Omni: Two Stocks Vs Three Stocks

Do we use two stocks or three stocks in Smash 4? This is one of the biggest current debates within the Smash 4 community. Whether we look at the history of Smash and stock counts or look for current data there are many factors to consider before a final decision is made. Once again Omni has made a vlog to lend his signature voice and ideas to this issue explaining the "triforce" of groups in ruleset creation and more. Give it a watch!

Like the video and want more Omni goodness? Be sure to check out some of his other vlogs like Why You Should Pick A Top Tier, 3 Steps To Finding Your Main Character, and Play Lame; Win Game. Have any thoughts on the vlog? Be sure to discuss in the comments below and keep an eye on Smashboards for future Omni videos.

 

Truth I run tourneys with three stock, but we have monthlies that run with 2. I do enjoy TOing 2 stock more but playing with 3. With all the evidence surmounting around this game, 3 stock meta may be the future. That being said, it may cause a huge rift within the community.

 

three stocks brings the ability to adapt and comebacks

 

Well, there's another aspect that isn't mentioned in this video. It's not merely just that the players have to focus on the game, we have to pay 5$ + venue fee for really quick matches. When it's 3 stocks it feels more like you get your moneys worth tbh.

 

Three stocks are necessary because what if u mass up during the match ;O; and yes i also agree with the adaptation factor especially when going up against some campy chars/players *Cough Cough* u all know who i mean.

Ps: Im Talking about a specific char not a player.

 

Always used three, always will.

 

The inclusion of rage in the game makes three stocks more practical but I'm also a sporadic tournament attendee so my opinion doesn't mean much.

 

The fear of campy players and brawl is strong.

On one hand of my uncaring side, how about we just have one stock so everyone can shut up about this debate since smash 4 is definitely not chaning their ruleset any time soon. On my other hand I personally like to have 3 stocks, whenever I play 2 stock and I lose a stock or make a mistake now suddenly I'm pushed into the corner and I can't make any more mistakes otherwise I lose the game. Thats pretty punishing in my opinion. I know I can just simply get good, but that feeling can't be shaken off by being good because everyone SDs and stupid things always happen.

I just grew up with 3-4 stocks perfer being in settings with 3-4 stocks, and would rather have some insurance when I play.

 

The main foundation of his argument is "spectators prefer shorter matches so making them longer loses viewers and the TOs lose money", but at no point does he give any reason to believe people would suddenly stop watching Smash matches if they had an extra stock.

In actuality, when it comes to online streams and such, a lot of people don't actively watch 100% of the tournament as it is. It's very easy to just keep it in another tab playing in the background. I do this a lot as it is, and it doesn't effect TOs since it counts as a view and as retention time.

And as far as local spectators go, well, if there is an entry fee for spectating, then once someone has paid to enter the venue, then you have the money there. If they leave early, that's their call, and it doesn't effect you.

While there still lies the possibility that less people would start attending over time, Omni didn't give me any reason to believe this would actually happen in his video, while also just completely discounting the opposite argument, which is just as possible in reality.

Throughout this post I have not stated my own opinion on what we should do, as I am not too sure to be honest (as a player I would prefer 3-stock since personally I get a lot of early KOs and matches are too short, but I realise there is more to it than that and the other elements are more complex), but I don't think this is one of Omni's best. He didn't give me any reason to agree with him ultimately.

I also disagree with how 3-stock "doesn't actually show the better player". No, it does. Mental stamina is a talent needed in any sport, and it has less presence in a two stock match. In a three stock match, it has more presence, along with the element of adaptation, and nothing is lost, in terms of the skills and talents that can shine.

 

The fear of campy players and brawl is strong.

On one hand of my uncaring side, how about we just have one stock so everyone can shut up about this debate since smash 4 is definitely not chaning their ruleset any time soon. On my other hand I personally like to have 3 stocks, whenever I play 2 stock and I lose a stock or make a mistake now suddenly I'm pushed into the corner and I can't make any more mistakes otherwise I lose the game. Thats pretty punishing in my opinion. I know I can just simply get good, but that feeling can't be shaken off by being good because everyone SDs and stupid things always happen.

I just grew up with 3-4 stocks perfer being in settings with 3-4 stocks, and would rather have some insurance when I play.

Guys, hear me out: One Stock matches!

 

Dammit, Omni! You used your clever wits to make me listen to your video all because Death By Glamour was playing!

It's ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!

 

I've personally always played 3 stocks, I've tried 2 but there are disadvantages that ruin it for me. It feels as though the first person to take a stock usually wins; too often I see someone leverage a single stock advantage for the entire match, taking potshots and running away until the opponent gets a solid hit to KO them. At that point though the opponent is going to have a significant percent disadvantage, making it much more difficult to come back. With 3 stocks though it's easier to come back as there is more leeway to make mistakes. Because your life is more expendable since you have more of it, this leads to more confrontations and often favors aggressive play instead of defensive. Finally, 3 stocks means there are more confrontations between the players. This devalues the "luck" of things like hard reads or blind guesses which can ruin a game in a 2 stock setting. With 3 stocks the better player will have more opportunities to outplay his opponent; over the course of the game this means they win more confrontations, so the "randomness" (lucky shots or absurdly hard reads) evens out over time. This is why I think 3 stocks is a better format for the players.

