Legality Bones' Ruleset (w/ a DSR alternative)

[Cactuar]

Stage diversity isn't a factor in this scenario.

When a player loses a match, we are giving them stage selection advantage going into the next stage. Just because they lose a match on the stage they selected doesn't mean they should not get the same level of advantage they had during the prior counterpick.

Wins and losses themselves are not penalties and should not be penalties. To remove a stage from a player's list of CPs because he lost on it penalizes that player further than receiving a match loss and rewards the opponent further than receiving a match win for having defeated them there.

It seems like your message is to promote stage diversity over set fairness.

 

[Bones0]

Stage diversity isn't a factor in this scenario.

When a player loses a match, we are giving them stage selection advantage going into the next stage. Just because they lose a match on the stage they selected doesn't mean they should not get the same level of advantage they had during the prior counterpick.

Wins and losses themselves are not penalties and should not be penalties. To remove a stage from a player's list of CPs because he lost on it penalizes that player further than receiving a match loss and rewards the opponent further than receiving a match win for having defeated them there.

It seems like your message is to promote stage diversity over set fairness.

How is stage diversity not a factor? You're only going to be playing 3 stages as opposed to 5, so obviously it is a factor. If I am, relative to my opponent, much better on my second best cp, then that is something that should factor into the game. If I cp FoD and lose, realizing it wasn't my best cp after all, then I could potentially lose the set because of that stage selection. Even though I cped 2 different stages, beating my opponent on his best cp doesn't necessarily mean he will have to play his second best cp. If I cp 2 different stages and he cps the same stage twice, obviously the difficulty of the set was not balanced. Ofc we go to ridiculous lengths to ensure players' poor stage selections are evened out, but allowing players to cp their best stage twice just because their opponent wasn't sure about which stage was better seems unfair.

It's also unfair to players who are well-versed on all of the stages as opposed to a select few. Let's say Falco and Marth are evenly matched on BF. Falco is really good on Marth's PS and FD cps, but Marth is only good on Falco's DL cp and sucks really bad on FoD. Falco has no way of knowing Marth sucks on FoD, so the fact that Marth's good enough on DL to break my serve can win him the set. Falco could cp FoD game 3 instead of going back to DL, but with no way of knowing whether that's a good idea or not, he's likely to just repick DL since it's usually his best shot at winning vs. Marths. My ruleset simply forces both players to change their cp to ensure there is less guessing required about which cp to choose from. Falco doesn't have to guess whether FoD will play out better than DL, and Marth has to make sure he's in top form on PS or whatever stage he wants as a second cp. Disabling repicking of stages only serves to make the set more balanced and more fair.



Wins and losses are the very core of penalizing players in games. Points and point systems are specifically designed to keep track of achievements/goals that are met in order to reward good players and penalize bad players. If you don't view them as penalties, then what would a set entirely on FD be composed of? If a player loses game 1 on an all-FD set, they obviously get penalized for losing the game by being one game further from winning than their opponent.

There is also precedence to support wins and losses being forms of penalizing in other sports. In tennis, if you lose a point on your forehand serve, you do not get to serve again on the same side. The rules are structured so that players have to switch every time so that players with the best all-around game come out on top. If a golfer takes more strokes than his opponent on a hole that is normally in his favor, he cannot go back to that hole instead of the next one. Obviously golf has a set list of holes before the round begins, but that is what I'm trying to achieve with my ruleset. I want the 5 most evenly matched stages to be played while keeping the set relatively balanced between players. I think a format that constantly yields the same 5 stages between two opponents is much better for competition than a format that varies from 3 to 5 different stages based entirely on the order of victories.

 

[Cactuar]

It isn't a factor, as in: it isn't important. All you've done is point out that one set has more stage diversity than the other because it uses more different stages, but you haven't given a good reason as to why that is important in that scenario. You have only provided a scenario where the two players make different assumptions about their own ability based on their losses.

In your example, Player 1 is cping a stage, losing on it, making the decision that it wasn't the best choice, then picking a different stage to try his luck elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Player 2 is doing literally the exact same thing, but instead of losing confidence in his cp, he goes back to the same stage, despite losing on it.

Player 1 decided that he made a bad stage choice for his first counterpick. He lost a match because of it. It happens. You want to force Player 2 to have to select a different stage because Player 1 did, because Player 1 decided that his own first counterpick wasn't good and that he would select a different stage.

