Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Agree but at least 3 stocks is reasonable enough compared to higher stocks count and the goal when making a ruleset is not only to make the experience for players/ viewers/ To's better but also to point out the best player of the tourny. This is almost the number one reason of why we are making tournies.
Is there a reason you're focusing so much on reverse 2 and 3 stocks rather than comebacks in general? Reverse 2 stocks are always going to be more common than reverse 3 stocks. You're ignoring the fact that a 3 stock format allows room for comebacks that aren't reverse 3 stocks.
Is there a reason you're focusing so much on reverse 2 and 3 stocks rather than comebacks in general? Reverse 2 stocks are always going to be more common than reverse 3 stocks. You're ignoring the fact that a 3 stock format allows room for comebacks that aren't reverse 3 stocks.
As I said in the opening post, there are many ways to analyze this and I opted for the simplest approach.
A more robust approach would be to compare how many times a player down two stocks to one in 2sXm comes back to win, compared to how many times a player down three stocks to two in 3s8m comes back to win.
3 stocks is far superior in every way but time. There is absolutely no reason we should be using 2-stock, and the only reason anyone even has been is because of Brawl being too slow and For Glory using 2-stock. (of course, that also has Sudden Death, so...)
I absolutely DESPISE 2-stock. It's not good for determining more skilled players, it can sway games unfairly, and it's just... bad. There's really no reason to be using 2-stock, and most of the Smash 4 community wants to move to 3-stock.
In fact, I'll give an example of 2-stock screwing up a battle. I was fighting someone from this site online. His Dark Pit was figgin' amazing. He kept wrecking me over and over again. But then one round, when he had the rules-control and had it on 2-stock, and I was using Game and Watch... well, I think you know what happened. 9-hammer first life, 0-death with Oil Panic second life. I should not have won that. In 3 stock, he would have come back and won, because he was far superior to me. I got an unwarranted win because of 2 stocks.
Time is a very significant reason. 3-stock matches are well over a minute slower. That adds up. 2-stock is more appealing for TOs (hence why so many TOs have been opting for 2-stock).
Your other argument is that 3-stock makes major comebacks more plausible. Unfortunately, while your For Glory opponent may have fared better, not a single match in any of my data saw a successful reverse three-stock.
You can't just ignore people's arguments, section four of your post isn't relevant to what I said because you're only talking about 3 stock comebacks.
I question whether you actually play the game because you seem to not understand how 3 stock improves consistency.
Time is a very significant reason. 3-stock matches are well over a minute slower. That adds up. 2-stock is more appealing for TOs (hence why so many TOs have been opting for 2-stock).
Your other argument is that 3-stock makes major comebacks more plausible. Unfortunately, while your For Glory opponent may have fared better, not a single match in any of my data saw a successful reverse three-stock.
Get more setups. Boom, done, time issue solved. You can do multiple matches at the same time.
This was not For Glory, this guy was good. Really good. I can guarantee you, 100% that on 3-stock he would have come back. In fact, on a later set where we were on 3-stock, he did.
Well, got me there damn you, i can't name one right off the bat (yet). Maybe if i'd take the time i could get a few tournies where the top 8 was not representative because one or two people won their sets with an upsets wich may has been dodged at most.
I should have been clearer and said : " best representation of the level of each players in the tourny" instead of "best player" though. Any win or loss can change a lot in the brackets and so the final results.
3 Stocks limit the risks of grave upsets happening (by that i mean a very well known player being knocked out by a weaker player by luck). The question is : at wich point do we limit those risks as trivial as they may seems? some people say 3 some 2 right there it's just opinions unfortunately.
Edit : I may argue that in france , at stunfest, Leon (a well known french player) got 9th against an unknwon player (at least to me). But as no replays has been published i can't tell if the reason is 2 stocks or just gameplay from Leon so i'll just let this here and if someone who was present can tell wich is the reason it may or not be an argument for one of the two side. (http://smashboards.com/rankings/smash4-stunfest-2015.6770/event)
More setups are expensive and take up valuable venue space. You should ask a TO whether he or she thinks "more setups = no problems" works in practice.
Edit : I may argue that in france , at stunfest, Leon (a well known french player) got 9th against an unknwon player (at least to me). But as no replays has been published i can't tell if the reason is 2 stocks or just gameplay from Leon so i'll just let this here and if someone who was present can tell wich is the reason it may or not be an argument for one of the two side. (http://smashboards.com/rankings/smash4-stunfest-2015.6770/event)
Lmao
Your evidence says nothing of the sort
You can't just claim it does when it doesn't.
