Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Divinokage]

Oh ya floats, I always forget about that stage lol. I don't really like it though.

 

[-ACE-]

Forget Cruise and use Pokefloats instead. It has way better music.

I second this. most of the stages people are suggesting are so ****ing stupid we should just go with the ones with the best music.

^^

 

[Mr Postman]

The rule set is fine the way it is now.
I hope I never have to play with 2 stocks and get my *** shined over and over.

 

[flantasticflan]

I second this. most of the stages people are suggesting are so ****ing stupid we should just go with the ones with the best music.

^^

i approve, i'm tired of hearing yoshi music

 

[Thats-husbands-color]

No chance of adapting to player habits. Accendtly suicidin pretty much ends a match which is dumb. Comebacks are less exciting. Sets will actually probably take longer due to thinking about counterpicking stages and characters. The only time I hear about peeps complaing about matches taking a while is when peeps play campy characters like young link or jiggs.

Look most matches end in 2-4 min. Not long at all. If your worried about matches taking too long just either make a char match up chart for campy characters where if you play for example peach vs jiggs. Then the time is limited to 5 min....OR just lower down the time limit to like 5 or 6 min. Just about EVERY match that lasts over 5 min will prob last 8 min. So just lower the time limit and keep the rest the same.

Nifty idea but really dislike it

 

[Jdietz43]

These rules seem good... but can I make some suggestions?:

NO ITEMS, FOX ONLY, FINAL DESTINATION.

 

[da K.I.D.]

to be honest. 4 stock 5 minutes doesnt even sound unreasonable.

 

[chaddd]

I've honestly never felt like games run too long for Melee. Not unless Young Link is playing a Jigglypuff for $3000.

 

[Binx]

The way it is now spacies vs spacies or most fast falling characters vs most slow falling characters takes 3 minutes or so sometimes less, with a 3 minute timer it becomes WAY more viable for Fox to laser peach 3 times and run away for the rest of the match.

Here let me propose a rule set almost as ********, both players strike one stage out of fd, dreamland, and pokemon stadium, then you play on the remaining stage in a Bo1 with 10 stocks and a 20 minute timer, there, now your goal of having max camping games reduced to 21 minutes has been improve AND you eliminate any extra time spent counterpicking or deciding characters, at the beginning of the tournament everyone has to pick one and only one character they use for the entire thing to eliminate people counterpicking for bad match ups.

I just dont see the problem with the way we currently do things, one match out of every 50 is timed out and is boring, at only the absolute highest levels of play.

 

[Binx]

I've honestly never felt like games run too long for Melee. Not unless Young Link is playing a Jigglypuff for $3000.

qft 10chars
2linez

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

I really hope you update/elaborate on your stage list soon.

I don't think that using this set to reduce time taken in matches will work when you risk having sets take a while due to time outs thanks to circle camping.

I like Hyrule Temple, but there's a reason it's banned.

Other than that, I wanna see where this road of 2 stock, 3 minutes sets goes.

 

[Dan Salvato]

to be honest. 4 stock 5 minutes doesnt even sound unreasonable.

Perhaps you haven't played enough Links. ;]

Anyway, my point is that some characters or match-ups simply demand either fewer stocks or less time. If there's at least one floater, it's extremely unlikely that either player will make a 3-stock comeback. I also feel like bo3 isn't enough, and with 4 stocks, sets would simply get longer by employing a bo5. So, it makes sense to subtract a stock.

 

[Awstintacious]

I think that you gave very little justification for each point. You used tons of circular logic. Arguing that a player should win just because the opponent SD's very early is harsh, if they mess up and get combo'd to death, that is one thing, a straight up SD can be very random. Making matches more random is bad as I feel that Player Skill is the thing that should be maximized. That could include learning stages much better than others, but raw technicality, spacing, edgeguarding, and combo proficiency should be the core of the game. I think that you bring up a good idea in evaluating whether some characters are better at attrition than others, but giving characters less stocks won't change how many times they can get in. Yoshi can get 0-gimped just as fast as he can combo a fox. Also not sure if this whole OP is trolling and if he got others to troll with him.

