Two Stocks vs Three Stocks: Global Poll Results!

SmashEurope just released a follow-up article to last week’s global poll about the stock count for Sm4sh. The questionnaire ended up getting close to 5000 responses and the results shed light on various questions and assumptions regarding the preferences of players and viewership. Taken together, roughly 58% of the voters actively prefers 3 stocks against roughly 25% in favor of 2 stocks, with the remaining voters being fine with both.

Last week, a collective of European TOs launched a global poll to gather data on stock count preferences in Smash 4. The poll was spread through SmashBoards, SmashEurope, SmashAsia, Reddit and various local communities in order to poll a diverse sample of people. We ended up with 4806 votes from 59 different countries, after removing roughly 50 duplicates and clearly bogus answers. In this article we present the results and some of our conclusions.

These are the results across the entire group polled, regardless of location or role in the community:

​

The full article, written by SmashBoards admin Marc , provides tools to look through the data yourself, before it goes on to examine the opinion of Sm4sh players specifically, the common assumption about viewership and how enthusiasts of other Smash games factor into the debate. It also includes full breakdowns by region (US states and European countries) and recommendations for the future. This is the most thorough analysis of the subject to date and well worth the read for anyone invested in the competitive future of Sm4sh.

What do you think? Has this new data changed your opinion? Let us know in the comments below!

 

I've a question for those still advocating 2 stock over 3. Are you basing this on your own past experience with both formats? Have you played 3 stock Smash 4 in a competitive/tournament environment? Or at the absolute very least watched enough of it to come to some kind of actual assertion? Or are you just basing your views on a premonition?

I find it somewhat ironic that people early days were so adamant to make Smash 4 a 2 stock game from Brawl's 3 stock without any real testing or meta development, again pretty much just based off a premonition of what the game could be like as opposed to properly testing both formats early on. People have now accepted it but its initial justifications were far, far weaker than the current justifications for 3 stock.

Various parts of Europe as well as Texas have been running 3 stock for a while now after having tried 2 stock near the start and the general consensus is that 3 stock is the better format.

 

I've a question for those still advocating 2 stock over 3. Are you basing this on your own past experience with both formats? Have you played 3 stock Smash 4 in a competitive/tournament environment? Or at the absolute very least watched enough of it to come to some kind of actual assertion? Or are you just basing your views on a premonition?

2 stock is advocated because it works and there is no need to divide the community. If you want to have a separate metagame and start arguments in the smash scene, the best way to do it is to try and push alternative rule sets.

 

Is this the thread in which to make the motion that FD be replaced by Omega Midgar?

Aren't you the guy who got really pissy over the Rivals of Aether coverage?

 

Nothing is truly set in stone and officials have the ability to change the rules. If need be, a match can be changed to 2 or 3 stock.

2 Stock is faster and both players must adapt to the opponent quickly if they want to win.

3 Stock relieves some of that pressure and gives both combatants an extra change to overcome each other's play styles.

Spectation is also important. Obviously not every match should be 3 stock and the matches everyone wants to see(big matches/finals) Shouldn't be relegated to just 2 stock.

The majority should be 2 stock in order to allow more time for the longer 3 stock matches. In sports, no one wants to go into overtime. It's an endurance round and spectators are upset for being forced to stay later. But, it is up to debate and my two cents won't mean anything in the long run. Just need to voice my opinion.

 

I personally love the idea of 3 stock format. Hopefully more venues test it out.

 

You can probably shave off stocks and games to an even further degree and still have consistent top placements. That doesn't negate the statistical fact that taking a larger sample of playtime leads to more consistent results and allows less influence for noise (like an SD). It also just gives players more bang for their buck in a setting that has worked for other Smash games and still works in many countries, not to mention it won out in this poll by a landslide.

2 stock is advocated because it works and there is no need to divide the community. If you want to have a separate metagame and start arguments in the smash scene, the best way to do it is to try and push alternative rule sets.

The community is already divided because 3 stocks tournaments have been happening on a large scale since the game came out. We are not saying 2 stocks can't work at all, but we've yearned for some actual reasoning for it since the first day it got pushed. Consider that from the European point of view 2 stocks is the "alternative" ruleset and that even the majority of the US seems to prefer 3, some US regions already run it. The argument that 2 stock is somehow the default only holds true if you believe tournaments should emulate For Glory, which sets you up for advocating anything Sakurai "intends" us to use.

 

I can't really speak for tournaments because I don't get many chances to attend them... but I think one potential reason people are so stuck on 2 stocks might be in part to the concept of For Glory... as well as rediculous TO time constraints.

