Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Shawn101589]

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?

I didn't think I was that unclear, but let me spell it out for you.


2 stocks means that if I SD once, I am already in gimp suicide range. It is taking the mistake of SDing, something fairly common in smash, and increasing the punishment for it. It is fact that killing yourself in our current ruleset puts you at a mathematical disadvantage, assuming you are even with your opponent. When you lose a life with only two stocks however, not only does this disadvantage exist, but the disadvantage is increased due to the threat of a shortened timer, and the threat of being suicide gimped for one mistake.

In order to counteract this, sets are going to be increased to a Bo7. While mathematically this equals out to pretty much the same number of stocks, I believe that just because there are the same amount of stocks does not undo the flaw the game itself has. What I'm saying is that, it doesn't matter how many games or sets are played; the fact that this flaw exists within the game undermines that.

If you want to remove "mistake forgiveness", do 1 stock. But 2 is a horrible middle ground.

 

[Hax]

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.

explain to me how i can play to win when i edgeguard the opponent such that he'd die on any other stage and randall pops out of yoshi's and saves his last stock. he then comes back to win the match

 

[Warhawk]

explain to me how i can play to win when i edgeguard the opponent such that he'd die on any other stage and randall pops out of yoshi's and saves his last stock. he then comes back to win the match

Doesn't randall have a 60 second cycle? So couldn't you account for when he's going to pop out if you pay attention to the timer and cover that option? More work and annoying but still possible to account for.

 

[Kal]

Only thing that will satisfy Kal

Spoiler

except hyrule​

You forgot Hyrule.

explain to me how i can play to win when i edgeguard the opponent such that he'd die on any other stage and randall pops out of yoshi's and saves his last stock. he then comes back to win the match

You could look at the timer, note that Randall is on his way, and perhaps mix it up a bit? I know telling the best Falcon ever to mix it up is a little silly, but come on.

 

[Hax]

expecting someone to memorize the ~60 occasions at which randall pops out from the side during an 8:00 match and learn how to adjust to them just to make randall skill-based is silly

and isai is the best falcon ever :<

 

[Shawn101589]

expecting someone to memorize the ~60 occasions at which randall pops out from the side during an 8:00 match and learn how to adjust to them just to make randall skill-based is silly

and isai is the best falcon ever :<

There is actually really easy trick to knowing when he is gonna come out... can't remember it off hand but it has to do with the minutes and seconds being odd or even i'm pretty sure. Bottom line it's something that can be accounted for.

 

[Kal]

You read it here first guys: ban Yoshi's Story because the easy, completely practical solution to any issues you have with it is silly.

And Isai is the best in title only. Like referring to ex-presidents as "Mr. President." You're still the boss around here.

 

[Warhawk]

expecting someone to memorize the ~60 occasions at which randall pops out from the side during an 8:00 match and learn how to adjust to them just to make randall skill-based is silly

and isai is the best falcon ever :<

I wasn't saying it wasn't tedious, just that it can be accounted for. I'm pretty sure I've seen Mang0 account for it before in a match while recovering once (or just got very lucky, but I doubt he shine stalled 3 times on a whim and then randall happened to save him).

 

[BigD!!!]

it pops out of the right side at x:54:99, x:34:99, and x:14:99 every minute

change the 5, 3, and 1 to 4, 3, and 0 and you have the times it pops out on the right

easy peasy

 

[ItalianStallion]

it pops out of the right side at x:54:99, x:34:99, and x:14:99 every minute

change the 5, 3, and 1 to 4, 3, and 0 and you have the times it pops out on the right

easy peasy

Uhhhhhhhh...............

