Would you change the rules?

[C_Ferris32]

Keep in mind that this is just for fun; it is speculation and nothing more

Alright, so the other day my friend and I thought about something kinda interesting. Right now, we all know that the match rules for competitive Melee are 4 stock, 8 minute time limit. But if you had the option to change the rules, how would you change them? Also, how do you think it would affect the pace of the match and the way the game is played?

I would personally stick with 4 stock, possibly change the time limit to something else, eliminate the striking process, and make the starter stage Pokemon Stadium. And for real men, sudden deaths will be settled with a 1 minute bonus match/ tech skill showdown, just to see who can style harder

 

[MasterShake]

I'd omit the striking process and make the first game of every set on battlefield. I'd also get rid of brinstar and rainbow cruise on the stage list. Might even omit DSR.

 

[Jonas]

I'd add a couple more stages into the counterpicks just for gayness and replace RPS (for determining stage striking order) with G&W Judge.

And for real men, sudden deaths will be settled with a 1 minute bonus match, just to see who can style harder

Switzerland lolololololol

 

[Zodiac]

Sudden deaths would take place outside the game, with a boxing match where you where nails on your gloves.

 

[t3h Icy]

European stage list.

 

[Jonas]

In Europe, ALL the stages are banned. Since we can't actually play the game because none of the stages are available, we "play" a conceptual, theoretical metagame that doesn't actually exist. It's true, we don't even bring setups or TV's to tournaments. It's a pretty weird experience, but an engaging one nonetheless.

 

[Zantetsu]

5 stocks. That one extra stock can make the games last longer, resulting in tournaments and videos being longer, resulting in melee occupying everyone's lives just a little bit more

 

[Fernandez]

would personally stick with 4 stock, but shorten the time limit to either 4 or 5 minutes, just to discourage stalling a little bit more.

that would only encourage stalling =X

 

[Vts]

Would add more stages to pick from and allow 2 bans

 

[C_Ferris32]

that would only encourage stalling =X

Yea, now that I think about it, I can see where you're coming from. I guess my mindset was that in the event of insane stalling, it would at least be shortened by a few minutes

 

[Doser]

More stages available along with more bans for each side so the stages that destroy match ups won't be played if the players have half of a brain amongst themselves.

Stages like Peach's Castle, Green Greens, Mute City, and Corneria.

I would also encourage best of 5 for loser and winner quarters.

 

[Mooo]

tiny melee, hyrule only

 

[Vts]

More stages available along with more bans for each side so the stages that destroy match ups won't be played if the players have half of a brain amongst themselves.

Stages like Peach's Castle, Green Greens, Mute City, and Corneria.

I would also encourage best of 5 for loser and winner quarters.

All arkansas tournament already do this

well the loser quarters winners is fine since if they lose they are getting top 5 but loser quarters is first placement of people who won't have a tie ,4th place is loser so i always see it as should be a 3/5

 

[The Star King]

I would personally stick with 4 stock, but shorten the time limit to either 4 or 5 minutes, just to discourage stalling a little bit more. And for real men, sudden deaths will be settled with a 1 minute bonus match, just to see who can style harder

1. That would encourage stalling. It's easier to stall out the timer with a shorter time limit.
2. That's not long enough. I've seen tons of matches where they naturally go to like 6 or 7 minutes, and they're actively fighting each other, especially in floaty match-ups. Most of the Armada vs Mango matches at Genesis were over 4 minutes when Mango wasn't using Falco, and they weren't camping or stalling at all.

 

[Dark Hart]

I hate battlefield

it would be banned

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

4-Player Free-for-all, Pichu only, Onett.

 

[C_Ferris32]

1. That would encourage stalling. It's easier to stall out the timer with a shorter time limit.
2. That's not long enough. I've seen tons of matches where they naturally go to like 6 or 7 minutes, and they're actively fighting each other, especially in floaty match-ups. Most of the Armada vs Mango matches at Genesis were over 4 minutes when Mango wasn't using Falco, and they weren't camping or stalling at all.

