Requesting Feedback - A Potential Alternate Rule Set

[Kal]

djb, you realize that, if you're losing, you can camp as much as you want, right? The only reason a losing player would approach if camping were a better option is because of the timer. So then in any situation where my opponent's approaches are slower than my ability to run away (e.g. Fox vs. almost everyone, especially if platforms are present), I can just continuously run away. This is fine if I'm winning. But if I'm losing, I'm basically prolonging a match that should, after a reasonable amount of time, end with my defeat.

 

[ERayz]

I like how this idea of ruleset would have been frowned upon if a random noob (like me) proposed it.

Cactuar comes in and posts a troll ruleset and everybody is like OMG I love it.


2 stocks in all stages? You still can get killed by stage hazards and if it happens, half of your stock are gone in one death. ******** stages will be even more ********, campers will camp even more in fear of losing half their stocks first. And noobs will get 2 stocked constantly by better players, hurting their confidence.

 

[Thanos828]

I like how this idea of ruleset would have been frowned upon if a random noob (like me) proposed it.

Cactuar comes in and posts a troll ruleset and everybody is like OMG I love it.

JPOBS went over this, but yes, basically that's the jist of our community.

Also

Melee is liked, its mainly brawl that is hated


Also, LMFAO at people who think low tiers would do good on more stages >__<.

This REALLY helps low tiers, and it actually reduces the effect SDs have on a match assuming 2 equal players.

I'm willing to buy that you meant the stock thing affected low tiers and not the stages. But I felt I needed to point that out.

 

[Fernandez]

I played this today with jeapie, it was pretty fun for like 1 hour, then we switched back to normal melee.

 

[KrIsP!]

I like how this idea of ruleset would have been frowned upon if a random noob (like me) proposed it.

Cactuar comes in and posts a troll ruleset and everybody is like OMG I love it.


2 stocks in all stages? You still can get killed by stage hazards and if it happens, half of your stock are gone in one death. ******** stages will be even more ********, campers will camp even more in fear of losing half their stocks first. And noobs will get 2 stocked constantly by better players, hurting their confidence.

It's not a troll ruleset, it's simply an idea trying to get people thinking in ways other than the normal ruleset. Also he never said all rule sets, the point is if we drastically change the ruleset we can make large alterations to the tier list and stage list through play testing.

Besides in the end it's the same amount of stocks spread but over shorter bursts so you can never get suck in a ****ty match up on a terrible stage and lose an entire set. Besides, it'd be better to get 2 stocked 3 times in a row than 4 stocked twice in a row for confidence, but that's all subjective.

 

[Bones0]

I actually have never played Counter Strike, but I feel like it's a popular enough game that most people at least know enough about that they can actually understand what I'm saying. I actually came up with the analogy because I am playing SnD in MW3.

Halo is really useful because it has been backed by MLG for so long, so it brings a lot of good comparisons as far as how the community operates.

Falco/Marth is the only important matchup. All the best rivalries have been Falco vs. Marth. Anyone who disagrees is in denial.


Just for the record, I never suggested removal of the timer. Just the next best thing: a long *** timer. The Fox running away and lasering can already do that... I don't see what that has to do with the timer at all. The only benefit he would get from the timer being longer is that he could run away and laser when he is losing without worrying about running out of time, but if you are unable to hit a Fox running away and lasering, a shorter time limit to allow him to time you out would still be much worse.

Also, this is most definitely a troll rule set. It had all stages legal except for Brinstar Depths. lol

 

[Kal]

And Big Blue.

 

[Gea]

Towards the discussion of not having a timer at all, I'd like to point you guys in the direction of the smash game that currently does not have a timer on their stock matches. The community has decided that enforcement of time to some degree would be best for the game because they have times during matches where both players will literally sit there perfectly still waiting for the other player to do something first.

Just a tidbit.

 

[Bones0]

Well there was argument to leave Big Blue in, so I didn't want to offend anyone.

Melee isn't 64 though. Approaching isn't nearly as big of an endeavor.

 

[LLDL]

i approve of 2 stocks so i can **** a noob in 20 seconds

Lmao o

 

[-ACE-]

Lol seriously, so many other users would have been shot down so hard for this idea. The thread may have even gotten locked lol.

 

[Cactuar]

Man, it's so cool when people come in and say something that has been said over and over already, on top of being addressed directly by me.

REPOST

**

 

[DanteFox]

To a point made earlier by I don't know who: I never claimed that this method was without flaw.

And I never claimed you made that claim.

