Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[CptPuff]

3 stock 8 mins. May take significantly longer, but comebacks are so much more feasible, and while SDs would still put you at a huge disadvantage, not as much as in a 2 stock game.

 

[DavemanCozy]

I actually really like the idea of using 2-stock for pools, and 3-stock for bracket. I think the Ontario Smash community had a discussion about this, and I believe Mr. Moosebones will be trying this in his future tournaments. I might give it a try in the next upcoming tournament for London that I'm organizing.

 

[T4ylor]

I really don't understand why people put so much emphasis on comebacks and SDs.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

I really don't understand why people put so much emphasis on comebacks and SDs.

Yeah me neither, it's a point that shouldn't be relevant for the discussion at all.

 

[NerdThomas3]

To me, 3-stock 6 minutes is equilvalent to Melee's/Project M's 4-stock 8 minutes. If you go to two stocks, a player plays more defensively and the matches tend to draw out a tad bit longer than they should.. Smash 4 is more aggressive than it is defensive, honestly. At least have an official tournament to test out a 3 stock match up.

Also, I'd like to point out that Brawl, a game that's much slower than Melee, has three stocks and Smash 4, a game that's relatively faster than Brawl and almost Melee's speed, has two stocks... Kinda dumb, isn't it..? The way I see it is this:
Melee/PM - 4 stocks/8 minutes (Enough said)
Smash 64 - 3 stocks (Smash 64 is about the same speed as Smash 4, roughly)
Smash 4 - 3 stocks/6 minutes (Two stocks seems too short)
Brawl - 2 stocks/5 minutes (Slow. Ass. Game.)

That's the way it should be, in my opinion..

 

[Xeze]

To me, 3-stock 6 minutes is equilvalent to Melee's/Project M's 4-stock 8 minutes. If you go to two stocks, a player plays more defensively and the matches tend to draw out a tad bit longer than they should.. Smash 4 is more aggressive than it is defensive, honestly. At least have an official tournament to test out a 3 stock match up.

Also, I'd like to point out that Brawl, a game that's much slower than Melee, has three stocks and Smash 4, a game that's relatively faster than Brawl and almost Melee's speed, has two stocks... Kinda dumb, isn't it..? The way I see it is this:
Melee/PM - 4 stocks/8 minutes (Enough said)
Smash 64 - 3 stocks (Smash 64 is about the same speed as Smash 4, roughly)
Smash 4 - 3 stocks/6 minutes (Two stocks seems too short)
Brawl - 2 stocks/5 minutes (Slow. ***. Game.)

That's the way it should be, in my opinion..

3 stock needs 8 minutes, otherwise timeouts become a very viable strategy (which isn't healthy). I agree with you though. Smash 64 should also have 4 stock. The main difference from the other games is that in Smash 64 if you get hit, it often means you lose a stock due to the 0-to-death combos that are so prevalent there.

 

[AoS~Akito]

I'm honestly fine with either 2 stocks or 3 stocks. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I prefer 3 stocks for faster MUs, and 2 stock for slower MUs.

 

[T4ylor]

@ Xeze how does 3 stock 8 minutes help deal with timeouts? You're giving less time per stock than in 2 stock 6 minutes..

Besides, isn't the reason we have a timer in the first place is to keep the match from dragging out too long? I fail to see how they're an issue.

Edit: Ah, well that makes sense, Tobi. Guess I just misread x) Yeah, that's even worse than For Glory's 2 stock 5 minutes.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

@ Xeze how does 3 stock 8 minutes help deal with timeouts? You're giving less time per stock than in 2 stock 6 minutes..

He was referring to @ NerdThomas3 saying 3 Stock 6 minutes should be used.

 

[Axel311]

I've played in both 2 stock and 3 stock tourneys.

I prefer 2 stocks. It's more exciting. Yes, you're punished more for SDs but that's what makes it fun. If you play 3 stock I feel like the underdog has no shot. Atleast with 2 stocks I could potentially beat a great player because I get rewarded more for a great read or play.

But my main complaint is 3 stock just takes way too long. Especially if we're talking a best of 5 set. That can take up to 30 minutes or more if it goes all 5 games. Characters live a long time in this game. This adds up.

