Should the stock count be lowered?

[WindMajor]

Most of my matches are past the 7 minute mark.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Most of my matches are past the 7 minute mark.

Your character is so laaaaame. :[

 

[infiniteV115]

1/2 stocks is bad because Lucario's aura caps out at 182% when he's 2 stocks behind. You can't be 2 stocks behind in a 1 or 2 stock match, and I think it's fair to say that the limit to Lucario's power (ie damage and knockback) should be determined by the game, not by us.

Actually wait **** Lucario I play ZSS

 

[MJG]

your character is so laaaaame. :[

: )

 

[SinisterB]

I'd love 2 stock but 3 will probably always be the superior choice, at least for awhile.

 

[Ussi]

1/2 stocks is bad because Lucario's aura caps out at 182% when he's 2 stocks behind. You can't be 2 stocks behind in a 1 or 2 stock match, and I think it's fair to say that the limit to Lucario's power (ie damage and knockback) should be determined by the game, not by us.

Actually wait **** Lucario I play ZSS

Why would some WANT to be behind?

 

[popsofctown]

Tripping.

I think one stock would ultimately be best (more interesting) for Brawl, but understand that it would come as a bit of a shock to people. Two stock is an acceptable medium.

I don't know why people cling to three-stock other than "It's how it is now." If that rationale was used when deciding 4 stock vs. 3 stock, we'd have 50%+ of Brawl matches going to time and an even more boring game.

Since Project M hackers had trouble toggling tripping off, I suspect what with Brawl being a rushed game with Wolf bouncing off ledges there just wasn't time for a tripping toggle option. Conspiracy theory aside, the developers may have just wanted it there for casuals or thought it enhanced gameplay for everyone. It's not necessarily there purely to sabotage tournament players.




If the point of this is that tournaments are running too long, why don't TOs with problems tweak the tournament format instead of changing the game? Different pool sizes, skip pools, etc. Or look into tournament formats other than double elim, I don't know why people treat double elim like it is the sacred, perfect format. I personally think it's rather flawed for smash compared to something more swiss oriented because an elimination format lets players get bitten in the achilles heel on weak matchups sometimes.

For seriously, I just got started relearning this game when you banned my character a few months ago I really don't want to have to start relearning again

 

[Tesh]

Seriously, if anyone mentions says lowering stocks nerfs Lucario again, I will report your post for trolling.

Once you bring it back from 2 stocks down, you are 1 stock down(worst that can happen in a 2 stock match) , then you are only down by percents (worst that can happen in a 1 stock match).


For the record, I don't feel that 3 stock makes tournaments last too long. I think it just makes sets last too long. If you look at the competitions that are related closest to Smash, you will find 99 second timers and much shorter sets. I feel that there is no depth lost in 2 stock matches and it makes the game far more intense and spectator friendly.

1 stock however I think improves the game by eliminating stock leads. There are alot of ways you can look at this. You might feel that coming back from a stock deficit should be a core part of the game. However, I think with the already very defensive nature of the game, its even less interesting when defense is dumbed down to avoiding a handful of moves. It also gives way to alot of abusive tactics that we the community still can't seem to overcome (even with massively reduced stagelists).

 

[popsofctown]

Seriously, if anyone mentions says lowering stocks nerfs Lucario again, I will report your post for trolling.

It is not classy to threaten to report people for posting a different opinion than you hold.

Once you bring it back from 2 stocks down, you are 1 stock down(worst that can happen in a 2 stock match) , then you are only down by percents (worst that can happen in a 1 stock match).

Not sure what your point is here.

For the record, I don't feel that 3 stock makes tournaments last too long. I think it just makes sets last too long. If you look at the competitions that are related closest to Smash, you will find 99 second timers and much shorter sets. I feel that there is no depth lost in 2 stock matches and it makes the game far more intense and spectator friendly. 1 stock however I think improves the game by eliminating stock leads. There are alot of ways you can look at this. You might feel that coming back from a stock deficit should be a core part of the game. However, I think with the already very defensive nature of the game, its even less interesting when defense is dumbed down to avoiding a handful of moves. It also gives way to alot of abusive tactics that we the community still can't seem to overcome (even with massively reduced stagelists).

This is so constructivist idk what to do here.

 

[Ussi]

The point is, lucario is losing when he has a strong aura. Once he ties it up stock wise, he loses it anyways.

