Editorial: TGC 6 and 3 Stocks - The Whole Story

Last night, a massive event took place in Texas: TGC 6. The event had a wide array of talent, with names like Hyuga, ESAM, Nick Riddle, MVD and Dabuz in attendance. As per the norm in this region of Texas, Smash 4 ran three stocks for the tournament. As many have heard, the tournament ended up having to split the pot between top 8 because the tournament ran too late, but unfortunately many are blaming this on the use of three stocks and not telling the whole story. So here it is in full.

TGC 6 was set to be a one-day event with on-site registration, an impressive feat to say the least. However, it's not like the organizer for the tournament, Xyro, has not been able to pull this off easily before. In a previous article about the history of stock counts and Smash, Xyro discussed this: "TGC 5 had 240 1vs1 entrants and 80 2vs2 teams. I did sign-ups on site and finished 12.5 hours later. I finished before 1am as advertised. Dabuz told me that most events he attends on the EC end around 3-4am, having far less entrants and use 2 stock."

So what changed this time? There were over 400 entrants who came to this monthly event. It was also expected to run within ONE day with on-site registration. Most people would say that it would have be prudent at this point to change the stock count just so the event could finish on time, but mathematically it could not be done. The problem very few are mentioning is that due to electrical issues, several setups were unable to be used for the event at the last minute.

Smash 64 expert pidgezero_one put up a Twitlonger this morning explaining the math behind running three stock vs two stock at an event like TGC 6, which she has kindly allowed me to feature here.

I simulated a bracket to do some math on how many setups can be used at once at each point in the bracket, following the rule of "1 round of winners for every 2 rounds of losers".

The term "wave" here refers to the use of 30 setups at once (i.e. if you have 60 sets to play you would need to do 2 "waves" on those 30 setups)

The following is just my math since I was trying to make sure my bracket math wasn't off, just ignore it and scroll to the end if you're not interested in basic bracket math:

400 man bracket: 112 byes in round 1
(400 - 112) / 2 = 144 sets in round 1
ceil(144 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups

W1: 256 people = 128 sets
L1: 144 people + 112 byes = 16 sets
ceil (144 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups

L2: 128 winners of L1 + 128 losers of W1 = 256 people = 128 sets
ceil (128 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups

W2: 128 people = 64 sets
L3: 128 winners of L2 = 64 sets
ceil (128 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups

L4: 64 winners of L3 + 64 losers of W2
ceil (64 / 30) = 3 waves on 30 setups

W3: 64 people = 32 sets
L5: 64 winners of L4 = 32 sets
ceil (64 / 30) = 3 waves on 30 setups

(above two can happen close enough together that it would be time equivalent to 5 waves at most)

L6: 32 winners of L4 + 32 losers of W3 = 32 sets
ceil (32 / 30) 2 waves on 30 setups

W4: 32 people = 16 sets
L7: 32 winners of L6 = 16 sets
ceil (32 / 30) 2 waves on 30 setups

(above two can happen close enough together that it would be time equivalent to 3 waves at most)

L8: 16 winners of L7 = 16 losers of W4 (16 sets)
= 1 wave

W5: 16 people in 8 sets
L9: 16 winners of L8 = 8 sets
= 1 wave

L10: 8 winners of L9 + 8 losers of W5 (8 sets)
= 1 wave

W6: 8 people in 4 sets
L11: 8 winners of L10
= 1 wave

L12: 4 winners of L11 + 4 losers of W6 (8 sets)
= 1 wave

W7: 4 people in 2 sets
L13: 4 winners of L12
= 1 wave

L14: 2 winners of L13 + 2 losers of W7 = 2 sets
= 1 wave

W8: WFs
L15: LSFs
= 1 wave

L16: LFs
= 1 wave

W9: GFs
= 1 or 2 waves

this means time equivalent to running the tournament would be 38 or 39 sets.
Assuming that every set in the tournament goes to game 3, and every game goes to time:
3 stock (24 minute max sets): 15 hours 12 minutes to 15 hours 36 minutes
2 stock (18 minute max sets): 11 hours 24 minutes to 11 hours 42 minutes

About a 4 hour timesave, assuming every set goes to time and game 3...