The objective is not to force every set to play on a different stage every round. It is to consistently give the player who most recently lost a slight advantage in stage selection, choosing from a pool of stages that, aside from FD, do not sway the matchups heavily.

Stages that you have won on are removed to prevent a player from simply selecting the same guaranteed win stage every round.

Stages that you counterpick, but lost on, remain because you are forced into an internal dialogue of "Was it a fluke? Is my opponent better than me there? Is it still my best chance? Would I fare better on another stage?" If you make the choice to go back to that same counterpick, you are doing so knowing that you just lost to that opponent on the stage you are selecting.

If we wanted to make every set 100% fair, we would stage strike after every match, rather than use a counterpicking system at all.

Your comparisons to Tennis and Golf are awful lol, but we can have fun with it:

Tennis is essentially a two stage game, where the TO selects one of two stages for the entire tournament to be played on. Just because you have to serve from different locations doesn't mean the field is different. Using Tennis as the example suggests that you would like the TO to say "BF only".

Trying to compare Melee to Golf gives you fun things like "lets play 3 matches, and whoever takes the most stock in those three matches wins". Even though you won game 1 and game 2 with one stock victories, I three stocked you game three, so I won the set.

If your goal is as you say, remove counterpicking completely and make every match the result of stage striking, with either player able to initiate a restrike after each game. The only way to get 5 "most evenly matched" rounds, is to make each round the result of both players saying "this is our most evenly matched stage".

 

[Bones0]

In your example, Player 1 is cping a stage, losing on it, making the decision that it wasn't the best choice, then picking a different stage to try his luck elsewhere.

Meanwhile, Player 2 is doing literally the exact same thing, but instead of losing confidence in his cp, he goes back to the same stage, despite losing on it.

I don't think a player should be expected to guess correctly as to which of his two best cps is better than the other. If I cp first and decide it wasn't the right stage for my opponent's style, I have effectively played my 2nd best cp. If my opponent happens to guess which cp is best for him but simply chokes, I don't see how it's fair that he gets to pick it again. There's simply no clear way of determining which stage will play out best for you, so rather than having players guess and force them to reevaluate after their first cp, it makes much more sense to simply force both players to change their cp so that no one gets an extra opportunity on their best stage.

As far as my analogies go, you completely missed the point of them which was not to compare them to Melee as a whole, but rather to compare them to the way wins are rewarded and the way switching "positions" is independent of the original outcome. I could make the same comparison to barlw or any game which has some sort of counterpicking system. In tennis, if you fail to capitalize on your best serving side, you lose that opportunity and have to change to test your skill at something different. Same with golf for specific holes. I don't think there's any mainstream sport where you get to "try again" at a position of your choice regardless of whether or not you lost. I think it should be the same with Melee and stage selections.

I never said to remove counterpicking and make every match the result of stage striking. I am simply trying to emulate a set stage list as accurately as possible. If we had 5 legal stages, do you still think it'd be appropriate to only play on 3 in a bo5 set? I think the vast majority of people would say to simply play all 5 stages in a bo5. It's guaranteed to test the widest range of skill possible. All my system does is ensure the 5 most fair stages are played on instead of the 3 most fair. You have more stage variety which introduces less variance as a result of players being good on only a select few stages. Winning on the same stage twice is obviously a huge flaw, but to me even being able to attempt to win on the same stage twice is bad enough when it comes to narrowing the skills needed to compete.

 

[Cactuar]

I want you to explain why you think allowing a player to play on the same stage twice is bad if they lose on that stage the first time it is used. Promoting stage diversity is not a reason that holds value.

I didn't miss the point of your analogies, I just think they were bad. You missed my point, which was that you are using sports that aren't similar enough to the scenario to mean anything.

I have other questions, but I'm going to keep it simple and ask one at a time.

 

[Bones0]

I want you to explain why you think allowing a player to play on the same stage twice is bad if they lose on that stage the first time it is used. Promoting stage diversity is not a reason that holds value.

I didn't miss the point of your analogies, I just think they were bad. You missed my point, which was that you are using sports that aren't similar enough to the scenario to mean anything.

I have other questions, but I'm going to keep it simple and ask one at a time.

