-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Should 2 stocks, 5 minutes be better than 3 stocks, 8 minutes?
- Thread starter RanserSSF4
- Start date
LiteralGrill
Smokin' Hot~
Just figured I'd drop in to make a quick point. None of our arguing here matters. Whatever major TOs go with will be the standard anyways. Just a thought.
A recent Japanese tournament did this actually. (Look up SHI-Gaming on YouTube for the matches)
Only thing about that tournament was that they had a constant 10 min timer regardless of two or three stocks, which resulted in a good portion of the matches taking up 5+ mins to finish.
Conda
aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
I remember seeing a gif of hungrybox getting disappointed after being notified that the match he just lost meant he lost a BO3 set, not a BO5 set (which he and his opponent thought it was).
BO3 finals isn't a bad idea, and will likely cut at least 30min of tourneytime. Obviously the players who reach that level often will have a lot to say on the topic, but I imagine they're in the back room talking about things that make threads like this irrelevant haha
It's good we're all talking about it though, it's important to discuss this.
BO3 finals isn't a bad idea, and will likely cut at least 30min of tourneytime. Obviously the players who reach that level often will have a lot to say on the topic, but I imagine they're in the back room talking about things that make threads like this irrelevant haha
It's good we're all talking about it though, it's important to discuss this.
Last edited:
Chiroz
Tier Lists? Foolish...
I remember seeing a gif of hungrybox getting disappointed after being notified that the match he just lost meant he lost a BO3 set, not a BO5 set (which he and his opponent thought it was).
BO3 finals isn't a bad idea, and will likely cut at least 30min of tourneytime. Obviously the players who reach that level often will have a lot to say on the topic, but I imagine they're in the back room talking about things that make threads like this irrelevant haha
I don't think the pros actually come into the forums that often to be honest.
I actually like the idea of "upping the stocks" as rounds go by. The first rounds of elimination could be 2 stocks bo3, once we're down to the last 8-16 players then it could be 3 stocks bo3 and finally Grand Finals could be 4 stocks bo3 (I know 4 stocks might be overdoing it, but I think 3 stocks isn't enough for Grand Finals hype. Plus 4 stocks bo3 is still much shorter than 3 stocks bo5).
Consigning this.
Since there's no "official" way to play smash, TOs can do whatever they want. There also isn't a requirement to be logical either. We could come up with some elaborate reasons as to why one is better than the other, but the only that matters in the end is what to TO thinks.
That being said: start at either one, it really doesn't matter. If 3 stock is too slow, reduce the stock count. If the game goes quickly, increase it.
Discussions like these make me wonder if a unity rule set needs to be attempted again. The first year or two of tourneys will probably be crazy.
Saikyoshi
Smash Master
I've seen it mentioned various places before; the blast zones are much larger this time and onstage edgeguarding options are much more limited than before, so unless people take to offstage play, KOs are extremely difficult. And people have been taking that to heart – it could easily be argued that offstage play is the most entertaining aspect of watching SSB4.
However, the two-stock ruleset being proposed endangers that.
Offstage play naturally has a very high amount of risk. SDs are both common and expected when attempting it. If you only have two stocks, however, one idle mistake can remove half of your ability. Therefore, there is next to no practical reason to attempt offstage play above merely waiting for the opponent to recover and trying again or projectile-camping, which is dull and monotonous to both do and watch.
If we took the much more favorable three-stock ruleset, then there is a much greater margin for risk, much more reason to experiment, and much less motivation to just play safe, because a player who messes up from three stocks has a reasonable chance to make a comeback.
However, the two-stock ruleset being proposed endangers that.
Offstage play naturally has a very high amount of risk. SDs are both common and expected when attempting it. If you only have two stocks, however, one idle mistake can remove half of your ability. Therefore, there is next to no practical reason to attempt offstage play above merely waiting for the opponent to recover and trying again or projectile-camping, which is dull and monotonous to both do and watch.
If we took the much more favorable three-stock ruleset, then there is a much greater margin for risk, much more reason to experiment, and much less motivation to just play safe, because a player who messes up from three stocks has a reasonable chance to make a comeback.
Last edited:
I agree with this point.
Conda
aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Also, 3 stock is the default when switching to stock mode. 2 stocks is just the online default in For Glory, because shorter games are better for letting online operate smoothly and letting matchmaking take place faster.