However, even with the addition of as little as 2 setups, having minimum 32...

L2 and W2 + L3 drop from 10 waves to 8.
L4 and W3 + L5 drop from a combined 5 waves to 4.
L6 and W4 + L7 drop from a combined 3 waves to 2.

This would put the total wave count at 34 or 35.

If they were able to use their original setup count of 40, the starting round as well as W1 + L1 would be taken down to 4 waves each instead of 5 waves each.
This would put the total wave count at 32 or 33.

Once again, assuming EVERY set in the tournament goes to game 3 and every game goes to time:
For 3 stock this would translate to 12 hours 48 minutes to 13 hours 12 minutes.
For 2 stock this would translate to 9 hours 36 minutes to 9 hours 54 minutes.

As the number of setups increases, the time save switching from 3 stock to 2 stock becomes less significant.

This particular tournament's unforeseen electrical failure decreased the setup count by 25%. That's huge. Even as little as two setups could have saved almost 3 hours of time without changing the ruleset.

For those who may be confused by this, here is a simple recap: Even as little as 2 more setups being available could have saved the event 3 hours of time, and the full amount of setups could have very well had things done properly. These estimates also assume every single game is going to game 3 and every match goes to time. If that isn't enough for people, the event actually ran 3 stock 7 minutes for singles and there was still not an issue with timeouts. pidgezero_one redid her math as well; it still would have worked just fine.

That scenario is astronomically difficult to believe would ever happen. Realistically, with full setups the tournament would have concluded at a reasonable hour for its size and there would be nothing to discuss today. Yet people are choosing to frame this as an issue of running 3 stocks while overlooking the real issues that took place.

With this out of the way, how did the professional players attending feel about the event even with these issues happening? Most were incredibly passionate about the positives of using three stocks and disappointed over the narrative that is caused a problem. "3-stock is absolutely ****ing amazing, **** 2-stock," said Nick Riddle on Twitter. MVD was just as intense: "3 STOCK ISNT THE PROBLEM HERE YOU STUPID IDIOTS! GET OVER YOURSELVES," he said in one tweet, quickly adding in another: "Literally pre reg woulda solved it all we lost like 3 hours by the long line, think about that before you judge anything else."

There was a problem fetching the tweet

ESAM was also quick to praise three stocks and the event itself: "400 -> 8 in 10 hours. Pretty good for the lack of setups and unfortunate things. 3 stock is so amazing tho omg," he said in one Tweet, and even though the top 8 had to split, he said, "Will for sure be going to TGC7." He also expressed incredible excitement over being able to play with 3 stock yet again at BEAST 6.

---​

So is TGC 6 the nail in the coffin for 3 stocks? Not in the slightest. Top players, competitors, and even those who watch at home have expressed how they prefer the format. The scene in Europe and Australia heavily prefer to use a three-stock format. Xyro has proven that enormous events can be run with this format, and the math shows that even a 400 man event for singles, not to mention the 128 doubles teams, could have been run in ONE DAY. When looking to those who refuse to mention these facts and purely blame the event running 3 stocks as a problem, take a minute to think about the facts and ask why this is happening. 3 stocks may not really be the problem it has been cracked up to be; there may be bigger problems we need to focus on first.

This piece is purely the opinion of its author and does not reflect the position of Smashboards or its affiliates.

 

As someone who participated at TGC 6, the reason things got extended so late was more people showed up than expected, and there were a lot of technical issues with the building itself constantly losing power. 3 Stocks had nothing to do with it.

Things that also extended the time was how long registration took, and I give props for Xyro for handling it the best he could, but I would take what happen as a learning experience. Things that ended up making it longer than it needed to be was that:

1) People were taking forever to sign their names on the registration stand for Doubles. (Sometimes it took at least 3-5 minutes per person)
2) At first there was only one line for registration, and although two lines were made later on, multiple lines for registration should be standard if this many people are going to show up.
3) Many people were cutting in line and no one was doing anything about it.