Say you have round robin pools where you play 5 matches. If the games are taking on average 3 minutes longer to complete that means it's going to take anywhere from 6-9 extra minutes for each 3 game set. This would add up to 30-45 minutes longer for each player. And if you don't have enough setups and you have lots of people waiting this extra time is extended further. It can mean many extra hours of tourney time.

If we're talking a tourney with 50+ players, 3 stock is going to take significantly longer to complete. It can turn a half day event into a whole day event.

So if you are going 3 stock you better have lots of setups at your event so there's not much waiting in between matches. If you don't have lots of setups, stick with 2 stock. I went to a tourney recently with about 24 people. We only had 2 setups and it took FOREVER because it was 3 stock.

 

[David Viran]

3 stock just takes way too long. Especially if we're talking a best of 5 set. That can take up to 30 minutes or more if it goes all 5 games. Characters live a long time in this game. This adds up.

Top level matches actually go by super fast. At smash con Nairo vs. Esam was a best of 5 set, went to game 5 and finished in 11 or 12 minutes.

 

[Axel311]

Top level matches actually go by super fast. At smash con Nairo vs. Esam was a best of 5 set, went to game 5 and finished in 11 or 12 minutes.

That's because they both play aggressive styles and light characters. Lots of people don't. Let's see a best of 5 3 stock Abadango Wario/Pacman vrs. Dabuz Rosalina and see how long that takes. This match was a best of 3 set with 2 stocks and it took those two over 20 minutes to complete...including time between matches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2HEeP4HUVM

I know that match involved a timeout but still, I'd imagine a best of 5 set 3 stock between those two could easily go 30+ minutes.

I agree with 2 players both with aggressive styles it's not bad. But it can take forever when zoners/defensive characters are involved.

 

[David Viran]

That's because they both play aggressive styles and light characters. Let's see a best of 5 3 stock Abadango Wario vrs. Dabuz Rosalina and see how long that takes. This match was a best of 3 set with 2 stocks and it took those two over 20 minutes to complete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2HEeP4HUVM

I'd imagine a best of 5 set 3 stock between those two could easily go 30+ minutes.

I agree with aggressive styles it's not bad. But it can take forever with zoners/defensive characters if both are playing campy.

That was too long ago to be relevant. Dabuz and abadango really didn't know that MU and just resorted to trying to camp each other out instead. Dabuz and abadango did play again at EVO, albeit different characters but the set took 7 minutes.

 

[LightLV]

I prefer 2 stocks. It's more exciting. Yes, you're punished more for SDs but that's what makes it fun. If you play 3 stock I feel like the underdog has no shot. Atleast with 2 stocks I could potentially beat a great player because I get rewarded more for a great read or play.

This is why 2 stock is bad. Generally speaking, the longer you play someone, the easier it is to tell who's the better player.

Smash 4 is pretty damn ******** with the whole rage factor BS, and 2-stock just exacerbates the problem so badly. 3-stock is probably never going to catch on in tournaments though because, nobody likes to watch people throw aerials and shield all day.

 

[Ajimi]

I believe that time constraints should not prevail over the game itself. 3 stocks provide more consistent and accurate results than 2, because of variance, which is a statistical reality and not just a supposition. We want to determine the better player the more precisely possible, so the more stocks the better. Same reason we do BO5 for finals (where we want to be super precise) and BO3 for the rest. Otherwise we can do 1 stock BO1 all the way (hey, it's crazy fast !), but we don't… Because variance.

Yeah, I get that big events and streams want the game to be fast : shorter games = more attendants/viewers = more money. The first big one was Apex, and (sadly) everyone followed, including EVO. But again, I think the quality of the game and the accuracy of the results is more important than that. If you want to gain time, improve organization efficiency, disqualify latecomers, get more setups and simply put a cap in the number of entrants. If people are given the choice between bringing their own setup at their locals or not competing at all, TOs will have plenty of additional setups to work with and the problem will solve itself.

Melee is not twice as fast as Smash 4 and yet it has twice more stocks, and Brawl is certainly not 50% faster either. And TO live with it. 3 stocks is the way to go now, especially considering the (bad) reasons for the transition to 2 stocks in the first place : low-level play on a 1 month old game on 3DS with vectoring.

 

[Axel311]

This is why 2 stock is bad. Generally speaking, the longer you play someone, the easier it is to tell who's the better player.

