Editorial: A Smashing Debate, Part 4

Ever since the ol’ 64 times, Smash games have had a tendency to diminish its stock format from one installment to the next. Smash 64 had five stocks, Melee had four, Brawl had three and finally Smash 4 is ruled by a two stock regime.

However, a common topic of debate within the community is the possible change of this trend by sticking to a three stock system in Smash 4. This debate is somewhat…smashing; that’s why we brought it to the round table of the Smashing Debate!

As always, we bring you he Issue, The Perspectives and Our Opinions; and as always, we include a friendly warning and disclaimer.

WARNING​

Excessive use of salt may cause damage to your kidneys, aorta, friendships, or image in the community; if you are sensitive to opposing opinions we recommend discretion.

DISCLAIMER​

As said in previous installments, the opinions expressed in this article do not in any sense define Smashboards's stance on the subject nor do they reflect the opinions of the Back Room. The opinions in this article belong only to the ones giving them.

Onwards.

The Issue​

Stock count is always affected by the game’s balance in competitive factors (i.e. characters’ kill possibilities or the effort and time needed to take stocks), and human factors (i.e. target audience, demonstration of skill from the players). Influential figures in a community always end up deciding this, and several polls have shown that some audiences prefer one format over the other. This general disagreement is what brings us to discuss this subject.

The Perspectives​

Pro Two-Stock: The Three-Stock format is overdoing a match; two stocks are enough to show the skill needed and/or still make comebacks. Plus, we have been using this format for over a year; changing it right now would alter the metagame substantially. Two stocks are good, as changing it to three would also affect the time at tournaments and the work done by TOs would be increased.

Pro Three-Stock: The Two-Stock format lacks time to show skills. Three stocks are good to do comebacks and do not overwhelm the spectatorship. Time issues at tournaments are easily solved by using more setups or a stricter schedule.

Our Opinions​

Today, we brought OneSmash to give their opinion over this matter.

OneSmash​

Three stock for Smash 4 is an idea that would only make sense if we had infinite time to play Smash and viewers had infinite stamina.

3 stock is so similar to 2 stock, so I’m arguing about degrees. But these degrees are obvious to players and viewers. I just watched a recent Houston tournament from Smash United, and only a few matches were interesting enough to keep me watching the whole set. It’s easy to see when players run out of ideas, especially when they play ultra "safe" in an effort to come up with a plan.

Playing "safe" in Smash is a problem. Unlike Street Fighter which is a game with far more restrictive movement and a much smaller timer, in Smash players can pretty easily run away and disengage without actually fighting. In the Melee days, the community put a larger timer in matches to discourage people from using run-away time out strategies, but the core problem is still there. Without directly doing it, matches go to time when players refuse to get in there and take risks. This is boring to watch and should be discouraged. I know losing stinks, but the hard work needs to be done outside of tournament matches.

The point is that 3 stock matches can also be zippy. We know that sometimes players can utterly wreck other players. The main issue is of the negative possibility: long, drawn out, boring matches among both low and high level players. Let’s face it, high level players can run out of match up knowledge or a game plan just like low level players. And when they do, their gameplay is just as simple and repetitive.

We absolutely don’t need to promote the “play to win by dragging out games and being ultra safe just to possibly learn something or bore the opponent enough to seek out a win” kind of ruleset. I think it’s great to promote patient play and even safe play. But we have to clamp down on the limits of this for everyone’s benefit.

Hangman​

The debate between Smash 4 using 2-stocks or 3-stocks as the standard has been ongoing since the competitive scene erupted barely a year and a half ago. Both stock standards have seen success, with 2-stock being the predominant style used in tournaments around the world and with the EU showing overwhelming preference for the use of 3-stocks, with results to back up its viability. I feel that TOs defer to 2-stocks on the notion that an added stock would make every match just a little bit longer, and in the current meta it would be very difficult for TOs to timely run events with decent player turnout.

