Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[Nate22Hill]

2 stocks makes comebacks almost impossible especially with the rage factoring into it. I think 3 stocks is only fair just on that reason alone

 

[ぱみゅ]

Eh, no.
2 stocks makes quick stocks way more powerful, and occasional gimmicks viable.

Also, "better for comebacks" is not a convincing argument.

 

[Scarlet Jile]

I don't really understand your position on this, @ ぱみゅ . I do understand that you think upsets are important to the sustainability of competitive Smash, but I don't think audiences or even players lend much credence to victories won by gimmicks or luck.

The game would be much more upset-friendly if we allowed items and removed stage limitations, but as a community, we have moved away from that towards a scenario where results were as accurate a reflection of player skill as possible. I don't think you are in favor of items, so that means you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand where your comfort with chance victories lies. I don't think I need to tell you that it will be extremely hard to support that opinion.

 

[LightLV]

longer sets = more exposure to the opponent = more definitive determination of who's the better rounded player.

I've seen ft5 sets where the guy got trashed like 1-4 and then won 4 matches in a row. Hell, this happened last EVO in the Blazblue Finals, and it was just about the hypest thing ive seen at evo in years.

Smash 4 is a supremely silly game. I'm sure stocks were set at 2 since this game came after campy Brawl, and 3DS released with vectoring and the most ridiculous blast zones in the franchise. Nobody wanted to watch players camp eachother to death, so 2 was set as standard.

I commonly disagree with "official" smash 4 rules though. Once I saw pre-patch Lylat was a tournament stage, i kind of lost hope.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I don't really understand your position on this, @ ぱみゅ . I do understand that you think upsets are important to the sustainability of competitive Smash, but I don't think audiences or even players lend much credence to victories won by gimmicks or luck.

The game would be much more upset-friendly if we allowed items and removed stage limitations, but as a community, we have moved away from that towards a scenario where results were as accurate a reflection of player skill as possible. I don't think you are in favor of items, so that means you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand where your comfort with chance victories lies. I don't think I need to tell you that it will be extremely hard to support that opinion.

Items would be fine if they didn't spawn at random times and locations, and only for having them on there is a chance of something randomly exploding. Otherwise they would be perfectly fair. Equipment doesn't make them better because of the RNG that goes with them. And I am a stage libertarian myself, so as long as a hazard is not too* random or powerful, or a strategy too* degenerative, I am fine. I have at least 15 stages I'd consider fair.
Now, two stocks don't really rely on gimmicks for a comeback, but being able to capitalize on a mistake at a critical moment with the right move, IS a skill as valuable as a slow comeback. You earned the win so it's all that matters.

* I hate the word "too" when it comes to debate as it implies something is arbitrary, but it's the only one that makes this argument easy to understand

I commonly disagree with "official" smash 4 rules though. Once I saw pre-patch Lylat was a tournament stage, i kind of lost hope.

Oh, that's another point, I don't agree with standardization of rulings for this game either.

 

[clydeaker]

In all fairness 36 Stock, 96 minuets, and best of 19 out of 36 matches would be way more accurate than 3 stock, 8 Minuets, and Best of 2 out of 3... but it might take too long. Ha ha!

Although 3 stock may be more accurate than 2 stock, it's more time consuming. It all depends on what's more important to you, accuracy or time.

<-----2--------Stock--------3----->
<---Less---Accuracy---More--->
<---Less------Time------More--->

This topic is kind of in a gray area. It's easy to understand why 5 stock best of 7 may be too long and why 1 stock best of 1 may not be accurate enough. Everyone has there own cut-off line.

Personally I feel like 3 stock best of 3 is were we can all meet up in the middle of the gray and agree on a standard set stock, but that's just my opinion.

<---1---2---3---4---5---> Stock #
<---1-------3--------5---> Best of #

Also @ ぱみゅ I love how your arguing for 2 stock because that way we can see both sides of the argument and how we may need more solid evidence and reasoning for 3 stock. You keep this discussion alive by doing so.

Edit: I included some of this post into the first post of this thread because I thought it was important for people to see it first.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Well, I don't really fully support 2-stocks, but I keep this discussion because most people's reasoning to support 3-stocks is frankly poor.

Also I like to show appreciation for the non-favorite option as long as it's reasonable.

