Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Chiroz]

Still, making people have the exact same default Miis with no differences in looks or so forth period kinda defeats the purpose of why they're here to begin with. We need to have some time to both study the Miis more, and also know how well things go with Mii Fighter-allowed tournies before we just try to make it so cut and dry "it has to be exactly like this" before most of us even have gotten the game yet.

In terms of keeping standard sizes and so forth, yeah, I agree. Making sure things are fair for people in terms of what sizes and weights aren't going to make things OP for the character, or bad for people is a GOOD thing. But we shouldn't take away also their looks, outfits or so on completely. Depending on how well/easy it is to have a Mii Fighter be set up from the 3DS version to the WiiU version, and also for other obvious things, if it can be done quickly, I don't see the harm in allowing a person to enter with a unique-looking Mii, as long as it's at one of the agreed sizes and so forth.

As for custom moves, that's a whole nother can of worms, considering on one hand, there have been tournies run with them already that've done well without much issue. And on the other hand, people are worried about too much to memorize, or how it might ruin tournies, or a billion other things I've heard from pros, stream boars and everyone in-between. That kind of thing I'd say we need to wait and see, and go with whatever works best, that also is entertaining. I know most pros focus on either winning most, or getting the prize most or so forth, but for those watching, people enjoy variety, they enjoy excitement. And that seems to be getting that for them.

Either way, for me and for the tl;dr version of this post, we should wait and see instead of instantly trying to be so cut and dry completely with the Miis and so forth, but if it's easy enough to set up for both versions/not too hard to get the obvious, and custom movesets don't cause salt because of reasons, then perhaps hopefully things can work out for the Mii Fighters.....or at least, hopefully without a billion restrictions placed on what's allowed with them, just because of their very existence and so forth, or how guys like VGCBootcamp feel about them.

I agree with most of your post, but your first paragraph. Here's the problem: On the Wii U version specifically you would have to either transfer or create the Mii. This might seem like no hassle but what if a hundred people want to make Miis? Also what about every time you have to switch consoles? It's a very time consuming deed and people don't like to waste time at tournaments.

For 3DS I can see them allowing you to have your own Miis as long as they adhere to the "standard" (although I don't know how they would regulate that effectively), but for the Wii U version I kind of doubt you will have the freedom to make your own Miis on every Wii U console.

 

[ancara22]

Thus why I said it's best to wait and see how the transfere process for Mii Fighters goes for the WiiU version goes, and then go from there.

Either way, I do think if all works out in the end, I don't see there being a reason to not let them compete for the most part, as long as everything is clear on what's accepted for sizes for those wanting to main them, and after we see how they fare in a couple tournies that allow them, for just in case.

 

[keninblack]

Format: 3 Stock/8 Min for now, if it becomes an issue than 2 stock bo3.

Tourney Format:

I've always hated swiss, I've been in FG tournaments that have implemented and I honestly can't stand it. Tiebreakers are dumb and the results always because shaky and sloppy, at least with my recent experiences. Maybe they ran it wrong who knows.

Double Elim bracket all the way through for Smash though is pretty silly in terms of majors. Locals can run Double Elim thats whatever but as soon as the tournament gets numbers I think they should be round robin pools.

Round Robin Pools cut into top 32/top 16 double elim bracket is how I would do it.

1st place of the pool is put into winners.
2nd place of the pool is put into losers.

MD/VA tournaments seem to be a fan of round robin pools and they usually end up with a really good/correct balance. AS LONG as the seeding is done accordingly, but bad seeing jeopardizes EVERY format regardless.

Stages:

Starters:
FD
BF
Yoshis

CP's:
Pokemon Delfino (I forgot what its called Luminoise something, the reaally ****ing annoying camera town in the new pokemon)
OMEGA FD W/ Wall

How should stage selection work?

Im for stage striking for sure, but... this game has no stages dude.

1-1 stage striking is a terrible idea right?

Regardless, figure out a striking system, or yeah just RS the 1st match neutral.


How should stage banning work?

1 Strike.

The majority of Omega FD's should be banned EXCEPT...

One universal omega stage that is FD but has walls under the stage giving the ability to walljump under the ledge.

Make that a counterpick. Figure out which ONE Omega FD we could use for this (if they're all the same except looks than the player can choose) and ban all the Omega's that provide no wall (FD is what that is for)

-----

Equipment should be banned straight up.

Custom movesets COULD happen, the problem is they really are a complete ***** to unlock. No one (???) has gone on record to have every single one, and certainly no one has ran a tournament with anyone using custom movesets when they are capable of using every single one. At least to my knowledge.

Its too early to tell to be honest NO ONE except CT has experimented with it. It doesn't really seem to add all that much though, most of the moves are just the same **** with different properties. So you could argue, if they barely change the special move at all. What the hell's the point?

I'm like 60/40 leaning towards "No" on custom movesets but experimentation is definitely needed.

Mii's should be banned as well, I am not a fan of the lack of consistency they have. Obviously custom movesets are not gonna be all that balanced or diverse due to the lack of options you have, so it'll be like Pokemon in the sense of "O, its a Ness player, he'll run 1/2/2/3" just as an example of how it'd work I have no idea what the specials are. At least thats what I'm expecting. Mii's just seem to inconsistent to be allowed imo, BUT once again nobody is experimenting with them in a competitive environment at least from what I can tell.

 

[infomon]

I understand that Mii's might have very little difference in weight or size but the problem comes from not knowing. Players should have all the information available always, or at least they want to (in this game), and not being able to know if your Mii's height is 40% or 60% of the max will probably not be allowed.

If you want to know your opponent's Mii's stats, go look at their stats. If that's too cumbersome / time-consuming for a tournament, then we might need to define some standard Mii's. But if you're able to see the stats then there's no problem.

