Project M Recommended Ruleset

[Blitzus]

Can we not argue the semantics of "Do people actually..." or "It's basically random..."

The diligence of players is their problem.
I'd like to see the ruleset revised once more, Umbreon. I'll see your stage list if at all possible.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

I assume we will discuss any changes to the stagelist once 3.6 drops.

 

[robosteven]

I may never understand Dreamland being a starter simply for how huge it is. Why not just make the five starters all mid-size stages? Green Hill Zone is smaller, but it's not Yoshi's Story or WarioWare-small.

Dreamland is...Dreamland-big.

If Delfino's Secret has smaller blastzones than Dreamland, then I'd approve of it becoming a starter instead of Dreamland. Plus, if the platform layout and pattern is based on Dracula's Castle, I don't see Delfino's Secret ever having the Norfair platform-camp problem.

tl;dr **** dreamland ****'s too big

 

[Binary Clone]

I may never understand Dreamland being a starter simply for how huge it is. Why not just make the five starters all mid-size stages? Green Hill Zone is smaller, but it's not Yoshi's Story or WarioWare-small.

Dreamland is...Dreamland-big.

If Delfino's Secret has smaller blastzones than Dreamland, then I'd approve of it becoming a starter instead of Dreamland. Plus, if the platform layout and pattern is based on Dracula's Castle, I don't see Delfino's Secret ever having the Norfair platform-camp problem.

tl;dr **** dreamland ****'s too big

I think it's been established that Dreamland is currently one of the "problems" with this stagelist, and I believe it's been confirmed that Delfino's Secret will have smaller blastzones, and is slated to replace DL64 in this ruleset.

 

[robosteven]

I think it's been established that Dreamland is currently one of the "problems" with this stagelist, and I believe it's been confirmed that Delfino's Secret will have smaller blastzones, and is slated to replace DL64 in this ruleset.

Never mind then, I am content.

 

[Deleted member]

I assume we will discuss any changes to the stagelist once 3.6 drops.

pretty much this. the main reason we have DL64 atm is because it's grandfathered into our rule set and still technically accomplishes what a big starter should do- ruins 3/4ths of the cast and makes everyone hate their opponents.

when 3.6 is out we will resume with a much less flawed stagelist.

and for what its worth, i hate warioware too and ban it basically every time. nothing says fun like all your **** killing at 35%

 

[robosteven]

nothing says fun like all your **** killing at 35%

this unironically defines fun for me

 

[Rawkobo]

My current 3.6 theoretical list is something like...

Starters:
GHZ
PS2
SV
BF
DS

Counterpicks:
WW
FoD
FD
DP
YI

I'm wagering this is what the list will tend to look like for most people after the patch drops, although they might move Yoshi's Story in over FoD or WW, which of course reopens that argument, but I think for the most part, it's pretty clear that this stagelist solves a lot of the major issues present in the current stagelist while offering a pretty reasonable balance.

Of course, that depends on if people really want to have the WW vs YS vs FoD argument again.

EDIT: Also, someone brought up DSR before. If we somehow decide as a community to have less stages, we should go back to regular DSR. But if we maintain 10+ stages, DSRm is the only way to make it remotely reasonable, considering how many options we like to jack into our lists all the time.

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

I'm wagering this is what the list will tend to look like for most people after the patch drops, although they might move Yoshi's Story in over FoD or WW, which of course reopens that argument, but I think for the most part, it's pretty clear that this stagelist solves a lot of the major issues present in the current stagelist while offering a pretty reasonable balance.

Of course, that depends on if people really want to have the WW vs YS vs FoD argument again.

FoD is needed so that floaties can actually have a couple of decent counterpicks.

Having both WW and YS is redundant. A stagelist should only have one of them.

I like your list though, and I agree that it will probably be the list most widely used when 3.6 is out.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I like your list though, and I agree that it will probably be the list most widely used when 3.6 is out.

That's because his list is the same as the OP, but withdl64 replaced with Delphino, which is what the plan is =p

 

[nimigoha]

On the one hand, having DL64 not be in a stagelist will be odd.

