Evo 2013 Ruleset

[Laijin]

No we shouldn't. Players that aren't near the top of the metagame should have little say in what the stagelist is.

I care about what the top 100 players think and that's about it.

Thats cute. Good for you bro.

But I like I said. Should be up to the community. Most of us have been around for a long time and know just as much about the game as a "top 100 player". Honestly, how would you even go about in making a list like that? haha. Even if you've only been in the community for a few years, thats still enough time to soak up and learn about the game. So I disagree with your point

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I will never understand how wobbling can ever be banned all while Fox is allowed to shine-spike people at 0%.

 

[Laijin]

I will never understand how wobbling can ever be banned all while Fox is allowed to shine-spike people at 0%.

Its obvious man. One means you got grabbed while the other means you are off the stage. Even though you put yourself in both situations as a player. MAKES PERFECT SENSE

 

[SonuvaBeach]

i want moar stages

As bones has already stated to you in this thread and the other, this has been discussed many times before now. There are no new points that haven't been discussed. If you want the stages on, you should start hosting tournaments or getting other TO's to host tournaments with them on.

Wobbling not being banned would be nice.

And BSR sounds pretty good

 

[Laijin]

Just the mere fact that its been bought up many many times before is proof enough that a lot of people don't like it.

My point remains.

 

[enCouRaging Bear]

why are so many people opposed to playing with 3 stocks? i haven't gotten a good reason other than "it's what we're used to." does anyone know how we arrived at 4 stocks to begin with?
i personally think that it's irrelevant whether or not most matches are likely to end without the timer running completely. the potential for a 8 min match with the current rules is still there and high level melee matches (ie armada v. hbox) have run the full 8 min before. 8 min seems far too long for a single match and regardless of how common this scenario may be you have to assume that every player is willing to run the clock if it wins them the match
KOF will be the second game with the longest duration at evo (a full match has the potential to last 5 min i think)
I think we should match that and go for 3 stocks and 5/6 min limit
unless someone can provide me with a good reason for why not

 

[Bones0]

Bones, I've been thinking about your ruleset for a while, and I've finally figured out how to articulate what I have against it. It doesn't plug the hole that MDSR causes in that a player can still win a bo5 on 2 stages. One should never be able to counterpick back to a stage they've already won on, regardless of whether or not they've won on another stage in the interim, and regardless of whether the two players agreed to that stage for the first match. MDSR was born of the idea that this isn't true for the neutral pick, and, its other shortcoming notwithstanding, this alone should mean it's removed from competitive rulesets. I understand that this sounds like personal preference (because it is, as I explain here - tl;dr we can and do shape the competitive game to what we want it to be) but it really does make sense to me that you should need to win on 3 separate stages if you want to win 3 games.

The obvious solution (since under the current stage list there are characters that are clearly good but lack options for a 3rd stage against some other characters) is to add at least one more stage to the rotation.

Spoiler

I'd argue for Brinstar, since (among other things) we as a competitive community have sort of drifted towards stages with less ground area over those with more. This is less important than the rest of my post, hence my spoilering it.

Being able to counterpick the stage you won on game 1 is not a problem. First, the whole situation requires that the opponent be so bad at stage striking that not only does he strike to a stage that is +1 in his opponent's favor, but +2. If you're lost, I am simply placing values for each stage based on each player's opinion: -2, -1, 0, 1, 2. The negatives are beneficial for one player, and the positives are beneficial to the other. The 2s are the strongest counterpicks, and 0 is the stage both players perceive to be neutral. The only way someone will be forced to play on the same stage twice is if they strike to it. If you strike to a stage, you are considering that stage even ground. If your judgement of the stage is so far off that you decide it is the worst stage mid set, you can still ban it after your first win and you will only have to play it again after your second win. This situation overall is extremely rare. It'd be comparable to PP striking to FD against M2K, and then complaining that he had to play FD twice in the same set.

