Why does everyone prefer stock?

[Rao]

After months of playing Brawl online, I realized that almost everyone I play with prefers stock over time. I've always wondered why this is, since I like time a lot better than stock, and I seem to be one of the only people that does.

[MEGAߥTE]

Obviously, Sakurai realized the superior mode, making Time the default setting.

[Kimimaru]

After months of playing Brawl online, I realized that almost everyone I play with prefers stock over time. I've always wondered why this is, since I like time a lot better than stock, and I seem to be one of the only people that does.

I think more people prefer stock because some people kill-steal a lot. Another possibility is that stock determines who's the better player in a one-on-one match;mainly because in a timed match, KOing someone adds one point to your score and subtracts one point from the opponent's score. If one person's score is higher, then that person can just stall the rest of the match.

[carsr4carpeople1]

I think it's because many people like to take their time to beat the crap outta people. XD

[Ambulance Y]

I like to be able to keep track of how well I'm doing.

[BP]

Think of it like this. You are in a three-player fight. You KO each of your opponents once, but then you get KO'd. Obviously, you're doing better than your opponents.

·In time, you have one point, one of your foes has zero points, and the last has negative one. You're winning.
·Stock only knows one thing: Death. One death for each player--it's a tie.
·Now, if this were a timed stock match and the fight ended right there, you go into sudden death. And you might lose.

Stock is the best way to do a one-on-one tournament-style fight: There's no advantage to running after KOing the enemy one time, and stock cuts out the possibility of sudden death. And that answers your question, Rao, 'cause that's all anyone ever thinks about. NOITEMSFINALDESTINATION. When more than two players are in the fight, it turns around, and stock is what you want if you're going to be a pansy and run the whole time. So you can wait it out until one man is left to fight.

[ShadowBrain]

I don't know about online, but I normally do time. That way, it's always the same length, and I can make a little challenge out of seeing how many KOs I can get in two minutes.

I mean, besides, once I've unlocked everything that requires playing (questionably large, albeit cumulative amounts of) Brawls, I'll probably just stop like I did with Melee. That, and I'd just like to say that, to get the 2,000 KO requirement for... a certain trophy, I did a couple matches where I cranked the stock up to fifty and just started fightin'.

[Chupperson Weird]

I like to be able to keep track of how well I'm doing.

Did you ever hear about score display? You can turn that on even in online matches!
Stock is slightly more understandable in a 1v1 setting, but totally illogical when more than two players are involved, since anyone can equalize their score by KOing anyone else. Bird Person's reason for stock being superior is invalid because you should get more credit for KOing everyone else if you did it.

[BP]

Was I not clear, Chup? I said stock's only good for one-on-one, tournament-style fights.

I play three-minute matches. Only because it's the maximum length of a replay, in case I ever need to go back and get that perfect screenshot I didn't catch. Why only three minutes... At LEAST five would've been better...

[Suffix]

I like timed matches because they encourage people to put caution slightly aside and have more fun. The element of suspense as to who won adds to the fun, if you ask me.

[SolidShroom]

I like the aspect of time because it allows you to actually make a possible comeback. If you die a lot in a stock match, it's over with, but if you're down by a lot in a time match, there's always the possibility of coming back and winning.

[ShadowBrain]

Well, I can definitely understand how stock mode makes one less inclined to just run around and dodge the whole time.

[Reading]

I like stock because...I don't know, I just do. I find it a more appealing system than the points system used for Time matches, and killing someone enough times rather than getting kills in a set amount of time is just more fun to me. I usually play 5-stock matches when I play with my friends.

[AbercrombieBaseball]

My experience is with Melee, but should be similar.

Ever notice how sports games with a clock are never 5 minutes long? That is because a small sample size of 5 minutes cannot decide anything. For example, a football team may have its offense clicking during the first quarter but then gets outsmarted by the defense in the second and the rest of the game. In hockey, a goalie may collapse during the third period after a perfect first and second.

In Smash Brothers, a time limit of, say, two minutes is a very small sample size. That's what's nice about being untimed. It can go longer and more variables can be tested.

This is a lot like baseball. An inning can be seven pitches long or it could be 35 pitches until it ends. Likewise, it may take three minutes or a half hour to knock out someone' eight Marios. There are lots of variables--food, weapons, etc. that anyone can get.

I almost always will play stock--it's a more fair evaluation of how good a player is.