 

[Lukingordex]

In Brazil we had a rule where pool matches were 2 stocks and 6 minutes and after-pool matches where 3 stocks and 7 minutes, it worked greatly.

 

[clydeaker]

In Brazil we had a rule where pool matches were 2 stocks and 6 minutes and after-pool matches where 3 stocks and 7 minutes, it worked greatly.

That's a good idea. I forgot about how pools worked. When I made this thread I had a single or double elimination tournament in mind, but I now see how using both 2 or 3 stock depending on where in the tournament it is could have the best of accuracy and time together. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Eternal Blue Syaoran]

I think 3 stock COULD be more fun depending on the match ups. I watched two Luigi's just camp out on thier last stock last night and it was boring..... Three stocks could be worse... Just imagining the defensive play that comes with lots of characters combined with a one or two stock lead though...

 

[Kai_64]

I really on the fence about it. I like both honestly, I do notice a lot of people play a lot safer with 2 stocks though. Almost campy at times... But I've had 3 stock matches take almost 8 minutes as well. Mostly because even though my opponent was down they refused to approach at all.

 

[clydeaker]

I really on the fence about it. I like both honestly, I do notice a lot of people play a lot safer with 2 stocks though. Almost campy at times... But I've had 3 stock matches take almost 8 minutes as well. Mostly because even though my opponent was down they refused to approach at all.

That can happen some times. That's a major downside to 3 stock, If you take up the full 8 minuets while most other matches take 4 minuets. With 2 stock you can only take up 6 minuets while everyone else takes up 3 minuets. It's just like I said before "It all depends on what's more important to you, accuracy or time."
Thanks for sharing.

 

[Shouxiao]

That can happen some times. That's a major downside to 3 stock, If you take up the full 8 minuets while most other matches take 4 minuets. With 2 stock you can only take up 6 minuets while everyone else takes up 3 minuets. It's just like I said before "It all depends on what's more important to you, accuracy or time."
Thanks for sharing.

At times there is going to be matches that almost takes up 8mins or actually time out. They are rare however. It could be argue why play with less stocks when Smash 4 is faster than Brawl.

 

[Kerenthar]

What about "3 stocks, 6 min, 1.1x damage rate"?

 

[Shouxiao]

What about "3 stocks, 6 min, 1.1x damage rate"?

Changing the damage ratio would change what combos characters can do. Having 3 stocks 6mins would encourage more aggressive play but the amount of time is a bit short.

 

[samuroleon]

3 stocks is what I always play and I feel an accidental SD is less damaging in 3 stock compared to 2 stock. To be fair, when I play with my friends we all play quite aggressively but I still don't see why tourneys are playing 2 stock anyway.

 

[clydeaker]

What about "3 stocks, 6 min, 1.1x damage rate"?

That would be a good idea except that it will change some of the core physics of the game. I would be open to trying it out, however I doubt many other smashers would because It messes with some of the core physics of the game.

 

[Kai_64]

3 stocks is what I always play and I feel an accidental SD is less damaging in 3 stock compared to 2 stock. To be fair, when I play with my friends we all play quite aggressively but I still don't see why tourneys are playing 2 stock anyway.

I never really liked the 3 stocks covers an accidental SD argument. It's your job not to SD, by that logic we should add something incase someone accidentally uses laggy move in a bad situation...

 

[clydeaker]

I never really liked the 3 stocks covers an accidental SD argument. It's your job not to SD, by that logic we should add something incase someone accidentally uses laggy move in a bad situation...

Your right. We need better reasons and argument points to back up 3 stock. although they may be somewhat true there not good argument points.

The following reasons are poor and backed up by little to no information making them illegitimate argument points. Please do NOT use them.
- It's more hype.
- Accidental deaths are less of an issue.
- You can more likely make a comeback.
- Players are more or less aggressive.
- its more fun to watch one or the other
- The players need to play
I guess I'm kind of hypocrite because I started this thread using some of these arguments, but I will try to only use legitimate points from now on.

Reasons that would be acceptable (especially if backed up with data you provide) such as how 3 stock is more accurate and how 2 stock is less time consuming. I remember a thread from a wile back asking if 2 stock is actually faster than three stock because player would probably be more cautious (and time consuming) with less stock. Here's the thread: Is there any data proving that 2 stock is actually faster than 3 stock?. I would consider this a good argument as well.

