Project M Recommended Ruleset

[4tlas]

This has happened to me again, recently, by the same guy who did it to me last time. Last time I didn't know he played Ganon so I had no reason to really ban Warioware. Well the more recent time I took the right precaution for Ganon but this time I didn't know he played DDD and he was able to take me to Dreamland. That broke my morale like crazy and made me play worse the third round. It feels so cheesy.

Pooled Bans may have solved this problem in a more gradual way. Since the loser provides a hint as to what stage he wants (and can't switch to something completely out of the blue), you may be able to guess what character he'd switch to.

It isn't particularly elegant though.

 

[Cubelarooso]

Not if the main benefit is related to tournament speed. If there's a demonstrated benefit in gameplay, and it is also superior to the alternatives, then sure use it. I don't think the pooled system operates any better than the regular system, and has the potential to also give worse outcomes.

I don't see any possible way it could give worse outcomes. It doesn't really affect the loser's ability to go where they want, but it does increase the winner's ability to go where they want. It makes the selection more of an agreement between participants, which means fairer, more legitimate matches.

Furthermore, the pool-system has positive significance going forward, which is particularly important for a game still in development. There are currently stages - from Lylat on the mild side to the extreme of Halberd - that have no demonstrated balance issues, yet have noticeable objectionable elements that make some players simply not want to play there.
In a ban-system, such a player has no reason to suspect when the opponent does want to play there, so they either waste a ban on a stage the loser would never have picked anyway, or risk going somewhere they just don't enjoy. Being forced into such a guess every game leaves the player dissatisfied, and so such stages end up off the list solely to curtail vocal complaints. Those who preferred the stage are denied their counterpick on subjective grounds, the available strategies and forms of play are narrowed, and the stagelist ends up neutered, but far from neutral.
In a pool-system, no player ever has to worry about the stage, but they could still choose it if they want to. It essentially makes every selection a gentleman's agreement, but without the stigma against asking for one and without always disagreeing just to not give an inch. Stagelists of expanded size and variety become functional, and future stages no longer need appeal to everyone to find acceptance.

Overall, I think it's a much better system for the game, but switching to it at the same time as characters-first kinda taints the experiment.

 

[4tlas]

I don't see any possible way it could give worse outcomes. It doesn't really affect the loser's ability to go where they want, but it does increase the winner's ability to go where they want. It makes the selection more of an agreement between participants, which means fairer, more legitimate matches.

Furthermore, the pool-system has positive significance going forward, which is particularly important for a game still in development. There are currently stages - from Lylat on the mild side to the extreme of Halberd - that have no demonstrated balance issues, yet have noticeable objectionable elements that make some players simply not want to play there.
In a ban-system, such a player has no reason to suspect when the opponent does want to play there, so they either waste a ban on a stage the loser would never have picked anyway, or risk going somewhere they just don't enjoy. Being forced into such a guess every game leaves the player dissatisfied, and so such stages end up off the list solely to curtail vocal complaints. Those who preferred the stage are denied their counterpick on subjective grounds, the available strategies and forms of play are narrowed, and the stagelist ends up neutered, but far from neutral.
In a pool-system, no player ever has to worry about the stage, but they could still choose it if they want to. It essentially makes every selection a gentleman's agreement, but without the stigma against asking for one and without always disagreeing just to not give an inch. Stagelists of expanded size and variety become functional, and future stages no longer need appeal to everyone to find acceptance.

Overall, I think it's a much better system for the game, but switching to it at the same time as characters-first kinda taints the experiment.

I agree that it helps calm players who would otherwise protest a stage being on the list in the first place. That is another nice side effect of this rule.

The reason why we ran it at the same time is because there were two versions proposed here to test: character first, 7 min, normal bans, and character first, 7 min, pooled bans. I would love to be very careful and thorough with the experiment, but we don't have the time and my players are already sick of the experiment.

I said before we would run it 3 more times (6/4, 6/11, 6/18). We ran it 6/4, and there was such opposition that we've decided to cut it short (other reasons too, but it tipped the scales). The last trial day will be 6/11. If I don't post a post-mortem (teehee) within a few days after that, somebody poke me or post in the thread so I get a notification as reminder.

 

[DMG]

The worse outcome would be that the loser doesn't get much of a CP because of all the information he has to give the winner. I don't think it would expand the stage list much, or rather have doubt that those questionable stages would go through anyways. If a player objects to Halberd strongly enough, he would probably ban Halberd upon seeing it in the pool of stages his opponent selects. If he does not ban Halberd in the pooled system, I don't think he would have a valid argument for being upset at getting "surprise" CP'd there in the regular ban format (especially assuming that character picks are done first. This helps mitigate surprise CP advantage from being both char + stage)


The regular ban format is probably the best chance for those stages to exist and be played on, unless we want to revamp stage bans by either removing them, or somehow restricting what stages people can ban (Halberd/X stage is always legal and the opponent can choose it, but maybe counter-balance it by allowing the opponent to switch chars after finding out they want Halberd?). You could also "swamp" the stage list with more questionable stages than bans allowed, and force players to inevitably play on them (5 tricky stages vs 2 bans for example), but that's probably a way more controversial idea that's not likely to play out very well to local scenes.


