Project M Recommended Ruleset

[4tlas]

That's fair, I suppose. 90% may have been an exaggeration. The point I was trying to make is that while we should keep the goal of balance in mind, SV/BF/PS2 should remain starters above all else, and not just because they're universally accepted.

Although entertaining the possibility for funsies, what would a list of starters even look like without PS2?

I honestly have no idea. We would still end up with 2 medium stages and a need for 5 total stages... so some combination of 3 oddly proportioned stages that balance each other out would be needed for the last ones.

So like, Battlefield, Smashville, Skyworld, Norfair, Fountain of Dreams.

 

[nimigoha]

So like, Battlefield, Smashville, Skyworld, Norfair, Fountain of Dreams.

Kill it with fire!

I think if anything the platform on SV makes it more of a CP stage than PS2 or BF but not to the extent where it shouldn't be a starter.

In September my region is going to test out my 8 stage list, although I can predict that the majority of the complaints will be "why don't you have BF/SV/PS2 as the core of the starters since they're the most balanced" and I will spend more time than I should explaining that PS2 is actually huge.

 

[4tlas]

Kill it with fire!

Honestly I think those 5 are pretty decent.

The most cramped stage is not the smallest (Battlefield)

The smallest stage has the largest side blastzone relative to stage size (Skyworld)

The stage with the smallest side blastzones has the biggest vertical blastzones in both directions (FoD)

The largest stage has medium sized blastzones.

The most open stage is a toss-up between the big stage and the smallest stage.

The biggest stage is not huge and the smallest stage is not tiny.

The distribution of open/closed space is pretty even, especially considering how moving platforms help make stages more neutral by assuring neither player has the advantage 100% of the time.

 

[nimigoha]

Yeah haha for sure. Skyworld and Norfair as starters will never be accepted by people though.

I think we should all accept Sky Sanctuary Zone into our stagelists.

Show how well it's gone in Australia. Great job mates.

And then

bit by bit.

We add more custom stages. We included SSZ and people like it don't they?

And slowly phase out default 3.6 stages.

And voila, in a few years we'll have a perfectly balanced list of custom stages. Most will be rebalanced default stages.

(SSZ also gets phased out in the process because it's ooooogly)

 

[JesteRace]

Sky Sanctuary does look godlike as a starter from the little I've seen. From what I understand it's kind of like if PS2 were actually medium and had tilted platforms, yes?

I mean, ideally, all starters should be medium. Like, just imagine. If we had SSZ, Yoshi's Island fixed(base stage flattened, maybe just have the edges sloped like Yoshi's Story, remove Shy Guys, keep the platform as is, maybe tilt just a little bit less in either direction), Bowser's Castle fixed (emblem flattened, chains removed, find a background that isn't an eyesore, fix the problem with the lip of the ledges, perhaps reduce the blastzone width a tad), and then of course BF and SV, that would just be godlike.

 

[4tlas]

I mean, ideally, all starters should be medium.

Woah woah woah, what?!

If you want to make exactly 1 stage that is the average of all other stage attributes (so, Smashville with PS2 platforms) and say everyone has to play on that, fine. Otherwise, this is a preposterous statement. You're forcing one attribute to be "average" but then allowing characters who are flexible in other categories to get an advantage without having to give up an advantage in the category of size.

Average all attributes, or average none. Force characters to give up advantages to obtain other ones, and you'll end up with a neutral stage. Allowing some characters to completely ignore that tradeoff will only cause them to run away with an advantage. That compounds with the fact that those characters are already the good ones, anyway.

 

[JesteRace]

Woah woah woah, what?!

If you want to make exactly 1 stage that is the average of all other stage attributes (so, Smashville with PS2 platforms) and say everyone has to play on that, fine. Otherwise, this is a preposterous statement. You're forcing one attribute to be "average" but then allowing characters who are flexible in other categories to get an advantage without having to give up an advantage in the category of size.

Average all attributes, or average none. Force characters to give up advantages to obtain other ones, and you'll end up with a neutral stage. Allowing some characters to completely ignore that tradeoff will only cause them to run away with an advantage. That compounds with the fact that those characters are already the good ones, anyway.

I mean, it's not like any of the stages are FD. The whole point of medium stages is they don't give many advantages at all to anyone. A polarizing platform layout could do that, but I don't think any of the 5 I listed would do so. And there would still be striking, mind you, but because size would play no part, both sides could strike almost entirely based on platform layout. I can't see any characters getting any significant advantage off of the 5 stages in my hypothetical(and stuff like Falcon/Bowser doesn't count, cause that has nothing to do with the stage giving Falcon any advantages, it's just a bad matchup).

