Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[thehard]

I don't get why Town and City and Lylat (now fixed!) sometimes get put as counterpicks

Because TOs copypaste rulesets.

 

[Jaxas]

In my scene, in Bo5's, we don't give the players extra ban phases. You get two bans the first time you lose, and that's it -- They stick throughout the set. You gave opponents two ban phases which nets them a total of 4 bans, and that's where the issue seems to arise.

What we do here is just give the winner 2 bans after each game, but reset the previous bans. (This way if they want to they can place their 2 bans on the same stages, or move them and un-ban one or more of the stages banned last game)

It seems to be a good balance between letting the winner ban and not removing like half the stage-list by game 5...

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I don't get why Town and City and Lylat (now fixed!) sometimes get put as counterpicks

I think people are scared of change. Or something.

 

[RobinOnDrugs]

Have they even learned about the reception that the Apex 2015 rules got?

They need to make a few changes to that ruleset.

 

[smashmachine]

what really needs to be done is to get a Smash 4 TO on there to influence the ruleset

because as it is Super Smash Con is Melee TOs copypasting Apex rules because they don't actually care

 

[PND]

I'm fairly certain you can pick a stage you banned. That ban you made means you did not want your opponent to carry you to that stage. Also you have the bans stacking which doesn't happen. Bans are for that match only so worst case scenario would be P1 winning 2 matches in a BO5 on different stages and then having to pick the stage in the 5th match after his opponent banned 2 different stages. 4 stages are excluded from the list(the two he won on and the two opponent bans) of 9 legal stages.

I just wanted to mention that in my opinion, being able to pick a stage you banned is a bad, bad thing to have legal in the rules.

I'm just using these characters as examples, there is absolutely no truth to the matchups or scenarios presented in this example:

Let's say Player 1 is a Charizard main, of considerable skill.
Player 2 is a Wii Fit Trainer main, but has a pocket Bowser Jr.

Now let's say hypothetically Bowser Jr has some crazy tech on Yoshi's Wooly World that makes the matchup against Charizard like 85-15 in BJ's favour. Super hard to play against.

Now, theoretically Wii Fit Trainer bans two stages, one is a stage Wii Fit is really bad on (Let's just say Gamer) but uses the other ban on Yoshi's Wooly World.
Now Charizard normally would want to ban Yoshi's just to prevent that crazy tech from happening in case anybody had a pocket BJ, such as our Wii Fit Trainer player. Seeing that Wii Fit Trainer banned YWW, Charizard would likely ban two other stages based on his preference. Banning an already banned stage seems pretty wasteful, no? At this point, Charizard has no indication that Wii Fit has a pocket BJ, and might simply assume that YWW is a bad stage for Wii Fit as well as Charizard.

Now, if a player can choose stages they banned, this means theoretically Wii Fit can use his ban to "save" YWW. It would essentially be guaranteed to stay legal for CPing, but for one player only. That completely breaks the ban/counterpick system, and even though the Charizard player could be the vastly superior player, he could still lose to deceptive stage picking/banning. He would have to double up on his bans to avoid this scenario -- and seriously, who wants to use their ban on an already banned stage?

If you banned a stage, you should have to stick by it. That's the way I see it.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

If anything, they might be wanting to mimic EVO, which don't allow it for a variety of reasons, the most obvious ones are time, the fact they tend to sync in at wrong times only creating a numb slot that can't be removed, and the fact they use to have "Home" buttons that might mess up the game.

Starting the game from the 3DS sync menu disables the Home button on every controller, even if a 3DS isn't actually used. As far as I can tell, it's literally impossible for a 3DS to interfere with a game in progress, and it's therefore the most-justifiable wireless controller that can be used for Smash 4.

While this can also be used to disable the Home button on the Wii Remote, Wii U Pro Controller, and Wii U Gamepad, the Power button on those controllers will still function normally and can still be used to turn off the console. (This is not the case for the 3DS; its Power button will not turn off the console.)

what really needs to be done is to get a Smash 4 TO on there to influence the ruleset

because as it is Super Smash Con is Melee TOs copypasting Apex rules because they don't actually care

FWIW, I think this is actually a pretty big problem in general and not restricted to any one tournament series. It's in the Smash 4 community's best interest to step up and start being vocal (and constructive) about this, as I've seen a lot of TOs who copy/paste questionable rules because they don't really play Smash 4 and don't give them proper consideration. That's not a cardinal sin in and of itself; you can't expect a TO of a large multi-game event to be as invested into each individual game on the line-up, and these TOs tend to just trust the other players in their circle who have their ear. If you want change to be made on that front, then you're going to have to start making some noise.