I'll try and keep my reponse as simplistic as possible. I see each game as a test of both players' skills. Each stage requires a slightly different set of skills, so playing as many different stages is ideal when determining the best overall player (so long as doing so doesn't compromise fairness or equality in the set).

If a player can repick a stage, that is essentially saying that they want to retest their set of skills on that stage. That may sound fine at first since usually a player won't mind retesting skills that they've already demonstrated their superiority at, but if that's the case the opponents can agree to go back to that cp. If the opponent isn't okay going to the same stage, then allowing the player to repick a stage means they WON'T have to test their skills on one of the other available stages.

With DSR, the opponent who broke serve has no control over the opponent picking the same stage even if it was the stage they struck to. A player could quite possibly strike to BF, pick BF game 2, and pick BF game 3. I don't think any player should have to test the same set of skills in multiple games whether they have won the previous tests or not. Also, like I said earlier, this format forces players to essentially guess which stages will be the best for them. While being good at stage selection is an admiral skill, it is definitively outside the scope of "playing Melee" skill, therefore I think it's a skill we should minimize so that "Melee skill" is what truly determines the victor of a set.

 

[Cactuar]

Opinion:
I think that you value the impact of stages too highly and overestimate the differences in skills that each stage tests. The game is ultimately about you against the opponent. While stage influence is a factor, it is not and should not be a major factor. That is what has led to the removal of stages over the years.

My goal going to a tournament isn't to test my skills on all of the stages. It is to test my ability to fight my opponents. Only a small part of that overall ability is "my ability to fight on each of the stages".

Question:
Given that 5 stages will be used in a set, where stage 1 is essentially a 0 because both players agree, then each player has two CPs, one +1 and one +2, you have chosen to promote a rule that causes those +1's to be played as each player's first CP, rather than the current model which causes each +2 to be played as each player's first CP. Between two evenly matched players, the closer the stages are to being even, the higher the variation in result is, eventually reaching 50/50. Meaning, it is more likely for a set to end before reaching 5th match due to natural variation in outcome.

It seems like you are promoting the idea that you want to test skills on all stages, while promoting a ruleset that makes it more unlikely to actually play 5 matches.

Please explain why you think that 0, +1, +2 is better than 0, +2, +1.

 

[Bones0]

Opinion:
I think that you value the impact of stages too highly and overestimate the differences in skills that each stage tests. The game is ultimately about you against the opponent. While stage influence is a factor, it is not and should not be a major factor. That is what has led to the removal of stages over the years.

My goal going to a tournament isn't to test my skills on all of the stages. It is to test my ability to fight my opponents. Only a small part of that overall ability is "my ability to fight on each of the stages".

Question:
Given that 5 stages will be used in a set, where stage 1 is essentially a 0 because both players agree, then each player has two CPs, one +1 and one +2, you have chosen to promote a rule that causes those +1's to be played as each player's first CP, rather than the current model which causes each +2 to be played as each player's first CP. Between two evenly matched players, the closer the stages are to being even, the higher the variation in result is, eventually reaching 50/50. Meaning, it is more likely for a set to end before reaching 5th match due to natural variation in outcome.

It seems like you are promoting the idea that you want to test skills on all stages, while promoting a ruleset that makes it more unlikely to actually play 5 matches.

Please explain why you think that 0, +1, +2 is better than 0, +2, +1.

My rule doesn't promote playing +1s before +2s. The order of the cps is entirely dependent on what you ban. Falco can ban FD vs. Marth after winning game 1 to save playing on FD for later in the set, or he can ban PS first knowing that his opponent will take him to FD game 2. This is a great amount of control and flexibility offered to the player to cater to whatever style they play (some people like to spend hard cps adapting, others like to adapt before the hard cps). It's also offered equally to each player. Falco may want to play FD early, but if Marth doesn't want to play DL until later, they can both get what they want. I went in depth on this very topic in this post on the second page.

