Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[LittleBoyLarry]

inb4Ceromakesanamazingmatches/2stockthread.

 

[Merkuri]

But I love completely technical games with the mental depth of a puddle!

Well I'm pretty sure you're in the minority.

Let's stop bashing MvC, huh? And I sincerely doubt that adaptation would be removed altogether. What Citizen Snips said I think is largely true, that adaptation is a very short-term thing at high level play. And, even if the statement is false, adaptation will still occur between matches, as far as adjusting strategies, and will arguably increase via the larger number of stages available.

It would remove adaption to a very large degree. I think what you're learning in the the match itself is a lot more useful and sustainable than what you can think of inbetween matches. And with a 3 stock, 6 minute time I imagine we would have more flexibility in our stage-list than what we have now.

 

[leffen]

This REALLY helps low tiers, and it actually reduces the effect SDs have on a match assuming 2 equal players.

 

[Merkuri]

Its kinda sad that 80% of the people who make bracket at nationals don't post on smashboards lol.

Oh, and 3 minutes is too little
Having 1½ minute for each stocks... floaties vs floaties would rarely finish.

This is another issue. Floaties vs floaties would never finish. If you watch Armada vs Shroomed or Vanz at Apex, you'll see that some of there matches just before the timer countdown.

While I'm sure noone wants matches as slow as Apex GFs it's kind of a mistake to think that this games need to or should be played quickly. Most floaty matchups are simply not fast paced and I'm pretty sure most floaty mains will tell you that is the way it should be.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Pikachu would move up so many spots.

So many spots.

Can't chaingrab me on Magikarp gg no reeeeeee

 

[Citizen Snips]

This is another issue. Floaties vs floaties would never finish. If you watch Armada vs Shroomed or Vanz at Apex, you'll see that some of there matches just before the timer countdown.

While I'm sure noone wants matches as slow as Apex GFs it's kind of a mistake to think that this games need to or should be played quickly. Most floaty matchups are simply not fast paced and I'm pretty sure most floaty mains will tell you that is the way it should be.

This is a timer issue, not a stock issue. The timer issue can be resolved through playtesting. The stock issue is a conceptual matter that really is dependent on how the community as a whole (Especially high level players who fully understand the implications and have large amounts of experience) views the impact of such a change.

 

[Thanos828]

The biggest hurdle to get over would be 2 stocks.

I like what it can mean for low tiers, though.

 

[Cactuar]

You are thinking in terms of how those matches play on neutrals. And the intent is not that matches have to finish. You guys are under the assumption that matches should always finish because of how long our matches can potentially take vs how we actually play with 4 stock. Matches time out far more often in other fighters than they do in smash. Ours just take way longer to get there.


This is actually based around Killer Instinct, not any other fighter that comes to mind. Killer Instinct gave the players two 100% life bars, but your bar carried over when you took the first 100% from the opponent. The most you could ever do was a 50% combo in that sense.

This opens up playing to the timer as a legitimate strategy on many stages. You are used to thinking about it as a terrible terrible thing. View the match count and the timer combination. In a standard best of 3, which has now become a best of 7, the maximum match time for 3 timed out matches was 24 minutes. In this, with a full count of 7, it is only 21 minutes.

You have to let go of your hold on a lot of the way current melee plays to fully grasp this. Finishing the match is not as important as you think it is.

 

[Massive]

I like this ruleset.
I could foresee a large amount of swallocides in my future if this went in vogue.

I think a hybrid ruleset of this would probably still have a lot of the impact while retaining some of the adaptation we've come to enjoy in the current ruleset though.
Something like 3 stock, best of 5, every stage but big blue and brinstar depths.

I do think it could be argued that this would make us look less like a fighting game and more like a party game to the rest of the FGC though.

edit: This means yoshi's island would be an almost 100% win for foxes who knew how to shine, lol.

 

[Kal]

It would remove adaption to a very large degree. I think what you're learning in the the match itself is a lot more useful and sustainable than what you can think of inbetween matches. And with a 3 stock, 6 minute time I imagine we would have more flexibility in our stage-list than what we have now.

All you've done is respond with a claim that my statement is false. Why would adaptation be lessened? The claim is that people would not have enough time to adapt, but I think that adaptation is not something you need four stock to do. I think adaptation occurs in real-time, as you are playing, and is more-or-less independent of number of stock and match duration.

The main point I like about this ruleset is that it no longer accentuates skill gaps so obnoxiously; the portion of the match you can piss away without losing is noticeably lessened. While some would argue that it should be the opposite, I say: to hell with that. We shouldn't be accepting of players playing ****ty, regardless of how good they are. We should be rewarding players for not making mistakes.

