Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[Deleted member 269706]

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.

Well first of all I really respect your response, and agree with much of what you said.

I agree, we don't want something that lasts too long, but something that does long enough, and the problem here is that the side for 3 stocks thinks that 2 stocks isn't long enough, but the side in favor of 2 stocks thinks that 3 stocks is just too much. People like to think that in 3 stock games, we'll experience more experimentation, more risk taking, more adaptation etc. However, this is only in theory. A lot of the time this allows for players to be MORE campy or just as conservative/careful. I don't know how much experience people have with high level play, but there isn't going to be THAT much experimentation or risk taking going on in a tournament match, even if there is an extra stock.

Imagine a 3 stock to 1 stock situation. (Or a fresh 2nd stock vs slightly touched 1st stock). At this point neither player wants to approach. When you have more than a stock difference and you're on top, why would you even bother risking it? And when you're on you're last stock, you NEED to play careful. This is where the slowed down gameplay comes into effect, and this can drag matches on a lot longer than they need to be. Not to mention, this situation isn't all too rare.

As much as I want to believe that a 3 stock match only lasts "60 to 90 seconds" more, I just don't see it being that short. If you can show me hard numbers satisfying this statement, I would be much more in favor of 3 stock games, but we have yet to see these results. At this point, people are so hard wired to follow the 2 stock meta, I feel like switching over to 3 stocks would be literally the same gameplay but with an extra stock. This just means that games will take an extra 1/3 of the standard time. Of course, this is also just a theory and a very good chance that I'm wrong.

 

[David Viran]

If you can show me hard numbers satisfying this statement, I would be much more in favor of 3 stock games, but we have yet to see these results.

This right here is the problem with comparing 3 stocks to 2 stocks right now. You can say all you want about how 3 stocks makes matches more exciting or how 3 stocks takes too long and 2 is better. But we have almost no data on 3 stocks in a high level national tournament so how do we know that this theory craft isn't just theory craft? We need to actually try it out and get the data on 3 stocks before we just wright it off as making matches too long. This is easier said than done of course but we tried out customs. Why not 3 stocks?

 

[Shouxiao]

Well first of all I really respect your response, and agree with much of what you said.

I agree, we don't want something that lasts too long, but something that does long enough, and the problem here is that the side for 3 stocks thinks that 2 stocks isn't long enough, but the side in favor of 2 stocks thinks that 3 stocks is just too much. People like to think that in 3 stock games, we'll experience more experimentation, more risk taking, more adaptation etc. However, this is only in theory. A lot of the time this allows for players to be MORE campy or just as conservative/careful. I don't know how much experience people have with high level play, but there isn't going to be THAT much experimentation or risk taking going on in a tournament match, even if there is an extra stock.

Imagine a 3 stock to 1 stock situation. (Or a fresh 2nd stock vs slightly touched 1st stock). At this point neither player wants to approach. When you have more than a stock difference and you're on top, why would you even bother risking it? And when you're on you're last stock, you NEED to play careful. This is where the slowed down gameplay comes into effect, and this can drag matches on a lot longer than they need to be. Not to mention, this situation isn't all too rare.

As much as I want to believe that a 3 stock match only lasts "60 to 90 seconds" more, I just don't see it being that short. If you can show me hard numbers satisfying this statement, I would be much more in favor of 3 stock games, but we have yet to see these results. At this point, people are so hard wired to follow the 2 stock meta, I feel like switching over to 3 stocks would be literally the same gameplay but with an extra stock. This just means that games will take an extra 1/3 of the standard time. Of course, this is also just a theory and a very good chance that I'm wrong.

I am glad Beast VI is going to do 3stock. We can finally start gathering data. Well I made this prediction about 3stock and 8mins. A stock on average is like 60 to 90 seconds long. It is an honest guess from me base on tournaments and gameplay I see on twitch.tv. I see the average match being 3mins to 4min:30seconds long.

Well when players have more stocks they usually go in more. Not saying they would be reckless but they usually are more aggressive. When they are on their last stock or about to get KOed they play safer. Also due to things like the shield stun patch and defensive options being nerf over time I think that players naturally go in more.

