SF Ruleset Project

[teluoborg]

One argument that I've been reading a lot in the various ruleset/stagelist discussion is that Brawl (and smash in general) is a game that is too different from regular fighters (such as Street Fighter) for them to be used in analogies.

So I guess we should have a ruleset that makes the game closer to regular fighters.


Here's the deal :
-3 Stock
-9 minutes
-regular 9 stagelist with 3/5 starters


And the twist is
We consider stocks as rounds, which means :

• each time one player loses a stock the round is over and the player that didn't die (or died last) gets 1 point.
• Once the round is over the stock count is evened and the players use the respawn invincibility to get to a neutral position.
• The second round begins when the invincibility wears off.
• The first player who gets 2 points wins the match. Sets are best of 3 matches.

It might seem hard to catch but it's really simple, here's an example :
Player A vs Player B
-match begins
-A kill B, he wins one point and the round is over
-A commits suicide while B waits on respawn platform
-When both players are on the respawn platform they get off simultaneously and both get to a different end of the stage
-the invincibility wears off, the second round begins
-If A wins the second round then he wins the match, if not round 3 is played
-end of the match, CP procedure is applied, etc


The obvious advantage of this ruleset is that since the momentum will be reset after each kill the game will be much more dynamic and many matchups will be less polarized.
This system will also make punctual mistakes cost much more, which is very insteresting in a competitive point of view.
Matches will be shorter too, even with a 9 minutes timer.


I don't find any disadvantage, except of course that it's not the usual way Brawl is played.


That' it, I'd like to have some feedback if you see that this ruleset can be abused in some way.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

Correct me if I'm not understanding this but what would be the difference between this and just doing more matches of one stock? Just that you still only get the fewer counter picks of a 3 stock set?

 

[TreK]

Well the debate here would kinda be the same as the debate with 1 stock matches :
-Do we allow solo pokémons out of the trainer ?
-If we do this because early-stock matches are funnier than late-stock juggles, isn't Falco an exception ?
-Do we allow ICs to get back Nana when they kill someone while Nana is dead ?
-Do we stop people from being able to charge a special inbetween stocks (sheik, DK, lucario, ROB, ...)

The only differences with 1 stock matches :
-ROB's lazer and Wario's fart would still build up (kinda how ultimates build up in SF, btw)
-The stage won't clean itself : nanas, bombs, C4, mines, bikes and wheels, gyros, ... will stay onstage between stocks.
-Less CPs, as Bobwithlobsters pointed out

So this is basically a 2stock match in which whenever you kill somebody, you go back to 0% and a neutral position, so the killed player has no chances of coming back and the leading player doesn't have to make that boring 'I don't want you to use that chance of coming back' phase happen. So instead of having a possible % advantage when the stocks even out, the leading player gets healed. That's trading a possible advantage and a boring situation for a forced advantage and a non-boring situation. I would like to see how this turns out, but I don't see why this would make me or anybody else camp less.

Next thing to consider : suicide KOs. The hawaiian metagame would be much more advanced haha
Because if I know that I have to SD if my opponent dies, I can follow him much farther offstage to ensure the kill, even if it means I won't be able to get back onstage. I just have to make sure he dies before me so I get the round.

So you get my point. Even if we try to mimmick the SF win conditions, Smash will still be Smash. And the 3 stocks survival with a time limit thing is pretty much the simplest thing we can come up with in smash that still allows us to say 'Player 1 is better than player 2.'

 

[TheReflexWonder]

In this case, Wario's Down-B is more like Balrog's Turn Punch, but with no button commitment, and the charge carries over between rounds. That's...dumb.

Also, stages matter in this game. This ruleset seriously neuters matchup possibilities through the lack of stages.

I would recommend 1-stock, best of 5 instead.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

This thread is silly and I do not like it.

 

[teluoborg]

Correct me if I'm not understanding this but what would be the difference between this and just doing more matches of one stock? Just that you still only get the fewer counter picks of a 3 stock set?

Well to get as many rounds in 1 stock matches you'd need best of 9 sets, which means 4 to 8 counterpicks.
1-2 is as many as the regular ruleset and closer to the main goal.
The stagelist isn't set in stone btw, nothing is it's still just a project.

Will answer the rest later.

Edit : later,

Well the debate here would kinda be the same as the debate with 1 stock matches :
-Do we allow solo pokémons out of the trainer ?
-If we do this because early-stock matches are funnier than late-stock juggles, isn't Falco an exception ?
-Do we allow ICs to get back Nana when they kill someone while Nana is dead ?
-Do we stop people from being able to charge a special inbetween stocks (sheik, DK, lucario, ROB, ...)

