P:M 4 Stocks VS 3 Stocks.

[Star ☆]

Characters like Ivysaur and Wario will suffer under the stock change as they will not be able to charge Solar Beam as much or use the Waft as often.

 

[Fortress]

Learn2sweespotmor

i'mdrunk fortress righ now
a

 

[Master WGS]

I just think it's worth testing at the absolute least. If it doesn't work - if by some chance this RUINS the meta of Project M, or makes Wario and Ivysaur suddenly completely unviable, fine. We switch it back. At least we'll know we tried, rather than clung to a potentially flawed group of rules because a bunch of kids more than a decade ago said it was good enough for them.

I'm borderline shocked at how absolutely terrified a lot of you are of giving things a chance. Of experimenting with something new in the hopes of finding something better. It astonishes me that the group of people following an independent MOD of a game that is dedicated to providing as many viable options in a competitive setting are so hellbent on trying to keep things the same as they have been.

I vote we try new things. I vote we give stuff a shot because, hey, this scene is way bigger and inviting in more people than anyone expected ten years ago. The environment has changed. The game has fundamentally changed. But for some reason, our long-standing rules of 4 stocks and 8 minutes? That stays. No question. No testing. MAYBE I'm wrong, and 4 stock/8 minutes is the end-all be-all of rules. That's entirely possible, and even likely. But I think we can do better. I think we can have fun learning what works with this Frankenstein of a game we've been given, rather than assume it plays by the old rules.

You're more than welcome to disagree, but if your argument is "Well, Melee's fine," that's not good enough for me. This isn't Melee anymore, and Melee goes on too long as it is anyway. I just figured the people interested in this game were interested in trying things out and being adventurous.

 

[Remo]

I just think it's worth testing at the absolute least. If it doesn't work - if by some chance this RUINS the meta of Project M, or makes Wario and Ivysaur suddenly completely unviable, fine. We switch it back. At least we'll know we tried, rather than clung to a potentially flawed group of rules because a bunch of kids more than a decade ago said it was good enough for them.

I'm borderline shocked at how absolutely terrified a lot of you are of giving things a chance. Of experimenting with something new in the hopes of finding something better. It astonishes me that the group of people following an independent MOD of a game that is dedicated to providing as many viable options in a competitive setting are so hellbent on trying to keep things the same as they have been.

I vote we try new things. I vote we give stuff a shot because, hey, this scene is way bigger and inviting in more people than anyone expected ten years ago. The environment has changed. The game has fundamentally changed. But for some reason, our long-standing rules of 4 stocks and 8 minutes? That stays. No question. No testing. MAYBE I'm wrong, and 4 stock/8 minutes is the end-all be-all of rules. That's entirely possible, and even likely. But I think we can do better. I think we can have fun learning what works with this Frankenstein of a game we've been given, rather than assume it plays by the old rules.

You're more than welcome to disagree, but if your argument is "Well, Melee's fine," that's not good enough for me. This isn't Melee anymore, and Melee goes on too long as it is anyway. I just figured the people interested in this game were interested in trying things out and being adventurous.

Big House 4 is using 3 stocks.

 

[Master WGS]

Right, and a lot of people are flipping out about it, acting like it's Melee players asserting dominance or something. I'm really looking forward to seeing how BH4 turns out with its 3 stock rule set, and if anyone adapts it later into something used beyond "when we don't REALLY have time for PM."

 

[Fortress]

I vote we try new things. I vote we give stuff a shot because, hey, this scene is way bigger and inviting in more people than anyone expected ten years ago. The environment has changed. The game has fundamentally changed. But for some reason, our long-standing rules of 4 stocks and 8 minutes? That stays. No question. No testing. MAYBE I'm wrong, and 4 stock/8 minutes is the end-all be-all of rules. That's entirely possible, and even likely. But I think we can do better. I think we can have fun learning what works with this Frankenstein of a game we've been given, rather than assume it plays by the old rules.

