Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[Tenretsujin10]

ZSS is actually pretty SD prone. I still SD a little to much even though I got used to her recovery in brawl and nairo SD's with her a little too frequently as well.

Again, tech skill errors. Plus Nairo plays like a madman offstage.

 

[David Viran]

Again, tech skill errors. Plus Nairo plays like a madman offstage.

Just like on the other games. One tech error and that decides the match? It kind of sucks but I'm not gonna say 3 stocks completely fixes that but I have more of a chance to redeem myself.

 

[Tenretsujin10]

And 3 stocks will make a difference? Being down a whole stock is still pretty much the exact same uphill battle, you still have to outplay your opponent the same amount as 2 stocks if you're going to win the match.

 

[David Viran]

At best with two stocks and I SD I'm on my last stock. At best with 3 stocks I still have another stock to take risks with and try to come back.

 

[Dsull]

Literally the only reason i prefer 2stock to 3stock is 2stock doesnt let you recover very well from a stupid mistake (i.e. suicide). I hate seeing my opponents do it, but i expect the same treatment i give them when they do it - tough it out, you messed up so work for that victory. I hate it when people suicide after i suicide to even it out because it takes away the punishment for my own screwup. If theres no penalty for what you did, you wont stop doing it very easy.

No idea how many times i Tatsumaki'd off the stage with Ryu before i got the hang of it and quit that crap lol.

3Stock is much easier to recover from an early suicide since you have 1 extra stock to get a doublekill before losing another stock. You only get 1 shot at this kind of recovery in 2stock, and i prefer that.

 

[Dr. Bread]

The more i think about it the more im going to say two-stock is the way to go... in most matchups stocks dont exactly disappear since smash 4 has less gimping potential than any previous smash game(except in certain matchups), and much less potential for transitioning a combo into a ko(except in certain matchups)

At the same time though... smash 4 is kinda unsuitable in its current state for long true combo potential, so thats not really the way to make the games fo faster.

 

[GonashX]

Somebody else probably said it but, Smash64 was 5 stocks, Melee 4 stocks, Brawl/PM 3 Stocks, and now Smash 4 2 stocks. To me different stock numbers work for different games, Smash 4 seems perfectly fine with 2 stocks, and that's how it should be for tournament play. But let's hope that Smash 5 doesn't have 1 stock matches tho

 

[Raijinken]

After some thought and theorycrafting, I've decided that while I like 3 a lot more for a casual smashfest, 2 makes more sense in a competitive setting, as it essentially amounts to a best of three rounds in any other fighting game (with each stock equating to a round).

 

[Wintermelon43]

3 stock 8 minute

 

[shane3x]

It's not like most games have people SD'ing. I think people need to just learn to adapt and practice more as opposed to asking for the rules to be changed to accommodate their potential mistakes.

It is also quite a stretch to suggest either format has more hype/time to adapt and whatever else people seem to come up with compared to the other.

#2Stock

 

[Shouxiao]

After some thought and theorycrafting, I've decided that while I like 3 a lot more for a casual smashfest, 2 makes more sense in a competitive setting, as it essentially amounts to a best of three rounds in any other fighting game (with each stock equating to a round).

I see stocks being more of having multiple lifebars. Stocks can be lost early due to gimp or late due to good DI or recovery.

In an odd way I see match being like Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3. Think of the 3 team mates as stocks. They can be kept around for a long time or all get finished off quickly(like if whole team gets caught in combo). Seconds in UMC3 are not in real time unlock other fighting games though. HP is not healed if someone is Koed.

In terms of rounds I guess it would be like the Naruto Storm 4 and Killer Instinct. When a round is lost HP and time is not reset for the winner.

Other fighting games reset both players HP and time. All other games use 2 out of 3 rounds(Street Fighter and most fighting games) or 3 out of 5(Tekken).

