Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Heart Break Kid]

Flatzone!! Yes!!

 

[Citizen Snips]

You're really half-assing this Cactuar. You need to just go balls deep and go with something similar to what New Jersey Brawlers are doing. 1 stock, 1 minute would keep games short in order to maximize the benefit low tiers get from their "burst" styles. There is very little accident forgiveness because any one mistake can lead to a loss. A lot of games would probably go to time, but whoever is losing would be doing their best to stay in their opponent's face and keep the action going. With just 1 stock per match, you can increase sets to at least best of 13s, which means 13 different stages. That means players will be required to adapt quickly to their opponent's 13 unique strategies, and players must also be prepared for the thousands(?) of character combinations that could be played at any given time based on who is counterpicking characters.

Falco is gay



<3

 

[Bones0]

I think the ruleset would actually do a good job of nerfing the spacies so they aren't able to run circles around the other top tiers so easily. With just one stock, the ability to gimp Falco becomes a parallel of the FGC's "Super." Fox as well gets combo'd really hard, which makes both of them much less forgiving because one slip up could result in death. You don't see this nearly as much with 4 stocks because even if they make one or two mistakes, they can still largely dominate the game outside of those two small moments.

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zdso_7HbKY

 

[Fernandez]

Thats why fox and falco should never approach with this ruleset and shoot lasers/ run away all day.

 

[LittleBoyLarry]

With this rule, people could probably pick up more characters for counterpicks. This could also benefit low-tier mains in which they could use gimmicks and whatnot. But like Cactuar said, playtest.

IMO, 2 stock, 3-4 minutes is okay.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

You're really half-assing this Cactuar. You need to just go balls deep and go with something similar to what New Jersey Brawlers are doing. 1 stock, 1 minute would keep games short in order to maximize the benefit low tiers get from their "burst" styles. There is very little accident forgiveness because any one mistake can lead to a loss. A lot of games would probably go to time, but whoever is losing would be doing their best to stay in their opponent's face and keep the action going. With just 1 stock per match, you can increase sets to at least best of 13s, which means 13 different stages. That means players will be required to adapt quickly to their opponent's 13 unique strategies, and players must also be prepared for the thousands(?) of character combinations that could be played at any given time based on who is counterpicking characters.

Not saying this is a good idea because I think its even a little too extreme for me, but lets say you had a ruleset where games got played on the following stages in this order:

Game 1: Yoshis
2 Battlefield
3 FD
4 Dreamland
5 FoD
6 Pokemon
7 Brinstar
8 Cruise
9 Mushroom Kingdom II
10 Mute City
11 Jungle Japes
12 Kongo Jungle 64
Final Game: Battlefield

Tons of diversity, the set stages reduces counterpicking time...a lot of good would come out of this.

 

[stelzig]

Yeah if this happens... I'm not gonna attend any tournament with it. Probably not even gonna follow it.

Maybe i'll actually write some comments on it tommorow.

 

[Bones0]

Yeah, I don't really have a plan for the logistics of determining stages. It'd probably just be something like DSR (obviously), each player gets 4-5 bans or something, then just take turns picking. The troublesome one is picking the stage for game 1. I guess you could just strike down, but it seems like that would take too long in general.

 

[Citizen Snips]

Yeah if this happens... I'm not gonna attend any tournament with it. Probably not even gonna follow it.

Maybe i'll actually write some comments on it tommorow.

Dude, I'm the same way when it comes to trying out new things. I remember when my mom tried to get me to eat tilapia for the first time. I stabbed her in the throat.

 

[Jonas]

Cactuar should have written this but asked PoundSlap to create the thread and post it. See what kind of reaction it would have gotten.

 

[stelzig]

I'm all for trying new things, but I find this ridicilous. And I feel that if pretty much any other user than cactuar had posted it, people would not be taking the idea seriously at all and the poster would be flamed all day.

Just the time limit alone is really weird to me... Like even all casuals turn away from the standard 2 minute matches in this game because they suck. 3 minute matches are not much better.

But also the whole stage thing and such. It's not appealing to me at all.

Some simple change like "let's go with 3 stocks and 6 minutes and maybe play bo5 more often like europeans do" or something like that... I could go with. This sounds like a completely different game.

