Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Gea]

The Gentleman's rule for stage selection got me thinking: could counterpicks be done in a similar way?

Assume a liberal stage list. After the first match, no stages are banned. Instead, the loser picks three stages and the winner must choose one between the three. Of course, the number of chosen stages would depend on the scope of the stage list; no player would have to be forced to play on a virtually unwinnable stage.

Three seems like a lot imo. Two seems like a better amount.

 

[Pengie]

Lol kage. You misunderstood what I said. Of course you shouldn't SD, and of course you should lose a stock for it. But when you get to the point where "not SD'ing is more important than stage/matchup knowledge (this ruleset takes a step " in that direction) you might want to look at what skills you're testing for.

Isn't the player that's better at "not SDing" the player with better control over their character? I feel like this should be something that takes precedence over knowing anything about match ups because if you can't control your character properly (e.g. you illusion when you meant to shine, you go offstage for an edgeguard that ends up killing you because you don't know your characters limits, etc.), you really shouldn't have any shot at winning a match. To add on, this shouldn't even be something that is a factor because it should be assumed that players won't be SDing. As a result, I don't think it should be seen as a flaw in the ruleset.

 

[-ACE-]

Isn't the player that's better at "not SDing" the player with better control over their character? I feel like this should be something that takes precedence over knowing anything about match ups because if you can't control your character properly (e.g. you illusion when you meant to shine, you go offstage for an edgeguard that ends up killing you because you don't know your characters limits, etc.), you really shouldn't have any shot at winning a match.

Well, that's one vote for 1 stock melee being the norm, let's see if you can start a following.

In response to edit: SD's are a part of the game because humans make mistakes. The closer you get to 1 stock melee, the closer you are to technical errors deciding the outcome of matches. OF COURSE YOU SHOULD SUFFER CONSEQUENCES FOR SD'ing AND TECHNICAL ERRORS (so people know not to post about that anymore), the question is how much. How often do you want a match to be decided by an unfortunate SD (because believe it our not, it happens)? If you'd rather see SD's determine the winner of a match, reduce stock count. If you want to increase the likelihood of the better combo'er, edgeguarder, defensive player, master of the current matchup/stage, etc. winning more often, increase stock count.

 

[Scar]

@ACE and all, regarding making "human mistakes"
I think the questoin ACE is posing is exactly correct. The question? How much should the ruleset punish people for making mistakes?

What I think is not agreeable is ACE's conclusion:
This ruleset punishes mistakes more than the previous one.

Presumably ACE also thinks that that makes this ruleset less accurate in choosing the better player as the winner. I disagree entirely. If I had to compare the two rulesets I'd say the following:
This ruleset increases punishment for players who consistently make mistakes, and is more forgiving of one-off mistakes.

As a disclaimer I'll say that it should be playtested for a conclusive answer, but in my experience I can say confidently that in any match that's determined by who is playing better on that day, (i.e. two people with relatively equal skill) mistakes are heavily punished under the current ruleset, especially in Bo3's and especially with the current stage list and one ban. Coming back from a full stock SD is almost impossible in 4 stock matches vs someone who's just as good as you, and in the end you're going to have to win on the opponent's counterpick to make up for the mistake.

@ACE regarding 1-stock Melee:
1-stock melee is entirely different from 2-stock and up, I think it's more of a binary than a scale, as you're supposing. Crouch canceling is extremely powerful after you lose a stock assuming you did any damage, and new-stock invincibility is introduced. If you cut to 1-stock, these mechanics are either nerfed or eliminated, which seriously changes the game. For these reasons I don't think it's appropriate to say that we're getting closer and closer to one stock.

@Bones regarding "Matches must be at least 4 stock to mean anything"
I totally agree with Cactuar lol your post was entirely opinion based, he wasn't trolling you. To ACE's response that Bones doesn't have any data because there hasn't been playtesting, the issue isn't that he doesn't have hard evidence. Bones didn't provide any support for his claims, not even anecdotal or theoretical. Here's the deal:

Claim:

It goes back to what I was explaining before. You have to be playing at least 4 stocks for matches to mean anything.

Okay, please support it.

It's easy to look at 4 stocks and say, "Hmmm, this match carries too much weight!" The solution to that should be more matches.

Cool, agreed, we're proposing to increase the match count.

The problem with reducing the stocks is you also reduce the score gap developed over time during the match as well as the weight of the match itself.

Correct, you do reduce the score gap developed over time. This is not a problem, though.

The argument is that the better player will consistently create a score gap over time, so regardless of the stock count, the better player will win consistently. If there is a fluke, then it's more likely that the result of the match won't be accurate (this is a common result of flukes, lol). But happily, we've decreased the weight of each match, so inaccurate match results don't hurt so much.

The bolded part is palpable nonsense because you literally stated (in alarmingly quick succession) that the problem is that matches carry too much weight, but the solution shouldn't decrease the weight that matches carry.

Each stock carries just as much weight (assuming you have the same number of stocks per set), but you have a bunch of matches that mean very little as opposed to just a few matches that are clear indicators of skill.

I don't think you've demonstrated that matches mean less because of lower stock count, and that 4 stock is a clear indicator of skill. The counterargument is above (consistently better player creates a score gap over time, yadda yadda).