(Refunds were given out apparently so good on them!)

 

3 stock Regionals and below
2 stock Nationals and above (if there are any)?

 

First comment! Yeah, the logistical problem isn't per se the time that takes to finish a set being it 2 stocks or 3 stocks, most of the time the problem is the player organization, like they aren't on time for the set on things like that that consume a lot of time. Personally I Like 3 stocks more as you can continue watching a hype match. In case there is a boring one you can use the time to prepare a snack or something. And "Boring" matches aren't just a thing of Smash 4, we've all seen timeouts on melee too, and really long matches (Armada Young Link vs HBox comes to mind) too.

 

Having played in a 3 stock event recently, there was a time or two when it felt odd that the game wasn't over after 2 stocks were removed, but I would get used to that I am sure (the way 2 stock used to feel too short), and I definitely think I overall prefer 3 stock. If we do make the shift (and I hope we do), it might feel weird at first, but I think it will be more enjoyable in the long run.

 

I also went to TGC 6, being my first tourney it was okay, they weren't using every setup available for doubles and really went nazi on friendlies while doubles was running, but everything was worth it when pools started 4 or so hours later, pools was an amazing experience to me, hopefully I can make it to the improved TGC 7!

 

The reason why everything took so long was because 4-5 times, the breaker flipped on an area with about 20 setups.

We went from 50ish to about 20ish with 400 for singles and 128 with teams. Changing rules from 3 stock to 2 stock is not an option. You can't change the rules mid game.

 

If its a major event like regional and national we should use 2 stocks to make things run smoother.

 

Keep up the good work Xyro77 , your crew is fighting the good fight!

 

from the word of the electric mouse man:

https://twitter.com/PG_ESAM/status/696375294215790593

"also the fact that registration took until 2 for dubs (2.5 hours late) and until 5 for singles (4 hours late)"

I'm pretty sure that a tournament that begins running 4 hours late will end up being pretty late

 

Full disclosure, I'm not even saying 3 stocks is the way to go. Just that this tournament had way more reasons for delays than the stock count, and shouldn't be considered in the 2 vs 3 debate when switching to 2 stocks would have saved as much time as a simple absence of venue disaster.

I still think 2 stocks works better overall, but eh, this isn't my game. rofl

 

TWe went from 50ish to about 20ish with 400 for singles and 128 with teams. Changing rules from 3 stock to 2 stock is not an option. You can't change the rules mid game.

this really isn't a good argument when the decision you made instead was ending the tournament before all the players were done..

absolutely, it changes the metagame of the tournament, but it also ensures the tournament's actually finished. as an argument involving the whole of 3stock v 2stock, it's meaningless, but in this scenario it makes total sense

 

People are going to run the "3 stock is the problem" narrative so hard, but as long as Europe exist I won't believe it.

 

Xyro didn't make the decision, the top 8 decided that we wanted to split. We had an extra hour at the venue if we wanted, but we decided to rest...

 

I've learned that no matter how many times anyone makes a poll about 3 stocks or 2 stocks, I think the answer is always going to be 3 stock.

 

EC Events always run so late because Keitaro runs them so no matter the entrants it will end in that time frame.
idk how tho

 

Xyro didn't make the decision, the top 8 decided that we wanted to split. We had an extra hour at the venue if we wanted, but we decided to rest...

ah, that's far more fair, my apologies

 

If its a major event like regional and national we should use 2 stocks to make things run smoother.

You kind of just ignored literally the entire post. Three stock had nothing to do with the smoothness of the tourney. What did screw it up was a combination of a massive influx of players, an electrical problem causing a lack of setups, and a registration that ran incredibly late. Three stock is not, and has never been, anywhere near as big a time drain as any of the other things. Not to mention stuff like excessive coaching, and refusing to DQ late big name players which weren't a problem here, but can also be pretty big time sinks

 

The statement that "as little as 2 more setups being available could have saved the event 3 hours of time" is not correct, because that's based on the time in each round of the bracket taken strictly having to be an integer number of waves: applying the ceiling function after every round is equivalent to saying that each round in its entirety must finish before the next can progress.

