Dave's Stupid Rule -Current MBR Discussion

Scar · Dec 7, 2009

someone PLEASE tell me why you guys decided that the winner of round 1 should NOT be able to repick that NEUTRAL stage that was decided on by BOTH players as the most fair stage for the first round to be played on should a set go to r3???

it makes no sense to apply DSR there and i heard that the MBR decided that this rule should be tournament standard

so if anyone has a good argument for why this should be then i'd love to hear it

otherwise i argue that the winner should 100% absolutely be allowed to repick the stage that was picked by striking for a multitude of reasons, primarily because DSR is only a rule because it stops people from repicking a stage that was unfair or biased towards the winner because they got lucky in the random

it made sense when we used random, now it doesn't

also doing that basically gives players 2 bans out of the 5 stages deemed most fair for competitive unbiased play then ALLOWS the winner to pick one of the 2 stages that WAS banned by the loser but DISALLOWS the winner to pick a stage that the loser deemed less unfair for the matchup in question

meanwhile since you have to ban CP stages against certain characters (brinstar or cruise vs jiggs or fox) the winner can pick EITHER of the 2 neutrals you banned but NOT the stage you said you were ok going to

pockyD · Dec 7, 2009

i agree as far as fairness goes

...but i also like the variety that the rule introduces

i've found that most of the time though, people are fine with going back to the game one stage (since it also means they dodge the stages they don't like)

Pakman · Dec 7, 2009

I agree with Scar. Since stage is a combined decision of both players by striking, I think the first stage should be considered 100% neutral even if it is not. A round 1 win should be considered a win on an even field regardless of any inherent stage advantage.

I would however, argue that for a bo5 DSR should be in effect for every stage after the first.

Scar · Dec 7, 2009

oh yeah absolutely, my rule was you can't play on a stage that you picked and won on already

my main problem is that it's my understanding that MBR changed the rule from what i had put forth @ spoc VIII to this new one which makes no sense to me

so i just wanna know how that happened since pound 4 sucks if there are 5 "neutrals" 2 of which i can't pick round 3

which means im gonna have to pick stadium all the time since it's immune to DSR (********) so aren't you giving me/others a discentive to pick a stage that we already agreed is more appropriate for tournament play than stadium?

anyways i think what pocky is saying is valid, the rule forces variety, but at the same time saying that someone should be able to win on more than 1 stage isn't valid because you can't pick which stage ends up being played after striking. it's basically your choice of 3 of the 5, so you have to be able to win on at least 3 stages and likely the one that gives you the least advantage

similarly the loser should be able to win on at LEAST 3 of the 5 neutrals, especially on the one he deems best for him. and if after he loses on that stage and thinks he cant win there, he can ban it. but it's not my fault that that player stage struck like an idiot and ended up with a stage that's not in his favor to the point where it should be banned by the rules

DoH · Dec 7, 2009

Let's take an example from SPOC

Cactuar and I played Eggm and Swift; we struck Stadium and Yoshis, they Struck DL and Battlefield, so we played Peach/Fox vs Fox/Fox on FD. We lost, beat them on Battlefield, and then they took us back to FD, since we were under the impression that DSR was still in effect, as we had banned Stadium, where they won.

Our team had the advantage on 3 platform stages, and they have a free for all on both Stadium and FD. We were able to win on at least 3 of the five neutrals, but because of the rule you crafted we weren't able to play on 3 levels, but merely 2. That's what your rule allows, and that's why it's dumb. Because yes, all characters should be able to compete on a majority of neutrals. But most people don't play Falcon, so our matchups are pretty stage dependent rather than "Am I able to touch > knee them" dependent.

Scar, you still have 4 counterpick stages to choose from. The reason we banned levels down to the stage list is to prevent the first match from deciding sets; your proposition is not just counterintuitive to that goal, but subverts it to your character's specific advantages/weaknesses - who cares about counterpicks when I can whittle the stages down to a stage I likely have an advantage and them am able to take them back to that very same stage. That's not very fair to your opponents. If your expectation of being able to win on at least 3/5 of the neutrals is applied to all players, what difference does it make if you take them to a different neutral rather than one you already won on?

