Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[M15t3R E]

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.

If it dictates that a higher number of stocks is desirable then how is it not relevant to a discussion about whether or not a higher number of stocks is desirable? That's like saying a transmission is not relevant to a car...
That said, I have seen FAR too many games won by someone who didn't lose a stock due to good DI (and props to him) winning with well over 100% and due to rage finishing off his opponent's second stock ridiculously early. I feel that with the built-in rage mechanic, 3 stocks offer both players a chance to utilize rage more than 2 stocks does. On top of this, 2 stocks allow for a lesser skilled player to defeat a higher skilled player sometimes due to luck rather than skill due to the lower margin of error. I believe skill should reign supreme. 3 stocks also allow more time for player adaptation, which is a key element in promoting high-level competitive gameplay.
The ONLY sound reasoning behind choosing 2 stocks could be fears of time constraints; however, as others have said, that is more often than not an unrealistic concern.

 

[ぱみゅ]

That being said, while determining the best player on the most possible scenarios is ideal, when you make constant tournaments and the best guys tend to win consistently, the not-so-experimented players have the tendency of feeling like they're not improving, sometimes even dropping the game.

IMO, inconsistent results help for a longer and more broad metagame.

Heck, I bet that if every tournament so far were 3-stock, ZeRo would have even more decisive/consistent results.

 

[drakeirving]

I honestly don't feel like that is a strong argument at all. That has entirely to do with the attitude of individual players, and its relation to 2-stock matches in particular is tenacious at best. It isn't a healthy competitive attitude to have to begin with; if this is actually a problem with someone they should be reworking their competitive attitude, period. If you feel like you're not improving, that is categorically not an issue with the game's structure.

Moreover, inexperienced players are simply not going to get high enough in brackets to get the point where they're affected by the top players consistently winning anyways. Of course the best players are going to win consistently: they are the best players. The inexperienced players have plenty to work with in their own tiers, even moreso than the top players do, unless the scene's player distribution is oddly skewed and somehow there are mostly top-tier players. Even then, as long as your scene doesn't suck, the better players should be helping the lower players to improve in friendlies and whatnot rather than just showing up to tourneys, wrecking, and leaving without comment.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I don't expect it to be a strong argument. It's just an observation.
You can not deny though, that when people feel they're close to win against a more commonly recognized player, it's quite a morality boost.

 

[FallenHero]

I think 2 stocks actually kind of encourages more defensive play. With 3 stocks you can be a little more reckless, meaning we could see a lot of hype **** happen. From the really hype matches I have played in and seen, the matches don't last that long, even felt a bit too short for me. Just watch a match between two characters that are rewarded for being aggressive and see how quickly the match goes by.

 

[1337Kai]

3 stock matches give more time for players to adapt to eachother and make good comebacks. 2 stock matches feel too one sided. Lose your 1st stock and you lose the match.

 

[Powerman293]

I think 2 stocks actually kind of encourages more defensive play. With 3 stocks you can be a little more reckless, meaning we could see a lot of hype **** happen. From the really hype matches I have played in and seen, the matches don't last that long, even felt a bit too short for me. Just watch a match between two characters that are rewarded for being aggressive and see how quickly the match goes by.

Agreed. You have to work more for your kill with 3 rather then 2. Watching Ally's Mario vs Mr. R's Ryu and people talking about how hype it is, all I see is just a lot of noncommittal action.

I think when you break down the numbers, 3 stock makes more sense. When you lose 1 stock in a 2 stock format, you're 50% of the way to losing. Add in rage, and that last 50% can get knocked out much quicker if the oponent can't get the KO.With 3 stock, losing 1 stock only means 33% of the way to losing, and so the benefit of rage is much smaller since the advantage of each stock is much smaller (AKA not winning the game, and still having a chance.)

 

[FallenHero]

Another thing is that this game is significantly faster than Brawl, so I really don't see why anyone felt is was necessary to have less stocks than Brawl did.

