Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Cactuar]

onionchowder: I don't understand why you are making that point. I said very early on that each of the three things being changed can be changed independently. I particularly pointed out stage list being independent to time+stock, as in, it needs to be adjusted after a combination of those two are already decided.

rant

Spoiler

On the counterpicking point: Having pocket characters to combat specific players, characters, or stages is a legitimate method of being a good player. PC, Azen, KDJ, M2K, Isai, Chu, Ken, etcetc all did this at one point or another. The problem with counterpicks historically has been that their status as legal has been determined by feel rather than being well thought out. Having Mute City, Brinstar, Corneria, and Green Greens is a super obvious targetting of counterpick stages for use by Peach/Jiggly and Fox/Falco. It is like they completely ignored the entire rest of the cast, and stages that affect those characters heavily were removed, regardless of how they affected anyone else in the cast. To only open up a few counterpicks just provides direct benefit to a small group of characters, and is a play at rebalancing the characters. To open up enough stages that a wide group of characters can benefit from counterpicks returns the overall hopeful outcome odds of a set back down to what they would be without our community influence element. AKA, we would end up seeing a natural tier list and a lot more creative and intelligent play as players learn to use those stages well as opposed to focusing on something gimmicky and hoping it works out.

 

[onionchowder]

You could try and analyze variance, but it becomes quite muddled. However, sans randomness, I don't think there can be any disagreement that consistency is unaffected. So, you might be able to make a case that Brinstar, Mute City, etc., can impact variance. But Rainbow Cruise, Pokéfloats, etc., seem to decidedly not impact variance at all.

I would further (though separately) argue that Brinstar, Mute City, etc., have so little randomness as to negligibly impact variance. Really, only in extreme cases do we see randomness have a significant impact on the consistency of results. Things like items-on, Icicle Mountain, and Flatzone have impact consistency quite a bit. Things like Brinstar, Mute City and Corneria, noticeably less so.

I'm not worried about variance on a particular stages: I agree that the stage effects of Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, Pokefloats etc. are all things that players can learn to play around and use. I am worried about having counterpick stages that strongly favor one player or another effecting the variance in the outcome of the set as a whole.

Let's do some math: Suppose we represent a set as decided by flipping coins. Heads represents Player 1 winning, Tails represents Player 2 winning. Suppose Player 1 is "better" than Player 2.

A Bo3 set with a large counterpick list (i.e. very strong counterpick options) is represented by three coins. The first coin has H:T odds 60:40, the second coin is 30:70, the third coin is 90:10.
(The win first 2, don't play the 3rd game effect that Bo3 sets have is consistent with this model.)

The average number of Heads is
(.6 + .3 + .9) = 1.8
This represents the % of games that P1 should win. We norm by this.

The probability of 2 or 3 Heads is
(.6 * .3 * .1) + (.6 * .7 * .9) + (.4 * .3 * .9) + (.6 * .3 * .9) = .666
This represents the chance of P1 winning the set.

A Bo3 set with a small counterpick list (i.e. weak counterpick options) is also represented by three coins, but this time with slightly different weights. The first coin is 60:40, the second coin is 50:50, the third coin is 70:30.
The average number of Heads (i.e. P1's win %) is
(.6 + .5 + .7) = 1.8

The probability of 2 or 3 Heads (i.e. P1 winning) is
(.6 * .5 * .3) + (.6 * .5 * .7) + (.4 * .5 * .7) + (.6 * .5 * .7) = .65


... Huh. So I guess my intuition was completely wrong. I was under the impression that the second case would have a higher probability of P1 winning (and thus be more consistent), but it looks like it's actually very slightly less.

I tried similar tests for player 1 being far more favored (first coin 80:20), as well as greater deviation in coin weights, and this still holds. The only questionable assumption made is norming by the win %, which I am uncertain about.