 

[Mahone]

bones are you going to xanadu today, sorry to clog this board up, but im too lazy for pms

also, i remember liking this ruleset for the most part so good stuff

and one thing about shortening the timer... YOU CANT DO THAT

when puffs play samuses on dreamland without camping at all its always been around 7 minutes in my experience, so it would be annoying for me personally and promote accidental timeouts haha

 

[Bones0]

bones are you going to xanadu today, sorry to clog this board up, but im too lazy for pms

also, i remember liking this ruleset for the most part so good stuff

and one thing about shortening the timer... YOU CANT DO THAT

when puffs play samuses on dreamland without camping at all its always been around 7 minutes in my experience, so it would be annoying for me personally and promote accidental timeouts haha

Yeah, DJ and I are both going. Definitely come!

 

[Cactuar]

Just so I have this clearly: You want the winner of the first round, the player who demonstrated an advantage over his opponent, to have the further advantage of getting to dictate where his opponent takes him next, so that he can have an easier time of further adapting to the player he just beat in the first round?

 

[Bones0]

Just so I have this clearly: You want the winner of the first round, the player who demonstrated an advantage over his opponent, to have the further advantage of getting to dictate where his opponent takes him next, so that he can have an easier time of further adapting to the player he just beat in the first round?

Being able to change when you play on -1 or -2 cps isn't "dictating" anything about where your opponent takes you. No matter what you ban, the second stage will not be in your favor. Also, the stage you ban will be available to your opponent later in the set regardless of what you want. It seems like you want to encourage playing on the +2 cps earlier in the set just for the sake of making more sets go to more games. What's ironic is a lot of people will probably leave the +2 cps unbanned after their first win in my ruleset anyway because most people do not want to go into game 4 or 5 with a significant stage disadvantage.

It seems weird to say a ban in my ruleset is providing "further advantage" to the winner of game 1 when that's how bans have worked since the dawn of time. I don't understand how players being able to control the order of the stages being played is relevant at all so long as players aren't counterpicking themselves and stages aren't being chosen multiple times. So long as a player has 2 stages he can consider advantageous cps, he will always have a +1 and +2 match.

 

[Cactuar]

Saying that this is how it has worked since the dawn of time is a ridiculous statement. We've only recently moved to having just 6 stages(likely to be 5 or 3 soon), and with that move we removed bans for BO5 sets completely. Bans "since the dawn of time" have been used to remove stages of greatest disadvantage to your matchup from the field of play for the course of the set. This method of banning is giving the player who won the previous match the counterpick selection, as it effectively leaves the opponent with 1 option, which is the "further advantage" that I'm speaking of. You are removing any level of real choice from the counterpicking player.

Who is "most people"?

 

[Bones0]

Saying that this is how it has worked since the dawn of time is a ridiculous statement. We've only recently moved to having just 6 stages(likely to be 5 or 3 soon), and with that move we removed bans for BO5 sets completely. Bans "since the dawn of time" have been used to remove stages of greatest disadvantage to your matchup from the field of play for the course of the set. This method of banning is giving the player who won the previous match the counterpick selection, as it effectively leaves the opponent with 1 option, which is the "further advantage" that I'm speaking of. You are removing any level of real choice from the counterpicking player.

Who is "most people"?

Yeah, we got rid of player-controlled bans, but they were replaced by banning the last stage you won on. It is effectively the same as a ban assuming players win on their cps. When M2K doesn't break serve, he only gets to play FD once per set. This isn't because he feels like trying out his second best cp. It's because FD gets banned after he wins on it. If we had manual bans instead of automatic, win-based bans, it's pretty clear that PP would ban FD after he loses on it. If you are really insistent on allowing the +2 cps first then I guess the best course of action would be to use my ruleset without bans after a player's first win. It would pretty much work the same, but that just seems confusing and unnecessary as there's nothing wrong with players preferring to play on their opponent's weaker cps first. There's no clear advantage or disadvantage to playing certain cps before others, so allowing it to be flexible ensures players of all playstyles can choose their preferred stage order instead of artificially benefitting one type of player over another for no real reason.

Unless you can explain how a 3-5-1-4-2 set is better than a 3-4-2-5-1 set, I don't see why either should be forced onto players. Some players will be more comfortable playing their opponent's best cp first, some will be more comfortable playing it second. To say that players should have to play their opponent's best cp first all the time or second all the time is arbitrary and pointless.

This is the very same criticism you had of my ruleset before I pointed out that sets can be played either way:

Please explain why you think that 0, +1, +2 is better than 0, +2, +1.