Of course, the above preference is subjective, so there's not much that can be debated. You could think that a match of attrition and a test of mental stamina make a great game, and there's nothing wrong with that. The choice of a ruleset, insofar as number of stock, is pretty arbitrary.

 

[Citizen Snips]

You had my vote at Killer Instinct.

Although, I will be the one to say it, 3 minutes is REALLY easy to camp.

And camping's gay.

I am confused though, we have rules against wallstalling with Peach bomber (So I believe). Why are there no rules in place for ledge stalling?

 

[da K.I.D.]

I DO like the idea of having Mute City. That, I WILL endorse.

Sometimes I wish people could make statements without me being able to automaticlaly assume their main from their obvious bias.

Try to pull your head out of you own butt for a second and try to think about how this affects everyone and not just yourself.

For example from the two money matches I had with mofo at apex, I feel like this would give him a sorely needed and deserved boost in viability.

On the other hand, I didn't see hyrule on the ban list, and there is no possible rule implication anybody could ever come up with that would make that stage not broken.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

What EXACTLY is wrong with super floaty matches timing out?

I think the more strain you put on floaty players to APPROACH when they don't have the lead because of a restrictive timer, the better the matches will be. The sets are ugly when they are allowed to spam pills/turnips/bombs for 8 minutes without a care in the world.

Just imagine Street Fighter (a game with very, very limited approach options, even moreso than the floatiest matchups in Melee) without a timer. The matches would be very boring lol.

 

[Cactuar]

Hyrule becomes significantly less broken when you ban traveling from the right side of the map under to the bottom.

 

[Kal]

Ugh, I don't know if there is a real way to ban that, Cactuar.

 

[tarheeljks]

This opens up playing to the timer as a legitimate strategy on many stages. You are used to thinking about it as a terrible terrible thing. View the match count and the timer combination. In a standard best of 3, which has now become a best of 7, the maximum match time for 3 timed out matches was 24 minutes. In this, with a full count of 7, it is only 21 minutes.

right, it will incentivize more timeouts. that's not necessarily bad, though i don't care for it, but doesn't it clash with your initial point about separation of viable/non-viable characters?

 

[Xyzz]

I am confused though, we have rules against wallstalling with Peach bomber (So I believe). Why are there no rules in place for ledge stalling?

I think because the first example forces some characters to suicide in order to reach Peach; and in the second case it's just really dangerous to approach the ledge stalling sheik / puff, but can be done with some wavedash shenanigans.

 

[Spyro]

Hyrule becomes significantly less broken when you ban traveling from the right side of the map under to the bottom.

Now we know Cactuar is trolling.

 

[Teczer0]

Personally I think hyrule still gives too much power to a time out strategy.

I get the idea that timeouts being a strategy being viable is good and I agree but I'd rather stages like say KJ64 where its viable, but doesn't seem to be the only answer.

 

[leffen]

4 min timer would be perfect imo, and would make timeouts viable without being hilariously boring.

Matchups like Peach-Peach and Luigi Samus would NEVER finish if its even with a 3 min timer.
This is doesnt even require anyone to want to time the other one out (which is always the case in SFIV), they just have to go even. Their recoveries take too long lol.




I do not like having more stages on, this is made to make us more acceptable in the FGC and then you make us look like even more of a party game? hilariously dumb.

 

[Cactuar]

Realize that any given strategy can only be used once in a set. Out of 7 matches, camping someone out on hyrule will only be 3 minutes/1 match.

Two dimensional strategies are not discouraged. Having many of them is actually a good thing.


Again, stages need to be PLAY TESTED. Hence the point of the thread. If people come to the consensus that Hyrule is discouraging to play on, then it won't be legal. Simple.

 

[JPOBS]

I love how everyone is suddenly "omg best ruleset ever <3" just because cactuar posted it. If anyone of a lesser reputation posted this, it would get torn to streads /minor gripe.

On to my two major theoretical issues with this ruleset:

1. Comebacks. Who gives a ****? I like comebacks as much as the next guy, but "enabling more comebacks" should not be a focal point or criteria for changing from the current ruleset. Why is promoting comebacks a arguing point?

2. the time you save by shortening the matches (both stock and timewise) would easily be substitued with player discussions on bans and stge selection. for a 7 game set with a ton of stages to choose from, there would be a ton of between-match discussion going on which owuld eat up a ton of time.


The back room (especially cactuar) is just trolling super hard imo.

 

[leffen]

that is just stupid cactuar, it would be full of gimmicks and the FGC would just rage on us even harder. The more stages the worse for this ruleset imho.

