Should the stock count be lowered?

[Hat N' Clogs]

I personally prefer staying with 3 stock. IMO the match is too short with 1 or 2 stocks.

 

[Mithost]

The main debate and complaint from TO's and players about the timer is that matches take way too long (which is true IMO). In 1 stock, players are pretty much forced to play aggressive so the 3 min timer means nothing. Bo5 or Bo7 is better than Bo3 3 stock 8 minutes.

Assuming every match goes to time and every game is played until last fight

1 stock 3 minutes
Best of three = 9 minutes
Best of five = 15 minutes
Best of seven = 21 minutes

2 or 3 stock with 8 minutes
Best of three = 24 minutes
Best of five = 40 minutes

To be fair, most 3 stock matches go to about 5 minutes each, with 1 stock matches going to 2 minutes each.

 

[Cygnet]

Haven't there been experimental side events or exhibition events of 1 stock Brawl before? I think Concentrate 1 or 2 from a long time ago had it.....?

Anyways, what are the main arguments against lowering the stock count? (I know the thread is full of them, but some of them have been sorta..... half-addressed/disproven, so which ones still really stand?)

It seems like BO7 with 1 stock matches is not only faster, but more consistent/indicative of who the better player is because there are simply more games, even if there aren't more stocks.

And if you happened to SD in a game or something, you don't have to drag out an agonizingly hopeless 3 stock game.

The only real problem that I can see is ZSS's armor....

But anyways, haven't there been experiments on this already?

 

[Mithost]

Concentrate 1+2 is all over youtube, and it seemed pretty good. There was a few ZSS players, and it seemed like she would go up a few tiers in 1 stock. The problem is that the suit pieces are able to be used/discarded by every character in the cast, so that keeps the pieces from being a major problem. Sadly there was no pokemon trainers (that I found) that were there, so I couldn't see how well squirtle fared by himself.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Have we brought up the point of "less stocks + one mishap = higher chance of loss" in this thread yet? Because it's a valid point, especially in a game where there's a 1% chance of being rendered useless and vulnerable for a few seconds every time you dash (and in a game where a certain character can literally 0 to death any character by punishing a single mistake).

46% of players would prefer a change. This is interesting.

Same with 10 minutes.

 

[Tesh]

50-50 didn't do squat about MK tho.

Although now that the MK ban has split TOs, people are going to be more willing to make changes and try new things.

Lets never unify again please.

 

[Arcansi]

What are the negatives of 1 stock 3(or 2) min best of 17 again?

 

[Mithost]

What are the negatives of 1 stock 3(or 2) min best of 17 again?

The only thing I've heard is that it "isnt consistent" due to tripping and it buffs ZSS and PT (which is a bad thing apparently). I think it would buff characters like Peach who only need to hit with one kill move instead of three.

 

[Arcansi]

The only thing I've heard is that it "isnt consistent" due to tripping

Only with less stocks. and it buffs

ZSS and PT (which is a bad thing apparently). I think it would buff characters like Peach who only need to hit with one kill move instead of three.

Buffing ZSS & PT isn't bad.

Doesn't buff peach, because she has to get her one kill move before the opponent does.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

What are the negatives of 1 stock 3(or 2) min best of 17 again?

I'm assuming you mean best of 7. Anyway, as I've previously stated, the problem is that one small mishap, may it be a bad read or just tripping, could end the game right there, or at least put you at an enormous disadvantage. Also, ICs would be worse than MK.

 

[Arcansi]

I'm assuming you mean best of 7. Anyway, as I've previously stated, the problem is that one small mishap, may it be a bad read or just tripping, could end the game right there, or at least put you at an enormous disadvantage. Also, ICs would be worse than MK.

No, best of 17.

So you need to take 9 stocks to win the game.

Please don't intentionally misread.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I'm not intentionally misreading, I've just never heard that before and thought it was a mistake.

 

[Tesh]

I still don't get the logic that ICs is buffed or that Peach is buffed, or that tripping matters more. Have you seen what happens in Brawl when tripping or bombs or CGs lead to an easy, "unearned" kill? You get camped out for the rest of the game and maybe timed out anyway.

If anything losing each individual stock matters less, because 1 SD doesn't screw you out of 1/3 of the set, it only screws you out of 1/7 of the set (or w/e).

Also arcansi, you don't take 9 stocks to win a Bo3, you need to take at least 6.

 

[Mithost]

ICs are thought to be buffed in 1 stock due to the 1 grab = 1 KO that is already in place with 3 stock matches. They can still get gimped like before though.

I said peach might get buffed because she has a hard time taking one stock, let alone three. Just my own point here.

People think tripping is going to be ungodly powerful and centralizing because it CAN lead to a free hit. A free hit doesn't mean a free kill in most situations under 120%

Also, I don't see why we would go best in 17 matches if we are trying to cut down on match time. Bo7 is fine for tournaments.

 

[Arcansi]

Also arcansi, you don't take 9 stocks to win a Bo3, you need to take at least 6.

