Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Yikarur]

It's not about common one's. If you allow any size, ANY combination should be available. Not just the one's we subjectively decide to be the "most common one's".
To create a new Mii you have to exit the game, have a gamepad synced and go into the Mii Maker.

In germany for example we tell our players to keep their gamepad at home because of it's value. Accessing the Mii Maker should never be an option.

 

[vegeta18]

im really frustrated by this but are "all wireless controllers are banned" gonna be at every tournament now? I feel this really messes with me because i use a wiiU pro controller and use the extra buttons for a lot of things. Feel like its kinda bull that i have to learn how to play this game on a new controller just because of this. I understand gamepads and 3ds/2ds being banned in some tourneys, cause gamepad has all sorts of prloblems, and 3ds is annoying cuz of the way you have to sync it, but wii u pro controllers, and normaly wii controllers like wii mote and numchuck should be allowed imo.

 

[ぱみゅ]

From a TO's perspective, Pro Controllers are about as annoying as 2/3DS, the latter have issues with pre-games, but the former with post-games.
2/3DS take few minutes to setup, from their synchronizing to their mapping.
Pro will very likely prevent games from starting at some point because they keep on activating and get unable to shut down.
None is a problem at locals, or if the venue is small enough, but it can be a nightmare for larger events.

It can be prevented if you remove the battery from the controller and use it merely wired, but not every Pro Controller can do that.

 

[Yikarur]

If TO's have problems with the wireless method they should allow the wired method.
Gamecube Controller is heavily flawed and I would never want to use it. In germany a lot of people use the WiiU Pro Controller. It would hurt the scene heavily to ban them.

 

[Pyr]

I really don't get how it's "heavily flawed" when it gets the job done without issue. You can prefer it and your scene can heavily prefer it, but, just like the pads vs sticks debate, the controller you use is irrelevant so long as you can play with it.

Also, despite having the battery rule in my locations last monthly, a game was still delayed due to a wireless controller. It wasn't even a big tournament. Wiring it will have to be done in the future because, no matter what the precautions, it's still going to happen and have an impact on occasion.

 

[dav3yb]

I really don't get how it's "heavily flawed" when it gets the job done without issue. You can prefer it and your scene can heavily prefer it, but, just like the pads vs sticks debate, the controller you use is irrelevant so long as you can play with it.

Also, despite having the battery rule in my locations last monthly, a game was still delayed due to a wireless controller. It wasn't even a big tournament. Wiring it will have to be done in the future because, no matter what the precautions, it's still going to happen and have an impact on occasion.

what kind of issue with the controller was there? If you remove the battery from the pro controller, it will work fine off of the USB power, so when someone is done, pull the power, and there is zero chance of it interfering with the games.

 

[Pyr]

what kind of issue with the controller was there? If you remove the battery from the pro controller, it will work fine off of the USB power, so when someone is done, pull the power, and there is zero chance of it interfering with the games.

Someone forgot to do just that. That's the issue: it'll happen because people aren't perfect. Especially in areas where pro controllers aren't the norm.

 

[dav3yb]

Someone forgot to do just that. That's the issue: it'll happen because people aren't perfect. Especially in areas where pro controllers aren't the norm.

At our last tournament, i made sure to note that if any controller inteferred with a game, a warning, then disqualification would happen. And we didn't allow a 3rd party controller that did not have a removable battery. It's a rule that needs to start being used even at locals to get players acclimated to it, and to help spread the rule around more.

 

[Dre89]

What are the rules if a match goes to Sudden Death? (this is possible in stock matches)

 

[Player -0]

It's typically decided by stock (more is better) and then percent (lower is better). The player with the most stocks and lowest percents takes the game.

Typically if this ties then the game is replayed with 1 stock 4 minutes or something.

 

[Dre89]

It's typically decided by stock (more is better) and then percent (lower is better). The player with the most stocks and lowest percents takes the game.

Typically if this ties then the game is replayed with 1 stock 4 minutes or something.

