One of the biggest debates in the world of Super Smash Bros. for Wii U surrounds whether two stock or three stock battles should be the tournament standard. There are two obvious sides (arguably three, though two of them are essentially the same) to the argument: the first being that an additional stock helps to reduce fluke victories–perhaps attributed to the game’s rage mechanic–and helps to promote a more consistent game as a whole. This makes the three stock option particularly attractive to players.
The other side(s) of the argument, however, dictates that the game should remain at the current two stock standard–two stock is the common rule set for most major events, though exceptions certainly exist–as the addition of a third stock stands to drastically increase not only the time allotment necessary per match, but could also make tournaments drag on for many additional hours. This could be detrimental to viewership, and cause major headaches for anyone tasked with running an event.
In a new video, Team SoloMid’s Gonzalo “ZeRo” Barrios weighs in on this debate, bringing up valid points about how longer events (under three stock rules) could cause more harm than good, thanks mostly to the increased time investment involved. He thinks reaching a compromise, something like making more late sets in tournament brackets run in a best-of-five style as opposed to best-of-three, may be the smart way to move forward and keep everyone happy.
What do you think? Would longer sets truly be detrimental to viewership, or would increased player consistency bring in higher numbers?
Source: ZeRo