You are much more likely to get fluke wins on lower stock counts, which means it is giving the weaker player a better chance at an upset. When you add in SDing and percent leads being marginalized because games end 2 stocks sooner, all you're left with is a system that is only really useful at getting players to play on a bunch of stages per set.

The fluke wins part was also already addressed. And to respond to stages, I don't agree with increasing the number of stages at all.

Cactuar has said (and I haven't understood) that he's seen some end result where we'll all agree that allowing all stages is the best solution, but I'm not worried about that very much because he's openly said that he'd like to test everything and come to a natural and generally agreeable solution based on the data collected. So maybe he's right about the stages, and maybe he's wrong. The data will decide what we do.

 

[-ACE-]

I'll say that it should be playtested for a conclusive answer

Dude, I totally agree.

 

[Scar]

Cool. How about the part where this ruleset is more forgiving for one-off "human" mistakes?

 

[CloneHat]

The Gentleman's rule for stage selection got me thinking: could counterpicks be done in a similar way?

Assume a liberal stage list. After the first match, no stages are banned. Instead, the loser picks three stages and the winner must choose one between the three. Of course, the number of chosen stages would depend on the scope of the stage list; no player would have to be forced to play on a virtually unwinnable stage.

Three seems like a lot imo. Two seems like a better amount.

That's probably true, as the idea came to me while I was thinking of rule alterations for my local tournaments (which has a pretty loose stage list: MKII, Kongo Jungle). My worry in picking two stages is simply that with many legal stages, it would be possible for the winning player to be completely screwed over too easily.

In fact, with a rule like this, all stages could be legal, as no stage would be played on without consent from both players. This is pretty redundant, however, as some stages are just plain awful and the number of stages chosen for a counterpick would be so long it would bring the counterpicking process to a crawl.

Limitations on stages and the number of stages chosen for each counterpick should definitely be whittled down through testing, but I believe this is a framework that addresses many of the issues we have in the current set-playing process.

 

[-ACE-]

Cool. How about the part where this ruleset is more forgiving for one-off "human" mistakes?

Is a 3 stock vs 4 stock comeback easier than 1 vs 2, or is it just me?

 

[Gea]

Besides stages that would be banned for things like stalling, I can't think of too many circumstances where 2 would marginalize most matchups and three wouldn't give the winning player more power. I know this is a pretty slanted example, but take ICs.

If the IC player wins round one, the loser could say, "okay, I'm going to pick Brinstar, Pokefloats, Rainbow Cruise." Having two stages certainly wouldn't help him, granted. But honestly any of those three aren't great IC stages.

If the IC loses round one, it falls down to "FD, Battlefield, ...dreamland? Fod?" The IC player gets far less successful control of where to take the other player although the stages for that player are arguably more important.

That's my only iffiness with this. Though who knows, maybe three would be the best overall since it may lead to more strategy with your stage picks. I definitely would keep certain stages that are just 100% problematic banned, else I could say, "Flatzone, Temple, or Brinstar." Well... let's be real here. You're pretty much forcing the other player to go Brinstar if he wants to have a "normal" match. Other than that, I'd love to test this. It sounds superior to the current system, and maybe even finding a similar method to choose game one (say both players pick 2-3 stages they would like to start on, if the stages overlap they are randomly selected from the overlap, else you go to BF.) Though stage striking works fairly well if you have a starter list.

 

[Scar]

Is a 3 stock vs 4 stock comeback easier than 1 vs 2, or is it just me?

lol So the trollface signifies that you agree? Seems like a scrappy way to do so -- I'd prefer hearing what you have to say in case I'm misunderstanding, because I've already explained why the above question is not useful for determining whether this ruleset creates accurate results.

 

[GTZ]

hmm, this sounds interesting.. and maybe, just maybe, something to consider in my future smash events as a possible test ruleset

 

[CT Chia]

I don't see any reason why Best of 7 should be the lowest amount for a set. Should be no more than Best of 5 imo. If one of your aims is that sets take too long (which I certainly agree for Smash), putting it to Best of 7 ruins any time you gain. Sorry if it's been addressed, just want to throw in my two cents quickly.

I also think 3 stock offers a better middle ground, since the comeback factor in a single game is what makes Smash very unique and attractable. While 2 stock keeps that aspect for a game like Brawl, I think Melee benefits the most with 3. There will nearly never be a full stock deficit found in 2 stock matches, and when deficits like these are made up and surpassed, that creates very exciting matches and takes a lot of skill. You're rewarding the loser too much by using an exuberant amount of games with fewer stocks since it's constantly resetting the matches, putting the loser back at an even standpoint (individual game wise). I think 3 stock best of 3 or 5 is likely ideal, not to mention it's not as much of a drastic change from the current quo so that it is easier to be adapted.

 

[Hax]

a couple more reasons why i'm against this:

-2 stock matches, individually, could never match the epicness of the best 4-stock matches. parts of the thrill are the constant momentum swings between two great players; player a takes the first stock, b ties it up 3-3, a ***** 2 of b's stocks and leaves him at 1 stock high %, b goes rambo and takes 3 stocks without getting hit ftw. this will never happen in a 2 stock match. whoever starts with the most momentum is almost definitely going to win. we'd be mistakenly giving up the emotions we get from sets like Shiz v M2K (RoM 1) and Armada v Mango (Genesis 1) in exchange for the emotions you get from a happy birthday in marvel 3 (when 2 of one player's characters get killed at the same time and he pretty much loses the match in the first 5 seconds)

-suicide kills are gonna become way too prevalent. in today's 4 stock matches you can already see how strong of an advantage they give the player who can afford to lose a stock; so many kills on people's final stocks are achieved via suicide. i don't agree with this far easier, less skill-based way of killing being the premier option for 50% of the match.