What it comes down to is you have to evaluate each game completely separate from each other. When you blind yourself from previous matches, it's easy to see how this is still fair:

Spoiler

Game 1: P1 beats P2 on 0, bans -2

Game 1: FAIR

Spoiler

Game 2: P2 beats P1 on 0 or -1, bans +2

Game 3: P1 beats P2 on +1 or 0, bans -1

Games 2 and 3: FAIR

P2 is able to cp 0 or -1 for game 2. He has two distinct choices. If P1 is not also able to cp 0 along with 1 for game 3, then that is clear bias in favor of the person who LOST the first game. It is providing a crutch in the form of better stage advantage to the player who falls behind first. If you ignore who won game 1, it's pretty clear that both players should be allowed to repick the stage that was struck to (as long as their opponent didn't ban it, ofc). The ONLY way around this situation is to slight P1 by blocking two stage choices out of 5 instead of 1. It's unfair, and shouldn't be in the ruleset. If you are worried about them cping the stage you lost on in game 1, ban it. Otherwise, tough cookies.

Disclaimer: I left the 6th stage out of the equation for simplicity's sake, but obviously you can see how it wouldn't change anything. P1 still gets less cp options than P2 after his first loss for no logical reason. I suppose you could prevent either player from counterpicking the first stage chosen game 1, but that seems extremely unnecessary given how rare it is for someone to want to repick the neutral, and even more rare because their opponent would usually rather go back to 0 than take their chances on +1 or +2.

 

[enCouRaging Bear]

also i agree with hax and think stadium should be taken out because of stalling on certain transformations
it only gets by now because people are willing to wait it out which is a rather silly scenario in a fighting game imo
we're at evo because at some level we want to merge with the fgc right?
well than i think we need to show them we're not so silly and cater in a small part to their standards which assumes that a player wants to win with whatever the rules allow them to do and take out aspects of our ruleset/stagelist that distort that in any way

my vote:
3 stocks
6min timer (2 min per stock sounds good)
wobbling allowed
"neutrals" only (Final destination, Yoshis story, Battlefield, dreamland, Fountain of dreams)
with one ban allowed per match after the initial match in both 2/3 and 3/5 sets

 

[Bones0]

Idk why people care about the stalling on PS. It's no doubt dumb that you have to just wait there for 30 seconds, but it's not like it's gamebreaking or anything.

3 stocks is awful. Why would you ask for less stocks per game when we've already decided on our usual 4 stocks, 8 minutes?

 

[MK26]

Being able to counterpick the stage you won on game 1 is not a problem. First, the whole situation requires that the opponent be so bad at stage striking that not only does he strike to a stage that is +1 in his opponent's favor, but +2. If you're lost, I am simply placing values for each stage based on each player's opinion: -2, -1, 0, 1, 2. The negatives are beneficial for one player, and the positives are beneficial to the other. The 2s are the strongest counterpicks, and 0 is the stage both players perceive to be neutral. The only way someone will be forced to play on the same stage twice is if they strike to it. If you strike to a stage, you are considering that stage even ground. If your judgement of the stage is so far off that you decide it is the worst stage mid set, you can still ban it after your first win and you will only have to play it again after your second win. This situation overall is extremely rare. It'd be comparable to PP striking to FD against M2K, and then complaining that he had to play FD twice in the same set.

What it comes down to is you have to evaluate each game completely separate from each other. When you blind yourself from previous matches, it's easy to see how this is still fair:

Spoiler

Game 1: P1 beats P2 on 0, bans -2

Game 1: FAIR

Spoiler

Game 2: P2 beats P1 on 0 or -1, bans +2

Game 3: P1 beats P2 on +1 or 0, bans -1

Games 2 and 3: FAIR

P2 is able to cp 0 or -1 for game 2. He has two distinct choices. If P1 is not also able to cp 0 along with 1 for game 3, then that is clear bias in favor of the person who LOST the first game. It is providing a crutch in the form of better stage advantage to the player who falls behind first. If you ignore who won game 1, it's pretty clear that both players should be allowed to repick the stage that was struck to (as long as their opponent didn't ban it, ofc). The ONLY way around this situation is to slight P1 by blocking two stage choices out of 5 instead of 1. It's unfair, and shouldn't be in the ruleset. If you are worried about them cping the stage you lost on in game 1, ban it. Otherwise, tough cookies.

Disclaimer: I left the 6th stage out of the equation for simplicity's sake, but obviously you can see how it wouldn't change anything. P1 still gets less cp options than P2 after his first loss for no logical reason. I suppose you could prevent either player from counterpicking the first stage chosen game 1, but that seems extremely unnecessary given how rare it is for someone to want to repick the neutral, and even more rare because their opponent would usually rather go back to 0 than take their chances on +1 or +2.

