Project M Recommended Ruleset

[JesteRace]

Alright, that's on me for not knowing that. Guess I really don't care one way or another given the current info lol I don't expect it to get much acceptance though. Hope it works out for scenes that do run it.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Going from no acceptance to a scene running (not just trialing) is a pretty good step imo.

Similar to changing from stage first to characters first cp.

It just takes some well laid out arguments to quell misconceptions.

 

[nimigoha]

I like L canceling. I like the feeling of accomplishment it brings. I agree with Praxis' big post on the subject.

I wouldn't give a flying fladoodle if ALC became standard. I get that people would get upset but if at the end of the day it removes a """"Tech barrier""""" that might turn people off the game, that would be great. As in, ALC would encourage more people to play, and I like playing with more people.

I'm not going to push for its adoption, I'll be pretty neutral about the whole thing. If it happens, cool, if it doesn't, fine by me. IMO the most important thing is that the decision pleases the majority of players. We've found that out firsthand with stage choices, and character first; with no authority body, the ruleset is pretty much majority rules.

 

[DMG]

Not in favor of alc since you could argue various hitlag and char attributes lead to various different timings to properly l-cancel, along with a penalty for improper usage (hold it too long get shield, low hitstun counter attack possibly get shield, etc).

You can spam the timing since there is no fail window, but spamming the input gives more room for other errors still. Ideally I think L cancel shoulda been a bit bigger window, with fail window added.

 

[nimigoha]

L canceling works through hitlag in PM. There's no difference, I've tested it extensively. So in PM the window's going to be like 10+ frames on hit.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I like L canceling. I like the feeling of accomplishment it brings. I agree with Praxis' big post on the subject

Would you like the game more if b moves needed l canceling too?

 

[4tlas]

Not in favor of alc since you could argue various hitlag and char attributes lead to various different timings to properly l-cancel, along with a penalty for improper usage (hold it too long get shield, low hitstun counter attack possibly get shield, etc).

You can spam the timing since there is no fail window, but spamming the input gives more room for other errors still. Ideally I think L cancel shoulda been a bit bigger window, with fail window added.

No different timings for hitlag in PM. And there's no fail window. Edit: I know you know there's no fail window, but I think that's important enough to be worth restating.

Would you like the game more if b moves needed l canceling too?

All he said was he liked it, he didn't say it was a good mechanic or needed to stay exactly the way it is. No need to ask him to defend its existence.

Now, Praxis' post, on the other hand, is worth arguing with. I disagreed with nearly every point.

 

[Narpas_sword]

No different timings for hitlag in PM. And there's no fail window. Edit: I know you know there's no fail window, but I think that's important enough to be worth restating.



All he said was he liked it, he didn't say it was a good mechanic or needed to stay exactly the way it is. No need to ask him to defend its existence.
.

Im just curious if more button presses is more appealing to him

 

[nimigoha]

They are more appealing to me. When I press a buttload of buttons really fast and something good happens, it feels good. Maybe the reward of L canceling shouldn't have ever been a thing, but since it does exist in PM, I get rewarded for doing it and I feel rewarded for doing it. Similar reason I tend to play fast characters like spacies, where the faster you push buttons the more oppressive you are. Just one man's opinion, and I totally respect people who prefer to play the slow game with characters like DDD. It's just not my style, and I think L canceling as it exists in PM compliments my thought process when playing the game.

It would definitely not be as clean on specials because specials are A) a really really mixed bag of effects and B) do really weird things to your momentum more or less all the time. Aerials are clean because as far as I can say off the cuff, no aerials in PM affect momentum other than Wario/Sonic dive kicks. So they're more consistent (with those two exceptions), and the timing is easy if you adjust for fall speed.

I like the question as a sort of equivalent to L canceling aerials but I'd have to say definitely no, specials are far too inconsistent compared to simply learning characters' fall speeds and then Wario/Sonic.

I think generally my thoughts on the whole topic is "things are fine as they are" really.