-the value premise is to reduce time spent, yet the minimum amount of stocks that can be played in a tourney set is still 8. you're actually spending ~2 extra minutes per set because of how many matches you have to set up for. i haven't read the last 30-40 pages but.. please tell me this has been addressed?

 

[Dan Salvato]

I don't see any reason why Best of 7 should be the lowest amount for a set. Should be no more than Best of 5 imo. If one of your aims is that sets take too long (which I certainly agree for Smash), putting it to Best of 7 ruins any time you gain. Sorry if it's been addressed, just want to throw in my two cents quickly.

I also think 3 stock offers a better middle ground, since the comeback factor in a single game is what makes Smash very unique and attractable. While 2 stock keeps that aspect for a game like Brawl, I think Melee benefits the most with 3. There will nearly never be a full stock deficit found in 2 stock matches, and when deficits like these are made up and surpassed, that creates very exciting matches and takes a lot of skill. You're rewarding the loser too much by using an exuberant amount of games with fewer stocks since it's constantly resetting the matches, putting the loser back at an even standpoint (individual game wise). I think 3 stock best of 3 or 5 is likely ideal, not to mention it's not as much of a drastic change from the current quo so that it is easier to be adapted.

Well said, but the one point I disagree with is that you reward the loser by resetting the match. I think the winner is more rewarded because his damage percent is reset to zero. If the winner finishes the match at 150%, one hit from death, that damage disappears at the beginning of the next match.

 

[Kal]

I don't see any reason why Best of 7 should be the lowest amount for a set. Should be no more than Best of 5 imo. If one of your aims is that sets take too long (which I certainly agree for Smash), putting it to Best of 7 ruins any time you gain. Sorry if it's been addressed, just want to throw in my two cents quickly.

The aim was to address that matches take too long:

Matches are too long.

Simply put, 4 stock matches are too long.

Best of seven with two stock is chosen because it takes close to as long as best of three with four stock, and provides about the same chance of success.

I also think 3 stock offers a better middle ground, since the comeback factor in a single game is what makes Smash very unique and attractable. While 2 stock keeps that aspect for a game like Brawl, I think Melee benefits the most with 3. There will nearly never be a full stock deficit found in 2 stock matches, and when deficits like these are made up and surpassed, that creates very exciting matches and takes a lot of skill. You're rewarding the loser too much by using an exuberant amount of games with fewer stocks since it's constantly resetting the matches, putting the loser back at an even standpoint (individual game wise). I think 3 stock best of 3 or 5 is likely ideal, not to mention it's not as much of a drastic change from the current quo so that it is easier to be adapted.

Three stock with best of five is a good choice as well. I think it's worth testing. This post might help with analyzing how many stock and what set-length we should use.

 

[Scar]

Kai, +50. The claim is that matches take too long, lots of people are mistakenly claiming that this change is addressing set time when it simply isn't.

Anyway, I share Hax's concerns. I'm not sure what's going to happen with suicide kills, they certainly get a strong buff. I'm also not sure how much this will change what Melee looks like. BigD also points this out. But both will be addressed by playtesting, recording, and sharing.

 

[Cactuar]

I'm reading what Kal quoted from the OP, and I see that this isn't quite clear.

When I say that matches are too long, I am only talking about matches individually, from the viewpoint of how it affects our play, how it holds our attention, and how it has influenced the direction of the meta.

I am NOT addressing how it affects the time length of tournament sets, which both Kal and Scar have also pointed out.


@Scar:

Spoiler

This is a huge wall of text, but it outlines everything I've thought of so far, and in the order it probably should have been presented:

Time: This is the most important change. The initial decision is to reduce the length of the match for the already discussed benefits, including:
- Influencing play to be more active by reinforcing the roles of aggressor and defender and the actual value of having a lead on the opponent.
- Reducing player fatigue over long courses of high intensity/high importance play by reducing the time a player has to stay attentive from between 1m30s-8m (avg 3m) to 30s-3m (1m30s avg). This effect allows players to play better for longer periods of time because it reduces the amount of exhaustion incurred from sustaining concentration for so long, with less than a 15 second break between matches.

Stock: In changing the Time, number of Stock had to be modified:

For reasons you already came to, one stock creates a different game entirely, and thus 1 minute and 2 minute matches were not a viable suggestion stemming from 1 stock matches.

Looking at 2 stock, 2 minute through 5 minute is evaluated:

2:00 matches is at the high end of reasonably active play for slower/floatier characters, and the goal is not to have timeout as the natural average result of matches, but rather the effect of a strategy effectively used, so 2 minute matches were disregarded.

3:00 matches give between 30s-1m of extra time on top of the average to high average of expected play. This 30-s-1m is essentially a cost for choosing to use timeout as a strategy, making the winning player work to defend themselves for that time period or until advantage shifts, or conversely, making the losing playing be the aggressor. It gives a reasonable amount of time for making up a lead that, at 2 minutes in, is likely within one stock or nearly closing on the second. Matches that are further distanced than that have already been lost, require a spectacular feat, or require vast stupidity/unnecessary aggressive play and playing into getting gimped, and will generally go to that player who took such a lead.

