Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[DanGR]

So i hadn't really given it much thought before, but is there a reason the top X is held to a higher standard than the rest of the tournament? (Or to put it in reverse, is there a reason everything except top X is held to a lesser standard?)

So BO5 gives you more opportunity to adapt to the opponent. That's sensible and I agree. But if BO3 doesn't show the true picture of how a set goes (your words), then what does that say about the entire rest of the tournament?

Still no strong opinions on stock/match counts, just an observation.

I'm in the camp of players that would prefer best 2/3 for all matches. As is, I think the smash community in particular is pretty spoiled in how much time we're given to adapt to different tactics.

 

[Routa]

This Bo3 and Bo5 discussion reminds me from 2v2 vs 3v3 arenas in WoW. If I remember correctly people do more 2v2 than 3v3. Why? Takes less time and easier managing. 3v3 is usually considered better due to extra 2 players and the depth brought by them. It is far easier getting past 2k rank in 2v2 due to thing called Burst dps and CoP (Class of the Patch = most power class in the current patch). Burst dps isn't as a big factor in 3v3. Basically if you want gear do 2v2, but if you want to test your skill do 3v3.

Yeah I suck at giving examples... But many seem to forget how big of a factor a stage choice can be (once again I must remind that Smash Bros is a PLATHFORM FIGHTING game and not your common SF). A good stage choice can turn MU into someone else's favour. We know how much a stage choice matters for a Little Mac. If every stage were BF then Bo3 would have pretty much the same impact on the results as Bo5, but the thing is that we have like 13 legal stages so... Well I'm fine with Bo3, but I think Bo5 is better.

 

[Pazx]

bo5 is better because more games = more accurate results.

So i hadn't really given it much thought before, but is there a reason the top X is held to a higher standard than the rest of the tournament? (Or to put it in reverse, is there a reason everything except top X is held to a lesser standard?)

So BO5 gives you more opportunity to adapt to the opponent. That's sensible and I agree. But if BO3 doesn't show the true picture of how a set goes (your words), then what does that say about the entire rest of the tournament?

Still no strong opinions on stock/match counts, just an observation.

Ideally the whole tournament would be bo5, but it both takes much longer and has a lesser effect on the overall result the earlier you implement it.

We only play Bo5 for WF LF and GF and no one has ever complained.

I highly recommending doing either top 4 (+losers semis), top 6 (+loser quarters, winners semis) or all of top 8 bo5 when you can, at least for large-ish tournaments. I think top 4 should be the bare minimum though, especially if you pay out top 3. That way, every match with money on the line is best-of-5.

 

[ぱみゅ]

So i hadn't really given it much thought before, but is there a reason the top X is held to a higher standard than the rest of the tournament? (Or to put it in reverse, is there a reason everything except top X is held to a lesser standard?)

So BO5 gives you more opportunity to adapt to the opponent. That's sensible and I agree. But if BO3 doesn't show the true picture of how a set goes (your words), then what does that say about the entire rest of the tournament?

Still no strong opinions on stock/match counts, just an observation.

Ideally, you as TO will have your players seeded.
For the first rounds you'll find the top seeded players against the lower or not-seeded ones, as well as low seeds vs low seeds, maybe even mid vs mid seeds, but the results during the first rounds are far from being unpredictable for the higher seeds, and far from important for the lower ones.
As it has been said a couple times within this thread, more player vs player interaction is better to properly find who deserves the win more, and as the tournament advances it is more likely to have higher-seeded players facing each other. In order to avoid possible outlying results more interaction is preferred, and is specially important with higher seeded matches.
That's how I see it at least.

 

[Yikarur]

I don't understand why Bo5 is so important.
In my opinion every set should be Bo3. It just doesn't make sense to me to change the format mid-tournament.
But it's kinda standard in fighting tournaments I guess but it's a really weird thing to do imo.

 

[Radical Larry]

As stupid as you guys may think this sounds. As weird and "blasphemous" as it may come out...
There needs to be a rule for DLC character inclusion in tournaments. There are many reasons, many I will list down below, as to why there needs to be a DLC Character Inclusion Rule in tournaments.