This would be especially visible at higher levels of play where players are expected to meet certain criteria that have been tailored to 2-stocks; the physical and mental endurance on players and their ability to play at their personal peaks would be pressed further than what we have now.

I personally don’t think that this is a healthy way for the community or metagame to develop. While I find 3-stocks more fun and leads to interesting momentum shifts during a match, I don’t think it should be the standard for Smash 4 tournaments – yet. With time I feel that the level of play will evolve to the point where a third stock will keep matches from going too quickly or becoming monotonous, and when that time comes I would like to see more TOs test the waters of running 3-stock events.

But for the time being I feel that 2-stock is a comfortable place for players and TOs to find themselves in Smash 4, whether they be playing or watching.

Diosdi​

I believe in change when needed, and changing right now is not needed.

While the 3-stocks format is good for comebacks and some people do like it, we have been using 2-stocks for over a year and a half. Changes like this require a fresh unbiased community, and tradition makes bias. However, I won’t use the “we have been playing with two stocks this whole time” argument, as I think it is overused.

Two stocks do not give much room for amazing comeback from being three-stocked, but the whole notion of “it doesn’t give enough time for real skill to be shown” is wrong. Less stocks means less room for error, and this does not mean that playing ultra safe or campy is in order. Two stocks reward the one that is safe, but doesn’t endorse it. It rewards the real effort to avoid mistakes like fast falling when you didn’t want to, or doing a Side-B off the ledge with Little Mac.

In a 3-stock battle, a player who has been KO’d two times from silly mistakes and that has amazing skill can take its opponent’s three stocks by avoiding its previous fails and giving its all – but it would take a tremendous time to do and it would bore its viewership; which is not the idea.

A community has three main pillars: The Players, The Viewers and The TOs (Community Leaders, Coordinators, Organizers). The TOs are responsible for organizing the community’s concurrence and are the first source of an initiative. The Players are the second link on the chain; they receive any initiative that the TOs enact. And finally, the Viewers are the ones that enjoy the work of the Players and TOs. Enacting change needs to be done with the public in mind, because they are the recipients of the Players and TOs' work. Making the gaming boring would be destructive to the community,especially a community about a game with an already settled metagame.

---

As always, be sure to subscribe to OneSmash at Tourney Locator’s channel, and to follow them on Twitter @ServingSmash. Also, follow Hangman on Twitter.

So what do you think? Should we stay with the 2-stock format? Or should we start using 3-stock? Let us know!
Also, if you have an idea for a topic to be discussed at the Smashing Debate, please tell us! We will be taking into account viewers' ideas.

 

Yeah, this is not a debate. It's three people saying essentially the same thing. I'm sorry, but if you think what is written here is acceptable as a 'debate', I'm going to have to ask you to reconsider your definition of that word, 'debate', because I'm not convinced you understand it. What is the purpose of this? The intention? Is it to encourage healthy discussion? Because that's certainly not what this does. Probably quite the opposite, I think.

They should've just called this "A Smashing Circle-jerk". Equally effective and infinitely more accurate.

 

I'm pretty sure the "debate" is supposed to be in the comments.

 

This article has the same problem any other article discussing this issue has... Everyone assumes most people get bored while watching 3 stock matches... when I usually go around asking about it to people in my community or even online for people from other places, the responses are usually somewhat of a mix but with a good chunk being okay with either... I think people saying that look too much at twitch chat or something tbh.

 

In defense of the writer, the way we get opinions is Diosdi asks for other SB writers (and often OHS) to give a brief summary of their opinions. So if the people who volunteer to give their insights all share similar opinions, you can't really fault Diosdi for that. Even then, we have you guys in the comments section to fill in the gaps in opinions and represent all the nuances not discussed in the article.
Also, remember to keep discussion civilized. We don't need to tell people to drown themselves in buckets and whatnot. Offhand comments unrelated to the topic also contribute nothing of value to this.
Alright, that's all I have to say. Have fun discussing!