4:00 matches broaden the cost of timing out to 2 minutes in an average match(average match is actually about 1:30, but we are taking the higher number to make a harder argument against ourselves). On top of playing one regular match, you have to play the length of another match to win by timeout. This is essentially dead time that works towards counter-intuitive play. Losing players can and do spend more time able to play extremely defensively to try and decrease the lead, while they should be the ones forced to approach. Players with the lead do not need to approach and don't unless they are confident in being able to win doing something that isn't necessary. This creates a giant gap of dead time where the timer has little to no influence. 4 minutes for 2 stock matches is out, and as such, anything above it is for the same reason.


The Effect This Has On Sets and Play:

1) Stalling is invalidated as a strategy. Play essentially works like this:

The player with advantage can play offense or defense.
The player with disadvantage has options based on what the advantaged player chooses to do.

Adv plays offense, DisAdv can:
Play Offense - Cost is that you are playing with higher risk/reward
Play Defense - Most advantageous strategy when in the lead. No disad unless character or player is weak defensively.

Adv plays defense, DisAdv can:
Play Offense - Must play offensively to regain lead or faces losing the match.
Stall - Cost is time sacrifice while at DisAdv. Doing this and not being able to coax the other player into playing Offense will make each passing second more and more valuable.

I don't know what else there is to explain here.


2) Fatigue and Concentration

We are essentially moving towards playing Football instead of playing Soccer. The players get less fatigued over the course of the match, as they don't have to spend 1m30s-8m concentrating on playing perfectly and fighting the opponent, but rather 30s-3m. This results in players playing better, for longer periods of time, and most importantly, for a higher percentage of their actual play time. Less mental and physical fatigue leads to better awareness of how the matches are being played and longer periods of consistent button input output, leading to faster counterstrategy development and better muscle memory. While it is great to reward people for their endurance, it is better to reward them for good play.

3) Tournament Sets

The number of matches in a set has to be adjusted to maintain accuracy. To maintain similar accuracy, the effect needed is a simple doubling of set length. Matches are essentially first to 4, while sets are first to 2. This changes matches to first to 2, while sets become first to 4.

4) Viable Strategies

Due to sets being twice as long, individual matches are now half as important to your overall set win. This reduces the impact of a strong strategy on the outcome of a set. While there are many stage and character combinations that form gay/broken strategies, the vast majority of them are unique to certain pairings of characters, or are due to a character being inherently better than other characters. This gives us several questions:

Do we not want to reward players for discovering and using strong strategies?
How strong can a strategy be before it is declared broken?
Even though my character is at a disadvantage on this stage against this strategy, how many other characters could have a stronger matchup on this stage or against this strategy?

Any stage and strategy combination, regardless of how strong or broken, can only be used once because of DSR and not being able to replay ANY previous stage you have won on. The worst thing that can happen is you lose 1/7th of the set, and are now aware of part of the arsenal of that player. In the future, you will either be prepared, or you will ban that stage.

It is possible that many stages are actually viable in the current meta. The last time the game was played with many of those stages in the competitive cycle was before I even started playing. The ability of the players to simply move on the stages was not nearly as developed as it is now, and a huge complaint with those stages in how they affect the players and cause them to make player errors rather than fall victim to an opponents strategy. Before people were actually adept at the game, "weird" actions by stages caused players to make a relatively higher ratio of player errors. Our ability to play the game was simply not enough to be used effectively on those stages. It is much more unlikely now for players to make such errors. While the number would still be higher than that on neutrals, it won't be nearly as high now as it used to, and even lower if players start getting to know those stages.

Stages are largely banned for their influence being unknown or too known. We call them weird because we can't anticipate their action's influence on the match, or we can anticipate it too well and call them broken. We call them broken because they allowed the opponent to get a near auto-win on 1/3rd of the set, making the first match the only match that really mattered.

Before, a single counterpick stage could be used as a crutch, as you only needed to win the neutral and then use your counterpick. The power of a single counterpick match win with this change is 1/3rd of your overall counterpick ability rather than your entire counterpick. There is really a shift in mentality required around this, as I think a person having a significant number of strategies to win a set is impressive, while having a single strategy that wins the set is discouraging. Going forward, this changes individual stage/character combos from being insurmountably effective, to them just being very good and something to keep in mind when thinking about counterstrategies, or if you will need to ban that stage against that player the next time.

The stages really just need to be retested with a wide range of approaches. The neutrals might be too strong because of suicide KO's, but that could be balanced out by many of the other stages not having the bottom blast zone as the primary kill method. The inverse to this is that many stages have objects that prevent characters from killing off the top blast zone as easily, or the top blast zone being much higher. These obstacles act as a debuff to characters like Fox. Before, a single strong counterpick could win a set with a R1 win, while acting as a failsafe if R1 is lost. We also didn't have intelligently paired counterpick stages, so Peach and Puff were artificially buffed when Green Greens and Corneria were removed but Brinstar and Mute City remained. With the pool of stages so small, having the advantage of a counterpick possibility weighed sets in the favor of those characters who benefitted from them. To enable a much larger variety of stages is an effort in giving every character counterpicks, rather than giving them to a select few.

