So, I have this idea that I feel kinda legitimizes a lot of the banned stages and allows for more viable characters.
2 stock matches, with more matches in a set. DSR enabled, standard neutrals are disabled, no stage bans.
The effect of this is that it reduces the impact of any one stage on the outcome of a set, promoting the idea of "oh, that stage was a good pick, I got *****. Now I'm going to **** you on this other stage!" and moving away from the idea of "I lost the set because (specific stage) is stupid."
Reducing the number of stock also improves the chances for lower tier characters, as many of them tend to be gimp heavy, or benefit from odd stage layouts, etc. It opens up opportunities for players to find stage+character synergies. The longer a match is, stock wise, the high the odds are for current viable characters to take an advantage and keep it. With a smaller stock pool, the effect of burst (gimp heavy characters) play becomes viable versus sustained dps (most of the high/top tiers).
We can basically open up the entire stage list in this format.
In the current ruleset, the matches are simply too long and individually have too much importance to allow stages to strongly influence the outcome. Hence our direction towards neutrals only.
Trying to influence the standard ruleset away from that is a bad idea. If we change how we approach the ruleset and vary what factors hold importance, we can create legitimately competitive alternative rulesets with vastly different rules and stagelists.
(Beware: I am going to start promoting teams coin mode, 4 minute timer, team attack: OFF. There is an obscene amount of strategy involved. The most intense game of melee I have ever played was with this ruleset, and it was on ****ing Hyrule of all places.)
I might bundle this singles+doubles alternate and call it something catchy...
