Less Stocks + Shorter Timer = More Stage Variety/Better Sets

[1MachGO]

IMO, stages have too much of an impact on a set:

The reason for this isn't because of the stages themselves (which I will elaborate on), but has more so to do with the actual length of sets and the amount of matches within them.

For years, I think the ruleset have been trying too hard to balance the traditional 4 stock, 8 minute matches. The conservative idealization of these rules is at odds with both time and stage variety:

On one hand hand, 4 stock and 8 minute matches can run for a very long time. While I would guess that the average match time is only around 4 minutes, the rules say 8 minutes and TOs have the account for the possibility that a single match can run this long. To compensate, lower bracket and pools matches have best 2 out of 3 while higher bracket and finals have 3 out of 5.

Unfortunately, this leads to problems with the stage lists. Since stages have huge implications for how a match is played out, a small set can result in polarized situations for certain match ups. To dampen their impact, banning is implemented during best of 3's. While the goal of bans is to reduce the stage list and make the smaller sets more "fair", it is really another band-aid to justify the existence of 4 stocks + 8 minutes.

Of course, at the higher bracket we see best of 5s with no bans because each match has a smaller affect on the outcome. Not only is there more stage variety, but the sets are just more entertaining because there is more room for adaptation and demonstration of who the better player is. Best of 3s are wholly inferior to best of 5s, but again, we see best of 3s because we have to make this 4 stock and 8 minute timer work for some reason.

The solution:

We should change the rules to 3 stocks, 5 minutes, best of 5s, and no bans (+Modified DSR w/ current stage list).

Some key benefits:

>The potential time largely stays the same. 2 out of 3s with the current ruleset has the potential to run 24 minutes. This ruleset has the potential to run 25. You can argue that there will also be added time between matches but the total time would largely be the same. If best of 7s are done for finals/grand finals, it would actually be shorter than the current best of 5s.

>No bans will mean consistent stage variety throughout the tournament.

>Better demonstration of skill. While the potential time is about the same, the amount of stocks in this ruleset is greater. 12 stocks in the old ruleset and 15 in the new. Factor in the higher stage variety and we'd also see more adaptation from players who are put in more varied situations. This would also be true if best of 7s were used for finals/grand finals; making them doubly effective for saving time and having more stocks.

>Loss of emphasis on the first match. In best of 3s, the winner of the first match is highly favored to win the set since the third game will be their counterpick. Best of 5s also allows more room for the momentum to swing.

>Less confusing to newer players. New players will be able to actually utilize their best character's counterpick without having to make it to higher bracket.

Why now might be a good time:

Many are calling this the platinum age for Melee so it'd be weird to change rulesets now of all times.

However, I will remind you about Evo's top 8 being primarily best 2 out of 3's. Now tell me if you'd rather see that again or have had this ruleset in place. This ruleset would actually be more beneficial for large scale tournaments where time is more of a factor.

Though admittedly, I will be surprised if this ruleset got any traction because of how old and stubborn this community is (no offense, I'm one of you guys <3) but if any TO would be willing to try this I honestly think it has a lot of merits; perhaps someone can do a hybrid ruleset which incorporates this ruleset for lower bracket/pools, while using the traditional ruleset for higher bracket.

Anyway, this is my 2 cents.

 

[rawrimamonster]

#FreeGreenGreens

 

[Tetheta]

As a newcomer to the scene but a longtime fan of eSports like Starcraft, I think this would be a lot more fun to watch - it would be awesome if a weekly or some other small tournament tried it out. Definitely have to agree that there is very little chance for it to actually gain traction, especially when there are no real complaints about formats (at least that I'm aware of). People in general dislike change but I do think this would be an interesting change as I rarely get to see more than a few stages played when watching a tournament and the mindgames etc in a best of 5 are in my opinion much more fun to both spectate and play.

 

[knightpraetor]

I approve this ruleset.

 

[Mr.Lemon]

as if this game wasn't fast and nerve racking enough

 

[X WaNtEd X]

Gotta agree with lemon. The only change to the current ruleset I feel is arguable is the possible ban of pokemon.