 

[TheAnomaly]

Banning an already banned stage seems pretty wasteful, no?...If you banned a stage, you should have to stick by it. That's the way I see it.

Um. what? I don't think you understand this process at all. You can't ban an already banned stage because the only stages technically banned are stages that the person picking has already won. Let's say I won on SV and FD and I have stage pick going into last match of a BO5 set. The only stages banned at that point until my opponent makes his stage ban choices are the stages I won on. He then makes his bans and i pick from the remaining stages. I am so confused as to what you are saying.

 

[Pazx]

Here's my understanding of both the best and most common way of dealing with stage selection and banning. Obsolete steps are crossed out.

Set Procedure

1. Player Priority is determined if it cannot be determined (see below)
2. Each player selects one controller port
3. Each player selects one character and moveset. A double blind pick may be called by either player
4. The first game is played on a Stage selected from the Starter Stage List through the Stage Striking Method. The order of Stage Striking will be 1-2-1 (Player 1 strikes one stage, Player 2 strikes two stages, Player 1 strikes one stage)
5. The first match is played
6. The player that lost the previous match may opt to re-pick controller ports
7. The player that won the previous match may announce two "Stage Bans"
8. The player that lost the previous match announces the stage for the next match from either the Starter or the Counterpick Stage List. Any Stage named as a "Stage Ban" may not be selected. A player may not counterpick to the last stage they have won on in the current set
9. The player that won the previous match chooses their character
10. The player that lost the previous match chooses their character
11. The next match is played
12. Repeat steps 6-11 for all remaining matches in the set

This indicates that stages are banned by the winner of the previous match after every single match and they do not carry over, and it is the process most large tournaments use in all games as far as I'm aware.

I just wanted to mention that in my opinion, being able to pick a stage you banned is a bad, bad thing to have legal in the rules.

I'm just using these characters as examples, there is absolutely no truth to the matchups or scenarios presented in this example:

Let's say Player 1 is a Charizard main, of considerable skill.
Player 2 is a Wii Fit Trainer main, but has a pocket Bowser Jr.

Now let's say hypothetically Bowser Jr has some crazy tech on Yoshi's Wooly World that makes the matchup against Charizard like 85-15 in BJ's favour. Super hard to play against.

Now, theoretically Wii Fit Trainer bans two stages, one is a stage Wii Fit is really bad on (Let's just say Gamer) but uses the other ban on Yoshi's Wooly World.
Now Charizard normally would want to ban Yoshi's just to prevent that crazy tech from happening in case anybody had a pocket BJ, such as our Wii Fit Trainer player. Seeing that Wii Fit Trainer banned YWW, Charizard would likely ban two other stages based on his preference. Banning an already banned stage seems pretty wasteful, no? At this point, Charizard has no indication that Wii Fit has a pocket BJ, and might simply assume that YWW is a bad stage for Wii Fit as well as Charizard.

Now, if a player can choose stages they banned, this means theoretically Wii Fit can use his ban to "save" YWW. It would essentially be guaranteed to stay legal for CPing, but for one player only. That completely breaks the ban/counterpick system, and even though the Charizard player could be the vastly superior player, he could still lose to deceptive stage picking/banning. He would have to double up on his bans to avoid this scenario -- and seriously, who wants to use their ban on an already banned stage?

If you banned a stage, you should have to stick by it. That's the way I see it.

There are two solutions to your hypothetical that I can see.

1. The Charizard player bans YWW regardless of WFT's bans.
2. The Charizard player switches character after YWW is selected to play on for game three because of a combination of the stage being bad for him and the chance of running into an unwinnable matchup.

 

[PND]

Um. what? I don't think you understand this process at all. You can't ban an already banned stage because the only stages technically banned are stages that the person picking has already won. Let's say I won on SV and FD and I have stage pick going into last match of a BO5 set. The only stages banned at that point until my opponent makes his stage ban choices are the stages I won on. He then makes his bans and i pick from the remaining stages. I am so confused as to what you are saying.