You're still ignoring the fact that "3 stock comebacks" aren't the only measure of consistency. (in fact, I'd say literally zero supporters of 3 stock use the possibility of 3 stock comebacks as the primary justification for 3 stocks over two)
- shorten the time a bit a tournament takes (this is especially important for really large ones), which includes that viewers of streams don't have to watch boring matches for too long and the tournament might end faster so they can spend less time on watching one tournament (less repetition?)
- some players might not get as exhausted since they don't have to play as long
- show the more skilled player less accurately
I'm in favor of 3 stocks, because:
- I like to play more (2 stocks goes by too fast so I have less time to enjoy playing the game)
- it's possible to be more consistent
Both of these reasons are really important to me as a competitive Smash player, so I don't support any less than 3 stocks.
We've seen it work out with Brawl, so it should be fine.
I can understand it if a 2 stock ruleset has to be used for tournaments that are really large and without enough setups to play on to finish it on time, but it would still suck to me.
2 Stocks also artifically benefits Wario. Around the second life he usually has his fart charged, which is a really powerful way to take a stock, and in the case of 2 stock, the game.
More setups are expensive and take up valuable venue space. You should ask a TO whether he or she thinks "more setups = no problems" works in practice..
It doesn't work at smaller tournaments, but there are also less entrants, which makes time less of a problem. At big tournaments more setups is not a problem.
2 Stocks also artifically benefits Wario. Around the second life he usually has his fart charged, which is a really powerful way to take a stock, and in the case of 2 stock, the game.
The research of one tourney does not create a sound foundation for your arguments. I'd like to see a greater sample size before we try and discuss if this is really universal or not.
IIRC, just over three minutes. Melee is a tricky case because average match length depends heavily on other factors, like character composition (compare Fox vs. Falco to Peach vs. Peach) and player quality (top player matches are generally quicker).
The same excuses could be said for this or any game. Do you not have actual data for Melee or PM? One of your key points was that the match times between Melee and Sm4sh are different enough to matter. I don't see how you can say that with certainty if you don't have the numbers.
wannabe33 said:
1. This average was not brought up by a handful of unusually long matches. We saw no Rosalina dittos, no Pac-Man, etc.
2. This average was brought down by a handful of unusually short matches. These typically involved multiple gimps.
And this is misleading. Looking at the data, there were more matches under 4 mins, 11 sec. than at or above. Statistically, that means that the average was weighted more heavily by the long matches, not by short ones.
I do agree with you on one important point: nationwide rulesets could easily be a large boon to the game. I feel like getting on TOs who still don't run customs is kinda bigger than stock/time rules in that regard, but standardization for standardization's sake isn't where we should set our starting line. Our starting line should be the best game, and our final target is standardizing on that.
I'm going to break this down on several levels why I think 3/8 is better and why I think your argument for 2/6 is flawed. This is going to be super long, but this should fully address what I believe to be every relevant issue all at once. Let's start with the time issue.
You claim 3/8 runs at 4:11 per game while 2/6 runs at 2:55. Your tests are hardly scientific but are probably not horribly wrong, but what you're missing here is that these are poor predictors of your total tournament time. I've been going to smash tournaments on again off again for many years now ("on again" since 4 came out). The vast majority of tournaments I've been to ran late. A decent handful do get out on time. The ruleset has never, ever been a factor. The game being played doesn't matter much other than that Project M and Brawl are just a little slow (but not enough to be a big deal). Here's what does matter. TOs vary wildly in quality, and the worse the TO, the more sub-optimal decisions will be made. Here are the big problems I've seen a lot (note I define "TO" here as whoever is actively in charge of running the bracket which may be a different person from whoever is actually organizing the event). I'm going to collapse tag this because this got crazy long, but this is what really counts in making a tournament run fast based on years of experience:
-People don't get DQ'd for not being present when their match is called. The bracket inevitably bottlenecks and that half hour we waited to find (insert player here) is just straight added to the total time of the event.
-Multiple events are poorly coordinated. Admittedly this is hard to do right, but you need independent set-ups per game (trying to "switch over" set-ups always takes forever and makes both involved games run super late) which means either the venue space to run everything at the same time or totally segregated tournaments (that is, one game completely and totally finishes before the next plays the very first game and you schedule for that). Anything in-between always takes a very long time no exceptions. If you do have simultaneous games, you need the TOs coordinating every game to be in good communication about players who are playing in both to minimize bracket bottlenecks.