If a player intensely dislikes Lylat or some other stage, it's not likely that different ban formats or even logical discussion would sway them. If you do pooled bans, that same player would go "K he picked Lylat so that's off the table". He may complain about being "surprised" in the normal format, but that stems from the fact that he would probably ban Lylat if you gave him more info, and spoonfeeding him more info kills the chances you will even see that stage played in a tourney/serious format. In the regular ban format, you at least have the possibility of Lylat or Halberd happening. You can't necessarily prioritize both keeping everyone happy, and having as many stages legal as possible, so if you're leaning towards stages then you probably won't want to use a system that favors letting the opponent more accurately ban any "jank" he feels might come his way.


Best way to get people to play on those stages might be outside tourney. Give them an incentive to play a bunch on the stage, recorded if possible too. Free entry into next tourney if they do 5-10 serious sets on it, give them a couple dollars after they do some friendlies or serious games on them, etc. Doing that might give them, and your scene, better insight into the stage and crush their arguments more than trying to get them to play there in tourney. If you want to expand the stages or have more diverse play, I'd recommend those ideas before even bringing them to tourney IMO.

 

[PlateProp]

This has happened to me again, recently, by the same guy who did it to me last time. Last time I didn't know he played Ganon so I had no reason to really ban Warioware. Well the more recent time I took the right precaution for Ganon but this time I didn't know he played DDD and he was able to take me to Dreamland. That broke my morale like crazy and made me play worse the third round. It feels so cheesy.

We're gonna be running character first now starting next week, like how we used to a long ass time ago

No ****s if people ***** kek

Though they probably still will no matter what cause I havent said anything yet

 

[Cubelarooso]

The loser can't get any less of a CP than they could from the ban-system, it's just that tthe winner can't get screwed over as hard. We want skill to be tested during a match, not on a menu. The main principles behind the pool-system (besides being faster) is that it selects a stage with which both players are content in a manner that is minimally abusable - increasing player satisfaction and perceived validity of the results - while also being more feasible and allowing more variety than FLSS'ing every match.
Here are some example scenarios, in which we suppose Player 1 won match one, Player 2 lost, and neither switches character:

If P1 is fine with Halberd, there's no problem if they play there, so suppose P1 isn't.
Ban-system: P1 might assume P2 also isn't, and so he bans some other stages; if P2 chooses Halberd, then P1 feels cheated, blames the stage if he loses, and demands that it be removed from the stagelist so that such cannot happen again. Alternatively, P1 might predict such a scenario, and so he bans Halberd every time; if P2 doesn't care for Halberd either, then P1 effectively has n-1 bans when the rules intend him to have n, and so, realizing this, he demands that Halberd be removed from the stagelist so that he's not disadvantaged.
Pool-system: If P2 dislikes Halberd, then she just doesn't pool it. Suppose P2 does like Halberd, so she pools it along with n other stages she also likes. P1 now has a choice among n+1 stages, as intended by the rules. If he doesn't pick Halberd, then Halberd is no different than the rest of the unchosen pool. If he picks Halberd, then there are at least n stages he prefers it over. Regardless, removing a stage from the list would require more substantive reasoning than personal preference.
​

The idea here isn't to force players to use stages they don't care for; in fact, we specifically want to avoid that, as it's what gets the stages removed. Rather, the idea is to allow players to play on stages they both think are relatively fair.

Ban-system: P1 bans FD and some other stage(s), then loses. P2 doesn't want to play on FD, and may infer that P1 doesn't either, so she doesn't use a ban on it. If she's correct, then she effectively has the advantage of an extra ban (or more, up to double the norm). If P1 does choose FD, then P2 feels cheated, since she could have banned it. Either outcome is an unintended abuse of the rules that devalues the actual game.
Pool-system: P2 pools FD and some other stages, then wins. P1 wants to play on FD, and may infer that P2 also does. That probably wouldn't change P1's opinion of FD, and any stage he might pool instead of it could also be the next stage P2 would have pooled. Ultimately, it's not worth gaming the system, so players might as well just use it as intended and focus on the matches themselves.
​

Accounting for non-hierarchical stage preference makes no difference here. The pool-system is based on choosing stages that you want to play on, which is much easier to figure out and far less likely to change when given new information than the ban-system's basis of barring stages that you think your opponent wants to play on. Consequently, the former is more intuitive in application and resistant to exploitation.

