Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Bones0]

I'm starting to lean towards the idea of 3 games, each game consisting of 3 rounds, and each round just being 1 stock each. The catch is that all rounds are played on the same stage, which can open up more possibility for adaption (which people seemed to be a bit upset about losing).

As far as the accident forgiveness goes, if the better player has fluke SD and loses the set, they weren't really the better player were they? Please think your arguments through. So much circular reasoning.

 

[Citizen Snips]

I didn't read much at all as I really only planned on making that first post today anyway. Just couldn't help, but responding to some of the reactions I received =/

So let me go back to my original post. I am thoroughly not interested in this ruleset and would probably ignore all tournaments using it.

*Snide remark referring to a fictional situation in which I overreacted to a seemingly mild change*

 

[Fernandez]

Then, by all means, start such a thread. What's stopping you?

cuz idc and I love the ruleset that were using now.

 

[Kal]

Also, to those mentioning the post about playing with three stock and six minutes: I believe that person wanted to run that to limit camping. If you scale time according to the number of stocks properly, camping will not change at high level play. Cactuar posited this ruleset with drastically different intentions, and has explained benefits outside of "people will camp less." This is why, I think, its reception is not negative. Not because of the message, but because of how it is justified.

 

[stelzig]

Not quite sure I am reading that post right, citizen, but I merely mean that I got caught up in it because so many replies went in so quickly. This is basically a chatroom right now with these posts showing up without me even having to press F5

Kal: Pretty sure he wanted it to make the matches shorter and more endurable.
I also still strongly believe that his name being cactuar has a pretty big part in the reception btw

 

[KrIsP!]

I'm starting to lean towards the idea of 3 games, each game consisting of 3 rounds, and each round just being 1 stock each. The catch is that all rounds are played on the same stage, which can open up more possibility for adaption (which people seemed to be a bit upset about losing).

As far as the accident forgiveness goes, if the better player has fluke SD and loses the set, they weren't really the better player were they? Please think your arguments through. So much circular reasoning.

If they're all played on the same stage all your doing is forcing that player who may have been playing better but died earlier the loss of a chance at coming back and taking his easy stock, nothing more, just restarting the percentage once a stock is lost. I feel like that gets us no where, we don't want to forgive accidents but turning them into a down right game-changer seems a bit much.

 

[Bones0]

So removing accident forgiveness is bad when it applies to stocks, but not when it applies to percentages? Completely arbitrary.

 

[stelzig]

As far as the accident forgiveness goes, if the better player has fluke SD and loses the set, they weren't really the better player were they? Please think your arguments through. So much circular reasoning.

Even cactuar said that it was the better player that couldn't just make a comeback, I did read that when I went glanced the post.
You went back to losing the set for it too btw? Wtf? I am talking about matches here. With more matches, he clearly still won't lose the set. That was the whole point as far as I could tell. What citizen snips told me right after anyway.

How can you... In any way... Think that a shorter battle in anything... Gives a more accurate result?

 

[Citizen Snips]

Not quite sure I am reading that post right, citizen, but I merely mean that I got caught up in it because so many replies went in so quickly. This is basically a chatroom right now with these posts showing up without me even having to press F5

Kal: Pretty sure he wanted it to make the matches shorter and more endurable.
I also still strongly believe that his name being cactuar has a pretty big part in the reception btw

Lol, I was just being an *** and referring to my response to your first post <3

 

[Bones0]

Even cactuar said that it was the better player that couldn't just make a comeback, I did read that when I went glanced the post.
You went back to losing the set for it too btw? Wtf? I am talking about matches here. With more matches, he clearly still won't lose the set. That was the whole point as far as I could tell. What citizen snips told me right after anyway.

How can you... In any way... Think that a shorter battle in anything... Gives a more accurate result?

There is a higher standard for game play being upheld because there is no accident forgiveness. Accident forgiveness is the reason there are so many fluke comebacks (Game 2 of Javi vs. PP being the most recent example). When you reduce accident forgiveness, you get less fluke victories. I thought this was all fairly straightforward.

 

[Pengie]

I love how everyone is suddenly "omg best ruleset ever <3" just because cactuar posted it. If anyone of a lesser reputation posted this, it would get torn to streads /minor gripe.

Story of my life >___>/salt

I like the idea of this ruleset gaining traction and I think it would be interesting to see how the new metagame would shift.

 

[KrIsP!]

So removing accident forgiveness is bad when it applies to stocks, but not when it applies to percentages? Completely arbitrary.

But it's not just percentage, it's the entire match. But your wering down the worth of a match by having 3 per round, 3 rounds per set? Why then would your force someone to play on the same map in every match? That's essentially the idea of having 3 stock matches except now when you die, the other player gets a percentage reset.