 

[Cactuar]

Replaced with is incorrect, DSR style rules have existed since before I started playing. You keep talking about allowing "players" to choose their preferred stage order, but really this only benefits the player with advantage. Player 1, who has won round 1 already. This is why I keep saying that you are giving further advantage.

Assuming there is never a "broken serve" there is no advantage or disadvantage to playing certain cps before others. In that scenario though, it doesn't matter what order is used and you essentially have no reason to be suggesting this rule in the first place. Those sets don't matter at all.

Here is a realistic scenario:

Player 1 wins R1 and bans the opponent's +2, effectively choosing to go to the opponent's +1, as the opponent has no other choice.
Player 1 has the greatest chance to win on this stage of the opponent's two stages, and if he does, he is suddenly 2:0 in the set, having won the mutually selected stage, and on the stage that he selected for R2 to be played on.
Player 1 cannot ban the opponent's +2 again, so the +2 is played, with Player 2 being at a 2:0 disadvantage. This has a serious psychological effect, as Player 2 now knows that he must win this round, and then 2 additional rounds, both on his opponent's CPs. Even though he basically gets to choose those two CPs, it will still feel like the odds are stacked against him.

I understand that this "breaks serve", but it is a likely scenario, as the +1 stages are going to be relatively close to 50/50's between even players, meaning: this will happen in nearly half of all sets.

I disagree with this because the course of the set was nearly entirely dictated by the player who won the first game.

 

[Bones0]

Replaced with is incorrect, DSR style rules have existed since before I started playing. You keep talking about allowing "players" to choose their preferred stage order, but really this only benefits the player with advantage. Player 1, who has won round 1 already. This is why I keep saying that you are giving further advantage.

Assuming there is never a "broken serve" there is no advantage or disadvantage to playing certain cps before others. In that scenario though, it doesn't matter what order is used and you essentially have no reason to be suggesting this rule in the first place. Those sets don't matter at all.

Here is a realistic scenario:

Player 1 wins R1 and bans the opponent's +2, effectively choosing to go to the opponent's +1, as the opponent has no other choice.
Player 1 has the greatest chance to win on this stage of the opponent's two stages, and if he does, he is suddenly 2:0 in the set, having won the mutually selected stage, and on the stage that he selected for R2 to be played on.
Player 1 cannot ban the opponent's +2 again, so the +2 is played, with Player 2 being at a 2:0 disadvantage. This has a serious psychological effect, as Player 2 now knows that he must win this round, and then 2 additional rounds, both on his opponent's CPs. Even though he basically gets to choose those two CPs, it will still feel like the odds are stacked against him.

I understand that this "breaks serve", but it is a likely scenario, as the +1 stages are going to be relatively close to 50/50's between even players, meaning: this will happen in nearly half of all sets.

I disagree with this because the course of the set was nearly entirely dictated by the player who won the first game.

I fail to see how the set was dictated by the player who won the first game... Not only did the player in your example lose an evenly matched stage, but they lost on a stage slightly in their favor. If they can only win on their best cp, then how do they not deserve to lose the set?

As far as the psychological aspect goes, it could just as easily go in the other direction. If P2 wins on his fairly even cp, that means P1 has to deal with the mentality of "oh gosh, he beat me on my second worst stage so he's probably going to beat me on my worst stage as well. I can't drop a game on either of my cps or I lose the set, which will be especially difficult because my +1 stage is relatively close to 50-50."

Either way, players seem way better off than they currently are with DSR's psychological aspect: "Oh, you lost on your best cp? Well you can pick it again to retry or guess if they are weaker on your other cp, but your opponent will get to play their best cp TWICE even if you win on your next stage anyway." That's MUCH more discouraging than knowing you only have to play their +2 once (which was sort of the whole point of replacing DSR).

 

[Cactuar]

I think we are at an impasse. I don't mind if my opponent is able to use their best CP a second time if they have 0 CP wins.

 

[mooki]

I just watched a video of some Japanese players doing the "Alternating Character Selection" thing you were talking about in your OP. It was in betweengames too. Just thought it was interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dISHGpZJpTA#t=231
I mean, if they can do it and assumingly have no problem with it in between games, I don't think it would be a problem when choosing that way at the start of a set.