I know we really do not have data but I think this set would be a good example of 3stock and high level play.
This is from Izaw.

This is before the shield stun patch btw.

 

[many37]

3 stock 8 minutes seems like the best option since it gives players more chances of pulling awesome stuff in battle while not making the fight go on for centuries. I feel like 2 stocks is too short of a match and having the constant pressure of having 2 stocks from the player's side seems to be dissipated with 3 stocks, giving players more chances of making calculated plays.

 

[blackghost]

3 stocks needs to be tested more for sure with characters like ryu ending matches in 2 and a half minutes (he's not the only character that does)
watching KTAR it is obvious the level of play in smash 4 will pus this game to three stocks eventually.

 

[wizrad]

This thread in tl;dr: yes.

 

[Shouxiao]

3 stocks needs to be tested more for sure with characters like ryu ending matches in 2 and a half minutes (he's not the only character that does)
watching KTAR it is obvious the level of play in smash 4 will pus this game to three stocks eventually.

At first things were slow due to being limited by 3DS controllers, pre patch DI/Vectoring, and 3DS stages having higher/wider blast zones. Now that is not the case. When the shield stun patch came that increase the speed of the game by a lot.
Also now that people have learned the game, they go in more.

Most characters takes stocks much quicker these days.

 

[Pazx]

This thread in tl;dr: yes.

lol this basically, the title is a question that I answer in my head every time I read it with "yes, definitely/definitively/discernibly/obviously/objectively/naturally/evidently/duh/etc."

BUT

In the interest of facilitating actual discussion, a (multiple choice) question I was posed recently was as follows:

If running 2 stock over 3 stock would allow for an expansion of the number of Bo5 sets, how many extra Bo5 sets would there need to be for you to prefer this?
Compared to a 3 stock tournament with Bo5 starting at top 3/4.

• I prefer 2 stock regardless
• 1-2 rounds (approx. top 8)
• 3-5 rounds (approx. top 16)
• The entire bracket stage
• The whole tournament
• I prefer 3 stock regardless

For me, it's probably the entire bracket stage or the whole tournament, because I think 2 stock bo3 is legitimately a terrible ruleset, but I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others.

 

[ぱみゅ]

If running 2 stock over 3 stock would allow for an expansion of the number of Bo5 sets, how many extra Bo5 sets would there need to be for you to prefer this?
Compared to a 3 stock tournament with Bo5 starting at top 3/4.

• I prefer 2 stock regardless
• 1-2 rounds (approx. top 8)
• 3-5 rounds (approx. top 16)
• The entire bracket stage
• The whole tournament
• I prefer 3 stock regardless

For me, it's probably the entire bracket stage or the whole tournament, because I think 2 stock bo3 is legitimately a terrible ruleset, but I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others.

I'm in a mixture of A (lol bias), C, and D.
2 stocks *can* save time at the early rounds where results are not too awfully relevant, but at the same time, more interaction is preferred for better results.
I guess it would depend on the number of participants of the tournament.

 

[DunnoBro]

Summary of my thoughts:

2-stock: Better for TOs, Mid-Low level players

3-stock: Better for players, the better player will win more consistently with less headache.
Momentum and "tilt" less of a factor.

Worse for TOs/Tournaments in general, which loops back around to being bad for players.

Personally, instead of Bo5s I think we could implement 3-stock for later matches. But xanadu does 2stock and it still goes on till like 1-2am every time, 3stock adding even one more hour would be unacceptable.

 

[blackghost]

3 stock 8 minutes seems like the best option since it gives players more chances of pulling awesome stuff in battle while not making the fight go on for centuries. I feel like 2 stocks is too short of a match and having the constant pressure of having 2 stocks from the player's side seems to be dissipated with 3 stocks, giving players more chances of making calculated plays.

no player can

Summary of my thoughts:

2-stock: Better for TOs, Mid-Low level players

3-stock: Better for players, the better player will win more consistently with less headache.
Momentum and "tilt" less of a factor.

Worse for TOs/Tournaments in general, which loops back around to being bad for players.

Personally, instead of Bo5s I think we could implement 3-stock for later matches. But xanadu does 2stock and it still goes on till like 1-2am every time, 3stock adding even one more hour would be unacceptable.