Oh, and I didn't mean that I see some end result where we play on all the stages. I just recognize that the stages need to be retested and that in my limited play testing over the two weeks or so leading to this, other stages felt viable competitively when they didn't use to, so my initial submission included all stages. My intention was that testing needed to be done, not for this to immediately become a standard. It wouldn't affect me either way if the stages were ultimately reduced back down to the neutrals, but I wouldn't want to not test to that point just because we are at that point in the current competitive standard.

I see the proposed issue in the strength of suicide KOs. Half of all of your stock can be suicide KO'd on to win matches. I don't actually have a problem with this, as it promotes being a more precise player and knowing what safe is for your character at whatever percent on whatever stage. On neutrals, these locations are very limited, generally either under a side platform or near the edge, or on the top platform camping.

If you ever played Killer Instinct, last stock suicide kill actually had a relatively similar scenario in that game once you were on your second lifebar. If an opponent had you into the last 25% or so of your second bar, if they started a combo, there was a special move input for an automatic ultra combo (kill combo that looked really cool and automatically ended the match). It didn't really take that much away from the game, it just made getting a combo starter into the opponents second life and within range of that section of their life bar much more rewarding, even though if you did a normal combo you probably would have killed them too. This is kinda the way I view suicide kills. The odds are, you had them in a position where you could have killed them anyway, or you just pulled off an amazing gimp. *shrug*

In that same track, players should simply be more aware that suicide KOs are a strong strategy. I hate giving this as an answer, effectively saying dont get grabbed, dont get hit, play better, etc, but suicide KO's are simply not something that concerns me. There is so much that you can do to avoid being in that situation in the first place, and if you do end up in that position, you deserve to eat the consequence.

 

[Scar]

To briefly respond, I see how you arrived at 3 minutes and I think that logically that all follows, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was some unintended result that 3-6 months of playtesting with a 3:00 timer would reveal. That's why I'd be hesitant to say that anything is "out" off the bat. Maybe we should universally test 3:00, but it should be subject to change to see what the impact of other timers have. So the invalidation of stalling makes sense to me theoretically, all I'm saying is that it might not work out that way and there should be a contingency in place for that.

Reduced fatigue sounds great. Sets sound fine. Viable strategies is a tough one, because I don't think there's an objective answer. There will be guys who think that every stage being on is a real test of skill, there will be guys who say items are a good idea, so on and so forth.

I really think consistency is the way to go so players can actually adequately prepare for all matchups and stage strategies. The new player experience is really important to me (and should be to the community IMO), and having a ruleset that allows for so many combinations is really tough for anyone who wants to start playing the game. I didn't know about Falcon vs Pika on FD until N64 destroyed me maybe 3 years after I started playing, and FD isn't even a real counterpick stage.

So anyway, I think the stage list is definitely open for more discussion, it's quite clear that individual "counterpicks" are nerfed because they fall from 1/3 to 1/7 of the set, and I think that opens the door for allowing more of them, but still for my tastes I wouldn't allow a set to have someone clutch it out game 1 and then win on 3 hard counterpick stages while being outplayed the other 3 games on neutrals.

Kevin (pockyD) brought up a cool idea - 7 games, 7 stages? Like Starcraft, you already know the map before you enter your tourney set. This way every set is played out on all 7 stages, so you have to be prepared for all 7 for all matchups. (BF, FoD, DL64, FD, YS, PS, KJ64)

 

[Cactuar]

FD should be a counterpick stage >.>

You are correct in that I only explain things by how I arrived at that answer. Other time limits and 3 stock should be tested in comparison with 2 stock. Even if everything I say is logically perfect and 100% correct, if no one likes playing like that, then none of it matters and we will just keep playing as we always have.

As for your scenario of winning R1 and then winning 3 counterpicks while the opponent picks three neutrals as his counterpick stages... (edit: didn't read it properly, it doesn't matter what the player who lost round 1 does counterpick wise, we just assume he wins all his CPs, while the opponent also wins all his CPs, but on stages where he has a far greater advantage)

That just sounds like he was unprepared to play under this ruleset. This is something that we would get back as data from playtesting, but I don't think any character will have 3 HARD counterpicks to just overwhelm an opponent like that unless they are unprepared. I think that having the neutral as the first stage would actually kill the mentality of the person who lost on the neutral if this were possible and I would move to make this impossible immediately. For every 3 or 4 stages that are legal CP's, each player will get a stage ban. If you don't know what stages to ban that HARD COUNTER your character, it is the fault of your lack of knowledge. If your opponent's character had 6 counterpick stages that HARD COUNTER your character, and you only get 3 stage bans, then it is a flaw in the ruleset/stage list, or maybe you need to pick up a secondary. Using caps just to visually separate a disadvantageous stage from a HARD COUNTER. HARD COUNTER is like a passive 70-80% chance to win assuming no gimps or SDs.

I think a more appropriate counterapproach to contesting what stages are legal is for opponents of the new stages to run use case scenarios and actually make those sets specific. X Character vs Y Character, then draw up a series of stages that is impossible for Y to overcome. Then, ban 1-3 of X's stages, and see if there are enough replacements that the matchup stays broken.

As for the Starcraft approach: Eggm actually brought that idea up a while back and I really like it, but the thought of removing the entire stage counterpick system seems even more radical than my suggestions. If we could get TOs to start doing it, I would participate 100%.