I still see 3stock and 8mins being better. I suspect most matches going at the pace similar to the money matches Izaw uploads. Average match being 3 to 5mins longer. Shorter being 2 to 3 and longer being 6 to 7mins. A min was basically add to 2stock 5mins due to timeouts. The extra min helps but

 

[clydeaker]

The pole seems to be in favor of 3 Stock. For every vote for 2 stock (both 5 and 6 min) there are about 3 votes for 3 stock. One think I don't understand is why most if not all tournaments I've been to or heard about are still using 2 stock. I personally don't hate 2 stock, I just prefer 3 stock. The arguments people have in threads like this are useless unless they can be acted upon. All I'm saying is if you prefer 3 stock I challenge you to try to convince your local tournaments to use 3 stock. if you prefer 2 stock I suggest you do the same, but with 2 stock instead of 3.

 

[Charey]

My local is going 2 stock to better practice for the big tournaments which all use 3. There isn't a reason to practice for a ruleset that is unused.

 

[Infinite901]

After going to my first tournament I now prefer 2 stock. I can't imagine what it how long it would have been with 3 stock.

 

[DunnoBro]

3stock is better for competitive players in a tournament setting.

For TOs and casuals, not so much.

 

[Tenretsujin10]

3stock is better for competitive players in a tournament setting.

For TOs and casuals, not so much.

Nah, 2 stocks allow for more fast paced intellectual adaptations persay, whoever can adapt and play better will come out on top. 3 stocks feels like it kind of waters it down.

 

[DunnoBro]

Nah, 2 stocks allow for more fast paced intellectual adaptations persay, whoever can adapt and play better will come out on top. 3 stocks feels like it kind of waters it down.

I don't see why allowing more time for adaptation waters it down.
Furthermore, momentum plays a bigger factor in 2 stock than adapting does.

 

[clydeaker]

Here's a diagram explaining the differences between a 2 stock and 3 stock match's.

Time in minuets <---:---2---:---4---:---6---:---8---:---10---:---12---:---14---:--->
_____
Pools:
- 3 stock. (3 total)
- 8 minuets. (8 total)
- Best of 1/1.
(Estimated playtime average: 4 min.)
OR
- 2 stock. (4-6 total)
- 5-6 minuets. (10-18 total)
- Best of 2/3.
(Estimated playtime average: 6 min.)
_______________
Main Tournament:
- 3 stock. (6-9 total)
- 8 minuets. (16-24 total)
- Best of 2/3.
(Estimated playtime average: 8 min.)
OR
- 2 stock. (6-10 total)
- 5-6 minuets. (15-35 total)
- Best of 3/5.
(Estimated playtime average: 8 min.)
(both arguably take up the same amount of time, but 2 stock best of 3/5 may take slightly longer.)
_________________
Tournament Finals:
- 2 stock. (8-14 total)
- 5-6 minuets. (20-42 total)
- Best of 4/7.
(Estimated playtime average: 11 min.)
OR
- 3 stock. (9-15 total)
- 8 minuets. (24-40 total)
- Best of 3/5.
(Estimated playtime average: 12 min.)
(Note: this does not take in to account time before, after, and in between matches.)

According to this diagram 3 stock best of 2/3 and 2 stock best of 3/5 arguably take up the same amount of time and stock. 3 stock best of 2/3 may be slightly more accurate and less time consuming, but it really doesn't matter what you choose because they essentially use about the same amount of time and stock.

However if you prefer slightly shorter, but less accurate matches 2 stock best of 2/3 is probably best for you.

If you prefer longer, more accurate, matches 2 stock best of 4/7 or 3 stock best of 3/5 would be better for you.


REMEMBER: The main legitimate argument is about time and accuracy.
<--------2----------[STOCK]----------3-------->
<-----LESS--------[TIME]--------MORE----->
<-----LESS---[ACCURACY]---MORE----->

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

It's easy to understand why 5 stock best of 5/9 may take up too much time and why 1 stock best of 1/1 may not be accurate enough. The issue is trying to establish a cut-off line in the gray area.

 

[Illuminose]

3 stock bo5 is way too long. Maybe the players like it idk, but I've watched certain tournaments, like Dismantle, run 3 stock bo5 and it really drags, especially if the set goes to 3-2. It's pretty scary that a set could potentially take 32 minutes + setup and time in-between.