Work with the default settings for stock. If we start there and find it ain't broke then we don't need to fix't.
It's unreasonable to presume, predict, and jump to conclusions expecting that what we think in our imaginations will match with reality. But it is very reasonable to start with what the developers (i.e. Sakurai & all) have given us and see where we go from there.
Sakurai listened to us when developing this game, I think we should return the favor and listen to him.
Also, at this point I am keeping an open mind for a 2-Minute Time Match instead of a Stock Match, just to see how it goes since it is the very most default setting. I'd like to see what competitive players can do within that paradigm.
It's unreasonable to presume, predict, and jump to conclusions expecting that what we think in our imaginations will match with reality. But it is very reasonable to start with what the developers (i.e. Sakurai & all) have given us and see where we go from there.
Sakurai listened to us when developing this game, I think we should return the favor and listen to him.
Also, at this point I am keeping an open mind for a 2-Minute Time Match instead of a Stock Match, just to see how it goes since it is the very most default setting. I'd like to see what competitive players can do within that paradigm.
Chiroz
Tier Lists? Foolish...
What would be the purpose of this? Also this isn't exactly "counter" picking, I don't see a direct counter between 2 stocks and 3 stocks.
OutZoned
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 5
Why not keep the stock count high and the timer low? Maybe change the way timeouts work to make it impossible to win on a timeout when either player has more than one stock. Or just make it impossible to win via time in all cases.
If you went 3 stock 5 minutes with different timeout rules, it would encourage people to go after each other faster and promote greater offstage play because you'd need to execute your edge-guard in order to win before the clock ran down.
Just my two cents.
If you went 3 stock 5 minutes with different timeout rules, it would encourage people to go after each other faster and promote greater offstage play because you'd need to execute your edge-guard in order to win before the clock ran down.
Just my two cents.
Sliq
Smash Master
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,871
Well then just change the ****ing format. Tournament smash started WITH ITEMS and 5 stock. Then it moved to 4 stock no items. Then it moved to Brawl. The format can change, I just doubt that 3 stocks will be a problem when it wasn't a problem for Brawl and that game was slower.
Also, no more Ice Climbers, so no more running away for 8 minutes to avoid the least fun video game interaction of all time.
Conda
aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Honestly I think this is a real problem. I'm sure a lot of tournaments run long due to disorganization in general. Things like players getting caught up in friendlies and not prioritizing the completion of their matches in the bracket, players gone missing for food/bio/smoke breaks without letting the TO know, players getting caught up in conversations and not hearing their name or setting up, etc.I wish smoothness and fast matchmaking was how I can describe my tournament experiences
We can't solely blame the ruleset if there are other factors. Sometimes, and maybe often, the reason a tournament runs long if there is a lot of downtime and stutters in how smoothly things are rolling along.
Last edited:
I think calling IC infinites an "interaction" is extremely charitable. Plz refrain from such blatant pro-IC bias in the future, Sliq.
Mithost
Smash Ace
What happens if the game goes to time (which will happen much more often with a shorter timer) and a winner can't be decided? As it stands right now, all of our options in this situation cause more problems than it solves. For example, if we make players replay the game to determine a winner, what is stopping players from continuing to trigger the "impossible to win" clause over and over either on purpose or on accident and extending the tournament by a half hour? If we mark it as a draw, who goes up in the bracket and who goes down to losers?
The timer in Smash (and all fighters for that matter) is there for one reason and one reason only: To make sure the games, the sets, and the tournament can't possibly go on forever. What you would suggest is to make the game "Player 1 vs. Player 2 vs. The Timer", something that we are all currently trying to avoid with this discussion.
The goal of making a ruleset is to provide two players the perfect environment for deciding who the better player is (at the time of the event). The community as a whole has decided that the better smash player is the one who can remove the stocks of their opponent while keeping their own stocks safe. While the timer already conflicts with this mentality, the large majority of smash matches have been able to succeed in playing without the timer's influence due to the quality of the ruleset. If we shorten the timer to the point where most (if not all) matches are heavily influenced by it, the game is no longer about what we have highlighted as the main goal of the competition. Instead of removing a player's stocks using a variety of playstyles and options, the goal of the game would be to be "don't lose to the timer" with a secondary "don't let your opponent take your stocks".
tl;dr: The timer is a necessary evil and we are trying to make sure it does not influence the outcome of matches, something your suggestion will do at every point of the game.
wannabe33
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 128
The problem is we don't know this for sure. It's quite possible that Smash 4 ends up as slow or slower than Brawl, particularly given the blast zones and high number of viable camping characters.