Which is why I'm saying that a player shouldn't be able to play on a stage they banned themselves -- because if they have some really hard to beat level-specific strategy, they would be able to use their ban as a "Save" which corrupts the entire purpose behind the level-banning system.

Trust me, I understand the process. I've been a competitive player for over 8 years now and I'm Ottawa's (and Northern Ontario's) head Smash 4 TO. I've competed in, and hosted, countless tournaments. Which is why I understand the nuances of the stage picking system, and try to preemptively head off disputes like this before they arise.

Here's my understanding of both the best and most common way of dealing with stage selection and banning. Obsolete steps are crossed out.

Set Procedure

1. Player Priority is determined if it cannot be determined (see below)
2. Each player selects one controller port
3. Each player selects one character and moveset. A double blind pick may be called by either player
4. The first game is played on a Stage selected from the Starter Stage List through the Stage Striking Method. The order of Stage Striking will be 1-2-1 (Player 1 strikes one stage, Player 2 strikes two stages, Player 1 strikes one stage)
5. The first match is played
6. The player that lost the previous match may opt to re-pick controller ports
7. The player that won the previous match may announce two "Stage Bans"
8. The player that lost the previous match announces the stage for the next match from either the Starter or the Counterpick Stage List. Any Stage named as a "Stage Ban" may not be selected. A player may not counterpick to the last stage they have won on in the current set
9. The player that won the previous match chooses their character
10. The player that lost the previous match chooses their character
11. The next match is played
12. Repeat steps 6-11 for all remaining matches in the set

This indicates that stages are banned by the winner of the previous match after every single match and they do not carry over, and it is the process most large tournaments use in all games as far as I'm aware.

There are two solutions to your hypothetical that I can see.

1. The Charizard player bans YWW regardless of WFT's bans.
2. The Charizard player switches character after YWW is selected to play on for game three because of a combination of the stage being bad for him and the chance of running into an unwinnable matchup.[/quote]

1. This is what I was getting at towards the end of the post, but don't like it. It's wasteful and not very intuitive.
2. So Charizard switches characters to deal with the matchup, but the character he seconds could lose to say WFT (but do decently against BJ.) Now WFT can CP Charizard freely, no matter the outcome, Charizard is in a pretty bad spot for a situation that could have been avoided, had the bans been honest bans and not pocket "saves".

I'm against this because it's a deceptive way to get the upper hand. I'm a follower of the "Play to Win" philosophy, but this is being ruthless before the playing has even really started. It skews the fairness of the Counterpick system if a player really wished to abuse it, and leads to disputes such as "Are you kidding? But you banned Lylat! I would have banned Lylat myself, but you already had banned it!" As a TO, typically we want to reduce instances of player dispute due to rules as much as possible.

All these situations are purely hypothetical, but I think the solution is simply institute the "Players can't play on a stage they themselves banned clause." (Which is covered in step 8, above) that can be overriden by Gentleman's clause. If both players agree, players can pick a stage they have previously banned.

 

[TheAnomaly]

@ PND How does one 'save' a stage? Only the winner bans a stage or stages and the loser picks from the remaining stages. How can one "save" a stage? It is as simple as banning the stages you don't want your opponent to play on. If you think he has a pocket character that is completely OP on a certain stage then ban it. Just because he previously banned it when he won a match during the set does not mean he wouldn't pick it. He could have possibly banned it cause he thought you had the pocket OP stage and character.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So Super Smash Con has its rules out. TLDR: it's basically the exact same thing as Apex, and notably ALL wireless controllers are banned.

So can we blame this one on APEX? Does anyone know how to reach the TOs there? Maybe with some well-thought-out arguments, or at least threats of physical violence and maternal sexual harassment?

 

[PND]

OK, so game one happens. I win. It comes time to ban stages, and I know, for example, that my character absolutely loves flat stages. Knowing that my opponent would likely ban flat stages, I use my two bans. One is for, let's say Lylat, a stage I don't want to play on. I use my second ban to ban FD.

Now, if I'm allowed to play on stages I banned, I essentially just "saved" FD because most players won't double-ban a stage. Because of that, I'm abusing the counterpick system to gain an upper hand by guaranteeing the stage I want to play on remains open. That is completely against the entire concept of stage bans.

