SmashEurope Smash 4 Stock Count Poll

With several early 2016 majors on the horizon in both the US and Europe, the stock count in Smash 4 has once again become subject to debate. In an effort to gather more data on the various perspectives, SmashEurope has launched a global poll on the subject. Below you will find an excerpt of the accompanying article. All community members are encouraged to participate in this poll, as the results could have consequences for the way events are run in the future. As it stands, the US and Japan mostly run 2 stocks, while some US regions and Europe prefer to run 3 stocks.​

The stock count in Smash Bros. for Wii U has seen a global split between Europe and the US, as well as Japan, since very early in the game’s lifespan. Most American nationals since APEX 2015 have opted for 2 stocks, which lead many US regions to follow suit in preparation for these events. In Europe 3 stocks has been the norm since the very start as a result of various TOs polling their local community and the settings working out well with Brawl, the game’s direct predecessor. This difference in philosophy has recently become more relevant with events such as Genesis 3 and BEAST 6 hoping to attract overseas attendance.

We are now one year into the game and a census regarding the current state of the game seems appropriate. It is in the interest of the global scene to find out which demographic prefers which setting, as we are dealing with several groups relevant to the growth and survival of the game. For our purposes, we differentiate between the preferences of players, viewers and TOs. Although we will shed light on our own perspective in the remainder of the article, we want to stress that we are approaching this subject with an open mind and could very well be proven wrong about our prior assumptions.

The poll can be found here. The Google Doc was created by Tom Scott (G~P). You can respond anonymously, but all questions other than your (nick)name are mandatory in order for us to gain the best possible insight into the desires of the community at large. The poll closes within one week (on December 24th). We eagerly await your responses!

For the perspective of the initiators, you can view the full article over on SmashEurope. For a history lesson on stock counts in the competitive Smash Bros. scene, check out the overview by SmashCapps.

 

There's 2 stocks on For Glory so it should be 2 stocks... lol Just kidding
I'm fine with either 2 or 3 stocks really. Although sometimes 3 stocks take a while

 

I feel like 2 stocks is a sprint, while 3 stocks is a marathon. More stocks clearly determines the better player. Between a 1 stock match and a 99 stock match, which one do you have a better chance at beating Zero in? With rage in this game as well I don't see the reason for 2 stocks other than time constraints.

 

I feel with the nerfs to shields and players getting better 3 stocks 7 min is perfectly doable.

Granted I'm no pro player but after reading how people have handled 3 stocks like @Xyro77, being strict and precise. I think it's time to upgrade to 3.

I've been to a bunch of tournies in my area and have started going to Boston scenes lately too. (Just to clarify)

 

Join the 3 Stock R E V O L U T I O N

No but seriously everyone who has played both formats competitively for this game knows which is better.

 

I love how a ton of people will be voting and making comments even tho most of them have never gone to a real tournament and almost none of them is a high level player nor a top TO. My advice: don't participate in anything regarding the rules of Smash unless you are thr aftermentioned types of people.

 

I love how a ton of people will be voting and making comments even tho most of them have never gone to a real tournament and almost none of them is a high level player nor a top TO. My advice: don't participate in anything regarding the rules of Smash unless you are thr aftermentioned types of people.

I participate in a lot of tournaments here in my country, and still don't know whats the best format for this game... I think so too!

 

99 stock Falcon Dittos is the most optimal setting imo

 

I love how a ton of people will be voting and making comments even tho most of them have never gone to a real tournament and almost none of them is a high level player nor a top TO. My advice: don't participate in anything regarding the rules of Smash unless you are thr aftermentioned types of people.

Wow, someone push your buttons? That's like saying that you can't comment on the new DBZ film if you're not a fan of the franchise. That came off as very entitled.