 

[SSTT]

I have a question regarding the time limit for the match. I understand that 2 stock 5 minutes is the norm in tournament play due to the matches being short and easily managed for the TO's, but from a player's perspective (not the organizer or the spectator,) winning by timeout, and thus stalling the match is also a win condition, and much easier to achieve when the whole match is 5 minutes. With that in mind, it is without a doubt that a 3 stock 8 minute game will see less reason to put into action.

I wonder if by taking off the time limit (and the exterior win condition that it presents,) the players will be able to focus on confronting the opponent, resulting in faster matches?

 

[T4ylor]

Another thing is that this game is significantly faster than Brawl, so I really don't see why anyone felt is was necessary to have less stocks than Brawl did.

This always gets brought up, but I don't get why. It's not like 3 stocks made Brawl any more entertaining, if anything, it had the opposite effect.

I have a question regarding the time limit for the match. I understand that 2 stock 5 minutes is the norm in tournament play due to the matches being short and easily managed for the TO's, but from a player's perspective (not the organizer or the spectator,) winning by timeout, and thus stalling the match is also a win condition, and much easier to achieve when the whole match is 5 minutes. With that in mind, it is without a doubt that a 3 stock 8 minute game will see less reason to put into action.

I wonder if by taking off the time limit (and the exterior win condition that it presents,) the players will be able to focus on confronting the opponent, resulting in faster matches?

Pretty sure 6 minutes is more common than 5 in a 2 stock environment. Anywho, I'd really like to see no time limit tested. It works out alright with Smash64. And most people are against timeout wins so much that they set the time limit unreasonably high so that it doesn't happen very often.

 

[FallenHero]

No time limit could actually be a good thing for both spectators, players, and TOs. No one is going to bother trying to camp the timer since there isn't one at all, so players and spectators don't have to deal with it. For TOs it could be good because it probably wouldn't effect them, unless some person who hates the TO for some reason camps for like 10 min every match to waste the TOs time. I think it would be worth trying out, but 8 min would be fine still.

 

[piikaa]

should be 5 stock 15 minutes amirite

 

[Shouxiao]

There needs to be a time limit. I would say Smash 64 gets a pass(well it does not have the option) because the only stage where camping may be a problem is Hyrule Castle(very rarely an issue). In Smash 64 one hit or grab can very easily lead to a death combo. It can be arguable that camping in general is not effective in Smash 64. If it is then it would be much less effective compare to later games in the series.

In later games in the series if someone wants to they have much more effective methods of stalling out a match. The match would get done of course but their is always the potential to drag out things for a very long time.

People are going to compare games(characters/things in games) in the same series. Just look at boards here. People compare previous versions of characters to their Smash 4 counterparts all the time. Brawl had a slow meta at the start but over time it actually got a lot faster. Smash 4's meta at the start was faster than Brawl but a bit slow due to vectoring and players being limited to 3DS controls. Now we are on WiiU and are many patches later. No one can deny that the pace of the game has sped up a lot.

2stock and 6mins really puts the player who loses the first stock in a bad spot if that player does not quickly take a stock back. It matters even more with rage. Rage truly matters. It can be that extra knock back that gets a KO or not. With high amount of Rage that extra knock back is a lot.

I still think most people do not realize how large of an effect time and stock has on the pace of a match. It is not just a matter of having more time or stock. If anyone plays with one ruleset and then switches to another(even just adding or subtracting 1stock/min) there will be a different in how the of pace the match goes.

 

[Scootch]

I like 3 stock more as it comes for some awesome comebacks.

 

[clydeaker]

2 Stock promotes rage and suicide kills too much.
If you're Bowser or Ganondorf and you take the first stock off of your opponent. All you need yo do is get a side B near the edge and you win.

 

[makemesmellbad]

2 Stock promotes rage and suicide kills too much.
If you're Bowser or Ganondorf and you take the first stock off of your opponent. All you need yo do is get a side B neer the edge and you win.

