How many two stocks behind comebacks have you witnessed?

[Flayl]

The truth is Brawl (and Melee as well) take waaaaay longer to play out their sets than most fighting games. They average about 4:30 or 5:00 each game, and with how campy some of the matchups can be - more so in Brawl - it's not uncommon for a final's set to take over 30 minutes including the time spent on counterpicking.

In Melee I have witnessed plenty of comebacks from 2 stocks behind, 3 stocks were very very rare though. Yet I have never seen a two stock comeback at a competent level in Brawl. It's not hard to imagine why, there aren't any 0-death... sequences. Even with bad DI.

I feel as if the third stock is ultimately superfluous to determine who should win a game. I heard this somewhat nerfs Lucario, even if I don't undertsand how (assuming there aren't 2 stock comebacks). If you can point out why based on this let me know.

So, my proposition is to use 2 stocks and a 6 minute timer. This allows Brawl to hog less time in a multi-fighting game tournament as well as allow people to play more sets in pools or friendlies.

 

[ranmaru]

True, but doesn't that not give enough time for a person to figure out the opponent and make a comeback?

Usually, if I notice I'm down for the count (2 or 1) I start trying REALLY hard. I mean should I have been trying that hard from the start? Maybe. haha.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

I made a few when I played Brawl, but I was an ICs main, so it's not that amazing.

 

[ranmaru]

I'm doc so I have to make one... lol. Like against a falcon... I remember I was about to make a comeback, and I was uairing this falcon , but I was so excited for making a comeback, that I could have done an attack and he would be dead... Instead, I air dodged diagnally to the right, and down... ;-;

 

[vVv Rapture]

Interesting. I'd like to see some testing with these kinds of rules if anyone is up to it. I'll try some myself later today or tomorrow if I can.

 

[T-block]

It's practical in the time sense, but I think the reason we use more than two stocks is because it amplifies the punishment inflicted when one player makes a mistake. A low percent gimp is now half of your stocks instead of three. It would probably lead to less consistent results.

 

[Pierce7d]

Exactly. If I make a mistake and lose 1 stock at 50%, but I'm better than my opponent, I'm likely to be able to compensate for that mistake by playing exceptionally well the rest of the match. If I only have 2 stocks, this is unlikely.

That being said, I have always supported having 2 stock 6 minutes.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Exactly. If I make a mistake and lose 1 stock at 50%, but I'm better than my opponent, I'm likely to be able to compensate for that mistake by playing exceptionally well the rest of the match. If I only have 2 stocks, this is unlikely.

That being said, I have always supported having 2 stock 6 minutes.

Being the better player means that making mistakes should not be so common that this becomes a problem. If you make a mistake, then you've made a mistake. Work towards a goal of not making those mistakes. Obviously if you trip into a smash or something and die, that's another story, however.

Even so, you have to remember that your opponent also has two stocks, so if you do find yourself in a disadvantageous position, you are more likely to come back from it with your opponent having a maximum of only two stocks than if your opponent had a maximum of three stocks.

 

[MT_]

Being the better player means that making mistakes should not be so common that this becomes a problem. If you make a mistake, then you've made a mistake. Work towards a goal of not making those mistakes. Obviously if you trip into a smash or something and die, that's another story, however.

Even so, you have to remember that your opponent also has two stocks, so if you do find yourself in a disadvantageous position, you are more likely to come back from it with your opponent having a maximum of only two stocks than if your opponent had a maximum of three stocks.

This isn't exactly correct.

At your first point, you're overlooking the fact that lower stocks = luck plays a bigger factor. Whether a better player tends to make less mistakes and whether they actually do make the mistakes are completely different. This is statistical common sense: the more trials you have (stocks in this case), the more accurate and resistance to skew the results are.

At your second point, your logic is off yet again. If you only start with two stocks and are brought down to one stock from some bad luck, then you only have one stock to work with to take their two stocks. In the other case where you start with three stocks, and then you lose a stock from bad luck, then you have two stocks to deal with their three. It's a simple matter of ratios. 1:2 is more one-sided than 2:3.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

TBH, I don't have much of a problem with 2 stocks and 6 minutes. If you accidentally made a mistake and lost a stock at 50, you still have another stock to try to make a comeback. If you're playing with 3 stocks, they'd still have the lead and you'd still be the one approaching which is pretty terrible any way around.

