Should 2 stocks, 5 minutes be better than 3 stocks, 8 minutes?

[SonicZeroX]

What about the possibility of doing 1 stock matches, but with more games being played, so like best 3 out of 5 or possibly even 4 out of 7.
I can think of a number of advantages to this kind of ruleset for Smash 4.

Pros:

• It benefits from Smash 4's supposed shortcomings. The lack of gimps and combos and the strength of defensive play and the large blast zones means that you will almost never die at low percent unless you SD. In other Smash games 1 stock would be terrible because one shine spike or chain grab would end the game (even in Brawl) but so far those don't seem to exist in Smash 4.
• With more games being played as opposed to stocks, it allows a far more dynamic metagame of counterpicking. In Melee most players mastered one character and possibly had a sub character for counterpicking bad matchups, which meant that counterpicking didn't really have that many different choices. However in Smash 4 not only is the roster bigger than any other smash game, custom specials means there are an astronomical number of different movesets to choose from when counterpicking, and having more shorter games being played allows for a potential metagame of counterpicking to become very important.
• It encourages experimentation rather than specialization. This isn't a pro by itself, but rather its something that completely different than other smashes. In Melee and PM, it's much better to practice and master one character than it is to play many characters because a large amount of practice is needed to play each character, but the lack of 'advanced tech' this is not as limiting in Smash 4 and it allows players to able to counter pick and experiment with various custom moves to try to counter the opponent.
• It possibly makes games much more interesting and exciting. Every hit, every bit of percent, and every read will matter a LOT.
• It prevents snowballing and disincentives getting an advantage then running away. Right now it can be very hard to come back if you get killed early because of the strength of defensive play and the weakness of kills. With a 1 stock matchup, instead of having both players playing a long drawn out game, and the game simply ends after the first kill. Furthermore it lessens the advantage of getting very early kills or gimps. In a 2 stock game, if one player gets gimped, they have to get the next kill without taking any damage to even the playing floor. However in 1 stock games, %s reset after every kill so the player simply has to get the next kill to even the overall game up.
• Certain characters like Lucario can gain huge benefits after getting the first kill while others will only gain very small benefits. If Lucario gets the first kill he can easily destroy the next with his aura mechanic. Meanwhile characters who have to work hard for their kills have to work twice as hard.
• It allows players to play around stale moves. Stale moves seems to be REALLY strong in this game, and with multiple stocks, characters who have only a few kill moves are at a real disadvantage. However with just 1 stock, they just have to hold onto their one kill move until the right time, and then in the next game all stale moves will be restored.

Cons:

• Interestingly enough, if someone finds tech to make the game "better" like 0-death combos or crazy gimp/edgeguard kills then 1 stock matches would be way too short.
• Games might be too short for each player to gain proper reads on each other before the game ends.
• It maybe bring a rise to cheese strats such as just going for ganondorf suicide kills for that one stock kill.
• It doesn't allow for comebacks after an early loss. (However the above three cases are all remedied by the fact that more games are being played. Basically the number of stocks each player has is the same, but just spread out over more games, which allows more counterpicking.)
• Setting up custom moves after every kill might take a while and be kind of tiring.
• As the game develops, 2 stocks may eventually just feel perfect and become the new standard while 1 stock might feel too short.

Of course right now is too early to really decide which what is the best ruleset, but I think at the very least it should be given some consideration when developing a new standard ruleset for smash 4.

 

[Captain Norris]

1 stock matches are too short and ther will never be any true feeling of a "comeback." 2 Stocks are still too shot imo, while 3 stocks is just perfect. If Brawl had 3 stocks, This should get three stocks.

 

[Kipcom]

2 Stocks, 5 Minutes sounds good to me.

Nobody ****ing dies in this game lol

As for the people worried about SDing in this game and not being able to make a comeback... really? I'm not sure how you can even manage to do that, unless you're Little Mac. You can take the ledge from other players in this game, and pretty much everyone has a good way to get back to the stage.

 

[Captain Norris]

Bigger problems with only 2 stocks is that isn't long enough to adjust to your opponent, and Self Destructs would be the match basically.

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

You're ignoring too many variables. For example, it is easy to pull off huge damage at the lower %s now, which is one thing that compensates for the huge blastzones.