FD only regardless, For Glory runs 2 stocks 5 minutes, and a great deal of players on that will play very defensively, usually running down the timer.

even thought they're predominantly friendlies, I play 3 stock with my friends, much like we had playing Brawl. one of them told me he didn't notice a difference in pace and felt they ended around the same time.

our point being that as time goes on, with players start getting comfortable with this game and getting better, matches will start going faster... and by that point 2 stocks will not really feel all that satisfying for some players. it ends too quickly, and feel anticlimactic if one of the players chokes and SDs their second stock. I dunno about you, but I wouldn't want to watch a finals where they start off okay, but then suddenly one guy chokes and SDs....

that's just my immediate thoughts, though... no surprise if it gets picked apart.

 

2 stock is advocated because it works and there is no need to divide the community. If you want to have a separate metagame and start arguments in the smash scene, the best way to do it is to try and push alternative rule sets.

No, it's advocated because it is perceived as the best format despite the latter not being tested. It's common in this community for things to be set in stone without other alternatives even being picked up for data. Look what happened to Miis.

 

No, it's advocated because it is perceived as the best format despite the latter not being tested. It's common in this community for things to be set in stone without other alternatives even being picked up for data. Look what happened to Miis.

No, it DOES work and there IS no need to divide the community, so he stands corrected....

 

2 stock is advocated because it works and there is no need to divide the community. If you want to have a separate metagame and start arguments in the smash scene, the best way to do it is to try and push alternative rule sets.

This does not come even remotely close to answering what I was asking. Not only that but it ignores most of what I said too.

 

No, it DOES work and there IS no need to divide the community, so he stands corrected....

The community is already divided, since there are 3 stock rulesets in some states. Hell, our tournaments in the UK are primarily run on 3 stock formats. Also, how can you distinguish what works well and what doesn't, lacking the capacity to attempt something that is albeit different, but run across many other places? It works = we've stuck to something and we're not gonna change, pretending that we have knowledge on the latter argument.

 

The community is already divided, since there are 3 stock rulesets in some states. Hell, our tournaments in the UK are primarily run on 3 stock formats. Also, how can you distinguish what works well and what doesn't, lacking the capacity to attempt something that is albeit different, but run across many other places? It works = we've stuck to something and we're not gonna change, pretending that we have knowledge on the latter argument.

Being second best doesn't mean it doesn't work, we have been running 2 stocks in majors a full year and everything worked just fine, what do you mean with "how can you distinguish what works well"? I can apply the same question to you, it will make the same amount of zero sense it made asking to me.
Plus, did you guys test 4 stocks? 5 stocks? Smash 64 runs on 5 stocks, maybe we should all test that before making any jump. You can't rule those out until you test them, right?
So let's bring that discussion back in one year after all those options are well tested, you just can't choose 3 stocks over something you didn't test.

 

I'm not a fan of 3 stock i have tried watching sm4sh 3 stock tourneys and it feels boring to watch. It didn't make people more agressive it is just a extra stock to shave off. I played both formats and still perfer 2 stock.

 

you know, if I were to seek a middle ground, I'd consider using the two stock rule for preliminaries, and 3 stocks for near the end...

honestly, I think the primary problem for this whole debacle is the fact that one faction of players are trying to develop a comfort zone. and once they got it set up, they will defend it with tooth and nail... past games developed because someone walked in and tore down the establishment themselves, forcing everyone else to adapt.

there was once a time where Marth was considered a noob fighter until Ken joined... and Ike was considered OP until people got good.

Defensive play will remain rampant in Smash 4 for awhile, but eventually people will wise up to the cracks in the wall... if 2 stocks remain that way, I feel people won't be given enough time to really pick apart a defensive playstyle in the middle of the match they're in. besides, don't you think it would make quite a moment of triumph if, despite being two stocks down, the aggressive player finally gets the plan they need to make a three stock comeback... before time runs out?

I don't care what others think, but I'd be willing to watch stuff like that forever.

 

The way it is now the smash community is already divided.
The majority of the US plays 2 stocks. The majority of Europe plays 3 stocks.
Both work in these regions so that either format "doesn't work" isn't an argument for change. However the community is divided and to find a global consensus is better for a community as a whole. Therefore changes need to be made. Either to the 2 stock format or 3 stock format (of course 4 stocks etc can also be tested, but with the already big disagreements that's probably a question for later).

There might be a difference in the US and Europe running tournaments so both regions could try the other formats. However if both formats already can be run smoothly it probably wouldn't be that hard to make both formats work in the other regions too. So "thoroughly testing" probably wouldn't even be very necessary.