Smash 4 is pretty damn ******** with the whole rage factor BS, and 2-stock just exacerbates the problem so badly. 3-stock is probably never going to catch on in tournaments though because, nobody likes to watch people throw aerials and shield all day.

I think that's a good thing. It's more variance and less forgiving. I think 3 stock is "too safe" for a great player. Allows them to relax in many games - you can SD and come back. 2 stock keeps everyone on edge and is less forgiving. Yes, 3 stock will allow the better player to win much more often in any one given set but but it's less exciting. Over time, you'll win as many sets 2 stock as 3 stock - just 2 stock has more variance. That variance is exciting. 2 stock is better to watch since it's more feasible that either player could win - there's more close matches. You'll lose more matches to worse players, but you'll also win more matches against better players. And it's best of 5 once you reach the later stages of most tourneys anyways.

Think of the NCAA tourney vrs. the NBA playoffs. The NCAA tourney is so much more exciting because of all the variance since it's best of 1. Any team could possibly win. NBA playoffs the best team almost always wins because it's best of 7.

 

[LightLV]

I think that's a good thing. It's more variance and less forgiving. I think 3 stock is "too safe" for a great player. Allows them to relax in many games - you can SD and come back. 2 stock keeps everyone on edge and is less forgiving. Yes, 3 stock will allow the better player to win much more often in any one given set but but it's less exciting. Over time, you'll win as many sets 2 stock as 3 stock - just 2 stock has more variance. That variance is exciting. 2 stock is better to watch since it's more feasible that either player could win - there's more close matches. You'll lose more matches to worse players, but you'll also win more matches against better players. And it's best of 5 once you reach the later stages of most tourneys anyways.

Think of the NCAA tourney vrs. the NBA playoffs. The NCAA tourney is so much more exciting because of all the variance since it's best of 1. Any team could possibly win. NBA playoffs the best team almost always wins because it's best of 7.

an artificial hype increase like that simply shouldn't be required for a competitive game. The excitement comes from the game itself, two people putting their skills to the test. An underdog knocking someone to losers off a fluke isn't exciting at all, it's just going to ensure a boring game the next time he plays and gets bodied by someone who watched the previous match. We root for the underdog that deserves to win, not who steals one and tries to run with it.

Longer sets are about as "unsafe" as you could possibly get, it's where you see weak or gimmicky players "get exposed" to those with a stronger grasp on the game itself. An underdog has just as good a chance of "figuring out" the "better player" and making adjustments, as the "better player" has of being taken off guard by gimmicks he's never seen before.



But yes, it more comes down to what people would rather sit through. Smash isn't the most offensive game on earth unfortunately, and its competitive matches tend to drag on whenever circumstances allow it to.

 

[Shouxiao]

I believe that time constraints should not prevail over the game itself. 3 stocks provide more consistent and accurate results than 2, because of variance, which is a statistical reality and not just a supposition. We want to determine the better player the more precisely possible, so the more stocks the better. Same reason we do BO5 for finals (where we want to be super precise) and BO3 for the rest. Otherwise we can do 1 stock BO1 all the way (hey, it's crazy fast !), but we don't… Because variance.

Yeah, I get that big events and streams want the game to be fast : shorter games = more attendants/viewers = more money. The first big one was Apex, and (sadly) everyone followed, including EVO. But again, I think the quality of the game and the accuracy of the results is more important than that. If you want to gain time, improve organization efficiency, disqualify latecomers, get more setups and simply put a cap in the number of entrants. If people are given the choice between bringing their own setup at their locals or not competing at all, TOs will have plenty of additional setups to work with and the problem will solve itself.

Melee is not twice as fast as Smash 4 and yet it has twice more stocks, and Brawl is certainly not 50% faster either. And TO live with it. 3 stocks is the way to go now, especially considering the (bad) reasons for the transition to 2 stocks in the first place : low-level play on a 1 month old game on 3DS with vectoring.

3stock is more consistent and accurate then 2 stock. As for tournament time 3stock and 8mins would not change too much if anything at all. Most people do not realize what extent stock and time has on a match. How a player plays out a match is largely determined by stock and time.

These days fighting game tournaments are going to go on for a longer time due to increase in entrances(Melee entrances has doubled over the years at EVO). I know people can not be all forever but at the same time when it comes to big tournaments people should expect to be there for awhile. Only thing that can really speed up the process is having more set ups so that more people can play their matches in pools and brackets. Heck look at Ultra Street Fighter 4. That game had so many entrances that pools and brackets took from morning to past midnight(USA timezones). Also top 8 for USF4 did best 3 out of 5. It took awhile but it was hype and the amount of viewers watching was amazing.