Honestly, I don't know why that should even be required. Is the Mii's height/weight visible during the match? If yes, then great, that's all the indication you should need. Even if you can't tell, I'm not sure why we're so defensive of players having perfect information going into the match.

Edit:

Im for stage striking for sure, but... this game has no stages dude.

Maybe because you banned them all? Was that really necessary? Could you please justify your reasons for the bans in one of the stage legality threads? We're so early into this game I consider excessive stage-bans to be questionable.

 

[Conda]

Maybe because you banned them all? Was that really necessary? Could you please justify your reasons for the bans in one of the stage legality threads? We're so early into this game I consider excessive stage-bans to be questionable.

Almost all of the stages are hazardous or unfitting for competitive play. The 3ds version is designed to the 'quick wifi free for all fun' version, with most stages being designed for Smash Rush play and such.

 

[infomon]

I'm preeetty sure I'll agree once I've had ample time to explore the new stages, but it would be really nice to have some real public analysis of the stages so we can all get on the same page. keninblack's stage list was much smaller than some of the other ones that people have suggested, so there seems to be a lot of grey area.

 

[keninblack]

I'm pretty bias because for me the less stages the better imo, but from what i've gathered the 3DS version is reaally lacking in stages that you can play on. Too many have random/unfair elements that play too much of a part in the gameplay while some by design just are frustrating (the mii one thats the house I forgot the name)

I don't see anything wrong with only having 3-5 stages though but thats just me probably. You can already vividly tell that the WiiU version is going to have far more legal stages, and probably just more stages in general since its console.

 

[Greave]

I think custom specials should totally be tourney-legal, but the players should be able to know the opponent's customs before the match begins. The issue of having to unlock them all on the Wii U shouldn't be too great. I can't imagine it would take more time than unlocking Toon Link / Jig / Wolf in Brawl.

It would be awesome not only being able to ask "who's your main," but also "what's your build."

 

[LiL.Will]

Is it me or does two stocks 5 mins vs 3 stocks 8 mins not seem to make a huge difference? With three stocks the game went a wee bit longer and thanks to Thinkaman's thread I seem to not be the only one feeling that way the only reason im leaning towards 2 stocks is to try and get the attetnion of any future "For Glory players" to smashboards and other competitive smash sites.

 

[The Slayer]

CP's:
Pokemon Delfino (I forgot what its called Luminoise something, the reaally ****ing annoying camera town in the new pokemon)

It's called Prism Tower and the city is actually called Lumiose City. Just for future reference.

 

[<π]

Even if we do go with 3 stock, 8 minutes pure game time the longest set we can have is 24 minutes.
2 stock best of 5 the longest we can have, pure game time, is 25 minutes.

With 3s8m/bo3, 2 eight minute wins is 16 minutes
with 2s5m/bo5, 3 five minute wins is 15 miniutes.

There honestly isn't much difference there on either end of the spectrum. But if I had to choose I'd go with 3 stock, fewer games total (so less set up time between games), and in my opinion it makes for more dramatic matches.

@ Gea was arguing that the community believes that wins by timeout are not an accurate measure of skill. While I do not believe that is true, our rulesets have definitely been set up in a way that really discourages those win conditions. By sacraficing that idea we can kill two birds with one stone, best of three with a shorter time limit very well may encourage some match ups to go to time, but at the end of the day we will shorter matches that end in a much smaller window of time.

Using those same examples
3s5m/bo3: longest possible set is 15 minutes (or 18 with 6 minutes)
3s5m/bo3: 2 5 minute matches is 10 minutes (or 12 with 6 minutes)

If you check out Thinkaman 's thread you'll notice the average match time for 3 stock is about 4 and a half minutes. There is absolutely no reason to try and force the game to be aggressive with a ridiculously long time limit. I would even argue that a shorter time limit will actually force more conflict more frequently than a longer one. I would also argue that it makes sets more fun to watch because time would be treated as a meaningful factor instead of an annoyance. So instead of "ug... its is gonna go to time?" its more like "woah! It is down to the wire!"


Bit of a tangent here... but what the community wants and doesn't want is important... but we, as a community, don't look at the grand scheme. What are our goals with a competitive ruleset? I think that needs to be the question we ask as a community before we get too deep into trying to fix scores of different issues.

For example. My biggest goal with a rule set is to encourage new players to join the scene. (I believe a broader ruleset makes for more players)
For others the lead goal is shorter tournaments (2s/3m/bo3), or the least random(FD only), or sponsor support, or flashier game play, or whatever.

 

[Gea]

@ Gea was arguing that the community believes that wins by timeout are not an accurate measure of skill. While I do not believe that is true, our rulesets have definitely been set up in a way that really discourages those win conditions.

Are you saying that you personally believe that timeout wins by percent are accurate reflections of skill, or that you believe the community thinks timeouts to be accurate reflections of skill? Timeouts aren't very popular. I wouldn't say people think they are straight up illegitimate, but I would say that people view them as less valid/accurate as a game that ends by stock decision. Because of this attitude, I really don't think anyone would ever advocate 3 stock 5 minutes.

 

[<π]

Are you saying that you personally believe that timeout wins by percent are accurate reflections of skill, or that you believe the community thinks timeouts to be accurate reflections of skill? Timeouts aren't very popular. I wouldn't say people think they are straight up illegitimate, but I would say that people view them as less valid/accurate as a game that ends by stock decision. Because of this attitude, I really don't think anyone would ever advocate 3 stock 5 minutes.

Yeah... I knew when I hit enter that I could have worded that better. I understand why that's confusing.
I think as of right now the community does not want to see time outs but I personally believe that is a problem that is holding us back in a lot of ways.

