Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[Man Li Gi]

After watching CEO, I have to say that I much prefer the 2 stock format. The fights felt faster, more tense, and generally less campy.

Ur right that they're more tense as having less stocks tends to do that. Of course it felt faster as there are less stocks. It's actually just as if not more campy as less stocks means less risks can and will be taken as every mistake has an enormous impact as you have just one stock to spare and leads aren't true leads with the benefit of rage, leads are just an illusion that may the person behind to play more ancy to remove the stock so not to receive rage. With 2 stocks, you see more brain dead and safe options for every character as it racks damage quickly/easily and can kill with it. Nothing overly commital can take place as the reasons aforementioned ruin this. Sorry if there are typos as my phone is a jag.

 

[Dr. Bread]

the main reason why two-stock is used isn't 100% because defensive options are too strong or because there's little-to-no 0-k.o's (although thats part of it)

its also because most people aren't comfortable applying aggressive pressure, and instead opt to play defensively and spend a lot of time dodging and sheilding. A lot of times both players end up playing so defensively that the match takes forever, and thats why we have two stocks. However, a lot of the top players are comfortable applying pressure and can get kills quickly, which is why some top players prefer 3-stocks.

I'd say that if we did have 3 stocks, we'd see more aggressive play at all levels, so im sliiiightly in favor of 3 stocks, but shrugs.

 

[Pazx]

the main reason why two-stock is used isn't 100% because defensive options are too strong or because there's little-to-no 0-k.o's (although thats part of it)

its also because most people aren't comfortable applying aggressive pressure, and instead opt to play defensively and spend a lot of time dodging and sheilding. A lot of times both players end up playing so defensively that the match takes forever, and thats why we have two stocks. However, a lot of the top players are comfortable applying pressure and can get kills quickly, which is why some top players prefer 3-stocks.

I'd say that if we did have 3 stocks, we'd see more aggressive play at all levels, so im sliiiightly in favor of 3 stocks, but shrugs.

This is related to the fact that people tend to play more defensively on their last stock. In a 2 stock format, that's half of your stocks, so the game is inherently more defensive. You are correct in saying that 3 stocks would likely promote more aggressive play.

 

[Wnyke]

i agree that we should promote more agresive play, but i don't see how 3 stocks would make people play more agressively, sure maybe the first stock both players go full aggro, but as soon as one loses the stock we are back again at 2 stocks meaning that the player would not commit to an all out attack... and then they realize that playing defensively means you keep your stocks for longer, and starts playing the same as in a 2 stock format with 3 stocks...

My fix would be a in-game fix, either make shields take longer to regenerate, or make shields drain faster when you are shielding nothing...

 

[Dr. Bread]

overly passive play is a characteristic of nervous play, which is just natural in tournaments and the like. its easy to forget that you can attack defensively, thats why so much compulsive sheilding takes place.

Nerfing defensive options wouldn't be a terrible plan, but it is important that going offensive isn't too heavily rewarded, we should be in a spot where sheild can be used in conjunction with a counter-attack, and not just a way to return to neutral.

 

[Clavaat]

Ur right that they're more tense as having less stocks tends to do that. Of course it felt faster as there are less stocks. It's actually just as if not more campy as less stocks means less risks can and will be taken as every mistake has an enormous impact as you have just one stock to spare and leads aren't true leads with the benefit of rage, leads are just an illusion that may the person behind to play more ancy to remove the stock so not to receive rage. With 2 stocks, you see more brain dead and safe options for every character as it racks damage quickly/easily and can kill with it. Nothing overly commital can take place as the reasons aforementioned ruin this. Sorry if there are typos as my phone is a jag.

I'll agree to disagree. You have to weigh how scared you actually are of rage vs the benefits of having an opponent at much higher % than you, and/or how you bring it back quickly. I think that would come down to specific matchup knowledge more than a catch-all, "this is the way it has to be" statement.

I think the main argument here is the always-present, "This game is too defensive." I think if you're going into this discussion with that mindset, you may not be looking at the whole picture. I truly fail to see a way in which 3 stocks vs 2 would "fix" that, given the evidence everyone here has provided.

