Meta Australian Smash 4 General Ruleset Discussion

[Gords]

After looking at the stage selects screen and music select screens from the 50 Fact Extravaganza and the pictures on the official website,
it looks like we will have about 6-7 starter/neutral stages for WiiU.
battlefield, big battlefield, FD(s), Town and City, Smashville, lylat, Miiverse

some counterpicks might be
delfino, halberd, castle seige, DK 64, Skyloft, skyworld, windy hill zone

questionable counterpicks
(as in we will need to see how the stage works, what hazards there are, etc. but for now doesnt show any glaring ban worthiness)
Mario circuit, orbital gate assault, jungle hyjinx, mushroon kingdom U, Kalos pokemon league, pilot wings

walk offs destroy coliseum, wii fit studio, and mario galaxy (although the change in gravity probably is banned worthy alone)
pyrosphere got destroyed as it got wiley castle treatment

all in all i think the WiiU list recieved the same problem as the 3DS version in that stages were unnecessarily destroyed by stage hazards bosses, but the larger list allows for more stages to be viable anyway
It at least appears we will have a larger enough healthier stage list for the WiiU version.

And 4v4 crew team battles has to become a thing.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

After looking at the stage selects screen and music select screens from the 50 Fact Extravaganza and the pictures on the official website,
it looks like we will have about 6-7 starter/neutral stages for WiiU.
battlefield, big battlefield, FD(s), Town and City, Smashville, lylat, Miiverse

some counterpicks might be
delfino, halberd, castle seige, DK 64, Skyloft, skyworld, windy hill zone

questionable counterpicks
(as in we will need to see how the stage works, what hazards there are, etc. but for now doesnt show any glaring ban worthiness)
Mario circuit, orbital gate assault, jungle hyjinx, mushroon kingdom U, Kalos pokemon league, pilot wings

walk offs destroy coliseum, wii fit studio, and mario galaxy (although the change in gravity probably is banned worthy alone)
pyrosphere got destroyed as it got wiley castle treatment

all in all i think the WiiU list recieved the same problem as the 3DS version in that stages were unnecessarily destroyed by stage hazards bosses, but the larger list allows for more stages to be viable anyway
It at least appears we will have a larger enough healthier stage list for the WiiU version.

And 4v4 crew team battles has to become a thing.

If there was some way we could turn off yellow devil and Ridley, Pyrosphere and Wily Castle could be some really good stages.
Pyro = Neutral and Wily Castle = CP (<-- ?)


If only

Pretty much agree with everything else tho

 

[Jamwa]

I just though of a solution:
Atilla can play with 1 stock while everyone else plays with 2 stocks

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

I just though of a solution:
Atilla can play with 1 stock while everyone else plays with 2 stocks

MIND BLOWN

 

[Shaya]

Except in tournament matches with people other than himself, then it's still 2 stock.

 

[Gords]

Except when playing with people other than himself, then it's still 2 stock.

completely missed the point @ Shaya .

Sakurai just needs to make an update which adds an option in settings that turns off hazards. should make
magicant, find mii, wiley castle, brinstar, unova pokemon league, warioware, rainbow road all great 3DS tourney stages
and pyrosphere, wiley castle or any of the other questionable CPs viable on the WiiU

but as if thats ever gunna happen, his idea of doing this is literally making everything flat only

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

completely missed the point @ Shaya .

Sakurai just needs to make an update which adds an option in settings that turns off hazards. should make
magicant, find mii, wiley castle, brinstar, unova pokemon league, warioware, rainbow road all great 3DS tourney stages
and pyrosphere, wiley castle or any of the other questionable CPs viable on the WiiU

but as if thats ever gunna happen, his idea of doing this is literally making everything flat only

wait.. wut? Pretty sure he was talking about @ Jamwa 's comment

 

[EverAlert]

walk offs destroy coliseum, wii fit studio, and mario galaxy

We don't know this yet (also not totally sure about galaxy, but it does seem more than likely lol).

