• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

ajp_anton

Smash Lord
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
1,462
Location
Stockholm
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.
Mistakes are what differentiates most players. Mango would be the best player in the world if he didn't do mistakes, but since he does them, he's not.

A mistake leading to losing a stock of 4 means you have to play better than your opponent that match to win. If you opponent doesn't do any mistakes and wins, he played better overall.
A mistake leading to losing a stock of 2 means you pretty much lost that match. Now your opponent is already in the lead. How is this helping to make mistakes matter less? They both look the same to me.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
1,126
Location
Boise, ID
NNID
dansalvato
A mistake leading to losing a stock of 4 means you have to play better than your opponent that match to win. If you opponent doesn't do any mistakes and wins, he played better overall.
A mistake leading to losing a stock of 2 means you pretty much lost that match. Now your opponent is already in the lead. How is this helping to make mistakes matter less? They both look the same to me.
A mistake that leads to stock loss can oftentimes be severe enough to result in loss of the match. Losing a match in the current ruleset is much more devastating than in the proposed ruleset. Furthermore, the subsequent match would be played on a different stage, giving the player a better chance of redemption for his mistake.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,820
Location
Philadephia, PA
I'm going to bed and haven't really read the last bunch of posts, but I'll read them tomorrow.

I just wanted to say before heading out though:

Don't forget that, regardless of ruleset, the goal is ultimately to have fun. This is just an idea for something that could be fun, even if it doesn't work competitively. Try it out. Play around. The game hasn't really gone anywhere in years, so really, why not?

I also fully realize that, if it were almost anyone else posting this, it would have been discarded immediately. I'm grateful about people having enough respect for my opinions to at least weigh something that is, quite clearly, a radical idea. Don't forget that my first priority with something like this is to have fun, not to be super serious or force my opinion on others. This is how I've been having fun recently, and it has done wonders for my motivation to play, simply because it is something new. It is a work in progress. Nothing is ever set in stone, so don't get hung up on a few details here and there. Just test it out and let me know what happens. :laugh:
 

Little England

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
3,148
Location
Purdue, W Lafayette IN Rancho Cucamonga, SoCal
I also fully realize that, if it were almost anyone else posting this, it would have been discarded immediately. I'm grateful about people having enough respect for my opinions to at least weigh something that is, quite clearly, a radical idea.
My thoughts exactly when reading the responses to this thread. I'm surprised by how many people so openly received this idea. It's a shame that the same people probably wouldn't give the average joe smasher the time of day with the exact same idea.

Having said that I would hate this as a competitive standard and would probably have a blast with it as a side event type of thing.
 

Mew2King

King of the Mews
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
11,263
Location
Cinnaminson (southwest NJ 5 min drive from Philly)
I think we should all try it out at tournaments before ditching the idea. It can only be fun. If everyone hates it we won't do it anymore, but it sounds way too fun to not experiment with. I mean come on, this game is over 10 years old, we might as well have some new FUN with it. I can only see good times being had.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,820
Location
Philadephia, PA
Beware: Mew2King just wants to pick mewtwo and take you to yoshi's island, where he will camp the right cloud indefinitely. There are videos of this gayness. Do your research. Pick Falco and laser his *** from the center.

Knowing how to counter these kinds of strategies is KEY.
 

Tesh

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
9,737
Location
TX
Wow, Melee community is down for quick matches. I'm jealous.
 

LLDL

Smash Hero
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
7,128
Hey maybe we'll try this out at Smelly Cat's thing on saturday. He's the host tho so just maybe!

Some input: 2 major problems I see are that 2 floaty matches have the possibility of going into sudden dean very often. I don't like the idea of using timeouts as a strategy.

2 stocks isn't enough to feel the other player out fully. Even though the set is extended to best of 7, sometimes the third or 4th stock in a single game is enough to fully understand your opponents train of thought. With this ruleset they could change their style/goal of play each match.
 

twizzlerj

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
349
Location
Freehold NJ
Cool idea for a side event since the game can get a little stale at times. I still like the current rules since I still need to improve before wanting to change them.
 

