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.

 

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.

Well that burden already goes up due to 3/5 set counts and larger tournaments with a huge number of rounds or pools. I don't think it's a big issue either way: some people would prefer the trade-off of higher stock count + more mental fatigue if the end result is more consistent or accurate results.

Smash 4 is accessible enough for players that I can't imagine very many being troubled by going up to 3 stock. A lot of Smash 4 players near the top also have experience with Brawl: mental fatigue in THAT game is something to discuss and be concerned about lol.

I think 2 stock is overall the best idea UNLESS Smash 4 community seriously rallies behind tournaments that primarily focus on Smash 4. Frankly, Smash 4 could run 3-4 stock tournaments if they don't pile up with a ton of other brackets. 3 stock people should host larger events catered towards Smash 4 (without lumping in a ton of other Smash or FG brackets). Xyro has success with his series, people could learn from that for hosting 3 stock

 

I think 2 stock is overall the best idea UNLESS Smash 4 community seriously rallies behind tournaments that primarily focus on Smash 4. Frankly, Smash 4 could run 3-4 stock tournaments if they don't pile up with a ton of other brackets. 3 stock people should host larger events catered towards Smash 4 (without lumping in a ton of other Smash or FG brackets). Xyro has success with his series, people could learn from that for hosting 3 stock

I do think this is an important detail. As the number of Smash titles increases, it becomes harder and harder to pack everything in. I don't really attend tournaments that often because they burn me out. If events were to focus on one game at a time, I'd be much more open to the idea of 3-stock matches.

 

Nice meme music, omni. You sure know the perfect way to bait viewers.

 

I prefer 3, but I could play the game either way and love it either way. I don't swing strongly to either side.

 

If we play 3 stock, it has to be best out of 3 (first to two wins). It's better suited for more focused events and early rounds in tournaments.

If we play 2 stock, to balance it, best out of 5 (first to three wins). This is better suited for venues running multiple games and those last few rounds in a tournament.

 

I've been pretty harsh against Smash 4 in the past, but I honestly believe 3 stocks to be more interesting than 2, even if it takes a bit longer.

 

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.

2 stocks or 3 stocks? 23 votes?

 

lol, Omni says two stocks
Poll:
Should we use 2 stocks or 3 stocks?

1. 
   Two stocks
   66 vote(s)
   38.4%
2. *
   Three stocks
   106 vote(s)
   61.6%

 

I usually run 2-stocks for 1v1, but for 2v2 I use 3-stocks.

 

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.

Love. When will you guys learn?

I'm not on camera trying to shove and force my opinion onto you. I'm there to just share with you how I feel, but also get an understanding of the other side. I'm not running an anti-3 stock campaign. LOL. I just want to talk with you guys and argue about video games in a fun way similar to how we do when we argue about anything gaming related in a fun way.

 

If you are sick of 2 stock events, there are many things you can do to help force 3 stocks in.

1. Stop attending 2 stock event.
2. Do not advertise 2 stock events or invite friends to 2 stock events.
3. Host 3 stock events
4. Annoy your local TO about doing 3 stocks.

We defeated stupid customs and places like Europe/Tx have been doing 3 stocks since day one. The switch can be made. Dont talk, take action.

 

I usually do 2 stocks specifically for 1v1s with my friends when we are doing tons and tons of friendlies.

But yes, I totally support 3 stocks.

2 stocks for practice, 3 stocks for the real test.

 

Love. When will you guys learn?

I'm not on camera trying to shove and force my opinion onto you. I'm there to just share with you how I feel, but also get an understanding of the other side. I'm not running an anti-3 stock campaign. LOL. I just want to talk with you guys and argue about video games in a fun way similar to how we do when we argue about anything gaming related in a fun way.

Oh no, not to say you're opinion was bad. I thought it was rather insightful like it always has been, I just felt like calculating results so far.

2 stocks or 3 stocks? 23 votes?

Holy ****. Illuminati confirmed.

 

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.

SB, that's not what his point was. It was that risking (yes, changin things is always a risk) losing money was not worth it, since two stocks is working just fine right now. Personally i'm all for 2 stocks, but i was just pointing out his actual point. He isn't saying it would, or probably would, he was saying that from a business perspective it would be an unnecessary risk to change an already working system.

 

SB, that's not what his point was. It was that risking (yes, changin things is always a risk) losing money was not worth it, since two stocks is working just fine right now. Personally i'm all for 2 stocks, but i was just pointing out his actual point. He isn't saying it would, or probably would, he was saying that from a business perspective it would be an unnecessary risk to change an already working system.

I don't think there is significant enough of a risk to support that argument though, considering most TOs who have already jumped to 3-stocks, have been reporting no problems. It seems to actually be standard in some European countries.

There is always at least a slight risk in trying something different, but there is no point in shying away from every tiny little one. Know your limits, but don't limit yourself, as they say. I don't think there is a significant enough risk to say "nope don't even attempt 3-stocks". In reality, it is up to each individual TO whether or not they want to experiment anyway.

 

I honestly think that it's way too early in the developing meta of sm4sh that we even think about changing the stock count. With impending final patch of the game, why don't we think about character use and growth rather than stock count? I just see this as a complete waste of time.

 

Personally, this being the first smash bros game I've played on another level than causally I like the two stock rule set. I feel that it allows for matches to go by quickly and not be so drawn out. Even if a player were to get gimped early it would add more excitement for the audience and challenge the person who is falling behind step up their game and play better in order to catch up.

 

I am always so torn trying to decide what I prefer. I hate 2 stocks passionately on one hand because it makes simple mistakes and accidental/lucky KOs able to take away essentially half of your game. However this game I feel is too slow to work in a 3-Stock environment. I know the game has gotten faster, but there are still a lot of very slow and campy players that bog the game down, especially for the viewers and TOs. Maybe I'm just not patient enough, but I don't think this game's mechanics can withhold a 3-stock format without becoming a borefest half the time

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken internet, but wouldnt a reasonable time limit on a 3 stock match be the answer to all the problems this question raises? Lets start with players. I personally would prefer 3 stocks because at first glance it appears to add more skill to success. However, this seems as though it might just be a cop out for weaklings who just want another stock to camp with, or just another useless hurdle to jump over when laying waste to your opponent. But if the time of the matches remained at 6 minutes, people who get thrashed will get thrashed regardless, and their extra stock wont mean jack if they dont have time to use it since they spent all match camping. The individual player wont experience much more than a more invested match, which i believe is what you sign up for when you go into competitive. A true athlete wont be moved if they have another round to box or another lap to run. It might suck, but if youre competent, who cares?

TO's and spectators have about the same problem, more stocks = boring/too long. But we already have 6 minutes llotted to the match. If people are okay with the match potentially being 6 minutes, the stock count wont change that preference.

Not trying to be condescending, but this doesnt sound like too hard of a fix. I sort of want someone to explain the root of the issue here?

 

I'm really glad you posted that, CNMNE
Thanks a lot. TOs and players really need to learn that 8 min is TOO LONG, no matter the number of stocks.

 

The shorter the timer, the more incentive there is to try run it out. Having shorter timers would only lead to longer matches.