Project M Recommended Ruleset

[JesteRace]

Hi. I play Link. You may not have noticed, but I get combo'd to hell and back rather easily. In fact, here are a few characters that destroy me on flat stages: DK, Mario, Wario, Yoshi. Now if I win game 1, surely I would ban FD? Wrong. See, in some cases, FD isn't that polarizing at all. It's flat, so you can combo for days, but it's large openness allows me the chance to actually keep these characters out. Whereas GHZ and SV are also mostly flat, and much smaller, making it both easy for these characters to get in AND wreck my ****.

 

[4tlas]

Hi. I play Link. You may not have noticed, but I get combo'd to hell and back rather easily. In fact, here are a few characters that destroy me on flat stages: DK, Mario, Wario, Yoshi. Now if I win game 1, surely I would ban FD? Wrong. See, in some cases, FD isn't that polarizing at all. It's flat, so you can combo for days, but it's large openness allows me the chance to actually keep these characters out. Whereas GHZ and SV are also mostly flat, and much smaller, making it both easy for these characters to get in AND wreck my ****.

Of course, every stage will get picked without being banned sometime. Thank you for illustrating such a scenario. Nevertheless, it gets banned an awful lot. A less extreme stage may be worth trying in a stagelist.

 

[JesteRace]

Having extremes aren't necessarily a bad thing. They force bans often, but that's kind of the point. You ban the extremes, leaving strong, meaningful, but not overwhelming CP's. As long as there aren't any stages that are the extreme in every matchup(if such a stage even exists), this will continue to work fine. Having something less extreme(which would be another debate all on its own) wouldn't really change that dynamic to the CP process.

This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that people would lose their freaking minds if FD wasn't legal lol

 

[4tlas]

Having extremes aren't necessarily a bad thing. They force bans often, but that's kind of the point. You ban the extremes, leaving strong, meaningful, but not overwhelming CP's. As long as there aren't any stages that are the extreme in every matchup(if such a stage even exists), this will continue to work fine. Having something less extreme(which would be another debate all on its own) wouldn't really change that dynamic to the CP process.

This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that people would lose their freaking minds if FD wasn't legal lol

I am aware of everything you said, though I disagree that having something less extreme wouldn't change the dynamic. If it was approximately as extreme as the other options, then bans would be more varied and up to preference. I think it is worth discussing.

And yes, people would lose their freaking minds. This is why I wanted to talk about this, because StrongBad's initial response was that the mere thought was "absurd" but there was no explanation. I would like to have this discussion eventually result in a rule change, but I am always happy to just discuss it for theory's sake. Discouraging such discussion is something I think we should attempt to avoid.

 

[JesteRace]

I can't really think of a suitable replacement to FD that would either A. Maintain the balance of the list (That's my problem, not yours, obviously) or B. Be any less extreme or force any less bans.

Now that argument is based on actual logic. For my totally irrelevant talking point... come on, dude. It's Final Destination. Possibly THE most iconic Smash stage other than Battlefield. Just doesn't feel right without it, ya know?

 

[4tlas]

I can't really think of a suitable replacement to FD that would either A. Maintain the balance of the list (That's my problem, not yours, obviously) or B. Be any less extreme or force any less bans.

Now that argument is based on actual logic. For my totally irrelevant talking point... come on, dude. It's Final Destination. Possibly THE most iconic Smash stage other than Battlefield. Just doesn't feel right without it, ya know?

Yeah, a 1-to-1 replacement seems unfeasible. How far off are, say, Delfino Secrets dimensions?

I agree that FD certainly seems like it should be included just because it is "Final Destination". It is certainly way more iconic than most of the other stages. However, it also has no flavor whatsoever, so you could also say its the least iconic in a game about all the different Nintendo universes colliding. Furthermore, the stage itself is the least interesting layout. And from a spectator perspective, watching inescapable combos (assuming flawless execution, which doesn't happen in PM right now but certainly does in Melee) is uninspiring. And the most common reason to go to FD is to perform inescapable combos...

 

[JesteRace]

Idk, people seem to get really hype for Marth 0-death on spacies #7123281

I wouldn't say it has no flavor, just the aesthetic alone has some flavor to it.