RanserSSF4
Banned via Administration
Only a couple of characters are super effective (pokemon reference lol) at camping, and those ones are Duck Hunt Dog and Villager. the others have decent camping tools, but they have other effective tools to use besides camping. They only use their camping tools depending on the match-up (This happens all the time in fighting games). Besides, Hunt Dog and Villager were obviously designed to be annoying campy characters, just like every other Fighting game.
You are correct when it comes to blast zones being huge though!
chococrow
Smash Cadet
think carefully everybody, do we really want our ruleset to revolve around how sakuri made it, the person that has been against competitive smash since the beginning
Comments like this are preposterous and poison the conversation.
No matter how much people want to play the victim to an authority figure that hates them, Sakurai intentionally made a series of highly competitive games and thinks highly of all categories of players. This is why a second copy of every stage was made, for the benefit of a small minority of players.
chococrow
Smash Cadet
Warning Received
The main reason sakuri is actually looking at the copetitive community though is because the wii u is down in sales and the only people still caring about nintendo is their hardcore fanbase
Gea
Smash Master
Not to nitpick, but is there any real evidence to support this? I was under the impression it was more likely due to the fact that a huge, huge margin of all online matches ended up on FD. FD is one of the most popular stages (I would say THE most, but that would be me saying something with no data) for players who aren't involved in the tournament scene. Even Japan, who loves the hell out of small stage lists, had a much larger boner for stages like Dreamland 64 than FD.
Regardless your original point about constructive conversation stands.
A real problem with this topic (between 2 stock and 3 stocks) is that the emphasis seems to be placed on time. Everyone is attacking two stocks as not giving players as much gametime by reducing the stock count. What I don't understand is the dismissal of 2 stock best of 5. Well, I understand why some people want to cling to 3 stock for the sake thereof, but I don't understand the lack of an attempt to at least consider the benefits.
The reality is that in certain circumstances rulesets must be adjusted to account for things like time. EVO is a good example of a place where our idea of 2/3 3 stock 8 minute double elimination brackets just don't happen due to time. These events, though rare, arise. Now I agree an inferior ruleset should not be used in lue of a better one for this reason because that would be prioritizing a small minority of tournaments. However, by having a more flexible ruleset where it is easier to reduce time without impacting the dynamic of the game, I can only see this as a positive aspect. To me, 2 stock Bo5 changing to 2 stock Bo3 is far less drastic a switch than 3 stock Bo3 to 2 stock Bo3 (or whatever bandaid is applied like has been in the past, like 2 games with no best of, reduced timer and same stock, etc).
Having a larger match count in a set should also make each individual stage less important throughout the set, meaning variance of results because of stage should go down. Similarly, if a rule like DSR is put into place, it challenges players to learn a greater variety of stages.
A somewhat valid criticism I see of 2 stock is that it reduces the chance for comeback within a match. What's really important is allowing a comeback within a set. Coming back from a 2 stock deficit is impressive, but it's far less likely to happen than coming back a game later. Having more games in a set = more chances for comeback within that set. SDs actually have less impact in the set than they would in a 3 stock match.
Finally, the elephant in the room. What if the game does get slower? Then with a 2 stock ruleset you simply reduce the set count down. Let's be honest. Reducing set count is a far less drastic change than changing stock count. It will be extremely hard to change stock count via just public opinion. Don't shoot yourselves in the foot. Figure out a ruleset that is adaptable sooner rather than later.
Last edited:
I just saw Bowser KO Duck Hunt dog at 80% off the side in a japanese tournament. I'm confused why people think matches are supposed to be longer than Brawl. You can rack damage up twice as quickly as Brawl due to hitstun.
Last edited:
Mithost
Smash Ace
Yes, some characters can kill certain other characters in certain situations at lower percents. However, the current average living percent of characters has still risen by a large amount (roughly a 50% increase across the board). On top of this, almost every character in the game suffers from "Marth Syndrome", where their combo/damage abilities are neutered once their opponent's percent reaches a certain point and they can't follow up into kill moves. So while the first 80-100 percent might be achieved in just a few quick combos, the next 50-80% will be a slow climb of one-hit punishes and stray smash attacks. Given that the blast zones are huge in this game, the slow climb period will most likely take a very long time.