Either way, no. If you're changing it from 3 stock 8 min to 2 stock 5 min the only thing you're doing is changing the ratio of stock:min to 2.5 from 2.66, which is like 10 seconds less per stock. That barely changes the actual stock:min ratio while it completely changes the feel of the game because any gimp suddenly leaves you with only 1 stock left, half of your original. A gimp, 0 to death combo, or a edgeguard should be cool and significant but it shouldn't be a "omg now I am 1 stock vs 2 stock". Easy kills should be significant but not pivotal to winning the game. This was achieved with 4 stocks in Melee, which allowed lots of comebacks and close matches despite easy kills, and even in Brawl with its 3 stocks.

And if you want 2 stock 5 min more so because the match itself is simply shorter, then once again I am strongly against that. That's not enough time to adjust to your opponent and let the match progress and develop in an interesting way. 2 stocks is too short. One mistake or the first death and suddenly it's 1 stock to 2 stocks and the person at 1 stock is at a lot of pressure. It could even lead to very defensive plays because no one wants to die first and be at such a huge disadvantage. For example, at the climatic finals of a big tournament, or just two players who aren't very aggressive in the first place.

Or take another example. You're ahead 2 stocks to 1, but you don't go for any risky and cool edguarding because you don't want to risk losing such a big lead. That would take a lot of fun out of the game. If you're a better player or in a lead, then being ahead 4 stocks to 3 wouldn't scare you from going for a edgeguard with any amount of risk because you know you would edge it out over the last 3 stocks. But not if you're at 2 stocks and you lose 1 and suddenly any gimp or combo or edgeguard can end you.

3 stock 8 minutes or possibly even 4 stock 8 minutes if people get better and can edgeguard and combo well.

 

[Diabolical]

I'll be honest, the gigantic blast zones made me uncomfortable. I mentioned it in my notes and I positively knew everyone else would notice it.

Hey, aren't you the jerk that said Mewtwo was in?

 

[Kerreb17]

What about the possibility of doing 1 stock matches, but with more games being played, so like best 3 out of 5 or possibly even 4 out of 7.
I can think of a number of advantages to this kind of ruleset for Smash 4.

I actually like this idea. The only concern I have is that the time between games would inflate the overall tourney time, but probably not by much. Interesting suggestion.

 

[Squii The Fish]

What about the possibility of doing 1 stock matches, but with more games being played, so like best 3 out of 5 or possibly even 4 out of 7.
I can think of a number of advantages to this kind of ruleset for Smash 4.

Pros:

• It benefits from Smash 4's supposed shortcomings. The lack of gimps and combos and the strength of defensive play and the large blast zones means that you will almost never die at low percent unless you SD. In other Smash games 1 stock would be terrible because one shine spike or chain grab would end the game (even in Brawl) but so far those don't seem to exist in Smash 4.
• With more games being played as opposed to stocks, it allows a far more dynamic metagame of counterpicking. In Melee most players mastered one character and possibly had a sub character for counterpicking bad matchups, which meant that counterpicking didn't really have that many different choices. However in Smash 4 not only is the roster bigger than any other smash game, custom specials means there are an astronomical number of different movesets to choose from when counterpicking, and having more shorter games being played allows for a potential metagame of counterpicking to become very important.
• It encourages experimentation rather than specialization. This isn't a pro by itself, but rather its something that completely different than other smashes. In Melee and PM, it's much better to practice and master one character than it is to play many characters because a large amount of practice is needed to play each character, but the lack of 'advanced tech' this is not as limiting in Smash 4 and it allows players to able to counter pick and experiment with various custom moves to try to counter the opponent.
• It possibly makes games much more interesting and exciting. Every hit, every bit of percent, and every read will matter a LOT.
• It prevents snowballing and disincentives getting an advantage then running away. Right now it can be very hard to come back if you get killed early because of the strength of defensive play and the weakness of kills. With a 1 stock matchup, instead of having both players playing a long drawn out game, and the game simply ends after the first kill. Furthermore it lessens the advantage of getting very early kills or gimps. In a 2 stock game, if one player gets gimped, they have to get the next kill without taking any damage to even the playing floor. However in 1 stock games, %s reset after every kill so the player simply has to get the next kill to even the overall game up.
• Certain characters like Lucario can gain huge benefits after getting the first kill while others will only gain very small benefits. If Lucario gets the first kill he can easily destroy the next with his aura mechanic. Meanwhile characters who have to work hard for their kills have to work twice as hard.
• It allows players to play around stale moves. Stale moves seems to be REALLY strong in this game, and with multiple stocks, characters who have only a few kill moves are at a real disadvantage. However with just 1 stock, they just have to hold onto their one kill move until the right time, and then in the next game all stale moves will be restored.