My questions is why force them to play the one stage, also can the loser then change chars after a match? This is my issue with your idea, it compliments first kill and nothing else.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

cuz idc and I love the ruleset that were using now.

Well, a lot of people don't like the current ruleset. There are many criticisms of it, such as:

a) Counterpicks are too powerful. Winning game 1 puts you at an enormous advantage.
b) Because of a), a much smaller stage list is necessary. Unfortunately, due to imbalances in each of the stages, its very tough to come up with a set of stages without influencing tourney results too much (ex: take off Pokemon and spacies do worse, take off FD and Marths do worse)
c) The same few stages get played in every matchup. Even if Peach/Marth is even on FoD, you rarely see it because g1 is usually on Battlefield/FD, and Marth counters Pokemon while Peach counters Dreamland. This reduces variety even more.
d) Floaty matchups have too much filler and often go to excrutiating timeout situations at high level. The 6 minutes in the middle are repetitive, and very little actually gets done in that time.
e) 4 stock matches punish low tiers by making games even harder to take
etc..

How do we know these faults exist? Because we've playtested them. Does the proposed ruleset have faults that we aren't aware of? Possibly. But Melee is a complex game.

I don't think the current ruleset is the ideal one by any means, and we should definitely try new things rather than sticking with what we know..

 

[Kal]

I have no friends, so I haven't tested this ruleset, but Cactuar tells me that it's a lot of fun playing with two stocks, to the point where playing with four feels like a chore.

 

[Bones0]

But it's not just percentage, it's the entire match. But your wering down the worth of a match by having 3 per round, 3 rounds per set? Why then would your force someone to play on the same map in every match? That's essentially the idea of having 3 stock matches except now when you die, the other player gets a percentage reset.

My questions is why force them to play the one stage, also can the loser then change chars after a match? This is my issue with your idea, it compliments first kill and nothing else.

Yes, you'd be allowed to change characters. AGAIN, using 1 stock decreases accident forgiveness, and like Cactuar said, makes comebacks much more viable because you don't just go "oh, well I'm down 2-3 stocks. I give up."

 

[Fernandez]

Story of my life >___>/salt

LMFAO

thats is pretty sad actually, why do people have to be so prejudiced or however you say it.

cactuar, if you wanna know what ppl really think about your idea read that topic.

 

[stelzig]

So removing accident forgiveness is bad when it applies to stocks, but not when it applies to percentages? Completely arbitrary.

Haha. Good one bones. I have one too. Let's start playing first hit wins, and then reset the match and start over. Let's get rid of all that accident forgiveness...

Yeah, i'm going to bed now. Depending on how crazy this topic will go over the night, I might pick it up again.

The javi thing? Now you must be trolling or something, lol. What difference would it make if javi had taken that same amount of stocks in a salty runback?

 

[Citizen Snips]

Story of my life >___>/salt

I like the idea of this ruleset gaining traction and I think it would be interesting to see how the new metagame would shift.

I'll be the first to say it: Sorry, definitely got some Cactuar bias going on there from me

However, I still disagree with both of the ideas. I'm adamant that such a large step is not a good idea, even if it turns out well. I would urge people to try out 3 stocks 6 minutes and see how it feels.

 

[Bones0]

Haha. Good one bones. I have one too. Let's start playing first hit wins, and then reset the match and start over. Let's get rid of all that accident forgiveness...

Yeah, i'm going to bed now. Depending on how crazy this topic will go over the night, I might pick it up again.

The javi thing? Now you must be trolling or something, lol. What difference would it make if javi had taken that same amount of stocks in a salty runback?

First hit wins takes a huge part of the game out, reducing the skill gap. The skill required to follow up first hits, combo efficiently, edge guard, etc. would all be removed. That is not accident forgiveness because it punishes someone LESS for sucking, not MORE.

Just because it's a "salty" run back doesn't mean it's okay for fluke wins to happen just because there's so many stocks. It's irrelevant.

 

[Kal]

You guys realize that, a priori, all rulesets are equally arbitrary, right? So arguing that one decision is arbitrary is pointless unless you have some special justification behind yours. Bones has provided one, which is that his ruleset tests similar skills to the current one but significantly reduces "accident forgiveness." Does this necessarily make it better than any other ruleset? No. But "first hit wins" clearly does not test the same set of skills.

 

[KrIsP!]

Yes, you'd be allowed to change characters. AGAIN, using 1 stock decreases accident forgiveness, and like Cactuar said, makes comebacks much more viable because you don't just go "oh, well I'm down 2-3 stocks. I give up."