In reality, waves of each round of the bracket get interleaved with one another, so the ceiling function should only be applied after adding all the sets in the entire bracket (up to the point where there are fewer sets to be played than setups) together.

 

The statement that "as little as 2 more setups being available could have saved the event 3 hours of time" is not correct, because that's based on the time in each round of the bracket taken strictly having to be an integer number of waves: applying the ceiling function after every round is equivalent to saying that each round in its entirety must finish before the next can progress.

In reality, waves of each round of the bracket get interleaved with one another, so the ceiling function should only be applied after adding all the sets in the entire bracket (up to the point where there are fewer sets to be played than setups) together.

So what you're saying is that 2 setups can save even more time than the 3 hours suggested?

 

Obviously 3 > 2 all else held equal, but why hold all else equal? The real competition is between 3-stock Bo3 until finals, and 2-stock with Bo5 bracket. (IMO of course)

 

So what you're saying is that 2 setups can save even more time than the 3 hours suggested?

Going from 30 to 32 setups would save perhaps roughly 30 minutes, just by doing (30/32) * 8 hours (time it took to get to the point where there were fewer than 30 sets to call at a time) = 7.5 hours. I think that's probably still a generous estimate.

The 3 hour estimate is based on a scenario where every single match of a round of a bracket has to finish before the next one starts. Like if you had 32 sets to play but only 30 setups, as if you had to run the first 30 and then the last 2 had to be played before ANY other set could start so the other 28 setups are just idling while the last 2 finish (of course this also uses the same assumption as made in the math in the post that all sets take the same amount of time). In that world, 2 setups does save ~3 hours. But really, you can run later rounds of the bracket while earlier ones finish.

 

The cynic in me thinks this could be a death knell for the 3 stock format even though it wasn't the problem. So many people will jump to conclusions and focus on what they want to be true that the actual truth will be drowned out, and 3 stock will be scapegoated for the tournament's problems to appease a vocal minority who wants problems to be simple and easy to fix through elimination.

...But the rest of me hopes enough people understand the situation for what it was--an unexpectedly huge tournament with a lot of logistical problems and freak electrical trouble--that people actually do believe the truth.

 

As someone who participated at TGC 6, the reason things got extended so late was more people showed up than expected, and there were a lot of technical issues with the building itself constantly losing power. 3 Stocks had nothing to do with it.

Things that also extended the time was how long registration took, and I give props for Xyro for handling it the best he could, but I would take what happen as a learning experience. Things that ended up making it longer than it needed to be was that:

1) People were taking forever to sign their names on the registration stand for Doubles. (Sometimes it took at least 3-5 minutes per person)
2) At first there was only one line for registration, and although two lines were made later on, multiple lines for registration should be standard if this many people are going to show up.
3) Many people were cutting in line and no one was doing anything about it.

I will also note that some people were leaving when it got real late, and I know refunds are not usually given out, but when your tournament requires everyone to be there early just for entry due to the humongous lines and you'll have to be at at tournament waiting for information if you're gonna have a match or not for 14+ hours, perhaps giving some people a refund who weren't expecting this many issues to occur would have been nice.

They were distributing refunds to anyone who asked.

 

They were distributing refunds to anyone who asked.

This is true, my friends who had to leave early got their refunds.

 

What events did Dabuz go to that had less than 300 people and end at 3/4 am?

Only one event that I know of over here ended that late but it had over 400 entrants and 6 events. Maybe he was quoted incorrectly or something.

I will agree that stock count wasn't the prime issue for the event running so late but it didn't make things better either.