[MEGAߥTE]

I almost always will play stock--it's a more fair evaluation of how good a player is.

I disagree.  Some characters are better suited for timed and others stock.  e.g. some characters are weaker but faster, meaning they can easily die during a stock battle, but win in a timed battle.

[BP]

The difference is that you don't play baseball ten times in an afternoon. Nor do you play a single three-minute Brawl and stop. Nor do you care quite as much if you lose one round of Smash.

But I noticed you seem to be talking about two-player battles. And stock's okay for those. But as I said in my first post, with three players, you can kill each of your opponents once and die once yourself--you're doing better than your enemies, obviously. Time would recognize that, and you would be winning. Stock would not, and you would be in a tie.

[Lizard Dude]

I prefer Stock, although Time is probably more fair for 3 player. Definitely stock for 2 and 4 player though. I don't see it as that important who actually deals the final blow. You deal 100% to someone and then they get KO'd by someone else's Final Smash? Outliving everyone should be all that matters, just like RL ritual combat. Stock also has the advantage of punishing losers by making them sit out after they die and lets winners play more. I'm all in favor of punishing losers, no matter how much Nintendo games usually try to help them.

To you people who like Time because it prevents hiding, what are your thoughts on Coin?

[Turtlekid1]

I like stock because:

1. You can't kill your opponent once and then run away the rest of the match.
2. It's [probably] impossible to enter sudden death.  I say probably because, theoretically, two players could kill each other, both on their last lives, at the exact same time.

[BP]

Coin matches and hiding... I can't imagine those mixing. Coins are like blood, you have to collect as much of your enemies' guts as you can. What good will being far away from your bloody enemies do? Unless, of course, you already have more than an enemy has.

Fleeing is a tactic. It's fairly lame, sure, but if I were in a time tournament and got ahead by a KO with half a minute on the clock, you bet I'd do it if it meant I'd win. But in a fight for fun, fight! It's fun!


In response to Turtlekid's 2. I don't know about Brawl, but in Melee, if both players die at the exact same moment in stock and it's the last life of both, they do go into sudden death. If both die simultaneously in sudden death, Player 1 (or whoever is closest) wins. You can achieve this on Icicle Mountain, standing on a flat platform and waiting for the scrolling to munch on your feet. The same could be achieved at Rumble Falls in Brawl, but I haven't experimented there yet. So it would sound like there's an advantage to being player 1, but honestly... what are the chances that you and an opponent going to die at the same time in sudden death under normal circumstances?

[Turtlekid1]

Almost Nill.

[Zarkanthesmasher]

I dunno, because personally I've always found stock to be too long and drawn out. I actually think that stock emphasises hiding and running away a lot more than Time, which makes matches with more than a couple stock take too long. That's why I always play Time Matches.

Still, that doesn't mean I stall. I always am fighting to the last second, even if it is potentially dangerous for my lead (if I have one, that is. I don't always do...). I think that using a ton of defense and making the battle long and drawn out ruins the frentic action Smash Bros is supposed to consist of. I'm sure at least a few people here agree. ;)

[Rao]

I dunno, because personally I've always found stock to be too long and drawn out. I actually think that stock emphasises hiding and running away a lot more than Time, which makes matches with more than a couple stock take too long.

I agree.

I like stock sometimes, but only when I'm playing against one opponent. Also, it doesn't really make any sense to hide in Coin matches because if you don't fight, how are you going to get more coins?

[Luigalaxy]

I prefer it because it is timeless (usally) and it shows who is actually better.

[BP]

Think of it like this. You are in a three-player fight. You KO each of your opponents once, but then you get KO'd. Obviously, you're doing better than your opponents.

·In time, you have one point, one of your foes has zero points, and the last has negative one. You're winning.
·Stock only knows one thing: Death. One death for each player--it's a tie.
·Now, if this were a timed stock match and the fight ended right there, you go into sudden death. And you might lose.

[schwagames]

I actually prefer time.

[Lizard Dude]

I disagree with the thing Bird has posted like three times now. Even if you KO each of your opponents once, you're not obviously doing better than them. Maybe you just got a Smash Ball or hit someone after they'd been really beat up by someone else or wandered into a Smart Bomb. Rewarding only the final blow is not as totally fair a system as all you Timers think.

[MEGAߥTE]

2. It's [probably] impossible to enter sudden death.  I say probably because, theoretically, two players could kill each other, both on their last lives, at the exact same time.