All approaches to a competitive standard will have pros and cons. That you actively want to resign yourself to the same set of pros and cons from now until melee's end is your business. I see a specific problem, and I address it specifically. I'm going to experiment. I have no reason not to. I know where the current competitive scene is going and I'm going to fully push the MBR Recommended for that purpose. I don't have a problem separating my thoughts between where the scene is and possible other approaches. If people happen to like using an alternate and it builds enough of a following, then so be it. This is more religion than science. Always has been.

That's fine. I just want people to realize that your ruleset isn't necessarily better, just different.

 

[Cactuar]

It's one thing to point something out as different (and arguably completely pointless because it is obvious). It is another to attack it for being different (as opposed to attacking it for being wrong).

 

[Gea]

Melee isn't 64 though. Approaching isn't nearly as big of an endeavor.

While true, it doesn't negate the possibility that two people try to wait out each other in a timerless setting, or just result in some longer than warranted matches leading to larger tournaments taking longer.

Do I feel like the majority of matches will get that way? No, probably an extreme minority, but it still wouldn't be a positive tradeoff in my opinion.

 

[DanteFox]

It's one thing to point something out as different (and arguably completely pointless because it is obvious). It is another to attack it for being different (as opposed to attacking it for being wrong).

You're getting quite defensive. Relax. If you want to change the status quo, your system needs to stand up to scrutiny.

And it's true, no matter how much you try to brush it off as "obvious" or "pointless:"

Your ruleset is trading pros for other pros and cons for other cons.

 

[Cactuar]

Once again, you have stated nothing of value. lol

Something being obvious is an agreement to it being true.

 

[Kal]

Does he want to change the status quo? I don't remember when "alternate" got changed to mean "replacement." I guess my English is rusty, speaking Arabic all the time.

 

[DanteFox]

The fact that you continue to try to dismiss my comments as valueless shows me that you fully realize what I'm saying and hope for the rest of the community to ignore it. Not happening, Cactus.

 

[Cactuar]

You are just repeatedly saying something that I already said. Who am I trying to make ignore it?

 

[Kal]

If you would like, I can ignore it. Win for me and a win for Dante. I guess you're sort of left out in the cold there, Cactus.

 

[Bones0]

While true, it doesn't negate the possibility that two people try to wait out each other in a timerless setting, or just result in some longer than warranted matches leading to larger tournaments taking longer.

Do I feel like the majority of matches will get that way? No, probably an extreme minority, but it still wouldn't be a positive tradeoff in my opinion.

I don't see how that isn't a positive tradeoff. 1% of matches will go longer than they probably needed to, but the other 99% of matches get to be played without the players being restricted by the timer. And realistically, it's not even 1% of matches, it's less than that. I'm not even suggesting some absurdly long timer like 1 hour or anything. I think a 15 minute timer is plenty long for virtually any match with two players who aren't blatantly stalling to finish.

 

[Gea]

That is assuming that the timer is restricting more than those matches currently.

 

[Bones0]

That seems like a fair assumption on my part. Many games with floaties come close to the time limit without either player doing any sort of hardcore camping, so obviously it has some effect. If it isn't restricting matches, then why is everyone so opposed to extending the time limit anyway? Either the time limit is restricting matches that would be going on longer and we should extend it, or the time limit isn't restricting matches and there is no down side to extending it just in case.

 

[Cactuar]

Wait, so bones, many matches with floaties end up at like 1-2 stock each when they are approaching the time limit within 1-2 minutes, and yet they don't actually time each other out?

 

[Gea]

If it isn't restricting matches, then why is everyone so opposed to extending the time limit anyway?

Did anyone want GF of Apex to go on any longer? I'm not trying to say "well this is better because no one likes long, drawn out matches" but that is pretty much the truth to the timer. How many people honestly watched those matches and thought, "Damn, if only the timer was longer than maybe Hbox would actually approach?"

Like I said, I'm not saying that logic is correct, but I'm answering your question.

 

[Kal]

I'm opposed to extending the timer because it will just encourage the losing player to camp more. But I'm just being silly.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I don't understand why this is being perceived as such a huge problem. How many match ups in Apex came down to or near timeouts?

One? This is such a huge issue... why?

 

[Kal]

Are you referring to the proposed ruleset or the timer discussion?

 

[DerfMidWest]

interesting...
I do like the way that this looks, but I feel like more stages should be banned (Icicle mountain, Flatzone, brinstar depths, etc)

I like how this would change the way the game is played a lot. At first I was like "bah why so short," but after thinking about it, this allows for a lot more variety and strategy and, with DSR, we wouldn't be going to the same stage over and over again.

