Trying to Understand the Melee Ruleset Decisions

[Double Helix]

Preface: Most importantly, I have seen threads on this type of thing before, but most of them change from discussions to this is dumb and no you are dumb I am right arguments far too quickly. I am not a top level player and have no tournament experience. There are a few things that I find wrong with the current ruleset, but I am fairly certain that it just comes with ignorance. I am going to go into fairly long detail as to why I don't understand why these are not being implemented, including stages. Though I am not necessarily pushing for these rules, it would be pretty awesome to see at least some of them enjoyed. I understand we sometimes have to sacrifice fun for accurately measuring competition, so by all means, tell me why my rules suck, why a stage choice sucks, or why the rule or stage is good. Tell me something I missed when it comes to testing a player in the game, and while you cannot call me wrong in this regard, tell me why you may disagree with what I value in Melee, or what you value in addition. I can't be wrong on all of this, right?

What I value in Melee:
Consistent, as correct as possible results.

Comeback potential in a set, rather than a match (without the comeback during a match being impossible).

Timer playing a bigger role in determining a winner.
Honestly, it is odd to see a timer that is equal to the number of stocks for me. In my opinion, timing out is something that should happen every once in awhile due to a great spacing battle and a battle for position. This will obviously happen more with floaties than spacies, but (yes, I know this is a bad argument for a ruleset) as a spectator it gets really tense to see the clock winding down with both characters just out of chip range in street fighter. Timing out could be a valid strategy, but stage bans exist (in this ruleset), so ban accordingly.

What I feel the players should be tested on:
Spacing, zoning, stage knowledge, match-up knowledge, adaptability, consistency, using resources.

Basic rules for this imaginary tournament I want to learn from:
Double blind: upon request
pause off
3 stocks
4 minutes
items: off
sets are best of 5 (finals are best of 7)
gentleman's clause
timed out matches will be determined by remaining stocks, then percentage. in the case of a tie the match is replayed.
1 stage ban per player in a best of 5

for doubles:
life stealing is allowed
friendly fire: on

Stages I would think to be legal:
(Neutral
Final Destination - It's FD. Is there more to say?

Battlefield - I agree with it being the most balanced stage.

Fountain of Dreams - Neutral stage. Moving platforms is the gimmick, but not a HUGE factor in high level play.

Yoshi's Story - I think this should be a counterpick in our current ruleset, but it is neutral otherwise. Freaking fly guys man. Also Randall is cool.

Dream Land 64 - Pretty balanced. Huge, but quite neutral. Sometimes Whispy Woods is annoying though.
(Counterpick
Pokemon Stadium - Neutral, with a hint of counterpick. Stage tranformation stalling would not happen in this ruleset more than likely.

Kongo Jungle 64 - Is there really a problem here? Other than the pink shinobi vs rock crock match nothing too devastating comes from this. I would like to hear a bit of feedback from people who know about matchups on this stage.

Mute City - Awesome stage really. I think it is better than Pokemon Stadium, because at least the stage transitions aren't as bad right?

Poke Floats - I do not have enough matchup knowledge or stage knowledge to call, but when I played on it, it seemed fine.

Stages I can understand banning:
Icicle Mountain - Too easily cripples characters with limited verticle mobility.

Great Bay - Too easily stage spiked; all gimps all day.

Hyrule Temple - As much as I am ok with camping, this promotes it too much as any floaty.

Brinstar - This stage does not always have a bottom blast zone.

Onett - This stage does not always have a bottom blast zone

Fourside - I do not believe it has enough floor and platform surface to test the skills that I feel need to be tested.

Big Blue - I don't know why, I just don't feel like it belongs. It is tough to put into words really.

Mushroom Kingdom II - Definition of too small.

Flatzone - see Mushroom Kingdom II.

Brinstar Depths - I like this stage, but sadly it is just awful for high level play.

Jungle Japes - I thought it would be fine at first, but just playing a few games there was just brutal.

Rainbow Cruise - The stage has one huge flaw. Super low ceiling for awhile.

Yoshi's Island 64 - Cloud camping.

Princess Peach's Castle - I don't see anything too wrong with the stage, but I feel like stage positioning is awkward. I am not a high level player so I could be wrong, but it is like you play on one half of the stage or the other.

Corneria - In my experience, Arwings can ruin combos AND extend combos into edgeguard opportunities. I dont know how to judge this one.

Mushroom Kingdom - No bottom blast zone consistently.

The stages I want input for, because they seem not terrible, but I held back for some reason or another:
Melee Kongo Jungle - Not sure how to call it. I am leaning toward legal.

