Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[SherrdreamZ]

My opinion... 3 Stock (2/3) "8 Minutes Timer" for Pools.

3 Stock (3/5) "8 Minutes Timer" for Main Tourney including all Finals.

I have always agreed 2 stocks is too short for Smash 4, and competitively 3 stocks is a more accurate representation of skill and more time to alter your game for an underdog come from behind victory.

 

[Knife8193]

Problem is that the timer is set to 7 minutes, so I could see lots of timeouts. The stagelist is very different, too, I'll enjoy seeing not Wuhu, but Kongo in play.

Also, Miis are set to 1111, which looks suspiciously like prison bars...

Edit: Apparently Wuhu is banned while Skyloft is legal. That's just silly. Wuhu should be legal, Skyloft, Halberd, and Peach's Castle should be banned.

There are were no timeouts except for game 3 of losers set between Dabuz and Megafox. Zenyou vs Dabuz came close a bunch of times (Dabuz vs anyone actually). Average game length was about 5 minutes, give or take 30 seconds.

So this bracket ended up have 235 participants and started at 3 pm. 8 pool brackets, top 4 make it out (WF and Losers Semis are not played). Everyone is reset to winners bracket whether they were put in losers or not for a top 32 final bracket. Grand Finals was a reset with Dabuz coming from losers winning 3-1 and again 3-0 against Void.

This ended almost at 1am on the dot, meaning a 235 man 3 stock bracket with pool brackets took 10 hours. A lot of this extra time could be attributed to the fact that all of top 12 was put on stream and losers from pools were put back in winners for final bracket, as well people still playing in doubles (80 teams).

EDIT: Dabuz's thoughts on the matter also: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1so088u

 

[wizrad]

Seems like it went almost perfectly, then. Dabuz always slows things down.

 

[EnhaloTricks]

The tournament ran perfectly the whole time I was there. Everything was done quickly and orderly. The TO's kept games going and Xyro did a great job at making everything move along and not slow down.

I'm a 3 stock person, personally, but how well TGC5 was done shows that it can be done on a large-scale without issues if everyone is willing to put the work in and bring set-ups and TO well.

 

[Knife8193]

Yeah, we do 3 stock tourneys here all the time with competitive numbers of attendants and often outpace some 2 stock tourneys with equivalent amounts of players. Not going to deny that 2 stock is faster, but most of delays in a tournament happen because of organizational issues and lack of setups, which we don't have problems with due to great TOs and great community support for setups. Xyro and most Houston TOs are strong believers of not letting organizational constraints get in the way of the tourney experience. Given how fast a 235 man bracket, with 80 teams of doubles, with reseeded top 32 winner bracket, all event starting after noon, I think it's extremely feasible to make bigger brackets work under 3 stock if multiple days are given for it, just like most 2 stock majors.

The stagelist is an entirely different matter though lol

 

[Shouxiao]

Yeah, we do 3 stock tourneys here all the time with competitive numbers of attendants and often outpace some 2 stock tourneys with equivalent amounts of players. Not going to deny that 2 stock is faster, but most of delays in a tournament happen because of organizational issues and lack of setups, which we don't have problems with due to great TOs and great community support for setups. Xyro and most Houston TOs are strong believers of not letting organizational constraints get in the way of the tourney experience. Given how fast a 235 man bracket, with 80 teams of doubles, with reseeded top 32 winner bracket, all event starting after noon, I think it's extremely feasible to make bigger brackets work under 3 stock if multiple days are given for it, just like most 2 stock majors.

The stagelist is an entirely different matter though lol

Realistically a 3stock match and 8mins would average between 3mins and 4:30min&seconds. That is not long. Players can play a match and learn their opponents better. Rare but a SD shall not put a player in a super bad spot. Players can be more aggressive. Really the main thing is just having setups and organization.

Another reason for 3stock and 8mins(or what ever mins is being use) is for the sake of having a general universal tournament standard. It a lot of places were using different stock/time rules that would cause problems.

Well to better explain things look at how the situations with customs, mii fighters, and stage list are right now. To use Mii Fighters as an example a player deal with these 3 possible things. A(they can use Mii Fighters and what moveset and or weight/height.) B(they can only use the default Mii Fighters). C(Mii Fighters are banned).