Although funny enough, outside of the hypothetical, if we accept that certain advantages should be sacrificed to gain others, then GHZ and DS are ideal starters. GHZ is small, but also relatively open with a high ceiling. DS is large, but the blastzones are reasonable, and the platforms often cramp up the space. Both also have their platforms move in the way that forces both players to adapt and are about the same distance from the average stage width. Maybe Paragon wasn't far off after all (besides having a skew towards wide stages thanks to PS2)

 

[4tlas]

I mean, it's not like any of the stages are FD. The whole point of medium stages is they don't give many advantages at all to anyone. A polarizing platform layout could do that, but I don't think any of the 5 I listed would do so. And there would still be striking, mind you, but because size would play no part, both sides could strike almost entirely based on platform layout. I can't see any characters getting any significant advantage off of the 5 stages in my hypothetical(and stuff like Falcon/Bowser doesn't count, cause that has nothing to do with the stage giving Falcon any advantages, it's just a bad matchup).

I believe that's 3 walled stages. Also there are some characters that do poorly on medium stages, because they are neither small enough to get efficient use of their zoning/killing tools while also not being big enough to use their recovery tools. Not all characters play evenly on medium sized stages, and offering platform variety while not offering size variety is a disservice to those characters. Those ones are usually the weak ones too.

Although funny enough, outside of the hypothetical, if we accept that certain advantages should be sacrificed to gain others, then GHZ and DS are ideal starters. GHZ is small, but also relatively open with a high ceiling. DS is large, but the blastzones are reasonable, and the platforms often cramp up the space. Both also have their platforms move in the way that forces both players to adapt and are about the same distance from the average stage width. Maybe Paragon wasn't far off after all (besides having a skew towards wide stages thanks to PS2)

I agree, but unfortunately we already have PS2, which makes DS out of the question in my eyes.

 

[JesteRace]

Is SSZ walled? My bad, like I said, IDK too much about it. 3 walled stages could maybe be a problem.

However, I believe that if your character does poorly on medium stages, that is an issue with character design and not with the stages themselves.

 

[4tlas]

Is SSZ walled? My bad, like I said, IDK too much about it. 3 walled stages could maybe be a problem.

However, I believe that if your character does poorly on medium stages, that is an issue with character design and not with the stages themselves.

I thought it was walled, but I could be mistaken as well.

And of course if your character does poorly on medium stages, then the character has issues. However, such characters exist, so it would be unfair to force all stages to be medium because they "should" work well there. The most balanced way to do it would be to let those characters exchange other advantages, like we currently do.

And since those characters do have "critical design flaws", they are generally bad characters as well. Forcing that stage attribute would just screw them over even more.

 

[JesteRace]

I thought it was walled, but I could be mistaken as well.

And of course if your character does poorly on medium stages, then the character has issues. However, such characters exist, so it would be unfair to force all stages to be medium because they "should" work well there. The most balanced way to do it would be to let those characters exchange other advantages, like we currently do.

And since those characters do have "critical design flaws", they are generally bad characters as well. Forcing that stage attribute would just screw them over even more.

I guess I don't get it cause they're almost always gonna have to settle for a medium stage anyway due to our striking system? So at least if they're all medium, they can make decisions based on all the other attributes.

 

[4tlas]

I guess I don't get it cause they're almost always gonna have to settle for a medium stage anyway due to our striking system? So at least if they're all medium, they can make decisions based on all the other attributes.

They'll have to settle for a medium stage, but because their opponent has to ban the other stage sizes, they end up with bargaining power. So the disadvantage they get is the medium-ness, the advantage they get in return is a good layout. Alternatively, their opponent wants a good layout that's on the smaller or larger stages.

If every single stage were medium to start with, you would end up with a neutral layout because they have nothing else to strike for, and then its guaranteed to be medium. That's a guaranteed disadvantage and a guaranteed NOT-advantage. Not fair.

 

[eideeiit]

SSZ is somewhere between SV and Norfair in walls

 

[JesteRace]

So it's semi-walled? That's even better for my hypothetical list's balance.

But yeah, regardless of how many mediums there should be, that stage is godlike. The visuals could still use some work, the stage blends into the background too much, but I assume that's already been pointed out and will be fixed.

 

[eideeiit]

actually that pick is of the old one, here's the one in the current netplay build:

I've played with it a bit and the visuals have never bothered me.

 

[4tlas]

I still think it blends into the background, but I also think its impossible to see anything on Bowsers and its difficult to see things on Lylat.

