More or less. The status quo was 3 stocks, ported from Brawl, the same way Brawl was 4 stocks at the beginning (ported from Melee). However people switched to 2 stocks in a hell of a hurry (the game was what, two months old ?) and for the wrong reasons : low-level play, vectoring, and 3DS controls. None of these apply now. We play on Wii U, players are good and vectoring was removed long ago.
You're a bit right that people have to prove their point to change a status quo ; but the current status quo itself replaced the precedent without proving it's necessity in the first place. The change was made wayyyy too quiclky, and would never ever have happened if the question was asked with the current meta. So I don't know if it is to the "2-stock side" or the "3-stock side" to really prove themselves.
Look at all the majors. Look at all the regionals. They are 2 stock. History of 2 stocks is irrelevant, the burden of proof is on the 3 stock supporters. That much is pretty clear
3 stocks can't run exactly the same way than 2 stocks. It's physically impossible, of course a match will be a bit longer with one more stock (not 1/3 longer though). However justifying 2 stocks with "it already takes long enough" is taking the problem the wrong way. You mentioned Brawl, but the game IS already faster than it.
Yes, which is why comparison numbers are necessary. If 3 stocks proves to be only marginally more time intensive for TO's than 2 stock, good. Even better if you have Brawl numbers to compare that too, you'll have a much easier time convincing TO's, especially if those TO's used to run Brawl events. Melee numbers help because TO's often run both games side by side, knowing how the differentials will help TOs plan better events. if there's only one stream, for example, one event taking longer can actually be a benefit -- it means you don't have to stream the priority matches of one event over the other, you can finish Melee finals just as Smash 4 is hitting top 16 or whatever. Point is: Comparison numbers matter. You guys want to change the status quo? Somebody should crunch those numbers, because TO's "ain't gonna fix what ain't broke", as the expression goes.
You should ask yourself "with a X hours planning, Y setups and Z stocks, how many players can play in my tournament ?" ; and not "I have X players with 2 stocks, so I must also have X players with 3 stocks in the same time and the same number of setups". Of course it will not work that way ; I mean I can host a Melee tournament with 2 stocks, see how it's crazy fast, and then refuse to go back to 4 stocks because it takes longer. If needed, put a cap on the number of entrants, it will encourage people to bring more setups and the problem will solve itself.
This is an unfollowable mess of an argument. The first part is just patronizing and I'm not even going to touch it. Trust me, I know how to run tournaments. Capping entrants doesn't incentivize people to bring more setups -- Unless you're talking about priority registration, which tends to be disastrous for attracting new blood to the scene. New players often feel that priority registration dissuades them from even trying to enter (they're taking someone else's spot) or even worse, if they make the journey out but you have to turn away the player at the registration desk it means you probably won't ever see them out again.
Unless you're a big tournament and running into capacity or logisitical concerns, don't cap entrants. You can run a tournament with 4 players per setup really efficiently. You can grind through a tourney with 8 entrants to a setup. If you're on the ball, I've run an event with over 12 to 1 and still had it finish on time (but had to be heavy handed with DQs). Simply throwing more setups at the problem, while nice, doesn't solve it. Especially when you're a few rounds deep and the bracket has bottle necked so the number of setups no longer matters. There comes a point in double elim brackets where HAVE to wait for each round to finish one by one before you can call more matches. If 3 stocks sets are only taking a couple more minutes, that's not a big deal. If they are taking 5 minutes+ longer per set, then you run into an issue. After 6 rounds that's half an hour of tourney time that could have been saved. As the tourney grows, that's more rounds you have to contend with, and even more time TO's are losing. That's why those aforementioned timing numbers are so important.
The ruleset should aim for the best game and the best accuracy possible (we do not do 1 stock BO1 for a reason), not just be there for convenience. I don't think local TOs are lazy or stubborn (I know it's a lot of work), however I think the big ones (Apex first, then EVO) just want to have a maximum of entrants (= maximum of money + maximum of viewers (which is also money)).
2 stocks is still very accurate. Does Zero still win every tournament? Yes. Do regions still have top players that consistently place well? Yes. Looks like 2 stocks is a pretty accurate determinant. Accuracy is not exactly a keystone argument here.
People who grasp onto the idea that "they would have won had there been one more stock" are deluding themselves. They lost. Their opponent made better uses of the resources at their disposal. 2 stocks is plenty of time to get a read on an opponent -- learn to adapt quicker. Blaming the stock count is only holding you back as a player because it prevents you from taking the loss and learning from it. No johns. If the player threw in a mixup that you couldn't adapt to, you should have adapted. Or played the match better before they mixed it in and capitalized on their weaknesses more effectively, so they were in a worse point by the time they read you enough to employ it. Or stop being so damned predictable.
2 stocks is plenty of time. True, we occasionally see upsets, but Zero still wins every tournament. Top players and Power Rankings still exist.
This and the comeback argument (which I already touched on earlier in this thread) drive me crazy because they are either false or unprovable. If you want them to hold weight, those arguments need to be backed up and more fleshed out.
And then it's a vicious circle ; if you wait for a major to go 3 stocks before considering doing the same, I unfortunately think it will never happen. It's only if locals make changes that it can maybe next go all the way up to a major. You ask for proof, but if you are a TO why not try it yourself instead of asking it from others ? Maybe your local scene will find the game more enjoyable with 3 stocks, and it will provide useful data either way.
You're looking at this backwards, majors wont switch because smaller locals are doing it -- Unless you can get big players or TO's behind the idea, players will just move on until they find a scene that lets them play the same game the pros on Twitch and Youtube are playing. Players want to play the competitive standard, ie. what majors use.
When I ran customs event, despite what Smashboards poll numbers show, despite the fact that it was before, during, and after the EVO customs hype, we'd only see about 30% of our players show up. When we run events with larger stage lists, less players show up. There's another host in my city who does host 3 stock events. His attendance numbers are vastly inferior to mine, and most of the players who play in both scenes rave about how much better my scene is. Why? Because I run events with the competitive standard. That's why players come to my events, come to my scene. I occasionally tweak stuff, but consistency is a huge draw and why I don't change up my events simply because a name on a message board tells me to.
You need to convince top TO's. You need to convince top players. Seriously, ESAM's support is a huge deal -- you guys need to capitalize on it. Get players like ESAM to talk about the benefit of 3 stock versus 2 stock, and have the poll support numbers and set timing numbers behind you to back it. Players want to play the competitive standard. You want to change the competitive standard? You need proof. You need names.
I'm trying to help you guys. I know it seems like I'm just shooting everything down, and it's pretty clear I'm on the 2 stock side of the fence, but if it turns out 3 stock is better for the game and the community as whole, I will do what's best for the community. Bickering on a message board isn't going to solve it, someone needs to knuckle down like Ican'tWin did and start crunching numbers if they want this dialogue to continue and hold any weight. (Seriousy Ican'tWin, good job). It may not seem like it, but I am trying to help you guys out.
Proof. That's how you guys are going to change it the status quo. I'm anxious to see what you come up with.