What I'd actually like to do is move the neutral stage to the end of the set, but I'm not sure why as I can't figure the logic to it. It doesn't matter which player goes first, as the odds of winning each stage and the entire set are the same as they would be otherwise, but I think it would feel much different if the last stage in the event of a 3-3 tie was a neutral, rather than the last stage in a 3-3 tie being heavily in one person's favor. It is probably just a bad idea, and I haven't gotten a chance to try it out yet, so *shrug*. I think there is something about putting the most even and most important match at the end of the series that seems beneficial, as the player losing the first round wouldn't have lost the easiest match of the set aside from his own counterpicks already and have that weighing his thoughts while playing through the set. A player who loses 4 counterpick stages would lose the set anyway, so moving the neutral around doesn't really have any impact on how the set plays out...

To go along with the new player experience: my intention is to make it easier for new players to become familiar with the game and to help them find focus when practicing. A big problem I see is that players will just practice random tech skill endlessly. They don't practice application. They can afford to do this currently because every stage is essentially the same, and most combo trees are the same on those stages. My hope is that having to practice against something specfically, rather than shadowboxing endlessly on BF or FD, will enable better growth as a player. This isn't something that we can't do with the neutrals, honestly, but I think the game having staled on those stages affects this negatively.

 

[Shadic]

I think we need at least two minutes a stock, honestly. And the easier it is to time-out, the more people will try and consciously do it.

 

[Kal]

I just want to play some Marth dittos on Mute City.

 

[GOTM]

I think this sums up how I feel on the topic:

http://youtu.be/2ybA2cR3n0U

But for reals, it couldn't hurt. 2 stock best of 7 would be kind of cool. Comebacks would still be there, but they'd be set comebacks not match comebacks. Nothing wrong with that. That means more anyway. I don't even think the "yeah but what if someone SD's" argument is even relevant, those people just need to get better if they're going to say that type of ****.

I think it would force you to be a little bit smarter and more decisive. You wouldn't have as much room to try new things. You'd have to basically put your opponent together throughout the course of the set, and on different stages, etc. and you'd have to be very to the point in each match. I think it would be refreshing tbh.

3 stocks I guess would be different, but in my mind that's just basically saying, "I want to keep the game the way it is now, with one less stock". It doesn't change the game too much. 2 stocks is drastic, 3 is just, a more annoying version of what we have now. People would play the same and just get pissed.

 

[Cactuar]

I think we need at least two minutes a stock, honestly. And the easier it is to time-out, the more people will try and consciously do it.

There is nothing wrong with timing people out or doing it semi-regularly. The problem is stalling, which is very different, but for some reason stalling is tied to timing people out, even though it is not actually related in this context despite the second being a result of the first.

 

[GOTM]

That's a whole 'nother topic but tbh I think the timeout rule is stupid. You get your stocks, you should have to play until they are gone. Just b/c you get shot with a couple of lasers or get kicked in the face by Jiggs ONE TIME, doesn't mean they should be able to just chill for the rest of the match and run away from you and use the clock against you.

I think smash had it right when they created the whole sudden death thing, lol.

 

[Cactuar]

Haha, ideally, every stock gets played to the bitter end. The problem is that a campy player just gets infinite time to sit and laser you to kill percent with no timer. Removing it doesn't encourage him to approach more, it just encourages him to play even gayer because there is no longer a reason not to.

So really, the problem is that players are ****ies. This game would be at least like 2837891723cheese9077384burger987234withbacon82978 times as awesome if everyone wasn't a *****.

 

[Bones0]

@ACE and all, regarding making "human mistakes"
I think the questoin ACE is posing is exactly correct. The question? How much should the ruleset punish people for making mistakes?

What I think is not agreeable is ACE's conclusion:
This ruleset punishes mistakes more than the previous one.

Presumably ACE also thinks that that makes this ruleset less accurate in choosing the better player as the winner. I disagree entirely. If I had to compare the two rulesets I'd say the following:
This ruleset increases punishment for players who consistently make mistakes, and is more forgiving of one-off mistakes.

As a disclaimer I'll say that it should be playtested for a conclusive answer, but in my experience I can say confidently that in any match that's determined by who is playing better on that day, (i.e. two people with relatively equal skill) mistakes are heavily punished under the current ruleset, especially in Bo3's and especially with the current stage list and one ban. Coming back from a full stock SD is almost impossible in 4 stock matches vs someone who's just as good as you, and in the end you're going to have to win on the opponent's counterpick to make up for the mistake.

This isn't true AT ALL. People come back from SDs all the time. Even with Mango vs. Armada at Genesis II (the epitome of closely matched), Mango side-B'd his first stock at low % and still came back and won it. With so many 0-death combos happening at the top level, losing a stock can often be made up for with a single first hit.

@Bones regarding "Matches must be at least 4 stock to mean anything"
I totally agree with Cactuar lol your post was entirely opinion based, he wasn't trolling you. To ACE's response that Bones doesn't have any data because there hasn't been playtesting, the issue isn't that he doesn't have hard evidence. Bones didn't provide any support for his claims, not even anecdotal or theoretical. Here's the deal:

Claim:

Okay, please support it.