Ahk so it's basically the same rules as a time-out then

 

[Ajimi]

It is impossible for the game to go to SD if a player has a stock lead. SD only occurs if they are both on the same stock, so the precision "more stocks wins" is pointless. The rules (as I think they should be, at least):

• The ingame victory screen is always followed (except when SD occurs)
  
• If SD occurs :
  • If the match was ended with a suicide move, the initiator lose
  • If it goes to timeout, the player with less percents wins
  • In case of equal % or simultaneous death, an identical rematch 1 stock 3 minutes is played (same characters, same stage)

 

[Ansou]

If the match was ended with a suicide move, the initiator lose

Uhm what? The initiator loses? Why is that? I've seen rules stating the opposite but never that the initiator loses. Perhaps suicide moves that cause Sudden Death should just be treated the same as if the match goes to timeout?

 

[Ajimi]

Well, there is two reasons for that. The first is that unlike Brawl (= port priority), the result screen of the game should not be ignored, because we have no reason to. So if the game says a win then it's a win, and if it says a lose then it's a lose. The only remaining question is when sudden death occurs.

There is two possible cases when a match is ended with a suicide move :
- Ganoncide always wins in the victory screen (so the sudden death case is irrelevant).
- EVERY OTHER suicide move either makes the initiator lose (in the victory screen) or go to sudden death. For Bowser it depends on the stage played on, for Kirby (if I recall correctly) it is which way he is facing, etc. But they never, never win.

So there is a few options from here :
- Making the initiator always wins, which can go against the victory screen (heck, a Villager can recover from a Bowsercide for example). Makes no sense at all and is a very bad grandfathered rule.

- Making the initiator wins in case of sudden death, or using the timeout clause. It means the results can be inconsistent for a same move (sometimes loss, sometimes wins/timeout) ; and also means that every existing player has to memorize all possible outcomes. For example, it means that every player has to know the result of a Bowsercide in every legal stage, including Omega forms (so 50+ cases) in case they face a Bowser in tournament. This option is not really "uncompetitive" per se, but it is a huge pain in the ass to learn that much hard data for a very low reward.

- Making the initiator lose in case of sudden death. It is a clean and simple rule ; but more importantly it provides a consistent result (across all stages and everything) much more inline with the results given by the game (which is, again, NEVER a win). That is my second reason for that rule.

 

[Mitt Fuzzy]

- Making the initiator lose in case of sudden death. It is a clean and simple rule ; but more importantly it provides a consistent result (across all stages and everything) much more inline with the results given by the game (which is, again, NEVER a win). That is my second reason for that rule.

From a ruling perspective, it is simpler to have a Sudden Death clause without an additional clause for dealing with suicide moves. All instances of Sudden Death would be dealt with in the same manner.

Furthermore, if your concern is staying as true as possible to the results decided by the game, then giving a loss to a player on a Sudden Death where there is no percent lead (a tie in any other circumstance) doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

 

[Ajimi]

We already bypass SD no matter what. When players die at exactly the same time (non-suicide, rare but can happen) or when percents are tied, we already have another rule (1s3m rematch). So from there, I don't think adding another specificity is that big of a deal if it is justified.

As I said, yes, treating suicide-SD the same way as any other SD is not strictly uncompetitive. So, why not after all (as long as people stop with the suicide=win rule, I'm fine). But it still renders moves inconsistent, and still requires every single player to learn a whole bunch of specific hard data (Bowser with 50+ stages). Technically doable, but a huge and unjustified pain in the ass in my opinion.

It adds one line in the rules, but is more simpler in regard to the game mechanics (win->win ; loss->loss ; loss or SD->loss).

 

[Ansou]

We already bypass SD no matter what. When players die at exactly the same time (non-suicide, rare but can happen) or when percents are tied, we already have another rule (1s3m rematch). So from there, I don't think adding another specificity is that big of a deal if it is justified.