You're more than welcome to disagree, but if your argument is "Well, Melee's fine," that's not good enough for me. This isn't Melee anymore, and Melee goes on too long as it is anyway. I just figured the people interested in this game were interested in trying things out and being adventurous.

I'd throw this in as my signature if it wouldn't be so obnoxiously long as a signature. Seriously, wish more people felt like this. Instantly hear "that's stupid" as soon as I bring something like 3 stocks up without people having even tried it. "Oh, it only saves 16 seconds of game time based on this one average of match times at this one tournament". Nut up and ****ing experiment, you people. Try new stages, try new rules, try more things. Quit saying "no, this is stupid" because you're on the bandwagon out of fear of being bullied to death by people who say otherwise.

 

[Broasty]

I think the reason people worry is because it costs money for tournaments. Generally people will be worried if you change the rules they've been practicing on when there's money on the line. I'm all for experimenting, but to be honest, the idea of traveling a long distance, taking off work, renting a hotel (or stay at someone's place) for a tournament with rules I've never played on sounds a little sketchy. But hey, since I'm not taking that risk, might as well see what happens, right?

 

[Master WGS]

Right, and that's absolutely fair. When I'm not on a phone, I'll expand on my thoughts on the matter.

 

[trash?]

everyone needs to steal what keits does in the FGC w/r/t punishing the living christ out of players who don't play on time. that guy is probably the only person with a spine in that regard

which is why he is no longer TOing, of course. R.I.P.

we need more TOs like him in the world

 

[theONEjanitor]

4 stocks is fine, but I support anything that will improve our relationship with the FGC
i really do think coaching is dumb as hell and shouldn't be allowed though.

 

[DMG]

I just don't understand how coaching became a thing in our community. Like, one day we weren't fine with just playing 1 v 1 and instead turned it into a debacle worthy of threads and massive input on both sides by top players?

 

[GFooChombey]

I just think it's worth testing at the absolute least. If it doesn't work - if by some chance this RUINS the meta of Project M, or makes Wario and Ivysaur suddenly completely unviable, fine. We switch it back. At least we'll know we tried, rather than clung to a potentially flawed group of rules because a bunch of kids more than a decade ago said it was good enough for them.

I'm borderline shocked at how absolutely terrified a lot of you are of giving things a chance. Of experimenting with something new in the hopes of finding something better. It astonishes me that the group of people following an independent MOD of a game that is dedicated to providing as many viable options in a competitive setting are so hellbent on trying to keep things the same as they have been.

I vote we try new things. I vote we give stuff a shot because, hey, this scene is way bigger and inviting in more people than anyone expected ten years ago. The environment has changed. The game has fundamentally changed. But for some reason, our long-standing rules of 4 stocks and 8 minutes? That stays. No question. No testing. MAYBE I'm wrong, and 4 stock/8 minutes is the end-all be-all of rules. That's entirely possible, and even likely. But I think we can do better. I think we can have fun learning what works with this Frankenstein of a game we've been given, rather than assume it plays by the old rules.

You're more than welcome to disagree, but if your argument is "Well, Melee's fine," that's not good enough for me. This isn't Melee anymore, and Melee goes on too long as it is anyway. I just figured the people interested in this game were interested in trying things out and being adventurous.

The reason I don't want to experiment you said yourself. This could potentially hinder characters like Ivysaur and Wario. Why would you pay to participate in a tournament that could hold back your main?

 

[Fortress]

I just don't understand how coaching became a thing in our community. Like, one day we weren't fine with just playing 1 v 1 and instead turned it into a debacle worthy of threads and massive input on both sides by top players?

How many obligatory Mac-main coaches will there be in Smash 4?

 

[Master WGS]

I think the reason people worry is because it costs money for tournaments. Generally people will be worried if you change the rules they've been practicing on when there's money on the line. I'm all for experimenting, but to be honest, the idea of traveling a long distance, taking off work, renting a hotel (or stay at someone's place) for a tournament with rules I've never played on sounds a little sketchy. But hey, since I'm not taking that risk, might as well see what happens, right?

