• 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

Kal

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
Another marvelously useful post from Bones. If we had been playing two stock from the beginning, I wonder if he would come in and ask "has given any reason behind increasing the stocks yet?"

We've provided reasons for it, and all we've asked for it some playtesting. Some people say it's too short, some say it's great. Nothing definitive (other than your extremely well-written debunking of the ruleset, which, though I feel this goes without saying, was fantastical and worth a second read) has arisen to provide real justification for choosing between the two.
 

Deadandlivin

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
77
Location
Sweden
Jiggs rest you, cya.
If you get rested in a match today you have a chanse to make a comeback. A rest or a gimp in a 2 stock match up is just to rewarding imo.

Just lower the time to 5 min instead. Make it a first to 3 sets.
What you could do is insert different timers depending on what stage you choose. Smaller stages could have a smaller timer and bigger stages a bigger timer. YS: 4 Min, FD, 6 min, DL 7 min et.c. Though this shouldn't really be necessary.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
1,126
Location
Boise, ID
NNID
dansalvato
Jiggs rest you, cya.
If you get rested in a match today you have a chanse to make a comeback. A rest or a gimp in a 2 stock match up is just to rewarding imo.
The lowered comeback chance is made up by the increased amount of matches, thus being able to play on a suitable counterpick which gives you the upper hand. This makes gimps less rewarding.

It seems everybody who argues against 2-stock matches is forgetting that each match matters much less.
 

Metal Reeper

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,285
Location
Abington PA
Ok maybe im just ****ing ******** but im just gonna say it cause this is how I see it. With this new ruleset sure matches will be shorter. But sets will be longer. The current ruleset is 4 stock best of 3. That's 12 stocks total in a set. With this new ruleset it will be 14 stocks total. So it will actually take longer. AND that's just the match time. Not even taking into consideration the time it takes to pick characters, counterpick and all that crap. Again maybe im just ****ing ******** and missing some key factor completely. But that's how I see it.
 

Cookiemonsta

Smash Ace
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
517
Location
St. Louis and Rolla, MO
The current ruleset is 4 stock best of 3. That's 12 stocks total in a set. With this new ruleset it will be 14 stocks total. So it will actually take longer. AND that's just the match time. Not even taking into consideration the time it takes to pick characters, counterpick and all that crap. .
That is a very good point. Especially when people are CPing stages. 'Matter fact, it'll take much longer to counter pick with so many to choose from in this new ruleset. Unless of course the B!+ch-*** players have it made up in there mind to CP Fox or Captain on Hyrule and running in circles the whole time.

It'll make $3000 MM's between puff and ylink shorter but that's about it.
Lol this is true.
 

Kal

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
And they should play double or nothing until we've made back the United States public debt.
 

Omni

You can't break those cuffs.
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
11,635
Location
Maryland
Seems to be a healthy thread.

Featured Topic it is.

But please try to keep the off-topic posts to a minimum.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,820
Location
Philadephia, PA
Timer Length 101: How the Timer Influences Camping.

The timer's basic purpose is to conclude a match after the determined period of time. The winner is decided by stock and %.

Without a timer, neither player is ever forced to approach the other. If a player loses the lead in any way, it has no effect on their play other than having a smaller pool of health. As such, both players can infinitely stall one another. The losing player could play hyper-defensively infinitely. The winning player has no mechanism to force the opponent into action, and the losing player also has no mechanism to force the opponent into action. This is viewed as: Infinite Time = Infinite Appeal to Stall

With a timer, there is an end point to every match BUT the timer has increasing influence on the match as the remaining pool of time decreases.

With a greater amount of time, there is less incentive for action. If either player is in a losing position, it is optimal to play defensive. The player in the lead will either not be willing to stall and approach the opponent, or will also play defensively.

Two players playing defensively leads to super-safe play on both sides, and an overall boring match.

The losing player in this situation is taking advantage of the extremely long timer not having an influence on the outcome. They are hypothetically REQUIRED to approach or lose, but this thought is not an issue, as they have a great deal of time.

The winning player in this situation is given free will on whether to approach or defend.


With a lesser amount of time, action is required. If either player is in a losing position, they must go on the offensive or they will lose. The winning player has the option to play any way they want.