 

[Dan Salvato]

I think that you gave very little justification for each point. You used tons of circular logic. Arguing that a player should win just because the opponent SD's very early is harsh, if they mess up and get combo'd to death, that is one thing, a straight up SD can be very random. Making matches more random is bad as I feel that Player Skill is the thing that should be maximized. That could include learning stages much better than others, but raw technicality, spacing, edgeguarding, and combo proficiency should be the core of the game. I think that you bring up a good idea in evaluating whether some characters are better at attrition than others, but giving characters less stocks won't change how many times they can get in. Yoshi can get 0-gimped just as fast as he can combo a fox. Also not sure if this whole OP is trolling and if he got others to troll with him.

You're right in that the core of the game should be technicality, spacing, edgeguarding, and combo proficiency. The question is, should these techniques be the exact same every game you play? You should be forced to change your strategies, spacing, or combos depending on the situation instead of having a single-shot strategy that either wins or loses. Including more matches per set, as well as stage variety, supports that idea.

 

[clowsui]

I think that you gave very little justification for each point. You used tons of circular logic. Arguing that a player should win just because the opponent SD's very early is harsh, if they mess up and get combo'd to death, that is one thing, a straight up SD can be very random. Making matches more random is bad as I feel that Player Skill is the thing that should be maximized. That could include learning stages much better than others, but raw technicality, spacing, edgeguarding, and combo proficiency should be the core of the game. I think that you bring up a good idea in evaluating whether some characters are better at attrition than others, but giving characters less stocks won't change how many times they can get in. Yoshi can get 0-gimped just as fast as he can combo a fox. Also not sure if this whole OP is trolling and if he got others to troll with him.

Not SD'ing is a part of player skill and is also a result of developing the "core skills" you mentioned lol

And you missed the point of less stocks/more games

 

[UnkaM]

I've honestly never felt like games run too long for Melee. Not unless Young Link is playing a Jigglypuff for $3000.

Pretty much this.

2 stocks takes a lot of hype and suspense out of the game, unless there's a puff.. and a young link...

 

[Awstintacious]

I get the point of less stocks and less time, they just don't accomplish his stated goals for his stated reasons. Variability is increased as you don't have time to adapt in games. You are supposed to adapt by playing a game on a different stage, and the change is supposed to happen between games? I'm sorry but the way I adapt is on the fly, they punish me, I note it and try to avoid playing into that line of punish. The melee I play and see payed is always fast paced, interesting, and never plays out the same ways. As the commentators at Apex said, the GFs were like games of chess, where sure the game takes longer, but the way you pay is completely different for some MU's. That is part of what you guys are saying you want. More changes to how people usually play. No character is currently high on the tiers because of the current stage list or timer. Floaties have actualy been losing their high ceiling Counterpicks. Low tiers usually have poor movement so adding nonlinear stages would just make them worse.

 

[YOSHIDO]

I love the rule set. This makes outplaying characters a lot more plausible with evenly matched people. Cactuar hit everything on the head about non-viable vs viable character matchups. Plus I like how this doesn't effect player vs player. This rule set will also get people to stop complaining about zoning/camping strategies. Its hard to say anything when a time out at max would only take 3 mins. This will give a new sense of urgency to the game. Players with have to catch on a lot quicker to why they lost. I haven't thought too much about the stages but I do miss Kongo jungles. I hope tourney holders start experimenting with this. My only tweek would maybe be best of 5 for regular tourney and best of 7 for finals. But yeah I love the idea.

 

[ItalianStallion]

So I tried the 2 stock, 3 minute timer rule set out against some CPU's (I am not around other smashers), and I realized some things:

1. It does seem to really favor the "burst DPS" style rather than the "sustained DPS/attrition" style. Instead of matches of attrition, things like gaining a quick upper hand and exploiting on that with combos/techchases/reads become way more important. What this means to me is more exciting play for the most part. Sure there will be people wanting to camp and time people out, but that is a way to win. And with the matches being so short, we will have tense moments of one character trying to catch another in the final 15 seconds to gain that percentage back. However, I can't see everything revolving around timeouts. I as a player don't like timing people out in general. I can see myself doing it if I am in the lead and I notice the timer is at 15 seconds, but I will never go into a match planning on timing people out. And I believe most people wouldn't either. Since this "burst" play is encouraged with fewer stocks and less time, more matches will be decided on exciting combos and quick turnarounds/comebacks.