I already explained previously how you can tell that matches must be at least 4 stocks due to the fact that matches are still close after 4 stocks. If every game had a significant 2-3 stock margin, it would be very clear that we don't need matches lasting that long. That's not the case however. Matches FREQUENTLY go to last stock, last hit even on 4 stocks, which implies that the gap between the players is not being fully developed. This can be seen also in the adaption of the players. Players are often playing much different at the end of the game than they were at the beginning because they are adapting to their opponent's play style on the stage. If there is a back-and-forth adaption going on, we should increase the stock count to a point where players can reach a fairly stable equilibrium of play. If the game/set ends before either player has had a chance to adjust themselves, then it's fairly meaningless because their true skills haven't been tested.

Cool, agreed, we're proposing to increase the match count.


Correct, you do reduce the score gap developed over time. This is not a problem, though.

The argument is that the better player will consistently create a score gap over time, so regardless of the stock count, the better player will win consistently. If there is a fluke, then it's more likely that the result of the match won't be accurate (this is a common result of flukes, lol). But happily, we've decreased the weight of each match, so inaccurate match results don't hurt so much.

The bolded part is palpable nonsense because you literally stated (in alarmingly quick succession) that the problem is that matches carry too much weight, but the solution shouldn't decrease the weight that matches carry.

You've just admitted to matches having inaccurate results with 2 stocks, so I don't get how you can possibly think this wouldn't result in more upsets due to fluke wins. I never stated matches carry too much weight, I was simply quoting what others were stating as an issue. My whole argument was that matches DON'T carry too much weight, because if they carry any less weight, they mean nothing at all. It'd be equivalent to playing 100 Super Sudden Death matches. The matches have less weight, but they also do a horrible job at testing a player's depth of skill.

I don't think you've demonstrated that matches mean less because of lower stock count, and that 4 stock is a clear indicator of skill. The counterargument is above (consistently better player creates a score gap over time, yadda yadda).

This is such a cop out. It basically says we can use whatever stock count we want because the "better player creates a score gap over time." Well no ****, but the goal should be to amplify the score gap as much as possible. If player A is better than player B, A should be winning 2-0 or 3-0 vs. him. Not 4-1, 6-2. B is inevitably going to take a few games in a 2-stock match because all you need are 2 lucky situations. Maybe player A SDs; maybe he messes up spacing and gets 0-deathed or gimped. Melee stocks are really fragile, so basing the score of a match off of only two of them is dumb. If we make the stock count high enough that fluke wins don't happen, it becomes a non-issue. We don't have to worry about having several matches to make up for the lack of accuracy in the match's determination of skill. EVERY match carries more weight, and in turn EVERY match is an accurate determination of player skill.

I've also yet to hear ANYTHING concerning the issue of the huge loss created by %s being marginalized. A huge part of the game is making sure you don't take damage so that you can survive through your opponent's respawn invincibility, and on the other side it's also important to get as much damage as possible when you are at high %s and up a stock. Games are frequently won because players are able to tack on an extra 15% every stock compared to their opponent, and these add up in 4-stock matches to give them the edge, but in 2-stock matches it's fairly meaningless because 30% isn't going to make a break a stock. It's going to come down to the first solid hit, most of the time.

 

[Kal]

I think this sums up how I feel on the topic:

http://youtu.be/2ybA2cR3n0U

This suit is black not.

In all seriousness, if we removed the timer, the game would degenerate into absolute awfulness. Best solution is to set up these on both players and just turn up the voltage whenever they do something we dislike.

 

[Cactuar]

@Bones: Your desire to amplify the gap between players as much as possible is misguided. You are basically saying that, if two players were completely equal, but one was able to land first hits 1% better, that person should win 100% of the time. Our goal is the opposite of this. We want to make it more difficult for the better player to win more consistently, and as a result that player has to become better to win as consistently as he did in the previous ruleset. Losing promotes player growth, as much as losing sucks. This is actually a far better indicator of skill than you realize, as it allows you to test your skill on lesser opponents through seeing your own consistency, where, if you had your way, you would only see that you win every match.

 

[Scar]

FD should be a counterpick stage >.>

Agreed

Even if everything I say is logically perfect and 100% correct, if no one likes playing like that, then none of it matters and we will just keep playing as we always have.

Agreed

I don't think any character will have 3 HARD counterpicks

Agreed, for some reason I was thinking there would be no bans. So my nightmare was me vs some equally (or slightly less) skilled Jiggs, where I lose game 1 because of some new goofy rest technique, then I know that I have to beat him on at least one of random stupid stages like mute city AND brinstar and for example Brinstar Depths, and also I can't get rested on my own CPs or I essentially lose. But if I get bans then I guess it's ok, and the use cases makes a lot of sense -- let's figure out these hard counters beforehand and create a system that is more/less unexploitable.

As for the Starcraft approach: Eggm actually brought that idea up with me a while back and I really like it, but the thought of removing the entire stage counterpick system seems even more radical than my suggestions. If we could get TOs to start doing it, I would participate 100%.

What I'd actually like to do is move the neutral stage to the end of the set, but I'm not sure why as I can't figure the logic to it.

I agree and am not sure why.

To go along with the new player experience: my intention is to make it easier for new players to become familiar with the game and to help them find focus when practicing. A big problem I see is that players will just practice random tech skill endlessly. They don't practice application. They can afford to do this currently because every stage is essentially the same, and most combo trees are the same on those stages. My hope is that having to practice against something specfically, rather than shadowboxing endlessly on BF or FD, will enable better growth as a player. This isn't something that we can't do with the neutrals, honestly, but I think the game having staled on those stages affects this negatively.