I really don't see what the debate it here. If you ban a stage, it's banned. End of story.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

1. Player Priority is determined if it cannot be determined (see below)
2. Each player selects one controller port
3. Each player selects one character and moveset. A double blind pick may be called by either player
4. The first game is played on a Stage selected from the Starter Stage List through the Stage Striking Method. The order of Stage Striking will be 1-2-1 (Player 1 strikes one stage, Player 2 strikes two stages, Player 1 strikes one stage)
5. The first match is played
6. The player that lost the previous match may opt to re-pick controller ports
7. The player that won the previous match may announce two "Stage Bans"
8. The player that lost the previous match announces the stage for the next match from either the Starter or the Counterpick Stage List. Any Stage named as a "Stage Ban" may not be selected. A player may not counterpick to the last stage they have won on in the current set
9. The player that won the previous match chooses their character
10. The player that lost the previous match chooses their character
11. The next match is played
12. Repeat steps 6-11 for all remaining matches in the set

This is my understanding as well. Furthermore:

- Number of stage bans in games 2 through 5 can vary depending on total number of legal stages, but the maximum number of bans that can be applied is [total # of stages] - [2 * number of games in the set] in order to not interfere with the Stage Clause / DSR. So, in a 9-stage metagame, a bo3 can have a maximum of 3 bans, while a bo5 can have a maximum of 2.

- Bans only apply to the next game of the set and are dismissed in the following games, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

- Character selection and customs selection are distinct steps. In Game 1: both players pick characters, then both players pick customs. In Game 2: winner picks character, loser picks character, winner picks customs, loser picks customs.

Having stage bans carry over between games doesn't really make sense to me when character counterpicking is part of the meta.

OK, so game one happens. I win. It comes time to ban stages, and I know, for example, that my character absolutely loves flat stages. Knowing that my opponent would likely ban flat stages, I use my two bans. One is for, let's say Lylat, a stage I don't want to play on. I use my second ban to ban FD.

Now, if I'm allowed to play on stages I banned, I essentially just "saved" FD because most players won't double-ban a stage. Because of that, I'm abusing the counterpick system to gain an upper hand by guaranteeing the stage I want to play on remains open. That is completely against the entire concept of stage bans.

I really don't see what the debate it here. If you ban a stage, it's banned. End of story.

I feel like I must have missed something, so spell it out for me. I don't understand how you "saved" FD.

 

[LiteralGrill]

So can we blame this one on APEX? Does anyone know how to reach the TOs there? Maybe with some well-thought-out arguments, or at least threats of physical violence and maternal sexual harassment?

Well since it has the exact same TO from Apex? Yes, I think you can at least say they are partially to blame here

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well since it has the exact same TO from Apex? Yes, I think you can at least say they are partially to blame here

Great, who do I have to go yell at on twitter?

 

[PND]

This is my understanding as well. Furthermore:

- Number of stage bans in games 2 through 5 can vary depending on total number of legal stages, but the maximum number of bans that can be applied is [total # of stages] - [2 * number of games in the set] in order to not interfere with the Stage Clause / DSR. So, in a 9-stage metagame, a bo3 can have a maximum of 3 bans, while a bo5 can have a maximum of 2.

- Bans only apply to the next game of the set and are dismissed in the following games, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

- Character selection and customs selection are distinct steps. In Game 1: both players pick characters, then both players pick customs. In Game 2: winner picks character, loser picks character, winner picks customs, loser picks customs.

Having stage bans carry over between games doesn't really make sense to me when character counterpicking is part of the meta.


I feel like I must have missed something, so spell it out for me. I don't understand how you "saved" FD.

In scenes where bans aren't dismissed and carry over from game to game in a set, banning a stage in all likelihood will prevent an opponent from banning it (unless they want to expend one of their bans to ban an already banned stage.)

So in a scene where bans are consistent in a set, where you can play on stages that you, yourself, have banned, you basically have the option to ban a stage you want to play on to try and trick your opponent into not banning it.

That is the issue I have with being able to play on stages you yourself have banned.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

In scenes where bans aren't dismissed and carry over from game to game in a set, banning a stage in all likelihood will prevent an opponent from banning it (unless they want to expend one of their bans to ban an already banned stage.)

So in a scene where bans are consistent in a set, where you can play on stages that you, yourself, have banned, you basically have the option to ban a stage you want to play on to try and trick your opponent into not banning it.

That is the issue I have with being able to play on stages you yourself have banned.