Now think of it this way, why should there be such a rule in effect in tournaments? Let me just say that I'm not against Smash DLC, but picture it this way. If someone is extremely good in Smash Bros. for Wii U, prodigy level even, and has never once paid for a DLC character or stage and then suddenly goes to a tournament with DLC characters allowed, since he or she doesn't even know how to go against the DLC characters, that would be ruled as unfair because the person has never had time to know what these characters do or how good they can really be. This is a very unfair thing to people who are in that scenario and you can't say it doesn't happen. You don't know.

This person who is really great with one of the starter characters who doesn't know anything about other characters (and has no knowledge of Smash Ladder either) would think this would be unfair since they never have went against them. They probably haven't bought the DLC since DLC is actually fairly high priced, they probably didn't want the DLC characters and just wanted to stick with the game normally or they just refuse to buy any DLC from any game. Those are reasons as to why they don't know how to go against them.

And in all honesty, it's unfair. Why should someone actually be able to pick a character that the other person has completely no idea how to fight against, when the other person will most likely lose for that very reason? The other person doesn't know the character's moves, they don't know how that other character works, and even in a tournament setting, there's not enough matches to formulate a simple comeback with the other person's own character.

Furthermore, why should tournaments be required to have all the DLC? That is actually almost as much of a hassle as Customs, only with the added consequence of having to pay for it. Tournaments should have the choice whether or not to actually have DLC characters usable or not. It's hilarious to even think that people should automatically need Ryu or Lucas or Roy or Cloud or Mewtwo to play a tournament when it's just not fair to the person who doesn't own them.

If there was a rule dictating that tournament owners have the decision to include or exclude DLC characters, then there would be no such scenario popping up with a problem. Consequences? Well, there'd be two sets of tier lists as a result (non-DLC and DLC), removing the unnecessary character Ryu from one of them to give better MUs, there will be no complaints from people who don't own the DLC and yet there will be people who complain about it when they do have the DLC character and play as them.

However, there is a remedy for this.
"However, should both people agree that DLC characters can be played, then DLC characters will be allowed."

It is like Dave's Stupid Rule, Gentleman. If both parties agree to the DLC character usage, then it can absolutely be legal.

If you really think about the big picture, there are going to be a lot of people without certain DLC characters or without all of them, and would it not be unfair if the person goes against someone who uses one of the DLC characters? Sure, there will be repercussions like another tier list (which would be good to have as we get another perspective on things) and having a different MU spread, but at least there won't be complaints that "someone used a character I don't know how to play against, because I never fought against them".

That little quote I just said?
That can be used as a legitimate John in tournaments. And the thing is, people can actually get away with it.
People can get away with saying they've had no knowledge of going against DLC characters whatsoever and call the match unfair if a DLC character was used. People can get away with that and it can be a commonplace thing too with some people under the radar who suddenly pop up in tournaments.

So either way you think about it, a rule like this would need to be necessary.
Or else you'll get complaints or Johns that people can get away with, saying that it was "unfair". You can't tell them [the legitimate people] to "get good (git gud)", because where are they to get good when they know nothing about a DLC character at all?

Any arguments for or against this?

 

[MajorMajora]

Radical Larry I disagree on a number of points.

1. DLC characters are going to be used all the time or not at all. If DLC characters are only used rarely, then no one will practice them since they will never use them. So it won't matter if anyone allows DLC gentlemen's since no one will ever want to use them.

2. It also is a rule that favors the players and tournaments above the viewer. If we are talking about this solely as a competition, then fine, but Smash is a spectator sport. People stream tourneys and people watch. In general people like seeing a wide variety of characters played, and removing viable DLC characters (pretty much Ryu and maybe Cloud) is bad in that regard.

