Project M Recommended Ruleset

[DMG]

As a CP it's probably fine, starter would be a bit questionable. It's not very friendly to a decent portion of recoveries, causing a wider split of preference than regular starters (outside of walls perhaps). I think it would become more popular with slight mods: if the background were simplified and the ledge getting minor slope. You could keep the ledge density / thin status the same, but the minor slope wall would help some characters recover a bit less treacherous and it would help some chars who hang low after dropping from ledge (think Samus and how easy it can be to get stuck under). While Melee BF has that ledge thinness, majority of people prefer the Brawl style BF ledges because of the sloping and much fewer "I was above BF, hugged the ledge as I came down, but my ledge grab box missed??? Melee plz". The same would be true for Lylat: not the missing edge snaps but wall slope being preferred


People who want to use the lip for edgeguards (walljump edgeguard for example) also get a slightly easier time. Minor tweaks like that would probably launch the stage into regular usage tbh. If we take the strict "vanilla" approach to stages from this point forward, then I'd probably not support Lylat or BC alt (BC alt with chains removed and blue swap is pretty bueno, there's no going back to red chain BC alt after that lool)

 

[Bazkip]

I was fine with Lylat until I found out there's a glitch with Diddy, Ganon and Falcon (and possibly more characters?) being instantly kicked off the ledge if they grab it in a certain manner.

Ledges that are difficult to sweetspot are fine, buggy ledges are not.

 

[nimigoha]

I was fine with Lylat until I found out there's a glitch with Diddy, Ganon and Falcon (and possibly more characters?) being instantly kicked off the ledge if they grab it in a certain manner.

Ledges that are difficult to sweetspot are fine, buggy ledges are not.

On a serious note, I haven't heard of that before. Any idea what causes it?

 

[DMG]

My guess is body warping on certain sweetspots, similar to D3 glitches from Brawl involving grabs/pummels and slants. Say reverse Upb sweetspot from under Lylat, coming from inside and basically near scraping the ledge "ceiling".

If the person loses invincibility when this happens, may be similar to Brawl Delfino and Halberd

 

[4tlas]

I was fine with Lylat until I found out there's a glitch with Diddy, Ganon and Falcon (and possibly more characters?) being instantly kicked off the ledge if they grab it in a certain manner.

Ledges that are difficult to sweetspot are fine, buggy ledges are not.

Can you find some examples? I'm curious.

 

[DMG]

I've seen the Wolf ledge grab glitch but not sure where to find it again

 

[4tlas]

Actually I was given an example a while back from Lafungo playing against Baz and I forgot to look at it.

Looks like you came from underneath the stage and because you bumped your head at the same time you grabbed the ledge you died. Honestly I thought you would not have grabbed ledge at all, so I'm still not sure there's a real problem. Like yeah its stupid and you have to get used to it, but it doesn't seem like a total disaster. Just another counterpick.

It sucks that stages all hate Ganon though. Hmm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06e3tRt5X-E&t=4m

 

[nimigoha]

Frozen Phoenix used Paragon ruleset and it was chill. It's one stage off the "numerically good" N9, and Dreamland is still a boner, but if it ends up being the standard it really shouldn't make people lose too much sleep.

Stage first needs to go. As a Bowser player, if there's a game three, I just wait for my opponents to ban stages according to my game one/two character, then picking Warioland and switching.

It's not flipping their counterpick to my advantage but it's still nasty. One of my sets against a solid Fox went to last stock against my Marth Game 1/2 and I 3 stocked him on WL in Game 3 with Bowser. It's nutty and cheap.

 

[4tlas]

Another TO in my region was very kind and was willing to try the ruleset I suggested as a compromise between Stage First and Character First.

Loser offers pool of 3 stages (can't offer DSR stages)
Winner bans 1 and chooses character
Loser chooses stage and character

Overall, the experience was positive, but all feedback I got was due to it being the first time. For example, someone didn't realize they couldn't offer DSR stages in the pool. The top level players and Melee players didn't even bother reading the ruleset, but once I explained it to them they said it sounded good.

Will try it some more and get more feedback. One concern I still have is that if neither player has a secondary then this is effectively a 1ish ban ruleset (you still get that 1 ban with the certainty they don't have a secondary though). I can't think of a good way to fix that.