It does appeal to me.

 

[danieljosebatista]

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

I mean, like I said, most fighting games are way different from Smash. In street fighter, if you end up with slightly more health after a 90 second match, you take the game. But their sets are longer if I'm recalling correctly, and one such loss is not a big deal. In smash, after playing an 8 minute match losing by 20% just doesn't make sense. Especially when you look at the potentiality of what could happen if there were no timer. Namely, the better player would win.

I just feel that there needs to be some remedy for this kind of thing. At the risk of sounding redundant, Smash is not a traditional fighter. We shouldn't simply accept timing out as a legitimate "win strategy" because it happens in other fighting games.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Are you referring to the proposed ruleset or the timer discussion?

A little of both, but I suppose mostly the timer discussion. Just in whole, that set seemed to spark a lot of distress and discussion on the boards, and I think people are being a little ridiculous about it.

 

[Bones0]

Did anyone want GF of Apex to go on any longer? I'm not trying to say "well this is better because no one likes long, drawn out matches" but that is pretty much the truth to the timer. How many people honestly watched those matches and thought, "Damn, if only the timer was longer than maybe Hbox would actually approach?"

Like I said, I'm not saying that logic is correct, but I'm answering your question.

Idk why you would care how long GF last considering you aren't playing. If it is uninteresting to you... don't watch? WOWOMG!!?!! What is more important is if Hbox or Armada feels cheated out of a match because the timer stopped the match before either of them lost 4 stocks. The whole issue of Armada using YL to time out Jiggs is actually a great example of why the timer should be extended.

 

[Kal]

A little of both, but I suppose mostly the timer discussion. Just in whole, that set seemed to spark a lot of distress and discussion on the boards, and I think people are being a little ridiculous about it.

The timer discussion is mostly a tangent, because the ruleset has the same timer we've always used: take the total number of stock available to both players and subtract one. We're not trying to discourage the strategies used at APEX. The concern we're addressing by reducing the timer's duration is that all matches are too long.

 

[Gea]

The whole issue of Armada using YL to time out Jiggs is actually a great example of why the timer should be extended.

Not to nitpick (okay, it is nitpicking) but it was Hbox who was going for the timeouts until Armada responded by using the same strategy.

 

[danieljosebatista]

Quite frankly, I think it makes more sense to remove the timer altogether. Cactuar brought up the point that fox can just laser camp you to high percents, which made sense. Then I remembered he can already do that with the current ruleset.

 

[Smelly Cat]

i like the things that come out of crimson blur's fingers and i like pengie for posting something similar and the community shooting him down like fake ****s.

i think it'd be awesome to see some rules change stock/stagewise

the idea that someone brought up about doing allbrawl doing 1 stock 1 minute games is really cool. between serious matches of those i'm sure people analyze their play last game much more thoroughly than they would in 4 stock matches, since those are more of a "blur" like cact said.

also more diverse stages would create more strategic elements, and a higher set count would be better overall since there would be more focus on a player's gameplan. also suicides would definitely cost you a game, but it wouldn't be as crippling as losing 4 stock game due to a suicide.

just repeating/trying to summarize points i felt were interesting


this thread has gotten troll as ****, but hopefully some TOs see the message and consider altering the rules a bit for science

 

[Professor Pro]

If this ever becomes a reality, I will look forward to running away with Fox on Hyrule after getting in my 1 laser for the rest of the 3 minutes, or waveshining someone against a wall

 

[Bones0]

I'm pretty sure the only game Hbox has ever won by time vs. Armada was game 1 at Genesis II where he won by 1%...


I was the one who mentioned 1 stock 1 min, and I was trolling.


You can't just remove the timer altogether because neither player may want to approach. You have to force the losing player to approach eventually or else a match could last forever... literally. lol But like I've said, if you made the timer 15 minutes it would essentially be nonexistent except for matches where both players are refusing to engage each other.


Professor Pro, if you ever time out someone on Hyrule you have to promise to commentate it. lol

 

[Kal]

Quite frankly, I think it makes more sense to remove the timer altogether. Cactuar brought up the point that fox can just laser camp you to high percents, which made sense. Then I remembered he can already do that with the current ruleset.

Unless he's losing. There is no reason to approach (unless camping is unviable, which isn't usually the case in Melee) when you're down and there is no timer forcing you to make that up.