Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Nul]

@tobi_

I always feel like certain rulesets support laziness from the players, or downright reward laziness.
That's why I heavily agree with Yikarur on this topic.
Too many stage bans results in people banning stuff they find inconvenient instead of just banning stuff they have a disadvantage on.
I do feel like one stage ban is pretty much necessary in certain MU's (Mac/Dorf on DH for example), so one should be fine.
DSR as already mentioned also counters laziness and prevents cheap picks.

On the topic of FLSS, we ran this a while at our monthly with 13 stages, but we dropped it because the average player just didn't care.
I feel like it's a good system though if people actually put effort in their stage picks.

Unless people have been shown to ban otherwise, bans will be personal preference. Unless a player is stubborn, they will learn after the first time. If a player wants to just ban particular stages off preference and not MU, then let them try to go against the meta. If they're not successful, fine. If they are, then they get talked about on Reddit if it was significant.

DSR doesn't inherently counter laziness - especially when Gentlemen's WF / LF / GF tends to happen a lot. I think that having a larger list and appropriate Pbans would serve better. The part that I'm getting at was an old (Brawl) argument of a player "only learning 3 stages" is the laziness that we need to counter.

The argument is, back at FD+BF+SV for neutrals (works for 5 neu's too - shocker) you're going to play one of these 3 stages no matter what. The player that is 3-stage lazy wins, gets taken to not one of these and loses, can now automatically go back to one of the 3 under DSR + 1 Pban. 3-Stage lazy wins. Let's say only because of these 3 stages they will win. In most (if not all) cases they win money (3rd) despite being "lazy." Wasn't every major so far able to conform to this argument? Please tell me you and Yika are fighting laziness. The striking process is the least of our worries.

The argument loses to 7+ 1st stage striking. The argument loses to 3 bans (on first CP) combined in some way. This is why I'm fighting for these two independent of each other. Combined we might have a Charlie Foxtrot of restriction unless we have an enormous stage list to support it.

13 stage strike is a lot, and I can see this as mentally exhausting, which is possibly why people stopped caring. I like it, but I doubt the Sm4sh populous will. If there was some way to automate this / make this easier for the players, I'm sure people will care. (I know this sounds lazy, but we aren't trying to get them to play the mini-game of stage selection, but prevent lazy picks)

 

[Yikarur]

If a player wants to just ban particular stages off preference and not MU, then let them try to go against the meta. If they're not successful, fine. If they are, then they get talked about on Reddit if it was significant.

the problem is that with 2 stage bans you are not "punished" for banning for preference. This stage list is so balanced that I personally don't know what to ban most of the time. 1 Ban is more than enough. And if you give them more bans it's just like "oh I ban whatever stage I don't like an can still ban a stage for the MU"
With 1 ban that ban needs to be used carefully and smart and if people are banning for preference reasons then they are at least punished for it, if they forfeit to ban for the MU.
2 Bans take that away. 2 Bans are way too much.

 

[Nul]

the problem is that with 2 stage bans you are not "punished" for banning for preference. This stage list is so balanced that I personally don't know what to ban most of the time. 1 Ban is more than enough. And if you give them more bans it's just like "oh I ban whatever stage I don't like an can still ban a stage for the MU"
With 1 ban that ban needs to be used carefully and smart and if people are banning for preference reasons then they are at least punished for it, if they forfeit to ban for the MU.

In the ideal world, banning for preference is a throwaway ban. Also with your mentality, you assume that there is only every 1 stage to give advantage to a given character in a match-up. Which is to say with G3 rules, 1 stage favors player 1, 1 stage favors player 2, and the other 5 are near-neutral. This is not the case. This game is not so black and white that only ever is 1 stage more advantageous that the other 5 were not to be considered to a match-up.

I give you ROB. This thing likes LC, SV, T&C, and dislikes FD. ROB doesn't care about MU to go LC. ROB won't think twice about going SV or T&C if they must. This is really close to 3-stage lazy as well. You still can't beat ROB completely in stage picks alone. ROB is a character that you will probably not have to think about the MU to stage pick. I could go on with about half the cast, but I talked in-depth with the local ROB players (it's hot on my mind) and these stage preferences are in agreement here.