Ah, I remember counterpick values fondly. While your simplified model works in theory (and I think I've actually used it in a similar argument in a previous thread, so there's no confusion on my part as to what it is) it fails to take into account one very important data point: the fact that games aren't played in a vacuum. As nice as it is to state that stages have constant values, they definitely can change, especially after a match is played.

What's the rationale behind a salty runback? Since you lost on a stage, doesn't that mean it's not in your favour? Of course not, or else people wouldn't use the tactic. They take the information they learned from the first match, combine it with the intimidation factor of being confident enough to go back to the stage they just lost on, and more often than not,*turn that loss into a win.

The same logic applies here. While a stage may initially be a 0 when it's struck to, the data point that one player won on it (especially if it was with a large margin of victory) can easily swing the value. I'm not saying it has to go one direction, but expecting it always to be unchanged is incorrect. Hence not excluding it from DSR.

 

[enCouRaging Bear]

Idk why people care about the stalling on PS. It's no doubt dumb that you have to just wait there for 30 seconds, but it's not like it's gamebreaking or anything.

3 stocks is awful. Why would you ask for less stocks per game when we've already decided on our usual 4 stocks, 8 minutes?

why is 3 stocks so awful? i understand that 4 stocks is the USUAL but why has it become so?
it seems rather arbitrary that we use 4 stocks as it is AND it is harder to execute logistically in a tournament .
friggin apex ran for 2 days (some would say 3) with only 4 games and presumably less people than will be at evo and we need melee to run in a single day at evo (minus top 8 or 16 or whatever)
(at apex after melee ended at around midnight..brawl top 8 ran until 4 inthe goddamn morning!!!!! although i know most will say "but that's brawl and brawl is way campier..." we have to assume that melee has just as much potential to be campy)

 

[KrazyKnux]

we have to assume that melee has just as much potential to be campy)

LOL why do we have to assume that?

The real question is, why are you advocating 3 stocks so strongly? We already have one singular, solitary person complaining about the stagelist. The last thing we need is a lone representative of 3 stocks.

lol

I will never understand how wobbling can ever be banned all while Fox is allowed to shine-spike people at 0%.

If you get your opponent off the stage at 0% somehow, then they deserve to be shine spiked.

This topic is becoming quite hilarious at times. Let's just stick to my recommendations.

 

[enCouRaging Bear]

we assume that because we assume that people will do anything to win aka camp
there seems to be this sense in the melee community that people don't camp out of principle that it's "ghey" or whatever but that camping **** is quite viable and should be more common than it is assuming that everyone is as competitive as they should be

i advocate 3 stocks with a 5/6 min timer because imo i think melee games should be shorter but aside from whether or not you think 4 stocks is better than 3 which is your opinion, the 3 stock 6 min limit is better for running the type of tournament in the setting of evo so i think that should be implemented

i know i'm not the only one that thinks this:

Most will disagree with this. I understand the average set for other FGs are shorter and would like to propose 3 stock/5 minute matches for melee to keep time constraints in mind. BO3 though

i feel that although mr wizard said that he'd go with 4 stock and 8 min he either:
1. underestimates the sheer length of smash tournaments (i dont think ive been to a smash tourney that ended promptly on schedule)
or
2. is merely trying to go with the general consensus in lieu of a better alternative or in fear of outrage
i just don't understand why so many are against 3 stocks, there are definitely enough stocks there to prove your skills

 

[SonuvaBeach]

You've clearly never been to a tournament run by juggleguy. Always finish on time, or early.

It is very possible and shouldn't be an issue at all to run the tournament in a timely fashion. As long as the schedule is layed out clearly beforehand for the players and is communicated clearly they'll be there on time. This is evo, so calling out matches or pools or whatever should not be an issue, and dq's will be enforced. Not to mention 90 percent of games will range 3-4 minutes. This a professional tournament and they will have no issue finishing on time .

3 stocks is an unnecessary change for these reasons.

 

[KrazyKnux]

(In response to CareBear)

I think the only way 3 stock 6 min is better is if 4 stock 8 min doesn't work. But that's what we're using, so by definition it has to work. If some catastrophic incident occurs and the tournament doesn't finish then yes, 3 stock 6 min would be definitively better. Until then you can't say "the 3 stock 6 min limit is better for running [EVO]".

