Please read through as much as possible. I realize that this is a wall of text, but the problems that I've outlined are legitimate and, even if you don't agree with the solution, your input is desired. The direction of competitive melee is, and always has been, in the community's control.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matches are too long.
Simply put, 4 stock matches are too long. I'm not sure why we never really reevaluated using 4 stock, but it really just seems that we use it because we have always used it. There are a ton of problems that are the result of using 4 stock, but these are the ones that I have chosen to address.
1) They further separate viable and non-viable characters.
2) They provide accident forgiveness for the stronger player.
3) They increase the importance of individual matches.
4) Individual matches take too long. (2-8 minutes)
5) Reduces combeback potential.
6) Reduces accessibility from other FGC players.
I was going to break these out, but they are all linked to one another.
Individual matches take too long. Due to this, we have low match counts in our sets. Due to the low match counts, the individual match outcomes are inflated.
This stems from an effort to ensure that the more skilled player (in that moment, on that stage, in that matchup) wins the match. The result of this is that we want each of the individual matches to be primarily influenced by player vs player skill, with as little stage influence as possible. This has caused the trend of the competitive scene slowly removing stages from the stage list, down to what we have currently. While it may initially make sense that we only want the better player to win the match, what we actually want is just for the better player to win the set.
An effect of the amount of time and number of stock in a match combined with the reduced stage list is that we have an increased separation between viable and non-viable characters. This separation is caused by a lack of variables for non-viables to work with, as, due to the prior statements, we have removed stages that do not look and feel roughly similar to what we have deemed competitive, which, as stated before, has been sculpted by needs formed due to prior ruleset evolutions. The current non-viable characters are not viable because they simply do not have as many options vs viable characters. This causes them to have relatively two dimensional play, and often suffer at the whim of equally two dimensional responses from viable characters (Fox's Bair and Sheik's Dthrow come to mind).
To further expand on this idea in a way that many of you will hopefully understand: non-viables are essentially Burst, while viables are essentially Sustained DPS. Non-viables rely on being able to use very small windows of opportunity to do their damage, while viables are given the tools to control and damage their opponent throughout the match. The issue here is that most of the viable characters have the ability to play as Burst as well, further removing non-viables from use.
Another effect is that the length of matches basically acts as accident forgiveness... for the better player. Given two players, one slightly better than the other, a mistake, lets say an SD by the better of the two, at 4 stock each is often not a big deal. The lesser player will often slack off slightly, the better player will turn it up slightly, and the match will be restored to even relatively quickly. Such is the nature of the game. On the other hand, an SD by the lesser of the two, will often seal his fate. The better player would have to slack off significantly, or the lesser player would have to make a huge play, just to make up a small amount of ground. There is no legitimate reason for us to be so forgiving of mistakes.
Similar to this idea, comeback potential in a 4 stock game is much lower between two equally skilled players. Once a player takes a two stock (4-2, 3-1)lead, although comebacks do happen and tend to be impressive as hell when they do, more often that not it just makes the losing player feel defeated, and then magnifies that feeling while they struggle for the rest of the match. All of this leads to a boring finish while the advantaged player wins through attrition.
All of this summed up leads to a great divide between our competitive community and that of other FGC's. The game already feels foreign due to the difference in control, the visual appearance, and method of death (stock counters). Then we throw in a system of competitive measure that can't really be compared to by players familiar with other fighting games.
The Proposal:
After considering these factors, the proposed solution is for us to:
- Reduce the significance of individual match win importance.
- Reduce accident forgiveness.
- Increase comeback potential in a genuine manner rather than artificial. (x-factor >.>)
- Maintain consistency in set win outcome
- Increase the potential variety of skills, characters, strategies, and stages used in tournament settings.
- Make the game fast paced and fun again.
The Method:
I'll keep it simple for now:
Stock: Two
Timer: 3 Minutes
Recommended Tournament Set: Best of 7 at lowest level (up from Best of 3)
Stage List: TBD, but currently just the neutrals until we playtest. (But honestly, my stage list is every stage on except Big Blue and Brinstar Depths. Yes. I'm serious.)