And if you are a better player, you also have the counterpick rounds which you can still win.

 

[-Ran]

I've seen a ton, and I've been a part of many myself. I'm not what you would consider a 'fast starter' in a match. The longer a match goes on, the better I start to perform. Heaven forbid I get to high percent on my last stock, cause then I'm at the top of my game. There's a ton of mental games that occur while playing, and the ability to maintain your success is one of them. Brawl is one of those games that allows you to conquer the adversity during a match since there's time to make adjustments.

 

[ranmaru]

This isn't exactly correct.

At your first point, you're overlooking the fact that lower stocks = luck plays a bigger factor. Whether a better player tends to make less mistakes and whether they actually do make the mistakes are completely different. This is statistical common sense: the more trials you have (stocks in this case), the more accurate and resistance to skew the results are.

At your second point, your logic is off yet again. If you only start with two stocks and are brought down to one stock from some bad luck, then you only have one stock to work with to take their two stocks. In the other case where you start with three stocks, and then you lose a stock from bad luck, then you have two stocks to deal with their three. It's a simple matter of ratios. 1:2 is more one-sided than 2:3.

Ah, I see. 4 stocks aren't just for you to have that much more chances, but they are there for the better person to show that they can take that many stocks off. (Meaning if they make a deadly mistake, they can get serious and defeat you if need be)

That way people can be sure you won from pure work, and not mostly luck. (if you sd'd 4 times, then you might have been nervous, or would need more technical practice)

 

[hungrybox]

I've seen a few

 

[Exdeath]

ADHD vs. Havok game 2 on Delfino Plaza at Pound 4.

 

[Damage Points]

2 stocks 6 mins would be awesome. Faster matches more intense kills. Now when gaw gets the hammer imagine everyone going even more insane. Or if wario is down he can come back hitting a killer waft to win. I just imagine how intense the matches would be.

 

[DarkISDA]

I did a 3 stock come back in doubles once. Too bad it wasn't recorded T_T

 

[Damage Points]

I doubt these rules would ever be used tho.

 

[Pyronic_Star]

I do it all the time, along with a number of 3 stock comebacks as well

 

[Today]

I've seen it tons, and have been in that position tons. Sometimes at the beginning I lose courage, but if I calm down and think I know I can do this. If I make a mistake I feel like I'll never be able to make up for it and then I'll end up losing, but if I pull through and get my mind settled I can totally make it back.
Sometimes if I end up losing my stocks while the other didn't I like to think, "Okay. This guy took out two of my stocks and only suffered 130%. What stops me from doing the same?" So with my one stock I'll try and think of only suffering a little bit while holding my one stock and taking out two of his stocks. I guess it makes me calm down. But to be honest it also depends on both the player and their character as well as the opponent. Some players can't think as well in situations like that, and some characters suuuuck at wracking up damage quickly.

 

[Jem.]

Does doubles count?

I've made several huge 1v2 comebacks, and at MLG i was at 0%, other team (two mk's) were at 0%, and i won :o

also during shadowrob's prime, i was down 1 stock when he had 3 and i ended up winning :o

 

[MVD]

Check this out :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_3aURIDrv0

 

[Stockfield]

I like having 3 stocks, I play better as the match goes on.

I just feel like I won't have enough time to adjust with just 2 stocks, or maybe I just need to get better lol.

 

[Serynder]

Happens frequently in MD/VA.

 

[bluekyuui]

I have made a couple 2 stock comebacks before. Usually when I'm down by a lot, I'll switch to defensive, rolling dodges and grabs. And when they least expect get a judge "9" with My Game and watch!

 

[Zatchiel]

I've seen Reflex catch up from a three stock to pull off a win.

Oh wait, everyone has.

 

[Lib3r4t3]

I've made two in recent memory.

 

[King Funk]

Not a bad idea, it should be tried out.

If you could have someone host two brawl tournaments one after another, one with 3 stocks and another with 2, it'd be an interesting experience.

 

[etecoon]

comebacks like this happen pretty frequently wtf

and a game doesn't need to be a three stock comeback for a 2 stock and 3 stock game to have different outcomes, a last stock last hit 2 stock game could have gone the other direction with 3 stocks. likewise you could maybe argue that it could go in yet another with 4 but I think most people think 3 stocks is a good happy medium. too slow? that's brawl, you're playing the wrong game