P1 doesn't want to go to Lylat, but isn't sure if it's in this tourney's stagelist.
Ban-system: It's in P2's interest to say it is, whatever the truth: she can't choose it regardless, but saying it is means 1 less ban from P1. Hence it's in P1's interest to check the official rules, which slows things down. He could just reveal what he'd ban instead to find out if it matters to P2, but that's some important information (see previous example).
Pool-system: If P2 doesn't want to play on Lylat, then it doesn't matter. If she does, then it still might be that P1's #1 choice of stage is already in the pool, in which case it still doesn't matter. If it isn't, then P2 wouldn't be giving up much by revealing what she'd pool instead.​

This one may seem trivial, but it illustrates how a system based on mutual comfort just makes things in general run smoother. And in my experience, between experimental stagelists/stages, varying standards across locations, and apathetic TO's that don't know/care enough about PM to make official rules, this situation isn't too uncommon.


The ban-system is functional, but it's not optimal. Pooling is a much more effective, efficient method for Project M, or any competitive game in the genre that wishes to have a sizable list of diverse stages.

 

[DMG]

The stage variety benefit is likely muted though because the loser has to narrow down the stage list from ~15 choices down to what, 3? People may have to really tweak the numbers: the system with the most potential for playing on a variety of stages is one that does not narrow down the stage list very much. Normal format, 15 stages + 1 ban only for example would give you a ton of leeway to pick Halberd, Castle Siege, etc.


In any system, you have to strike a balance somewhere. Do you give the Winner enough bans or power to strike enough "bad" stages, or give the Loser a better chance at something decent by limiting ban power? The pooled ban system does not vastly change that fundamental question if the amount of bans between both formats remains fairly similar. It can benefit the Winner more than the regular format though if the proportion of bans vs total pool size is heavily in his favor. From 15 stages, banning 2 from a pool of 3 for example effectively gives the Winner 14 bans: unless the winner was able to swamp the list with all 3 "controversial" stages, there's not much reasonable expectation for those stages to go unbanned if he only puts 2 of them in with a "regular" stage.


Because the Loser has to go first in the process and show the Winner what his pool of stages will be, he effectively pre-bans stages for the opponent. Whether you do a massive pool of 10 stages, or a smaller pool of 2/3/4 stages, the fact remains that if your pool group of stages is smaller than the full list, it's basically giving the Winner an extra amount of bans (bans that he can't directly choose though). That concept does not seem necessary, and it also seems counter-intuitive towards promoting a real variety of stages. A system that goes further than the current one, to effectively limit the scope and choices of the Loser, does not sound very appealing even if you attain that mutual agreement (which very realistically may not often pan out to be any different than a set under regular format terms). Furthermore, why do we need to make sure the Winner is OK with the stage he's getting CP'd to? Heck, it's a CP for goodness sake: take him somewhere he doesn't want to be and make him lose.

In fact, if you think about it this way, the normal ban process (assuming characters first) is essential already pooled bans. The entire stage list is the pool, the players are aware or should be aware of what that list is, and the opponent goes forward with his limited number of bans.


What might be interesting is making the Winner's bans dynamic somehow. Like you give the Winner 1 hard absolute ban, and then 2 lesser bans. The Loser gets to choose one of the lesser bans to "ignore" if he wants. So the Winner can ban something essential like FD, and then put Halberd on his lesser bans. If he really wants to avoid Halberd, he chooses that for his absolute ban instead and chances FD or something else going through. Idk

 

[Bazkip]

What might be interesting is making the Winner's bans dynamic somehow. Like you give the Winner 1 hard absolute ban, and then 2 lesser bans. The Loser gets to choose one of the lesser bans to "ignore" if he wants. So the Winner can ban something essential like FD, and then put Halberd on his lesser bans. If he really wants to avoid Halberd, he chooses that for his absolute ban instead and chances FD or something else going through. Idk

Am I missing here or is a "lesser" ban entirely meaningless?

Actually no it's telling your opponent "I don't want to go here so therefore you should take me here".
But then you can lesser ban stages you actually want to trick them. Stage ban mindgames let's go.

But seriously, what's the point?

 

[DMG]

There probably is no point lol. I'm fine with the format where you do chars first, and regular bans. I was trying to think of a way to make the Winner's bans dynamic somehow, I guess to avoid the problem people have with being stage surprised (which now becomes more of a problem from doing chars first instead of stages first, kinda?) I'm not a fan of limiting the Loser's choices beyond whatever stage ban #'s we think is OK for balance by the Winner, the same as I'm not a fan of FLSSing for CP's because it's essentially more bans for the Winner (despite the intention of steering the match towards the more fair or agreed on stage)

If a stage list is truly competitive, and the stages on that list truly worthy, then I don't see a need to coddle or craft special situations during the CP phase to try and promote diversity. Allow a couple of stage bans to avoid some drastic CP situations when needed and otherwise let the chips fall as they may.

 

[Cubelarooso]

That figuring doesn't hold up, as punctuated by the notion that there would still be bans. To further figure: if the game is truly competitive and its options truly worthy then there's no need to add DSR, a striking process, double blind/winner first character selection, nor any other outside rules. Simply let the players make their choices and play, with the strain that places on option viability be as it may.

All those rules exist for the same reason the pool-system is proposed: to make sure players are OK with how they're playing, so competition is more enjoyable and agreeable, such that everyone can be satisfied with their matches and the results thereof, and be confident that any losses were via their own shortcomings that they can improve on for next time. That applies to bans, too, except pools are a strictly better alternative.

