Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Cactuar]

@Chibo: The potential set time for a Bo3 @ 8 minutes each is 24 minutes.

@Bones: Bones, you talk like any of the proposed changes only affects the good player, or as if this buffs the worse player somehow.

It makes it more difficult to increase your win consistency. It doesn't make you win less when you look at your ratio of wins and losses, stockwise. If anything, you will actually have a better K:D ratio over time than you would in four stock matches because you are having your stock refreshed to 0% more frequently.

InternetExplorer explains why Chibo is wrong again below.

 

[Dan Salvato]

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

I don't really understand the logic. A winning stock or a winning match always ends with:

winner >= 0%
loser = 0%

If you split a 4-stock match into two 2-stock matches, then the winner more frequently gets his damage reset to 0 after taking the opponent's stock, which is an advantage for the winner.

It's 2-stock 150% vs. 1-stock 0%, but in a new match it would be 2-stock 0% vs. 2-stock 0%. A can still get 30% onto B at the start of that match regardless of whatever happened beforehand. In fact, it's easier for A to do so because B doesn't get a halo.

 

[Bones0]

The potential set time for a Bo3 @ 8 minutes each is 24 minutes.

I've never heard of this happening... ever.

 

[Cactuar]

I've never heard of this happening... ever.

And all 7 matches in 2 stock going to time is probably never going to happen unless people be trollin either, and yet it was still used for the example.

 

[Scar]

Chibo lol... man. Brutal.

Anyway, Bones, I'll reread your posts tonight and respond, for some reason I think you're missing something fundamental about what I'm saying, or vice versa. But generally the goal isn't to amplify the skill gap, and yeah we kind of are nerfing damage done without taking stocks, but really Melee is about taking stocks, not putting on percent. It's always been that way and it's reflected very well in 4-stock.

In fact I would argue that for certain characters (Peach and Jiggs come to mind), if you don't get a kill move and keep adding on percent, it becomes harder and harder to kill them, until they reach a % where throws or combo-starting moves can lead to kills. The point is, it's not all binary, it's actually quite complicated, and changing the rules simply introducing different things. It's not clear whether it's better or worse until we test.

I have no problem with telling people how to practice.

Speaking of which, players in my thread were asking for just that (tech skill guide). Any ideas would be helpful. Of course I'll include the "shffl moves back and forth without seeing the run animation" tip, but anything on top of that (and anything outside of pure tech skill practice) eludes me.

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

Goddammit.

 

[Kal]

The more times you restart means the more you benefit the loser since you're evening out the playing field.

This is true, but the amount of benefit provided to the loser depends on how much you would have lost if you had not restarted. I don't think it's a significant issue with something like this.

And seeing that losers already have a CP advantage, giving them even more of an advantage doesn't add up.

Saying it "doesn't add up" is sort of silly, seeing as we haven't established any sort of rigorous backing for how these things impact the game. For all we know the impact of the problem you've described is minimal.

The fact that the losing player chooses the counterpick is a result of the fact that we want players to choose counterpicks, but we do not want the winner to choose the counterpick (so that winning a single match will not skew the results of every match to follow). It defaults to having the loser player choose the counterpick. I wouldn't want this impacting any decisions, since it's kind of the natural choice anyway, and is more than compensated for innately: if your opponent gains this advantage by losing, and this advantage causes you to lose, you gain the advantage in return, and your opponent loses it.

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.

This is a good point. I just don't feel it really belongs in this thread. Of course, if you have any good suggestions for decreasing set length in a practical and agreeable way, I would be very happy to hear about it. I just think a separate thread for it is a better way to go.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Regarding set length: it's worth taking into account the time people take to decide their CPs and bans. It's not always a big time suck, but some of us like to take our time with these decisions, and more games per set means more time between rounds spent contemplating such things. IIRC, some EU tourneys had rules limiting how long you could spend thinking about CPs/bans, and implementing something like that could be an option if time is a concern. I have no real stance on this ruleset in general, but I thought this was worth bringing up since it's relevant to the current topic.

 

[Scar]

HuGs is the only person who it would affect anyway LOOOOOOOOOOL

I always joke that between games HuGs gets up, washes his face, calls his mom, does the laundry, etc. <3 Hugo

 

[Gea]

Scar, that is way out of line. Does his laundry? Everyone knows Hugo walks to the nearest corner store to buy slim jims between his matches.

 

[Scar]

LOOOOOOL well he's definitely doing SOMETHING.

Anyway @Fly that's absolutely a legitimate concern, especially since sets are Bo7. I think a major benefit of this ruleset is that you can sit and think a bit more, but not regulating that time would be unwise. Just throwing out my gut response -- I'd be in favor of a marriage of Mages DQ and Hax's rule.