On a personal level, I don't see the offense/defense portion of this game as a flaw. Watching CEO, this looked more like a fighting game, and having 2 stocks added to that effect. I prefer that style. Again, just my opinion, I get that's not for everyone.

 

[David Viran]

After watching CEO I want 3 stocks more. When I was watching nairo vs. zero I noticed that most of the time the person to take the first stock won solidly. They would get such a large advantage for taking the first stock.

 

[Swampertrulz]

I voted for 2 stocks because to me it just feels right y'know.

 

[WritersBlah]

This is actually a pretty interesting question which, to be absolutely honest, I feel I can't answer with great certainty. I remember when the game first came out, I was very much in the pro-3 stock crowd for a few reasons.

Firstly, I took people's complaints about games taking too long and the blast-zones being unusually deep compared to Melee and Brawl with a lot of skepticism because well, Smash 4 was a completely new game, of course people weren't going to know the most optimal ways of getting kills out of the gate. When I saw a large shift towards the 2 stock meta in local and online tournaments, I remember getting really upset. I felt like the community was trying to fix a problem they hadn't properly allowed to see play out or settle. In a lot of ways, I still feel this way about the Smash 4 community, what with huge factions at war over the legality of stages and pro-customs vs anti-customs; we're a very severed fanbase, unfortunately.

The other thing was my personal affinity for longer matches. I get that the reason Melee and PM are considered so hype in comparison to Smash 4 (and Brawl and 64 for that matter) is because of its fast pace, brutal combo games, and overall flashiness. However, I always played better as a cerebral player rather than a technical one, and being given time to plan out my motions to combat my opponent was always more comfortable for me. (Why I played Puff for a while in Melee; I have gotten better at tech recently though, as I have picked up Marth in Melee and Yoshi in Smash 4.)

Now that I've forced myself to adjust to 2 stocks however, I'm starting to gain an appreciation for it. The risk-reward factor is a lot higher in two stocks, which does make things more exciting. It also forces quicker matches, which is a definite thing to keep in mind, as a lot of Smash tournaments end really late at night. However, after watching APEX and CEO, I do think 2 stocks also lends itself a little too much to deciding winners on the first stock. Comebacks in Smash 4 are incredibly rare, even compared to Melee, and I think the relatively low stock format is partially to blame for that. Even with Melee's quick pace, the fact that it uses four stocks allows really hype comebacks to be a possibility. I dunno, I guess what I'm trying to say is despite my love for Melee, I think it hass neutered Smash 4's metagame from the very beginning. I would say we should try to distance ourselves away from Melee, to be our own game, but with the Smash community as it stands, I fear that itself might be an impossibility.

 

[Man Li Gi]

I'll agree to disagree. You have to weigh how scared you actually are of rage vs the benefits of having an opponent at much higher % than you, and/or how you bring it back quickly. I think that would come down to specific matchup knowledge more than a catch-all, "this is the way it has to be" statement.

I think the main argument here is the always-present, "This game is too defensive." I think if you're going into this discussion with that mindset, you may not be looking at the whole picture. I truly fail to see a way in which 3 stocks vs 2 would "fix" that, given the evidence everyone here has provided.

On a personal level, I don't see the offense/defense portion of this game as a flaw. Watching CEO, this looked more like a fighting game, and having 2 stocks added to that effect. I prefer that style. Again, just my opinion, I get that's not for everyone.

Ok, before I commit a fallacy of oversimplification (which you already have), let me actually say why I have a problem or believe that 2/6 is one the laziest or intrinsically incorrect/ lack of research based rulesets.

Back when Brawl came out, there was a noticeable speed difference in the game and it caused an uproar and caused the question what is right for the meta. After weeks and months of deep discussions (with lots of ad hominems) people finally decided that doing 3/8 was optimal as the speed was so greatly different. The difference here, was that it took many decisions and collabs to come to that agreement.

