Dave's Stupid Rule -Current MBR Discussion

[AOB]

Scar, the loser of the first game may have an advantage in that he has one more stage to choose from when counterpicking, but the winner of the first stage has a much larger advantage--he won the first match!

No one believes the loser of the first match should get no advantages--think about slob picks. And I'm sure you can see that the winner of the first match has the overall advantage with or without DSR. Using DSR does not put the loser of the first match in a better position than the winner, not by a long shot.

And you still seem to think that stage striking pretty much guarantees you a fair shot at a fair level. You're wrong.

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

It's a lot better of a shot than just pressing "START" on the controller as soon as you hit the stage screen and praying. You have some sort of control on where you go, and it's usually a lot more fair than the random would be.

 

[KishPrime]

That's arguable, depending on the character that you play and the stages included in the stage list. I would gladly give up control of the first stage under most circumstances for the benefits that I feel I gain by random select.

Nevertheless, that is widely off-topic. What is on-topic is that stage striking absolutely does not guarantee a fair first stage. This cannot be argued, thus it cannot be correctly used as a premise in any argument. The best you can do is say that stage striking picks the stage with the least strong objections, which is not a very good base for an argument for legitimacy.

 

[Scar]

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?

this IS the case (no "if"), and YES the opponent has "better" choices as in choices the opponent would less prefer

i'm not saying it's harmful it's just pointless

so now if i win on battlefield vs a marth R1, they ban FD, i have to pick DL64 vs that player when BOTH of us are more comfortable with battlefield (they're certainly more comfortable with battlefield otherwise they would have stricken it)

i personally will say "can we agree to go to battlefield or would you prefer DL64" but other people won't say that if it's against the rules, and since it's been a rule for 7 years everyone is going to assume that it's still the rule

but this rule is to protect the loser of round 1 which in practice i really don't think it's going to do, i think it's going to do the opposite and frankly i think it's stupid. if this is a rule then i think that another rule that should be instated is that the loser shouldn't be able to repick the round 1 stage just for consistency

i would hate that rule but at least it would make more sense than what we're doing now

Scar, the loser of the first game may have an advantage in that he has one more stage to choose from when counterpicking, but the winner of the first stage has a much larger advantage--he won the first match!

deserved advantages vs undeserved advangages should not be compared

Nevertheless, that is widely off-topic. What is on-topic is that stage striking absolutely does not guarantee a fair first stage. This cannot be argued, thus it cannot be correctly used as a premise in any argument. The best you can do is say that stage striking picks the stage with the least strong objections, which is not a very good base for an argument for legitimacy.

kish you and AOB have mentioned this and yes i agree and yes i have been using that assumption

it is however a player's job to limit the 5 neutrals down to 3 that he is not uncomfortable with

so no maybe round 1 is not completely fair but it's certainly something you agreed was something you're not uncomfortable with and in fact strictly prefer to 2 other neutrals, only one of which you can ban

so i think that it's better for both players if the winner of R1 can repick the R1 stage should he prefer to

all i'm saying is that strategy-wise it's not a half-bad idea to take your 2 worst neutrals, only strike one of them, hope the other player strikes the other one, and take your chances because IF you play there and lose and you ban your other worst neutral, and for round 3 you more/less have immunity to the stages you don't want to play on

 

[AOB]

Isn't slob picks also an undeserved advantage? It's a much bigger advantage than what the loser gets out of DSR.

all i'm saying is that strategy-wise it's not a half-bad idea to take your 2 worst neutrals, only strike one of them, hope the other player strikes the other one, and take your chances because IF you play there and lose and you ban your other worst neutral, and for round 3 you more/less have immunity to the stages you don't want to play on

That sounds strange and contrived. Wouldn't it be a better idea to do everything to make sure you win your first round? And why would you care if someone could do this anyway?