2. Because of this "burst" style being favored, it also has good things in line for some low tiers. I love Mewtwo. He is my favorite character. But after a year or so of consistently losing with him to my friends Peach, I decided to practice with high tier characters instead like Fox and Falcon. The reason is because Fox and Falcon can partake in a war of attrition and come out the victor. Mewtwo has an insanely hard time of doing that. Mewtwo can have moments and streaks where he can gain a lead, but in a 4 stock match, a higher tier character will most likely leave the victor. Just the prospect of being able to use Mewtwo in a tourney makes me love this rule set. Although, I would prefer we don't add too many stages in.

So, I support this rule set because I want to main Mewtwo for tourneys, not have to deal with 4 stock matches where my character has to fight in a war of attrition that he can barely do in comparison to characters like Peach. Overall, the tier list won't change in the fact that the top characters will still be top, but there won't be such a huge gap between high tier and low tier characters. And that would be a fantastic thing for smash.

 

[Landry]

I just don't see this becoming popular. Not that I find anything particularly objectionable about it but I think people have become pretty set in there ways at this point in Melee's lifespan.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Perhaps you haven't played enough Links. ;]

For what its worth, I personally had to sit there and watch you get bopped by everyone in your pool at apex. It didnt seem like it took that long =P

 

[C_Ferris32]

Alright ladies, I know how we can settle this. Here's my proposal:

- 1 Stock
- 1 Minute Time Limit
- Sudden Death
- Mr. G&W only
- Neutrals: KJ64, Fourside, Flatzone
- Counterpicks: Rainbow Cruise, Event 51, Mute City
- Best of 37

/thread

 

[RaphaelRobo]

You can counterpick your opponent to event 51? How does that work?

 

[Kal]

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

 

[Awstintacious]

At Italian Stallion. Making the games have less stocks won't change ANYTHING about how "burst" characters play vs "long game chars" You have the same chance of "bursting" on the opponent comparatively. They can still play that attrition game, even better may I add because they can use the clock more effectively because the time per stock is less by .5 minutes. You only make it so you might take more games over the opponent because you might get your combo the two times you need THAT game. You won't take any more matches if you think statistically.

 

[Varist]

Are they truly exaggerations though? I suppose only playtesting will tell. So I guess that kind of goes back to the entire purpose of your thread; feedback from playtesting.


I'm playing with a bunch of Rhode Islanders today, but I'd like a somewhat more structured ruleset to go by if we are going to be testing it. Can you name your definite bans and then we will test it further from there?


And, having been with the community for a long time, when the stages that have been banned throughout the years were being banned, were you on board with the decisions, undecided, or against them, and what were the reasons for those thoughts at the time?

EDIT: And I'm going to be doing 3 stocks. 2 stocks punishes far to strongly for an SD imo.

That edit at the bottom discredits every argument you have made up until now.

You're not even thinking in the context of the ruleset. You need to be thinking about the set, not the game.

Pink means alternate ruleset blue means default ruleset.

In this ruleset, SDs matter far less. Realize that,

In the default ruleset, we have 4 stocks and 3 games.
We have then, 12 stocks to play with over the course of the set assuming each player is evenly matched.

In the alternate ruleset, we have 2 stocks and 7 games.
We have then, 14 stocks to play with over the course of the set assuming each player is evenly matched.

Looking at stocks alone, SDing one stock makes less difference in our alternative ruleset. But even this argument is looking at it in the wrong context (it is merely to transition you into doubting yourself in case you're a stubborn person).

Observe that, if two players were evenly-matched, playing a Bo3 with 4 stocks, and one player SDs, because they are evenly matched, he will theoretically lose the match.

Observe that in the default ruleset this would mean he lost 1/3 of the set.

Now, observe in the alternate ruleset, that under the same conditions, but in a Bo7 with 2 stocks, if one player SDs, because they are evenly matched, he will theoretically lose the match.

Observe that in the alternate ruleset this would mean he only lost 1/7 of the set.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

I think it's an awesome idea that should totally be taken seriously.