When the 3DS came out, people could tell and feel that this game is different from the rest. For one, it's the first Smash game with purely rectangular blastzones (past games have had a square blastzone). This meant many moves that kill horizontally, had to wait later. The general buff of every move has more knockback, hitstun that seemed present after 10%, no grab armor, ledge shenanigans, gaps in hitboxes, AD punishability, patches, removal of many ATs, easier pivots, taking 100% shield damage instead of reduced; etc. In other words, it was a very different Smash game. All these things were done and had to be forged on a completely new controller layout that did actually affected the meta (I mean, people said Luigi was trash since no down b as well as Oli). Then there was FG. You can conclude many of the Smashers in Smash 4 are new and where do new players learn their experience and otherwise learn to become good? FG! FG isn't an inherently wrong premise, in fact it's good that it exists as it's an easy to reach medium to face people in a vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy limited competitive sense, but to use it as the basis for competitive smash is wrong. FG wasn't made to translate 1:1 into competitive smash, but sort of a purgatorial state for people to try out things. For us to simply adopt 2/6 when it's very obvious of it's origins is to me, indicative that people were rushing to start a new competitive setting because if it wasn't started immediately, it could be overshadowed by Melee forever. Not much discussion was based for its ruleset and the very little took place for the 3DS. For that reason, some stages that should be legal aren't (KJ64). If we take FG rules and apply it to competitive aspects other than stock count, the meta would be very different, but thankfully we don't, but it still boggles my mind that a game that is much more punishment heavy and is faster, has less stocks.

In conclusion, if the Smash 4 on Wii U came out first, this wouldn't be much of a discussion as 3/8 would be the norm and life progresses as it should, but thanks to the 3DS, you can say that 2/6 exists.

Also, this will always look like a fighting game. I really don't know how stock count makes a fighting game more legit as the game with the most combos has a 5 stock rule count.

 

[Xeze]

Here in Portugal, we use 3 stock 8 minutes in our tournaments (I've been a TO on many). Almost everyone here prefers it that way. The matches are pretty hype and there hasn't been a single timeout.

 

[Clavaat]

snip

I'm still not convinced, sorry. You say I'm oversimplifying, but really, I think that's something that this community has needed for years, especially since Brawl. We try way too hard to analyze every single possible scenario and rule to the point where it just becomes frustrating to keep up with. While I respect this initiative, I absolutely see no reason why we don't just stick with FG rules. I have noticed no added benefit of 3/8 unless you really want to nitpick specific details, but it just seems like overkill to me.

But you and everyone here is entitled to their opinion, and I appreciate the responses.

 

[Dr. Bread]

honestly this debate wouldn't even be so heated if it weren't for rage.
If we didn't have rage i think for the most part people would be mainly in favor of two stocks.

Regardless, i am here for whatever, i do think its reasonable to say that if we're using two stocks we might as well be using best of 5 more liberally though.

 

[Man Li Gi]

I'm still not convinced, sorry. You say I'm oversimplifying, but really, I think that's something that this community has needed for years, especially since Brawl. We try way too hard to analyze every single possible scenario and rule to the point where it just becomes frustrating to keep up with. While I respect this initiative, I absolutely see no reason why we don't just stick with FG rules. I have noticed no added benefit of 3/8 unless you really want to nitpick specific details, but it just seems like overkill to me.

But you and everyone here is entitled to their opinion, and I appreciate the responses.

I have a simple question, do you actually go to or have real tournament experience? If so, then why would you not discuss something and integral as stocks? To say it's overkill or anything of that matter means, to me, means you haven't really played in one or other Smash tourneys, but just watch them and then assert your opinion and say it's right.

And oversimplification isn't something this community needs as everything should be analyzed. If you're in the competitive side of things, you want proper analysis and due process to occur and not just jump on the wagon. It only becomes frustrating to people who don't play the game competitively and simply spectate. If someone presents and argument for either side, you do "nitpick" at every detail because this ruleset will be used for the next 5-6 years.

honestly this debate wouldn't even be so heated if it weren't for rage.
If we didn't have rage i think for the most part people would be mainly in favor of two stocks.

Regardless, i am here for whatever, i do think its reasonable to say that if we're using two stocks we might as well be using best of 5 more liberally though.

Well, no and yes. Rage does play a factor in people's argument, but to me, the biggest culprit is the 3DS. I believe that thing has plagued Smash 4 from it's inception. It limited roster size and made everyone say, hey 2/6 is right.

