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.

 

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 two stock argument that says that "spectators should be taken into account the most and 2 stocks pleases them the most - therefore we should go with 2 stocks" I roll my eyes. Like we play to entertain them. Should we go in that direction?

3 stocks is better for the more skilled player in many different ways, believe it or not. Stupid rage effect is a lesser factor, and 3 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 3 stocks format rather than a 2 stocks format. I am not saying 2 stocks can't do all that, I'm just saying that 3 stocks are better at doing that than what 2 stocks can do. 3 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 three stocks's point of view.

 

I feel like the "2 Stock vs 3 Stock" debate is at the same empasse as "Mii Customs vs No Mii Customs vs No Miis" and "Ban vs No Ban Bayonetta". Some regions/TOs/etc have taken a hard stance one way or another and are not budging.

I feel all of these debates could come to an end, or at least the need for debate lessened, if the S4BR group would publish an official standardized ruleset of some kind, with official recognized variants.

 

Leave it at 2 stocks. The less sm4sh, the better.

 

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.

Since when is a reverse 3-stock boring to spectators? Regardless of who's playing, those are the hypest matches of all.

 

hey diosdi i saw on twitter that you follow MAIMUN where you there?

 

We know that sometime players can utterly wreck other players.​

​

... What's a "Sometime Player"?

 

hey diosdi i saw on twitter that you follow MAIMUN where you there?

nope :/ i wish i had tho

 

nope :/ i wish i had tho

so you are also a Mun guy? in wich delegation? it will be fun to have someone to talk about smash and mun xD

 

so you are also a Mun guy? in wich delegation? it will be fun to have someone to talk about smash and mun xD

yep. ceamun. which are you?

 

yep. ceamun. which are you?

LASAMUN, are you going to LAIMUN?

 

This was never a problem in Brawl, and it had Meta Knight and Ice Climbers. Honestly, we never should have become eSports if the viewership is what decides how tournaments are run, over the TOs and players.

 

What kind of debate was this? There weren't any big 3-stock advocates. The farthest it went was a gentle lean.

Regardless. I'm with xzx

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.

The spectators are here to watch competitors. It is by no means a responsibility of the players to bow to the spectators. Only the TO's need to bother with them. They aren't the most important.

Previous times, in past games, when we changed stocks, it was for the players, not the audience. And I know it's a different ball game now. We're trying to be E-sports. We have people who make their livelihoods off of Smash now. But we shouldn't be so afraid to change because it might make people "bored." I seriously doubt the extra 2-3 minutes per set is going to deter THAT many viewers that wouldn't have dropped the stream anyway. The people would acclimate. Heck, I mostly just spectate myself, and I'm way more invested in 3 Stock matches. 2 stock just always feels fast. Not in a good way (like Melee's speed) though, just a "oh, it's over all ready?" feeling. Longer sets don't mean "more hype lost," it means "more hype gained!" Hype is culminated over time. The best sets are the one's that go to the last game, and the closer it gets, the more gripping it becomes. Buzzer Beaters are probably the most intense, and those literally take as long as it possibly can. "How many minutes" is irrelevant at that point. You're watching it to the end regardless. And if European TOs can get the timing for tourneys right, there's no reason the US can't.

 

The issue comes with the game's design. Melee was a very offense-oriented game, whereas Brawl and Smash 4 are more defensive. Melee's stocks don't last very long, therefore, matches do not drag on unless you play a character like Jigglypuff who essentially is designed like a character from the later games in the series.

The reason why four stocks work in Melee is because matches end at a reasonable pace on average.

 

When I was a TO in Southeast CT, we did winners 3 stock 8 min, losers 2 stock 6 min. I am a fan of 3 stock causes it gives more play time to all the bad players that go 0-2 to encourage them to come back.

 

So the Smashing Debate series finally gets its first topic that actually has been hotly debated and... More agenda-pushing, more "Won't somebody think of the spectators!". China called, they said your debates could use more diversity of opinion.

 

Watch ZeRo's video on the matter. Done. There is no logical benefit on doing 3 stocks. If you complain about "comeback/adaption potential" make Best of 5s, problem solved. If you really believe in 3 stocks, go watch Mr. R VS istudying. It is the most BORING, DRAWN OUT thing EVER. It draws out for a MILLENIUM. Just the FIRST freaking stock took a billion minutes.

 

What the hell kind of pathetic excuse for a debate is this?

A debate is two sides or two people arguing their cases, using logic and evidence. It is also a dialogue, where arguments and debaters interact and react with each other.

