Project M Recommended Ruleset

[Zach777]

Why is Skyworld's ledges considered a trait that makes the stage unfit for being starter/legal while Melee battlefield has jank ledges too. If Melee players get over Melee BF's ledges, why can't we get over Skyworld's?


Just wondering, I still am not a proponent of Skyworld.

 

[xquqx]

Melee barely has 5 legal stages, so it can't really be picky about things like that. PM has more potentially legal stages than the community seems to want in a stage list, so we can afford to rule jank out.

 

[JesteRace]

If you feel GHZ/FoD are too similar to be in the same stagelist, you should probably go with FoD. If you have Skyworld, you already have a "wide open small stage". That's purely hypothetical, though, as I don't support Skyworld. But if I had to, I'd swap it for GHZ.

Yoshi's Island would be a perfect starter, and I mean PERFECT, if it didn't have the slopes and shy guys. But alas, 'tis only a dream.

 

[Bazkip]

I don't have any issues with the ledges on Skyward, but the ambiguous platforms just don't sit well with me.

 

[4tlas]

I don't have any issues with the ledges on Skyward, but the ambiguous platforms just don't sit well with me.

That's something that can easily be negated with time and experience playing on the stage.

 

[Star ☆]

I saw someone talking about it several pages ago and wanted to clarify; SSZ was legalised in Sydney in September of last year and then in Melbourne in December, 3 months later. Both after testing in each region.

I think regardless of how good the stage looks people will forever try to find problems with it; simply because it wasn't made by the PMDT can lead people to believe that the stage isn't up to the aesthetic standards of the game. If it were included by default neither the logistic nor aesthetic problems would exist, I believe so anyway.

We have a large major upcoming in 2 weeks on May 7th weekend; Project Melbourne 2. As far as I know, ESAM and Mr. R will be entering as they will be in Australia for the Smash 4 tournament the next weekend, Bam 8. I'll throw the stream link in the social chat when it's up; it'll be a good chance for you all to see some streamed footage of SSZ in tournament. Melbourne's overall stagelist will likely be revamped after Project Melbourne 2, however, to match Sydney's.

 

[Bazkip]

Idea that popped into my head the other day for an even starter list system. Probably not much of a valid idea but idk maybe worth thinking about.

Strike down to two stages then determine the selection randomly.

I suppose the immediate concern would be that one of the stages may not be favourable for one of the players due to the characters/matchups, but that situation can still occur regardless in our current system and then whether they get the one stage they prefer is up to the RPS which is just another essentially random decision. I don't think this is actually an issue.

What is a real problem though is that the order of striking isn't fair since the first person to strike gives up information without getting anything in return. I suppose maybe this could be solved with an idea that was brought up before, with striking order determined by seeding (higher seed strikes first)? But that would be strictly putting the better player at a disadvantage for the first game, which would be "equal" but not quite "fair". I'm not sure if there's a good way of dealing with this, this issue is probably the deal breaker tbh.

Other minor issues is that the random selection would need to be done out of games, since the in-game striking doesn't allow for it unless we want to strike Melee style with the random stage selection, but I don't think we'd want to do that. It's not difficult since you could just flip a coin or some such, but still would be a bit annoying.

Another downside would be that people probably wouldn't be too fond of extra lack of control in the process, even if it doesn't really change much.

So I guess it would come down to the matter of does a potentially more balanced starters list comprised of an even amount of stages offer a greater benefit than the downsides of such a system?

 

[4tlas]

Are you suggesting 6 starters with such a system?

I thought about this type of thing, but the *feeling* of helplessness sucks too much imo.

 

[JesteRace]

As lame as it is to fall back on "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" I think 5 starters is a fine enough system, I don't really see any issues besides disagreement on what the 5 should be (that is the one nice thing about 3 starters. At the very least, the 3 would be pretty much unanimously accepted).