 

[infomon]

@ <π I'd like to know why you think we should be more accepting of timeouts.

I think there's a good reason to avoid timeouts, and it's the reason we play stock matches instead of time matches (the default). Competing for stocks provides more information about which player is better. Suppose two players of near-equal skill. The early % or stock lead provides some information about who's better, but with larger variance than an entire game. But in a time-battle, the closer you are to the timer, the player ahead in stock or % has a larger and larger advantage over the opponent. So what was previously a small amount of information about which player is better, becomes a very dominant proportion of the total information we get out of the match.

Whereas if you're playing for stock / time-limit is higher, the advantage you get for running away is lower, so there's more imperative for you to enter the fray and fight. With the players on less uneven footing, individual trades can be considered as more "neutral", i.e. shedding more light on who's actually better.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

@ <π I'd like to know why you think we should be more accepting of timeouts.

I think there's a good reason to avoid timeouts, and it's the reason we play stock matches instead of time matches (the default). Competing for stocks provides more information about which player is better. Suppose two players of near-equal skill. The early % or stock lead provides some information about who's better, but with larger variance than an entire game. But in a time-battle, the closer you are to the timer, the player ahead in stock or % has a larger and larger advantage over the opponent. So what was previously a small amount of information about which player is better, becomes a very dominant proportion of the total information we get out of the match.

Whereas if you're playing for stock / time-limit is higher, the advantage you get for running away is lower, so there's more imperative for you to enter the fray and fight. With the players on less uneven footing, individual trades can be considered as more "neutral", i.e. shedding more light on who's actually better.

While I can't speak for LessThanPi (seriously how are you supposed to type that), I wanted to put in my two cents. I also want to note that I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here.

While obtaining an early stock or percent lead is a very short term measure of skill that can be overcome, maintaining that lead over the entire timer is a skill I believe can be worthy of recognition, at which point the only remaining barrier is how interesting such a match is to play and watch. Even Duck Hunt v. Rob is still pretty interesting to watch, despite being one of the campiest matchups I've seen in this game so far. I would also argue that in the event such a character is faced with an initial stock deficit, being able to come back from such a deficit and then transition to victory by timeout is an even greater indicator of skill since it demonstrates both styles of play in a single player/character. Again, it should ideally be interesting to play and watch in any event instead of devolving into a literal standoff, but for now at least that doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

[Noa.]

The thing about timeouts is that they tend to lead non interactive gameplay. Camping and defensive play is fine and somewhat enjoyable to watch and take part in. However timeouts are not about playing defensively and not approaching, it's about running away from your opponent and avoiding any interaction. It's interesting to watch someone punish an approach, and not as fun to watch someone run away for two minutes. Timeouts in brawl were especially common with Wario because he was so difficult to catch and damage. While timeouts are a part of the competitive scene, I don't think it would be wise to incentivize players to run away from each other to force time outs.

 

[Greave]

Short timers are well accepted in the Street Fighter community, right? So the whole "get a lead then run away" aspect isn't considered degenerate. I can't imagine our fighting game community would feel THAT different about it.

Perhaps our community dislikes timeouts because tourney rules usually contradict the in-game rules. Sure, we turn all items off and never play Free For Alls and ban some of the stages that are "supposed" to be played on. But having the results screen not actually correspond to the match's result might not sit right with a lot of people, on a subconscious level. It's unavoidable since sudden death sucks (obv), but a longer timer mitigates that by making it rarer.

 

[Noa.]

The existence of platforms in smash make it substantially easier to run away from your opponent and completely avoid them for long periods of time.

 

[Morbi]

Short timers are well accepted in the Street Fighter community, right? So the whole "get a lead then run away" aspect isn't considered degenerate. I can't imagine our fighting game community would feel THAT different about it.

Perhaps our community dislikes timeouts because tourney rules usually contradict the in-game rules. Sure, we turn all items off and never play Free For Alls and ban some of the stages that are "supposed" to be played on. But having the results screen not actually correspond to the match's result might not sit right with a lot of people. It's unavoidable since sudden death sucks (obv), but a longer timer mitigates that by making it rarer.

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. However, I would certainly argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with a timer.

 

[Greave]

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

Rood.

 

[<π]

@ <π I'd like to know why you think we should be more accepting of timeouts.

I think there's a good reason to avoid timeouts, and it's the reason we play stock matches instead of time matches (the default). Competing for stocks provides more information about which player is better. Suppose two players of near-equal skill. The early % or stock lead provides some information about who's better, but with larger variance than an entire game. But in a time-battle, the closer you are to the timer, the player ahead in stock or % has a larger and larger advantage over the opponent. So what was previously a small amount of information about which player is better, becomes a very dominant proportion of the total information we get out of the match.

Whereas if you're playing for stock / time-limit is higher, the advantage you get for running away is lower, so there's more imperative for you to enter the fray and fight. With the players on less uneven footing, individual trades can be considered as more "neutral", i.e. shedding more light on who's actually better.

Time outs are already a part of the game... they have to be.

I've said this somewhere before but there will always be characters or player styles that are better at, or perfer camping. Duck Hunt and villager come to mind now as characters who set up a really solid camp but lack great kill options. They don't seek out kills they wait till a kill happens, thats how they play the game.
Players like M2K have no issue with holding a lead through planking or options like sheik's ledge stalling in melee. (fortunately we don't really have anything like this in the new game) Because these are winning options.

With time limits as extreme as they are now players and character who have this win option will just draw the game out until they have no option but to approach for a kill. Before I've used an example I'm sure everyone has seen. in Pokemon stadium in melee (and brawl, but less so) the fire or earth stage pops up and most of the time no one is willing to approach, Usually there is no reason to because of high risk, unless time is low then, people are much more willing to take that risk. Right now I believe that happens constantly, though to a lesser degree, with our current ruleset. There is no pressure to approach when there isn't an advantage and that can artificially make matches last longer, shorter time limits encourage players to interact more frequently in order to maintain and grow a lead, or come back from a deficit.

