Brawl 1-Stock Ruleset: For Better or For Worse?

[Omni]

The introduction of Brawl’s “1-Stock ruleset” took place last week at GOML for the first time at any major event replacing the previously used 3-stock, best of 3 games ruleset. Why, you ask? Well, the Brawl tournament scene has been facing an uphill battle recently due to several reasons:

1. The increased attention to the Melee scene shifting the ratio of Melee attendants to Brawl attendants heavily in Melee’s favor
2. The recognition of Melee-only events at large tournaments such as EVO & MLG
3. The rise in popularity of Project M
4. The newfound interest in Smash 4 which is generally predicted to be very similar in nature to Brawl
5. The time it takes to complete an average set in Brawl tends to be extremely long compared to its PM and Melee counterparts

With the increased popularity in Melee and Project M and the introduction of Smash 4, both TO’s and Brawl players have began shifting their energy and focus away from Brawl. Essentially, Brawl’s popularity is diminishing.

Cheer up, Mario. All hope is not lost.​

The 1-Stock Ruleset was put in place as a response to the recent decline in interest for Brawl tournaments. It is meant to differentiate Brawl from the other games in the series, including the upcoming Super Smash Bros. 4.

Player vs. Spectator Reactions​

There were many Facebook and Twitter statuses during the tournament that generally talked about how “hype” the new ruleset was for Brawl. There were, of course, opposing views that felt that the new ruleset brought hype, but for the wrong reason. Why would playing less of a game be more enjoyable? Well, that depends on whether you’re the player or the spectator some would argue.

CT EMP|Mew2King:
"1 stock is fun, but i still prefer 3 stocks because the more stocks involved, the better the test of skill since there is more fighting. in a 3/5 set, only 3 to 5 stocks are played out total."

CT| Zero:
"I'm not against it, I've played it way before and showcased it on stream (In fact I went to a 1 stock tournament that ended up being a 3 stock one because no one wanted to play the format) I don't like it. It takes away the lead aspect I like from Brawl.'

LoF| Nakat:
"One stock does not allow true adaptation and is something that should not be forced on players. It "might" promote viewership, but the players competing are more important than gaining numbers. With that being said I want to keep 3 stocks."

CT| Vinnie:
"1 stock lacks adaptation. In a 3 stock match, there is a lot of adapting that occurs throughout that amount of time. When I watch brawl streams / videos, I always like to see how a top player adapts to a new match-up or situation throughout the set. This doesn't happen in a 1 stock match."

Despite the opposing views, there were highly positive reviews from C9|Mango, CRS.HungryBox, juice.Doom, Toronto Joe, and many others.

juice.Doom
"It makes the game super intense and stimulating to watch/play. Since the engine has low hitstun, one read doesn't amount to much in three stocks, but every hit counts with one. You can't sandbag or sleep on anyone, and you've gotta be on point to avoid mistakes that will actually cost you."

And the occasional comedic yet neutral Twitter posts.

Success or Failure? You Decide.​

Regardless of how people may feel, GOML’s implementation of the 1-Stock Ruleset has generated massive amounts of attention to the Brawl tournament scene. And that activity is what breathes life back into what could be known as a stagnant competitive scene. If you had the chance to witness the tournament this weekend, what do you think of the new 1-stock ruleset? Post your thoughts in the comments section below and see how your stance aligns with the rest of the public.

If you missed out on the action, don't worry. You can check out the videos here via VGBootCamp's Youtube Channel.

Ally vs. Nakat Losers Finals.
​

The Brawl Community is not ready to resign. Nor should they consider it. The beauty of the Smash scene is that being different doesn't matter. Being different, in all aspects, brings us closer together. The Super Smash Bros. Brawl community is not the exception; they are the rule.

Omni can see why Brawl is a part of #oneunit, but can he see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Find out by keeping in touch via his Twitter @InfernoOmni and stay tuned for future smash news related updates.

 

[TheLegendaryKRB]

I like it for Brawl not anything else.