On the other, f Whispy. That wind is stupid and I don't know why people have insisted on keeping it other than 'because Melee'.

Oh look, ASL. Make HD DL64 non-wind and keep wind on the original version. Please everyone.

 

[RIDLEY is too SMALL]

On the one hand, having DL64 not be in a stagelist will be odd.

On the other, f Whispy. That wind is stupid and I don't know why people have insisted on keeping it other than 'because Melee'.

Oh look, ASL. Make HD DL64 non-wind and keep wind on the original version. Please everyone.

I don't think it's so much that people insist on keeping the wind as it is that people don't care too much because the wind barely affects anything.

The problem with Dreamland is the blastzones and ceiling being ridiculously massive, significantly skewing way too many matchups too heavily.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

It's not "bcuz melee". Sandfall said something along the lines of it is a part of the stage and he isn't willing to just change every part of a stage to make it more competitive (disagreeing with the changes to stages like WarioWare). It happened in the stage feedback thread when they discussed Dreamland.

 

[nimigoha]

I understand why they never took the wind before.

Sandfall made an incredible PS1 version that make the rock and fire transformations not dumb, and that was left out of the official build because Melee, iirc.

Which I totally get. I think it's cool that you can play a game close to Melee meta with the almost identical top 7 characters and almost identical 6 stages.

But now that there's ASL, I think it would be neat to have the option of basically an in-game wind toggle.

Honestly it's not a huge deal because it looks like the consensus is Secret will be a better replacement. Having 3(ish) stages with the same platform layout was a little tired. Maybe it's kind of an identity thing; 3 of the 6 Melee stages were triplats so it was a big factor in the game. Now there are loads of possibilities and they should rightfully be explored.

The 10 3.6 stages will all have different platform layouts/movements.

I just wish Lylat wasn't so annoying to play on because the platform layout is really cool.

 

[Rawkobo]

That's because his list is the same as the OP, but withdl64 replaced with Delphino, which is what the plan is =p

i should've put tl;dr because that's exactly right

i mostly just put it up for myself to reference later instead of putting it in a word document like i usually do

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Is it worth complaining about Fd, PS2, Distant Planet, and Delphino's Secret all having the same basic layout? Mainly ps2 and distant planet. Maybe Norfair or Lylat for more variety would be better.

 

[Rawkobo]

Is it worth complaining about Fd, PS2, Distant Planet, and Delphino's Secret all having the same basic layout? Mainly ps2 and distant planet. Maybe Norfair or Lylat for more variety would be better.

They wouldn't be neutrals, though. That's kind of the problem at the moment. FD would be the target stage of discussion, but I'm pretty sure an open stage without platforms is unique enough under the context of the stagelist.

You could make an argument against new Distant Planet with smoother sides, but I'm pretty sure that's a fine stage itself.

 

[4tlas]

I may never understand Dreamland being a starter simply for how huge it is. Why not just make the five starters all mid-size stages? Green Hill Zone is smaller, but it's not Yoshi's Story or WarioWare-small.

Dreamland is...Dreamland-big.

If Delfino's Secret has smaller blastzones than Dreamland, then I'd approve of it becoming a starter instead of Dreamland. Plus, if the platform layout and pattern is based on Dracula's Castle, I don't see Delfino's Secret ever having the Norfair platform-camp problem.

tl;dr **** dreamland ****'s too big

Size is not the only thing that matters. Its how you use it. And thus, other factors such as platform layout, blastzone distance, and walled sides make a difference. Some characters with better recoveries like wider blastzones, but some of those characters also want a small stage for stronger zoning. Does the player want to ban for blastzones or for stage size? If their opponent wants a small stage, period, they will end up banning to either an average size stage (which is slightly beneficial for the character that likes either size) or to a small stage (slightly beneficial for the character that likes small for multiple reasons). If all stages were mid-sized, the small-preferring character would always be at a disadvantage unless against huge-preferring characters.

The large and small stages need to be available. If it at least forces a ban from the generalist character, the small/large-preferring character gets a chance to shift the bans toward a neutral stage (the smallest or largest of the middle-sized stages, for example). If all starter stages (or, in an extreme example, the only stage) were middle-of-the-road, some characters would never have a chance.