 

[JesteRace]

I like that change. I'd play the crap out of that stage.

 

[Deleted member]

i would at least like to test it.

 

[4tlas]

I suppose, since there is no more official source for the official build, that we as a community could begin a push to a new official build, and thus we could manage to include some non-"vanilla" stages.

Edit: To clarify, I mean that whatever build we agree on could end up being the one distributed to people regularly.

 

[nimigoha]

I'd be down but it would be a hard sell.

 

[JesteRace]

Definitely a hard sell, especially with what appears to be happening where more and more scenes are content with just running the Paragon list and being done with it.

 

[nimigoha]

Tbh Paragon being the standard forever is really not the worst that could happen. Dreamland is weird and starters aren't balanced and overall list isn't balanced but honestly it's the most agreeable list.

 

[4tlas]

Pffft agreeable. 90% of players don't pay attention to whether or not they should agree. I could tell them the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean and they'd agree.

 

[JesteRace]

Overall list is actually pretty decent on balance because PS2 doesn't have very big blastzones and Dreamland isn't actually that big if you just look at the stage itself. So even though it looks like 3 small stages and 4 large, it actually averages out pretty decently. Starters obviously aren't perfect, but they never will be. Paragon is fairly symmetrical too with GHZ/DS balancing each other out, then FoD/FD, then WL/DL, and then of course SV/BF/PS2 in the middle. Yeah, it's not perfect, especially in the starters cause of PS2, but again, it all averages out pretty decently. If nothing else, I understand why Paragon is popular. Simplicity.

 

[nimigoha]

Pffft agreeable. 90% of players don't pay attention to whether or not they should agree. I could tell them the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean and they'd agree.

I don't disagree. I just mean it's had like the least resistance.

 

[Darth Shard]

Is there any room for Norfair in a 3.6 stagelist? I'd rather have DL & Norfair or DS & Norfair, but not both. That was what lead to the inclusion of Bowser's Castle in many regions. My region has expressed interest in seeing Norfair return.

Also, could someone reshare the images with the legal stage dimensions? I don't want to search through this whole thread to find them.

 

[nimigoha]

Is there any room for Norfair in a 3.6 stagelist? I'd rather have DL & Norfair or DS & Norfair, but not both. That was what lead to the inclusion of Bowser's Castle in many regions. My region has expressed interest in seeing Norfair return.

Also, could someone reshare the images with the legal stage dimensions? I don't want to search through this whole thread to find them.

I've never done a stagelist data analysis with Norfair but I'll give it a go after work. Haven't seen it done actually.

 

[CORY]

a lot of norfair's issue is circle camping.

DMG can probably elaborate much better than i can.

 

[DMG]

Norfair leads itself to platform and circle camping pretty frequently. To be fair, Dreamland and Delfino also fit this for many of the same characters (if TL platform camps you successfully on Norfair, he can probably do it on Dreamland about the same. Check Lunchman vs Bagelz on Dreamland if you don't really get what I mean).

Last thing PM needs is for a MU heavy game to become more lopsided (in ways that are unintuitive and not very engaging). If the game is to be lopsided, smaller or medium stages that at least promote aggression or early kills are way WAY more prefer than platform camping or some viable run away / circle camp.

From a MU skew point of basis, Norfair might be similar to WarioLand for the number of MU's it affects, possibly even affecting fewer overall MU's. The difference being when a MU changes noticeably on WarioLand though, it doesn't devolve into Cat and Mouse. TL vs Samus (or like 30 different chars) on Norfair may make you throw up at the Toxic. Even Captain Falcon can choose to run the clock in some MU's here without much counterplay.

Lylat is a much better stage for possibly bringing back, since a lot about the stage is totally unique and there's not any verifiable competitive problems. The ledge is the only major complaint (could say aesthetics like background kinda matter) but it's not a Norfair type of complaint about the ledge ruining the game and devolving gameplay. If the ledge bottom was given a slope, similar to BF SV ledge slopes, probably would see the stage back into rotation without much fuss.

 

[Darth Shard]

Yeah that was sort of what I was wondering, if Norfair would be a better alternative to DL. I definitely respect that it's prone to circle camping, and I share your sentiments about Lylat as well.

 

[4tlas]

After trying Lylat as part of my proposed stagelist, I found that it was too difficult to see things on it. I believe we had a discussion a while back about having Norfair instead of FD, with a positive conclusion.

Circle camping can exist on any large stage in a matchup with speed differences. Norfair is not special in this regard. The main issue I can foresee is that the background will make it difficult to see, a la Bowsers.