So going back to 2 Pbans - "preference" is "throwaway" when you get high-level players. Who cares in low-level? I'd see it as they weren't completely helpless, because even "preference" banning still feels like you had a choice. In high-level, every fraction of a % counts in advantage much more than low-level play. There aren't going to be "preference" bans in Finals sets. Sure, Gentlemens and salty runbacks, but those aren't "preference" bans. Oh, 'X' person didn't learn UCT and is a high-level player? 'X' will ban it, because it will give their opponent potential advantage, unless 'X' knows they didn't learn the stage either.

"Preference" banning because you don't know a MU shows (maybe not obviously) that you're not high-level, you can be just close enough to look it. So, say a character has 2 advantage stages over your character, you ban 1 stage "smartly" and 2nd ban some other stage because you don't like it. What do you think is going to happen?

Just because you don't know what to ban, doesn't mean that an extra ban is too much.

 

[Yikarur]

and why do you need 2 bans?
The "preference ban" argument was a theoretical construct and this theoretical construct is empirical proven as applicable.
That does not mean that it's the only outcome and the only behavior, but it's a common behavior.

We have a very balanced stage list. The reasons we have bans is to prevent hard counter-picking. Hard Counter-Picking does not exist in that stage list. We don't have a rainbow cruise or brinstar or mute city or halberd.
The only reason bans have ever been invented are to prevent unwinnable Match-ups caused by a stage. (thats why I think Duck Hunt would be banned in an optimal stage list)
So 2 bans are absolutely unnecessary. The stage list I'd promote atm could even work with no bans.

 

[Nul]

The "preference ban" argument was a theoretical construct and this theoretical construct is empirical proven as applicable.

We have a very balanced stage list. The reasons we have bans is to prevent hard counter-picking. Hard Counter-Picking does not exist in that stage list. We don't have a rainbow cruise or brinstar or mute city or halberd.
The only reason bans have ever been invented are to prevent unwinnable Match-ups caused by a stage. (thats why I think Duck Hunt would be banned in an optimal stage list)
So 2 bans are absolutely unnecessary. The stage list I'd promote atm could even work with no bans.

Did you mean: The "preference ban" is empirical? What would that even mean? That bans not made on MU happen (which I acknowledge with this question: "Who cares []?") ? So what? Why does it even matter that it happens? Nowhere did I say it was the only outcome, nor did I insinuate. I noted the likely outcome of when it happens in given situations which are also common.

I won't deny that the list (8 stage) is considered balanced to a degree. It is now what we do with this list that will maintain the balance. Hard counter-picking doesn't exist? Mac vs Jiggs on FD? ROB vs Lucario on LC? I beg to differ that there are not still hard counter-picks on this list. Just because a stage is not generally viewed as "extreme" doesn't mean it can still sway a MU hard. I would like to know where ban arguments are, and them coming about because of unwinnable MU's. I'm arguing that some people just have a hard time playing on a given stage, and that's where preference comes in.

No bans sounds like a 3 stage list given that there's nothing else to assume about what you said.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Are there any tournaments using Umbra Clocktower atm? If so, any videos of the stage being played on?

 

[Routa]

Are there any tournaments using Umbra Clocktower atm? If so, any videos of the stage being played on?

As far as I know at least S&C had it legal.

Also what you guys think about Beast ruleset? In my opinion it is not bad at all. Only thing that I would change is the Mii thing (there isn't commonly agreed "best set" for Swordfighter). But it is better than nothing, eh?

 

[DavemanCozy]

As far as I know at least S&C had it legal.

Also what you guys think about Beast ruleset? In my opinion it is not bad at all. Only thing that I would change is the Mii thing (there isn't commonly agreed "best set" for Swordfighter). But it is better than nothing, eh?

Thanks.

I think it's one of the better rulesets I've seen at a major yet in terms of the Miis. I still think that MLG had the best one so far.