-Brackets are called in the wrong order. You play early matches before late ones, and you play losers' bracket before winners' bracket. This maximizes the number of games that can happen at the same time for as long as possible.
-Matches are not assigned to set-ups. If you have more than 5 set-ups, players cannot and will not find a place to play. Do it for them by numbering the set-ups and telling them where to go.
-TOs don't track which matches are in progress. Challonge has a button you can hit for that; use it! If your event is small enough you can do everything yourself and keep track of it in your head, power to you. If you are sharing the burden with someone else (note this includes if you might be interrupted to go play yourself), you need to mark everything so other people know which matches to call.
-TOs just sometimes aren't on the ball and paying attention. People will have a ruleset question (happens with EVERY ruleset), people will miss reporting a match, someone will somehow wander off after you confirm they're going to start their match, etc.. If whoever is TOing is easy to find and paying attention, these things go fast. If not, these things take a lot of time.
-TOs just aren't aggressive enough. If you call a match and get no response, don't wait 5 minutes and try again even if you are willing to DQ after 5 minutes. Yell at the top of your lungs to repeat yourself, look around the room for those guys, ask the people inevitably milling around the TOing station if they know who "BowserBro48" is and why he isn't responding, etc.. You can easily lose minutes every other set just by being too laid back in match calling (about half of matches have players who are looking out for their chance to play; the other half will not happen quickly unless you guide people).
-Too much waiting for stream. A good stream can really help your community, but not every match can be streamed. Be smart about what you put on stream and when so the stream is a good supplement to your tournament and not an excuse to bottleneck the event horribly.
A common criticism of this argument is that your TO's quality is relatively static so you can't really save this time, but you can save the game time by making it go faster. This is deeply flawed. For one, nothing I listed above is hard, and for half of it, I bet a lot of TOs just never thought "gee, I'm doing this one little thing really wrong and wasting a ton of time because of it". For two, it's just on the scale that talking about game time is meaningless. Let's say running 3/8 instead of 2/6 causes the average set to take a whole 3 minutes longer, a generous overestimation for sure (it takes less time than that probably). Over a whole tournament, this should cost you about one hour at most unless we're talking a very large tournament or something, an hour you're scheduling for the entire time. Incorrectly TOing costs you several hours, hours you couldn't predict or schedule for. You can even get half of that hour back nearly instantly by not making finals sets three games out of five and sticking with two games out of three for the whole event. You on average cost your event about a half an hour by making finals have long sets (based on my experiences) and don't make it a bit better. Priorities are backwards if long finals sets seem more important than a bigger experience for all competitors.
That's why I believe the tournament time argument is fundamentally bunk, but I should get down to player experiences. Two stock is just a worse player experience; it's way higher stress and a worse test of skill. We can define comebacks in many ways, but I can confidently speak from experience on this. In 3 stock, it is realistically possible in many situations for a full stock mistake not to equal to a game loss. It's pretty bad but you have a lot left to work with. In 2 stock, it is exceptionally rare. You've just thrown away too much to make it happen if your opponent plays even decently. A full stock mistake means SDing or getting gimped at very low percent or just being ragdolled in a long bad situation leading to a full loss of stock; these things just plain happen. If someone picks Lucario, Ganondorf, or Little Mac, they happen a lot (to both sides!). Players can adapt to this, but it's just stressful. I play people who are reasonably decent at the game but clearly worse than I am and know "if I make one large mistake, I have to play god-like for the rest of the game to win". Some people likely prefer that, but it just makes everything super stressful all the time and encourages conservative play against weaker players (since you actually do lose to them if you mess up aggressive plays, but you are confident in your skill enough that you can hang back and slowplay and win). Note that me having a lot of incentive to lame out people I'm otherwise better than is a worse player experience for me (more stress!) and them (a cautious Rosalina is not fun if you aren't on the level necessary to get around it).
Playing for time is another important point. The game theory is that playing for time should be stock count independent, but the reality of player psychology is that people start playing for time in the last minute regardless of stock count and that everyone plays more cautiously on their last stock no matter how many stocks they had to start. Notice that a 3 stock game is not 50% longer than a 2 stock game even though a greater percentage of it is spent in respawn invincibility which should in principle make it something like 51% longer. We've already established the direct time before, but from the perspective of player experience, the parts of the game that are this long part that every game has are the least fun (and most stressful). Making the last minute and the last stock a greater percentage of a typical match is making the game worse to play.