I would also argue that spectators benefit from seeing the aggressive gameplay facilitated by 3 stocks. If we suppose that spectators ultimately prefer exciting matches over dull ones (for evidence, compare spectator turnouts between Melee and Brawl) , then the format that allows more for offensive play will attract more spectators.

I don't know how 3 stocks would benefit TOs, but they always adapt to what players and spectators demand as it is in their interests to appeal to appeal to the fanbase (they have to turn a profit to keep their tournaments funded, after all). If more tournaments start running 3 stocks I honestly don't think that anyone will miss the "congruency" with online For Glory play (if that was the main goal then FD would be the only legal stage). So that's why I think 3 stocks is a better format for Sm4sh for spectators and players. Feel free to argue with me about this or whatever, but keep in mind I stopped playing this game back in August.

 

I like how the fact that people don't will watch 3 stocks of Smash4 is used."The game is boring with 3 stocks, so 2 stocks."
What about making the game not be boring ? This should be the real problem we are underastimating here.
If a Smash game cannot be played with 3 stocks because people will be bored, is because the meta itself is boring now.
And that's the case.
MK dittos were nice to watch, and become boring after a while. (for some people, is one of the most exciting MU's ever.)
Sheik dittos make me tired when I just think about it.
I wish I'm not alone at this.
(I'm actually a Sheik main.)

 

I'm fine with either to be completely honest.

 

As of the timing of this post:

"Should we use 2 stocks or 3 stocks?"

Two stocks: 8 votes
Three stocks: 23 votes

Omni I don't think you're convincing the majority here.

 

It's a good thing we stopped using customs. Can't have this happening again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IMHCRL_iPs

But seriously, what is stopping a projectile heavy character from doing something like this?

 

It's a good thing we stopped using customs. Can't have this happening again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IMHCRL_iPs

But seriously, what is stopping a projectile heavy character from doing something like this?

Thats why they only allowed specific sets when they were legal :/. This isn't a customs discussion anyway.

 

Three stocks are necessary because what if u mass up during the match ;O; and yes i also agree with the adaptation factor especially when going up against some campy chars/players *Cough Cough* u all know who i mean.

Ps: Im Talking about a specific char not a player.

And everyone just loves fighting Rosalina, right?

 

Smash 4 is too slow for 3 stocks

 

As long as things like accidental footstools, ridiculous KO moves that kill to early, and characters with really easy zero-deaths, and being rewarded for having high damage with rage, two stocks is just stupid. It's like one one accident or misinput determines the set. Or even when you get unlucky and have a huge lead but because of rage the opponent gets an early kill. It really doesn't make sense to have two stocks. The game is also a lot more aggressive than it was in the beginning which is one of the biggest reasons two stocks became the staple anyway. Three stocks is better in just about every way minus the fact that TO's may have to work a little harder in my opinion.

 

Thats why they only allowed specific sets when they were legal :/. This isn't a customs discussion anyway.

My post wasn't about customs. It was about how camply playstyles can still happen in Smash 4 based on certain characters who rely a lot on projectile. So 2 stock, 3 stock, doesn't really change the way people play.

 

My post wasn't about customs. It was about how camply playstyles can still happen in Smash 4 based on certain characters who rely a lot on projectile. So 2 stock, 3 stock, doesn't really change the way people play.

OOOHHHH. Gotcha. That is very true.

 

"Let's finally put this to rest" "I'm pretty sure I'm right" such an ass

 

Minus points for using Undertale music. Sick of listening to that.

 

When I clicked this, I was like "this ***** at it again".

 

I think a really awesome reason is that 3 stock encourages a more risky style of play because with a good lead, competitors are more likely to do more showy and entertaining tactics. I know personally im going to play alot safer with only a stock up vs 2 stocks up. This gives the audience a way better show and lifts weight off the winning player, and makes come backs even more so impressive for losing players. As for TOs, which ive also participated as, better shows means bigger crowds, bigger crowds means more money. As for those matches that just drag on, in all honesty, from my experience they drag on almost just as long in 2 stock in the same match ups.

 

It's very amusing to see people think this actually matters. We could have 1 stock, 2 stocks, 3 stocks or something like 10 stocks for that matter. It doesn't mean anything, it only tells how long the matches will be. As long as the time allows for it, the more the better.

How about focusing on some real problems like customs and stages that deserve to be legal but aren't?

 

It's very amusing to see people think this actually matters. We could have 1 stock, 2 stocks, 3 stocks or something like 10 stocks for that matter. It doesn't mean anything, it only tells how long the matches will be. As long as the time allows for it, the more the better.

How about focusing on some real problems like customs and stages that deserve to be legal but aren't?

Stages that should be legal are 75m, TGCO palutena's temple, port town aero drive and norfair.