DanteFox

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
2,628
Location
Santa Barbara, California
I'm going to bed and haven't really read the last bunch of posts, but I'll read them tomorrow.

I just wanted to say before heading out though:

Don't forget that, regardless of ruleset, the goal is ultimately to have fun. This is just an idea for something that could be fun, even if it doesn't work competitively. Try it out. Play around. The game hasn't really gone anywhere in years, so really, why not?

I also fully realize that, if it were almost anyone else posting this, it would have been discarded immediately. I'm grateful about people having enough respect for my opinions to at least weigh something that is, quite clearly, a radical idea. Don't forget that my first priority with something like this is to have fun, not to be super serious or force my opinion on others. This is how I've been having fun recently, and it has done wonders for my motivation to play, simply because it is something new. It is a work in progress. Nothing is ever set in stone, so don't get hung up on a few details here and there. Just test it out and let me know what happens. :laugh:
You need to realize that in proposing this ruleset, you're proposing trading a ruleset with pros and cons with another ruleset with its own pros and cons.

In other words, your proposed ruleset isn't necessarily better than the current one, just better in certain aspects, and worse in others.
 

Max?

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,255
Location
Falco Bair
Oh boy, here we go.

Hmm... this buffs people with suicide kills A LOT (falco, marth, jiggs-with rest, kirby lol, etc.)...

and it makes it almost necessary to pick up a secondary with slow characters, since it will be really easy to time them out, especially with more legal stages (hyrule...)...

but neither of those things are necessarily bad imo... i wouldn't mind trying this out
Yep pretty much.

I like this set less and less the more I think about it

running pools with this....LOOOOOL. 99% time would consist of whos getting 4-0d choosing weird *** counterpicks
Yeah, pools would be a nightmare with this setup.

We should be doing swiss anyway. lolol
Why we aren't doing Swiss to begin with is beyond me.

Also, LMFAO at people who think low tiers would do good on more stages >__<.
Yeah, all these people who claim that Low tiers have "gimmicks" on small stages have no idea what they are talking about. Fox completely ruins pretty much every stage in this game, I don't care what anyone says.

With a very low timer floaty/low tier/******** stage matches would turn into one stock matches as you could take a lead and then run out the remaining clock really really easily.

And buffing time outs and crappy stages simultaneously sounds like a whole bunch of fox fox fox to me...
Yep yep yep

I know just who I want to try this on
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Should and what actually happens are two very different things. Fox and Falco should never approach and shoot lasers/run away until their opponents are up to like 130 in the regular ruleset. But we don't play that way.
You need to play PC Kip.

@cactuar

In most traditional fighters you can camp by playing defensively, but if you are running away then you are forced into a corner or to jump which most of the time is a really bad situation. Smash has more freedom when it comes to movement. Running away, especially on many stages due to platforms, becomes a viable stalling tactic. This changes the overall metagame of how matches are played in general.

At the beginning of a match the low timer encourages aggression, but because the timer is so short, that means that once you gain any solid amount of percentage lead, then you can just run away for 30 seconds to a minute and win. If you have a half lifebar advantage on your opponent in a traditional fighter and plenty of room to retreat, and there is only 10 seconds on the clock... what will you do? Any good player would go for the timeout. In smash, because you have so many movement options, on many stages they can run for much longer without risking much.

Look at it this way, the matches will have a different dynamic. It will be fight until you get ahead, then avoid the enemy for a short time. Even if you don't play like that, you will have a hard time deciding hmm... 1 min left and I'm up 80% what will I do? In a tourney match when money is on the line take a guess. The new metagame will consist of running away at the end of matches which is like... lamer than ever to be honest.

