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

[SonicZeroX]

Alright I've been watching Zero's stream for a while and he's just been bodying people all day in For Glory mode. He's had no problems getting kills probably because he understands Brawl mechanics like stale move negation better than most and he just goes way out for edgeguard kills.

2 stocks still generally seems just right, but there is potential for 3 stocks if people up their game.

 

[WabbitSeason]

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.

I'm making the distinction between final stock and a regular one where you get to come back again. When you're at the final stock you have to be cautious or else you'll SD, get gimped, etc. and lose the match entirely. People aren't willing to go hard when it's so high risk relatively low reward.

You don't play every stock like the final one.

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.

Except the opponent will be doing everything in their power to make that impossible, more than likely by camping and tacking on percent rather than going ham. You may be able to be aggressive, but on final stock you can't afford to make a mistake and get hit like that.

Not to mention if both of you have only one stock, you cannot afford to make a mistake and entirely lose the game. More than likely it'll end up being very cautious in gameplay and both of you won't be willing to commit to a big risk because you might get punished and lose entirely.

 

[Diabolical]

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.

Dude.....that's horrible. You know Fox can kill Jiggs and many other characters on Pkm stadium at 55% with up air in Melee? Like ****...if we have to wait till 100% plus for kills in Smash4 to kill because the blastzones are THAT FAR....then this game will be terrible to watch because it will take soooooo long

 

[staindgrey]

Two stocks sounds so wrong to me. There's almost no available time for a comeback, and lighter characters would be at a significant disadvantage due to the likelihood of them getting sent off the top of the stage and having little chance to make up for it.

 

[Joe73191]

3 stock 6 min might be best imo

 

[Bladeviper]

Dude.....that's horrible. You know Fox can kill Jiggs and many other characters on Pkm stadium at 55% with up air in Melee? Like ****...if we have to wait till 100% plus for kills in Smash4 to kill because the blastzones are THAT FAR....then this game will be terrible to watch because it will take soooooo long

not really, it seems most characters can build up percent quite fast in this game.

as for the stock count i think this might only effect the 3ds version of the game, and maybe only for a awhile since most people seem to still be getting used to the control scheme and are missing there off stage attacks or performing the wrong ones.

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

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.

Well said. Other examples of characters that would get affected by this extreme stock number (compared to a 3 or 4 stock which is a middleground) would be Little Mac if he can get his 1 hit KO move off and Jigglypuff with her extreme Rest (easy kill but highly punishable).

I'm sure as time goes on, people will be able to control their characters better and without the design of the gameplay favoring defense as heavily as Brawl, will surely also lead to faster paced matches where damage is dealt out faster than it is now. People will know how to followup and combo and adapt to the new edge game.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'll quickly pop in and say this. Anyone saying that if you SD in a two stock match it swings the match to much needs to realize something. If you SD it's your own fault. We should not change our rules to make the game easier for people who mess up and lose a stock.

 

[WabbitSeason]

I'll quickly pop in and say this. Anyone saying that if you SD in a two stock match it swings the match to much needs to realize something. If you SD it's your own fault. We should not change our rules to make the game easier for people who mess up and lose a stock.

Except SD'ing happens even on M2K levels of play. And there's no reason to believe that people will not act on their last stock in the best way to avoid a potential SD. The change to 3 stocks is to influence how people play most of the match, it's not to make it easier if you SD. We aren't changing around rules to make anything more or less difficult, but more open to versatile gameplay and styles that encourage people to watch. E.g. aggression and risk taking.

What I'm saying is people will be much more careful and cautious if an SD for well over half the match will cost the entire game. That leads to less watchable gameplay.

 

[Weavile's Wrath]

I'll quickly pop in and say this. Anyone saying that if you SD in a two stock match it swings the match to much needs to realize something. If you SD it's your own fault. We should not change our rules to make the game easier for people who mess up and lose a stock.

We're not trying to make it easier for those who SD to win, but rather give them even a shot to come back. It's just when you lose half of your stocks with one mistake, it kind of prevents them from wanting to keep playing that match. All in all, 3 stocks just works better because you HAVE A CHANCE to come back from a mistake.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well if that player SDs that's their own fault. I know that sounds harsh but it is. With two stocks I'd be WAY more aggressive. Why be careful if you could be half way to winning really quickly? Assuming we can find good ways to kill people that is, it seems with the large blast zones that people really can live to the 200% range. With floaty characters sometimes.