Green Greens - Very tempted to make it legal. The apples don't really seem to be an issues. It is similar to dealing with a bomb/turnip. I feel as though item control is an important skill anyways as long as it is not random.

Venom - Not a fan of this stage, but I really cannot see a reason why it should be banned. The arwings are as intrusive as Corneria (from my experience).

Yoshi's Island - I just hate this stage so much I do not trust myself to make an objective decision on this one.

Feel free to give any insight on stages I banned if I did so for the completely wrong reason. I spent a lot of time thinking on this, so please give a bit of meaningful insight. I also am aware that much of the ruleset comes from what the community as a whole wants, but I have to ask so I am informed so it seems less of a differing opinions problem.

Side note: I have felt for awhile that Yoshi's Story should be a counterpick, but I can't think of a stage to replace it as a neutral so stage striking can remain a beautiful and fair process without having only three neutral stages and
thus having three counterpicks. Thanks for any help, any who read this.

 

[Bones0]

PokeFloats... "seemed fine".

 

[KishPrime]

I played on Poke Floats at our tournament just this last weekend...and it was spectacular.

In the context of the thread title, the melee ruleset decisions were more or less guided by the community and leadership that valued a player's technical skill as the primary measure of ability, and a zero-randomness approach. While it is somewhat logical that both would naturally emerge within a competitive community, both are fairly counter-intuitive to the spirit of Melee.

You're not going to find many people left in the community who will agree on a more open stage list. However, there were many Top 8 matches played on non-traditional stages at MELEE-FC10R and they were awesome.


For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uww-o1MoJJ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1qcf4OAUrw

 

[itstomis]

For all the long-windedness of your post, the only reason you have for changing the overall ruleset is "I think games should time out sometimes".

 

[Double Helix]

PokeFloats... "seemed fine".

Sorry man. I am just saying that it did not really hinder anything I was trying to do as Ness, Fox, Jiggs, or Ganon. As I just said, I have no real knowledge on matchups or previous matches on this stage to provide a good reason to ban it. I only was able to go off of my own experience here, given the limited amount of experience I have. Like I said, I would love to be told a few reasons or guided to a match or two that would show the potential horror that is, in this case, PokeFloats. I would like a reasonable example, I really feel like Pink Shinobi vs Rockcrock was an outlier and does not really show what the stage could do for the metagame. I know Kongo64 could be said to "encourage camping," but with the time limit I am implementing, these matches would happen regardless of the stage, and in many cases, there would be a stage ban. Besides, I am looking for information much more than pushing for a ruleset, so while some of these goals are legitimate, I am perfectly content with what we have now.

@Kish: Unfortunately, I am not sure the "spirit of Melee" is something that can be easily defined due to the many different modes and customization options. One person in the world could very likely think that the "spirit of Melee" is home-run contest and tests the most skill possible. That said, I am not disagreeing. Thank you for the matches.

 

[Double Helix]

For all the long-windedness of your post, the only reason you have for changing the overall ruleset is "I think games should time out sometimes".

Sorry about the double post, but I was typing my response as you posted this. Anyways, that is not true. I believe that more matches will bring about more consistent results. With everything being best of 5 at least, the better player will win more often. You have 3 stocks rather than 4, which makes a mistake more costly in the match, but the players that can better mentally reset after a big loss will be able to emerge victorious if they are the better player. Looks like a thing I missed under the testing the players part is the mental game, because it is a huge part. Anyways, I just feel as though this would better test more aspects of a player's game. I could be wrong, but I don't really think I am.

As an addition, I will qualify why I think the match should sometimes time out. Everything in Melee is a resource. Stocks are a resource, platforms are a more obvious resource, percent is kinda a resource, but right now, unless the goal is to time someone out, it feels like the timer should not be there. Very rarely does the game go to time except for Hbox vs Armada, which is another Pink Shinobi vs Rockcrock example. If the time could be used as a resource to victory in a close match, I feel: Why not test their ability to use it? Right now it seems as an insurance that a tournament does not last too long, but if we could implement it as a resource for an already close match AND shorten set times, I do not see how it is a bad thing.

 

[Bones0]

If you really want reasons for why the ruleset is what it is, just give the official thread a read through. Trying to create your own ruleset is fine and everything, but if you openly admit that you don't really know how the game really works in competitive play then idk why you would expect people to try your ruleset. Cactuar already posted a similar ruleset if you want to read through that thread as well. Lowering the timer as severely as you have only makes people camp, and introducing huge stages like PokeFloats, Mute City, and KJ only exacerbate the problem to hilarious levels. Even in spacie dittos the games would go to time constantly meaning the winner would often be determined by percent lead which isn't even a proper win condition. There's no real reason that a Falco with 2 stocks and 50% should win vs. a Ganon with 2 stocks and 60%.

