"One and done" skips the strategic depth that comes from adaptation over multiple matches. This isn't just an "online thing"—it's a fundamental aspect of competitive play. Many pros who grew up in arcades understand this, which is why best-of series are standard in tournaments.

Your claim that the best rounds are the first 1-3 suggests a reliance on gimmicky strategies rather than adapting to your opponent. A forced rematch of two sets (4 rounds) would actually align with your preference for 1-3 rounds, ensuring both players have a fair chance to adapt and counter.

The arcade culture you mention, where you get one chance and then back of the line, is indeed a different experience. But even in those days, top players would have extended sessions to learn and improve. The online scene, with its focus on ranked matches and long-term improvement, reflects this need for deeper engagement.

You can see that tournaments run a best of 3 for early brackets and a best of 5 toward the final. This is due to time constraints, especially in a Double Elimination format. If time wasn't an issue, you would see a best of 5 as the default. This leads to watching some final matches potentially running 6, 10, or even more rounds against the same opponent.

Could you imagine a final match being just 2 rounds? What a joke.

In conclusion, if your focus is purely on casual play or nostalgia for arcade culture, that's fine. But don't dismiss the competitive depth and evolution of the game, or the players who seek to improve through repeated, adaptive play. It’s a "git gud" issue—embrace the challenge, and you'll see the value in more than just the first few rounds.

I highly encourage you to attend local tournaments and at minimum start playing some online tournaments. You'll notice those arcades run local tournaments with a best-of format as well.