Rule Set Change (Suggestion)

[Velocity]

Let me first start off by saying how I've always hated the whole counter-pick stage & character. I'm also in favor of playing battlefield only and I believe Scar and Hax first introduced me to this idea and I'm all for that. I worked off of that in a way, and wanted to focus on character match-ups more than stage match-ups. I brought this up to Scar first and he was for already thinking about the same thing, and I've been asking other people in the community about it. So I want to see what the rest of the communities response to it is.

So you start your set as you normally would except the entirety of the set is played on the stage strike stage. No counter-picking stage. No dsr(note 1) or any version of it needed.

I don't see the point of counter-picking stage. I think this will lead to better character development. I don't think this needs to be explained in any greater detail, based on every player I've brought it up to. So please leave feedback on what you think about this.

Note1: DSR if used should be "you can not pick a stage that you last won on that you picked" (Nintendude)

 

[Mew2King]

i dont like battlefield much <.< im better on most of the other stages. i like it better with 6 stages the way it is now is fine

 

[Velocity]

i dont like battlefield much <.< im better on most of the other stages. i like it better with 6 stages the way it is now is fine

Well you strike battlefield then. You're basically agreeing to what the set will be played on, rather than just the first match. I know YOU won't like this cause you want to be able to go to FD as much as possible.

 

[Mew2King]

id quit marth without FD, sheik/fox are better choices anywhere else. he's pretty much useless compared to sheik/fox if you take away FD

it becomes who's the best on battlefield, not who's the best on all-the-stages-on-average.

(sheik has no choice but to ban FD/poke for example. Marth has to ban DL64 and something else and won't get FD which is by far his strongest stage. Spacies now have an even larger advantage and you can no longer chain grab them, making them even more inbalanced).

u can't use your strongest counterpick against an opponent either, which is kind of wack and boring

i understand your reasoning, but playing the same stage 3 times in a row is kind of dull. what if you get bodied cuz your opponent is good on 3 stages but really bad on 2 stages? You now realize you made a mistake but you cannot do anything to change it for the rest of the set if they are simply better than you are on that stage. You can't even CP them to their weak stage cuz they can now get rid of 2 weak stages for themselves.

This also reduces the ability for people who play multiple characters. There is no reason for me to ever pick marth again against anybody ever to be completely honest if this is the case.

 

[Landry]

There is no reason for me to ever pick marth again against anybody ever to be completely honest if this is the case.

This is why something like this could never work. Spacies would probably be even more broken and someone like Sheik would also do really well in this situation. Some characters would be pretty ****ed.

 

[Velocity]

This is why something like this could never work. Spacies would probably be even more broken and someone like Sheik would also do really well in this situation. Some characters would be pretty ****ed.

Currently you can ban a stage in a bo3 though so I don't see how that makes a difference.

 

[The Business]

Battlefield only would be boring for spectators. Lack of change between matches, even if it's more fair, is bad for viewership.

Another way to do stages in bo5 without counterpicks is to have a set order of stages, but there are obviously problems with this... don't need to go into detail.

 

[Mew2King]

see i don't think it's more fair

if you're bad on 2 stages, you deserve to suffer for that. You shouldn't be able to get rid of BOTH.

if you're bad on 1 stage just strike it and have a CP character for it or practice for it against your opponent. Be more versatile.

you also can't use your most powerful CP, which really sucks and is boring

in fact you can't CP at all. It's likely sets won't be 2-1 but instead 2-0s more often which is also pretty lame.

 

[MountainGoat]

I hate the idea. Counterpicking is an interesting part of the game. The variety in stages makes some characters more viable.

 

[Habefiet]

see i don't think it's more fair

if you're bad on 2 stages, you deserve to suffer for that. You shouldn't be able to get rid of BOTH.

if you're bad on 1 stage just strike it and have a CP character for it or practice for it against your opponent. Be more versatile.

you also can't use your most powerful CP, which really sucks and is boring

in fact you can't CP at all. It's likely sets won't be 2-1 but instead 2-0s more often which is also pretty lame.

Word.

10words

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

I think that anything that would make M2K quit Marth is a terrible idea.

 

[Velocity]

I hate the idea. Counterpicking is an interesting part of the game. The variety in stages makes some characters more viable.

If a player bans that stage how is that character viable then. Counterpicking Character is a more interesting part of the game.

Battlefield only would be boring for spectators. Lack of change between matches, even if it's more fair, is bad for viewership.

I disagree I see a lot of sets now already doing this as the players want to keep re-matching anyway. Why does change make it less boring, I'm interested in the game play like between PP and Armada and how they adapt. I think playing on the same stage could enhance that. Not like it's a stage either player doesn't want to play on.