Furthermore, the real issue with artificially implementing a time constraint on players is that it places an absurdly high value on the first stock or even first hit. When a player loses the lead in the current ruleset, they can still work their strategy and adapt to their opponent. In a ruleset with a more restrictive timer, they don't have time to play their opponent to the best of their abilities. They have to rush everything they do because they are playing against the clock instead of the opponent. It's comparable to having the Arwings on Corneria only shoot at the player currently losing. Is that a resource the winning player can abuse and the losing player needs skill to deal with? Of course, but it comes at the cost of all the resources the players are in control of via their characters. If Melee games were stalemates constantly like barlw then it would make sense that the game would have to revolve around a timer, but that's not the case. The game has its own natural pace which works fine. Whether people are playing on 8 minutes or 88 minutes is irrelevant because either is enough time for most matches to finish. Reducing the timer further than that only slants the game in the favor of the player who takes the lead and can camp the best.

I could go on listing problems but I'm afraid you won't really get them until you've experienced similar situations through your time playing and you can read through those threads if you really want to read why the changes you've made aren't good at fostering competitive play.

 

[Double Helix]

Yeah, I read through Cactuar's a bit as I was coming up with this ruleset. I am not really asking people to try it, and I was considering just asking about stages, but I got on a roll. I guess I could see camping to be a problem. I was just under the impression very few would considering nobody enjoys it as much as Chibo. In any case, it is really really hard to sift through those threads to find real information, rather than find people who are seemingly as uninformed as I am try to defend a point. I am so lazy; it is partially my fault. In any case, I just don't see why matches that take less than four minutes with four stocks would suddenly completely change with one less stock and a time limit that reasonably depicts the average time the match would be. I guess I am just completely off base though. Thanks Bones for at least taking the time to try lol. I guess I will attempt to play my own ruleset with a lot of people as a side event sometime to see how it works out.

 

[KishPrime]

Wait Mute City go to time? I have never once seen Mute City go to timeout. Poke Floats, yes, just because you can maintain positions that make it very difficult for the opponent to approach and thus slow down the play. KJ has the same issue at times. But Mute? There's not a great way to stall. There are several transformations where it's virtually guaranteed that one player will lose a stock. I still think Mute and Brinstar are great stages and better than half the current list, and could make a decent case that Brinstar is actually the most neutral stage amongst the top characters.

While I am in full support of utilizing customization and options to their fullest required extent, the core mechanics of Melee speak to a game that is designed for free-flowing, in-the-moment, reactive gameplay with a significant geographical strategic component and some measurement of one's "luck." Combos and technical skill are certainly a part of the game, but they are hardly the only skills tested. Almost all of the factors in the first sentence have been minimized to maximize the latter.

You could argue with is the "almost all" part of my sentence. Sure, all of those things still exist, but to me, the balance has changed. There's still joy for me, yes, even competitively, on stages like Mute, Brinstar, MKII, and Corneria with significant stage interaction and hazards. Luck in competition doesn't bother me that much - I like Poker quite a bit, after all - and I think what is lost by removing those types of stages is regretful.

 

[Cactuar]

People camping and people playing intelligent defense are two different things. Using the term camping is like calling anything "gay". You are applying your own negative bias against defensive zone play.

The only thing that is similar to camping in melee is stalling, as it is a losing player playing defense while the winning player is playing defense. This is only possible because the timer allotment is so excessive. The base term 'camping' is from FPS and doesn't really make sense in fighting games.

M2K 'camping' the ledge with an advantage is M2K holding the ledge, or holding that zone defensively. If he has the lead, it is the losing player's responsibility to have good enough edge play to be able to force him off the edge/attack that zone.

There is a possibly legitimate argument for ledge grab limits, but pretty much all of the viable characters have the tools to succeed against that kind of play. We just spend all our time practicing butting heads on stage instead of preparing for M2K-play because he is the only one who really does it.

Lower time limits will more often encourage the winning player to avoid engaging the opponent to help preserve his lead, but this is part of the challenge for the losing player. His role, because he let himself be at disadvantage, is to play the aggressor and make up the difference.

 

[CyberZixx]

All stage buts the current legal ones are bad. Pokefloats is downright awful.