Smash 4's meta has gotten a lot faster. People are not limited to 3DS controls, vectoring is gone, blast zones are different between 3DS and WiiU, etc. It only gets faster with patches. Hopefully 3stock and 8mins becomes the standard. Like you said even Brawl uses 3stock and 8mins and its slower than Smash 4.

 

[Pazx]

But my main complaint is 3 stock just takes way too long. Especially if we're talking a best of 5 set. That can take up to 30 minutes or more if it goes all 5 games. Characters live a long time in this game. This adds up.

Say you have round robin pools where you play 5 matches. If the games are taking on average 3 minutes longer to complete that means it's going to take anywhere from 6-9 extra minutes for each 3 game set. This would add up to 30-45 minutes longer for each player. And if you don't have enough setups and you have lots of people waiting this extra time is extended further. It can mean many extra hours of tourney time.

If we're talking a tourney with 50+ players, 3 stock is going to take significantly longer to complete. It can turn a half day event into a whole day event.

So if you are going 3 stock you better have lots of setups at your event so there's not much waiting in between matches. If you don't have lots of setups, stick with 2 stock. I went to a tourney recently with about 24 people. We only had 2 setups and it took FOREVER because it was 3 stock.

Firstly, 3 stock doesn't take as long as you're making it out to be. Taking 3 minutes longer per game is literally worse than the worst case scenario, I'm pretty sure everyone who has actually gathered data on this has discovered that 3 stock takes just over a minute longer (on average) compared to 2 stock. Also, if you are suggesting 2 stock bo5 pools it's likely that 3 stock bo3 pools will take less time and produce the same if not more accurate results.

Running 3 stock instead of 2 stock will not double any respectable event's running time, I assure you. If a tournament has only 2 setups then it's a poorly organised tournament and it took "FOREVER" not because of 3 stock but because of said lack of organisation.

In regards to the other argument you're putting forward (not in the quoted post): 3 stock is objectively better for determining who is better, which is what we are interested in. If you'd prefer to play matches with more variance and "hype" then maybe you should run tournaments as 1 stock bo1 Super Sudden Death mode.

 

[Axel311]

Firstly, 3 stock doesn't take as long as you're making it out to be. Taking 3 minutes longer per game is literally worse than the worst case scenario, I'm pretty sure everyone who has actually gathered data on this has discovered that 3 stock takes just over a minute longer (on average) compared to 2 stock. Also, if you are suggesting 2 stock bo5 pools it's likely that 3 stock bo3 pools will take less time and produce the same if not more accurate results.

That can't be right. You're saying the average stock takes 1 minute? With that assumption the average 2 stock match would take 2 minutes, and the average 3 stock match 3 minutes. That's not right

Running 3 stock instead of 2 stock will not double any respectable event's running time, I assure you. If a tournament has only 2 setups then it's a poorly organised tournament and it took "FOREVER" not because of 3 stock but because of said lack of organisation.

I never said it would double the extra time. But it will increase it significantly since 3 stock adds 50% more stocks to each match compared to 2 stocks.

In regards to the other argument you're putting forward (not in the quoted post): 3 stock is objectively better for determining who is better, which is what we are interested in. If you'd prefer to play matches with more variance and "hype" then maybe you should run tournaments as 1 stock bo1 Super Sudden Death mode.

You'll have more variance in the short run. In the long run it makes no difference at all in your tournament results. And I don't think 2 stock is very high variance to begin with. I don't see many upsets even with 2 stock best of 3. Look at EVO, it was almost all 2 stock best of 3 and the tourney played out pretty much like everyone thought it would. Look at ZeRo's streak. Yeah he's the best player but if 2 stock had significant variance he would have dropped a tourney by now. Has ZeRo even dropped a set during his streak? And he's playing almost all 2 stock best of 3.

 

[Rizen]

I prefer 2 stocks, 6 minutes simply because it's faster but enough time for a game. In Brawl tournaments would take forever and after 4 hours you can get burnt out.

 

[Shouxiao]

I prefer 2 stocks, 6 minutes simply because it's faster but enough time for a game. In Brawl tournaments would take forever and after 4 hours you can get burnt out.