But on that note, 2 months of WL/SV/BF/PS2/DS have been amazing as starters so far. You wouldn't think so looking at the numbers, but in practice, it really does work out for like, almost every matchup I've seen so far. Still need more data on what the rest of the stages should be(currently FoD/GHZ/FD/BC in Nebraska, same in Michigan but with DL over BC), but right now, whatever the full list should be in the end, I fully support these starters above all else.

 

[Bazkip]

Yeah I don't really expect that idea to really ever be implemented, it was just a thought.

The problem I have with those starters is that for characters like Ganon/Bowser the opponent can strike whatever small stage and BF and then they're kinda screwed.
I guess that's just what happens when you play bad characters.

Sadness

 

[JesteRace]

I mean, yeah, you can't muck up the ruleset to cater to Bad characters because Bad characters are not the only ones that benefit from it, unfortunately.

Also, idk about Bowser, but I think people underrate Ganon on big stages and overrate him on small stages. It's a little more nuanced than "fair everything on WL".

 

[DMG]

No he's still pretty not good on large stages. Most characters who could pressure him on smaller stages (TL, Emblem chars, Falcon, Sheik, MK, etc) would also dominate the large choices + weaker chars can now do better.

He's a tad overrated on WL cause the platform layout isn't really that favorable to him. If WL were BF or Yoshi Melee layout, he'd shoot up

 

[JesteRace]

Well, it largely depends on matchup and the preference of the player (the Ganons in my area loooooove Dreamland) but when it comes to the point you're making, unfortunately there's nothing you can do. At the end of the day, Ganon and Bowser lose everywhere to most characters. Catering the stagelist to make their lives slightly less hell while also giving already good characters an unneeded leg up in the process isn't really something I'm down for. If someone insists on playing these characters, they can probably live with SV or maybe DS(kind of like Dreamland but with even more platform to take advantage of).

 

[4tlas]

Still advocating for GHZ, FoD, SV, BF, PS2 as Starters. Its worked out great and is also good numerically. I would also make game design arguments but I don't feel like it right now.

 

[JesteRace]

Still advocating for GHZ, FoD, SV, BF, PS2 as Starters. Its worked out great and is also good numerically. I would also make game design arguments but I don't feel like it right now.

I actually do have a lot I like about this. I wouldn't say it's good on the numbers, but neither is ours, and that's no longer my primary concern with the starters. The biggest reason I prefer our starters to this is more variety in platform layouts, which I feel promotes more nuanced striking decisions. I'm not saying there can't be that kind of thinking in your stagelist, but I could see a lot of "Oh, just ban GHZ and FoD, they're the smalls/high ceilings" "Oh, just ban GHZ and SV, they're the flat ones" and etc. ya know? But I still like it a lot because I like those stages, it doesn't favor open space anywhere near the level of most of the lists I see (some areas are still doing GHZ/major3/DL for Christ's sake), and I can see most matchups still coming to a decently neutral stage for the matchup in the end. And if it's going well in your scene, then even more power to you, my dude.

 

[4tlas]

I actually do have a lot I like about this. I wouldn't say it's good on the numbers, but neither is ours, and that's no longer my primary concern with the starters. The biggest reason I prefer our starters to this is more variety in platform layouts, which I feel promotes more nuanced striking decisions. I'm not saying there can't be that kind of thinking in your stagelist, but I could see a lot of "Oh, just ban GHZ and FoD, they're the smalls/high ceilings" "Oh, just ban GHZ and SV, they're the flat ones" and etc. ya know? But I still like it a lot because I like those stages, it doesn't favor open space anywhere near the level of most of the lists I see (some areas are still doing GHZ/major3/DL for Christ's sake), and I can see most matchups still coming to a decently neutral stage for the matchup in the end. And if it's going well in your scene, then even more power to you, my dude.