 

[pockyD]

all i'm saying is that strategy-wise it's not a half-bad idea to take your 2 worst neutrals, only strike one of them, hope the other player strikes the other one, and take your chances because IF you play there and lose and you ban your other worst neutral, and for round 3 you more/less have immunity to the stages you don't want to play on

haha what?

you have "more immunity" because you already DID play on a stage you don't want to play on (by striking suboptimally)

viewing the set as a whole, you only hurt yourself if you do that

 

[Scar]

i should have shorter posts bc when i go on and on i feel like the responses are geared towards my weakest points which are generally things i just sort of thought of 4 seconds before i typed it

but tbh sometimes i'd have rathered my sets where i lost r3 on mute to have had round 1 on mute where they can't repick it no matter what and then i can have my head in the game round 2 and round 3 where the worst is already behind me

anyways what about the part where the loser shouldn't be able to repick the R1 stage either? what do people think about that?

@ AOB i understand that undeserved advantages exist and they should, slob picks is the best way to do it IMO but you can't compare deserved and undeserved advantages period

i'm not advocating getting rid of slob picks or anything like that though.

 

[pockyD]

anyways what about the part where the loser shouldn't be able to repick the R1 stage either? what do people think about that?

Well, if the purpose of DSR has evolved into forcing the winner to 'prove' he can win on multiple stages, allowing the loser to repeat a stage he lost on doesn't violate that standard

 

[Scar]

I thought the purpose was diversity of stages within sets. I think 2 neutral stage bans is excessive and limiting but ok, if the point is to prove that then DSR is the way to do it. It doesn't need to be proven IMO but again that's opinion.

 

[Deleted member]

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

changing this rule, even if we do, will affect very, very little as far concerning the mass changes to our rule set that have already been implemented over time. a real extreme would be switching to single elimination, best of 1 with all items on, all stages on via random, 10 stock. the fact that this is "extreme" just shows how uniform our mindsets really are.

that said, this entire topic is amazing. really. this is way, way better than anything I've read on this site in a VERY long time. you guys ****ing rock.

I'm with kishprime in that a more observant player will benefit marginally in the suggested situation were it to arise (likely). While I'm all for rewarding players based on their ability to learn and adapt, I don't feel that this is a necessary one, as those exploits will likely be carried over to any level, especially since our stage list has very unspecialized traits to the neutral stages. I would opt against that kind of change, however I could easily see it going either way and the difference is likely to be a trivial one.

 

[Deleted member]

I want to move this topic to the melee discussion general forum so that the general public can see what it is that we do. I'll delete all irrelevant posts and lock it before I do. Is this okay with everyone or would you prefer to keep it secret? The MB official rule set has been poking at DSR a lot and I feel that this will answer a lot of questions, as well as show the public how we debate.

I want a LOT of input telling me it's okay before I move it. This is a special case and will likely not be repeated.

 

[Smash G 0 D]

With DSR:

Both players get input on the stage.
Advantage - P1: 0; P2: 0

Game 2 has an advantage for the loser of R1. He can pick any stage except the Winners' ban.
Advantage -
P1: .5 (Removes a stage [+.5])
P2: 1(Picks stage [+1])

Game 3 gives P1 the option to choose the stage for the deciding game. But he also has 1 less stage to choose from due to loser's ban and DSR.
Advantage -
P1: 2 (Picks stage for deciding game [+1], Stage is for deciding game [+.5])
P2: 2 (Removes a stage [+.5] and doesn't have to worry about the supposedly bad stage from R1 [+.5])

Without DSR:

Both players get input on stage.
Advantage - P1: 0; P2: 0

Game 2 has an advantage for the loser of R1. He can pick any stage except the Winners' ban.
Advantage -
P1: .5 (Removes a stage [+.5])
P2: 1(Picks stage [+1])

Game 3 gives P1 the option to choose the stage for the deciding game. He may pick any stage except the losers' ban.
Advantage -
P1: 2 (Picks stage for deciding game [+1], Stage is for deciding game [+.5])
P2: 1.5 (Removes a stage [+.5])


If you can agree on the above, then it all comes down to whether you want the whole set to be even (DSR) or to give P1 a slight advantage from winning game 1 (without DSR).

 

[Pink Reaper]

The argument for DSR vs no DSR comes down to whether or not you believe the current system of stage striking is 100% absolutely fair.