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

We don't know this yet (also not totally sure about galaxy, but it does seem more than likely lol).

Watch the Smash direct.
Walk off on the Wii Fit Studio

 

[Shaya]

Why do we have to deal with walk offs still, when we could maybe have more walled options this game without much stress at all?

BAH HUMBUG.

 

[EverAlert]

I did watch it, I agree it does look like it, but I didn't see anything that clearly confirmed it without doubt. Maybe I should take a closer look.

 

[Luco]

Why do we have to deal with walk offs still, when we could maybe have more walled options this game without much stress at all?

BAH HUMBUG.

More "walled" options?

I iz confused.

 

[Shaya]

Green Greens without exploding blocks probably wouldn't be a bad stage this game.
Shadow Moses would be awesome (SNAKE DLC PLEASE).

that's about it really. Perhaps something new and intuitive from the tekken team for that. Like perhaps how sandbags or the bombs don't get hit outside the barrier until much higher percent or something

 

[Gords]

wait.. wut? Pretty sure he was talking about @ Jamwa 's comment

yeah i know, i was saying he missed the point of Jamwa's post

Green Greens without exploding blocks probably wouldn't be a bad stage this game.
Shadow Moses would be awesome (SNAKE DLC PLEASE).

pretty sure green greens and shadow moses are not in the WiiU version. however i do agree that green greens without exploding blocks and maybe apples would likely be a decent stage.

@ EverAlert true Wii Fit studio hasnt been definitely proven to have walk offs but it seems likely, the same logic can then be applied to Garden of Hope but pretty sure there are hazards on that stage as well which will likely make the stage ban worthy with or without walk offs.

Also does anyone recognize this stage, Pretty sure we have seen it somewhere before but cant find it.

Spoiler

 

[Luco]

Wuhu Island? (Not that i know what Wuhu island looks like =P )

Umm, not sure really.

 

[Gords]

thanks @ Luco makes sense
I would probably add this to my questionable CP list then since the picture in the menu indicates floating platforms but in the live stream this morning showed Wuhu Island as a beach. This probably means its another delfino like stage but the beach isnt too inviting though. we will need to see what other transformations it has.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

yeah i know, i was saying he missed the point of Jamwa's post
pretty sure green greens and shadow moses are not in the WiiU version. however i do agree that green greens without exploding blocks and maybe apples would likely be a decent stage.

@ EverAlert true Wii Fit studio hasnt been definitely proven to have walk offs but it seems likely, the same logic can then be applied to Garden of Hope but pretty sure there are hazards on that stage as well which will likely make the stage ban worthy with or without walk offs.

Also does anyone recognize this stage, Pretty sure we have seen it somewhere before but cant find it.

Spoiler

View attachment 28148

Oooohhhhhhhh. I see

 

[Attila_]

Played 20 matches againat dread last night. Fairly even wins/loses. 2 stock.

On two occasions only, the player taking the first stock lost. And they both involved an SD of that player.

My point will be proven.

#patience

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Played 20 matches againat dread last night. Fairly even wins/loses. 2 stock.

On two occasions only, the player taking the first stock lost. And they both involved an SD of that player.

My point will be proven.

#patience

dont get ko'd then

has this thread progressed since i was last here

let me check

Edit: some interesting points but nothing I really have an opinion on. 2 > 3 > 1 stock imo

3 stock is the most consistant but the game takes so long (not because of a lack of aggressive play but rather because everyone lives forever and there aren't any setups into kill moves in this game)

2 stock lessens bull**** comeback mechanics like Little Mac KO punch :3 but if you SD you're pretty much completely screwed

1 stock i feel is pointless and doesn't give anything, and only serves to take things away.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