Well I guess "good" on numbers is a strong statement. I think 2 slightly small balances out the 1 ginormous stage better than 1 tiny stage balancing 2 ginormous stages, but I agree that it isn't exactly "good". And you do bring up a good point about the unique layouts.

By the way, I tested the "Pool of 3, ban 1 and pick character, pick stage and counterpick character" ruleset. Unfortunately, all the feedback was positive...but some people did say they didn't like it. They just didn't say why. So all I have is a bunch of "I did like it for all of the reasons why you thought it was a good idea in the first place". *I can't improve it if you don't tell me what's wrong guys!!!* But it is good to know that some people liked it.

 

[Bazkip]

I just want to be able to get Battlefield for game one, is that so much to ask ;_;

 

[nimigoha]

I'd tweak that starter list to WL GHZ BF SV PS2.

Having FoD instead of WL means the platforms have the potential to be really open across the stagelist. IDK that's just my opinion, I think FoD is a poor starter stage because of the moving platforms, and loads of people I've played with dislike the stage.

Most people say something along the lines of "it messes up my character's movement" which by itself pretty much screams CP. GHZ's moving platform isn't that intrusive, and SV's definitely isn't with its static height.

This is using Very Small and Small to balance out Very Big, though, as far as length goes. So arguing against WL plus FoD/GHZ based on that would be valid IMO.

 

[eideeiit]

Could you elaborate on why "it messes with my movement" should be interpreted as "make it CP" and not "I need to put more time to learning how to play this stage"?

 

[4tlas]

I'd tweak that starter list to WL GHZ BF SV PS2.

Having FoD instead of WL means the platforms have the potential to be really open across the stagelist. IDK that's just my opinion, I think FoD is a poor starter stage because of the moving platforms, and loads of people I've played with dislike the stage.

Most people say something along the lines of "it messes up my character's movement" which by itself pretty much screams CP. GHZ's moving platform isn't that intrusive, and SV's definitely isn't with its static height.

This is using Very Small and Small to balance out Very Big, though, as far as length goes. So arguing against WL plus FoD/GHZ based on that would be valid IMO.

Moving platforms to me screams "doesn't favor any one character the whole game long" which implies neutral/starter. I understand the "oh god that stage is really wonky" argument, but it is no more wonky than the other moving platforms imo. I've actually gotten stuck on GHZ's platform because of the arc, and SVs platform stops moving for long enough that sometimes I teleport through it on accident >.>

I definitely am against using the very small AND small to balance out very big, but at the same time I think having similar dimensions on the small stages is a plus for starters. It means that its possible to dissociate the dimensions from the layout when striking, which leads to more neutral games.

 

[4tlas]

I just want to be able to get Battlefield for game one, is that so much to ask ;_;

Fak u even though platforms help enable alternate movement options, and the whole point of wavedashing is to have an alternate movement option that helps balance characters because they have 2 movement levers, no platforms for you Ganondork.

But seriously idk why people don't realize that open stages result in disproportionately more pain and suffering for the already bad characters than cramped stages cause pain for the good characters. Good characters have range or speed, and that gets exacerbated more and more the more open the stage is.

Oh and it also gets exacerbated more the bigger the stage is because you have move chances for outrange/outspeed to negate neutral interactions, but people don't realize that either. I'm not sure why people don't realize that too, but at least bigger stages usually also have bigger blastzones, so its not an obvious 1-to-1. Open space directly results in more pain for movement impaired characters.

(Sorry for double post)

 

[DMG]

I'd consider FoD platforms CP worthy, because of how deeply interactions can change based on the platforms. The same move performed multiple times, in the same spot, can have wildly varying degrees of risk or spacing changes. Moving platforms on other stages usually help the defender (come in time to save you from chain grabs, help recoveries, occasional low angle attack tech save, etc). FoD is pretty different in that regard, the benefits and drawbacks are usually more nuanced than binary yes - no. Like if SV platform comes along, it's pretty clear when an attack will miss or when something will get interrupted. Not so obvious on FoD and more nuanced etc.

