.

Quite frankly, if Smash Wii U isn't run efficiently at those tournaments and goes over in part because of the stock issue (not to mention the stage list, possibly custom move legalization and the time it takes to verify and go through the process of having those), Smash Wii U will STOP BEING AT MAJOR TOURNAMENTS, and it will likely wind up right where Brawl is now (dead as a national game outside of APEX, which is more like fake life support at this point, especially since many PM players won't enter both there) very quick, instead of where PM and Melee are (not surviving but thriving).

At some point, the clock has to stop. Even if you are for 3 stocks, at some point, you gotta realize that there may be a point where you must sacrifice doing things your way (something the Brawl competitive community didn't do and why it's not much of a thing anymore; they took too long to limit the stage list, make tournaments end at ample time, and make sets go shorter), or doing it the way that is best for the community.

I may be wrong, and I accept that may be the reality, but you always got to keep that in mind. If tournaments are going too long, the community won't take away things that take up time (which includes stocks), and the game dies, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. YOU are your community.

 

[Arcadenik]

I wish I had 3 stocks instead of 2 stocks in Classic Mode.

 

[CaliburChamp]

3 stock is better. An early gimp or accidental suicide could really set you back and doesn't give you enough time to understand your oppon play style if you lose your first stock early.

When everyone is on their 3rd stock they are trying to read this opponent. You need 3 stocks so there will be less fraudulence and gives more room for a comeback. 2 stock is hard to come back from. You also have essentially 1 stock if you get gimped or suicide.

 

[Conda]

From a spectator's point of view, 2 stocks is a no-brainer.

I've been hosting competitive 1v1s and yes, I finally agree with this sentiment. At least for now.

3 stocks make some matchups take forever (sheik vs sheik) and generally things feel dialled down in intensity compared to 2stock.

Undervaluing spectator value and forcing a bo3 set to be 20-30 min on stream isn't a good idea. As a competitive game, viewers matter, without them, we have a worse chance of getting i to bigger tournaments and a much worse chance of having a large viewerbase.

Epic matches are important, but smash is a fighting game not a strategy game. Our appeal to spectators is how fast and exciting pro level play is, and 2 stocks cashes in in what makes fighting games exciting.

 

[The Revolutionary Cafe]

2 stocks because 3 stocks isn't as good at keeping viewer attention and certain match ups last FOREVER resulting in time outs and what not

 

[KACHOW!!!]

I'm pretty sure the standard tourney format right now is 3 stock 8 minute cap. I've played some matches on anther's ladder in this format, and it's definitely not too slow to be exciting. 2 stocks is a little too punishing for any accidental self destruct. And timeouts are rare. And if you think that high level tourney players don't sd, you're wrong, one of the bigger aspects of the game has always been tricking people into a self-destruct.

 

[TheDarkPotato]

I used to think 3 stocks was the perfect amount but after playing a while and seeing some tournaments. I think 2 stocks may be a better choice.