Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[LiteralGrill]

Woah... the timing is spooky...

Relevant: The History Of Stock Counts In Smash

Should we go 3 stock? Might be worth reading and getting a unique angle.

 

[Yikarur]

Save me if we go 3 stocks... there is no logical reason for it.

wait, what is the logical reason on 2? how can something like that ever be based on a logical base?

3 Stocks Masterrace tho

 

[Gawain]

wait, what is the logical reason on 2? how can something like that ever be based on a logical base?

3 Stocks Masterrace tho

2 stock follows a reasonable fighting game standard of balance between time and ability to turn a game around that has been tested for decades in tournaments and is proven to work well. There's precedent for it, that's the logic.

 

[Sonicninja115]

I don't see too much of a reason for three stock.

The only reason I would like three stock is if it followed the same basis of 3/5. But I like it as it is right now...

 

[ぱみゅ]

There is not much of a logical advantage to use 3 stocks over 2.
If it's not broken, why would you fix it?

 

[Ghostbone]

The "it aint broke don't fix it" argument is really bad.

Just because your car still functions doesn't mean you don't get it serviced.

 

[Routa]

There is not much of a logical advantage to use 3 stocks over 2.
If it's not broken, why would you fix it?

Same could be said about using 2 stocks system over 3 stock system.

Many (like myself) prefer 3 stock system over 2 stock system. Why? Higher chance of comeback, more time to adapt, more room for small errors, more fair (Lucario with rage and Wario in 2 stock meta aren't that nice) etc...

Pretty much only argument against 3 stock system is time.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The "it aint broke don't fix it" argument is really bad.

At the same time, most 3 stock arguments are all based on feeling rather than logic:
-Higher chance of comeback (which I don't really get, there's about as many comebacks with either ruleset)
-More time to adapt (while it's true there is more time, its advantage is not clear)
-More room for small errors (same as above)
-More fair (seriously?).
What I ultimately mean is that neither side has solid arguments, but 2 stocks works just fine. Personally, I rather increase the number of games than the number of stocks.

Just because your car still functions doesn't mean you don't get it serviced.

The thing is, 3 stocks is not suggesting a fixing. Is suggesting an engine change.

 

[Ghostbone]

The car analogy only extends so far.
3 stock is still the same game as 2 stock, and any argument for one over the other will be completely subjective, so your point that 3 stock arguments are based on feelings makes no sense, so is any argument for 2 stock.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The car analogy only extends so far.
3 stock is still the same game as 2 stock, and any argument for one over the other will be completely subjective, so your point that 3 stock arguments are based on feelings makes no sense, so is any argument for 2 stock.

Before I continue, let me add that I hate saying it like this because it's the same kind of mentality I've been fighting against for a loooooong time, but it's 3am and the wording may not come out as nicely as it could. I may post again on the matter later.

2 stock is the current standard, to change the standard we'd need major arguments. Sure, the 2 stock meta doesn't have much original logic, but has worked with no issues. To debate about changing it is presenting improvements over problems that might not exist, so these debates lack substance towards either side and ultimately nothing is changed at the large scale.


Now, I do not discourage people from trying different rulesets. I actually like when different regions have different rules, and travelling means adapting to their ways. If 3 stocks works for you then great, but do not try to change others' ways.
.... I sometimes wish more people had this mindset, but communities generally adopt rather than create or fix rules, so if at a point 3s gains popularity, a lot of people may adopt it and eventually change the standard. Just like with 2s, such a major change may happen without much logic.

Keep in mind that 3 and 2 stocks play out very differently, and is more noticeable when you play the game lots of consecutive times. One stock may not add more than 1 or maybe 2 minutes to each game, but that bit of extra time adds up on many aspects, including and not limited to players' stamina, number of matches that can be played within a time frame, viewers' attention spans, and so on.

 

[Pazx]

Before I continue, let me add that I hate saying it like this because it's the same kind of mentality I've been fighting against for a loooooong time, but it's 3am and the wording may not come out as nicely as it could. I may post again on the matter later.

2 stock is the current standard, to change the standard we'd need major arguments. Sure, the 2 stock meta doesn't have much original logic, but has worked with no issues. To debate about changing it is presenting improvements over problems that might not exist, so these debates lack substance towards either side and ultimately nothing is changed at the large scale.