 

[DMG]

Not sure about the strength of that compromise, since just about every "negative" scenario in the old Stage First can still happen. List of Negatives:

-Winner flips massively to suit Stage (flips by Winner which are more subdued or even may or may not be seen as a negative)

-Loser Doubles Down

-Wasted/meaningless Bans due to blind char / split CP power

-Non-optimal Stage picks due to blind char (both baseline char switch power by opponent, and theoretical CP coverage as Winner: "I dunno if he has X character, can I afford Y CP if he does?")


The main one which is neutered, is Winner flipping chars to suit the stage (Non-optimal stage being picked is still possible, but it's not as prevalent because of pool "choices"). It's still possible for Loser to Double Down advantages (Winner is solo main, Winner has another character but cannot match CP coverage by Loser because of 1 ban, etc). It's still quite possible for Winner to gain 0 or very little from the 3 stage pool information, leading to easier double down: solo mains know the 3 stages bad for their character, and which stage + character are likely to be worst CP, so doing pools may offer 0 help and instead hurt due to 1 ban. Stage bans and choices / pool selection are still being made char blind, and while Loser is not as Blind as before, the 3 stage pool choice may be stronger handcuffs than required or desired.


It's less variable and less prone to hard advantages or disadvantages than original Stage First, but it still involves the balance conundrum of how much blindness and reversal power are acceptable. There's reasonable and realistic situations where this system fails to balance much better than stage first, mainly because you'll never escape the balancing struggle. Character first is pretty straightforward and easier to balance: you determine how much ban power is acceptable and move on (similar thing to address: stage list). If an improper imbalance exists in char first, it's likely due to incorrect ban power or stage list. In stages first, pools first, or other systems, you may have imbalances due to blindness, reversals, or handcuffs. This is all on top of the traditional "what stages and ban count are ok". Attempting to balance all of that is not my cup of tea.


I don't doubt that the pool system can generate some acceptable outcomes, but I find it still inferior to just going entirely to char first. The main plus it retains is Winner being able to switch (hopefully without a reversal) to mitigate CP power. The power of this reversal is still mostly in the hands of Loser, depending on his adaptability, so that switch mitigation positive may not be reliable anyway. Kinda takes away the draw of the system for me IMO: don't think it's the system's fault entirely since it must try to balance blindness/reversal/handcuffs.

 

[4tlas]

I had not considered that doubling down may in fact be easier due to only 1 ban. I still think it is overall harder though.

In Stage First, the loser essentially offers up a pool of 10 stages and 2 are banned. Assuming the secondaries he has cover opposite stages (which is the most overwhelming double-down scenario), then 2 of 3 stages are banned for type 1, but then 0 of 3 stages are banned for type 2. This allows the player to switch to their secondary AND pick the best of the type 2 stages or just take the unbanned stage and stay their main.

In the Pool system, the loser offers up a pool of 3 stages and 1 is banned. There are 2 ways to offer up opposing types of stages: either a 1-2 split or a 1-1-1 split.

In the 1-2 case, the banner has two options: FORCE the secondary (or main, whichever) by banning the 1 stage, or take out the best of the 2 set. Doing the former is already better than Stage First because the banner has some control over the matchup (even though the strongest of the "type 2" stages is still available). Doing the latter is also slightly better than Stage First because, while the best of "type 1" stages and the second-best of "type 2" are available, at least the banner received information about possible secondaries BEFORE the bans.

In the 1-1-1 split you obviously ban the stage for the matchup you dislike or to force onto a secondary.



Assuming proper pool selection, it is impossible to reverse a counterpick. The best you can do is negate it. (Or you're just playing against a character that does everything you do but better, like if you were a Ganon main and your opponent had a Marth, and there's nothing any system does to help that)

While many of the negative scenarios can occur, their frequency seems to be way down. This is why testing is important.

Again, I understand that Character First is more fair and easier to balance. I, personally, am not trying to contest that Character First is the better system. However, players LIKE negating stages with characters. They like it, they want it, and so they should be able to play with such a system if possible.

 

[JesteRace]

Frozen Phoenix used Paragon ruleset and it was chill. It's one stage off the "numerically good" N9, and Dreamland is still a boner, but if it ends up being the standard it really shouldn't make people lose too much sleep.

Stage first needs to go. As a Bowser player, if there's a game three, I just wait for my opponents to ban stages according to my game one/two character, then picking Warioland and switching.

It's not flipping their counterpick to my advantage but it's still nasty. One of my sets against a solid Fox went to last stock against my Marth Game 1/2 and I 3 stocked him on WL in Game 3 with Bowser. It's nutty and cheap.