Cons:

• Interestingly enough, if someone finds tech to make the game "better" like 0-death combos or crazy gimp/edgeguard kills then 1 stock matches would be way too short.
• Games might be too short for each player to gain proper reads on each other before the game ends.
• It maybe bring a rise to cheese strats such as just going for ganondorf suicide kills for that one stock kill.
• It doesn't allow for comebacks after an early loss. (However the above three cases are all remedied by the fact that more games are being played. Basically the number of stocks each player has is the same, but just spread out over more games, which allows more counterpicking.)
• Setting up custom moves after every kill might take a while and be kind of tiring.
• As the game develops, 2 stocks may eventually just feel perfect and become the new standard while 1 stock might feel too short.

Of course right now is too early to really decide which what is the best ruleset, but I think at the very least it should be given some consideration when developing a new standard ruleset for smash 4.

This is the post I agree with.

At the moment and the early skill level of the game 3 stock matches might be a nightmare for TO's. The blastzones are crazy big in this game. And yeah of course as the game develops 2 or 3 stock matches I feel would be fine.

As far as setting up custom moves go

- 1 minute time limit for setting up custom moves
- Rock, paper, scissors at the beginning of the set, winner goes second to customize there moves, loser goes first
- Winner of the match customizes there moves first, loser second

 

[TryHardOliver]

For the 3DS 2 stocks, 5 minutes would be a good start IMOIMO

 

[BestTeaMaker]

Hey, aren't you the jerk that said Mewtwo was in?

He apologized for that already. Move on.

Anyways, I'm in the camp thinking that 2 stocks is way too low. It's harder to mount a comback if you lose the first stock, and it's harder to adjust to the opponent.

I really feel that this game is built for players to be more aggressive. The very generous recoveries, the new ledge mechanics, and the larger blastzones point to an aggressive-offstage meta. There is more reward for taking a risk to aggressively push your opponent off the stage.

One more thing to note, guys. The game has only been out for a few days (demo included). There is no way that we can guess what the prevailing meta of this game is. For now, I feel that a 3-stock 8-minute match would still work. It just requires people to be more aggressive in their tactics.

 

[Captain Norris]

You're ignoring too many variables. For example, it is easy to pull off huge damage at the lower %s now, which is one thing that compensates for the huge blastzones.

Either way, no. If you're changing it from 3 stock 8 min to 2 stock 5 min the only thing you're doing is changing the ratio of stock:min to 2.5 from 2.66, which is like 10 seconds less per stock. That barely changes the actual stock:min ratio while it completely changes the feel of the game because any gimp suddenly leaves you with only 1 stock left, half of your original. A gimp, 0 to death combo, or a edgeguard should be cool and significant but it shouldn't be a "omg now I am 1 stock vs 2 stock". Easy kills should be significant but not pivotal to winning the game. This was achieved with 4 stocks in Melee, which allowed lots of comebacks and close matches despite easy kills, and even in Brawl with its 3 stocks.

And if you want 2 stock 5 min more so because the match itself is simply shorter, then once again I am strongly against that. That's not enough time to adjust to your opponent and let the match progress and develop in an interesting way. 2 stocks is too short. One mistake or the first death and suddenly it's 1 stock to 2 stocks and the person at 1 stock is at a lot of pressure. It could even lead to very defensive plays because no one wants to die first and be at such a huge disadvantage. For example, at the climatic finals of a big tournament, or just two players who aren't very aggressive in the first place.

Or take another example. You're ahead 2 stocks to 1, but you don't go for any risky and cool edguarding because you don't want to risk losing such a big lead. That would take a lot of fun out of the game. If you're a better player or in a lead, then being ahead 4 stocks to 3 wouldn't scare you from going for a edgeguard with any amount of risk because you know you would edge it out over the last 3 stocks. But not if you're at 2 stocks and you lose 1 and suddenly any gimp or combo or edgeguard can end you.