Changing characters makes your idea more viable, I guess I misread or assumed that you were stuck in that situation at first. It's pretty much just playing smash more like an average competitive fighting game. I think it's an interesting idea, not sure I would like playing the game like this though. it would mean you'd have to be good with a cast of characters rather than 2 or 3(or 1) to fit the match up and the locked stage. I do like it better than what Cactuar's saying but in the end I still think such a drastic change would be hard to get used to it and I'm sure through play testings problems will occur like they would with any change(not that current rule set doesn't have it's issues). I'm currently on the fence about whether I like this or not whereas I simply don't like Cactuar's proposition.

 

[Bones0]

I'm not sure which fighter it is, but I know there are some where you HAVE to use 3 different characters, and that's all within a single match.

 

[Kal]

Marvel vs. Capcom 2.

 

[Fernandez]

Well, a lot of people don't like the current ruleset. There are many criticisms of it, such as:

a) Counterpicks are too powerful. Winning game 1 puts you at an enormous advantage.
b) Because of a), a much smaller stage list is necessary. Unfortunately, due to imbalances in each of the stages, its very tough to come up with a set of stages without influencing tourney results too much (ex: take off Pokemon and spacies do worse, take off FD and Marths do worse)
c) The same few stages get played in every matchup. Even if Peach/Marth is even on FoD, you rarely see it because g1 is usually on Battlefield/FD, and Marth counters Pokemon while Peach counters Dreamland. This reduces variety even more.
d) Floaty matchups have too much filler and often go to excrutiating timeout situations at high level. The 6 minutes in the middle are repetitive, and very little actually gets done in that time.
e) 4 stock matches punish low tiers by making games even harder to take
etc..

How do we know these faults exist? Because we've playtested them. Does the proposed ruleset have faults that we aren't aware of? Possibly. But Melee is a complex game.

I don't think the current ruleset is the ideal one by any means, and we should definitely try new things rather than sticking with what we know..

a)If this ruleset would actually be used ever(wich I doubt) counterpicks will be way more powerfull then they are with the one were using rightnow, cuz of the extreme counterpick stages (brintstar for peach/jiggs vs spacies & spacies on any large stage). this makes the first match just as or even more important then the ruleset were using right now.

b)wtf? with the ruleset in the OP counterpicks will even be even more imbalanced, the thing thats great about the ruleset were using right now is that you can only choose between the most neutral stages in the game, even if some give an small advantage to certain characters in certain matchups, it still is nowhere near as a hard counter like peach vs spacies on mute city FE.

c)Even though variety is fun to see, tournament rulesets shouldnt be there to motivate variety, but to make the matches as fair as possible, and to limit the ammount of random factors, so that the best player can win.

d) thats true, i kinda agree, but you have to realize that like 99% of the melee community doesnt play with the mindset to time some one out, in a ruleset with a 3 minute timer this will drastically change, and make the game less fun to watch and play.

e)how?

 

[Bones0]

A) There are more matches, therefore game 1 matters significantly less
B) Irrelevant
C) Variety requires more skill than doing the same thing every time
D) Did you see Apex GFs???
E) Low tiers can win 1 stock matches easier because of accident forgiveness

 

[Citizen Snips]

Haha. Good one bones. I have one too. Let's start playing first hit wins, and then reset the match and start over.

I'm confused, I thought this was Smashboards. Am I on the MvC forums?


HEYO

 

[Bones0]

lol MvC EXPOSED

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I'm not sure which fighter it is, but I know there are some where you HAVE to use 3 different characters, and that's all within a single match.

Hrmmmmmmmm

 

[Bones0]

I posted in that thread, yo.

 

[Kal]

I'm like a head trip to listen to, cause I'm only givin' you things you joke about with your friends inside the livin' room.

 

[Dan Salvato]

As far as the accident forgiveness goes, if the better player has fluke SD and loses the set, they weren't really the better player were they? Please think your arguments through. So much circular reasoning.

A player accidentally SDing is only as bad as accidentally making another mistake, just the timing is poor. For instance, if a Fox accidentally hits sideB instead of downB, he might SD or he might not SD. It's not like accidentally SDing means you're REALLY bad and accidentally making some other small mistake means you're NOT THAT bad.

In that logic, an accidental SD should NOT determine the outcome of the set; it's simply the result of a tiny input error, etc. Smash is pretty much the only fighting game where such a small mistake can lead to suicide, regardless of opponent's skill.

It should be up to the opponent to punish your mistakes.

 

[KrIsP!]

A player accidentally SDing is only as bad as accidentally making another mistake, just the timing is poor. For instance, if a Fox accidentally hits sideB instead of downB, he might SD or he might not SD. It's not like accidentally SDing means you're REALLY bad and accidentally making some other small mistake means you're NOT THAT bad.