As a community political point as well, 2 stock smash 4 is awful. Melee will always run 4/8 no matter what we say or do. 4/8 wouldn't really work for 4 (it honestly doesn't work for any game but Melee, always painful to see PM players try to make it work), but 3/8 is us taking equal time. 2/6 is us taking less time so they can take more time than us, giving our players less gameplay per dollar of tournament entry, and projecting wrong things about our game (like somehow it's slow and defensive and "needs" a short timer unlike the other smash games). This almost sounds ridiculous as I read what I'm writing back to myself, but it's the truth.
I'm totally unpersuaded by how long other fighting games take; they're other fighting games because they're different games that work differently. Smash's gameplay dynamics are simply slower than those of a traditional fighter, and you need more time for the same level of interaction to occur. Smash's style of "footsies" is just bigger and slower, smash utilizes vertical gameplay more so there's more space to be controlled which takes more time (traditional fighters often approximate to 1d spatial control), and even smash's raw frame data is slower (consider that 20 frame moves, common for smashes and specials, are considered comically slow in Street Fighter!). 4 minutes per game is a good amount of time for a smash game to take. This doesn't even make smash slow in the grand scheme of things; compared to other popular games like Starcraft or League of Legends, it's blazing fast. We're just a bit slower than traditional fighters, and we should accept that. Trying to force ourselves to be like them in this way doesn't really make sense, and we're poorer for doing it.
I've just written one heck of a wall of text in support of 3 stock matches. Let me be clear. I really enjoy smash 4. I don't think 2 stock damages it that much; it's still a very, very good game. Even among ruleset problems, I think stock count is third place after customs (essential!) and good stage rules (important!). If we get stock count wrong, it will not doom our community or cause massive harm to the game. It just worsens player experiences a bit and makes tournaments a bit less consistent with little upside to show for it. It's doing a little thing worse than we could do it otherwise. I want to be very clear that 3 stock really is just better, but at the same time, don't interpret this as doom and gloom since 2 stock is "okay". It's just that "okay" isn't the best we could do. I originally intended to push this point after EVO, but since we have a topic now, I am making my point now.
-People don't get DQ'd for not being present when their match is called. The bracket inevitably bottlenecks and that half hour we waited to find (insert player here) is just straight added to the total time of the event.
-Multiple events are poorly coordinated. Admittedly this is hard to do right, but you need independent set-ups per game (trying to "switch over" set-ups always takes forever and makes both involved games run super late) which means either the venue space to run everything at the same time or totally segregated tournaments (that is, one game completely and totally finishes before the next plays the very first game and you schedule for that). Anything in-between always takes a very long time no exceptions. If you do have simultaneous games, you need the TOs coordinating every game to be in good communication about players who are playing in both to minimize bracket bottlenecks.
-Brackets are called in the wrong order. You play early matches before late ones, and you play losers' bracket before winners' bracket. This maximizes the number of games that can happen at the same time for as long as possible.
-Matches are not assigned to set-ups. If you have more than 5 set-ups, players cannot and will not find a place to play. Do it for them by numbering the set-ups and telling them where to go.
-TOs don't track which matches are in progress. Challonge has a button you can hit for that; use it! If your event is small enough you can do everything yourself and keep track of it in your head, power to you. If you are sharing the burden with someone else (note this includes if you might be interrupted to go play yourself), you need to mark everything so other people know which matches to call.
-TOs just sometimes aren't on the ball and paying attention. People will have a ruleset question (happens with EVERY ruleset), people will miss reporting a match, someone will somehow wander off after you confirm they're going to start their match, etc.. If whoever is TOing is easy to find and paying attention, these things go fast. If not, these things take a lot of time.
-TOs just aren't aggressive enough. If you call a match and get no response, don't wait 5 minutes and try again even if you are willing to DQ after 5 minutes. Yell at the top of your lungs to repeat yourself, look around the room for those guys, ask the people inevitably milling around the TOing station if they know who "BowserBro48" is and why he isn't responding, etc.. You can easily lose minutes every other set just by being too laid back in match calling (about half of matches have players who are looking out for their chance to play; the other half will not happen quickly unless you guide people).