I'd consider axing SV from starter list. It's almost 1:1 BF copy until you factor platforms, and it adds to "open" feel that stages like PS2 and GHZ offer. PS2 may be the least balanced stage out of the BF SV PS2 triangle, but it's so beloved by the community I see no path to making it a CP (plus BF and SV are legit way similar to begin with)

SV and BF pairing in starters is inherently a problem because there's a lack of other suitable stages in that category to use. You end up with an even number of stages for a striking system better designed with odd numbers. How can you balance 5 stages across 3 categories, when 2 of them occupy the medium slot? It's not doable

 

[JesteRace]

I don't know how Smashville could ever get axed as a starter, but I had suggested it a few pages back with these starters

WL - GHZ - BF - PS2 - DS

Pros: Platform variety, numerical balance (2/1/2 in stage size, blastzone width, and ceiling height), and mimics Melee's starters, but way better (WL replaces YS, GHZ replaces FoD, PS2 replaces FD, DS replaces DL). Oh and Ganon might be able to strike to BF more often

Cons: People really like Smashville

 

[nimigoha]

I don't know how Smashville could ever get axed as a starter, but I had suggested it a few pages back with these starters

WL - GHZ - BF - PS2 - DS

Pros: Platform variety, numerical balance (2/1/2 in stage size, blastzone width, and ceiling height), and mimics Melee's starters, but way better (WL replaces YS, GHZ replaces FoD, PS2 replaces FD, DS replaces DL). Oh and Ganon might be able to strike to BF more often

Cons: People really like Smashville

Yeah. I like those 5 but there needs to be realism when we make lists and realistically we'd have to pry SV as a starter out of the PM community's cold dead hands.

Just 1 stage. Just 1 freaking medium length stage with sensible ledges, platforms, surface, and blast zones. That's all we needed.

4tlas I see what you're saying about disassociating BZ from platforms and I like the idea.

But I agree with DMG about the platforms. Of course now and then you're going to get fuzzled by GHZ and SV platforms. But if you play a character who SHFFLs and DDs then basically FoD becomes "can I play my normal gameplay right now?"

It might actually be your character. Zelda/Sheik do really well with the layout of FoD and can play around it without altering their playstyle very much. If you play Falcon on it and try to launch yourself around with Nair you can find yourself caught by them pretty frequently.

I'd be interested to put SV as a CP and try it out. Then you could have a 10 stage list very easily.

The big thing with it is people tend to view the holy triangle of stages as "the three perfect starters" or whatever, because they think they're good for every character. The problem is specifically PS2, since it has smallish blast zones people tend to classify it not as "humongous". But honestly for like 35+/41 characters I'd consider it the best starting stage so it's not hard to blame them.

 

[DMG]

I think PS2 is less balanced than that for a starter. My honest opinion is that PM players tend to give up advantages too early, because frankly PS2 is not far away from being like FD. Take Squirtle: all you need is a patient player and a MU not heavily disadvantaged, and things can quite easily become obnoxious. But PM players enjoy wavelanding around platforms like it's a Michael Jackson stage performance, and toss away stuff by going in while having a nice lead etc

 

[JesteRace]

Yeah. I like those 5 but there needs to be realism when we make lists and realistically we'd have to pry SV as a starter out of the PM community's cold dead hands.

Just 1 stage. Just 1 freaking medium length stage with sensible ledges, platforms, surface, and blast zones. That's all we needed.

4tlas I see what you're saying about disassociating BZ from platforms and I like the idea.

But I agree with DMG about the platforms. Of course now and then you're going to get fuzzled by GHZ and SV platforms. But if you play a character who SHFFLs and DDs then basically FoD becomes "can I play my normal gameplay right now?"

It might actually be your character. Zelda/Sheik do really well with the layout of FoD and can play around it without altering their playstyle very much. If you play Falcon on it and try to launch yourself around with Nair you can find yourself caught by them pretty frequently.

