Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Zone]

Next tourney I host I will run this ruleset.

 

[Kal]

Would you, perhaps, post fliers of my tables around town?

 

[danteistheshiz]

would you, perhaps, post fliers of my tables around town?

you are a ******!!!!

 

[level9ganon]

I like this new ruleset.

 

[Scar]

My two cents -- I agree with the problem and I agree with the outline of the proposed solution. Bo7 2stock matches seems like it could improve set pacing, promote thinking about the situation mid-set instead of dropping off the platform and running at the guy, and ultimately push the metagame further. The only problem that I see with 2-stock matches is the buff to suicide kills, I don't know if that's really been responded to but link if it has.

What's the deal with adding stages, though? I mean, I get why it's been proposed (it's explained in OP) but it doesn't at all tie in with the original problem. Is there a reason that both have to be done at once? It's a more radical change and maybe the logic is that since it's hard to adopt any change why not do two at once, but I don't think it's been at all demonstrated that there's value in increasing the pool of legal stages. Frankly I think that this thread may be onto something.

Finally I'm not a fan of picking the time limit just yet. I don't think the data is in, and I think the picking a number out of thin air and then asking the community to adapt to the number could potentially limit the impact of this new system. Often times legislating in the hopes that new rules will change behavior doesn't work out the way you want it to -- it would be way better if we can find a way to organically arrive at the time limit that best achieves the goals you set out to solve.

Therefore I think it would be way more useful to actually test different timers (maybe even try out no timer!!!) and see what players do in real tournament matches. So I suggest that anyone running this ruleset should test out different times in each tournament, and ideally record matches, and at least jot down how much time the sets took and maybe even ask for feedback from players.

 

[da K.I.D.]

maybe even ask for feedback from players.

Not to ignore anything you said, but I will say that about 2/3rds of Tuars posts in this thread have been him asking people to play test the ruleset before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Scar]

Ok, let me clarify in case anyone else read that the same way - I'm not saying condescendingly or sarcastically "maybe even (what a novel idea!) ask for feedback". Like I said, I agree with the problem and the proposed solution. I'm asking to collect a different kind of feedback for a different purpose (not necessarily an original idea, I haven't read the whole thread so it's possible I'm saying something that has already been said), not feedback on the boards, but standardized feedback after sets from players who just playtested the ruleset, for the purpose of comparing satisfaction / outcomes while changing one variable or another (called split testing).

And come to think of it, maybe I shouldn't have said we stick to neutrals, maybe it's a better idea to subject this ruleset to split-testing while holding time limit constant but changing legal stages. After all, we're rethinking our assumptions.

 

[JPOBS]

I still don't really understand the reasoning behind the ruleset change to begin.
The general thesis seems to be "matches are too long" but...
the time you're saving by lowering stocks and timers will be infinitely duplicated by the tme consuming process of dealing with stage discussion/striking/banning over the course of 7 games.

 

[Scar]

There's a big difference between "matches are too long" and "sets are too long". RIFIKI GO BACK INTO EXILE

 

[KrIsP!]

Hakuna Matata guys.

 

[Warhawk]

I do kind of like the idea of having more of those in between set moments to think about and analyze what happened and adjust, while also lessening the impact of surprise and it causing someone to lose a set. It might make the game more strategical.

 

[TheGoat]

no, matches are only too long if theres a ****** floaty character, just play falcon and spacies, problem solved

 

[Dan Salvato]

no, matches are only too long if theres a ****** floaty character, just play falcon and spacies, problem solved

I don't think it's as much that they're too long, but maybe that they're too heavily weighted. That, in combination with the severely limited stage choice, means that two players can play a set using one single strategy without need to adapt to the environment or each other. At least, that's the issue as I see it.

 

[JonnyW]

no, matches are only too long if theres a ****** floaty character, just play falcon and spacies, problem solved

Agreed. Just. Play. Falcon.

 

[7ak]

I see a few problems with this idea. First, all stages allowed except for Brinstar and Big Blue!?!? Say hello to:
Unbelievable camp fests on Corneria, Hyrule, Venom, and Yoshi's Island.
Goodbye any character without a walljump on Fourside (ironically Ness's stage).
Side camping back throw bull**** on Mushroom Kingdom 1 and 2, Onett, Flat Zone and Icicle Mt.

