All Star Mode is the Key to Balancing Project M (A Tournament Ruleset) UPDATED

[frankxthexbunny]

the smarter solution is to just remove counterpicking rules entirely; you pick a character and that's the character you play for that match, if not the entire tourney

This would force everyone to play the proverbial "fox", whoever it is at the time.

 

[Bleck]

yes - and if the community decided to force a single character to be the focus of the metagame, then the developers would be able to more accurately dole out buffs and/or nerfs as needed

which is how it works in every other competitive game that's come out in the decade and a half that you nerds have been playing goddamn melee

 

[Zigludo]

the smarter solution is to just remove counterpicking rules entirely; you pick a character and that's the character you play for that match, if not the entire tourney

welp better remove bowser from the game lol

 

[CORY]

yes - and if the community decided to force a single character to be the focus of the metagame, then the developers would be able to more accurately dole out buffs and/or nerfs as needed

which is how it works in every other competitive game that's come out in the decade and a half that you nerds have been playing goddamn melee

i've seen character counterpicks in mvc3, gg, and sfiv, at the very least, so counterpicks after a loss isn't a smash only thing.

unless that's not what you were getting at.

 

[Mc.Rad]

yes - and if the community decided to force a single character to be the focus of the metagame, then the developers would be able to more accurately dole out buffs and/or nerfs as needed

which is how it works in every other competitive game that's come out in the decade and a half that you nerds have been playing goddamn melee

That's how it works in Smash 4 as well...

And don't kill me for this...

Because Diddy Kong went through this same process and they nerfed him to not make him OP

 

[frankxthexbunny]

That's how it works in Smash 4 as well...

And don't kill me for this...

Because Diddy Kong went through this same process and they nerfed him to not make him OP

well sure, but it's not exactly the most time efficient method of balancing is it? At least my ruleset attacks the problem by embracing what the game does BADLY as much as it embraces what the game does well.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

i've seen character counterpicks in mvc3, gg, and sfiv, at the very least, so counterpicks after a loss isn't a smash only thing.

unless that's not what you were getting at.

In those games you're only allowed an opportunity to counter pick/change characters at a loss. Winners have to stick to their character. In Melee/PM etc, both players can change characters in between rounds iirc.

 

[Bleck]

i've seen character counterpicks in mvc3, gg, and sfiv, at the very least, so counterpicks after a loss isn't a smash only thing.

unless that's not what you were getting at.

if anything, counterpicking isn't actually a real thing in melee because of how linear the tier list is, and the meta's too undeveloped for it to be a real thing in smash 4

I'm just talking in response to the idea that it needs to be a thing in PM

also,

In those games you're only allowed an opportunity to counter pick/change characters at a loss. Winners have to stick to their character. In Melee/PM etc, both players can change characters in between rounds iirc.

yeah, that

even if that wasn't the case, team structure in UMVC3 is usually based around filling gaps in your play, so counterpicking is usually a waste of time, which is why you rarely see anybody do it

and in SF4, counterpicking /can/ happen, but characters are significantly less unbalanced in that than they are in Smash - I'd go so far as to say that the better player always wins in SF4, whereas the best Melee Bowser in the world will routinely lose to even the scrubbiest Fox

That's how it works in Smash 4 as well...

And don't kill me for this...

Because Diddy Kong went through this same process and they nerfed him to not make him OP

I actually don't understand what you're getting at, here; Diddy being nerfed in Smash 4 was a good thing

 

[Shellfire]

Not taking a side, I just wanna pose the question: If we were to adopt all-star as a competitive standard, wouldn't someone using all 4 of the same character still put himself at risk of being countered? I don't see any horrible issue in allowing a person to go all Marth as long as he isn't broken or possessing of a disproportionate matchup spread.

 

[frankxthexbunny]

In those games you're only allowed an opportunity to counter pick/change characters at a loss. Winners have to stick to their character. In Melee/PM etc, both players can change characters in between rounds iirc.

That system would work far better in melee than it would in an idealized project M (everyone is viable)

Not taking a side, I just wanna pose the question: If we were to adopt all-star as a competitive standard, wouldn't someone using all 4 of the same character still put himself at risk of being countered? I don't see any horrible issue in allowing a person to go all Marth as long as he isn't broken or possessing of a disproportionate matchup spread.

Correct which is why I changed the rules so that you can repeat characters as much as you want. My goal is to try to find the ruleset that gives the most options to players while continuing to keep the balance tight enough to take advantage of what PM is good at. I have decided that allowing repeat characters has tis own disadvantages and so I have decided the rule set should allow it.

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

That system would work far better in melee than it would in an idealized project M (everyone is viable)



Correct which is why I changed the rules so that you can repeat characters as much as you want. My goal is to try to find the ruleset that gives the most options to players while continuing to keep the balance tight enough to take advantage of what PM is good at. I have decided that allowing repeat characters has tis own disadvantages and so I have decided the rule set should allow it.