I'd be interested to put SV as a CP and try it out. Then you could have a 10 stage list very easily.

The big thing with it is people tend to view the holy triangle of stages as "the three perfect starters" or whatever, because they think they're good for every character. The problem is specifically PS2, since it has smallish blast zones people tend to classify it not as "humongous". But honestly for like 35+/41 characters I'd consider it the best starting stage so it's not hard to blame them.

I agree that we need to be realistic, which is why I'm pushing for the same starter list, but with SV over GHZ. Little less good on numbers, but still good on platform variety while also appeasing proponents of the major 3(so basically everybody). No way in hell is PS2 the best starter for that many characters, people are just used to it.

I think PS2 is less balanced than that for a starter. My honest opinion is that PM players tend to give up advantages too early, because frankly PS2 is not far away from being like FD. Take Squirtle: all you need is a patient player and a MU not heavily disadvantaged, and things can quite easily become obnoxious. But PM players enjoy wavelanding around platforms like it's a Michael Jackson stage performance, and toss away stuff by going in while having a nice lead etc

JFC thank you. This is a big part of what has contributed to a lot of the misinformation in the PM community.

The community as a whole decided that SV/BF/PS2 were the best neutrals in the later part of 3.02's life because those 3 were getting struck to the most. But this was happening still early in PM's competitive life, where let's be honest, the vast majority of people sucked (still kinda true now). Also consider the list of starters at the time. Iirc, it was something like YS/FoD/SV/BF/PS2/FD/DL. People just used the bottom row and didn't really put much thought into stage lists at all. And given this list of starters, like, of course PS2 is going to seem like a medium in the context of this list. Relative to the rest of the starters at the time, SV/BF/PS2 were the safest picks. And from there, pretty much all stage discussion was rooted around SV/BF/PS2 being the 3 most neutral stages. Confirmation bias further cemented this view, as people just kept doing what they were used to, and it didn't help that no suitable "3rd medium" ever came around so every stage list was using DL as a starter in 3.5, which just kept making the mighty 3 look better. Now PS2 is the most struck to stage in the game because people just don't care about optimal stage picks. Why make the Falcon use one of his CP's for PS2 when we can give him one of his best stages game 1 because we're just used to it?

 

[4tlas]

4tlas I see what you're saying about disassociating BZ from platforms and I like the idea.

But I agree with DMG about the platforms. Of course now and then you're going to get fuzzled by GHZ and SV platforms. But if you play a character who SHFFLs and DDs then basically FoD becomes "can I play my normal gameplay right now?"

It might actually be your character. Zelda/Sheik do really well with the layout of FoD and can play around it without altering their playstyle very much. If you play Falcon on it and try to launch yourself around with Nair you can find yourself caught by them pretty frequently.

I agree that my personal play will affect my perceptions, and that Zelda/Sheik really like FoD. However, my whole scene likes FoD as a Starter, so it can't just be me.

When you say FoD becomes "can I play my normal gameplay right now" for SHFFL-based characters, that says to me that they should strike it. The same as waveland-based characters have to strike SV and/or GHZ because there's nothing to move on, or slow characters strike PS2 because its so goddamn huge, or campy projectile characters strike Battlefield because it blocks all their projectiles.

Basically, the Starter/CP system is defunct anyway lol if we had time we could just use FLSS

 

[Chevy]

For about a month at ePG, we ran YS, GHZ, BF, PS2, DS starters, WL, FoD, SV, FD, DL counterpicks. It was the most beautiful stagelist I had ever seen(aside from the fact that dreamland was on it). But the size balance is impeccable. 2 small, 2 med-small, 2 med, 2 med-large, and 2 large. Unfortunately, people complain about Smashville not being a starter without considering the balance implications of leaning towards large stages because of there always being 2 mediums in and a med-large in the starter line-up. Also some folks don't like Yoshi's Story for some reason, despite it being God's gift to man. Anyway, swapping WL and YS in this lineup might make sense but I love it either way.