Some of the other stages are maybe up for debate but in some ways I think they might even increase camping, not reduce it. Using those stages will also I think make Peach and Jiggly camping much worse. Jiggly and prob Peach can land a hit or two on Hyrule and literally never be touched again especially by slower characters. For competitive play, I still like the standard neutral stages.

I've seen some people say ban Peach and Jiggly and at first I thought that was ridiculous, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. I'm much less in favor of banning Peach than Jiggly but at a high level of play they are both campy monsters. It is very difficult, sometimes almost impossible, to safely approach either of them without projectiles which is why Y.Link can do well against them. Their running away and floating between stock resets and at high percents can take 2-3 minutes of a match alone. Do you really think setting a 2-stock limit and 4 mins will reduce their camping? Like I said, rise of the 2 hit Jiggly or Sheik and then just camp the ledge for 3 minutes.

What Melee needs is some more ridiculous Links, Samuses, Yoshis, Nesses, Marios and Docs etc. The problem with all of them is that Fox/Falco/Sheik/Marth (but esp Fox/Falco) can destroy them. Honestly though, some of the most fun matches I've ever played are among these less used mid-tier chars or between a mid and high-tier.

This is really nuts but what about a points system or even different number of stocks if using a mid-tier or low-tier? That would really be kind of interesting. 5-stock Link vs. 3-stock Fox/Falco, 5-stock Yoshi vs. 3-stock Fox/Falco, 5-stock Ness vs. 3-stock Marth or Fox. 6-stock Kirby vs. 3-stock Falco or Fox. Might be fun who knows? Would definitely increase playing of mid and low tiers and change the whole game, add more entertaining matches. We all know some matchups are inherently unbalanced and unfair (players of EQUAL skill playing Yoshi vs. Sheik...honestly how many games will Yoshi win?) and adding stocks evens it up quite a bit. Since Sheik's downthrow can't be changed why not add some stocks to Yoshi?

I don't think this game needs to be made more like SF life bars and 1 minute matches but balancing of the type I just outlined really could be fun. If you're a Fox/Falco main, if you had 4-stock would you really be afraid of a 5-stock Link? Make it 3-stock Falco vs. 5-stock Link and it starts to get interesting.

 

[Dan Salvato]

I don't think this game needs to be made more like SF life bars and 1 minute matches but balancing of the type I just outlined really could be fun. If you're a Fox/Falco main, if you had 4-stock would you really be afraid of a 5-stock Link? Make it 3-stock Falco vs. 5-stock Link and it starts to get interesting.

First of all, your suggestion that I need more stocks in order to win is insulting. Furthermore, banning characters simply because their playstyle is of the zoning variety -- and not "cool" -- is simply ridiculous. Camping is a viable strategy in virtually every fighting game. The lowered stock and time limit would give camping more merit in Melee because you're not forcing an eight-minute match, and it adds to strategy with the timer as pressure.

 

[da K.I.D.]

First of all, your suggestion that I need more stocks in order to win is insulting. Furthermore, banning characters simply because their playstyle is of the zoning variety -- and not "cool" -- is simply ridiculous. Camping is a viable strategy in virtually every fighting game. The lowered stock and time limit would give camping more merit in Melee because you're not forcing an eight-minute match, and it adds to strategy with the timer as pressure.

This reminds me. When are you going to do what I told you at apex and change your name to firefox and pick up shiek?

 

[Anand]

Jiggly and prob Peach can land a hit or two on Hyrule and literally never be touched again especially by slower characters.

Is that a serious statement?

In my opinion:
Jigglypuff and Peach are probably among the most likely characters to get camped on Hyrule Temple, because they aren't particularly fast (especially vertically) and lack good projectiles (I know turnips are good overall; I don't think they are very useful in a circle-camp game on Hyrule though). Off the top of my head, I am fairly confident they would get outcamped (on Hyrule) by the rest of the top eight on the current tier list, plus a bunch more.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

stamina mode!

lololol

 

[-ACE-]

stamina mode!

lololol

One year and everyone will know how to shdl lol

 

[Cactuar]

@Scar:

Three variables were introduced to be changed by this. Stock, Time, and Stages.

I should have introduced the first two as concepts at the same time, then combined the two for a separate concept of a new rule set and declared the need for retesting of stages due to possible changes in criteria and effect.