You can argue the same strategy for any other stock rulings, though. Take a stock and side-B over and over since you have the lead. In fact, even if you don't have the lead, rulesets sometimes put priority on the suicide initiator anyways, so the lead doesn't necessarily matter because of that trump card. As long as a Bowser or Kirby or D3 or Ganon has even stocks, they can theoretically suicide-B the whole match and still win.

 

[clydeaker]

One thing I still don't seem to understand is why people keep comparing Smash 4's speed to Melee's. If speed it the case then why dose smash 64 use 5 stock while Melee and Project M use 4 stock despite being arguably faster than Smash 64? And why is Brawl 3 stock despite being arguably slightly slower and more comparable to Smash 4's engine? Keep in mind every version of Smash has generally used best of 2 out of 3 matches so that can't really be much of an argument.

This represents what the speed comparison should be in order from the fastest to slowest game if stock were to represent the speed of each game.

Super Smash Bros. (N64) ---------------------- 5 Stock, [∞, 8, or 10-ish optional minutes].
Super Smash Bros. Melee --------------------- 4 Stock, 8 Minutes. (3 Stock, 6 Minuets)
Super Smash Bros. Project M --------------- 4 Stock, 8 Minutes. (3 Stock, 6 Minuets)
Super Smash Bros. Brawl --------------------- 3 Stock, 8 Minutes. (3 Stock, 8 Minutes)
Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS --- 2 Stock, 6 Minutes. (3 Stock, 9 Minutes)
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U ---------------- 2 Stock, 6 Minutes. (3 Stock, 9 Minutes)

Default Stock Settings --------------------------- 3 Stock, ∞ Minutes. (3 Stock, ∞ Minutes)
​

According to this Super Smash Bros. (N64) is the fastest game while Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U are the slowest games in the series. It seems like each new entry in the series is slower than the last (W/ the exception of PM because it's a mod. Is this true? Is every new smash game slower than the last? I think not. Smash 64 is arguably one of the slowest Smash games, but it has one of the highest and most accurate stock counts in the entire series.

Comparing the game's "speed" isn't wrong, but it can take away from the idea that Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and Nintendo 3DS are independent games instead of a just a tribute to Melee fans of the past. Some may argue that constantly comparing Brawl to Melee through heated arguments is part of the reason why Brawl failed competitively. Whether or not this is true I do not know, But I would rather play Smash Wii U and 3DS for what they are instead of comparing it to past games that might cause it to be not as competitive in the future.

 

[makemesmellbad]

One thing I still don't seem to understand is why people keep comparing Smash 4's speed to Melee's. If speed it the case then why dose smash 64 use 5 stock while Melee and Project M use 4 stock despite being arguably faster than Smash 64.

Super Smash Bros. (N64) ---------------------- 5 Stock, (8 to 10-ish optional minutes).
Super Smash Bros. Melee --------------------- 4 Stock, 8 Minutes.
Super Smash Bros. Project M --------------- 4 Stock, 8 Minutes.
Super Smash Bros. Brawl --------------------- 3 Stock, 8 Minutes.
Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS --- 2 Stock, 6 Minutes.
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U ---------------- 2 Stock, 6 Minutes.​

Because Smash 64 usually has a few other factors involved:
1) Less total entrants
2) More ways to VERY quickly die
3) Z-cancelling (removes ALL lag from aerials instead of half)

I'm sure there are other reasons, too, but these seem to be the main reasons why Smash 64 has more stocks. Not because the game is faster, but because the game can end quicker because of how punishing the game's mechanics can be.

 

[Gnarkill Evan]

3 stocks for sure, with 2 I often feel like my strategy is more rushed and after one death it is like being in a hole

 

[FallenHero]

If you get gimped or SD it's over, you lost. If smash 5 is 1 stock matches they should just set the timer to like 5 min, because it would take that long to kill with all the camping.