This is the same dude with three different names saying the same damn thing three different ways.

It's not a debate. It's barely a freaking editorial, and I only grant it that because it's tagged such.

What an utter waste of time and data. Whoever thought they were writing this should first feel ashamed and then go drown themselves in a bucket.

 

gah
I don't think any of us know. We just say.

I was always 3 stocks 8 minutes supporter, but I'm going to just abandon that for a second an re-analyze this whole debate.

1) Important, do we have testimonials from TO's either saying 3 stocks 8 minutes makes it hard to run an event or the opposite?
I don't think we do.

Tbh this whole debate seems like bull****

I like 3 stocks 8 minutes just because it makes the game more enjoyable to me. If that's not true for others or makes the game impossible to play competitively, let me know!

But I need some damn information.

 

Watch ZeRo's video on the matter. Done. There is no logical benefit on doing 3 stocks. If you complain about "comeback/adaption potential" make Best of 5s, problem solved. If you really believe in 3 stocks, go watch Mr. R VS istudying. It is the most BORING, DRAWN OUT thing EVER. It draws out for a MILLENIUM. Just the FIRST freaking stock took a billion minutes.

Why, in your opinion, does Mr. R vs iStudying only have 12 dislikes?

 

Why, in your opinion, does Mr. R vs iStudying only have 12 dislikes?

Because Greninja. And I'm sorry for sounding "my opinion is the only one that matters!" I wanted to express how drawn out the match was and how I felt and how a casual MIGHT feel about it. Didn't come out right....

 

[deleting]

 

Lets just play Coin battle. Isn't that what the people want now a days?

 

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.​

​

Why should the viewers of a tournament they're not even at matter honestly? The amount of stocks will never do a thing to stop players from abusing a game and/or character to stall and play overly campy. Run a one stock tournament with a three minute timer, and you better bet a Villager with a great percentage lead will abuse the shield and what most Americans would consider "cancerous" tactics and play hard to get until he effectively times out his opponent. In the same vein that tactic will work much the same in a two and three stock environment. It's unavoidable. But it's the players that matter as they're the ones who are there to compete for money and are more importantly physically in the venue. Plus how "boring" or "fun" something is really shouldn't matter and is highly subjective to peoples tastes anyway.

Can you imagine if instead of games being determined by stocks and percentages as they are now, there were dedicated judges who watch a set throughout and determined who was the most fun to watch? If this happened, then rest in peace most characters in a tier list as they decline heavily for being unfun to watch because of the viewers.

A community has three main pillars: The Players, The Viewers and The TOs (Community Leaders, Coordinators, Organizers).

There's that awful word again that seems to have taken extreme importance over other facets of the community. But seriously though, why do we put viewers on such a high pedestal? Like I said, as far as I'm concerned, they're offering nothing to help the scene other than to view tournaments they couldn't make it to. At best they give a scene exposure, but they should never dictate how a tourney is run over attendees.

 

Hangman's opinion exactly matches mine. The faster the game gets the more stocks we need (to the point where at the start of Smash 4's life I would be able to make a strong case for potential 1-stock matches), so as time goes on and players keep getting better 3 Stock is something that will be good for the community, but now is not the future.

 

This...didn't feel like much of a debate. The whole point is to have people with contrasting opinions argue their sides, so doesn't it miss the point to bring in three contributors who all have similar stances?

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 two stock argument that says that "spectators should be taken into account the most and 2 stocks pleases them the most - therefore we should go with 2 stocks" I roll my eyes. Like we play to entertain them. Should we go in that direction?

3 stocks is better for the more skilled player in many different ways, believe it or not. Stupid rage effect is a lesser factor, and 3 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 3 stocks format rather than a 2 stocks format. I am not saying 2 stocks can't do all that, I'm just saying that 3 stocks are better at doing that than what 2 stocks can do. 3 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 three stocks's point of view.

^This. Wanting competitive Smash to be entertaining has its merits, but when it comes to these things, more weight should be given to the players themselves than to spectators. A lot of the people watching don't understand all the little nuances that go into each match and the merits of each playstyle. Defensive play has its purposes sometimes, yet it seems like the average (vocal) viewer raises hell whenever a match becomes anything other than fast paced hyperaggression. Yes, there's a point where it goes too far and no one enjoys watching someone stall out an opponent for three minutes, but when Dabuz has a vocal hatebase just for placing high with a defensive character, something is going wrong.

Instead of pandering to a group that consists mostly of people who don't know what they're talking about, we should find a way to make it easier for the average viewer to learn the nuances of high level play so they can know what they're talking about.