Now, I do not discourage people from trying different rulesets. I actually like when different regions have different rules, and travelling means adapting to their ways. If 3 stocks works for you then great, but do not try to change others' ways.
.... I sometimes wish more people had this mindset, but communities generally adopt rather than create or fix rules, so if at a point 3s gains popularity, a lot of people may adopt it and eventually change the standard. Just like with 2s, such a major change may happen without much logic.

Keep in mind that 3 and 2 stocks play out very differently, and is more noticeable when you play the game lots of consecutive times. One stock may not add more than 1 or maybe 2 minutes to each game, but that bit of extra time adds up on many aspects, including and not limited to players' stamina, number of matches that can be played within a time frame, viewers' attention spans, and so on.

"Do not try to change others' ways" is a weird thing to post in a ruleset discussion thread.

 

[Sonicninja115]

Personally, I find that hour long GF's are good enough for me. The possibility of an extra half hour would be a pain in the butt.

I enjoy 3 stock, but the matches seem to drag on, even when I am playing a fast character. I just find it better to play multiple, shorter matches then one, long match.

Plus, while 3 stock does benefit other characters more, 2 stock does as well. So that argument can't really be used, unless Wario and Lucario need to be major threats.

 

[Earthboundy]

I'm mixed on three stocks. Are there any other Smash games that use different stock rules for singles and doubles? Or have done so?

 

[Gawain]

Personally, I find that hour long GF's are good enough for me. The possibility of an extra half hour would be a pain in the butt.

I enjoy 3 stock, but the matches seem to drag on, even when I am playing a fast character. I just find it better to play multiple, shorter matches then one, long match.

Plus, while 3 stock does benefit other characters more, 2 stock does as well. So that argument can't really be used, unless Wario and Lucario need to be major threats.

Your last point really needs to be emphasized here. Neither are ridiculous threats so I can't see why bringing them into the debate is a fair to those characters.

Furthermore, the whole 'comeback' factor would only really apply if we didn't play sets. But we do. In between sets is when you should be rethinking your strategy, including changing characters or CPing stages. There's a reason the first round is meant to take place on a neutral stage. It's that first game that youre supposed to pick up on your opponents habits. Both 2 and 3 stock have counterplay, the only difference is that 2 stock emphasizes setplay, which is a lot more interesting imo.

 

[Yikarur]

2 Stocks it not the standard, because almost all europe plays with 3.
There are regions that play 3 in the USA too. Australia apparently plays with 3 Stocks as well.

There was no reason to switch to 2 stocks from the 3 stocks we were using in a much slower game and it's time to reverse this unjustified change.

 

[T0MMY]

At the same time, most 3 stock arguments are all based on feeling rather than logic:

I see that statement to be both blanket and absolutist (making arguments on 3 stock out to be simply rhetoric & not logical; absolutist due to the use of "all"). To change your opinion I will offer logical demonstration of why 3 stocks could be (logically) used over 2 stocks.
Truths are derived from axioms, for us we have competitive principles.
A principle, when rulecrafting, is Software Authority - this principle states that, by default, rules for competition start the game design provides as default (yes, we would start with Items ON and Time as the rule of play instead of Stock, however this principle does not state that these rules cannot be changed, simply that it is the starting point).
Competitive Value is a principle that allows default rules to be changed if there is more value for the change of rules. Obviously it has been decided that Stock is more valuable than Time and that Items set to OFF provides more value than ON, as well as various other rules like Team Attack, etc.
By default we start with 3 stocks as determined by the software.
Therefore we would have all the reason to try out 3 stocks first to weigh the value versus 2 stocks (which has been and is currently being used).

There's actually MORE reason to use 3 stocks than 2 at this point. We know 2 works. People are ok with it.
We know people want 3 stocks.
We do not have enough practical use of 3 stocks to determine which is better.
We don't need anymore 2 stock information.

3 stocks is a logical choice.

Have I changed your opinion about most 3-stock arguments "all" based on feeling rather than logic?

 

[ぱみゅ]

First, I didn't say "all", I used the word "most", and listed the arguments at the very previous post which are some of the most common ones.
Second, I have agreed on the fact that neither 2 or 3 stocks have an entirely logical background. They both are preferences
Third, I finished my longer post with a reminder that rules are not created or fixed, they are merely adopted. If there is an interest on 3 stocks, it takes ONE vocal (won't even say "important") community using it for the rest to follow. That's more or less how it works.