 

[Blubby]

i think 6 stages is fine, but for neutral stages im thinking battlefield, dreamland and yoshi's should be, i just dont think anymore that final is neutral at all and falcon is just horrible on fod, though for most of the others fod is not that big of a deal but still this stage is getting unpopular for a reason

 

[ElloEddy]

battlefield is bad lol ..

 

[The Business]

If a player bans that stage how is that character viable then. Counterpicking Character is a more interesting part of the game.



I disagree I see a lot of sets now already doing this as the players want to keep re-matching anyway. Why does change make it less boring, I'm interested in the game play like between PP and Armada and how they adapt. I think playing on the same stage could enhance that. Not like it's a stage either player doesn't want to play on.

Are you sure you're still going to feel that way after watching hundreds of matches in a row all on the same stage? More stages means more diversity means more creativity means more fun to watch in the long run.

I agree that it is cool to watch how players adapt to each other on one stage, but I don't want every damn match to be on that stage.

 

[Deleted member]

 

[t3h Icy]

Maybe let BF, YS, DL64 be neutral, and have FD, FoD, and PS be counterpicks.

 

[Velocity]

Are you sure you're still going to feel that way after watching hundreds of matches in a row all on the same stage? More stages means more diversity means more creativity means more fun to watch in the long run.

I agree that it is cool to watch how players adapt to each other on one stage, but I don't want every damn match to be on that stage.

Well the stage is going to vary depending on what each player strikes on what they will feel as the most fair stage for the entire set to play on while keeping in mind that the player may or may not play other characters.

 

[Landry]

Maybe let BF, YS, DL64 be neutral, and have FD, FoD, and PS be counterpicks.

I like this idea way more. Tbh, though, I think the ruleset is pretty solid right now.

People just need to stop being *****es.

 

[Strong Badam]

I don't particularly like this idea because in comparison to the current ruleset, not only is stage diversity lost but the set format's tendency to force stage competency is also lost, which is absurd when there are only 6 legal stages as it is. Your proposition heavily changes the skillset that a tournament tests, which is pretty significant. It isn't inherently better or worse (that's subject to opinion) but IMO it is less desirable, and most will agree with me.

After years of stagelist revision we're finally at a point where a Falcon main can't ban FoD at all times because they suck on the stage (despite the stage not being that bad for Falcon, simply requiring a different approach to spacing moves), or a spacie main can't ban FD at all times because it's their only bad stage, or Puff can't ban PS at all times because the ceilings are low... they actually have to become good at the entire game instead of ~80% of it, and their skills on all stages are tested in tournament. Your proposition would 1. require banning a stage to have an even number of stages (unnecessary, all 6 we have are perfectly fine) and 2. allow players to suck at 40% of the (new) game and perform well in tournament. In general, it's a step backwards from where we should be headed ruleset wise.

 

[Svetsunov]

I feel like the only person who thinks the current counterpick system is fine.

 

[Velocity]

I don't particularly like this idea because in comparison to the current ruleset, not only is stage diversity lost but the set format's tendency to force stage competency is also lost, which is absurd when there are only 6 legal stages as it is. Your proposition heavily changes the skillset that a tournament tests, which is pretty significant. It isn't inherently better or worse (that's subject to opinion) but IMO it is less desirable, and most will agree with me.

After years of stagelist revision we're finally at a point where a Falcon main can't ban FoD at all times because they suck on the stage (despite the stage not being that bad for Falcon, simply requiring a different approach to spacing moves), or a spacie main can't ban FD at all times because it's their only bad stage, or Puff can't ban PS at all times because the ceilings are low... they actually have to become good at the entire game instead of ~80% of it, and their skills on all stages are tested in tournament. Your proposition would 1. require banning a stage to have an even number of stages (unnecessary, all 6 we have are perfectly fine) and 2. allow players to suck at 40% of the (new) game and perform well in tournament. In general, it's a step backwards from where we should be headed ruleset wise.

They CAN ban whatever stage at all times except in a best of 5 so I don't see how that's a valid argument. I don't agree that they are "perfectly" fine, specifically pokemon stadium. It's not "allowing" them to suck, they still have to beat the other player, the point of this is so that you aren't getting to counter pick both a stage and character to create a scenario where if you play the wrong character you could have a really bad match-up. Again this is to focus on you learning the character match-up(or another character for the match-up) but also the player. You also can't say %40 of the "game" there are more to the game then the stages. Not to mention most players won't ban the same 2 stages against every opponent.

 

[Arcadia157]

I don't understand why we simply don't just play all of our sets on Pokefloats and Big Blue.

 

[Gea]

Can you please detail how stages are holding back players from learning character MUs.

 

[Armada]

Why should BF be the only stage allowed in the first place?
I can understand some people think PS/FD is a bit to much (I don't agree but still) but what makes the other stages to bad?

