Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[trahhSTEEZY]

It should happen ALOT if people are playing to win though. We shouldn't rely on the fact that people aren't playing to win with their idea of dignity.

i feel alot more people will do this, when they look at the timer and see 3, instead of 8.


also why do both players need to be defensive? all it takes is one guy playing keepaway.

 

[Cactuar]

Playing keepaway for 3 minutes with 2 stock is more difficult than you are presenting it to be, especially given the number of characters/stages that have counters to this.

A lot of these arguments are coming down to "I don't want to play against it", regardless of its value as a strategy. Bias.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

that's also implying everyone has characters to counter their opponent. if i play fox and you play peach only, i don't see what youre going to do against my keepaway. also are we implying all stages/besides the 2 you mentioned? I thought i saw you say neutrals only while adding a tiny bit in, instead?


this has nothing to do with what i want lol, i play fox. i can play keep away and i most likely will not get camped on.

my idea is coming from a growing community aspect.

 

[Cactuar]

Even neutrals only. If I know your style is to camp me out for 3 minutes, my Peach should be prepared to take you to YS, BF, FoD, FD.

You think Armada has a problem with campy Fox players on neutrals?

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

i'd ban FoD, you'd go to either a balanced stage where i probably could still camp, or make the mistake of going yoshis.


no, i don't think armada does. i also don't think 1 player that stands out worlds over practically everyone else is a good example.

 

[Cactuar]

So stop using yourself as an example.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

well i don't necessarily have to camp the whole time. once i get a stock lead it's not 3 minutes anymore. 2 minutes or less is very short.

 

[Cactuar]

You getting a stock lead implies player vs player action. You have earned an advantage. How you choose to extend it is up to you.

Even in the current ruleset, players should run away as soon as they get the lead and try to extend their lead, rather than fight head on. Very few players really do it, even though it is the best option, strategically, and it has nothing to do with timer.

 

[Stratocaster]

The proposed rule around that was actually directed towards Fox in particular:

A player may not switch to Fox on their own counterpick. If they choose to switch to Fox, they forfeit the stage selection to the other player.

Fox is, quite simply, ridiculously good with so many stages on. He doesn't require a secondary. He still suffers from having less than good matchups on many of those stages in specific matchups, but for general utility, he is number 1. Allowing a player both stage counterpick, and then character counterpick, opens up the ability for players to do things like the Hyrule circle run if they so choose. Removing their ability to choose Fox after seeing what character their opponent would select on such a stage hopefully nulls this.

That is, if we even made stages like that legal. It seems odd to have such a rule directed at a single character, but the rule does not harm Fox mains, while preventing a gamebreaking tactic.

So... everyone has to main fox only because otherwise you'll get counterpicked to death? This gives fox mains a distant advantage because, by your own admission, "Fox is, quite simply, ridiculously good with so many stages on." Yeah, you can't switch to fox, but if you just start with fox then you have so many broken counterpick options. A ruleset like this gives many characters virtually zero chance to beat a fox main, because even if they can win a match, fox's counterpick options are too good for many other characters to have a chance. He'd put like 10 characters in trash tier immediately.

Stages are banned because they aren't fit for competitive play for a reason. Number of stocks, matches, sets, time, doesn't change that. If a stage is broken, having only one match of the set on that stage doesn't change the fact that the match was a waste because they won because of the stage.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

i'm not using myself as an example personally, i'm just pretending to be any given smasher at any given time.

i agree about extending their lead (i do this very commonly), but that's not really the same as timing someone out..there's a huge difference in a players motives between these two.

 

[Cactuar]

So... everyone has to main fox only because otherwise you'll get counterpicked to death? This gives fox mains a distant advantage because, by your own admission, "Fox is, quite simply, ridiculously good with so many stages on." Yeah, you can't switch to fox, but if you just start with fox then you have so many broken counterpick options. A ruleset like this gives many characters virtually zero chance to beat a fox main, because even if they can win a match, fox's counterpick options are too good for many other characters to have a chance. He'd put like 10 characters in trash tier immediately.

Stages are banned because they aren't fit for competitive play for a reason. Number of stocks, matches, sets, time, doesn't change that. If a stage is broken, having only one match of the set on that stage doesn't change the fact that the match was a waste because they won because of the stage.