2 stock bo5 is better than 3 stock bo3 because bo5 is better than bo3, pretty much objectively. It's the best medium. 2 stock bo3 should definitely be run for pools though and maybe even lower levels of bracket like until Top 16 or most likely Top 8 at big nationals.

 

[Pazx]

2 stock bo5 is better than 3 stock bo3 because bo5 is better than bo3, pretty much objectively.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's definitely not that simple. There are other factors at play, and "3 stock is objectively better than 2 stock" is an equally correct statement.

The long, slow, boring sets will always take longer in a 2 stock bo5 set (regardless of whether it's close or not), which is important to consider when the most common strike against 3 stock is "it's too slow". If the community thinks 3 stock bo3 is too slow, why would they accept a format that is slower?

bo5s also make stages more important overall. If you don't alter the number of bans individual stage choices are weakened (and you're likely to run out of stages particularly if you do bo7 finals) but if you remove a ban then counterpicks become more powerful which would likely contribute to back-and-forth sets and higher variance.

 

[Shouxiao]

3 stock bo5 is way too long. Maybe the players like it idk, but I've watched certain tournaments, like Dismantle, run 3 stock bo5 and it really drags, especially if the set goes to 3-2. It's pretty scary that a set could potentially take 32 minutes + setup and time in-between.

2 stock bo5 is better than 3 stock bo3 because bo5 is better than bo3, pretty much objectively. It's the best medium. 2 stock bo3 should definitely be run for pools though and maybe even lower levels of bracket like until Top 16 or most likely Top 8 at big nationals.

Tournaments for most fighting games usually do Best 2 out of 3 for pools/brackets and best 3 out of 5 for top 8 or Grand Finals.

Top 8 is going to take awhile because unlike pools every match in top 8 is streamed and the sets are longer.

 

[Illuminose]

Individual matches in 2 stock bo5 are more high-paced, and the greater game count allows for a greater level/depth of adaptation in terms of counterpicking (I want a 7 stage list anyways which would allow us to drop down to 1 ban for bo5 I'd say). It's a lot more interesting to watch a bo5 than a bo3 of any kind and moreover it's better for assessing player skill. If we go with the assumption that 3 stock matches take 1m 30s average longer than 2 stock, a 2 stock bo5 takes only 1.5 minutes longer than a 3 stock bo3 in terms of game time.

 

[Pazx]

Individual matches in 2 stock bo5 are more high-paced

Please elaborate.

and the greater game count allows for a greater level/depth of adaptation in terms of counterpicking

This is not necessarily a good thing, but you're not wrong.

(I want a 7 stage list anyways which would allow us to drop down to 1 ban for bo5 I'd say).

Having attended and run tournaments with 7 stages I'm not a huge fan, but this is a reasonable suggestion. It'd be nice if we had a 7th stage that wasn't as dumb as Halberd/Delfino, but the closest we have is like... Duck Hunt, which is dumb it it's own right.

It's a lot more interesting to watch a bo5 than a bo3 of any kind

If you say so. I recall a lot of complaining about uninteresting bo3 sets at a recent major tournament, I somehow doubt that making those sets even longer will please spectators.

and moreover it's better for assessing player skill.

You have to at least attempt to show why this is the case rather than asserting your opinion as fact.

If we go with the assumption that 3 stock matches take 1m 30s average longer than 2 stock, a 2 stock bo5 takes only 1.5 minutes longer than a 3 stock bo3 in terms of game time.

So you've shown that the average sets won't be much longer (but still measurably so) and I've shown that when the matches are defensive and close to timing out they're going to be significantly longer with 2 stock. Sounds like a strike against it to me.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

At best with two stocks and I SD I'm on my last stock. At best with 3 stocks I still have another stock to take risks with and try to come back.

While I'm completely undecided regarding a stock preference, I believe that SDing shouldn't be an argument. SDing is a critical error that shouldn't happen at high level play.

 

[Tenretsujin10]

While I'm completely undecided regarding a stock preference, I believe that SDing shouldn't be an argument. SDing is a critical error that shouldn't happen at high level play.

Your response has warmed my heart.