 

[Shouxiao]

Because Smash 64 usually has a few other factors involved:
1) Less total entrants
2) More ways to VERY quickly die
3) Z-cancelling (removes ALL lag from aerials instead of half)

I'm sure there are other reasons, too, but these seem to be the main reasons why Smash 64 has more stocks. Not because the game is faster, but because the game can end quicker because of how punishing the game's mechanics can be.

To add some things.

Smash 64 has a lot of hitstun(more than Melee).
0/low% to death combos are really common. Combo in general are really common. It just takes a good hit or grab.
Recovery is not great in Smash 64 for characters and it is easy to gimp someone.
Edgehoging is very strong

3 stocks for sure, with 2 I often feel like my strategy is more rushed and after one death it is like being in a hole

You basically have to quickly take the other person's stock in a 2stock match. Things can be made worse with the rage mechanic.

If you get gimped or SD it's over, you lost. If smash 5 is 1 stock matches they should just set the timer to like 5 min, because it would take that long to kill with all the camping.

Rarely does someone comeback if they get gimped or SD early in a 2stock match.

 

[Froggy]

The problem with 3 stock is that it skews the attributes emphasized when doing well in this tournament becomes skewed more towards endurance than skill. Playing a defensive character in tournament is a nightmare in a 3 stock tournament, it's pretty easy to get burned out especially if you have to make a deep run in losers bracket. I'd still like for tournaments to try 3 stock occasionally but I do think two stock should be the standard.

 

[erico9001]

hmm. Well, how does it look mathematically? Any recent, actual studies been made looking into time taken with 2 stocks and time taken with 3 stocks? We can note that 3 stocks has 50% more stocks than 2 stocks. If the time of matches with 3 stocks is significantly less than 150% of the time with 2 stocks, that may suggest more is happening within the matches. Which means faster pace... which is generally seen as good in competitive environments? More fun for the players perhaps as well?

 

[clydeaker]

If you were Dr. Mario, which scenario would you rather be in?

Scenario #1
2 Stock:

---------------------------------------------------------------
| 0% | | Vs. | | 0% |
---------------------------------------------------------------
'GIMP'
--------------------------------------------------------
| 30% | | Vs. | | 0% |
-------------------------------------------------------- ​

OR

Scenario #2
3 Stock:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0% | | Vs. | | 0% |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'GIMP'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 30% | | Vs. | | 0%|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

If you get gimped once in a 2 Stock game your already down by about 50%,
But if you get gimped once in a 3 stock game your only down by about 33% and your more likely to learn the habits of your opponent better so your less likely to get gimped again.

 

[Froggy]

hmm. Well, how does it look mathematically? Any recent, actual studies been made looking into time taken with 2 stocks and time taken with 3 stocks? We can note that 3 stocks has 50% more stocks than 2 stocks. If the time of matches with 3 stocks is significantly less than 150% of the time with 2 stocks, that may suggest more is happening within the matches. Which means faster pace... which is generally seen as good in competitive environments? More fun for the players perhaps as well?

Getting such data would require people to actually record the timer information after each match. Nobody does that, the best you could do is go based on matches played on a live stream, which will be more representative of higher level game play and is not representative of the tournament scene as a whole.

If you were Dr. Mario, which scenario would you rather be in?

Scenario #1
2 Stock:

---------------------------------------------------------------
| 0% | | Vs. | | 0% |
---------------------------------------------------------------
'GIMP'
--------------------------------------------------------
| 30% | | Vs. | | 0% |
-------------------------------------------------------- ​

OR

Scenario #2
3 Stock:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0% | | Vs. | | 0% |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'GIMP'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 30% | | Vs. | | 0%|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

If you get gimped once in a 2 Stock game your already down by 50%,
But if you get gimped once in a 3 stock game your only down by 33.3% and your more likely to learn the habits of your opponent better so your less likely to get gimped again.

This is a completely moot point. Getting gimped is absolutely a legit part of this game. It is the players responsibility to avoid getting gimped, it's not just dumb luck.

