HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
This correlates with the debate between 2-stocks vs 3-stocks, but I feel this is a valuable discussion that has been swept under the rug a few times.
To cut to the chase, the concept of 2-stock/5 mins is to keep matches short and straightforward, while 3-stock/6 mins is to allow players to feel out their opponents and adapt to their style. One of the underlying reasons why 2-stocks is appealing though is that camping is less powerful than it is with 3-stocks.
Timing out your opponent is more or less synonymous with camping in most fighting games. Taking a lead, and forcing your opponent to act aggressively, pressuring him with the power of the clock to take risks to get a hit confirm has been a strategy that is used frequently, but frowned upon by spectators. Smash in general however has a severe dislike of this for multiple reasons, but the two main reasons are:
-Our game clock is much longer (6-8 mins vs the traditional 99 seconds).
-It's "boring".
While the second reason is extremely subjective, it is a common reason as to why we've went out of our way to limit stalling, even going as far as to make an anti-stalling rule.
So within this debate between stocks and timers, there is also the argument that increasing the timer weakens time-outs as a decisive strategy, which begs the question, is time-outs a bad thing for our metagame?
To cut to the chase, the concept of 2-stock/5 mins is to keep matches short and straightforward, while 3-stock/6 mins is to allow players to feel out their opponents and adapt to their style. One of the underlying reasons why 2-stocks is appealing though is that camping is less powerful than it is with 3-stocks.
Timing out your opponent is more or less synonymous with camping in most fighting games. Taking a lead, and forcing your opponent to act aggressively, pressuring him with the power of the clock to take risks to get a hit confirm has been a strategy that is used frequently, but frowned upon by spectators. Smash in general however has a severe dislike of this for multiple reasons, but the two main reasons are:
-Our game clock is much longer (6-8 mins vs the traditional 99 seconds).
-It's "boring".
While the second reason is extremely subjective, it is a common reason as to why we've went out of our way to limit stalling, even going as far as to make an anti-stalling rule.
So within this debate between stocks and timers, there is also the argument that increasing the timer weakens time-outs as a decisive strategy, which begs the question, is time-outs a bad thing for our metagame?