# Bans per playeR: TBD
Items: You Wish (Still Off)
Individual match importance goes down when you increase the number of matches in a set. The impact of a single counterpick stage, as such, also goes down. This is the first step in helping us move away from the idea of "I only lost the set because (insert counterpick) is stupid/unfair/etc," and more towards "That counterpick/character/strategy was really good! Now its my turn, lets go to (insert counterpick/character/strategy combo)!". Players will be encouraged to have a series of strategies, even two dimensional ones, rather than the current system where players would have one strong counterpick stage that they could use as a crutch. The consistency of set outcome is maintained, as the better player can be expected to win more consistently. Long term averages (expected results) will remain the same despite short term deviation.
This also reduces accident forgiveness and increases comeback potential by increasing the importance of individual stock. This has the potential to act as a steroid on the general level of play, as SD's and mistakes in general will have a far greater impact on the outcome of the individual match than they did before, while still giving room for a 2-1 deficit to be overcome. Players will have to know what characters are good on what stages, and might need to expand their arsenal of strategies/stages/characters.
The pacing between matches will be very similar to current fighting games. It keeps the game exciting, as we see shifts in strategy much more rapidly, as well as changes in stage and character. We aren't stuck watching two dimensional play in a war of attrition.
Anyway, this is the current concept. For now, I'd like opinions on the whole thing, as well as feedback and ideas from anyone who is willing to play test. Hell, if you think I'm flat out wrong, feel free to call me out. Go wild guys.
2/8/2012 Edit:
The Two Stock Rule Set (Playtest Phase)
Super Smash Brothers: Melee (Singles and Teams)
Singles Stage List
Doubles Stage List
General Rules
Items are set to off.
Stock is set to 2.
Time is set to 3 minutes.
Each player has 4 stage bans.
Double Blind: If elected.
Contest Port Priority: If elected.
Neutral Start: If elected.
Standard DSR
Gentleman's Clause
Forced Character Selection: Off
Matches that time out will have the winner determined by remaining number of stock, then by remaining percentage of the current stock. In the event of a percentage tie, the match should be replayed in full. Sudden Death is not to be played unless a Gentleman's Agreement is made.
Additional Rules for Teams Play
Team Attack is on.
Life Stealing is allowed.
If the game is paused accidentally while attempting to steal a stock, the opposing team may deem that stock forfeit. Wait until the announcer has finished saying defeated before pressing start, or turn pause off prior to beginning the match.
How to Play a Set
1. Players select their characters. Either player may elect to Double Blind.
2. Use Stage Striking to determine the first stage.
3. The players play the first match of the set.
4. Winning player of the preceding match bans stages (if applicable). Rejectable stages do not require bans. (I suggest opening the stage on/off screen and turning them all on, then turning off bans.)
5. The losing player of the preceding match picks a stage for the next match. The winner may reject the selected stage if it is in the Rejectable List.
6. The winning player of the previous match may choose to change characters.
7. The losing player of the preceding match may choose to change characters.
8. The losing player of the preceding match gets first pick of port. Either player may elect for a Neutral Start, but RPS will not be played to determine first pick.
9. The next match is played.
10. Repeat Steps 4 through 9 for all subsequent matches until the set is complete.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matches are too long.
Simply put, 4 stock matches are too long. I'm not sure why we never really reevaluated using 4 stock, but it really just seems that we use it because we have always used it. There are a ton of problems that are the result of using 4 stock, but these are the ones that I have chosen to address.
1) They further separate viable and non-viable characters.
2) They provide accident forgiveness for the stronger player.
3) They increase the importance of individual matches.
4) Individual matches take too long. (2-8 minutes)
5) Reduces combeback potential.
6) Reduces accessibility from other FGC players.
I was going to break these out, but they are all linked to one another.
Individual matches take too long. Due to this, we have low match counts in our sets. Due to the low match counts, the individual match outcomes are inflated.
This stems from an effort to ensure that the more skilled player (in that moment, on that stage, in that matchup) wins the match. The result of this is that we want each of the individual matches to be primarily influenced by player vs player skill, with as little stage influence as possible. This has caused the trend of the competitive scene slowly removing stages from the stage list, down to what we have currently. While it may initially make sense that we only want the better player to win the match, what we actually want is just for the better player to win the set.