 

>Xyro proved that 3 stocks can be run
Lol the event did not even finish. Xyro ruined 3 stocks just like how he ruined WHOBO. Worst TO 0/10

 

I always have been and always will be an advocate for the 3 stock, 7/8 minute ruleset, and that means that this is a pretty disheartening occurrence - because we all know how vocal the 2 stock group is, and as stated by a few others here, they're going to focus solely on the fact that the event ran 3 stocks, and on the fact that they lost power and had people taking forever to sign up, among other issues. Three stock has never been the issue, and likely never will be. It should also be noted that 2 stock is pretty not great for the meta - generally, whoever takes the first stock is almost guaranteed the win at that point, especially if they take it early on. Unless the other player makes an insane comeback, the game might as well be played with one stock. Three stock gives the players more time to learn each other in a single match, allowing for more (usually) more interesting matches.

 

I love 2 stock i have played 3 stock alot not a fan of it. I hope it stays 2 stock.

 

As long as people like a format, it will be used, regardless of its popularity. When offline I like to play 3-stock matches. When online I tend to play 2-stock matches, and I enjoy both formats personally.

I don't think this is saying we can run 2-stock believers out, because I do think that format is a viable option. It just means 3-stock is still a viable option as well.

 

Xyro didn't make the decision, the top 8 decided that we wanted to split. We had an extra hour at the venue if we wanted, but we decided to rest...

I don't blame y'all for wanting to get some rest. TBH, I was really tired myself due to waking up at 5:30 in the morning before the tournament (thanks usual sleep patterns)

 

When the game was first released when vectoring was more prominent and nobody knew how to kill, I can see why we implemented 2 stocks. Now we have characters like ZSS and Ryu ending 2 stock matches in 2 minutes. I believe Nairo even 4-0d someone in 7 minutes in grand finals one time >.>

I think it's time the community experimented with 3 stocks, just like we did with customs.

 

I always have been and always will be an advocate for the 3 stock, 7/8 minute ruleset, and that means that this is a pretty disheartening occurrence - because we all know how vocal the 2 stock group is, and as stated by a few others here, they're going to focus solely on the fact that the event ran 3 stocks, and on the fact that they lost power and had people taking forever to sign up, among other issues. Three stock has never been the issue, and likely never will be. It should also be noted that 2 stock is pretty not great for the meta - generally, whoever takes the first stock is almost guaranteed the win at that point, especially if they take it early on. Unless the other player makes an insane comeback, the game might as well be played with one stock. Three stock gives the players more time to learn each other in a single match, allowing for more (usually) more interesting matches.

I agree with this. My best comebacks have been after losing 2 stocks then eventually adapting to my opponent's play style to take the win.

2 Stocks is fine mind you, but I prefer 3.

 

this really isn't a good argument when the decision you made instead was ending the tournament before all the players were done..

absolutely, it changes the metagame of the tournament, but it also ensures the tournament's actually finished. as an argument involving the whole of 3stock v 2stock, it's meaningless, but in this scenario it makes total sense

top 8 wanted to split. they brought it up to me.

 

I am completely neutral for 2 vs 3 stocks. I think they both work fine.

 

What events did Dabuz go to that had less than 300 people and end at 3/4 am?

Only one event that I know of over here ended that late but it had over 400 entrants and 6 events. Maybe he was quoted incorrectly or something.

I will agree that stock count wasn't the prime issue for the event running so late but it didn't make things better either.

That or maybe he misunderstood me. I brought up that one ktar and did make a blanket statement that TGC5 (the one before this) was run more efficiently than events here on the EC.

 

2 stock feels like For Glory. Rushed, not long enough to really get anything going. 3 stock feels like a real, competitive environment. The fact that one stock is not half of the game really changes how people play, for the better.

 

#free3stocks

 

If its a major event like regional and national we should use 2 stocks to make things run smoother.

Smoother? This tourney was rusty because of different factors not the stock count, also 3stocks takes more skill so if anything all tourneys should run 3. Look at the poll on this article, 75 percent prefer 3, majority should rule just like an presidential election.

 

I've never been to a tourney, but I've always preferred the freedom that 3 stocks offers.

Shame about those electrical problems.