3 stock 8 minutes or possibly even 4 stock 8 minutes if people get better and can edgeguard and combo well.

Exactly! I mean, SDCC matches went by quick, and I think they had 4 stocks, right? Sure, they were Bowsers, but that is the thing; different stock ammounts makes different characters more or less viable. 3 or 4 stocks is a good sweet spot, while 2 stocks would lessen the amount of viable characters.

 

[Diabolical]

I really feel that this game is built for players to be more aggressive. The very generous recoveries, the new ledge mechanics, and the larger blastzones point to an aggressive-offstage meta. There is more reward for taking a risk to aggressively push your opponent off the stage.

I am sorry but I need you to explain what you mean by this because I just don't understand how mechanics that give less skilled players a freebee to get back on stage encourage aggression?
If anything it just makes the game take longer because you are forced to wait for you opponent to come back on stage because it is pointless to try to attack them, it is to risky.....they won't die because the boundaries are to far out. You can't grab the ledge for a quick kill either. Without exploits the Meta is actually encouraging onstage smash kills, which is why it takes so long to kill. It isn't aggression, it is patience.
As famously said by Scar, Melee is played on the ledge. When you take the ledge play from smash the game lasts forever.....

 

[Fenrir VII]

gimping is going to be huge in this game. watch Villager gameplay and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Diabolical]

gimping is going to be huge in this game. watch Villager gameplay and you'll see what I mean.

Link to an impressive gimp please?

 

[nintyplayer]

I support 4 stocks, 10 minutes.
But, then, I play a time-limit-free 10 minute stock ruleset while playing 64, Melee, or Brawl.

 

[Untouch]

The "for glory" mode on smash is 2 stocks 5 minutes and it always ends in 3 minutes, it's not enough stocks in my opinion.

 

[Khao]

There's one thing I don't get.

What exactly would you accomplish with two stocks and five minutes other than shorter matches for the sake of shorter matches?

Why is an eight minute limit no longer acceptable? Those three extra minutes are certainly enough for an extra stock if you can fit two of them in five minutes.

Isn't this basically the same thing as suddenly deciding that Melee should be played with three stocks and six mintues? What's the point? It's pretty much the same, except it's over faster when it doesn't really have to be.

I'd get it if eight minutes were enough for only two stocks, but fact is, you have to shorten the timer to make the lower amount of stocks be worth it, which as far as I understand, was not really the point in the first place.

 

[SonicZeroX]

So I've been watching a bunch of for glory matches and some tournaments (yes there are already Smash 4 tournaments lol) and it seems that the average 2 stock match in Smash 4 feels like it lasts about as long as a 4 stock match in melee.

If in the future people find ways to kill easily then 3 stocks is a possibility. If on the other hand long drawn out defensive play becomes the meta then 1 stock might be necessary. It's too early to really decide, but at the moment 2 stocks looks like the perfect amount.

 

[Captain Norris]

So I've been watching a bunch of for glory matches and some tournaments (yes there are already Smash 4 tournaments lol) and it seems that the average 2 stock match in Smash 4 feels like it lasts about as long as a 4 stock match in melee.

If in the future people find ways to kill easily then 3 stocks is a possibility. If on the other hand long drawn out defensive play becomes the meta then 1 stock might be necessary. It's too early to really decide, but at the moment 2 stocks looks like the perfect amount.

You see, that is the entire problem. People want matches to have lower stocks just so it could be quicker. Speed is not the problem though.

 

[RanserSSF4]

So I've been watching a bunch of for glory matches and some tournaments (yes there are already Smash 4 tournaments lol) and it seems that the average 2 stock match in Smash 4 feels like it lasts about as long as a 4 stock match in melee.

If in the future people find ways to kill easily then 3 stocks is a possibility. If on the other hand long drawn out defensive play becomes the meta then 1 stock might be necessary. It's too early to really decide, but at the moment 2 stocks looks like the perfect amount.

the first paragraph, I see your point, but the problem is that you're comparing this games stock matches to Melee's 4 stock games when both are completly different games and rulesets and play differently. 3 stock 8 minutes are good IMO and we should start off with that.