Not sure about length of tournment being a deciding factor in which is best for the tournament. there are a ot of factirs that contribute to them running so long (to me these 2 minute button checks and taking forever on stage picks is the main culprit.) for locals i dont think 3 stock is neccessary outside of finals.
majors top 16 and on should be three stock. charcters are confirming kills earlier and earlier and players are beginning to understand gimping better.
the rise of certain characters (ryu, cloud, and others) wil begin to shorten matches more and more. I watched venom just steal souls at Ktar and 4 stocks isn't ebough time for most players to adapt in tournment. If they can't adaot they will camp out of fear form lack of knowledge and no lives to lose to gain any knowledge making tourments last longer.

 

[wizrad]

Locals follow the majors. The majors follow the locals. That's why nothing ever changes.

 

[DunnoBro]

no player can


Not sure about length of tournment being a deciding factor in which is best for the tournament. there are a ot of factirs that contribute to them running so long (to me these 2 minute button checks and taking forever on stage picks is the main culprit.) for locals i dont think 3 stock is neccessary outside of finals.
majors top 16 and on should be three stock. charcters are confirming kills earlier and earlier and players are beginning to understand gimping better.
the rise of certain characters (ryu, cloud, and others) wil begin to shorten matches more and more. I watched venom just steal souls at Ktar and 4 stocks isn't ebough time for most players to adapt in tournment. If they can't adaot they will camp out of fear form lack of knowledge and no lives to lose to gain any knowledge making tourments last longer.

Those two minute button checks generally only happen on-stream because they're preparing the info. (resetting score, players names, sponsors, character, etc)

 

[Lord Horatio]

3 stock games go on for way too long, to the point that it's unpleasant to play. Also keep in mind that the longer the match goes, the more likely the better player will win out, thus preventing upsets.

 

[Pazx]

Also keep in mind that the longer the match goes, the more likely the better player will win out, thus preventing upsets.

This is a good thing, it's why we play best of 3 and best of 5 sets instead of 1 stock best of 1.

 

[wizrad]

Upsets are upsets because they're upsetting. They're not supposed to happen because they're statistically unlikely.

 

[Shouxiao]

I know it was just one match but crew battles resulted in a 3stock match between Zero and Nairo and it did not last a long time.

 

[PsychoPuff23]

I think 3 stocks 8 minutes is better.
When you have 2 stocks when you loose one you can't make any error anymore.
With stocks a player who is loosing can make a comeback and I think this is the best thing for the Show.

 

[AviaRy]

I'm from Houston, where Smash United runs a lot of the tourneys. They use 3 stock 8. Timeouts are rare, as usual. Slow-paced matches occur depending on the player and character, as usual.

3 stock means a lot of things for the metagame:

• Players can go balls to the walls because one SD doesn't matter as much
• Comebacks from an early stock loss are easier to pull off
• Playing a perfect game (3 stock, minimal percentage) is harder
• Players have more time to adapt to their opponent
• Camping isn't as viable (Longer game time makes timeouts harder)

None of these are bad things for players. It means you can't relax around your opponent and your opponent can't relax around you, because both players can afford to be more analytical or more aggressive.

As a viewer, it also means nothing but good things:

• Players can afford to do riskier, more stylish things (e.g. really deep edgeguards)
• More hype for a near-perfect game. (i.e. Melee has 4-stock chants, but have you ever heard a 2-stock chant?)
• More tension during games (easier for players to make a comeback because games are longer)

As to not be biased, here are some negative effects:

• If two patient/campy players play each other, its very possible the game will run close to or over 8 minutes
• Players that do decide to go for a timeout make watching and playing super boring for a longer period of time

 

[Pyr]

I like people who make the "SD matters less" argument still. Chances are that, if you kill yourself in a game early enough, you are going to lose the game. It's hard to come back from that no matter what your stock count is. The SD argument is easily the poorest of the non-subjective arguments people bring up.

Also, subjective arguments are bad and everywhere in the thread.

 

[Shouxiao]

I'm from Houston, where Smash United runs a lot of the tourneys. They use 3 stock 8. Timeouts are rare, as usual. Slow-paced matches occur depending on the player and character, as usual.

