-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I brought up the 1-2-1 thing earlier. but apparently 1-2-2-1 means 1 player - 2 player - 2 player - 1 player =/
Which is silly.
I've never seen melee described as 1-2-2-1 with its 5 starters.
Which is silly.
I've never seen melee described as 1-2-2-1 with its 5 starters.
Last edited:
Least confusing method is to just type out the process instead of using 1-2-1 or 1-2-2-1 to describe it. I think the rule set should take the time to do so.
(Some places have seeding determine striking and ports: higher seed strikes first/ports first or gets to choose. Tournaments and areas may not have PR's or seeding in place, so RPS is mentioned as the universal choice)
If needed, RPS to determine port + striking. Winner selects port + decides whether to strike first or not.
First person to go starts by striking 1 stage. The next player strikes 2 stages. First person will strike 1 more stage, and the remaining stage is to be played on.
(Some places have seeding determine striking and ports: higher seed strikes first/ports first or gets to choose. Tournaments and areas may not have PR's or seeding in place, so RPS is mentioned as the universal choice)
If needed, RPS to determine port + striking. Winner selects port + decides whether to strike first or not.
First person to go starts by striking 1 stage. The next player strikes 2 stages. First person will strike 1 more stage, and the remaining stage is to be played on.
Port priority for Snake players matters because it impacts grab situations concerning explosives. If a grenade or explosive goes off (one which damages all players, not just opponent like Usmash Mortar) while the players are engaged in a grabbed situation (Snake as grabber + Snake as person currently held by grab), the one with proper port priority will NOT fly away. If Snake gets this priority, it makes him much safer to shield camp with grenades and safer around Dsmash mine. If not, it adds risk because he will fly away instead. Shield camping with a grenade, or getting grabbed near a grenade, can be very favorable for the opponent if they know he will fly away. Or say a character with a decent sliding Grab like Falcon JC grab gets him and they slide into Dsmash mine. Port priority matters for that too.
Outside of RPS, coin flip, or other 50-50 solutions, I don't think there's a fair way to settle port priority. Making a Snake priority rule (in favor or against his favor) would be less fair since either side has implications.
Also, I think the Loser of the prior game can ask for another RPS / coin flip on port. If Snake lost Game 1 and didn't have port, he shouldn't have to settle for that the entire set imo. Some rulesets I believe have had port as possible redone after each game (if Loser asks for it). You could either do another RPS, or do a guaranteed port reversal. Winner of prior game should have no say in ports.
Situations where port priority comes into play:
Normal grab 50-50 situations (both players grab at the same time and grab box comes out on same frame. Player with Priority gets grab)
Snake Explosive situations
Ledge grabs iirc
Not sure what else comes to mind. However, I do not remember the rules for Priority exactly because I think Melee and Brawl had different things going on. I believe in Melee, being Port 1 was favorable for normal grabs and stuff, while in Brawl Port 4 for Snake was favorable? Not sure if PM changed these rules any, I assume Brawl engine mechanics for Snake are still true.
Outside of RPS, coin flip, or other 50-50 solutions, I don't think there's a fair way to settle port priority. Making a Snake priority rule (in favor or against his favor) would be less fair since either side has implications.
Also, I think the Loser of the prior game can ask for another RPS / coin flip on port. If Snake lost Game 1 and didn't have port, he shouldn't have to settle for that the entire set imo. Some rulesets I believe have had port as possible redone after each game (if Loser asks for it). You could either do another RPS, or do a guaranteed port reversal. Winner of prior game should have no say in ports.
Situations where port priority comes into play:
Normal grab 50-50 situations (both players grab at the same time and grab box comes out on same frame. Player with Priority gets grab)
Snake Explosive situations
Ledge grabs iirc
Not sure what else comes to mind. However, I do not remember the rules for Priority exactly because I think Melee and Brawl had different things going on. I believe in Melee, being Port 1 was favorable for normal grabs and stuff, while in Brawl Port 4 for Snake was favorable? Not sure if PM changed these rules any, I assume Brawl engine mechanics for Snake are still true.
Last edited:
Generally Smash favours the lower numbers for port priority, but for Faux Super Armour (that's what it's called when one player doesn't received knockback during the grab) it favours the higher port number.