I'm fine with Paragon as well, especially having Delfino's as a starter over Dream Land or Bowser's. Having Green Hill and Smashville both as starters bugs me to no end still. Obviously, Smashville isn't going anywhere, so I very much support Wario Land as a starter over Green Hill. I think they both have equal moments of polarization and neutrality, just Wario Land isn't a squished Smashville.

I think ideally, I would want AZ's stagelist with Delfino replacing Dreamland entirely and 1 ban in all sets (why they do 0 bans in a bo5 with 8 stages is beyond me). This would also be identical to taking Michigan's stagelist and just removing Dreamland and a ban. If people still wanna use Dreamland or even Bowser's Castle(they fill the same role imo) as a CP and have 2 bans, that's fine, I guess, but I'd rather not.

AZ/Michigan aren't as "mathematically sound" as NE9, but they may be more practical choices if people can't get down with Bowser's Castle.

 

[DMG]

I'm not sure how much people support Vanilla Bowser Alt. Visual mods have noticeably improved my own experience on the stage, and a couple other people have commented positively to them. If Vanilla Only philosophy is to be adhered to, I think Bowser Alt would be cut and replaced. If people are a tad flexible with actual stage mods, improving Lylat/Yoshi Brawl/Delfino may be feasible.

Stage lists for Vanilla Only PM are probably gonna suck in the future. Just gut feeling

4tlas - Post not squarely at you, but anyone who likes Winner negating CP's by character swap. Pointing out that there's no reliable way to allow or even successfully perform that negation, even if you regulate the possible reversal power. If Winner negation is their preferred trait, going back to Stages First would satisfy that desire or appeal even further. It's much easier to perform a negation if the stage choice is locked etc

People can do or like whatever, but ya I'd imagine Stage First would be more popular than pools if the appeal or preference is Winner negation. Winner negation with Character swap is both strongest and most reliable in Stage First. Pooled picks dilutes this: can't imagine the selling of this format unless the negation preference is only for mild cases. Like Diet Stage First instead of Stage First.

 

[4tlas]

I'm not sure how much people support Vanilla Bowser Alt. Visual mods have noticeably improved my own experience on the stage, and a couple other people have commented positively to them. If Vanilla Only philosophy is to be adhered to, I think Bowser Alt would be cut and replaced. If people are a tad flexible with actual stage mods, improving Lylat/Yoshi Brawl/Delfino may be feasible.

Stage lists for Vanilla Only PM are probably gonna suck in the future. Just gut feeling

4tlas - Post not squarely at you, but anyone who likes Winner negating CP's by character swap. Pointing out that there's no reliable way to allow or even successfully perform that negation, even if you regulate the possible reversal power. If Winner negation is their preferred trait, going back to Stages First would satisfy that desire or appeal even further. It's much easier to perform a negation if the stage choice is locked etc

People can do or like whatever, but ya I'd imagine Stage First would be more popular than pools if the appeal or preference is Winner negation. Winner negation with Character swap is both strongest and most reliable in Stage First. Pooled picks dilutes this: can't imagine the selling of this format unless the negation preference is only for mild cases. Like Diet Stage First instead of Stage First.

Personally I find the blue Bowsers WORSE than the red Bowsers. Not that I've had much experience with either.

Sorry I guess I should re-explain. I have polled my community on their opinions for Stage First vs Character First. These are the results:

- Everybody, except for the most die-hard Melee fans or multi-mains, hates having character counterpicks so strong they reverse the stage counterpick.

- Most people, except for dual-mains, dislike allowing character swaps to enhance stage counterpicks. The sentiment is not as strong here though.

- Everybody (period) is ok with character swaps negating stage counterpicks, and some like it

- All multi-mains and some dual-mains feel that the matchup counterpick alone is not enough to justify a secondary, and feel that some form of character overriding stage is necessary

I am trying to solve all of these issues while being as fair as possible. This means DEFINITELY not Stage First, since that system has many of these problems that are not only disliked but outright unfair in a game with 41 characters and a wide variety of legal stages. Since EVERYone agrees that they like negation, it is automatically fair. I don't think anyone expects to negate 100% successfully every single time, but having a chance to makes everything feel more fair to them and encourages them to have a secondary prepared just in case. This is what those players are asking for.