I think major tournaments these days are going to have people be there awhile anyway. When it comes to tournaments like EVO and Apex players are going to be all day/night. In the case of EVO any game with a large amount of players is going to run awhile for pools and brackets. Ultra Street Fighter 4 is the best example of that.

At other tournaments there is a notable increase in entrances for Smash games. I expect the amount of people only to grow due growth of FGC and twitch.tv(streaming). More people means more matches have to be played. It a lot more people that means more rounds of brackets/pools must be played.

I do not see 3stock and 8mins being a problem. Things may have been at first due to being limited to 3DS controls and vectoring but with changes from various patches, things are faster now.

 

[clydeaker]

REMEMBER: the main legitimate argument for stock # is about time and accuracy. NOT about hype, spectators attention span, or some other stupid argument. For example a good argument thesis may be "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---Accurate---More--->
<---Less------Time------More--->​

Here is a table of the total # of stock per best of #. For example in a 3 stock, best of 3/5 match-up each player will inevitably get to play 3 games with 3 stock per game, and depending how many games each player wins there could be an additional 1 or 2 games with 3 stock per game. This means there will be a total of 9, 12, or 15 stock total in that match-up.

Total number of stock per best of #

BEST OF # ​

00 Stock | 01 | 02 - 03 | 03 - 04 - 05 | 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 | 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 |
01 Stock | 01 | 02 - 03 | 03 - 04 - 05 | 04 - 05 - 06 - 07 | 05 - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 |
02 Stock | 02 | 04 - 06 | 06 - 08 - 10 | 08 - 10 - 12 - 14 | 10 - 12 - 14 - 16 - 18 |
03 Stock | 03 | 06 - 09 | 09 - 12 - 15 | 12 - 15 - 18 - 21 | 15 - 18 - 21 - 24 - 27 |
04 Stock | 04 | 08 - 12 | 12 - 16 - 20 | 16 - 20 - 24 - 28 | 20 - 24 - 28 - 32 - 36 |
05 Stock | 05 | 10 - 15 | 15 - 20 - 25 | 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 | 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 45 |
06 Stock | 06 | 12 - 18 | 18 - 24 - 30 | 24 - 30 - 36 - 42 | 30 - 36 - 42 - 48 - 54 |
07 Stock | 07 | 14 - 21 | 21 - 28 - 35 | 28 - 35 - 42 - 49 | 35 - 42 - 49 - 56 - 63 |
08 Stock | 08 | 16 - 24 | 24 - 32 - 40 | 32 - 40 - 48 - 56 | 40 - 48 - 56 - 64 - 72 |
09 Stock | 09 | 18 - 27 | 27 - 36 - 45 | 36 - 45 - 54 - 63 | 45 - 54 - 63 - 72 - 81 |​

Notice how similar some stock and best of # combinations are. For example:

• 2 Stock, Best of 2/3 - 1 Stock, Best of 4/7.
• 3 Stock, Best of 1/1 - 1 Stock, Best of 2/3.
• 3 Stock, Best of 2/3 - 2 Stock, Best of 3/5.
• 4 Stock, Best of 3/5 - 3 Stock, Best of 4/7.
• 5 Stock, Best of 2/3 - 3 Stock, Best of 3/5.

I know I've already proposed this before, but it's a good idea that both sides can at least somewhat agree on.

Essentially the basic idea is that Pools will use 2 stock and Finals are 3 stock. This way pools won't take up so much time, and finals will have more accurate results.

- Tournament Pools would use 2 Stock, Best of 2/3.
- The Main Tournament would use 3 Stock, Best of 2/3, OR 2 Stock, Best of 3/5.
- Tournament Finals would use 3 Stock, Best of 3/5.
Use a slightly different variation of this depending on how big your tournament is.

Here's a better representation of my proposal:

POOLS:
- 2 stock. (4-6 total)
- 5-6 minuets. (10-18 total)
- Best of 2 out of 3.
(Estimated average play time: 6 min.)

Main Tournament:
- 3 stock. (6-9 total)
- 8 minuets. (16-24 total)
- Best of 2 out of 3.
(Estimated average play time: 8 min.)
OR
- 2 stock. (6-10 total)
- 5-6 minuets. (15-35 total)
- Best of 3 out of 5.
(Estimated average play time: 8 min.)
(Note: both options arguably take up the same amount of time, but 2 stock best of 3/5 may be slightly longer.)