 

[FallenHero]

This is a completely moot point. Getting gimped is absolutely a legit part of this game. It is the players responsibility to avoid getting gimped, it's not just dumb luck.

Even if it is the player's fault for SDing or getting gimped, it doesn't mean you should already be 50% of the way to lose the whole match. I'm not saying you shouldn't be punished for making that kind of mistake, but it is too harsh of a punishment for that. If ZeRo lost a match thanks to accidentally SDing early in his first stock, even if it was his fault, how do we know he wouldn't be able to make a comeback if it was 3 stocks?

 

[Froggy]

Even if it is the player's fault for SDing or getting gimped, it doesn't mean you should already be 50% of the way to lose the whole match. I'm not saying you shouldn't be punished for making that kind of mistake, but it is too harsh of a punishment for that. If ZeRo lost a match thanks to accidentally SDing early in his first stock, even if it was his fault, how do we know he wouldn't be able to make a comeback if it was 3 stocks?

It is likely true that 3 stock does make it less likely for the better to be upset(which I'd argue isn't necessarily a good thing in and of itself) but my big issue with 3 stocks is that it makes the tournament environment a test of endurance more than skill and furthermore it puts zoning/defensive characters at a disadvantage compared to rushdown/offensive characters.

Anyone who mains characters like Villager or Samus cannot attest to what a nightmare it is to zone characters out for a full 8 minutes or 3 stocks, you add that to a deep run in a bracket where you may play 6 - 10 matches depending on how early you're sent to losers/size of the tournament and you're unlikely to be able to maintain a solid train of thought to maintain an iron clad wall. Fir characters like ZSS or Mario it hardly matters but it's a big deal for a lot of the weaker less explosive characters.

 

[FallenHero]

It is likely true that 3 stock does make it less likely for the better to be upset(which I'd argue isn't necessarily a good thing in and of itself) but my big issue with 3 stocks is that it makes the tournament environment a test of endurance more than skill and furthermore it puts zoning/defensive characters at a disadvantage compared to rushdown/offensive characters.

Anyone who mains characters like Villager or Samus cannot attest to what a nightmare it is to zone characters out for a full 8 minutes or 3 stocks, you add that to a deep run in a bracket where you may play 6 - 10 matches depending on how early you're sent to losers/size of the tournament and you're unlikely to be able to maintain a solid train of thought to maintain an iron clad wall. Fir characters like ZSS or Mario it hardly matters but it's a big deal for a lot of the weaker less explosive characters.

The thing is no matter how campy a player is I don't think they are thinking about running the timer from the start of match. It really is not a test of endurance at all, 2 stocks encourages players to camp to be able to survive longer. Just because a character has a campy playstyle does not mean they can't manage to win a match before the timer gets close to running out. Anyways fighting/using a campy character has always been a "test of endurance" for both sides. Maybe I just have no idea what I am talking about, but I am pretty sure characters like Villager or Rosa can end a match before it goes on for too long.

 

[PND]

Even if it is the player's fault for SDing or getting gimped, it doesn't mean you should already be 50% of the way to lose the whole match. I'm not saying you shouldn't be punished for making that kind of mistake, but it is too harsh of a punishment for that. If ZeRo lost a match thanks to accidentally SDing early in his first stock, even if it was his fault, how do we know he wouldn't be able to make a comeback if it was 3 stocks?

And yet, I've seen countless comebacks in a 2 stock environment. "Comebacks are easier" isn't a clear cut argument for 3 stocks vs 2 stocks. In practice, I see them happen all the time.

I hate that people parade this argument around. It's simply not true. . . Well, to expand, it CAN be true, but it depends on player type.

---
2 Stocks:
A hypothetical Player is down a stock early. It was a quick gimp, and the opponent is at an extremely low percent.

Player A might think "I've only got to take 2 stocks. I can do this"
but
Player B might think "I'm down 50% of my stocks, this is worthless" and basically throw the match.
---
3 Stocks:
Same scenario. Down one early stock, opponent at a low percent.