So right now it basically comes down to personal preferences. And this poll shows that Europe which is already running the 3 stock format still prefers the 3 stock format. Also the US which is running the 2 stock format also seems to prefer the 3 stock format. Apparently not being satisfied with 2 stocks. And this is not only the case for the players. The viewers and TO's prefer it too.

So what is the harm for trying out 3 stocks at a larger scale in the US? Changes have to be made, either in the US or Europe. But since most already seem to prefer 3 stocks, why not try out that format first?
If it doesn't work out, then Europe can still try out 2 stocks at a larger scale.

Nothing will be lost only with a chance of global unison.

 

Aren't you the guy who got really pissy over the Rivals of Aether coverage?

What's that got to do with anything?
Do you have a problem with people having an opinion?

 

I propose a 2.5 stock rulset

 

I mainly play Little Mac, which is an extremely volatile character. Matches rarely run over 3 min when I play. I personally would like 3 stocks, only because a few mistakes can really hurt Mac, and even cost a stock. On the flip side, if I win it's normally over fairly quickly.
I think 3 stock is more forgiving and I'd like to see more tourneys use the 3 stock format. But I can understand that not all matchups are over quickly like that.
Honestly, if viewership declines it wouldn't bother me, but then again my lively-hood isn't dependent on Twitch/streaming/YouTube.
I just play Smash for fun and occasionally compete.

 

It absolutely doesn't matter if Europe runs 3 stock tourneys and the US run 2 stock. There's way more differences between PAL and NTSC Melee and yet the Melee playerbase from both continents have very little trouble transitioning from one version to the other. It is a non issue.

 

I propose a 2.5 stock rulset

LOL how is a 2.5 stock match possible?

 

LOL how is a 2.5 stock match possible?

3 stock match, each player SD's once

 

3 stock match, each player SD's once

Assuming the SDs are intentional and at the beginning, wouldn't that be 2 stock? I was thinking both players get each other up to say 80-100% for example

 

Assuming the SDs are intentional and at the beginning, wouldn't that be 2 stock? I was thinking both players get each other up to say 80-100% for example

That's the joke.

 

I like to suggest this to TO's looking to integrate a 3-stock format to help (re)introduce players to 3-stocks; run a Preliminary Bracket:

Preliminaries:

3-stock, best of 1

• Winners advance to Primary Bracket.
• Losers advance to a Elimination Bracket.

Primary Bracket

2-stock
Double-elim
Bo3

A "normal" bracket​

Elimination Bracket

3-stock
Single-elim
Bo3

Winner(s) may advance into Primary Bracket if TO desires to connect the two or give out a consolation prize to 1st place and end their bracket run.​

 

Why don't you guys just have it where it's 2 stock and when it hits Top 16, the stock changes to 3, as well as the time obviously? If most of you are "worried" about time as a TO. Anyone actually tried that method?

 

What made brawl suck? Long, boring matches. Watching a one stock brawl match made it a lot faster, worth watching, and still shows the rightful winner. Sm4sh is the same in that theres no need for 3 stocks when 2 works well and shows the rightful winner. Being a spectator for melee and sm4sh, i value how quick matches are for both games. adding time and a stock will only make matches longer...yeah pretty self explanatory. Trust me adding a stock won't change the order of the top 16 players.

You're a spectator, your opinion doesn't count.

Or rather, that's how it should be, but TOs care more about the money they make off of you guys than the actual players or the community. You are the cancer that will kill the scene.

 

You're a spectator, your opinion doesn't count.

Or rather, that's how it should be, but TOs care more about the money they make off of you guys than the actual players or the community. You are the cancer that will kill the scene.

Seriously? Without the spectators, THERE IS NO SCENE!
Ask Brawl players.... if you find any.

 

Hooray for logic!

No really, people considered Brawl slower, why hasn't this happened yet? Now the game won't feel so tight with mistakes.

 

Seriously? Without the spectators, THERE IS NO SCENE!
Ask Brawl players.... if you find any.

Your train of logic is incredibly flawed.
Brawl was the biggest smash game until we learned there was a sequel coming out.
There were still Brawl majors happening up until Smash 4 was right on the verge of being released.
Brawl 'died' because it had a successor coming out, which is the same way 99% of other games 'die' competitively.
Those who are blinkered in competitive gaming fail to realise that Melee damn near one of the only games to not die after its succeeded.