Obviously, this model ignores a lot of big stylistic issues. For example, I think strange stages tend to favor good characters over bad ones (since good characters tend to have good movement/zoning/recovery/w.e factors that might be highlighted by a strange stage). Also, in a set, we might want the matches to look similar to one another (that is, we want each stage in the set to look like the first) in order to maintain strategic uniformity and robustness. The counterpoint to both of those stances can also be argued, but ignoring complex factors such as players adapting to other players' strategies and such (a.k.a. using my mathematical model), a wide counterpick list is good.

I'm broken over whether strategic consistency/robustness or diversity of gameplay is more important.

@Cactaur -- my objection hinged on the assumption that, by the model I used up there (i.e. quantitatively i.e. objectively i.e. not some bull**** subjective "I feel like" argument that most people sling around), small stage lists were more consistent. Now I am inclined to believe differently. I am a huge fan of Rainbow Cruise, after all.

However, I'd like to point out that the stage list and time/stock factors are but not 100% independent. If the number of stocks is very small, then the size of sets must be larger, which affects the number of counterpicked stages, which affects how we would design the coutnerpick stage list. But for our purposes, it is a fair enough assumption to consider them mostly independent.

 

[Kal]

Whether consistency is more important than depth is a matter of preference. An example of a deep game with lots of luck is Poker, and there is no way to really eliminate the elements of randomness in that game. That there are deep games without randomness, like Chess, does not make Poker a worse game, by any means.

What bugs me are the players trying to eliminate small elements of randomness in the name of consistency when, in fact, these random elements have a negligible impact in the grand scheme of things. More frustrating than this, though, are players that want to eliminate stages that have no randomness at all for the same justification. Rainbow Cruise comes to mind as a stage that is unjustifiably banned in most rulesets solely because it is not stationary.

I also have some objections with the above analysis, but you've reached a conclusion I don't disagree with, so I will leave it alone.

 

[Warhawk]

I thought the rationale behind people wanting to ban cruise was more because it significantly strengthens the spacies' matchups against other characters than because its a moving stage.

 

[Kal]

It depends on who you ask. The MBR hasn't collectively explained why certain things are banned, and I don't know if they even can, since I'm not sure the decisions were made by everyone in the group for the same reasons.

 

[Bones0]

It's quite a leap to suggest the MBR is even the reason the stages were banned. Counterpicks other than PS are unheard of when playing friendlies (outside of specifically training on those stages for tourney purposes), and many players auto-ban or refuse to cp those stages even when possible.

 

[Kal]

Obviously, I meant "the MBR hasn't explained why they have banned certain things." Most rulesets will be made independent of the MBR's stance, I think. The MBR just allows for very annoying appeals to authority.

 

[Bones0]

Yeah, they haven't really explained their decisions. My line of reasoning was they didn't feel the need to go in depth with why stages were banned because most people knew the common reasons and TOs were already banning stages with the backing of those common reasons. I think the MBR would give explanations that are pretty similar with most above average smashers'.

 

[Kal]

That the "average smasher" has a scrubby justification for the exclusion of these stages is exactly why I think they should post their reasoning behind each stage. If anything comes up between people not in the MBR, they shouldn't have to resort to guessing why the MBR thinks certain stages should be banned.

Again, I don't think this is possible, since I'm sure different members of the MBR have different reasons for the bans. I'm doubtful that they agreed on a set of criteria and individually assessed each stage in relation to said criteria; most likely they took a vote or something asking whether stages should be banned. Not to suggest (necessarily) that everyone in the MBR is deciding to ban things based on preference, but we see a problem if someone says Rainbow Cruise should be banned because it moves, yet someone else says it should be banned because it gives Fox and Falco too much of an advantage.

This is all just speculation, of course. Pokemon Stadium shouldn't even be legal.

 

[Bones0]

I said "above average" for a reason. The fact that the MBR members used different criteria and still came to the same consensus of what stages should be banned just shows how FUBAR those stages really are...

Not sure why you are obsessed with sarcastically restating my opinion of PS. It's not particularly radical, and at the very least it can be appreciated that I am consistent with my criteria about stage randomness.