After looking at the stage selects screen and music select screens from the 50 Fact Extravaganza and the pictures on the official website,
it looks like we will have about 6-7 starter/neutral stages for WiiU.
battlefield, big battlefield, FD(s), Town and City, Smashville, lylat, Miiverse

some counterpicks might be
delfino, halberd, castle seige, DK 64, Skyloft, skyworld, windy hill zone

questionable counterpicks
(as in we will need to see how the stage works, what hazards there are, etc. but for now doesnt show any glaring ban worthiness)
Mario circuit, orbital gate assault, jungle hyjinx, mushroon kingdom U, Kalos pokemon league, pilot wings

walk offs destroy coliseum, wii fit studio, and mario galaxy (although the change in gravity probably is banned worthy alone)
pyrosphere got destroyed as it got wiley castle treatment

all in all i think the WiiU list recieved the same problem as the 3DS version in that stages were unnecessarily destroyed by stage hazards bosses, but the larger list allows for more stages to be viable anyway
It at least appears we will have a larger enough healthier stage list for the WiiU version.

And 4v4 crew team battles has to become a thing.

You can basically cross off Mario circuit, orbital gate off. Very much on the fence when it comes to the other questionable counter picks.
Kind of leaning over towards a ban for Jungle Hijinx.
EDIT: Look at some of the Gamexplain videos that were uploaded.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Jungle Hijinx looks super kewl

but we'll have to see how the stage works first probably

 

[Attila_]

1 stock i feel is pointless and doesn't give anything, and only serves to take things away.

You missed the important points.

If the person who takes the first stock has a 95% chance of winning, then how is one stock useless? In fact, it's the other stocks that are useless. The person who took the first stock has already won the game. Extra stocks are a formality only.

The only real reason for more stocks is because people like more stocks. That's literally it.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Hmm, maybe.

Nonetheless I like more stocks, and at least the chance for a comeback is THERE (for the significantly better vs worse players). :3

 

[Lex__]

You missed the important points.

If the person who takes the first stock has a 95% chance of winning, then how is one stock useless? In fact, it's the other stocks that are useless. The person who took the first stock has already won the game. Extra stocks are a formality only.

The only real reason for more stocks is because people like more stocks. That's literally it.

When I played 1 stock the other day it didn't feel fun, even if the person doesn't have a chance 1 stock feels to fast, and specially in a tournament I don't think it will be fun for newcomers to play 4 stocks and then get knocked out of the tournament.

I just don't think we have any reason to go to 1 stock, we don't have time constraints yet do we?

 

[dean.]

The only real reason for more stocks is because people like more stocks. That's literally it.

And for the 90% of players who don't win money and have this game as nothing more than a hobby, this is also by far the most important point.

 

[Gords]

Mario circuit looks like a cross between the rainbow road and the f-zero stage on the 3ds except where the floor changes its location
orbital looks like a pokefloats like stage in that is has forced progression although it makes you move forward more like transformation stages though so i dont know.
pokemon seems to be similar to pictochat/pictochat 2 but not as bad in that every now and then some kind of effect comes in (which may or may not harm you)
Jungle Hijinx i can see circle camping being a problem even though it basically looks like two neutral maps within the stage (yes i know the front map has a destructible floor). guess this will be determined by how fast one can move between maps. could very likely be a doubles stage only though (i hope its available in 8 player smash as well).

I will however withhold further judgement until i get my hand on the game in late nov.

If the person who takes the first stock has a 95% chance of winning, then how is one stock useless? In fact, it's the other stocks that are useless. The person who took the first stock has already won the game. Extra stocks are a formality only.

The only real reason for more stocks is because people like more stocks. That's literally it.