Scar · Dec 7, 2009

...so your argument is that you would have won on yoshis, battlefield, DL64... but not FD stadium...

...so why did you strike yoshi's????

ur doin it wrong

r1 probably should have been played on yoshi's which was a toss up if not in your team's favor from what you're saying
-doh/cactuar win
they pick FD
if they won you pick battlefield

-eggm/swift win
you pick battlefield
if you won they pick FD

so yeah you can argue that the whole set depends on the first stage but it's my contention that any of the 5 "neutrals" are less likely to be an auto-loss than a counterpick to the degree of singles jiggs/mute fox/floats or even peach v ganon/kj64. you have to admit that this is less exaggerated than fox/jiggs in singles going like r1 yoshi's r2 mute r3 corneria

idk that it's fair for you to extrapolate my motives to that point dude, i'm wrong as much as the next guy but i'm not diabolical by any means

i just think that neutrals are always better than cp stages so if at pound i'm forced to pick stadium over battlefield it's silly

i THINK that the only point that makes sense against my argument is the desire for diversity which IMO is invalid but i definitely see the point and can't really contest it with anything but personal preference

but your point doh is absolutely invalid bc you just struck the wrong stages and lost b/c of it, which i advocate. stage striking is actually important and requires real thought and strategy, as opposed the "oh i'm playing vs peach i ban mute city" mentality of the old days

"neutrals" only stage striking is a more mature version of the old rules. i like the pound4 rules as a compromise but i still think the necessity of RC BS and stadium are debatable, i'm starting to think that yoshi's is stupid too bc of shyguys and randall, KJ is stupid because of the barrel, FD isn't random but changes everything

FoD is more fair than all of those, and then BF and DL64 i guess are the most fair.

yes i edited this post about 45 thousand times.

KishPrime · Dec 7, 2009

I agree that it's not necessary with stage strike.

HOWEVER, I will add the caveat that two players learn something about each other every time they play. If both players learn after the first round that one player has a substantial advantage on that stage because of oddities about their play styles against each other, then is it fair for the first player to be able to exploit that fact a second time within the same set?

Shrug. I don't see how you can say it has to be one way or the other, but I would never say that it's unfair to leave out DSR in a stage-strike situation. I'd probably leave it on myself for the above-mentioned reasons.

Scar · Dec 7, 2009

well you can always ban that stage after round 1 if you think it was a mistake

d'oh cactuar could have banned FD but (had they not been confused about the rules) they thought their odds were better there than stadium

pocky mentioned that you should be able to use information gathered within a set during the set, and i agree with that but like not to the point where you used your brainpower to reach one stage by banning 2 out of the 5 and then you get steamrolled and then realize oh no i might have to go back here or to this other stage i'm horribly uncomfortable with

i think DSR just gives people an out for making a mistake while striking which i'm not okay with

it also feeds into the idea that certain character combos can't win on neutrals, like come on, aren't you the same people arguing for the fact that anyone can win on any counterpick?

Scar · Dec 7, 2009

also while we're on topic

1221 is ********, now p1 has port and stage advantage

2112 is better, port advantage and stage disadvantage

i'd even be happy with 1122 (port advantage and stage disadvantage) so in other words p1 says let's play on one of these 3 and player 2 says ok that one

but in the end what's wrong with 1212

pockyD · Dec 7, 2009

port advantage barely matters

and 1221 and 2112 are the same thing, 1 doesn't mean port 1

it'd be up to the player with port disadvantage to decide whether he would strike first if that system were popular

Wobbles · Dec 7, 2009

I like DSR because it promotes stage diversity and it keeps somebody from winning based on being good at a single level when their opponent makes one bad judgment call.