And I'm sure you're not the only person advocating 3 stocks, I was just kidding. But to be fair, TaFoKiNtS said that before we settled on 4 stock 8 min. The only other person you're looking for is Fox Hater (I think that's his name.)

And yes, camping is viable. Good point - that's the reason we shouldn't have stages like KJ or RC (aside from other factors). But it doesn't shorten the average length of the match because we've already tested that (via all the tournaments we've held with 4 stock/8 min), which is why we shouldn't assume Melee plays as slow/campy as Brawl. So I guess you think the matches should be 2-3 minutes on average? OK that's fine, but I'm sure most other people wouldn't agree.

So I guess we narrowed it down to my recommendations. Good looks! =D

 

[UltiMario]

i understand that 4 stocks is the USUAL but why has it become so?

Because EC/WC couldn't agree on 3 stocks or 5 stocks more than a decade ago.

And then 4 stocks came to be, and all metagame dynamics centered around it since.

Changing it now makes all that history and experience worthless.

js

 

[Blacknight99923]

Because EC/WC couldn't agree on 3 stocks or 5 stocks more than a decade ago.

And then 4 stocks came to be, and all metagame dynamics centered around it since.

Changing it now makes all that history and experience worthless.

js

Wow really?

thats interesting.

 

[lemonlau36]

4 stocks gives players some padding for correcting errors and greater potential for comebacks.

I think that is much more important than shortening a game by 0:45~ish. Melee games on average don't even come close to 8 min, and though the potential exists for a game to do so, maybe one out of every 100 games will be clocked at 6-8 min. That's not a hard fact, but that's from my experience. Hardly worth sacrificing a stock for.

Like, I guess you can dissent if you want, but I think your reasoning is not going to be effective in swaying the majority.

 

[Hax]

regarding Stadium:

Stadium is just an absurd counterpick for spacies. i don't see how giving the 2 best characters a ridiculous cp is healthy for the game at all

Rock/Fire transformations are ridiculous and would be banned stages if they were on their own

aside from that, stalling out transformations = 30 seconds = VALUABLE Evo stream time

-

regarding the timer:

the reason matches would take longer with a 6 minute timer is because the timer would actually matter. at 8 minutes, the timer is practically ignored/a nonfactor; no one is gay enough to utilize their lead to force their opponent to approach as doing so would display a willingness to play an 8 minute game of Melee.

this is why the correct duration for a timer is Street Fighter/Marvel's timer duration; an amount of time that threatens to time out an abnormally long game. the equivalent of this would be 5 or 6 minutes in Melee. the timer shouldn't be long to the point where you can play 3 games of Melee within the time limit for 1 match; it doesn't even serve its purpose at that point.

basically, you get shorter games of Melee with an 8 minute timer because no one pays attention to the timer. you are essentially playing with no timer. in terms of finishing the Melee tournament faster, this is good. but this also means that you are playing a flawed game where the person who is losing does not feel the need to approach that he should.

-

regarding stocks:

there is no way we could ever even consider suddenly switching the amounts of stocks we play with at EVO. this is a MASSIVE change to the game. it can be tested at other tournaments -- not at EVO.

-

regarding wobbling:

still unbelievable to me that this technique was ever banned. not even remotely broken. IC's will literally become 1-2% better if it's legal. all tournaments from here on out need to have wobbling on

 

[Super]

Watching Ultrachen show today, it reaffirmed that I believe in allowing wobbling. Apex ruleset with wobbling would be the most convenient (even though I don't like the way it's dsr is setup..). It's crazy that it was ever banned anyways...............

 

[Lawlb0t]

I think taht this terny shuld b too stalkz, no minites or itums, mute city, peach onyl. it is most fair, so every1 can reach ground back equally. Every1 agree?

Maybe I am wrong, but from what I understand of Melee the only characters that truly benefit from the banned stages are the higher tiers, but not only that, but within that high tier it gives absurd advantages in some match ups. Yes they are fun; entering into the Green Greens tournament would be awesome. But are we going to compete and say it was 'fair' in the context of esports?

Whoops, this was kinda intended for another thread, but it is still relevant I guess.