As I said, yes, treating suicide-SD the same way as any other SD is not strictly uncompetitive. So, why not after all (as long as people stop with the suicide=win rule, I'm fine). But it still renders moves inconsistent, and still requires every single player to learn a whole bunch of specific hard data (Bowser with 50+ stages). Technically doable, but a huge and unjustified pain in the *** in my opinion.

It adds one line in the rules, but is more simpler in regard to the game mechanics (win->win ; loss->loss ; loss or SD->loss).

Well... Bowsercides ARE inconsistent. Why should we try to change that? It's a shame for the Bowser players that they have to memorize a lot of data if they want to use it as a viable option, but if they don't want to memorize it, then they should simply not go for a Bowsercide. And about the one getting hit by the move, they don't necessarily have to memorize it. If they don't memorize it, they just have to know that getting Bowsercided when Bowser has a percentage lead might be a bad idea. If they do memorize it, then they can use that extra knowledge to their advantage.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Ganondorf has a suicide move that is pretty much inescapable once it grabs you and automatically makes Ganon win on last-stock scenarios, and yet Ganoncide is still perfectly legal. Bowsercide is dependant on stage blastzones, yes, but it's still basically the same idea.

And Bowsers wouldn't need to memorize a lot of data to use Bowsercide as an option, only the legal stage list since that's where they'll be playing.

 

[Megamang]

You guys are aware that you can not only control bowsers direction, but it is already percentage based in who gets more control. Additionally, its not like suicides are on many top characters/mobile characters; most tournaments use initiator wins and still rarely see the suicides.

 

[Ajimi]

And Bowsers wouldn't need to memorize a lot of data to use Bowsercide as an option, only the legal stage list since that's where they'll be playing.

That is forgetting Omegas.

Well... Bowsercides ARE inconsistent. Why should we try to change that? It's a shame for the Bowser players that they have to memorize a lot of data if they want to use it as a viable option, but if they don't want to memorize it, then they should simply not go for a Bowsercide. And about the one getting hit by the move, they don't necessarily have to memorize it. If they don't memorize it, they just have to know that getting Bowsercided when Bowser has a percentage lead might be a bad idea. If they do memorize it, then they can use that extra knowledge to their advantage.

I think consistency is important, and that it is still a lot of data to learn for almost nothing. But you're right, we don't HAVE to change that. I will meditate and maybe reconsider my stance on this one ^^ (as long as we do not make the initiator win, I'm fine).

You guys are aware that you can not only control bowsers direction, but it is already percentage based in who gets more control. Additionally, its not like suicides are on many top characters/mobile characters; most tournaments use initiator wins and still rarely see the suicides.

"Initiator wins" is a very very bad rule that was copy-pasted from Brawl for absolutely no reason. It should not be used. Tier placement has nothing to do with that.
Also last time I checked (I admit it was a while ago, maybe it changed since), the internal mechanics of how much each player have control over Bowser were not fully understood.

 

[Megamang]

Many tournaments have omegas banned, they have a lot of inconsistency overall.

Initiator wins is not from brawl, its from a general smash rule of suicide moves are very avoidable, if youre hit with any on your last stock... you should lose. Dont let bowser klaw you over the edge. If you cant do that, learn ONE omega where you win, request that.

 

[Ajimi]

Except very big majors that can have copyright issues with music (like EVO did), I don't see any reason as to why Omega stages should be banned. But this is another debate.

I do not know when the "initiator wins" rule was first introduced (although I think I never saw it used for Melee) ; however the rule is valid for Brawl, because the game determines the winner of a suicide move by port priority, which is uncompetitive. Unless you have a similar and objective reason for Smash 4, this rule should not be used for that game.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Pro Controllers should be allowed, if anything enforce the rule to remove the battery and wire them for large nationals and regionals.

I recall reading somewhere that Pro Controllers were the best wireless option - something to do with the Bluetooth technology being newer and causing less interference problems.

