P:M 4 Stocks VS 3 Stocks.

[Fortress]

Glad this is getting discussion. As a follow-up, what do you think about Counter-Picking and Stage Selection time limits?

At Evo 2014, the Counter-Picks took an average of 29 seconds. From my understanding, much more is involved in the stage striking and counter picking in PM, which will inevitably take longer than melee and, in turn, add to the overall set time. This is something I forgot to account for in the original article, but is a sad reality. One on hand, you don't want a person to make a rash decision and choose an incorrect ban or stage, but you want a limit too. What would be an appropiate amount of time? 90 seconds? If then, this further will add to the longevity of PM sets, especially in a BO5, when you'll have to counter-pick 4 times. This can easily make PM another 2-3 minutes longer than an average Melee set. Thoughts?

This is alleviated by running not-APEX stagelists, and running a reasonable amount of diverse stages. Running eight or ten stages that are each unique in their own aspects will make choosing stages easier. APEX rules go a little like this:

"Oh, let's see, do I ban these three stages that are pretty much clones with/without walls and are good for X character that I'm fighting, and leave the fourth open, or do I ban these other ones... **** it, there are fourteens stages, there will be a good one no matter what."

 

[DrinkingFood]

Fortress, that doesn't reduce counterpicking time at all. All the issues of deciding what 3 stages to ban out of 4 or more that are good for the opponent are present no matter how diverse the stages are. In fact the more diverse they are, the more differing factors you have to consider for each stage. This will continue to be an issue until eitherr the meta has sufficiently evolved to the point that most players have a set group of stages they ban for certain characters, or until the stage list is heavily reduced.
Please stop pretending that your stage list is a counterpicking revolution from the gods of smash. It's average Joe's stage list #34.

 

[Fortress]

Please stop pretending that your stage list is a counterpicking revolution from the gods of smash. It's average Joe's stage list #34.

When did I say or imply this. I heavily implied and hinted at it not being the APEX list, but, that was about it.

or until the stage list is heavily reduced.

I pretty much said exactly the same thing in the post you're disagreeing with.

Read:

This is alleviated by running not-APEX stagelists, and running a reasonable amount of diverse stages.

See, it's fun when I'm right. "'not-APEX' stagelist" is not the same thing as running my really ****ing awesome page two. Don't get where you're pulling that from.

Hows 'bout I word it in a way you'll still disagree with:

Counters: GHZ, Wario Ware, Lylat, Dreamland
Starters: FD, BF, FoD, Smashville, Stadium 2

 

[mtmaster]

Pardon me for not fully understanding the competitive scene as a whole, as I just started getting into it and all, but does a 4 stocks vs 3 stocks, actually make a significant difference? I don't want to sound like an idiot or anything, but I don't think it really matters to much. As far as tournaments go I guess its really up to the person or persons who set up the tournament whether they wan to do 3 stocks, 4 stocks, or however many stocks they feel like uses. I mean when you set up a tournament you can honestly make almost any rules you want I would think as long as they aren't too ridiculous, and its not like just because a big name tournament uses a certain rule set that if you set up your own tourney you have follow that trend, as someone earlier so eloquently put it. But hey what do I know, I'm new to all this.

 

[Fortress]

Pardon me for not fully understanding the competitive scene as a whole, as I just started getting into it and all, but does a 4 stocks vs 3 stocks, actually make a significant difference?

Probably not, but we'll never know without trying it, and that's more-or-less the issue at large; a large portion of the community's absolute refusal to try anything new, or shoot it down without even trying it basing their reasons on crap theory and averages.

 

[TaFoKiNtS]

I am unsure if you are targeting me in that last post, considering I'm the one that proposed the rule change to begin with.

 

[Master WGS]

I don't think he is. As you can see, the poll kind of indicates that 3 stocks isn't exactly the popular choice. I think he was referring to the response in general.

 

[menotyou135]

Can I just point out that fighting games already have shorter matches than most esports.

Starcraft matches last around 20 minutes on average and can go on over an hour for best of 3.

Halo matches last between 8 and 15 minutes depending on the map and gametype, and it is ran as a best of 5.

League of Legends, the most successful esport of all time, lasts like 30 minutes.


