Meta Is 3 stock better than 2?

[paperchao]

I think 3stock BO3 would be as well.

While this is not true, Smash 4 has the impression that it takes too long. I would say that on 3DS(blast zones pushed out a bit more) and at first due to mechanics this was a bit true but certainly not now.

Really one of the reasons I think 2stock is the norm at many tournaments is just so "Smash 4 can be done with as quickly as possible" to move on to other games. In other fighting games there are matches that drag out but you do not see people complaining that "this game takes too long".

When one thinks about it a 3stock 8min match is only 2mins longer than a 2stock 6min match. A few mins is not going to tire someone out. The overall set at most could only be mins longer sense BO3 is the general tournament standard norm.

3stock 8mins is not the endurance test. Loser's bracket in a tournament is the endurance test due to getting few to no breaks in between sets.

People also tend to forget that killing at 150 was the norm on 3ds, and that a lot of the cast has received healthy ko potential buffs, along side much smaller blastzones, it's a completely different environment then 3ds

 

[SwavyB]

I think 2 stock 6 minutes is better. Not only is it better for larger tournaments (for example, right now EVO is at 2000 people. Lets assume that the brackets are split evenly so that everybody plays first round, so we have 1000 matches. And lets say for example that 100 matches can be played simultaneously at any given time. So, for the sake of argument, lets assume every match in all these sets goes to last game (3) and ends with a time out. On a six minute ruleset round one will take 3 hours and on a eight minute ruleset round one will take 4 hours. That extra hour makes a pretty big difference as far as the length of the event goes, which leads to more possible venue fees, players getting tired, scheduling conflicts with other tournaments and responsibilities, etc.), but people are less likely to get tired since events and matches won't run as long.
{{I realize this is a specific scenario, but this is also assuming everybody is on time, ready, able to play their matches, and that the sets are rotated and called properly.}}

As well, to the point of allowing more error, I ask why does there need to be more room for error? The idea of a tournament is that it is the time to show how well you can control and handle the game to outplay and defeat your opponent given (ideally) the same conditions for each player (same practice resources, same ruleset to practice for, same ability to find skilled opponents and strategies to practice, working equipment, etc.). The SD or error is on the part of the player, since ultimately they are the ones pressing the buttons on the controller, which sucks but it's the way it is. The player is expected to bring their best and all to the event, so it's like a performance in a way. Performances are judged on what's prepared and presented. Practice to not make errors.

Also I'd rater have to play against 1 stock if SD at zero in 2 stock vs someone zero to death me then SD at zero in 3 stock.

These aren't the only reasons too.

 

[Shouxiao]

I think 2 stock 6 minutes is better. Not only is it better for larger tournaments (for example, right now EVO is at 2000 people. Lets assume that the brackets are split evenly so that everybody plays first round, so we have 1000 matches. And lets say for example that 100 matches can be played simultaneously at any given time. So, for the sake of argument, lets assume every match in all these sets goes to last game (3) and ends with a time out. On a six minute ruleset round one will take 3 hours and on a eight minute ruleset round one will take 4 hours. That extra hour makes a pretty big difference as far as the length of the event goes, which leads to more possible venue fees, players getting tired, scheduling conflicts with other tournaments and responsibilities, etc.), but people are less likely to get tired since events and matches won't run as long.
{{I realize this is a specific scenario, but this is also assuming everybody is on time, ready, able to play their matches, and that the sets are rotated and called properly.}}

As well, to the point of allowing more error, I ask why does there need to be more room for error? The idea of a tournament is that it is the time to show how well you can control and handle the game to outplay and defeat your opponent given (ideally) the same conditions for each player (same practice resources, same ruleset to practice for, same ability to find skilled opponents and strategies to practice, working equipment, etc.). The SD or error is on the part of the player, since ultimately they are the ones pressing the buttons on the controller, which sucks but it's the way it is. The player is expected to bring their best and all to the event, so it's like a performance in a way. Performances are judged on what's prepared and presented. Practice to not make errors.

Also I'd rater have to play against 1 stock if SD at zero in 2 stock vs someone zero to death me then SD at zero in 3 stock.

These aren't the only reasons too.

Thing is it is rare for a match to timeout or even come close to timing out these days. Well there are certain matches that generally take longer but every fighting game has those. The pacing of a 2stock and 3stock match is very different. Pretty much would spend the same amount of time or not much more running a 3stock tournament.

Sense BO3 is the standard for most tournaments a 3stock set could only be a few mins longer than a 2stock set.

When it comes to SDs they are rare but one could say they are really hurt when they do happen in a 2stock match. I do understand it is the player's fault however.