In what regions is this the standard, where stage bans last for the remainder of the set? I was always under the impression that any ban lasts for the match only and that the entire selection is up for grabs again for the next CP phase.

 

[PND]

In what regions is this the standard, where stage bans last for the remainder of the set? I was always under the impression that any ban lasts for the match only and that the entire selection is up for grabs again for the next CP phase.

Here in Canada it's been that way since before Brawl. I haven't been to a Toronto Smash 4 tourney yet to see if they stuck with the system, but it's that way in Ottawa and Montreal

 

[Sixfortyfive]

In scenes where bans aren't dismissed and carry over from game to game in a set, banning a stage in all likelihood will prevent an opponent from banning it (unless they want to expend one of their bans to ban an already banned stage.)

So in a scene where bans are consistent in a set, where you can play on stages that you, yourself, have banned, you basically have the option to ban a stage you want to play on to try and trick your opponent into not banning it.

That is the issue I have with being able to play on stages you yourself have banned.

Doesn't seem like this would be an issue if the rules are explicitly spelled out.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Great, who do I have to go yell at on twitter?

JuggleGuy and Nintendude pretty sure, good luck. Last time people tried to ask about why certain things were chosen for rules at Apex the responses were... non existant and/or horrible.

 

[TheAnomaly]

In scenes where bans aren't dismissed and carry over from game to game in a set, banning a stage in all likelihood will prevent an opponent from banning it (unless they want to expend one of their bans to ban an already banned stage.)

So in a scene where bans are consistent in a set, where you can play on stages that you, yourself, have banned, you basically have the option to ban a stage you want to play on to try and trick your opponent into not banning it.

That is the issue I have with being able to play on stages you yourself have banned.

AHHHH! I now see your point. Well if that still is the ruleset, do me a huge favor and tell them their rules suck. Then explain to them in explicit detail why they suck and why they should change to the format we outlined here.

 

[AvariceX]

So looking over the last page or two, it seems to be a good thing I brought up this best of 5 set stage counterpicking nonsense since no one can agree on a consistent answer. Glad it's not just me at least.

Also no one has answered the "who counterpicks the music?" question yet.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

So looking over the last page or two, it seems to be a good thing I brought up this best of 5 set stage counterpicking nonsense since no one can agree on a consistent answer. Glad it's not just me at least.

Also no one has answered the "who counterpicks the music?" question yet.

I honestly doubt anyone seriously cares enough about the music to bother making a rule about it. If Gamer were legal, maybe, since anything other than the "Gamer" BGM tends to drown out the sometimes-subtle audio cues that let you know Mom may pop up soon, but a) I highly doubt Gamer will be legal anytime soon and b) I get the impression that you can't necessarily rely on being able to hear the TV anyway.

That said, I'd assume music selection would be the perogative of the person actually picking the stage, which would be the last person to strike for game 1 and the loser of the previous game for all others.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Is there any kind of consensus for legal stages (or other rules in general) for Quads? It's very likely that we're going to try out the format at a local in the future and I'm kind of curious how other scenes have run it since I haven't seen any of it to date.

In particular, Pyrosphere, Norfair, and Pokemon Stadium 2 look like good candidates since their stage hazards and transformations are removed. Do you think Omega Stages are appropriate? (As in, do you think it would be too hard for players to maneuver around each other without platforms?)

 

[Thinkaman]

Is there any kind of consensus for legal stages (or other rules in general) for Quads? It's very likely that we're going to try out the format at a local in the future and I'm kind of curious how other scenes have run it since I haven't seen any of it to date.

In particular, Pyrosphere, Norfair, and Pokemon Stadium 2 look like good candidates since their stage hazards and transformations are removed. Do you think Omega Stages are appropriate? (As in, do you think it would be too hard for players to maneuver around each other without platforms?)

Forgive my short, drive-by post. I'm about to make a lot of sweeping declarations with no justification, since I lack time.

Big Battlefield is probably the best.
Pyrosphere is great.
Omegas are great.
Pokemon Stadium 2 is pretty awful; too small.
Duck Hunt, Smashville, Lylat, and Battlefield are also too small.
Town & City is better than those, but still pushing it even for 3v3.
WHZ would be really great, but springs and a low ceiling make it meh. The windmill doesn't help imo.
Norfair is probably great.
Temple is actually really good for 4v4. Be aware that matches will take a little longer.
Palutena's, on the other hand, is terrible.
Luigi's Mansion is... okay. Not great. Basically a mediocre combination of Battlefield and Temple.