The main problem is that Stage Striking isn't necessarily fair it's just not random. It does help to alleviate problems with characters like Peach or Marth who have extremely good neutrals to play on but it doesn't take into account player preferences and play styles and the unknown factor of playing a new player. Because you may often find yourself striking against character rather than player you have no idea what stages are actually good for you and what aren't. With Dave's Stupid Rule in effect you remove any punishment you would incur for choosing the wrong stages to strike round 1. It works to keep our system more fair overall as it removes an advantage the winner of round 1 may have already had and used. Obviously the Gentleman's Clause would help to balance that out by allowing players to go back should they feel a stage is fair but our rules should not force punishment on a player for mistake he was already punished for once.

@Mow, I think this is a good thread to move. It helps flesh out ideas and information we used for the new ruleset so it would make a good sister thread for the Official Ruleset thread.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I'm good with the move.

I love forum politics.

 

[Scar]

+.5 for deciding game factor? what?

The argument for DSR vs no DSR comes down to whether or not you believe the current system of stage striking is 100% absolutely fair.

false

the argument is that it's pointless

if out of FIVE stages when you strike TWO of those stages, the third will be NOT GOOD, then you need to get better on at least 1 of those 3 stages, **** "you can only win on one stage" as an argument FOR dsr, that's my argument against it

if you strike 2 stages, when you're being counterpicked against you have already admitted a greater problem playing on both of the stricken stages than the round 1 stage, one of which you may ban. so it is systematically better for the r1 loser to be able to be counterpicked back to the r1 stage for r3.

 

[pockyD]

With DSR:

Both players get input on the stage.
Advantage - P1: 0; P2: 0

Game 2 has an advantage for the loser of R1. He can pick any stage except the Winners' ban.
Advantage -
P1: .5 (Removes a stage [+.5])
P2: 1(Picks stage [+1])

Game 3 gives P1 the option to choose the stage for the deciding game. But he also has 1 less stage to choose from due to loser's ban and DSR.
Advantage -
P1: 2 (Picks stage for deciding game [+1], Stage is for deciding game [+.5])
P2: 2 (Removes a stage [+.5] and doesn't have to worry about the supposedly bad stage from R1 [+.5])

Without DSR:

Both players get input on stage.
Advantage - P1: 0; P2: 0

Game 2 has an advantage for the loser of R1. He can pick any stage except the Winners' ban.
Advantage -
P1: .5 (Removes a stage [+.5])
P2: 1(Picks stage [+1])

Game 3 gives P1 the option to choose the stage for the deciding game. He may pick any stage except the losers' ban.
Advantage -
P1: 2 (Picks stage for deciding game [+1], Stage is for deciding game [+.5])
P2: 1.5 (Removes a stage [+.5])


If you can agree on the above, then it all comes down to whether you want the whole set to be even (DSR) or to give P1 a slight advantage from winning game 1 (without DSR).

where do all these magical 0.5 and 1 numbers come from?

banning a stage isn't even close to being half as good as picking a stage

false

the argument is that it's pointless

if out of FIVE stages when you strike TWO of those stages, the third will be NOT GOOD, then you need to get better on at least 1 of those 3 stages, **** "you can only win on one stage" as an argument FOR dsr, that's my argument against it

if you strike 2 stages, when you're being counterpicked against you have already admitted a greater problem playing on both of the stricken stages than the round 1 stage, one of which you may ban. so it is systematically better for the r1 loser to be able to be counterpicked back to the r1 stage for r3.

This is kind of running in circles, but I suppose I agree in theory; the loser of game 1 can just elect to use their real ban on the game 1 stage if they suddenly realize that it was catastrophic for them...

However, to really understand that point, we would also need to understand why we give each player a ban at all. The fact that we allow stages that might effectively be 'auto-bans' in certain matchups (basically the CP stages - brinstar, RC, KJ64, and everything else that has already been killed from the stage list), to me, suggests that the stage ban is intended to simply cut the stage list some slack in somehow magically only allowing one "broken" stage per matchup, which can be addressed via the stage ban. If this is true, however, then forcing the player to use their stage ban elsewhere defeats this purpose and either the stage list would again need to be revisited or DSR should stay

 

[Smash G 0 D]

If the +.5 was turned into a +.1 then the outcome would be the same. They're just representative figures o____o

 

[pockyD]

frankly i just skimmed your post because the colors were really annoying

 

[Smash G 0 D]

Well that's definitely helpful.

Here, let me change the color of it. I'm glad you so politely asked me to.

 

[pockyD]

...well I don't really understand why you bothered to color it up to begin with, as there was literally zero chance that it would make your point clearer

you're still just making up criteria and value though

With DSR:

Both players get input on the stage.
Advantage - P1: 0; P2: 0

with you so far

Game 2 has an advantage for the loser of R1. He can pick any stage except the Winners' ban.
Advantage -
P1: .5 (Removes a stage [+.5])
P2: 1(Picks stage [+1])

fine let's assume that's true

Game 3 gives P1 the option to choose the stage for the deciding game. But he also has 1 less stage to choose from due to loser's ban and DSR.
Advantage -
P1: 2 (Picks stage for deciding game [+1], Stage is for deciding game [+.5])
P2: 2 (Removes a stage [+.5] and doesn't have to worry about the supposedly bad stage from R1 [+.5])

not quite

Why does "stage is for deciding game" get extra points? and why is that necessarily equal to the value given for removing a supposedly bad stage?

...and why would the DSR ban be worth the same as a free ban?

You're somehow simultaneously overthinking it (assigning all these arbitrary values) and underthinking it (not really basing your values in any form of consistent logic)

 

[Smash G 0 D]

DSR isn't necessarily equal to removing a bad stage, but like I said, the results would be somewhat the same. Even if I gave it less weighting, with DSR would result in closer scores than without.

The winner of game 1 gets to choose the stage for the game that decides the whole set. Isn't that an advantage?

The values aren't 100% exact, but even if I gave each of the factors different weightings then the results would be similar to those I got.

 

[pockyD]

DSR isn't necessarily equal to removing a bad stage, but like I said, the results would be somewhat the same. Even if I gave it less weighting, with DSR would result in closer scores than without.

The winner of game 1 gets to choose the stage for the game that decides the whole set. Isn't that an advantage?

Only psychologically; in reality, game 3 counts for just as much as game 2. Remember, if game 2 isn't won by the player that picked it, then it turns out that THAT game was the game that decided the whole set, and game 3 doesn't even exist.

If you want to use convoluted logic, you could say game 3 counts the least out of all games because it's not guaranteed to be played, whereas the other two are. I don't believe this or anything but I feel like your logic is equally absurd, just in the other direction

The values aren't 100% exact, but even if I gave each of the factors different weightings then the results would be similar to those I got.

not really

if you drop the whole "game 3 decides everything so it gets a bonus", DSR means that the game 2 choice has more of a 'score' advantage than game 3 choice does, simply because of more choices

Here's another thought; imagine a system where the WINNER gets to pick the next stage instead of the loser. Now, both sides are equally affected by DSR in a Bo3 (both players will be down 2 stages when making their stage choice), and the game 1 choice would of course still be hypothetically neutral. What's "wrong" with this system? The math says it works, doesn't it?

 

[Smash G 0 D]

I'm discussing cases exclusive to the DSR with the ruleset that we have. If the set is over in 2 games, then DSR doesn't even come into effect.

If you want me to drop the numbers, then I'll say:

With DSR:

Game 1 is neutral

Game 2 stage is chosen by the loser and the winner gets a ban, so the loser is still at a slight advantage.

Game 3 stage is chosen by P1 but is limited by the DSR and the loser's ban. This is partially countered by the fact that, because it is game 3, this game decides the set, so if P1 has stage choice then he gets a small advantage.
Overall: even.

 

[pockyD]

You didn't address the fact that game 2 potentially "decides the set" as well

If you're somehow assuming that game 2 is won by the loser of game 1 for the sake of your argument, then you can't even add any fair amount of value into the picking of game 2 because it's literally a foregone conclusion that the loser of game 1 will win, regardless of any other factors that we inject

 

[Smash G 0 D]

I'm discussing cases exclusive to the DSR with the ruleset that we have. If the set is over in 2 games, then DSR doesn't even come into effect.