3 stock means a lot of things for the metagame:

• Players can go balls to the walls because one SD doesn't matter as much
• Comebacks from an early stock loss are easier to pull off
• Playing a perfect game (3 stock, minimal percentage) is harder
• Players have more time to adapt to their opponent
• Camping isn't as viable (Longer game time makes timeouts harder)

None of these are bad things for players. It means you can't relax around your opponent and your opponent can't relax around you, because both players can afford to be more analytical or more aggressive.

As a viewer, it also means nothing but good things:

• Players can afford to do riskier, more stylish things (e.g. really deep edgeguards)
• More hype for a near-perfect game. (i.e. Melee has 4-stock chants, but have you ever heard a 2-stock chant?)
• More tension during games (easier for players to make a comeback because games are longer)

As to not be biased, here are some negative effects:

• If two patient/campy players play each other, its very possible the game will run close to or over 8 minutes
• Players that do decide to go for a timeout make watching and playing super boring for a longer period of time

The potential for a 3stock is hype. Zero vs Nairo was a 3stock match for crew battles at Genesis 3. The twitch chat and people in the crowd were saying 3stock!. The match did not end a 3stock but there was hype there.
Near the end of video.

 

[Jams.]

I'm from Houston, where Smash United runs a lot of the tourneys. They use 3 stock 8. Timeouts are rare, as usual. Slow-paced matches occur depending on the player and character, as usual.

3 stock means a lot of things for the metagame:

• Players can go balls to the walls because one SD doesn't matter as much
• Comebacks from an early stock loss are easier to pull off
• Playing a perfect game (3 stock, minimal percentage) is harder
• Players have more time to adapt to their opponent
• Camping isn't as viable (Longer game time makes timeouts harder)

None of these are bad things for players. It means you can't relax around your opponent and your opponent can't relax around you, because both players can afford to be more analytical or more aggressive.

As a viewer, it also means nothing but good things:

• Players can afford to do riskier, more stylish things (e.g. really deep edgeguards)
• More hype for a near-perfect game. (i.e. Melee has 4-stock chants, but have you ever heard a 2-stock chant?)
• More tension during games (easier for players to make a comeback because games are longer)

As to not be biased, here are some negative effects:

• If two patient/campy players play each other, its very possible the game will run close to or over 8 minutes
• Players that do decide to go for a timeout make watching and playing super boring for a longer period of time

I'm a fan of 3 stock and my scene prefers 3 stock, but I'm going to play Devil's advocate because I don't feel like all these points are well-reasoned.

Players can go balls to the walls because one SD doesn't matter as much
Changing the stock count doesn't really change the matchup. If a matchup is campy, then it will be just as campy in 3 stock. You could also argue that players are more likely to go for high risk/high rewards plays in 2 stock because the reward is also higher for a successful read. I don't think this argument really goes anywhere, and is too subject to personal opinion without a strong basis.
Comebacks from an early stock loss are easier to pull off
I believe I've seen research before comparing comebacks in 2 stock and 3 stock. The conclusion was that if you lose the first stock, you are much more likely to lose the game, and the stock count had a minimal impact.
Camping isn't as viable (Longer game time makes timeouts harder
With regards to timeouts, longer game time isn't as important as time per stock (ie. it'd be easier to time out in 3 stock 6 minutes than 2 stock 5 minutes). 3 stock 8 minutes gives less time per stock, so it's arguably easier to time someone out.

Players can afford to do riskier, more stylish things (e.g. really deep edgeguards)
Addressed this.
More hype for a near-perfect game. (i.e. Melee has 4-stock chants, but have you ever heard a 2-stock chant?)
2 stock, ole ole ole~ (I generally agree with this point though, 2 stocks are way more frequent which kind of dilutes their hype).
More tension during games (easier for players to make a comeback because games are longer)
Kind of a subjective argument. I'd argue that the most tense moment of a match are when one or both players are at kill percent, which doesn't happen more often in 3 stock.