 

[N1c2k3]

Wish I would've seen this earlier. I don't have time to read the 80 previous pages, so if what I say has already been discussed similarly, just ignore me. Since my attention span sucks these days, I'm gonna keep it short:

I think this idea is very interesting. I would have to agree that from the onset, it appears that this ruleset definitely seems to model the speed of most traditional 2D fighters, with shorter rounds, presumably quickening the "pace" of the set. Also, it makes sense that more rounds allow for more stage counterpicking, which allow for more depth of strategy on a front from which the game traditionally has not had much at all. From the onset, both of those sound like very good ideas to me.

However, I do not think this will have a large effect on the tiers. I also, do not think it should be the aim of the community to adjust the ruleset continuously to cater to certain characters (certain can refer to any, but not a specific, number of, as it does in this case, since it seems to cater more and more to characters as you go further down the tier-list), in order to create a "balanced" playing field.

To me, one of the most balanced fighting games ever is Street Fighter III: Third Strike, due to it's parry system. Because of this universal game mechanic, it gives every character an uncounterable counter at the initial level. But even in that game, there are character strengths and weaknesses that have eventually been analyzed to create a tier-list that is relatively more agreed-upon (or not necessarily agreed-upon as much as not considered as big a factor) than say, Smash.

I am not trying to compare 3rd Strike to Smash, as they are in my opinion very different games. I'm merely stating that to a point, we need to simply take the game as it is given to us and work with what we got. Fox will be always be a better character on the screen than Pichu, no matter how many stocks one may have over the other or what stage they may be on. Personally, this has never bothered me. I really enjoy playing as Pichu, and I don't mind having to work extra hard to beat (character A) than (character B) does. If you want a better chance at winning, than you should probably use a better character.

I know this is dealing more with character balance/tiers, which from what I understand from Cactuar's first post is not the primary objective of this ruleset. I just felt that others might be thinking about this as well, and that it would be good to mention.

I think at first this type of ruleset will be very hard to come to find comfortable, much less natural. I'm by no means any less willing to try it out, though. The thing I like the most of this is the opportunity for more stages and stage counterpicking. It's something I've always felt competitive Smash lacked, and could benefit from more of.

As far as sets go, personally I like the idea of a 3-stock, 3 out of 5 set better than 2-stock, 5 out of 7.

What do you think?

 

[da K.I.D.]

Personally, I think that if one were to play 3 stock matches, your only taking away 2-3 stocks in total, and that they should still be played in 2/3 sets.

But Im more focused on a logistics angle and reducing the amount of time needed to run a ful bracket.

 

[Kal]

I said "above average" for a reason. The fact that the MBR members used different criteria and still came to the same consensus of what stages should be banned just shows how FUBAR those stages really are...

Not at all. You can come up with any criteria you want to ban anything. That you've made this point does nothing but reinforce that you really think any opinion against the stage justifies their ban. In other words, you're looking for reasons to ban them.

Seriously, just stop and look at this quote a few times. If the MBR got together and banned FD for different reasons, would that "just show how FUBAR that stage really is?"

Of course not. Because you're not desperately looking for reasons to ban FD. You have no qualms with it, as far as I know. Hey, at least you're not so scrubby that you're trying to ban chain grabs.

Not sure why you are obsessed with sarcastically restating my opinion of PS. It's not particularly radical, and at the very least it can be appreciated that I am consistent with my criteria about stage randomness.

"Obsessed" is a strong word. I found it funny, since it's so arrogantly stated. Of course, this is typical of your posts; anything anyone else says is usually deluded or some such nonsense, and anything you say has some sort of self-proclaimed "obviousness" to it.

And you're not really consistent with your stage bans. I haven't seen you argue for banning Yoshi's Story, Dreamland, or Fountain of Dreams, which all really should go according to your criteria. If consistency were something you wanted (as opposed to simply removing the stages you severely dislike), you'd be advocating a two-stage ruleset.

-snip-

That this ruleset potentially improves balance is probably just an aside from Cactuar. I don't think that is the crux of his justification. If anything, the removal of boring, eight minute attrition battles is the main justification for this ruleset, followed by (somewhat artificially) encouraging the rest of the community to try out other stages.