 

[wannabe33]

Early in Smash 4's lifespan, I began collecting data from 2-stock and 3-stock tournaments. You can see this data here, here, here, and here.

Average match length for 3-stock, 8-minute rulesets (from here on abbreviated as 3s8m) ranged from ~3:45 to ~4:50. Results fluctuated depending on character composition.

---

I have advocated for a 2-stock ruleset since launch. While I met with a great deal of opposition, I am pleased that the Smash 4 scene at large has shared my preference: most sizable tournaments and, to my knowledge, all major tournaments play with 2-stock.

But this is not true everywhere. Many regions, specifically in the Midwest and Texas, have stuck with 3s8m. Ruleset debates are still on-going. Why is this? Four arguments are most commonly made in favor of 3s8m:

1. It reduces the problem of "playing for time."
2. The length of matches with 3s8m is overblown.
3. The length of matches with 3s8m will decrease as the meta develops.
4. 3s8m makes major comebacks more plausible.

In what follows, I aim to debunk each of these arguments.

---

Reduces the problem of "playing for time."

This section will be quick. Many worry (rightfully so) that a low time limit encourages players to strive for a time-out. Because of Smash 4's robust defensive options, securing a small lead and whittling the clock away can be a safe approach to victory. Having a higher time limit means that "playing for time" becomes less feasible.

This is true. It also has nothing to do with stock count. A 2-stock format could easily adopt an eight minute limit. Or seven. Six minutes should even do the trick. Those who make this argument as a defense of 3-stock rulesets are simply confused.

---

3s8m isn't that slow.

Yes, it is. This is what I aimed to demonstrate with my earlier data. Compared to Melee or virtually every other professional fighter, a four-minute average match length is unacceptable. It causes headaches for TOs and can make matches a chore to watch, especially for players not acclimated to the game.

3s8m advocates gave me this refrain: Wait for the meta to develop. Smash 4 is more offensively-focused than you realize. Check again when the game's been out more than a few weeks.

Thankfully, that time is finally here...

---

Let the meta develop!

...because it's been over six months since the WiiU release and even longer since the 3DS release.

Earlier today, while filling out paperwork, I got a chance to watch a chunk of sets from E2C 15, a 3s8m tournament. In the spoiler tag below is the raw data collected from those sets.

Format: Player 1 / Player 2 / (**/**) / time taken ; two asterisks mean the game had the opportunity for a reverse three-stock, and four asterisks mean a reverse three-stock was realized. This information becomes relevant in the next section.

Spoiler

brawler/greninja 3:58
brawler/mario 4:07
brawler/sonic 5:30
diddy/fox ** 2:25
diddy/fox 4:17
diddy/fox 4:31
diddy/fox 5:16
diddy/fox 5:41
diddy/mario 5:24
diddy/ness ** 3:39
falcon/olimar ** 2:45
falcon/olimar 3:45
falcon/olimar 4:06
fox/brawler 4:08
fox/brawler 5:06
fox/diddy 4:26
mario/fox 2:40
mario/fox 2:44
mario/fox ** 2:46
mario/fox 3:50
mario/fox 4:03
mario/fox 5:09
mario/lucas ** 3:25
mario/lucas 4:09
mario/lucas 4:11
mario/mario 4:24
mario/ness 5:02
mario/pikachu 2:47
ness/diddy 2:39
ness/diddy 3:25
ness/diddy 4:09
ness/diddy 5:03
ness/fox ** 2:23
ness/fox 3:49
ness/fox 4:48
olimar/falcon ** 2:56
olimar/falcon 4:23
olimar/fox 4:53
olimar/fox 5:09
olimar/fox 7:02
rob/ness ** 4:02
rob/ness ** 4:29
rob/ness 5:23
rosalina/fox 3:43
rosalina/fox 4:16
rosa/luigi 3:13
rosa/luigi 4:28
roy/diddy 5:02
roy/diddy 5:24
roy/roy ** 4:29
yoshi/rosa 3:39
yoshi/rosa 3:47

The average match length was 4 minutes 11 seconds. A few things to emphasize:

1. This average was not brought up by a handful of unusually long matches. We saw no Rosalina dittos, no Pac-Man, etc.
2. This average was brought down by a handful of unusually short matches. These typically involved multiple gimps.
3. This average fits perfectly within the 3s8m range I outlined months ago.