 

[Joe73191]

I feel that this ruleset change makes sense and I would be all for it if there were more stages to choose from. With talk of banning stadium (which I favor) I think we need a greater stage variety. Past stages: Yoshi's Island and Congo Jungle could both be counter picks. Jungle Japes and Great Bay are also possible stages that could be legal counter picks. This makes 5 starters and 4 counter picks. I think with this rule-set with this stage list would be very interesting.

 

[Hahaae]

It would be an interesting change, no-doubt. I don't really care if it affected pools, but I think this would be much more entertaining for things such as top 8 at EVO.

 

[thespymachine]

Considering the support we're getting from the FGC, on how they run things, the Bo5 sets would only apply to tournaments hosted by TOs that are from the Smash community.
The FGC typically stays Bo3 until grand finals, but they can do that because there isn't as much variability in their games when it comes to counter-picking.

The only things really holding me back in supporting this completely are:
1) We'll create even more confusion in the scene with all these new players who are trying to learn the rules and have it switch on them. (This isn't the best reason, but significant enough for me to mention, I think)
2) The number of stages in Melee that are legit AND varying is few - especially compared to Project M. 4 of the 6 legal stages are BF clones, and the other two are oddballs because one is boarderline bannable (PS) and the other has no platforms which breaks a lot of MUs. Variability of stages is always going to be an issue in Melee, regardless of the ruleset because all of the good stages are the same type and everything else sucks. lol

With all that said. I'm going to see if my friends want to try this out.

 

[JUSTN]

IMO these should be the legal stages in tournament play:
- FD
- Battlefield
- Corneria
- Fountain of Dreams
- Pokemon Stadium
- Mute City
- Princess Peach's Castle
- Yoshi's Story
- Dream Land
- possibly Kongo Jungle 64

ya some of these stages have hazards, but none of them are that severe and most are easily avoidable. it would definitely spice up gameplay and allow for more counter-picking of stages and for more strategic stage striking. since most of these stages were at one point legal or still are, i don't see why they should be banned

i also feel like stages such as Yoshi's Island melee, Rainbow Cruise, Temple and Yoshi's Island 64 should be allowed for 2v2's as well.

 

[-ShadowPhoenix-]

IMO these should be the legal stages in tournament play:
- FD
- Battlefield
- Corneria
- Fountain of Dreams
- Pokemon Stadium
- Mute City
- Princess Peach's Castle
- Yoshi's Story
- Dream Land
- possibly Kongo Jungle 64

ya some of these stages have hazards, but none of them are that severe and most are easily avoidable. it would definitely spice up gameplay and allow for more counter-picking of stages and for more strategic stage striking. since most of these stages were at one point legal or still are, i don't see why they should be banned

i also feel like stages such as Yoshi's Island melee, Rainbow Cruise, Temple and Yoshi's Island 64 should be allowed for 2v2's as well.

Peach's castle encourages camping and also gives fox an infinite on both sides. I am of the opinion that Corneria and Mute City should have remained legal.
Temple is never going to be legal because the bottom section allows players to extend their stocks to ridiculous percentages by teching hits that would normally kill. Also, if it comes down to a 1 vs 1 it can and probably will become a campfest (especially if there's a fox on the screen).

 

[KirbyKaze]

I think we should bring back Rainbow Cruise & Brinstar and add 1 stage ban to each set size (bo3 would have 2 bans / player and bo5 would have 1 ban / player).

 

[JUSTN]

Peach's castle encourages camping and also gives fox an infinite on both sides. I am of the opinion that Corneria and Mute City should have remained legal.
Temple is never going to be legal because the bottom section allows players to extend their stocks to ridiculous percentages by teching hits that would normally kill. Also, if it comes down to a 1 vs 1 it can and probably will become a campfest (especially if there's a fox on the screen).

yes princess peaches castle does allow for some camping, but any player could easily come after them, as it is a relatively small stage. fox does have a infinite so that's what would keep it from being legal, not how campy it can be. with temple, you do make a good point with the bottom section and the teching of certain kill moves. it would not be impossible to put temple in but from what you said, its probably a longshot

 

[TheHartChip]

I am new to the scene, but I do like the idea of more variety in stages. I am not sure about rainbow cruise though.