Tournament Finals/ Top 8:
- 3 stock. (9-15 total)
- 8 minuets. (24-40 total)
- Best of 3 out of 5.
(Estimated average play time: 12 min.)

Remember not every tournament will have the same amount of participants. You might need to use a slightly different variation of this proposal depending on how big your tournament is. According to SmashBoards rankings categories there are a total of 8 different types of tournaments: Unranked, Pools, Teams, Online, Local, Regional, National, and International. Each of them will require slightly different rules in order to get the best possible time and accuracy for each match-up.

 

[wizrad]

Wait… if timing out is an issue, why don't we just remove the timer and be more strict with anti-stalling? The only real problem I can then see is

 

[Xeze]

Wait… if timing out is an issue, why don't we just remove the timer and be more strict with anti-stalling? The only real problem I can then see is

You forgot

 

[wizrad]

As annoying as Sonic can be, he can also be very aggressive, like 6WX's Sonic. Not every Sonic is Static Manny.

EDIT: What if we made the timer optional, like they sometimes do in Melee? That should prevent infinitely long games and give players the option to run the clock if they really want to.

 

[Powerman293]

How this game is not 3 stock compared to Brawl, a much slower game, I don't know. I agree with Mewtwo King on this one, that 2 stock rewards rage too much.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Stop comparing it to Brawl, that would help the argument a lot.

 

[Shouxiao]

Stop comparing it to Brawl, that would help the argument a lot.

People are going to compare games and characters(if in multiple games) in the same series. It happens with all fighting games. People do have a point when they say Smash 4 is faster than Brawl but uses less stock and time. It may even be more of a point sense patches for Smash 4 are speeding up the game Things like vectoring is not what it use to be. Players are not limited to 3DS controls. Blast lines on the WiiU are actually smaller on many stages.

3stock and 8mins is not going to create a time issue that people keep saying. The pace of the match plays out much differently. Most do not realize how much time and stock changes the pace of a match.

 

[Harlow]

I've played in a couple of 3 stock tournaments now and I have to say I prefer it. Gives people more play time and allows you to make one mistake and not cost yourself the set.

 

[wizrad]

I feel like the typical 3 stock game would cap out at 5 minutes anyways. The only problems would be Villedgers and Sonics who only run away.

 

[ぱみゅ]

People are going to compare games and characters(if in multiple games) in the same series. It happens with all fighting games. People do have a point when they say Smash 4 is faster than Brawl but uses less stock and time. It may even be more of a point sense patches for Smash 4 are speeding up the game Things like vectoring is not what it use to be. Players are not limited to 3DS controls. Blast lines on the WiiU are actually smaller on many stages.

Comparing games is a thing, but the general sentiment of most people comparing Brawl to Smash 4 is NOT to say why Smash 4 gets faster, it's just a backlash to Brawl. Do we really need to trashtalk a game to try to make the other one look comparatively better?

It's like calling a girl at the club ugly just because you like more her companion better. It simply doesn't really help.

 

[wizrad]

lol we're on the internet debating competitive Smash, I don't think many of us go to any clubs.

 

[drakeirving]

I find it very weird how people are talking more about SDs or other "making mistakes", rather than the behaviour of the players that leads to those things. Maybe it's just me. As a Jigglypuff player, I feel both of these very heavily in 2-stock games. Rest is a core part of Jiggs' gameplan, but it is risky; so risky that in a two-stock game, a whiff can immediately cost you the match, because each stock is so utterly valuable. Now, this mistake by itself you could group with SDs and other such mistakes, since having a 3-stock game would mean the penalty for whiff isn't as severe, but it's the risk in choosing Rest that makes it different. You don't incorporate risk into some dumb SD, you don't incorporate risk into bad DI or a missed tech. What risk does (and conversely, safety) is change player behaviour. As a player you know that the risk of e.g. whiffing Rest makes it not worth using in many scenarios, and all of a sudden you're finding yourself restricting that option, to the point where there are very few contexts where you can take a risk. This extends beyond just single moves, but entire strategies (most universal being taking risks offstage), and I think fundamentally hurts gameplay.

