New Singles Ruleset Idea (just want feedback)

[-ACE-]

Neutral stages
Battlefield
Dreamland 64
Yoshi's Story
Fountain of Dreams
Pokemon Stadium

Counterpick
Final Destination

Stage Striking: 1,2,1

The winner of a coin flip will have a choice of having the first strike or his preferred port. Imo, this will account for the impact that stage positioning has at high level play. The winner of any match will have 1 ban for the match that follows. Dave's modified stupid rule would not be in effect, however, in a best of 5, your 3 wins cannot all be on the same stage (The New DSR?).

I'm not trying to be a pioneer or anything, but I'm just curious as to how many people would be supportive of this ruleset.

 

[LatexRhombus]

how could a rule be made to prevent you from having 3 wins on the same stage if the person who keeps losing there keeps picking it, your last win wouldnt count?

 

[Metal Reeper]

That ruleset looks nice. Especially the coin flip for port/stage pick.

I don't understand why everyone wants to change the ruleset. Is it because floaties **** on more stages that non-floaties? I just wanna know why.

 

[-ACE-]

how could a rule be made to prevent you from having 3 wins on the same stage if the person who keeps losing there keeps picking it, your last win wouldnt count?

It goes without saying that if both players agree to something like that, it would be fine. But as a rule you wouldn't be able to CP that stage if you have 2 wins and just lost.

Metal Reeper, I just feel like RC and BS are better for doubles than singles. I realize variety is a great thing, and necessary to an extent, but I feel like they twist the probably outcomes of certain matchups too much. This is just where I draw the line.

 

[Sim]

I don't agree with PS in the neutrals. FD is a perfectly fine neutral.

Plus, Brinstar is pretty legit. :D

 

[BigWenz]

FD as a counter pick? Naw. Id like to see more diversity in the stage list. Like why did u remove kongo as a counterpick?

 

[Dark Hart]

Good Morning, Dave

 

[BlueSamsara]

I think there should be consideration for cruise, brinstar and dk64, but I like this ruleset. Though your new DSR is silly.

 

[rhan]

I support this cuz FD is ******** as ****.

Pokemon is more of a CP stage though imo.

 

[Pi]

PS is more imba than FD

and KJ64 i don't see anything wrong with

don't pick ganon vs. peach there? lol

 

[Beat!]

This isn't very different from the european singles ruleset

So naturally I think it looks really good

 

[Bones0]

KJ64 is great, but it could never be neutral because it's kind of insanely easy to stall on it. Just the other day I played Fox vs. Marth and was able to successfully avoid fighting for about 2 minutes, and Marth is far from the worst victim of stalling. I feel like Fox could easily time out a huge percentage of the cast (Jiggs, Peach, Doc, Ganon, Mario, Luigi, DK, Link, Zelda, Roy, Mewtwo, Yoshi, Ness, Bowser, and Kirby). Other character would still struggle to even land a single hit on a Fox jumping around, let alone do anything if the Fox happened to get a stock lead.

As far as PS vs. FD, I really think FD is either really unbalanced or a really solid stage. Chain grabs make matchups get skewed hugely in that character's favor, and there really isn't anything the opponent can do to prevent it other than go the entire game without getting grabbed. PS is really only considered a CP because of the damn transformations. I know it isn't really feasible, but I wish tournaments would start running all the stages with the few AR hacks that have been made to edit stages (no transforming on PS, no wind on DL, no Shy Guys on YS, etc.). Then there's also the issue of players who may feel like removing the transformations is hindering their character (Foxes love dem wall infinites, so trying to leave them with a regular PS may not go over well).

 

[-ACE-]

WHAT IF

Neutral: YS, DL, BF

CP: FoD, PS, FD

Although I like the thought of this, it kinda ruins stage striking. BF would essentially be the first stage played, always lol.

BlueSamsara: how is the DSR silly? I feel like the normal DSR would be silly with only 6 stages.

Lucas: Lol...

rhan: I think PS is more of a counterpick too, FoD even. I could go either way, I guess I went with this because I was slightly influenced by Europe's stage list.

 

[TheDekuNut]

i think you should be able to ban RC and Brinstar and count it as a single strike. like you get a set amount of "points" for banning stages and spend them accordingly

worth 1 point: FoD, PS, FD, YS, DL, BF
worth .5 points : RC, Brinstar, kongojungle
worth .1 points : pokefloats lol
along those lines so that stages have "values." idk.

this seems like change for the sake of change which isn't too bad IMO

 

[Dark Hart]

I like the system we have now...

don't really know why anyone's complaining.