 

[David Viran]

While I'm completely undecided regarding a stock preference, I believe that SDing shouldn't be an argument. SDing is a critical error that shouldn't happen at high level play.

When I first replied I wasn't trying to argue stocks at all. He said it's way harder to SD in this game and it shouldn't happen. I was saying that it does happen and sucks no matter what.

 

[Tobi_Whatever]

I'm just saying that it shouldn't be used as an argument. I don't care if a 3 stock format gives a chance to maybe redeem yourself or if the SDing player is royally screwed if he SDs in a 2stock format. SDing is something that should not happen at all at high level play and you deserve to lose the match because of it.

Now low percent gimping is something we could argue about in regards of a stock preference. I personally have made good experiences with both stock counts and will do further testing with my local scene, although our overall skill level might be a bit too low to give relevant data.

 

[neohopeSTF]

In Smash 4 you pretty much lose if you SD. In every other Smash game you still have a chance.

 

[Ninj4pikachu]

I haven't seen anyone bring this up yet but what about rage?... Having 3 stock inevitably allows one person to have the opportunity to keep their rage longer.
In extreme cases can worry less about his damage in 3 stock than two because if he takes the first kill it puts him in a spot where all he has to do is survive and wait for opertunitys to get really low percent kills. This happens in 2 stock as well but more so in 3 stock.

I just felt the rage mechanic should play a part in this discussion if it hadn't already. Personally I probably lean toward 3 stock, but honestly it's not the end of the world if 2 stock is chosen. I don't think 2 stock is unfair.

 

[Teh Sandwich]

I don't understand people saying 2 stock matches are more defensive than 3 stocks. Theyre not. Not even the slightest bit.. If anything, I play more defensive in a 3 stock match.
Getting a low percent gimp in a 2 stock match is soo rewarding.

 

[clydeaker]

2 stock bo5 is better than 3 stock bo3 because bo5 is better than bo3, pretty much objectively. It's the best medium. 2 stock bo3 should definitely be run for pools though and maybe even lower levels of bracket like until Top 16 or most likely Top 8 at big nationals.

Best of 3/5 may be better than best of 2/3, however 3 stock is better than 2 stock. Essentially all I'm saying is that your argument is useless (That may have seemed ruder than i intended). Both 3 stock best of 2/3 and 2 stock best of 3/5 arguably take up the same amount of time and stock. Best of 3/5 would take up more time because there would be more time in between matches and because it's 2 stock people will play more defensively making the matches even longer.

I don't understand people saying 2 stock matches are more defensive than 3 stocks. Theyre not. Not even the slightest bit.. If anything, I play more defensive in a 3 stock match.
Getting a low percent gimp in a 2 stock match is soo rewarding.

You know what? your right. that is a poor argument point. It hasn't been proven true and isn't backed up by solid evidence.
For all I know 3 stock matches on average take up exactly 1/3 more time that 2 stock matches. There are just too many variables to properly test this meaning it's a poor and inaccurate argument.

Until someone preforms an accurate and well reliable test with the use of the scientific method I will stop using that as an argument point and challenge everyone else to do so too.

 

[Ninj4pikachu]

I don't understand people saying 2 stock matches are more defensive than 3 stocks. Theyre not. Not even the slightest bit.. If anything, I play more defensive in a 3 stock match.
Getting a low percent gimp in a 2 stock match is soo rewarding.

Yes, and if you gimped me in a two stock match I would probably play more defensively and try and punish any and all mistakes you make since it's my last life, rather than attack you to quickly even the odds. In a three stock I'm more tempted to try and gimp you back. Idk why I have that mentality but that's just how I would play.

I think it should be TO's preference, neither is inherently unfair so why does it matter. Heck for that matter why not just let the players decide, if it's a 2 stock tournament and you and I prefer three stock what harm would come from us doing a 3 stock? I'v been to tournaments who do this with banned stages... This whole argument just seems like a perfect example of a distinction without a difference.

 

[LightLV]

Nah, 2 stocks allow for more fast paced intellectual adaptations persay, whoever can adapt and play better will come out on top. 3 stocks feels like it kind of waters it down.