 

[Hax]

even if there's a trick for it, it's anything but easy and practical. name someone who has simultaneously played high level melee and calculated/adjusted to randall's positioning during his matches and i'll concede my argument. i have no idea where the focus for something like that would come from in a game where you're constantly forced to make 1/6th of a second reactions and even better reads. i understand that randall follows a pattern that a TAS could theoretically calculate/adjust to while still playing perfect melee, but it's the sort of thing people would rather just let luck determine because learning to track it is way too difficult.

even if if were possible to track and adjust to randall, could you imagine FoD platforms or Dreamland wind? randall would be lightwork compared to them. FoD's platforms can literally make a difference depending on the pixel they're elevated. as in, the elevation that changes 60 times per second. do you really expect a person to learn to turn this into a skill-based feature by calculating down to sixtieths of a second? similarly, Dreamland wind can push you off of a platform or not depending on the exact frame it comes out/exactly how many pixels it pushes you. calculating these two are impossible.

or how about pokemon stadium's changing terrain, which is outright random and can determine matches? the rock and fire stages not only give fox an infinite, but are worse than some non-neutral stages..

 

[Kal]

An element of randomness does not warrant a ban, Hax. The fact is that you're throwing this tirade against randomness in stages, but not proposing any sort of fix to Peach's down-B. I have to wonder if that is because Peach is a character, or because you've come to admit that the actual impact of the randomness is important.

If it's the former, then there isn't much that I can say except that I think you're a chump for applying this logic to the stage list but not the character roster. If it's the latter, then you concede that you should, at the very least, provide more of an argument than simply presenting the random elements of these stages to us before they will be banned.

 

[Shawn101589]

An element of randomness does not warrant a ban, Hax. The fact is that you're throwing this tirade against randomness in stages, but not proposing any sort of fix to Peach's down-B. I have to wonder if that is because Peach is a character, or because you've come to admit that the actual impact of the randomness is important.

If it's the former, then there isn't much that I can say except that I think you're a chump for applying this logic to the stage list but not the character roster. If it's the latter, then you concede that you should, at the very least, provide more of an argument than simply presenting the random elements of these stages to us before they will be banned.

While I agree with you that dealing with Randal is something that can be overcome, and FOD can be overcome by stage striking it, there is a difference between stages and characters. A huge difference. Banning a stage does not have NEARLY the same drastic effect of change to our game that banning a character does. Your argument is flawed. By your logic, tripping in Brawl is fine. Randomness is random and counter intuitive to competitive play.

 

[Hax]

I figured it was obvious that I meant randomness should only equal a ban when it applies to the stages, which are of much less magnitude than characters lol...

EDIT: BAN PEACH AND GAME AND WATCH

AND LUIGI

 

[Strong Badam]

FoD's platforms go up and down randomly. They aren't on a timer.
Just saiyan

Also that G&W only ruleset: Not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure port priority could decide the outcome of a lot of those LOL. I'd have to check G&W's dthrow.

 

[Shawn101589]

I figured it was obvious that I meant randomness should only equal a ban when it applies to the stages, which are of much less magnitude than characters lol...

EDIT: BAN PEACH AND GAME AND WATCH

Luigi yo

v_v

 

[Kal]

While I agree with you that dealing with Randal is something that can be overcome, and FOD can be overcome by stage striking it, there is a difference between stages and characters. A huge difference. Banning a stage does not have NEARLY the same drastic effect of change to our game that banning a character does. Your argument is flawed. By your logic, tripping in Brawl is fine. Randomness is random and counter intuitive to competitive play.

How does my logic imply that tripping is fine? There is nothing that can be done about tripping. It's a design flaw (if you choose to see it as such). As a rule of thumb, "by your logic" is a good indicator that the argument to follow is going to suck. You've reinforced this rule of thumb. Thanks.

Yes, banning a character has an arguably larger impact on the metagame than banning a stage. This does not make my logic flawed. This makes it harder to follow this ridiculous "anti-randomness" ideal. There's no way around it: you either bite the bullet and accept that Peach (or her down-B; good luck banning that one) should be banned, or you admit that there are exceptions to what is banned due to randomness alone. If you're going to say that Peach is an exception because she is a character, I'm going to say that that is an arbitrary, silly distinction. Randomness is randomness. The game's results don't know the difference between Peach's turnip randomly impacting a match and Brinstar's lava randomly impacting a match.

 

[Shawn101589]

How does my logic imply that tripping is fine? There is nothing that can be done about tripping. It's a design flaw (if you choose to see it as such). As a rule of thumb, "by your logic" is a good indicator that the argument to follow is going to suck. You've reinforced this rule of thumb. Thanks.