If game 2 is the deciding game, then we aren't discussing DSR. But if you want to get into that, then I could say:

Game 1 is neutral.

Game 2 gives an advantage to the loser of game 1 with the choice of stage except for P1's ban.

And then he loses.

P2 was at an advantage for game 2 because he lost game 1. My reasoning is that DSR can be used to counteract the fact that P1 gets to choose the stage for the deciding game IF it gets to game 3.

 

[pockyD]

I understand what you're saying; I'm not asking you to repeat it over and over again. I'm saying that your reasoning is faulty

 

[Deleted member]

Moved to Melee Discussion as stated.

A few specific names are being watched for any subsequent posts, and it is likely that this topic will be used for reference posts for the next MBR member vote.

 

[KevinM]

I'd like to point out I feel Scar's entire argument is based on the people agreeing to a stage that they thing is the fairest when in reality they're both trying to get a stage where there character has a slight advantage.

 

[ArcNatural]

Public Discussion David's Stupid Rule

Ok guys,

Use this thread if you want to post your comments on the current Dave's Stupid Rule Discussion going on in the MBR.
Let us know what you think! The MBR will be watching!

 

[JPOBS]

the rule introduces variety to the scene.

also, thinking that a map is the most fair before playing match one it does not follow that it is in reality.

the whole point of counterpicking and DSR is to allow you to correct for mistakes made in previous matches. If you make the mistake of agreeing to play on a certain stage cuz you originally thought it was the most neutral between you and your opponent, but you end up losing, you obviously have learned that you opponent is probably better than you on that stage, but you couldnt have known that prior to the first game.

giving the opponent the option to go back there in game 3 is like a free win. Scars arguement is wrong imo cuz just because you agreed to play a map in game one thinking it was the best option at the time, that choice shouldnt hurt your chances of winning the set more than it already has.

edit: also if you lose on a stage and your opponent has the option to go back game 3, that would logically be the best place to go cuz they know they can win there. unless you have a strong preference for a certain stage/play jiggs, games 1 and 3 of all sets will be on the same map basically.

edit 2: meh, after reading through, the members of the mbr have already made all these points with examples to boot better than i have.
TL;DR i support DSR

 

[Zodiac]

the rule introduces variety to the scene.

also, thinking that a map is the most fair before playing match one it does not follow that it is in reality.

the whole point of counterpicking and DSR is to allow you to correct for mistakes made in previous matches. If you make the mistake of agreeing to play on a certain stage cuz you originally thought it was the most neutral between you and your opponent, but you end up losing, you obviously have learned that you opponent is probably better than you on that stage, but you couldnt have known that prior to the first game.

giving the opponent the option to go back there in game 3 is like a free win.

Not much more has to be said on why DSR is a valid rule that should be used at every tournament.

 

[Dark Hart]

Unless your opponent(s) agree(s), I don't think you should be allowed to cp a stage you've already won on, not matter how the first stage was chosen. And I agree with what AOB said in that thread

 

[-ACE-]

I'm with Scar on this one.

After you strike 2 stages you're weak on, you should be in good shape unless you're really lacking in experience on different stages or you suck at a certain matchup (both of which are your own fault). The whole clash of playstyles argument doesn't hold that much water imo either. You aren't going to be surprised by something new if you are actually familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent's character and thoroughly understand the pros and cons the stage in question (a good bit of this goes back to simply knowing the matchup character-wise). Striking poorly should come with a punishment. If there are more than 2 stages you can't win on, it's time to start practicing in your room with the lights off.

If stage 1 was random I'd say DSR is a good idea, but not with stage striking.

 

[keeper]

Certain characters x are still better than certain characters y on neutral stage z.

I support DSR.

 

[JPOBS]

I'm with Scar on this one.

After you strike 2 stages you're weak on, you should be in good shape unless you're really lacking in experience on different stages or you suck at a certain matchup (both of which are your own fault). The whole clash of playstyles argument doesn't hold that much water imo either. You aren't going to be surprised by something new if you are actually familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent's character and thoroughly understand the pros and cons the stage in question (a good bit of this goes back to simply knowing the matchup character-wise). Striking poorly should come with a punishment. If there are more than 2 stages you can't win on, it's time to start practicing in your room with the lights off.

If stage 1 was random I'd say DSR is a good idea, but not with stage striking.

the punishment for striking poorly was that you're down a game.

why should the punihsment be anything more than that

also, you're ignoring the fact that some people are just flat out better on some stages for completely arbitray reasons.

i wouldnt want to have to play reno's sheik on BF, or Scar's falcon on yoshi's. character and matchup knowledge wouldn't necessarily tell me to auto ban BF vs sheik or yoshis vs falcon tho would it?

 

[KAOSTAR]

I think DSR is a good rule but needs to be re confirmed.

As a competitive smash player you should be familiar with all of the neutrals, and now, because of the shortened list, all of the CPs.

I think DSR should be reconfigured so that you cannot pick a Cp stage more than once. Its not a problem in Bo3 and Bo5s are in finals and should be among the best players on what is considered the most even stages.

Stage striking should be the official rule but because both player in a sense came to a consensus, should not take away a potential neutral cp for the set in a Bo5 or higher. If a player likes to cp Dl64, that option should be available to them and not taken away simply because they both "agreed" thru striking and was victorious in said round.

You also should not be able to pick the last stage that you won on. Every player, once the stage has been chosen has the option of choosing a character. There are only 5 neutrals, there is no excuse to not have an primary and backup plan for each of these stages.

This could potentially force ppl to learn certain matchups better or pickup a Cp, diversifying melee players.

 

[gm jack]

Some finals are done best of 5. DSR stops a CP stage being used twice.

 

[-ACE-]

also, you're ignoring the fact that some people are just flat out better on some stages for completely arbitray reasons.

that doesn't matter at all. Scar can be beaten on yoshi's, Zhu can be beaten on BF, etc etc. THE REASONS ARE NOT ARBITRARY, LMAO. It's because they've practiced to improve their consistency and found new ways to be innovative.

I've lost to Scar on yoshi's in tournament before. It was my fault for not knowing the Ganon vs Falcon matchup well enough on that stage and nothing more.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The goal of a tournament set is to be the first player to win 2 games (or 3 if its a Bo5).

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.

I completely agree. If I play a falco as marth, and they strike down to YS thinking it will be a good stage for them then get 2 stocked, they shouldn't have to ban that stage in order to counter me from getting a second (free) win on that stage. They have already lost on that stage, and it shouldn't be played again unless the loser agrees/chooses to go back. Wasting a ban on YS would open up other "free" win stages like FD.

Another example could be pikachu vs falcon. Falcon strikes down to FD because he is ignorant to the chaingrab or thinks pikachu won't get any grabs, and its his favorite falcon stage. In theory this sounds good but when the match is played he finds that is his worst stage.

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 difference between P2 picking game 2 and P1 picking game 3 is that P1 already has a win when he is picking his stage, and P2 doesn't.



[partial topic switch]

Something I've been unclear about is whether all bans are "supposed" to be done after game one, or do you only have to ban when your opponent is CPing?

If anything, I think allowing the loser of game 1 an additional game before choosing a ban is the biggest advantage losing game 1 gives you.

[/partial topic switch]

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.

/thread

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

the winner of round 1 can take the opponent back to the stage he lost on in round 2.

The point of DSR, from my experience, is that you must win on two different stages. When you win one game, no matter the method of selection, the stage is unavailable for you to select because you've already proven you are better on that stage than your opponent. Whats the point of having sets where you only have to prove you're better on one stage, and then CP back to reiterate that you're better on that stage?

You could lose 100% on every stage but FD (where you win 100%), trick your opponent into striking to FD, and then simply show you can win on FD twice vs the same person. In fact, I would argue that the winner of game 1 should always take them back to the same stage as game 1 because they know they can already win there.

 

[Rappster]

i think mbr shouldn't be the ones deciding this cause if you're good enough to make mbr, you probably don't have problems wit dsr