The pool-system does everything at least as well as bans, and in most respects better. It's faster, less abusable, more lenient on stagelists, less reliant on player knowledge, more clear that it doesn't persist through matches, and less harsh for newcomers. The ban-system isn't any simpler or more natural than pools; they involve the same amount of steps and words to explain. It's not somehow special just because it's good enough for Melee; PM shouldn't use rules just because.

Pools shouldn't be pushed until characters-first is embraced, but it seems clear that it should follow shortly.

 

[DMG]

Most of those rules are built towards neutral, "agreeable" guidelines because they involve Game 1 though. I don't think we have to go so far to ensure that CP's are agreeable for both players: part of the underlying nature of a CP is giving the Loser some tangible benefit besides the ability to swap chars. Why should my opponent have a stronger say-so on what stage is "acceptable" for him to be taken to on the CP?

Our goal is to promote something competitive, not try to stifle or mute any disadvantages the Winner might incur. In a stage list that is deemed to be non-gamebreaking, it is probably not unreasonable to allow players the ability to leverage their advantages to the maximum possible, inside the scope of that competitive framework. The best way to achieve that, is to give as much picking influence to the Loser as possible. Of course it may be quite lopsided and diversity may not be achieved if we give the Loser 100% control (no bans), so we toss a few in for some level of counterbalance and diversity so that Marth doesn't just pick Yoshi's Melee every game, or Bowser doesn't pick WW every game etc

From a stage list of 11 - 15 stages, after 2-3 bans, that leaves a good portion left for the Loser to pick. His freedom in being able to pick (and this freedom not being contingent upon giving his opponent information), is something I value more than attempting to make things more "agreeable" when it comes to CP's.

 

[Cubelarooso]

Why should the Loser have a stronger say-so of how we compete? The Loser just lost, so why should they be rewarded with a drastic advantage? Doling out bonuses and penalties goes completely contrary to the purpose of competition, wherein we try to find out who's better on their own merits.

The goal is to have an even playing field. But we also want to employ the genre-defining intricacies of different stages, hence there is a CP system so that we're not limited to playing three stages on rotation. That doesn't mean we should make the system exploitable beyond its original intent, and it certainly shouldn't end up contradicting its every intent. If a stage skews matchups so much that we have to make up a "banning" rule just to keep players from playing on it, despite that rule detracting from the actual game, then that stage being legal in the first place spoils both the competition and the diversity.

I value the ability to accurately measure relative skill, while also providing the maximal amount of game content and allowing the Loser just as much freedom as they'd otherwise have except without the Winner having to give up information that will actually inform the opponent's future decisions, more than I do the ability for the Loser to possibly win a single match of a set depending on coincidence from outside the game (up until the stage they used to do it gets removed).

 

[4tlas]

Ok, we've finished up our trial period and some feedback is coming in. Its late so I won't say much right now. We'd also like to wait a little longer to get more responses. I'm just posting now to let you all know we've ended the trial period and that I'll have more to say soon.

For now, though, it seems like most of the previous conclusions I mentioned are still holding true.

 

[4tlas]

As typical of Smash players, I have gotten a lot of vocal responses but very few filled-out forms. As such, much of this is coming from memory and impressions, and is therefore questionable and open to interpretation.

Overall, the reaction to Character First seems slightly positive. There were several players on both ends of the spectrum who either loved the change or hated it, but I heard very little complaining about it. For the most part, players that like the rule were either a) solo mains, b) disliked surprise secondaries, c) felt Character First was more intuitive, or d) felt that it sped up the process because players didn't need to think about secondaries when banning. Many players liked that the loser could not double down on a stage counterpick with a character counterpick, but not as many liked (or even thought about) the fact that the winner could not negate the stage counterpick with a character counterpick. This is in line with my previous conclusion that most players find stage negation an appropriate consequence of secondaries.

A notable exception to this was our lone Bowser player, who felt that he needed the ability to switch to Bowser only on good stages and secondaries on all other stages. This is a problem with Bowser specifically, but I do have to admit that PM stage sizes are overall larger than Melee, and that large stages hurt small-preferring characters much more than small stages hurt large-preferring characters. Perhaps we should consider this for the future.

The players that disliked the rule were either a) Melee traditionalists, b) multi-mains, or c) felt that this rule was so extreme it PENALIZED multi-mains. If most of the player base are Melee traditionalists in an individual community, they will have to be appeased. Multi-mains are getting worse because of this rule, but obviously it is up to your community to decide what their power level should be. C is clearly just a case of ignorance, but players who felt this way were often unswayable and militant, so *sigh*.


Overall, the reaction to Pooled Bans was largely negative. There were very few players who liked the system, a decent amount who had no opinion, and a large amount of players who hated it. Unfortunately, this data is almost purely from emotional responses of players rather than logical arguments, because the vast majority of the players did not understand the implications of this rule AT ALL.