1) This is not an actual rule we have put in.
2) You get stage bans.
3) Those stages are not in the ruleset. They would have to be playtested first, and it is highly unlikely that they will make it through playtesting.
4) At most, even without banning those stages, the number of times that could happen to you is half the total minus one. You have control of your own counterpicks.


You act like Fox is the only one allowed to counterpick, and that he is all powerful. He isn't. He is really good. He is the hypothetical best character in the game. As such, he is one of the best characters for ANYONE to play. That doesn't mean you have to. If it was true, everyone would play the same character. We don't. Fox doesn't win tournaments. Good players do.

 

[Kal]

Why are you expecting us to give a **** if you don't have a counter strategy with your character, Steezy? It's not like you're forbidden from playing Fox. Some characters won't be viable in certain ways, and that's ok. And, as this is ruleset is tested and examined, we'll learn what things are broken and need to be removed or changed.

When did people start thinking it was a good idea to try and artificially balance the game, anyway? We should just use handicaps. At least those are programmed in.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

Why are you seeing it like this is my personal problem? Especially when i am the fox, THEY need the counter, i don't think it's fair to expect people to play multiple characters to solve their problems.

i guess it comes down to what people see as fair, like expecting people to play multiple characters or not. i guess it's something people SHOULD do already to win, but it would probably become mandatory after this.

 

[Cactuar]

They don't have to play multiple characters to solve their problems. They just need to be better than you with one on a neutral (that you both agree to play on), and then have 3 strong stages in mind for the matchup. You talk in incredibly vague hypotheticals.

 

[Kal]

Even if they do have to play multiple characters (this will necessarily be the case if you go far enough down the tier list), there isn't anything wrong with that. There isn't any higher power mandating that every character have the same chance to win. If there were, we would have no game to play.

 

[Cactuar]

I feel like the inverse of the argument, from the other player's view is:

Even though my character is bad, I shouldn't have to pick up more characters. Your character is just much better than mine, so you should play a different character, instead of me having to play a better one.

That is stupid. Low tier mains know that their character is not as good. It is a decision they make. They believe they can be successful with that character, or they just like playing that character. It is not up to you or I to convince them otherwise.


The argument you are making applies to the current ruleset as well, but you are trying to talk like it is specific to this one. You play the hypothetical best character in the game, and yet people still play characters that are bad against him when playing you. Why? Choice.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

Well, more so "my character is bad, besides you already being a better character in general, you now have yet another way of beating my crappy character"


they aren't dealing with time-outs in the current ruleset, sitting through 8 minutes is a lot more painful on both sides, over 3. People are most likely more motivated, and feel less douchey, timing out someone in 3 minutes instead of a dragged out, actually long 8 minutes.

 

[Cactuar]

Who would feel less douchey for timing out a low tier with Fox in either ruleset? You fail to grasp that people have to leave themselves vulnerable to this scenario for it to occur. It can be avoided in many ways.

Hbox could hypothetically avoid losing to YLink with another character, but Armada has a crazy good Peach to fall back on. Just because situation A has a counter, doesn't mean you can use it. This is part of intelligent decision making. Now, were HBox to practice a character (this could be Puff or anyone else) that could beat both Peach and Young Link, and reach a sufficient skill level with that character to make it relevant, he would have beaten the scenario. Instead, he is vulnerable to YL because he does not have an answer to YL AND Peach, not because he doesn't have an answer to YL. At best in this situation, he could practice a character against YL, double blind, and hope that Armada picks YL. If he were to win that match, he would have to either hope AR stays YL for the current matchup, or be stuck playing AR's Peach with the character he chose first round.

I'm going further into this than I need to, but the point is made. People are only as vulnerable as they allow themselves to be.


I don't know if I didn't state this before or something, but I feel like it should be apparent even if unspoken...:

This rule set does not promote the same set of skills that the current one does. Stop trying to criticize it based on that fact. Doing so is pointless, because the point of the rule set is to not be the same as the current one. You are, without knowing it, agreeing that the rule set is fulfilling its purpose.