 

[thehard]

In light of BEAST VI, (I haven't gotten a chance to watch it today so this is not a comment directed at it) how does everyone feel about a "2 stock pools, 3 stock bracket" ruleset?

 

[Megamang]

I personally like it, as it has the benefits of 3 stock but shortens the pools, which are usually the most problematic for taking to long.

 

[DanGR]

In light of BEAST VI, (I haven't gotten a chance to watch it today so this is not a comment directed at it) how does everyone feel about a "2 stock pools, 3 stock bracket" ruleset?

I'm against increasing game time specifically for players that make it farther in the bracket. That includes the recent trend of making all of top 8 best of 5, and the more traditional rule making finals best of 5.

It tells everyone that top players deserve more play time, more time to adapt, and more of a chance to avoid upsets, which is ludicrous.

 

[Ghostbone]

I'm against increasing game time specifically for players that make it farther in the bracket. That includes the recent trend of making all of top 8 best of 5, and the more traditional rule making finals best of 5.

It tells everyone that top players deserve more play time, more time to adapt, and more of a chance to avoid upsets, which is ludicrous.

Because people want to watch top players play, they don't want to watch round 1 pools.

And at top level, skill levels are closer, so the consistency of results that Bo5 offers is necessary, whereas in earlier rounds you have players of wildly different skills playing so all Bo5 does is turn most 2-0's into 3-0's.

 

[Nul]

In light of BEAST VI, (I haven't gotten a chance to watch it today so this is not a comment directed at it) how does everyone feel about a "2 stock pools, 3 stock bracket" ruleset?

Personally I like it only due to that I'm a stamina player - I require more time in-game to figure out my opponents than most.

We have had a 3 stock "un-ranked" tournament run a few times here, and the players that made top 8 consistently prefer 2 stocks. The recurring argument was consistency and correction. If you SD in 2 stock and your opponent does not, odds are you lose in even skill - this is lessened in 3 stocks. When you do SD in 2 stocks, you need to correct your actions carefully to truly earn the win.

For 2S pools - 3S bracket, I dislike it. You're featuring 2 metagames of player skill. Unless you're under a major series name or advertised well with a good bonus, you're not likely (historically on experience) going to do well. Something that will help this out is if pools are on a separate day.

I'm against increasing game time specifically for players that make it farther in the bracket. That includes the recent trend of making all of top 8 best of 5, and the more traditional rule making finals best of 5.

It tells everyone that top players deserve more play time, more time to adapt, and more of a chance to avoid upsets, which is ludicrous.

Not changing something for sake of tradition is bad. Acknowledging and occasionally throwing-back for to tradition is deemed OK. The move of Bo5 in all Top 8 matches is a "spectator game" move. We have a lot of people that want Smash to stand well in the eSports limelight, including most (if not all) majors. Stocks is the better argument for upsets.

 

[Megamang]

I thought quick games was partly mercy. Getting the seed 1 in pools destroying you in a bo3 is ok. You get bopped once, digest it, get to see how much less you get bopped at your counterpick (and thus evaluate your CP at a high level), shake hands and try to make it out 2nd.

If pools were best of 5, there would be a lot of 3rd games where a sad player gets mopped up by a much better player, while one thinks 'this is boring', the other thinks 'is this not over?' and both know whats gonna happen since midway through game 1.

This shouldn't happen in finals, only really when a visiting player from a much superior scene is destroying everyone. Even in this case its nice to watch players you deem good get beaten badly, to give you perspective on tiers of skill and to watch and learn. Once you get to a certain point, you have earned the chance to try to adapt since you have proven you are in the upper percentile of players there.

I see why winning shouldn't give you privileges, yet I don't see a better alternative. Bo5 for pools would take forever and have lots more bad games, while bo3 in the finals is short and anti climactic, especially in the kill confirm 2 stock meta we find ourselves in.

 

[Nul]

I thought quick games was partly mercy. Getting the seed 1 in pools destroying you in a bo3 is ok. You get bopped once, digest it, get to see how much less you get bopped at your counterpick (and thus evaluate your CP at a high level), shake hands and try to make it out 2nd.

