MELEE-FC Tournament Ruleset Discussion

[Kal]

The "negative impact" isn't as much the issue as the lack of real qualifications for determining entry. It's an elitist group I don't want to be a part of.

Though the teenage girl analogy has me reconsidering. Maybe now I'll find people to get manicures with.

 

[Strong Badam]

i agree kal
our method of selecting members is....


arbitrary

* *

 

[The Star King]

^Ok, I lol'd.

And you can get manicures with the "unpopular girls" TBH.

 

[Kal]

None of them want to go with me. I don't know, I guess when you're unpopular, unpopular people don't want to be your friends. The only solution is to ***** it up and get popular.

And, of course, the word is censored.

 

[Dan Salvato]

I support the extended stage list especially if there is an active effort to compromise with the MBR5'ers. Even though Mute City would kick my ***.

 

[HoChiMinhTrail]

I'm the one getting too old for this? That's your second response to my post. You're apparently already having memory lapses.

And I believe there were far, far more useless posts in this thread, lol.

<3 Trail

haha goddamnit

 

[Bones0]

Yeah, sorry about that. I was saying that, if you pick your bans when your opponent loses, rather than at the start of the match, it would save time. There is also some possible debate to be had regarding what time choosing your bans requires more skill (i.e., if I ban two stages at once vs. banning them after wins), but I doubt it would have any significant outcome on results.

I really dislike trying to make stage and character selection a skillful process. It is inherently outside of the game, and therefore will only unfairly benefit those who are better at picking stages/characters. Things get iffy really quick when you start basing advantages off of elements outside of the game itself. For instance, I don't think someone should benefit simply because they play two characters that complement each other when it comes to stage bans. For instance, I have a Marth secondary, which means if I am playing a set vs. a spacie and they cp FD, I can just switch and put them in a tough position they couldn't possibly have anticipated. That's just a quick example of why I would highly recommend picking characters before stages.

There's a lot of things like this in the current rule set. There's a lot of little traps and tricks you can use in the stage selection process to cover your *** on bad stages with secondaries or cover bad matchups by picking a stage they're okay with and then flipping the script by changing characters. As a PLAYER, obviously I use these to my advantage as much as possible. As a TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER, this is a glaring weakness of the rule set. The stage/character selection process should be as up front as possible so that when it comes down to the match neither player is surprised by anything. It's really just unfair, and chaotic to the point that it feels random ("oh, you have a secondary and I couldn't have accounted for that with my ban/stage selection, cool...").

I may make a thread about this if you want to argue, Kal.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

personally, i think that's why we let whoever is counterpicking pick the stage, then the opponent picks a character, and then the counterpicker picks a character. if you end up counterpicking yourself because your opponent has a secondary, then you can either be skillful enough to have your own complement to your character and counterpick his sorry *** back or, get chaingrabbed.

 

[Bones0]

The loser gets to pick his character after yours, so he can react to your decision. You either end up with a bad stage, bad matchup, or both. Obviously you can just get chain grabbed and deal with it, but that's not ideal, so why would we settle for it? We could also just random for game 1 and just tell people to "deal with it," but it doesn't accomplish anything other than making results more random.

 

[Pink Reaper]

I really dislike trying to make stage and character selection a skillful process. It is inherently outside of the game, and therefore will only unfairly benefit those who are better at picking stages/characters. Things get iffy really quick when you start basing advantages off of elements outside of the game itself. For instance, I don't think someone should benefit simply because they play two characters that complement each other when it comes to stage bans. For instance, I have a Marth secondary, which means if I am playing a set vs. a spacie and they cp FD, I can just switch and put them in a tough position they couldn't possibly have anticipated. That's just a quick example of why I would highly recommend picking characters before stages.

There's a lot of things like this in the current rule set. There's a lot of little traps and tricks you can use in the stage selection process to cover your *** on bad stages with secondaries or cover bad matchups by picking a stage they're okay with and then flipping the script by changing characters. As a PLAYER, obviously I use these to my advantage as much as possible. As a TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER, this is a glaring weakness of the rule set. The stage/character selection process should be as up front as possible so that when it comes down to the match neither player is surprised by anything. It's really just unfair, and chaotic to the point that it feels random ("oh, you have a secondary and I couldn't have accounted for that with my ban/stage selection, cool...").

I may make a thread about this if you want to argue, Kal.

Why should someone not benefit from playing multiple characters? Or rather why should the rules be tailored to help players that only play one character?

 

[Bones0]

Why should someone not benefit from playing multiple characters? Or rather why should the rules be tailored to help players that only play one character?