3. Even for the players it's bad since people who want to play a DLC character cannot.

4. This idea that people can't play against DLC characters because they are too expensive is ridiculous.

• You already bought this game and a WiiU, so paying the extra 10 bucks for Cloud and Ryu (the only two you'll probably see) isn't that ridiculous. It's not like there's some legitimate socio-economic schism here between DlC haves and DLC have-nots. It's not too ridiculous for people to scrape together 10 extra dollars over the course of their Smash career to get them.
• You can at least learn the matchup through online data and videos, even if you can't play as or against them.
• You don't even need to freaking buy them in the first place since you can still practice against people by playing against them online. Those people can use DLC characters even if you didn't buy them. You can still practice against them without paying a cent. You just can't play against a cpu, but why the heck would you want to.

tl;dr short it's a pretty drastic rule change catering to a group whose problem can be easily solved by putting in a little bit of effort on their part and causes legitimate harm to another group of players.

 

[Routa]

Hmm... Let's look this another way...

Let's say you are a new to competitive scene and you go to your first tournament. Most likely you have near 0 experience against any competitive lvl character. Now let's say you also don't have the DLC. Your first battle is against Roy. You have 0 experience when it comes to this MU. What do you do? I'm 100% sure you would fight the Roy and try to learn as much as possible from that fight.

Anyways...

This person who is really great with one of the starter characters who doesn't know anything about other characters (and has no knowledge of Smash Ladder either) would think this would be unfair since they never have went against them.

Everyone is in a "unfair" situation when they go to their first tourney. The idea of going to a tourney first time and wining is... well it has very low chance to happen. When you first enter the scene and tourney you pretty much lack any kind of MU experience. What you should do in your first tourney should be learning the MUs and improve your own game plan. It is not like you have 58 who all main different character on a competitive lvl. The thing is that you wont get MU experience without learning the MU by fighting against that character.

They probably haven't bought the DLC since DLC is actually fairly high priced, they probably didn't want the DLC characters and just wanted to stick with the game normally or they just refuse to buy any DLC from any game. Those are reasons as to why they don't know how to go against them.

You do realise that Sm4sh DLC has one of the best Content quality/Price? Like MajorMajora said the money isn't most likely to problem.

Why should someone actually be able to pick a character that the other person has completely no idea how to fight against, when the other person will most likely lose for that very reason? The other person doesn't know the character's moves, they don't know how that other character works, and even in a tournament setting, there's not enough matches to formulate a simple comeback with the other person's own character.

By this logic Mii Fighters should be also "banned"... I also somewhat explained the learning thing earlier in this post.

Furthermore, why should tournaments be required to have all the DLC? That is actually almost as much of a hassle as Customs, only with the added consequence of having to pay for it. Tournaments should have the choice whether or not to actually have DLC characters usable or not. It's hilarious to even think that people should automatically need Ryu or Lucas or Roy or Cloud or Mewtwo to play a tournament when it's just not fair to the person who doesn't own them.

Points at MajorMajora's post

So... My opinion on the idea?

I do understand your point dear Larry, but I think the rule idea would be far more harmful than good for the competitive scene. Also there are other bigger problems than this cough Miis cough so yeah...

 

[ぱみゅ]

The bottom line is that you can't make a rule to cater those with lack of experience.


.... that would be 100% true if it weren't because rules cater lack of experience on stages and Customs.

 

[NeonShadowz]

I'm sure everyone has been in a situation atleast once where they sent an enemy into Star KO, and died before their enemy did so they lose the game. This seems funny in friendlies, but i think it would be a good idea to make national rules count the Star KO as a stock loss, the moment that the enemy is no longer in the ceiling bubble. If bowser can be allowed to win a game by initiating a suicide where he dies first, i don't think it's impossible to add this rule as well.

 

[-crump-]

Makes sense to me.

 

[Mili]

The bottom line is that you can't make a rule to cater those with lack of experience.


.... that would be 100% true if it weren't because rules cater lack of experience on stages and Customs.