I also believe that timeouts as a meaningful option actually make the matches more fun to watch for two reasons. Time becomes meaningful and engaging instead of an after thought, and since the match is shorter it holds attention longer viewers don't get bored because the match because they spend much less time on it.

 

[<π]

The thing about timeouts is that they tend to lead non interactive gameplay. Camping and defensive play is fine and somewhat enjoyable to watch and take part in. However timeouts are not about playing defensively and not approaching, it's about running away from your opponent and avoiding any interaction. It's interesting to watch someone punish an approach, and not as fun to watch someone run away for two minutes. Timeouts in brawl were especially common with Wario because he was so difficult to catch and damage. While timeouts are a part of the competitive scene, I don't think it would be wise to incentivize players to run away from each other to force time outs.

I think that was true in brawl but look at Smash4; Wario got hit hard in the air mobility department which makes HIS are camp game harder. Ledge stalling is gone, glide stalling is gone. Projectile camping is much more of a commitment now with super powerful options like the spacies short hop lazer spam getting clipped giving melee fighters a realistic way to get in a punish projectile guys.
There are a lot more counters, reflectors, and super armored approaches that beat projectile camping as well. Plus if you don't just go flat plat projectile camping becomes a much more difficult option as well.

 

[Conda]

I think that was true in brawl but look at Smash4; Wario got hit hard in the air mobility department which makes HIS are camp game harder. Ledge stalling is gone, glide stalling is gone. Projectile camping is much more of a commitment now with super powerful options like the spacies short hop lazer spam getting clipped giving melee fighters a realistic way to get in a punish projectile guys.
There are a lot more counters, reflectors, and super armored approaches that beat projectile camping as well. Plus if you don't just go flat plat projectile camping becomes a much more difficult option as well.

It's yet to see if camping will go down, but I'm sure it will.

You couldn't counter camping in Brawl for reasons that are remedied in Smash 4.

If we feel camping has the same presence in Smash 4 just because we have a lot of projectile characters - that's not what made camping a problem in Brawl. It was lack of hitstun and the strength of shields, which made approaching campers not worth the risk, because you'd only get one hit off, or they'd shield and move away, and then you'd be back at square one.

Smash 4 already prevents that from happening due to removing/tweaking the game mechanics that caused those problems. Smash 4 is much more aggressive, because it's worth the risk now. And that means projectile camping and "winning by running away and shooting" will not be nearly as safe or difficult to interrupt.

I think a shorter time limit may work fine, just as a way of trickling-down the game speed (kind of like how you start playing much faster/focused in Mario games once the timer hits 99 and the music speeds up).

You don't want to timer to hit 0. If you are ahead and will win, the opponent should be able to approach and begin a combo or string on you - this game makes that a thing, so part of the required skill you need to have is that. And this may strengthen comboing characters in the metagame - which is a good thing, and will give the camping-designed characters like DHD and TLink some opposition.

And that's only if it's frequent to see players playing keepaway when they're ahead in % to win by time. That 'keepaway' style will not be as strong, because offensive options are more powerful in Smash 4, and you can be punished greatly this time around.

 

[Noa.]

Again, I don't really have any problems with camping and throwing projectiles. I just don't want to entice players to running away with a percent lead the whole match. That wasn't too common a thing in brawl but it could happen with wario and mk. But perhaps that style of play has been nerfed enough where I don't to worry about it. Maybe the clock could be lowered. 3 stocks 7 minutes would be fine. 6 minutes is a little shorter than I would be comfortable with but I can't deny that a shorter timer does put the pressure on some players to be more aggressive.

 

[<π]

Yeah and that's the other thing...

I define camping and stalling as two different things. Stalling is when you have no player interaction and/or zero risk situations. We have seen many instances if it previous smash games. Ledge stalling, planking, Dimentional Cape Glitch, peach's floating on Kongo Jungle in melee, wario's air stalling in brawl. Rising pound, peach bomber, freeze glitches, excessive chain grabbing. There were also examples of projectile camping that just have way to much power and bordered on stalling like falco's lazer camp + illusion when pressure in applied on a lot of stages (all of the flat plat stages............) for a lot of the cast there is really no way to combat that if it is done well. When you are stalling your opponent can not interact with you at all.

When you are camping there is player interaction. Your opponent has to maneuver through or overcome something to get to you be that a wall of projectiles, a powerful zoning game, or just an advantageous position on stage, and with smash 4 there are a lot more ways to do that. Reflectors, "gap closers", very good counters that can all punish projectiles on reaction. Most of the aerial stall mechanics have been cut too. Gliding is gone, rising pound was hit hard. Aerial mobility has been cut by a lot unless you are making big frame commitments (b reversals) and fall speeds have increased forcing players to be grounded more often. Most projectiles are big commitments now instead of free hit boxes. The design team was very intentional about forcing interaction between players this time and it shows. Chain grabs are gone.
Since the ledge game is far more forgiving now players can freely chase off stage or to risky platforms to follow up combos or engage on powerful positions with out outright risk to their stock.
Even choices like larger blast zones make walk off camping even less powerful of an option than it has been before. (If you are getting walk off camped in any game and can't beat it you need to pick another character.)