 

[Narpas_sword]

They are more appealing to me. When I press a buttload of buttons really fast and something good happens, it feels good. Maybe the reward of L canceling shouldn't have ever been a thing, but since it does exist in PM, I get rewarded for doing it and I feel rewarded for doing it. Similar reason I tend to play fast characters like spacies, where the faster you push buttons the more oppressive you are. Just one man's opinion, and I totally respect people who prefer to play the slow game with characters like DDD. It's just not my style, and I think L canceling as it exists in PM compliments my thought process when playing the game.

It would definitely not be as clean on specials because specials are A) a really really mixed bag of effects and B) do really weird things to your momentum more or less all the time. Aerials are clean because as far as I can say off the cuff, no aerials in PM affect momentum other than Wario/Sonic dive kicks. So they're more consistent (with those two exceptions), and the timing is easy if you adjust for fall speed.

I like the question as a sort of equivalent to L canceling aerials but I'd have to say definitely no, specials are far too inconsistent compared to simply learning characters' fall speeds and then Wario/Sonic.

I think generally my thoughts on the whole topic is "things are fine as they are" really.

An interesting take on things, most people avoid the "lcancel on specials' question. Thankyou for taking the time to answer.

 

[nimigoha]

I definitely wrote too much haha. Basically it would be super convoluted. L canceling shine? What about jumping out? Or what about specials that continue when you land like Bowser's Flame? IDK.

 

[DMG]

L canceling works through hitlag in PM. There's no difference, I've tested it extensively. So in PM the window's going to be like 10+ frames on hit.

That doesn't make sense. Hitlag eats into tech frames and certainly affects Melee L-cancel timing. Why would PM be different?

Edit: Found some posts about it from DF, that's really weird that L-cancel timing would persist and not deplete through hitlag in PM. That takes away all the nuances of varied timings from hitlag, just press L at a certain height or portion of your animation and it can't fail, RIP. PM is a lie!

 

[CORY]

it's probably because they had to basically hack it into pm, because brawl, so they weren't able to get to all those nuances, because brawl, before they got canned, because knuckles mii fighter skin.

 

[DMG]

Brawl engine messed up like everything. I mean we got cool RAR and DACUS but good lord almost everything else is a mess

 

[Avro-Arrow]

So to be clear, the window for l-cancelling is extended on hit in PM but not Melee? Never knew that :O.

 

[DMG]

All depends on how L-cancel inputs work if performed during hitlag. So far, the game will retain and pause the window for inputs done before hitlag, but it might be possible the game ignores L-cancel inputs during the actual hitlag. Or say the game doesn't ignore the inputs during hitlag, but also doesn't pause the window. Doing the L-cancel early in hitlag would then still be eaten up by hitlag duration and not help.

I'm not sure which is it, cause I'm pretty confident you can't tech or won't register teching while in hitlag. Would not be crazy if the game also ignored L-cancel inputs during hitlag. This is also PM though, and Brawl/PM mechanics are crazy

 

[Bazkip]

Would you like the game more if b moves needed l canceling too?

Currently salivating at the thought of halved landing lag aerial Wiz Kick

 

[Narpas_sword]

Currently salivating at the thought of halved landing lag aerial Wiz Kick

The question implies that landing lag for moves would be doubled, and then you'd have to l cancel them to get the current lag value =p.

For instance, Falco would need to l cancel to shb, samus to pmc etc.

 

[Bazkip]

The question implies that landing lag for moves would be doubled, and then you'd have to l cancel them to get the current lag value =p.

For instance, Falco would need to l cancel to shb, samus to pmc etc.

Oh
I'm also okay with making projectile camping more difficult lol

 

[DMG]

Samus mains strongly object to this

 

[nimigoha]

DMG I think the "no tech during hitlag" is in PM because it was in Brawl. L canceling through hitlag was hacked in so it kinda says "F*** the rules"

 

[4tlas]

I believe the L-cancel frame data change is attached to the move frame data itself, which would explain why it works through hitlag. I assume pressing it during hitlag works as well, but if it doesn't that would explain why people miss Lcancels and still think its because the hitlag "changed the timing".

I'm not an expert on how people do/think as they Lcancel. I can't even do it.

 

[nimigoha]

Just tested, it l cancels if you press during hitlag.

So hitting something in PM should never mess up L cancel timing.