 

[Lomogoto]

Ive seen multiple different attempts at making bucket fair in doubles like banning G&W or certain teams but I was thinking it could be remedied by forcing G&W to use his efficient bucket custom down B, and that custom only, so the character can still be played and use his tools without making the game unfair. I think this could be a better way to handle doubles play with him and would like to know what you think/if you have better ideas!

 

[Ghostbone]

Australia apparently plays with 3 Stocks as well.

Half plays 3 stock half plays 2 stock lol.

Places that do 2 stock do it because of time concerns though.

 

[Yikarur]

Ah okay, thank you for your clarification.

 

[T0MMY]

First, I didn't say "all", I used the word "most"

Be honest now, you used both words:

At the same time, most 3 stock arguments are all based on feeling rather than logic

Either purposefully misleading or not, it's still ambiguously worded to imply something that was not supported by fact or reason. The irony is that the statement is rhetoric, discrediting the contrary position with emotion (as it does not include any rational or logical reasoning).
My response regarding 3-stocks was based in logic.
I'd appreciate an honest response to both the logic and the circumstance of it not being emotionally driven.

Second, I have agreed on the fact that neither 2 or 3 stocks have an entirely logical background.They both are preferences

Not sure who you would be agreeing with.
I don't recall anyone asking you to agree on that.
The statement you made sounds like you are claiming that my logically deduced argument for 3-stocks I posted is not logical?
Please confirm if so.
Because I do not see how "preference" can be exclusionary to logic. Can one not prefer one choice over another based on logical preference?

Third, I finished my longer post with a reminder that rules are not created or fixed, they are merely adopted. If there is an interest on 3 stocks, it takes ONE vocal (won't even say "important") community using it for the rest to follow. That's more or less how it works.

Ew, vocal minority.
Almost sounds like you are supporting such a thing.
Hah hah... but that would be silly to assume that.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Be honest now, you used both words:

Either purposefully misleading or not, it's still ambiguously worded to imply something that was not supported by fact or reason. The irony is that the statement is rhetoric, discrediting the contrary position with emotion (as it does not include any rational or logical reasoning).
My response regarding 3-stocks was based in logic.

So there was a mistake on my wording, I apologize.

I'd appreciate an honest response to both the logic and the circumstance of it not being emotionally driven.

The honest answer is that I made a mistake on calling 3 stocks not logical before realizing neither 2 stocks is.
It's not 3 stocks fault we can't fly when 2 stocks is stuck to the ground as well.

Not sure who you would be agreeing with.
I don't recall anyone asking you to agree on that.

Are you suggesting me that I shouldn't agree with my debate "opponents"?

The statement you made sounds like you are claiming that my logically deduced argument for 3-stocks I posted is not logical?
Please confirm if so.
Because I do not see how "preference" can be exclusionary to logic. Can one not prefer one choice over another based on logical preference?

You presented one (I think?) element. That element is "Software Authority", which can't really be used as a "logical" basis because 1) we already change everything on the settings, and 2) For Glory is a built-in setting too, dismissing its value is as bad as dismissing the "default" 3 stocks.
Preference does not exclude logic, but in the end we must chose one, and both have valid and invalid arguments for and against. The final decision is TO's preference, which is usually his/her community's.

Ew, vocal minority.
Almost sounds like you are supporting such a thing.
Hah hah... but that would be silly to assume that.

I don't support it, but I can't stop people from trying.
I still think is better to have more shorter games than focus on few longer ones, but again, we're talking preferences.
The only thing that saddens me is that debates such as this one serve no ultimate purpose, because the final decision is usually not on logic, but on someone's idea that is just implemented by others.

 

[TeddyBearYoshi]

Ive seen multiple different attempts at making bucket fair in doubles like banning G&W or certain teams but I was thinking it could be remedied by forcing G&W to use his efficient bucket custom down B, and that custom only, so the character can still be played and use his tools without making the game unfair. I think this could be a better way to handle doubles play with him and would like to know what you think/if you have better ideas!

I'm unsure if this the correct place to post this, but now that 1.1.3 has nerfed G&W so that teammate bucket only does half damage, would this make G&W legal again? Or is bucket still too OP in doubles?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Sheik and Watch teams never deserved a surgical ban, not any more than a blanket Game & Watch ban, and the runner-up in terms of powerful doubles strats, Villager.