Camping and stalling get lumped up into one thing a lot of the time but camping (or zoning) shouldn't be viewed as bad because there is player interaction and through it conflict. That makes matches fun to play and watch. When there is nothing at risk there is no suspense for the players or viewers and THAT is why stalling out matches is undesirable. When stalling does happen or when someones zoning camping game is so powerful the opponent loses heart it gets old very quick. Shortening time limits will help end the match before it gets old and give players less time to get stuck in that mental state as well.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

On the subject of the Mii Fighters, because someone brought them up earlier:

The game comes with six Default Miis, all you have to do to find them is page to the left by one when selecting a Mii to make a Mii Fighter out of. There are also six integer weight classes, from 97 to 102 inclusive. With non-integer weights not being a thing (the one outlier we thought we had, Bowser Jr., appears to have turned out to be a special case involving multiple hurtboxes with damage multipliers), it's not unreasonable to assume that there are only six possible weight classes for Miis and that each of the defaults fits into one of them.

If weight classes are limited to six options as suggested by the above evidence, that may also mean that all other factors affected by the Mii's size (such as damage output, knockback growth, base knockback on certain moves, startup time, and endlag) are also limited to those six weight classes. This would make the "sliding scale" aspect of the Mii Fighter's attributes much less of an issue, as we would actually have the ability to record damage and knockback values and frame data for each Mii Fighter type in each of the six weight classes to gain a more objective viewpoint on their overall abilities relative to other characters.

The only major gimmick with Mii Fighters is that you can't see which size class they fit into in-game aside from guessing based on their appearance in the match. Whether this is actually a problem is a subjective matter, but if each of the six Default Miis corresponds to one of the six weight classes then this "problem" is easily solved by allowing only those six Miis to be used, so you can simply memorize their appearances and abilities as if they were just separate clone characters.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

The only major gimmick with Mii Fighters is that you can't see which size class they fit into in-game aside from guessing based on their appearance in the match. Whether this is actually a problem is a subjective matter, but if each of the six Default Miis corresponds to one of the six weight classes then this "problem" is easily solved by allowing only those six Miis to be used, so you can simply memorize their appearances and abilities as if they were just separate clone characters.

The key, I think, will be how much the exact weight of a Mii matters. If it just means you kill and be killed a few % earlier/later, then a player can probably get away with assuming the worst case and if they kill earlier/live longer, that's gravy. I'd prefer an Occam's Razor sort of solution to the Miis rather than trying to work out a convoluted set of rules, if such a thing is feasible.

 

[chipndip]

Guys, I suggest we just keep it simple and clean: For Glory style, 2/3 double elim until the semi's, and then 3/5 from there.

The whole thing with Miis and custom moves muddles up proceedings, especially for the Wii U version if we can't customize moves in the char select window. To boot, if tourney play reflects For Glory, then preparing for tourneys will be simpler, allowing us to convince friends to try competitive play and even tourney play. You can't even use Miis in For Glory, so I'm sure Sakurai didn't expect them to be competitive play choices, and since they have NO standard move set, allowing them would force allowing custom moves too, an argument some players using characters that have powerful custom options (like Pikachu's KO Thundershock) will be more than ready and willing to have...for a long time. Lastly, look at the Pokemon community. They have backing from Nintendo and TPCi for their competitive scene, but there's a huge divide due to clashing with the previously established Smogon community. Competitive Smash could possibly become something bigger than just grassroots get-togethers, but I don't see that happening if tournament organization deviates from what's already considered competitive play. I think it'd be better to simply avoid that issue altogether from the get-go.

 

[Conda]

Guys, I suggest we just keep it simple and clean: For Glory style, 2/3 double elim until the semi's, and then 3/5 from there.

The whole thing with Miis and custom moves muddles up proceedings, especially for the Wii U version if we can't customize moves in the char select window. To boot, if tourney play reflects For Glory, then preparing for tourneys will be simpler, allowing us to convince friends to try competitive play and even tourney play. You can't even use Miis in For Glory, so I'm sure Sakurai didn't expect them to be competitive play choices, and since they have NO standard move set, allowing them would force allowing custom moves too, an argument some players using characters that have powerful custom options (like Pikachu's KO Thundershock) will be more than ready and willing to have...for a long time. Lastly, look at the Pokemon community. They have backing from Nintendo and TPCi for their competitive scene, but there's a huge divide due to clashing with the previously established Smogon community. Competitive Smash could possibly become something bigger than just grassroots get-togethers, but I don't see that happening if tournament organization deviates from what's already considered competitive play. I think it'd be better to simply avoid that issue altogether from the get-go.

Custom moves do not 'muddy up' anything, selection is quick and integrated into the CSS. They'll be legal, because characters are balanced around having them as options. Some characters' specials have been tuned to be radically different due to the addition of custom moves (ie Pikachu's default thunder is a big change from brawl/melee, but one of his custom moves is a more traditional thunder).

 

[Chiroz]

Guys, I suggest we just keep it simple and clean: For Glory style, 2/3 double elim until the semi's, and then 3/5 from there.

The whole thing with Miis and custom moves muddles up proceedings, especially for the Wii U version if we can't customize moves in the char select window. To boot, if tourney play reflects For Glory, then preparing for tourneys will be simpler, allowing us to convince friends to try competitive play and even tourney play. You can't even use Miis in For Glory, so I'm sure Sakurai didn't expect them to be competitive play choices, and since they have NO standard move set, allowing them would force allowing custom moves too, an argument some players using characters that have powerful custom options (like Pikachu's KO Thundershock) will be more than ready and willing to have...for a long time. Lastly, look at the Pokemon community. They have backing from Nintendo and TPCi for their competitive scene, but there's a huge divide due to clashing with the previously established Smogon community. Competitive Smash could possibly become something bigger than just grassroots get-togethers, but I don't see that happening if tournament organization deviates from what's already considered competitive play. I think it'd be better to simply avoid that issue altogether from the get-go.