I heard in PM it was changed for the grab scenario (and maybe other situations?) to be randomly determined instead of using port priority, and testing in debug yielded no consistent results so I'm inclined to believe that it is indeed the case. FSA should still be the same though.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member
Guest
the melee ruleset is a lot less formal than it used to be because the community ubiquitously supports it. the PM community does not have that luxury. showing it as 1-2-2-1 shows that both players get two bans in that order and reduces the ambiguity for 1-2-1. the first time i saw it, i was confused too, and generally your rule set needs to be clear to the first-time players and 10+ year vets alike.
eideeiit
Smash Ace
Or:
1(p1), 2(p2), 2(p1), 1(p2) with 7 starters and
1(p1), 2(p2), 1(p1) with 5
You'd really have to try to mess this one up.
1(p1), 2(p2), 2(p1), 1(p2) with 7 starters and
1(p1), 2(p2), 1(p1) with 5
You'd really have to try to mess this one up.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 26,560
Grabs have been random since Brawl.
MegaMissingno
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 574
- NNID
- missingno
Write strikes as ABBA. Concise without being confusing.
Wait, they removed some elements of port priority only to add it in other situations? Wtf, that makes even less sense.
Brawl makes some of the least sense of any Smash game.
Delfino neutral and no Yoshi's Story made me go cross eyed
WarioWare / WL replacing Yoshi sounds fine. Delfino is pretty big but apparently stage list has to be some balance of small and big, instead of just flush with variable medium stages. Better Delfino than like 95% of the other choices.
Would be cool if Norfair and WarioWare / WL were less red. Saw the remake for the first time a couple of days ago and I think the red velvet carpet or whatever should have just been purple or something smooth. Why should I have to pray for stage changes to both be solid competitively and also not serious eye wreckage? Some of these stages look very impressive just like, don't have so much red LOL. The dev doing colors has a boner for hurting eyes with red orange and more red
Would be cool if Norfair and WarioWare / WL were less red. Saw the remake for the first time a couple of days ago and I think the red velvet carpet or whatever should have just been purple or something smooth. Why should I have to pray for stage changes to both be solid competitively and also not serious eye wreckage? Some of these stages look very impressive just like, don't have so much red LOL. The dev doing colors has a boner for hurting eyes with red orange and more red
Last edited:
Delfino was made from feedback that was the result of 'what would we need in a large starter'
Yoshi story does nothing that Waroland does better.
Platform layout is one big one, and the sloped ledges have more impact than you think.
Randall doesn't need explaining.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 26,560
Platform layout is common elsewhere in stagelist; value offered by layout negligible or negative.
Sloped ledges found elsewhere and often found detestable: see Lylat Cruise's banning.
Stage offers little value compared to Wario Land and fills role of "Small stage with small blastzones" in a redundant manner, offering either little or undesired difference in gameplay compared to other stages.
Sloped ledges found elsewhere and often found detestable: see Lylat Cruise's banning.
Stage offers little value compared to Wario Land and fills role of "Small stage with small blastzones" in a redundant manner, offering either little or undesired difference in gameplay compared to other stages.
I don't think I follow.
Are you saying the sloped edges are a plus? and Randal?
I'm not saying Warioland and Yoshi's island are the same.
I'm saying that everything Yoshi's does good, warioland has.
And everything Yoshis does bad (slopes, randal) warioland doesnt have.
Platforms are the only aspect that could be argued either way, and comes down to preference. But I'd much rather see as many unique layouts as possible on a stagelist.
4tlas
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,298
To be fair, FoD seems to be replacing the small tri-plat option, so Warioland is good variety for replacing the tiny stage/blastzones part of YS. On the other hand, we have PS2 and DP which are veeeeery similar. Furthermore, we have multiple quasi-FDs, so platform layouts aren't really unique anyway. If all we wanted were unique layouts, Lylat, Skyworld, Castle Siege, and Metal Cavern should all get another look.
Essentially, everyone values different parts differently, and there is no "right" stagelist here. The whole point of this is a starting point for new TOs. Generally, those aren't the ones running huge tournaments, which are the ones with the ability to choose meta-altering stagelists. I'm confident the stagelist is the least important aspect of this ruleset.
Essentially, everyone values different parts differently, and there is no "right" stagelist here. The whole point of this is a starting point for new TOs. Generally, those aren't the ones running huge tournaments, which are the ones with the ability to choose meta-altering stagelists. I'm confident the stagelist is the least important aspect of this ruleset.