An element of randomness does not warrant a ban

Tripping = randomness that greatly effects the outcome of the game. Your whole argument is saying that randomness should not warrant a ban. You condone randomness.


I love it when peoples arguments devolve into insults though. Please, keep posting.

 

[Kal]

Obviously, I meant that being random does not necessarily warrant a ban. In other words, if it were the case that everything random should be banned, you would clearly be in favor of banning Peach (or at least her down-B). Would I be in favor of banning tripping? Hell yes. It has a huge impact on the results of matches and provides little in terms of depth. Sadly, tripping is not something that can be disabled.

It's too bad that you're more intent on mischaracterizing my argument than actually responding to it.

 

[Warhawk]

I think the instances where randall helps someone edgeguard are far worse than him saving someone. Usually when he saves someone they end up dying within seconds of being saved anyways or the other person can adjust before it happens and kill the player. For some characters there is simply nothing you can do when a character can use randall to get farther off stage to cut your recovery options off and kill you.

 

[Shawn101589]

Obviously, I meant that being random does not necessarily warrant a ban. In other words, if it were the case that everything random should be banned, you would clearly be in favor of banning Peach (or at least her down-B). Would I be in favor of banning tripping? Hell yes. It has a huge impact on the results of matches and provides little in terms of depth. Sadly, tripping is not something that can be disabled.

It's too bad that you're more intent on mischaracterizing my argument than actually responding to it.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm trying to figure out where it is your draw the line. Because, what you are saying now is that there IS an extent to which randomness should be banned. Yet, you criticize myself and Hax for believing that there is a difference between character banning and stage banning.

If I can quote you:

If you're going to say that Peach is an exception because she is a character, I'm going to say that that is an arbitrary, silly distinction. Randomness is randomness.

Don't assume I am mischaracterizing your arguments. Cacutaur said it best when he said it's more a religion than science. To argue that we shouldn't draw the line SOMEWHERE when it comes to randomness is saying that nothing random should be banned.


If you'd rather spend your time insulting me then addressing me, just don't respond to me please lol

 

[Warhawk]

Tripping = randomness that greatly effects the outcome of the game. Your whole argument is saying that randomness should not warrant a ban. You condone randomness.

So this isn't mischaracterizing his argument? You're implying that his argument is ok with major random effects including tripping, which isn't true. He's not saying there isn't a line in banning something for random effects, he's using the same logic typically applied to stage banning: Is the random effects of the stage a greater influence on the outcome of a match than the influence generated by Peach's random turnip pulls (Peach being used since we don't ban her for the influence of random chance in her character). In the case of YS and DL I would say no.

 

[Kal]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm trying to figure out where it is your draw the line. Because, what you are saying now is that there IS an extent to which randomness should be banned. Yet, you criticize myself and Hax for believing that there is a difference between character banning and stage banning.

No, what I'm criticizing you for is this stance that all randomness in stages should be banned, but that randomness in characters is ok. It's completely arbitrary.

Don't assume I am mischaracterizing your arguments.

I don't have to assume you are doing it. You are doing it.

Cacutaur said it best when he said it's more a religion than science. To argue that we shouldn't draw the line SOMEWHERE when it comes to randomness is saying that nothing random should be banned.

There is clearly a line. That line isn't "characters vs. stages." The line is a degree of impacting results. For most people, that line seems to be the amount that Peach's turnip does it (the so-called "Peach's turnip threshold"), likely because they don't want to see a beloved (or not so beloved) character go.

Again, you're mischaracterizing my argument. I do think that randomness should be banned in some cases. But those cases are when results are severely impacted by it. It has nothing to do with what the randomness is, e.g. whether it is a stage or a move. No, I don't think tripping is ok, and I do think it would be better off banned if that were a possibility.

And dude, where did you get that avatar? It's freaking me the **** out.

 

[Shawn101589]

There is clearly a line. That line isn't "characters vs. stages." The line is a degree of impacting results. For most people, that line seems to be the amount that Peach's turnip does it (the so-called "Peach's turnip threshold"), likely because they don't want to see a beloved (or not so beloved) character go.