YO THATS TRUE.

Bo17 OR Bo11

EDIT: There are no time issues with Bo11 unless your players are slow. If so implement time rules.

 

[Tesh]

ICs are thought to be buffed in 1 stock due to the 1 grab = 1 KO that is already in place with 3 stock matches. They can still get gimped like before though.

I said peach might get buffed because she has a hard time taking one stock, let alone three. Just my own point here.

People think tripping is going to be ungodly powerful and centralizing because it CAN lead to a free hit. A free hit doesn't mean a free kill in most situations under 120%

Also, I don't see why we would go best in 17 matches if we are trying to cut down on match time. Bo7 is fine for tournaments.

I don't get this logic. If you are able to kill your opponent first, you will be more likely to win first in 1 stock, 2 stock, or 3 stocks.

ICs is high risk, high reward. They could grab you.....or they might get split up and severely weakened.

 

[Mithost]

@ your ICs point, I agree completely.

Assuming you were talking about Peach in your first point, My peach usually falls behind after a while due to stale kill moves and general difficulty of dealing with someone after you have already taken a stock from them. Peach wouldn't have a huge buff, but I think there is SOMETHING there.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Still, with the ICs, the problem is that they'd just avoid you completely until you make a mistake or trip, and then immediately capitalize on it and win. It would be rewarding the strategy of just picking one character and being a coward until your golden opportunity arrives.

 

[Mithost]

Falco can spam with lasers for a percent lead where they could just time out the ICs for the match, or force an approach where ICs have to cover their own mistakes before they can go for a predictable grab. Same with pikachu, snake, or any other character with a projectile.

 

[Tesh]

If that worked, people would abuse it in 3 stocks.

Ironically, thats usually what I do against ICs.

When nana trips, its a free way in.

ICs is twice as likely to get screwed by tripping.

 

[Mithost]

Thus, ICs doesn't become an unstoppable force in 1 stock. They are high risk/high reward, even more vulnerable to nana's flaws, and quite predictable with grabs. It's either ICs get really creative with "unpunishable approaches" in 1 stock, or they stay the same/drop.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Falco can spam with lasers for a percent lead where they could just time out the ICs for the match, or force an approach where ICs have to cover their own mistakes before they can go for a predictable grab. Same with pikachu, snake, or any other character with a projectile.

And then it turns into projectile camping again.

 

[Mithost]

At least it is for 3 minutes max instead of 8 minutes, where instead of a stock lead, there is a percent lead that can be broken by anyone who knows how to power shield.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Still, though, how many stock TO's are there in 3 stock? All the ones I've seen were percent.

 

[Mithost]

Usually the threat of a timeout via planking or camping is evident to the player when there is a stock lead in the last 2 minutes. If players camp early on and then manage to get their percent lead in the last 2 minutes, kudos to them. It still doesn't fix the long tournament issue TO's hate. If someone tries to pull a time out in 1 stock, it is a lot harder and less rewarding for a couple reasons:

1) Players are playing more offensive throughout the match. Camping and keeping a percent lead is more difficult.

2) Timing someone out of one match in a set is half as rewarding, because you need to time out twice as often and as mentioned above, that is generally harder to do.

3) Planking and other ledge gimmicks become much more risky for their diminished reward. Diddy/Toonlink/ZSS/Peach/Rob can damage planking characters through dropping items, but that doesn't always stop them. They do it enough, they get a percent lead. SDs through planking are also more punishing.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Once again, I've already stated that, yes, 1 stock does solve the timeout issue, but it still introduces the problem of small mistakes becoming huge turn arounds.

 

[Tesh]

I already explained that. 1 trip or SD no longer screws you out of 1/3 of the set. At high level or low level, its very unlikely to come back from something that devastates a stock unfairly.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

It does screw you more, because 1. you have less combined stocks (4 instead of 6), which means you'll have less chances to redeem yourself, and 2. the opponent won't have any damage after you die, so you'll have no advantages at all.

 

[-LzR-]

Meh I'm convinced. Tesh has a fair point. I'm hosting a medium smashfest this weekend and I would like to try out 1 or 2 stock again just to make things interesting.

 

[Mithost]

1 stock is a different game than 3 stock. Players wont lose a round because they whiffed a laggy move or predicted wrong once in the round. They wont lose a set because they messed up once. 1 stock introduces a different risk/reward system that adds more risk where it was currently lacking in 3 stock. It fixes the problem TO's ran into when hosting tournament where the tournaments lasted 12 hours+, making top players a lot less alert and reactive during the most important parts of games AND finding venues that are willing to host it for 12 hours straight.

In games like MvC3, Infinites and long combos are everywhere. Are you saying MvC3 is not competitive because if you mess up once you can lose a character and your team falls apart?

 

[Ussi]

I keep saying... Paying attention for 3 minutes is so much easier on the mind and so much easier to watch...

 

[TreK]

sound fun, but unreliable.