Furthermore, it is possible to ban for other traits while your opponent bans for your size preferrence. Lets say its, I dunno, Peach vs Falco. I could be totally wrong about this matchup but its just a theoretical example, so whatever. Falco needs to ban DL, but that lets Peach ban Battlefield and PS2, leaving Falco with his choice of flat stages, GHZ or SV. Assuming Peach does well on large but not small stages (which I know isn't the case, but its a theoretical example), Falco gets a small stage and Peach gets a flat stage in GHZ. Tada, neutral. And all because we have a tiny stage in GHZ. If that were FD, Peach could still ban platforms but Falco couldn't ban size.

 

[nimigoha]

So the Drommelan ASV was pretty cool, is there any point in crowdsourcing a recommended ruleset to figure out what works best or is it better left up to the TO's discretion each time? Unlike Turbo or Stamina I can see it as a seriously competitive setup and I think it could be worth it to come up with a tournament standard. These threads were everywhere in the early days of 3.5 but have pretty much died out.

 

[robosteven]

Size is not the only thing that matters. Its how you use it.

 

[Blitzus]

Personally, I think it would be interesting for a tournament to run optional All Star for a change.

You can elect to choose however many of the same character that you want, or mix it up between stocks.
Has anyone tried this yet?

 

[robosteven]

Personally, I think it would be interesting for a tournament to run optional All Star for a change.

You can elect to choose however many of the same character that you want, or mix it up between stocks.
Has anyone tried this yet?

yes

 

[Blitzus]

yes

Great.
How'd it go?

 

[TreK]

I tried to run it in my region, people were not okay with it.
They said the unknown matchup effect was already a problem in PM and that this rule would only make it worse.

But then again they also voted out the "loser selects 4" instead of "winner bans 3", which is intended to reduce speculation, and the "characters first" instead of "stage first", which is intended to reduce the effect of matchup counterpicking, so it'd be unfair to sum up the situation that fast.

 

[4tlas]

I tried to run it in my region, people were not okay with it.
They said the unknown matchup effect was already a problem in PM and that this rule would only make it worse.

But then again they also voted out the "loser selects 4" instead of "winner bans 3", which is intended to reduce speculation, and the "characters first" instead of "stage first", which is intended to reduce the effect of matchup counterpicking, so it'd be unfair to sum up the situation that fast.

I think character first would just homogenize counterpick strength. For example, with stage first you can ban the wrong stages and get counterpicked extra hard by a character swap, or you can pick the wrong stage and have your opponent reduce the counterpick strength by a character swap. If characters were picked first, you would always pick a stage that is an average counterpick strength.

 

[nimigoha]

With the number of available bans and stages in PM, you should never be forced to go to a crazy hard counterpick stage if you do characters first.

Like if the previous winner bans the three most drastic stages (say it's a matchup vs Bowser) in BF, FoD, and Warioware, there's still GHZ which is most likely an advantageous stage for Bowser to pick. And it should be, because it's supposed to be his advantage.

Your opponent can eliminate the most skewing stages but you won't be forced onto a stage that doesn't do anything for you.

 

[TreK]

Yup, that's what I've been telling them. And my region's top player is a Snake/Marth, so this kind of counterpicking happens ALL THE TIME to our top players (Snake and Marth have different good CPs so you can't ban all of that player's good stages with the amount of bans you're given - which was designed for single characters)

With the number of available bans and stages in PM, you should never be forced to go to a crazy hard counterpick stage if you do characters first.

Like if the previous winner bans the three most drastic stages (say it's a matchup vs Bowser) in BF, FoD, and Warioware, there's still GHZ which is most likely an advantageous stage for Bowser to pick. And it should be, because it's supposed to be his advantage.

Your opponent can eliminate the most skewing stages but you won't be forced onto a stage that doesn't do anything for you.