A lot of those stages you listed for unique platform layouts unfortunately tend to also be tied into unfavorable or undesirable main-stage traits (slants, height breaks ((left side of CS is lower and right side MC is higher)), etc). I don't have as much of an issue with some of those aspects, but examining them and analyzing how they affect gameplay for like 40+ characters and xxx number of MU's is pretty challenging
As for WL, it offers a more unique platform layout than Yoshi, but I'm not sure the stage is a major benefit to play anyways. Vast majority of the time, if a character is good or weak on stages like Yoshi/Wario, it gets super banned. Makes it kind of irrelevant whether it has good platforms or not imo
As for WL, it offers a more unique platform layout than Yoshi, but I'm not sure the stage is a major benefit to play anyways. Vast majority of the time, if a character is good or weak on stages like Yoshi/Wario, it gets super banned. Makes it kind of irrelevant whether it has good platforms or not imo
Last edited:
Yeah it's small stage with small blastzones without the desired platform layout. You slap Wario Ware platform layout on Battlefield and take Batlefield out of the stage list and you think people would be like "Oh that's fine" lmao
MegaMissingno
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 574
- NNID
- missingno
Well we already have like a dozen Battlefields anyway. How many do we really need?
4tlas
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,298
I agree with both halves of your post. I am super-casual compared to most of the competitive community, and I think all of those "undesirable" traits are just part of the game. Personally, I would enjoy hazards as well, and while I would probably enjoy items I think the problem space they open up is simply too large. So I understand that my perspective is not the same as that of most competitive smashers. Furthermore, the purpose of a ruleset is to be a playing field that all competitors can agree to be judged on. If, as Umbreon said, enough people dislike a stage for any reason, we should strongly consider not including it.
Slopes and randal man, Slopes and Randal.
If battlefield as we know it had sloped edges, and randal. and there was already a battlefield layout but on a different size scale, I'm sure people would be on board with switching it with a stage of similar size with a different layout.
Because they'd also have the battlefield layout stage in the different size.
Last edited:
I'm not as fond of the argument or position against having too many similar platform layouts. I think having very similar platform layouts, with vastly different boundaries or stage sizes, is completely fine. Many "unique" stages have fallen out of favor or become highly targeted by bans. Skyloft, old Dracula, Lylat, CS, Metal Cavern, Rumble Falls, etc offer pretty unique attributes and they tend to be hated vs "stale" tri plat copies and clones. I'd accept the idea that most of those stages had main-stage design questions or concerns vs unacceptable platform configurations, but the point that stages which don't fit the common mold tend to fall off the face of the Earth one way or another.
Stages being similar in size or boundaries may be an issue that we should unstack. It's fairly surprising how similar Smashville and BF are outside of their platforms. I actually blame those 2 stages for being the main reason we can't find balance for many starter lists: you can't balance the small/big paradigm (which I think is already not the optimal way to treat starter list) if you are left with 3 or 5 spots. There's an uneven shift where 1 side will probably get an extra (GHZ BF SV PS2 Delfino is one example: 1 small 2 med 2 big).
I would have liked to see PM get another medium stage, that was different enough from BF/SV boundaries but still not really polarizing. I think if this could be achieved, starter lists of 5 stages could now implement 1/3/1 and 7 could do 2/3/2. My honest opinion would be to run a starter list that is entirely medium stages (most polarizing stages tend to be big, small, or very unique like FD) but we don't have enough universally uncontroversial medium stages to even consider 3 as automatic starters (Yoshi's Brawl is one example that could fit, but people have concerns over) so I can probably kiss that dream goodbye.
I'm fine with the similar route (again, mostly platforms, not extremely similar main stage or boundaries). If a stage design or concept is competitive, why not have slightly different variations of it? Vs going down the "unique" path and usually ending up with either polarization, player dislike (Lylat is not well received despite the common lack of specific competitive critiques of it), or the problem where because it's so different, the advantages and disadvantages stemming from it are likely to be targeted on bans and keep it out of tournament play (there's essentially only one FD: you don't have 3 FD's that are slightly different where you consider the boundary or stage size changes and ban the best choice, you just auto-ban the 1 unique offering)
TL:DR
More medium stages with different boundaries and stuff from BF/SV may help things
Big/Small starter balance is probably faulty idea to begin with
Unique stages have greater chance of failure, maybe stale tri-plat ideas with dif boundaries or stage sizes aren't so bad after all
Stages being similar in size or boundaries may be an issue that we should unstack. It's fairly surprising how similar Smashville and BF are outside of their platforms. I actually blame those 2 stages for being the main reason we can't find balance for many starter lists: you can't balance the small/big paradigm (which I think is already not the optimal way to treat starter list) if you are left with 3 or 5 spots. There's an uneven shift where 1 side will probably get an extra (GHZ BF SV PS2 Delfino is one example: 1 small 2 med 2 big).