 

[Coolwhip]

Talk about the pressure for both players to start off the match.
IC's are godlike favorites in 1-stock rule set.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I was in the tournament and I think 1 stock is far better, especially from a tournament logistics stanspoint. We were able to have8-9 man round robin pools and run the tournament and finsh super early.

Also ics are not stronger in 1 stock. I definitely beat an ic player in bracket that I think I would have had less chance with in 3 stock.

Im still part of the #2stockmasterrace but for tournaments 1stock is definitely better than 3 stock

 

[CeLL]

ICs... grab = win

 

[Smur]

I actually don't mind that Melee and PM are getting more popular... :3 No disrespect to Brawl tho, still a smash game.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Well, Melee Community's media crusade against Brawl last year certainly didn't help matters. People who know nothing about either game competitively now have the idea that Brawl is terrible despite never really playing it seriously. But whatever.

 

[Deleted member 189823]

I think it's only tolerable at the ICs-MK MU. Otherwise, it can be pretty fun TO WATCH. But, as a Brawl player myself, I really just end up preferring the usual 3-stock matches. Like the Top players have said, the current ruleset allows a player more time to be able to adapt. 1-stock also doesn't allow you to make a mistake, when it comes to SD'ing...

The cool thing, is that an aggressive game is more often encouraged due to the limited amount of time per match.

 

[Cassio]

Brawl front page content...Omni was one of the worst persons to have write this kind of article.

 

[Renji64]

It is slightly better to watch but brawl is still boring either way. Why keep the game on life support? smash 4 is pretty much gonna make brawl even more irrelevant.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Also, timeouts are and have always been a perfectly fine, legitimate and acceptible means of winning a match. And one stock is great for this because you can time someone out and and it doesnt take forever to get the one game win from it. People hate timeouts in brawl bexause they take forever. In 1 stock they dont

 

[WindMajor]

It sounds like a lot of new players are really digging 1-stock, so I can't really disrespect that. Just like @ da K.I.D. I'm part of the #2stockmasterrace but I would not be disappointed if 1-stock ended up being the norm.

 

[Luigimitsu]

2 Stocks could be much better, faster matches/sets but also enough time to adapt and make comebacks.

 

[Omni]

Brawl front page content...Omni was one of the worst persons to have write this kind of article.

Do tell why.

 

[JCDied4U]

With how boring Brawl is to watch, I think it's either 1 stock or no stock for Brawl in the future.

 

[EEvisu]

Its nice to see such a dedicated effort to save the game, especially with Smash4 on the horizon, best of luck to them, great Article.

 

[Fatmanonice]

I watched a good number of the matches but I can't say I've formed a solid opinion on the matter yet. I will say this though: despite its faults, Brawl has lasted significantly longer than a lot of people were expecting it to. I remember how back in 2008 there were a lot of people who were expecting its competitive scene to be dead and buried by the end of the summer of 2009 but it's had a good six year run so far. It could simply fade into obscurity but, either way, I feel that it will keep going if people want it to. It might wind up like Smash 64 but that's not exactly a bad thing when you consider people are still bothering to play it seriously even after all these years.

 

[Doser]

Well, Melee Community's media crusade against Brawl last year certainly didn't help matters. People who know nothing about either game competitively now have the idea that Brawl is terrible despite never really playing it seriously. But whatever.

You'd have to be delusional to think that the Smash Documentary was somehow a crusade against Brawl. If you are referencing some other articles/videos then please display them and show how it's a focused attack on Brawl.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I don't see why people are discussing whether 1-stock or 3-stock are superior when the ideal way to play this game is actually with 2-stocks @6 minutes.

If anything, a change towards two stocks should be discussed.

 

[Battlecow]

"different in all retrospects"

Someone please start editing these posts. They're routinely awful.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

You'd have to be delusional to think that the Smash Documentary was somehow a crusade against Brawl.

It was part of a clearly coordinated anti-brawl crusade. The melee community definitely has too many fascists among them.