Stock/time would be similar in that aspect. I am not saying every single event needs to have the exact same ruleset but having a universal standard would help the tournament scene out. I think 3stock 8mins would likely be the 3stock ruleset to be agreed on in the future. As time goes by stages, mii fighters, and customs shall hopefully have a generally agreed on ruleset.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

They needed to cap doubles though

 

[Knife8193]

True, regardless running 80 teams still takes a lot of time, especially when you need to force people further in doubles bracket to play their early singles matches. 80 teams is about 10 rounds, I can understand not wanting more than that. Nothing to do with the format though.

 

[wizrad]

Doubles is always 3 stock anyways. It was capped because singles is 'the show'.

 

[Gawain]

2 stocks is fine. There is no reason to have 3 stocks per round. Since when did having fast games become a bad thing?

The standard format in fighting games is to play a BO3 or BO5 set of games, where each game is best of 3 rounds. A bar of health is basically the same unit as a stock. All this means is that Smash is basically similar to a game like Darkstalkers(Vampire Savior), where your health carries over into the next "round". The standard for pretty much all fighting games is 1.5 minutes max per round.

So when you look at our current system, what exactly is wrong here? A single stock, depending on the characters in play etc, probably lasts around 1.5 to 2 minutes. That's a little slower than the average pace but it's still reasonable. I have never, and I'm gonna emphasize never, seen a single argument to back up higher stock counts in games. All I've seen are arguments constructed from wafer-thin concepts like " it enables comebacks ". Whatever happened to the rest of the set? A single game is not the whole set, extending the time of the game ultimately accomplishes nothing when we already have a nice pace which runs along a tried and true standard.

Smash tournaments in general already have an unhealthy habit of running way too long for the amount of entrants in it. Exacerbating it for no reason other then salty folks who think they could have won with more stocks isn't going to help.

 

[wizrad]

Smash doesn't work like other fighting games though. A single mistake much more easily costs you a stock than a mistake in another game will cost you a life bar. There's nothing wrong with fast games, it's just that 2 stocks makes things a little too volatile for many of our tastes.

Also, please don't act prejudiced and rude to people who disagree with you. We already have enough of that in this community. Be civil.

 

[Gawain]

Smash doesn't work like other fighting games though. A single mistake much more easily costs you a stock than a mistake in another game will cost you a life bar. There's nothing wrong with fast games, it's just that 2 stocks makes things a little too volatile for many of our tastes.

Also, please don't act prejudiced and rude to people who disagree with you. We already have enough of that in this community. Be civil.

Except that's not true at all. Don't make a claim that you don't know much about. A whiff in the wrong spot in most fighters can cost you anywhere from a third to half or more of your bar. All it takes generally is 2 to 4 solid confirms to ko in most fighters. I mean hell, in UNIEL many characters have full-screen confirms that take 3/4 of your bar. Marvel has MANY that simply take the entire bar. Nothing annoys me more than people making blanket statements about things they don't have the slightest idea about.

Now, Melee can be similar, though it depends on you consistently reacting to your opponent mid-combo. Smash 4 though has very little situations like this. There are some confirms in some matchups that can do it in two combos, but it's not likely. In a a way you can say Melee is to Marvel as Smash 4 is to Street Fighter. One is a more fast paced Fighter with heavier punishes, the other confirms more with the standard. Again, 2 stocks is more or less in line with the competitive standard that has been tested time and time again.

There is seriously not a single good reason to increase it. We have sets so that we don't have to play games with huge stock counts. The end of a game is your chance to recuperate, rethink your strategy, and get a chance at a comeback.

 

[Pyr]

Smash doesn't work like other fighting games though. A single mistake much more easily costs you a stock than a mistake in another game will cost you a life bar. There's nothing wrong with fast games, it's just that 2 stocks makes things a little too volatile for many of our tastes.

Also, please don't act prejudiced and rude to people who disagree with you. We already have enough of that in this community. Be civil.

REALLY dislike the trend where, if someone disagrees with you, they're suddenly prejudiced and rude. He is being civil. I guess, if you don't have a better argument for your point, though... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, Gawain said it all, basically, but I'd like to add that, unless you kill yourself, Smash is a lot more forgiving than most other fighting games. It's easier to get out of bad positions, your mistakes don't cost you most of your bar, it lacks a significant comeback mechanic (no, rage is not that mechanic)... As far as mistakes costing in Smash, you get many of them before they actually lead to something.

And, finally, it's too volatile for your tastes. Don't speak for a group, since it's almost always guaranteed to be wrong. There are many players that find the 2 stock format plenty of time to download an opponent, change their style once downloaded, and just have a generally good match.