Some things that are objectively incorrect in this post (At least from the information we have been told until now). Miis do have a default moveset. There apparently are default Miis that you can create instantly. Custom Moves are incredibly easy to set up and 2 of the 3 tournaments I know of since the game's release have used custom moves and has absolutely 0 downtime because of it.



Now on to some subjective things. I agree that For Glory ruleset might bring more players but at the expense of many things. We would have to give up on many stages. As for stocks I don't think it's that hard saying: "It's the same time to stock ratio but with one extra stock".

 

[Conda]

Some things that are objectively incorrect in this post (At least from the information we have been told until now). Miis do have a default moveset. There apparently are default Miis that you can create instantly. Custom Moves are incredibly easy to set up and 2 of the 3 tournaments I know of since the game's release have used custom moves and has absolutely 0 downtime because of it.



Now on to some subjective things. I agree that For Glory ruleset might bring more players but at the expense of many things. We would have to give up on many stages. As for stocks I don't think it's that hard saying: "It's the same time to stock ratio but with one extra stock".

Precisely. If we argue 2 stocks is the way to go because the playerbase will be trained in For Glory, then that's admitting that they'll only be trained in FD/Omega gameplay. So we thus, running with the logic of '2 stock because FG", have to ban all non-fd/omega stages. Which is ridiculous. The logic doesn't flow there, so why are we justifying 2 stocks by saying "FG uses it" ?

Also, things like the r/SmashConnect subreddit will make the "people only train in For Glory mode to play with random people" argument obsolete. You can easily train with a wide pool of competitive players by setting up a room or joining on on r/SmashConnect, and people will go there to train with their custom moveset against a wide variety of opponents on the legal tourney stages.

For Glory, for me, won't be useful for competitive training, because I won't be able to practice on platforms, with custom moves, and with the proper stock value (3 is still the standard for the moment, the burden of proof is on the 2 stock rule). This will be the case for many others, especially irl tournament attenders who want to practice online. For Glory is on its way out for those players, and 'With Friends' matches and r/SmashConnect is more useful.

Since I mentioned smashconnect, here's the link: www.reddit.com/r/smashconnect

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

Some things that are objectively incorrect in this post (At least from the information we have been told until now). Miis do have a default moveset. There apparently are default Miis that you can create instantly. Custom Moves are incredibly easy to set up and 2 of the 3 tournaments I know of since the game's release have used custom moves and has absolutely 0 downtime because of it.

Well, it's more that there are default Miis that you can use to make a Mii Fighter right away, without having to first go into Mii Maker and build your own or whatever. As for default Mii movesets, you could just use the #1 option for each special move, much like Palutena with custom moves deactivated. But why bother, when you can include custom moves with almost literally no setup time, straight from the character select screen? The biggest problem with adding Mii Fighters, aside from some load times, is that you have to enter a name for each one. Entering the name takes a few seconds since you have to use the touchpad, but really isn't all that big of a deal.

 

[Nintendrone]

I'm just gonna throw out a ruleset I've thought a little about:

• Normal matches are 2 out of 3
• Finals are 3 out of 5
• Each game is 3 stock, 6/7 minutes
• For Game 1, the selection process is:
  • Stage is randomly selected (from Neutrals if we keep the system, but I feel the current system is very flawed).
  • Characters are picked double-blind.
  • Custom specials are picked double-blind. Players must show their customs to each other.
• For Games 2 and 3, the process is:
  • Loser picks some number of stages that they haven't won on. Winner chooses the one to be played on. (I've seen this idea thrown around, and I think it's better than striking atm. If not, go back to the usual stage strike method.)
  • Winner chooses character. Loser chooses character.
  • Winner picks customs. Loser picks customs. Again they must be shown.
• If the event is large, round-robin pools should be used. Top players from their pools enter a double-elimination bracket.
• Misc. Rules:
  • Items are set to Off and None
  • Team Attack is On
  • Customs are On, but only Moves. Equipment is banned.
  • Pausing is highly discouraged, but enabled. Staff can settle pause disputes. Actions that forcibly stop the game (such as turning off the system) result in automatic loss.
  • BYOC: Players must bring their own controller and wireless stuff must be charged, as well as signals off when not playing (console and game in 3DS's case).
  • Stalling is banned. TO decides which techniques count as stalling.

I've also thought of some stages that could work. This is assuming that the CP/stage strike system from the previous games stays. If we use the "loser picks some, winner chooses one" method, most if not all in the following list are legal.

• Neutral:
  • Battlefield
  • Yoshi's Island
  • Prism Tower
    • No hazards. Walkoff is temporary. Moving platforms aren't very fast.
  • Arena Ferox
    • No hazards. It's PS1 and Castle Siege combined; both were fine.
• Counterpick:
  • Final Destination
    • Very large and flat greatly favors projectile users. Not neutral.
    • If FD is picked, an Omega may be specified.
  • Rainbow Road
    • Walkoffs are temporary. Shy Guys are well telegraphed and not overly powerful. It's a better version of Melee Mute City with grabable ledges and weaker hazards.
  • Jungle Japes (singles only)
    • Pretty small for 4 players. Klaptrap is predictable, swimming is gone.
  • Brinstar (singles only)
    • Pretty small for 4 players. Acid is well telegraphed, not fully random, and can be used for strategy.
  • Mute City (singles only)
    • Too small for 4 players. Moving platforms are well telegraphed.
  • Reset Bomb Forest
    • Lurchthorn is predictable, well telegraphed, and slow. Impassable platform can be destroyed.
  • Wily Castle
    • Yellow Devil is predictable, well telegraphed, slow, weak, and has low HP.
  • Pac-Maze (doubles only)
    • Ghosts are not intrusive and not very strong. Possible circle camping can be circumvented with 4 players. Powerup is not very strong and slower to occur with 4 players.
  • Tomodachi Life (doubles only)
    • Unlike Luigi's Mansion, the ceilings are all drop-through and not destructible. Possible circle camping can be circumvented with 4 players.
  • EDIT: Tortimer's Island
    • Random layout isn't too major and provides no obvious character advantage until you see the layout. No swimming. Shark isn't aggressive, warns you you of its appearance, and only attacks if you're pretty close to it offstage. Boat gives some warning before it leaves and isn't very fast. Fruit items chosen by layout, appear infrequently, and heal minor damage (or in the banana/coconut/durian's case lets characters take advantage of items if they can't spawn their own; like if Luigi had an awesome glidetoss.