Reducing the stocks by one even though the matches almost never go to time is silly in a game that will last, at most 8 minutes, and usually lasts half that time.

 

[Master WGS]

Right, but this isn't a MOBA or FPS. It's closest to a fighting game, and tends to be getting most of its biggest viewership being thrown in with other fighting games. As such, if the plan is to continue fostering a relationship with the fighting game community, our goal should be to get closer to their ideal setup without taking out what sets us apart entirely.

I've still yet to see specifically why 4-stocks is necessary beyond "We've always done it this way, why change?/It doesn't feel right after playing with 4-stocks for 10+ years." These are bad reasons. The CLOSEST I've seen is the Wario/Ivysaur argument, which is just conjecture and not tested/proven theory.

 

[DMG]

Stock count doesn't matter very much until you reach 2 or less. For the purpose of testing the same "skills", anything 3 or higher is basically the same thing (except for silly extremes like 50 stock games, which would also heavily test your stamina etc)

My only concern would be if you start fooling around with set counts. Making them bigger could/would have more of an impact (because of CPing) than going from 4 to say 2 stock. 3 stock matches wouldn't expand to Bo5 for normal bracket matches though, so basically there's not much to fear for using 3 stock.

It doesn't really matter to me whether you use 3 stocks, but I don't think the arguments for both sides are very compelling. Most tournaments run into time trouble due to every reason under the sun BESIDES the players actually playing lol. "Hey I'm gonna go to the bathroom/get food and notify nobody, hold the bracket up for me!" "Hey I'm top player X, I'm gonna be 30 min late. Don't start without me!" "Hey this guy challenged me to a MM, I know you already called my match before I started this but lemme finish!"

I don't think 4 stocks detracts that much for a spectator. People point to lame MU's that might take forever to finish, but what difference would there be if it there were fewer stocks? Kirby vs Ivysaur or something right? "Well **** I only have 2 stocks, now I definitely can't afford to approach!" *Stream monster yawns and types Kappa* Would not change much imo lol.

 

[Fortress]

Would not change much imo lol.

/thread

 

[Scuba Steve]

I think that instead of changing the stock count, they should just make all games be played on Warioware. Most efficient tournament ever.

 

[DMG]

Might as well make it Bowser dittos on WW

Blood will be shed

 

[Reiign]

This point may have already been made but I will say it anyways. Some games may take a lot longer than others because the players are the ones that make it slow. Some players even go as far as playing the game like it's brawl, just avoiding each other and camping on each side of the stage. Even some Melee games take long because of the characters that are being used. That being said, the game should stay at four stocks.

 

[NWRL]

So after a test run of the Big House ruleset, I'll say that 3 stock isn't that much different than 4 stock. The usual top 5 still placed in the top 5. Matches ran quick and the bracket was never held up. This is from a TO perspective.

I have a survey for the event and a lot of the feedback was a mix between neutral and negative.

 

[GrosMinou]

I don't think it would change anything. to me it doesn't matter 3 or 4 stocks, I just prefer 4 because I get "more game time".

 

[HappyW@nderer]

I don't think it would change anything. to me it doesn't matter 3 or 4 stocks, I just prefer 4 because I get "more game time".

Well, it wouldn't be fair to the other players who are waiting to get started with their matches. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[PlateProp]

Well, it wouldn't be fair to the other players who are waiting to get started with their matches. Wouldn't you agree?

They theoretically get just as much game time as he does, so what's your point?

 

[HappyW@nderer]

They theoretically get just as much game time as he does, so what's your point?

I was just making a statement. I thought it would be quicker and easier.

 

[Master WGS]

So after a test run of the Big House ruleset, I'll say that 3 stock isn't that much different than 4 stock. The usual top 5 still placed in the top 5. Matches ran quick and the bracket was never held up. This is from a TO perspective.

I have a survey for the event and a lot of the feedback was a mix between neutral and negative.

Would you run it like this again, or do you think it didn't ultimately speed things up enough to matter?

 

[NWRL]

Would you run it like this again, or do you think it didn't ultimately speed things up enough to matter?

Personally, yes, just because a faster bracket means we can get more people into friendlies before the venue closes.

If I get enough negative feedback from the players, I'll switch to 4 stock though. I like keeping a steady 30-40 at my events