Of the players who liked this rule, they either a) appreciated that they didn't have to waste bans on personally hated stages, b) liked that the loser had a weaker counterpick by virtue of being unable to pick a stage from left field or gave away info, or c) liked that it felt like more of an agreement between the 2 players. Reason A makes this rule good for those players that have personal grievances with the stagelist, which placates many players and allows more variance in the stagelist. Reasons B and C are just opinions that seem to be pretty rare among players, but aren't unreasonable.

Of the players who disliked the rule, they either a) were Melee traditionalists, b) felt the rule was confusing, c) felt the rule made the counterpick IN FAVOR OF THE WINNER, d) didn't like that the counterpicker had to give info away, or e) didn't like that personal issues with stages stopped being free bans. I don't think I need to elaborate on these.


Overall, the reaction to the 7 minute timer was largely indifferent. Most players felt it had no effect on gameplay and were not concerned with it. The only person who liked it was me, because I would like to increase the importance of a lead on gameplay, rewarding the successful aggressor and also helping enable defensive play to be viable without being stronger than offensive play. Nevertheless, I agree with the few people who actively disliked the rule in their reasoning, which is that time-outs in Smash are non-interactive due to the positioning options available. They are also rarely hype due to having to wait 8 whole minutes and stock differences overriding % damage (like how often do you care about coins in Mario Party?). Even among the indifferent players, many felt it was not worth the effort to change the timer unless PMDT does it (or everyone mods it in...). At least everyone was logical about this one! Also, to indicate just how indifferent everyone was about this rule, I will quote a response from our form. This player wished for the other rules to not be implemented in order to keep the tournament standard with everyone else, but had this to say about the timer rule: "whatever. I'm gonna play Kirby/Jiggz and time ****** out"



For all of the rules, there was a desire among several players to leave the rules alone so that we would remain standard with other tournaments, which is an understandable desire. There was also a "don't fix what ain't broke" attitude, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, both in terms of that philosophy and whether or not the current rules qualify as "broke".


We will consider implementing Character First, but the other 2 rules are definitely not happening anytime soon. If I gain any more insight from my community I will let you know!

 

[TreK]

The players that disliked the rule [...] felt that this rule was so extreme it PENALIZED multi-mains. [...] [it] is clearly just a case of ignorance, but players who felt this way were often unswayable and militant, so *sigh*.

This is honestly what I'm most worried about about this change. People irrationally spreading bullcrap about the reasons behind it, like they usually do.

It might be cool for a major to do characters first so that small regions which usually just want to conform can get in on the action.

 

[DMG]

I don't think they articulated it well. It can penalize multi-mains from the Winner's side if they have characters to cover different stage sizes or issues. The Bowser example is the most obvious: if stages were picked first, he could change from Bowser or x secondary to fit the stage. With characters first, he may be at a bigger disadvantage than before if he has to lock in Bowser or secondary first, and probably not be able to ban enough stages. Having characters first does dissuade using less "stage safe" character choices. I think we need to either accept this issue, or give more bans to the winner. I've not been in favor of giving more power to the Winner when he's supposed to accept a disadvantage on the CP process, but yeah.


With that said, the order of character or stage first doesn't impact players or characters the same, so that may be hard to come to a broad conclusion over. Letting the Winner switch last minute after stage is chosen, and possibly obtain a CP in his favor if the opponent doesn't have the flexibility to cover that choice, is something I think many of us have been leaning against over time. The multi-main drawback and similar things the Winner now has to deal with, is probably a fair compromise to what he gains (exact character knowledge).


Pooled bans is a bigger question than character/stage first. Not a fan of it obviously, since it's less flexibility for the loser and more information for the Winner. Buffing the Winner in the CP process is something I'm not fond of, unless we need it to balance some extreme aspects like wild crazy CP's without enough bans or if the Loser could like ban your characters too LOL. In that case, ya I'd be willing to extend a hand of friendship, otherwise tell Winner to suck it up and deal with CP process imo.

 

[Narpas_sword]

it definitely needs more 'major' tournies to try it, so many just stick with 'this is how melee does it so this is how PM does it'

We should probably write up a post about it, so people can get a good idea on it's advantages. so many of the arguments made got lost in the other recommended ruleset thread.

 

[4tlas]

This is honestly what I'm most worried about about this change. People irrationally spreading bullcrap about the reasons behind it, like they usually do.

It might be cool for a major to do characters first so that small regions which usually just want to conform can get in on the action.

With all honestly, many of the "Melee traditionalists" I listed were also unswayable and militant, but a few could at least be talked to. Anyone who argued "don't fix what ain't broke" had a similar attitude. One of my best friends in the community was particularly outspoken and had the most ignorant opinion of them all, and due to his salt over losing a set recently I couldn't convince him that he wasn't making sense, EVEN THOUGH HE UNDERSTOOD MY ARGUMENT. He simply said, "well, I still feel that way" because he was just too upset.