I think that matchups play a huge role over people's opinions. ZSS games can end in under a minute, making you think "Damn that was over too quickly I want to watch more Smash 4, 3 stocks please," then Sonic comes on stream and you're just begging for it to be over. You could argue the same thing about Melee with floaty vs floaty matchups (ie. Jiggs vs Peach, Jiggs vs Young Link), but those are far more rare than defensive matchups in Smash 4.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The potential for a 3stock is hype. Zero vs Nairo was a 3stock match for crew battles at Genesis 3. The twitch chat and people in the crowd were saying 3stock!. The match did not end a 3stock but there was hype there.
Near the end of video.

I don't really like to sound like a broken record, but this is exactly what I was talking about earlier in this thread.

You want to focus on the result of individual games like this one? 3 stock.
You simply want MORE games? 2 stock.

 

[WinterShorts]

For as much as I prefer going 3 stock because of the increased chances it gives you during a match, despite it's longetivity, I don't think we'll ever see 3 stock matches when TO's will always prefer 2 stock for the sake of running their tournament properly. Though, that's just my opinion.

 

[Shouxiao]

I don't really like to sound like a broken record, but this is exactly what I was talking about earlier in this thread.

You want to focus on the result of individual games like this one? 3 stock.
You simply want MORE games? 2 stock.

There is not much to show right now. I did use some of Izaw's sets as an example of how they would likely be. There is little to no data right now at a major tournament. 3stock has not really been given a chance at majors. Beast would be the start of data on 3stock and 8mins.

 

[Bors The Stylish]

In my opinion 3 stocks 8 minutes is the way to go. First off, if you are playing some player you have never played before, 2 stocks won't really give you the opportunity to feel them out. With three stocks, even if you lose a stock because you don't really understand the way your opponent plays, you have more room to experiment mid-game. Even if you know your enemy, you can still try more crazy stuff if you have 1 more stock to test with. Second, in my personal experience, watching someone come back from a 2 stock disadvantage creates way more hype than coming back from a 1 stock disadvantage, it's minor, but it still makes matches better. As for the issue of time, I say that the early brackets could be 2-stock games, and that the top 8 could be 3-stock. I'm pretty sure most people won't mind watching the best players in the world play long matches.

 

[FooltheFlames]

3 stocks go by quite fast when both players are very familiar with their mains, and each others. In other words, when both players know what they're doing and know the match up, it goes by quicker and is more fun to watch as a spectator sport.
What does this have to do with 2 vs. 3 stock? Well, in time, as we all become more familiar with the game, I think 2 stock is going to feel like not enough anymore to most players, maybe.

 

[Shouxiao]

Ultimately speaking I see things becoming like this. Pools/Brackets are Best 2 out of 3 and 3stock and 8mins. Top 8(in a few cases) or Finals(most cases) being Best 3 out of 5.

That is basically the standard for Fighting Games. Now a tournament dedicated only to Smash may have a tournament where the whole thing is 3 out of 5.

3 out of 5 at tournaments that feature others games likely would not work. Something like this would happen. Well if Smash 4 is doing 3 out of 5 for pools/brackets why can't Melee, Street Fighter, Tekken, etc.

Only exception to a 3 out of 5 would be a game like UMVC3 due to the pace of things.

 

[PK_Wonder]

Our official standardized state ruleset in Arkansas is 3 stock, 8 min, and turnouts are higher than ever and tourneys run smoother than ever.

 

[19_]

Hey guys you know how many notable players want 3 stock?

To all the To's that run smash wii u tournaments, I think it should be 3 stocks over 2 #makeithappen

— Ken Hoang (@LiquidKen) February 6, 2016

The king has spoken.

Is it just me or is the interest in three stock growing more and more?

 

[Leebee]

I like people who make the "SD matters less" argument still. Chances are that, if you kill yourself in a game early enough, you are going to lose the game. It's hard to come back from that no matter what your stock count is. The SD argument is easily the poorest of the non-subjective arguments people bring up.

Also, subjective arguments are bad and everywhere in the thread.

yes, but it matters less. you are wasting 1/3 of your lives instead of 1/2. that is not subjective. that is simple math. they are literally saying what they mean. is this a serious post?????