 

[Megamang]

Except very big majors that can have copyright issues with music (like EVO did), I don't see any reason as to why Omega stages should be banned. But this is another debate.

I do not know when the "initiator wins" rule was first introduced (although I think I never saw it used for Melee) ; however the rule is valid for Brawl, because the game determines the winner of a suicide move by port priority, which is uncompetitive. Unless you have a similar and objective reason for Smash 4, this rule should not be used for that game.

They have varied properties, such as traction. Also give good characters more options, zss and shiek having walls all the way down gives their specials crazy flexibility. As pika, walls all the way down basically gives you free recovery since i can cover my return with multiple tjolts.

 

[Ajimi]

They have varied properties, such as traction. Also give good characters more options, zss and shiek having walls all the way down gives their specials crazy flexibility. As pika, walls all the way down basically gives you free recovery since i can cover my return with multiple tjolts.

I know that. So ? Shall we also ban Duck Hunt because it has a wall ? It's just a reason to counterpick a given stage/omega instead of another, I don't see where is the problem. It's not unfair by any means, and characters can benefit from this everywhere on the tier list (not just "good" characters).

Additional question (to everyone) regarding sudden death.
When the two players die at the exact same time (non-suicide), we agree that we go for a rematch 1s3m, right ?

Then, if it is a suicide move that triggered the sudden death. Do we go for a rematch as well ? The two players by definition died at the same time. Or do we go with percent lead, which means we have to take into account the percentage they had before they died ? But if we take percents before death, why not do that for the non-suicide case as well ?

 

[ParanoidDrone]

They have varied properties, such as traction. Also give good characters more options, zss and shiek having walls all the way down gives their specials crazy flexibility. As pika, walls all the way down basically gives you free recovery since i can cover my return with multiple tjolts.

When I pick (or ban) FD/Omegas, I am not worried about whether the stage has grass or not, or whether it floats or not. I'm concerned first and foremost about the complete lack of platforms. That's the defining feature of the stage and everything else is secondary at best by my internal priority list.

Disclaimer that none of my preferred characters can wall jump, which probably affects my decision making process a bit.

 

[Megamang]

When I pick (or ban) FD/Omegas, I am not worried about whether the stage has grass or not, or whether it floats or not. I'm concerned first and foremost about the complete lack of platforms. That's the defining feature of the stage and everything else is secondary at best by my internal priority list.

Disclaimer that none of my preferred characters can wall jump, which probably affects my decision making process a bit.

Well, if you pick FD against someone with a walljump, are you ok with them changing it to omega with walls?

 

[Illuminose]

When you counterpick stages, your opponent's desires should have nothing to do with your counterpick.

Like, not even a little bit (outside bans).

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Well, if you pick FD against someone with a walljump, are you ok with them changing it to omega with walls?

If I'm the one counterpicking then I'd be the one picking the Omega, last I checked.

 

[Megamang]

So you do care, even though its 'secondary at best' was my point. Because they are different. So their legality isnt assumed because FD is legal, since thats not how we do it, *last i checked*. Thanks for all reminded me how counterpicking works though.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

You asked if I would care if the opponent wanted to pick an Omega. My response was that the question is nonsensical because they can't do that if I'm the one counterpicking. And vice versa, if they're counterpicking an Omega then the Omega they want is up to them, if I wanted to avoid a flat stage that badly I'd have banned it.

To more directly address what I'm pretty sure is your point, then the only instance I would ever consider Omega differences is vs. Villager, who I'd prefer to take somewhere he can't fly under the stage. That said, I basically never counterpick to FD/Omega anyway (my preferred characters tend to dislike it for various reasons), so...yeah, still a bit of a moot point for my personal situation.

Veering away from that particular discussion, I do not believe that the difference between Omegas (namely, shape of the underside, wall jumping, and grass) are significant enough to warrant banning select Omegas or otherwise grouping them together. If you want to ban them all just to avoid the headache, that's fine (if a bit extreme IMO), and likewise substituting a specific Omega for FD strikes me as a bit pointless but also not completely unreasonable. But that's where I draw the line.