This shouldn't happen in finals,

I see why winning shouldn't give you privileges, yet I don't see a better alternative. Bo5 for pools would take forever and have lots more bad games, while bo3 in the finals is short and anti climactic, especially in the kill confirm 2 stock meta we find ourselves in.

You've pretty much summed it up. I'm of the opinion that (at least in majors) pools shouldn't have as much eliminating power as they normally do. Unfortunately the strongest argument is time, which you don't get a lot of when you hold multiple games at an event - in this case I leave my thought at the door. I've also wanted to see Bo7 Finals (not Top 8) in the past.

Unless we have a huge disparity in skill, Bo5 is normally best to "measure" skill. We get this in Finals / Top 8 consistently. Sure, we can have low / mid level skill players facing each other and Bo5 would be best, but to be fair to everyone else, you make the whole round either Bo5 or Bo3. Because you'll have more large skill gaps than close in the early and mid rounds, Bo3 makes it fair.

Something formulated in my head just now: 2 round mercy Bo5 in early rounds? 2-0 ends a Bo5 early for a match win. Of course this will demand more time, but seeing this as a somewhat hybrid Tennis / Smash scoring system, would we like something like this? I'm very tempted to try this out to see how much change in time this will actually make on a local scale.

 

[Pazx]

You've pretty much summed it up. I'm of the opinion that (at least in majors) pools shouldn't have as much eliminating power as they normally do. Unfortunately the strongest argument is time, which you don't get a lot of when you hold multiple games at an event - in this case I leave my thought at the door. I've also wanted to see Bo7 Finals (not Top 8) in the past.

Unless we have a huge disparity in skill, Bo5 is normally best to "measure" skill. We get this in Finals / Top 8 consistently. Sure, we can have low / mid level skill players facing each other and Bo5 would be best, but to be fair to everyone else, you make the whole round either Bo5 or Bo3. Because you'll have more large skill gaps than close in the early and mid rounds, Bo3 makes it fair.

Something formulated in my head just now: 2 round mercy Bo5 in early rounds? 2-0 ends a Bo5 early for a match win. Of course this will demand more time, but seeing this as a somewhat hybrid Tennis / Smash scoring system, would we like something like this? I'm very tempted to try this out to see how much change in time this will actually make on a local scale.

You might be interested in reading this.

I think flex sets are a great idea.

 

[Ajimi]

I think this is a great idea. Something like "A set is won with either two consecutive victories or three victories in total".

 

[Ghostbone]

I think this is a great idea. Something like "A set is won with either two consecutive victories or three victories in total".

By that wording you'd win a set if you lost the first game then won the next 2 lol.

 

[Ajimi]

Yeah you're right, my bad. Still, I like the idea of flex sets.

 

[Yikarur]

Bo3 only for everything please.
It doesn't make sense to change the rules mid-tournament.

 

[Ghostbone]

Bo3 only for everything please.
It doesn't make sense to change the rules mid-tournament.

Bo3 at late stages of the tournament is complete trash, your results will never be consistent.

 

[Thinkaman]

If Bo3 is insufficient for consistency in later rounds, it is insufficient for consistency in earlier rounds.

The only argument for it that isn't a huge slap in the face to the community as a whole is that spectators prefer to watch more matches in the final rounds.

 

[Das Koopa]

Well, you can't have Bo5 an entire tournament since it delays everything (BEAST went hours overtime because Melee ran Bo5 in Top 32. I doubt Sm4sh would fare better.) but it's an endurance test for people who manage to make it to top 8, and while it's a rule change, it's not to anybody's detriment. It's more of a test of skill and provides a better viewing experience, both of which are important for the game's health.

 

[Nul]

You might be interested in reading this.

I think flex sets are a great idea.

Thanks Pazx, the read was good. BSR has gaps to it, namely it punishes your first ban if Flex goes Bo5. I think that I would Flex on Bo3 sets only, and only over-writing that it is a Flex, not the Pbans or WDSR.

If Bo3 is insufficient for consistency in later rounds, it is insufficient for consistency in earlier rounds.