 

[enCouRaging Bear]

what are these so called metagame dynamics that depend on 4 stocks? is it actually compromised by having one less stock? why do we need more padding for correcting error or more potential for comebacks? wouldn't we have enough with 3?

i understand the need to reduce variance as much as possible but it still seems like people are coming up with only arbitrary reasons for why we use 4 stocks to this day. If mr. wizard thinks that he can make this work at evo than fine but i just don't want melee to give evo any trouble

given our current state in the fgc i want things to run as smoothly as possible. people will be asking "why does smash bros. melee matches run for twice as long as any regular 2d fighting game?" and i hope we have a better answer than "that's just how we do things"
you may think that im overly concerned with catering to the fgc but i really want this community to grow and what better setting than at evo where we can show other fighting game players that we're not so unlike after all

but again if mr wizard has said its okay i guess i can't really say too much

 

[Blistering Speed]

Regardless of your opinion of the APEX ruleset, it should be unanimously agreeable that we leave it unaltered for EVO i.e. the topic at hand, at least. This is not the platform for experimentation.

 

[Bones0]

Ah, I remember counterpick values fondly. While your simplified model works in theory (and I think I've actually used it in a similar argument in a previous thread, so there's no confusion on my part as to what it is) it fails to take into account one very important data point: the fact that games aren't played in a vacuum. As nice as it is to state that stages have constant values, they definitely can change, especially after a match is played.

What's the rationale behind a salty runback? Since you lost on a stage, doesn't that mean it's not in your favour? Of course not, or else people wouldn't use the tactic. They take the information they learned from the first match, combine it with the intimidation factor of being confident enough to go back to the stage they just lost on, and more often than not,*turn that loss into a win.

The same logic applies here. While a stage may initially be a 0 when it's struck to, the data point that one player won on it (especially if it was with a large margin of victory) can easily swing the value. I'm not saying it has to go one direction, but expecting it always to be unchanged is incorrect. Hence not excluding it from DSR.

I understand the logic of the value changing after game 1. That doesn't change the fact that a player should be able to cp his best stage at least once per set. If you happen to change your mind about what your worst stage is after game 1, then they are still going to be allowed to pick it. That's just the only fair way to select stages.

basically, you get shorter games of Melee with an 8 minute timer because no one pays attention to the timer. you are essentially playing with no timer. in terms of finishing the Melee tournament faster, this is good. but this also means that you are playing a flawed game where the person who is losing does not feel the need to approach that he should.

Why is it so important that the losing player feel the need to approach? This element just makes it more important to get an early lead than to just be clutch at the end. If you care about the potential for comebacks, they will happen less likely because players who are losing will be more rushed to approach their opponent, which essentially makes them more predictable.

 

[enCouRaging Bear]

at 8 minutes, the timer is practically ignored/a nonfactor; no one is gay enough to utilize their lead to force their opponent to approach as doing so would display a willingness to play an 8 minute game of Melee.

i think this is another reason why we should play with shorter time and stock over all
i think it is also partly the reason why the competitive spirit in the melee community is distorted
camping is deemed gay because it is absurd to think that anyone would want to time someone out for 8 min. but we need to let that **** fly and accept camping and in order to let it fly within reason we need to address this issue of timer and stock count. nothing in this game is remotely as bad as some of the **** ive seen in 3rd strike and marvel but those are great games in spite of the gayness (or perhaps as a result of the gayness and the counteractions that result from it)
i guess it doesn't have to be changed for evo necessarily but i hope it does get changed soon
(hax if you're in the mbr please push this and your ideas forward!!!)

 

[Vts]

regarding Stadium:

Stadium is just an absurd counterpick for spacies. i don't see how giving the 2 best characters a ridiculous cp is healthy for the game at all

Rock/Fire transformations are ridiculous and would be banned stages if they were on their own

aside from that, stalling out transformations = 30 seconds = VALUABLE Evo stream time

-

regarding the timer:

the reason matches would take longer with a 6 minute timer is because the timer would actually matter. at 8 minutes, the timer is practically ignored/a nonfactor; no one is gay enough to utilize their lead to force their opponent to approach as doing so would display a willingness to play an 8 minute game of Melee.

this is why the correct duration for a timer is Street Fighter/Marvel's timer duration; an amount of time that threatens to time out an abnormally long game. the equivalent of this would be 5 or 6 minutes in Melee. the timer shouldn't be long to the point where you can play 3 games of Melee within the time limit for 1 match; it doesn't even serve its purpose at that point.

basically, you get shorter games of Melee with an 8 minute timer because no one pays attention to the timer. you are essentially playing with no timer. in terms of finishing the Melee tournament faster, this is good. but this also means that you are playing a flawed game where the person who is losing does not feel the need to approach that he should.