-Too much waiting for stream. A good stream can really help your community, but not every match can be streamed. Be smart about what you put on stream and when so the stream is a good supplement to your tournament and not an excuse to bottleneck the event horribly.
I completely agree and very well written. I actually wrote a wall of text similar to this but deleted it as I didn't think I could get my point across well enough. Efficiency is by far the biggest issue with running a tournament. There are some things I was thinking about that you didn't mention but are also important:
-This is common sense, but start your tournament on time. Don't wait for anyone. If they aren't there to register or play, they're out.
-Allow pre-registering and self-reporting through something like Challonge. Frees up time and effort on the TO's part.
-Make sure everyone playing knows the rules and procedures. Last tournament I went to, I had to explain to every other person I played how stage striking and character selection works. This was across Sm4sh and PM.
And here I thought I was too serious about this game.....
It isn't THAT big of a deal, specially if your only reasoning is the very objective "is more hype".
3 stocks allows players to take more risks, make more mistakes, and play longer. The division between "good" and "better" players is clearer and is less prone to human error.
2 stocks forces a thoughtful and precise gameplay as mistakes get punished harder, but at the same time that sums up for a less predictable metagame where undergrounds actually stand a chance if they capitalize on a favorite's error.
I don't prefer one over the other, but I don't think 3-stock arguments are good at all.
It's obviously the only argument that matters. More stocks sure means less chances for outlying results. We could technically set it to 4, 5, 10, 50, or 99 stocks in order to get more consistent results, the more the better.
But anyway, my only problem with consistency is how it pans at the long term: results become predictable. After few years the slightly better players will get slightly better results CONSISTENTLY, leaving less and less room for slightly less skilled players to get better results, and this somehow often ends up discouraging them, slowly making them stop attending tournaments. I've seen that happen.
Two stocks allowing less room for error would make the metagame either a) force players to play near-perfect to succeed, or b) get more upsets, the final results become less predictable and more interesting to watch AND to play (trying to catch others offguard) event after event. Of course it also has its downsides, but we can't really predict metagame's actual advance.
In my opinion upsets are not a bad thing.
Don't get me wrong, I'll repeat myself by saying I don't prefer any over the other, but I see good and bad points of both, and I feel the obligation of defending the one with the lower odds here.
Now, two stocks don't really rely on gimmicks for a comeback, but being able to capitalize on a mistake at a critical moment with the right move, IS a skill as valuable as a slow comeback. You earned the win so it's all that matters.
Ignoring? I acknowledged this in my opening post. I opted for a simple approach: if 3-stock facilitated major comebacks, we'd expect to see at least a few reverse three-stocks. We saw precisely none.
If you have data that challenges the assertions in the opening post, I'd love to see it.
The research of one tourney does not create a sound foundation for your arguments. I'd like to see a greater sample size before we try and discuss if this is really universal or not.
How many tournaments would you like? Presumably you'd also like to see tournament results from those arguing in favor of 3s8m. Seems unfair to place the burden entirely on me!
Ampharos: I won't quote your reply to save space, but I appreciate you taking the time to type all that out. Here are the issues I see with your argument.
1. Many factors determine tournament length. TOing is a major one, but we cannot deny that match length matters. It does. It's also something we have complete control over: a TO may be having a bad weekend, but the minute+ per match we'd be saving with 2-stock is secure.
2. There is no data backing your claims about comeback potential. In an earlier post, I said that a "robust" comeback measure would be to track how common 3vs2-stock comebacks were compared with 2vs1-stock comebacks. You're saying that the former's more likely, but this is anecdotal. Hopefully someone else can back this claim with data.
3. I am not committed to 2/6. I'd prefer 2/7 and would be fine with 2/8.
4. Other professional fighters have different mechanics, of course, but the time comparison highlights how the Smash community can be rather entitled. This is probably the most common complaint the FGC at large has towards Smash. BlazBlue and SFV play nothing alike, but both have reasonably long average matches. 3s8m does not have reasonably long average matches. You may prefer it, but it risks alienating multi-game TOs and the rest of the FGC.
We agree on many things. Getting customs universalized is the top priority, and time/stock count is not the most pressing issue Smash 4 currently faces.
But it's still something we ought to settle on. The arguments in favor of 3-stock are speculative. Maybe it leads to greater comeback potential (no data). Maybe it affects player psychology in some detrimental way (no data). Maybe a bulk of properly informed players would prefer 3-stock (no data).
