Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[n1000]

3 stock just as a whole feels way better than 4 stock to me.


p.s. all of this what makes a better player nonsense is stupid. The better player is the one who wins. Thats all. All we're doing is changing possibly what allows one to win, which just may shift the skillset needed to win, which changes what makes one a better player.

Its really not more complicated than the first 2 sentances in that paragraph to be honest

Why does a 3 stock match feel better to you? I like your idea of possibly treating time-outs as double KOs.

We've acknowledged that the definition of "better" is really "more able to win," but as you say, different rules means what constitutes being better will change. The discussion isn't stupid, though. We ought to be conscious that we're changing what "better" means when we change the rules and work towards a ruleset which favors a playstyle we like to see.

We're working towards a better "better", so to speak.

 

[da K.I.D.]

ohhhh you... thats so meta...

because by the end of 3 stocks I feel like:

The majority of the time, the game has already been decided by then. either youve lost or youve won already anyway. and in the games that are really tight its going to come down to last hit on the last stock anyway, pretty much no matter what you do, so what purpose does it serves to draw things out?

also, it keeps things fresh. 4 stock now bores me a bit in comparison. also is great for rotations. It feels more like a street fighter, where if im playing with 5 people and I lose I dont feel so bad cus i know my turn will be up again soon. Where as if I lose a 4 stock set, it pisses me off because it feels like it takes forever to get back in.

 

[Jonas]

I feel as though getting rid of the "lower percent wins" policy would decrease the "camping" of matches. There are ways to do this that don't take up too much time.

One, after the match, the person with the lowest percent picks the next stage, and the first match is discarded.

Two, after the match, the person with the lowest percent picks the stage that players will play on with one stock. the winner wins the match.

The time limit exists to stop matches from taking too long. Playing another match in the case of a tie defeats this purpose.

 

[ShroudedOne]

*sigh*

The one who wins =/= the better player in enough cases to warrant the discussion being worth it. But obviously not. :\

 

[Kal]

The better player won't necessarily win, no. The better player is the one more likely to win. You can't ask "what makes a better player" before you have a game to play. You can discuss the criteria you prefer, or the ones you consider worthwhile. But it doesn't make sense to say "these skills make a better player, let's create a game to emphasize them" before the game actually even exists.

This is mostly a semantic distinction, but it's an important one. Lots of people erroneously think that the worse player wins in a situation where you have been influenced by the stage choice (e.g. if I counterpick Brinstar and abuse the lava) because they have decided for themselves that a better player is one who is more likely to win on the starter stages. This is only the case when the starter stages are the only stages present.

With regards to actually discussing what skills are worth emphasizing (noting the distinction between that and discussing what makes a better player before we even have a game to play), I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[ShroudedOne]

I was getting more towards discussing what skills are worth emphasizing, I think. You're right; you can't have a "better player" without a game to play. But I thought that we were assuming that we were talking about Melee?

 

[da K.I.D.]

I was getting more towards discussing what skills are worth emphasizing, I think. You're right; you can't have a "better player" without a game to play. But I thought that we were assuming that we were talking about Melee?

Which melee tho?

You're melee is different then my melee because being better at my melee involves much much more adaptation due to possibly playing more games with less stocks per game on way more stages. Your melee is more focused on loooooooong term consistency. With four stocks and only 3 legal stages (final D, pokemon stadium, and four different versions of battlefield)

 

[ShroudedOne]

Comparing Battlefield to FoD, or Dreamland, seems fallacious. I can see the Battlefield/Yoshi's comparison, though an orientation of platforms similar to BF's doesn't mean that they are all the same stage.

Regardless, when I say Melee, I generally mean absent of a ruleset. Though, perhaps this is what Kal means when he says we need a game to play; that there must be an established ruleset before we actually have a game. Interesting. Didn't think of it like that.

I see that this ruleset forces adaptation, but how does it emphasize having to adapt moreso than the current? Is it just because with more games and more CPs, you'll be adapting in shorter, but quicker bursts, and there will be less time to adapt? Because it is possible for multiple adaptations to happen in a 4 stock set. However, 4 stocks kind of give one leeway with having to adapt, because you don't necessarily have to adapt as quickly. To that point, 4 stocks does seem to be more forgiving of laziness.

Yet, I don't see 2 stocks being harsher, without at the same time, favoring the luckier player more. Hmm. Talking it circles, I am, it seems.