The meta has developed, but average set length has not reduced.

---

But what about comebacks?

In a 2-stock format, losing a life to a gimp or a missed input seems much more significant than in a 3-stock ruleset. But does that extra stock really make major comebacks more probable?

There are many ways to analyze this. I opt for the simple approach: recording how many games presented the possibility of a reverse 3-stock, and how many games realized a reverse 3-stock. If 3s8m made comebacks more realistic- indeed, if Smash 4 is the kind of game where major comebacks are realistic- we'd expect to see at least some, right?

So does that extra stock pull its weight? Out of the hundreds and hundreds of matches I've collected data from, I have seen ~24 matches were a 3-stock comeback was possible. A 3-stock comeback was never successfully made.

---

My concluding thoughts:

There is no longer a good reason to opt for 3s8m. It was a ruleset that created long matches in the past, it continues to create long matches in the present, it does not make major comebacks more realistic, and concerns with "playing for time" can be addressed equally with a 2-stock ruleset.

Many Smash 4 fans have expressed reasonable concerns about the splintering of the scene. Despite being in its infancy, Smash 4's meta is being pulled in many directions by many different rulesets. Customs or no customs? Eight minute or six minute? 2-stock or 3-stock?

That last debate, I hope, will be put to bed. And it may be time for the community at large to start putting pressure on 3s8m TOs to conform. The promises of 3s8m have not been realized. 2-stock creates matches of a more reasonable length, meaning multiple Smash 4 events can be run simultaneously without issue, and meaning multi-game tournaments will be more receptive to Smash 4's inclusion. It's better for the growth of the scene.

---

If you have any questions or disagreement, feel free to tell me and I'll be happy to respond as best I can.

EDIT: Someone requested data from a 2-stock tournament for comparative purposes. In the spoiler tag below is data collected from S@X 102, which featured a 2s6m ruleset.

Spoiler

charizard/ryu 3:00
diddy/mewtwo 3:12
falco/kirby 2:04
falco/marth 1:57
fox/ness 2:38
fox/ness 2:46
fox/ness 2:52
fox/ness 3:27
fox/ness 4:03
fox/sonic 3:51
fox/sonic 4:00
gnw/bowser 2:54
gnw/bowser 3:04
gunner/rob 2:42
link/mac 1:56
link/mac 2:03
lucas/bowser 2:42
lucas/bowser 2:50
lucas/luigi 1:51
lucas/luigi 1:51
luigi/fox 1:04
luigi/fox 2:46
luigi/roy 2:15
luigi/sonic 3:04
luigi/sonic 3:39
luigi/sonic 5:01
mac/roy 2:18
ness/rob 2:07
peach/gnw 2:31
peach/ryu 2:26
peach/ryu 1:44
pika/roy 3:10
pika/roy 3:48
pika/sonic 3:29
pika/sonic 4:44
pika/yoshi 3:34
pika/yoshi 4:02
pika/zss 3:07
pika/zss 3:36
ryu/luigi 2:48
ryu/luigi 2:55
ryu/mewtwo 2:45
wiifit/luigi 3:23
yoshi/bowser 1:44
yoshi/bowser 3:02
yoshi/bowser 3:22
yoshi/luigi 3:02
yoshi/roy 2:42
yoshi/roy 2:53
yoshi/ryu 3:07
zss/roy 2:33
zss/roy 3:10

Average match length: 2 minutes 55 seconds

 

[Zelder]

This is so arrogant.

Edit: Also, using one tournament as your data set seems silly. Especially when trying to "end the debate".

 

[Scarlet Jile]

The "smash community" doesn't share your preference at all. Such a vast majority disagrees with your opinion, in fact, that it can only be considered an unfortunate miracle that 2-stocks games are played in a majority of the events.

The bottom line is that a majority of TOs are afraid of breaking the (arbitrarily) established norm at the risk of compromising some sort of perceived "legitimacy" in the eyes of the community at large. The 2 major international events have established a 2-stock ruleset for practical reasons (a huge amount of entrants), so the smaller events follow blindly. Once the paradigm shifts, I don't think anyone sane will advocate for going back to 2-stock.

 

[moofpi]

I think both sets have value and there's no reason to put pressure on TO's that want to run their tournaments how they see fit. 3 stock would not be good at CEO or EVO with how many entrants they have, but I feel it has more balance than 2 stock. It's just a one stock difference, it seems a bit arbitrary to have one absolute standard when it's rather situational.