 

There's that awful word again that seems to have taken extreme importance over other facets of the community. But seriously though, why do we put viewers on such a high pedestal? Like I said, as far as I'm concerned, they're offering nothing to help the scene other than to view tournaments they couldn't make it to. At best they give a scene exposure, but they should never dictate how a tourney is run over attendees.

The number of viewers is mainly what determines the popularity of a sport, which leads to sponsors, being noticed by larger organizations (recently Nintendo and even ESPN) and bigger money from tournaments, the last one meaning more people can make a career out of the game and make the game grow even bigger.

 

I thought the ruleset after an Apex is what's used after. Correct me if Im wrong. I have no issue playing in whichever ruleset but this is a problem that should have an easy fix.

 

This debate will never die. In every poll that's been made 3 stocks has always beaten 2. Go ahead and look it up if you do not believe me it is true. And it really doesn't matter what happens. San Antonio and Houston, Texas will NEVER switch to 2 stocks. EVER. we are 3 stocks for life because we play the game for the players, not the viewers. Come on down and visit if you want to have some fun.

 

This debate will never die. In every poll that's been made 3 stocks has always beaten 2. Go ahead and look it up if you do not believe me it is true. And it really doesn't matter what happens. San Antonio and Houston, Texas will NEVER switch to 2 stocks. EVER. we are 3 stocks for life because we play the game for the players, not the viewers. Come on down and visit if you want to have some fun.

I respect the opinion, but I would like to point out that Anther's Ladder had a poll to decide between 2 and 3, and 2 won by like 10%. Also, isn't TLOC in Texas? Their weeklies run 2 stock.

 

Something to keep in mind: SmashEurope conducted a poll not 5 months ago, and the majority of players, spectators, AND TOs prefer 3 stock over 2, pretty much across all major regions.

 

This debate will never die. In every poll that's been made 3 stocks has always beaten 2. Go ahead and look it up if you do not believe me it is true. And it really doesn't matter what happens. San Antonio and Houston, Texas will NEVER switch to 2 stocks. EVER. we are 3 stocks for life because we play the game for the players, not the viewers. Come on down and visit if you want to have some fun.

brb checking uhaul prices

 

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.

 

The viewers should not decide a tournament's ruleset. A TO makes the rules, and players play by them no matter what the viewers say.

To be honest, I enjoy both 2 and 3 stock (2 a little more), but it'd be cool to see whether more people/top players would visit a big 3 stock tournament compared to a large 2 stock tournament run on the same weekend.

 

Leave it at 2 stocks. The less sm4sh, the better.

 

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 two stock argument that says that "spectators should be taken into account the most and 2 stocks pleases them the most - therefore we should go with 2 stocks" I roll my eyes. Like we play to entertain them. Should we go in that direction?

3 stocks is better for the more skilled player in many different ways, believe it or not. Stupid rage effect is a lesser factor, and 3 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 3 stocks format rather than a 2 stocks format. I am not saying 2 stocks can't do all that, I'm just saying that 3 stocks are better at doing that than what 2 stocks can do. 3 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 three stocks's point of view.

 

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 two stock argument that says that "spectators should be taken into account the most and 2 stocks pleases them the most - therefore we should go with 2 stocks" I roll my eyes. Like we play to entertain them. Should we go in that direction?

3 stocks is better for the more skilled player in many different ways, believe it or not. Stupid rage effect is a lesser factor, and 3 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 3 stocks format rather than a 2 stocks format. I am not saying 2 stocks can't do all that, I'm just saying that 3 stocks are better at doing that than what 2 stocks can do. 3 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 three stocks's point of view.

even though you aren't playing to entertain others, that is the direction the smash community is going and we need to stick to that way in order for the community to grow.

 

I think we should do time.

 

Watch ZeRo's video on the matter. Done. There is no logical benefit on doing 3 stocks. If you complain about "comeback/adaption potential" make Best of 5s, problem solved. If you really believe in 3 stocks, go watch Mr. R VS istudying. It is the most BORING, DRAWN OUT thing EVER. It draws out for a MILLENIUM. Just the FIRST freaking stock took a billion minutes.

and Istudying VS Esam was 3 stock too, but that was not boring.

 

I respect the opinion, but I would like to point out that Anther's Ladder had a poll to decide between 2 and 3, and 2 won by like 10%. Also, isn't TLOC in Texas? Their weeklies run 2 stock.

yes but anthers ladder mostly exist off americans who are used to 2 stock, and not europeans who are used to 3 stock.