Anyway, experience nonwithstanding, I personally prefer 2 stocks. Do you guys really want to see Sonic, Pac Man (Epic tho) and Rosalina in 3 stock format? You're going to be seeing wayyyyy more timeouts if you do that unless the timer is brought to 8 minutes like Smashladder and even then I've timed out a bunch of my opponents while playing as Sheik. Her needle game is really good, which makes it easy once you have the lead. When you're winning, it's your opponent's turn to charge in and that's tough against a top tier fighter.

 

3 Stocks Masterrace :D

J.P
This poll is directed to EVERYONE. So no you are absolutely wrong. Everyone should vote. Everyone should. Everyone.
...
Everyone

 

99 stock Falcon Dittos is the most optimal setting imo

Can confirm.

 

Oh man my poll is on Smashboards I'm so popular.

I just hope people make the right choice for the game. I believe 3 stock is better and us europeans have been running 3 stock predominantly. I just hope we can use this to convince the rest of the world too!

Also J.P I wouldn't worry about non-competitors making their voice heard. There is a 'spectator' option for this reason. When we have finished collecting the data, we can filter results to suit our needs.

 

I think 3 stock will be more balanced.

Us, Maryland

 

This poll gives the option for both? How does that help? Voting for that option is as good as not voting at all.

 

Wow, someone push your buttons? That's like saying that you can't comment on the new DBZ film if you're not a fan of the franchise. That came off as very entitled.

Anyway, experience nonwithstanding, I personally prefer 2 stocks. Do you guys really want to see Sonic, Pac Man (Epic tho) and Rosalina in 3 stock format? You're going to be seeing wayyyyy more timeouts if you do that unless the timer is brought to 8 minutes like Smashladder and even then I've timed out a bunch of my opponents while playing as Sheik. Her needle game is really good, which makes it easy once you have the lead. When you're winning, it's your opponent's turn to charge in and that's tough against a top tier fighter.

The players determine if the match goes to time, not the ruleset. Timing out is always going to be an option in tournaments regardless of the rule set you present.

 

I voted 2-stock, but only because it's more conducive to Bo5 (which does more for variance than upping the stock count).

 

...What do they need my nickname for?

 

Having 3 stock lives in a 10-minute match has been a typical rule setting that I use for offline matches.

 

Do you guys really want to see Sonic, Pac Man (Epic tho) and Rosalina in 3 stock format?

...Yes?

Rosalina can KO super early so I don't see why you'd bring her up.

Some people play her way too defensively but not everyone does.

And I find Sonic and Pac-Man fun to watch in any case.

 

I think matches paced at the current two-stock format is reasonable for now. No actual need to raise it further from what I can tell.

 

I feel like 2 stocks is a sprint, while 3 stocks is a marathon. More stocks clearly determines the better player. Between a 1 stock match and a 99 stock match, which one do you have a better chance at beating Zero in? With rage in this game as well I don't see the reason for 2 stocks other than time constraints.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean between 1 and 100 stocks yea, but if it's between 2 and 3, one rewards who can adapt quickly and the other who can change over the course of a longer period of tome. I think 2 does have something to offer in that regaurd.

 

i decided on 3 stocks, predominantly because if one person's in the lead and plays defensive, it forces the other to get aggressive, so if folks start getting ahead of excessively defensive players, it forces them to take the initiative if they don't want a taste of their very bitter timeout medicine.

players who specialize in offense could, so I believe, give defensive folks a nasty wake up call. I mean, if they're forced to go offensive to regain the lead, they're out of their element if their opponent is good at offense... right?

 

I agree with the 3-stock and 8 minute rule, hence I voted for that one.

I feel 2 stocks is more suited for quick friendly matches, and 3 stocks from what I've seen has usually always been the norm in most Smash tournaments. 2 stocks just makes matches too quickly for me.

 

3 stock bo5 is way too long

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean between 1 and 100 stocks yea, but if it's between 2 and 3, one rewards who can adapt quickly and the other who can change over the course of a longer period of tome. I think 2 does have something to offer in that regaurd.