1. Yea, I realized this when Fernandez addressed it. I had pretty backwards logic when I made that post.
2. By bonus match, I meant the bonus game type, as in you can play either time, stock, coin, or bonus. It was mainly a joke.

 

[CloneHat]

Sudden deaths would take place outside the game, with a boxing match where you where nails on your gloves.

I think, like I heard 0Bones0 saying, that characters should be counterpicked before stages. They affect the matchup so much more.

 

[C_Ferris32]

Alright, so I know that shortening the time limit could slightly encourage stalling, but the way I see it, it would at least prevent the stalling from lasting as long haha

 

[stelzig]

I think, like I heard 0Bones0 saying, that characters should be counterpicked before stages. They affect the matchup so much more.

Is he suggesting that the losing player should pick character before the winning player then? Because otherwise I can't see how this benefits the winning player just because character affects the matchup more. All it does is forcing him to choose his character without any knowledge at all opposed to at least knowing the stage he's going to play on.

Or does he think the losing player should simply just have even more of an advantage over the winner?

 

[Bones0]

Is he suggesting that the losing player should pick character before the winning player then? Because otherwise I can't see how this benefits the winning player just because character affects the matchup more. All it does is forcing him to choose his character without any knowledge at all opposed to at least knowing the stage he's going to play on.

Or does he think the losing player should simply just have even more of an advantage over the winner?

Right now we do this:
1. Winner bans a stage. (has to guess what char the loser will use in order to ban a good stage)
2. Loser picks a stage. (can choose a char and stage combination based on what stage was banned; Ex. if they were going to go to YS to play as Marth and it gets banned, they can just go to DL and choose Jiggs)
3. Winner picks a character.
4. Loser picks a character.

I prefer this:
1. Winner picks character.
2. Loser picks character.
3. Winner bans a stage. (knowing the char matchup, a proper ban can be chosen)
4. Loser picks a stage.

Here's my stage list and rule set just for the record (we were discussing it in the Back Room Application thread because I included it in my post).

[collapse=Stage List Question]8. Q. Do you feel that the current MBR recommended stage list is fair? Why?
A. No. Counterpicking is an inherently flawed system that promotes gimmicky game play. From an ideal standpoint, players should play on the 3 (or 5) most fair stages for that matchup. Players having to waste bans on counterpicks is preventing this from ever becoming possible.[/collapse]

[collapse=My Stage List]Singles:
- Battlefield
- Dream Land
- Final Destination
- Fountain of Dreams
- Yoshi's Story
- Pokemon Stadium (counter-pick)

Doubles:
- Battlefield
- Dream Land
- Final Destination
- Pokemon Stadium
- Yoshi's Story
- Kongo Jungle (counter-pick)[/collapse]

[collapse=Rule Set Question]9. Q. Do you feel that the current MBR recommended rule set is fair? Why?
A. No. The order of character and stage selections is completely illogical. The character you play has a much more vast effect on how you will play than compared to the effect different stages have (especially when they are neutrals). For the first match, players double blind and then strike for the ideal stage for that matchup; this makes sense because things are chosen in order of priority. For games following that, it becomes skewed. The winner must essentially guess whether or not the opponent will change characters, and then the loser must select a character leaving them open to get blindsided by a counterpick against their character. Overall just doesn't make much sense, and there are a lot of other tiny things I feel could be improved upon (best of 5 sets for as many sets as time permits, neutral port starting positions, etc.). I've spent a lot of time thinking about stage striking, banning, and character selection. I hope to eventually come up with a system that allows players to strike for a stage each match. The main issue is incorporating DSR so that there is stage variety without affecting the numbers of stages being struck from.[/collapse]