What he's saying is :
your opponent is a bowser, so you ban BF/FoD/WW
he switches to Jiggs and counterpicks you on Jiggs's best stage, Dreamland, because you weren't able to ban all of Bowser's good stages + all of Jiggs' good stages

note : I don't actually know if DL is Jiggs' best stage it's an example. Replace Jiggs with "Joe" and DL with "Joeland" if that helps you understand what I'm saying lol

 

[Blitzus]

Yup, that's what I've been telling them. And my region's top player is a Snake/Marth, so this kind of counterpicking happens ALL THE TIME to our top players (Snake and Marth have different good CPs so you can't ban all of that player's good stages with the amount of bans you're given - which was designed for single characters)

What he's saying is :
your opponent is a bowser, so you ban BF/FoD/WW
he switches to Jiggs and counterpicks you on Jiggs's best stage, Dreamland, because you weren't able to ban all of Bowser's good stages + all of Jiggs' good stages

note : I don't actually know if DL is Jiggs' best stage it's an example. Replace Jiggs with "Joe" and DL with "Joeland" if that helps you understand what I'm saying lol

More bans then?

 

[Leafeon]

More bans then?

yeah let's have 7 bans on a 10 stage stagelist so that we can always go to neutral stages

 

[Strong Badam]

If your opponent is good with two characters, then allocate your bans accordingly. Ban Marth's best stage and Snake's best stage. It's unreasonable to expect your opponent's stage versatility to not give him an advantage in the stage selection process.

 

[CORY]

then you end up eliminating counterpick advantage completely (or almost completely) for people who only play a single character (or whose characters have similar/same desired stages).

edit: this was in response to blitzus.

 

[Blitzus]

yeah let's have 7 bans on a 10 stage stagelist so that we can always go to neutral stages

Don't exaggerate, man. Most stage lists are like 2/3 bans in an 10/11 stage list.
Just up them by some, and maybe do character picking first if that proves inefficient.

then you end up eliminating counterpick advantage completely (or almost completely) for people who only play a single character (or whose characters have similar/same desired stages).

edit: this was in response to blitzus.

... Good point. Anyone chip in?

 

[Strong Badam]

3 bans with 10 stages + DSR leaves you with 0 stages left by game 5. Our stagelists are reaching a point where 2 stage bans is pretty cozy and 1 is probably optimal.

 

[4tlas]

If your opponent is good with two characters, then allocate your bans accordingly. Ban Marth's best stage and Snake's best stage. It's unreasonable to expect your opponent's stage versatility to not give him an advantage in the stage selection process.

And if you don't know he has a Marth and Snake? Furthermore, I don't see why its unreasonable to expect that their character versatility to not give an advantage in stage select. Their character versatility already gives them counterpick potential in the character matchup, why also the stage?

 

[TreK]

More bans then?

That would only be an even greater disadvantage to people who only have one character.

If your opponent is good with two characters, then allocate your bans accordingly. Ban Marth's best stage and Snake's best stage. It's unreasonable to expect your opponent's stage versatility to not give him an advantage in the stage selection process.

What you're saying here is that it's okay to give an incentive for people to play several characters over a single one.
And I don't think I agree in the context of PM. One of the game's main hooks is that it aims to be balanced for competitive play, which could be interpreted as "only play the characters you like, no need for secondaries". Giving the incentive for people to play several characters if they want to be successful takes away from PM's appeal, in my humble opinion.

Besides, even without covering more stages, having several characters would still cover more matchups and give you a potential surprise factor. "Characters first" only lowers the incentive for pocket characters, it doesn't really succeed in negating it completely.

 

[Rawkobo]

But "characters first" is equally awkward, is it not?

Say I win game 1. I stay Character A and my opponent switches to Character D from Character B. Following the original stage selection, I now get to ban 2 stages, which can effectively box the loser out of the game if you have matchup knowledge, which basically implies it rewards the more knowledgeable player more instead of giving the losing player a bit of a chance. Mind you, that's assuming I know how to play against Character D from Character A, but it starts to turn the top end of your local scene into a bit of an oligarchy.

Same sort of logic applies if I switch from Character A to Character Z and my opponent either a) switches or b) stays. I am now in control of where I want to play with Character Z, even if my opponent decided to switch to a more complicated matchup for Character Z by going to Character H.