 

[JesteRace]

For about a month at ePG, we ran YS, GHZ, BF, PS2, DS starters, WL, FoD, SV, FD, DL counterpicks. It was the most beautiful stagelist I had ever seen(aside from the fact that dreamland was on it). But the size balance is impeccable. 2 small, 2 med-small, 2 med, 2 med-large, and 2 large. Unfortunately, people complain about Smashville not being a starter without considering the balance implications of leaning towards large stages because of there always being 2 mediums in and a med-large in the starter line-up. Also some folks don't like Yoshi's Story for some reason, despite it being God's gift to man. Anyway, swapping WL and YS in this lineup might make sense but I love it either way.

Wow, yeah, this but with WL and YS swapped would be the friggin dream. 10 stages, 2 bans is ideal, no Bowser's or Yoshi's Island to sell, etc. I'm okay with Yoshi's Story and Dreamland both as they balance each other out, I just don't want either of them as starters.

Jfc this list is so good.

 

[nimigoha]

I could get behind that stagelist.

4tlas yeah fair enough.

 

[4tlas]

Honestly, I have very few problems with that list. But if there are other lists we've dismissed because nobody would accept them, I think this one would definitely fall into that category. Not have the big 3 will make people hate it by default.

That being said, discussion around it is great, and if you can get smaller events to test it and slowly convince people, please do.


_____________________________________________________

Ok on a separate note, I have a few questions for all of you. This is regarding Crew Battles.

I've been running Drafted Crew Battles on occasion at my weeklies. For now, we've been doing dodgeball-style drafting (pick 2 captains, rps for first pick and alternate picks). While the team who won RPS doesn't always win, they usually seem to. This may be because the pool of participants has exactly 3 good players (the captains and first pick), but it seems more likely to me that even if there are an even number of good players, the first team always gets the better pick all the way down the line. So to solve this I should do 1-2-...-2-1, right? Does this seem like the most fair way to do it in general?

I also had a complaint tonight because I participated...which means Sheilda got involved. Personally, I believe the point of character-locking in crew battles is just so that you can get counterpicked similarly to the normal counterpick system in bracket. Thus, saying I will select Zelda just means I have to load in as Zelda, but I can use Transform as much as I wish and use Sheik's moveset, because they are all part of the same moveset. This is no different from bracket. I think its reasonable to allow Sheilda in Crew Battles. Opinions? Please try to leave "oh well Sheilda shouldn't be a thing anyway" out of it. I just want to know reasons to ban it in Crew Battles as opposed to bracket.

(That being said, I do ban use of Transform in All-Star matches that have a character select limit. For example, if you are allowed to choose the same character no more than twice, then you can choose Zelda & Sheik a total of 2 times or less while having Transform available, but if you choose Zelda & Sheik more than 2 times total then you cannot Transform, as that would be more than 2 stocks of either character)

Also, I have been doing 1 ban from the Starters and the counterpicker chooses from the rest. Does this seem reasonable with 5-starter lists?

 

[DMG]

Most crew battles aren't Draft, so it rarely comes up. First pick retains an advantage 80% of the time regardless of pick format (the one exception is if there are 3 good players (outside of captains) and 2nd pick gets 2 selections). There's no way to balance it totally, but it may be more fair to run 1-2-2 etc overall

The old Crew Battle guidelines were this: Player coming in could choose 2 options. Random from starters (subsequently locks in Winner's character, he cannot switch) or pick exact stage and allow opponent to switch. Bans weren't usually a thing

If Crew Battle is strictly character locked (Player Registers character to enter), you'd probably give Winner 1 ban in starter list or 2 ban in entire list. Honestly you could probably also run 0 bans for a crew battle using only the 5 starters. The main point is to get groups of people playing without spending as much time tournament sets would expect to take, use whatever people want or like.