On the other hand, people sometimes intentionally counterpick the stage they just lost on and then win. Sometimes people don't care if their opponent picks the stage they won on earlier, and beat them the second time. The results are hardly set in stone yet, and maybe you'll adapt or have a new character in reserve and it works to your advantage. But then, that's based on YOUR decision as the person being counterpicked, so maybe it's not applicable. In that case, we're talking about Dave's Better Rule, the revised version saying you cannot play on a level you won on unless your opponent agrees.

My issue is when you get to a 3/5, and you might wind up having to play on a counterpick stage twice. I lose on PS, I pick FD. I ban Pokefloats, you take me to Brinstar. I lose, take you back to FD, then you take me to Brinstar again! I fully believe in my ability to win uphill battles, but should somebody get free replays .

Now we get into, "how about we ban those counterpick levels" but then we're also looking at 3/5s being played on 2 of the neutrals and that's it. Above example would be PS, FD, PS, FD, PS. Great finals, y/n?

Bleh.

Cia · Dec 7, 2009

Is port priority that big a deal in Melee?

and I think striking should just be 1212. A lot of times, I rely on my opponent to strike something I don't like. With the 1221 format, I may have to use my 2 strikes back to back letting my opponent analyze my strike patterns and giving him/her final say of what stage we play on.

ex. w/ 1221

1. Cactus (Fox) + 2. D'oH (Peach)

1. :i don't wanna get CG'd: Final Destination
2. :Uthrow > Uair is BS: Yoshi's Story
2. :Fox on the top platform can be annoying: Fountain of Dreams
1. :hmm.. Battlefield can hurt my recovery sometimes and I can camp Peach really hard on Dreamland If I need to: Battlefield

they go Dreamland

ex. w/ 1212

1. Cactus (Fox) + 2. D'oH - (Peach)

1. :i don't wanna get CG'd: Final Destination
2. :Uthrow > Uair is BS: Yoshi's Story
1. :Dsmash could wreck me here. And Peaches usually like high ceiling: Fountain of Dreams
2. :Ok.. He probably wants to abuse platform camp. But at least he won't live forever on Battlefield: Dreamland

they go battlefield.

The point of this example was to show the division of power when stage striking. In the first example, Cactus had **** near complete control when striking. He knew he did not want to play FD first round, so he removed it ASAP. All he had to do was watch D'oH remove 2 of his own, and then he had final say. In the second example, the two players traded control and made their strikes based on assumptions about their opponent. Player 2 may have a 'slight' advantage when striking, but if port priority means anything, then this should easily be the lesser of two evils.

---------

About DSR.. i'm kind of on the fence about it. I can see situations where I'd like it to be there, and there are times when I thinks it's too limiting. I'm going to see how the debate progresses before I give my input on this. good topic Scar.

AOB · Dec 7, 2009

Maybe it's because I'm getting on in years, but I'm not exactly sure what you guys are talking about. Are you saying that there should be no DSR at all because of stage striking? That's false.

I may happen to be secretly really good at BF. You thought it would be more or less "neutral" going in, but I thrash you there (if this is too difficult to imagine, make it someone who's good thrashing you instead of me). Turns out it's not so neutral after all--not against me, anyway.

Stage striking doesn't guarantee that the first match will be played on a stage that is even very close to neutral for the two players. They both agree on a stage that each player thinks is the least unfavorable stage for him, but that doesn't mean the stage they end up with is actually the most fair and neutral.

Dogysamich · Dec 7, 2009

Is it a big deal? Yes, but not to a large group of people.

I mean, I play a character where port priority drastically changes one of my matchups (doc vs g&w), and I personally use(d) port priority for my corneria gimmick, but does the average player REALLY doens't give two ****s about it.

sidenote: Yes, I've played that matchup enough to know port priority is a huge change, and it's to the point of where I've (willing) had somebody play me in a match and straight up JACK 1st port from me before I could open my mouth
___

As for DSR, I see what you're saying and it makes sense as long as it applies to the striking format.

I really can't say anything beyond that as I've yet to go to a tourney that actually HAD that striking format.