Perhaps there was something wrong with the way we went about implementing the trial period and that caused all the uproar, but I think most of these problems (angry/ignorant players) are prevalent and inherent in our community anyway. Its part of the hazard of running competitive social events for a diverse set of players, from adrenaline-fueled fighting game meatheads to super smelly awkward geeks. It makes me think we need to make this kind of change from the top down and eventually it will grow on people. As much as I think the community's wishes are the most important thing, the pure ignorance I experienced makes me think that they don't know what's good for them. Sigh. Parenting grown-ass adults is hard.

I don't think they articulated it well. It can penalize multi-mains from the Winner's side if they have characters to cover different stage sizes or issues. The Bowser example is the most obvious: if stages were picked first, he could change from Bowser or x secondary to fit the stage. With characters first, he may be at a bigger disadvantage than before if he has to lock in Bowser or secondary first, and probably not be able to ban enough stages. Having characters first does dissuade using less "stage safe" character choices.


With that said, the order of character or stage first doesn't impact players or characters the same, so that may be hard to come to a broad conclusion over. Letting the Winner switch last minute after stage is chosen, and possibly obtain a CP in his favor if the opponent doesn't have the flexibility to cover that choice, is something I think many of us have been leaning against over time. The multi-main drawback and similar things the Winner now has to deal with, is probably a fair compromise to what he gains (exact character knowledge).

They meant penalized as in the counterpicker is at a disadvantage. Not relative to the current system, just PERIOD. Because they heard the words "winner picks the stage", they felt the winner was the counterpicker. Even after explaining it as "winner bans 2 out of 3", they still thought the counterpicker was swapped. Probably had something to do with initially calling it "inverted stage bans" when I should have called it "pooled stage bans". This is where I think I screwed up.

it definitely needs more 'major' tournies to try it, so many just stick with 'this is how melee does it so this is how PM does it'

We should probably write up a post about it, so people can get a good idea on it's advantages. so many of the arguments made got lost in the other recommended ruleset thread.

I can't implement it at our "majors" because then "nobody would come" because it wouldn't be standard. We also aren't having a national anytime soon, and probably no regionals for awhile. But we should make a large writeup detailing all the implications of the rules. I vote somebody else does it because this trial period has already made me sick of thinking about these rules, lol.

 

[Narpas_sword]

its definitely the catch22 hurdle of noone wants to change, because it's not 'official', because noone else has changed

 

[SOJ]

Hey @Umbreon could you update this thread with the new stages in 3.6 please? Thanks

 

[Narpas_sword]

And add warioman under banned characters.
Probably needs a clause for alt stages. (gentlemans only).
Do we need a gentlemans clause allowing auto L cancel if both parties agree?

are we able to sticky this to get more exposure?
or update this page: http://smashboards.com/rulesets/project-m/

the best way we can get this running is to have it where people go to find rulesets. otherwise PM tourneys will continue to run melee rulesets with 'bottom row starters middle row cp'

 

[Rhubarbo]

A gentleman's clause for auto l-cancelling makes sense, but we should consider its implications.The attitude against l-cancelling in the PM community is occasionally hostile, so players who want auto l-cancelling off to increase their odds of winning might be marked as "douchey" or whatever.

 

[4tlas]

A gentleman's clause for auto l-cancelling makes sense, but we should consider its implications.The attitude against l-cancelling in the PM community is occasionally hostile, so players who want auto l-cancelling off to increase their odds of winning might be marked as "douchey" or whatever.

I think that is something that we shouldn't bother to avoid. Many players hate [insert character here] and think players who main them are tier-whores. If people are going to be immature they are the ones with the problem and we should try to fix it at the source by improving the community or discouraging such attitudes.

On a similar note (how far do we want to allow Gentleman's Agreements because they may cause tournament issues), my players keep asking if they can Gentleman's to Shrek Super Slam. My thought is that it is too far out of the PM realm to do unless all remaining participants in the tournament agree. After all, they are there to play the best PM players, not the best Shrek Super Slam players. If they want to have some bizarre half-breed tournament results then everyone should have to agree. At least All-Star, Warioman/GigaBowser, or the stages are still part of PM. Or even Gentlemanning to a different Smash game would probably be fine lol

Opinions? I'd like some other people to weigh in.

 

[Bazkip]

I think that is something that we shouldn't bother to avoid. Many players hate [insert character here] and think players who main them are tier-whores. If people are going to be immature they are the ones with the problem and we should try to fix it at the source by improving the community or discouraging such attitudes.

On a similar note (how far do we want to allow Gentleman's Agreements because they may cause tournament issues), my players keep asking if they can Gentleman's to Shrek Super Slam. My thought is that it is too far out of the PM realm to do unless all remaining participants in the tournament agree. After all, they are there to play the best PM players, not the best Shrek Super Slam players. If they want to have some bizarre half-breed tournament results then everyone should have to agree. At least All-Star, Warioman/GigaBowser, or the stages are still part of PM. Or even Gentlemanning to a different Smash game would probably be fine lol

Opinions? I'd like some other people to weigh in.