The only argument for it that isn't a huge slap in the face to the community as a whole is that spectators prefer to watch more matches in the final rounds.

This. Consistency needs to happen in the whole tournament. The other argument is time, unfortunately we cannot gain more time, but rather lose more of it. From a TO perspective where I had a venue only give me 5 hours to run 16+ entrants, I couldn't run Doubles. If everything was Bo5, I doubt top 3 would have played. Majors aren't generally susceptible to this argument unless something went horribly wrong, but then time wasn't the cause.

 

[Ghostbone]

If Bo3 is insufficient for consistency in later rounds, it is insufficient for consistency in earlier rounds.

You don't need a bo5 to determine who the better player is between 1st and last seed.

People here need to realise the ideal is bo5 for the whole tournament, but that's not feasible because of time constraints. But just because we can't run bo5 for the whole tournament doesn't mean we shouldn't run bo5 for as much as we can lmao.

 

[Megamang]

This logic is extended to almost every competitive game, I don't think anyone is really offended that they aren't the focus. If anything, its a sigh of relief as you progress further.

Hell, in starcraft we see players who know they are worse taking advantage of smaller sets, going for crazy plays hoping to pull the upset. This plays into what I said earlier, seed 1 vs seed 16 is pretty depressing if its bo5.

 

[Yikarur]

why is the ideal Bo5 all? The ideal should be Best of 3 all, because you shouldn't change the rules during a tournament.
3 Stock Bo3 is enough to determine a winner. If 3 Stocks Bo3 is not enough to get consistent results I would worry about the game I'm playing.

 

[Megamang]

We have consistent top players, so they manage to make it through the early stages pretty much consistently. Then we get to see more of top player vs top player. Bo3 results probably wouldn't differ much, its just kind of a let down for top sets to go that quick in my opinion.

I agree that 3 stocks bo3 is good enough for consistency, as this allows adaption way more than 2 stocks. but apparently people don't want that, at least in my region. And I'd prefer more bo5 sets for more stage diversity and possible character switches, where bo3 doesn't have that range. And again, i know I just said bo5 is better but I've explained why at lower levels it can be kinda mean to set seeds the way they are and then force you to play a bo5. I legitimately think that would turn a lot of people off of going to tournaments.

 

[Ghostbone]

If 3 Stocks Bo3 is not enough to get consistent results I would worry about the game I'm playing.

Did you watch Genesis top 32?

Shaky vs Cacogen, Nairo vs Esam, NAKAT vs Slayerz, Mr.R vs Larry Lurr and GRAND FINALS all would have had different results if they were Bo3 sets.

Sure you can claim that 3 stock bo3 is more consistent than 2 stock bo3, but it's still less consistent than 2 stock bo5 and you don't have the data to argue that those sets would have gone the same way under 3 stock bo3.

Bo5 is essential for consistency in results, but can only be done in the late stages of the bracket because of tournament time constraints (and is also less relevant in earlier rounds where the placings aren't as impactful, and skill differentials are higher).

 

[Thinkaman]

I agree that Bo5 would be ideal. Actually, Bo7 would be even better.

But we do face time constraints, and have to cut somewhere.

However, the idea that the unskilled peons should exclusively bear the brunt of that knife, and that we should swap game formats mid-tournament, is asinine.

As a skilled player who plays a ton of characters, I benefit much more from long sets than most. I've won several important Bo5 sets by coming back from 0-2 or 1-2, far more than I've lost the other way around. But I can't ignore how grossly silly it is.

A tournament should play the exact same game every round, with no changes to settings, stage list, or format.

 

[deepseadiva]

I agree that Bo5 would be ideal. Actually, Bo7 would be even better.

But we do face time constraints, and have to cut somewhere.

However, the idea that the unskilled peons should exclusively bear the brunt of that knife, and that we should swap game formats mid-tournament, is asinine.

As a skilled player who plays a ton of characters, I benefit much more from long sets than most. I've won several important Bo5 sets by coming back from 0-2 or 1-2, far more than I've lost the other way around. But I can't ignore how grossly silly it is.