An effect of the amount of time and number of stock in a match combined with the reduced stage list is that we have an increased separation between viable and non-viable characters. This separation is caused by a lack of variables for non-viables to work with, as, due to the prior statements, we have removed stages that do not look and feel roughly similar to what we have deemed competitive, which, as stated before, has been sculpted by needs formed due to prior ruleset evolutions. The current non-viable characters are not viable because they simply do not have as many options vs viable characters. This causes them to have relatively two dimensional play, and often suffer at the whim of equally two dimensional responses from viable characters (Fox's Bair and Sheik's Dthrow come to mind).
To further expand on this idea in a way that many of you will hopefully understand: non-viables are essentially Burst, while viables are essentially Sustained DPS. Non-viables rely on being able to use very small windows of opportunity to do their damage, while viables are given the tools to control and damage their opponent throughout the match. The issue here is that most of the viable characters have the ability to play as Burst as well, further removing non-viables from use.
Another effect is that the length of matches basically acts as accident forgiveness... for the better player. Given two players, one slightly better than the other, a mistake, lets say an SD by the better of the two, at 4 stock each is often not a big deal. The lesser player will often slack off slightly, the better player will turn it up slightly, and the match will be restored to even relatively quickly. Such is the nature of the game. On the other hand, an SD by the lesser of the two, will often seal his fate. The better player would have to slack off significantly, or the lesser player would have to make a huge play, just to make up a small amount of ground. There is no legitimate reason for us to be so forgiving of mistakes.
Similar to this idea, comeback potential in a 4 stock game is much lower between two equally skilled players. Once a player takes a two stock (4-2, 3-1)lead, although comebacks do happen and tend to be impressive as hell when they do, more often that not it just makes the losing player feel defeated, and then magnifies that feeling while they struggle for the rest of the match. All of this leads to a boring finish while the advantaged player wins through attrition.
All of this summed up leads to a great divide between our competitive community and that of other FGC's. The game already feels foreign due to the difference in control, the visual appearance, and method of death (stock counters). Then we throw in a system of competitive measure that can't really be compared to by players familiar with other fighting games.
The Proposal:
After considering these factors, the proposed solution is for us to:
- Reduce the significance of individual match win importance.
- Reduce accident forgiveness.
- Increase comeback potential in a genuine manner rather than artificial. (x-factor >.>)
- Maintain consistency in set win outcome
- Increase the potential variety of skills, characters, strategies, and stages used in tournament settings.
- Make the game fast paced and fun again.
The Method:
I'll keep it simple for now:
Stock: Two
Timer: 3 Minutes
Recommended Tournament Set: Best of 7 at lowest level (up from Best of 3)
Stage List: TBD, but currently just the neutrals until we playtest. (But honestly, my stage list is every stage on except Big Blue and Brinstar Depths. Yes. I'm serious.)
# Bans per playeR: TBD
Items: You Wish (Still Off)
Individual match importance goes down when you increase the number of matches in a set. The impact of a single counterpick stage, as such, also goes down. This is the first step in helping us move away from the idea of "I only lost the set because (insert counterpick) is stupid/unfair/etc," and more towards "That counterpick/character/strategy was really good! Now its my turn, lets go to (insert counterpick/character/strategy combo)!". Players will be encouraged to have a series of strategies, even two dimensional ones, rather than the current system where players would have one strong counterpick stage that they could use as a crutch. The consistency of set outcome is maintained, as the better player can be expected to win more consistently. Long term averages (expected results) will remain the same despite short term deviation.
This also reduces accident forgiveness and increases comeback potential by increasing the importance of individual stock. This has the potential to act as a steroid on the general level of play, as SD's and mistakes in general will have a far greater impact on the outcome of the individual match than they did before, while still giving room for a 2-1 deficit to be overcome. Players will have to know what characters are good on what stages, and might need to expand their arsenal of strategies/stages/characters.
The pacing between matches will be very similar to current fighting games. It keeps the game exciting, as we see shifts in strategy much more rapidly, as well as changes in stage and character. We aren't stuck watching two dimensional play in a war of attrition.
Anyway, this is the current concept. For now, I'd like opinions on the whole thing, as well as feedback and ideas from anyone who is willing to play test. Hell, if you think I'm flat out wrong, feel free to call me out. Go wild guys.