[collapse=My Rule Set]- 4 stocks
- ALL sets are a Best of 5
- No items
- 8 minute timer
- Time limit tie breakers are as follows: most stocks; least %; 1-stock, 4-min rematch; play out Sudden Death (lol Bob-ombs)
- Pause is disabled (if you forget to turn it off, I promise to pause-unpause right before your ledge tech)
- Stalling and game-freezing glitches are banned
- Wobbling is legal
- At either player's request, neutral ports (for starting positions) may be enforced.
- Stages are struck in 1221 fashion (lowest port chooses striking order; port conflicts decided by RPS).
- Each player gets 1 ban after a win. Bans are temporary, and do not last the entire set (Ex. You win Game 1 and ban FD. I counterpick DL and lose Game 2 as well. You can reban FD or switch your ban to DL (or any other stage).
- Modified DSR: Players cannot counterpick the stage they last won on.
- Characters are chosen PRIOR to stage bans and counterpicks (Ex. I win Game 1 on BF. I choose my character. You choose your character. I ban a stage. You choose a counterpick from the remaining stages.).[/collapse]

 

[stelzig]

Ah, I didn't consider bans. In Sweden (europe?) they don't use bans anymore either heh.

But even with bans I thnik the current way is fine, but I suppose it's easier to allow more silly stages your way, lol.

 

[Bones0]

What is the average rule set in Sweden? Not sure why you wouldn't use bans. Without them you get a bunch of sets decided on game 1. That'd be way too frustrating for me having to deal with unfair counter picks. Marths would take spacies to FD all the time, CFs would get taken to FoD constantly, etc. Not sure what you mean by silly stages. My stage list only has PS as the only non-neutral...

 

[StretchNutz]

New rule: everyone has to play Mewtwo but me.

 

[Jonas]

that would only encourage stalling =X

But that way we could allow stalling without the matches becoming unbearably long =D

 

[C_Ferris32]

But that way we could allow stalling without the matches becoming unbearably long =D

That was my logic behind shortening the time limit. But I suppose it could go either way.

 

[Beat!]

What is the average rule set in Sweden?

BEAST/BEAST 2 Ruleset:


Rules:
4 Stocks.
8 minute time limit.
Items off.
Bo3 Sets in pools and first round in brackets.
Bo5 Sets in all bracket games second rounds -> Semifinals.
Bo7 Sets in Semifinals + finals.
Timed out matches will be determined by the remaining number of lives, then percentage of the current stock. In the event of a percentage tie, replay that match. Any Sudden Death match is strictly not to be played.
Bring your own controller.
Controller Mods, Glitches, and tactics used to stall a match (wall-bombing, rising pound), are banned.
Blizzobbling/Wobbling is allowed up to 300%.
Stage Striking: Players eliminate stages from the Starter Stage List until only 1 remains, and the players then play the first match on that stage. Players strike stages in 1 2 2 1 order.
Advanced Slob Picks: Loser may choose the next stage or select to go random. The winner may then change their character, followed by the loser.
Modified Dave's Stupid Rule: No player can counter pick the stage he or she last won on unless agreed upon by both players.
Team Attack will be ON.
Life stealing allowed.

The Tournament Host is the arbiter of all disputes.

Neutrals 1v1:
Final Destination
Yoshi's Story
Dreamland
Battlefield
Fountain of Dreams

Neutrals 2v2:
Final Destination
Yoshi's Story
Dreamland
Battlefield
Pokemon Stadium

Counterpicks 1v1:
Pokémon Stadium

Counterpicks 2v2:
None





On topic:
I'd make it YS, BF, DL only.

I could accept FD, FoD and PS being CPs.

 

[gm jack]

stuff

Why do counter picks need to give a huge advantage to the losing player? As it stands, they get to pick the stage they want (bans aside) and then pick who to play based on the stage and opponent. The winner only has the ability to prevent themselves getting gayed by a stage as it stands.

A counter pick currently gives the loser the ability to fight on their terms, as opposed to severely biasing the result.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I would have players strike from the entire stage list.

 

[stelzig]

Ah, I agree that by banning a stage after knowing what character your opponent will use you can actually guard yourself better against getting "gayed by a stage". But yeah I don't see the huge difference and without stage ban it is clearly only disadvantaging the winner further.

But eh I really like the swedish rule better anyway... Though I would still like kongo jungle 64 on as counterpick in teams at least

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Fox only, no items, final destination.