Now, if we're putting custom stages on the table, we can also revisit the idea of changing backgrounds and blastzones.

 

[Darth Shard]

Personally, I'm all for modding our stages for the purposes of improving the tournament scene. It's always felt so taboo to even suggest that idea on r/ssbpm that I have a hard time believing it's even been talked about here.

 

[nimigoha]

Other than "SSZ IS JESUS COME AGAIN OH LORD CAST DOWN THY SINNERS WHO DENY THE GLORIOUS TRUTH OF THIS HOLY STAGE" by the Aussies.

IMO if the community comes to the conclusion that custom stages are a good idea to increase the list balance, why half-ass it? Why use SSZ at all when you can just rebalance existing stages and throw the old versions on as alternates/secret alternates?

I for one welcome our new Yoshi's Island overlords.

 

[DMG]

Not all big stages feature circle camping. PS2 and FD have a lot of room, but not a lot of circle camping going on. Unless you specifically mean big as in DL Delfino DP etc (longer stages with extensive platform coverage). In that case yes, all of those stages can feature it... WHICH IS A PROBLEM! DL Delfino DP and anything else that can feature this to a noteworthy degree, is not something I'd promote for competitive scene. Eliminate it all if you have to, that's certainly no excuse to then have Norfair legal. Remove bad apples, don't add them.

 

[JesteRace]

If we continue to have a game where characters can kill you off of one conversion on the ground, I'm not so sure I agree that we should eliminate circle camping. It's lame af, but I feel like there are enough matchups where it may be necessary. Basically, if Ice Climbers can have GHZ and SV, Link should be able to have Delfino and Dreamland (not that it matters cause they would get banned on both sides anyway)

 

[DMG]

Not sure that's a great comparison. Link doesn't run out the clock on many people since that's generally mobility related. I mean you could play a poor man's TL and platform camp with AGT bombs, but Tink probably does it better anyways.

1 hit kill from ground = probably still some engaging, complex, nuanced gameplay behind it. Say IC'S: To reach that final point; A clever IC's desynch, them dealing with projectiles and pokes, accepting punishment from opponent while gaining space, etc. Or take practically any lethal CG: chances are you have to react somewhat to DI, adjust for stage positioning, account for their floatiness or weight, stage boundaries and features if kill is expected on edgeguard, etc

You can't really say the same about much of the prominent circle camping. It's not really nuanced, engaging, or complex. Ganon Dthrow has more going on than Tink running around dropping bombs (vs chars or stages that can't handle it), not even joking lol

 

[Zach777]

I agree with DMG that lethal chaingrabs are far more interesting than TL running away.
I for one would love a stagelist that skewed itself towards small stages and had Lylat.
Also would be down for some good custom stages. I can think of some that would add to the diversity of the stagelist.

 

[JesteRace]

I'm aware that circle camping is way less interesting or engaging. But that doesn't necessarily make it an illegitimate strategy. And again, the stages where it's most egregious (DL/DS) can simply be banned, leaving the much more tolerable choices of WL/FoD/BF, assuming the Paragon list for the sake of argument. But in the interest of fairness, if a list is going to include GHZ/SV/PS2/FD (read: pretty much every list ever) It's only fair to include stages with platforms to allow you to play keep away imo.

 

[DMG]

Running out time isn't banned/illegitimate, but stages that promote it too heavily should be. Smash is allowed to have people camping and even aiming for a timeout, but you don't craft rules and stages that make the timeout noticeably easier. If you cut 8 minute timer in half to 4 minutes, what do you think a huge effect would be? Less engagement, more running around with leads and more character strategies based on sheer mobility. Stages can have a similar impact and it's not healthy.

Stage bans are intended to fix some MU swings and a couple niche character + stage combos, but they should not be relied upon to correct totally toxic things. Otherwise, we'd have a much larger stage list and give people 8 bans or something. Especially since regions have not all switched to character first: if char first doesn't catch on, this becomes a real problem where strategic stage bans may have to be totally used blind on options like DL/Delfino if your character is even slightly vulnerable.

The real solution imo is to focus on medium stages and create new or modify current stages. Can create unique medium offerings that give some appeal to what a person may want vs say IC's, without it going beyond a certain level

 

[nimigoha]

I think a stagelist entirely made of 140 (BF/SV) size main stages with varying blastzones/walls/platforms would be really interesting. To me that size is a great medium and I'm glad we have those two stages at that size even though our third and fourth (BC/YI) aren't accepted. Great size for near-continuous interaction without forcing characters on top of each other.

Not saying it would work but it would certainly be interesting.