Good question! Firstly, I would say that there are PLENTY of benefits from playing multiple characters. I just don't think that the benefits should be from abuse of the rule set. If I play a secondary, that means I can switch characters for matchups, stages, players with different play styles, and players who are worse at different matchups. Mango is a perfect example of this. He goes Falco vs. PP/M2K and Fox vs. Armada/Hbox. And we also saw at Genesis how he lost as Falco vs. Taj, and then when he played him again he switched up the matchup and did a million times better. Taj went Mewtwo vs. Armada to abuse his lack of experience, and when things weren't working out, he even experimented with Marth for a game.

I'm not trying to help out people who only play one character. It just so happens that the more janky the cp system is, the more secondaries can be ABUSED rather than USED.

 

[Pink Reaper]

I dont think of it as abuse though. Any time new stages are introduced or old stages are banned it restructures character viability. Rather than saying a player can abuse new stages by using secondaries I think of the new stages as allowing more viability for those secondaries. It also means that the ability to play multiple characters is further rewarded since you have more stage/character/match-up choices as well as a safeguard against you're opponent trying to CP you.

 

[CanISmash]

sorry but this argument is silly.

everyone holds the same counterpick options and everyone has the ability to play every character.

if i take a jigglypuff to fd and the person goes marth.

i can go sheik. put in the time, you deserve to be rewarded. not to mention we act like these less than favorable matchups are like 90-10 when nothing is close to that except sheik vs low tiers.

 

[Kal]

I really dislike trying to make stage and character selection a skillful process. It is inherently outside of the game, and therefore will only unfairly benefit those who are better at picking stages/characters.

I don't see how stage and character choice are "outside the game." Choosing a stage and choosing a character are necessary to play. It's definitely part of the game. Maybe it's not part of the gameplay vis-à-vis character interaction, but it's certainly part of the game. Further, anything you turn into a "skillful process" will benefit those who are better at said skillful process. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.

You should tread carefully with the word "unfair." There's really nothing unfair about a player having more tools in his toolbox being able to force his opponent into more bad scenarios. The same happens with the player vs. player interaction you defend so vehemently. For the most part, something is only "unfair" if it is not available to both players. Things like port priority, for example, are unfair. But it simply being the case that a more knowledgeable player performs better is certainly not unfair. In fact, even something as absurd as a player having more Star Wars knowledge causing him to perform better is not unfair. It may not be what you want to test (which is, of course, just a matter of preference), but it's not unfair.

Things get iffy really quick when you start basing advantages off of elements outside of the game itself. For instance, I don't think someone should benefit simply because they play two characters that complement each other when it comes to stage bans. For instance, I have a Marth secondary, which means if I am playing a set vs. a spacie and they cp FD, I can just switch and put them in a tough position they couldn't possibly have anticipated. That's just a quick example of why I would highly recommend picking characters before stages.

I don't agree with this at all. It just reeks of scrubby mindset. You should anticipate potential problems with any counterpick. If I counterpick Rainbow Cruise as Marth, expecting my opponent to go Peach, and he goes Fox instead, this is a mistake on my end, or a good decision on my opponent's. We shouldn't be catering to players who aren't smart enough to plan for adverse scenarios.

With regards to this specific example: surely your opponent should have known better than to go to Final Destination if he were not prepared to handle a Marth there? There's always the possibility that your opponent will use another character.

There's a lot of things like this in the current rule set. There's a lot of little traps and tricks you can use in the stage selection process to cover your *** on bad stages with secondaries or cover bad matchups by picking a stage they're okay with and then flipping the script by changing characters. As a PLAYER, obviously I use these to my advantage as much as possible. As a TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER, this is a glaring weakness of the rule set.

There's no reason to call this a weakness of the ruleset. You can dislike it, I guess, but I don't see anything you've brought up as problematic.

The stage/character selection process should be as up front as possible so that when it comes down to the match neither player is surprised by anything. It's really just unfair, and chaotic to the point that it feels random ("oh, you have a secondary and I couldn't have accounted for that with my ban/stage selection, cool...").

There's nothing wrong with your opponent having a trick up his sleeve. The logic you're using to deem this a weakness of the ruleset could similarly be applied to any lack of knowledge on the part of the player. And, again, be careful with the word "unfair."

Also, there isn't really any way to account for the "problems" you've brought up. There may be some contrived solution that is unique to a particular game, but, seeing as we're discussing rulesets in general, and not how to artificially balance Melee in particular, it seems like you're just choosing a different, equally arbitrary methodology for how to start matches. Choosing your characters first won't somehow prevent the same problems in general.