Some MUs Lucario not taking the first stock puts him at a severe disadvantage since he usually can't revenge kill since his aura is weak at 0% even with a stock deficit.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

The point is, lucario is losing when he has a strong aura. Once he ties it up stock wise, he loses it anyways.

Some MUs Lucario not taking the first stock puts him at a severe disadvantage since he usually can't revenge kill since his aura is weak at 0% even with a stock deficit.

If Lucario is at over 100%, he still hits really hard, regardless of the stock count. That's the game-changer. Being down in stock count just makes all of your moves "super effective," like PT's weaknesses. It's not -that- big a change.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

A lot of people are missing the point of Lucario's Aura. It's not supposed to make it easier to come back, it's supposed to make it easier to maintain a stock lead. I'm not defending lowering stocks, but the Lucario argument is getting ********.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

A lot of people are missing the point of Lucario's Aura. It's not supposed to make it easier to come back, it's supposed to make it easier to maintain a stock lead. I'm not defending lowering stocks, but the Lucario argument is getting ********.

I'm sure it's supposed to do a lot of things; among what you described, I imagine stock-based multipliers are supposed to make it so that Lucario isn't able to completely wreck you if he's winning by a stock or two, though it hardly matters, because the stock-based multipliers are insignificant compared to damage-based multipliers.

That said, the most important part is obviously to do stupid amounts of damage and knockback when you "FIGHT AS LUCARIO AT LETHAL DAMAGE!" The stock count doesn't affect that much at all.

 

[popsofctown]

The stock multiplier is so insignificant it shouldn't be brought up.

Damage multiplier dwarfs it so much that the subtle changes to how effectively he can use damage multiplier in a briefer game has more impact on his balance than stock.

He's probably not really a front runner for most changed by stock count, really. Peach is probably nerfed more.

 

[Life]

Peach? Why Peach? Less chances to pull stitchface or something?

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'm curious as to what makes Peach worse off in one stock.


It's not turnips.

 

[Shadic]

Since Project M hackers had trouble toggling tripping off, I suspect what with Brawl being a rushed game with Wolf bouncing off ledges there just wasn't time for a tripping toggle option. Conspiracy theory aside, the developers may have just wanted it there for casuals or thought it enhanced gameplay for everyone. It's not necessarily there purely to sabotage tournament players.

The only tripping that was difficult to remove was random tripping on (iirc) Sakurai-angle moves. Removing Dash-tripping was the first code made for Brawl, and is far more detracting for gameplay/intentionally put there as a "Hah! You tripped! Isn't Super Smash Party funtimes?"

...And I am also wondering how stock count nerfs Peach.

 

[infiniteV115]

If you look at the competitions that are related closest to Smash, you will find 99 second timers and much shorter sets.

Games in Starcraft II usually take 50 minutes from what I've heard, 20 at LEAST.
And chess games at the top level last multiple hours.
Different games are different, I don't see what your point was. I don't see why other fighting games taking less time overall is an argument for making Brawl take less time. You could just do the reverse and use it as an argument for making other games last longer, lol.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

My point (and possibly the first guys point) was that Aura is near useless in 1 stock because you can't use the damage multiplier to keep a lead.

 

[popsofctown]

My point (and possibly the first guys point) was that Aura is near useless in 1 stock because you can't use the damage multiplier to keep a lead.

Yeah, this is the right angle. Lucario can deal buttloads of damage while his opponent tries to revenge kill him. Kinda goes both ways though.

@SC2: I am a bronze level player and all, but I have a hundred wins and my absolute max length game was an hour. And in hindsight I could have ended that game far more quickly, I was sort of toying with my food. 50 minutes is probably not average. Something more in the thirty minute ballpark. It has similar rock-paper-scissors interactions that make you want to run a best of X though, pretty good example of how a competitive game can run longer.

@Peach: Yes, turnips. The probability of pulling a bob-omb, beam sword, or stitch for a low % kill is linear, it will happen 2/3rds as often. It's not going to be 3/2 times as powerful in two stock games though, something more like 5/4 times as powerful, because the projectiles already have such a dramatic impact on the game with any number of stocks less than 10. It's like the difference in miracle spiking an opponent at 30% and moving onto a win from there versus doing so at 70%, you already have such a dramatic advantage either way that your odds of winning are very high and insensitive to change.

You might see it otherwise and it's sort of an abstract thing to think about, but no more so than Lucario with whom I made the comparison.