Also, while I appreciate that some people are suggesting ways of making 3-stock the norm via weaning the community onto it. Having tournaments be half 2-stock and half 3-stock isn't really going to work. It'll only serve to confuse people more. If you wanna do it, you're gonna have to go headfirst and change it completely

 

Your train of logic is incredibly flawed.
Brawl was the biggest smash game until we learned there was a sequel coming out.
There were still Brawl majors happening up until Smash 4 was right on the verge of being released.
Brawl 'died' because it had a successor coming out, which is the same way 99% of other games 'die' competitively.
Those who are blinkered in competitive gaming fail to realise that Melee damn near one of the only games to not die after its succeeded.


Also, while I appreciate that some people are suggesting ways of making 3-stock the norm via weaning the community onto it. Having tournaments be half 2-stock and half 3-stock isn't really going to work. It'll only serve to confuse people more. If you wanna do it, you're gonna have to go headfirst and change it completely

Flawed? Let's see then.
Brawl is now dead, it didn't survive Smash 4 while on the other hand, MELEE IS BIGGER THAN EVER and it's still growing....
Is it bigger than ever because the players changed? Because we saw a huge peak of new players appearing up and down on the top eights and stuff? No, we still see the old folks most of the time, it's bigger than ever because THE AUDIENCE IS BIGGER THAN EVER.... those are directly proportional, it's not a coincidence.
And even if all the old Brawl players migrated to Smash 4, do you think Brawl would have died if everybody kept watching Brawl? Hell no, it would still be alive and health. Meanwhile, if all the old Brawl players stayed there and Smash 4 saw new stars rising and showing they tech those instead of the migration it actually happened, do you think Brawl would have survived? No, because Smash 4 would be much more exciting to watch, even with ZeRo, Nairo and such still on Brawl.
And on that matter, it's not the players who will decide whether PM lives or dies, it is the audience who will decide if it's still worth watching it, and thus, the fate of the mod.
Nobody makes sports for no one to watch, the thing you're thinking of is called friendly match, like those on the couch, at home.

 

*Long post*

This is all well and good, but....you completely ignored the key point I was making lol. If you're going to try and argue please take on board the points being directed at you.

 

This is all well and good, but....you completely ignored the key point I was making lol. If you're going to try and argue please take on board the points being directed at you.

Your point was Brawl died because Smash 4....
I don't see how that was ignored.
Melee didn't die after Smash 4 because their audience increased after the game's release.
Brawl died after Smash 4 because their audience shrank to the nether realm after the game's release.
Do I have to be more clear?

 

Without the spectators, THERE IS NO SCENE!

There were underground tourneys WAY before Smash was a spectator sport. I think you are mistaken, and your statement really seems to be trying discrediting all of the players who worked hard to get Smash where it is today.
Whether there are viewers or not people will play Smash. You said look at for Brawl players, they are still there; Same with Smash 64 Players. They play because they love the game. Money is nice, but it's not the reason why many players practice and go to tourneys. They do it because they love the game and want to test themselves ( and maybe win a bit of money).
Having viewers is nice, but it isn't what drives the community. More viewers just make it more "eSport".

 

There were underground tourneys WAY before Smash was a spectator sport. I think you are mistaken, and your statement really seems to be trying discrediting all of the players who worked hard to get Smash where it is today.
Whether there are viewers or not people will play Smash. You said look at for Brawl players, they are still there; Same with Smash 64 Players. They play because they love the game. Money is nice, but it's not the reason why many players practice and go to tourneys. They do it because they love the game and want to test themselves ( and maybe win a bit of money).
Having viewers is nice, but it isn't what drives the community. More viewers just make it more "eSport".

There is a difference between having a small community and having a "scene".... Brawl doesn't have a scene, 64 is slowly creating one as it is slowly rising unlike Brawl.
The Melee scene was almost dying years ago as many said, but if the scene had died, players would have kept playing on a small community, not on a "scene". That is what happened to Brawl.
Or do you want to say Smash Flash has a scene too? Aether? The latter may have one someday, but it sure as hell doesn't right now, even though some people play it and it's even going to sideline an event in March, it doesn't have a scene, not yet.
What you're basically saying is that if two people play a game, it's a scene.... it's not.

 

There is a difference between having a small community and having a "scene".... Brawl doesn't have a scene, 64 is slowly creating one as it is slowly rising unlike Brawl.
The Melee scene was almost dying years ago as many said, but if the scene had died, players would have kept playing on a small community, not on a "scene". That is what happened to Brawl.
Or do you want to say Smash Flash has a scene too? Aether? The latter may have one someday, but it sure as hell doesn't right now, even though some people play it and it's even going to sideline an event in March, it doesn't have a scene, not yet.
What you're basically saying is that if two people play a game, it's a scene.... it's not.

How does any of this relate to the 2 stock vs 3 stock debate?