Is this the metagame that this ruleset is trying to realize? because if not then it doesn't accomplish what was originally intended and to be honest it seems a lot less competitive. AKA I compete and think for a small portion of a match (30 seconds to a minute depending on how long it takes to gain a considerable lead) and then after that I try to avoid you and run away :)

Look for the tierlist to change based off of how well a character can avoid the opponent instead of being based off of how well they are able to KO. Characters like Pika and Mewtwo etc will get a large bump. Characters who are high tier because of their ability to get KOs won't be so much better because a character's ability to keep away is much more important now. If Jiggs lands a single upthrow rest he can then just run away the whole game. Expect to see a lot more shino stalling, planking, running away. Chaingrab heavy characters... wobbling even used to stall out excessive seconds of time off the clock etc so that after a single grab, instead of just being guaranteed 1 stock, they are almost guaranteed the match due to eating up the clock in the process.
Yep yep yep

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

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.
Pretty much the best post I've seen in this thread. GG folks we can all go home.

I'm willing to test this at my next tournament.
Do it as a side event! You should do Swiss if you're feeling like doing something different
 

JPOBS

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
5,821
Location
Mos Eisley
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.
Its seriously HILARIOUS to read your thread and then read this one.

Your post only proves that this community is full of d**k riding f*****s who are fake on f**k and can't think for themselves and eat up anything a reputable player says like a revelation from on high.
 

Niko45

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,220
Location
Westchester, NY
WOW @Pengie thread vs this thread.

Smash community EXPOSED.

jpobs move to tri-state and join our crew, you seem to have it all figured out.

also LOL max you knew exactly who I was talking about
 

I.B

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
1,704
Location
Torontario
-_________-

Oh no... how dare you value a credible player's opinion over a random player's opinion...nooOooOOooo...
 

Citizen Snips

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
475
Location
Yardley PA
Cant wait to trade my 1st stock with my opponents 2nd stock. Falco DAIIIIIIIIIIIIIR
God. ****ing. Damnit.

Also, yeah, as someone who opposed Pengie's idea in that thread, I just want to say that it wasn't even like a conscious thing. Somehow hearing it from Cactuar just made me think "THAT COULD BE SMART AGREE".

On behalf of us *******, I apologize to Pengie.
 

Max?

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
2,255
Location
Falco Bair
WOW @Pengie thread vs this thread.

Smash community EXPOSED.

jpobs move to tri-state and join our crew, you seem to have it all figured out.

also LOL max you knew exactly who I was talking about
Agreed with this whole post. It's really fake that Pengie's thread was ignored, and then Cactuar comes in and everyone is on his ****. But what else is new? The smash community is trash and continues to prove it.

Jpobs is the homie. 90-10 son


And yeah Nick, it's almost as if ....
 

Metal Reeper

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,285
Location
Abington PA
Oh man....This thread is about to get LCFC'd
I love when CIIIITZEN SNIIIIPS posts because I know his real voice...and it just makes the posts instantly more important.
2 stocks is.....stupid. Everyone is gonna camp it uppppp.
Not me, i main marth.
wablam
 

Strong Badam

Super Elite
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
26,550
i tested this out a bit in friendlies... 3 stock was better imo... dunno why tho.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
1,126
Location
Boise, ID
NNID
dansalvato
I also tested this in friendlies, including a greater variety of stages. It didn't seem to detract from anything, though there were small, situational strategy shifts depending on the stock or timer. Overall, it was nice. I don't think we can come to a good conclusion until someone actually tries to break the game with this ruleset.
 

Metal Reeper

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,285
Location
Abington PA
100$ M2K is the first ^
Why does everyone want to do this? To reduce the time of sets? Wouldn't it take even more time to pick chaacters/stage/counterpick/etc?
 

FrootLoop

Smash Lord
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
1,551
Location
Madison, WI
this reminds me of a set from the big house, I think it was s2j vs a canadian fox might be wrong.
one player 3 stocked the other game 1 and then got 1 stocked games 2 and 3 and lost the set.
I remember pointing out to mundungu that the player that won the set took less stocks and still won. It made me think about how arbitrarily we decide that one player won a "point" and reset the playing field to neutral, like if the set was just 12 stocks one match then the other player would have won.

Interesting ruleset, will have to try it out.
 

Vicko

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 14, 2004
Messages
237
Location
Vegas
Leave it up to a known player to initiate a lower time limit/less stock ruleset. Good ****.
Not sure about the best of 7 option, but this could definitely help out the tourney scene, especially majors, where singles pools takes all day.
Another suggestion would be to remove Round Robin from majors and employ smaller brackets as pools as part of a larger bracket, like all other fighting game majors already do.
This was done at EVO a few years back when Melee and Brawl were part of their lineup.
 

