late to the party - dont like this ruleset
I think this ruleset seems worse than the current ruleset. I haven't read most of the thread but I"ll reply to the OP. sorry this post is so long, the stuff in italics is from the OP.
"Simply put, 4 stock matches are too long. I'm not sure why we never really reevaluated using 4 stock, but it really just seems that we use it because we have always used it. There are a ton of problems that are the result of using 4 stock, but these are the ones that I have chosen to address. "
I don’t think that our matches are too long, for the most part. I’m fine with 3-5 minute matches and if it takes longer then so be it.
An effect of the amount of time and number of stock in a match combined with the reduced stage list is that we have an increased separation between viable and non-viable characters. This separation is caused by a lack of variables for non-viables to work with, as, due to the prior statements, we have removed stages that do not look and feel roughly similar to what we have deemed competitive, which, as stated before, has been sculpted by needs formed due to prior ruleset evolutions. The current non-viable characters are not viable because they simply do not have as many options vs viable characters. This causes them to have relatively two dimensional play, and often suffer at the whim of equally two dimensional responses from viable characters (Fox's Bair and Sheik's Dthrow come to mind).
I think the play will be equally 2 dimensional with shorter matches and on other stages. And I’m pretty sure that when it comes down to it, what really causes the separation between the “viable” and “non-viable” characters is just the fairness of the ruleset. If there are elements of randomness in matches, that will be better for the player/ character that was at a disadvantage to begin with. So I feel like, “sorry your character is bad, but I don’t want to make a less fair ruleset just to accommodate you.”
To further expand on this idea in a way that many of you will hopefully understand: non-viables are essentially Burst, while viables are essentially Sustained DPS. Non-viables rely on being able to use very small windows of opportunity to do their damage, while viables are given the tools to control and damage their opponent throughout the match. The issue here is that most of the viable characters have the ability to play as Burst as well, further removing non-viables from use.
How will this be any different with shorter matches and on more stages??
Another effect is that the length of matches basically acts as accident forgiveness... for the better player. Given two players, one slightly better than the other, a mistake, lets say an SD by the better of the two, at 4 stock each is often not a big deal. The lesser player will often slack off slightly, the better player will turn it up slightly, and the match will be restored to even relatively quickly. Such is the nature of the game. On the other hand, an SD by the lesser of the two, will often seal his fate. The better player would have to slack off significantly, or the lesser player would have to make a huge play, just to make up a small amount of ground. There is no legitimate reason for us to be so forgiving of mistakes.
I just don’t feel like this is a bad thing at all. I would hope that the better player wins.
Similar to this idea, comeback potential in a 4 stock game is much lower between two equally skilled players. Once a player takes a two stock (4-2, 3-1)lead, although comebacks do happen and tend to be impressive as hell when they do, more often that not it just makes the losing player feel defeated, and then magnifies that feeling while they struggle for the rest of the match. All of this leads to a boring finish while the advantaged player wins through attrition.
With more matches per set, the impact of a comeback would be diminished. Also, with 2-stock matches you could only come back from 1-2. I claim that it would be easier to comeback from 3-4 or 2-3. So I think the 1 stock comebacks are easier or the same with the current ruleset, and I think it would be sad to lose the opportunity to comeback from a 2 or 3 stock deficit.
All of this summed up leads to a great divide between our competitive community and that of other FGC's. The game already feels foreign due to the difference in control, the visual appearance, and method of death (stock counters). Then we throw in a system of competitive measure that can't really be compared to by players familiar with other fighting games.
I don’t really care about this at all. I’m fine with having a unique game and I’ve hardly had any positive interaction with the FGC. When I was at a tourney with street fighter I remember them just stealing a smash setup and saying something along the lines of “it would be a waste to use this tv for a kiidie game”. So they mostly come off as *******s to me, although I suppose If you’re trying to convert them to smash to help our community then that’s a noble goal. I wonder how much changing the ruleset would change their opinion of smash?
The pacing between matches will be very similar to current fighting games. It keeps the game exciting, as we see shifts in strategy much more rapidly, as well as changes in stage and character. We aren't stuck watching two dimensional play in a war of attrition.
Aren’t most of the strategies on CP stages more 2D than those on the neutral stages? I’m imagining a fox vs Kirby set where fox wins game 1, then Kirby goes to brinstar and wins with the aid of lava, then fox goes to rainbow cruise and laser camps the Kirby, then Kirby goes to Japes (the level with klap-traps, I’m pretty sure its jjapes) and then Kirby wins there, and then fox wins on corneria and so on. This kind of set is just very unappealing to me.
this is just my opinion. sorry if this sttuff already got addressed but just glancing over the thread it seemed like most people were just agreeing with cactuar without hesitation. If I'm wrong go ahead and tell me why; I'd believe it if some of the stuff I typed didn't really make sense.
)