I also wanted to think about the argument saying it doesn't give people enough time to adapt. See this is rather silly. In every other fighter you have maybe 90 seconds to figure out a match. 90 seconds. Now if they had a best of two per match (like most do) that would end up with at most four and a half minutes per fight and that's the MAXIMUM. A lot of the time you really might have only those 90 seconds to really learn how the opponent plays so that you MIGHT be able to beat them to get that extra time.

If you lose twice, that's it. In a best of three that means you had three minutes total to try and figure out your opponent before the next match.

So 6 minutes isn't enough for us to adapt to a player? Are we openly saying we're worse at fighting games then pretty much every other fighting game out there? Think about it. 6 is WAY more then enough time.

 

[Venks]

So tired of people that don't understand Stale Move Negation and that they need to learn the finishers for all the new characters. If you're letting someone survive above 120% as Mega Man then you must really suck. Given that you have three finishers that can all KO at this point. One that can KO as early as 90% against middle weights.

 

[Hitzel]

I'm making the distinction between final stock and a regular one where you get to come back again. When you're at the final stock you have to be cautious or else you'll SD, get gimped, etc. and lose the match entirely. People aren't willing to go hard when it's so high risk relatively low reward.

You don't play every stock like the final one.

Yeah, until people who actually want to win come along and play the way they're supposed to the entire match, not just when they think they're about to lose.

 

[WabbitSeason]

Yeah, until people who actually want to win come along and play the way they're supposed to the entire match, not just when they think they're about to lose.

You mean campy and hyper defensively? That doesn't work when you want to aggressively get kills, which is usually what leads to strong viewership as opposed to camping the hell out of everyone because last stock death = loss.

Well if that player SDs that's their own fault. I know that sounds harsh but it is. With two stocks I'd be WAY more aggressive. Why be careful if you could be half way to winning really quickly? Assuming we can find good ways to kill people that is, it seems with the large blast zones that people really can live to the 200% range. With floaty characters sometimes.

What happens on last stock though? That's what I'm specifically getting at here, last stock = campy gameplay to keep from losing. When the opponent you just gimped is on last stock so early, he'll take all the time in the world to mount a counter that will most likely involve camping to avoid racking up percent.

The issue is last stock will end up being the majority of the game. It'll end up with people camping way too much in order to avoid losing completely, lasting for most of the game. So what if you get the fast kill? Now your opponent is setting up a fire because he wants to camp all night long. Not to mention putting so much emphasis on not SD'ing and punishing it so much only leads to even more overly cautious tones of play.

"It's your fault, don't SD." Okay, then they'll just refuse to do anything risky because why would they want to blow an entire match because well over half of it is on last stock?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Okay, then they'll just refuse to do anything risky because why would they want to blow an entire match because well over half of it is on last stock?

In other words, you are playing safe in a fighting game. The way it should ALWAYS be played. Risks are risky for a reason. Playing safe is almost always the best option in any smash game. So what is your point?

 

[the8thark]

Two matches. 6-8 minutes each (time could be less would have to be balance tested). Unlimited stocks. Whoever gets the most KO's wins. If the KO count is equal, then you have a draw. If both matches are a draw then the 3rd match is 1 stock or sudden death.
I realise that's against what most people are wanting. But it would avoid the whole defensive (at last stock) gameplay. It would promote come backs as there's no risk of losing the match if you mistake and SD yourself. I'd rather see players doing out there aggressive wanting to get KOs and not playing all defensive just because they are on their last stock.

I am aware the whole limited time and limited stocks is what everyone is saying because it's what happened in Brawl and Melee. But if you made the matches short enough (so the night does not drag to 2am) you'd have very aggressive matches where defensive playing on last stocks is not an issue.