-

regarding stocks:

there is no way we could ever even consider suddenly switching the amounts of stocks we play with at EVO. this is a MASSIVE change to the game. it can be tested at other tournaments -- not at EVO.

-

regarding wobbling:

still unbelievable to me that this technique was ever banned. not even remotely broken. IC's will literally become 1-2% better if it's legal. all tournaments from here on out need to have wobbling on

you have my vote for any rules <3, will get more friendlies/serious at evo, will see if you can keep up with my ICs.

As an IC main if you ever played me or remember I don't wobble, to me it is a cheap skill and doesn't reflect a players real skill, hell my teammate lost to a terrible player due to wobbles, he wasn't use to infinite type stuff and lost but later tournament he far out placed the person who wobbled him in pools.

But counting all the IC mains going to Evo will be less than 10 IC mains.
1. Wobbles (wobbles)
2. Fly Amanita (wobbles)
3. Nintendude (not sure, will say yes)
4. Trail (never seen him wobble but also haven't seen him travel in ages)
5. Choknater (not sure, will say yes)
6. Azn Lep (not sure, will say yes)
7. UberIce (don't think he plays anymore, but he didn't)
8. Cura (not sure, will say yes)
9. VTS (Doesn't ,but who knows I might learn it)
10. SideFX (not sure, will say yes)
11. ChivalRuse (not sure, will say yes)
12. Admiral (wobbles)

Those are the only mains I know off the top of my head, of those listed only about 3 maybe 4 would really impact with having wobbling by maybe 1 place.

My vote is to make it legal since no one cares when fox does his stupid infinite on walls (when they rarely appear on PS ), hell fox's infinite is why 1/5 of the stages are banned.

Hell I'm ranting/rambling, I need to go to bed.

 

[KrIsP!]

Just the mere fact that its been bought up many many times before is proof enough that a lot of people don't like it.

My point remains.

Battle field only has been brought up more. Stop now before you unleash our doom. We don't want everyone giving a vote.

Besides the stage list is incredibly fair, yeah I want japes and mute back but our basic stage list seems to have really pushed the meta game and works well. Just a question, you came back recently correct? I know when I found out so many stages were gone I started saying we should add 2 back but in the end I only said that because of preference and hasn't really given the stage list a chance. Have you played with it yet in tournament?

And no, I don't think making major changes for Evo is a good idea. Tbh the FGC might complain about us banning all the stages but when it comes down to it they're the ones who will find counter picking easier and wont end up getting stalled on cruise/destroyed by shine by any wall.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

[ignore ... experiencing problems]

 

[Habefiet]

1. Something getting brought up a lot doesn't necessarily mean anything about how many people want that thing, it might only mean that there's an extremely vocal minority. The reason you aren't seeing droves upon droves of people generally supporting the current ruleset is because they're content. Angry people are louder.

2. Both the issue of stages and the issue of stocks were discussed in great detail this last year, I believe both in the tournament ruleset thread. It's on any interested party to go back and read all of that, because most people from both sides are tired of rehashing the same points and having approximately nothing happen as a result of it.

2.5. An interesting consequence of both these debates happening around the same time was Cactuar proposing an alternate ruleset for experimentation. Two stocks, three minutes, lots more stages on. No one tried it. As I recall, one single Wisconsin local ran a tournament with that ruleset and a few people tried it in friendlies (including myself, mind you). Now it was contended that perhaps such experimentation attempts failed because it was too much change all at once, and very possibly that's correct, but still, the message seemed to be: we don't actually care. The broader community wasn't passionate enough about running a ruleset different from the now commonly accepted norm to switch back, or to something else. No one tried the same ruleset but 3-stock-5-min, no one tried adding back this or that or the other, etc. In fact, the broader community, when given sufficient cause to voice their opinion, seems to come out in droves to support the current stage list--FC-Legacy was a throwback tournament that ended up having to reshape its ruleset because there was such spectacular backlash against their original stagelist (they ended up cutting it down from 11 to 9 for singles, I believe they cut their intended amount for doubles as well, and in any case you had two bans instead of one so you could basically avoid playing on any CPs that were actually bad for your character anyway), and some people strongly implied that the ruleset was one of their primary motivations for not coming. I don't see anyone refusing to go to Apex because of its ruleset. It's not like every TO is some mystical tyrant enforcing a hellish ruleset, they just host with a ruleset people like playing under. Why do you think tournaments continued running with less stages after people started doing it? Because there was positive feedback from it.