 

[Buffoon]

And it may be time for the community at large to start putting pressure on 3s8m TOs to conform.

This sentence really rubs me the wrong way; as if you're implying that 2s5m is the ONLY way a tournament should be run.

I respect that you did your research, however; I'd argue that you have to remember that Melee and Sm4sh are different environments.

Additionally, I'm sure that Melee's meta took some years to develop; how is it reasonable to expect Sm4sh, which has been out for almost a year at most, to have a concrete meta on par with Melee's 13+ years headstart?

 

[wannabe33]

Edit: Also, using one tournament as your data set seems silly. Especially when trying to "end the debate".

I'll probably collect more data when the next notable 3s8m tournament occurs. 50+ matches (including some top level play) is not a particularly small sample size, however. Especially when taken in tandem with my earlier data.

The bottom line is that a majority of TOs are afraid of breaking the (arbitrarily) established norm at the risk of compromising some sort of perceived "legitimacy" in the eyes of the community at large.

Completely speculative. Which TOs are "afraid" of going 3-stock?

...but I feel it has more balance than 2 stock. It's just a one stock difference, it seems a bit arbitrary to have one absolute standard when it's rather situational.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more balance," but small ruleset differences matter. Concerns about the splintering of the meta would be remedied with a universal ruleset regarding stock and time.

This sentence really rubs me the wrong way; as if you're implying that 2s5m is the ONLY way a tournament should be run.

I dislike 2s5m. I'd much rather see 2s6m or 2s7m.

But yes, I am saying that the Smash 4 community ought to push for a universal ruleset. The dominant ruleset right now is 2-stock, and considering 3s8m is strictly inferior to 2-stock (see my opening post) that's what the community should rally behind.

Melee and Smash 4 comparisons are difficult to make because the situations were so different. Early Melee meta was grassroots, a bunch of teenagers without FGC experience trying to make a Nintendo party fighter competitive. Early Smash 4 meta was mainstream, with an established competitive scene combing for advanced techs and studying the nuances of mechanics from day one. Smash 4's meta, in other words, has been developed much more rapidly.

The fact that average 3s8m match length is still 4+ minutes after all this time is deeply concerning.

 

[King Omega]

I notice you don't state the average match time you've determined for any format of 2-stock tournaments. Why is that, and what is it?

 

[oldkingcroz]

What about the idea of learning your opponent? In longer matches you eventually see how your opponent operates, and this is a pretty important aspect of reading & understanding individual playstyles. There is a benifit to longer matches (with more stocks)- more time between players gives them room to read & change playstyles.

Also, people like playing the game. People might get eliminated back to back in a double elimination tournament, and it's kind of a bummer to only play 5 or 6 minutes of tournament matches. At least these players (1/4 of the tournament goers) get to play out 2 extra stocks and several more minutes worth of smash, before they head home disappointed. I think a lot of people just want to play more, including myself.

 

[wannabe33]

I notice you don't state the average match time you've determined for any format of 2-stock tournaments. Why is that, and what is it?

All of the data I collected and posted on Smashboards comes from 3s8m tournaments. I began collecting data on 2sXm tournies, but I found that the average match length was well over a minute shorter so this exercise was unnecessary.

If that anecdote doesn't satisfy you, I'm happy to re-watch 2sXm matches and take notes. I'll add this data to the original post in an edit.

What about the idea of learning your opponent? In longer matches you eventually see how your opponent operates,

While true, the average 3s8m match is longer than in Melee and virtually every professional fighter. Those games give players plenty of time to adjust and learn; why does Smash 4 need so much extra time?

I sympathize with the desire to play more, but that's not the purpose of bracket matches. If you want to play more, you can play friendlies.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

It's worth noting that adapting to your opponent in a limited amount of time is an integral skill in most other fighters. It's not uncommon for games to go just over a minute's time in something like Ultra Street Fighter IV. I've always felt that Smash players are pretty spoiled in terms of how much time they get to adapt to people due to the ruleset.

 

[oldkingcroz]

Why does Smash 4 require more time, when compared to other fighting games? Well it's slower paced, for one.