Edit: Shorter matches also means more loading times btw. At an age where people are quitting games to get into the next one a little faster
tbh, I do not see the big deal about matches taking long and see no reason for us to have to try and mimic the length of other fighting games so hard.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

This sounds like a completely different game.

Yeah, isn't smash awesome?

Its like a million games in one.

Granted, only a few of those million are competitive, but I think our current ruleset and the proposed one are both in that subset.

 

[Citizen Snips]

Some simple change like "let's go with 3 stocks and 6 minutes and maybe play bo5 more often like europeans do" or something like that... I could go with. This sounds like a completely different game.

I think it's more of a stepping stone thing. Remember that this game started with 5 stocks and items, and tons of stages. If someone suggested that ruleset now, they'd get laughed at. I think what we have right now is really close to a good balance, but it's possible that there is better. I'd like to see 3 stock 5/6 minutes. It seems like a good middle ground for everything good and bad about all the rulesets.

And remember, Cactuar is asking people to test it out. He's not demanding it be implemented immediately.

 

[stelzig]

Citizen: Yeah. Kinda like most users (including you, no matter how much you agree with it) would get laughed at for suggesting playing with all stages, 3 minutes and 2 stocks.

On a sidenote, I would not have a problem with 5 stocks either. As far as I know exactly that amount goes back to a very common number for the casuals to play with. (which is probably why it was originally used too, and if it didn't take more time in tournaments it would also be 100% better anyway)

 

[Citizen Snips]

Citizen: Yeah. Kinda like most users would get laughed at for suggesting playing with all stages, 3 minutes and 2 stocks.

On a sidenote, I would not have a problem with 5 stocks either. As far as I know exactly that amount goes back to a very common number for the casuals to play with. (which is probably why it was originally used too, and if it didn't take more time in tournaments it would also be 100% better anyway)

The 5-stock rule was taken from 64, if I remember correctly. But yeah, it's all about increments, which I'm completely for. It's a much better method than drastic changes.

 

[Bones0]

The whole issue being taken with 4 stocks is that there is too much accident forgiveness, so 5 would just make that worse. This is Melee, not Allstate car insurance.

 

[stelzig]

Yeah, i'm still not even understanding how the game giving a player a fluke win, that he wouldn't have gotten in a longer match is a positive. When I skimmed the arguments (it is pretty late here), it had to do with sets being more important? Do not see in any way how flukes in the individual matches are justified by this. The longer a match is, the more fair it is, and the guy who makes the LEAST mistakes will win. Let's also play BO1 so we avoid accident forgiveness. No reason to make later sets longer in the least. They just add more forgiveness.

 

[Dan Salvato]

Most people who aren't taking this seriously are complaining about the "all stages" thing.

Nobody wants all stages. We playtest and add those which are viable as counterpicks.

The fact is that all current stages call for basically one single strategy out of each character that works universally. Opening up stages also opens up new strategies, as does timeout potential. Fewer stocks supplements the possibility of having more stages per match.

 

[Citizen Snips]

The whole issue being taken with 4 stocks is that there is too much accident forgiveness, so 5 would just make that worse. This is Melee, not Allstate car insurance.

Thank you for the signature.

 

[stelzig]

So yeah... Now I hate the hbox vs. armada matches as well.

Because that is most likely what started this ridicilous movement. =/

 

[Kal]

I don't think that's it. I think Cactuar just realized that, in basically a decade of competitive Melee, we have never questioned the choice of four stock.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

So yeah... Now I hate the hbox vs. armada matches as well.

Because that is most likely what started this ridicilous movement. =/

I don't think that's it. I think Cactuar just realized that, in basically a decade of competitive Melee, we have never questioned the choice of four stock.

Its like nobody reads my posts ;_;

 

[Citizen Snips]

Yeah, i'm still not even understanding how the game giving a player a fluke win, that he wouldn't have gotten in a longer match is a positive. When I skimmed the arguments (it is pretty late here), it had to do with sets being more important? Do not see in any way how flukes in the individual matches are justified by this. The longer a match is, the more fair it is, and the guy who makes the LEAST mistakes will win. Let's also play BO1 so we avoid accident forgiveness. No reason to make later sets longer in the least. They just add more forgiveness.

