Project M Recommended Ruleset

[JesteRace]

So would we say it's been narrowed down to either do 9 stage, 2 ban with MDSR to allow G1 stage to be played on G5 or do 10 stages? Cause I like both.

 

[DMG]

10 stage, 2 ban, and no other rule complications sounds easy to implement and get behind. 10th stage would likely be Yoshi

Nebraska 9 for anyone not sure or who hasn't seen it:

Starter:
GHZ
BF
SV
Bowser Other/Alt Castle
PS2

CP:
Wario Land
FoD
DL (Delfino can take this spot if people prefer)
FD

Adding Yoshi Brawl to CP would make 10

 

[4tlas]

The stage seems competitively fine, just concerns about custom content. Some custom stuff works at IaB because Lunchables iirc goes over every setup and knows what he's doing (also just cosmetic changes, not new stages). Average end user at home, smaller regions, etc may not have that luxury.

All players need access to the stage to practice at home, so no matter how much you perfect the tournament setup there will always be some losses from running custom content as "standard".

I disagree, but here's another problem entirely. Your assumption is that skewing towards small stages would only help bad characters like Bowser/Ganon, but that is not true. There are many matchups between viable characters that are mostly even but also depend on the stage. Link vs. Marth for example. Mostly an even matchup, but I want large stages, he wants small. Should he have an advantage in the ruleset just because some bad characters(that again, I think are being overstated in their badness) need a leg up? I'm gonna say nah.

I am not making that assumption whatsoever. I'm saying let's talk about it and consider the option.

Now the first thing is talking about the principle. I have made an argument in favor of the principle. Why do you disagree?

 

[JesteRace]

I am not making that assumption whatsoever. I'm saying let's talk about it and consider the option.

Now the first thing is talking about the principle. I have made an argument in favor of the principle. Why do you disagree?

Because catering rulesets to bad characters affects all characters. Skewing a certain way to give bad characters an advantage does not achieve balance because there are going to be good/great characters that get that advantage too when they do not need it.

 

[nimigoha]

10 stage 2 ban character first and regular DSR.

Also quickly regarding DL vs DS, DL fits in with the attribute spread of NE slightly better simply because it's pseudo-walled. As ridiculous as I think the blast zones are I'm not going to ignore its place in the stagelist.

 

[DMG]

DL and Delfino function almost entirely the same for ban purposes. I'm not too concerned which one gets in, because I assume the most banned stages would be WL, DL/Delfino, and FD.

Also, because neither stage makes it into the starter list, I'm even less concerned about DL vs Delfino. When DL or Delfino also makes it onto a starter list that already has PS2, that's when I start to have questions.

 

[4tlas]

Because catering rulesets to bad characters affects all characters. Skewing a certain way to give bad characters an advantage does not achieve balance because there are going to be good/great characters that get that advantage too when they do not need it.

Catering the ruleset to an even distribution around an arbitrary "average" affects all characters. Skewing the stages to be numerically even does not achieve balance because gameplay dynamics do not scale consistently with stage data.

 

[JesteRace]

I am against having Delfino for the following reasons:

1. The platforms vary too much to fit the same role as Dreamland.

2. It puts a skew towards walled stages (importance still unknown)

3. It has medium blast zones. Without Dreamland, there are only 2 stages with large blast zones, meaning that option can be eliminated by bans.

We all hate that obnoxiously high ceiling, but come on. Dreamland is necessary.

 

[JesteRace]

Catering the ruleset to an even distribution around an arbitrary "average" affects all characters. Skewing the stages to be numerically even does not achieve balance because gameplay dynamics do not scale consistently with stage data.

Fwoo Fwoo fwoo. Very clever. But even stage distribution is the best we can do. Anything else is too subjective.

 

[DMG]

I don't think Delfino has uh, Medium Blastzones.

 

[nimigoha]

I don't think Delfino has uh, Medium Blastzones.

Going by ledge to side it has smaller blast zones than BF.

Going by center to side it has the same blast zones as PS2.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ GIVE BOWSER DATA ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

I'm like 95% sure that data is all correct but if someone sees something they don't think is right I'll double check to make sure none of my formulae are messing stuff up.

