Competitive FFA (Free For All) Fixed

[Bo0gYmAn]

Ok. I posted earlier about making FFA work. There were some good points to be made that I was hoping I had over came. The problem wasn't anything other than people "teaming up" and "colluding" with someone to fight against a top player such as "mango" or "Dr.PeePee." So I revisited the idea. And realized the answer wasn't in stocks or points. But in damage. Here are the new rules to competitive FFA with stages and options to choose from.

2/3/ or 4 minute rounds/No stocks
2 rounds of play
Stage's available - Icicle Mountain, Rainbow Cruise, both Brinstar's, Onett, Big Blue, Battlefield, Final Destination, Dreamland, Yoshi's Island (not story), And Kongo jungle
In the event of a tie, both winners of the rounds play 1v1 standard matches

Objective - Player with MOST DAMAGE GIVEN WINS THE GAME

Now, I know a few thoughts that automatically went through your head and I will point out the fears and troubles and give you the reasons why it wouldn't be an actual problem.

1. Overpowered FFA moves (Peach's Dsmash specifically) - Now obviously this move would break FFA and make people just spam Dsmash all day. However, that is compromised by this games objective and the stages she's on. Regardless of how amazing she would **** on Yoshi's story or mute city or any small stage. With the stages being larger, she will fly away because "she will get knocked out of combat" and this will cost her time to get back because she's not a quick character. So basically, stages cant COMPLETELY make peach broken but she could quite possibly be Top tier for FFA.

2. Camping - This is obviously beating also by the size of the stage. With a stage like Big Blue, if a fox sits and camps with lasers, his dmg output is quite low. Though he may not take alot of dmg or maybe wont even die. He'll NEVER win a game by standing back and lasering on such large stages. Kills mean nothing. Its all about your time and how you spend it.

3. Disrupting combo's - Yes, this annoys everybody. Well all hate it when we're doing good and then somebody stops us. But thats the beauty of the stages and this game type. The point is to get more dmg out than anybody else. And also, because of the size of the stage, this means that somebody will get to get longer combo's off because the most dmg comes from 1v1 situations. Which means it becomes a players choice of to whether continue comboing a fox, or stop a second, disrupt someone else who's comboing and go back to your battle with the other person. The metagame hasn't been invented yet so we would have to see how it would work, but i believe strats are what sets players at "the next level" because they get invented in real combat.

4. Tier list - This is FFA. Not singles. Not doubles. Who cares about the tier list anyway? Why should it matter than Yoshi ***** in FFA but sucks in singles ? (Just an example) If he becomes viable in something, wouldn't it be fun to see something different for a change?

5. Colluding against a player (Biggest issue) - This is taken up by the game type. If you're wasting your time trying to stop mango from winning the game with another player. You're losing out on dmg output. This is causing you to fall behind. So in that regards, you SHOULD be focused on killing EVERY opponent. Not to mention the fact, that on larger stages, its going to be harder to run across the stage to stop mango from comboing someone and give up your time on the opponent you were hitting.

6. Stage disruption - Part of the gametype. You get disrupted in your combo for not paying attention or perhaps just couldn't stop it from happening. Move on. Its the same and Randal messing you up or the Shyguys disrupting your attack.

P.S. Once again I'd like to state the fact that it is because I love this game and the community so much that I want to push for a new gametype and new strategies. New players who excel at FFA but maybe not teams or singles. I want people to have fun trying something new. Plz keep this constructive with is criticism. Thank you.

 

[michael_li]

no...........

 

[Bo0gYmAn]

You're close minded and not even willing to give it a try. Don't shut it down because you haven't experienced it yet.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Not gonna waste too much time on this but you're still going to have a list of most to least effective options (characters in this case) no matter what competition you're doing if the options are distinct enough. Just because a tier list doesn't exsist because nobody plays this doesn't mean that it doesn't, or that nobody would make one if it was played.

Player alliances are still more effective than "free-for-all"ing, your raw damage output might be decreased, but so are the outputs of your allies, and your non-allies's outputs are greatly decreased.

What really turns me off about this ruleset is that there's absolutely no penalty for killing or dying because it's based purely off of damage given. This takes away from the fundamental design that makes Smash so special and all the depth we have in edgeguarding/recovery/ledge game. It seems dangerously static (and similar to PSAS), and killing yourself to reset your percentage actually gives you an advantage because of lower hitstun/knockback and more effective crouch cancelling.

Players who haven't developed their execution, game awareness, and mechanics knowledge will still lose whether the ruleset is 4-stock 1v1 or 8 player coin battle on Hyrule. This ruleset has a brave intention but FFA was tried and dropped long ago.

 

[RFrizzle]

this just has to be a joke

 

[Bo0gYmAn]

Not gonna waste too much time on this but you're still going to have a list of most to least effective options (characters in this case) no matter what competition you're doing if the options are distinct enough. Just because a tier list doesn't exsist because nobody plays this doesn't mean that it doesn't, or that nobody would make one if it was played.