Really, only after the first two are changed does the third become something that is possible. The problem here is that I introduced too many changes at once because I saw the end result immediately rather than explaining it step by step to others and working my way up to it.

 

[chaddd]

And is it just me or is chaddd admitting to this being a good idea but being against anyway due to being too set in his ways to change at this point?

No, I don't support this idea at all. And it's made even worse by the fact that it's so far into the game's lifespan. I thought I was pretty clear.

Yesterday I was at a tournament and at least 3 of my sets were won because I was able to come back from being 2 stocks down and win the game. With this rule set it would have been 3 losses. I honestly think that should say it all.

 

[Cactuar]

No, with this ruleset, those wins would have been a 1-1 matchwise, instead of a 1-0 for you.

 

[BigD!!!]

i know that a fundamental aspect of this is the idea that matches going to time is not necessarily a bad thing if the match is short enough

but really, theres a reason we all play this game instead of all those other games, and making a ruleset that looks more like a ruleset for another community might not actually reflect what makes this game popular with the people who do actually like it

the coolest thing about smash is damage is not directly related to kills. i can relax to an extent while being projectile camped, knowing that it wont win them the match by itself, because smash isnt that kind of game. with 2 stock 3 minutes, a lot of matches will go to time, probably most matches not involving a space animal or falcon. you can cite some evidence of matches not statistically taking that long, but people will play differently when they see that clock get under a minute. they will shift the focus toward winning in %, because that will be really important at that point in a match

i understand that this is supposed to represent a shift, and that the new game played in this ruleset will be a very different game but ideally better. that being said, i dont think we should forget that we play this game instead of other games for a reason, and if i wanted to play a game more like those other games, those games are already available

 

[-ACE-]

No, with this ruleset, those wins would have been a 1-1 matchwise, instead of a 1-0 for you.

You can't compare a single four stock match to two 2 stock matches and think the outcome would be identical, come on lmao. A different match is a different match, and in the case of this ruleset, much, much different.

 

[Cactuar]

I was viewing it more as a stock timeline, not trying to compare 2 vs 4 stock matches.

 

[Bones0]

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

 

[Beat!]

Why are people talking about this alternate ruleset as if it's supposed to replace the current one?

 

[Cactuar]

Bones, you make a lot of statements about things, but you have no backing argument whatsoever. Your entire post is a bunch of statements declaring opinion and not even an attempt at explanation or evidence, discussion of factors, etc. Opinions are not evidence of further opinions.

 

[-ACE-]

I was viewing it more as a stock timeline, not trying to compare 2 vs 4 stock matches.

I see that, but it doesn't work out like that. "with this ruleset, those wins would have been 1-1 match wise" is stating that the second 2 stock match would have played out exactly like the second half of the 4 stock match, which is ridiculous. I never suggested that you are trying to compare 4 and 2 stock matches in general; just in this instance. Some players seem to tend to lose a stock or 2 and then come back (see certain armada vs calle w matches and other technical spacies), and these players (armada, in this instance) may suffer a good bit as a result of only having 2 stocks. Not saying this is horrible but I see it as probable.

and bones, what are you thinking not providing tons of evidence on something that is largely untested? Jeez.

 

[Zone]

I see that, but it doesn't work out like that. "with this ruleset, those wins would have been 1-1 match wise" is stating that the second 2 stock match would have played out exactly like the second half of the 4 stock match, which is ridiculous. I never suggested that you are trying to compare 4 and 2 stock matches in general; just in this instance. Some players seem to tend to lose a stock or 2 and then come back (see certain armada vs calle w matches and other technical spacies), and these players (armada, in this instance) may suffer a good bit as a result of only having 2 stocks. Not saying this is horrible but I see it as probable.

and bones, what are you thinking not providing tons of evidence on something that is largely untested? Jeez.

Yes but if you're doing a 2 stock comeback. Your comeback... is actually being assisted because instead of finishing the match on the same level. You're finishing your comeback on your counterpick stage in your favor.

It's also just as proposterous to assume a guy who does 2 stock come-backs, always does 2stock come-backs.

I still say it deserves fair testing before making assumptions on fair/unfairness. If you can outplay someone at a disadvantage you should be able to outplay them on a new match.