2/8/2012 Edit:
The Two Stock Rule Set (Playtest Phase)
Super Smash Brothers: Melee (Singles and Teams)
Singles Stage List
Neutrals (5):
Yoshi's Story
Battlefield
Dreamland 64
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Counterpick (19):
Brinstar
Corneria
Green Greens
Icicle Mountain
Jungle Japes
Kongo Jungle
Mushroom Kingdom
Mute City
Onett
Princess Peach's Castle
Pokemon Stadium
Rainbow Cruise
Venom
Yoshi's Island
Flat Zone
Fourside
Kongo Jungle
Mushroom Kingdom II
Poke Floats
Rejectable (5):
Great Bay
Temple
Big Blue
Brinstar Depths
Yoshi's Island
Yoshi's Story
Battlefield
Dreamland 64
Fountain of Dreams
Final Destination
Counterpick (19):
Brinstar
Corneria
Green Greens
Icicle Mountain
Jungle Japes
Kongo Jungle
Mushroom Kingdom
Mute City
Onett
Princess Peach's Castle
Pokemon Stadium
Rainbow Cruise
Venom
Yoshi's Island
Flat Zone
Fourside
Kongo Jungle
Mushroom Kingdom II
Poke Floats
Rejectable (5):
Great Bay
Temple
Big Blue
Brinstar Depths
Yoshi's Island
Doubles Stage List
Neutrals (5):
Yoshi's Story
Battlefield
Dreamland 64
Final Destination
Pokemon Stadium
Counterpick (17):
Brinstar
Corneria
Green Greens
Icicle Mountain
Jungle Japes
Kongo Jungle
Mushroom Kingdom
Onett
Princess Peach's Castle
Rainbow Cruise
Venom
Yoshi's Island
Flat Zone
Fourside
Kongo Jungle
Mushroom Kingdom II
Poke Floats
Rejectable (5):
Great Bay
Temple
Big Blue
Brinstar Depths
Yoshi's Island
Banned(2):
Fountain of Dreams
Mute City
Yoshi's Story
Battlefield
Dreamland 64
Final Destination
Pokemon Stadium
Counterpick (17):
Brinstar
Corneria
Green Greens
Icicle Mountain
Jungle Japes
Kongo Jungle
Mushroom Kingdom
Onett
Princess Peach's Castle
Rainbow Cruise
Venom
Yoshi's Island
Flat Zone
Fourside
Kongo Jungle
Mushroom Kingdom II
Poke Floats
Rejectable (5):
Great Bay
Temple
Big Blue
Brinstar Depths
Yoshi's Island
Banned(2):
Fountain of Dreams
Mute City
General Rules
Items are set to off.
Stock is set to 2.
Time is set to 3 minutes.
Each player has 4 stage bans.
Double Blind: If elected.
Contest Port Priority: If elected.
Neutral Start: If elected.
Standard DSR
Gentleman's Clause
Forced Character Selection: Off
Matches that time out will have the winner determined by remaining number of stock, then by remaining percentage of the current stock. In the event of a percentage tie, the match should be replayed in full. Sudden Death is not to be played unless a Gentleman's Agreement is made.
Additional Rules for Teams Play
Team Attack is on.
Life Stealing is allowed.
If the game is paused accidentally while attempting to steal a stock, the opposing team may deem that stock forfeit. Wait until the announcer has finished saying defeated before pressing start, or turn pause off prior to beginning the match.
How to Play a Set
1. Players select their characters. Either player may elect to Double Blind.
2. Use Stage Striking to determine the first stage.
3. The players play the first match of the set.
4. Winning player of the preceding match bans stages (if applicable). Rejectable stages do not require bans. (I suggest opening the stage on/off screen and turning them all on, then turning off bans.)
5. The losing player of the preceding match picks a stage for the next match. The winner may reject the selected stage if it is in the Rejectable List.
6. The winning player of the previous match may choose to change characters.
7. The losing player of the preceding match may choose to change characters.
8. The losing player of the preceding match gets first pick of port. Either player may elect for a Neutral Start, but RPS will not be played to determine first pick.
9. The next match is played.
10. Repeat Steps 4 through 9 for all subsequent matches until the set is complete.