Run a Shrek Super Slam side tournament.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I think that is something that we shouldn't bother to avoid. Many players hate [insert character here] and think players who main them are tier-whores. If people are going to be immature they are the ones with the problem and we should try to fix it at the source by improving the community or discouraging such attitudes.

On a similar note (how far do we want to allow Gentleman's Agreements because they may cause tournament issues), my players keep asking if they can Gentleman's to Shrek Super Slam. My thought is that it is too far out of the PM realm to do unless all remaining participants in the tournament agree. After all, they are there to play the best PM players, not the best Shrek Super Slam players. If they want to have some bizarre half-breed tournament results then everyone should have to agree. At least All-Star, Warioman/GigaBowser, or the stages are still part of PM. Or even Gentlemanning to a different Smash game would probably be fine lol

Opinions? I'd like some other people to weigh in.

gentlemans agreement in my rules (and most others) are for stage only. nothing else unless specified.

 

[MegaMissingno]

I would draw the line at gentlemanning to a different game, that's absurd.

 

[CORY]

i think most gentlemen's agreements now have clauses that it can't delay the tourney proceedings, so you can't gentelmen's for a 3 out of 5 20 minute score game and stupid **** like that.

also to has final word, etc...

 

[Deleted member]

I updated the stage list to have Delfino's Secret in the starters replacing DL64

we can re-open this thread up for more discussion i guess

@ SOJ

 

[SOJ]

thx bae

 

[Narpas_sword]

I updated the stage list to have Delfino's Secret in the starters replacing DL64

we can re-open this thread up for more discussion i guess

@ SOJ

Also needs:
Warioman clause.
ALC off clause (with gentleman to on?)

and needs replace the rules here: http://smashboards.com/rulesets/project-m/

 

[Deleted member]

Also needs:
Warioman clause.
ALC off clause (with gentleman to on?)

and needs replace the rules here: http://smashboards.com/rulesets/project-m/

i can do the prior, can you assist me with the latter?

 

[Narpas_sword]

I can possibly help, i'll see who I can ask.

 

[Strong Badam]

AFAIK only admins can do so. @ Warchamp7 for example :3c

 

[Warchamp7]

AFAIK only admins can do so. @ Warchamp7 for example :3c

dat me

 

[Boondocker]

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I want to discuss the neutral stages. To me, a neutral stage should be one that doesnt favor any character type significantly. After studying this data, here is my current suggestion:

Neutrals:

Battlefield: The classic, 3 platform stage. Average all around.
Smashville: The platform gives help to recoveries and when it leaves, allows for some chain grabbing opportunities. Average all around.
Yoshi's Island: Similar to smashville, except the platform tilts instead of moves. The white shy guys make this stage playable since you can see when the ghost is comming. Average all around. This is currently a counterpick, but who would waste theirs on such an average stage?
Lyalt Cruise: This is a unique stage that allows for interesting strategies. Slightly longer than the other neutrals, but nowhere near as long as ps2. If you don't like the slants, then ban it.
Fountain of Dreams: The shortest stage in the bunch, and the "opposite" of Lylat. Otherwise average.

Counterpicks:

Dreamland: Huge blast zones, average stage size.
Final Destination: This stage is hell for those who get chain grabbed. Also too long to be a neutral. Counterpick.
Delfino's Secret/Rumble Falls: Decisions, decisions.
Ps2: This stage is the longest commonly played stage with a short ceiling. Promotes running from characters with projectiles, and favors characters that can kill off the top greatly. Sounds like a counterpick to me. I know this is controversial, but keep an open mind here.
GHZ: Short stage with a slightly above average ceiling.
Wario Ware: All around small stage.
Yoshi's Story: The bottom is so low that certain characters cannot even sweetspot without dying. They would be forced to ban this everytime. I really dont like this but there are no other small stages.


Banned:

Distant Planet: Just a ps2 with leaves and a higher ceiling. Brings nothing else.
Norfair: Not a bad stage, but why? Do people even choose this?

Neutrals should be banned with a 1-2-1 format during the first match. After that, winner bans 1 stage.

 

[DMG]

Yoshi's Island is worthy of being just a CP. It has enough nuances to justify not being a starter imo. There's not much extreme about it, but the slants break from other common starters (and CP's even). A unique stage, it's probably best to leave it at CP or only use it for larger starter lists of 7+ stages.


Lylat isn't likely going to be a starter. Your description already leads to my conclusion: it's a unique stage with unique strats. That doesn't lead to a strong case for being a starter, even if there's not a subset or group of characters that get strong advantages.


PS2 is probably the most controversial listing. It's very popular as a starter, but I think people have/prior had an incorrect appreciation for the exact size. Easy way to "prove" this is to go back or see how many people thought PS2 was a "medium" stage, despite its massive stage length putting it in the ranks of large. If someone believes the stage is smaller than it actually is, they may not properly assess the risk of hard camping/stalling. Plenty of stages have been shrunk down based on that and similar balance concerns, so PS2 may be one to examine whether it should truly be a starter.