You literally just repeated the jist of what I said. Moreover the same can be said about 1 stock vs 99. So I really don't know what mind of point you're bringing to the table.

 

2 Stock best of five is optimal imo, 2 Stock bo3 for pools tho.

 

I don't want a tourney to be running for 8̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ too long, 2 stock bo3 keeps the bracket running smoothly and quickly. Experimenting with different formats is essential, however. If a tournament decides to use 3 stock for a few weeks they may very well find that it improves the overall player experience. The game has changed drastically with the last few patches, but I still worry that 3 stocks will extend match times in ways that would be significant.

 

3 Stock 8 Minute would bring Sm4sh to parity with Melee and Brawl in terms of time.
Tournament organizers should account for the maximum time of a tournament in all cases.

Let's organize a hypothetical tournament with say 64 participants where semis on is Bo5. Lets make it single elim just for the sake of being concise too. Also there are 4 setups with only one in use from Semis on.

There are 63 matches in a 64 person tournament. Of those, 3 would be Bo5, the rest are Bo3. Assuming all matches are time-outs and take all 3(or 5) games to finish, It would be 8 hours for a 3 stock 8 minute match, and 6 hours for a 2 stock 6 minute match.



Sure, you will say "games don't usually take that long" and stuff like that, but I didn't even account for extraneous things that could easily make the time of a tournament go up such as being late for pools and the amount of time it takes for people to go through striking and such.



"This all points to a 2 stock 6 minute standard, so why are you telling me this"?

Because as I said at the very beginning of the post, 3 stock 8 minute would bring us to parity with melee, brawl, and any other smash game with the 8 minute standard. When all games are time-outs, matches take the same length of time and so it becomes a matter of how much you like playing the game. 2 hours isn't that long a difference in the long-run and most tournaments usually have more than 4 setups, but I wanted to use nice and easy numbers.




The question that becomes is if we as a community want to play through tournaments to get to the end fast, or if we want to play tournaments to play the game more.

 

I don't want a tourney to be running for 8 hours, 2 stock bo3 keeps the bracket running smoothly and quickly. Experimenting with different formats is essential, however. If a tournament decides to use 3 stock for a few weeks they may very well find that it improves the overall player experience. The game has changed drastically with the last few patches, but I still worry that 3 stocks will extend match times in ways that would be significant.

No offence to your tournaments, but if it takes 8 hours to run a single double-elimination bracket, you need a better Tournament Organiser. I don't even consider myself a top T.O but my team gets a 40+-man bracket finished in under 4 hours on a monday night....this is 3-stock too

Plus, over the past year we've run numerous tournaments at both 2 and 3 stock. The time difference between the two only becomes noticeable at top level play.

 

No offence to your tournaments, but if it takes 8 hours to run a single double-elimination bracket, you need a better Tournament Organiser. I don't even consider myself a top T.O but my team gets a 40+-man bracket finished in under 4 hours on a monday night....this is 3-stock too

Plus, over the past year we've run numerous tournaments at both 2 and 3 stock. The time difference between the two only becomes noticeable at top level play.

I just kinda pulled that number out of my bum, nothing real to back that one up. It takes about 5 hours for us to run singles and doubles, double elim, with an hour or so of slack time for setup and friendlies.

I wouldn't be opposed to three stock if it can be shown to not make a significant difference. Experimentation is important though, if 3 stocks proves to improve player experience while not affecting match times significantly I'm all for it.

I actually ended up voting 3 stock because I'm curious if the format would be better after all of the recent balance patches, and it gives quite a bit of time to analyze the opponent during the match. We'll see how it turns out though, if the format is used at majors.

 

2 stocks needs to stay. If 2 stock wasn't sufficient to determine the "best" player, then ZeRo wouldn't have won like 55 out of his last 56 tournaments. The vast majority of the sets being 2 stock best of 3s. 2 stock is plenty sufficient. We already run double elimination formats which helps a ton with variance already. We already have a nice balance between skill and 3 stock is overkill.