Player alliances are still more effective than "free-for-all"ing, your raw damage output might be decreased, but so are the outputs of your allies, and your non-allies's outputs are greatly decreased.

What really turns me off about this ruleset is that there's absolutely no penalty for killing or dying because it's based purely off of damage given. This takes away from the fundamental design that makes Smash so special and all the depth we have in edgeguarding/recovery/ledge game. It seems dangerously static (and similar to PSAS), and killing yourself to reset your percentage actually gives you an advantage because of lower hitstun/knockback and more effective crouch cancelling.

Players who haven't developed their execution, game awareness, and mechanics knowledge will still lose whether the ruleset is 4-stock 1v1 or 8 player coin battle on Hyrule. This ruleset has a brave intention but FFA was tried and dropped long ago.

Its not greatly decreased because you're going to lose to your ally if you dont attack them too. There wont be teaming up. There may be focusing. But its a good players job to defend from EVERYBODY who challenges them. And there is an effect to edgegurading and recovery. If you die, thats time you're losing out on to put dmg out. If you die, that makes you combo food and trying to CC hits from 3 different people wont really be possible. i gurantee you that you're not seeing the big picture of the idea behind FFA. I've been doing FFA's lately and i've come to realize the key to winning is pushing a player OUT of the group and focusing on comboing that 1 player. Once I drop the combo, whether or not the player dies... it doesn't matter, i go fight a new target to combo. You have to think outside of the box.

 

[michael_li]

You're close minded and not even willing to give it a try. Don't shut it down because you haven't experienced it yet.

yea man im close minded because i said "no"

what if i said, go **** yourself?

 

[Cummings]

This literally goes against everything that makes smash good. It's already hard enough to convince people that melee is competitive. If you can't convince even the most open-minded of players, then this gametype isn't going anywhere.

 

[SacaSuMoto]

Whenever i see threads like this I just look at OP's join date.

 

[Ramo]

I actually like it. Maybe not as a tournament event but it might be fun in friendlies.

 

[pokemongeof]

I like this idea. a bit crazy, but i like it.

But i do not think it is viable for a tournament. Like ramo said, for friendlies would be great

 

[danny135]

I have to play free-for-all because my friends are too impatient to wait on 1v1s. It's horrible. While people are fighting, some guy just comes in, takes someone's kill, or just uses a huge move like Marth's front smash or Peach's down smash.

Also Lol @ Icy Mountain

 

[Double Helix]

I have actually thought about this kind of game type. I would only do it for friendlies (like others have said) but it is especially awesome to play with friends who do not want to play this game at a competitive level. So basically, the rules I have thought about (in addition to what you have):
- icicle mountain: This stage can be moving too fast for anyone to really be hitting each other, especially since i thought about a penalty for dying.
-50% off of total damage for each fall/sd: This prevents the problem of people dying when they are up against a hardest hitting character and crouch cancelling is less effective.
-Final Destination: Just for the simple fact that it doesn't have any gimmick at all.
+other stages:
Kongo 64, Mute City, Poke Floats, Green Greens

Also, depending upon the group you are playing on:
Items ON medium or normal or whatever: Item control is a skill, so this CAN help with that.

Another point: the tier list (for this current meta for competitive play) has no bearing on how well it will work.
In my group, it hasn't come up yet (cause the others aren't good enough), but putting a cap on ice climbers infinites is a good idea (even though it SHOULDN'T due to the nature of the game).

Either way, this is a good way to bridge the casual players that love Melee as much as we do. I hope my input helped, though it was lengthy.

 

[TerryJ]

Whenever i see threads like this I just look at OP's join date.

I asked you before, what are you trying to get at? You have a month difference.

On topic, how do you check for the winner? The results screen where it shows amount of damage done?
Personally, the tiers would be waay different. Ganon would be in my opinion one of the best with how hard he is to kill and his damage output. Dat downB.

 

[Bo0gYmAn]

I asked you before, what are you trying to get at? You have a month difference.

On topic, how do you check for the winner? The results screen where it shows amount of damage done?
Personally, the tiers would be waay different. Ganon would be in my opinion one of the best with how hard he is to kill and his damage output. Dat downB.

Ganon would actually probably suck. He hits players for kills. Not actually damage. Dont get me wrong, he does intense damage but in a FFA, he'd just get combo'd up the butt back to back non stop.

 

[Bo0gYmAn]

I have actually thought about this kind of game type. I would only do it for friendlies (like others have said) but it is especially awesome to play with friends who do not want to play this game at a competitive level. So basically, the rules I have thought about (in addition to what you have):
- icicle mountain: This stage can be moving too fast for anyone to really be hitting each other, especially since i thought about a penalty for dying.
-50% off of total damage for each fall/sd: This prevents the problem of people dying when they are up against a hardest hitting character and crouch cancelling is less effective.
-Final Destination: Just for the simple fact that it doesn't have any gimmick at all.
+other stages:
Kongo 64, Mute City, Poke Floats, Green Greens

Also, depending upon the group you are playing on:
Items ON medium or normal or whatever: Item control is a skill, so this CAN help with that.