3. This is quite clearly not the place for continued discussion on this matter. This topic was solely to determine an acceptable ruleset for Evo, and it appears (Apex ruleset, Wobbling legal) to have been set forth by none other than Mr Wizard himself. We've got our ruleset, the one that appeared to have the most common consensus earlier in this topic and that makes the most sense to run with since it's the ruleset we've been using for quite sometime now at virtually every major (and minor, for that matter) event. Continued debating about "where have all the stages gone" does not really belong here, it belongs in the ruleset discussion thread. And for that matter it belongs there after everyone has gone back and read through the whole thing to brush up on recent debates on the subject.

t;'dr bring back Mute City

Also, regarding things finishing on time, all that takes is sufficient setups and quality TOing. I was at FC-L this summer, I ran a pool round 2 and saw the whole tournament, and one of my most vivid memories for round 2 is having to tell Axe and Chad to delay their match because they were supposed to play on stream at some point but the whole tournament was running so far ahead of schedule that the entire rest of my pool was already done almost an hour before they were due up on stream, and every other pool was basically done except for stream-worthy matches too so they couldn't get moved up the line at all. Those guys had top 8 do a round robin and still got done by like 7 PM on the last day FFS. Now granted, there'll be more people and less time to do it all in, but given a large enough amount of setups and TOs that are keeping things moving and DQing people that aren't showing up and whatnot, and given that it's bracket pools and not RR pools, I think it'll all turn out fine and there's no reason to get all pessimistic.

 

[Revven]

3. This is quite clearly not the place for continued discussion on this matter. This topic was solely to determine an acceptable ruleset for Evo, and it appears (Apex ruleset, Wobbling legal) to have been set forth by none other than Mr Wizard himself. We've got our ruleset, the one that appeared to have the most common consensus earlier in this topic and that makes the most sense to run with since it's the ruleset we've been using for quite sometime now at virtually every major (and minor, for that matter) event. Continued debating about "where have all the stages gone" does not really belong here, it belongs in the ruleset discussion thread. And for that matter it belongs there after everyone has gone back and read through the whole thing to brush up on recent debates on the subject.

Yeah pretty much this. The rule set has to stay the same as any previous majors in the last two years. Otherwise it's a completely different metagame on the plate for the players and audience. As far as I'm concerned, the rule set has already been decided. We're going with what Mr.Wizard summed up and came to as a conclusion before this whole stage thing came out of nowhere.

EVO is not the place to run a rule set we haven't used in years. Sorry.

 

[Laijin]

Yeah pretty much this. The rule set has to stay the same as any previous majors in the last two years. Otherwise it's a completely different metagame on the plate for the players and audience. As far as I'm concerned, the rule set has already been decided. We're going with what Mr.Wizard summed up and came to as a conclusion before this whole stage thing came out of nowhere.

EVO is not the place to run a rule set we haven't used in years. Sorry.

No. EVO is the perfect place to do so especially when the current ruleset has been proven to be literally BROKEN. Why would we run a broken ruleset at what is to be the largest melee tournament ever? It doesn't make any sense to any logical person. Use the ruleset that has served the community well for several years

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Which one is that, exactly?

Smooth Criminal

 

[Laijin]

Really though, we just need to have a vote on apparently most things about the EVO rule set. It should be a community-wide vote, like i've explained earlier several times since there is no one smash T.O. running the event. The smash community should vote on all of the issues that are being bought up. That is the only fair way to do it IMO. We shouldn't blanket the vote with "Apex ruleset yes or no?". Instead we should separate the choices out for everyone to decide, and that should be the final ruleset.

From what i've gathered so far that would be:

-Wobbling
-Stock count
-Timer
and most importantly:
-Which stages should be illegal/legal


And here I thought we figured we knew what everyone wanted out of the game by like 2006 =__=

Edit: The FC Legacy ruleset is godlike. Its a major that was run last year. Personally I think we should use that.