 

[Darkmoone1]

I personally feel that there is a lot more room for error and comeback potential on 3 stocks. On top of that, I feel that 2 stock doesn't really feel like there is a clear, decisive victor. Even if it's close on a 3 stock match, you can most likely tell at this point who has the superior mindset and strategy right before the victor is decided. With 2 stock the match ends before you can get a feel for the players behind the match.

 

[Ulevo]

Matches are too long with 3 Stock 8 Minutes. People playing friendlies at home need to acknowledge that this is a format meant for tournaments, not casuals. Tournaments are generally pretty taxing and prolonging matches is not something I generally endorse. 2 Stock 6 Minutes allow for time outs to be used as a legitimate strategy in match ups that call for it while still having realistic turn around potential and making it less strenuous on the players.

I recently attended a tournament that used 3 Stock 8 Minute format, and although the tournament organizer was on top of priorities and did a good job the tournament ran really late. It started at 1:00 with roughly 45 entrants and finals were scheduled at 5:00. My first bracket match was at 7:30 because pools took so long, and we were not very short on set ups. Just standing around waiting for matches to end was tiring, and by the time the bracket was set up players were exhausted.

People promote 3 Stock 8 Minutes because they believe it allows for more come back potential. I disagree. Looking at Melee as an example, there is plenty of come back potential. However, it is not because there is four stocks, but because the nature of Melee makes it incredibly volatile. The gameplay is such that players can end stocks at the drop of a hat. Smash IV is not like this. In order to turn a match around, there needs to be available comeback potential and a reasonable level of disparity between the winning and losing player for it to happen. If a player in Melee is 4 stocks to 1, to win that game is hard but doable. If a player in Smash IV was down 3 stocks to 1, at high level play that is essentially almost impossible. If a player only has two stocks to climb, suddenly the prospect of winning seems a lot more manageable, particularly with rage.

 

[metalmonstar]

Here is my opinion as a TO. 3 stocks 8 minutes is the better format. That being said it isn't good enough for me to make the switch. The results between them are largely the same in both 3 stock and 2 stock. 3 stock does give more room for error but at the trade off of matches taking much longer. It is also a huge drain on players. I want to try more 3 stock but 2 stock is just so ideal for an event.

 

[Dr. Bread]

Matches are too long with 3 Stock 8 Minutes. People playing friendlies at home need to acknowledge that this is a format meant for tournaments, not casuals. Tournaments are generally pretty taxing and prolonging matches is not something I generally endorse. 2 Stock 6 Minutes allow for time outs to be used as a legitimate strategy in match ups that call for it while still having realistic turn around potential and making it less strenuous on the players.

I recently attended a tournament that used 3 Stock 8 Minute format, and although the tournament organizer was on top of priorities and did a good job the tournament ran really late. It started at 1:00 with roughly 45 entrants and finals were scheduled at 5:00. My first bracket match was at 7:30 because pools took so long, and we were not very short on set ups. Just standing around waiting for matches to end was tiring, and by the time the bracket was set up players were exhausted.

People promote 3 Stock 8 Minutes because they believe it allows for more come back potential. I disagree. Looking at Melee as an example, there is plenty of come back potential. However, it is not because there is four stocks, but because the nature of Melee makes it incredibly volatile. The gameplay is such that players can end stocks at the drop of a hat. Smash IV is not like this. In order to turn a match around, there needs to be available comeback potential and a reasonable level of disparity between the winning and losing player for it to happen. If a player in Melee is 4 stocks to 1, to win that game is hard but doable. If a player in Smash IV was down 3 stocks to 1, at high level play that is essentially almost impossible. If a player only has two stocks to climb, suddenly the prospect of winning seems a lot more manageable, particularly with rage.

ok but lets be real how many times have you seen someone in melee come back when they're two stocks down? probably too many times to count.
leads mean a lot more in smash 4 though, that is true, but i honestly think that matches take so long because players are playing scared. You can definitely see the difference between how liberally experienced/high level players dish out pressure compared to low-tier players who spend so long sitting in sheild.

 

[Ulevo]

ok but lets be real how many times have you seen someone in melee come back when they're two stocks down? probably too many times to count.
leads mean a lot more in smash 4 though, that is true, but i honestly think that matches take so long because players are playing scared. You can definitely see the difference between how liberally experienced/high level players dish out pressure compared to low-tier players who spend so long sitting in sheild.