Cia · Dec 7, 2009

I agree with AOB's post 100%

Pink Reaper · Dec 7, 2009

I always assumed Stage Striking was more about attempting to get your opponent to pick a stage you can win on without them realizing it rather than picking a stage that was "Most fair." No two players ever want to be on a completely even field, they want to know they have the advantage.

Edit: Or in other words, what AOB said.

DoH · Dec 7, 2009

Scar, your entire argument is hinged on the fact that just because the players strike down to a stage it's fair. It may be viewed as the most fair at the time, but player play style needs to be taken into account; some Foxes like small stages, others like big, etc. Often you don't know exactly how your opponents play or what their preferences are, and you shouldn't be bound to a decision that you have no actual basis to make other than your own instincts and preferences.

Also, your arguments sort of contradict each other. If you are holding players to the standard that they should be able to win 3/5 of the neutrals, but then you allow for a system where you can literally play on the 2 stages that you have no chance of winning on. Also if you are expected to be competitive on 3 stages, what's unique about the first stage that you must be able to go back to it?

We thought FD was a better choice than Yoshis because I have space to ruin spacies with downsmash, but they have all the room to work with. In theory it was sound, but in practice it didn't work out. Why should we be punished for that miscalculation? Just because two players or teams agreed to a stage doesn't make it fair or neutral. You won there, you don't have the right to go back there, especially with other stages to work with.

However if your opponents agree, then I'm all for it.

Also Scar, you say that the first stage should be able to be replayed for a multitude of reasons...but never articulate them.

Wobbles · Dec 8, 2009

D'oH said:
Why should we be punished for that miscalculation?

A better question is, "how much should we be punished for that miscalculation?" Because you *should* be punished for errors, IMO. However, I would argue that the penalty for losing on a level because you chose poorly should be... you lost on the level. Not that you have a high chance of losing on it twice and not be allowed to do anything about it.

Again though, I don't really think stuff like that is set in stone with the outcome guaranteed, but if a player has a tremendous advantage on a level, should he be allowed to repeatedly regain that advantage throughout a set?

I guess it *is* preferential, but it seems a lot more interesting to me when matches are played on a variety of stages.

XIF · Dec 8, 2009

So with stage striking, i'll take out the stages I dislike to begin with, we're not going to be playing twice on a stage I dislike to begin with (I'm auto banning yoshi's and BF pretty much every time, except vs some spacies and CF then DL is out and bring back in yoshi's or BF again depending). Point being, I personally can't imagine a situation where DSR being a part of the rules or not would have a drastic effect on my set. My only beef is that I can't go to FD twice for maximum fairness =P

this whole topic is meh to me.

Pink Reaper · Dec 8, 2009

In all fairness XIF, you'd be happier if the rule set was just "FD only."

Cia · Dec 8, 2009

^ So would I.. platforms just get in the way of things

:laugh:

Pakman · Dec 8, 2009

Wobbles the Phoenix said:
A better question is, "how much should we be punished for that miscalculation?" Because you *should* be punished for errors, IMO. However, I would argue that the penalty for losing on a level because you chose poorly should be... you lost on the level. Not that you have a high chance of losing on it twice and not be allowed to do anything about it.

Again though, I don't really think stuff like that is set in stone with the outcome guaranteed, but if a player has a tremendous advantage on a level, should he be allowed to repeatedly regain that advantage throughout a set?

I guess it *is* preferential, but it seems a lot more interesting to me when matches are played on a variety of stages.

We need to remember that there is a ban that occurs AFTER the first match. You can take all that information that you got in the first round into account when you ban your stage.

For round 2, the player has every stage but one to pick from because of the winner's ban.

IMO round 3, the winner of round 1 should have the same number of stages to pick from.

DSR makes round 3 counterpick have 2 less stages.

Why should losing round 2 give a bigger disadvantage than losing round 1?

So the penalty for losing round 1 is losing on the stage, but with DSR the penalty for WINNING round 1 is having less counterpick options than the player who lost.