 

[4tlas]

Fwoo Fwoo fwoo. Very clever. But even stage distribution is the best we can do. Anything else is too subjective.

Of course it won't be correct from theorycraft right out of the gate, because as you say anything but numerical data is subjective. That is 100% fair. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and that step is to consider trying a purposely skewed list and slowly refining it until there's balance.

I'm comfortable with going the other way (that is, starting with an even list and then skewing it to shift the meta), but a lot of motivation in this thread seems to be to try and claim a meta mandate for a particular ruleset forever. With everyone calling this stagelist "perfect" when its actually "perfectly even according to the arbitrary stage numbers", I fear people will become averse to challenging this list in the future.

You can always improve. Perhaps it would be an improvement to this list and to the game as a whole to skew it. We can't throw the discussion out the window. Push it off, maybe. But it should still be considered seriously.

 

[JesteRace]

Of course it won't be correct from theorycraft right out of the gate, because as you say anything but numerical data is subjective. That is 100% fair. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and that step is to consider trying a purposely skewed list and slowly refining it until there's balance.

I'm comfortable with going the other way (that is, starting with an even list and then skewing it to shift the meta), but a lot of motivation in this thread seems to be to try and claim a meta mandate for a particular ruleset forever. With everyone calling this stagelist "perfect" when its actually "perfectly even according to the arbitrary stage numbers", I fear people will become averse to challenging this list in the future.

You can always improve. Perhaps it would be an improvement to this list and to the game as a whole to skew it. We can't throw the discussion out the window. Push it off, maybe. But it should still be considered seriously.

I can agree with this. I think this stagelist is perfect, for now. But if, in the future, the meta demands for something else, I'm all for re-opening discussion. With all due respect, I would like to push it off and focus on things like bans and character vs. Stage first and the like cause debate can get exhausting. But no, I would never entirely discard discussion of changing the ruleset.

 

[Kulprit]

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ GIVE BOWSER DATA ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LJ2IRbVIcEYajsqt95JMQOPKKpsqfDzo5ZgfJvbdlg4/edit#gid=0

This includes Bowser's and every other stage that's been considered for lists in PM's past. I used this data with my initial explanation for the Nebraska stagelist.

 

[JesteRace]

Rounded, BC is 141 for stage width, 170 for ledge to side, 240 for center to side, and 191 for floor to ceiling... I think.

 

[nimigoha]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LJ2IRbVIcEYajsqt95JMQOPKKpsqfDzo5ZgfJvbdlg4/edit#gid=0

This includes Bowser's and every other stage that's been considered for lists in PM's past. I used this data with my initial explanation for the Nebraska stagelist.

Awesome. That has the old PS2 size though, it's now 178.

 

[4tlas]

I can agree with this. I think this stagelist is perfect, for now. But if, in the future, the meta demands for something else, I'm all for re-opening discussion. With all due respect, I would like to push it off and focus on things like bans and character vs. Stage first and the like cause debate can get exhausting. But no, I would never entirely discard discussion of changing the ruleset.

I didn't mean you personally. I was referring to how referring to the list as objectively perfect is causing all sorts of short-sighted uproar from the general populace, and you know if its hard to convince them of this list when you have numbers to back you up, imagine how hard it will be to reopen discussion once THIS becomes the new status quo...

I'm fighting the Character First fight elsewhere, though, which is why I wanted to talk about this now. It can wait a bit, but once all of the other discussion has died down its probably because this list has entrenched itself as the new status quo *cries*

 

[JesteRace]

I didn't mean you personally. I was referring to how referring to the list as objectively perfect is causing all sorts of short-sighted uproar from the general populace, and you know if its hard to convince them of this list when you have numbers to back you up, imagine how hard it will be to reopen discussion once THIS becomes the new status quo...

I'm fighting the Character First fight elsewhere, though, which is why I wanted to talk about this now. It can wait a bit, but once all of the other discussion has died down its probably because this list has entrenched itself as the new status quo *cries*

Well, we need to have a status quo right now. The community needs to be solidified. The meta is still so young, it will be some time before it develops to a point of showing a need for a change in that status quo. By that time, I would think that the community would be solidified enough that a new discussion wouldn't cause a massive split. It would take a while for anything to change, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. In most cases, you don't want a quick overhaul. The only reason this stagelist is being pushed so quickly is because there currently is no standard and there needs to be, so it simply makes sense to use a stagelist without any skew as that standard. Again, until the meta develops to a hypothetical point that requires a skew, if that were to happen.