 

Ever since the ol’ 64 times, Smash games have had a tendency to diminish its stock format from one installment to the next. Smash 64 had five stocks, Melee had four, Brawl had three and finally Smash 4 is ruled by a two stock regime.

However, a common topic of debate within the community is the possible change of this trend by sticking to a three stock system in Smash 4. This debate is somewhat…smashing; that’s why we brought it to the round table of the Smashing Debate!

As always, we bring you he Issue, The Perspectives and Our Opinions; and as always, we include a friendly warning and disclaimer.

WARNING​

Excessive use of salt may cause damage to your kidneys, aorta, friendships, or image in the community; if you are sensitive to opposing opinions we recommend discretion.

DISCLAIMER​

As said in previous installments, the opinions expressed in this article do not in any sense define Smashboards's stance on the subject nor do they reflect the opinions of the Back Room. The opinions in this article belong only to the ones giving them.

Onwards.

The Issue​

Stock count is always affected by the game’s balance in competitive factors (i.e. characters’ kill possibilities or the effort and time needed to take stocks), and human factors (i.e. target audience, demonstration of skill from the players). Influential figures in a community always end up deciding this, and several polls have shown that some audiences prefer one format over the other. This general disagreement is what brings us to discuss this subject.

The Perspectives​

Pro Two-Stock: The Three-Stock format is overdoing a match; two stocks are enough to show the skill needed and/or still make comebacks. Plus, we have been using this format for over a year; changing it right now would alter the metagame substantially. Two stocks are good, as changing it to three would also affect the time at tournaments and the work done by TOs would be increased.

Pro Three-Stock: The Two-Stock format lacks time to show skills. Three stocks are good to do comebacks and do not overwhelm the spectatorship. Time issues at tournaments are easily solved by using more setups or a stricter schedule.

Our Opinions​

Today, we brought OneSmash to give their opinion over this matter.

OneSmash​

Three stock for Smash 4 is an idea that would only make sense if we had infinite time to play Smash and viewers had infinite stamina.

3 stock is so similar to 2 stock, so I’m arguing about degrees. But these degrees are obvious to players and viewers. I just watched a recent Houston tournament from Smash United, and only a few matches were interesting enough to keep me watching the whole set. It’s easy to see when players run out of ideas, especially when they play ultra "safe" in an effort to come up with a plan.

Playing "safe" in Smash is a problem. Unlike Street Fighter which is a game with far more restrictive movement and a much smaller timer, in Smash players can pretty easily run away and disengage without actually fighting. In the Melee days, the community put a larger timer in matches to discourage people from using run-away time out strategies, but the core problem is still there. Without directly doing it, matches go to time when players refuse to get in there and take risks. This is boring to watch and should be discouraged. I know losing stinks, but the hard work needs to be done outside of tournament matches.

The point is that 3 stock matches can also be zippy. We know that sometimes players can utterly wreck other players. The main issue is of the negative possibility: long, drawn out, boring matches among both low and high level players. Let’s face it, high level players can run out of match up knowledge or a game plan just like low level players. And when they do, their gameplay is just as simple and repetitive.

We absolutely don’t need to promote the “play to win by dragging out games and being ultra safe just to possibly learn something or bore the opponent enough to seek out a win” kind of ruleset. I think it’s great to promote patient play and even safe play. But we have to clamp down on the limits of this for everyone’s benefit.

Hangman​

The debate between Smash 4 using 2-stocks or 3-stocks as the standard has been ongoing since the competitive scene erupted barely a year and a half ago. Both stock standards have seen success, with 2-stock being the predominant style used in tournaments around the world and with the EU showing overwhelming preference for the use of 3-stocks, with results to back up its viability. I feel that TOs defer to 2-stocks on the notion that an added stock would make every match just a little bit longer, and in the current meta it would be very difficult for TOs to timely run events with decent player turnout.