 

[Bones0]

3. I definitely agree that, for the overwhelming majority of matches, in practice an extended timer won't change anything. But, at least in theory (and from the truly determined players), we would just see longer battles of attrition. Approaching doesn't need to be inferior for this to be true. Camping just needs to be a viable option. If it's the case where camping is bad, then the timer isn't important. The main thing to note is that, with the A situation you have described, players will wait as long as possible to approach because there's no reason not to. And I'm not following why the camping player loses in situation B. The assumption is that your camping is not static, and that you are

4. I mean, what choices aren't arbitrary? I don't think that the longer the match the better, necessarily. There is a degree to which I think players should be encouraged to avoid making mistakes, and the longer the match, the lesser this degree. Hence the choice of a medium.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the burden of finding proof (or reason, I guess) should lay on the people trying to add the time limit, not vice versa.

5. Why would I go Ganon on Onett?

3. Who cares if they wait to approach? They are just wasting their own time if they both agree to sit on opposite sides of the stage...

4. It isn't that matches are somehow better if they go longer. It's about the timer playing a role. The role of the timer should only be to make sure the tournament finishes on time. Anything beyond that is just going to artificially change how players must play. Players shouldn't be forced to do anything due to the threat of the clock running out, but obviously logistics dictate that the match must end some time, so we have a timer just in case neither person wants to approach. If you can give a valid reason why we should be trying to force the losing player to approach sooner than they like, I'd love to hear it.

5. Because you main Ganon? Missing the point/10

 

[Cactuar]

Bones, you realize that the other end of your "the timer encourages time outs" argument is that having a very high timer discourages timeouts as a legitimate means of winning, right? That isn't something that is our responsibility. All it does is make long matches even worse to watch and to play, because the majority of the match between two defensive players is spent not doing anything. If people want to use the timer as a means of victory, that is their decision. Just because you don't think timeout should be a legit strategy doesn't make it true. It is purely opinion.

The high timer is actually what has created the mentality that timeouts are ****ing awful because of the scenarios in which it ends up being used as the determinant generally being 8 minute matches of no action at all.

Think about the last 20-30 seconds of any close match that has ended up timing out. They are ridiculously intense, because one player has to maintain his lead, while the other is forced into a rushdown mode to remove that lead. This is a good thing, and exciting to see. Even between two aggressive players, it showcases one of the player's ability to play defensive, and the other to basically go berserk.

Think about the 7:30-40 leading up to that point. Basically just a waste of time.

 

[Kal]

3. I'm missing the point? Also, I realize that I forgot to finish what I was writing.

4. Putting the timer over the medium = useless. Players will just play incredibly defensively until the timer reaches the medium. Any timer you choose will necessarily alter gameplay to some degree, but I'm making the case that the medium timer is the canonical choice (and that, since a timer must be chosen arbitrarily, the canonical choice is a good one).

5. Really? Really Bones? You cite a single example to try and comprehensively assess whether the game will degenerate into "my set of gimmicks vs. your set of gimmicks," and you don't even go through the trouble of choosing a reasonable gimmick? And you think I am missing the point/10?

 

[Bones0]

Like I said, idc if two players who don't feel like approaching have to endure 4 minutes of standing still. The other 99% of the community is then free to play without the constraints of a timer. Obviously it is an opinion that games should or should not go to time, but the large majority of people tend to think that the Melee's game play was not designed with a timer in mind. When you play Counter Strike, you have a certain amount of time to work with in order to balance the sides of offense vs. defense. In Melee, there is no justification to limit a game's time. Game play was not designed with time constraints in mind. Characters weren't balanced to make time limit-driven game play work well. In fact, game play is even less suited to time limits than other fighters because of how much easier it is to stall. Thus, it should be mostly agreeable that the best course of action for the game is to reduce the effect of the timer.

I disagree that the timer has some sort of medium where it affects play the least. The timer has the least effect when it doesn't exist. What is the closest it comes to not existing? It being so long that the only way a match will reach time is when neither player is making any attempt to engage the other.

 

[Deleted member]

i admit to having read close to none of the topic at all, but 2 stocks seems like it would heavily reward camping. I often charge in, not worrying about losing my first stock out of 4, since getting hit and their respective follow-ups often teach you things about your opponent

Now you only have 2, and losing 1 is HUGE


I realize that the timers, number of matches overall have changed, but I just feel that 2 is too extreme

3 stocks seem better

 

[Cactuar]

@Bones: Actually, considering timed matches are the default setting, Melee was probably designed with the timer in mind.