 

[4tlas]

Well, we need to have a status quo right now. The community needs to be solidified. The meta is still so young, it will be some time before it develops to a point of showing a need for a change in that status quo. By that time, I would think that the community would be solidified enough that a new discussion wouldn't cause a massive split. It would take a while for anything to change, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. In most cases, you don't want a quick overhaul. The only reason this stagelist is being pushed so quickly is because there currently is no standard and there needs to be, so it simply makes sense to use a stagelist without any skew as that standard. Again, until the meta develops to a hypothetical point that requires a skew, if that were to happen.

I'm not of the opinion that we need a standard at present, but discussion has already been pushed to the point where I think it will happen regardless.

As I said before, precedent and status quo mean a lot to most players. For example, my scene is clamoring to switch back to Stage First because people "like it better", but really its because thats what they're used to and that's what "everyone else" does. In fact, some are requesting Melee's ruleset and stagelist because "why fix what ain't broke"?

I'm not sure what the need for a standard is now that we didn't have before? Is it because people think the community needs unity? I don't think it needs it any more than before.

 

[JesteRace]

Well, I'm not sure what debate can be had on that front. I think the need for unity right now is stronger given that this is it. PM is never changing again. And you have your reasons that we don't have a stronger need. Which is fine. At the end of the day, yeah. A standard is probably gonna happen regardless. I don't actually foresee problems arising with it, but we shall see.

But let me just take a moment aside from the debate to deeply console you with every fiber of my being for having a scene THAT stuck in the Melee ways. I can't imagine. Like, how is it not obvious that Melee's stagelist only exists because those are the only 6 stages that don't suck and not because it's a good, rounded stagelist? Ugh. Melee's ruleset is entirely out of necessity, not quality. He doesn't play PM anymore, but we used to have a guy who kept saying we should run PS1 instead of PS2. Believe me. I know your pain there.

 

[4tlas]

But let me just take a moment aside from the debate to deeply console you with every fiber of my being for having a scene THAT stuck in the Melee ways. I can't imagine. Like, how is it not obvious that Melee's stagelist only exists because those are the only 6 stages that don't suck and not because it's a good, rounded stagelist? Ugh. Melee's ruleset is entirely out of necessity, not quality. He doesn't play PM anymore, but we used to have a guy who kept saying we should run PS1 instead of PS2. Believe me. I know your pain there.

It hurts a lot, yeah. The weird thing is though that most of them play PM exclusively and only occasionally play Melee. But its the people that love Melee that are loud and complain because the majority are PM players so I try to cater to them.

The real problem isn't that they love Melee. The problem is that the scene is MASSIVE so I can't possibly explain to everyone why things are the way they are. I can debate 1-on-1 very well, but I always forget something when I'm making a huge impersonal uncustomized writeup.

 

[JOE!]

It hurts a lot, yeah. The weird thing is though that most of them play PM exclusively and only occasionally play Melee. But its the people that love Melee that are loud and complain because the majority are PM players so I try to cater to them.

The real problem isn't that they love Melee. The problem is that the scene is MASSIVE so I can't possibly explain to everyone why things are the way they are. I can debate 1-on-1 very well, but I always forget something when I'm making a huge impersonal uncustomized writeup.

Want me to do it for you?

Awesome. That has the old PS2 size though, it's now 178.

PS2 is up to date as of 3.6, I even double checked this morning

 

[nimigoha]

PS2 is up to date as of 3.6, I even double checked this morning

The sheet says 187.5, are you saying that's how big PS2 is in 3.6 because SOJ's spreadsheet has 187.5 and 178.1, which is 5% smaller like it says in the changelist.

Or did they never actually decrease PS2?

I'm confused.

 

[JOE!]

The sheet says 187.5, are you saying that's how big PS2 is in 3.6 because SOJ's spreadsheet has 187.5 and 178.1, which is 5% smaller like it says in the changelist.

Or did they never actually decrease PS2?

I'm confused.