Then, what happens when that barrier discouraging risky gameplay gets removed? You see players concentrating more on taking advantage of the opponent's openings rather than staying as safe as possible and getting one "lucky" hit. Does their risk pay off and they secure a stock? Then the match accelerates. Do they fail and get punished, losing their own? Then the match accelerates. The format of the match itself reduces the options available. It isn't strictly about having more leniency on mistakes; equally as important (or moreso) is what that leniency does to player mentality.

The group that keeps arguing that three stocks are literally going to take 50% longer because one stock always takes the same amount of time and ~3 divided by 2 is 1.5~ are being absolutely ridiculous and not thinking about the match dynamics at all, which is likely the most important factor. Having only two stocks creates enormously high pressure for each player to keep each stock as long as possible at any expense, since not only is each stock more valuable as a resource, it lets you carry your limited source of rage. More of the match becomes dedicated to keeping stocks as a ratio of time spent rather than trying to end the opponent's, which ironically increases the tendency for people to camp.

 

[Xeze]

The thing is, Smash 4 is always there with a gun pointed to its head. It seems that it's still trying to mark its position as a competitive game and therefore has to please the audience.
The last time a 3 stock major happened was at FC Return. However some genius decided to do top 8 as a Round Robin, best of 5. Of course it dragged for too long and everyone was pissed. The worst part is people associate it immediately with 3 stock and therefore 2 stock becomes the way to go.
I really would like to see Smash 4 shifting to 3 stock as a standard but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[LuLLo]

Over here in the Netherlands we have 2 big tournaments, Avalon and Good Games Well Played (around 70/80 players on average). Both have been using 3 stock 8 min and these are the most smooth tourneys I've been to so far. Even when we had some campy matches and not enough setups, the TO's still managed to finish it around 9/10 (starting singles at 11:30 or 12:30), which is pretty good. I think TO's just need to try 3 stock 8 min for themselves to see how much better it is for the players (randoms and good players alike), and if they run into time constraints, check how they can solve it through setups, organisation and/or communication. In the end, accuracy and player satisfaction are the things that matter, and TO's should be aiming for that as best as they can to keep the game healthy and players happy so they come back for more.

Edit: I also like the idea of having 2 stock 6 min in pools, 3 stocks are preferred ofcourse, but if you REALLY need the timesave it's a good alternative.

 

[Powerman293]

Do people just seriously not see rage as an issue when it comes to picking out stocks? Everyone is arguing about time and comebacks but there's a built it mechanic in the game, removed from any sort of tournament bracketing/set up, that heavily influences the outcome of the match. We should figure that out first and foremost.

 

[Peppermint1201]

Comparing games is a thing, but the general sentiment of most people comparing Brawl to Smash 4 is NOT to say why Smash 4 gets faster, it's just a backlash to Brawl. Do we really need to trashtalk a game to try to make the other one look comparatively better?

It's like calling a girl at the club ugly just because you like more her companion better. It simply doesn't really help.

We're not critcizing it, we're just stating the fact that Brawl is a slower game with more emphasis on defensive play. Being slower isn't worse, it's just different. Personally, I'd rather watch a competitive Brawl match than a competitive Melee match, but that's just me.

 

[Pazx]

Do people just seriously not see rage as an issue when it comes to picking out stocks? Everyone is arguing about time and comebacks but there's a built it mechanic in the game, removed from any sort of tournament bracketing/set up, that heavily influences the outcome of the match. We should figure that out first and foremost.

I don't really see what you're getting at. Rage does dictate that a higher number of stocks is desirable but I don't think it's hugely relevant to the discussion.

 

[Shouxiao]

I don't really see what you're getting at. Rage does dictate that a higher number of stocks is desirable but I don't think it's hugely relevant to the discussion.

It is relevant. At high % rage can really be in favor of someone that takes the first stock in a 2stock match. It would matter more to a character that rely on hitting hard than a character that combos. A character with high rage actually has a good chance of getting a much faster kill if they can stay alive.

Rage is an odd comeback mechanic. On one hand if can help a player comeback in a match. Both players might be on the same stock but one has a bit of a % lead. The player with higher % can get a kill that would not have happen with the rage effect.

On the other hand Rage can be a mechanic that greatly helps a player that gets ahead. With high rage a good smash attack can kill at low to med %. It can also help with gimps sense extra knockback from rage can be the difference between life or death.