These days it seems like one of the main reasons for 2stock is so that Smash 4 can finish ASAP for other games to be played.

 

[ARISTOS]

Since 2 vs 3 stock is coming up again as a debate, I wanted to post this data that I had created in order to test the theory of whether comebacks were more likely or not in 2 vs 3 stock.

Here's the data:

The research primarily aimed at three factors:

• Does it increase time significantly? I'm looking at this both on a per stock basis and time as a whole.
  
  
• Does adding more stocks lead to a greater chance of players adapting to playstyles and overcoming the loss of their first stock?
  
  
• Does adding more stocks leading to a greater chance of adaptation over the set?
  

Methods

• I took sets from popular Youtube streamers and created two playlists, one of 2 stock sets and one of three stock sets. Youtube playlists give videos numbers, so I was able to randomly sample from these playlists using RANDOM.org.
  
  
• I measured the length of match (in seconds), if a comeback occurred (did the person who lost the first stock win the game) and set comebacks (did the person who lost the first game in a set win the match?)
  

Results

• In the first case, I found that adding the additional stock, on average, adds about 100 seconds (a minute 40 secs) to whatever game is being played. 2 stock matches came out around 156 seconds on average (about 2 minutes 36 seconds), while 3 stock matches came to be about 251 seconds on average (4 minutes 11 seconds). This makes sense obviously. Looking on a per stock basis, 2 stock comes at around 77 seconds per stock while 3 stock clocks in at around 83 seconds per stock. This isn't much of an increase, but you also have to note that in 3 stock another stock is played on top of that-that increases time quite a bit.
• All in all, there seems to be a statistically significant increase in time when going from two stock to three stock. Of course, it only adds up to about an extra two minutes- not really that much in the larger scale of things.
  
  
• However, I also tested the hypotheses that the extra stock leads to more time for adaptation on the parts of the players. I'll cut to the chase- this does not seem to be true at all. In 3 stock games, the winner made a comeback from a stock deficit only two times more than in 2 stock games. Additionally, set comebacks only happened twice more in 3 stock sets than in 2 stock sets. The idea of adaptation seems entirely placebo.
  

Flaws

• Sample sizes for both sets were rather small. If I were to do this again, a much bigger sample size for both groups would be needed.
  
  
• Because of the nature of which sets get uploaded (usually the best players get their sets on Twitch while the rest usually don't), the sample may not represent the average player.
  
  
• Both groups had doubles and 3 out of 5 sets. I did not include these in the analysis; if they came up in randomization, I re-rolled. This can mess up the randomization.
  

Tables and other ish to prove I'm not ****posting

Youtube playlists: 3 stock: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEbaDBU59BiAN6tuJJp-1syEZObLfmCZJ 2 stock:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEbaDBU59BiDzPFP2aHuAcj-QIp8cTI-2 Link to results:http://docdro.id/m4W9xdr

If you have any questions, comments, or criticisms, feel free to ask! First time doing something like this, so there might be some errors.

EDIT: Here is the data for the mean and median (the number next to 50%), as well as the standard deviations for the match times of 2 stock vs 3 stock: http://imgur.com/a/cduDW

Here's a Dropbox link for the dataset: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e7d8k1yii3qavru/2 or 3 stock.xlsx?dl=0

I'm looking to try and repeat this process but I want to try and clear up some things first.

1. How good is my measurable definition of a comeback? Are there better ways of measuring this?
2. The amount of sets for 3 stock were painfully small; there should be a lot more this time, as I would use 1.15 and 1.16 (barring Bayo).

 

[Xyro77]

Just gonna throw out there that here in Houston TX I have been running 3 stock events in smash 4 (also brawl since 2008) and end within 1 hour earlier/later (other than one event with 400 people) of most all 2 stock events. This isn't me bragging but i do want to bring to light some major issues people are not considering.

1. Do statistics on how much longer a game with 3 stocks vs 2 stocks is a waste of time in my opinion. Styles, MUs, SDs, controller setup, name creation, stage striking/banning, bathroom breaks, character selection, talking....etc can add 1-2min on ANY set regardless of stock. Its variables like that that alter peoples perception of the debate.

2. Streaming. I've been hosting smash events since 2004. Ever since recording came into play, I have noticed a SUBSTANTIAL time increase in terms of overall event time. You have TOs wanting to record top 32, top 16, top 8......etc. You basically put the remainder of the tournament on 1 TV. This adds 1-2 hours (or more) to the total event time. If 3 stocks are at play, you get people claiming 3 stocks are the reason why the event lasted so long. It is simply not true.