A tournament should play the exact same game every round, with no changes to settings, stage list, or format.

I know there's concern for the Smash proletariat, but I wonder if flex sets would have the effect of upping the overall intensity of all matches. Getting a single win might have a better psychological pull, resulting in more intense individual games, and better players overall.

 

[Megamang]

Assinine is harsh, its a pragmatic approach to the problem you presented. Flex sets have the same problem of ruining what would have been reverse allkills.

 

[jer155]

I think this should be the ruleset:
-2 stocks
-8 minutes
-rest is EVO ruleset

 

[NickRiddle]

I think this should be the ruleset:
-2 stocks
-8 minutes
-rest is EVO ruleset

Why the extra 2 minutes?

 

[Pazx]

This bo3 vs bo5 debate is not one I expected to encounter any time soon. I want tournaments to be (3 stock) best-of-5. That's not usually possible, so I'll settle for as much of the tournament being best-of-5 as possible.

What do you want, and is it realistic? If so, is it desirable?

 

[Ajimi]

Maybe the idea of flex sets should be put together with what has been discussed earlier (with Yikarur notably), that we do not really need bans in this game ? If my opponent has no ban but I still lose on my "true" counterpick, the skill difference between player is large enough to be warranted a loss for the set by 2-0. Otherwise, we go BO5. That way it would really promote stage knowledge, which is mainly ignored these days.

 

[Ghostbone]

I agree that Bo5 would be ideal. Actually, Bo7 would be even better.

But we do face time constraints, and have to cut somewhere.

However, the idea that the unskilled peons should exclusively bear the brunt of that knife, and that we should swap game formats mid-tournament, is asinine.

As a skilled player who plays a ton of characters, I benefit much more from long sets than most. I've won several important Bo5 sets by coming back from 0-2 or 1-2, far more than I've lost the other way around. But I can't ignore how grossly silly it is.

A tournament should play the exact same game every round, with no changes to settings, stage list, or format.

So what, because early rounds can't be bo5, we can't have any rounds best of 5?

This is some selfish thinking along the lines of, "If I can't have this, nobody can"

The tournament is only better off for having later rounds be Bo5, players knocked out in earlier rounds can likely play friendlies, and if they're watching top 32, would likely much rather those sets be Bo5 because it's more interesting to watch.

Bo5 in later rounds hurts nobody, except apparently salty players who got knocked out early because they weren't good enough, and wouldn't get to play bo5 no matter what anyway? I really don't understand how you can actually have this viewpoint.

 

[Routa]

The tournament is only better off for having later rounds be Bo5, players knocked out in earlier rounds can likely play friendlies, and if they're watching top 32, would likely much rather those sets be Bo5 because it's more interesting to watch.

So viewers>competitors? I do get your point, but it does feel rather odd only to have later matches Bo5. But that is my opinion.

 

[Unknownkid]

Hi. I am kind of new to the ruleset meta but I confused by EVO 2016 stage striking. http://evo.shoryuken.com/additional-rules/
In here, there are 5 starters stage but the strike format is (1-2-2-1). How does that work? Maybe my math is wrong but it shows 6 stages strikes for 5 stages?

 

[Teshie U]

Why the extra 2 minutes?

Probably to allow slower matchups to complete without a timeout. Japan does 2s/7m and did 3s/10m in brawl IIRC.

I personally think more time=more boring. The timer pushes players to act and while I used to advocate more time, I believe we should be doing 2s/5m or 3s/7m.

Not only does Smash give players much more space to retreat but we give players far more time to retreat, which can make matches drag on and bore viewers. People often say stock counts affect how aggressive players are, but in practice it comes down to the timer forcing the losing player to make plays.

Thinkaman I agree that in the interest of fairness, the format should be the same throughout the entire bracket. Japan does Bo3 even in finals and it keeps all sets on the same playing field, regardless of importance. You can't blame people from wanting a little more from the climax of a competition though. On the rare occasion you get some of the best players from a region, nation or planet together, you want to be a little more thorough at the top.

Unknownkid its just copy pasta from when the ruleset was listed with 7 starters