Yeah, no. When any competitive player wants to see who's truly the better fighter, they do longer sets. It eliminates any temporary cheese tactics and exhausts both player's full amount of strategy and adaptability. At the end of the day, only the

Case in point, anyone who watched the BlazblueCP finals at Evo last year, where the grand finals went 10 rounds, including the guy who came up from losers going from 0-2 to 3-2 in the final stretch.

In Smash 4 this is even more true, because this game is supremely silly, especially with Rage being a thing.

 

[Ninj4pikachu]

Mew2king I believe said that he prefers 3 stock over 2 stock "because three stock allows enough time to read your opponent, be read, and then re-read agin" I may be paraphrasing but I believe that was the gist of it. He likes to have all three stages of the fight and he believe 2 stock didn't allow enough time to do that.

In any case he is just a player same as you and me and his opinions shouldn't be held up above anyone else's but he makes a point.

At the end of the day I still think it should be at the TO's whim. But I would like it if at least the final 10 or so matches got 3 stock... If I go to a tournament and it turns out to be two stock I'm not going to be heartbroken, especially if it still allows best 2/3 matches. No big deal...

 

[Teh Sandwich]

It would be pretty cool to have a 2 stock tounament, then top 8, change to 3stock.

 

[ewItsBoo]

For tournaments that are short, 2 stock, longer tournaments, 3 stock.
I prefer 2 stock, 3 stock seems longer, but I do better in 3 stock.

 

[hewhoamareismyself]

Where we are right now in Sm4sh I think we're not ready for 3 stock yet. If punish game improves, if campy/timeout heavy playstyles can be more easily answered (and I think a nerf to shield regen would go a long way for this) then the game overall can move to 3 stocks.

 

[Illuminose]

bo5 is an objectively better way of determining skill because, while it's a similar amount of stocks/time, you have more games. Smash 4 matches are heavily decided by momentum and the stock lead regardless of which format you choose. It's more real chances because getting behind with stocks in this game is a big deal, both in 2 stock and 3 stock.

By more high-paced I mean shorter. Each game is a shorter period of time to digest and they don't really drag like 3 stocks tend to.

 

[Ninj4pikachu]

bo5 is an objectively better way of determining skill because, while it's a similar amount of stocks/time, you have more games. Smash 4 matches are heavily decided by momentum and the stock lead regardless of which format you choose. It's more real chances because getting behind with stocks in this game is a big deal, both in 2 stock and 3 stock.

By more high-paced I mean shorter. Each game is a shorter period of time to digest and they don't really drag like 3 stocks tend to.

^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
Rage mechanics only supports this claim.

 

[Shouxiao]

Yeah, no. When any competitive player wants to see who's truly the better fighter, they do longer sets. It eliminates any temporary cheese tactics and exhausts both player's full amount of strategy and adaptability. At the end of the day, only the

Case in point, anyone who watched the BlazblueCP finals at Evo last year, where the grand finals went 10 rounds, including the guy who came up from losers going from 0-2 to 3-2 in the final stretch.

In Smash 4 this is even more true, because this game is supremely silly, especially with Rage being a thing.

I agree. In fact this year's EVO is another example of this. Look at games like Tekken 7 and Ultra Street Fighter 4 at Evo 2015.

In Tekken the normal vs/arcade settings(if not changed) are 2 out of 3 rounds to take a match. However for arcades, online, and for tournament matches 3 out of 5 rounds is use for the match.

For Ultra Street Fighter 4 top 8 switches from 2 out of 3 games to 3 out of 5 games.

When it comes to Smash having more stocks allows for more strategy and adaptability like you said. It makes both players work more for the win.

In a game like Smash the pacing of the game is strongly determined by stock and time. If someone adds or subtract a stock and or min of time from a ruleset, the pacing of the matches is changed by a lot. Anyone can test this by simply playing a few matches with a friend. The results get more interesting when players are of even/close skill.

I honestly would like to see the community try things like 3 out of 5 for top 8(not just winners/grand finals). As for the matches I prefer a 3stock 8min ruleset.