Diet Stage First may satisfy all of the multi-mains. I doubt anything short of using Melee's ruleset with PM's roster is going to satisfy the die-hard Melee fans.

 

[nimigoha]

I doubt anything short of using Melee's ruleset with PM's roster is going to satisfy the die-hard Melee fans.

So take them to Warioland and 4 stock them with Bowser, then tell them "this isn't Melee so stop treating it like Melee" and walk away.

 

[4tlas]

So take them to Warioland and 4 stock them with Bowser, then tell them "this isn't Melee so stop treating it like Melee" and walk away.

If only I could. All I can do is beat them with my no L-cancel no wavedash Sheilda, which only makes them hate the game because I don't need tech skill to win, which is not only clearly not Melee but also blasphemy to them.

So yeah they'd stop complaining, but probably also stop playing. They enjoy the game, they just don't understand it from a non-Melee perspective. Even if they were made to realize that, they still would have no other way to look at it because that's what they know. Can't blame them, but also can't pander to them.

 

[Bazkip]

Is there a Bowser's Alt mod out there that removes the chains? Could I get a link to that?

 

[DMG]

Lunchables made a mod with chains removed (both a red and a blue version). I and a couple others brought up removing the chains after BR 19-20 I think. I had a couple crucial gameplay moments on stream, with the chain involved, so it was pretty easy to point to how it could be a problem.

I'll see about finding it again and linking you (it may only give the blue chainless version though)

 

[Bazkip]

Lunchables made a mod with chains removed (both a red and a blue version). I and a couple others brought up removing the chains after BR 19-20 I think. I had a couple crucial gameplay moments on stream, with the chain involved, so it was pretty easy to point to how it could be a problem.

I'll see about finding it again and linking you (it may only give the blue chainless version though)

I'd prefer the red version if possible, I asked my local community a while back if they would be interested in the blue version and only one person wanted it.

 

[DMG]

This should have chainless red and blue. Also includes stage select and other changes, so you'll have to weed out just the stage textures unless you want an IaB weekly themed setup lol

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0q8cr0so6i6hsq3/IaB.rar?dl=0

 

[Deleted member]

I think I also very slightly toned down the contrast of the flames/lava in that download, so there's that

who gave you the IaB DL? I was gonna link that to reddit at some point

 

[4tlas]

I think I also very slightly toned down the contrast of the flames/lava in that download, so there's that

who gave you the IaB DL? I was gonna link that to reddit at some point

Toning down the contrast is probably the big deal. If you did, that's very good news.

 

[Deleted member]

The stage is still a bit visually distracting imo, I'd need other peoples' opinions on it because idk if it's still too bright

either way that + the chains being moved is definitely an improvement

 

[Bazkip]

I put it on my setup and the lava seemed the same to me, but then again I wasn't specifically checking for that, so who knows.

 

[DMG]

I think I also very slightly toned down the contrast of the flames/lava in that download, so there's that

who gave you the IaB DL? I was gonna link that to reddit at some point

You posted it in DFW PM facebook group like in Feb. Where everyone went on a meme about chains. How could you forget

 

[Deleted member]

Ohhhhh I know what I did

I posted a link to IaB.rar from my dropbox and it was a few megabytes with only the stages and a .gct file or w/e

now I replaced the old .rar with the ENTIRE IaB setup, with music + character skins + all the custom stages, etc so now the .rar is 1.02gb and its 1.34gb when extracted

apparently the link stays the same if I add a new file in there but with the same name, that's interesting

 

[DMG]

That's bueno

 

[nimigoha]

I've recently come to believe that WL should be a starter instead of GHZ.

There's a lot of openness in the starters right now, having GHZ as a more or less walled version of SV isn't great.

Plus, as an imperfect solution, making our small starter sorta helps balance out the fact that pretty much every list other than N9 is going to have two starters with "large" bases, e.g. PS2 and DS. Obviously not balanced because banning small vs large base is 1 ban vs 2 which sucks but the reality is that public opinion of BC means it won't be accepted as a standard starter (and no one wants to do 2/1/2 starters because it means getting rid of BF or SV). I've tried to push it but when people bring up issues with it over and over again it's easier to just move on.

 

[DMG]

Take current 5, swap out BC for Delfino/DL and add both WL + FoD. I dunno if you can count FoD as a "true" medium, but it will have to do and has more acceptance vs Yoshi Brawl, Norfair, Lylat, or other choices so far.