-if by "solo pokemon" you mean "use of a code that disables automatic switch" then no, if you mean "allow PT to switch during the respawn phase" then no, if you mean "allow PT to switch during rounds" then yes. Respawn phase is just for positionning.
-we don't do this because early stock is funnier than late stock (which is just personnal preference btw). And if anything it will make late stock game more interesting since it will cost much more to die when both players are at high percents.
-Yes, why wouldn't we ?
-Yes, as I said above respawn phase is just for positionning

The only differences with 1 stock matches :
-ROB's lazer and Wario's fart would still build up (kinda how ultimates build up in SF, btw)
-The stage won't clean itself : nanas, bombs, C4, mines, bikes and wheels, gyros, ... will stay onstage between stocks.
-Less CPs, as Bobwithlobsters pointed out

First two points : yes and yes, yet while altering the metagame I don't see how this would be a bad thing as none of those points could be exploited to break the game, I can see an issue about people using the respawn platform time to make the items disappear but this can be fixed.
-Last point is wrong, as I explained above you get the same number of CPs as in a regular ruleset.

So this is basically a 2stock match in which whenever you kill somebody, you go back to 0% and a neutral position, so the killed player has no chances of coming back and the leading player doesn't have to make that boring 'I don't want you to use that chance of coming back' phase happen. So instead of having a possible % advantage when the stocks even out, the leading player gets healed. That's trading a possible advantage and a boring situation for a forced advantage and a non-boring situation. I would like to see how this turns out, but I don't see why this would make me or anybody else camp less.

Yes, and effectively it won't make anybody camp less because Brawl is a campy game.
BUT it makes the notion of stock advantage disappear, which is a pretty big change in how the momentum (and the consequent camping) works during the match.

So you get my point. Even if we try to mimmick the SF win conditions, Smash will still be Smash. And the 3 stocks survival with a time limit thing is pretty much the simplest thing we can come up with in smash that still allows us to say 'Player 1 is better than player 2.'

Simplest does not mean best, but I get what you mean.

In this case, Wario's Down-B is more like Balrog's Turn Punch, but with no button commitment, and the charge carries over between rounds. That's...dumb.

It's ok because Smash is dumb in itself.

Also, stages matter in this game. This ruleset seriously neuters matchup possibilities through the lack of stages.

Let's admit I get what you say and that it is true :
A reduced stagelist neuters matchup possibilities
Hence matchups are made more neutral
Hence the impact of character choice is lessened and gives more impact to player skill

How is that a bad thing ?

Stages matter because we make them matter, Smash has enough unique core mechanics (shield, air drifting, turn around, etc) to stand out from the other fighters, even when played on FD.
I am not personally against stage diversity, but I don't think it should be a priority.

This thread is silly and I do not like it.

Thanks you so much for your constructive feedback. Now that you've shown that you care enough about this silly thread to post in it would you mind developping your reasoning ?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't really see much wrong with how Brawl is currently played.

And the things that I do think are wrong with it, your ruleset doesn't fix.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Part of the reason some people like this game over others are the unique aspects, like stages being a part of competitive play. I don't think it's a good idea to try to stray too far from those unique concepts as a result.

 

[hichez50]

Well i don't think the community initially gave much thought of how to create a ruleset for smash, and now we are in a constant struggle. I don't have a problem on testing people on different aspects of the game. One of the reasons that luigi's mansion is banned is because some people argue that the win goes to who ever can tech the best. Well I don't find a problem with that. Now the question is how do I put my opponent into a position to where he can no longer tech.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

If you want Smash to feel more like Street Fighter, then play Stamina Mode with Damage Ratio set to 1.5 to prevent infinites and chaingrabs.

 

[hichez50]

Umm Preventing infinites doesn't make a game like street fighter or any other trasitional fighter. Mvc3 has infintes some of which are legal at some tournaments. And SF4 characters have different hp values.

I find it ironic that people like diversity, but shy away when people try to make diverse changes. I say bring them all on if won't stop me from pkaying a game I like.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

He was suggesting the removal of infinites so the game is still fun and balanced; not to make it more like a traditional fighter.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Playing Stamina mode and getting chaingrabbed is really really stupid. At least in stock mode, when D3, falco, pikachu, or any of the characters who have low % chaingrabs (which is most of the cast, btw) land one, you can still suck it up and continue fighting at high %. In stamina mode you just die. Nobody would wanna play that.

 

[hichez50]

who said they wanted to play stamina?

 

[Vinylic.]

So if people played stamina, I guess that means kirby will be the biggest *** in the game with Bair fencing.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

who said they wanted to play stamina?

Because Stamina mode is obviously the most similar to the way Street Fighter plays? I'd even say you could adjust different characters by giving them more or less stamina (Like in Street Fighter), but I wouldn't really trust players to make it properly balanced. They'd probably just give higher tiers less stamina than lower ones and consider that to be balanced.

 

[TreK]

stamina, handicap and time limit = SF like win conditions, no infinites except for diddy's and ICs', more legal stages (no CG/infinites = walkoffs and walls legal ?).
Sounds like a fun place to be in. Has it ever been tried as a side event ?

Then again, it is classified as 'special brawl' for a reason we should not ignore.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

It's been done as a side event before. Can't remember what tourney it was, but they put up some vids on youtube.

Walkoffs would probably be ok, but I'm pretty sure walls would still cause all the same situational infinites they did before. The whole point of using walls for infinites is so the wall will keep the opponent not land too far away to continue the infinite, so the damage ratio being higher wouldn't make those not work, though it'd make them end sooner if they have an end %. I'm also not sure if ICs can still chaingrab with the 1.5 ratio. I can't do the cg in the first place, or I'd test it.