3. Bad TOs. This is why you have 100 man 2 stock events lasting until 2am and 3 stock events lasting the same or later. In this age, everyone thinks they can be a TO. The truth is, not everyone can. As a TO you have to govern with an Ironfist on some things that literally determine the length of your event and ive seen so many TOs (in the smash 4 era) let their event govern itself. Top players play when they want (and are usually late to show up to the event). Many players flat out leave an event to go eat and come back 30-45min later and the TO holds their matches the whole time. You also have TOs drop everything and go play matches instead of TOing. 9/10 times this stuff pushes events multiple hours behind and BECAUSE it was done with a 2 stock event, people ASSUME 3 would take even longer. Point is, the stocks are not the issue, its the TOs.


I guess the point i am trying to make is that if TOs focused on DOING THEIR JOB, stop player privilege, DQ people, only stream HYPE matches (top 32/16/12/8 isnt always hype especially if its a timeout MU or a MU people have seen for 2 years now) and TRY 3 stocks, they will find that the difference is not that much.

 

[ARISTOS]

Just gonna throw out there that here in Houston TX I have been running 3 stock events in smash 4 (also brawl since 2008) and end within 1 hour earlier/later (other than one event with 400 people) of most all 2 stock events. This isn't me bragging but i do want to bring to light some major issues people are not considering.

1. Do statistics on how much longer a game with 3 stocks vs 2 stocks is a waste of time in my opinion. Styles, MUs, SDs, controller setup, name creation, stage striking/banning, bathroom breaks, character selection, talking....etc can add 1-2min on ANY set regardless of stock. Its variables like that that alter peoples perception of the debate.

2. Streaming. I've been hosting smash events since 2004. Ever since recording came into play, I have noticed a SUBSTANTIAL time increase in terms of overall event time. You have TOs wanting to record top 32, top 16, top 8......etc. You basically put the remainder of the tournament on 1 TV. This adds 1-2 hours (or more) to the total event time. If 3 stocks are at play, you get people claiming 3 stocks are the reason why the event lasted so long. It is simply not true.

3. Bad TOs. This is why you have 100 man 2 stock events lasting until 2am and 3 stock events lasting the same or later. In this age, everyone thinks they can be a TO. The truth is, not everyone can. As a TO you have to govern with an Ironfist on some things that literally determine the length of your event and ive seen so many TOs (in the smash 4 era) let their event govern itself. Top players play when they want (and are usually late to show up to the event). Many players flat out leave an event to go eat and come back 30-45min later and the TO holds their matches the whole time. You also have TOs drop everything and go play matches instead of TOing. 9/10 times this stuff pushes events multiple hours behind and BECAUSE it was done with a 2 stock event, people ASSUME 3 would take even longer. Point is, the stocks are not the issue, its the TOs.


I guess the point i am trying to make is that if TOs focused on DOING THEIR JOB, stop player privilege, DQ people, only stream HYPE matches (top 32/16/12/8 isnt always hype especially if its a timeout MU or a MU people have seen for 2 years now) and TRY 3 stocks, they will find that the difference is not that much.

In regards to point 1, I only looked at the time spent in game- outside factors were not included. Plus, I randomized from a sample of games, meaning that unless the sample was systematically biased there shouldn't be any problem because the chance of there being long games has an equal chance of happening in both groups.

You are right that focusing on reducing outside factors will streamline the event and make it run faster- I am only focusing on what is happening IN the game.

Moreover, what I was focusing on wasn't time differences- I imagined per stock it wasn't much added. What I really wanted to test was whether comebacks being more prominent under 3 stocks was a real thing or something that sounded good, but did not actually realize itself.

 

[Shouxiao]

I would also say this. When you really think about it, one of the reasons 2stock is the norm is so Smash 4 can be done as soon as possible so that other games can be played and have the spotlight.

In many ways Smash 4 does not get the respect it deserves. While there are more reasons for this I think the ruleset is one of the major reasons for this.

In terms of time I doubt 3stock would take up that much more time if any at all. There is only a 2min different between a match and a set can only last a few mins longer. T

Also lets say there are matches/sets that are drawn out. Why is this a problem for Smash 4 but not other games(fighting or different genre)? There is defensive play in Smash 4 and other fighting games. Other fighting games have matches that can be really drawn out but you do not see anybody complaining.

3stock also has the possibility of more hype moments happening. That is in a sense advertising the Smash 4 community scene more for people to see.