You are right, definitely. However, there are specific match ups that will dictate the pace of the game even at higher levels. Olimar, Sonic, Rosalina, Duck Hunt, these characters will usually extend game times. Even characters that can opt to play more aggressive like Meta Knight have match ups that are played much more efficiently by setting up a defensive style.

 

[Man Li Gi]

You are right, definitely. However, there are specific match ups that will dictate the pace of the game even at higher levels. Olimar, Sonic, Rosalina, Duck Hunt, these characters will usually extend game times. Even characters that can opt to play more aggressive like Meta Knight have match ups that are played much more efficiently by setting up a defensive style.

Dude, early meta has everyone playing defensive. Look up old Melee tourneys ( I mean like 03 04 stuff) and look up early Brawl. Near the end of the meta, Brawl became more efficient in taking stocks (bar whenever ICs were played as the game became a complete stall *Youmacon 2013*). Melee is only getting faster and more efficient.

 

[Dr. Bread]

You are right, definitely. However, there are specific match ups that will dictate the pace of the game even at higher levels. Olimar, Sonic, Rosalina, Duck Hunt, these characters will usually extend game times. Even characters that can opt to play more aggressive like Meta Knight have match ups that are played much more efficiently by setting up a defensive style.

didn't even think about matchups, thanks for reminding me of that
(thought bubble of dabuz timing out abadango at apex)
yeah that wouldn't be too hot in 3stock 8min

 

[clydeaker]

I really like what @Lukinhasss said here:

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.

What if we were to use both 2 and 3 stock. That way pools won't take up so much time with 2 stock, 5-6 minuets, and best of 2 out of 3. For the main tournament after the pools we could use 2 stock, 5-6 minuets, best of 3 out of 5 OR 3 stock, 8 minuets, best of 2 out of 3. They both will generally take up the same amount of time. and finals could be 3 stock best of 3 out of 5 to get a more accurate winner. You get the accuracy of 3 stock while also getting the time management of 2 stock. That was prabably confusing to read so here's a simplified diagram:

POOLS:
- 2 stock.
- 5-6 minuets.
- Best of 2 out of 3.

Main Tournament:
- 3 stock.
- 8 minuets.
- Best of 2 out of 3.
OR
- 2 stock.
- 5-6 minuets.
- Best of 3 out of 5.
(Note: both options arguably take up the same amount of time, but 2 stock best of 5 may be slightly more time consuming over all)

Tournament Finals:
- 3 stock.
- 8 minuets.
- Best of 3 out of 5.

What do you think? Is this a good idea?

 

[Ulevo]

I feel that pools should be two stock, minimum. I still am fond of two stock being the standard, however.

 

[Man Li Gi]

Wow, that sounds like an awesome idea. I wonder if those were RR pools or Bracket pools.

 

[Shouxiao]

I think these are the best rules for tournaments.
Matches 3stock 8mins
Pools and Brackets are 2 out of 3
Top 8 is 3 out of 5.

Dude, early meta has everyone playing defensive. Look up old Melee tourneys ( I mean like 03 04 stuff) and look up early Brawl. Near the end of the meta, Brawl became more efficient in taking stocks (bar whenever ICs were played as the game became a complete stall *Youmacon 2013*). Melee is only getting faster and more efficient.

Very true. One of the main reasons the meta is only getting faster now is because people are not limited to 3DS controls. Many advance tactics can not be done at all with the 3DS. With the newer 3DS things are possible due to the c stick and extra buttons but most have the older models.

Now I know the blast zones in Smash 4 are far out but stocks are still taken in reasonable time. Many have said this before but why give Smash 4 less time and stock when it is faster than Brawl/X in literally just about every way.

 

[Ulevo]

I think these are the best rules for tournaments.
Matches 3stock 8mins
Pools and Brackets are 2 out of 3
Top 8 is 3 out of 5.



Very true. One of the main reasons the meta is only getting faster now is because people are not limited to 3DS controls. Many advance tactics can not be done at all with the 3DS. With the newer 3DS things are possible due to the c stick and extra buttons but most have the older models.