In each set, Player A can:

• give a warning after 1 minute, where player B has 1 additional minute to choose a stage (or Battlefield)
• give a second warning, where player B has to immediately provide a stage (or Battlefield)
• start the match on Battlefield

 

[~Tac~]

@Chibo: The potential set time for a Bo3 @ 8 minutes each is 24 minutes.

@Bones: Bones, you talk like any of the proposed changes only affects the good player, or as if this buffs the worse player somehow.

It makes it more difficult to increase your win consistency. It doesn't make you win less when you look at your ratio of wins and losses, stockwise. If anything, you will actually have a better K:D ratio over time than you would in four stock matches because you are having your stock refreshed to 0% more frequently.

There isn't enough "This" that I can express.

Also, random thought. Imagine how different APEX'12 Melee GF would have been under this alternate ruleset. Just for the sake of example, making it Bo9.

 

[Bones0]

Armada would definitely DESTROY Hbox with this rule set.

 

[da K.I.D.]

There isn't enough "This" that I can express.

Also, random thought. Imagine how different APEX'12 Melee GF would have been under this alternate ruleset. Just for the sake of example, making it Bo9.

I'm on my phone atm, so I can't actually do it...

But just imagine me linking to egoraptors megaman sequelitis video at the point where he screams : "FFKKNNGGGG GEEENIUSSSSS"

 

[Hax]

you guys are going hard rofl

"if they don't provide a stage within 1 minute issue their first warning, if they don't within 2 minutes begin the match on battlefield"

 

[Scar]

that's basically what I said, right?

also the megaman video was amazing

 

[Devil Ray]

But generally the goal isn't to amplify the skill gap, and yeah we kind of are nerfing damage done without taking stocks, but really Melee is about taking stocks, not putting on percent. It's always been that way and it's reflected very well in 4-stock.



Goddammit.

that's not necessarily so. getting hits-->putting on percent-->taking stocks are all 3 connected.

shifting the ruleset bc melee is more geared towards one or the other isn't a good idea.

 

[Dan Salvato]

LOOOOOOL well he's definitely doing SOMETHING.

Anyway @Fly that's absolutely a legitimate concern, especially since sets are Bo7. I think a major benefit of this ruleset is that you can sit and think a bit more, but not regulating that time would be unwise. Just throwing out my gut response -- I'd be in favor of a marriage of Mages DQ and Hax's rule.

In each set, Player A can:

• give a warning after 1 minute, where player B has 1 additional minute to choose a stage (or Battlefield)
• give a second warning, where player B has to immediately provide a stage (or Battlefield)
• start the match on Battlefield

The player should take no longer than 30 seconds to choose a stage. I think failure to do so should result in selection of a random neutral.

 

[Kal]

A more practical rule is for the opponent to call "time," after which the player has thirty seconds.

 

[BigD!!!]

ray, just because they are connected doesnt make scar incorrect

i made a long post a couple pages ago on this and i dont feel like making it again, but basically my beef is that i disagree with cactuar about whether or not games going to time often is good or bad. i think its bad because something unique about melee is that damage is not directly tied to winning or losing; stocks are ultimately more important. the more prevalent time-outs, the more important damage is to winning. i know thats fine in other games, but i dont play other games, i play melee, and i think that kills being separate from damage is a big reason

 

[Dan Salvato]

ray, just because they are connected doesnt make scar incorrect

i made a long post a couple pages ago on this and i dont feel like making it again, but basically my beef is that i disagree with cactuar about whether or not games going to time often is good or bad. i think its bad because something unique about melee is that damage is not directly tied to winning or losing; stocks are ultimately more important. the more prevalent time-outs, the more important damage is to winning. i know thats fine in other games, but i dont play other games, i play melee, and i think that kills being separate from damage is a big reason

I like incorporating the importance of damage. As a slower character, I put a lot more effort into damaging the opponent than killing the opponent.

 

[BigD!!!]

i dont understand what you mean internet explorer

slower characters are the ones that have to deal with taking damage for a while, but then have more capacity to kill quickly

i just dont understand why a slower character would prefer emphasizing damage

 

[Scar]

maybe he plays link and just throws things at people

 

[BigD!!!]

ah yeah **** i forgot about link

 

[Dan Salvato]

maybe he plays link and just throws things at people

Lol...I probably would if Campylink didn't get wrecked by Campyfox. :C

 

[Luxord]

I like the concept of changing the 4 stock, 8 minute ruleset and changing legal stages but I have a few disagreements.

I've always felt the 3 stock, 5 minute was the most fair. However I'm with you on the stage thing with a few exceptions:
Temple
Icicle Mountain
Fourside
Brinstar Depths
Big Blue

Other than that well written Cactuar =D

 

[Metal Reeper]

I think....Fox should be banned on any stage with a wall.
Then this ruleset will own.