This would be especially visible at higher levels of play where players are expected to meet certain criteria that have been tailored to 2-stocks; the physical and mental endurance on players and their ability to play at their personal peaks would be pressed further than what we have now.

I personally don’t think that this is a healthy way for the community or metagame to develop. While I find 3-stocks more fun and leads to interesting momentum shifts during a match, I don’t think it should be the standard for Smash 4 tournaments – yet. With time I feel that the level of play will evolve to the point where a third stock will keep matches from going too quickly or becoming monotonous, and when that time comes I would like to see more TOs test the waters of running 3-stock events.

But for the time being I feel that 2-stock is a comfortable place for players and TOs to find themselves in Smash 4, whether they be playing or watching.

Diosdi​

I believe in change when needed, and changing right now is not needed.

While the 3-stocks format is good for comebacks and some people do like it, we have been using 2-stocks for over a year and a half. Changes like this require a fresh unbiased community, and tradition makes bias. However, I won’t use the “we have been playing with two stocks this whole time” argument, as I think it is overused.

Two stocks do not give much room for amazing comeback from being three-stocked, but the whole notion of “it doesn’t give enough time for real skill to be shown” is wrong. Less stocks means less room for error, and this does not mean that playing ultra safe or campy is in order. Two stocks reward the one that is safe, but doesn’t endorse it. It rewards the real effort to avoid mistakes like fast falling when you didn’t want to, or doing a Side-B off the ledge with Little Mac.

In a 3-stock battle, a player who has been KO’d two times from silly mistakes and that has amazing skill can take its opponent’s three stocks by avoiding its previous fails and giving its all – but it would take a tremendous time to do and it would bore its viewership; which is not the idea.

A community has three main pillars: The Players, The Viewers and The TOs (Community Leaders, Coordinators, Organizers). The TOs are responsible for organizing the community’s concurrence and are the first source of an initiative. The Players are the second link on the chain; they receive any initiative that the TOs enact. And finally, the Viewers are the ones that enjoy the work of the Players and TOs. Enacting change needs to be done with the public in mind, because they are the recipients of the Players and TOs' work. Making the gaming boring would be destructive to the community,especially a community about a game with an already settled metagame.

---

As always, be sure to subscribe to OneSmash at Tourney Locator’s channel, and to follow them on Twitter @ServingSmash. Also, follow Hangman on Twitter.

So what do you think? Should we stay with the 2-stock format? Or should we start using 3-stock? Let us know!
Also, if you have an idea for a topic to be discussed at the Smashing Debate, please tell us! We will be taking into account viewers' ideas.

 

I believe the spectator is the most important piece of the scene that needs to be taken into consideration for the stock count. Once spectators go so does the competitive scene. as for what spectators want it seems to be 2 stock for faster games and sets. IMO of course.

 

Honestly has 3 stock truly have been given a chance?

Also consider this. Smash and the FGC in general runs tournaments on this format.

Double Elimination
2 out of 3 set for the tournament
3 out of 5 for Winners/Losers/Grand Finals

In a few cases sometimes 3 out of 5 is done for top 8

2stock sets are usually 6 mins. 3stock sets are usually 8 mins. At most the different in time between 2stock and 3stock can only be a few mins.

 

I don't know too much, but I say that if the viewer cares about smash, they won't mind watching three stock matches.

 

I believe the spectator is the most important piece of the scene that needs to be taken into consideration for the stock count. Once spectators go so does the competitive scene. as for what spectators want it seems to be 2 stock for faster games and sets. IMO of course.

Do players stop playing? Aren't players also spectators too? And haven't you read people's comments saying many people across regions upon regions prefer 3 stock?

 

I've only read the issue portion and I can only assume one thing. People will fling mud at each other and keep on arguing, no compromises will be made, no suggestions will be given, no middle ground will be drawn, and nothing will change in the slightest.

This is how I've seen so many "debates" on Smash Boards end.