 

[Cactuar]

@Cactaur -- my objection hinged on the assumption that, by the model I used up there (i.e. quantitatively i.e. objectively i.e. not some bull**** subjective "I feel like" argument that most people sling around), small stage lists were more consistent. Now I am inclined to believe differently. I am a huge fan of Rainbow Cruise, after all.

However, I'd like to point out that the stage list and time/stock factors are but not 100% independent. If the number of stocks is very small, then the size of sets must be larger, which affects the number of counterpicked stages, which affects how we would design the coutnerpick stage list. But for our purposes, it is a fair enough assumption to consider them mostly independent.

Your statement has an incorrect basis. That there are more rounds than stages doesn't mean we have to change anything about the stage list. The only reason the stage list might get opened up is because the effects of a counterpick stage over 4 stock are drastically higher than in a 2 stock match. If the influence of the stages was the same between 2 and 4 stock, using more stages never would have been considered. The link between set length and stage list isn't significant. If we have fewer stages than rounds, we just implement DSRM instead of DSR or we come up with something new. *shrug*

 

[Geenareeno]

This is somewhat unrelated but, why has KJ64 fallen out of favour? All I remember is RC, Brinstar, and KJ64 not being played anymore. The MBR released a new ruleset, no? Also this arguement and debate has happened many times, but what do you guys think about: Increasing the stage pool drastically and giving players 2 or 3 bans accordingly. Seems like it would allow for more diverse stages while not letting stages having 'too much' influence on the individual match

 

[Xyzz]

KJ's been mostly banned because it's arguably pretty hard (or neigh impossible, or "sufficiently hard, so it gives too much of a advantage to the other player") for slow moving characters (say Ganondorf) to catch fast characters camping the platforms after gaining a lead.

Pink Shinobi and Smasher89 have delivered examples in the past of what can be done on the stage, though others like Kage have stated that they believe their opponents weren't playing correctly and it should not be possible to time somebody out on the stage.

edit: oh and the barrel can be a real *****, too. Sometimes the camera can't be bothered to show an area low enough to actually see it, but it is there, waiting for your up b sweetspot with marth and turns it into a barrel throw in a random direction.
But yeah, mostly promoting camping seems to be the main justification of a ban.

 

[da K.I.D.]

thats weak as hell.

anybody who gets outcamped on kj64, got outplayed.

 

[Bones0]

Everyone likes to theory bros their way around getting timed out on KJ (if you use the middle platforms like such and such, and mindgame them like such and such, you will eventually hit them). It never pans out when you're actually playing, so test it out for yourself in friendlies.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My ICs got camped out by a Puff on KJ.

It was legit.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Everyone likes to theory bros their way around getting timed out on KJ (if you use the middle platforms like such and such, and mindgame them like such and such, you will eventually hit them). It never pans out when you're actually playing, so test it out for yourself in friendlies.

I did. Thats why Im so convinced.

My ICs got camped out by a Puff on KJ.

It was legit.

ICs deserved to get camped out and timed out. That doesnt make KJ64 bannable, it just makes ICs not good enough.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You are right, maybe their massively disjointed, long-lasting uair just isn't good enough to catch a camper.

?????????????????

 

[Kal]

missing the point/10?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My ICs got camped out by a Puff on KJ.

ICs not good enough.

No points missed here.

 

[Kal]

We just can't tell if you're using this as justification for banning Kongo Jungle, or if you're just making an observation.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Oh, just an observation.

I don't think KJ should be banned, personally.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Also, in my first post about the topic i noted that the player can be at fault as well.

either ICs arent good enough, or in the pink shinobi/rockcrock example, the player got out played by someone with a riskless style.

 

[onionchowder]

Even if there are unwinnable matchups on KJ64 due to stalling, can't we still allow it and simply expect those characters with issues to ban the stage? If we're extending the stage list and giving players two stage bans, I don't see why it's a issue. Bad characters are bad and need to auto-ban certain stages in certain MUs to remain viable.