 

[M@v]

Just going to link my post here with my thoughts (Posted it before the competitive sub forum came to be: http://smashboards.com/threads/smas...see-occur-some-foresight-and-thoughts.363624/)

 

[chipndip]

Some things that are objectively incorrect in this post (At least from the information we have been told until now). Miis do have a default moveset. There apparently are default Miis that you can create instantly. Custom Moves are incredibly easy to set up and 2 of the 3 tournaments I know of since the game's release have used custom moves and has absolutely 0 downtime because of it.



Now on to some subjective things. I agree that For Glory ruleset might bring more players but at the expense of many things. We would have to give up on many stages. As for stocks I don't think it's that hard saying: "It's the same time to stock ratio but with one extra stock".

I wouldn't be able to read Japanese, so my apologies for not knowing that some of those squiggles were actually the custom moves. q_q

Outside of that, I'm looking at it from a different pov: We could actually have Smash be a thing properly backed by Nintendo, kind of like Pokemon's scene. If that ever did happen, they'd utilize the competitive mode they installed into the game themselves, aka For Glory. If this was like how it was before, when competitive play for the game was undefined, I wouldn't mind different stock counts and stage selections or custom moves, but since it is, why deviate from it? It just complicates things. Playing competitively in one instance wouldn't reflect competitive play in another instance, and that creates a divide between players...much like the Pokemon community...again. I simply want to avoid that possibility. >_>

 

[Nintendrone]

I wouldn't be able to read Japanese, so my apologies for not knowing that some of those squiggles were actually the custom moves. q_q

Outside of that, I'm looking at it from a different pov: We could actually have Smash be a thing properly backed by Nintendo, kind of like Pokemon's scene. If that ever did happen, they'd utilize the competitive mode they installed into the game themselves, aka For Glory. If this was like how it was before, when competitive play for the game was undefined, I wouldn't mind different stock counts and stage selections or custom moves, but since it is, why deviate from it? It just complicates things. Playing competitively in one instance wouldn't reflect competitive play in another instance, and that creates a divide between players...much like the Pokemon community...again. I simply want to avoid that possibility. >_>

The case between competitive Pokémon and Smash isn't really that different. Both scenes were founded outside of Nintendo in the early 2000's by some fanbase (commonly credited to Smogon and Smashboards respectively), as well as before there was even was an official Nintendo ruleset (VGC and Invitational/FG respectively). Smogon and VGC coexist peacefully without a massive split of the fanbase, so why couldn't we?

For your "properly backed by Nintendo" point, Nintendo was a sponsor at EVO that featured Melee with conservative rules. Unless Nintendo actually starts their own tournament series (regardless of how close the rules are to ours), I'd imagine they'd continue to sponsor certain nationals.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Well I'm back. After a several year hiatus looks like I'll be returning to the smash scene. It's been a magical few years of self discovery and mellowing out in general.

I'd like to provide my initial ruleset for Smash 3DS that will be used at any tournaments I host. This is a very tentative ruleset, as I do not have the game yet - though one of my roommates does - and as such I'm creating it to prompt discussion on a ruleset in a fairly centralized location, and in particular to discuss potential legal stages with regards to a group stage striking system as outlined below. In addition, many people know I have fairly... out there thoughts on stage legality. Of note, my stage list in this thread is very incomplete, primarily as I need time with the game to form an opinion on each stage in the game.

As per my previous ruleset for Brawl, I take the base state of the game to be the game as released, and any deviations in settings must be done only absolutely as necessary. In general, degenerative randomness and mechanics should be addressed so long as they do not overly burden players, and are as simple as possible in readability. Of note in my Brawl ruleset, I would currently consider my ruling on Dedede's infinite and Ganondorf and Bowser's suicide moves terrible rules, purely due to a change in mindset over the past 3 or so years.

So without making this preface overly long, here is my ruleset. Please note I used my original ruleset for Brawl as a base, so if I missed anything that no longer applies to Smash 4 please make note of it.

General Gameplay Rules
~ 2 Stocks
~ 5 Minute Time Limit
~ Items set to "On" and "None"

The base state of the game is such that all Items are on, and items are set to Medium. Random item spawns give no warning and can instantly change a match, and as such the smallest possible change to the base state is item frequency set to "None." Please note that while this did in fact affect certain attacks in Brawl, it is currently unknown if it also affects them in Super Smash Bros. 3DS; thus it is very possible this distinction is superfluous.​

~ All custom moves are allowed.
~ The act of stalling is banned: stalling is intentionally making the game unplayable: Such as becoming invisible, continuing infinites, chain grabs, or uninterruptible moves past 300%, and reaching a position that your opponent can never reach you.
~ Any action that can prevent the game from continuing (i.e., freezing, disappearing characters, game reset, etc.) will result in a forfeit of that match for the player that initiated the action. You are responsible for knowing your own character, and must be wary about accidentally triggering one of these effects.
~ The winner will be declared by what the game says in all situations, except for when players are presented with sudden death, in which case:

• In the event of a match going to time, the winner will be determined by who has lesser percent (stock difference still takes priority but will be shown in the results screen).
• If the match ends with both players dying at the same time (either coincidentally or via suicide move) or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage.