3 stock will kill viewership and make tournaments uneccesarily long. 3 stock is fine for 2 aggressive players. But when you consider defensive characters like Rosa, Sonic, Wario, Puff, ect. a 3 stock best of 3 could go as long as 30 minutes when you consider time for stage striking and setup. I don't want to even think about how long 3 stock best of 5 will take if it goes all 5 games. 40 minutes is totally possible including setup and striking.

There is no reason to go to 3 stocks, just makes tournament sets unnecessarily longer. If this game was more offensive things may be different, but it's not. I've played in a couple 3 stock live tournaments and it took forever. Especially one of those where I went really deep and placed 5th. Please no more.

I don't know about the rest of you but I don't want tournament times extended any further. They already take almost a whole day on a local level. I know that can be improved with more setups/better TO but 3 stocks will extend already 6-8 hour long tournament times significantly no matter how you look at it.

 

I did three stock because it seems shorter to have 2 stock in six mins, while to have 3 stocks and 8 minutes, it makes it longer and you will see what player was better.

The downside to 3 stocks is when a player stalls or the character they are playing as is a floaty character, or they just like to annoyingly stall.
That's just my opinion.

 

You literally just repeated the jist of what I said. Moreover the same can be said about 1 stock vs 99. So I really don't know what mind of point you're bringing to the table.

Uh no you specifically said "I don't see any reason for 2 stocks other than time constraints" and more stocks always show the better player. My point that 2 stocks bring a different element to the game which rewards players for the ability to adapt quicker is in direct contradiction to both if those statements, because if one player adapts quicker and the other adapts more but over a long period of time it isn't so black and white who is better, different players just fair better in different situations.

 

I just kinda pulled that number out of my bum, nothing real to back that one up. It takes about 5 hours for us to run singles and doubles, double elim, with an hour or so of slack time for setup and friendlies.

I wouldn't be opposed to three stock if it can be shown to not make a significant difference. Experimentation is important though, if 3 stocks proves to improve player experience while not affecting match times significantly I'm all for it.

I actually ended up voting 3 stock because I'm curious if the format would be better after all of the recent balance patches, and it gives quite a bit of time to analyze the opponent during the match. We'll see how it turns out though, if the format is used at majors.

That sounds a bit more reasonable

From our tournaments, I can tell you that 3stock takes no longer (if not less) time than 2stock with customs. Customs/the extra stock make things take longer in different areas though. Customs mean early on games take longer because of setup + explaining customs to people, and customs cheese makes things take mildly longer throughout the tournament. while with 3stock makes very little difference early on (due to most matches being a roflstomp) and adding later on during the top16 or so.

 

Frankly, 2 lives tends to feel too short, especially if any players mess up during a match. I can understand if it's due to time constraints, but seeing a match end in under a minute does tend to feel very disappointing.

 

2 stocks so when the little kids play their smash 4 during evo and other majors we can get back to the real man's game -- MELEE

 

I'm fine with either, really. If I had to choose one, however, I would favor a two-stock meta, just because I could see certain chars in three-stock (3 stock, 7 mins. especially) abusing time-outs.

 

I'm fine with either, really. If I had to choose one, however, I would favor a two-stock meta, just because I could see certain chars in three-stock (3 stock, 7 mins. especially) abusing time-outs.

Luckily for you, 3stock 7min hasnt been a ruling used by anyone major ever

 

Uh no you specifically said "I don't see any reason for 2 stocks other than time constraints" and more stocks always show the better player. My point that 2 stocks bring a different element to the game which rewards players for the ability to adapt quicker is in direct contradiction to both if those statements, because if one player adapts quicker and the other adapts more but over a long period of time it isn't so black and white who is better, different players just fair better in different situations.

"2 stocks is a sprint while 3 stocks is a marathon." Lol ok

 

Luckily for you, 3stock 7min hasnt been a ruling used by anyone major ever

Ah, cool. No gripe with either then.