Now I know the blast zones in Smash 4 are far out but stocks are still taken in reasonable time. Many have said this before but why give Smash 4 less time and stock when it is faster than Brawl/X in literally just about every way.

I do not know if it is some disease people have acquired over the years, but this thing of using Brawl as a precedent, a quality of standard even, of what we should be doing is really a horrible idea.

People were using 2 Stocks at the end of Brawls life span and even entertaining the idea of 1 stock.

If you guys want to make intelligent persuasive arguments as to why 3 stocks should be used, I advise you stay away from talking about Brawl if you want to hold on to any credibility your argument may have.

 

[Man Li Gi]

I do not know if it is some disease people have acquired over the years, but this thing of using Brawl as a precedent, a quality of standard even, of what we should be doing is really a horrible idea.

People were using 2 Stocks at the end of Brawls life span and even entertaining the idea of 1 stock.

If you guys want to make intelligent persuasive arguments as to why 3 stocks should be used, I advise you stay away from talking about Brawl if you want to hold on to any credibility your argument may have.

You do know that each game has used the previous games ruleset and then modify it according to the game's overall speed or combo ability right. To use Brawl or any past game as a precedent is not incorrect as it was a game that enjoyed it years under the 3/8. The people entertaining those ideas simply because the meta was dying and then the people TOing the event weren't even Brawl players. With the rise of PM and Melee at the time, trying to host a Brawl tourney with reasonable numbers was hard, so then TOs tried to artificially deflate the length of matches with reduction in stocks.

Also, what "credibility" do you speak of? As long as someone has a point and then presents them, people would take them as being semi-credible. When you then go tourneys and TO (or claim to have done it) then you're considered credible. If you're famous for either, you have serious sway.

 

[Ulevo]

You do know that each game has used the previous games ruleset and then modify it according to the game's overall speed or combo ability right. To use Brawl or any past game as a precedent is not incorrect as it was a game that enjoyed it years under the 3/8. The people entertaining those ideas simply because the meta was dying and then the people TOing the event weren't even Brawl players. With the rise of PM and Melee at the time, trying to host a Brawl tourney with reasonable numbers was hard, so then TOs tried to artificially deflate the length of matches with reduction in stocks.

Also, what "credibility" do you speak of? As long as someone has a point and then presents them, people would take them as being semi-credible. When you then go tourneys and TO (or claim to have done it) then you're considered credible. If you're famous for either, you have serious sway.

1: There is more than speed and combos that dictate a ruleset.
2: There are similarities between iterations, but they are not identical.
3: The meta was dying for a lot of varying reasons. One of those reasons I would argue was the length it took for matches to finish. Telling me they were only doing that 'simply because the meta was dying' only helps to further prove my point.
4: Perpetuated precedent without rationale is not a point, its a claim. Kinda like how Meta Knight is bad because he was amazing in Brawl and he is no longer amazing is a claim.

 

[Man Li Gi]

1: There is more than speed and combos that dictate a ruleset.
2: There are similarities between iterations, but they are not identical.
3: The meta was dying for a lot of varying reasons. One of those reasons I would argue was the length it took for matches to finish. Telling me they were only doing that 'simply because the meta was dying' only helps to further prove my point.
4: Perpetuated precedent without rationale is not a point, its a claim. Kinda like how Meta Knight is bad because he was amazing in Brawl and he is no longer amazing is a claim.

1. Yes and no. The reason each ruleset has been used for so long because it was considered a reasonable time frame and reasonable for the fights before becoming to redundant or exhaustive. While it's not 1:1, it's a if not THE reason stock count was made.

2.Yes, explaining the stock difference in each game. Wanna say more?

3. The reason the meta was dying wasn't simply because there were long matches taken hold, but I'd argue the more people saw that excessive camping and zoning was how the meta was going and thus were bored and turned off from it. When you suddenly change the formula to something the community calls "bad" then you will see a weaker fanbase (look at SF3). Anyway, the rise of PM and resurgence also quelled whatever hopes for viewers Brawl could get, hence radical rulesets.