 

[Kink-Link5]

@Peach: Yes, turnips. The probability of pulling a bob-omb, beam sword, or stitch for a low % kill is linear, it will happen 2/3rds as often.

I feel like this is the start of a sentence that never got finished. It will happen 2/3s as often as what? Pulling regular turnips?

It's not going to be 3/2 times as powerful in two stock games though, something more like 5/4 times as powerful, because the projectiles already have such a dramatic impact on the game with any number of stocks less than 10.

I'd like to know where you are pulling these probabilities from.

It's like the difference in miracle spiking an opponent at 30% and moving onto a win from there versus doing so at 70%, you already have such a dramatic advantage either way that your odds of winning are very high and insensitive to change.

I don't think Landing a move well on the opponent is analogous to playing the luck card drawing turnips.

You might see it otherwise and it's sort of an abstract thing to think about, but no more so than Lucario with whom I made the comparison.

I am still wondering how she is worse with a lower stock because all you've said seems to imply she's better since one good item means the game as opposed to the stock.

 

[Life]

Peach pulls X turnips per stock. /arbitrarynumber

In three stock, Peach has three times as many chances per game to pull a stitchface/bob-omb/etc. and capitalize on it.

I follow you up to here.

In 3s-Bo3, assuming you KO off any given stitch/bobomb, your pull is either meaningless (because you would have won with it anyway, or lost despite it anyway) or gets you halfway to victory.

In 1s-Bo7 (my recommended format), your pull only gets you a quarter of the way to victory, but is never made meaningless by stock (although still by percent--do you really need a bob-omb to kill at 200?).

Seems too close to call for me.

PT and possibly ZSS are the only characters who really care about stock.

Actually... characters with charging specials like DK or Samus might care, since the time between taking a stock and the opponent's respawn is usually spent recharging the move. Snake, too, so he can set up another mine or C4. Olimar for Pikmin filtering? What do most characters do immediately after taking a stock?

Thoughts?

 

[Kink-Link5]

Samus, DK, and Lucario have a lot easier time in Brawl charging their standard B's than any other Smash since a non-killing launcher still gives them PLENTY of time to charge up.

Also, I don't even follow that Peach is supposedly more likely to draw bombs et al. with higher stock because that's a prime case of Gambler's fallacy. You're just as likely to draw anything on any pluck as any other pluck.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Wario can safely break his bike, which is cool, but not terribly difficult to do normally.

 

[popsofctown]

my point is that whether it's a 2 stock, 3 stock, or 4 stock, one bob-omb kill is pretty much GG. A lower stock count makes it only slightly more powerful, but significantly less likely.

(3/2s was the reciprocal of 2/3rds. 5/4ths was arbitrary)

@Inferiority - I was arguing strictly against 2 stock Bo3. 1 stock Bo7 is a whole other can of yams.

 

[Kink-Link5]

If one stock is gg, what's the point of the other 2, overall?

Note: I don't think one stock is GG and am continuing this Socratic questioning to stimulate conversation.

 

[popsofctown]

If one stock is gg, what's the point of the other 2, overall?

Note: I don't think one stock is GG and am continuing this Socratic questioning to stimulate conversation.

Most games end in a lead of 0-60% (somewhat madeup, but most brawl games are not two stocks), and it takes all three stocks to slowly generate that lead amidst lots of tit for tat, even trading. Sometimes it's a fluke, and the player who wouldn't win Best of Infinity manages to win anyway.

With fewer stocks, the leads will be 0-40%, perhaps. Flukes will be a bit more common, and that's the point of adding stocks or games.


I am saying my viewpoint is that a bob-omb snatches about 70% damage, so winning after tasting the nasty side of a bomb is already in the outlier, fluke range either way, in either format. So the impact of the bomb is mostly unchanged, but its rarity is changed significantly.

As I've said, it's kind of an opinion thing and I think it's a trivial change for both Peach and Lucario compared to other cast members. But you seem to enjoy discussing it. So.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Peach isn't any more likely to draw a Bomb on the 80th pluck than she is on the first. Extending the stocks and therefore the match has no effect on the rarity of the items she draws.

I'm keeping on the subject because you still haven't answered the simple question. How is Peach nerfed by a lower stock count if a bomb/stitch have a much more significant impact on the game?

 

[Ussi]

I'm go and say lowering stock count will be more appealing to a bigger crowd of people to watch. The thing with longer matches is people need the attention span to watch it.