Modified Rules for Doubles
~ Team Attack set to "On"
~ Life stealing is allowed.
~ In the event of a game going to time and both teams have an equal amount of combined stocks, then whichever team has a lower combined percent is declared the winner.



Set Procedure
~ The first game is played on a Stage selected from the Starter Stage List either by mutual consent or through the Stage Striking Method. The order of stage striking will be 1-1 (Team 1 strikes one stages, followed by Team 2 striking one stage).
~ The first match is played.
~ The Team that won the previous match may announce one "Group Ban" if they have not already done so in this set. All stages in that CP group are banned.
~ The Team that lost the previous match selects one of the remaining three CP groups.
~ The Team that won the previous match bans one stage from the selected group if it is group 1 or 2, or 2 stages from the selected group if it is group 3 or 4.
~ The Team that lost the previous match selects the stage to be played on from the remaining stages in that group. No Stage may be used by a Team that has already won on that Stage in this set.
~ The Team that won the previous match chooses one character for each Player or custom move preset.
~ The Team that lost the previous match chooses one character for each Player or custom move preset.
~ The next match is played.
~ Repeat steps 6-11 for all proceeding matches.

Stage List

Group 1 - Starters
Battlefield
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island

Group 2 - Minor CPs
Currently Unknown

Group 3 - Large Stages
Currently Unknown

Group 4 - Hard CPs
Currently Unknown

Banned
Currently Unknown

Conduct Rules

• BYOC (Bring your own controller): Players are expected to bring their own controller and be prepared for every tournament set.
• In the event pause is left on accidentally and is pressed, immediately call over the TO. Based upon their judgment, the situation will be resolved. If your situation is neutral [players are not in combat], the match will be resumed as if the pause had not occurred. If your situation is advantageous to one individual and the player in the disadvantageous situation paused, the disadvantaged player will be either placed in a grab or onto the ledge of the stage. If a player in a death situation [Chain grabs, Grab releases, Jab-locks to a kill move, etc] paused while in a death situation, the current stock is forfeited immediately. If you unpause before the TO reaches the station, the player that unpaused losses a stock.
• During gameplay, any coaching parties must remain a finite distance determined by the TO away from the players in order to give players equal access to all coached information. Ear-side coaching is prohibited during games, but acceptable between games. Failure to adhere to this will lead to punishment at the TO's discretion, which could include the coach's removal from the venue or a call to replay the game that the coaching interfered with.
• Players who use the Wii Remote must take the batteries out of the Wii Remote when not playing. If the Wii Remote is still synced up to a Wii with the batteries in, you could unintentionally disrupt a match. If problems persist, a DQ may happen.
• You are responsible for your own controller and name tag. Any malfunctions or errors that occur are your responsibility (including battery issues with a Wii Remote), so bring an extra controller if possible and always check to make sure you're using the correct settings BEFORE a match is played. Both parties need to agree if a match is to be paused or restarted because of these problems.
• Intentional forfeiting, match fixing, splitting, and any other forms of bracket manipulation are not allowed and punishable by the TO.
• No substitutions are allowed for singles or doubles.
• DQ Rule: Arriving too late for a match will result in a DQ. Player(s) will have 5 minutes to show up before a loss of the first match. 5 more minutes results in a loss of the set. For doubles, both players on a team need to be present in order to play.
• The tournament organizer has the right to save/record any tournament match if possible and has the right to upload said match.

Regarding textures and other game hacks:

• Players may request that any texture, stage, or other hacks be disabled during a tournament set. If this is unable to be done, they may switch to a different setup if available.

Disrupting your opponent physically or intending to disrupt their play (through something such as screaming in a player's ear) will result in a warning. Repeated action will result in disqualification from the tournament and possibly ejection from the venue. Observers who physically disrupt players are to be dealt with as the Tournament Organiser sees fit. Disqualification is recommended if possible, and ejection from the venue is also a punishment.
Resolving Pool Ties

Players will be compared with each other on various criteria in this ordered precedence:

• Set Wins
• Head to Head
• Wins
• Losses
• One Game Rematch

• If players are still tied on a step, you move down to the next one. For instance, if Player A and B both go 3-2 in sets in a round of pools, you will then proceed to the Head to Head step (who won the set between those players). Whoever won vs the other will proceed at the top of the tie.
• If Head to Head (the result of the set between the players in question) can not decide a tie, then you would move down to the Wins step. This may occur in a three way tie where all three players defeated each other (however note that if one person in a three way tie defeats both other players, then the Head to Head comparison will be used).
• If the tie breaker reaches all the way to the One Game Rematch step, this game will play out similar to the first game of any set (though doing best of one), where users will stage strike for the stage, and may double blind characters.
• If at any point a tie of three or more players is partially resolved, still leaving two or more players tied, the tie between the remaining players will be decided by starting the tie breaker process over for them. For instance, if in a three way tie in the Wins step, one player has six wins while the others have 5, the player with 6 wins will be the top of the 3. The remaining two players will start back at Sets Wins to determine who is higher between the two instead of proceeding onto the Losses step right away.

 

[Anomalous Adam]

Don't you think it'd be a better idea to start off telling us where these tournaments will be hosted?

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Don't you think it'd be a better idea to start off telling us where these tournaments will be hosted? And it's not like anyone remembers you after 4 years

I'm located in Southern Ontario and thus any tournament I host will be located in Toronto.

 

[Tristan_win]

Your name does look vaguely familiar but I stop playing smash competitive back in 010. Anyways I'm sorry @ Supreme Dirt but there is already a thread dedicated to talking about what rules should be used and while your post is rather large I'm not sure if it deserves it's own thread.
Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion