Why wouldn't this rule set work?

A while ago I posted up a change in the rule set that might make the entire rule set better. My idea was to change the rules 5, 6 and 7 around and and have them in this order:

5. winner chooses his character
6. loser chooses his character
7. winner bans a stage
8. loser chooses a stage.

I had a lot of people tell me that this rule set was dumb and that it favors the player who loses the match. I gave them examples on how this rule set change was in some cases, better than the regular rules we have and I also told them to put up examples about why this rule set doesn't work. Then they just kept repeating themselves over again without giving me any examples. Now, all I ask of you guys is to tell me what you think of this change and to give me some examples of why this change works or doesn't work.

keep in mind that in order for this rule set to work, we also have change the stage list to this:

Neutrals:
FD
Battlefield
Yoshi's Island
Smashville
PS1/Lylat cruise

Counter picks:
PS1/Lylat cruise
Frigate orpheon
Delphino plaza
Halderd
Castle siege
Brinstar/Rainbow cruise(one or the other. Never both at the same time)

This stage list means that no character will have more that one good(broken) stage and It will be fair for all the characters.


Finally finished writing it:

The reason I think the old rule set does not work is because it gives too much of an advantage to people who main more than one character. With the old rule set, you can have a player who mains marth and DDD, play a far better player who mains Lucario and win simply because DDD counters lucario. My rule set does not fix the fact that Lucario has a bad MU against DDD. It does however make it so that the player who mains lucario isn't stuck fighting DDD in his best stage. He may have to fight DDD in his second best stage, but the difference between playing DDD in his best stage and playing DDD in his second best stage could mean the difference between winning that match or loosing the set.

Alot of people here have been saying that In order to be good in this game you have to main more than one character. But did you guys ever stop and think that maybe the only reason why we need more than one character to be good is because the current rule set is forcing us to pick up a secondary? Think about it, in order for us to counter pick a stage, we need to make sure that our opponents don't have a character that can counter our character there and if he does happen to have a character that counters our character there, then we need a secondary that can safely counter both of his characters(mk). So Basically, with the old rule set, the only way you can counter pick someone without shooting yourself in the foot is to main or second main MK.

My rule set does not favor any player. A person could main one character or the whole cast and it won't punish them for doing so. This is because of the way that the rule set is built. If I only main one character this rule gives me an slight advantage when I lose. this is because no matter what the rule set, I would always be sticking to my main and with this rule set I can see my opponent's character before I counterpick a stage. this is however balanced out by the fact that the opponent can ban your best stage. This changes when you win though as now you are at a slight disadvantage because no matter what, you have to stick to your character and depending on how good your character is and how many characters your opponent mains, your opponent now has the option to counter your character. All is not lost though, as you still have a chance to ban your opponent's best stage which is made easier by the fact that you now know what character he is choosing

This rule set also does not hurt players who main more than one character. More often than not, when you main more than one character you are going to have one character that preforms better than the rest. This is the character that you use in your first match unless you have a bad MU with the opponents character. Lets just say that for this example you are using your best character. You win with your main against your opponent. When you win, you are put at a slight disadvantage because you don't know if you are going to get countered by your opponent or if he is even going to switch characters, but the same thing happens in the old rule set. In this situation, my rule set trades the ability to know what counter pick the opponent is going to choose for the ability to ban the opponents best stage by knowing what character he is going to choose (which in my opinion is a fair trade). Now when you lose against your opponent you now have a slight advantage against him because you now have a chance to counter your opponents character because you know what character he is going too choose. Now, your opponent may have the opportunity to ban your best stage, but you still have your second best stage and the advantage that your character has on your opponent's.

I know some of you guys may be thinking, why is it that the players who only main one character got more of an advantage than those who main more than one and my answer to that is that they don't. The old rule set was too unbalanced and it gave players who main more than one character an advantage and it gave players who main only one character a disadvantage. My rule set is just making it so that both sides are balanced now.

Add more stages to that list and add two bans.

And here it goes again. I ask you guys for examples and you just give me opinions.

The winner of the previous match gets to counterpick the loser's character AND stage? Seems like it's going to be incredibly hard for someone who loses game 1 to even have a chance. The point of the existing system is that you get a second chance, whether it's a different stage and/or a different character. This order would take out both options, punishing player 1 even more for losing the first game in a set

Just because the loser gets 1 ban doesn't mean there aren't other "good" stages for the winner to pick, or other "bad" stages for the loser to avoid

Darth Waffles said:

The winner of the previous match gets to counterpick the loser's character AND stage? Seems like it's going to be incredibly hard for someone who loses game 1 to even have a chance. The point of the existing system is that you get a second chance, whether it's a different stage and/or a different character. This order would take out both options, punishing player 1 even more for losing the first game in a set

Just because the loser gets 1 ban doesn't mean there aren't other "good" stages for the winner to pick, or other "bad" stages for the loser to avoid

Click to expand...

No, this is what happens. after the first match is played. the winner decides whether to stick to his character or to switch to a different character. then the winner chooses his character. after the loser sees the winners character he can make an educated guess as to which stage would be the best to ban. After the winner bans a stage, then the loser can choose his stage

Ah. That's different than what you have in the OP where it says "winner chooses stage"

Are you sure you don't mean?

5. winner chooses his character
6. loser chooses character
7. winner bans stage
8. loser chooses stage.

What you have in the op would give the winner of the match an insane advantage not the loser.

yeah, I messed up. Thanks for pointing that out. Everyone that read this already should read it again

The issue with using that order is that any character with a bad match-up is put into major peril if they won the first game. Its like playing poker but you have to show your entire hand to your opponent before they play but you don't get to see their hand before you do.

sunshade said:

The issue with using that order is that any character with a bad match-up is put into major peril if they won the first game. Its like playing poker but you have to show your entire hand to your opponent before they play but you don't get to see their hand before you do.

Click to expand...

Any character with a bad MU is going to be put in that situation when he wins. At least with my rule set, he can ban his opponents most favorable stage.

With your ruleset they are always stuck with a bad match-up and their second worst stage .

With our current ruleset if you take them to their second worst stage (assuming they ban their worst) they are able to use their knowledge of other characters to even the odds or bring it to their favor.

Please give me an example using characters

still no example of how the old rule set is better than this one

Donkey kong vs King Dedede (Normal procedure. Assuming MLG stage list and Donkey kong won game 1)

Donkey kong bans his worst stage Final Destination
Dedede picks Green greens.
Donkeykong knowing this a very bad match-up/stage combination switches to Game and Watch who will preform much better under these conditions.
King Dedede can stay Dedede or try to counterpick with a better character for the stage.

Donkey kong vs King Dedede (Your procedure. Assuming MLG stage list and Donkey kong won game 1)

Donkey kong stays Donkey kong (or he goes metaknight since that is the only safe choice in your system).
King Dedede stays King Dedede.
Donkey kong bans Final Destination.
King Dedede picks green greens.

Notice the lack of options in your system.

No, use my stage list as an example. And let me add that No one in the right mind would stick to donkey kong if they had a secondary like G&W to fight DDD as I would assume that that would be the only reason they picked him up

EDIT: Ninja!'d.

Why should we ban legitimate stages just to make your ruleset work when the current ruleset works with all stage lists?

Also quit being lazy and create arguments for why your system is better. Saying "no you give me examples" is a weak argument that wont convince anyone.

Illmatic. said:

It's a good idea but definitely not better than the current ruleset we have.

Click to expand...

can you please give some examples instead of just opinions

sunshade said:

Why should we ban legitimate stages just to make your ruleset work when the current ruleset works with all stage lists?

Also quit being lazy and create arguments for why your system is better. Saying "no you give me examples" is a weak argument that wont convince anyone.

Click to expand...

you where there when I gave you guy a bunch of examples in the stage legality thread and you guys never gave me any examples and again ask anyone who is anyone and they will tell you that most of the stages that are on the stage list should not be there

Then go copy and paste one from there. I don't remember them and nobody actually reads the stage legality thread.

Say you you won first game with marth and the opponent lost with GAW. The winner sticks to marth the loser then switches to diddy kong. what stage would you ban? These rules gives both winner and the loser equal advantages because the winner gets to ban the stage in which he feels the loser's character might be hugely advantaged. This also gives the loser the advantage because he gets to see his opponents character before he gets to choose the stage. this way he wont be heavily counterpicked by his opponent on his counter pick stage.

Old rules set example: You win with marth, marth bans brinstar. Your opponent says he will go FD. what character do i chose? This ruleset does not give the winner enough information to decide whether to stick with his character or switch. it also doesn't allow for the winner to know how badly he's get counterpicked character wise.

sunshade said:

Why should we ban legitimate stages just to make your ruleset work when the current ruleset works with all stage lists?

Also quit being lazy and create arguments for why your system is better. Saying "no you give me examples" is a weak argument that wont convince anyone.

