There's less disruptive ways to reduce match durations. Banning slow counterpicks, for instance. Battlefield start instead of strikes, perhaps.
Changing the amount of time spent in a match is less disruptive than removing things that directly affect how we play. I'm not arguing that certain stages should be legal or banned but surely you would agree that removing Smashville or FD would still be more of a change than changing the timer or stock count?
I really like the idea of 1 stock matches, making hard reads much more rewarding and indirectly buffing low tiers since they could win matches with couple of good reads or mistakes by the opponent. The only problem imo is the IC's MU. IC's get pushed to the extreme, as in they only need one grab to win. This results in people playing even campier against them, but on the flip side just one bad separation of nana and popo can mean a stock too. But I like the fact that 1 stock matches would emphasize you being much more consistent with your execution, although if the match format does change, the amount of salt present from the fact that players have much less room for error will be ridiculous.
Even though "real" fighters use a system far more comparable to 1 stock, I doubt Brawl would ever convert to 1 stock Bo3 so its not like ICs would ever win a set with 2 grabs. 1 stock Bo5 or 7 keeps things...similar. Again, if you consider traditional fighting games, its pretty normal to lose a huge chunk of your life from one combo.
Aside from characters that actually do change from stock to stock (I'm talking about ONLY PT and ZSS here), I don't feel that there is any real buff or nerf to other characters. If you are good at killing, you are still good at killing. If you are good at staying alive, you are still good at staying alive with less stocks to guard. If you are good at wasting time, you will be just as good at wasting time (assuming the stock to time ratio is similar).
Certain types of players will excel or falter with less room for error, but I don't feel most characters are affected.
If you take a good while to figure your opponent out, you are going to be worse in a 1 stock match if you can't figure things out before you die. If your style is particularly unique or tricky, you might beat people that would likely figure you out in a 3 stock match and make the necessary comebacks. However, the same situation can be said for 4 stock or 5 stock matches. I've lost some close games/sets that I might have won if both players had 1 or 2 more stocks. Ultimately, its just perception.