This change definitely makes Team Attack tactics much weaker, so Game & Watch and Villager (and Lucas/Ness) don't have any pick-up-and-win tactic anymore. It is a fair change.

 

[T0MMY]

The honest answer is that I made a mistake on calling 3 stocks not logical before realizing neither 2 stocks is.
It's not 3 stocks fault we can't fly when 2 stocks is stuck to the ground as well.

I'm not sure why you are saying 3 stock is not logical when I showed you the logic behind it.
I could help you out and show you how 2 stocks is logical as well.
We can get them up off the ground for you in no time.

Are you suggesting me that I shouldn't agree with my debate "opponents"?

There's a difference between agreeing with someone who proposed an idea and simply creating a red herring: "I have agreed on the fact that neither 2 or 3 stocks have an entirely logical background."

Again, I am not sure who you are agreeing with (quote/link plz?) - so I might safely assume a red herring and stay with the point that use of 3 stocks can be logically argued (and valid).

You presented one (I think?) element. That element is "Software Authority", which can't really be used as a "logical" basis because 1) we already change everything on the settings, and 2) For Glory is a built-in setting too, dismissing its value is as bad as dismissing the "default" 3 stocks.

1) Software Authority does not contradict this - in fact I even state this in the original response : "this principle does not state that these rules cannot be changed, simply that it is the starting point"

2) For Glory using 2 stocks does NOT discredit 3 stocks - the two are not mutually exclusive!
Ruleset could logically be based on either of those two, however since the standard utilizes "Smash" mode, not online For Glory mode, then it would be irrational to accept your statement as any kind of basis for standard competition.
Your denial actually strengthens the principle of Software Authority (For Glory can be used as well, but it's a matter of choice dependent on Competitive Value the "bad" that you mention - it is "more good" to use Smash mode instead of For Glory mode in competition for a multitude of reasons).

Preference does not exclude logic, but in the end we must chose one, and both have valid and invalid arguments for and against.

Valid and Invalid arguments?
If you are making such a bold claim then please support it. What are these valid/invalid arguments for and against?

The only thing that saddens me is that debates such as this one serve no ultimate purpose, because the final decision is usually not on logic, but on someone's idea that is just implemented by others.

Perhaps you may choose to see discussions (which progressed) simply as debates (which serves to create a winner/loser), but I see this as a healthy discussion for the public to gain a greater understanding of competitive knowledge despite what TOs decide upon for their rules.

 

[TeddyBearYoshi]

Sheik and Watch teams never deserved a surgical ban, not any more than a blanket Game & Watch ban, and the runner-up in terms of powerful doubles strats, Villager.

This change definitely makes Team Attack tactics much weaker, so Game & Watch and Villager (and Lucas/Ness) don't have any pick-up-and-win tactic anymore. It is a fair change.

Is there anything with Pikachu/Watch that would still be an issue?

 

[Lomogoto]

Is there anything with Pikachu/Watch that would still be an issue?

No they made thunder only fill 1/3 of a bucket (used to be 3/3), and with the new patch its really nothing special in my opinion

 

[ぱみゅ]

No, stop it T0MMY, you are making me argue for the sake of arguing, you even pretty much said you are willing to make the argument for me.

At this point on the overall community, no rule is fixed or improved, they are simply adopted from the big names, regardless of them being good or bad (Miis, stages, Customs, SDs, stage bans, DSR, etc, etc, etc).
The best we can do is stick to our own ideals and host our own tournaments with rules we find to be better. And that's it.

 

[Alphicans]

There is no logic to 3 stock? No. 3 stock is objectively a more competitive environment. Simply put, you have more interactions with your opponent, thus it is more likely the better player will win on average. 2 stock results, by definition, will HAVE TO BE more variable, and this is commonly accepted as signs of a non-competitive game. Of course 2 stock isn't TERRIBLE, more often than not the better player wins, but 3 stock is just better.

Now of course you can say "well then we should use 4 stock... then 5.... then 6 etc." Yes this is true, but as stocks are added, the rate at which it more accurately captures who the better player is diminishes. If you think about it on a graph: from 1 to 2 stocks there is steep curve, from 2 to 3 a less steep curve, from 3 to 4 an even less steep curve, and so on until it becomes asymptotic.