I've had this happen, and it just awarded the victory to one player.

In regard to LD's post, I would say that Brawl exacerbated this problem by awarding kills to the player who happened to touch the person last.

Also, what about stamina mode?  I like that better than stock.

[Turtlekid1]

Stamina is too "Every other fighting game under the sun" for me.

[ShadowBrain]

Almost Nill.

I believe that's with one "l".

[BP]

Stamina with 300 HP and no visible damage meters can be a load of fun.

[Luigalaxy]

Same here. I prefer stamina over stock.

[Koopaslaya]

I play about 50-50 time/stock. I would tend to argue that one is not better than the other, rather they're different. Each requires its own amount of skill in different areas. It' gets monotonous to continue using one style of play over and over again. Switching the game type every other round (or, as my friends and I do every 2 rounds) adds a little bit of spice into a soup that tends to be quite bland.

[Kuromatsu]

Here is a scenario with a timed and a stock match.

In both matches, there are three players. In timed mode, there are 2 minutes, and in stock mode, there are three lives.

in a match for the first minute, player 1 KOs player 2, Player 2 KOs player 1, player 3 does not do anything.

Score for Timed Mode:

Player 1 = 0
Player 2 = 0
Player 3 = 0

Score for Stock Mode:

Player 1 = 2 lives left
Player 2 = 2 lives left
Player 3 = 3 lives left

In the second minute of the match, Player 1 KOs Player 3, Player 3 KOs Player 1 and 2. Player 2 does not do anything.

Score for Timed Mode: (Match is over, Player 3 wins)

Player 1 = 0
Player 2 = -1
Player 3 = 2

Score for Stock Mode: (Match still is in progress, any player could win.)

Player 1 = 1 life left.
Player 2 = 1 life left.
Player 3 = 2 lives left.

Draw your own conclusions from this. Perhaps the timed match was only one minute? What if the stock match was timed? To be honest, being timed on anything just seems to create stress for me.

[Chupperson Weird]

Stock matches are rarely this even, and being forced out early without a chance to regain a good score is totally lame.

[Rao]

I like stamina better than stock also. And Koop has a really good point.

[Fifth]

Ugh, I hate the forceful feeling that timed matches bring.  If I want an intense match, I want it to be so because both myself and my final opponent are in a fierce duel on our last lives, where every movement is important and a single mistake could mean the end, not because the invisible hand of time is cramming me back into a wadded fray.  And I really don't think a normal-length time match is enough to really get past the awkwardness of a round's beginning, get into playing and being the character and stage, and really having a satisfying fight.

And on the matter of opponents running from a fight when there's no time limit incentive, the fray will always manage to drag them back in, one way or another.  It just happens.

...and (though this is a bit of a tangent) speak of "time" vs "stock", what on earth happened to the battle mode in Mario Kart Wii?  What ever happened to the careful tactics and self-preservation of the ol' "three balloons, then you're dead"?

[bobman37]

I heavily prefer stock over time. I like taking my time and killing my opponents while trying to not die.

However, for casual RL matches with 3 or 4 people, I like time. It's more causal, and if you're not playing to win, it's just more fun. Especially if you're playing with n00bs, then no one has to sit out after their stock depletes because they suck so bad.

[MEGAߥTE]

I should also mention that while I prefer timed, I also like 5 minute matches.  2 minutes is far too little time as Fifth articulated.

[bobman37]

I like 4 minutes.

[PaperLuigi]

Time matches are great for 1 vs. 1 battles, but stock battles are better for 4 man battle royals because they eliminate the possibility of a cheep kill with benefits.

[Rao]

Man, the way Fifth puts it, I guess stock is pretty cool. It's more of a real battle. And, I don't play 2 minutes either, I like 3 or 4.

...and (though this is a bit of a tangent) speak of "time" vs "stock", what on earth happened to the battle mode in Mario Kart Wii?  What ever happened to the careful tactics and self-preservation of the ol' "three balloons, then you're dead"?

Yeah! I thought that was lame.

[ShadowBrain]

careful tactics

Non-existent in MKW.

[Turtlekid1]

Button-mashing is the only way for some people to enjoy a good game, so don't judge those who do it.

Kidding.  Sort of.

[ShadowBrain]

There's not really button-mashing in MKW... I was referring to the overabundance of irritating items that level the playing field.

[Turtlekid1]

Oh, silly me... I was thinking of SSBB at the time.