As for Delfino's Secret, I'm not sure. It has smaller blast zones. Center to Side is equal to PS2 and Edge to Side is a little smaller than Battlefield, so it's kinda borderline between medium and large blastzones, whereas FD is just straight up large in that category. Also, you trade the low ceiling for a high ceiling, which needs to be accounted for in the rest of the list. And the platforms are way too inconsistent. Sometimes I like it, cause it actually feels like a large stage that plays more cramped. But the platforms constantly move into "somewhere in-between" and "wide-open" territory.

 

[nimigoha]

Asking your opinion.

I'm co-TOing a tournament in February and working on the ruleset. I'd like to do Nebraska 9, 1 stage ban, and obviously Character First.

We're in London, ON which is a brand new scene.

Toronto has a decently well-established scene and they haven't switched to Character First.

My friend is saying we should do Stage First in London only because Toronto uses it, and that we should accommodate and be accustomed to their rules.

Even though we almost never play with people in Toronto.

Should I storm through and enforce Character First? Should I let my friend "bully" me into using an antiquated system?

For all you people who don't know Canadian Geography, London is like 2.5 hours away from Toronto and so far we haven't really played each other outside of my 1 friend. Probably the next time will be May.

 

[JesteRace]

If you truly believe character first is superior, then you fight for it. 1 stage ban though? Eeeehhhh.

 

[Avro-Arrow]

Gotta say, 1 stage ban kind of skews things, and I'm on board with Jesterace about character first as well. It's the better system and it's your tournament. They'll show up anyways, and if they have enough notice about the ruleset (which they definitely do) I wouldn't say it's too much of a shock to get around and they can deal with it.

 

[JesteRace]

It doesn't necessarily skew anything (except maybe towards characters with more potent CP's, but that's subjective, ain't it?). The problem is the huge variance in available stages left. This was outlined by Oracle a few pages back. One ban holds very little power in our 3/3/3 format. Ganon, for example, can only ban FD, and will still have to deal with PS2. His opponent will have to deal with FoD as they can only ban WL. It's still balanced, but the reward for losing is much higher than it should be. A huge part of running character first is to minimize the loser's advantage to a reasonable degree, as is running 2 bans in this format.

 

[Avro-Arrow]

That's exactly what I meant by skewing things.

 

[JesteRace]

That's exactly what I meant by skewing things.

My b, then. Just wanted to clarify and elaborate.

 

[Avro-Arrow]

That's a good thing . Especially since I didn't explain myself too well.

 

[Bazkip]

Asking your opinion.

I'm co-TOing a tournament in February and working on the ruleset. I'd like to do Nebraska 9, 1 stage ban, and obviously Character First.

We're in London, ON which is a brand new scene.

Toronto has a decently well-established scene and they haven't switched to Character First.

My friend is saying we should do Stage First in London only because Toronto uses it, and that we should accommodate and be accustomed to their rules.

Even though we almost never play with people in Toronto.

Should I storm through and enforce Character First? Should I let my friend "bully" me into using an antiquated system?

For all you people who don't know Canadian Geography, London is like 2.5 hours away from Toronto and so far we haven't really played each other outside of my 1 friend. Probably the next time will be May.

Toronto's dumb. We tried to convince them to switch but they didn't listen. Though @Kneato will probably force them to switch by virtue of the fact that he runs all the PM majors in Ontario lol.
Montreal and Ottawa run character first.

 

[nimigoha]

True, I forgot Kneato did that.

Really have to convince Fire and Hello, they run the weeklies and monthlies. I don't know them though, and I think it's understandable that they wouldn't take what I say seriously since I'm a random guy from another region.

Avro-Arrow JesteRace

It definitely brings along that "skew" you guys mentioned though.

I think the best fit is 2 bans for Bo3 and 1 ban for Bo5, I just think having something that's consistent across both Bo5 and Bo3 is a good thing.

I'd definitely try both though. Preferably start with 2 for 3 and 1 for 5 and if people get confused or bring up the inconsistency then I'd change it. Of course could start with 1 for 3/5 and if people think it's too few for Bo3 then yeah.

Bazkip do you run Montreal? The stagelist is interesting to say the least.