That makes a lot of sense, but there are tons of local weekly/biweekly tournaments that can absolutely fiddle around with rules without really risking attendance. A couple people here and there might not show, but I bet it would, at the worst, be complained about during/after, but everyone would have still showed up, paid their entry fee, and participated. If, say, Xanadu used a different set of rules one week, that would be streamed to a huge audience, and get tons of feedback right away. I doubt very many of their usual players would cry foul enough to not bother going/think it wasn't worth entering. But I might be wrong. Again, we don't know until we try.

The reason I don't want to experiment you said yourself. This could potentially hinder characters like Ivysaur and Wario. Why would you pay to participate in a tournament that could hold back your main?

But what if it made another character suddenly viable? Or what if it wasn't nearly as detrimental as you expected or somehow helped you in the end? On paper it might look bad, but a lot of things play out WAY differently than they seem by the numbers in reality. Maybe your opponent having less stocks made Solarbeam/Waft less necessary? There are all sorts of variables that could result in ANYTHING.

Also, if you think your character would be absolutely ruined by a small rule change, maybe you should be concerned about your character choice. This is still an unfinished game, and every character is subject to inevitable change. Maybe Ivysaur or Wario NEED tweaking, and this is just the magnifying glass that reveals it.

I mean no disrespect to anyone who disagrees - I just think it's weird/disappointing that we're really quick to NOT try something.

 

[Star ☆]

I guess we'll find out how effective/ineffective this potential change is after Big House 4.

I predict that it'll still function as effectively (or close to) as 4 stock, however I'll probably still enjoy 4 stock more.

 

[GFooChombey]

That makes a lot of sense, but there are tons of local weekly/biweekly tournaments that can absolutely fiddle around with rules without really risking attendance. A couple people here and there might not show, but I bet it would, at the worst, be complained about during/after, but everyone would have still showed up, paid their entry fee, and participated. If, say, Xanadu used a different set of rules one week, that would be streamed to a huge audience, and get tons of feedback right away. I doubt very many of their usual players would cry foul enough to not bother going/think it wasn't worth entering. But I might be wrong. Again, we don't know until we try.


But what if it made another character suddenly viable? Or what if it wasn't nearly as detrimental as you expected or somehow helped you in the end? On paper it might look bad, but a lot of things play out WAY differently than they seem by the numbers in reality. Maybe your opponent having less stocks made Solarbeam/Waft less necessary? There are all sorts of variables that could result in ANYTHING.

Also, if you think your character would be absolutely ruined by a small rule change, maybe you should be concerned about your character choice. This is still an unfinished game, and every character is subject to inevitable change. Maybe Ivysaur or Wario NEED tweaking, and this is just the magnifying glass that reveals it.

I mean no disrespect to anyone who disagrees - I just think it's weird/disappointing that we're really quick to NOT try something.

You're right that it might not cause problems, but is a tournament that you paid for the place to test it?

 

[Fortress]

You're right that it might not cause problems, but is a tournament that you paid for the place to test it?

Yes, because who gives a **** whether-or-not your game was too slow or too fast in friendlies?

 

[SunJester]

I think it's fine to experiment. P:M and Melee have been four stocks for a very long time and it would be interesting to see the effects of stock changes on the meta-game. It would be good for us to be much more open to changing stocks/shorter games while we wait for Smash 4 to come out.

God knows we don't want Smash 4 to take as long as Brawl.


But, even though we're experimenting with this, I believe the game will still end up with four stocks. If its a time issue, it would be much better for TO's to impose a limit on how much time is spent warming up for your set, and how much time is spent between matches considering counterpicks. Perhaps people can have one minute for hand warmers, and up to one minute between matches. The amount of times I see people get away with stalling while "thinking" of a counterpick in P:M is getting a little out of hand. Also a ledge grab limit might not be a bad idea, considering how some characters can get away with ledge stalling for minutes on end.