 

[DMG]

Then L cancel window for some moves is huge if it registers and pauses L cancel for entire hitlag. Dat 15+ frame window on low Knee

 

[JesteRace]

So here in Nebraska, we are going to try a slight compromise of sorts for our stagelist. The NE9 will remain, as the 3/3/3 structure with 2 bans is still the ideal setup and people like it logistically if nothing else. What is changing is we are removing Dreamland and adding Delfino's. Reasons have been stated many, many times, so I won't bother. As for the starters, we are moving Bowser's Castle to counterpick. I feel that Bowser's Castle is defensible enough to stay legal, but not as a starter. It has its problems, but imo, there are no alternatives for a 9th stage and simply running 8 stages, 1 ban is not preferable (most people like having 2 bans, in my experience). While there will still be opponents who feel it shouldn't be legal at all, I feel that making it a CP will make the most amount of people happy (as some do genuinely love the stage and many at least tolerate it). So, in short, we're sticking with the NE9 but we're moving forward with Michigan starters.

STARTERS
Wario Land
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino's Secret

COUNTERPICKS
Green Hill Zone
Fountain of Dreams
Bowser's Castle
Final Destination

 

[eideeiit]

Any time I look at a PM stagelist I think there's something wrong with it. Then I remember there are no good medium stages. Then I get sad.

Ranting aside, WW as a starter is weird.

 

[JesteRace]

Well, we won't be the first scene to do it. It's worked out quite well for Arizona and Michigan. Between the 3 small starters, FoD is the least defensible imo. WL can seem like a night mare against swordies or Ganon/Bowser, but you would probably strike GHZ against most of them most of the time anyway. But the fact that it's small but also has a platform layout you can play keep away with gives a solid option in a matchup where one side gets destroyed in open space but and the other side has trouble approaching. Also, the fact that it is an actually small and cramped stage rounds out the starters much better than GHZ. The context is what matters. WL as a starter doesn't mean all or most or even that many game ones will be on WL. What's important is that both sides arrive on an agreeable stage.

 

[4tlas]

So here in Nebraska, we are going to try a slight compromise of sorts for our stagelist. The NE9 will remain, as the 3/3/3 structure with 2 bans is still the ideal setup and people like it logistically if nothing else. What is changing is we are removing Dreamland and adding Delfino's. Reasons have been stated many, many times, so I won't bother. As for the starters, we are moving Bowser's Castle to counterpick. I feel that Bowser's Castle is defensible enough to stay legal, but not as a starter. It has its problems, but imo, there are no alternatives for a 9th stage and simply running 8 stages, 1 ban is not preferable (most people like having 2 bans, in my experience). While there will still be opponents who feel it shouldn't be legal at all, I feel that making it a CP will make the most amount of people happy (as some do genuinely love the stage and many at least tolerate it). So, in short, we're sticking with the NE9 but we're moving forward with Michigan starters.

STARTERS
Wario Land
Smashville
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium 2
Delfino's Secret

COUNTERPICKS
Green Hill Zone
Fountain of Dreams
Bowser's Castle
Final Destination

This list upsets me. Those starters are not remotely balanced together. Let us know how it works out!

 

[JesteRace]

This list upsets me. Those starters are not remotely balanced together. Let us know how it works out!

I mean, yeah, numerically, it's not distributed evenly anymore. But given the options, I just don't think that's possible while also having good starters. A more practical solution had to be come to. Because SV and PS2 have to be starters, and rightfully so, having a relatively cramped small/medium/large stage for the other 3 gives it a sort of balance in actual play. Plus, there's a great variety in platform layouts here. It's no longer about being "perfectly balanced in all attributes" it's just about encouraging an agreeable stage for all matchups. Or as many matchups as possible. In any case, it is not permanent unless it tests well, so yeah, we'll see how it goes.

 

[eideeiit]

Thoughts on 7 starters with GHZ, WW, SV, BF, PS2, DS and something like FoD? Someone must've tried this somewhere...

 

[4tlas]

Thoughts on 7 starters with GHZ, WW, SV, BF, PS2, DS and something like FoD? Someone must've tried this somewhere...

A long long time ago, yes. But nobody's done 7 starters for a long time because it takes too long.

Also that particular set of 7 doesn't seem very balanced to me.