 

[paperchao]

Also lets say there are matches/sets that are drawn out. Why is this a problem for Smash 4 but not other games(fighting or different genre)? There is defensive play in Smash 4 and other fighting games. Other fighting games have matches that can be really drawn out but you do not see anybody complaining.

I always didn't get why people point to timeouts as the reasons tourneys run late, the tourney should be prepared to assume everything could be a timeout

 

[Xyro77]

I would also say this. When you really think about it, one of the reasons 2stock is the norm is so Smash 4 can be done as soon as possible so that other games can be played and have the spotlight.

This isn't true at all. Many many many events have only smash 4 singles and some have smash 4 singles and doubles. Yet in both cases, 2 stocks still remains.

Why? Well, without going into too much detail......

1. Most TOs are simply bad. They cannot run an event on time (be it small or large) and cutting down stocks speeds up the event.

2. Relating to item #1, most TOs are lazy. Any way to cut corners (stock count is one way) will be taken to easy their work load.

3. Most TOs have put money (instead of the game) as the main focus. Twitch viewers (who i call ADHD viewers) cant handle 3 stocks and so they wont watch in droves. If they dont watch, you wont get ad money, viewer money, youtube money, sub money...etc. So what do you do? Cut the stocks, increases viewers and then receive the payout for it.

4. Smash 4 wifi is the best smash wifi we have ever seen. It is a legit way to play/train/grind with anyone on earth. The default ruleset is 2 stocks. Many uneducated players/TOs believe that if you TRAIN on wifi 2 stocks then OFFLINE 2 stocks is the only way the game should be played.

5. Probably the most important aspect, "influential" players/TOs/commentators. When these guys embrace something crazy as 2 stock or "Diddy is STILL the best character," the droves of ADHD twitch viewers and general uneducated population (the sheep) follow them.

In many ways Smash 4 does not get the respect it deserves. While there are more reasons for this I think the ruleset is one of the major reasons for this.

Absolutely. Smash and its scene are in one of the most complex situations i have ever been a part of. This is the ONLY party game where thousands and thousands and thousands of players agree to turn it into a makeshift fighting game that actually works. Its the ONLY game that relies on stage abuse (platforms, hazards, ledges, blast zones), shield+powershield+rolling+air dodge+ground dodge+triple jumps (some have 5-6).....etc. THEN you have the option to change stocks, legal stages, timers, items/smash balls. With all these options, many TOs will not do what the next TO does. To the FGC, who play TRADITIONAL FIGHTERS aka games that were developed from A-Z to be a FIGHTING GAME, the smash scene's behavior (which i approve of btw) gives off a sense of "their scene isnt together lol how sad." This is why FGC and traditionalists do not view smash too highly. The REALLY interesting thing is that not only has Smash destroyed (in numbers) all fighters (except Steet fighter) at EVO 3 years in a row, smash has more turnout across america in terms of weeklies, monthlies and regional in general. That says how strong we are. That says how we dont NEED the FGC or the "legitimacy" (LAUGH MY ASS OFF) it brings.

In terms of time I doubt 3stock would take up that much more time if any at all. There is only a 2min different between a match and a set can only last a few mins longer.

You are correct. It does take more time than 2 stocks but its not super crazy different.

Also lets say there are matches/sets that are drawn out. Why is this a problem for Smash 4 but not other games(fighting or different genre)? There is defensive play in Smash 4 and other fighting games. Other fighting games have matches that can be really drawn out but you do not see anybody complaining.

Because of the 3 stock/8min rule-set in BRAWL where MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY games at high and low level would hit 6-8 min regularly, the world view of 3 stocks (and any smash game NOT melee) is considered slow. Time outs are a legit strategy in fighters/party games and real life sports. It doesnt matter, if ADHD twitch viewers or melee elitists or Smash 4 haters or non smashers watch a smash match, it will appear slow/boring.

The only way to stop this "smash is too slow" mentality is to have a 99 sec timer (1 min 39 sec), life bars and a caged in stage.

3stock also has the possibility of more hype moments happening. That is in a sense advertising the Smash 4 community scene more for people to see.

i agree fully.

3 stocks promote the chances of the better player winning the longer the match goes on.
3 stocks correct SDs and dumb rage kills
3 stocks allows for adaption
3 stocks encourages aggressive play styles. In a 2 stock match, players don't want to commit/take risks because a loss of a stock is 50% of the game.
3 stocks allows us to see more of the cool stuff we want in a match......and the stuff we DONT want.