Besides, I like how the off-stage gameplay is buffed and more aggressive than ever before. I do agree that blast zones are a huge problem and I would like to see that fixed, but if the off-stage gameplay becomes the new meta in the future of Smash 4, 3 stock 8 minutes will be good. Besides, most matches that end very quickly in Smash 4 at the moment depends on match-ups, which I think the character balance is focusing on the most.

 

[WabbitSeason]

3 stocks at 7 or so minutes.

I dislike two stock matches for the following reasons:

1.) Too much desperation influence which leads to hyper defensive gameplay and camping. Essentially your entire life is divided in half from first stock to second stock. When someone loses that first stock they are on their last leg. When this happens, they have to sacrifice aggressive gameplay in order to preserve themselves, especially if they're a stock down. They can no longer take big risks or they'll be too likely to SD, misstep, etc. and lose the match as opposed to a stock. That slows down the game greatly and puts too much of the match in that defensive narrative. The fact is last stock is much more different in playstyle than first stock. You lose too many options.

2.) SD's are too punishing. You SD early and essentially you're next to being gone. 50% of your total life is gone if it was the first, and you lose the game completely if you SD on the second. Again, that leads to very campy and safe gameplay as opposed to taking risks. An SD should not result AT BEST half your stocks being gone and AT WORST a loss if you've already lost a stock.

3.) The game's not that objectively slow. Sure, Duck Hunt can zone all day and make a 2 stock match take 5 minutes, but that is not the rule. Otherwise, Jigglypuff would have been the sole reason Melee would have to drop to 3 stocks but that clearly did not happen. I'd prefer to encourage risky and aggressive gameplay rather than put half of your stock count on a gameplay notice where a lot of options go out the door due to the fact it's your last stock.

In reality, I just don't like the idea that people will spend half the match playing extremely defensively. That would hurt viewership, encourage campy gameplay, and would artificially increase game times because well, people have to camp to keep from losing on their last stock.

Edit: Changed timeframe.

 

[RanserSSF4]

3 stocks at 8 or so minutes.

I dislike two stock matches for the following reasons:

1.) Too much desperation influence which leads to hyper defensive gameplay and camping. Essentially your entire life is divided in half from first stock to second stock. When someone loses that first stock they are on their last leg. When this happens, they have to sacrifice aggressive gameplay in order to preserve themselves, especially if they're a stock down. They can no longer take big risks or they'll be too likely to SD, misstep, etc. and lose the match as opposed to a stock. That slows down the game greatly and puts too much of the match in that defensive narrative. The fact is last stock is much more different in playstyle than first stock. You lose too many options.

2.) SD's are too punishing. You SD early and essentially you're next to being gone. 50% of your total life is gone if it was the first, and you lose the game completely if you SD on the second. Again, that leads to very campy and safe gameplay as opposed to taking risks. An SD should not result AT BEST half your stocks being gone and AT WORST a loss if you've already lost a stock.

3.) The game's not that objectively slow. Sure, Duck Hunt can zone all day and make a 2 stock match take 5 minutes, but that is not the rule. Otherwise, Jigglypuff would have been the sole reason Melee would have to drop to 3 stocks but that clearly did not happen. I'd prefer to encourage risky and aggressive gameplay rather than put half of your stock count on a gameplay notice where a lot of options go out the door due to the fact it's your last stock.

In reality, I just don't like the idea that people will spend half the match playing extremely defensively. That would hurt viewership, encourage campy gameplay, and would artificially increase game times because well, people have to camp to keep from losing on their last stock.

While I don't have a major problem with defensive play (Gotten use to that in injustice), I agree that 3 stocks 8 minutes is good. We at the very least now have more aggressive options than before thanks to the increased ground game speed and off-stage buffs since ledges got some nerfs.

 

[DJ Dong]

2 stocks isn't nearly as interesting or skill based. I can only hope the Wii U version will have stages that aren't total ****.

 

[WabbitSeason]

While I don't have a major problem with defensive play (Gotten use to that in injustice), I agree that 3 stocks 8 minutes is good. We at the very least now have more aggressive options than before thanks to the increased ground game speed and off-stage buffs since ledges got some nerfs.

Yes, and it's still Day Two of Japanese release. People have to feel out their characters and how they matchup. But overall, my main concern of two stocks is that final stock gameplay is so much more desperate and defensive than that first or middle stock. The gameplan would shift to desperation way too quickly and would last for too long. I want players to feel like they can expend themselves and go aggressive in the game rather than being defensive and campy for well over half the match.

Straight up though, I wouldn't want to watch matches where over half of it is comprised of two players staying cautious because they're both on final stock over half the match.

 

[Niko Mar]

That's pretty funny, I was just thinking of this same idea.

Personally, I believe 2 stock matches to be the best ruleset for Smash 4, along with the notion of a 5 minute timer. Playing 3 stock matches in Brawl eventually jump-started people to try out 1 stock matches; purely in the interest of more entertaining battles. Some might attribute the need for a fast-paced match to a short attention span, but I simply consider it a better way to play under the best 2/3 conditions. I know Smash 4 is a faster game, but as the TC stated, the large blast zones could prolong the games. It also appears to be even harder to gimp people, which would also prolong matches.

The fact that we even have an 8-minute timer means that, at the worst, a standard match can possibly go on for 24 minutes. Of course this isn't always the case, but typical 2/3s can definitely take quite a while (obviously depending on the game).

3 stock could easily turn out to be the better option, but 2 stock is at least worth a try. I know the metagame isn't fully developed yet, but I was just watching a tournament stream (on TourneyLocator's Twitch) where they started off with 2 stock matches. They were extremely enjoyable to watch...

 

[Fenrir VII]

Link to an impressive gimp please?

It's more potential in what I'm seeing now than actual application. It seems like players haven't quite adapted to the new edgeguarding game to feel comfortable gimping yet.. (I'm sure the new Circle pad controls aren't helping that adaptation either), but the potential that I'm seeing is that a lot of chars have a REALLY good offensive offstage game (most chars have a spike or good zoning aerial), so that + the large blast zones makes me think that gimps will be game defining.

The best visual evidence I can provide is zero's villager impressions video here. http://youtu.be/wvPKQFu1HzU

Also as a side note, I think the blast zone size is being blown a bit out of proportion.. I mean freaking LINK'S usmash kills off the top between 120 and 130... Thinking vertical kills may just be that much more important this time.

 

[Hitzel]

For Glory mode uses 2-stock, and from all of the streaming I've seen of For Glory I think it works fine. It's probably best to start with For Glory's 2-stock and only change it over time if needed.

Also, I honestly feel like comebacks seem more likely in 2-stock than in a 3-stock that has started to drag out.

 

[WabbitSeason]

What needs to be established in order if we're going with 2 stock matches in my eyes is:

1.) Whether or people will be willing to expend themselves on that last stock knowing a death means a loss of the match. This is keeping in mind games will more than likely be played on the final stock for the majority of the time. If camping, defensive gameplay, and guerrilla styles of damage tacking take over the meta I don't want to go for it. That just makes the game slower and less watchable. If people are willing to keep going hard and taking risks and that's where the meta goes on 2 stock matches, then I'd be game for it.

2.) Is the edgeguard meta going to evolve into more risk taking? Nintendo's ledge mechanics encourage people to go farther out in order to get the successful edgeguard rather than holding on and that being the end of it. I want this to mean more aggression, but I don't want this nullified by the fact people spend most of their time on final stock. If people go for the option a majority of times to stay defensive and play it safe, I feel bad about the meta. I feel when people get good they'll be able to get out to the open area and make some plays.

In short, people must play aggressive and not hyper defensively for 2 stocks to work. If not, it sounds like a campfest where people tack on percent most of the match in order to stay safe.

 

[Qikz]

The way I see it is that the game came out 2 days ago. These players are not using the characters full potential so it's impossible to base any form of ruleset for the entire games lifespan like tourneylocator are trying to do. When it's more figured out people are going to edgeguard/kill much easier.

So for me, it's 3 stocks or no deal as 2 stocks (as explained in the post above) somewhat removes a lot of mindgame elements. You die once and you're on last stock, you can't take risks.

 

[SonicZeroX]

So just now one of the games in winner finals for the tourney locator tournament ended in timeout. It was 3 stocks 8 minutes, neither player was trying to camp, both players played offensively almost the entire time, and it still ended in timeout.

 

[Qikz]

So just now one of the games in winner finals for the tourney locator tournament ended in timeout. It was 3 stocks 8 minutes, neither player was trying to camp, both players played offensively almost the entire time, and it still ended in timeout.