 

3 stock 8 minute matches in Smash 4 will certainly see more matches go to time. As a Pac-Man main, matches can take a bit longer than characters that are built for more hand-to-hand combat and can get kills quicker. In the 2 stock 6 minute format, I've gone to time only 3 times in tournament and the only ones that get under 2 minutes generally are against other heavy projectile users (playing against Link for example which were 2 of the timeouts. The other was a Dr. Mario). That being said, some stages favor a time-out more than others. All 3 of the time-outs I've been a part of occurred on Duck Hunt. That stage begs you to waste time (for example, and match on that stage vs Little Mac. People go to the high tree branch platforms when Mac has his KO punch and the time just ticks away).

Because Smash 4 shows much more variety in character representation in tournaments, you'll have more matches that get closer to time than in Melee. I don't think that means you can just throw the idea of 3 stocks out the window because of that though. That being said, 2 stock leaves no room for early mistakes. In Melee and Project M, an early suicide or unfortunate occurrence that leads to a jank death or whatnot isn't a death sentence for the match. In Smash 4, it is a much different story. Being down 2 - 1 in stocks doesn't mean you aren't going to win, but it's much different than being down 3-2 early.

As Omni mentioned in his video on this topic, 3 stocks would probably provide more consistency in tournament results. I don't think that's neither a good or bad thing. Zero was the definition of consistency in 2015 for Smash 4 using a 2 stock format and making it 3 stocks would only make it easier for him. Even though it could be argued that people are "figuring out Zero" in the latter half of 2015 since it's been more of a struggle for him to win, he's still winning almost every time with the current format.

 

Seriously? Without the spectators, THERE IS NO SCENE!
Ask Brawl players.... if you find any.

Wrong again. Without PLAYERS, there is no scene. And players are always the ones left out in the rain when this discussion comes up. Or really any time when it comes down to viewer money vs. player happiness.

 

Your point was Brawl died because Smash 4....
I don't see how that was ignored.
Melee didn't die after Smash 4 because their audience increased after the game's release.
Brawl died after Smash 4 because their audience shrank to the nether realm after the game's release.
Do I have to be more clear?

No, you just have to be more receptive to what's actually being said.
As I said. Brawl died because everyone moved to Smash4. Particularly the players. For melee, the players stayed with that game and so that game also lived. This was the point I was making. Melee is very much the exception to the rule.
Spectators are nice, it's what creates e-sports. But without them a game does just fine too. and vice versa, Millions of people watch evo moment 37, but does that mean third strike is alive? No. No it doesn't

 

No, you just have to be more receptive to what's actually being said.
As I said. Brawl died because everyone moved to Smash4. Particularly the players. For melee, the players stayed with that game and so that game also lived. This was the point I was making. Melee is very much the exception to the rule.
Spectators are nice, it's what creates e-sports. But without them a game does just fine too. and vice versa, Millions of people watch evo moment 37, but does that mean third strike is alive? No. No it doesn't

And people still play Street Fighter II and that doesn't mean its scene is alive too lol
A scene needs viewers to exist, needs viewers to grow, otherwise it's going to be an underground community that no one outside that small community knows about because no one WATCHES IT!
As long as something is popular there will always be players, and if people don't watch then it's not popular, it's underground, and you can't go calling any underground community you see as a "scene", it's just a small community, aka, Brawl.... otherwise, I will call some friends to play Mario Party 10 competitively at home and call that a scene, and say that MP10 scene doesn't need viewers as long as me and my friends are playing. We are keeping the Mario Party 10 scene alive! Screw spectators!
Again, there is a difference between a scene and a small community, and spectators are one of the most important aspects of that difference.
They are needed to grow, they are needed to exist. Players are also important, I didn't say anything contrary to that at any moment.... but as long as there are viewers, there will be players, and the community will grow instead of shrink.... the inverse is not true.

Wrong again. Without PLAYERS, there is no scene. And players are always the ones left out in the rain when this discussion comes up. Or really any time when it comes down to viewer money vs. player happiness.

And why do you imply that 3 stocks is the wish of every player?

 

Your point was Brawl died because Smash 4....
I don't see how that was ignored.
Melee didn't die after Smash 4 because their audience increased after the game's release.
Brawl died after Smash 4 because their audience shrank to the nether realm after the game's release.
Do I have to be more clear?

Brawl's playerbase shrank after Smash 4 because the latter is nearly identical in gameplay just with a larger cast. Melee and 64 lived through brawl and smash 4 because they have drastically different gameplay components and reasons to play them.

Smash 4 is Brawl 2, and embracing its same jank, campy, defensive, bnb target combo gameplay isn't going to hurt anyone because jank, campy, defensive and repetitive combos aren't derogative qualities.