While timing out is definitely more possible in this ruleset, I say that it is a good thing to have because it requires more active play. One player is pressured to the extent that they must now be the aggressor, regardless of their character or play style, or lose. The leading player is given choice.


As such, the timer must be set low enough that it acts as a force on both players, while high enough to allow for matches to conclude themselves naturally (zero stalling match). To set it too low forces reckless action, while setting it too high allows defensive play while at a disadvantage.

The timer is currently too high, as it has next to no influence on the vast majority of matches.

To those of you saying that the short timer will cause camping, you are incorrect. The short timer will definitely cause more defensive play as an intelligent response to having the lead, but it will also force the opponent to play offensively to try and take the lead, forcing more action overall.h


I have purposely not mentioned the Armada vs HBox set as an influence on this, as it really had nothing to do with it, but I'm going to discuss it briefly.

Watch the first match of Armada's YL vs HBox's Puff from Pound 5 and then watch the matches from Apex 2.

HBox going into that first match had no idea how defensively Armada's YL would be playing. As such, even when he had the lead, he still played aggressively, and ended up losing his stock over it. He didn't capitalize on his advantage because he didn't realize the impact it would have on the match.

Armada knew how he would be playing against HBox. Even when he is at a disadvantage, he repeatedly uses the same strategy because there is nothing to pressure him away from playing defensively and set up the situations in his favor, even when he is not in the lead.

Now, I actually have to criticize HBox here, but until Seibrik was coaching him, he failed to capitalize on his leads properly. Watch the matches after compared to before. Whenever Hbox had the lead in the prior matches, he continued fighting as if it meant nothing. After the coaching, whenever Hbox has the lead, he backs up significantly, forcing Armada to use his projectiles to approach, and then leaving armada with only YLink once(if) he has gained the ground successfully. This is the intended exchange of offensive and defensive roles.

The problem here though, is the time. Because of the amount of time available, Armada is under no real pressure to hit HBox, and can afford the few seconds it takes after throwing his projectiles and having no other zoning tools to run away and regain those tools before approaching again. Essentially, this gives Armada free second chances to get his setup right EVERY TIME HE MISSES. The true pressure of the clock only occurs when the match is into the last minute or so and both players are scrambling to take the lead.
 

Kal

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
People don't seem to get that, if the timer is too long, I will play hyper-defensively while not in the lead. No, this won't guarantee me a win, but there is no point in approaching when I have a time-buffer to hope the opponent blunders. If he does not blunder, then things will proceed as if I had approached from the get-go. Why then should I bother approaching when I can increase my chance of success by not approaching?
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
1,126
Location
Boise, ID
NNID
dansalvato
To those of you saying that the short timer will cause camping, you are incorrect. The short timer will definitely cause more defensive play as an intelligent response to having the lead, but it will also force the opponent to play offensively to try and take the lead, forcing more action overall.
That last sentence is a great summary. I've never in my life had a match go to time, so the clock currently means nothing to me. Also, I prefer to do the approaching, and a shorter timer would give me much more of a chance to do so when needed. (People like to be aggressive against Link, obviously.)
 

FrootLoop

Smash Lord
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
1,551
Location
Madison, WI
we're going to try this at our next local tourney with this stagelist:
singles: all stages legal EXCEPT:
Icicle Mountain
Brinstar Depths
Big Blue
Hyrule Temple

doubles: all stages legal EXCEPT:
Icicle Mountain
Brinstar Depths
Big Blue
Mute City
Venom

gonna be good.
 

Xyzz

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
2,170
Location
Gensokyan Embassy, Munich, Germany
Doubles with FoD? I implore ye to reconsinder! ;)

@Topic: I decided to arbitrarily not like stages that aren't called FoD, FD, PS, YS, DL or BF, so it's highly unlikely I will try this, until there's need to do so (:
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,820
Location
Philadephia, PA
Not including Icicle Mountain is unfortunate. The metagame has had huge advances in our ability to play on platforms, and that stage is essentially infinite platforms moving up and down. **** gets real, real fast.