@ Cactaur -- Yeah, I realize that the set length - counterpick list effect is negligible. I was just pointing out that there is definitely some effect, even if it is trivial. I just don't like it when people speak in absolutes where there aren't absolutes at hand.

 

[Cactuar]

I speak in absolutes when the outlier points are trivial/negligible. This isn't unintentional. Spending time discussing things that don't matter is wasteful, which is why I VERY RARELY MAKE TROLL POSTS OR SAY THINGS SARCASTICALLY.

 

[DoH]

Um so I love this ruleset.

Maybe because I'm so old school Termina Bay is like my second home, but damn. So many shenanigans

 

[dontcallmeRP]

Only just heard about this ruleset, and I can't be bothered to read all 80 something pages so this has probably been said before, but...

To the point about appealing more to spectators/FGC traditionalists - while 2 stock/3 min matches themselves would most definitely appeal more to spectators, long delays between each match as players deliberate over character/stage counter picking strategies and distributing four stage bans each most certainly would not. The process takes long enough as it is with the handful of stages we use now, and I would expect the average set (and by extension tournament) to run longer under this ruleset than it would under the current one.

That being said, I would love to play in a tournament that uses this. It sounds fun as hell.

 

[InTimidator]

I haven't tried these out but, I think that the counter-pick list is way too big. With regards to th stock change, if you SD and your opponent stops trying, that's his fault.

 

[luzbwl]

When I was reading this I thought it was only about stocks and timer and I wasn't interested. But when I got to the part of the stage list I got exited. Sounds like a lot of fun to play a long set (in terms of numbers of games) in a lot of diferent stages. So how did the tests turned out?

 

[JPenJr71121]

I totally agree with increasing the counterpick list. The current list seems so arbitrary as to what's starter vs. counterpick, and to an extent, banned.

EDIT 2: Would stamina matches be a consideration? I think the rest of the FGC would be more likely to come try us out if we had something more familiar to them. Just a thought.

 

[Vulcan55]

I don't think adding stages back is necessarily a good idea. You complain that we're alienating other players but make them memorizea ****load of stages
Otherwise, very interesting

 

[andrewajt62]

I like new ideas but this sounds like an April Fools joke that's not in April. I think what we have is fine.

 

[TerryJ]

I just want to play on more stages damn it. If this is what it takes than so be it.

 

[thespymachine]

I would love more stages too, but there aren't enough stages for me that are both viable and fun to allow an expansion on the stage list.
Also, where does the logic stop the stock count at 2? Why not 3, or 1?

v-examples-v

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. (See below break)<-my addition
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.
...
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.

1] Is it the community's duty to 'balance' out the game via ruleset?

2] In relation to the whole argument (ie - less stocks, more games per set, more stages), there is still accident forgiveness because the 'better' player still has the ability to overcome the loss (of game/stock) since there are so many games to play within the set. Therefore, regardless of what 'accident forgiveness' there is, a better player will be, well, better at overcoming their mistakes than a weaker player - making this point null.

3] I agree. But do we stop at focusing the importance on 'sets' or go to the 'tournament?' In the former, more games per set would work great; in the latter, more sets per tournament would work (meaning, round robin would overtake our ruleset over double-elimination).
Basically, I'm wondering what makes you focus on sets being important over games or the tournament.

4] Subjective, but longer match favor consistency and endurance.

[I'm done now, lol]

 

[Cactuar]

This isn't something I care about justifying anymore so don't hold your breath waiting for responses.

Regardless of reasons for anything, play the game the way you want to. This got me over a hump in terms of appropriate competitive mindset, and I still use it in training, along with 4 stock and endless.

 

[thespymachine]

This isn't something I care about justifying anymore so don't hold your breath waiting for responses.

Regardless of reasons for anything, play the game the way you want to. This got me over a hump in terms of appropriate competitive mindset, and I still use it in training, along with 4 stock and endless.

Actually, I really appreciate this. Because I honestly didn't feel like going any further.

If anything, at least you got a good amount of people thinking about the ruleset.

 

[Mc.Rad]

I've actually been in an unofficial tournament for Smash4 where they did 2 stock and 4 mins to speed it up..