 

[Bones0]

Lower time limits will more often encourage the winning player to avoid engaging the opponent to help preserve his lead, but this is part of the challenge for the losing player. His role, because he let himself be at disadvantage, is to play the aggressor and make up the difference.

I guess the core of the argument is if you think a match should revolve around the first stock. It already does to quite a degree, so I don't see why anyone would want to artificially increase its importance by lowering the timer. You can say that you are challenging the losing player more because he lost the lead in the first place, but the simple fact that he's losing seems punishment enough. Saying that they are losing AND they have to fight an uphill battle seems unnecessary. If you made the stalling rule so that the losing player wins if the match goes to time, you could claim in the same way described above that you are challenging the player in the lead because they already hold the advantage of more stocks.

The first rule tilts the game's interactions in the favor of the winning player, the latter in favor of the losing player. With a large or infinite timer, the game slightly favors the winning player with a more reasonable proportion. There is never a point where the game becomes unwinnable like it can become in games that have a short timer. Some games would be so tilted in favor of the winning player that you could essentially play better than them for 3 out of 4 stocks and still lose the game. I don't see how that makes sense, especially when competitive environments are supposed to encourage consistency. We play multiple games with multiple stocks to reduce variance. Making the first stock extremely important increases variance because players are more likely to get lucky on the first stock and are then better able to abuse that chance advantage for 3 more stocks.

People can argue that the game may take more skill or be more dynamic because the losing player has to consider more resources, but at the same time that means the winning player has to worry about less resources. All he has to keep track of is the timer because it becomes the only relevant factor in whether he wins or loses instead of him having to play the game with all the awareness he needed for the first stock of the match.

 

[Double Helix]

All stage buts the current legal ones are bad. Pokefloats is downright awful.

Care to explain? I can throw out similar claims. All stages but the current legal ones are good. But if I didn't back it up (which I won't because I don't think that) you wouldn't believe me.

I guess the core of the argument is if you think a match should revolve around the first stock..

I feel like the quote "One stock is not really a lead." will still remain true as long as the timer is reasonable and the games are more than one stock a piece. This game has too much going on. SDs, remarkable play, and shifts in momentum all can just make one stock leads less of a factor. While the first stock usually sets the momentum, this game has a lot of competitors that can do awesome stuff and lose, and others that just play consistently and less flashy while winning (Scar and Hbox, respectively).

People can argue that the game may take more skill or be more dynamic because the losing player has to consider more resources, but at the same time that means the winning player has to worry about less resources. All he has to keep track of is the timer because it becomes the only relevant factor in whether he wins or loses instead of him having to play the game with all the awareness he needed for the first stock of the match.

I guess it would come down to whether players would actually abuse it, or continue to play as they do now. I just feel that the timer being used as a resource is a legitimate strategy, though I think 5 minutes may actually be better than 4. Keep in mind also that four or five minutes is still a tough amount of time to play consistently while being pressured by an opponent and maybe by the magnitude of an event.

 

[Cactuar]

The problem is that, in both scenarios, the ideal method of play is to follow the guideline of "if I'm winning, I should play defensively and try to stretch my advantage." M2K should realistically always go to the ledge and sit there for as long as he feels like sitting there, but he is not inclined to do so because he would have to do that for 7-8 minutes and it sucks from every perspective. Change the game type and suddenly, M2K just took the lead, there is 2 minutes left on the clock, and now we have the monumentally exciting moment where we realize that his opponent MUST challenge him on the ledge or they will straight lose. The opponent doesn't have 5 minutes to sit there and figure out how to approach. The opponent needs to know how to counter that style of playing prior to going in or he will likely straight lose.

"With a large or infinite timer, the game slightly favors the winning player with a more reasonable proportion."

Saying that the larger timer gives the winning player a more reasonable proportion is entirely opinion. I don't believe it is more reasonable. I think that the large/infinite timer makes the role advantage non-existent, as is evidenced by years of tournament play where, despite players having a lead, they continue butting heads with the opponent as if they did not. The fact that the timer plays such a non-influential role in play strategy is unreasonable to me.

 

[Bones0]

The problem is that, in both scenarios, the ideal method of play is to follow the guideline of "if I'm winning, I should play defensively and try to stretch my advantage." M2K should realistically always go to the ledge and sit there for as long as he feels like sitting there, but he is not inclined to do so because he would have to do that for 7-8 minutes and it sucks from every perspective. Change the game type and suddenly, M2K just took the lead, there is 2 minutes left on the clock, and now we have the monumentally exciting moment where we realize that his opponent MUST challenge him on the ledge or they will straight lose. The opponent doesn't have 5 minutes to sit there and figure out how to approach. The opponent needs to know how to counter that style of playing prior to going in or he will likely straight lose.