I favor a stage whitelist for 3v3 and 4v4, which might seem strange for such a "stage liberal" like myself. 3v3 and 4v4 practice is so difficult and rare that it is beyond unreasonable for teams to practice a variety of compositions and matchups across a dozen or even half dozen stages. Even playing on just one stage would be a logical position, since 4v4 on 1 stage demands more practice than 1v1 on 20 stages. That's just the nature of team games.

I'd support the following 3v3 and 4v4 stage formats before a traditional format, in order of preference:

• Pyrosphere, Temple, and Big Battlefield (set order)
• Big Battlefield only
• Omega, Temple, and Big Battlefield (set order)
• Temple only
• Big Battlefield, Omega, and Pyrosphere (set order)
• Pyrosphere only
• Omega only

 

[Pazx]

Set... order?

 

[webbedspace]

What I don't get is why a convention running only Smash Bros. tournaments doesn't have any room for representation of the Wii U's customs meta (apart from a passive-aggressive urge to smother it before it takes root, I suppose).

EDIT:

1111 Default Mii Brawler, Swordsman and Gunner are legal characters. This is the default Mii provided by in-game.

Looks like that "default Mii" misinformation won't be dying anytime soon.

 

[Thinkaman]

Set... order?

I mean, it seems weird coming from the status quo, but if you are only using 3 stages... and you are playing 3 games..........

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I mean, it seems weird coming from the status quo, but if you are only using 3 stages... and you are playing 3 games..........

What about BO5 sets? (Or are those a thing for triples/quads?)

 

[Thinkaman]

What about BO5 sets? (Or are those a thing for triples/quads?)

It's pretty easy to make a 5-game set, probably introducing Luigi's Mansion as a "Temple-Lite" middle ground.

But I dislike events that play different games in some sets than others. And barring Omega-only, all stage selection rules used by the smash community make Bo5 sets a fundamentally different game than Bo3 sets.

 

[AvariceX]

I honestly doubt anyone seriously cares enough about the music to bother making a rule about it. If Gamer were legal, maybe, since anything other than the "Gamer" BGM tends to drown out the sometimes-subtle audio cues that let you know Mom may pop up soon, but a) I highly doubt Gamer will be legal anytime soon and b) I get the impression that you can't necessarily rely on being able to hear the TV anyway.

That said, I'd assume music selection would be the perogative of the person actually picking the stage, which would be the last person to strike for game 1 and the loser of the previous game for all others.

It came up during Losers' Finals of this tournament:
http://goes.challonge.com/SSB4_WiiU_03

I counterpicked Castle Siege, Cozy didn't like that so tried to pick the most annoying repetitive song available (Black Knight theme). I wanted to pick the music though

I ended up just letting him pick the music (and I won anyway) but if anyone ever told me I couldn't pick Gourmet Race or King Dedede's Theme after I counterpick Halberd I would fight them IRL.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Music has an effect on those who play.

There's a reason why some players prefer their own tunes and plug headphones in. Others won't do that because they prefer audio cues from the game.

I know players in my town who pick certain Omega stages just because they like certain tracks too. I don't think it's odd to see someone play better just because a song that really gets them going starts playing: music is more than just something to listen to, multiple studies have investigated the effects music can have on people. For example, see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brick-brick/201402/does-music-have-healing-powers

I picked Black Knight's theme because, for some reason, I like the theme. It lets me focus while playing on an otherwise changing stage, it makes me pay more attention to the opponent. Avarice still ended up winning anyways

Would be nice to have a rule for this, but if not I propose a binary rule of letting the person getting cp'd pick the song or the person cp'ing picking the song.

I know My Music menu is banned in EVO for all circumstances (because copyright), but for other tourneys it's something to think about.

 

[webbedspace]

What I find a little annoying about My Music is when someone in a weekly changes the stream station's music for Battlefield or Smashville to one song (like Brawl Boss Battle 1), then every subsequent streamed set unwittingly uses it. ...as well as every streamed set for the entire next weekly as well, because no one went in and changed it back to default.

 

[Thinkaman]

I can't help but think "What's next? Counter-picking screen brightness? Menu language? Seating feng-shui?"