 

[flying_tortoise]

I don't play brawl, so with that knowledge...
At first I thought it wouldn't be fair to the players but with a set of 2-3 games that should be plenty of time to adapt. After each game you have time to think it over and change your play accordingly (unless they have multiple characters in their repertoire, which makes watching even more interesting.)That set with ally and nakat was actually 8 minutes which I found surprising, and if it had been over 10 minutes I would have found it unbearable (but that's probably because I can't see what makes it great, not trying to be a douche, I just can't).

 

[King~]

i think the problem with viewer ship comes from seeing the same six people play the same matchups over and over again. i just think people are tired of watching M2K/Zero/nario play Nakat/Vinnie or all the dittos that are happening. for me when i was watching WHOBO it was a good top 8 to watch until grand finals where it was vinnie vs Zero again. watching M2k vs NAKAT in one stock was not anymore exciting that it usually is. i mean its hard to stream anything else when these are the only people taking top spots i understand, but i dont think we need to see the entirety of top 8 pick and choose what gets streamed and whats recorded.

 

[BILL?]

I watched the brawl stream yesterday, and I will say that I actually enjoyed watching the 1-stock ruleset brawl games. (I tuned in to watch some melee, didn't realize that it wasn't on until later, but still liked watching brawl top 8)

Definitely felt more exciting to watch than 3 stock brawl. Shout-out to based GimR for streaming it.
Brawl may not be my cup of tea to play, but I do hope the Brawl community can keep their game alive. Maybe this is the way?

 

[Famous]

2 stock>1 stock>3 stock

 

[sneakytako]

You'd have to be delusional to think that the Smash Documentary was somehow a crusade against Brawl. If you are referencing some other articles/videos then please display them and show how it's a focused attack on Brawl.

If you want evidence that the melee documentary was Anti-brawl, consider Prog's comments on PM. As further evidence he went on FB to later say he regretted those comments, and how he was goaded into saying anti-brawl comments.

 

[Homelessvagrant]

Even as a big advocate for Brawl myself, there is no denying that VBrawl is a stale game to watch on a competitive level. Cutting down the stocks may make the game less jarring but it won't make it more enjoyable.

Still I don't see why the brawl scene didn't try two stocks first. It seems like a good compromise to both parties.

 

[kid craft 24/sonic master]

I prefer 2 stock 5 min timer. This way matches will remain quick, allow for adaptability, and leave players the ability to perform comebacks. Due to the pace of brawl matches compared to melee and PMs cutting the stock count in half from melee's seems reasonable. As for ledge grab limits i'd say 16 over 1 stocks 8 ledge limit.

 

[Juggleguy]

Well, Melee Community's media crusade against Brawl last year certainly didn't help matters. People who know nothing about either game competitively now have the idea that Brawl is terrible despite never really playing it seriously. But whatever.

What are you talking about? If you're referring to the documentary's portrayal of Brawl, it was extremely accurate in communicating what Melee players thought about Brawl. So a better phrasing of your statement would be: people who know nothing about competitive Smash should now have the idea that Melee players universally disliked Brawl.

 

[Mr.Random]

I think 2 stock would be better.

 

[Wasp]

i cannot undertsand the fun of that IC chaingrabbing... it determines the whole match by just one grab... where's the fun in that?

 

[Omni]

Sad to see this discussion turning into a Melee vs. Brawl topic. It's suppose to be about looking forward to improve the Brawl tournament scene; not pointing fingers about something that happened in the past.

@ Supermodel From Paris I'd prefer to hear your insight on how Brawl can progress. You normally have better contribution.

 

[Osennecho]

I think 1 stock is better (with tripping disabled). HOWEVER, I think some way needs to be found (if it hasn't been already) to leave tripping on MK. He pretty much never trips and when he does is hardly ever punished, but his trips often come when he rushes for an edge guard. This "little" buff to the rest of the characters would cause an absurd amount of balance IMO.