 

[rawrimamonster]

Peach's castle encourages camping and also gives fox an infinite on both sides. I am of the opinion that Corneria and Mute City should have remained legal.
Temple is never going to be legal because the bottom section allows players to extend their stocks to ridiculous percentages by teching hits that would normally kill. Also, if it comes down to a 1 vs 1 it can and probably will become a campfest (especially if there's a fox on the screen).

The fox infinite argument no longer holds ground in modern day smash as the execution barrier is much harder than something like wobbling. Both are situational but once both are locked in, by comparison the Fox drillshine inf is much harder to execute. The main difference here in all truth is that wobbling is going to work anywhere, so I'd sooner ban that then a stage for fox drillshines. Still though the camp claim holds ground so its w/e at this point, I just felt like pointing out that hypocrisy.

 

[73563394]

I agree with this. In my opinion Fox shouldn't be allowed to play on maps where he's allowed to do the shine infinite, even then, it's hard to execute. I'm all for Brinstar becoming a legal stage, Kongo 64 and Mute City is a maybe, the rest are a no-no. Only thing I'm worried about are the 5 minute matches in Peach or Jigglypuff dittos.

 

[-ShadowPhoenix-]

The fox infinite argument no longer holds ground in modern day smash as the execution barrier is much harder than something like wobbling. Both are situational but once both are locked in, by comparison the Fox drillshine inf is much harder to execute. The main difference here in all truth is that wobbling is going to work anywhere, so I'd sooner ban that then a stage for fox drillshines. Still though the camp claim holds ground so its w/e at this point, I just felt like pointing out that hypocrisy.

This may be biased because I hardly ever touch ICs, but I find the fox infinite super easy to do (and i think my techskill sucks).

 

[KirbyKaze]

#FreeRainbowCruise

 

[Teczer0]

I think we should bring back Rainbow Cruise & Brinstar and add 1 stage ban to each set size (bo3 would have 2 bans / player and bo5 would have 1 ban / player).

I would love this omg.

I think Mute City should be allowed back too and KJ64 (if its not already allowed in singles?)

I'm against any stage with a static wall though, (Onett, Peach's Castle, etc). Camping being strong isn't a problem persay, but a static wall I think makes it way too powerful.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I don't like KJ64 but I have no qualms with MC. I wouldn't be averse to testing either but I'd want to test RC & Brinstar first. I like to do these things in slow steps.

 

[Praxis]

#FreeGreenGreens

I've been saying this for Brawl for years.

 

[Teczer0]

I don't like KJ64 but I have no qualms with MC. I wouldn't be averse to testing either but I'd want to test RC & Brinstar first. I like to do these things in slow steps.

I can respect that, and logically it makes sense.

 

[TheHartChip]

Why would Rainbow Cruise be freed? In doubles maybe, but wouldn't it be unfair in singles to have a constantly moving stage?

 

[KirbyKaze]

Why is the stage's unorthodox movement pattern unfair?

 

[TheHartChip]

I just figured it would be considered bad for play. With characters who have slow or low priority aerial combat it seems like it would be easy to shut them down and make them even less viable, if that makes any sense. That is at least how I see it. Then again I am new so I wouldn't be surprised if I was completely wrong.

 

[Joe73191]

metal cavern should replace pokemon stadium 1 as counter pick.

 

[Bones0]

I think 3 stocks is a bad idea because we already have many high level games coming down to last stock, and many even go to last hit. Since each game can have new characters and each stage is played quite differently, only having 3 stocks doesn't give players enough time to adapt. The less time players have to adapt, the stronger "gimmicks" are. Players who exhibit the traits of a one trick pony with a secondary or stage strategy will see more success. In a single game with 12 stocks, the player with the best long term play is very likely to win. In 12 games of 1 stock each, the player who would lose in the long run may be able to utilize "shallow" tactics to get quick wins.