Click to expand...

he say this

SaveMeJebus said:

can you please give some examples instead of just opinions

Click to expand...

and you go ahead and do it anyway

He was talking to Illmatic, and it was obvious that he didn't see that, look at the times of their posts.

I did mention it in the beginning of the thread though

SaveMeJebus said:

ask anyone who is anyone and they will tell you that most of the stages that are on the stage list should not be there

Click to expand...

Ask them why and they will give you reasons along the lines of "that stage is gay and I dont like it".

SaveMeJebus said:

Say you you won first game with marth and the opponent lost with GAW. The winner sticks to marth the loser then switches to diddy kong. what stage would you ban? These rules gives both winner and the loser equal advantages because the winner gets to ban the stage in which he feels the loser's character might be hugely advantaged. This also gives the loser the advantage because he gets to see his opponents character before he gets to choose the stage. this way he wont be heavily counterpicked by his opponent on his counter pick stage.

Old rules set example: You win with marth, marth bans brinstar. Your opponent says he will go FD. what character do i chose? This ruleset does not give the winner enough information to decide whether to stick with his character or switch. it also doesn't allow for the winner to know how badly he's get counterpicked character wise.

Click to expand...

Can for you reformat these examples. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Using my rule set, say you you won first game with marth and the opponent lost with GAW. The winner sticks to marth the loser then switches to diddy kong. what stage would you ban? These rules gives both winner and the loser equal advantages because the winner gets to ban the stage in which he feels the loser's character might have a huge advantage. This also gives the loser an advantage because he gets to see his opponents character before he gets to choose the stage. this way he wont get heavily counterpicked by his opponent on his counter pick stage.

Old rules set example: You win with marth, marth bans brinstar. Your opponent says he will go FD. what character do i choose? This ruleset does not give the winner enough information to decide whether to stick with his character or switch. it also doesn't allow for the winner to know how badly he's get counterpicked character wise.(In other words, incomplete vital information for the winner)

Illmatic. said:

Why do you keep on needing examples?
How is this going to help our metagame?
If anything its going to just make high tier characters even better.
Also, I'm not going to give any examples go look up Diddy, Marth, IC's, DDD, and Falco and tell me what their best stages are.

This ruleset could work it just needs too much revision.
After that it will be watered down too much that it will be
#1. Too Confusing for newcomer players.
#2. Too Similar to our old ruleset.

You need a decent amount of highly skilled players to come together to make a ruleset.
If anything leave it to the Back Room to come up with a new one.

Click to expand...

I feel that my rule set is better than the old one and if you don't like it, thats fine. But you still never gave me examples about why my rule set doesn't work

can you please either, post some examples or stop posting? I seem to keep repeating myself every time I post a response to you

If you want people to change the status quo you need to provide your own examples of why your system is better.

Your system does not fix any problems with the current system and requires that everyone change their stage list to accommodate your system.

Edit: Update the OP dont make a new thread

fair enough. I'll right up something later. Should I make a new thread or just use this one?

Okay, here is an example:

George and Fred play each other in a tournament match.
George picks Harry Potter and Fred picks Voldemort.
Fred Slaughters George.
Fred stays as Voldemort.
George decides to go with Dumbledore, his secondary, who has a good MU against Voldemort.
Fred bans Hogwarts, since he lacks a decent projectile and sucks there.
Dumbledort than selects Platform nine and three quarters, because he has a chaingrab that works on Voldemort there for up to 90%. Also, the layout of the stage aside form the two walls were Dumbledort can CG is very similar to Hogwarts as it favors camping and is long and has no platforms. In the standard ruleset, Fred could switch out his character, so he could have more of an advantage. That's were your rulesets differ. In yours, Fred is stuck on his second worst stage where Dumbledore, George's character, has a great advantage on him there. In the current ruleset, Fred can now pick Grindelwald, who has a heavy matchup advantage on Dumbledore under normal circumstances. George know switches to ALberforth, his other secondary, who lacks Dumbledore's CG but has a good matchup against Gellert ( Grindelwald. )Fred stays the same as he is confident he could beat George even now.

Please replace all Harry Potter terms with Brawl terms on your own.

Because neutrals are intensive counterpicks for certain characters and instead we should add stages to make aerial based characters have an even better advantage when they were initially already a nuisance! Then we can claim that the characters were not better off suited for competitive play in the first place, yay.

DUH

(sarcasm but realistically the truth)

**** smashboards.