With your logic we could do 6stock matches, and when we reduced them to 4(today standard). Someone could be like "Well yesterday I was at 1 stock left and they had 3, and I came back and won. IF it was on a 4 stock standard I would have lost"

You gotta draw the line somewhere, why not give it a shot at 2 stock?

 

[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.

 

[Zone]

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.

I like you're way of thinking. That's a plausible notion.

 

[-ACE-]

Yes but if you're doing a 2 stock comeback. Your comeback... is actually being assisted because instead of finishing the match on the same level. You're finishing your comeback on your counterpick stage in your favor.

It's also just as proposterous to assume a guy who does 2 stock come-backs, always does 2stock come-backs.

I still say it deserves fair testing before making assumptions on fair/unfairness. If you can outplay someone at a disadvantage you should be able to outplay them on a new match.

With your logic we could do 6stock matches, and when we reduced them to 4(today standard). Someone could be like "Well yesterday I was at 1 stock left and they had 3, and I came back and won. IF it was on a 4 stock standard I would have lost"

You gotta draw the line somewhere, why not give it a shot at 2 stock?

When did I say that ANY player always does 2 stock comebacks?

Of course this deserves testing, I just feel few people will want to see it become the norm once they see the result.

I never said that outplaying someone on a new match is impossible, nor did I say it was unlikely. I only said you can't count on it.

Lol @ "with your logic". My only issue with 2 stock is that the first death means so much. I'm not talking about 6 stock matches so I don't see any point in mentioning it. Sure there are more matches, but with the extended stage list there are going to be a lot of easy wins on both sides in some popular matchups. Losing that first game on a neutral is worse than some of you make it out to be imo. That puts you behind quite a bit since you'll have to win on a crazy stage your opponent cp'd to regain advantage, and that's given you don't lose any of your cp's. 1 stock may seem extreme to most of you, but evidently taking a giant step toward it isn't. Stage knowledge could even be less accounted for with this ruleset also, as we'd be taking a step away from "who knows this stage the best" by taking a relatively large step toward "whoever makes the first mistake loses".

 

[da K.I.D.]

as we'd be taking a step away from "who knows this stage the best" by taking a relatively large step toward "whoever makes the first mistake loses".

This is a completely honest question with no ulterior motive.

Why are people so opposed to that concept?

What's so wrong with moving towards a game that is focused on being consistent and being punished more severely for a technical error or getting read?

I want to understand the mindset of people who hold this viewpoint

 

[-ACE-]

I mean if humans made many less mistakes in general it wouldn't be a problem. It depends on whether you want the player that knows the particular matchup/stage the best to win or not. Personally, I want this player to win but with this ruleset he could often lose to a player that specializes in not SD'ing.

 

[Bones0]

Bones, you make a lot of statements about things, but you have no backing argument whatsoever. Your entire post is a bunch of statements declaring opinion and not even an attempt at explanation or evidence, discussion of factors, etc. Opinions are not evidence of further opinions.

Too bad nothing in that post was an opinion, you big **

 

[Divinokage]

Specializes not SDing? That's pretty funny lol. You shouldn't SD in the first place, I thought that was pretty clear by now that it should be number 1 rule of Smash.

 

[-ACE-]

Specializes not SDing? That's pretty funny lol. You shouldn't SD in the first place, I thought that was pretty clear by now that it should be number 1 rule of Smash.

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.

 

[Kal]

I'm chiming in a little late here, but Scar, the choice of seven or eight minutes for the current ruleset was more or less arbitrarily made. I don't believe we ever really playtested various match-lengths. We just decided one minute per stock was an appropriate match-duration, and since we didn't get any glaring evidence to the contrary, we went with it. I assume Cactuar is doing the same thing by choosing three minutes. I think making a choice and then fine-tuning the timer according to any problems we come across is a good way to handle things.

And people, stop mentioning examples where a match would be won in four-stock Melee but lost in two-stock Melee. Those situations will obviously exist, but you can just as easily justify a change to five stock with the same anecdotal evidence. The concern isn't to keep results the same, because a different ruleset creates a different game which almost always impacts results.

As an aside: has anyone considered collecting information on the average length of time passed between stock? I was wondering if we could collect data on such a thing and choose an appropriate timer (in my opinion, one minute per stock is actually too long). The main issue I see with this is that how people play is, to a degree, impacted by the choice of timer in the first place.