Not every player can analyze their opponent and predict future moves within the 45 seconds of playing. It usually takes a few minutes to even several sets, depending on the person. If I recall, most street fighter sets aren't composed of 2 matches. I'm a little foreign to the community, but from what I have seen online, sets contain more fights. Can anyone who is part of both communities back me up here?

And Smash also plays completely different to other fighting games (scaling knockback, offstage play, stage navigation, etc). So- yeah- it's a little odd to compare smash to street fighter, mortal kombat, or the like when smash is just so different. They are the same genre, sure, but so is Project Cars & Mario Kart. The play similarly, but have many key differences.

http://smashboards.com/threads/why-3-stock-is-better-than-2.403736/#post-19275230

Another reason why 3 stock should be tournament standard.
-Everyone kind of prefers it... Isn't that a good enough reason?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Not every player can analyze their opponent and predict future moves within the 45 seconds of playing. It usually takes a few minutes to even several sets, depending on the person.

Yes, but the same can be said for any game, and the ability to make the most of your current/limited knowledge is part of what makes top-level players top-level players.

 

[wannabe33]

I notice you don't state the average match time you've determined for any format of 2-stock tournaments. Why is that, and what is it?

Sorry for the delay. The opening post has been updated with data from a recent 2-stock tournament.

Average match length was 2 minutes 55 seconds.

 

[oldkingcroz]

I'm gonna make up some nonsense statistic, but trust me, it's probably pretty close. 99% of the people who play smash aren't top-level players. I cite Leffen calling out Chillen, saying he will never win an EVO/Apex. They are both top, what, 25 players in the world? And still, there is a huge difference in skill between the two of them.

I'd rather have more time to analyze my opponent in a fight, rather than 3 minutes. Call me greedy or spoiled, or whatever, but playing 3 stock would probably help my game and lower my stress than in a 2 stock game. Nobody in my state is top-level at Melee, bar Peach player Light who took games off Axe last week at Salty Juan's (southwest regional). Light doen't lose Melee tournies. He's just better than everyone else, here. And, still, he doesn't stand much of a chance against Axe.
There's hundreds of people who play Smash 4 in NM, and none of them can compete with the likes of Zero (or Axe in Melee). Trust me, we have some up and coming good kids, but we still have a lot to learn, and I think longer matches would help us understand and learn to adapt to playstyles.

 

[Pazx]

All your data is worth far less than surveys on viewer and more importantly competitor satisfaction. Those are the only things that matter in this debate. If people prefer 3 stock we should play 3 stock and if people prefer 2 stock we should play 2 stock. You can't say something is "strictly inferior" because you personally think it takes too long.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Early in Smash 4's lifespan, I began collecting data from 2-stock and 3-stock tournaments. You can see this data here, here, here, and here.

Average match length for 3-stock, 8-minute rulesets (from here on abbreviated as 3s8m) ranged from ~3:45 to ~4:50. Results fluctuated depending on character composition.

---

I have advocated for a 2-stock ruleset since launch. While I met with a great deal of opposition, I am pleased that the Smash 4 scene at large has shared my preference: most sizable tournaments and, to my knowledge, all major tournaments play with 2-stock.

But this is not true everywhere. Many regions, specifically in the Midwest and Texas, have stuck with 3s8m. Ruleset debates are still on-going. Why is this? Four arguments are most commonly made in favor of 3s8m:

1. It reduces the problem of "playing for time."
2. The length of matches with 3s8m is overblown.
3. The length of matches with 3s8m will decrease as the meta develops.
4. 3s8m makes major comebacks more plausible.

In what follows, I aim to debunk each of these arguments.

---

Reduces the problem of "playing for time."

This section will be quick. Many worry (rightfully so) that a low time limit encourages players to strive for a time-out. Because of Smash 4's robust defensive options, securing a small lead and whittling the clock away can be a safe approach to victory. Having a higher time limit means that "playing for time" becomes less feasible.

This is true. It also has nothing to do with stock count. A 2-stock format could easily adopt an eight minute limit. Or seven. Six minutes should even do the trick. Those who make this argument as a defense of 3-stock rulesets are simply confused.

---

3s8m isn't that slow.

Yes, it is. This is what I aimed to demonstrate with my earlier data. Compared to Melee or virtually every other professional fighter, a four-minute average match length is unacceptable. It causes headaches for TOs and can make matches a chore to watch, especially for players not acclimated to the game.