The entire point of this ruleset proposal is that the lines we've drawn within our game is artificial. The fact that I value characters more than I value stages is a stance I am not willing to drop. I personally think the Peach Threshold is a load of malarkey.

What I'm really saying is, we all agree that there is a line. Arguing where the line should be placed is part of what this is all about. Telling me I can't put stages in one category and characters in another is telling me where the line should be. I think playing on a stage with random stage hazards is far worse than playing against a character with random aspects. That is my opinion, and I considering what our stage list is in our current ruleset, I don't think I'm the only person with that mindset.

And dude, where did you get that avatar? It's freaking me the **** out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqzt3T4R38c

 

[Kal]

My point isn't that you can't draw that line. It's that the line is arbitrary. The game's results don't know the difference between a stage's random impact and a character's.

And that video was some serious high octane nightmare fuel. All-nighters for the rest of my life, here I come.

 

[Psychoace]

Why remove comeback potential? Part of being a good player is the ability to adapt.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

You can come back in the set. Its bo7. U have just as much time to adapt, and its more segmented so you can actually remember how you lost your stocks and change your game accordingly.

 

[Jolteon]

randall's timer is really easy to learn, you don't need TAS qualities to know it lol

 

[Divinokage]

Why remove comeback potential? Part of being a good player is the ability to adapt.

Ok but what's stopping anyone to adapt during the set in a bo7? It should usually take max 1 game to learn the playstyle of someone and then adapt to whatever he does. And then if he adapts to you then you adapt to him.. it all happens inside the game.

 

[Cactuar]

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.

Actually, my plan was to do both.

In an individual match, with less stock, each stock becomes more important to the outcome of the match, while less important in the outcome of the set.

From a logic point of view, every change I've made is backed pretty soundly. The only thing to overcome is the resistance to chance, which is significant between considering how long we have used the previous standard and how radical of a difference this alternate provides.


@Hax: I've been thinking... What if battlefield was the first stage in every set, and everything else was a counterpick? I would hope it isn't really a surprise to anyone that BF is the most neutral of the neutrals. You would still get a handful of bans (probably 1 for every 3 or 4 stages legal), so you would be able to eliminate the stages your character is absolutely worst on. Falcon actually plays a lot better on a bunch of the counterpick stages, as a lot of them either give him more room to move around, or they force the opponent to play a vertical heavy game, where Falcon really shines because of his strong uair sharking ability and the amount of space he can control below him with drifting stomps.

 

[Kal]

Obviously, I would prefer striking down to a stage, though this will provide a disadvantage for worse characters (which is not unusual), and might be somewhat cumbersome. I think striking from a smaller list of stages then allowing counterpicks for the following matches is a practical solution.

 

[clowsui]

Not tryna get infracted or anything but WTF

KAL AND CACTUAR ARE AGREEING!?!!!?!

what has this world come to

 

[Kal]

It's only temporary. Give it some time and Cactus will want Mute City banned and we'll become enemies again.

 

[Cactuar]

Mute City is banned where I want it to be banned, and legal where I want it to be legal.

 

[Silent Wolf]

i am 100% with you on making matches shorter. 5 minutes tops imo. but to me, all of these seem like good reasons matches are 4 stocks rather than 3/2

2) They provide accident forgiveness for the either player.
3) They increase the importance of individual matches.
5) increases combeback potential.

these things are only there for your benefit if youre the better player. its not unfair

edit: you made some good points. i still think 2 stocks is bananas tho. 3 would be ok

 

[pheX]

Actually i might try this on the small Smashfest i'm hosting this weekend as a "fun-event"

 

[Hax]

pretty obvious that Kal is playing devil's advocate at this point

Charles, imo the set should start on battlefield/battlefield cannot be banned/battlefield is not affected by DSR. that would provide a nice balance between the variety people want to see and the reduction of jank that we want to see

 

[Kal]

Yeah, forty-seven pages of debate on the MBR thread were clearly just to make absolutely sure Cactus had consistent internal logic.

 

[Silent Wolf]

btw im all for more stages. people are *****es about cool stages

/fox player

 

[Divinokage]

Such is the community SW.