Player C might think "Only 3 stocks to go, I've got 2, I can do this" and still win.
but
Player D might think "That went poorly. I've got to face this for another 8ish minutes? And still have to take all 3 stocks? No thanks" and basically throw the match.
---

Players A and C have the right attitude to make a comeback. Players B and D, had the stock count been different, may have had a comeback in them -- but they didn't, and faced with the numbers, they defeated themselves.

Player C, in 2 stocks, may have responded like Player B. Player D in 2 stocks, may have responded like Player A. Basically, saying "3 stocks is mathematically superior for comebacks because you have an extra stock" is a completely fallacious statement because it fails to factor in the player psychology aspect. It CAN be true, but it can also be equally as true to say that a comeback only happened because there WASN'T a third stock. Some players are more likely to rise to a comeback when there are only 2 stocks. Some players are more likely to have a comeback when there are 3. Unless you can empirically prove there are more Player C's than Player A's, please stop using the argument.

I've seen enough comebacks happen in a 2 stock environment and I've seen blowouts happen in 3 stock environments. I've also seen enough 2 stock blowouts and 3 stock comebacks to know that we can't just make blanket statements.

Comebacks are comebacks. They will happen. It's not our job to try and make them happen. That's up the players. Great players will rise to the occasion, regardless of stock count or comeback mechanics present. Artificially changing to the rules to try and increase their frequency is not only dishonest, but cheapens the entire concept of a comeback by making it more common and mundane. At no point in hosting a competition should we ever be asking ourselves "Well, how can we make this easier for the losing player." That's up to the game designers who built Smash and players playing it. That is not a decision for the organizers. That is not our job, nor should it be.

tl;dr
Stop using comebacks as an argument for your preferred stock count. I don't care what side of the fence you're on. Stop using that argument.
---
My credentials: Competitive in every official Smash game. Head TO of Smash 4 in my region (Ottawa). Met, talked to, and played thousands of different players over the years.

 

[PND]

The thing is no matter how campy a player is I don't think they are thinking about running the timer from the start of match. It really is not a test of endurance at all, 2 stocks encourages players to camp to be able to survive longer. Just because a character has a campy playstyle does not mean they can't manage to win a match before the timer gets close to running out. Anyways fighting/using a campy character has always been a "test of endurance" for both sides. Maybe I just have no idea what I am talking about, but I am pretty sure characters like Villager or Rosa can end a match before it goes on for too long.

In Brawl, I played for the time out all the time. I still occasionally do in this game, too. Characters like Villager or Rosa CAN end a stock earlier, but it puts them in a risky situation. If there is money on the line, I am not going to take a risk trying to kill a player, that might end in myself dying, if I am already winning by time. I'll force my opponent to make those plays. If they don't, I win.

 

[Shouxiao]

The problem with 3 stock is that it skews the attributes emphasized when doing well in this tournament becomes skewed more towards endurance than skill. Playing a defensive character in tournament is a nightmare in a 3 stock tournament, it's pretty easy to get burned out especially if you have to make a deep run in losers bracket. I'd still like for tournaments to try 3 stock occasionally but I do think two stock should be the standard.

I think that would depend on what ruleset people are use to playing to. People who mainly play with a 3stock and 8min ruleset feels rushed when playing 2stock and 6mins and For Glory. People who play 2stock and 6mins are not use to having the extra stock and time. It may be an endurance match for them but not for the people who primary play a 3stock and 8min match because they are use to playing that way.