It isn't often discussed but I think that a best of 5 set, specifically in the latter stages of a tournament, adds to the hype of said tournament. Isn't that what we all want in a competitive setting? Hype, attention, and exciting gameplay? Smash 4 is a relatively fast-paced game and whilst a best of 5 with vs. could be a snore-fest, is it really fair to cater the whole competitive ruleset to a few random matchups? Also, I completely agree with Pazx in regards to giving the 'better' player a higher chance to win an important set. Also, high-level best of 5 sets give us much more data in regards to matchups which we can analyse. Having 10 tournament with best of 5 sets for the top 4 compared to best of 3 gives us so much more to look at, especially if the bracket is reset in Grand Finals.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Ive always been for this change but it seems that only a very small portion of the community is in favor of this change. I've lost tourney matches more than once because of star KO's and it can be pretty infuriating. If an enemy passes the blast zone before I do, then he/she should technically have lost that stock first. No more to it than that.

 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

If bowser can be allowed to win a game by initiating a suicide where he dies first, i don't think it's impossible to add this rule as well.

Well, Bowser isn't allowed to win a game with a Bowsercide in any ruleset I've seen. But that's an entirely different issue.

I think most people can agree it is more just to count a star KO as a stock loss for these scenarios. But what if the timing between Star KO animation and other player's death is less than a second? Matches don't have referees, and if the players disagree on who "died" first, you've got a serious problem. The best you could hope for is during a Finals set or other streamed match, where the streamer/TO agrees to play back footage frame by frame, which wouldn't happen. You'd need to cut off the stream (or at least halt matches) for ten minutes at least (this is assuming there aren't hours of infighting between competitiors and spectators for the correct verdict and asking for a frame count). No matter how this scenario plays out, it would halt the tournament's progress unnecessarily.

Most instances where this happens is two players connecting Uairs or some other vertical move at the same time. Usually some kind of trade. You can't place the loss on one of the two players who both made the same move. So just go with the game's verdict. You as a player should know that going for an attack that might trade at KO percent is a necessarily risky decision

 

[MajorMajora]

I am somewhat in favor of this. There's some arguments to be said about how "you shouldn't have launched them upwards", but it's so luck based that that's hardly justification. Honestly, I'm not fully in favor of the suicide clause but I'm in favor of this.

There is an argument to be made that if it's that close, then saying we can list someone as the definitively superior player is a tad dubious, but sometimes this happens when someone makes a big suicidal play and lose due to luck. I don't think we want to give incentive to not make cool plays.

I honestly think it doesn't matter all too much, but I'd rather it be in place rather than not.

 

[Wintermelon43]

Yea, this is a good idea, though I don't care which way it goes.

 

[|RK|]

Don't Star KOs turn off when time gets low in this game?

The Bowsercide rule is because it can throw the game into Sudden Death.

 

[deepseadiva]

A main benefit of video game competitions is that there is no need for referees. The game automatically tells you at the end.

This is nitpicking how the game should function and is seriously messy. Let's....... not............

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Don't Star KOs turn off when time gets low in this game?

A lot of times when playing a tourney match, there's usually more than a minute or two left so star KOs still tend to happen A LOT.

 

[|RK|]

A lot of times when playing a tourney match, there's usually more than a minute or two left so star KOs still tend to happen A LOT.

I think I misunderstood the premise of this topic. I'm going to agree with the people that say "let the game decide." It gets too messy otherwise.

 

[aεrgiα]

i dunno but to me it seems like a random variable that has nothing to do with player skill at all, which can decide the outcome of a match, and as far as i know, as a community, we try to remove those if possible(see items, most stages with hazards, sudden death etc.(though ofc its not as game changing/defining as those are)) the only issue, as has been pointed out previously, is trying to enforce this/determine very close cases where its not obvious as to who died first...(although most cases of this ive seen were not uairs trading but rather someone killing the other offstage with an upwards launching move, and not being able to make it back)

 

[Sucumbio]

Don't Star KOs turn off when time gets low in this game?

This.

Though that does not account for final stock end game before the timer has gotten low.

 

[ARISTOS]

Outside interference in game decisions is IMO a big no-no.

Suicide clauses shouldn't exist and neither should this.