 

[Bazkip]

Really have to convince Fire and Hello, they run the weeklies and monthlies. I don't know them though, and I think it's understandable that they wouldn't take what I say seriously since I'm a random guy from another region.

I know them and I couldn't convince them, good luck if you try.

I think the best fit is 2 bans for Bo3 and 1 ban for Bo5, I just think having something that's consistent across both Bo5 and Bo3 is a good thing.

I'd definitely try both though. Preferably start with 2 for 3 and 1 for 5 and if people get confused or bring up the inconsistency then I'd change it. Of course could start with 1 for 3/5 and if people think it's too few for Bo3 then yeah.

What's being proposed is to run 2 bans MDSR for Nebraska stagelist.

Bazkip do you run Montreal? The stagelist is interesting to say the least.

I have input but I'm not the head TO here.

 

[JesteRace]

For real, though. That's awesome. I wanna watch all streams running our stagelist to see how it's playing out for everyone.

 

[Cox Box]

For real, though. That's awesome. I wanna watch all streams running our stagelist to see how it's playing out for everyone.

I'll let you guys know when vods go up from our tournament in Alabama, since we used the Nebraska stage list. At the time it was NE 9 with stage first, 2 bans, and standard DSR for both bo3 and bo5. I got lots of positive feedback on the stages, and no negative feedback besides "what is this stage, oh thats neat." I'd call it a success. Not sure if this is the ruleset or just Ark being godlike, but his Ivysaur didn't drop a game all tournament.

 

[JesteRace]

Unless Bowser's Castle is particularly good for Ivysaur, I'd say he was just playing godlike hahaha I look forward to that, though.

 

[Strong Badam]

1 stage ban is OK with a 9 stage list. Any more and I would begin to question why you don't have 2 stage bans.

 

[nimigoha]

We talked about 2 ban MDSR a few pages back and I took away from it that it wasn't great, and I was advocating for it before.

Strong Bad summed it up by saying if you can go somewhere you've won before, that's no good. Baseline.

Pretty much waiting for PMU to announce a switch to Character first or something like that idk, I think that would help a lot of regions considering a switch make that switch, and regions like Toronto start to actually consider it.

Beast 6 character first is pretty great.

Hopefully whoever is TOing the next US big tournament will run character first, I think that would be a solid development.

And Nebraska 9 with whatever ban system would be a big step forward in a national.

 

[JesteRace]

Well, here's what we've got.

1. 2 bans is too much for 9 stages in a bo5, but 1 ban isn't enough for 9 stages in a bo3.

2. Having different ban numbers in different sets is bad.

3. Modified versions of DSR are problematic. Even allowing G1 starter to be picked again seems to be disliked.

4. 10 stages, 2 bans would fix all of these problems.

5. The only viable stage for the 10th slot is Yoshi's Island.

6. People hate Yoshi's Island.

7. Even character first is a nightmare of a debate.

 

[nimigoha]

Haha basically what we have.

If the final ruleset ban count was 2 for 3 and 1 for 5 I could live with that. It makes the most sense for each respectively but as a single rule it's very sloppy.

More "undesirable" than "bad".

I'd rather have that than 2 ban in Bo5 for sure, or a strange DSR rule. For neatness' sake I think I'd prefer 1 ban universally but not too bothered.

Wish Yoshi's wasn't so weird. Very happy we got Bowser's in 3.6 though, imagine if they'd been putting final touches on it for 3.61 and then it got axed, we'd have a gap in the stagelist.

 

[JesteRace]

Bowser's really was a godsend. Yoshi's Island would be a fine stage if it was just flat and didn't have Shy Guys, but I would still rather run it than have 1 ban in a bo3. That's just me.

Nebraska is running 2 bans throughout without our 9 stages and DMG's version of DSR where G1 starter is allowed as a CP in a G5 scenario. Again, not my ideal choice, and I'd still rather run YI than this, but that's unlikely to happen and we haven't actually had any problems with this ruleset so it's all good.

 

[Bazkip]

Yoshi's Island would be a fine stage if it was just flat and didn't have Shy Guys

I still don't get why they removed them from Yoshi's Story but not Yoshi's Island...

 

[4tlas]

I still don't get why they removed them from Yoshi's Story but not Yoshi's Island...