 

[ShroudedOne]

*sigh* Of course, KID. OF COURSE. You pick the one sentence that I was obviously not serious about. Because Peach/Puff mains are the only ones who like that stage, right? I knew you'd be all over this. But it's whatever. Just stop acting so self-righteously on SWF, please. :\

Well, I'm not a top level player, so I can't really say whether it's good or bad in the long term (Gosh, I sound like James Taggart, forgive me), but it's enough for me to say that I don't like the idea. And that's my opinion, I guess. I'm not even going to bother arguing against it. All new rulesets should be beta tested, right?

Nevertheless, I am sticking to my original statement. Cactuar (and Kal too) are trolling the living **** out of you guys. Have fun.

 

[Cactuar]

@Leffen: Again, we are starting with neutrals and playtesting more stages in, not starting with them all on. I did that just to see how it would play out. You don't have to.

 

[Citizen Snips]

For example from the two money matches I had with mofo at apex, I feel like this would give him a sorely needed and deserved boost in viability.

Super agreed. I feel like an expanded stage selection would really give lower tiers a chance. Many of them have some stages that favor them extremely hard. People may say that's unfair, but they're not exactly starting from the best position in the first place.

Also, from a statistics standpoint, best of 3 always frustrated me. The larger your sample pool is, the closer the resulting average will be to the actual mean. In this case, because of stage bias, 4-stocks must be considered a single sample, so you only have 2 or maybe 3 samples, whereas with this new method, you have 4, 5, 6, or even 7 samples. What you have as a result is a much more accurate depiction of who is more skilled. ****ing up once no longer costs you a set nearly as much as it used to. As someone who kills himself too much, I find this very appealing, but I also see a much more balanced and evenly forgiving ruleset here.

 

[t3h Icy]

With some tuning, I'd be for this ruleset. :D

 

[Merkuri]

This is a timer issue, not a stock issue. The timer issue can be resolved through playtesting. The stock issue is a conceptual matter that really is dependent on how the community as a whole (Especially high level players who fully understand the implications and have large amounts of experience) views the impact of such a change.

I was never addressing stocks alone, I think both the stocks and the timer are too short.

You are thinking in terms of how those matches play on neutrals. And the intent is not that matches have to finish. You guys are under the assumption that matches should always finish because of how long our matches can potentially take vs how we actually play with 4 stock. Matches time out far more often in other fighters than they do in smash. Ours just take way longer to get there.


This is actually based around Killer Instinct, not any other fighter that comes to mind. Killer Instinct gave the players two 100% life bars, but your bar carried over when you took the first 100% from the opponent. The most you could ever do was a 50% combo in that sense.

This opens up playing to the timer as a legitimate strategy on many stages. You are used to thinking about it as a terrible terrible thing. View the match count and the timer combination. In a standard best of 3, which has now become a best of 7, the maximum match time for 3 timed out matches was 24 minutes. In this, with a full count of 7, it is only 21 minutes.

You have to let go of your hold on a lot of the way current melee plays to fully grasp this. Finishing the match is not as important as you think it is.

Well in other fighters matches do time out but it is a rareity. If you were to watch the sets in a SF4 major or worse UMVC major, you'll very rarely see matches timing out. With such a drastic ruleset I think it'll be the opposite with all matches time out, and a player chasing another player down while the other runs away. Melee is inherently more defensive than SF4 or UMVC, and that is we have GFs like Apex.

Basically finishing the match is important, and you really can't compare melee to other fighters in this aspect because players will try to make the match not finish so that they can win.

 

[Cactuar]

@Merkuri: So pick smaller stages.

Also, stop trying to use Apex GF's as an example of anything. It isn't. It was two sets out of hundreds.

@JPOBS: This has nothing to do with the MBR. It is just an idea that I happen to like and I wanted to see what others thought.

 

[Thanos828]

I love how everyone is suddenly "omg best ruleset ever <3" just because cactuar posted it. If anyone of a lesser reputation posted this, it would get torn to streads /minor gripe.

This

I'm pretty torn towards the stage bit too, one the one hand I like what it can mean for low tiers, and on the other I dislike what it can mean for lack of "neutrality" or how the intended cp system seems kind of gimmicky at certain points

No matter what, people are going to play to win, and abuse of the CP system is going to happen regardless when things pan out if this becomes standard

 

[leffen]

I like this set less and less the more I think about it

running pools with this....LOOOOOL. 99% time would consist of whos getting 4-0d choosing weird *** counterpicks

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

You are thinking in terms of how those matches play on neutrals. And the intent is not that matches have to finish. You guys are under the assumption that matches should always finish because of how long our matches can potentially take vs how we actually play with 4 stock. Matches time out far more often in other fighters than they do in smash. Ours just take way longer to get there.