 

[Ajimi]

I don't know if it has been posted on here (kinda old relevant), but : https://smasheurope.com/europe/smash-wii-u-official-stock-count-poll-results/

 

[Shouxiao]

Hey guys you know how many notable players want 3 stock?

To all the To's that run smash wii u tournaments, I think it should be 3 stocks over 2 #makeithappen

— Ken Hoang (@LiquidKen) February 6, 2016

The king has spoken.

Is it just me or is the interest in three stock growing more and more?

It is for various reasons. I would say the main reason is due to gameplay patches speeding up the pace of the game and the meta getting faster. I really see the tournament format switching to 3stock and 8mins. Pools/Brackets would be best 2 out of 3 and top 8 or finals would be best 3 out of 5.

2stock 6mins and 3 out of 5 for the whole tournament has been suggested but that would not work at most tournaments. At most tournaments there are games other than Smash 4 being played. The comments for 3 out of 5 for a whole tournament would result in this.

Smash 4 gets 3 out of 5 but Melee does not?
Smash 4 gets 3 out of 5 but Street Fighter V does not?
Add Tekken, Guilty Gear, Mortal Kombat, etc to that list.

 

[19_]

It is for various reasons. I would say the main reason is due to gameplay patches speeding up the pace of the game and the meta getting faster. I really see the tournament format switching to 3stock and 8mins. Pools/Brackets would be best 2 out of 3 and top 8 or finals would be best 3 out of 5.

2stock 6mins and 3 out of 5 for the whole tournament has been suggested but that would not work at most tournaments. At most tournaments there are games other than Smash 4 being played. The comments for 3 out of 5 for a whole tournament would result in this.

Smash 4 gets 3 out of 5 but Melee does not?
Smash 4 gets 3 out of 5 but Street Fighter V does not?
Add Tekken, Guilty Gear, Mortal Kombat, etc to that list.

One step forward another one back unfortunately thanks to TGC6 being a mess. I hope Europe can save us. T_T

 

[Shouxiao]

This is the start of data being collected at a major level. Beast 6 Smash 4 is really hype.

 

[Jams.]

Beast 6 appeared to run 3 hours behind schedule today, finishing doubles at midnight instead of 9PM and postponing/canceling the country crew battles. Does anyone know if any external or scheduling factors contributed to the delay, or was it just a result of long games? The fact that the TOs opted for large round robin pools instead of bracket pools was likely a significant factor. However, 3 stock events at this scale cannot afford to run behind schedule if this format is to gain traction from wary TOs.

 

[Megamang]

Round robin pools are a TO nightmare as one foo not showing up, leaving before they should, camping, or anything else can slow down everyone. Pools in general are the TOs being wonderful people and prioritizing players, especially round robin pools (as getting double eliminated quickly sucks if you know you wont win but wanna play players your level). Hug your TO if he does RR, and also show up to your damn matches.

 

[Shouxiao]

Beast 6 appeared to run 3 hours behind schedule today, finishing doubles at midnight instead of 9PM and postponing/canceling the country crew battles. Does anyone know if any external or scheduling factors contributed to the delay, or was it just a result of long games? The fact that the TOs opted for large round robin pools instead of bracket pools was likely a significant factor. However, 3 stock events at this scale cannot afford to run behind schedule if this format is to gain traction from wary TOs.

Round robin pools are a TO nightmare as one foo not showing up, leaving before they should, camping, or anything else can slow down everyone. Pools in general are the TOs being wonderful people and prioritizing players, especially round robin pools (as getting double eliminated quickly sucks if you know you wont win but wanna play players your level). Hug your TO if he does RR, and also show up to your damn matches.

Yeah organization of a tournament plays a key role. As for 3stock 8min matches themselves they do not take a long time.

The pool matches are here.
http://www.twitch.tv/saltyplayground/v/48173836

 

[Pazx]

What did everyone think of 3 stock at Beast? I have to say that as a spectator I don't really have as clear a preference for 3 stock as I do when I'm a player.

 

[Shouxiao]

What did everyone think of 3 stock at Beast? I have to say that as a spectator I don't really have as clear a preference for 3 stock as I do when I'm a player.

Honestly I say it created more hype for some matches. Top 8 Esam vs iStudying would be the most notable example.