 

[Funen1]

For what it's worth, Max Ketchum posted this poll on whether to move to 3 stocks, best-of-5 sets for all matches, or something else after all the "upsets" at CEO. Given his followup post, I think there's little hope of convincing him personally to change his mind, sadly, but if anyone here feels like contributing to the poll, go on ahead.

 

[Frihetsanka]

I think best of 5 would be more interesting than 3 stock. The downside is that best of 5 risks running longer than 3 stock. 3 stock 8 minutes can run, at most, 6 minutes longer per game, while best of 5 can run, at most, 12 minutes longer per game, so TOs might not be willing to run best of 5.

 

[Froggy]

I think best of 5 would be more interesting than 3 stock. The downside is that best of 5 risks running longer than 3 stock. 3 stock 8 minutes can run, at most, 6 minutes longer per game, while best of 5 can run, at most, 12 minutes longer per game, so TOs might not be willing to run best of 5.

Thats not a bad trade off honestly. I don't see the value in and of itself of giving top players more time to adapt.

 

[Xyro77]

In my state we do 3 stock 7min

 

[Routa]

In my state we do 3 stock 7min

Well that is something not too common. How has it been working for you? I would image slightly higher chance of timeouts, but how should I know?

 

[Horseketchup]

3 stock will never happen on a large scale any time in the near future.

At a certain point it isn't even a preference argument, it's a practicality one. The supermajors are the tournaments that set the standards for the rest of the scene to naturally follow. I mean look at how Evo alone caused a temporary mass transition into a customs ruleset.

But the issue is that Smash 4 already takes a long ass time compared to other fighting games, so adding 1-2 minutes onto most games is something they won't accept.... unless the pace of Smash 4 stocks speeds up to a point where 3 stock can reasonably be expected to run like 3.5-4 minute average games. But it's likely more like 4-5 minute games now, which added up makes a huge difference in the time it takes to run the tournament. You can say that TO's can just cut time elsewhere, but then again they can cut time elsewhere and also cut in-game time and that's an even bigger timesaver.

If CEO, Evo, and Genesis alone all decide to run 2 stock, then that's simply what the majority of tournaments will follow. Because nobody wants to spend all their time playing and practicing in a 3 stock meta and then have to switch everything up when the most important tournaments come around.

And on top of that, adding another stock will result in viewers losing more interest over the course of many games/sets. Like nobody watches a rapid fire 1.5 min 2 stock game and goes "man, that set was so lightning fast and BORING", but that feeling will be more prevalent in a 3 stock meta. You can act like the viewers don't matter, but they really do to most TO's and streamers who are trying to expand Smash's accessibility as a spectator sport. We live in an ADHD society, where viewers have access to so many different sources of free entertainment at just a few clicks away.

2 stock Smash 4 is considered to take forever by a lot of the FGC, just to put everything into perspective. I think 3 stock is a better format in terms of quality of gameplay, but I think there's merit in a 2 stock game which forces you to adapt more quickly and which ruthlessly punishes more mistakes. Being able to adapt fast and not make as many big mistakes is a skill in itself to a certain extent, sometimes a player isn't as skilled at quickly picking up on and punishing habits and that's why they lose. The "better player" doesn't always win more often in 3 stock, because the game they're playing is slightly different in the first place.

Though I think having 3 stock but all bo3 is good compromise, but I think tournaments would rather just stay with the tried and true formula. The stock discussion recently came up after CEO and it always seems like there's this online outcry that lasts all of about...6 days. And then 2 months later for some reason people make a fuss over it and nothing happens.

Everyone better just get used to competitive Smash 4 being a 2 stock meta, it's gonna be like this for the foreseeable future and there's nothing anyone can do about it really. 3 stock is gonna remain a fringe ruleset because it's not as appealing to the bigger tournaments.

 

[Xyro77]

Well that is something not too common. How has it been working for you? I would image slightly higher chance of timeouts, but how should I know?

Yeah, timeouts do happen. Usually in MUs that are prone to have timeouts will have timeouts with a 7min timer. I see it in all stock counts. No one really cares other than the crybabies. Most of us here understand that a timeout is a super valid (though boring) way to play

 

[Froggy]

I like 2 stocks for offline tournaments and 3 stocks for online tournaments

 

[Betatech]

to be honest i really dont think the game itself is suited to 3 stocks. Characters that are very quick action comeback focused such as lucario (to an extent) and wario (definetely due to how his fart is single use and takes 2 minutes to charge) have gameplans much better suited to 2 stocks and get quite messed up as a result. And the fact that smash 4 is so neutral based means 3 stocks end up being inevitably boring as players take a long time to get to their last stock and their isn't as much pressure to go for cool hype plays imo.