3s8m advocates gave me this refrain: Wait for the meta to develop. Smash 4 is more offensively-focused than you realize. Check again when the game's been out more than a few weeks.

Thankfully, that time is finally here...

---

Let the meta develop!

...because it's been over six months since the WiiU release and even longer since the 3DS release.

Earlier today, while filling out paperwork, I got a chance to watch a chunk of sets from E2C 15, a 3s8m tournament. In the spoiler tag below is the raw data collected from those sets.

Format: Player 1 / Player 2 / (**/**) / time taken ; two asterisks mean the game had the opportunity for a reverse three-stock, and four asterisks mean a reverse three-stock was realized. This information becomes relevant in the next section.

Spoiler

brawler/greninja 3:58
brawler/mario 4:07
brawler/sonic 5:30
diddy/fox ** 2:25
diddy/fox 4:17
diddy/fox 4:31
diddy/fox 5:16
diddy/fox 5:41
diddy/mario 5:24
diddy/ness ** 3:39
falcon/olimar ** 2:45
falcon/olimar 3:45
falcon/olimar 4:06
fox/brawler 4:08
fox/brawler 5:06
fox/diddy 4:26
mario/fox 2:40
mario/fox 2:44
mario/fox ** 2:46
mario/fox 3:50
mario/fox 4:03
mario/fox 5:09
mario/lucas ** 3:25
mario/lucas 4:09
mario/lucas 4:11
mario/mario 4:24
mario/ness 5:02
mario/pikachu 2:47
ness/diddy 2:39
ness/diddy 3:25
ness/diddy 4:09
ness/diddy 5:03
ness/fox ** 2:23
ness/fox 3:49
ness/fox 4:48
olimar/falcon ** 2:56
olimar/falcon 4:23
olimar/fox 4:53
olimar/fox 5:09
olimar/fox 7:02
rob/ness ** 4:02
rob/ness ** 4:29
rob/ness 5:23
rosalina/fox 3:43
rosalina/fox 4:16
rosa/luigi 3:13
rosa/luigi 4:28
roy/diddy 5:02
roy/diddy 5:24
roy/roy ** 4:29
yoshi/rosa 3:39
yoshi/rosa 3:47

The average match length was 4 minutes 11 seconds. A few things to emphasize:

1. This average was not brought up by a handful of unusually long matches. We saw no Rosalina dittos, no Pac-Man, etc.
2. This average was brought down by a handful of unusually short matches. These typically involved multiple gimps.
3. This average fits perfectly within the 3s8m range I outlined months ago.

The meta has developed, but average set length has not reduced.

---

But what about comebacks?

In a 2-stock format, losing a life to a gimp or a missed input seems much more significant than in a 3-stock ruleset. But does that extra stock really make major comebacks more probable?

There are many ways to analyze this. I opt for the simple approach: recording how many games presented the possibility of a reverse 3-stock, and how many games realized a reverse 3-stock. If 3s8m made comebacks more realistic- indeed, if Smash 4 is the kind of game where major comebacks are realistic- we'd expect to see at least some, right?

So does that extra stock pull its weight? Out of the hundreds and hundreds of matches I've collected data from, I have seen ~24 matches were a 3-stock comeback was possible. A 3-stock comeback was never successfully made.

---

My concluding thoughts:

There is no longer a good reason to opt for 3s8m. It was a ruleset that created long matches in the past, it continues to create long matches in the present, it does not make major comebacks more realistic, and concerns with "playing for time" can be addressed equally with a 2-stock ruleset.

Many Smash 4 fans have expressed reasonable concerns about the splintering of the scene. Despite being in its infancy, Smash 4's meta is being pulled in many directions by many different rulesets. Customs or no customs? Eight minute or six minute? 2-stock or 3-stock?

That last debate, I hope, will be put to bed. And it may be time for the community at large to start putting pressure on 3s8m TOs to conform. The promises of 3s8m have not been realized. 2-stock creates matches of a more reasonable length, meaning multiple Smash 4 events can be run simultaneously without issue, and meaning multi-game tournaments will be more receptive to Smash 4's inclusion. It's better for the growth of the scene.

---

If you have any questions or disagreement, feel free to tell me and I'll be happy to respond as best I can.

EDIT: Someone requested data from a 2-stock tournament for comparative purposes. In the spoiler tag below is data collected from S@X 102, which featured a 2s6m ruleset.