It reminds me of something I didn't have the chance to start yet, the 'smashperience' project.
It was a round robin side event with limited entries that starts when the venue's doors open and ends when the single pools begin (which is about 3 hours and a half later usually in France, idk about you guys).
There's a poll before the tournament to see what rules does the smashperience have to be running, and a topic after the tournament to give feedback on the tested ruleset. It's meant to test those rules like lower stock count, MK banned on counterpicks, etc... that are really debated on with both pros and cons. Just to have statistic evidence over raw thoerycrafting when we feel it's necessary.
The entry fee and cash price has to be low in order to interest the players.

I didn't get to host a single one because our TOs in France didn't let me (they also host pokémon and SF, so they don't really want to have even more work). If somebody's interested, just use the concept, it's not copyrighted or whatever.

 

[The Ben]

the problem of small mistakes becoming huge turn arounds.

How is being punished for making a mistake a problem?

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

1 stock is a different game than 3 stock. Players wont lose a round because they whiffed a laggy move or predicted wrong once in the round. They wont lose a set because they messed up once.

Because...?

1 stock introduces a different risk/reward system that adds more risk where it was currently lacking in 3 stock.

You're just saying what I'm saying and then saying that it's a good thing. Really, that's just your opinion.

It fixes the problem TO's ran into when hosting tournament where the tournaments lasted 12 hours+, making top players a lot less alert and reactive during the most important parts of games AND finding venues that are willing to host it for 12 hours straight.

Not. The. Issue. The issue here is preventing and discouraging timeouts, not making running tourneys easier.

In games like MvC3, Infinites and long combos are everywhere. Are you saying MvC3 is not competitive because if you mess up once you can lose a character and your team falls apart?

Yes.

How is being punished for making a mistake a problem?

It isn't, but the game shouldn't completely turn around because you screwed up once.

 

[Tesh]

Dr Eggman, I think you aren't getting that all that stuff still occurs in 3 stock if players are evenly matched. Look at Nietono vs Otori at Apex. Game 1 Otori was clearly going to lose, but Nietono tripped at 30 and got combo'd and strung into a killing edgeguard.

 

[WindMajor]

Didn't 1 stock at both Concentrates have pretty consistent results?

 

[Arcansi]

Assuming you were talking about Peach in your first point, My peach usually falls behind after a while due to stale kill moves and general difficulty of dealing with someone after you have already taken a stock from them. Peach wouldn't have a huge buff, but I think there is SOMETHING there.

This would be true if all your moves weren't fully refreshed every time you die.

3) Planking and other ledge gimmicks become much more risky for their diminished reward. Diddy/Toonlink/ZSS/Peach/Rob can damage planking characters through dropping items, but that doesn't always stop them. They do it enough, they get a percent lead. SDs through planking are also more punishing.

Also, Pit/DDD(Jumping Waddle Dees)/Pika/others have an easy(ish) time doing it.

Because...?

Because if they did we would have inconsistent results. You are aware of the game competition theory behind this, correct?

Not. The. Issue. The issue here is preventing and discouraging timeouts, not making running tourneys easier.

What this is is a good thing that puts this solution above other similar solutions that do not have it.

Yes.

You're wrong. What you don't seem to get is that in MvC3, because this is what happens everyone is expecting it and playing around it, which makes this uncompetitive thing competitive because the results aren't sufficiently randomized by it.

It isn't, but the game shouldn't completely turn around because you screwed up once.

If it wouldn't turn around in 3 stocks it wouldn't turn around in one. This is because of the nature of a 1 stock lead, see the 10 mins thread.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Dr Eggman, I think you aren't getting that all that stuff still occurs in 3 stock if players are evenly matched. Look at Nietono vs Otori at Apex. Game 1 Otori was clearly going to lose, but Nietono tripped at 30 and got combo'd and strung into a killing edgeguard.

At a high percentage on the last stock. Also, I'm completely aware that stuff like this already happens, but it would be a much larger issue in 1 stock.

Because if they did we would have inconsistent results. You are aware of the game competition theory behind this, correct?

How come now randomness and inconsistency is uncompetitive, but it wasn't when I was arguing against it?

What this is is a good thing that puts this solution above other similar solutions that do not have it.

It's still not the issue at hand, though.

You're wrong. What you don't seem to get is that in MvC3, because this is what happens everyone is expecting it and playing around it, which makes this uncompetitive thing competitive because the results aren't sufficiently randomized by it.

Have you seen Marvel tourneys? The top 4 are never the same!

If it wouldn't turn around in 3 stocks it wouldn't turn around in one. This is because of the nature of a 1 stock lead, see the 10 mins thread.

I saw, and you made zero sense. There is absolutely no way that refreshing the opponents health and lowering the amount of combined stocks will ever be beneficial to the losing player in any way.

 

[Tesh]

He wasn't as a high percentage.... I just said he was at like 30 with a substantial lead. **** happens and **** will continue to happen because thats Brawl.

This conversation is getting pretty stale. We basically just typing out long version of "yea huh" and "nuh uh".

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

Basically, yeah.