Let's extend your logic to an extreme, for my argument's sake. Say a match had 12 stocks, BO1, and it was on FD. I play Captain Falcon, and my opponent plays Fox. That matchup on FD is pretty damned bad. But I have a much nicer matchup on Yoshis (Still bad, but nicer). What if those 12 stocks were on Yoshis instead? Would that be considered a fluke?

What you're not considering is the stage variability. The issue with the current system is that a player can get counterpicked once and lose a major portion of a set. By increasing the amount of matches, the impact of the CP on the overall outcome of the set is reduced. That's the reason for this.

I feel your pain, Crimson <3

 

[Cactuar]

Thats why fox and falco should never approach with this ruleset and shoot lasers/ run away all day.

Should and what actually happens are two very different things. Fox and Falco should never approach and shoot lasers/run away until their opponents are up to like 130 in the regular ruleset. But we don't play that way.

 

[stelzig]

I don't think that's it. I think Cactuar just realized that, in basically a decade of competitive Melee, we have never questioned the choice of four stock.

Then why is he trying to revolutionize the entire game instead of simply questioning the stock count?
I also disagree with it never being questioned. Actually I saw someone suggest 3 stocks and 6 minutes shortly after the apex finals. He was flamed a little and then ignored. Now that was a silly reaction by other people, I agree, but now cactuar suggests something a lot more radical and most people think it's cool?

Even if cactuar were to have thought of this, completely independant of those matches, I have a feeling alot of the support stems from hating those 8 minute timeouts so much.

Let's extend your logic to an extreme, for my argument's sake. Say a match had 12 stocks, BO1, and it was on FD. I play Captain Falcon, and my opponent plays Fox. That matchup on FD is pretty damned bad. But I have a much nicer matchup on Yoshis (Still bad, but nicer). What if those 12 stocks were on Yoshis instead? Would that be considered a fluke?

What you're not considering is the stage variability. The issue with the current system is that a player can get counterpicked once and lose a major portion of a set. By increasing the amount of matches, the impact of the CP on the overall outcome of the set is reduced. That's the reason for this.

I feel your pain, Crimson <3

I am following your logic, not my own. I never said I would sacrifice matches in a set for longer individual matches. Only that making the individual matches shorter and that somehow is a good thing with the reasoning that there is no forgiveness for accidents... Is stupid.

I also am not very fond of the idea of having to go in and out of matches (loading times), as I mentioned before, in case you're proposing, increasing the match count to BO15 (finals are BO7 in europe) but that is a minor thing I guess

 

[ajp_anton]

I've only read the first post.


I see a few problems with only 2 stocks:
- I hope you mean low tiers will benefit *only* because of the added stages, because if only stock/match count is altered, if it benefits low tiers it also benefits the worse player.
- Burst: Since you say non-viables aren't "sustained" but only use "small windows of opportunity", the chances of such opportunities to happen during a match will decrease, effectively cancelling out the effects of shorter but more matches.
- Accidents: If the worse player makes more mistakes than the better player, they will lose more matches anyway. And if the better player isn't affected by one mistake, then let him win.
- Boring non-comebacks: I think it'd be equally boring to see someone simply quit the match after a mistake, simply because they can afford to lose one match of so many.
- More matches will slow down tournaments because of dead time between the matches.

The effect that I see is that instead of for example a close 2-0, we will get maybe 4-2 instead.
I say increase the number of matches without decreasing the number of stocks. Best of 5 earlier in the bracket should become standard. This is already done in many European tournaments since as long as I can remember.

I might be slightly biased towards what I'm used to, I could still change my mind, but ATM I don't like shorter matches at all.

 

[Acryte]

@cactuar

In most traditional fighters you can camp by playing defensively, but if you are running away then you are forced into a corner or to jump which most of the time is a really bad situation. Smash has more freedom when it comes to movement. Running away, especially on many stages due to platforms, becomes a viable stalling tactic. This changes the overall metagame of how matches are played in general.

At the beginning of a match the low timer encourages aggression, but because the timer is so short, that means that once you gain any solid amount of percentage lead, then you can just run away for 30 seconds to a minute and win. If you have a half lifebar advantage on your opponent in a traditional fighter and plenty of room to retreat, and there is only 10 seconds on the clock... what will you do? Any good player would go for the timeout. In smash, because you have so many movement options, on many stages they can run for much longer without risking much.