Scar · Dec 8, 2009

yeah good **** pakman

also in all honesty how often does someone say wooooah i really ***** that dude round 1 on this stage, better go back bc the same thing will happen

stage matters but results of the match have more to do with which player is better and who performed better

DoH · Dec 8, 2009

Pakman said:
We need to remember that there is a ban that occurs AFTER the first match. You can take all that information that you got in the first round into account when you ban your stage.

For round 2, the player has every stage but one to pick from because of the winner's ban.

IMO round 3, the winner of round 1 should have the same number of stages to pick from.

DSR makes round 3 counterpick have 2 less stages.

Why should losing round 2 give a bigger disadvantage than losing round 1?

So the penalty for losing round 1 is losing on the stage, but with DSR the penalty for WINNING round 1 is having less counterpick options than the player who lost.

The advantage of winning round one is that you're in control of where you go to the final (and set determining) match. That's a tremendous advantage in itself. Once stages are banned, the opponent doesn't have any choice in where you fight. You can choose to take them to a tremendous stage advantage or a neutral, your choice, that's the power you get for winning the first stage. Why should the person playing on round 3 have the same amount of stages available? Oh wait they never will because player one used his stage ban after they won game one, and player 2 used his after he won game 2, so there's always going to be one more ban available to round 2 than round 1 if you do ban a stage after you lose a match.

Also Wobbles makes the point that I was really trying to get after; the punishment for bad striking is you lose the first match and control of stage determination for the final match. You shouldn't lose the set because you mistakenly struck down to an opponent's level the first game.

XIF · Dec 8, 2009

Pink Reaper said:
In all fairness XIF, you'd be happier if the rule set was just "FD only."

What would give you this idea? I've only been saying it since 2006...

Scar · Dec 8, 2009

eh idk my opinion is that if you strike poorly you should be in a very bad position, if we have differing opinions that's just preference based but i feel like everyone is really changing their tune now.

seriously before i was pissing and moaning about the fact that i have to literally waste my ban on mute city because fountain is bad, and people told me that mute city was winnable. but now FD is unwinnable? peach/fox vs fox/fox?

and before, everyone was dead set on the "strategy" argument. it takes strategy to come up with solid play on CP stages. you should have multiple characters available to win. you need this this this this this to win.

NOW it's like aaaaah i don't know how to stage strike it should be eaaasier! FD twice?!? noooooo

the idea is if you can win on 3 stages you strike the 2 you can't win on. very simple. and now for the future you know that double fox is very good on battlefield and FD. but it's my opinion that you shouldn't look to the rules to take care of you when you make a mistake. it seems like you're saying, "wow, how should i have known that? we lost, its gay"

your team lacked the experience, knowledge, or communication to have decided what were the best decisions to make, and THAT'S why you lost the set. and i think that, when put that way, yes you deserved to lose the set

let's think about what it used to be though, seriously, i ban ONE stage so a % of the time i WILL get the other stage that i WILL probably lose on, then when that happens even if i win round 2 i WILL go to a stage that i CAN'T win on off of the counterpick list because i wasted my ban on a neutral

i feel like everyone is going from one extreme to the other.

KishPrime · Dec 8, 2009

(Might have been said already) There's also the fact that of the starters, the first stage may be the most fair, but that does not mean it is fair. We have 5 arbitrary stages, and there's no guarantee that there are 2 in favor of one character, 2 in favor of the other, and 1 that is neutral. In fact, this is rarely the case. This is the value in DSR - it is a partial mend to a flaw with the stage striking system.

That said, I still say it could go either way and there's no need for an official proclamation, though I'd still side with the pro-DSR side as far as fairness goes.

DoH · Dec 8, 2009

And now you're pissing and moaning about the fact that you have to play more than 2 stages in a set? Get real and grow up.

Why should a poor first game strike have that much lasting impact on a set? What's the point in playing out a set if they can just take you back to the first level that they won on? You never give a warrant as to why that bad position should be more than 'down a game' and why it should have lasting implications for the set.