Spoiler

charizard/ryu 3:00
diddy/mewtwo 3:12
falco/kirby 2:04
falco/marth 1:57
fox/ness 2:38
fox/ness 2:46
fox/ness 2:52
fox/ness 3:27
fox/ness 4:03
fox/sonic 3:51
fox/sonic 4:00
gnw/bowser 2:54
gnw/bowser 3:04
gunner/rob 2:42
link/mac 1:56
link/mac 2:03
lucas/bowser 2:42
lucas/bowser 2:50
lucas/luigi 1:51
lucas/luigi 1:51
luigi/fox 1:04
luigi/fox 2:46
luigi/roy 2:15
luigi/sonic 3:04
luigi/sonic 3:39
luigi/sonic 5:01
mac/roy 2:18
ness/rob 2:07
peach/gnw 2:31
peach/ryu 2:26
peach/ryu 1:44
pika/roy 3:10
pika/roy 3:48
pika/sonic 3:29
pika/sonic 4:44
pika/yoshi 3:34
pika/yoshi 4:02
pika/zss 3:07
pika/zss 3:36
ryu/luigi 2:48
ryu/luigi 2:55
ryu/mewtwo 2:45
wiifit/luigi 3:23
yoshi/bowser 1:44
yoshi/bowser 3:02
yoshi/bowser 3:22
yoshi/luigi 3:02
yoshi/roy 2:42
yoshi/roy 2:53
yoshi/ryu 3:07
zss/roy 2:33
zss/roy 3:10

Average match length: 2 minutes 55 seconds

You used 1 tournament, to make your sample?

This Seems very flawed for both formats if 2/3 stock.

 

[Virgule]

Using one tournament for the sample is too few of information for what you're trying to do (ending an endless debate based mostly on opinions).
But mostly my point is that you forgot one important argument in favor of the 3 stocks format : it reduces the possibilities of upsets. The best player is most likely to win in a 3 stocks set than in a two stocks set in part because of the luck involved sometimes(G&W hammer, peach bomb, or just janky mechanics). This is a huge point in this argument imo and it shouldn't be forgotten among the other arguments.

 

[Antunee]

While true, the average 3s8m match is longer than in Melee and virtually every professional fighter. Those games give players plenty of time to adjust and learn; why does Smash 4 need so much extra time?

What is the average time for Melee? I can't imagine it's much more than a 15 second difference.

 

[wannabe33]

All your data is worth far less than surveys on viewer and more importantly competitor satisfaction. Those are the only things that matter in this debate. If people prefer 3 stock we should play 3 stock and if people prefer 2 stock we should play 2 stock.

You cannot look at preference in a bubble. Part of what informs preference is misinformation.

What if players knew how long 3s8m really took?
What if players knew how much time 2sXm really saved?
What if players were informed that 3s8m doesn't facilitate major comebacks?

And so on. The purpose of this analysis is to dispel such misinformation. If TOs are going to stick with 3s8m, they need to be honest and admit it is only because they prefer longer matches.

What is the average time for Melee? I can't imagine it's much more than a 15 second difference.

IIRC, just over three minutes. Melee is a tricky case because average match length depends heavily on other factors, like character composition (compare Fox vs. Falco to Peach vs. Peach) and player quality (top player matches are generally quicker).

But mostly my point is that you forgot one important argument in favor of the 3 stocks format : it reduces the possibilities of upsets.

This is true of any ruleset with a higher stock count. Ten-stock Melee would see less upsets than four-stock Melee. Five-stock Sm4sh would see less upsets than two-stock Sm4sh.

No one would argue for ten-stock or five-stock, of course. They'd take too long.

 

[Ghostbone]

All your arguments that 2 stocks are better than 3 stocks would apply to 1 stock being better than 2 stock.

 

[Virgule]

This is true of any ruleset with a higher stock count. Ten-stock Melee would see less upsets than four-stock Melee. Five-stock Sm4sh would see less upsets than two-stock Sm4sh.

No one would argue for ten-stock or five-stock, of course. They'd take too long.

Agree but at least 3 stocks is reasonable enough compared to higher stocks count and the goal when making a ruleset is not only to make the experience for players/ viewers/ To's better but also to point out the best player of the tourny. This is almost the number one reason of why we are making tournies.