4. Ah yes. Considering that I have my rationale, this wouldn't fit under a claim. Now what Clavaat did was put a claim saying that he liked it because he liked it. Tourneys are supposed to be hard, but fair. 3/8 is hard but a fair trade. Honestly, many of your points against 3/8 is early meta talk as now with the meta in Melee/64, we see comebacks and all the sorts. Brawl had some of those too, but again much harder to find (the lack of vids). I bet there will be more and more comebacks thanks to rage in the future, which will only strengthen this argument.

 

[KakuCP9]

Question. Are there any downsides to pools= 2 stock then bracket=3 stock outside of irksome inconsistency?

 

[Man Li Gi]

Nope, people have been doing that for a while now. Maybe it can be implemented in bigger tourneys.

 

[Shouxiao]

I do not know if it is some disease people have acquired over the years, but this thing of using Brawl as a precedent, a quality of standard even, of what we should be doing is really a horrible idea.

People were using 2 Stocks at the end of Brawls life span and even entertaining the idea of 1 stock.

If you guys want to make intelligent persuasive arguments as to why 3 stocks should be used, I advise you stay away from talking about Brawl if you want to hold on to any credibility your argument may have.

Comparing Smash 4 to older Smash games is not bad. Somethings in Smash shall always be the same and over time things are going to change. 5 stock is used in Smash64 due to hitstun, shield breaking combos, 0 to death combos, etc. It is really easy to combo and take stocks in Smash64. Melee is similar but does not have the crazy level hitstun that 64 does. Stocks can be taken fast but not to the extent that Smash64 can.

When Brawl came the pace of the game was slowed down a lot. Lack of hitstun, air dodge out of things, random tripping, etc. It made sense to decrease the stock count. 3stock 8mins made a lot of sense and honestly I say it worked. Games were not too long. It took some adjusting of rules(things like ledge grab limit) to help Brawl but still.

Smash 4 is like a middle ground between Melee and Brawl. Smash 4 has combos, Rage, more speed in general, etc. It is not as fast as Melee but not as slow as Brawl. 3stock and 8mins in Smash4 on average would be faster than Brawl. Having 3 stocks and 8mins would not just take up so much time like people are saying. If anything it would likely help the meta.

When it comes to stocks and time there should be more than enough time so that most matches shall not result in the clock being used against a player. Stocks are like having multiple lifebars in other games. Street Fighter and other fighting games for example uses 2 out of 3 rounds to win the match/game. In Smash it is who takes out the others stocks to win a tournament match/game. A timeout in a game like Street Fighter happens for a round of a match. In order for a timeout to determine the winner in a match/game like Street Fighter one player needs to have already won one round. A timeout for Smash determines the winner of the whole match.

One of the main problems I think 2stock 6mins have is that when stock 1 takes a long time it forces the rest of the match be drawn out. One could arguable say that if an extra min was not used a lot of matches would be decided by timeout. In a sense because stocks are like having multiple lifebars losing 1 stock means a player lost half of their life. Naturally if a player is low on life or stocks they are going to play more defensive. Having 3stocks and 8mins gives players the room to be more aggressive and do more risky yet rewarding things. It is also not as bad on a player when they have lose a stock.

Now I know some matches up naturally take longer and some matches take a bit of time. I also doubt the longer matches would often come close to being within a min to timing out like how 2stocks and 6mins is. I am not saying timeouts or the threat of them should not happen. In a game like Smash were stocks are being used, the threat of timeouts should be rare and actual timeouts should be extremely rare.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I have to butt in to agree with Ulevo that you really should refrain from using "Brawl was slower" as your argument's starting point.
At a point I tried to push it using 2 stocks but people were too afraid of change or simply didn't really care anymore to change it. It was like set in stone despite the number of problems it carried.

Another thing that irks me is that most people seem to think 3 stocks doesn't take too much time to become not viable, but FLSS does. Huh.

 

[Man Li Gi]

I have to butt in to agree with Ulevo that you really should refrain from using "Brawl was slower" as your argument's starting point.
At a point I tried to push it using 2 stocks but people were too afraid of change or simply didn't really care anymore to change it. It was like set in stone despite the number of problems it carried.