In that logic, an accidental SD should NOT determine the outcome of the set; it's simply the result of a tiny input error, etc. Smash is pretty much the only fighting game where such a small mistake can lead to suicide, regardless of opponent's skill.

It should be up to the opponent to punish your mistakes.

Thing is rarely do people SD over making punishable mistakes. What I got from it is that bones is adding a middle man towards winning the game for lack of a better term. If you SD your one stock loss means you lose 1/3 in that round. So 1stock loss= 1 match loss, no difference. The difference comes in changing up who you play and getting a fresh chance instead of having to work of their stock when they only have say 50%. Since it's evened out you can take their stock and by doing that even out the matches and get another fresh start.

It's a good idea but I don't think it fits with smash well but I can see what he's getting at. It's not hung up on SD punishing so much as it means you either a) can easily make a comeback if you are in fact good enough or b) have to be significantly worse than the other to get farther behind since being multiple stocks behind would mean dieing multiple times in even scenarios.

 

[Fernandez]

A) There are more matches, therefore game 1 matters significantly less
B) Irrelevant
C) Variety requires more skill than doing the same thing every time
D) Did you see Apex GFs???
E) Low tiers can win 1 stock matches easier because of accident forgiveness

a) with extreme counterpicks game 1 matters just as much, if not more.
b)he brought it up
c)I hope your joking
d)yea so? read my D again
e)im pretty sure most top tiers punish most low tiers extremly hard, especially sheik, if you get grabbed once, the game is over

 

[CloneHat]

Well if there are 7 games, the counter-pick process better be fixed up. Sitting around striking stages or banning a stage after every match would be a bad idea.

Also, doesn't 2 stock increase the risk of just completely losing because of momentum/mental collapse. I understand you want to make it easier to come back, but there will be less time to adapt and reconsider your strategy, something I always enjoyed. The matches will be reduced to one-minute gimmick fights with no emphasis on endurance.

3 minutes. Do we need MORE camping?

 

[Thanos828]

Story of my life >___>/salt

LMAO

This is too funny

 

[Juggleguy]

The more that I read this, the more it sounds like a troll ruleset....

lolol

This is really interesting and would change the competitive Melee scene big time. 2 stocks might be a bit extreme though. I'd probably lean towards trying an intermediate ruleset with something like 3 stocks 6 mins bo5 before trying this.

 

[Pengie]

Well if there are 7 games, the counter-pick process better be fixed up. Sitting around striking stages or banning a stage after every match would be a bad idea.

Also, doesn't 2 stock increase the risk of just completely losing because of momentum/mental collapse. I understand you want to make it easier to come back, but there will be less time to adapt and reconsider your strategy, something I always enjoyed. The matches will be reduced to one-minute gimmick fights with no emphasis on endurance.

3 minutes. Do we need MORE camping?

I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that if this ruleset gets implemented the stages would need to be retooled, as would the counter pick system. Still, I don't imagine the stage list looking too drastically different from what we have now aside from a couple of stages like JJ or Brinstar added back.

I think that this should be part of being a better player. I mean, if you do have a mental collapse mid set do you probably weren't going to win regardless of the number of stocks. Furthermore, the extended set count should give both players ample games to figure out their opponents.

Finally, I think that the whole "less time = more camping" is a bit of a hasty conclusion. While a shorter time limit makes it easier to end a match in a time out, the lower stock count also makes gimps/zero to death extremely favorable as well. I guess it kinda boils down to whether you would like to risk becoming predictable while you stick to a two dimensional run away style or if you would like to place your faith in making a couple of difficult and risky reads with high payoffs. Also, there's nothing strictly wrong about camping; it's just a different playstyle.

 

[Blu]

I really like the points you make and would be willing to explore with new rulesets.

chars

 

[ajp_anton]

makes comebacks much more viable because you don't just go "oh, well I'm down 2-3 stocks. I give up."

If that's how you think, you don't deserve to win.

A) There are more matches, therefore game 1 matters significantly less
B) Irrelevant
C) Variety requires more skill than doing the same thing every time
D) Did you see Apex GFs???
E) Low tiers can win 1 stock matches easier because of accident forgiveness

A) Isn't game 1 supposed to be the most fair when stage striking?
C) It also requires more luck. Introducing more stages with short matches only works because they are only "half" matches, after which you can quickly go back to a neutral stage.
D) 99% of the Melee community didn't play those GFs.
E) Complete noobs can also win 1 stock matches because of accident forgiveness.

 

[MattDotZeb]

I'm willing to test this at my next tournament.