Go ahead and crucify me for saying something that the pro smash community is totally against. I understand this. But these are my opinions on this. If you need 90% plus to get your KOs then we need to promote an atmosphere where people want to go get that 90% on their enemy for the KO.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Dude.....that's horrible. You know Fox can kill Jiggs and many other characters on Pkm stadium at 55% with up air in Melee? Like ****...if we have to wait till 100% plus for kills in Smash4 to kill because the blastzones are THAT FAR....then this game will be terrible to watch because it will take soooooo long

Um.
Link =/= Fox
Whatever char =/= Jiggs in weight
Usmash on ground =/= uair in the air
Poke Stadium blast zone =/= battlefield blast zone even in Melee

Links usmash has NEVER killed to my knowledge, and there's no reason to think it's one of the premier vertical killers in the game, so the fact that it kills off the top starting at like 120% means really good things for the rest of the game, especially when you consider that a lot of chars also have good uairs, which hit higher, thus kill earlier, etc.

 

[Hitzel]

That's what I'm specifically getting at here, last stock = campy gameplay to keep from losing.

People who want to win are going to play safe and avoid losing at all times, regardless if it's the last stock or not.

 

[Mithost]

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.

Two quick things I want to address quickly about this quote:

1) Brawl is considered the slowest game in the series, and a very large amount of people agree that 3 stocks is too long

2) This isn't Brawl. Too much differs between the games to pretend that the same (objectively broken) ruleset will fit both games

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.

I respect your ideas, but I severely doubt that the smash community as a whole will be willing to change the ruleset at all after the first big tournaments agree on one, regardless of the change.

Shortly after Brawl came out, there was a very vocal concern that a "Meta Knight Banned" rule should be implemented because the game would be better off with it in place. While a large portion of the community agreed that a Meta Knight banning should be explored and tried out, those in charge of the inital ruleset and those who were supportive of those people continuously declined the change on the premise that the game/meta was too new. A few years later when the game is officially not new anymore, the same ban proposal gets kicked aside because nobody wants to have to pick a new character/relearn the game after spending the entire "game is new" period as Meta Knight. When the ban was finally implemented, it took less than two weeks until entire regions dismissed the ruleset as a joke and started running MK legal tournaments again.

But banning a character is a large change to make. Surely when we propose a slightly smaller change a shorter time after release, the community will be much more willing to switch, right?

GOML wasn't the first 1 Stock Brawl tournament. A 2011 tournament called Concentrate II had a similar tournament to GOML, that being a 1 Stock 3 Minute Brawl bracket with Nairo, ADHD, Ally, Salem, and many others in attendance. While people pushed for 1 Stock to become the norm, the ruleset committees and TOs said the same thing they did to the Meta Knight ban. The game was either too new (when the ruleset was first proposed back in late 2010) or too old for people to accept the change (GOML and Concentrate II).

Can the community change from 3 stocks to 2 stocks in Smash 4? Probably. Will they accept it after we have APEX 2015 using 3 stock for the reasons you mentioned? Absolutely not, or at least not as anything other than a side event.

Thankfully, we don't need to convince the players to switch to 2 Stocks 5 Minutes. Thanks to Nintendo, everyone who currently owns the game is already using this ruleset. Look on the streams going on as we speak. All of the competitive players are either in the lab looking at frame data, or they're grinding competitive games using the final result of the 'transition' process you were suggesting we use.

Continuing to watch the stream, is the 2:5 ruleset getting in the way of anything in normal play? Sure, a few of ZeRo's first games online had him camped out by DHD or Villager, but if you watch him (or any of the other streamers that have spent more than 5-6 hours playing in matches) now, matches are taking much less time and potential campers are losing to fairly easily executed approaches and pressure. Comebacks are still happening where they should (mid percent last stock player is able to even up the stocks and threaten to win the game with one more good read/combo). Players still have a good amount of time to read opponents (read the comment from whoever was talking about street fighter), and the matches are taking enough time to give both players enough time to interact. If you don't believe me on this one, take a look for yourself on Twitch.tv.

TL;DR The amount of people who currently own the game are already happily using a ruleset that solves all of the most prevalent issues past games had, without presenting any immediate issues that can be solved by using a 3 Stock 8 Minute ruleset. Therefore we should embrace this ruleset while it is still a possibility instead of "easing into it", something the smash community has a terrible track record of being able to do.