Look at it this way, the matches will have a different dynamic. It will be fight until you get ahead, then avoid the enemy for a short time. Even if you don't play like that, you will have a hard time deciding hmm... 1 min left and I'm up 80% what will I do? In a tourney match when money is on the line take a guess. The new metagame will consist of running away at the end of matches which is like... lamer than ever to be honest.

Is this the metagame that this ruleset is trying to realize? because if not then it doesn't accomplish what was originally intended and to be honest it seems a lot less competitive. AKA I compete and think for a small portion of a match (30 seconds to a minute depending on how long it takes to gain a considerable lead) and then after that I try to avoid you and run away

Look for the tierlist to change based off of how well a character can avoid the opponent instead of being based off of how well they are able to KO. Characters like Pika and Mewtwo etc will get a large bump. Characters who are high tier because of their ability to get KOs won't be so much better because a character's ability to keep away is much more important now. If Jiggs lands a single upthrow rest he can then just run away the whole game. Expect to see a lot more shino stalling, planking, running away. Chaingrab heavy characters... wobbling even used to stall out excessive seconds of time off the clock etc so that after a single grab, instead of just being guaranteed 1 stock, they are almost guaranteed the match due to eating up the clock in the process.

 

[Inty17]

I'm hesitant to try this. I'd love to have a more balanced game, and I'd even love to be able to play G&W in tourney, but changing stock isn't gonna make me be able to play him. Characters are still better than others, and I don't feel changing stock will do anything in that regard.

People in Street Fighter generally stick to their characters, just as we have grown to stick to ours, but characters will still be better than others.

It would just make a for a different mindset, and players would have to QUICKLY adapt to the new situation, which I suppose would still weed out the better player, it would just be in a totally different way.

And most importantly, since we're so used to having the crutch of that accident forgiveness, people who have always played 4 stock matches will most likely be even more careful about keeping their stocks. I'd argue that the game is even campier if played this way.

 

[t3h Icy]

The whole issue being taken with 4 stocks is that there is too much accident forgiveness, so 5 would just make that worse. This is Melee, not Allstate car insurance.

looooooooool

 

[Citizen Snips]

Then why is he trying to revolutionize the entire game instead of simply questioning the stock count?
I also disagree with it never being questioned. Actually I saw someone suggest 3 stocks and 6 minutes shortly after the apex finals. He was flamed a little and then ignored. Now that was a silly reaction by other people, I agree, but now cactuar suggests something a lot more radical and most people think it's cool?

Even if cactuar were to have thought of this, completely independant of those matches, I have a feeling alot of the support stems from hating those 8 minute timeouts so much.

I remember that post. It was poorly presented and didn't show a lot of thought. Since he was a nobody, people figured it was scrub logic, which it very well might have been. That's why any time I post something even slightly controversial, I back the **** out of it.

Cactuar is a high-level player, so many people will accept that he has put at least some consideration into this, in addition to the fact that he has a decent amount of experience with the game at a tournament level.

Personally, I like 3 stock 6 minute. I think it's a good balance. Uh... that's it. XD

 

[KrIsP!]

I tried this ruleset out for the sake of trying, albeit against someone who's pretty casual to smash in general. I tried all types of stages, most matches went got down to 30 seconds. I must admit I didn't really like it as I just felt like camping when I saw the timer go down and noticed I was only up by about 60%. I didn't much like it but it's not game-breaking, although play testing would surely go differently in a competitive setting.

 

[Inty17]

I'm hesitant to try this. I'd love to have a more balanced game, and I'd even love to be able to play G&W in tourney, but changing stock isn't gonna make me be able to play him.

People in Street Fighter generally stick to their characters, just as we have grown to stick to ours, but characters will still be better than others.

It would just make a for a different mindset, and players would have to QUICKLY adapt to the new situation, which I suppose would still weed out the better player, it would just be in a totally different way.

And most importantly, since we're so used to having the crutch of that accident forgiveness, people who have always played 4 stock matches will most likely be even more careful about keeping their stocks. I'd argue that the game is even campier if played this way.

 

[stelzig]

Since this topic is running so fast.