 

[Cold Fusion]

About PM matches lasting longer. In my experience players generally survive longer in PM because of the rather large blastzones. Maybe smaller blastzones are in order rather than a reduction in stock count? Of course, a decision like that is outside of our hands and left up to the discretion of the PMBR.

 

[Fortress]

About PM matches lasting longer. In my experience players generally survive longer in PM because of the rather large blastzones. Maybe smaller blastzones are in order rather than a reduction in stock count? Of course, a decision like that is outside of our hands and left up to the discretion of the PMBR.

That's a by-stage sort of thing, and specific to stages. But, I agree that stages themselves can be conducive to longer game times. Wish more people would take Dreamland out of their rotations. Garbage.

 

[NWRL]

I'm doing a test run of 3 stock 8 minutes at my biweekly tournament series this Friday. I'll post the end result and my thoughts on the matter from a TOs perspective

 

[Iceman]

I thought coaching only in between games was already a thing. Or at least that's what I go by in fighting game tourneys. But I also think the coaching shouldn't last much more than 30s. I like the game at 4 stocks stocks personally, though. It just feels right. Something about each stock being 25% of their "life" rather than 33.3333333333%. 25 is an even number, idk. OCD number thing.

25 isn't an even number lol

 

[DMG]

That's a by-stage sort of thing, and specific to stages. But, I agree that stages themselves can be conducive to longer game times. Wish more people would take Dreamland out of their rotations. Garbage.

Dreamland? First, get people to remove Draculas, Skyloft, Skyworld, etc. Those stages are pretty huge too

 

[Phaiyte]

25 isn't an even number lol

It is a whole number and goes into "100%" an even 4 times.

 

[1FD]

All-Star Mode I want 41 stocks...

 

[Bazkip]

Dreamland? First, get people to remove Draculas, Skyloft, Skyworld, etc. Those stages are pretty huge too

From what I've seen, Dracs is usually banned and Skyloft is often as well. So we just need to kill Skyworld.

Or just bring in the blastzones why do they need to be that far off.

 

[DMG]

Blastzones still don't fix a stage if it's too big though. Not being able to catch a character that's running very hard from you > differences in blastzones.

 

[Fortress]

Dreamland? First, get people to remove Draculas, Skyloft, Skyworld, etc. Those stages are pretty huge too

I'd be fine with that. I mean, I like Drac's, but I can't stand Skyloft/World.

Currently the build I'm running on page 2. It's an old photo, and they've been rearranged since then, but I've got Castle, PM Summit, New Pork M, Pictochat M, Brinstar X, Kongo 64, Bridge of Eldin X, Subspace Emissary, Kongo Melee M, Spear Pillar M, Delfino X, Shadow Moses M, Frigate Orpheon +, and Bowser's Castle.

 

[DrinkingFood]

That is the most awful thing

 

[Fortress]

Nah, shut up, you're wrong. Would it be better if I had four Battlefields, six Pokemon Stadiums, and the same **** that we've had for thirteen years? Answer: No, F-, see me after class, **** yourself.

Different =/= awful.

Crucify me for trying something different, but I'd like to break the ****ty APEX tradition of fourteen active stages that have all been being used for sooooooooooooooooooooooooo many years now. Keeping things the same for the sake of keeping them the same is a **** reason to not experiment with the game.

 

[DrinkingFood]

"4 BFs 6 poke stadiums same **** we've had for thirteen years"
Yah why don't you **** off back to /v/ then

 

[Fortress]

Might as well, nobody on any Smash board is willing to discuss anything regarding change to the precious standard since, "oh no, I might have to learn new ****". Sick of wallowing in the 13-year-old standard that Melee set, and that APEX 2014 helped to cement. **** off back to your ****ty rulesets.

Change isn't going to kill you. Grow up, learn some new ****, and play the game. Play by the same old ****, whatever, but I'm out to try some new things, and I support people like Strong Bad, Bryonato, and others who look outside the box and experiment, despite popular opinion.