I see what you're saying, and I think this again has to do with what players value. New players just want to not suck (if I recall correctly). I think that your goal is in line with mine, but maybe the tourney ruleset isn't the best way to encourage new players to develop strong practice techniques.

I think we should look into some initiatives that we run at tournaments (see TO Handbook - shameless plug) that specifically target new (or perpetually weak) players, like specific tech skill competitions, TVs specifically set up for training (Bo7 vs new players, could double as a setup for recording for combo videos), amateur bracket with some sort of insightful commentary on each player's weaknesses, and so on.

 

[Cactuar]

I have no problem with telling people how to practice.



Edit: Yes, taking a look at the TO Handbook, it would be a really good idea for the community and TOs to brainstorm on methods of encouraging new players. The TO Handbook would be useful as new TOs could look at it to get a good idea on how to grow their local community, and to help that local community excel in the global one. TO Handbook

 

[GOTM]

New players just want to not suck

i just wanted to **** you.

 

[Scar]

So then why not just tell people how to practice? That said, it's no secret that I'd rather have every match played on Battlefield, and having almost every stage strike boil down to Game 1 on Battlefield has only strengthened my conviction

 

[Kal]

Ugh, that makes me so sad, Scar. Also saddens me that you called me Kai. T_T

 

[Cactuar]

Games in the current ruleset are individually too important to NOT play them on Battlefield. The end of every 3:3 set in the new one should really use Hax's Rule, not strike to neutral, but I don't know how all the non-viable characters play on the neutrals, so it is possible for many of the minority matches to be more neutral on non-battlefield, but even that seems unlikely aside from like Luigi having a gimped fb and GaW's recovery being easy to stuff there.

 

[Scar]

Sorry Kal

The upshot is that just because I want to play on BF all the time doesn't mean that I'd ever make anyone else do the same (unless they agree). But Brawl Battlefield is my dream.

And yeah, I'm basically just excited about reducing weight of matches. What's Hax's rule?

 

[Dan Salvato]

Games in the current ruleset are individually too important to NOT play them on Battlefield. The end of every 3:3 set in the new one should really use Hax's Rule, not strike to neutral, but I don't know how all the non-viable characters play on the neutrals, so it is possible for many of the minority matches to be more neutral on non-battlefield, but even that seems unlikely aside from like Luigi having a gimped fb and GaW's recovery being easy to stuff there.

I think most of the non-viables have a worse recovery on Battlefield, which really doesn't help things. There is no such thing as a "true neutral" stage, so I think striking would probably be best.

Come to think of it, what if the player with fewer wins always gets the counterpick, and then a tie score always results in striking? So, if you win from 1-0 to 1-1 you'd strike, or if you win from 2-0 to 2-1 then you still get the counterpick. Any opinions on such a system?

 

[Kal]

Sorry Kal

It's ok. I learned how to jump by watching your combo videos.

What's Hax's rule?

It's that players who can't agree to **** have to play on Battlefield.

Ok, more specifically, it's that players alternate stage suggestions until an agreement is reached. If no agreement is reached within three suggestions, they default to Battlefield.

 

[Cactuar]

Kal got it.

Not serious about implementing it here, but it does seem to be the direction of the current ruleset.

 

[CT Chia]

Well said, but the one point I disagree with is that you reward the loser by resetting the match. I think the winner is more rewarded because his damage percent is reset to zero. If the winner finishes the match at 150%, one hit from death, that damage disappears at the beginning of the next match.

You've got it wrong. Yes your damage is reset, but your stock is changed.

aka on a 3 stock game:
lets say player A takes two of B's stocks (aka the win condition for a 2 stock game) and still has 2 stocks 150% left. So 2 stocks 150 vs 1 stock 0. Now say before B is able to kill A, A gets 30% onto B. Now they are at 1 stock each, player A at 0% and B at 30%.

If the game had ended and moved to a next set after 2 stocks, they would start again at 2 stock 0% each, then player A would no longer have that feasible 30% lead. The more times you restart means the more you benefit the loser since you're evening out the playing field. And seeing that losers already have a CP advantage, giving them even more of an advantage doesn't add up.

---

While yes, this new ruleset does fix match time, it doesn't help fix set time, which while it's not addressed as an issue, I think it is. The potential set time for a Bo7 @ 3min each is 21 minutes. Especially in comparison to other fighters, the potential set time for a game of Marvel is just under 5 minutes. That's insane. It's also a reason why Smash tournaments in general take so long. We can basically get in Singles, Doubles, and possibly a side event when other tourneys can do multiple (2-4) FGC games and have time to spare.

 

[Bones0]

@Bones: Your desire to amplify the gap between players as much as possible is misguided. You are basically saying that, if two players were completely equal, but one was able to land first hits 1% better, that person should win 100% of the time. Our goal is the opposite of this. We want to make it more difficult for the better player to win more consistently, and as a result that player has to become better to win as consistently as he did in the previous ruleset. Losing promotes player growth, as much as losing sucks. This is actually a far better indicator of skill than you realize, as it allows you to test your skill on lesser opponents through seeing your own consistency, where, if you had your way, you would only see that you win every match.

This is completely contrary to the purpose of a tournament, which is to determine who the best player is, not to force good players to play better just to advance past worst players.

I'm sorry, but I honestly can't believe you aren't just trolling.