Truly fixing starters and stages in general is beyond Vanilla patch imo. There's no secret formula that will win for everyone cleanly, aside from legit modding or adding choices. Inside the confines of Vanilla, assuming BC is out, 7 starter may be better way forward. Out of 5 stages, with 3 being the staple BF SV PS2, I'm not sure there's a true path forward on getting ceiling, stage size, platforms, etc all lined up pretty. Chance seems better at 7 stage tbh

 

[nimigoha]

Stagelist without FD? Sign me up.

Seriously though, I'd like to see someone try 7 starter with those stages.

And to be honest, I think Norfair might be worth another shot. Large-ish stage with med/small blastzones. Open space may be an issue but in a stagelist without FD maybe?

As far as a "universal list" goes looking forward, I think it's safe to say that three definite "no"s are: 3 starter, 6 stage, and N9.

I honestly wouldn't mind if Paragon ended up as the standard. GHZ/FD/SV all in one list sorta blows if you're trying to not get chain grabbed but oh well.

 

[DMG]

I think SV is good enough vs chain grabs, getting caught super pants down for a ton of % is probably the player's fault for approaching or getting grabbed while the platform is moving away or far away. PS2 might be worse since plats are super low and hardly save you from punish after throw. Depends on char and MU I guess

Paragon seems fine, except for Delfino and DL both being legal. Point of Delfino was to consider it as a swap for DL, not to run both at the same time.

 

[JesteRace]

I suppose you could run both Delfino and Dreamland. If you add Yoshi's Story as well.

 

[nimigoha]

I suppose you could run both Delfino and Dreamland. If you add Yoshi's Story as well.

Get that trash out of my stagelist discussion!

Skyworld FTW

 

[4tlas]

I've been testing my proposal at Smashing Grounds this Season. While I have gotten little feedback so far (other than the standard "oh no its jank and I'm not used to it get it off me!"), I have some observations to report.

For reference, the stagelist is

Starters:
GHZ
FoD
SV
BF
PS2

CPs:
WL
SW
LC
DS
DL

1) The Starters - The starters have been working beautifully. All the stages get playtime, nobody has complained, and (personally) it feels fair when trying to strike. GHZ and FoD are not so small that they feel like auto-bans and PS2 has a neutral enough layout that it doesn't either. There seem to be no problems with any of these stages whatsoever.

2) No FD - Another local near us has been running N9 so that we can test both simultaneously. When switching between the 2, the most drastic difference was having FD on the list again. As much as I hate FD, I must admit that it was refreshing to have available as an option because its strategic niche was not quite filled elsewhere on the list (closest was probably SV or PS2). I still think its an awful stage and is disgustingly extreme. If it (the most open, fewest platforms) is to be included, then we should also include the other extremities (most cramped and most platforms, WL, and largest blastzones, DL). I am leaning toward excluding them all over including them all.

3) WL over YS - WL offers a unique layout, which is nice. However, it is quite literally the most cramped stage in the game. Honestly, it is TOO cramped, just like how DL's blastzones are just TOO big. WL has been an auto-ban (or not picked) in nearly every matchup and has seen very little play time. I think we can do better than having a tiny stage that's just there to force bans. If we try running YS instead it should see a little more play time because its layout is more open, contrasting with the tiny size.

4) DL - Same analysis goes for DL as for WL. Basically, SW fills the same "bigger blastzones than expected from stage size" niche, but it isn't as huge so it isn't as polarizing. Also, most recoveries in this game can actually make it back from a lot of Dreamland. This basically becomes an auto-ban vs any floaty. Running SW seems strictly better to me. Which brings me to...

5) SW - There have been some complaints about SW, but so far I have noticed no actual issues. Just a lot of grumbling about "where's the platform", which I understand is frustrating, but is at least something you can get used to. Basically, its a fine stage but people need (and can) get used to it.

6) LC - Unlike Skyworld, there have been some actual problems with Lylat. The background has legitimate distracted people, and that might actually be the type of thing you can't get used to. The ledges have some bad snap bugs on some characters due to the combination of slope and thinness. Basically, if your character can ride up the inside lip to grab the ledge, you technically also bop your head on the ceiling under Lylat and get ejected from the ledge. Again, you can get used to anything, and again, this affects some characters more than others, but it is a glitch and thus frustrates people more than is necessary. Combined with the "I can't see **** on this stage" issue, I think this one needs to go. At least Skyworld's ledges are just hard to sweetspot and don't steal your recovery after you grabbed the ledge...most of the time. I haven't seen it happen since 3.5 on Skyworld so I hope its gone...