They didn't remove them from Yoshi's Story, they just couldn't manually add them in when they added YS to PM (it wasn't in Brawl at all).

I assume they didn't remove them from YI because they are part of the stage, like how Dreamland still has wind.

 

[JesteRace]

What, they can take out the entire gimmick behind the Pokemon Stadiums but they can't make YI flat and shy-guy free?

 

[CORY]

ps2 was made static because a lot of people from the melee days recognized that base ps was a good stage, and you used it for that, being forced to tolerate the transformations. since they could actually do something with it, they did.

there was no consensus like that for yi:b. it might've been an okay stage as is, it might've needed a run over with an iron and some bug spray. maybe they were considering that further down the line, after they worked on other stages. maybe they were going to make the hd dreamland wind free and let the melee model keep it. who knows?

 

[nimigoha]

maybe they were going to make the hd dreamland wind free and let the melee model keep it. who knows?

I know!

SOJ said they weren't going to because it would create confusion.

 

[4tlas]

What, they can take out the entire gimmick behind the Pokemon Stadiums but they can't make YI flat and shy-guy free?

They could. What I meant was they might be considered "part of the stage" and thus they didn't WANT to remove them.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Wanted to come back and voice my change of opinion on character first. I was against it before, but now I feel character first fixes the more extreme advantages PM gives the counterpicker than other games.

 

[JesteRace]

It basically comes down to this.

Five things can potentially happen in stage first:

1. The winner gets a huge advantage
2. The winner gets a small advantage
3. No advantage(a neutral stage gets picked)
4. The loser gets a small advantage
5. The loser gets a huge advantage

Two things can happen in character first:

1. No advantage
2. The loser gets a small advantage

 

[nimigoha]

It basically comes down to this.

Five things can potentially happen in stage first:

1. The winner gets a huge advantage
2. The winner gets a small advantage
3. No advantage(a neutral stage gets picked)
4. The loser gets a small advantage
5. The loser gets a huge advantage

Two things can happen in character first:

1. No advantage
2. The loser gets a small advantage

I think that in character first it's fair to say that sometimes the loser gets a huge advantage.

But I also think that depends on the number of bans.

 

[JesteRace]

That's why we have the balance we do. With the NE 9 and 2 bans, no one is getting that huge of an advantage from the stage.

 

[4tlas]

There is a large outcry that there is not enough incentive for secondaries in character first. I'm not sure how to feel about this, since it is not an objective thing. What qualifies as "enough"? Its going to be different for everyone, but I think its something we can only know with testing.

 

[xquqx]

There is a large outcry that there is not enough incentive for secondaries in character first. I'm not sure how to feel about this, since it is not an objective thing. What qualifies as "enough"? Its going to be different for everyone, but I think its something we can only know with testing.

There's 41 characters with the grand majority being tournament viable. The fact that you can expect to hit a "switch to a secondary" level match up with most of the cast at any given tournament should be incentive enough.

 

[JesteRace]

What a fat load of garbage.

1. Having an incentive for secondaries is meaningless to balance.

2. In a game of 41 characters, you are almost guaranteed to have bad/losing matchups. This is plenty of incentive for a secondary.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah I'm not convinced by that argument at all haha.

What they say: "There's no incentive for secondaries"

What they mean: "There's no situations where a person's secondary gets to steal the opponent's advantage on the opponent's counterpick and I think that's kewl ((((((("

If somehow they don't mean that, what they don't realize: In char first, the winner still locks in his character first, leaving the loser with the opportunity to pick a character to counter the winner's character. I.e. the entire point of a secondary.

It's such a baseless claim lol.

 

[4tlas]

I think you all misunderstood what I'm saying.

"There's no incentive for secondaries" is clearly, objectively wrong. As we all know, an incentive does exist, and that's to counter the plethora of matchups that your main probably doesn't, simply due to the nature of how many matchups there are.

"There's not enough incentive for secondaries" is non-quantifiable. How much is enough? How much IS there? How much do most people want? How much do they want it?

Personally, I think Character First gives plenty of incentive. But I also didn't bother with a secondary even when it was Stage First, so perhaps I just don't understand exactly how much incentive people want/need in order to justify a secondary to themselves.