 

[Bones0]

I dont think of it as abuse though. Any time new stages are introduced or old stages are banned it restructures character viability. Rather than saying a player can abuse new stages by using secondaries I think of the new stages as allowing more viability for those secondaries. It also means that the ability to play multiple characters is further rewarded since you have more stage/character/match-up choices as well as a safeguard against you're opponent trying to CP you.

It's abuse because it's outside of the game, and players are extremely limited in their ability to account for it. Even if you can play every character equally as good as your main, you can still get derped by counterpicks because you have to:
1. Assume they are staying with their main, or
2. Correctly guess which of the other 25 characters they will use

You could also argue players should choose the main that gets hard counterpicked the least, but there's always going to be a degree of randomness with the current system.

sorry but this argument is silly.

everyone holds the same counterpick options and everyone has the ability to play every character.

if i take a jigglypuff to fd and the person goes marth.

i can go sheik. put in the time, you deserve to be rewarded. not to mention we act like these less than favorable matchups are like 90-10 when nothing is close to that except sheik vs low tiers.

Not sure how your example is fair to the Jiggs/Marth player at all. There's no way they could have known you had a Sheik secondary. If they had a Fox secondary you'd be screwed. In that scenario, you got LUCKY. Obviously having a pocket Sheik increases your chances of being able to garner favorable matchups, but they are flimsy odds, not general guarantees.

 

[Kal]

Who cares if they don't know you have a secondary ahead of time? Why is it the responsibility of the ruleset to account for this? Whenever choice is involved, there will necessarily be "randomness" of the sort you've mentioned. The only way to account for this, really, is to copy the Japanese format of choosing one character for the duration of the tournament. Choosing characters first won't really do anything (and it could arguably make things worse).

 

[Bones0]

It is the responsibility of the rule set to have as little randomness as possible. Obviously there is still the issue of people not knowing peoples' secondaries ahead of time, but at least they don't get blindsided as hard. Reducing the impact of cps should also be a general goal because it makes the other games almost as fair as the first. That's why we have bans at all. If games 2 and 3 were always free wins, then we might as well just play game 1.

I also wouldn't mind having players required to pick a character that they must use for game 1. It'd be much better than double blind (which rarely ever happens anyway; people either go their main and expect others to do the same out of honor, or people switch when they realize who their opponent mains).

How would choosing characters first be worst? If we are playing Falco vs. Marth and I won game 1, I am going to ban FD because that matchup is bad on FD. If you are changing your character anyway, what was the point in my ban? I wasted it, and there was no way I could have done anything about it. If we select characters first (I stay Falco, you switch to Fox), I can then make an educated ban based on the matchup. The losing player picks their character second, so they will always be able to pick a beneficial matchup. The only thing that changes by choosing the stage after characters is that the winner doesn't essentially lose his ban. And yeah, occasionally the stage people ban for their opponent's first character is the same one they would have banned for their second character, but that's just more randomness being introduced into the system.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Honestly guys, the current revision is a very standard, common ruleset. Sure its not 5 neutrals + PS but 5 neutrals + PS, Brinstar, Cruise was the norm pre-APEX so its not radical at all. Adding Mute is cool, and can lead to some interesting scenarios, but since we are given an extra ban, its ultimately the same thing. This is a much more conservative ruleset than anything we had just a couple years ago so unless you are absolutely adamant about a 3-6 stage ruleset (in which case, I think you'd be in the minority), I don't see anything to complain about.

 

[Bones0]

No one's complaining about the revised rule set. They were complaining about the one with JJ and MKII on the stage strike.

 

[Youngling]

What's the reasoning behind a stage not being let played game 1 but then being let played any time after?

 

[Bones0]

There isn't any good reasoning for it. Kal and I agree on this, therefore it is a statement of fact that cannot be disputed.

But those stages are horrible.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

No one's complaining about the revised rule set.

Yes, they have.

But its the usual suspects so I guess its to be expected..

Bones, your idea of being able to switch your bans once they pick their character on a counterpick was really good ^_^

 

[Bones0]

Thanks, but it isn't actually switching your ban. That'd just be unnecessarily confusing. All I'm suggesting is changing the order.

You just have this:

1. Winner chooses character
2. Loser chooses character
3. Winner bans stage
4. Loser chooses stage

instead of this:

1. Winner bans stage
2. Loser chooses stage
3. Winner chooses character
4. Loser chooses character

This is also logically consistent with game 1, where both players choose their character with double blind, and then strike. We don't strike stages and then choose characters, do we? ;D

 

[Pink Reaper]

Thanks, but it isn't actually switching your ban. That'd just be unnecessarily confusing. All I'm suggesting is changing the order.