 

[4tlas]

Most crew battles aren't Draft, so it rarely comes up. First pick retains an advantage 80% of the time regardless of pick format (the one exception is if there are 3 good players (outside of captains) and 2nd pick gets 2 selections). There's no way to balance it totally, but it may be more fair to run 1-2-2 etc overall

The old Crew Battle guidelines were this: Player coming in could choose 2 options. Random from starters (subsequently locks in Winner's character, he cannot switch) or pick exact stage and allow opponent to switch. Bans weren't usually a thing

If Crew Battle is strictly character locked (Player Registers character to enter), you'd probably give Winner 1 ban in starter list or 2 ban in entire list. Honestly you could probably also run 0 bans for a crew battle using only the 5 starters. The main point is to get groups of people playing without spending as much time tournament sets would expect to take, use whatever people want or like.

Interesting, I did not know of this old Crew Battle system. I think I prefer the Character lock because it lessens the decision paralysis.

Any opinion on Sheilda in a Crew Battle? Any reason to consider rule changes in a Crew Battles specifically?

Thanks so much for the detailed response =)

 

[JesteRace]

I'm still a bit ambivalent on Sheilda. I wish they had just given them both their own down-b's. That being said, the rules should be consistent. Imo, there's no good reason to allow Sheilda in bracket, but not in a crew battle. Any complaints about Sheilda in one is true about the other. Either allow Sheilda in everything or in nothing. Sounds simple to me.

 

[Nerdyjigglypuff_]

Is there a wii u crew i can join i main peach and jigglypuff secondary Olimar villager and ness

 

[Nerdyjigglypuff_]

Can i join ur crew

 

[eideeiit]

Banning transform in allstar sounds really dumb to me. You may as well ban Lucario's aura moves/Samus's neutral b and side-taunt/olimar's pikmin etc., because "they become a whole different character with them". You know. Just classify sheik and zelda as sheilda in crews and allstar. Like there's only one character called sheilda that just has two movesets depending on which "stance" a player uses. Only one character, so you can only allow her to be picked once. In crews if you start your sheilda match as sheik, you have to start them all as sheik, but can can switch after the game is on.

Makes sense to me.

 

[4tlas]

So the problem in all-star is that you can actually select Zelda and Sheik separately, and some people do play them separately. I think allowing them to choose Zelda stocks and Sheik stocks is considerate, and allowing Transform so long as the total Zelda/Sheik stocks does not exceed the limit is reasonable. But if I allow both of those, then I have to ban Transform if they have more overall Zelda/Sheik stocks than allowed, so that they aren't technically playing more Sheilda stocks than allowed. I could count it as one character, I suppose, but I think some people who play both separately would be disappointed.

As for crews, I definitely say "I'm starting as Sheik" and am character locked to *starting* as Sheik. No different that bracket...which seems like the right way to do it to me.

 

[Narpas_sword]

Is there a wii u crew i can join i main peach and jigglypuff secondary Olimar villager and ness

This is the project m rule thread on the project m board. Please take your s4 crew hunting to the s4 boards to relevant threads there.

And don't double post.

 

[Bazkip]

So the problem in all-star is that you can actually select Zelda and Sheik separately, and some people do play them separately. I think allowing them to choose Zelda stocks and Sheik stocks is considerate, and allowing Transform so long as the total Zelda/Sheik stocks does not exceed the limit is reasonable. But if I allow both of those, then I have to ban Transform if they have more overall Zelda/Sheik stocks than allowed, so that they aren't technically playing more Sheilda stocks than allowed. I could count it as one character, I suppose, but I think some people who play both separately would be disappointed.

As for crews, I definitely say "I'm starting as Sheik" and am character locked to *starting* as Sheik. No different that bracket...which seems like the right way to do it to me.

I don't quote follow what you mean by "more than allowed"