 

[Ajimi]

You said yourself :

The standard format in fighting games is to play a BO3 or BO5 set of games, where each game is best of 3 rounds. A bar of health is basically the same unit as a stock.

So in "traditional" fighters it's 3*3=9 (BO3) or 3*5=15 (BO5) health bars in total for a set. How is that different from 9/15 stocks in total for a Smash set (3 stocks per match), since you also said yourself that it's "basically the same unit" ?

 

[Gawain]

You said yourself :

So in "traditional" fighters it's 3*3=9 (BO3) or 3*5=15 (BO5) health bars in total for a set. How is that different from 9/15 stocks in total for a Smash set (3 stocks per match), since you also said yourself that it's "basically the same unit" ?

No, it's best of 3 per game. IE first to deplete their opponents lifebar twice. You generally play a BO3 set of that.

3 bars in a game would be a best of 5.

 

[Xyro77]

To be fair, my rules are 3 stocks 7min. But id side with 3 stock 8min if it was that vs 2 stocks.

ive always used 3 stocks at my events since the day brawl came out and never looked back.

Here are the results of a 240 1vs1 and 80 2vs2 team event. I finished it in 12 hours. Dabuz (among other top players) went and he told me EC events using 2 stocks usually end between 1:30am and 4am.

http://smashboards.com/threads/tgc-...buz-and-1k-bonus-houston-tx-12-5-2015.425243/

 

[Gawain]

To be fair, my rules are 3 stocks 7min. But id side with 3 stock 8min if it was that vs 2 stocks.

ive always used 3 stocks at my events since the day brawl came out and never looked back.

Here are the results of a 240 1vs1 and 80 2vs2 team event. I finished it in 12 hours. Dabuz (among other top players) went and he told me EC events using 2 stocks usually end between 1:30am and 4am.

http://smashboards.com/threads/tgc-...buz-and-1k-bonus-houston-tx-12-5-2015.425243/

There is a lot more that goes into tournament runtime than stock count(edit: as I'm sure you know). Players showing up late, matches being called slowly etc. The only objective way to compare 2 stock vs 3 stock times is to compare the time of the actual games themselves. And 3 stock objectively takes longer.

 

[Pazx]

http://hypestteam.com/blog/2015/12/10/smash-4-2-stocks-vs-3-stocks/

Somewhat relevant.

There is a lot more that goes into tournament runtime than stock count(edit: as I'm sure you know). Players showing up late, matches being called slowly etc. The only objective way to compare 2 stock vs 3 stock times is to compare the time of the actual games themselves. And 3 stock objectively takes longer.

3 stock is also objectively better for competition, so let's not act as if 3 stock has no upsides.

 

[Xyro77]

TGC 5 was featured in an article about stock count on the front page of Smashboards! Go check it out!

http://smashboards.com/threads/smash-history-stock-counts-in-smash.425564/

 

[Gawain]

http://hypestteam.com/blog/2015/12/10/smash-4-2-stocks-vs-3-stocks/

Somewhat relevant.


3 stock is also objectively better for competition, so let's not act as if 3 stock has no upsides.

I'll cede that point, of course. But there exists a point of diminishing returns. I mean, there's a reason that we increase the number of games in a set for top 8/finals etc. Having more sets is a LOT more interesting competitively than just having more stocks. Interplay between games in a set is a lot deeper than the interaction differences between 2 or 3 stock. If competition was your aim I can't see why youd push for 3 stock instead of a BO5 standard. And even in that debate, you HAVE to concede that time is a factor. 2 stocks and bo3 follows a tried and true standard, in other words if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[EleH]

I like the idea, but it could potentially make certain fights drag on.

Regardless, I still like the idea.

 

[Pazx]

I'll cede that point, of course. But there exists a point of diminishing returns. I mean, there's a reason that we increase the number of games in a set for top 8/finals etc. Having more sets is a LOT more interesting competitively than just having more stocks. Interplay between games in a set is a lot deeper than the interaction differences between 2 or 3 stock. If competition was your aim I can't see why youd push for 3 stock instead of a BO5 standard. And even in that debate, you HAVE to concede that time is a factor. 2 stocks and bo3 follows a tried and true standard, in other words if it ain't broke don't fix it.

3 stock is also tried and true though, many regions run it (see also: Brawl) so we're left with this divide.