I would have liked to see PM get another medium stage, that was different enough from BF/SV boundaries but still not really polarizing. I think if this could be achieved, starter lists of 5 stages could now implement 1/3/1 and 7 could do 2/3/2. My honest opinion would be to run a starter list that is entirely medium stages (most polarizing stages tend to be big, small, or very unique like FD) but we don't have enough universally uncontroversial medium stages to even consider 3 as automatic starters (Yoshi's Brawl is one example that could fit, but people have concerns over) so I can probably kiss that dream goodbye.
I'm fine with the similar route (again, mostly platforms, not extremely similar main stage or boundaries). If a stage design or concept is competitive, why not have slightly different variations of it? Vs going down the "unique" path and usually ending up with either polarization, player dislike (Lylat is not well received despite the common lack of specific competitive critiques of it), or the problem where because it's so different, the advantages and disadvantages stemming from it are likely to be targeted on bans and keep it out of tournament play (there's essentially only one FD: you don't have 3 FD's that are slightly different where you consider the boundary or stage size changes and ban the best choice, you just auto-ban the 1 unique offering)
TL:DR
More medium stages with different boundaries and stuff from BF/SV may help things
Big/Small starter balance is probably faulty idea to begin with
Unique stages have greater chance of failure, maybe stale tri-plat ideas with dif boundaries or stage sizes aren't so bad after all
Last edited:
D
Deleted member
Guest
delfino is the large neutral that we desperately needed that DL64 could never be
not as a personal attack or "shots fire" or anything like that but i'm 100% sure i can make literally any player in PM think of YS as very ban-worthy in about 15 minutes or free play. with how PMs characters line up with the stage, it's just way too powerful of a stage choice for legitimate tournament play.
4tlas
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,298
Aaaaaactually, Warioware/land's blastzones are ALSO off-center.if i'm being honest
all it took for me to be certain i hated ys was to look at @JOE! 's stage tool and see that the blast zones for it were off-center whereas ww's are not
Anyway, PS2 is the large starter already. Delfino's is still quite big. I think Skyworld would make a better stage for that spot, but people don't like getting caught under the lip of the ledge.
It's wrong though, Wario Land is off centre tooif i'm being honest
all it took for me to be certain i hated ys was to look at @
Edit: Aw dangit ninja'd
Edit 2: Yo does anyone know the blast zones on Bowser's Castle (or the alt if it has different blastzones from the main)? That alt seems like a potential good choice for a legal stage. All I have for the blastzones though are a generally impression that it seems quite big.
Last edited:
Rawkobo
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 565
that's not what i see on the stage tool
what i see on the stage tool is that the camera is off-center, not the blastzones
the blastzones are an even -180/-180 unless i'm actually blind and can't read this tool worth a damn
EDIT: if the tool is actually mistaken then i apologize for being blatantly wrong
Last edited:
TheGravyTrain
Smash Ace
People don't like Skyworld in general. Back when we were making this list I thought Skyworld was the perfect medium-large stage. Moderate side bz's, still had a decent vertical blatzone for a big stage, wasn't absurdly long. But getting caught under the stage, the clouds being too hard to waveland on, top platform camping (even though it has a lower top plat than battlefield), etc. People just don't like the stage.
It's not the blastzones that are off, it's the actual stage itself
https://www.reddit.com/r/SSBPM/comments/3h9ycx/wario_land_is_shifted_5_units_to_the_right/cu5mtdf
4tlas
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 1,298
I do not believe he has. He is a busy man. I will badger him when I see him next.
JOE!
Smash Hero
I can find some time to update the app this week
TheGravyTrain
Smash Ace
That was SOJ's spreadsheet. It was for 3.6b.