Let's extend your logic to an extreme, for my argument's sake. Say a match had 12 stocks, BO1, and it was on FD. I play Captain Falcon, and my opponent plays Fox. That matchup on FD is pretty damned bad. But I have a much nicer matchup on Yoshis (Still bad, but nicer). What if those 12 stocks were on Yoshis instead? Would that be considered a fluke?

What you're not considering is the stage variability. The issue with the current system is that a player can get counterpicked once and lose a major portion of a set. By increasing the amount of matches, the impact of the CP on the overall outcome of the set is reduced. That's the reason for this.

I feel your pain, Crimson <3

I am following your logic, not my own. I never said I would sacrifice matches in a set for longer individual matches. Only that making the individual matches shorter and that somehow is a good thing with the reasoning that there is no forgiveness for accidents... Is stupid.

I also am not very fond of the idea of having to go in and out of matches (loading times), as I mentioned before, in case you're proposing that we increase the match count to BO15 (finals are BO7 in europe) but that is a minor thing I guess

 

[Citizen Snips]

Since this topic is running so fast.

I am following your logic, not my own. I never said I would sacrifice matches in a set for longer individual matches. Only that making the individual matches shorter and that somehow is a good thing with the reasoning that there is no forgiveness for accidents... Is stupid.

I also am not very fond of the idea of having to go in and out of matches (loading times), as I mentioned before, in case you're proposing, increasing the match count to BO15 (finals are BO7 in europe) but that is a minor thing I guess

Lol, I agree with what your saying about accident forgiveness. I think people have kind of warped the original intent. Cactuar wanted to balance out forgiveness between higher and lower skilled players, as a mistake against a higher-skilled player is more costly. Arguably, this is what makes them more skilled, but whatever. I'm tired.

Also, I am actually terrified of 2 stocks. I would much rather see 3 and more stages.

 

[Kal]

Then why is he trying to revolutionize the entire game instead of simply questioning the stock count?

Did you read what I wrote earlier about how the new stage list derived from the change in stock count, and isn't some separate aspect of the ruleset?

 

[KrIsP!]

And most importantly, since we're so used to having the crutch of that accident forgiveness, people who have always played 4 stock matches will most likely be even more careful about keeping their stocks. I'd argue that the game is even campier if played this way.

Well I think the argument here is that it would compliment using aggressive and defensive, and at times plain campy playstyles when mixed. If time-outs are more often and socially accepted then your going to approach to get that small lead and play defensively to keep that lead. Essentially the each match would be played on the edge of your seat keeping very aware and if you make a mistake and lose you still have more matches and this time you get the counter pick to hopefully boost you.

But your right, under this rule set some people might be able to abuse camping and stalling which might make some drastic changes in the tier list and stage list. It does need to be played to assure these changes don't down right ruin the game, I personally don't like the idea but who knows maybe it can do more good than bad.

 

[Fernandez]

I don't think that's it. I think Cactuar just realized that, in basically a decade of competitive Melee, we have never questioned the choice of four stock.

I think if some one would open a thread with a title like:'' why do we play 4 stock matches and what could we try otherwise?'' we could get better ideas then this one in a day.

 

[stelzig]

Did you read what I wrote earlier about how the new stage list derived from the change in stock count, and isn't some separate aspect of the ruleset?

I didn't read much at all as I really only planned on making that first post today anyway. Just couldn't help, but responding to some of the reactions I received =/

So let me go back to my original post. I am thoroughly not interested in this ruleset and would probably ignore all tournaments using it. Luckily it would probably take a while for europe to accept it, even if it somehow became standard in the US.

 

[Kal]

I think if some one would open a thread with a title like:'' why do we play 4 stock matches and what could we try otherwise?'' we could get better ideas then this one in a day.

Then, by all means, start such a thread. What's stopping you?

 

[KrIsP!]

I think if some one would open a thread with a title like:'' why do we play 4 stock matches and what could we try otherwise?'' we could get better ideas then this one in a day.

Well this has turned into a debate and many people ARE giving their opinions as well as alternate options so by Cactuar playing the drastic change at the lead we can get more people thinking past that wall of a small one stock change. That's just the thing though, it's drastic. Some people agree, some don't and the conversation goes places until some people can find a good idea out of it and test it.