I personally don't mind 2 stock bo5 (bo7 finals even) compared to 3 stock bo3 but it does take considerably longer, mostly due to more time between games but also in instances where a player is able to take a game but not the set, which is a more common occurrence when only playing with 2 stock. As a TO it's much easier and more efficient for me to say 3 stock bo3 up until top 8/4/whenever, then bo5.

My problem with the "current standard" 2 stock format isn't necessarily the stock count, it's how limited the amount of gameplay is. 2 stock bo3 simply doesn't interest me as a player or even as a spectator. Having played with 3 stock for the entirety of Smash 4 and Brawl (including many bo5 sets) I can't appreciate finals sets being 2 stock best of 5, because that's the same length as a round one pools set to me and it doesn't give the players the chance they deserve to display their ability. I'd be happy with a 2 stock bo5 standard with bo7 finals, but it's very significantly quicker and easier (and also consistent with other games, not that that's necessarily important) to simply raise the stock count and continue playing bo3s and bo5s.

 

[Gawain]

3 stock is also tried and true though, many regions run it (see also: Brawl) so we're left with this divide.

I personally don't mind 2 stock bo5 (bo7 finals even) compared to 3 stock bo3 but it does take considerably longer, mostly due to more time between games but also in instances where a player is able to take a game but not the set, which is a more common occurrence when only playing with 2 stock. As a TO it's much easier and more efficient for me to say 3 stock bo3 up until top 8/4/whenever, then bo5.

My problem with the "current standard" 2 stock format isn't necessarily the stock count, it's how limited the amount of gameplay is. 2 stock bo3 simply doesn't interest me as a player or even as a spectator. Having played with 3 stock for the entirety of Smash 4 and Brawl (including many bo5 sets) I can't appreciate finals sets being 2 stock best of 5, because that's the same length as a round one pools set to me and it doesn't give the players the chance they deserve to display their ability. I'd be happy with a 2 stock bo5 standard with bo7 finals, but it's very significantly quicker and easier (and also consistent with other games, not that that's necessarily important) to simply raise the stock count and continue playing bo3s and bo5s.

Bear in mind that I solidly believe that BO3/BO5 2 stock is still the best option we can realistically do when I say that higher game counts is more competitive.

I don't think the difference is really that big anyways to be honest. And I play and spectate games like UNIEL and GG, which follow a similar pattern of time per set. Other fighters are perfectly good spectator material, so I don't see how smash isn't when it follows the standard for fighters.

 

[wizrad]

Alright, if reducing the opposing side to 'salty folks' who are looking for excuses for losing is civil, then I guess I can say all the people who disagree with me are whiny tryhards who know they can't handle a rule change without being rude at all. But oh wait, that is rude.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I evidently don't know as much about other fighters as you, I'll admit that. That point isn't integral to my opinion anyways. Two stocks may be enough to download a player, but three is objectively better. More time = more adaptation = more competitive. I haven't seen a single three stock tournament go any more over time than the usual two stock tourney does, but then again, one rarely sees a three stock tournament.

 

[Deleted member]

I thought I preferred 2 stock but with 3 stock I feel I can make a come back as it gives me more time to learn the opponent. 2 Stock happens way too fast, it would feel like if Melee had 2-3 stocks or something.

 

[Shouxiao]

I thought I preferred 2 stock but with 3 stock I feel I can make a come back as it gives me more time to learn the opponent. 2 Stock happens way too fast, it would feel like if Melee had 2-3 stocks or something.

At this point I agree. Now at first the meta was barely faster than Brawl. Now things have pick a lot up since defensive options have been nerf and that people found out info for the characters.

Honestly I think Smash 4 should have use 3stock once the WiiU version released. Now I do not see any reason why many still use 2stock and 6mins.

A honest average of stock life length is like 60 to 90seconds. The average 3stock 8min match would likely average between 3mins to 4mins 30seconds. There is stocks to fight it out and read the opponent and enough time to fight it out.

3stock and 8mins and best 2 out of 3 is the best way to go I think. Later starting with Winners Finals(or in some cases all of top 8) things can be 3stock 8mins and best 3 out of 5.

 

[Xeze]

Anther's Ladder recently switched to 2 stock. It's not looking good for a possible 3 stock scenario.

 

[RIP|Merrick]

Anther's Ladder recently switched to 2 stock. It's not looking good for a possible 3 stock scenario.

They did!? No! Seriously? That was the only way for me to get my three stock fix, gah.