Another thing that irks me is that most people seem to think 3 stocks doesn't take too much time to become not viable, but FLSS does. Huh.

Both in conjunction do. If believe that I used Brawl was slower as my main argument, then you seem to completely missed my first post in this thread only conclude and take one aspect for argument's sake. I presented multiple points until I finally, as a parting gift included that tidbit. It seems like @ Ulevo and yourself aren't looking deeper into my posts are just trying to take a small portion of the argument and make sure it benefits yourselves. Also what problems did 3 stock carry that it required reduction in stocks? Do you know how many of the other games have lagged behind? No I guess it's different since Brawl wasn't popular. I feel like Smash 4 is facing the "problems" Brawl caused and people are trying their best to cover up.

Truth, FLSS may take time due to unfamiliarity, but with general progression people won't be wasting time and know which stage they like and what not.

I've been wondering why people don't have a timer for CP/stage choosing and CP/change characters. I mean, like timed timeouts of stuff between matches REALLY would speed up unnecessary down time.

 

[ぱみゅ]

So I went and lurked to find your first post. It was the one with the video? If so, I can't really see what you're going for.
One of your points is that tournaments might be more efficient. I can't really refute or agree with that. You have an anecdote, I have another, both our versions differ so the results become inconclusive, both you and AmazingAmpharos suggested to improve efficiency, and is a theoretical scenario I would love to see happening but I am yet to.

The other argument revolves around how Brawl works and to that I have to say that I refuse to compare this game to Brawl in the same way I refuse to compare it with KOF, SF, Melee, MvC1, MvC2, or MvC3 (and compare any of these with one another). All are different games with different mechanics and different needs, and furthermore. something you yourself seem not to have realized, there are several reasons that shaped a game's latest ruleset (or didn't).

Smash 4 has its own attributes and considerations, has its own mechanics to the point some stages that didn't quite work in Brawl would fit in Smash 4 (thinking of stages banned due to wall issues). So it should have its own metrics while deciding a ruleset.
So we can't just ban Smash 4 Meta Knight because Brawl banned it, we can't ban stages because Brawl did (or at least we shouldn't), we can't use LGL because Brawl did (or shouldn't), we can't use 3 stocks because Brawl uses them. Brawl being too slow and making tournaments run late IMO warrants BRAWL to change its ruleset (or logistics), not Smash 4 to adopt it. But then again, that's a BRAWL problem, not Smash 4's.



I'll finish this post by stating again that I don't really support 2 or 3 stocks, I just can't stand poor arguments.
Also, I don't support an standard ruleset. I'm all for different regions having different flavors

 

[Ulevo]

@ Ulevo and yourself aren't looking deeper into my posts are just trying to take a small portion of the argument and make sure it benefits yourselves.

You make it sound like there is a deeper meaning worth engaging in.

 

[Shouxiao]

Why not compare games in the same series and in the same genre? Of course the best comparison would be between games in the series sense their core is alike. The points I and others make do make sense. The person that made the video explaining stock and time had points.

As for rulesets there needs to be some standard for consistency sake. Side events are fine though. The meta is still being figured out for Smash 4 due to the game only being months old. The ruleset is just one of them and honestly the time and stock thing is people wanting to play For Glory style. 3Stock and 8mins should be given a chance and many people in the community want it. From various polls here to other places where Smash is talked about, 3stock and 8mins is something that often comes up.

 

[Man Li Gi]

Yes there is a deeper meaning to it. Simply trying to use a derivative statement and off hand remark and then to base an entire argument based on that just seems silly and quite distracting from the thread. If want to derail the thread for the benefit of your argument, that's not really helping your argument.

 

[Rikkhan]

I'm not sure about 3 stocks, at this moment I'm watching a FC return tournament and is reeaaallly boring, the twitch chat is in permanent sub mode (residentSlepper everywhere), and everyone is agreeing that 3 stocks is too slow, at this moment there is a sheik vs MK match and they take on average 6-7 min to end a match, it's painful to watch an uninteresting 30 min set.

 

[Dr. Bread]

after much consideration, i'd say that considering how hard it is to edge-gaurd people between magnet hands and ledge hogging being removed, stocks dont exactly... disappear persay.

best of 3 should be made more common though.