This is why 3 stock is better. Time concerns are dwindling every day: the metagame is advancing and matches are ending quicker and quicker. We can manage 3 stock, and the game deserves it.

 

[ぱみゅ]

IMO
3 stocks focus on single, longer games.
If the 2 stock meta gets more Bo5 sets, we can have a different focus than single games, it still requires 6 stocks to take from the opponent, and it would change the dynamics and strategies of how to play whole sets. As a side effect, more individual games can be played within the same time frame, making it better for Smash fests, friendlies, rotations, and other non-tournament games, while tournaments themselves still can get enough pvp interaction (Finals Sets could be Bo7 or Bo9 to meet the "interaction" criterion).
I mean, there are many ways to look at it.

 

[Alphicans]

If you extend it to bo5, then you are admitting that the time contraint issue is non-existant. At that point then we agree: more interactions is better. You let go of the only foothold you had in the argument.

If 2 stock turns into bo5 and bo7/9 sets then I'd agree with 2 stocks. It's not clear whether or not more 2 stock games is better than fewer 3 stock games. I'd say there is negligible difference and just adds time for inbetween games and also makes daves stupid rule harder to deal with. Overall that option also seems slightly inadequate to just a 3 stock format.

 

[ぱみゅ]

It's not clear whether or not more 2 stock games is better than fewer 3 stock games.

hence why I prefer it

I'd say there is negligible difference and just adds time for inbetween games and also makes daves stupid rule harder to deal with

DSR is a bad rule, period. Specially because Smashville gets a free pass for some reason.

Time between sets is a gray area because it can't really be ruled on. Nothing stops players from taking a lot of unnecessary time (link to Chudat's trolls video) and even if it did they would argue for days their time to get coached is justified.
At the same time just picking a stage/character change often doesn't take long.

Once again, there are lots of ways to look at it.

 

[Pazx]

if 2 stock advocates were pushing for more bo5 and some bo7 i'd be happy, but they're certainly not.

 

[Yikarur]

if 2 Stocks is played for schedule reason than 2 Stock Bo5 is no solution because this takes longer than 3 Stocks Bo3

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

2 Stock, Bo3 is the fastest option, but also puts unneccesary pressure on the players. And obviously, 4 Stock, Bo3 matches work well in Melee, but not here.

So honestly, I think that a 3 Stock, Bo3 set works fairly well; it's not artificially creating pressure on the players but isn't as long and drawn out as a 2 Stock, Bo5 set. It's a nice balance between speed and freedom, and it lets the players breathe a bit in the match.

 

[Xeze]

I don't really get it why people don't want 3 stock because it takes more time, but then are ok with 2 stock bo7.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I think I am the only one proposing 2sBo7 here to say it like that, but anyway, I'm not picking it because I think it's faster, I simply think it's more convenient to have more shorter games, specially for purposes other than tournament play.

Also, it would be great if someone has ideas to improve/optimize time between games (because for what is worth, games can be played right away or with like ten minutes in between, player dependent).

 

[Mario766]

if 2 Stocks is played for schedule reason than 2 Stock Bo5 is no solution because this takes longer than 3 Stocks Bo3

Because people feel like Bo3 Finals just don't cut it. It doesn't show a true picture of how a set goes, because players don't get the opportunity to adapt to the other player. Many Melee players say this about EVO, which is Bo3 the entirety of the tournament.

I agree there as well, Bo5 for Top 8 is almost always a better option. The reason tournaments go over time is not because of the matches/time in matches, it's because they

1) Don't start on time.

Events start late, and everything lags behind.

2) Time in between matches.

There needs to be a rule that people can't sit around and have a time limit to start the next match. Some tournaments have this limit, but they aren't really enforced. They should cut out any time for coaching and only allow it for after a set or in between grand final sets.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

So i hadn't really given it much thought before, but is there a reason the top X is held to a higher standard than the rest of the tournament? (Or to put it in reverse, is there a reason everything except top X is held to a lesser standard?)

So BO5 gives you more opportunity to adapt to the opponent. That's sensible and I agree. But if BO3 doesn't show the true picture of how a set goes (your words), then what does that say about the entire rest of the tournament?

Still no strong opinions on stock/match counts, just an observation.

 

[Yikarur]

We only play Bo5 for WF LF and GF and no one has ever complained.