 

[Shouxiao]

Anther's Ladder recently switched to 2 stock. It's not looking good for a possible 3 stock scenario.

They did!? No! Seriously? That was the only way for me to get my three stock fix, gah.

I hope 3stock becomes the norm. Stocks are taken much faster now. Just look at the technology the patches have given characters. Pretty much the higher tiers got tone down a bit. The characters that are lower tier are becoming mid tier and have new tools to combo and KO with.

 

[MrWhYYZ]

Anther's Ladder recently switched to 2 stock. It's not looking good for a possible 3 stock scenario.

I noticed so I stopped playng Anther's Ladder all together.
If 2 stocks becomes the norm in Europe I'll probably stop playing the game. What a lot of people don't realise is that the meta also changes with 2 or 3 stocks, characters with spikes and good edgeguarding capabilties or random jank (Looking at you DK) thrive with 2 stocks. Having a good neutral is less important because in some cases cheesing is just as rewarding if not more rewarding.
Also meta is evolving, kills are faster, shield stun patch has made the game less campy, being offensive is more rewarding and people are a lot better than a year ago.

 

[Xeze]

I noticed so I stopped playng Anther's Ladder all together.
If 2 stocks becomes the norm in Europe I'll probably stop playing the game.

Focus on doubles, at least it's still 3 stock. That's what I would do

 

[TheNix]

2 stock has been the standard for awhile now, and it's been pretty clear to me that the general length of games has been pretty close to perfect. Yeah, it means that SDs or low % gimps have a bigger impact on the game, but increasing the length of games by 50% would just result in certain matchups dragging on too long, let alone the impact on tournaments. I voted for 6 minutes only because I've been seeing matches take that long pretty consistently with certain matchups already; if it wasn't for characters like Olimar, I would definitely prefer 5 minutes.

 

[Shouxiao]

I noticed so I stopped playng Anther's Ladder all together.
If 2 stocks becomes the norm in Europe I'll probably stop playing the game. What a lot of people don't realise is that the meta also changes with 2 or 3 stocks, characters with spikes and good edgeguarding capabilties or random jank (Looking at you DK) thrive with 2 stocks. Having a good neutral is less important because in some cases cheesing is just as rewarding if not more rewarding.
Also meta is evolving, kills are faster, shield stun patch has made the game less campy, being offensive is more rewarding and people are a lot better than a year ago.

Stock count really does effect the game. You are correct when say that the meta changes with 2 or 3stock. Characters with quick kill potential are favored much more. Mistakes are also much more costly.

As I and others have stated many times with the meta the way it is now there really is not any reasons. We are not limited to playing on the 3DS(less comfortable controls, larger blast zones) and patches have greatly speed up the game.

 

[Xeze]

Beast VI changed its ruleset today and it's gonna be with 3 stock!
Based Europe.

 

[wizrad]

Beast is gonna be a great tournament.

 

[Shouxiao]

A poll was done on front page a few days a go. Like 60 40 like all the other polls. Hopefully with the tournament in Europe data can start being gathered.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

I used to be all for 3 stock matches because it just felt more dynamic and such. More can happen, will happen, etc. But when my scene switched over to 2 stock matches, I started to understand the appeal. The one big thing that I enjoy about 2 stock matches is that it's MUCH less mentally straining. Going to winners, then sent to losers, then making it to grands and reseting the bracket is ridiculous on that player (I haven't done this myself but I have made it to winners finals then losers finals). Hell, a Bo5 that goes to game 5 is a lot to keep up with when you're playing with 3 stocks. The other problem with 3 stock matches is when a character has a bad match-up, they can make it go for a really, really long time. As of late I find 2 stocks pretty appropriate these days. I find it more entertaining to watch, however when it comes to playing I'm all for 3 stock. I'm not really for either side as of now, but if I had to choose, I feel like I'm more for 2 stocks...at least more than I used to be. Though that could be because it's what I'm used to.

I did want to bring up one more point. A lot of people like to use the argument, "If you mess up early on, you're basically screwed cause you're down an entire stock." Hate to say it but that's the way it should be. In Street Fighter and other big fighters, it you mess up you lose like half (if not more) of your life guage. It's not a game of second chances, it's a game meant to be played by the best. If you SD enough that it's a problem that you need to bring up, you aren't ready to be playing at a top level.