(I am kinda ok with 2 Stock 6 Minutes though if timeouts become a problem though)

 

[LiteralGrill]

Two matches. 6-8 minutes each (time could be less would have to be balance tested). Unlimited stocks. Whoever gets the most KO's wins. If the KO count is equal, then you have a draw. If both matches are a draw then the 3rd match is 1 stock or sudden death.
I realise that's against what most people are wanting. But it would avoid the whole defensive (at last stock) gameplay. It would promote come backs as there's no risk of losing the match if you mistake and SD yourself. I'd rather see players doing out there aggressive wanting to get KOs and not playing all defensive just because they are on their last stock.

I am aware the whole limited time and limited stocks is what everyone is saying because it's what happened in Brawl and Melee. But if you made the matches short enough (so the night does not drag to 2am) you'd have very aggressive matches where defensive playing on last stocks is not an issue.

Go ahead and crucify me for saying something that the pro smash community is totally against. I understand this. But these are my opinions on this. If you need 90% plus to get your KOs then we need to promote an atmosphere where people want to go get that 90% on their enemy for the KO.

You're idea sadly doesn't fix the problem. The way timed matches score after the first person gets a kill the best strategy is to just run away and not get hit. It still promotes camping. Timed doesn't work under any circumstance without stocks included.

 

[GrownCannoli]

A match with 2 stocks 5 minutes per round is PERFECT! Please be the standard.

 

[Boss N]

There's somethingthat should be made clear: Defensive play is the superior strategy in EVERY SMASH GAME EVER, EVEN MELEE.

What makes pro players better than everyone else is that they know how to play the game intelligently. They know that if you just go in balls dep aggro, it's going to accomplish nothing but lost stocks. They always choose the safest options that will increase thier chances of giving damage while recieving little. Ever notice in melee grand finals a good chunk of time in the first match is just the players running back and forth 'feeling out eachother'? This is because they know that if they charge in blindly it makes thier actions more choreographed and predictable, thus easier to punish. They need to test eachothers peramiters and figure out what they will and won't fall for to make them vulnerable.

But they're still playing defensivly, waiting patiently, coxing and pressuring thier opponents into making a mistake and capitalizing on it. When you get bodied by a higher level player it's not usually because they're going aggro, they just know how to read you and can nearly perfectly execute how to punish each error you do.

People make the mistake in thinking that you get good at melee by being more oofensive. This is wrong, melee APPEARS to be more offensive because players are moving so fast. Part of playing melee intelligently is by hiding your intentions in your movement to make it harder to predict what you're going to do. Also because Melee was so fast it was herder in general to tell what your opponents intentions are, so approaching was a much more viable option.

In Brawl however, because it's engine was so slow in comparison, it was really easy to tell exactly what move was getting thrown out because how slow they got thrown out, this made approaching even riskier, so the smart player isn't going to take the option that's going to punish them more likely than it's going to reward them. So that's how Brawl became these really drawn out spacing battles, or what most call "campy" battles. It's not actually camping guys, you just insist on calling it that because it's not exciting to watch from an audiance viewpoint. And... perhaps you got a point. Long, stalemate battles aren't very crowd pleasing to some, especially viewers who are used to the fast-paced action of melee. This isn't meloee though, SMASH 4 IS IT'S OWN THING. I can't stress it enough that we can't expect rules from past games to apply to this one as it's a whole new beast entirely, we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of brawl and expect it to be exactly like any other game.

But presentation for an audiance is a vital, yet under mentioned factor we have to consider when crafting the rules for this game, that is how are we going to make this an exciting, crowd pleasing eSport? If people are seriously that concerned for "campiness" then we'll have to change waaaay more than stock & time limit.I have ideas on this but it goes into very ifferent topics so I won't go over them here unless people are curiouse to hear me out.

All in all I think the 2stock 5 min set could go either way psychologically for players. It will make them either more cautiouse, or give them more incentive to approach, it's going to depend on the individual. But the important thing is that this ruleset prevents drawn out battles, which make it that more appealing to viewers either watching a stream or even a big tournament. A lot of people are acting lkike this needs to be a set-in-stone ruleset but it isn't guys, if it doesn't work then we slightly change it, no big deal. Relax and enjoy the game.

 

[WabbitSeason]

In other words, you are playing safe in a fighting game. The way it should ALWAYS be played. Risks are risky for a reason. Playing safe is almost always the best option in any smash game. So what is your point?