 

[Ghostbone]

All omegas affect gameplay slightly, but them affecting gameplay is no reason to ban them lol, we might as well ban every stage besides smashville if we dislike people counter-picking advantageous stages (yes i know smashville isn't completely neutral but just for the sake of the argument it is)

FD isn't any more special than any specific omega. We're just used to "Final Destination" because it was in previous games, even though Final destination has had different undersides in every game (like many omegas have different undersides). There's no reason to favour FD and compare how every omega affects gameplay with FD, FD itself should just be treated as another omega form. Omegas don't deserve to all be banned, but allowing a player to ban all omegas at once is obviously necessary as otherwise you'd never be able to prevent a little mac counterpicking you to one lol.

For simplicity's sake in game 1, FD can be used as the "standard" omega, though tbh something like orbital gate assault or Suzaku castle seems a lot more "standard" in terms of underside layout than actual FD lol. Though it's somewhat arbitrary and people are used to FD, so it's easiest to stick with that.

 

[Yikarur]

We use Palutena Omega most of the time.
In fact our ruleset states that "Final Destination is treated as an Omega stage" and is equal to all Omegas.

 

[Megamang]

I feel like all they add is abusiveness for already successful characters. And i guess the look and feel is cool;it certainly prevents FG from being so monotonous. Treating it as FD is fine by me, im just playing devils advocate to say why people might not like it.

 

[tarextherex]

Self explanatory. That would prevent extreme fraudulence from you winning game 1, losing game 2 on your opponent's cp, but then be forced to pick a stupid counterpick that may benefit him(a lot of those in smash4 tbh) when you can't pick again the neutral in which you won and he banned bf and smashville so you're forced to pick a weird stage. That way we can still have a varied stagelist but much less complaints of people whining about some of the cps, everyone wins

 

[Raijinken]

If a stage is "fraudulent" enough to influence a match like that, it should be banned outright. There's no reason to distinguish something as fair for round 1 and not for later rounds.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Your post implies 3 starters, which is usually not ideal.
Also, if your character is bad outside of those 3 stages the character is probably bad overall.


EDIT: So the merging got rid of the title and so the introduction and the rule itself were lost, whoops.
It was along the lines of "Rule idea: two stage bans, but only one of the starters"

 

[tarextherex]

Your post implies 3 starters, which is usually not ideal.
Also, if your character is bad outside of those 3 stages the character is probably bad overall.


EDIT: So the merging got rid of the title and so the introduction and the rule itself were lost, whoops.
It was along the lines of "Rule idea: two stage bans, but only one of the starters"

No, I'm implying 5 neutral stages. Banning two neutrals is simply maximizing fraudulence potential in a game with rage and that is played with 2 stocks. Also has nothing with how good the char is, you could main sheik and have all of your neutrals away except for say dreamland that you dislike, the rest are basically lylat which messes up your needles and all of the other cps mostly make killing much easier for a lot of chars but not you. When it's your cp you should at least be able to go back to a neutral instead of being forced to take a cp that can very easily jank either of you(ex when both chars kill well off the top but you don't like the shape of the stage)/a stage that you don't like. Not only this rule doesn't hurt a bigger stagelist for those who like that but it also lets players who prefer neutrals actually play on them when it's their counterpick.

 

[Ghostbone]

So people shouldn't have to learn to play on stages as different as Lylat
A stage that was starter longer than Dreamland was and is still starter in some areas.

That's literally the crux of your argument.
Sheik can ****ing adapt to Lylat lmao. We don't cater to people who are too lazy to learn the legal stages.

 

[ぱみゅ]

So you're calling "fraudulent" a victory using something you do not WANT, instead of something that legitimately affects your character's performance. In that case your ruling would have no base but a likely personal bias.

We can't make rules to cater things we don't like, or we would be banning Rosalina and Sonic all across the board.