 

[Kal]

Counter Strike? Isn't that a game where your goal is to kill all the terrorists before Jack Bauer gets to them? What does that have to do with Smash?

 

[Bones0]

@Bones: Actually, considering timed matches are the default setting, Melee was probably designed with the timer in mind.

If they designed the game with time-outs in mind, they did a ****ty ****ing job of it.

 

[Cactuar]

Considering there is an entire scenario built into the game for situations where players are stock/score tied after the time runs out, I'm pretty sure it was designed with the timer in mind.

@s2j: Stop jumping into the ****, noob.

 

[Kal]

Considering further that having no timer means that no player ever has to approach, I think having no timer at all is ridiculous. Why would I ever approach, ever, if I had unlimited time to wait for a mistake from my opponent?

 

[Stratocaster]

1) This is not an actual rule we have put in.
2) You get stage bans.
3) Those stages are not in the ruleset. They would have to be playtested first, and it is highly unlikely that they will make it through playtesting.
4) At most, even without banning those stages, the number of times that could happen to you is half the total minus one. You have control of your own counterpicks.


You act like Fox is the only one allowed to counterpick, and that he is all powerful. He isn't. He is really good. He is the hypothetical best character in the game. As such, he is one of the best characters for ANYONE to play. That doesn't mean you have to. If it was true, everyone would play the same character. We don't. Fox doesn't win tournaments. Good players do.

I was arguing your post about having a special rule for fox and the idea of having more legal stages including hyrule, mushroom kingdom, etc. That's why I quoted it.

I'm only saying fox is overpowered in a scenario where all stages are legal. Obviously he's not overpowered in the current metagame. I don't think a stage ban or two would stop this. More than 2 stage bans starts to get silly and time-consuming IMO.

I'm not arguing against the ruleset you posted in the OP in my particular post.

I agree with the points you make here as well, but they pretty much support what's currently in place. They don't really argue against my point. They just reinforce why the rules are the way they are. Perhaps I didn't clarify what I was trying to say well enough though.

I don't get why more playtesting is needed for these stages when this game is over 10 years. What benefit exactly is it to the metagame is it in any way to open up more stages? More variety? More "strategies"? I think the stage list works well as is, but if you want to play on more stages than whatever.

One last thing. You said something to someone how the fact that they "didn't want to play that way" wasn't a good argument. The only problem is for tournaments, you want people to come. So you want to make people happy somewhat, not disregarding having fair rules. It's important that people like playing this way or it won't happen.

I'm impressed you've gotten people to discuss such a drastic ruleset change. I'm unconvinced that the rules need to be changed because of "accident forgiveness" or "comebacks."

Good luck to you on your quest, Cactus man.

 

[Cactuar]

One last thing. You said something to someone how the fact that they "didn't want to play that way" wasn't a good argument. The only problem is for tournaments, you want people to come. So you want to make people happy somewhat, not disregarding having fair rules. It's important that people like playing this way or it won't happen.

If you read through the OP, you would already have an answer. It is completely cause and effect. More stages are banned over time because individual matches are increasingly important. We have adapted to thinking that one specific type of skill is most important, because that is the type of skill that works best on our concept of neutrals, and outside of that, it is just considered jank. Individual matches are more important because of the length of matches and tournament time constrictions. Changing the approach to a large number of these factors gives room to retest stages that were previously removed, not blindly insert them into a ruleset.


The reason I say that they "didn't want to play that way" is because they are in that adapted mindset of the current ruleset. You are trying to apply this new idea to the adapted mindset, which doesn't prove anything. The need for play testing is there because enough of the variables have changed.

Again, some people don't want to play that way because playing that way would suck in the old rule set. This is a different rule set. Playing that way doesn't have the same effect/output. Just because you think you might not like something is causing you to not even try it. That is pretty small-minded. The rules themselves have been explained and are backed by a logical approach. People are trying to apply "how they feel" on top of the rules, which doesn't make sense to do until after they have attempted to play with the base. I'm only posting this because I had the idea, and tried it out. I wouldn't have posted it without playing with it for a decent amount of time, and I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't enjoy it.