Plus, characters with slow jumps don't actually suffer on that stage, contrary to what someone said earlier. When you jump, your position does not move with the stage movement, so the stage can move very quickly while you stay in place in the air.
 

Bones0

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
11,153
Location
Jarrettsville, MD
Another marvelously useful post from Bones. If we had been playing two stock from the beginning, I wonder if he would come in and ask "has given any reason behind increasing the stocks yet?"

We've provided reasons for it, and all we've asked for it some playtesting. Some people say it's too short, some say it's great. Nothing definitive (other than your extremely well-written debunking of the ruleset, which, though I feel this goes without saying, was fantastical and worth a second read) has arisen to provide real justification for choosing between the two.
If we had played 2 stocks since the beginning, a lot of people would be suggesting 4-5 stocks because it decreases variance. The better player is more likely to win, therefore the tournament carries more weight. The only reasons to decrease stocks are:

1. Logistics of finishing the tournament on time.
2. The number of stocks is excessive due to matches never being close by the time you reach the end.

Even if you take two really evenly matched players, if you put them on 99 stock someone is going to win by a significant margin because they are playing for so long. We aren't even close to this point though, which is evident from the fact that PLENTY of bracket matches still come down to last stock, and even last hit. This is why, if anything, we should be increasing to 5 stock, not decreasing to 3 or 2.
 

n1000

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
283
Location
ABQ
we're going to try this at our next local tourney with this stagelist:
singles: all stages legal EXCEPT:
Icicle Mountain
Brinstar Depths
Big Blue
Hyrule Temple

doubles: all stages legal EXCEPT:
Icicle Mountain
Brinstar Depths
Big Blue
Mute City
Venom

gonna be good.
How are you going to decide the first stage of a set?
 

n1000

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
283
Location
ABQ
Even if you take two really evenly matched players, if you put them on 99 stock someone is going to win by a significant margin because they are playing for so long.
Probabilistically speaking this is false. If we say evenly-matched means each player is as likely to take the other's stock (from even %) then we can model a 99 stock match like flipping coins until we get a total of 99 heads or 99 tails. If we accept this as a model (and I think it's pretty good for "evenly matched" players) the likelihood of close matches (the losing player taking close to 99, or however many, stocks) actually goes up as the stock count is raised.

Think of it this way, it's much more likely to "perfect" someone in a coin flipping contest if you only have to get 4 heads in a row as opposed to 99, likewise it's much more likely to get 4 heads and only 1 tails than 99 heads and only 25 tails in 5 and 124 coinflips, respectively.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,820
Location
Philadephia, PA
I recommend Gentlemen's Agreement + Hax's Rule for first stage picks.

Player 1 suggests stage.
Player 2 may accept stage, or suggest an alternate stage.
Player 1 may accept stage or suggest an alternate stage.
After each player has suggested 3 stages, if all 6 stages are declined, Battlefield will be the first stage of the set.
 

Kal

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
Bones, if they are evenly matched, how is one going to win by any significant margin? Reality: the "margin" the superior player wins by is dependent on the skill gap between the players.

I like how you've posited two reasons to decrease the stock count, as though there can't possibly be any other reason. Just as an aside, you don't "decrease stock," you decrease their count. I know this is petty, but I'm hoping this will deter you from continuing your nonsensical tirade against everything that isn't "four stock, six stages, because my scrubby opinion on how to play is the best way."

Honestly, if you want to argue for five stock, it may be better to just ask us how many fingers we have on each hand. For most of us, it's five. Better yet, ten stock. Because we have ten fingers. And our number system is base 10. It makes the most sense, really.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,820
Location
Philadephia, PA
Hey Bones, math question:

Two evenly matched players playing heads or tails.

Playing best of 7 sets.
First to 2 sets wins.

vs

Playing best of 3 sets
First to 4 sets wins.

What are the odds of either player winning in either scenario?

Which is more indicative of either player's skill?
 

n1000

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
283
Location
ABQ
On a tangentially related aside, I think we should decide things like first strike/controller slot with coin flips instead of RPS because in practice RPS isn't completely random.
 

Kal

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
I prefer "whoever sits down first gets to decide." Otherwise, both players choose a random character, higher one of the tier-list gets to choose the port. Or just do that "neutral port" bull **** Cactuar always talks about.