 

[Bones0]

I just watched a video of some Japanese players doing the "Alternating Character Selection" thing you were talking about in your OP. It was in betweengames too. Just thought it was interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dISHGpZJpTA#t=231
I mean, if they can do it and assumingly have no problem with it in between games, I don't think it would be a problem when choosing that way at the start of a set.

Nice find dude, that's sick! I'm guessing they just happened to come up with the same rule themselves, but I wonder if someone actually saw this thread. lol I'm not sure if I like the idea of ACS between games for cping though. I'll have to think about it. My initial concern is that it opens up opportunities for the winner to change characters after the loser. Ofc, this is balanced by the fact that the loser can still change after the winner so it doesn't seem advantageous to either player unlike cping which provides a clear advantage to the losing player. It seems pretty fool-proof so I'd really like to add it in, but I'll run through some example sets to make sure nothing jank can happen. It'd also be nice to streamline character selection so that no one has to worry about who changes characters first and all that nonsense. You are essentially striking to the character matchup every game. I love it! :D

For those who don't feel like watching the vid to see what they did, this was how they changed their characters.

Falco vs. Sheik (they chars they used for game 1)
Falco vs. Marth
Jiggs vs. Marth
Jiggs vs. Fox

1. P2 - Sheik changed to Marth
2. P1 - Falco changed to Jiggs
3. P2 - Marth changed to Fox
4. P1 - Agreed to play Jiggs vs. Fox

Elegance personified.

 

[Kadano]

I’ll use this ruleset for the next SF I’m hosting, and I noticed this rule is missing:

- The M2K rule: By entering the tournament you agree to play your matches on the setup requested by a TO (whether it be a stream, recording, or non-recording setup).

Please include it in the “Other Rules” section!

 

[Bones0]

I’ll use this ruleset for the next SF I’m hosting, and I noticed this rule is missing:

- The M2K rule: By entering the tournament you agree to play your matches on the setup requested by a TO (whether it be a stream, recording, or non-recording setup).

Please include it in the “Other Rules” section!

I was trying to focus mainly on game-related rules. I want to leave things like how to break ties or how much freedom players have choosing setups up to the TO because that is something that will vary from tournament to tournament. Glad you are using it though. Definitely lmk how it goes and try to get the specifics of any "weird" cp situations. Also, if something is particularly confusing for players then point that out so I can make it easier to understand.

 

[RedEyesWhiteSwaggin]

Interesting ruleset, I might have to try it out. What is your reasoning for completely removing coaching? I thought the generally accepted rule in the smash community was coaching is allowed only if both players can clearly hear what is said (coaching during a match that is). I might be pulling this out of my ass lol but I like it. I think it promotes high level play/adaptation and downplays the effect of gimmicks/MU unfamiliarity.

 

[Bones0]

Interesting ruleset, I might have to try it out. What is your reasoning for completely removing coaching? I thought the generally accepted rule in the smash community was coaching is allowed only if both players can clearly hear what is said (coaching during a match that is). I might be pulling this out of my *** lol but I like it. I think it promotes high level play/adaptation and downplays the effect of gimmicks/MU unfamiliarity.

I've never heard that version of a coaching rule. Even when Apex allowed coaching mid-match, it was always the coaches whispering to their player, never saying it loud enough for the opponent to hear. The reason I'm against coaching is because it isn't a natural part of the game. The skills of adaption and gimmickry are crucial parts of being a good player. Allowing a coach to point out those things drastically reduces the skill gap because it becomes much easier to tweak the parts of your game that you need to. If your goal is to see the highest level of Melee play, then you should absolutely have coaching mid-match, but the goal of tournaments is not to put on an amazing display, it is to test skills and determine who is the best. It's not even the same game at that point, as coaching is akin to playing in slo-mo and then speeding it back up in videos. Yeah, it LOOKS more impressive, but that's only because the skill was divided almost in half between two people. The fact that the worse player could lose because he had a better coach doesn't seem at all fair or in the general spirit of a tournament, and I think the reason it has become as accepted as it has is because players know they play better when they're being coached and they want the edge. The game essentially becomes easier. I'd rather take coaching out of the equation for both players and see who can ration their focus and adaption at the optimal levels.

On a side note, coaching can have huge impacts on lower levels, so players who know top players are often given a huge advantage over those who don't. A skilled player can easily turn the tides of a set between two worse players with just a few hints. I think it'd be discouraging for a new player to lose solely because he doesn't have an experienced coach.