 

[webbedspace]

Well, the difference is that the music menus are right there on the stage select screen, unlike every other such config option.

On another note, if it's true that Smash Con is being run by the same TOs as Apex, then I feel pretty confident in assuming that Apex will never accept customs, ever. Which seems to imply that unless another big-time national picks up customs (or unless SSB4 returns to EVO 2016 with an identical ruleset), then that meta is basically on death row. The Apex de facto Back Room has decreed it. Sorry, Palutena and Mii mains, looks like it's back to Diddy after July.

 

[Pazx]

Even in customs-off Miis should have access to any moveset they choose IMO. Otherwise, they might as well be banned, which is silly.

 

[Nabbitnator]

Forgive my short, drive-by post. I'm about to make a lot of sweeping declarations with no justification, since I lack time.

Big Battlefield is probably the best.
Pyrosphere is great.
Omegas are great.
Pokemon Stadium 2 is pretty awful; too small.
Duck Hunt, Smashville, Lylat, and Battlefield are also too small.
Town & City is better than those, but still pushing it even for 3v3.
WHZ would be really great, but springs and a low ceiling make it meh. The windmill doesn't help imo.
Norfair is probably great.
Temple is actually really good for 4v4. Be aware that matches will take a little longer.
Palutena's, on the other hand, is terrible.
Luigi's Mansion is... okay. Not great. Basically a mediocre combination of Battlefield and Temple.

I favor a stage whitelist for 3v3 and 4v4, which might seem strange for such a "stage liberal" like myself. 3v3 and 4v4 practice is so difficult and rare that it is beyond unreasonable for teams to practice a variety of compositions and matchups across a dozen or even half dozen stages. Even playing on just one stage would be a logical position, since 4v4 on 1 stage demands more practice than 1v1 on 20 stages. That's just the nature of team games.

I'd support the following 3v3 and 4v4 stage formats before a traditional format, in order of preference:

• Pyrosphere, Temple, and Big Battlefield (set order)
• Big Battlefield only
• Omega, Temple, and Big Battlefield (set order)
• Temple only
• Big Battlefield, Omega, and Pyrosphere (set order)
• Pyrosphere only
• Omega only

Just saying i think palutena's temple is just to big for 4 v 4 as well. Idk why they made such a huge stage.
As for music does it really have an effect on how people play?

 

[John12346]

Okay so this was just posted by Oracle, a survey for ruleset preferences: http://smashboards.com/threads/important-smash-wii-u-ruleset-survey.402495/

And here's the direct link to the survey right here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1_Mxwn2P45Z4EExfyEmBcYWJl9pj0fm1q1Q8rb5HwLRU/viewform?usp=send_form

He didn't seem to post it here, so I guess I will. I'd say fill it out, and then share the ever-living crud out of it with as many competitive players as you possibly can.

 

[JimmyTheCaterpillar]

Music has an effect on those who play.

There's a reason why some players prefer their own tunes and plug headphones in. Others won't do that because they prefer audio cues from the game.

Would be nice to have a rule for this, but if not I propose a binary rule of letting the person getting cp'd pick the song or the person cp'ing picking the song.

IMO, you just answered your own thought. If people REALLY want to listen to their own music, then by all means they are allowed to. They can plug in their headphones just fine.

I think having a set rule for this is insanely trivial and will just waste time. Not to say your idea was a bad one, though. You DO have a point, I just don't feel it is major enough to change the game, as it's just too subjective and there are much easier and less time-consuming solutions.

As for music does it really have an effect on how people play?

Now, the music is and always has been my favorite part about Smash, so I'm being completely honest here. I think it can. Sometimes if I'm CP'ing FD, I'll go for an Omega stage with music I really like. Daveman had a point, listening to a song you like can help you in a fight. Not majorly, but it'll keep you pumped up. I can vouch for that.

But can it hurt you, though? It can. Does it screw me up? No.
It's such a tricky thing, music. It's so entirely subjective to the play as it affects everyone in different ways.

I honestly think it would be best to just not make it a part of the rules and let them bring their own headphones. It's a fair trade-off this way. One guy gets to listen to all the music he wants, but misses out on character sounds, whereas his opponent might not get to hear her favorite song, but still can hear character cues. That's fair I think.

Also, in my experience, there's usually too much going on in the background to hear the TV anyway. So, eh.