My point is that campy gameplay will be the result of the 2 stock ruleset and that leads to less viewable material. You can influence how aggressively people play by changing the stock count and timer. In almost every case camping up a storm on 2nd or 1st stock isn't worth it.

When you are able to risk your stock potentially without throwing the entire match, that opens up a lot more potential to offensive gameplay. You can take high risk - high reward strategies in order to get ahead quickly. And this is on both parties' ends. Encouraging offensive gameplay makes the game more watchable, otherwise it becomes a bunch of Injustice Superman "zoning" where the match barely progresses.

In short, when both players are encouraged to play offensively it makes the game more fun to watch and play rather than it evolving into who can camp hardest.

People who want to win are going to play safe and avoid losing at all times, regardless if it's the last stock or not.

They won't camp in the context of final stock though. The fact is final stock has a lot more implications than 2nd or 1st. You lose the entire game if you SD, mess up, get gimped, etc. In almost all scenarios getting your opponent down quickly is the best scenario on both ends. But on last stock, you just can't afford to make a big mistake.

Note, there will always be instances of where players play more defensively through the course of the match. But my biggest fear is that this will happen for long stretches of the match if it's two stock. People will work the timer and take less risks, thus making the game less watchable because that last stock has so many unique implications.

 

[hichez50]

Too me the perfect rule set will cater to the top players just enough to keep them interested while making the game inviting to newcomers to mid level players.

That be said, at top level SD's shouldn't be happening. If you SD in a high level or top level match you deserve to lose that game( we play sets for a reason).

2 stocks will offer a level of familiarity to the new players to the competitive scene without sacrificing a whole lot if we make sets 3/5. It solves the problem with some people thinking that too much emphasis if put into game 1. I have watched my fair share of smash, and when a higher level opponent knows that his ability level his well above another players we see a lot of mediocre play which just waste time.

I do, however, understand that 3 stock will give players more exchanges during a single match. Some player defiantly thrive on the increased number of exchanges.

IMPORTANT:
I don't have any clue on why people are saying that things like" 2 stock feels to short" It doesn't matter how short it feels it is about how competitive and fun the game is to watch. Last time I checked people have short attention spans. Whatever rule-set the community chooses there should be a reason behind it OTHER than "because we used it in brawl/melee"

 

[WabbitSeason]

Too me the perfect rule set will cater to the top players just enough to keep them interested while making the game inviting to newcomers to mid level players.

Why would two stock count be so integral to a new player's view on the scene? The competitive scene is very different from casual already, even For Glory mode isn't that reflective of the competitive aspect. I wouldn't think people would freak over the fact matchmaking differs from tourney play.

That be said, at top level SD's shouldn't be happening. If you SD in a high level or top level match you deserve to lose that game( we play sets for a reason).

The entire game? No, if SD's are that insanely punishing then that just encourages hyper-cautious play. SD's happen quite a bit and frankly simply saying "you shouldn't SD" isn't relevant to the discussion. They probably *shouldn't be happening, but realistically they do. Just ask Mew2king. The fact is that you always have to look out for potential SD's and if the ruleset is THAT punishing towards them, then players will decide to not even allow for the possibility of one. In summary, encouraging campy gameplay.

One bonehead mistake shouldn't nullify a narrative of great play. That cheapens the experience.

2 stocks will offer a level of familiarity to the new players to the competitive scene without sacrificing a whole lot if we make sets 3/5. It solves the problem with some people thinking that too much emphasis if put into game 1. I have watched my fair share of smash, and when a higher level opponent knows that his ability level his well above another players we see a lot of mediocre play which just waste time.

How is this open to new players? Top players can teach a newer person how the MU goes and offer extensive advice on the subject and Smash in general. Hurrying the bads through really doesn't bode well for the newbies. It almost sounds dismissive.

I don't have any reason why people are saying that things like" 2 stock feels to short" It doesn't matter how short it feels it is about how competitive and fun the game is to watch. Last time I checked people have short attention spans. Whatever rule-set the community chooses there should be a reason behind it OTHER than "because we used it in brawl/melee"

Look at why Brawl/Melee used it in the first place. That usually answers most questions, and I've already done a few posts on 2 vs. 3 stock.