 

[krazyzyko]

Shine freeze should be considered stalling. That's when Fox ground blaster spams another spacie's
shine with a stock lead.

About the timer being longer it sounds pretty meh. Camping is a legit strat in any other fighting game with a reasonable timer. I even think 8 mins was ridiculous tbh.

The 2 stock rematch sounds a bit strange because we've been playing 4 stocks for many years. And by making ties more likely to happen, it makes the game change in a negative way IMO. Dragging sets to last longer doesn't sound too progressive.

Loving your stupid rule btw. And the anti-heckling sounds great.

 

[Bones0]

Shine freeze should be considered stalling. That's when Fox ground blaster spams another spacie's
shine with a stock lead.

About the timer being longer it sounds pretty meh. Camping is a legit strat in any other fighting game with a reasonable timer. I even think 8 mins was ridiculous tbh.

The 2 stock rematch sounds a bit strange because we've been playing 4 stocks for many years. And by making ties more likely to happen, it makes the game change in a negative way IMO. Dragging sets to last longer doesn't sound too progressive.

Loving your stupid rule btw. And the anti-heckling sounds great.

I meant to add that shine-lock thing a while back, actually. Thanks for reminding me.

My line of reasoning for tiebreakers was this: I don't want to make the players play another match out full because if a match goes to time, it means they played a grueling 10 minute game, and there was likely intentional clock-running. However, I also hate how percent is the current tiebreaker for time outs because it's a completely nonsensical win condition. I would say a Ganon at 70% has the upperhand over a Puff at 60%, so giving a player that is effectively losing the chance to timeout their opponent is really silly.

My compromise was I won't break ties with percent for the first timeout, and instead I'll do a quick rematch where if both players end up tied in stocks again, only then will percent break the tie. Timeouts with a 10-minute clock are going to be rare enough, and if it happens, the rematch will only be 5 extra minutes (probably less because two timeouts in a row is virtually unheard of). Ultimately, I'm not designing my tiebreaker to be spectator-friendly. I'm designing it to be as fair to the competitors as possible while still being realistic about tournament logistics. Thanks for your input.

 

[d z]

--nvm i cant read--

 

[Bones0]

--nvm i cant read--

I will read my ruleset out loud to you, if you'd like.

 

[Kadano]

- Bans are temporary and do not carry over to the next the game's stage selection.

Error spotted.

Some questions / suggestions:

1. Why KJ64? What’s wrong with PS in the teams striking list?

2. Add »- The M2K rule: By entering the tournament you agree to play your matches on the setup requested by a TO (whether it be a stream, recording, or non-recording setup).« under General Rules.

3. Maybe get rid of the Metaknight ban? I don’t think it helps with getting people to view this as a proper, serious alternative.

 

[Bones0]

Error spotted.

Some questions / suggestions:

1. Why KJ64? What’s wrong with PS in the teams striking list?

2. Add »- The M2K rule: By entering the tournament you agree to play your matches on the setup requested by a TO (whether it be a stream, recording, or non-recording setup).« under General Rules.

3. Maybe get rid of the Metaknight ban? I don’t think it helps with getting people to view this as a proper, serious alternative.

1. I exclude PS from the striking list in doubles for the same reason I do in singles (in a word: transformations). Personally, I have gone back and forth over PS's legality, but I really don't think the transformations are disruptive enough to justify a ban, especially when its merit is a unique platform setup. If we had a PS clone without transformations, there'd be little value in keeping it when we already have a normal PS. Since we don't have a PS counterpart, banning it means eliminating all of the strategies that are unique to a wide, 2-plat stage. Of the 6 stages, I think PS is probably the most controversial when it comes to banning (among people who aren't trying to balance matchups with stage bans...). I've met a good amount of people who don't necessarily dislike how PS affects their character's matchups, but simply don't like the amount of randomness present on the stage. That's way different than Falcon mains complaining about FoD or spacies complaining about FD because their character sucks on it. Removing it from the strike list because we have an extra stage is a convenient compromise, if you will.