Emphasis mine.
Without sounding absolute, I believe this is the best solution. We know 2 stocks 5 minutes works. People are playing it online and there is no immediate game-breaking issues. By pushing for sets to be Best of 5 instead of Best of 3, we can remedy the two main arguments that keep 3 stock in contention; Comeback potential and Adaptability time. If Smash 4 is fast enough of a game, Bo5 works as intended. If it ends up being too slow (using brawl as a benchmark), we'd have to end up changing the ruleset somewhere anyways to fix the issue. The final points Gea talks about highlight this in it's entirety. It will be much easier to say "Tournaments are taking too long, everything before semis is Bo3" than "Tournaments are taking too long, let's remove a stock" once a ruleset has already been decided.
I highly suggest that at least some TO's try running this ruleset.
Best of 5 (First to Three Wins)
2 Stocks
5-6 Minute Timer
No Items
Omega Stages (With possible additions if good neutrals exist)
If the tournament goes on too long, you can *easily* solve the issue by making the first X rounds (or pools) Best of 3. Get your players used to 2 Stock and a larger number of games in a set and any potential changes from then on will be easy to make. If you just set "3 Stocks 8 Minutes", players will be much less likely to change in the scenarios where shorter brackets may be required (Large scale tournaments, swiss brackets/RR pools, multi-game tournaments).
Conda
aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
It's been said multiples times already in much more detail, but let me summarise:
The problem with 2 stock 5 matches is downtime in between matches is too high. It solves zero issues -- you reduce time by going from 2 to 3 stocks, and then add it again in a larger amount by increases match count and downtime.
The problem with 2 stock 5 matches is downtime in between matches is too high. It solves zero issues -- you reduce time by going from 2 to 3 stocks, and then add it again in a larger amount by increases match count and downtime.
Last edited:
Blade Knight
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 722
I feel 3 stocks, 8 minutes is a fair metric to start with for the game. Even now when people are fairly fresh and getting used to it, Thinkaman's data suggests relatively fast matches, so once the game gets fleshed out more and people learn their characters better, 2 stocks will likely be far too little, even with a larger 'best of' set.
Gea
Smash Master
The downtime is very little unless you allow people to literally do whatever between matches. The time between the two is nearly identical when you factor in slightly shorter stocks (according to the current data we have). It's a myth that you'd be adding 5 minutes to a set. Look at average downtime between matches. It's surprisingly short in most cases. In fact, loading screens take up more time than stage selection in a lot of cases. Initial strike and ban take up the most time. You aren't going to reban or strike, just choose your stage.
The funny thing is that you're getting just as much time to "feel out your opponent" and more chances to adapt in a best of 5 set. If you figure out your opponent but cannot overcome the stock deficit in that match, it has way more impact in a best of three.
Last edited:
Conda
aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Not to mention certain tactics likely being more effective with 2 stocks versus 3, where stage control and pacing can take into effect more.
I am for a 2 stock ruleset if it ends up being better for the meta. I just doubt it, based on the perspectives I've learnt, and an understanding of why stocks are a valuable and vital part of smash matches.
Shorter tourneys is a very attractive thing. But I don't believe gaining that at the expensive of added dimension in our sets is worth it. We can lower tournament runtimes through other means, hopefully.
IF NOT, then we should consider sacrificing something to make tournaments run shorter, as shorter tournaments, less exhausted/tired players, and so forth will make tournaments more enjoyable to operate and attend.
3 stocks may be better for matches and the metagame, but 2 stocks may be better for the scene and tournament runtime.
The tournaments I've seen go over time and take too long are the ones where players went missing, people were not responsive, and people spent too much time playing friendlies and had to make everyone wait before they actually played their bracket matches.
Let's make sure we're cutting down on that before we toss a stock in the trash.
Last edited:
Gea
Smash Master
Such as? Maybe I'm missing something, but anything that is effective in a 2 stock match could be done in a 3 stock match.