Cactus and I both liked FD, and we were worried about being able to keep up with kills on a small stage like Yoshis. In theory it was a solid decision, but in practice not so much. We're not saying the match is unwinnable, but FD is REALLY good for Double Fox and it's abusive for us to have to go back there unless we agree to it. We probably would have won the set if DSR were enforced. Your standard of 'You can win on 3 stages' works for both teams. They should be able to win on multiple stages, not just one.

The problem with your standard is for most players it's arbitrary at best. I don't know how every Fox plays. Is he going to run away from me on Dreamland so I really want to keep Yoshi's so there's no place to hide, or is he really good at getting up airs and I want to strike both? And if do strike both, is he going to ***** back airs off platforms on Battlefield or laser camp me on FD? There isn't always a right answer for stage striking, as it inevitably comes down to playstyle differences. You're acting as if there's always a right choice on which stages to strike when there's not for most characters and most people who have never played each other. You shouldn't be punished for something you are forced to make an educated guess on, and you and your opponent should be able to win on more than one stage.

However if your opponent agrees to let you go back to the first round stage like Armada did M2K, but you should have a choice in the matter. For some matches yes, I would rather go back to FD than play on Corneria or something, but I don't think what happened in the pre-match strike should have that much determination. Your standard ignores why we have DSR in the first place, and you can't logically argue that we should not have it apply to the first match and not the subsequent ones.

Skler · Dec 8, 2009

I'm pro DSR, some people are just really good on certain stages and people shouldn't have to learn the other player's stage preferences.

DSR stops you from getting ruined for a mistake that should hardly change the game at all.

pockyD · Dec 8, 2009

D'oH said:
And now you're pissing and moaning about the fact that you have to play more than 2 stages in a set? Get real and grow up.

Why should a poor first game strike have that much lasting impact on a set? What's the point in playing out a set if they can just take you back to the first level that they won on? You never give a warrant as to why that bad position should be more than 'down a game' and why it should have lasting implications for the set.

DSR is actually what gives the stage strike the "lasting" impact; with no DSR, whatever happened with the strike is completely ignored. WITH DSR, its impact is felt all the way through the winner's counterpick

Cactus and I both liked FD, and we were worried about being able to keep up with kills on a small stage like Yoshis. In theory it was a solid decision, but in practice not so much. We're not saying the match is unwinnable, but FD is REALLY good for Double Fox and it's abusive for us to have to go back there unless we agree to it. We probably would have won the set if DSR were enforced. Your standard of 'You can win on 3 stages' works for both teams. They should be able to win on multiple stages, not just one.

The problem with your standard is for most players it's arbitrary at best. I don't know how every Fox plays. Is he going to run away from me on Dreamland so I really want to keep Yoshi's so there's no place to hide, or is he really good at getting up airs and I want to strike both? And if do strike both, is he going to ***** back airs off platforms on Battlefield or laser camp me on FD? There isn't always a right answer for stage striking, as it inevitably comes down to playstyle differences. You're acting as if there's always a right choice on which stages to strike when there's not for most characters and most people who have never played each other. You shouldn't be punished for something you are forced to make an educated guess on, and you and your opponent should be able to win on more than one stage.

However if your opponent agrees to let you go back to the first round stage like Armada did M2K, but you should have a choice in the matter. For some matches yes, I would rather go back to FD than play on Corneria or something, but I don't think what happened in the pre-match strike should have that much determination. Your standard ignores why we have DSR in the first place, and you can't logically argue that we should not have it apply to the first match and not the subsequent ones.

All this is anecdotal evidence so I'm not that interested

As for "why we have DSR in the first place", it was meant to protect against an "unlucky" random. I agree that it has evolved to enforcing the winner to show some ability on varied stages and that this may even be desirable, but to point to this as the root of its existence is flawed

I agree with your overall goal, but your reasoning is faulty. DSR isn't intended to just exist as a free ban

AlphaZealot · Dec 8, 2009

Fact is DSR is meant to stop you from using the same winning strategy twice, cause nothing new is really learned by doing this. Making sure a player has to be able to win on multiple stages gets rid of people using a single gimmicky stage/character selection to win the entire set.