 

[DMG]

I think people should examine 7 starter again. It shouldn't take significantly longer than 5: people waste more time on CP's, bathroom breaks, etc.

 

[4tlas]

I think people should examine 7 starter again. It shouldn't take significantly longer than 5: people waste more time on CP's, bathroom breaks, etc.

Over the course of a tournament, more time would be wasted by lower level players having to strike more stages. Most sets end without more than 1 CP and most players don't need to use the bathroom before playing. I'm sure most other reasons for slow tourney runtime are not as easily fixable as this.

I do agree that it shouldn't waste that much time, and it may be worth the improvement to the ruleset. But I don't think those other things take longer.

 

[JesteRace]

What's the strike order for 7 starters?

 

[4tlas]

What's the strike order for 7 starters?

1-2-2-1 I believe, with alternating players.

Of course, other systems can be made if other parts of the ruleset change to match.

 

[JesteRace]

Well, that doesn't sound that bad. One person gets the first strike. One person gets the last strike. Both parties get equal strikes... is time and/or having 7 good starters really the only issue?

 

[Bazkip]

2-3-1 is better for 7 starters, 1-2-2-1 has the person with the deciding strike also not being the one to strike first, which is imbalanced.

 

[4tlas]

2-3-1 is better for 7 starters, 1-2-2-1 has the person with the deciding striking also not being the one to strike first, which is imbalanced.

I agree, though for some reason I think every region that used 7 starters did 1-2-2-1.

 

[nimigoha]

Did I show you guys my Skyworld list?

I can't remember.

But it uses the Standard Deviation and compares the stage's value to the standard deviation from the mean/median to classify S/M/L

It's not perfectly balanced numerically but it doesn't favour large bases (which is a huge plus IMO) and ceilings are nicely balanced. Side BZs aren't great but they favour M which is better than favouring S or L I suppose.

It uses YI which has a bunch of problems but realistically you could swap that for Bowser's and it would just make Side BZs 2/4/3 and not affect anything else I think.

Also has:
No Dreamland (yay)
No FoD (I personally think it's too similar to GHZ numerically and half the time when open so I don't actually love them on the same list)
Skyworld (it's like the opposite of PS2 so it's neat as a small starter, platforms are of course tricky)

I look at the standard deviation numbers all over the place and think, what potential would a bit of PMDT tweaking have had to create a more numerically balanced list.

 

[4tlas]

Did I show you guys my Skyworld list?

I can't remember.

But it uses the Standard Deviation and compares the stage's value to the standard deviation from the mean/median to classify S/M/L

It's not perfectly balanced numerically but it doesn't favour large bases (which is a huge plus IMO) and ceilings are nicely balanced. Side BZs aren't great but they favour M which is better than favouring S or L I suppose.

It uses YI which has a bunch of problems but realistically you could swap that for Bowser's and it would just make Side BZs 2/4/3 and not affect anything else I think.

Also has:
No Dreamland (yay)
No FoD (I personally think it's too similar to GHZ numerically and half the time when open so I don't actually love them on the same list)
Skyworld (it's like the opposite of PS2 so it's neat as a small starter, platforms are of course tricky)

I look at the standard deviation numbers all over the place and think, what potential would a bit of PMDT tweaking have had to create a more numerically balanced list.

Using Skyworld as a direct opposite to PS2 down to even being a Starter is an interesting idea. I'm sure nobody would ever accept it, and honestly I'm not even sure if I like it despite being a huge proponent of Skyworld.

Basically, I think the anti-ledges are just too strong of a trait to be fair on a starter. The slopes of YI also strike me as not worthy of being a starter simply because they are so prevalent on the stage.

Obviously the numbers aren't perfect, but no stagelist is. I like the use of Standard Deviation to support your arguments.

Now I'm not sure what you have against FoD. You mention that its got the same dimensions as GHZ, but I think that's a plus. It means that those dimensional traits are dissociated from the layouts of the 2 stages. Furthermore, you also have YI and SV both on the stagelist, but they are numerically identical!

Another issue I see is that the Starters are not nearly as balanced numerically as the overall list. I think it would be useful to look at the mean/median of the Starters compared to the whole and vice versa.