 

[Bones0]

Considering further that having no timer means that no player ever has to approach, I think having no timer at all is ridiculous. Why would I ever approach, ever, if I had unlimited time to wait for a mistake from my opponent?

How are you going to wait for a mistake without approaching? If you are close enough to punish them, they are close enough to punish you. At that point, neither of you are camping, are you?

 

[Cactuar]

How are you going to wait for a mistake without approaching? If you are close enough to punish them, they are close enough to punish you. At that point, neither of you are camping, are you?

This statement is only true in dittos or in a matchup where your neutral zone is smaller than the opponents...
Also, projectiles.

 

[Kal]

Unless neither of us tries to do anything about it. Which I certainly won't, since I see no reason to take a risk. Let's relate this back to a third person shooter. I'm familiar with Gears of War and Uncharted.

 

[Bones0]

Like I said twice already, if neither player is approaching, then the match will go to time. That is .01% of matches. The rest of the matches have both players frequently weaving in and out of each other's reach in an effort to bait and punish. And yes, I guess techincally in non-dittos one person may be able to punish without the other being able to, but then that player will just have to get closer, won't he? The only reasoning I've heard for a shorter time limit is because it's:
1. unappealing, and
2. it saves time by making someone approach

Neither of those reasons is very convincing.

 

[Kal]

I realize now that Uncharted was a single player game. Its sequels, however, are multiplayer games. I like Elena.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

lol Bones its pretty funny that the only analogies you use are Counterstrike, Halo, and the Marth/Falco matchup.

Its kinda like me and big booty *****es. No matter how much thinking I do, its always the most appropriate metaphor I come up with.

 

[danieljosebatista]

Honestly, I feel that what Bones said about the timer makes sense. People are always going to camp, but the benefits of camping are significantly reduced when there is no timer. Campy players cannot simply rely on timeouts to decide matches.

Yes, no timer means that they are free to camp as much as they want, but it also means that it won't win the match. You can camp as much as you want, but if there's no timer, I can easily and calmly exploit the holes in your play/adapt to your bs instead of worrying about losing 6 minutes later by 60%. That **** is ****ing stupid.

I realize that the timer is an essential element of other fighting style games, but smash is different. Because defensive play is such a strong strategy, it doesn't make sense for there to be a timer that rewards that strategy even more.

In other fighters, timing out is a legitimate strategy SOMETIMES, but you can't go into the match thinking "oh, I'll time him out." If you do that prematurely, chances are that your opponent can overwhelm you and take you down for it. A timeout is something you go for when you're up by a significant margin and there are 15 seconds left. THAT makes sense, but in smash it simply doesn't. The game is just different.

Camping can't be avoided, but I'd rather see campy matches where the last stock is taken than ones where a player wins by just percent. That's bull****, the match must be completed imo, otherwise it's a victory sure but not a win. Winning means you killed your opponent, not you played like a coward and managed to win by a few percent.

 

[-ACE-]

I only read the first 3 pages, but I think this would

1. reward camping by making stocks much more important (less risks will be taken to reduce the chance of a costly SD and matches will be less intense on average as a result.
2. encourage winning via time-out, given the proposed stage list and what I listed above.
3. cause slower characters to be even less viable due to 1 and 2.
4. reward players that start out slow and adapt mid-match much less (armada will lose more imo).
5. cause us to see much less of characters that are not as viable on a wide range of stages.

 

[Cactuar]

With no timer, there is no reason for Fox to NOT run away and laser you to 140. Kish actually made the argument to me a while back, as I was in the boat to just straight up remove it. Removal of the timer allows people to literally never get near you while throwing **** at you all day.


@Daniel: Go tell that to any fighting game. "A timeout isn't a real win." lmao. gold status comedy.

 

[danieljosebatista]

With no timer, there is no reason for Fox to NOT run away and laser you to 140. Kish actually made the argument to me a while back, as I was in the boat to just straight up remove it. Removal of the timer allows people to literally never get near you while throwing **** at you all day.

Oh I didn't think about that. **** lol