 

[Kal]

I was getting more towards discussing what skills are worth emphasizing, I think. You're right; you can't have a "better player" without a game to play. But I thought that we were assuming that we were talking about Melee?

Yeah, as you've realized, you need a game to play. There is no Melee sans ruleset. And, of course, you're welcome to have preferences for certain types of skills. I, myself, think Falco's laser is some janky bull **** and would consider the overall approach game without Falco to be better than with it. The difference is that I would have to ban Falco in order to compensate for what I consider as a problem. With the two stock versus four stock versus time versus coin mode, you have to make a choice, and that choice is either arbitrary, or falls on arbitrary preferences, so I see no point in a discussion attempting to lead us to the "best" one.

I, as usual, welcome (even encourage) discussion for the sake of discussion. I just think it should be clear that discussing what skills are "worth" emphasizing is kind of silly. There is no "best" set of skills to test.

Yet, I don't see 2 stocks being harsher, without at the same time, favoring the luckier player more. Hmm. Talking it circles, I am, it seems.

As a good rule of thumb, the shorter a competitive game, the higher the variance. This is likely because the game will be less forgiving of errors and bad luck. However, this can be compensated for. In this case, while the results of individual games may vary more, the number of games played will increase in a set, causing the results of sets to be close to what we currently have. That is, of course, just speculation. Whether best of seven really compensates for the difference (actually, whether there is even something to be compensated for) remains to be conclusively shown.

It is also important to realize that luck isn't actually introduced or added into the game by reducing the number of stock. Instead, whatever luck is already present is merely more strongly emphasized. This is only going to significantly affect the likelihood of the better player winning if luck is already a strong factor in the game.

 

[Divinokage]

Well the way I see it is simply, you'll just need to know how stages work more and know what each character can do on those stages. The fun part about that is, you won't know for a long time how good the players are on those weird stages and what they will do based on the character you've chosen on that stage. That's why it's a whole different level of adaptation.

 

[-ACE-]

What kind of effect do you think the large increase of the number of legal stages would have on this variance?

 

[Kal]

The number of legal stages forms a separate issue from the stock change which I feel should be addressed separately (consult Kish Prime's "No-Johns" ruleset for what I feel about these stages).

In my opinion, the results will be roughly the same, with more (very) short-term variance. The biggest issue I see happening at the moment is players seeing results of this new (albeit incredibly similar) game (Melee with nineteen stages) differ from what they are used to (Melee with six stages), and concluding that this is an example of results variance when it is not.

 

[UltimaScout]

Well the way I see it is simply, you'll just need to know how stages work more and know what each character can do on those stages. The fun part about that is, you won't know for a long time how good the players are on those weird stages and what they will do based on the character you've chosen on that stage. That's why it's a whole different level of adaptation.

Hyrule Temple...

That is all

 

[Divinokage]

Haha we did play on that before, Falcon vs Link lmao. Fun. =P Granted we did agree to fight at the bottom.. it should be like this if Hyrule would be legal.

 

[Metal Reeper]

Hyrule needs to be banned....I timed out Velocity there.

 

[n1000]

...With the two stock versus four stock versus time versus coin mode, you have to make a choice, and that choice is either arbitrary, or falls on arbitrary preferences, so I see no point in a discussion attempting to lead us to the "best" one.

I, as usual, welcome (even encourage) discussion for the sake of discussion. I just think it should be clear that discussing what skills are "worth" emphasizing is kind of silly. There is no "best" set of skills to test.

Of course I can say that certain skills are more worthy of emphasis. It's not without good reasons that we play stock matches as opposed to coin matches. There's a difference between an aesthetic decision (based on good taste) and an arbitrary one. I'm not sure what you mean by "arbitrary preferences," either.

I'm going to illustrate a really basic example, not to patronize you, Kal, but just to make it absolutely clear. I invent ruleset A, bo3, 4 stocks, 8 minute time limit with FD being the only legal stage, and ruleset B, bo11, 99 stocks, no time limit, FD only legal stage. It's clear that these two rulesets emphasize different skills.

I now assert that ruleset A emphasizes a better set of skills. This is not an arbitrary statement because I believe 99 stock matches are boring. It's also not "silly" to talk about because (preferences not being arbitrary and all...) I'm fairly confident that most of the smash community would find 99 stock matches boring, and prefer to play in, and watch tournaments with ruleset A.