I also feel like this would go a long way to satisfy both sides of the ban MK and keep MK division within the community. Since we've already shaped the entire meta around MK, why not one more thing?

 

[Keitaro]

2 stock is best gameplay wise imo. 1 stock is best viewership wise. 3 stock is the current norm that brawl players are used to and like most smashers of their own game, they don't like to change anything.

 

[Jerodak]

I'm mostly interested in how this will affect match-ups. Now that only a single stock matters, the new meta may likely see a paradigm shift from defense oriented play to more offensive play. Also, what about suicide K.Os? I imagine the initiator is still the winner in those situations, so perhaps characters like Bowser and Ganondorf might get some more attention; guess we'll find out after a while.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

[...] it was extremely accurate in communicating what Melee players thought about Brawl. So a better phrasing of your statement would be: people who know nothing about competitive Smash should now have the idea that Melee players universally disliked Brawl.

In other words: it was a coordinated anti-brawl crusade.

Edit: I'd really like to see the 2-stock option added in the discussion some more imo. It really works well as it both satisfies those who want a faster game and those who think that 1 stock would be too drastic.

 

[TheQuasiZillionaire]

I, personally, am all for this. I think the Smash community in general could use some new ideas, some innovation in how it's played. That doesn't my any means imply I want to scrap the traditional tournament styles - that would be ridiculous - but the way I see it there's never anything wrong with new ways to play.

I don't really think 1-stock/7-match sets remove the element of adaptation. Perhaps it's a different sort of adaptation, occurring primarily in-between matches, but it's certainly not gone. Also, I like how one player can play several different characters in a set, as opposed to one or two. I think this could encourage players to learn more than just their "main" well. If your favorite character is countered by your opponent, you could choose a better counter-pick. Seems like it would introduce an entirely different level of adaptation to me.

 

[camzaman]

There will be no reason to play Brawl once Smash 4 comes.

 

[Juggleguy]

In other words: it was a coordinated anti-brawl crusade.

Edit: I'd really like to see the 2-stock option added in the discussion some more imo. It really works well as it both satisfies those who want a faster game and those who think that 1 stock would be too drastic.

LOL no. It was an objective presentation of what Melee players thought about Brawl, not what the documentary producer thought about Brawl.

 

[KirbyKaze]

My thoughts:

The stock system in the SSB series basically gives players an adjustable life bar. The whole point of having a bigger life bar is to allow more combat interactions to occur. By increasing the number of combat interactions, you can get a better test of who was the better player over time (within subjective reason). This is why 1 stock probably wouldn't be well-received in SSB64 or in SSBM -- the level of punishment at the higher levels of play would only allow one or two chances for players to outplay each other on "fair" footing before the punishment stage took over (and one player would have to fight from disadvantage if they didn't die outright). Obviously this is not true across all matchups, but for things like Fox vs Falcon, Falco vs Marth, Sheik vs Ganon, etc. it becomes a big problem.

In Brawl, because of the reduced punishment in the game (with the exception of ICs, a few of the infinites with select characters, some of the CGs, and Metaknight), single stocks inherently afford more chances for combat interactions than they do in either SSB64 or SSBM. I would estimate that there are probably 10 good exchanges that need to occur in a given SSBB matchup on average before someone can kill someone's stock. In SSB64 or SSBM, I'd argue it's closer to 1-4.

I've basically seen one argument by pro Brawl players saying they don't like 1 stock because they can't play with a lead like they can in 3 stock. But is that even true? The reduced timer affords people the ability to time out far more easily than with the 8 minute timer they currently use. Percentage is also a form of having a lead and winning off percent advantage is already a commonplace practice in SSBB.

Having said that, because the SSB series always has an OHKO mechanic (ring out) as part of the fighting, I can see where 1 stock might be too extreme. Maybe 2 stock is the middle ground that's needed. Either way, I maintain 3 stock was a mistake and probably just picked because the ruleset was originally modeled after the SSBM ruleset without really taking into consideration that SSBB is in fact a completely different game that demands totally different considerations.