Wouldn't that make things redundant? It defeats the purpose too, because what of both players each pick 4 of the same character?

 

[frankxthexbunny]

Wouldn't that make things redundant? It defeats the purpose too, because what of both players each pick 4 of the same character?

Explain what exactly you are saying would be redundant?

 

[AuraMaudeGone]

Explain what exactly you are saying would be redundant?

Lets say I pick 4 Sheik Stocks and you pick 4 Link Stocks. What's the point of this now? lol

 

[frankxthexbunny]

Lets say I pick 4 Sheik Stocks and you pick 4 Link Stocks. What's the point of this now? lol

Then you both made risky moves by putting all your eggs in one counterpickable basket. I can choose 4 squirtles hoping they choose 4 charmanders all day, but the safe option will always be to have a balanced team. I think having the option to solo main isn't so bad to have, as long as the game is balanced properly solo maining will be a dangerous choice against enemies who can main a whole team

 

[Zigludo]

the best Melee Bowser in the world will routinely lose to even the scrubbiest Fox

are you implying that dj's boozer will routinely lose to scrubs? because if so you seriously overestimate how imba Melee is

 

[frankxthexbunny]

are you implying that dj's boozer will routinely lose to scrubs? because if so you seriously overestimate how imba Melee is

frakking bowser mains think they matter. go back to your lava castle the adults are talking

 

[Mc.Rad]

whereas the best Melee Bowser in the world will routinely lose to even the scrubbiest Fox

A scrub fox can beat any bowser

 

[frankxthexbunny]

A scrub fox can beat any bowser

I'm pretty sure that's implied within the confines of the statement "a scrub fox can beat the best bowser"

EDIT: I have been informed this is a variation of some sort of meme. Unfortunately when I was 7 I lost the part of my brain that registers humor, irony, and the color blue in a freak sledding accident.

 

[Shellfire]

I dunno about that Bowser Fox comparison. It's not a totally unwinnable matchup, but Bowser does have to be beter by a MASSIVE margin.

 

[frankxthexbunny]

So just to ask again, for character counterpicks, assuming one was to use the all star mode rules I posted in the OP, do you think the better counterpick pattern is ABABABAB or ABBAABBA? The advantages of the first one is it's simple and quick and gives loser a marginal advantage. The advantage of the second one (a 12221 pattern) is it gives everyone an equal number of opportunities to counterpick the other but I suppose if you're not used to it it might slow the process down a little? Maybe I just need to test it.

 

[Shellfire]

It also creates a meta revolving around your stock order A character may be stronger for the final stock than the lead one.

 

[frankxthexbunny]

It also creates a meta revolving around your stock order A character may be stronger for the final stock than the lead one.

Sure, I bet that would be more of a quirk than anything, I think if I get to TO a tourney again I'll try it ABBAABBA first.

 

[Mc.Rad]

This would force everyone to play the proverbial "fox", whoever it is at the time.

Looking at the top 5 on the Rankings....

The Proverbial "Fox" are Mario, Marth, Fox, Mewtwo, Gannon, Diddy, Wolf, Snake, Ike, and Roy... so...
idk,

 

[frankxthexbunny]

Looking at the top 5 on the Rankings....

The Proverbial "Fox" are Mario, Marth, Fox, Mewtwo, Gannon, Diddy, Wolf, Snake, Ike, and Roy... so...
idk,

We'll see where it goes. I seriously doubt the list you named will end up being the top 8 in the long run, and if my ruleset carried on the concept of a top 8 would become a lot more tenuous

 

[Mc.Rad]

We'll see where it goes. I seriously doubt the list you named will end up being the top 8 in the long run, and if my ruleset carried on the concept of a top 8 would become a lot more tenuous

Me too though. With the added addition of updates, there's no way of telling if those are good for now or just good in general

 

[frankxthexbunny]

Me too though. With the added addition of updates, there's no way of telling if those are good for now or just good in general

If ASV gained traction a character will mean far less than a team in the meta, that is to say, different characters will fill different roles and a strong team will have to have certain roles filled in order to be optimal.

 

[MegaMissingno]

and in SF4, counterpicking /can/ happen, but characters are significantly less unbalanced in that than they are in Smash - I'd go so far as to say that the better player always wins in SF4, whereas the best Melee Bowser in the world will routinely lose to even the scrubbiest Fox

That has less to do with individual matchups and more to do with just the fact that Melee Bowser is a bad character overall. And it has nothing at all to do with PM, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

 

[DrinkingFood]

I've been waiting 5 days to be unbanned so my first post on the return was to tell you how absolutely terrible this idea is. Unfortunately I'm really lazy and also on mobile so I won't elaborate.