Also, whether RPS is random isn't really important. All we need is a fair way of deciding.
 

Xyzz

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
2,170
Location
Gensokyan Embassy, Munich, Germany
Hey Bones, math question:

Two evenly matched players playing heads or tails.

Playing best of 7 sets.
First to 2 sets wins.

vs

Playing best of 3 sets
First to 4 sets wins.

What are the odds of either player winning in either scenario?

Which is more indicative of either player's skill?
50% for each :trollface:

sorry, I guess the question was about variance, which I am too lazy to do (:
 

I R MarF

Smash Ace
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
716
Location
At my house
Not including Icicle Mountain is unfortunate. The metagame has had huge advances in our ability to play on platforms, and that stage is essentially infinite platforms moving up and down. **** gets real, real fast.

Plus, characters with slow jumps don't actually suffer on that stage, contrary to what someone said earlier. When you jump, your position does not move with the stage movement, so the stage can move very quickly while you stay in place in the air.
I respect you and all, but including stages with walk-offs like Flat zone, the mario bros stages, and icicle mountain is stupid garbage. Characters like Fox and Marth can kill opponents using these walk-offs at 0%.

Also, having the timer being as low as three minutes favors defensive play too much. This is how the match pace will go:
First person to die takes the first minute to minute and 20 seconds of the match... now the rest of the match is that player who is one stock ahead to just run away. This strategy is now viable because it is far less exhausting than running the 8 minute timer out. I'd argue that the average 4-stock match takes between 3-4:30 which is only a little bit over the amount of time possible. You need a large time overhead so its not impossible to get someone who is running away.
 

Kal

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
I like how this guy clearly hasn't read anything explaining how defensive play is not likely to be favored with this ruleset. **** reading the entire thread, or even the relevant points ("Cactuar has a wall of text on this page, I'll come back to it after stating my opinion"). Just go ahead and state your opinion. God knows we love reading the same unjustified nonsense over and over.
 

I R MarF

Smash Ace
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
716
Location
At my house
that's why we're playtesting it
Then play test it with a happy medium before you take it to an extreme. It doesn't take a genius to realize that evading after the first stock in a short 3 minute match is the most optimal strategy.
 

Kal

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
2,974
I always just tell my locals: "you guys don't like my ruleset? Convince me to change it or host your own."
 

Jonas

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
2,400
Location
Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
Icicle Mountain is potentially Falco's best stage. With the highest full hop in the game, he is always going to be above his opponent when the stage starts scrolling fast. Then he can just Dair anyone who tries to jump through the platforms.

But yeah, Super Theory Bros. sucks, it's a terrible game. I don't really like Cactuar's ruleset, but I think it should be tested before being dismissed.
 

n1000

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
283
Location
ABQ
Then play test it with a happy medium before you take it to an extreme. It doesn't take a genius to realize that evading after the first stock in a short 3 minute match is the most optimal strategy.
actually cactuar's ruleset is a happy medium. you do not want to know what he originally thought of. So we're playtesting this one okay?
 

Purpletuce

Smash Lord
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
1,316
Location
Corvallis, OR
I love this idea, except for the stage list, for a start, we need to ban all stages that have ground touching the blast zone, like flatzone or mushroom kingdom. If this idea is to try to balance things out, we do NOT need fox waveshining 0-to-death. There are also a lot of very gimmick-based stages. There should either be 8-10 (29 stages - 20 bans = 9 stages with 7 in a set) stagebans each that last the entire set, or more banned stages, possibly based on a community vote.
 

Bones0

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
11,153
Location
Jarrettsville, MD
It's hilarious everyone is nitpicking the evenly matched opponents. I guess I should have said closely matched opponents to be politcally correct (evenly matched opponents is only a theoretical idea). My point still stands though. If you have more stocks, the better player is more likely to win. If you compare to players' likelihood to win against one-another and one player is at 51% and the other is at 49%, the player with the 49% chance is much more likely to win with only 2 stocks than they are to win with 99. How is this difficult to understand?

You say I am just assuming there are only two reasons to reduce the stock count, but don't provide a third reason yourself? lol
 
Top Bottom