In general the person who takes an early lead ends up winning,
same things even happens in tennis, so then shouldn't all tennis tournaments be decided by one set?
for Smash, the person who takes the first game takes the set in the majority of cases as well, so then following your logic shouldnt we just play Bo1 sets?
the fact of the matter is that it doesnt matter if its 1 stock, 2 stocks, 3 stocks or even 10 stocks, in general the better player will come out on top. so your argument about who won and when means nothing in regard to this ruling since the whole point of the ruleset is to determine who is the better player. so what other reason do you have to support 1 stock, because if the better player wins anyway then the fun factor is definitely more important.

the way I see it is that the only real reason for 1 stock is because Attila likes less stocks.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

Mario circuit looks like a cross between the rainbow road and the f-zero stage on the 3ds except where the floor changes its location
orbital looks like a pokefloats like stage in that is has forced progression although it makes you move forward more like transformation stages though so i dont know.
pokemon seems to be similar to pictochat/pictochat 2 but not as bad in that every now and then some kind of effect comes in (which may or may not harm you)
Jungle Hijinx i can see circle camping being a problem even though it basically looks like two neutral maps within the stage (yes i know the front map has a destructible floor). guess this will be determined by how fast one can move between maps. could very likely be a doubles stage only though (i hope its available in 8 player smash as well).

I will however withhold further judgement until i get my hand on the game in late nov.


In general the person who takes an early lead ends up winning,
same things even happens in tennis, so then shouldn't all tennis tournaments be decided by one set?
for Smash, the person who takes the first game takes the set in the majority of cases as well, so then following your logic shouldnt we just play Bo1 sets?
the fact of the matter is that it doesnt matter if its 1 stock, 2 stocks, 3 stocks or even 10 stocks, in general the better player will come out on top. so your argument about who won and when means nothing in regard to this ruling since the whole point of the ruleset is to determine who is the better player. so what other reason do you have to support 1 stock, because if the better player wins anyway then the fun factor is definitely more important.

the way I see it is that the only real reason for 1 stock is because Attila likes less stocks.

LMAO

Also are you getting the american version?

 

[Gords]

yeah i have a US WiiU, i should get my copy around the 26th nov

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

Lucky, making me salty there gords....

 

[EverAlert]

yeah it's pretty lucky
gords just walked down to his local eb and came home with a us wiiu like wtf
i mean who the heck gets that lucky??????

 

[Attila_]

And for the 90% of players who don't win money and have this game as nothing more than a hobby, this is also by far the most important point.

Geez. Everyone should post more like dean. This is one of the posts in the thread that actually presents a valid argument. While I think that making a ruleset to cater for casuals is dangerous, I also think it's pretty necessary at this point, as everyone is still pretty new. Point taken.

In general the person who takes an early lead ends up winning,
same things even happens in tennis, so then shouldn't all tennis tournaments be decided by one set?
for Smash, the person who takes the first game takes the set in the majority of cases as well, so then following your logic shouldnt we just play Bo1 sets?
the fact of the matter is that it doesnt matter if its 1 stock, 2 stocks, 3 stocks or even 10 stocks, in general the better player will come out on top. so your argument about who won and when means nothing in regard to this ruling since the whole point of the ruleset is to determine who is the better player. so what other reason do you have to support 1 stock, because if the better player wins anyway then the fun factor is definitely more important.

the way I see it is that the only real reason for 1 stock is because Attila likes less stocks.

Once again, another post that doesn't make sense and ignores most of the discussion. Seriously. Like, it makes no sense.
But I'm not sure if you genuinely don't understand or are trying to troll, so I'll try and explain in the simplest way possible.

In tennis, each point is decided and awarded to the winning player. At this point, the game stops, returns to neutral, and another point is decided. As such, in smash terms, Tennis is essentially decided by a ****load of one stock matches.

If, after a point was decided, the game continued without returning to neutral (say, if the server pulled a ball immediately out of his pocket and could hit as soon as he won the previous point), that would be the equivalent of a 2/3/however many stock game. The server would be able to continue play with the opponent still in a disadvantageous position, and not be allowed to return to neutral. And this is essentially what 2 stock does. Mind you, I only bring up tennis because you did, it's a pretty average analogy.

Comebacks between games, on the other hand, a completely different story. Because each game starts from scratch, there is a genuine chance for a comeback. You don't start with an inherent disadvantage. And coming back to your point about tennis: this is why the tennis model works.