Until these speculations are substantiated, I cannot take them seriously. Every indication is that 3s8m provides no benefit beyond catering to fans of longer matches.
And at some point, 3s8m advocates need to appreciate that they are bucking the norm. To my knowledge, every major this year has been and will be 2-stock. I see no indication 3-stock will sweep the tournament scene in coming months. This debate is, in practical terms, a nearly-settled debate. I'd just like to see it settled as early as possible.
About your data, how many times in a three stock game did someone come back from being down with 1 stock to 2 for the opponent? Because that is also a comeback, if not as strong as a full reversal.
Full 4 stock reversals in Melee are extraordinary rare, less then once per a tournament which is why they get so much hype when they do happen. I don't see why a 3 stock reversal would be common enough that we would expect it at every tournament we got data from.
Bottom line is you need a lot more data to be conclusive.
Comebacks are really not the issue, here, and it's a straw man in place of the real conversation not taking place. The primary function for a longer game is simply that a larger sample of play will more accurately convey which player is superior compared to a smaller sample. To my mind, the competitive scene needs to be designed around ensuring that a superior player will consistently get better results than an inferior player.
This must then be tempered by time constraints proportional to the size of the event, which in the case of international majors and multiple-game events, may unavoidably mean 2 stocks.
So... why not try a time only?... you would get the same playtime against everyone... it would provide a more aggressive play since you dont care about stocks... the come backs can occur as long as the time hasnt run out... also you are allowed to make as many mistakes as you can, just ko your opponent more... the hype of winning by koing your opponent 3 times in the last minute has no comparison...
4min for the win... (hope you understand this is a just for fun post)...
So... why not try a time only?... you would get the same playtime against everyone... it would provide a more aggressive play since you dont care about stocks... the come backs can occur as long as the time hasnt run out... also you are allowed to make as many mistakes as you can, just ko your opponent more... the hype of winning by koing your opponent 3 times in the last minute has no comparison...
4min for the win... (hope you understand this is a just for fun post)...
After playing in tournament for both 2 and 3 stocks I can say that my answer of "I don't mind either way" has changed to 2 stock. Player skill is honestly the same. The better player is gonna win 95% of the time (I just made that percentage up but you get the point) regardless of 2 or 3 stock.
Also, I don't think "comebacks" are a good argument, but a great player can make a reverse 2 stock happen.
After playing in tournament for both 2 and 3 stocks I can say that my answer of "I don't mind either way" has changed to 2 stock. Player skill is honestly the same. The better player is gonna win 95% of the time (I just made that percentage up but you get the point) regardless of 2 or 3 stock.
Also, I don't think "comebacks" are a good argument, but a great player can make a reverse 2 stock happen.
After playing in tournament for both 2 and 3 stocks I can say that my answer of "I don't mind either way" has changed to 2 stock. Player skill is honestly the same. The better player is gonna win 95% of the time (I just made that percentage up but you get the point) regardless of 2 or 3 stock.
About your data, how many times in a three stock game did someone come back from being down with 1 stock to 2 for the opponent? Because that is also a comeback, if not as strong as a full reversal.
Full 4 stock reversals in Melee are extraordinary rare, less then once per a tournament which is why they get so much hype when they do happen. I don't see why a 3 stock reversal would be common enough that we would expect it at every tournament we got data from.
Bottom line is you need a lot more data to be conclusive.
A 1vs2-stock comeback is possible in a 2-stock format as well. What 3s8m advocates need to test is whether 3vs2-stock comebacks are more common than 2vs1-stock comebacks.
But honestly I found myself having more fun with 2 stocks at my most recent tournament. It did run a bit smoother and the better players still won (I got 3rd behind some guy I didn't know and Junebug. Who is one of the best PM players)
That's kind of nit picking. 5% chance to lose a game because you didn't have an extra stock? Besides the better player is still going to win the set. If he/she do not win the set, chances are they didn't deserve too.
That's kind of nit picking. 5% chance to lose a game because you didn't have an extra stock? Besides the better player is still going to win the set. If he/she do not win the set, chances are they didn't deserve too.
Sure, it's very unlikely, and there's even less chance that they could win both sets with it. But it's still possible. Unlikely, but none of us want to be that one person that was undeniably better but lost to Judge 2 games in a row.
Keep in mind that Game and Watch, a character that benifits greatly from 2-stoc,k is one of my mains: 3-stock is far superior.