The question then is whether you want to get rid of this philosophy or not. I think it should still stand and that it still makes sense, even with how the first stage is chosen.

As for "why we have DSR in the first place", it was meant to protect against an "unlucky" random.

In the last 6 years I've never heard this until this thread, and this appears to be entirely a theory crafted in this thread. This is especially true considering how common "random resets" are/were before stage striking and if the theory were really true...why was DSR not eliminated years ago when random-resets became common?

Only Scamp will know for sure what the original intent was so mabye he can clear it up, I'm simply saying I've never seen the argument before about random that has now been provided a few times in this thread.

Pakman · Dec 8, 2009

It is more important to be deterministic than fair. Peach vs IC's isn't fair, but we can't limit the match up.

The question arises: Does DSR at a stage striking tournament give more or less deterministic results?

pockyD · Dec 8, 2009

I don't think removing DSR improves anything

Even if it wasn't the original intent, I think that proving that you're comfortable on at least 3/9 stages is an acceptable and useful standard

AOB · Dec 8, 2009

As for "why we have DSR in the first place", it was meant to protect against an "unlucky" random.

That was my impression, and it is quite possibly the impression of a lot of people as well, even if it's pretty much been tacitly assumed. Either way, it doesn't seem like stage striking makes DSR any less necessary.

Scar · Dec 8, 2009

Ok well I guess the consensus is diversity. I'm ok with either I just think it's unnecessary and Nintendo-ing (advantages for sucking).

DoH · Dec 8, 2009

Pakman said:
It is more important to be deterministic than fair. Peach vs IC's isn't fair, but we can't limit the match up.

The question arises: Does DSR at a stage striking tournament give more or less deterministic results?

Your analogy is flawed here. Our advocacy isn't make the game fair, as then we would ban all characters except one, but to make it as fair as possible without crossing the line of ridiculous rules, like the "unwinnable matchup" rules that a few brawlers have proposed. And what is your warrant for "determinism" being a better standard, and how are you defining determinism in that sense?

And Pocky, only the teams example is anecdotal, the other arguments are hypothetical questions that have been asked before. And really, you don't see the improvement from having to be able to win on more than one stage? especially since you concede that DSR has a tangible impact combined with stage strikes. And the impact is non-unique anyway since that's how it was before stage strikes.

pockyD · Dec 8, 2009

D'oH said:
And Pocky, only the teams example is anecdotal, the other arguments are hypothetical questions that have been asked before. And really, you don't see the improvement from having to be able to win on more than one stage? especially since you concede that DSR has a tangible impact combined with stage strikes. And the impact is non-unique anyway since that's how it was before stage strikes.

pockyD said:
I don't think removing DSR improves anything

Even if it wasn't the original intent, I think that proving that you're comfortable on at least 3/9 stages is an acceptable and useful standard

i feel like i've already given my thoughts on the subject

AlphaZealot said:
Only Scamp will know for sure what the original intent was so mabye he can clear it up, I'm simply saying I've never seen the argument before about random that has now been provided a few times in this thread.

Scamp said:
The Random issue: DSR does NOT protect against random select. The theory is that the person chose random as his counter-pick, and not any particular stage. If he gets a stage through random select that normally would have been prevented by DSR, it's okay. Since TG6 only had three stages on the random select, it became more likely of a strategy to go for random if you really wanted a stage that was one of the three on the random select. The TO may choose to not allow a stage by DSR even through random select, if desired.

DSR isn't meant to protect against an unfair stage; just the unfair selection of that stage

If we have some sort of understanding that stage striking is "fair", then the original reasoning doesn't apply

just to clarify (if you didn't want to refer to the post), this section referred to the old style of CP-ing where you could pick random as your CP (which maybe forced the characters to be locked? I don't know, I wasn't playing back then)

AlphaZealot · Dec 8, 2009

Ok well I guess the consensus is diversity. I'm ok with either I just think it's unnecessary and Nintendo-ing (advantages for sucking).