 

[Shouxiao]

I used to be all for 3 stock matches because it just felt more dynamic and such. More can happen, will happen, etc. But when my scene switched over to 2 stock matches, I started to understand the appeal. The one big thing that I enjoy about 2 stock matches is that it's MUCH less mentally straining. Going to winners, then sent to losers, then making it to grands and reseting the bracket is ridiculous on that player (I haven't done this myself but I have made it to winners finals then losers finals). Hell, a Bo5 that goes to game 5 is a lot to keep up with when you're playing with 3 stocks. The other problem with 3 stock matches is when a character has a bad match-up, they can make it go for a really, really long time. As of late I find 2 stocks pretty appropriate these days. I find it more entertaining to watch, however when it comes to playing I'm all for 3 stock. I'm not really for either side as of now, but if I had to choose, I feel like I'm more for 2 stocks...at least more than I used to be. Though that could be because it's what I'm used to.

I did want to bring up one more point. A lot of people like to use the argument, "If you mess up early on, you're basically screwed cause you're down an entire stock." Hate to say it but that's the way it should be. In Street Fighter and other big fighters, it you mess up you lose like half (if not more) of your life guage. It's not a game of second chances, it's a game meant to be played by the best. If you SD enough that it's a problem that you need to bring up, you aren't ready to be playing at a top level.

Stock count does effect the meta directly or indirectly by a lot. A lot of things go both ways as well between 2stock and 3stock. I think there should be where there is enough stocks to fight things out but not have things last forever. In Smash 4's case on WiiU I think 3 is a good middle ground.

Too little stocks would be bad in any Smash game and the stock count would may also effect how characters are played. It matters more to certain characters. 3stock 8mins does alive for Rage to possible be used more. Lucario has his aura. Wario has another Waft. There is more but you get the idea. In older Smash games it would be more notable sense 64 has many death combos and in Melee Purin/Jigglypuff would likely be god tier with fewer stocks.

When it comes to endurance of players the places/players using a 3stock rule set in a way has an advantage. Even if they played in a 2stock meta for a tournament, if those matches were to be drawn out it would not really matter as much to them because they are use to playing potentially longer matches/sets anyway. Honestly though if I 3stock match does take longer than a 2stock match it would really only be by about 60 to 90 seconds.

When it comes to SD I do agree it is the player's fault but I think people consider it too crippling in a 2stock meta. Compared to other fighting games Smash uses stocks and one could say that in a sense stocks may be more valuable than Rounds are in a fighting game. Plus in other fighting games there may be attacks or things that can drain health but usually not a way to KO yourself. Self destructs are very rare but they are very crippling in a 2stock meta.

If looking at stocks as rounds the best I could compare Smash to is Naruto Storm 4 where after a "round" is lost the positions are not reset and the fight continues. Also health does not reset for the winner of a round.

 

[Kresent]

I'll start by saying I prefer 3 stock.

Stocks cannot be compared to rounds in traditional fighting games, even the ones where you keep your life from the previous round (King of Fighters, for example). Traditional fighting games have a set amount of health. No matter what, once that bar is empty, you're dead. Smash doesn't work that way. You could possibly live up to 999%, there isn't a "point of no return". In Street Fighter 4, losing a round sucks but you get access to meter for later. Some characters are much better in the later rounds because they need meter to be a threat. Smash doesn't have a resource like that. Once you die, you lose the resources you had in that stock and start fresh. In regards to that, having only 2 stocks means that losing the first one puts you at a serious disadvantage, no matter how you look at it. It's not uncommon for someone to get two KOs with one stock, simply because losing your first stock puts you at an extreme disadvantage, because now you're on your last life and can't afford to take any more risks.


Also something that I think people are ignoring when comparing Smash to other fighting games is that other fighting games have corners and chip damage. Even if you lose the first round, you can still lock your opponent into the corner and chip them out. With Smash, opponents can just go off stage and avoid you for a bit. You can't force them to take damage if they don't want to, whereas traditional fighting games have a lot of situations where chip damage is just unavoidable.

 

[jcx]

With 3 stocks players tend to play a lot more agressive. Sometimes because they need to catch up, sometimes because they are taking advantage of their stock lead to end the match swiftly.

Have you been on Anther's Ladder? It uses the 3-stock 8-minute ruleset everybody and their mother is voting for. I'm pretty sure Anther's has the only ruleset that uses these settings in singles, so the playstyles you are describing should be more common there.

EDIT: Whoops, I didn't see all the posts after the one quoted. I feel so dumb right now X3