 

[SmashWolf]

For the sake of fun, sportsmanship, and making the game ACTUALLY enjoyable to watch/play, I'm going with 3 stocks. Promote risky over safe play, promote the hype of comebacks. Nobody wants to see 2 people just camping on opposite sides of the stage being scared to take a risk.

You're in last place by miles? Well, gotta take a risky approach to make a comeback. You're in front by 3 stocks? Great, what do you have to lose? Go for the risk. Risk is fun. Fun is the reason people watch competitive Smash. To see those crazy comebacks, and the crazy off stage "holy-****-how-are-they-still-alive-and-reacting-so-fast" battles. It keeps the thrill of competitive Smash alive, and is the main reason defensive safe play is boring as all hell.

 

[SmasherP83]

don't mind it at all.

I like it, it's somewhat seems like they want you to fight your hardest with 2 stocks only.

 

[Boss N]

Why would two stock count be so integral to a new player's view on the scene? The competitive scene is very different from casual already, even For Glory mode isn't that reflective of the competitive aspect. I wouldn't think people would freak over the fact matchmaking differs from tourney play.



The entire game? No, if SD's are that insanely punishing then that just encourages hyper-cautious play. SD's happen quite a bit and frankly simply saying "you shouldn't SD" isn't relevant to the discussion. They probably *shouldn't be happening, but realistically they do. Just ask Mew2king. The fact is that you always have to look out for potential SD's and if the ruleset is THAT punishing towards them, then players will decide to not even allow for the possibility of one. In summary, encouraging campy gameplay.

One bonehead mistake shouldn't nullify a narrative of great play. That cheapens the experience.



How is this open to new players? Top players can teach a newer person how the MU goes and offer extensive advice on the subject and Smash in general. Hurrying the bads through really doesn't bode well for the newbies. It almost sounds dismissive.




Look at why Brawl/Melee used it in the first place. That usually answers most questions, and I've already done a few posts on 2 vs. 3 stock.

1. Would be such a bad thing to have the scene more inviting to casual players instead of dividing them?

2. You are correct in that stock & time limit will influence player psychology, but You seem to be making the assumption that it will affect everyone the exact same way. It won't, a smaller limit will make some more willing to approach than defend, I know I would. but ultimatly it's going to effect everyone differently, however we shouldn't generalize.

3. Bone head mistakes make or break games no matter what the initial stock level is, just look at CEO grand finals this year. Wizzy had 4 stocks in each match but it was ultimatly an SD that costed his last stock and the title, his 3 prior lives did nothing to ultimatly prevent that.

I agree that we should make the game as pleasing to an audiance as possible, but stock levels aren't gonna solve it by itself, there are far more factors to consider an alter to truely avoid "campy" gameplay

 

[Zebkeet]

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.

This is exactly what the game needs.
As my first impressions are, every character feels so different. It's a whole new beast, and people need to accept that we don't know everything yet about it. In time, opinions and impressions may prove squat, but for now, this should be a great starting point.

 

[LiteralGrill]

They won't camp in the context of final stock though.

Then they are bad players. Only playing as cautious and intelligently as possible on the last stock is stupid. That's the real problem. If they were good players they would be doing this on EVERY SINGLE STOCK and if they wanted to take a risky it would be RISKY as the word risk implies.

But my biggest fear is that this will happen for long stretches of the match if it's two stock. People will work the timer and take less risks, thus making the game less watchable because that last stock has so many unique implications.

Instead you could give them three entire stocks to camp out on AND longer match times to do it. If camping is good in this game THERE IS NO RULES CHANGE THAT CAN FIX IT. The least we can do is keep the matches shorter.

 

[WabbitSeason]

Then they are bad players. Only playing as cautious and intelligently as possible on the last stock is stupid. That's the real problem. If they were good players they would be doing this on EVERY SINGLE STOCK and if they wanted to take a risky it would be RISKY as the word risk implies.

The distinction is that last stock inherently means you lose completely. People will take the opportunity cost of aggressive play on first stock because that'll get them the big advantage. But if they're down to the last stock, they don't have any fallbacks at all. That's the issue, last vs. regular stock differences.

They would not be doing this every stock because not every stock when lost spells a match loss.

Instead you could give them three entire stocks to camp out on AND longer match times to do it. If camping is good in this game THERE IS NO RULES CHANGE THAT CAN FIX IT. The least we can do is keep the matches shorter.