I'd actually suggest the inability to win on more than just one stage would be defined as sucking.

---

PockyD:

The quote you have from Scamp is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about since it is only about picking "random" as your counterpick stage. As you noted the use of selecting "random" as your counterpick stage is a very old and obsolete practice that most tournaments haven't seen since the 2004ish era (and even then it was mainly a WC thing).

In the thread you got the quote from Scamp makes no mention of the intent of the rule, which we have narrowed to being one of two possibilities, or both I suppose:

Theory 1: Random select back in the day could have caused an unfair first stage so DSR is used to prevent said stage from being used by the winner again as his counter pick.

Theory 2: DSR is meant to cause variety in play and prevent someone from winning a set with just one stage. The theory being it takes more skill to show you can win using two stages than just one stage.

Regardless, as AOB points out, I don't really see how the first theory negates the need for DSR, since after all the stage striking process could result in a very strong stage for either player, you simply don't know until you play.

Scar · Dec 8, 2009

AlphaZealot said:
I'd actually suggest the inability to win on more than just one stage would be defined as sucking.

this argument frustrates me very much just because IT'S NOT ONE STAGE by any stretch of the imagination!

unless none of your opponents ever strike that one stage? i guess? maybe?

it's just not correct

you need to be able to win on any stage, but if you want to be a real stickler...

-there are always 3 stages available so
-technically if you only win on 3 of the "neutral" stages 100% of the time

YES you will win every set under my rules

...but then you'd still be able to win under the current rules too

so the argument DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME

DSR + stage striking = the loser of round 1 gets an advantage when being counterpicked against (advantage because the loser CAN repick that stage)
this player received that advantage for losing round 1
therefore DSR + stage striking provides an advantage for losing which is in my opinion undeserved

it DID make sense when we used random for round 1 because you have no control over the stage, but in 1212 fashion if player 2 lost COME ON he picked that stage out of 2. and if player 1 lost he limited the stages from 3 to 2, and out of those 3 he already eliminated the one he dislikes most, so again seriously you need to be able to have a chance on round 1 no matter what. DSR isn't going to save you at that point since the winner can pick a stage you struck, which if you did it right you would strictly prefer less than the stage R1 was played on

AlphaZealot · Dec 8, 2009

it DID make sense when we used random for round 1 because you have no control over the stage, but in 1212 fashion if player 2 lost COME ON he picked that stage out of 2. and if player 1 lost he limited the stages from 3 to 2, and out of those 3 he already eliminated the one he dislikes most, so again seriously you need to be able to have a chance on round 1 no matter what. DSR isn't going to save you at that point since the winner can pick a stage you struck, which if you did it right you would strictly prefer less than the stage R1 was played on

If this is the case then what is the harm of DSR, since obviously the opponent has better choices than the one he already won on?

Dave's Stupid Rule -Current MBR Discussion

#HarveyDent

Smash Legend

WWMD

#HarveyDent

meleeitonme.tumblr.com

#HarveyDent

King of the Ship of Fools

#HarveyDent

#HarveyDent

Smash Legend

Desert ******

das kwl

Bad command or file name

The Designated Hype Man!

das kwl

Real Name No Gimmicks

meleeitonme.tumblr.com

Desert ******

Smash Master

Real Name No Gimmicks

das kwl

WWMD

#HarveyDent

meleeitonme.tumblr.com

Smash Master

#HarveyDent

King of the Ship of Fools

meleeitonme.tumblr.com

Smash Master

Smash Legend

Former Smashboards Owner

WWMD

Smash Legend

Bad command or file name

#HarveyDent

meleeitonme.tumblr.com

Smash Legend

Former Smashboards Owner

#HarveyDent

Former Smashboards Owner

Information

Network