This is actually based around Killer Instinct, not any other fighter that comes to mind. Killer Instinct gave the players two 100% life bars, but your bar carried over when you took the first 100% from the opponent. The most you could ever do was a 50% combo in that sense.

This opens up playing to the timer as a legitimate strategy on many stages. You are used to thinking about it as a terrible terrible thing. View the match count and the timer combination. In a standard best of 3, which has now become a best of 7, the maximum match time for 3 timed out matches was 24 minutes. In this, with a full count of 7, it is only 21 minutes.

You have to let go of your hold on a lot of the way current melee plays to fully grasp this. Finishing the match is not as important as you think it is.

Its like I'm quoting myself.

Cactuar what happened to you and how did I clone my brain and implant it in your head?

Does this mean your Marth is now terribad instead of supergood? Cause that would suck.

Although, I will be the one to say it, 3 minutes is REALLY easy to camp.

And camping's gay.

To answer this question, I'll quote myself from last week (when I proposed a 4 min timer):

I don't think a 4 minute timer would degenerate gameplay much at all though, in fact I'm rather confident we'd see people become much more aggressive. The way things work now, people play as if there is basically no timer (except for Armada/Hbox); they simply go for strategies that will net them kills/damage as much as possible. So if your optimal way to net damage is to camp your *** off and wait until your opponent loses patience, then thats what a lot of players will choose. The opposite is true as well; if you win best by being super aggressive thats what you will choose as well.

With an ever-present but unobtrusive timer, whoever is behind HAS to approach. Therefore, more well-rounded players will win; players who can approach when they are down, and players who can defend their lead. I don't think you'd see very many one-dimensional players (purely offensive or purely defensive) winning anymore...

This is all theory though, and I think our current metagame is on the whole pretty ****ing awesome, but a lowered timer (and bo5 standard!) tournament would definitely be a super interesting experiment.

 

[Cactuar]

We should be doing swiss anyway. lolol

 

[Kal]

Why are people bringing up what other communities will think of us? When has that ever been a concern, given that this game is universally panned by nearly every gaming community?

And why are people thinking it will make us less respected? If anything, we will resemble a traditional fighter more, given that individual matches will matter less, and take less time. In a traditional fighter, one player dies, and everything more or less resets (save for super bars and such). In a traditional fighter, as the match progresses, the probability of a certain player winning a priori stays the same. This will more closely resemble that than what we are currently using.

My main point, however, is **** the other communities. We're not here to pander to their preferences. If we were, we'd play two minute time-matches on randomly selected stages with items on.

 

[Cactuar]

Remember any time EVO handled Melee? *facepalm*

 

[leffen]

Melee is liked, its mainly brawl that is hated


Also, LMFAO at people who think low tiers would do good on more stages >__<.

 

[da K.I.D.]

*sigh* Of course, KID. OF COURSE. You pick the one sentence that I was obviously not serious about. Because Peach/Puff mains are the only ones who like that stage, right? I knew you'd be all over this. But it's whatever. Just stop acting so self-righteously on SWF, please. :\

You realise, that if you stop saying stupid things that I wouldn't be able to call you out for saying stupid things right?

Also, for the beginning rounds of a tournament, best of 7 is completely unacceptable no matter how short the games are. Best of 5 imo. Best of 5 times 3 min + in between time = 20 min. Tournament sets should be less than 20 min for all rounds outside of finals

 

[Cactuar]

Low tiers become significantly more viable when Fox's upsmash can't kill them because there are solid objects above.

Same @ Sheik's dthrow and low ceilings on... a lot of stages.

(Obviously this is a half-joke, just a very specific example.)

 

[Kal]

>_<

I think we should try and keep discussion about the number of stocks and the timer separate from the stages. Yes, what stages are broken may be affected by the number of stocks and match duration, but that isn't the only aspect of Cactuar's ruleset. You're entitled (encouraged, even) to choose to play on only the presently dubbed "neutral" stages. There is one fundamental difference between this ruleset and the traditional one:

We play with two stock, and we adjust the timer accordingly (which is to take the total number of stock and subtract one: 2 + 2 - 1 = 3; and I'm pretty sure that's true because I have a degree in math).

The difference in available stages is derived from the above difference. It's possible that, with further testing, the stage list will be smaller. The point is that, at the moment, more stages seem reasonably legal with the difference in stock and match duration.

And K.I.D., don't be a ****ing ***. ShroudedOne is a perfectly good poster and the nonsense you got caught up on was clearly a joke.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I would probably add KJ64, RC, and Brinstar to my ruleset so it can fill a BO7 set and a BO9 for finals but after that I would want to CAREFULLY playtest any more stages I'd be introducing into my ruleset. I don't think the idea of more stages but fewer games is a bad one by any means.