I really can't understand that part.

 

[EPsilon933]

Melee's gameplay is movement

Having varying stages varies gameplay

This game can be like Street Fighter in certain regards

But it is not Street Fighter

Street Fighter is moveset, not movement

Where varying stage designs wouldn't really matter

Of course, we can't allow having poorly designed stages to play on

Anything that's not the neutral 5 or 6 is dumb to play on

Camping is a problem on those stages

Not on the neutral 5 or 6

 

[Strong Badam]

Velocity: I mostly ignore bo3's because they aren't indicative of top level play, which is what matters when forming a ruleset. IMO stage bans should be removed in their entirety even in Bo3s.

 

[Eggm]

I personally feel that BF only is dumb, but I do like the prospect of playing the whole set on the stage that both players deemed the most fair for r1 (by striking). That's pretty interesting, and I kind of like it.

 

[Cactuar]

I think his proposal is that the set be played on the stage that is agreed upon by both players as being the most even for their matchup, not simply "battlefield only". Battlefield only is a side opinion of his, not part of this proposal.

 

[KnitePhox]

i think there will probably not be a switch to BF/X stage thru strikes only, but i don't see how this can be considered when there's so many stages without hazards that melee has to choose from w/o AR.

as comparison, in 64 there are 4 tourney stages; 3 neutrals(Hyrule[TORNADOES IN NEUTRAL WTF], DL, and KJ64[no ledges for 'ledge di']) and 1cp(Peach's Castle[NO EDGES to grab on to])

to some 64 players, a 'DL only' game would take out all the weirdness of the other stages and be more skill orientated, but at the same time it would invalidate other characters in the game for their cp/how strong the top 2 are on DL


when you have so many legit stages to choose from don't throw them away lol

 

[how2smashbrothers]

Pretty sure DL64 is the worst of the 6 for spectators.

 

[Habefiet]

Pretty sure DL64 is the worst of the 6 for spectators.

Strongly disagree.

 

[V-K]

What about only BF and FD?

 

[rpotts]

What about only BF and FD?

Say it was random first stage between those two. Idk what your intent is so I'm just assuming.

Falco vs Marth Bo5

Game 1 Random FD - Marth wins
Game 2 Falco CPs BF - Falco wins
Game 3 Marth CPs FD - Marth wins
Game 4 Falco CPs BF - Falco wins
Game 5 Marth CPs FD - Marth wins

Marth wins by only winning on FD.

No thanks.

 

[Cactuar]

If we went to 2 stages, the second stage would NOT be FD.

 

[JPOBS]

Having to play the entire set on the first stage originally agreed on is stupid simply because as you play the opponent you gain more insight into how you should adjust to them.

Just because you originally thought stage A would be the best doesn't mean you should have to live with that decision for the entire set.

Note that this is different from a ruleset wherein there is only one legal stage.

 

[Scar]

"stage competency" is one thing, and "the other guy has an infinite chaingrab on me on this stage" is another thing. please don't conflate the two.

Bo5 no bans is extremely silly IMO and in every case where there is an extreme imbalance in character/stage I'd rather just play (and watch) a Bo3 with a ban

taking the current ruleset to farther than we have gone with it: if we don't change something, we will see MUCH more of people like Unknown going falcon vs M2K's FD counterpick. it's the best strategy if you want to play at an extremely high level. if the majority of players think that that's good for the scene then so be it but i certainly don't want to watch otherwise evenly matched players go at such a distinct disadvantage and get 4 stocked falcon vs sheik where the falcon doesn't even understand the basics of the matchup because of the ruleset.

the things we can change are:
-character CPs before stage CPs (i think this is actually a great idea)
-1 ban in all sets (i obviously think this is a great idea / no-brainer idea)
-stage strike in more games in a set (i think all games is a great idea personally, but maybe only strike if someone wants to change characters or something)

@jpobs what's wrong with opening up the option to re-strike every game?

 

[Atlus8]

First match should be played on BF and the game clock should go down from eight minutes to five!

 

[V-K]

Say it was random first stage between those two. Idk what your intent is so I'm just assuming.

Falco vs Marth Bo5

Game 1 Random FD - Marth wins
Game 2 Falco CPs BF - Falco wins
Game 3 Marth CPs FD - Marth wins
Game 4 Falco CPs BF - Falco wins
Game 5 Marth CPs FD - Marth wins

Marth wins by only winning on FD.

No thanks.

Marth doesn't always win on FD. M2K is pretty godly on it but he is not the only Marth.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

"stage competency" is one thing, and "the other guy has an infinite chaingrab on me on this stage" is another thing. please don't conflate the two.

to quote the great Pink Reaper:

Have we really moved so far backwards that we consider CGing unfair?