Why does everyone prefer stock?

[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.