And so after all that, if the best player is truly better, he will win the first stock, because if he doesn't, he's not going to win anyway. If not, longer series will help a better player mount a comeback, not more stocks. More neutral play and time to think serve much better as a comeback mechanic.

Hopefully that clarifies things for you. Hopefully.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

Geez. Everyone should post more like dean. This is one of the posts in the thread that actually presents a valid argument. While I think that making a ruleset to cater for casuals is dangerous, I also think it's pretty necessary at this point, as everyone is still pretty new. Point taken.




Once again, another post that doesn't make sense and ignores most of the discussion. Seriously. Like, it makes no sense.
But I'm not sure if you genuinely don't understand or are trying to troll, so I'll try and explain in the simplest way possible.

In tennis, each point is decided and awarded to the winning player. At this point, the game stops, returns to neutral, and another point is decided. As such, in smash terms, Tennis is essentially decided by a ****load of one stock matches.

If, after a point was decided, the game continued without returning to neutral (say, if the server pulled a ball immediately out of his pocket and could hit as soon as he won the previous point), that would be the equivalent of a 2/3/however many stock game. The server would be able to continue play with the opponent still in a disadvantageous position, and not be allowed to return to neutral. And this is essentially what 2 stock does. Mind you, I only bring up tennis because you did, it's a pretty average analogy.

Comebacks between games, on the other hand, a completely different story. Because each game starts from scratch, there is a genuine chance for a comeback. You don't start with an inherent disadvantage. And coming back to your point about tennis: this is why the tennis model works.

And so after all that, if the best player is truly better, he will win the first stock, because if he doesn't, he's not going to win anyway.

Hopefully that clarifies things for you. Hopefully.

TL;DR Wait til after apex and then decide whats best.

 

[Lex__]

Geez. Everyone should post more like dean. This is one of the posts in the thread that actually presents a valid argument. While I think that making a ruleset to cater for casuals is dangerous, I also think it's pretty necessary at this point, as everyone is still pretty new. Point taken.

Hobby != Casual, maybe its because you have been playing for a while, but anyone who comes to a tournament is not a casual, they have taken there time to go to a tournament. Its not fun playing 4 matches, of 1 stock each and getting knocked out, even for someone who has been playing for a long time, no one wants to have that happen to them and everyone who goes to tournament wants everyone to have fun. Even if it offers no advantages for competitive its definitely more fun to play 2 stocks then 1, also smash does cater to losers, we do double elim in every tournament if we only wanted winner to win, we would do single elim.

In tennis, each point is decided and awarded to the winning player. At this point, the game stops, returns to neutral, and another point is decided. As such, in smash terms, Tennis is essentially decided by a ****load of one stock matches.

If, after a point was decided, the game continued without returning to neutral (say, if the server pulled a ball immediately out of his pocket and could hit as soon as he won the previous point), that would be the equivalent of a 2/3/however many stock game. The server would be able to continue play with the opponent still in a disadvantageous position, and not be allowed to return to neutral. And this is essentially what 2 stock does. Mind you, I only bring up tennis because you did, it's a pretty average analogy.

Comebacks between games, on the other hand, a completely different story. Because each game starts from scratch, there is a genuine chance for a comeback. You don't start with an inherent disadvantage. And coming back to your point about tennis: this is why the tennis model works.

This tennis scoring anology is bad, and we should feel bad for using it.

Okay for tennis, you forget to mention of the more important part of the set, which is when two players have a tied score at 30-30, where you the have to win 2 points to win the set this is a comeback mechanic. You also forget to say that tennis plays a stupid amount of sets, while in smash we would only be playing bo3.

Also on your point that tennis is even, it is heavily biased towards the server, and winning a match not on your server is a big advantage (Similiar to winning on your oponents counter pick in smash in a bo5)

Source on the bias towards servers.