 

[ぱみゅ]

It isn't often discussed but I think that a best of 5 set, specifically in the latter stages of a tournament, adds to the hype of said tournament. Isn't that what we all want in a competitive setting? Hype, attention, and exciting gameplay? Smash 4 is a relatively fast-paced game and whilst a best of 5 with vs. could be a snore-fest, is it really fair to cater the whole competitive ruleset to a few random matchups? Also, I completely agree with Pazx in regards to giving the 'better' player a higher chance to win an important set. Also, high-level best of 5 sets give us much more data in regards to matchups which we can analyse. Having 10 tournament with best of 5 sets for the top 4 compared to best of 3 gives us so much more to look at, especially if the bracket is reset in Grand Finals.

Either what you said makes no sense, I'm tired and reading wrong, or you replied to the wrong quote.
But in that regard, I prefer more, shorter games (2s6m, tons of Bo5) than longer games (3s8m, mostly Bo3).



On the topic of the change on the Star KO ruling, it is not feasible for a number of reasons, most of them have already been said, like the fact that you need to have "judges", you're going against the game's results, and the fact that players may just argue a lot for the (possibly one-inch) result... The negatives just don't outweight the positives.

 

[NeonShadowz]

I would honestly need to see a situation where someone actually dies close to the time that someone dissappears from the ceiling bubble. It sounds literally impossible to me unless you were playing fox, up air somebody, and then purposely fastfall with no attempt to up B. If someone purposely suicides like that, they kind of deserve to lose the match. Also I'm not sure why there is an opinion that changing what the game says at the end of a match is bad. This is competitive. A lot of money is on the line, and Smash wasn't even meant to be a competitive game. With the same logic, people should be mad that any stages are banned because that is changing the game

 

[ぱみゅ]

This could be a good example.

 

[Yikarur]

The winner is the one on the victory screen. Period.
Only in Sudden Death cases is the victory screen ignored because we consider sudden death a tie and the tie break procedure is decided the moment the sudden death screen happens.

 

[ARISTOS]

Also I'm not sure why there is an opinion that changing what the game says at the end of a match is bad. This is competitive. A lot of money is on the line, and Smash wasn't even meant to be a competitive game. With the same logic, people should be mad that any stages are banned because that is changing the game

It's arbitrary.

If I say off-stage suicides are OK, I'm inherently benefiting all of those characters. For what reason?

If it's because I like it, then other people should get to decide on rules based on things they like.

If it's because the character needs it to be competitive and is bad, then other bad characters should have rules based on boosting them up.

We should be doing as much as we can to keep arbitrary decision making out of rulesets, because for every one or two rules you do like there are certainly going to be several arbitrary rules you don't like. We keep it fair by not having at all.

 

[Routa]

keep arbitrary decision making out of rulesets

*cough* Miis *cough*

Btw the funny thing is that there is like 1 Mii main per region and they are pretty much not attending due to BS rules.

I mean if you wont let use me use my mains gimmick then you should not allowed to use your main's. So no Waft for Wario and no Aura for Lucario etc.

 

[Yikarur]

it's pretty annoying that peopple are heavily complaining because 1 player at average should not be allowed to play his main lol

For everyone who is interested, the english version of the german standard ruleset. This ruleset will most likely be valid for another half year and umbra clock tower will be added if it's legit.

https://www.smashlabs.de/media/Standard_Ruleset_2.0EN.pdf

 

[aεrgiα]

it's pretty annoying that peopple are heavily complaining because 1 player at average should not be allowed to play his main lol

For everyone who is interested, the english version of the german standard ruleset. This ruleset will most likely be valid for another half year and umbra clock tower will be added if it's legit.

https://www.smashlabs.de/media/Standard_Ruleset_2.0EN.pdf

ignoring the rest of your post, since its irrelevant, it doesnt matter if its one person or if its 100 people, everyone should be allowed to play their main unless that character is considered broken, and anything else is ostracizing a player for no good reason. how would you feel if yoshi was banned at a tournament, or restricted to not being able to use all his moves? of course you can say "i wouldnt go to the tournament" but then what if every tournament in your region adopted this rule, and then, when u try reasoning with people, it falls on deaf ears. would you not constantly bring it to peoples attention that this is unfair? i find it annoying that miis are restricted once again at genesis, and im not even a mii player

on a happier note, i personally like that ruleset

 

[Yikarur]

oh you misunderstood.
It's annoying that people are complaining about Mii Moves being legalize because it doesn't even have a lage impact on tournaments.
Thats what my sentence was supposed to mean.
I mean, I main Yoshi and Mii Brawler so I know exactly how those people feel.