 

Use both. 3 stock is better for events where time pressures are minimal. 2 stock is better for huge events (Smash 64, Melee, Brawl, PM, Smash 4 + Doubles for each event with 600+ people overall) or for events with clear time concerns.

People wanting 3 stock for huge events should instead focus their attention towards getting huge events that are primarily Smash 4. Run a super national with just Smash 4 and maybe 1 side event. Should be able to run 3 stock, or hell even 4 stock if you want. You run into trouble when you want a 300+ man bracket with 3 stock, while the rest of the tourney has 4+ other brackets to run on time.

 

I personally think 2 stocks put you at such a disadvantage when it comes to adapting because you only have 1 stock to learn from your mistake of losing your first stock. There is no 'Comeback' stock. This is why in smash 4, getting the first stock off of your opponent is so crucial as your opponent hasn't got the room to use a stock to learn something game changing about their opponent mid match.
From a come back perspective...
Stock 1 = get a feel for your opponent's movements, habits, and setups...
Stock 2 = learn why you lost stock 1 and get a grip of your opponent's kill options...
Stock 3 = Adapt and bring it all back. The Comeback stock.

The pressure is then on the person in the lead to stay in the lead which challenges his/her consistency, ability to switch things up, and ability to constantly bring something new to the table coz lets face it, a good player is not gonna fall for the same kill setup 3 times in a row in a single game.

 

I personally relate 2-stock in Smash 4 to other fighters out there. To be more specific? Killer Instinct. Two bars of health, and that's it. If you win the first round, you don't regain your health or stock and start over.

In Smash Bros.? You've got 90% built up on your character and you took their stock? Better hold on to that 90% stock of yours for as long as possible, because now you're in the final round and they've got one life left for you to take.

That's the same kind of mentality I find in traditional fighters, and while Smash will always be unique, I find 2-stock to be more intense for that very reason. You got bodied or you messed up that first stock? Smarten the hell up because you get ONE. MORE. CHANCE. Make it count.

2-Stock all the way.

 

And everyone just loves fighting Rosalina, right?

Only certain Rosalina players play her so over defensively, and they might actually play more aggressively if they were playing 3-stocks as opposed to 2 as they don't have to worry about feeling cornered when they get an early stock disadvantage. With Rosalina being a light character and Luma being so easy to swat, it's understandable as to why a lot of Rosalina players play in a way "nobody enjoys" in a 2-stock setting, even if I disagree with it myself and think it isn't optimal.

So if you want characters like Rosalina to be more enjoyable to watch, 3-stock is the way to go.

 

Ness mains would like two stock more, wouldn't they? They kill early and that's one less back throw to get off. :^)

 

Im good with either, gotta learn to adapt is all.

 

I'd like to see a 3 stock Smash 4 match sometime. Until then, I wouldn't be able to decide. I have to actually see one to make a decision and as of now, I don't think anyone has ever recorded a 3 stock match.

 

Do I hear Mettaton's remix theme during this video???
Anyways, I prefer two stock. Because it is a default in a For Glory match, and I cannot get used to a 3 stock. Even, I believe the match is more limited and short, it can create more of a challange, and I like that.

 

ESAM also posted a video on the subject that's worth watching.

Personally I'm for 3 stocks as I find it makes for more interesting matches. I'm also helping run a 3 stock major in the UK next April, which should be interesting for those looking to see how well they work.

 

I'm personally in favor of 3-stock matches. There's more time for comebacks and it's more difficult to completely throw a match out just by making one mistake.

Minus points for using Undertale music. Sick of listening to that.

I'm just sick of Death By Glamour. Spider Dance is clearly the superior theme.

 

Every time I saw this debate, I cringe.

The number of stocks isn't mostly what makes Smash 4 long games or not. It's the time we let to do those matches. Time is the real issue, here. Not stocks. I'll never know why smashers doesn't want to talk about it.

A lot of people talk about other fighting games, especially Killer Instinct and games that cut your lifebar in half. In general, FGs that haven't games splitted in rounds. (Injustice, Darkstalkers, KoF XI, Marvel vs Capcom, etc) In any of those games, we have 99 "huge" seconds to finish the game, wich is 250 real seconds IRL. So, 4 mins and 10 sec. A 2-stock match is 6 min. THAT'S the issue. And that's even worst for Melee/PM. How a "fast" game like Melee/PM could have 4-stocks and 8 min per match?

Time-outs are hype, guys. If you let your opponent run away and use the time, it's YOUR fault, not the game's. Sets are long mostly because of that. You have to let the time judge.

So, in my system, Smash 4 games would be 3-stock, 6 min. Melee/PM: 4-stock, 6 min or even 3-stock, 5 min. And I know it would never happen. Not because this is garbage, because you're afraid of time-outs.

"huuurrrrr sudden death" You have already rules for that. The guy with the least percent wins. Same percents: 1-stock game.

 

2 stock is better for both players and spectators. Also, why is no one acknowledging Omni's arguments regarding stamina? It's not a good idea to increase the mental burden of competition by 50% across the board. It's only a nice perk for the people who lose right away.