Metal Reeper

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,285
Location
Abington PA
this reminds me of a set from the big house, I think it was s2j vs a canadian fox might be wrong.
one player 3 stocked the other game 1 and then got 1 stocked games 2 and 3 and lost the set.
I remember pointing out to mundungu that the player that won the set took less stocks and still won. It made me think about how arbitrarily we decide that one player won a "point" and reset the playing field to neutral, like if the set was just 12 stocks one match then the other player would have won.

Interesting ruleset, will have to try it out.
That would be kinda cool. Especially if like....say I 2 stocked you, then next game I play with 5 stock and you play with 4. And do that until 12 stock is done....like a crew battle.
 

TheCrimsonBlur

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
3,407
Location
LA, CA near Santa Monica
Leave it up to a known player to initiate a lower time limit/less stock ruleset. Good ****.
Not sure about the best of 7 option, but this could definitely help out the tourney scene, especially majors, where singles pools takes all day.
Another suggestion would be to remove Round Robin from majors and employ smaller brackets as pools as part of a larger bracket, like all other fighting game majors already do.
This was done at EVO a few years back when Melee and Brawl were part of their lineup.
Yeah, cause we should look to Melee at EVO as the shining example of what our tournament experience should be.

I swear, smashers lately (not just you Vicko) want to copy the FGC just for the sake of copying them. Going straight into bracket ****ing SUCKS. Anyone in the FGC could tell you that. What we do now is much better...
 

thespymachine

Smash Ace
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
830
Location
Henderson, NV
I think changing the ruleset on the reasoning of trying to be similar to the rest of the FGC is bad reasoning. Especially, since you agree that Melee is different than the rest of the FGC: "The game already feels foreign due to the difference in control, the visual appearance, and method of death (stock counters)."
Because of this I don't think it's correct to base Melee's rules off/from other fighting games.
I think it would be much more accurate to relate Melee to Sumo wrestling (like my friend Jpeg.image [Vegas Melee] has said many times to me).

However, I do agree that game and set importance definitely should be weighed in the set's favor. - be that through lower stock, shorter timer, games within set increase, and/or playable stage increase/decrease, I think it should be our goal to do so.
So, I'm all for experimentation. Without bias. Without assumptions.
 

stelzig

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
1,415
Location
Århus, Denmark
My thoughts exactly when reading the responses to this thread. I'm surprised by how many people so openly received this idea. It's a shame that the same people probably wouldn't give the average joe smasher the time of day with the exact same idea.

Having said that I would hate this as a competitive standard and would probably have a blast with it as a side event type of thing.
This I can agree with much more easily. If it is just about trying something different then fine. I don't mind playing a few FFA matches, that A vs B vs C thing or some iron mans, but that doesn't mean it has to be a new official kind of ruleset and it most likely won't last as long either. (an iron man tournament would actually be really cool, lol)

(I did not read the entire thread, too many posts and I can see others are giving the critique I also wanted to)
 

Kal

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
I can't speak for everyone else, but all Pengie mentioned in his thread was an attempt at shortening matches, which seemed to me insufficient reason for the change. Cactuar gave more reasons than "matches will be shorter." While I'm sure most people agreed with Cactuar's post because, well, he's Cactuar, many people probably saw Pengie's post as just "APEX was boring, let's fix it." Having actually discussed this with Cactuar, I'm reasonably sure that his proposal is not in the same vein.

Though for all I know he has been playing a long con, and Pengie is just an alt he's posted with 989 times, and he's going to rub the faces of all those who agree in it.

I also think it's a little silly to assume that this will necessarily lead to more camping. It might, but without further testing we can't really know. And, if it does lead to more attempts at time outs, we might just need to raise the time limit. The whole point hasn't been to suggest that this is the ruleset we should use, but instead that we should test the ruleset out and see how it works. Melee is becoming stale, and something like this is worth trying out, at the very least.
 
Top Bottom