 

[ItalianStallion]

At Italian Stallion. Making the games have less stocks won't change ANYTHING about how "burst" characters play vs "long game chars" You have the same chance of "bursting" on the opponent comparatively. They can still play that attrition game, even better may I add because they can use the clock more effectively because the time per stock is less by .5 minutes. You only make it so you might take more games over the opponent because you might get your combo the two times you need THAT game. You won't take any more matches if you think statistically.

You may have a point here, but it sure felt different to me. I felt that I could ride my "combo-train" towards a win. A feeling I never got when I would play with Mewtwo and 4 stocks. With 4 stocks, I knew I had to play an attrition game (Which sucks with Mewtwo). Bursts wouldn't win it, they would just help me a little bit. In this rule set, bursts can win it. I really feel like it would help low tiers more. Although to be honest, I would have to play against people to have a more legit opinion.

 

[Hax]

just saying that if i ever proposed this, not a single person would agree. JPOBS' post is the truth.

i'm sorry charles but by no means do i agree with any aspect of this...

"more stages"
this is the opposite direction melee should go in. any stage outside of bf/fd/dl64 isn't even remotely neutral; ps/fod/ys all have luckbased or pseudo-luckbased features that frequently give or take stocks. i can't even imagine what stage outside of the above 6 you're even considering here..

while the wind on dl64 is the least of the stage hazards, the fact that it's outside of the player's control and has the potential to interfere with gameplay should make dl64 a banned stage. also, without yoshi's in the same stagelist, characters such as peach and jigglypuff would suddenly be buffed without a small stage to negate DL64.

FD degenerates the game by such a large margin that it shouldn't be legal either. 0 to 80 chaingrabs are EXTREMELY low-input/high-output and should not be in the game

i have a zero tolerance policy for luck and degradation of gameplay (the reduction of skill necessary) and so should everybody if melee is to be treated as a competitive game. Battlefield should be the only legal stage.

"2 stocks"
how could reducing the sample size so drastically possibly create a more skill-based game? a perfect example of a great game being ruined (not ruined, but made much more luck-based) by this exact practice is Marvel 3. Marvel 3 is a GREAT game other than the fact that characters die in 1 hit, essentially making it "first person to 3 hits wins." for this reason, tournament sets often come down to ONE mistake, ONE x-factor cancel etc. as a result, a lot of people consider it to be the most luck-based fighter of all time/a bad game. if melee were 2 stocks/match, games would come down a single pivotal moment. also, an SD would basically be a game loss.

if it weren't for increasingly defensive gameplay dominating as of late (hbox/armada/shroomed/etc) i'd propose 5 stock games. in matchups where the gameplay is deeper than throwing bombs/pills and running away, you'll always witness people constantly adapting to their opponents. in such matchups, 8 stocks often isn't enough. perfect example is me vs javi; i was reading him like a book towards the end but by then it was already too late. 2 game/4 stock sets often leave people wondering if a larger sample size would have yielded different results. i wouldn't go as far as to propose Bo5 in every match because tournaments wouldn't finish, but like i said, if it weren't for people not approaching whatsoever 5 stocks should have been the norm to begin with

 

[Mota]

If it ain't broke

 

[UnkaM]

I can just see "gimp" characters like marth and fox only getting stronger with this rule set. I don't really mind the rule set, mainly because of the set time and it basically ruins a lot of puffs camping play style. But other than that its hard to adapt to 2 stocks, It would take a lot of testing to take this rule set seriously imho.

 

[ItalianStallion]

I can just see "gimp" characters like marth and fox only getting stronger with this rule set. I don't really mind the rule set, mainly because of the set time and it basically ruins a lot of puffs camping play style. But other than that its hard to adapt to 2 stocks, It would take a lot of testing to take this rule set seriously imho.

To me, I think it would be a good thing if in order to get players to high level, they would need to adapt quickly. Why we are arguing for players who can't adapt quickly is weird to me. As a community, we should always try to improve.

Plus, although the individual games would be shorter, the number of stocks throughout the set stays the same. So you do still have a good amount of time to adapt.