I encourage other people to not be bullied into running APEX's bull****. If you feel like running 3 stocks, run 3 stocks. If you want to only run ten stages, do it! If you want to run a balanced version of New Pork or something, go for it. Nowhere anywhere does it say that TO's have to run by APEX standards. And don't let anybody ****ing tell you "yeah, well that's what National events like MLG will be running you scrub"; your event isn't MLG, CEO, APEX, the SaX series, or whatever else, just like theirs aren't yours. Your event can be as unique to you as you want it to be.

 

[Daftatt]

Everyone who argues for 3 stocks, I can't say much, but JUST WAIT for the next release, oh god please just wait. I have a feeling it will resolve many of your complaints.

 

[TimeSmash]

. Nut up and ****ing experiment, you people.

Pretty much this. That's the whole basis of scientific research

 

[DrinkingFood]

Everyone who argues for 3 stocks, I can't say much, but JUST WAIT for the next release, oh god please just wait. I have a feeling it will resolve many of your complaints.

At this point I'm glad that the criticisms are being taken seriously justt because of the amount of **** I've had to put up with defending what the current build as to offer.

 

[Joe73191]

I dont think you need to lower it. 4 stock is best and the reason matches go too long is cause of coaching not in game stuff, If you do lower it to 3 then also lower the timer to 6 min. Anyway PM is still evolving nothing must be set in stone. Though I will say I think 4 stock best of 5 matches display the best results for actual skill.

 

[Strong Badam]

As a Wario player who also had a hand in his 3.0 (shorter Waft charge-up time) design, the stock change should not have a significant effect on his viability. He gets one approximately every stock or every 1.5 stocks.

 

[Deleted member]

Might as well, nobody on any Smash board is willing to discuss anything regarding change to the precious standard since, "oh no, I might have to learn new ****". Sick of wallowing in the 13-year-old standard that Melee set, and that APEX 2014 helped to cement. **** off back to your ****ty rulesets.

Change isn't going to kill you. Grow up, learn some new ****, and play the game. Play by the same old ****, whatever, but I'm out to try some new things, and I support people like Strong Bad, Bryonato, and others who look outside the box and experiment, despite popular opinion.

I encourage other people to not be bullied into running APEX's bull****. If you feel like running 3 stocks, run 3 stocks. If you want to only run ten stages, do it! If you want to run a balanced version of New Pork or something, go for it. Nowhere anywhere does it say that TO's have to run by APEX standards. And don't let anybody ****ing tell you "yeah, well that's what National events like MLG will be running you scrub"; your event isn't MLG, CEO, APEX, the SaX series, or whatever else, just like theirs aren't yours. Your event can be as unique to you as you want it to be.

No one is being bullied by anything. I'm assuming that the PM tournament hosts wanted a rule set to base theirs off of so they simply borrowed my 2009 ruleset from melee and adapted it to PM. There have been little issues forthcoming that suggest that we need to go to 3 stock, so we really have no reason to change it. If something comes up, we'll address it when it happens.

 

[Lawn Chair]

https://www.facebook.com/nick.stango.90/posts/809705419061916

 

[TaFoKiNtS]

Glad this is getting discussion. As a follow-up, what do you think about Counter-Picking and Stage Selection time limits?

At Evo 2014, the Counter-Picks took an average of 29 seconds. From my understanding, much more is involved in the stage striking and counter picking in PM, which will inevitably take longer than melee and, in turn, add to the overall set time. This is something I forgot to account for in the original article, but is a sad reality. One on hand, you don't want a person to make a rash decision and choose an incorrect ban or stage, but you want a limit too. What would be an appropiate amount of time? 90 seconds? If then, this further will add to the longevity of PM sets, especially in a BO5, when you'll have to counter-pick 4 times. This can easily make PM another 2-3 minutes longer than an average Melee set. Thoughts?