 

[Scythe]

FC ruleset was silly and most people there didn't counterpick to any of the unconventional stages. Except for Darkrain lol

 

[Kink-Link5]

Thats cute. Good for you bro.

But I like I said. Should be up to the community. Most of us have been around for a long time and know just as much about the game as a "top 100 player". Honestly, how would you even go about in making a list like that? haha. Even if you've only been in the community for a few years, thats still enough time to soak up and learn about the game. So I disagree with your point

Talk down to people more, that'll do wonders for your reputation and get everyone on your side.

Of course "the community" at large should have less of an impact on the ruleset of competitive play than do people that actually play competitively.

 

[Laijin]

Talk down to people more, that'll do wonders for your reputation and get everyone on your side.

Of course "the community" at large should have less of an impact on the ruleset of competitive play than do people that actually play competitively.

You don't have to be on my side. Thats fine.
But I talked down to him since he started a dialog with me where he talked down to me(in another thread around the same time that was posted). I treat people the same way they treat me.

When I say the community, I'm obviously implying people who are active in the competitive community. (I.E. smashboards users, tournament competitors, etc etc).

 

[KrIsP!]

Votes are bull****. If a Big change is to be done you need to test it, even if Ty's simply what's old and ask yourself if you want this stage for good reasons or because you like it.

If I believed the opinion of someone who hasn't been in the scene for awhile I'd be arguing that Marth should be below pika in the tier list

 

[Kink-Link5]

1.) Two wrongs do not make a right. Passive aggressivism gets no one anywhere and just pisses a lot of people off.

B.) There is nothing inheritely condiscending about the post:

No we shouldn't. Players that aren't near the top of the metagame should have little say in what the stagelist is.

I care about what the top 100 players think and that's about it.

Take your petty squabbles to PMs and address each post for its own merit.

3.) Is the oppinion of the average smashboard user or any person that happens to agree with you more or less valuable than that of players with notable experience with the evolving metagame at a top level?

 

[Laijin]

Votes are bull****. If a Big change is to be done you need to test it, even if Ty's simply what's old and ask yourself if you want this stage for good reasons or because you like it.

If I believed the opinion of someone who hasn't been in the scene for awhile I'd be arguing that Marth should be below pika in the tier list

Pretty sure the old ruleset has been tried and tested for several years without any major issues. Hell, if it makes it any easier we can just have different rulesets to vote for to simplify things. No one person's vote who is active and competitive in the community today should outweigh someone else's vote who is also active in the community.

1.) Two wrongs do not make a right. Passive aggressivism gets no one anywhere and just pisses a lot of people off.

B.) There is nothing inheritely condiscending about the post:

No we shouldn't. Players that aren't near the top of the metagame should have little say in what the stagelist is.

I care about what the top 100 players think and that's about it.

Take your petty squabbles to PMs and address each post for its own merit.

3.) Is the oppinion of the average smashboard user or any person that happens to agree with you more or less valuable than that of players with notable experience with the evolving metagame at a top level?

Two wrongs don't make a right is a personal opinion. I show respect where I get respect. If someone is blatantly disrespecting me, I have zero reason to return respect to them.

The opinion of a player that has been around in the scene for a very long and is still currently active should have the same weight as someone at a "top level". Its very tough to even judge the "top 100 players" since we don't have a rankings system or anything. You could go by "people who place top 3 in majors in the last year", but then you'd get like...4 or 5 people. And I don't think the opinions of 4 or 5 people should outweigh that of the community's.

We don't have an almighty "smash" leader. We are a grassroots community.

 

[Froggy]

So Melee is back at Evo after a 6 year haitus, and we are happy to have it back. We obviously want to use the ruleset that makes the most sense and is widely accepted by the community.

Lets start the discussion about what that ruleset should be so that we can update the Evo rules page with the information.

We will be using CRT's and Nintendo Gamecubes.

Hopefully we will let the Ice Climbers do their thing!

Post Away!

Please do not use the mbr ruleset. The majority of the community complains about it, and the ruleset was implemented by a very select group of friends and high profile members of the community, it's essentially an oligarchy. The majority of us would like for more than 6 stages to be legal at the tournament.