 

[Hax]

except it is broke. couple of things terribly wrong with the stage list i came up with off the top of my head:

if Falcon doesn't win the first game of a set vs Peach or Falco (or Pikachu lol) he gets counterpicked to either FD or FoD (since you can't ban both) and practically gives them game 3 unless he plays absolutely incredible.

having Yoshi's and FoD in the same stagelist artificially favors characters who excel on smaller stage. essentially, the stagelist reads: FD, BF, DL64, Yoshi's, Yoshi's #2 (FoD). when im up against Fox i have to win game 1 or else he cp's me to either Yoshi's/FoD game 3 (i can't ban both) and has a huge advantage. Falco too; he's broken on Yoshi's/FoD as well as FD

(while the above 2 examples are Falcon-related i'm sure plenty of other characters are faced with the same situation)

countless matches that have been either decided or altered in the slightest by stage hazards...

forget it BF only will never happen because the smash community would rather have slightly more diversity over a MUCH more balanced game

 

[theONEjanitor]

You're basically suggesting a completely different game. You're not improving anything with this ruleset, you're just changing it.

The tier list will change, but there will still be a tier list. The strategies will change, but there will still be optimal strategies.

It's like, let's play a game of basketball, but instead of using a basketball, lets use a soccer ball, and make it 2 on 2 rather than 5 on 5.

Look, guys. We play an extremely fun, but dumb game with unbalanced stages and characters; one that rewards extreme camping at the highest level (apparently). Get used to it, or just play a different game.

If you want to change the game to apeal to the FGC, that's fine, but understand that you will be COMPROMISING if you do that. You won't be "fixing" anything. You'll be -changing- the game to fit their standards. Which, i'm not even saying is a bad thing. It might be just what we need to do.

 

[Kal]

I was wondering how long it would take for Hax to come in and obnoxiously proclaim that Battlefield is the only fair stage. Summary: the cloud moves on Yoshi's Story, Dreamland has wind, Final Destination allows for some chaingrabs, Pokémon Stadium transformifies, and Fountain of Dreams is bad for Falcon. Ban the **** out of them.

forget it BF only will never happen because the smash community would rather have slightly more diversity over a MUCH more balanced game

I find this sentiment funny, since mine is:

Forget it, a non-scrubby ruleset will never happen because the Smash community would rather have removed any aspect of gameplay they dislike than simply play to win.

You're basically suggesting a completely different game. You're not improving anything with this ruleset, you're just changing it.

The tier list will change, but there will still be a tier list. The strategies will change, but there will still be optimal strategies.

Has he said otherwise? The choice between two stock, four stock, Time Mode, Bonus Melee, and Coin Mode is arbitrary. We choose what we like. This is just a suggestion to try out a different (equally arbitrary) choice, and see if we like it. Yes, he's listed pros and cons, but those will exist for any choice, since there isn't going to be a "best" one.

It's like, let's play a game of basketball, but instead of using a basketball, lets use a soccer ball, and make it 2 on 2 rather than 5 on 5.

This analogy kind of discredits anything you've ever said or are ever going to say, but I'll let it slide and respond to the rest of your post.

Look, guys. We play an extremely fun, but dumb game with unbalanced stages and characters; one that rewards extreme camping at the highest level (apparently). Get used to it, or just play a different game.

Wow, this is totally constructive. Because there is a plethora of games we can play that are similar to Smash.

If you want to change the game to apeal to the FGC, that's fine, but understand that you will be COMPROMISING if you do that. You won't be "fixing" anything. You'll be -changing- the game to fit their standards. Which, i'm not even saying is a bad thing. It might be just what we need to do.

This hasn't been about gaining acceptance from other fighting game communities, nor has it ever been. He mentions that it's similar to other fighting games as an aside, not as the end-all justification for this ruleset. I mean, just read the thread. You don't remember this exchange? Cactuar clearly doesn't give a **** about what other fighting game communities think of us. Thanks for the strawman strawmen, though.