Source : http://strategicgames.com.au/article32.pdf

 

[Attila_]

That part is cancer.

Please re-read my post and discern the point. Helpful hint: it's not actually about tennis.

 

[Gords]

@ Attila_
Fair call, I genuinely didn't understand it this way, which is why analogy kind of failed.
My lack of understanding when the situation has returned to neutral is also a big reason why I am still terrible at the game.
However my point:

the fact of the matter is that it doesnt matter if its 1 stock, 2 stocks, 3 stocks or even 10 stocks, in general the better player will come out on top. so your argument about who won and when means nothing in regard to this ruling since the whole point of the ruleset is to determine who is the better player....because if the better player wins anyway then the fun factor is definitely more important.

I still think this is a valid argument as it (to my understanding) basically is the same thing as what @ dean. is saying, especially the part in bold, which is why I think then that 2 stock is the best compromise between the few that can play for money and the hundreds playing that can only achieve the fun.

 

[EverAlert]

Geez. Everyone should post more like dean. This is one of the posts in the thread that actually presents a valid argument. While I think that making a ruleset to cater for casuals is dangerous, I also think it's pretty necessary at this point, as everyone is still pretty new. Point taken.

I'm pretty sure I made this exact point (albeit with different wording) like 2 pages ago and you responded like it was moronic and made this enormous post with an analogy that didn't even make sense supported by bs conclusions. Maybe you should think about what people are trying to say instead of slapping your **** at anything that looks like it could even remotely be capable of motion?

also lol @ "casuals"

 

[Attila_]

I'm pretty sure I made this exact point (albeit with different wording) like 2 pages ago and you responded like it was moronic and made this enormous post with an analogy that didn't even make sense supported by bs conclusions. Maybe you should think about what people are trying to say instead of slapping your **** at anything that looks like it could even remotely be capable of motion?

also lol @ "casuals"

If you made that point already, I either missed it or misunderstood. In either case, I apologize; it's a very valid argument at this point.

 

[Venks]

TL;DR Wait til after apex and then decide whats best.

If you're just gonna post this again and again why even bother posting? You're not contributing anything to the discussion. We all saw this post the first time you posted it.

You missed the important points.

If the person who takes the first stock has a 95% chance of winning, then how is one stock useless? In fact, it's the other stocks that are useless. The person who took the first stock has already won the game. Extra stocks are a formality only.

The only real reason for more stocks is because people like more stocks. That's literally it.

Not really. The whole point of a ruleset for a fighting game is to tell who the better player is. More stocks allows for better consistency amongst results. Obviously though we want the number to be small for time management. Even if most players who takes the first stock win 83% of the time that doesn't mean we should sacrifice all other stocks. This is also why we play Best of 3 and have Double Elimination. Consistency amongst results is what we're striving for.

If I'm playing Bo5 with a one stock ruleset then worst case scenario I only get three stocks to face my opponent. Worst case scenario Bo3 with a two stock ruleset I have at least four stocks to play with.

The reason this matters is that it gives the losing player more time to adapt. At the CW tournament I won most of my rounds after taking the first stock, but I also won two of my rounds while being a stock behind. And no I'm not talking about the KO Punch. I'm talking about any player using any character and adapting to the other player's play style.

In a couple of my rounds I lost a stock really early. But if you immediately start thinking "well I'm a stock behind this is a lost match" then you are completely wasting your second stock. Even if I can't manage to pull a win from behind I'm going to spend that time with my second stock learning everything I can about my opponent.

What is their main approach? What do they do out of a jump? What is their go-to defensive option? How to do they get up from the ledge? Does their behavior change when they go over 100%?

Even if I lose my first round that second stock wasn't useless. It gave me time to learn my opponent. Then I'll start the second round in a much better position. Even if I lose that first stock again in the second round my chances of making a comeback in that round are much higher than they were in the previous round. And this is what happened for me at the CW tournament. Then I enter the third round and I have "downloaded" the other player. The win is in the bag.