*I believe PS2 was shrunk down this patch, so this likely helps make it a more fair stage. Kind of feels on the fence for whether it should be a starter or CP*


Most people would replace Dreamland entirely with Delfino Secret. I think Delfino Secret was a bit of a wasted opportunity, as far as taking a newer direction with the platforms. It's a much better stage than Dracula's, both aesthetically and competitively, but I think it's lacking a bit. Delfino over Dreamland sounds fine, although I think the overall impact of the stage is underwhelming. An awesome stage, but I'd probably rate it 6.5/10 where as general consensus might sit closer to 9/10. Idk might just be me


Yoshi's does have the Sweetspot issue, but you could also consider that a legit CP factor. The stage normally would seem fine, but we have some big dudes / small stage monsters that do really good. I don't think WW is much of an improvement: frankly I would ban both of them and have stages like GHZ or FoD represent smaller stages. Having stages like WW and Yoshi's is kind of pandering to a specific sub-set of chars that do amazing there. I think the same is true with stages on the scale of Delfino/Dreamland: I think all 4 of those should get a serious look-over on whether they belong or not.

 

[MegaMissingno]

Delfino's isn't that big, and without it your neutrals have a clear bias towards smaller stages.

 

[mimgrim]

"Neutral" stages do not exist. Get rid of that notion for stages. Every stage is gonna favor one character or another. It is just the way it is. Can we please burn the notion that a "neutral" stage even exists, please.

 

[Boondocker]

Yoshi's Island is worthy of being just a CP. It has enough nuances to justify not being a starter imo. There's not much extreme about it, but the slants break from other common starters (and CP's even). A unique stage, it's probably best to leave it at CP or only use it for larger starter lists of 7+ stages.

There is another slanted stage in my proposed list (lylat) so it isnt alone.

Lylat isn't likely going to be a starter. Your description already leads to my conclusion: it's a unique stage with unique strats. That doesn't lead to a strong case for being a starter, even if there's not a subset or group of characters that get strong advantages.

If no one gets an advantage then it is fair game IMO. Delfino's is unique as well but people don't mind that being a starter.

*I believe PS2 was shrunk down this patch, so this likely helps make it a more fair stage. Kind of feels on the fence for whether it should be a starter or CP*

The data was updated for 3.6. It is still extremely long and I think it should definitely be a CP.

Most people would replace Dreamland entirely with Delfino Secret. I think Delfino Secret was a bit of a wasted opportunity, as far as taking a newer direction with the platforms. It's a much better stage than Dracula's, both aesthetically and competitively, but I think it's lacking a bit. Delfino over Dreamland sounds fine, although I think the overall impact of the stage is underwhelming. An awesome stage, but I'd probably rate it 6.5/10 where as general consensus might sit closer to 9/10. Idk might just be me

Delphino's should not replace Dreamland. Delfino's ceiling isnt much higher than average, and thus, chars like Jigglypuff don't have a great stage to go to, especially if Delfino's is banned.

Having stages like WW and Yoshi's is kind of pandering to a specific sub-set of chars that do amazing there. I think the same is true with stages on the scale of Delfino/Dreamland: I think all 4 of those should get a serious look-over on whether they belong or not.
On second thought, I think they are all CP material. All CP's pander to a sub-set of chars.

Delfino's isn't that big, and without it your neutrals have a clear bias towards smaller stages.

No they dont. Battlefield, Yoshi's Island, and Smashville are the most average stages in the game. FoD's shortness is balanced out by Lylat's longness. Delfino's isnt that big, but there isnt another small stage to balance it out besides Yoshi's Story and WW, neither of which should be a starter. My starters dont have much bias at all:

Like stationary platforms? Play on BF or Lylat
Like moving platforms? Play on Smashville or FoD
Hate slants? Ban Yoshi's or Lylat
Want to help your recovery? Play on Smashville or Yoshi's
Want to hurt recoveries? Bf of Lylat
Want to wall jump? Play on Yoshi's or FoD
Dont want to play on a big stage? Ban Lylat
Dont want to play on a small stage? Ban FoD

 

[DMG]

Delfino Secret ceiling is #2 judging from that list. If Jiggs really needs more than that to be viable, that sounds like a character issue that shouldn't be solved by trying to stage-fix things. Jiggs will never get Dreamland in a bajillion years in PM anyways, since all set counts would get bans. You can't have a Melee situation in Bo5 where Jiggs automatically gets to pick Dreamland: there's absolutely no fair way we can try and counter-balance this new situation for her or other characters that prefer more extreme stages to compete.

Replacing Dreamland with Delfino is probably a better change, even if it seems redundant since chars like Jiggs may find their #2 and #3 best options banned anyways if #1 is removed from stage list. For non-Jiggs, Delfino being a less extreme stage will probably be a positive aspect for the other cast members. When stages are less extreme, there's more thought that goes into what you ban or why you ban. When you think about stage bans against the opponent, chances are that the stages which immediately come to mind are the less healthy ones (super small, super big, FD). Dreamland >>> Delfino and many stages in that regard