 

[PK Webb]

all this timed out talk is making me hate this game lol.....lookin like brawl out there

 

[Anth0ny]

So I played this ruleset with my training partner yesterday for about 3 hours.

Fox vs Falco

Almost every game was <1 min lol

 

[Kal]

n1000, I have to go in a second, but I want to write a quick response:

Preferences are, more-or-less, arbitrary. At the very least, you won't be able to convince anyone of anything unless they share the same preferences. In which case there is little discussion to be had, since both parties are in agreement. The point I've made is that you won't be able to say that any set of skills is intrinsically better than any other. Instead, you will only be able to explain what you prefer. There is no "better" set of skills. There is only a preferred set of skills.

Earlier, I made the point that you cannot ask "what constitutes a better player?" before building a ruleset, because a ruleset is necessary for the question to be well-posed in the first place. This isn't to suggest that there isn't a "better" ruleset by some argument of the proportion of competitors playing, logistics, or something else. Only that, a priori, no choice between stock (and number of stock), time, coin, bonus, etc., will be the best one.

I mean, you surely must see a break in logic when you write

I now assert that ruleset A emphasizes a better set of skills. This is not an arbitrary statement because I believe 99 stock matches are boring.

which means that the people you are discussing with must share this belief or be completely unable to see why this set of skills is "better."

 

[n1000]

Ah ok. I disagree with your use of the word arbitrary but I understand your reasoning better now. I think the melee community has fairly uniform tastes for what type of matches we like to see (there are exceptions, ofc)

I accept that it's impossible to make an a priori or objective argument for a best set of rules or perhaps a playstyle which ought to be favored, i.e., termed "better".

However I don't think it's unlikely that we could get a lot of high level melee players to say, "yeah you know what I do like shorter matches more" or "endurance and consistency are skills which I'd like to see emphasized more." These are two arbitrary statements of preference and frankly I agree with you, it would be useless to attempt to convince anyone to come over to one's way of thinking.

However, a survey or something could tell us that most melee enthusiasts like it when X skill is emphasized and then we would be conscious of that when we put together a tournament ruleset.

There are two qualms which I have with what I just said. First, as you said, logistical considerations are more important than something as vague and varied as players' preference. Second, getting the melee community to understand this idea would be an exercise in futility...moreover implementing the idea...well I'm getting visions of herding cats.

 

[Kal]

In my opinion, the best way to handle it is to do exactly what Cactuar has done: suggest playtesting. If enough people like it, it will become a high-demand event at tournaments. If not, people will give up on it. I don't think a survey is necessary since simply expressing the idea work as effectively, if not more.

Also,

[COLLAPSE="Definition of "arbitrary""]ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/

Adjective: 1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

[/COLLAPSE]

 

[n1000]

hear, hear.

 

[Kal]

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

[Vista]

I think this ruleset just gives the worse player a better chance at winning, as well as -heavily- encouraging camping.

Camping is already bad enough in the current ruleset, I doubt reducing the timer is going to discourage camping in any way -__-;;

 

[Kal]

First, you're going to need to elaborate on how a worse player will have a better shot of winning. It might be the case with individual matches. Is it the case with entire sets? And is this strictly due to the reduced stock count, or are you considering stages as well?

And, as has been said far too many times in this thread, the time is scaled according to the number of stock. Camping will probably remain an equally viable tactic at high level play.

 

[The Tycon]

This ruleset wasn't supposed to discourage camping, it is supposed to make matches shorter.

Has anybody tried teams with 2 stocks? ...I've only played singles, and the time I played was fun, different, and something I wouldn't mind seeing in the future.

 

[Vista]

I was addressing the stock count in particular. While I do feel like for the most part the results would still level out due to the longer sets, I just feel like increasing the worse player's chances to win individual games does result in a higher chance of taking the set as well. That's definitely something that's more likely to be revealed through playtesting and such though. Stages are a whole 'nother beast, I'd rather not get into that LOL

I'm all for the idea of trying playing with 2 stocks, it honestly sounds like an interesting idea. I feel like 2 stocks 8 minutes might be a better idea however, as it reduces the viability of time outs. Then again, it also introduces the possibility of 7 games that are 8 minutes long...

idk camping is dumb and needs to not exist

 

[Kal]

While it may be the case for the specific number chose (best of seven), it is true that there will be a set-length we can choose that will create a game with the same or better chance of the better player winning. There is just no guarantee that the set-length will be practical (e.g. it might turn out we need to make it best of fifteen).