 

I think the major problem is that Smash4 isn't good enough to people watch three stock matches.I believe that adding more stupid mechanics like the new ledge and rage effect, maybe Smash 5 will be played with one stock.
I miss Brawl. People watched MK's tripping all day because it was good.

 

Oh **** not this again... Sigh, it needs more discussion, which is good, isn't it?

One thing I don't like is when people assume that it is more important for the players to play and "entertain" the spectators rather than to actually compete against others in the best possible way. Without the players there would never be a scene. For me personally I couldn't care less about if spectators think my matches are boring or whatever. I am not playing for them, I am playing for myself and for the competition.

Whenever I read a pro three stock argument that says that "spectators should be taken into account the most and 3 stocks pleases them the most - therefore we should go with 3 stocks" I roll my eyes. Like we play to entertain them. Should we go in that direction?

2 stocks is better for the more skilled player in many different ways, believe it or not. Stupid rage effect is a lesser factor, and 2 stocks offers more balance, both player skill-wise and character balance-wise. Therefore, more skill can be shown. Adaptability and stamina also plays a bigger role in 2 stocks format rather than a 3 stocks format. I am not saying 3 stocks can't do all that, I'm just saying that 2 stocks are better at doing that than what 3 stocks can do. 2 stocks are way more consistent.

I know many will disagree with me, but I don't really care. I just wanted to give my two cents about the matter from a pro two stocks's point of view.

When it is this easy to do you don't really have any backing. Bolded the changes.
I just wanted to show that your way of thinking can just as easily apply for the other side.

 

3 stocks > 2 stocks. More chance for comebacks, the fights last a little longer. In my house I always play 3 stocks with my friends.

 

Do players stop playing? Aren't players also spectators too? And haven't you read people's comments saying many people across regions upon regions prefer 3 stock?

lol yes i've "read people's comments" but would disagree only because IMO the majority prefer 2 stock.... its not fact, i havent done ANY research just opinion

 

We have two major monthlies in my area, of which I TO the younger of them. I started off 2 stock, but as we had a couple of tournaments go by smoothly and on time, I made the decision to switch to 3. Our other tournament still runs on 2, so players and viewers of our scene still get to have that when they want it. But as a local TO, the additional time of the matches is negligible to what I believe are more definite results.
We even notice upsets regularly at the 3-stock tournament which I believe are attributed to certain players using predictable options that are easier to figure out in the 3-stock format, making their less-varied and arguably worse playstyle suffer for it.

 

IDK why people act like 2 more minutes for a match will absolutely kill viewership.

The matches that are boring in three stock will also be boring in two stocks.

You don't have to watch it, either. Just come back when there is something you wanna see.

The NFL is going down the same path. Offensive players are often given the benefit of the doubt, and quarterbacks are practically baby sat by the refs. Why? Because offense is often viewed as more "exciting" and good defensive plays aren't really appreciated. Just because the audience wants something doesn't make it right. We can't lose the trust of our top players like they did.

I enjoy 3 stocks more as a player too, I feel it's the way to go.

 

Honestly, I don't care either way. And I don't get why people make such a big stink over it either.

 

3 stocks > 2 stocks. More chance for comebacks, the fights last a little longer. In my house I always play 3 stocks with my friends.

I too think greater comeback value is key for the scene so therefor I prefer 3 stocks. But, I don't think the Smash 4 scene will change to 3 stocks just because of the success they have had with two stck games in many national tournements. But my opinion is 3 stock 8mins > 2Stock 6 mins

 

I too think greater comeback value is key for the scene so therefor I prefer 3 stocks. But, I don't think the Smash 4 scene will change to 3 stocks just because of the success they have had with two stck games in many national tournements. But my opinion is 3 stock 8mins > 2Stock 6 mins

My casual friend thinks that 1 stock is the best option because he sees comebacks in Smash as impossible. I'd disagree. I'm going to go with 3 stocks too.