 

[frankxthexbunny]

I've been waiting 5 days to be unbanned so my first post on the return was to tell you how absolutely terrible this idea is. Unfortunately I'm really lazy and also on mobile so I won't elaborate.

well now that you've flexed your "i'm well known therefore my opinion matters with or without support" bicep, the thread is finally allowed to continue without you.

 

[Shellfire]

Regardless of reason; a ****post is a ****post.

 

[LightningDragon]

well now that you've flexed your "i'm well known therefore my opinion matters with or without support" bicep, the thread is finally allowed to continue without you.

Please don't misrepresent people who disagree with you.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Actually I said this is a terrible idea because it's legitmately terrible idea. Has nothing to do with me as a player. I suck actually, got 25th at paragon ヽ( ͡°╭͜ʖ╮͡° )ﾉ

 

[Shellfire]

Butting into a conversation just to blurt "this idea sucks" along with the expressed refusal to elaborate. That's pretty much ****posting.

 

[DrinkingFood]

Oh I know it's ****posting, but it's also correct.

 

[frankxthexbunny]

there is no effective difference between my ruleset and standard set to anyone who doesn't wish to play multiple characters in a single match. The difference isn't pronounced enough to take the quality of the rules from good/effective to terrible.

 

[LifeMakesMeLOL]

This is a bad idea.

Learn MUs for your characters instead of making some nonsensical ruleset.

 

[Rawkobo]

You mentioned something about this being done in other fighting games.

True, but those other fighters are not at all platform fighters. This would not only emphasize the matchup problem, since you don't have the ability to switch characters on the fly but you can still do it midmatch and force an opponent to have knowledge they should probably have outside of this ruleset, but also the stage problem. Because you see, characters like different stages. And while we like to say that this game has such a vast array of matchups and that they're all significant, they're also primarily stage-dependent. People would find out quickly that most teams would only be viable given a particular stagelist, and locking players into their teams forces you to have to have only neutrals for it to technically be fair. The player up in wins should still be in a position to win, after all.

Essentially, you'd be looking at making the stagelist way smaller when some people are talking about whether it should be bigger or not as-is, or what 9-10 stages we should rotate on. I'm not especially cool with that because it defeats the purpose of a lot of hard work and hurts opportunities for other characters/teams to shine.

 

[PurplishBacon]

Just going to say I support This rule-set. I know it doesn't mean much but i like variation and that is what this rule-set gives.

 

[DrinkingFood]

there is no effective difference between my ruleset and standard set to anyone who doesn't wish to play multiple characters in a single match. The difference isn't pronounced enough to take the quality of the rules from good/effective to terrible.

ok, i'll humor you and tell you why there is a difference, I assumed you would have any kind of decent tourney experience to figure it out for yourself but as usual that turns out to be not the case, an uncharacteristic assumption on my part when I could have just skipped to the part where I tell you this is terrible BECAUSE you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Player vs player adaptation happens on a character by character and matchup by matchup basis. Allowing multiple characters in one game completely redefines the skillset we decide to have tournies test, making player reading ability (the main skill tested at high-top level) much less relevant and making matchup knowledge, matchup diversity, and gameplay knowledge the primary cruxes of high-top level gameplay despite this being a level of play assumed to be passed by players at that point. Nobody wants the game to actually work out that way, at least not anybody with high level tourney experience. You are taking a supposed problem and trying to fix it with something that doesn't address the problem. The most obvious result of the polarized matchups problem is that singular mains can easily lose to other singular mains based just on character. If you allow singular mains to pick their characters 4 times in all star mode... you haven't fixed the problem. If you restrict this, you're restricting their freedom to play the characters they one in tourney. The solution to this can't be found in alternate game settings. You have to actually rework the characters. I promise, you don't have a magic solution.

And you know? Even if this were a good solution (it's not, it doesn't really help at all) maybe 1/100 top players would actually be on board with such a radical change. Contrary to your ignorant statement in the first post, just because it's not melee, doesn't mean we want completely different rules from melee. You can't respond to traditionalist arguments with anti-traditionalist arguments. Much like you don't keep something the same just because "that's the way it's always been", you don't change something for the sake of changing it. You need a reason to change something that that has benefits that outweight the detriments of changing an established precedence. Your solution does not do this as it has no significant benefits.

 

[Tiberious]

I kinda like this idea. What I would suggest, though, is now that you have a tentative ruleset in place, start using it. Take it to your local scene as a side event idea for your weekly gathering, even if you have to run it yourself. Then, refine the rules based on experience. Keep refining until you have something that works, and then promote it to side event at a larger local tournament. Try to get non-locals that come to enter, and get them involved. At that point, should it catch on, it'll start spreading.

TL;DR: Just do now. Don't try to pitch it here. Get it into the real world.