Sure you can also adapt and take a win in a Bo5, but you don't have the same amount of time to do so. If you take a quick loss in the first round then you enter the second round with little to no information to adapt with. Then if you lose the second round all the pressure is on you to win the third.

Consistency, interesting engagement, and manageability is what fighting game rulesets strive for.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

If you're just gonna post this again and again why even bother posting? You're not contributing anything to the discussion. We all saw this post the first time you posted it.



Not really. The whole point of a ruleset for a fighting game is to tell who the better player is. More stocks allows for better consistency amongst results. Obviously though we want the number to be small for time management. Even if most players who takes the first stock win 83% of the time that doesn't mean we should sacrifice all other stocks. This is also why we play Best of 3 and have Double Elimination. Consistency amongst results is what we're striving for.

If I'm playing Bo5 with a one stock ruleset then worst case scenario I only get three stocks to face my opponent. Worst case scenario Bo3 with a two stock ruleset I have at least four stocks to play with.

The reason this matters is that it gives the losing player more time to adapt. At the CW tournament I won most of my rounds after taking the first stock, but I also won two of my rounds while being a stock behind. And no I'm not talking about the KO Punch. I'm talking about any player using any character and adapting to the other player's play style.

In a couple of my rounds I lost a stock really early. But if you immediately start thinking "well I'm a stock behind this is a lost match" then you are completely wasting your second stock. Even if I can't manage to pull a win from behind I'm going to spend that time with my second stock learning everything I can about my opponent.

What is their main approach? What do they do out of a jump? What is their go-to defensive option? How to do they get up from the ledge? Does their behavior change when they go over 100%?

Even if I lose my first round that second stock wasn't useless. It gave me time to learn my opponent. Then I'll start the second round in a much better position. Even if I lose that first stock again in the second round my chances of making a comeback in that round are much higher than they were in the previous round. And this is what happened for me at the CW tournament. Then I enter the third round and I have "downloaded" the other player. The win is in the bag.

Sure you can also adapt and take a win in a Bo5, but you don't have the same amount of time to do so. If you take a quick loss in the first round then you enter the second round with little to no information to adapt with. Then if you lose the second round all the pressure is on you to win the third.

Consistency, interesting engagement, and manageability is what fighting game rulesets strive for.

Contribute?
Alright. Time to contribute.

My opinion on stocks?
Simple
Wait til after Ap- *gets shot*
OK I'M SORRY

2 Stocks. I feel that the rules set out on for glory should just be used in tournament until the community can universally accept some sort of layout for Smash 4 tournaments, especially for things like stocks.
I personally find that 3 stocks tournaments tend to.... drag, just slightly, though it depends on what character is being used; especially if its Duck Hunt, imo.

Since Duck Hunt seems to be a very projectile and campy sort of character, it just makes it seem (imo) that matches with Duck Hunt tend to drag, just slightly though. It also allows for comebacks. Of course you can still do a come back when its one stock, but it seems more hype to come back when you are a stock behind the opponent, just my opinion.

Plus like you even said, if you think that just because you are a stock behind and you think you have already lost, then there is no point playing 2 stocks, since its a waste of a stock.

There, I contributed. Happy? Good

 

[Attila_]

Zzz Zzz

@ Venks Please don't quote me if you're going to read what I wrote. It's incredibly frustrating.

Here, I'll summarize the main points.

1. The stock lead is broken. The player who takes the first stock should win.
2. In which case, extra stocks don't equate to added consistency. Instead extra matches add consistency and allow the better player A MUCH greater opportunity to win. Even if we ran Bo7s or something.
3. Using your disadvantage to learn/study your opponent is a misnomer. When you have the stock lead, you should be playing differently. So that playstyle won't apply to the next match, unless you find yourself in the same (losing) situation
4. I think 2 stock is more user friendly, and should be maintained at this point. However, I expect this to change as players get better/safer

There you go.