I'm seriously going to have to spend some time thinking on this though.

 

[Bones0]

Why do counter picks need to give a huge advantage to the losing player? As it stands, they get to pick the stage they want (bans aside) and then pick who to play based on the stage and opponent. The winner only has the ability to prevent themselves getting gayed by a stage as it stands.

A counter pick currently gives the loser the ability to fight on their terms, as opposed to severely biasing the result.

I'm confused, why are you quoting my post? My rule set advises for LESS advantages to be given to the losing player. If you read my explanation, that should be clear. The current system allows the loser to pick a stage that beats out the winner's stage ban as well as character selection. Mine still lets the losing player change their character based on the winner's character, but at least now the winner can ban an appropriate stage for the character matchup instead of having to predict what the opponent will do.

I'm just thinking of it like this:
Change from
1. Stage selection
2. Character selection
to
1. Character selection
2. Stage selection

Ah, I agree that by banning a stage after knowing what character your opponent will use you can actually guard yourself better against getting "gayed by a stage". But yeah I don't see the huge difference and without stage ban it is clearly only disadvantaging the winner further.

But eh I really like the swedish rule better anyway... Though I would still like kongo jungle 64 on as counterpick in teams at least

I was actually debating making PS a counterpick in Singles and Doubles, and making KJ the 5th neutral for Doubles. And how DO counterpicks play out in Europe without bans? That seems just as bad as having RC and Brinstar in the ruleset with 1 ban... Don't people get frustrated being taken to their worst stage every game?

 

[stelzig]

I don't think many people have a big problem with any of the neutral stages.

And with BO5 in bracket and BO7 from semi finals the amount of stages to choose from is also pretty small with DSR in place (even if it's the modified version) so limiting it further with bans wouldn't be very appealing. A ban in BO3/pools might not be so bad though, but I don't think it's neccesary, especially not now that we do let people switch character AFTER the stage is picked

People also *do* have personal choice, how many characters have so definitive worst/best stages that everyone will choose them?

 

[ryuu seika]

I'd have tournament matches played on lightning mode, ban all characters from throwing more than once per combo (counting Popo & Nana as separate characters) and have all first game of a round stages chosen at random. Losing players would then get 3 strikes (or 2 each on teams) to balance the fact that all stages but Icicle Mountain would be legal.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Super Sudden Death.

Don't get hit.

 

[Ørn]

I actually really like Bones0's suggestion. I always thought the counterpicking process was a bit weird.

And KJ64 is definitely a great doubles stage, I'm in favor of it being a counterpick, at least.

 

[1048576]

After game 1 add Poke Staduim to the neutrals and strike again (loser gets extra strike)
After game 2 add brinstar to the neutrals and strike again (loser gets last strike)

 

[gm jack]

I'm confused, why are you quoting my post? My rule set advises for LESS advantages to be given to the losing player. If you read my explanation, that should be clear. The current system allows the loser to pick a stage that beats out the winner's stage ban as well as character selection. Mine still lets the losing player change their character based on the winner's character, but at least now the winner can ban an appropriate stage for the character matchup instead of having to predict what the opponent will do.

I'm just thinking of it like this:
Change from
1. Stage selection
2. Character selection
to
1. Character selection
2. Stage selection



I was actually debating making PS a counterpick in Singles and Doubles, and making KJ the 5th neutral for Doubles. And how DO counterpicks play out in Europe without bans? That seems just as bad as having RC and Brinstar in the ruleset with 1 ban... Don't people get frustrated being taken to their worst stage every game?

The way it is allows players to change character in response to the stage. Some characters have more than one really bad stage in a match up, and if they see a certain stage come up, may want to switch entirely.

 

[Hydro_Smasher]

no.

I love melee the way it is. The physics, the rules, the charecters, etc.

Melee has flaws. No surprise there, but because it has flaws I think thats what makes it fun.

think about it. If you won at everything forever with, wouldn't you get bored?

I like a challenge, and I love my melee the way it is.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Counter-picking is good because it encourages stage diversity. If it didn't exist, we'd only play on the starters.