Another point: the tier list (for this current meta for competitive play) has no bearing on how well it will work.
In my group, it hasn't come up yet (cause the others aren't good enough), but putting a cap on ice climbers infinites is a good idea (even though it SHOULDN'T due to the nature of the game).

Either way, this is a good way to bridge the casual players that love Melee as much as we do. I hope my input helped, though it was lengthy.

The reason why your choices wouldn't work with the stages and % of damage, is because peach's Dsmash on stages like mute city or Green Greens would just dominate the damage meters. The I'm trying to make it available for competitive play.

 

[Double Helix]

I feel the same way about this and wobbling. Get over it. Looks like Peach turns into the highest tier when it comes to this game type. As far as this game type goes, I feel like smaller stages are not as bad as you think. Four-player games usually devolve into two one-on-one games at least for a little before someone (in high-level) starts to go off. Then someone will come and break it up. This game type, in my opinion, should have a larger stage set due to the nature of what it is trying to do. In all honesty this just allows a way for the competitive to play with the casual. Simple as that. Even if it is a competitive game type, this is what I feel this will be used for most.

Regardless of the game type, there will almost invariably be a tier list that could exist for it. With this particular one, I doubt anybody would make one, but there could be one. So as was the ever-famous "Fox only, Final Destination" it will become (as funny as this sounds), "Peach only, Green Greens." If this meta-game sticks around and evolves, this will change.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

He hits players for kills. Not actually damage.

Uhhhhhh what

This idea sounds pretty fun. Too many try hard scrubs in here knocking the idea, though. I would be very down to test this out.

 

[Double Helix]

Just to clarify, I want this to work out. I am all for helping you test this in groups of friends where I am, but none of them are really high-level by any means. I just feel like worrying too much about the level choices too early won't let the meta-game evolve properly. Then again, I am one of those dudes that want to see more stages in the 1v1 competitions. I see why some of them are banned, but I guess I may just be too new to see why others are. Who knows. Anyways...I don't know that Peach's d-smash would be that godly. Yeah it is good, but is it really as defining as shining next to a wall at Peach's Castle? I'd give some time to find answers rather than banning too many things that would otherwise add so much to a game-type with so much fun potential.

 

[michael_li]

free for all is only fun if it's with 4 people casual players, pokemon stadium, pokeballs only on very high 4 stocks

 

[robyextreme]

you put to much thought into this. I agree with michael_li this is ********. Although for fun it's good, cause not everyone plays tournament format.

and when i play against casual players who do FFA I just make it my mission to jv 5 stock them. Essentially dodging everything and killing everyone.

 

[DarrellD]

Do you even play smash???

I supported your creativity, but this is just a bad idea in general.

 

[Miharu]

Do you even play smash???

whatever gave you that idea

 

[EpixAura]

I've got to say, apparent flaws aside, a slightly edited version of this would make my friendly FFAs a lot less gay for everyone. I don't think it's possible to make FFA fully competitive, and there are simply suggestions and rules made that I don't agree with at all, but I like the overall idea behind this.

 

[michael_li]

you put to much thought into this. I agree with michael_li this is ********. Although for fun it's good, cause not everyone plays tournament format.

and when i play against casual players who do FFA I just make it my mission to jv 5 stock them. Essentially dodging everything and killing everyone.

when i play against casual players who do FFA I just make it my mission to jv 5 stock them. Essentially dodging everything and killing everyone

 

[itstomis]

You still haven't addressed collusion, and you don't seem to understand the problem here.


2-3 players actively working together to eliminate a single player should not be allowed, and it is in this game type.


2 "punching bag" characters simply allow the third to as much damage as possible to them, offering no resistance.

They also put up maximum resistance to the player they intend to eliminate.


Given 3 players of middling quality, a top tier threat could easily be eliminated. Whether this is practical from a monetary standpoint is irrelevant; a competitive game should never allow for gamebreaking collusion.

 

[michael_li]

Do you even play smash???

I supported your creativity, but this is just a bad idea in general.

do you even lift?

 

[VGmasta]

This is what I use to play before I started doing those 1v1 competitions. These were so much fun.

 

[Bones0]

I think it's a pretty cool idea. Certainly the most elegant solution to the problem of people playing like *****es in FFA. Not sure why everyone's butthurt over a simple mini-game suggestion. Like, chill out people, what the ****?

 

[Rob_Gambino]

Ice climbers would be unplayable.

 

[KayB]

I wouldn't make this a tourney event. Unless we discover via friendlies that this is the deepest **** imaginable (which I highly doubt), it seems like there are too many techniques to abuse. Like, you know, not KOing your opponents. Just doing the most damage possible seems more like a Mario Party minigame than an actual competitive game mode.

 

[Marmalad3]

There's too much hate goin' around in this thread. I love the idea of competitive FFA. Granted, the rules would be tricky to nail down, and a lot of it would kinda be honor system stuff, (No teams, alliances etc) but if no one ever put thought in to it, it would never happen. There's a lot of potential hype in FFA and I think the set of rules you made is pretty darn good.