 

[aεrgiα]

oh you misunderstood.
It's annoying that people are complaining about Mii Moves being legalize because it doesn't even have a lage impact on tournaments.
Thats what my sentence was supposed to mean.
I mean, I main Yoshi and Mii Brawler so I know exactly how those people feel.

my apologies then, it came across as the opposite to me that you were annoyed at mii mains complaining about their moves not being legal

 

[NeonShadowz]

This could be a good example.

This is a trade so the game's decision does deserve to be the right one. When someone is dominating though and loses without trading at all, that's where i think a change is possible. The more i think about it though, the less opportunity i can find where this rule would change things. If we protect people who get a kill while gimpimg themself, that's way too far. If a falcon knees somebody while being upaird into a star ko, and the kneed enemy dies before the animation of star ko, i still don't think That's fair because the game has set rules saying a blastzone is death. Randomly allowing a diying character to live 5 seconds longer while you could possibly lose your stock first isn't fair

 

[NeonShadowz]

This is a trade so the game's decision does deserve to be the right one. When someone is dominating though and loses without trading at all, that's where i think a change is possible. The more i think about it though, the less opportunity i can find where this rule would change things. If we protect people who get a kill while gimpimg themself, that's way too far. If a falcon knees somebody while being upaird into a star ko, and the kneed enemy dies before the animation of star ko, i still don't think That's fair because the game has set rules saying a blastzone is death. Randomly allowing a diying character to live 5 seconds longer while you could possibly lose your stock first isn't fair

To uncontradict myself with the trading rule, it probably only makes sense that trading into the same blastzone is the game's choice. While trading into separate blastzones and not losing closely at all because the star KO adds incredible time, will be considered first blastzoned is dead

 

[ぱみゅ]

It' still too complicated of a rule, specially when it comes to monitor it.
But anyway, this game obviously favors horizontal and downwards KOs, the only instance where you depend on the RNG is when launching the opponent upwards. That's just the game is designed.
And going against the design like that would be arbitrary, inefficient, and inconvenient.

 

[wpwood]

I just watched the MD/VA vs Texas crew battle at G3, and I was thinking it's weird that there isn't a special rule for olimar / alph in crews. If Olimar has to start the match down 1 or 2 stocks it will change the order of his pikmen, but there isn't a rule to force him to throw away his pikmen to get the original order of red, blue, yellow. I would think starting with white pikmen is an advantage for Olimar given the damage it does from side b, and then purple pikmen is a hit box and not a grab box. I think that should be a special rule for Olimar & Alph in crew battles. What do you guys say?

EDIT:
A special rule when fighting Lucario to account for aura should be added as well. No SDs at the start and just remember how many stocks each person has.

 

[Mr.989]

This might be a dumb question but I'm pretty new to Smashboards and competitive playing and was having a little trouble finding an answer. Do tournaments generally allow changing your button configuration? I've been practicing more on my free time including finding a controller setting that I feel comfortable with. Just wondering if I should change back to the default settings when practicing so I can adjust to being comfortable with them for tournaments. Thanks in advance for any info provided!

 

[Thecombosetups]

This might be a dumb question but I'm pretty new to Smashboards and competitive playing and was having a little trouble finding an answer. Do tournaments generally allow changing your button configuration? I've been practicing more on my free time including finding a controller setting that I feel comfortable with. Just wondering if I should change back to the default settings when practicing so I can adjust to being comfortable with them for tournaments. Thanks in advance for any info provided!

Yeah, tournaments will generally allow you to change your button configuration before the start of a match.

 

[Mr.989]

Yeah, tournaments will generally allow you to change your button configuration before the start of a match.

Awesome, good to know. Thanks for the reply