You just have this:

1. Winner chooses character
2. Loser chooses character
3. Winner bans stage
4. Loser chooses stage

instead of this:

1. Winner bans stage
2. Loser chooses stage
3. Winner chooses character
4. Loser chooses character

This is also logically consistent with game 1, where both players choose their character with double blind, and then strike. We don't strike stages and then choose characters, do we? ;D

That seems worse imo. If the winner chooses character first before anything else they're suddenly in the worst possible position. They have no idea what stage will be played or who they're opponent will pick, meaning they are almost forced to play as the same character game 2. Loser get's to see who they're opponent is playing before picking the stage AND before picking they're character, giving them both character CP and stage CP. With stage selection first the winner at least get's to choose if they want to change their character in case of a hard stage CP

To put it into context, I played, in tournament, against a fox player. The fox player beat me round 1(Fox V Falcon) and I CP'd him to brinstar(he banned DL64 lol). He switched to Jiggs.

Imagine that with your ruleset. Im CP position. He has no idea where we are going. He stays fox, i stay falcon. He bans DL, i CP brinstar. Suddenly, despite the fact that he has a perfectly useable character for brinstar he didnt get the option to use it because he had to pick his character before having any idea what was going to happen.

 

[Bones0]

If he would rather play on DL than Brinstar, he should just ban Brinstar... I wasn't aware Falcon was good vs. Fox on Brinstar anyway... I don't really see the issue in that example. He didn't get to choose a character that caters to your cp, but that's actually good if you ask me. >_>

 

[Divinokage]

How about having the ability to ban after the player has chosen a stage? In this way, you have more time to think about whether you should play on that stage or not. So then if you choose to ban FD after the opponent has chosen it then he's forced to play on another map that may be less advantageous for him. That way, you may be more aware of what the opponent is trying to do. So if you have 2 bans then your opponent can try to choose 2 stages to play on but you can cancel them out. It doesn't sound too bad like that.

 

[Bones0]

^I'd be willing to experiment with something like that.

 

[Kal]

Something like that seems better. Being stuck on a stage after choosing your character would be undesirable in a lot of scenarios.

 

[john!]

...really guys?

so your opponent will just pick their favorite stages and you'll automatically ban them every time?

no prediction or thought involved.

unless you opponent tries to mindgame you by choosing a stage that he doesn't want and forcing you to ban it

but that's a dumb way to to picks+bans lol

i realize that i'm obviously wrong since bones and kal both disagree with me

but i want to hear more reasons for such a drastic change in the picks+bans metagame

 

[Kal]

I don't disagree with you. I think Bones is wrong on this one, though I don't think either methodology for counterpicking is inherently better.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

edit: i like the current system. it gives the person who won a chance to see if he has enough skill to deal with your power of CPing. i don't think a counterpick should ever be a hard counter no matter what. i think a person getting counterpicked should have the freedom of character choice.

i mean, i don't have a secondary, but the other way to do it would make them useless anyway. you would never have a situation where a secondary is inherently useful. which seems...sad.

 

[Pink Reaper]

If he would rather play on DL than Brinstar, he should just ban Brinstar... I wasn't aware Falcon was good vs. Fox on Brinstar anyway... I don't really see the issue in that example. He didn't get to choose a character that caters to your cp, but that's actually good if you ask me. >_>

He didnt ban brinstar because he had Jiggs as a secondary. However in a situation where he doesnt know what stage he's going to before he picks his character his secondary might as well not even exist since it will never see use.

 

[omgwtfToph]

wholly agree with Pink Reaper

PURPLE NAMES UNITE

 

[Strong Badam]

Joining in on the circle jerk

 

[Smasher89]

It is the responsibility of the rule set to have as little randomness as possible.

Lets ban Peach, G&W, DL64, PS due to RNG having factors deciding stuff when these variables is used.

 

[Strong Badam]

also yoshi's story and FoD

 

[RaphaelRobo]

So we're left with Battlefield and FD? I feel like that list is a bit too small, so let's legalize other stages that don't have random influences. Like Hyrule.

 

[Kal]

Big Blue for the win.

 

[Strong Badam]

The best stages have no random events

New stage list:

Hyrule Temple
PokéFloats
Rainbow Cruise
Yoshi's Island (Pipes)
Final Destination
Battlefield

 

[Kal]

Big Blue is non-random, isn't it?