Edit: I will concede that by numbers, it is very slightly easier to run the timer in a 2 stock 5 minute match (2.5 minutes per stock or 2:30) than it is in a 3/8 (2.6 minutes per stock or 2:36) from a pure numbers standpoint. Granted you'd have more matches in the set to run and less mistakes per match could be made to retain a lead, but I do concede there to be ever so slightly less time per stock.
Edit2: Actually it was brought to my attention that the respawn platform takes away what little time advantage is given by 2 stock matches vs 3 stock since sitting on it costs 5 seconds + the invicibility and death between respawns. Huh. Go figure.
Last edited:
Conda
aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
Bowser can gimp 1 stock and bowsercide to win. Any suicide character can do the same.
Spikes can gimp early easily, giving those characters a big boost in the meta.
Same goes for characters with good gimping game.
You will be encouraged to risk your first stock to get that spike or gimp early, so you can quickly have a 1 stock lead and your opponent will have 1 stock left. You can then fight normally, making mistakes and being overconfident, because your opponent is going to have to play defensively as they are on their last stock already.
In a 3 stock match, one early gimp has nowhere near the amount of power as in a 2 stock match. In a 3 stock match, the player who got gimped early is not on their last stock, and thus is not pressured to play defensively right off the bat. They have 2 lives left, and can in return take some risks, regain control of the stage, and change the momentum of the match in their favour.
Gea
Smash Master
Bowser/a suicide character always retains the ability to use a stock lead to try and go for a quick kill on the last stock or any stock. Suicide kills have been happening since Smash 64 regardless of stock count. It would not aide a gimping character or suicide character in any real way because them risking a "stale" stock to quickly kill a fresh stock has the same amount of risk/reward regardless of stock count. If they fail they come back "even" with the other player and if they win they've traded an almost "used up" stock for the other player's fresh one.
And once again, early/"lucky" or extreme gimps play less of an importance (along with SDs) in a set with a larger best of. By your same logic the losing player actually has more leeway to be risky when trying to make a comeback in a best of 5 because that match means less to the set than in a best of three. If the person that is behind doesn't play super safe, he not only loses that game, but 33-50% of that set.
If two stocks causes players to be more defensive, so far there is no data to suggest this based on the evidence gathered. The game is young yet and it could very well change. For now I've seen nothing that suggests players inherently play more defensive because 2 stock forces them to.
Last edited:
Conda
aka COBBS - Content Creator (Toronto region)
The stock count is the whole point of the difference - 3 and 4 stock matches cannot solely consist of "gimp and suicide" as the two KOs. Ther have to be other things going on and other skillsets being used. Even 2 gimps + 1 suicide is much more impressive skill-wise, as its more difficult and unlikely to happen in a 3 stock match. Meanwhile gimping once and then deciding to suicide the second and final stock is much less demanding of a decision to make - it's just an obvious decision.
Last edited:
That's how Melee would seem if everyone was using all the bad characters too. Wait until we find out who are the best characters and everyone just chooses them, all those characters will have no trouble killing, so the average match time will go down. Most tournament plaeyrs are going to end up using these characters who can actually kill earlier.
Last edited:
Mithost
Smash Ace
What if the best characters end up being the ones with the best spacing tools, evasive movement options, or other important features? It doesn't matter if Bowser or Little Mac can KO at 80% if they end up being combo/gimp/camp food to the characters that have the tools to do so.
You have to remember that both gimps and suicide kills are high risk/high reward for both players, often times initially favoring the victim. Yes, if a player takes a large risk and succeeds twice, they should be rewarded. However, once everyone learns the matchup of the seemingly powerful character that utilizes this strategy, do you think they won't be actively looking to counter these attempts at the gimp and the SD? Fighting games are a test of skill and gimps/winning SDs take a ton of skill (assuming your opponent knows the matchup). All of this is true regardless of stocks.
Bowser and little mac have safe on sheild pokes. Mac has one of the best evasive games. It seems like the campy spamy characters all lack strong evasive abilities. the up close characters are the ones that have stronger evasive options. Even characters who were typically very strong melee range zoners like wario and marth got hit hard in some way and have to commit more; that limits just how effective that stally zoning game is now.
A lot of choices have been made to very intentionally create more areas of conflict in this title. I don't see this game being people just sitting back looking at each other, that will be even more true the shorter the time limits get.
That's true, but the simple fact is that neither you or I know the answer. Hence I'd like to take a wait and see approach.