2. That's one of the rules I would rather not specify because there may be TOs who don't care what setup a player uses or may not even care if players want to play on stream. It doesn't really need a rule anyway because if a TO tells you to play on a setup and you don't, he can still handle the situation however he wants whether there was a specific rule about it or not. It's similar to having rules about getting into physical altercations with your opponent mid-match, and I maintain a goal of keeping my ruleset as concise as possible.

3. Yeah, you're probably right. lol

 

[Kadano]

While reading the last few posts again, I realized that I asked for M2K rule inclusion twice in a row without noticing it, lol. Thanks for still taking me seriously.

So, I’ve been using this ruleset for about half a year now and I’m really happy with it. I did make some alterations, though; you can read them in this thread (open the “Melee Regelwerk” spoiler, it’s English in there. Changes from the source ruleset are yellow)

There are some issues, though. Most players don’t read the ruleset and/or just assume the old standard ruleset, where stages are banned and picked before characters. Of course I play my sets according to this (Bones’) ruleset, but it feels a bit weird to me that 80% of the sets are being played with a different ruleset than the one that is in action.

How did all of you who adopted this ruleset with this issue?

Also, some of the new rules in this ruleset are rules that I wondered why they weren’t included ever since I joined the competitive scene, so thank you for being true to your own opinions and thoughts, Bones. Especially “character before stage” is just so obviously better than the other way around imho. It’s also inconsistent to do characters first for the first match (striking) and then do stages first for every subsequent match.

Do you (or someone else) know how this is done in other fighting games? Do they ban/pick stages or characters first?

 

[SAUS]

Do you (or someone else) know how this is done in other fighting games? Do they ban/pick stages or characters first?

The closest thing for me would be an RTS, but in the RTS games I know of, no one switches races between games. In many other fighting games, all the stages are basically the same and choosing different ones doesn't matter.

 

[Bones0]

While reading the last few posts again, I realized that I asked for M2K rule inclusion twice in a row without noticing it, lol. Thanks for still taking me seriously.

So, I’ve been using this ruleset for about half a year now and I’m really happy with it. I did make some alterations, though; you can read them in this thread (open the “Melee Regelwerk” spoiler, it’s English in there. Changes from the source ruleset are yellow)

There are some issues, though. Most players don’t read the ruleset and/or just assume the old standard ruleset, where stages are banned and picked before characters. Of course I play my sets according to this (Bones’) ruleset, but it feels a bit weird to me that 80% of the sets are being played with a different ruleset than the one that is in action.

How did all of you who adopted this ruleset with this issue?

Also, some of the new rules in this ruleset are rules that I wondered why they weren’t included ever since I joined the competitive scene, so thank you for being true to your own opinions and thoughts, Bones. Especially “character before stage” is just so obviously better than the other way around imho. It’s also inconsistent to do characters first for the first match (striking) and then do stages first for every subsequent match.

Do you (or someone else) know how this is done in other fighting games? Do they ban/pick stages or characters first?

Yeah, players not being interested in trying new rulesets can be frustrating. I almost can't blame them because even if my rules are better, they only actually come into play for <1/4th of all tournament sets, probably even less. It also doesn't help that people have actually developed secondaries based on the stage-select-first rule to create specific traps, such as M2K using Marth to scare people from picking FD vs. his Sheik. Ultimately, you either have to be hosting a fairly large tournament and heavily encourage the ruleset (printing copies of the ruleset to leave at setups helps a lot) or convince people one by one that it is superior.

Like Saus said, I don't think any other FGs have relevant stage variety. Tbh, I don't think those communities are much better than Melee as far as sticking with the traditional rules goes. Afaik, FGC players aren't allowed to change characters after they win, but if you ask me, it's pretty obvious they should still be allowed to switch, they should just have to change before their opponent.

 

[Stake]

Is there a standard melee version to use?

 

[Bones0]

Is there a standard melee version to use?

I addressed that under "Other Rules":

- If there is any dispute over which version of the game is to be used, the most common version in the region is the default (NTSC 1.2 in North America; PAL in Europe).

 

[F1SHER]

Replace the rock-paper-scissors with both players choosing G&W and side-bing at the same time. Rewarding players that are good at a non-smash related skill is pointless; the first strike in a contested striking order should be left to chance. And yes, you can be good at RPS, somehow.

winning a mixup situation doesnt sound unrelated to smash to me. that being said, first to 1 rps is basically random and meaningless unless you have an established meta between you and your opponent.