Ok so time to discuss replacements.

Personally, I would opt to use NONE of the extreme stages rather than all of them. So that means I'd rather use YS over WL, SW over DL, and...well I don't want to use Norfair over FD. Basically, I view Norfair as a strictly worse FD: its FD plus platform camping. That nuance plus size differences may result in the stage getting not-banned and picked more often, so I'm willing to try it again.

Lylat has to go, which means that the "platforms protecting the stage" niche is empty. The only option for that is YI, which is fine because it enables having a third medium anyway. Thus, the next version looks like this:

Starters
-GHZ
-FoD
-SV
-BF
-PS2

CPs:
-YS
-YI
-SW
-NF
-DS

Can I get some feedback on this? The old list, theorycrafting the new list, opinions on my logic, whatever.

 

[DMG]

Norfair is not strictly a worse FD. It can vary from a huge improvement, to even worse than FD, depending on the MU. Marth would 90% prefer FD cause the platforms are awkward and offer opponents safer outs to his setups. On the other hand, someone like TL would prefer Norfair cause the platforms aid in running for bomb camping.

 

[4tlas]

Norfair is not strictly a worse FD. It can vary from a huge improvement, to even worse than FD, depending on the MU. Marth would 90% prefer FD cause the platforms are awkward and offer opponents safer outs to his setups. On the other hand, someone like TL would prefer Norfair cause the platforms aid in running for bomb camping.

I was not referring to which characters like it, how it affects balance, or anything. I agree that those are all useful things, and that's why I am still opting to consider Norfair over FD.

I am referring purely to a game design rule of: make gameplay fun. Gameplay is about making choices, and thus having interesting decisions is a large part of fun.

As far as I am concerned, the point of a map is to give elements to play with. FD quite literally gives no elements, and while that in itself affects decisions in its own way, it has no variety within it. It is a non-issue, and that sucks.

Norfair does much of the same, but at least it has variety. In that sense, I approve. However, I view it as having 2 modes: FD plus platform camping, or mostly FD (the platforms are still decently high). Enabling camping is generally bad for fun, and the cycles take long enough that it is boring to wait for the camping to go away.

This is why I do not LIKE the stage, but I think it is still an improvement upon FD in terms of balance. That is why I am opting to try it before I return to using FD in the stagelist.

 

[Avro-Arrow]

For what it's worth, I think Norfair's fun :3

 

[JesteRace]

I don't think I'd ever run that list, Atlas, but if I found myself at one of your tournaments, I wouldn't be mad

How is YS less cramped than WL to any significant degree though? I disagree with WL being too extreme and I especially disagree with it being compared to Dreamland. Dreamland is far more extreme. WL is about as small as Delfino's is large, which is perfectly reasonable.

 

[4tlas]

For what it's worth, I think Norfair's fun :3

Oh I find it fun too, but I would not wish to impose it upon anyone. Basically the only stage I actually think is un-fun is FD because its just so boring.

Then again, I find items fun, so what the hell is my opinion as a player worth anyway lol

Edit: I should clarify that I have fun on it as a player, but dislike it from a design perspective.

I don't think I'd ever run that list, Atlas, but if I found myself at one of your tournaments, I wouldn't be mad

How is YS less cramped than WL to any significant degree though? I disagree with WL being too extreme and I especially disagree with it being compared to Dreamland. Dreamland is far more extreme. WL is about as small as Delfino's is large, which is perfectly reasonable.

I'm not talking about blastzones, I'm talking about layout.

YS's platforms are spread out (slopes give a little more height to the side platforms, which are slightly off stage, actually) and the tri-plat format leaves a wide open space in the middle. WL's platforms are all clustered together, leaving an open space up in the sky, which doesn't mean as much as an open space on the ground.

In the sense that people like to avoid the "most extreme" of any trait, WL is equivalent to DL. It is the "most extremely cramped", just like FD is the "most extremely open" and DL is the "most extremely huge".

I don't think it is AS bad, but if the logic for Dreamland is "its just too huge", then how is it fair to cut down on that without cutting out the other extremes?

 

[DMG]

WL is probably marginally better for not having Randall issues and being more leniant on lower recoveries / edgeguards. I would use WL over YS, as I would use Delfino over DL.