Stock and time has strong influence on how people play out matches.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Just speaking from experience here:

I recently got involved in the tourney scene in my area, and we've been doing some weekly tourneys. We've been doing the majority of them at 3 stock, 8 minutes, and to be honest I think it's the way to go. The mentality behind that extra stock changes everyone's will to go in for it. I feel like a 3 stock battle is where you'll see more risk taking, more creativity, higher possibility for a come back, and so on. Not to mention both players in the match-up get more time/opportunity to learn from each other. The only downside to this is that the tourney will probably take a lot longer. We had about 32 enterants, and 5 set ups. Though there was not a lot of organization, it took around 4 hours to get through. However at larger events and such, with the proper amount of set-ups, and a good TO, then it really won't be much longer than a 2 stock tourney held under the same conditions.

 

[KevN くコ:彡]

I prefer 3 stock. Four stock feels a little too long and two stock feels too short (one of the reasons I hate FG). Three stock feels just right for me personally.

 

[Shouxiao]

Just speaking from experience here:

I recently got involved in the tourney scene in my area, and we've been doing some weekly tourneys. We've been doing the majority of them at 3 stock, 8 minutes, and to be honest I think it's the way to go. The mentality behind that extra stock changes everyone's will to go in for it. I feel like a 3 stock battle is where you'll see more risk taking, more creativity, higher possibility for a come back, and so on. Not to mention both players in the match-up get more time/opportunity to learn from each other. The only downside to this is that the tourney will probably take a lot longer. We had about 32 enterants, and 5 set ups. Though there was not a lot of organization, it took around 4 hours to get through. However at larger events and such, with the proper amount of set-ups, and a good TO, then it really won't be much longer than a 2 stock tourney held under the same conditions.

I think the main thing is tournament setups. There is a lot more people going to Smash tourneys(local, regional, major events). Just look at the community growth over the years. The more tournament setups and organization the faster things shall go. It is not a 3stock 8mins ruleset that is going to keep people playing dusk to dawn.

I prefer 3 stock. Four stock feels a little too long and two stock feels too short (one of the reasons I hate FG). Three stock feels just right for me personally.

I think 3stock does have a good balance. 4stock could be done but longer matches would be a problem. 2stock either feels too short generally speaking and has other issues.

 

[Xeze]

All major scenes use 2 stock and it looks like it's here to stay. That worries me a little.

 

[Pazzo.]

I'd like to think that we use two stocks because For Glory did it first.

It makes SSB4 more like a traditional fighting game, in small way.

 

[DunnoBro]

I feel like 3-stock is better 9 out of 10 matches but there's always that 10th match that makes you go "I'd rather have lost to my SD than deal with another 2-3 stocks of this ****"

Overall though, as the game gets more developed and the players become more adept at killing/gimping, I think 3-stock is the natural route.

 

[clydeaker]

Well, if 3 stock 8 minuets is too long then why don't we just go strait to 1 stock 3 minuets? That way we won't waist so much time doing the one thing that a tournament was set up for in the first place. I'm sure no one here actually enjoys playing Super Smash Bros. for Wii U for such a long time as 6 minuets. We are part of the next generation of smashers. We need everything to be as fast as possible even if it means reducing the accuracy of the tournament results. For Glory uses the ideal rule set stock number for tournaments where a large amount of money is on the line. While were at it let's reduce the matches from best of 3 to best of 1. No need for accuracy and making comebacks, it's all about getting through the tournament as fast as possible. 1 Stock 3 Minuets Best of 1 is the ideal rule-set for people who think 3 stock is way too long. I challenge people who thing 3 stock is too long to talk with your local TO and see if they are willing to implement 1 stock, 3 minuets, best of 1 in order to make their tournament much faster and more efficient time wise. *sarcasm*

 

[PND]

Bad argument is bad, and you should feel bad for making it.

That being said, I've talked to lots of players in my scene about running a 1 stock Bo5/Bo7 tournament. The idea behind it is to get more experience on more stages while limiting the snowballing effect that rage can sometimes create. It lends more weight to the counterpick system, as you'll be on more different stages throughout the set.

People are surprisingly cool with it.

But that being said, your (obviously sarcastic) argument is still god awful, and in my opinion as a TO, weakens your entire side's position. So congrats on that, at least.

 

[Xeze]

This man agrees.