Yes, being a stock ahead means you are in the lead. If you're behind and still have a stock to give you can still be aggressive instead of having to acknowledge that SD, gimp, etc. = match loss.


Further, Ragnarok's post hits on a lot of other good points to consider.

 

[Zebkeet]

The distinction is that last stock inherently means you lose completely. People will take the opportunity cost of aggressive play on first stock because that'll get them the big advantage. But if they're down to the last stock, they don't have any fallbacks at all. That's the issue, last vs. regular stock differences.

They would not be doing this every stock because not every stock when lost spells a match loss.



Yes, being a stock ahead means you are in the lead. If you're behind and still have a stock to give you can still be aggressive instead of having to acknowledge that SD, gimp, etc. = match loss.


Further, Ragnarok's post hits on a lot of other good points to consider.

Been there. Some people on their last stock just give up completely. People. Get. Scared. It's human nature. You can't guarantee anything because every person is different.

 

[Boss N]

Can't we just try both and see what happens?

 

[Hitzel]

Can't we just try both and see what happens?

Well, so far all of the streams of For Glory have been 2-stock and there's been no problems. I can only recall one going to the time limit off-hand (Link vs Shield on Zero's stream).

People are still learning the game, so take from what what you will. I've yet to see any actual evidence of 2-Stock causing problems, though.

 

[Bladeviper]

Well, so far all of the streams of For Glory have been 2-stock and there's been no problems. I can only recall one going to the time limit off-hand (Link vs Shield on Zero's stream).

People are still learning the game, so take from what what you will. I've yet to see any actual evidence of 2-Stock causing problems, though.

but some are also doing 3 stock and its not really going too long

 

[DJ Dong]

I've been watching the CT stream and it looks great at 3 stocks. The longest match was DHD vs ROB and that took almost 7 minutes. Given that this is the campiest matchup in the game and the game is still new, I'd say 3 stocks. On average, the games don't take as much time as Brawl did and we ran Brawl perfectly fine.

3 stocks or no stocks as far as I'm concerned. There's plenty of arguments for 3 stocks but I'm not seeing anything for 2 stocks other than "omg nobody knows how to kill".

 

[Untouch]

The only matches I'm seeing going over 6 minutes are matches involving camping characters (like said above, the DHD and ROB match).

 

[Mithost]

Does a smaller stock count really cause a player to be more campy and protective of his or her stocks? This appears to be a main argument in this thread, yet it's reasoning (even on the theorycraft side) is almost non-existent. Lemme explain.

In Brawl, the general path of victory in most match-ups was to get a lead, then punish your opponent's attempts to regain the lead until they either succeed in taking back the lead, or you extend the lead to the point of no return. This usually leads to a very heated first stock, followed by two stocks of comeback attempts. This would be all fine and dandy, but then everyone remembers that every non-MK character in Brawl only limited and easily punishable approach options. With this being the case, the player with the lead can safely and efficiently punish these attempts with almost no risk of error (barring tripping).
Smash 4's characters have good approach options. Take a second to think about this from both point of views. As the person trying to make the comeback, this is kind of relevant, but as the defending player this is huge. Where in Brawl he/she only has to defend against a few mediocre approaches, in Smash 4 they have to defend against much more. This means that if a player wants to play defensively (which is a very good option in every fighting game ever), they have to camp harder than before, punishing less openings and staying at safer distances than before. If any character is found to have the tools to accomplish this effectively (I can think of a few off the top my head), the game will slow down to a crawl.

So what does this have to do with stock counts? Not too much, actually. Players will be put in situations where holding a prolonged defense and extending a lead they earned is the best option, regardless of the game/ruleset. Given Smash 4's mechanics and features, the player in the lead will have to be more careful and less ambitious when progressing the game in this state.

So I have a question: Will the average player that is unable to make a comeback in in one stock be able to do it twice in two stocks? Is this second chance at a comeback worth extending the average game by 1-3 minutes and the average tournament by 3-4 hours?

 

[Captain Norris]

There really should have been a poll on this...

 

[JetpackX]

3 Stocks. 6 Minutes. Why this instead of 2 Stocks 4 Minutes?

1. There can be actual comebacks
2. Matches won't end so fast
3. Matches won't be so long