Sure, it's very unlikely, and there's even less chance that they could win both sets with it. But it's still possible. Unlikely, but none of us want to be that one person that was undeniably better but lost to Judge 2 games in a row.
It's true that the better players most of the time wins in a 3 stock environment where an SD doesn't=loss or that one hot combo takes one stock and then puts you into desperate time.
Now if I may add my own 2 cents:
3 stocks 8 minutes seems like the only way to me to run a Smash 4 tourney. Brawl, a significantly slower game, ran 3 stock 8 min and was fine in terms of gameplay.
Timeouts aren't a drastic clogging for tournaments, but it's actually the way the timeouts are handled. Many times we see people timeout with the TO handling the situation poorly (not trying to get other matches underway or allow dilly-dallying to take place which is quite toxic for tournaments to end). Using my small, but nonetheless experience from hosting tourneys at my house, and at large venues (even at the University I'm at) I can say, most of the blame is on the TO.
TOs have to make sure they are aggressive with smashers as we love to have friendlies or spectate or sit on our hands to wait for our time to play on stream. For instance, many times I've seen players sit and wait for their stream time when they're like 5 places down on the list while each match goes to its game 3. That's where the TO has to come in and say, sorry, but you're playing right now off stream (with the addendum of the Youtube feature in the works, this can be cured and then the time/stream issue can be lessened).
Division. Now, TOs have the gall to believe they can do it all on their own are actually quite naive. Having good poolmasters take care of certain pools, while you or the main TO take care of the entire venue is key to not have it bleed over in time. Divide and conquer is the best strategy for running something this potentially large.
Bracket Pools. I cannot stress how annoying, redundant, and time consuming having RR pools. You have to play EVERYONE then you have to calculate points/wins/losses. UGH. Why bracket pools, well because it's intuitive and simple. Always for me, I split the entire amount of entrants into 4 pools and take 1/4 of the pool size. Essentially, if there's 64 entrants in on tourney, I make 4 pools of 16 entrants and have the top 4 make it out of pools. It may sound harsh, but you either have to git gud, or git out.
Following these guidelines, I've never TOed a tourney and left late. We leave about 20-30 mins before our scheduled curtain calls (that's including all the friendlies people play after they've been eliminated or have free time). The times I've been poolmaster, I ended my pools by at least a 25 mins margin every single time. The times I haven't TOed/been poolmastered, people were late and just were passive. This meant we left hella late.
OK, how does this apply to having 3/8 and 2/6 or 2/5? Well since 3/8 is longer, it means that more mistakes or miscues are made more evident and are therefore more inescapable in certain TOs eyes. 2/6 is the easy copout answer for TOs as there's less stress involved in maintaining the tournament. Honestly, this whole 2 or 3 stock debate stemmed from FG being a thing (no duh). To use FG's format of how the game should be played is intrinsically incorrect as FG is supposed to be the mode for in betweeners (you know, people who want to be competitive, but not willing to go to tourneys). FG rule stock doesn't take into to account the comeback factor named rage and doesn't take into account the overall faster gameplay the game offers as opposed to Brawl.
TL;DR
TOs are the ones who have to implement and enforce time rules regardless of the ruleset. Players are responsible too, but ultimately, it's on the TO.
I would also argue this. Players being more aggressive in a 3stock 8min match is more entertaining/hype to watch. There is more potential for amazing things to happen. Tournaments shall take longer as more people enter them. Look at the amazing entrant numbers at Evo 2015 this year. Plus other fighting games take longer than Smash and some even have more players in their tournaments but they still get the job done.
It is not like using 3stock and 8mins is just going to take up so much extra time that players are going to be staying dusk to dawn trying to finish pools or the top 8. Even if 3stock and 8mins does take a bit longer that might just mean more viewers to see things on Twitch.tv.
By the way has 3stock 8mins ever been given the chance at a large major tournament?
No it hasn't. Like I said, the very fact of FG's existence has caused a growth in the amount of potential entrants, reduced the experience or the potential of the meta. Pretty much a quantity over quality thing is happening here.
TOs just see 3/8 as too daunting of a task to manage and make sure nothing runs late or whatever. Until a good amount of TOs come in and change the meta ( they control a good amount of meta you know), we will have to stick with 2/6
Scarlet Jile
and @
Amazing Ampharos
have presented the most sound arguments in general.