It's also worth mentioning that there is precedence of multiple trials to determine who wins a "game" or "round". In Halo's Capture the Flag, you have to either capture their flag 5 times (or 3 for larger maps where it is difficult). In tennis, you have to win 4 points in order to win a game. The purpose extra skill trials serve in these and other games, including Melee, is to ensure the score is based on a good sample amount of gameplay before determining who outplayed who. It's also important to keep in mind why not every stock should count towards a set's score. When players are given more stocks to use for experimentation, risk taking, and adaption, the game seems much deeper and interesting than games with less stocks where players are more likely to stick to textbook options that are really reliable or gimmicks that are powerful enough to win them the game even if they only work once.

3 stocks isn't drastically different from 4 of course, but like I said initially, that last 1/4th is frequently fought under close circumstances. If every game was ending as a 2 or 3-stock, I'd understand why you would want to reduce the stock count, but that's not the case. Ironically, the game counts are much more likely to be heavily in one player's favor which, to me, indicates we have reached a really good stock count to use. When we see players edging their opponent out every game and winning 3-0, that's a sign that there are just enough stocks to determine who has the better strategies for a given stage/matchup. If we frequently saw blowouts each game and tight game scores, that'd be a sign that the stock count is too high and game count too low, but honestly do not see that in today's tournaments. All of the sets I see with close game counts almost always have really close stock counts for each game. Playing more games that go down to the wire isn't really going to help us determine who is better at those stages/matchups, it will just feel like victory is based more on the timing of stock losses as opposed to an actual disparity between the opponents.

One last mental exercise to get my point across: With 4-stock games, it feels pretty similar to how I'd imagine 99 stock games would play if the game ended when you were up by 2. With only 3 stocks, it'd feel more like a 99-stock, win-by-1 game which is much more volatile and inconsistent

 

[Signia]

I am new to the scene, but I do like the idea of more variety in stages. I am not sure about rainbow cruise though.

I don't like KJ64 but I have no qualms with MC. I wouldn't be averse to testing either but I'd want to test RC & Brinstar first. I like to do these things in slow steps.

Isn't the main reason RC is banned that Ice Climbers gets destroyed there (Nana can't handle the ascent)? I remember Fly Amanita having to contend with that like every match. Maybe that's how his So-Po got so good.

 

[Teczer0]

Isn't the main reason RC is banned that Ice Climbers gets destroyed there (Nana can't handle the ascent)? I remember Fly Amanita having to contend with that like every match. Maybe that's how his So-Po got so good.

Not really no. The main reason it got banned was because it was 'too different' from the neutral stages. Granted ICs do have a disadvantage there but taking the stage out just because one character fairs poorly on that stage is a poor argument to ban it outright.

 

[SwiftBass]

If there are any major changes, they should favor time moreso than anything else. Here is why time is better prioritized:

As we are nearing the the e-sports realm where there will eventually be more commentary, even higher production, more sponsors etc, more analysis and more content at tourneys for viewers(live and stream monster). This takes time and energy that we are barely skating by on now. While I do not agree with it all, it is happening and time needs to be on our side to continue growth.

I do not think that your idea is bad but I do think that it is useless in the grand scheme of where this community is going right now. With all of the logistical changes and timing that is happening with the majors and just the production of these big events time is of the utmost importance and is a problem that just cannot be met with "tournament organizers need to be better". Its not just a matter of starting earlier or being strict.

Currently, I am a TO, a helper at majors, a commentator, and a competitor within the top 20% of players at any major....I have seen tourneys from every perspective you can imagine. While I respect your opinion that the game will be more entertaining, the game itself has been entertaining for a while on its own with small tweaks here and there. The game isn't dwindling in anyway right now in popularity. While you may think that I am an old school person who is being lame or stagnant, I am not. I actually have been preaching for 3 stocks for a while(for different reasons). Its just that at this moment and for a while we have to manage time more so than anything because melee is a unique game trying to fit in the e-sports and FGC mold which is tough due to the foundation that this community was built on.