It sounds like you care more about the match being exciting than it testing actual skill. Do you really think a player should lose because he was rushed by outside sources when he could have figured out M2K's camping and beaten him if only the timer had given him a spare 30 seconds to a minute? It may not be as exciting to watch the methodical dismantling of M2K's strategy over the course of a minute (I would disagree), but it certainly reduces variance in results.

"With a large or infinite timer, the game slightly favors the winning player with a more reasonable proportion."

Saying that the larger timer gives the winning player a more reasonable proportion is entirely opinion. I don't believe it is more reasonable. I think that the large/infinite timer makes the role advantage non-existent, as is evidenced by years of tournament play where, despite players having a lead, they continue butting heads with the opponent as if they did not. The fact that the timer plays such a non-influential role in play strategy is unreasonable to me.

Well yes, that is my opinion, but it is based on the observation that larger timers make more stocks relevant, and thus reduce variance. Obviously, there is a spectrum of timer lengths that controls how much a lead matters and how possible it is to come back from a deficit. Having a lead that can easily be abused by those who want to rely on gimmicks or entirely avoid engaging their opponent at all doesn't seem like a good mechanic in a game. The only benefit I ever hear from people advocating lower timers is that players have to know how to use the timer to their advantage, but it doesn't seem all that complicated. You waste as much clock as you can so your opponent has to make more and more desperate attempts to break through your defense. With each passing second the winning player gets closer to victory whether he is outplaying his opponent in that moment or not. It'd be like a Special Melee mode where the losing player takes Lip's Stick damage until he regains the lead. If stage hazards are the fan blowing your cards off the poker table, then the timer is the thug with a gun to your head forcing you to raise all in over and over regardless of the quality of your hand. Hold onto your lead, bro!

 

[Double Helix]

It sounds like you care more about the match being exciting than it testing actual skill. Do you really think a player should lose because he was rushed by outside sources when he could have figured out M2K's camping and beaten him if only the timer had given him a spare 30 seconds to a minute? It may not be as exciting to watch the methodical dismantling of M2K's strategy over the course of a minute (I would disagree), but it certainly reduces variance in results.

I agree, but remember under this format it also allows for more matches (Bo5, Bo7), so the weight of each match is lowered some. I actually enjoy watching Armada vs Hbox and I know I am one of the few. I just believe that, honestly, results would change if games were Bo5 more often. I could be wrong, but I see where you are coming from. This game seems hard to find the balance between reasonable and unreasonable timers. The timers should be a resource that is able to be used, but it is also something that shouldn't be abusable. In this game, finding that balance is tough.

 

[Bones0]

The timers should be a resource that is able to be used...

Why? Nothing about the game's design indicates players should have any consideration to the timer, so I'm skeptical about trying to introduce it just because you can.

 

[Double Helix]

Why? Nothing about the game's design indicates players should have any consideration to the timer, so I'm skeptical about trying to introduce it just because you can.

It is definitely more of an opinion than anything. I just view it as another resource a player should be able to utilize. Just as moves in a set, stocks, and percent are all resources that should be utilized by players. Like I said, just an opinion. I feel that matches that come closer to time would be more interesting. I could be wrong of course, but I would like to find out for sure (though I probably won't).

Like I said, it is all opinion right now, but I would like to see a tournament run with a lower timer. I would host one myself, but this area is dead. Otherwise I would definitely have hosted the tournament then posted this thread showing feedback and such.

 

[Laudandus]

The problem is that optimally M2K should be camping the ledge for 8 minutes, but that **** sucks, takes forever, and is not worth the massive unpleasantness that would result if he actually did. The issue is that he's forced to play suboptimally not because there is a higher chance of losing if he camps the ledge but because the game is very long and boring if he succeeds. A shorter timer means he can more feasibly play the optimal strategy rather than being basically forced to play worse for both not-being-shunned and not damaging Melee's health as a competitive game.

 

[Cactuar]

You are making a correlation between being pressured with an ever ticking timer and being "forced to butt heads", which doesn't exist. Good players still use good options when playing as the aggressor. You are forced to interact with the opponent because you are at disadvantage. You aren't being forced to do it using stupid tactics. The whole point is that it is testing your skills under pressure, your ability to be good the entire time, not just once you've thought out your approach for a 30 full seconds.

The variance component of your argument is addressed, as the individual match variance is countered by having an increased number of matches in the set. There was a whole thing about how the number of stock per match increases variance of match wins, while increasing match count reduces the variance of set wins.