And, for the record, we have compromised on just about everything to satisfy the scrubbiness of this community. How many stages have we banned for reasons outside of brokenness? How many times have we banned Wobbling solely because it makes players feel icky? I'm all for maintaining the game's integrity, but:

1) This game's integrity has been in critical health since 2006, and it has more or less died with the most recent tentative MBR ruleset. Cut me a ****ing break.
2) The choice to play two stock, four stock, time, coin, bonus, etc., is arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the game's integrity.

 

[Comrade]

If it ain't broke

Truth.
10truths.

 

[Varist]

Only thing that will satisfy Kal

except hyrule​

 

[KrIsP!]

Looking at stocks alone, SDing one stock makes less difference in our alternative ruleset. But even this argument is looking at it in the wrong context (it is merely to transition you into doubting yourself in case you're a stubborn person).

Observe that, if two players were evenly-matched, playing a Bo3 with 4 stocks, and one player SDs, because they are evenly matched, he will theoretically lose the match.

Observe that in the default ruleset this would mean he lost 1/3 of the set.

Now, observe in the alternate ruleset, that under the same conditions, but in a Bo7 with 2 stocks, if one player SDs, because they are evenly matched, he will theoretically lose the match.

Observe that in the alternate ruleset this would mean he only lost 1/7 of the set.

I've noticed this and wondered, wasn't Cactuar's plan to reduce forgiveness towards SDs? I mean I see his logic, if you SD with 4 stocks it's very easy to make a comeback, but common sense has to kick in and say that there's an equal reaction in what your saying here. Also, with more games that compliment busts, wouldn't that just give more power to counter-picks rather than taking away from it which is what Cactuar had mentioned should be the result. I dunno maybe I'm confused and should reread OP.

 

[Shawn101589]

That edit at the bottom discredits every argument you have made up until now.

Not really sure how that discredits anything I've said... but ok.

You're not even thinking in the context of the ruleset. You need to be thinking about the set, not the game.

Pink means alternate ruleset blue means default ruleset.

In this ruleset, SDs matter far less. Realize that,

In the default ruleset, we have 4 stocks and 3 games.
We have then, 12 stocks to play with over the course of the set assuming each player is evenly matched.

In the alternate ruleset, we have 2 stocks and 7 games.
We have then, 14 stocks to play with over the course of the set assuming each player is evenly matched.

Looking at stocks alone, SDing one stock makes less difference in our alternative ruleset. But even this argument is looking at it in the wrong context (it is merely to transition you into doubting yourself in case you're a stubborn person).

Observe that, if two players were evenly-matched, playing a Bo3 with 4 stocks, and one player SDs, because they are evenly matched, he will theoretically lose the match.

Observe that in the default ruleset this would mean he lost 1/3 of the set.

Now, observe in the alternate ruleset, that under the same conditions, but in a Bo7 with 2 stocks, if one player SDs, because they are evenly matched, he will theoretically lose the match.

Observe that in the alternate ruleset this would mean he only lost 1/7 of the set.

What you are basically saying here is that in the grand scheme of things, games are not as important now as they are in our current ruleset. I'm not sure that this makes any sense whatsoever. :/ If losing a stock can skew a game/can skew a set/ can skew the results that far, why does it matter? It's taking a disadvantage that already exists (being down one stock) and increasing it (being more susceptible to gimp suicides). The fact that there are more games and more sets does not undermine this. Just because mathematically it balances out to the same doesn't mean anything. Stocks are the bottom line, games are determined by them, games determine sets. If the game if flawed, the rest is flawed. Saying it mathematically adds up does not change this because it doesn't work like that.

 

[Varist]

Not really sure how that discredits anything I've said... but ok.




What you are basically saying here is that in the grand scheme of things, games are not as important now as they are in our current ruleset. I'm not sure that this makes any sense whatsoever. :/ If losing a stock can skew a game/can skew a set/ can skew the results that far, why does it matter? It's taking a disadvantage that already exists (being down one stock) and increasing it (being more susceptible to gimp suicides). The fact that there are more games and more sets does not undermine this. Just because mathematically it balances out to the same doesn't mean anything. Stocks are the bottom line, games are determined by them, games determine sets. If the game if flawed, the rest is flawed. Saying it mathematically adds up does not change this because it doesn't work like that.

i literally did not understand a single part of what you wrote or what you were trying to address.

you're not kage's little brother are you?