Why should we care about people watching? Makes the community grow.

 

[Luigi player]

Then why not 4 stocks? 5? The point is that there needs to be a balance between consistent results and being able to finish the ****ing tourney on time, and I don't know about Austrian (?) Brawl tournaments, but at most US ones they tend to go far longer than the TO usually would like.

We had 4 at the start of Brawl but found out it takes too long.

I know tourneys need to be done on time, that's why 10 minutes might not be good for large tourneys...

Dunno, but fewer stocks just seems really bad to me. Constant results will be even harder and people might stop playing, because it'll get more random. Maybe some "randoms" would like it since they now have a chance to win something... but if you go "up and down" in results it might get annoying for them too.

I know this might be overdoing it a little, but it goes in that direction.
Play only one match as a set with 5 stock (15 mins) if that's better.

Time gets lost while CPing too, so it'll definitely be faster than how it is now.

Although the matches would probably be played on BF and SV only then, could get boring.


If time is really that much of a problem all the time for you guys I guess 2 stocks is the only way to change that if you want to keep the bo3's etc., then I don't get why it is even being discussed in the first place. If you have to change it, just do it?

 

[Tesh]

Bo1 with 5 stocks. Timing out would be sooooooooooooooooo worth it.

 

[Ussi]

The only reason more people would do better in 2 stocks, is cause they gave an attention span long enough to play on point for 2 stocks over 3.

 

[The Ben]

Dunno, but fewer stocks just seems really bad to me. Constant results will be even harder and people might stop playing, because it'll get more random. Maybe some "randoms" would like it since they now have a chance to win something... but if you go "up and down" in results it might get annoying for them too.

If people perform better or worse in 2 stocks it's because 2 stocks somehow either lends itself to a style of play people aren't used to or because 2 stock lends itself to players in a stronger mental state for the duration of the matches. Neither of those seem like bad things. The first one would clear up over time as people got back into the game.

More importantly though, variance is what creates hype moments in gaming. Nobody cares if the guy everyone knows is the best still is the best. People do care when someone who is under rated performs above expected. The insistence of consistence in a game with a lot of built in variance is beyond stupid and one of the biggest issues the competitive community faces. Let there be variance when it actually would be beneficial to the community.

 

[popsofctown]

Peach isn't any more likely to draw a Bomb on the 80th pluck than she is on the first. Extending the stocks and therefore the match has no effect on the rarity of the items she draws.

I'm keeping on the subject because you still haven't answered the simple question. How is Peach nerfed by a lower stock count if a bomb/stitch have a much more significant impact on the game?

They -don't- have a much more significant impact on the game. They have a slightly more significant impact on the game, because a low % kill is already devastating whether you make it "3/2 times as good" or not. It's like the difference between kicking a 15 yard field goal and a 10 yard field goal.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Lucario's Aura works as such.

3.4 Aura Multiplier

This is the formula for the aura multiplier:

where

In coin mode, each coin counts as a stock for the purpose of the stock multiplier.

The damage multiplier is in the interval [0.7, 1.4]. It is 0.7 for all damages <= 20% and 1.4 for all damages >= 170%. It is exactly 1 only when the damage is 75%. A very good approximation for the damage multiplier can be found by reading the value from this chart:

For example, the damage multiplier for 95% is 1.09.

This chart was created by using quintic interpolation between some exact values that we worked out.

Spoiler

Removing a stock would stop things like the first match here I suppose.

[yt]f5I8iJ3cBs8[/yt]

Imo, I would look at the cast as a whole over a single character who would lose something from the lower stock count.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Interesting. Does that mean that B-Throw and D-Throw aren't aura moves, since they're not on the list?

Either way, I agree. One character being affected by it in a supposedly-significant manner shouldn't be where we stop to consider this.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

They aren't aura moves.

I think they are the only ones not affected by the multiplier. More so to show how stocks can affect it, it does to a degree.

~

My stance is still unless timeouts become more than less than 1% I'm not interested in changing the stock count, at four stocks it was more apparent, but at 3 it's not really an issue.

 

[John12346]

Dash Attack isn't an aura move, in addition to Bthrow and Dthrow.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Thought it was, my mistake.

 

[Mithost]

46% of players would prefer a change. This is interesting. These still need to be tested more (like in concentrate 2 where they had a really nice 1 stock bracket) to get anything to change.