I literally just checked the stage width with brawl Wall using the 3.6 file. I'm not sure if something is off then...

 

[nimigoha]

Hmm interesting, @SOJ can we get a clarification?

 

[4tlas]

Want me to do it for you?

Make a writeup which I can look over? I'm 1000% better at editing than writing, and I'm not bad at writing.

 

[Deleted member]

w the final options for stages for a stagelist i think 9 stages is the best list and am fine with going down to 1 ban to make it happen

i think this exacerbates the power of CPs in a game that's already considered fairly MU heavy. regardless of which stage you cut down to 9, it would not be particularly hard to find examples of this with any remaining combination.

 

[trash?]

all most direct ways to get research from the source seem really shaky in PM, since this happened similarly with how ppl first dissected frame data (when really, we should all be using frame-by-frame in-game like smart'uns)

on 9v10, I think that kind of boils down into if you think losing a stage-ban is worse, or if YIB is worse. while I think the power of EZ counterpicks is slightly lessened by the major problem characters (bowser's the obvious one, ofc) being pretty low-end in viability, I still fancy a possibility that someone like captain falcon can play around a 1-ban pretty confidently, and idk if YIB's affect would really be any worse.

at the very least, tho, I'm glad that it's focused down to these two concepts long-term. worst case scenario, we find out the one that's moved forward for now isn't the better choice, we go to the other one, all is well

 

[JesteRace]

Again, 1 ban is straight awful with 9 stages. Just do 2 bans and then run either modified DSR or add Yoshi's Brawl. I d g a f which you run, they're both fine. But it's gotta be 2 bans.

 

[Bazkip]

Yoshi's Island is awful

 

[Avro-Arrow]

Bazkip I think it's alright. Since most people aren't too hot on it anyways, it seems it'd normally be the stage people don't choose in Game 5 Bo5. Which is still better than being forced to play on a stage.

 

[Bazkip]

I'd say that's pretty much irrelevant then. Illusion of choice.

 

[Avro-Arrow]

But you can admit there's at least marginal benefit from it? Yoshi's Island is a decent stage, and fits within the list pretty well.

 

[Kneato]

I have to agree with Baz. There are so many things that make Yoshi's Island a bad tournament stage. I honestly don't think there is a suitable stage to bump NE 9 up to 10.

I think we have to weigh the pros and cons of a 9 stage list vs a 10 stage list with a guaranteed ****ty stage.

 

[Cox Box]

Can someone explain again why 2 bans and normal DSR is somehow inadequate in a best of 5 set. I must not be getting how it "eliminates all choice in stages." I've read this whole thread and I'm still not convinced that a tenth stage or changing DSR is necessary for a good rule set.

 

[nimigoha]

Can someone explain again why 2 bans and normal DSR is somehow inadequate in a best of 5 set. I must not be getting how it "eliminates all choice in stages." I've read this whole thread and I'm still not convinced that a tenth stage or changing DSR is necessary for a good rule set.

A vs B, stages 1-9, starters 3-7

Strike to stage 5, A wins

A bans 1/2, B picks3 and wins
B bans 8/9, A picks 7 and wins
A bans 1/2, B picks 4 and wins
B bans 8/9, A is only really left with stages B has won on or stage 6.

 

[Cox Box]

A vs B, stages 1-9, starters 3-7

Strike to stage 5, A wins

A bans 1/2, B picks3 and wins
B bans 8/9, A picks 7 and wins
A bans 1/2, B picks 4 and wins
B bans 8/9, A is only really left with stages B has won on or stage 6.

So what's so bad about that? Stage 6 in this case would be better (slightly) for A, right? So A's counterpick is still to A's benefit. Why change the rules to avoid the fact that you have to be able to win on most stages to succeed? I must be missing why it's an issue. Is it that big of a deal in long Melee sets, since that game only has 6 stages to work with?

 

[DMG]

Melee 3/5 with 6 stages and no bans = 2 fresh stage choices for Game 5

PM 3/5 with 9 stages and 2 bans = 1 fresh stage choice for Game 5

 

[JesteRace]

Modified DSR or add Yoshi's Brawl.

P R O B L E M S O L V E D

 

[DMG]

Mod Yoshi's

The one true path