With loser selects 3/4, I can see doing characters first because the loser is still technically being given an "equal opportunity," but I'm just not sure if it feels about right, especially since the number of stages that are actually reasonable for this cast without being polarizing is dropping.

Somebody can correct my logic if I'm wrong, I'm fine with that. Maybe there's something I'm missing here.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

Its also worth noting that secondaries still benefit in being able to go to your best stage for your second counterpick. So if I play character A and have a pocket B. I lose game 1 and there are 3 decent counterpicks. They ban 2 of them. I pick the third. I win, lose the next, now I can't pick another good counterpick because they can ban 2 and DSR prevents the third. A secondary gets around this.

*edit* The above was not in response to Rawkobo.

What characters first does it prevents either player from pulling a pocket character out and evading bans/bad stages. If you lost, it prevents the winner from switching characters to dodge bad stages. If you win, it allows you to have much more informed bans (without requiring you to know who they play). *edit*

 

[4tlas]

But "characters first" is equally awkward, is it not?

Say I win game 1. I stay Character A and my opponent switches to Character D from Character B. Following the original stage selection, I now get to ban 2 stages, which can effectively box the loser out of the game if you have matchup knowledge, which basically implies it rewards the more knowledgeable player more instead of giving the losing player a bit of a chance. Mind you, that's assuming I know how to play against Character D from Character A, but it starts to turn the top end of your local scene into a bit of an oligarchy.

Same sort of logic applies if I switch from Character A to Character Z and my opponent either a) switches or b) stays. I am now in control of where I want to play with Character Z, even if my opponent decided to switch to a more complicated matchup for Character Z by going to Character H.

With loser selects 3/4, I can see doing characters first because the loser is still technically being given an "equal opportunity," but I'm just not sure if it feels about right, especially since the number of stages that are actually reasonable for this cast without being polarizing is dropping.

Somebody can correct my logic if I'm wrong, I'm fine with that. Maybe there's something I'm missing here.

I don't understand what you're saying. Banning 2 stages with a stagelist of 10 is similar to "pick your poison", where the 3rd stage you would've banned has the most favorable combination of bad attributes. This does not change just because you know the matchup being banned for beforehand.

 

[Rawkobo]

What characters first does it prevents either player from pulling a pocket character out and evading bans/bad stages. If you lost, it prevents the winner from switching characters to dodge bad stages. If you win, it allows you to have much more informed bans (without requiring you to know who they play).

It doesn't really prevent much of anything, but it does promote smarter decision-making, which I'll admit is a fair point.

I don't understand what you're saying. Banning 2 stages with a stagelist of 10 is similar to "pick your poison", where the 3rd stage you would've banned has the most favorable combination of bad attributes. This does not change just because you know the matchup being banned for beforehand.

It took me a bit to digest this and I just realized you're talking about my point about "loser selects." Ok. I can see that, I guess.

 

[TheGravyTrain]

V
@ Rawkobo
It definitely does prevent stuff. If I win game one and have a character who likes big stages and one who likes small stages, I can ban for preference and pick whichever character likes the stage. Use whatever example characters you want, I can't be counterpicked. Sure, the loser still gets to adjust their character after mine, but I can totally dodge all bad stages for my characters (you do need to consider matchups though).

In the other half, the loser can make all bans useless by switching up the character unexpectedly. Whether all of these extra layers of strategy are to be frowned upon and removed is the real question. If you think needing to know who your opponent plays is fine and approve of these workarounds as legitimate skill to have (planning out who you play, etc...), then the current system is fine.

What people who want characters first are saying is that it is worth trying out another way. A way where bans aren't wasted and less tricks are permitted. The advantages of characters first are that neither player gets duped, as well as less hassle through the menus. Loser still gets to counterpick character, but the winners bans are more informed and the losers counterpick is much more assured as a counterpick, since it can't be ruined by a surprise pick. It also doesn't disadvantage those who know how to play multiple characters since they still are advantaged in matchups, DSR, and potentially still stages (having a Bowser, then also having an all around character that can do better on most stages for when you will be counterpicked). All in all, I think it deserves some testing in weeklies. Since smashing grounds experiments with new stagelists every season, maybe they will try it. @The_NZA