Have they figured out the game? No. Are they trying to properly edgeguard for Smash 4's edge mechanics? No.

Just because people who are claiming to be the best in the world 2 days in cannot kill and a game ends in a timeout doesn't mean it'll be like this in 3-4 weeks. Which is why deciding the ruleset for the entire game at this point is almost beyond silly. I'm not trying to be deliberately antagonistic, but from the games I've seen today some characters kill quicker than others and some are harder to kill than others. Bowser for example (as someone who has the game) kills a hell of a lot quicker than someone like Palutena.

 

[WabbitSeason]

So just now one of the games in winner finals for the tourney locator tournament ended in timeout. It was 3 stocks 8 minutes, neither player was trying to camp, both players played offensively almost the entire time, and it still ended in timeout.

And if it was two stocks I'd be scared that they'd try to play hyper defensively for well over half the match. I just don't trust that people will be inclined to put everything on the table when camping and guerrilla style of gameplay would be the safest on a match where last stock is majority of the game.

And I just don't think people have gotten the edgeguard game down. It's 2nd day of release.

 

[Hitzel]

And if it was two stocks I'd be scared that they'd try to play hyper defensively for well over half the match.

I honestly can't see where you're coming from here. If the game is played defensively, it's going to be played defensively no matter what. 2-Stocks seems to "protect" a match from dragging out too much more than 3-stock does.

Also, when your opponent is down to his/her last stock, more edge guard options become available because you don't need to recover after the game is set. This occurs for half of the stocks you need to take in a 2-stock match, so maybe 2-stock actually makes risky edgeguarding more rewarding in that way.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

It should be no question that we start with 3 stocks.

The psychology of enforcing limitations is never to add more flexibility, it works in a bit of a downward spiral. If we start off with 2 stocks, raising it to 3 stocks is going to be met with endless debate without ever actually happening. If we start with 3 stocks, the possibility is always there that we would reduce it to two down the line given the game has shown it works best that way.

I repeat, this is an element of human psychology that we must work through. Even though I vouched for the "feel" of 2 stock, it's still absolutely imperative we start off the tournament scene attempting to use 3.

 

[Hitzel]

It should be no question that we start with 3 stocks.

The psychology of enforcing limitations is never to add more flexibility, it works in a bit of a downward spiral. If we start off with 2 stocks, raising it to 3 stocks is going to be met with endless debate without ever actually happening. If we start with 3 stocks, the possibility is always there that we would reduce it to two down the line given the game has shown it works best that way.

I repeat, this is an element of human psychology that we must work through. Even, though I vouched for the "feel" of 2 stock, it's still absolutely imperative we start off the tournament scene attempting to use 3.

You really think that people will refuse to move up in stocks, but not down?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

You really think that people will refuse to move up in stocks, but not down?

I really do. They had a 1 stock Brawl tournament this year.

 

[Hitzel]

I really do. They had a 1 stock Brawl tournament this year.

Is that because For Glory uses 2, or other reasons?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Is that because For Glory uses 2, or other reasons?

I lot of people make great points for 2 stock being the standard, and I think the barrier for exiting from that complacency with 2 stocks to move to 3 will be much higher than the barrier for reducing a stock if games go too long with 3.

 

[Weavile's Wrath]

I say start off with 3 stocks 8 minutes. Obviously, with the more aggressive offstage gameplay, as many others have stated, gimping will be a big part of the metagame. Besides, an SD on two stocks would be ridiculous. There's also almost no chance to come back from a deficit. I'm not saying no to 2 stock 5 minute, I just think we should start out with 3 stocks.

 

[DJ Dong]

When they tried 2 and 1 stock tournaments for Brawl it was horrible. That was some of the most boring Smash play I have ever seen in my life. It destroys hype and makes it impossible for players to adjust during the game. It takes away so many factors (especially for the viewers, which is the main thing in all of this) that it just isn't worth it. 3 stocks or no stocks.

I love absolutely everything about this game except the blast zones. I really do thing it's the best Smash game yet, and I fear for the zones. Shouldn't we be bringing up this issue in some way? The wii u version will have different stages but we really do need stages where the blast zones are not walk-offs and aren't ridiculously far away.