Eight minutes would probably be too long. In general, you want to balance the following two aspects of gameplay when choosing a time limit:

1) that the player in the lead will try to time-out his opponent as the duration of the match decreases
2) that the player not in the lead will refuse to approach as the duration of the match increases.

To make this clear, just consider a few extreme cases:

1) if the match were fifteen seconds long, we would have no reason to approach once we had a lead. The game would degenerate into acquiring a lead as early as possible and then playing keep-away.
2) if the match were ninety-nine minutes long, we would have no reason to approach once we were down. The game would turn into something of a stalemate for the length of time above the balance-point described above.

Whether three minutes is too long or too short remains to be seen, but it's clear that we need to scale the timer according to the number of stock.

 

[DarrellD]

Looks like a nice fox player idea.

I should pick up fox cause hes got a nice little gun. =]

I like the idea of a new rule set, just not this one.

 

[Sensei]

I was pretty skeptical of this until I played with this ruleset this past weekend at Velocity's and Cactuar's place. The matches were fun, seemed fair and possibly balanced the tier list a little better. The results were fairly similar between the matches of this ruleset and the standard ruleset. It took a little bit to adapt to the stages but it adds a whole new dimension of strategy and depth to this game. Matches seemed more intense and fun than a standard 4 stock match on a neutral. I would suggest everyone give it a try before you make any decisions. Only thing I would say is that Hyrule temple should be banned because of unfair timeouts (Fox/Falco laser lolol). Most matches were very quick and did not experience many timeouts. The rare occurrence of timeouts also did not feel dreadful and actually made it interesting because of how short the timer is.

 

[Corigames]

What levels are you guys un-banning?
I'm assuming the walk off stages are band; Ininifte glacier immediately ruins Ganon, Peach, and other low height jumpers; levels with walls that Fox can infinite shine on (or is that ok in everyone's opinion?); Hyrule; etc.
Secondly, camping doesn't take into consideration the number of stocks, only the time limit. As long as the camper gets % advantage, they don't need to take stocks in order to win. Therefore, an 8 minute match encourages players to have to fight to get some stock lead to better hold their camping as the timer ticks down. Trying to play keep away for 8 minutes without fail is hard work. In a 3 minute game, you have a much shorter time frame to work with, much so that going for the first stock lead is entirely unnecessary in comparison.
"Whether three minutes is too long or too short remains to be seen, but it's clear that we need to scale the timer according to the number of stock."
Well, personally, I've never heard anyone complain about the 8min time limit in games. It seems fine to me, especially in some MUs over others. The only people that don't like 8min are TOs, and that doesn't seem like a good reason to change the meta imo.

 

[Kal]

The TOs clearly aren't important. We'll just play competitive Melee without them.

 

[da K.I.D.]

idk camping is dumb and needs to not exist

I'm honestly going to say this to you for your own good.


If this is how you feel, you need to stop going to tournaments and stop playing video games competitively.

 

[Dark Hart]

Before I got into the 1P scene (eventually leading me to the tourney scene) Me and my brother played with 2 stocks, and the MLG2005 stage set on random. The MLG part was my brother looking up rule sets, but the 2 stocks was a consensus of everyone I know at the time who liked Melee as much as I did. It was kinda a way to say "you get one mistake, because the second mistake means gg" ish

 

[sanchaz]

God stfu about camping!!!

Just seriously shutup!

 

[n1000]

camping is cool and i want to go for spring break (camping, that is, to be specific)

any good players with recording setups fooling around with this ruleset yet? I'd like to see how their friendlies/seriouslies would play out

 

[Divinokage]

I tried this yesterday and it definitely buffs lower level players by a lot, I think 2 stocks is too short.. I've had some 20 seconds matches quite often, having a suicide kill that early into the match makes it kinda easy to finish the job. lol.

 

[Bones0]

Has anyone given any reason behind reducing the stocks yet? No? Didn't think so. lol

 

[n1000]

Yeah, to make matches shorter.

 

[Divinokage]

It's too short, and whether it's 2 stocks or 10 stocks, it doesn't really change anything behavior wise since when you play a fighter you go into game with a gameplan that you think will work vs whoever you are playing. It has nothing to do with being more offensive or campy. It should be 3-4 stocks still.