 

[Cactuar]

0-deaths are not a reason to ban any character. This is proven by wobbling. Getting someone against a wall like that on stages that don't confine you against them like the mountain in PS is actually pretty difficult if they are aware of the danger.

 

[Dan Salvato]

0-deaths are not a reason to ban any character. This is proven by wobbling. Getting someone against a wall like that on stages that don't confine you against them like the mountain in PS is actually pretty difficult if they are aware of the danger.

Also, just don't CP a stage with walls.

 

[Avalancer]

Me and my friend played this ruleset for a while, and it's...meh. 4-stock matches are more fun and interesting in my opinion

 

[Cactuar]

Did you play neutrals or full list?

 

[standardtoaster]

Monk and I have been playing with this ruleset all week in preparation for the Madison tourney this weekend. I really like having more stages to use. I've gotten used to the stock and time limit change, actually. For me, the stage list is what needs looking at most. For example, the yoshi's stage from 64 that has the cloud all the way on the right has extreme camping capabilities. If you don't use a character with a projectile or good recovery, you won't be able to stop them from timing you out. :/

 

[Cactuar]

How do you feel about it compared to 4 stock, aside from the stage availability?

 

[Strong Badam]

Honestly, Cactuar, I don't see how the different stock count & timer suddenly make more stages viable for competition. We're still playing the same game. Stage interference with the players is still a problem. I had some fun with this but I highly prefer the current recommended one.

 

[standardtoaster]

The stock count didn't really matter to me. It took a bit to get used to 2 stocks from using 4 but it's easy enough to do.

 

[Kal]

Honestly, Cactuar, I don't see how the different stock count & timer suddenly make more stages viable for competition. We're still playing the same game. Stage interference with the players is still a problem. I had some fun with this but I highly prefer the current recommended one.

It depends on your justification for banning things. For the most part, individual stages won't become more or less broken by adjusting the number of stock. However, given that the MBR is banning stages with "balance" as a sort of justification, it's entirely plausible that increasing the length of sets will alleviate these balance issues.

 

[Dan Salvato]

Honestly, Cactuar, I don't see how the different stock count & timer suddenly make more stages viable for competition. We're still playing the same game. Stage interference with the players is still a problem. I had some fun with this but I highly prefer the current recommended one.

The stock count and timer allow for bo7 sets, which in turn allows for more stages to be strategically counter-picked.

 

[MonkUnit]

How do you feel about it compared to 4 stock, aside from the stage availability?

I felt that having 2 stocks instead of 4 really makes a harder punish for making mistakes, haha. Just means I have to play more on point and such. I also haven't timed out that much, surprisingly. I honestly thought I would be timing out more with this ruleset as I mainly use Young Link. However, I am still able to finish most games under 2.5 mins.

As for the camping / running around on certain stages, you can always ban them in your set.

 

[Kal]

I timed out a Peach player with Pichu on Saturday. Three minutes made it practical, insofar as I would probably have ****ed it up given seven minutes. Though I think a "high-level Pichu" (an almost mythical player) would not know the difference.

 

[Cactuar]

It isn't that it suddenly makes competitive stages viable, it is that the extent to which a stage affects a set is now reduced. A big part of the problem that we have had over the last few years wasn't that counterpick stages allowed one character a moderate advantage in a single match or that many of them were broken, but rather that the moderate advantage provided would often win the set outright, and thus stages that have a significant weight when it comes to play influence were filtered out.

The longer a match takes, the more likely it is that the winner/loser is going to be determined by the sum of all factors leading to how likely it is for x to beat y on z.

Playing a match out on one of those stages for 4 stock vs 2, at 1/3rd the set weight rather than 1/7th, due to the length of a 4 stock match, will lead to a slowly growing gap between the two opponents based on the inherent character matchups, how the stage influences the matchup, and the ability of the two players to play that stage properly. In a 4 stock match, the gap between winning and losing grows significantly. If the match is shorter, the gap that separates the two players is smaller, which makes bursts of good play more rewarding in that it could net you the match win, but of nearly the same value set-wise because the value of individual stock does not get altered significantly between 2 and 4 stock other than in the inherent value of someone having a 2 stock lead being a near guarantee of winning 1/3rd of the set. If someone earns a two stock lead here or simply has two good stocks of play , they are rewwarded with a match win, but aren't given the 2nd match (next two stock) simply because they had momentum.

tl:dr - If you quantify the amount of advantage a stage provides, the extent to how much advantage the stage provides in any matchup and how much that stage affects the outcome of a match scales upward the longer the match goes on. Having a shorter match reduces how much influence the stage has on the outcome, which in turn makes us re-evaluate how strong the stages are when paired with the change in time/stock.

 

[standardtoaster]

I'll try to get as many matches recorded with this ruleset at the tourney this weekend.