In short: I don't see your change doing anything for the most immediate critique of the community. It would have a neutral effect on how smoothly things run now AT BEST. Any changes at this point since melee is getting all FGC/ESPORTS should have some sort of positive effect on the smooth running and timeliness of the tourney. Now is a bad time to try to make the game more entertaining to viewers as its already been entertaining enough to draw all of this attention in the passed 2 years. In the grand scheme the community is facing a larger problem(time) which needs to be handled first before anything.


HI BONES
Im not up here alot but eveytime I am, we always are in the same thread waddup homie

 

[SwiftBass]

Playing more games that go down to the wire isn't really going to help us determine who is better at those stages/matchups, it will just feel like victory is based more on the timing of stock losses as opposed to an actual disparity between the opponents.

*thumbs up*

 

[TheHartChip]

On allowing more stages what about allowing both Kongo Jungles, Jungle Japes, Mute City, and Fourside to be counter picks?

 

[Massive]

All those in favor of these rule changes, please consider this:
Reducing match time greatly incentivizes stalling and timeouts as a legitimate strategy. Adding stages like KJ64 or Rainbow Cruise makes it even easier for fast, maneuverable characters gain and keep an advantage for a what could easily be a trivial amount of time.

Most matches you will see right now rarely go past 6 minutes, but it is common to see them take 4 minutes and some change. It is not unreasonable to think that this loophole would be exploited almost right away.

 

[MookieRah]

I just wanted to counterpoint one thing. Just because the maximum/minimum number of stocks is similar, I think that a 3 stock Bo5 scenario would take more time than 4 stock Bo3. People would likely play a bit more conservatively with less stocks, and would result in the average match lasting longer per stock than the current set up. You have touched on the down time between matches, but honestly that adds up to be quite a lot of time overall as well, increasing this downtime by 1/3 across the board.

I'm thinking that this would result in tournaments lasting a good 20-25% longer than they currently do, which is not a good thing from a TO perspective.

 

[Varist]

Kongo Jungle should rejoin PS as a counterpick. Rainbow Cruise is my favorite stage in the whole game but it degenerates competitive play in a huge way. Moving stages are poisonous to Melee's neutral game and I would ban it every single set just for being so different for the same reason I ban FD every single set. If you've cultivated your character on platform stages and are good at using platforms, you want to ban the only stage that could offer your opponent alleviation against your style or devalue 20% of the practice you've put in, which is why FD is banned so much. It's too different. When Battlefield, Yoshi's Story, Dreamland, and (almost) FoD have a nearly identical layout and 2 of your stages have different ones, unless you play a character who really likes FD and PS, you want to train to be good on a Battlefield-like stage (medium-small size, triple platforms) because it leaves you in a comfortable position on 4 of the 6 stages.

Unless I'm fighting a Ganondorf or a Marth or you get the picture, Rainbow Cruise just wastes one of my bans. Rainbow Cruise being in the game forces me to cultivate a Rainbow Cruise-specific skillset, which is fine if you want to maintain a high skill ceiling for the long run of the game's health, but not fine when you start getting people who don't practice RC at all going against people who are RC specialists and use it to claim a free win in their set. If you want more stages to increase the skill ceiling, then the stages you re-add first will always be KJ because unlike Brinstar and Mute City and RC, it doesn't tamper with your entire neutral game plan.

When stages get too different, you start to see players who cultivate a certain character for that stage as well to combine for a super counterpick. M2K went through a tenuous period where he wasn't confident in his Marth but still trained it just for the FD + Marth super counterpick combination, and I know many Falco players who would just cultivate a Rainbow Cruise-specialized Fox for their own super counterpick.
I think these are excellent reasons for why RC should not re-enter competitive play. If anyone has any other opinions on how to ensure the long-term health of the metagame or thinks there are better priorities than extending the long-term health of the metagame available PM me or post here.