 

[Redd]

I would agree with FoD being a CP, lol.

 

[-ACE-]

Lol. Truth be told, I can't stand FoD. I just don't know how I would have FoD and PS as counterpicks without killing the stage striking system.

 

[tarheeljks]

why flip? why not rps it? more fun anyway

 

[Redd]

More fun than RPS is G&W hammer contest. =D

 

[Dark Hart]

I mean, I ****ing hate battlefield, I think it should be CP

seriously, I hate battlefield with a passion

 

[-ACE-]

BF is awesome! That stage would be perfect if the bottom was more like Dreamland's imo

 

[Beat!]

Battlefield is like

THE stage

 

[EPsilon933]

Pokemon stadium is like 75% neutral and 25% banned. Just look at rock and fire transformation metagame; stall for 30 seconds so that the stage goes back to neutral

Final Destination should stay as a neutral and let Pokemon Stadium be the counterpick. The main problem with FD, as mentioned like all the time, is chain throwing which skews certain matchups. But 1/3 to 1/2 the characters are already skewed by the top 7 regardless of stage. Fox and Falco are easily the 2 best characters, so wouldn't them being (more) chain throwable be a bad thing? (There's also anyone chain throwable by Sheik vs Sheik and anyone vs Ice Climbers) From what I can tell, this might fix something. Final Destination's flaws aren't really the stage's flaws, but the character's flaws (or other's strengths vs those flaws). If you look at all the other matchups, Final Destination is a really good neutral stage

But I think we sometimes put too much focus into trying to balance up matchups when we should be making rulesets to balance gameplay. I like the idea of getting rid of (bad) counterpick stages. They seem to give more of a disadvantage to your opponent than giving yourself and advantage. An extreme example I can think of would be Jigglypuff vs Ice Climbers on Brinstar. Jigglypuff's dair can split the stage with one dair and Nana can't do anything on a split stage. Then there's Kongo Jungle with its stalling problems (Fox has a good run away game). As for Rainbow Cruise, it's simply more of a stage to play tag on rather than a stage to fight on. It's just dumb

Since you didn't mention stage banning, I'm guessing it doesn't apply here, right? Yay! I disagree with the idea of the winner being able to ban a stage during counterpicking. It takes away the opponent's counterpick


^ All of the above is imo ^

 

[Dark Hart]

idc what anyone else says about BF and how neutral it is blah blah blah

idk the camera zoom on that stage just makes me feel cramped and I hate it

 

[rhan]

I like any stage with platforms. FD is just lame as hell and so ****ing difficult to play on especially if the character already has an advantage over you anyway. AKA Falco v Marth, Marth v Fox, Sheik v anybody, etc.

 

[-ACE-]

FD definitely tests a slightly different skillset, but I think the degree to which it does this is marginal in comparison to that of RC, BS, and even KJ64 (although I don't hate KJ).

 

[Sim]

> I disagree with the idea of the winner being able to ban a stage during counterpicking. It takes away the opponent's counterpick

I 100% agree with this.
I like counterpicks. Definitely adds another dimension to the sets. Why ban a stage, then the opponent counterpicks? Let's just ban counterpicks while we're at it, banning defeats its whole purpose!

If we don't ban counterpicks, then it's your duty to know which stages aren't good for your character and either ban them or practice in them.

If Smash was to be absolutely played under static, stable, truly balanced circumstances, Battefield would be the only stage even allowed. No counterpicks, no striking, no bans. Just Battlefield. There is no randomness in Battlefield, as everyone knows that the lame edge is not random, it actually takes skill sometimes not to be gimped by it. With correct reflexes and proper "placement" it can be avoided 100% of the time. There, you have it, a truly stable map with no randomness and the most fair gameplay with 3 platforms, a medium ceiling, and medium-sized map.

But that's not what we want don't we? We want a game with diversity, where sometimes the most clever of player who adapts the best to the actual stage wins.

And really, if Falco is not doing well vs Marth on FD, pick another character... Truth is, that might be only for you, because although chaingrabbing might look as a problem to some Falco players, others have absolutely no problem playing Marth on FD, since it's hard for him to avoid your lazers.

Anyways, just wanted to state that I'm for counterpick stages and stage banning should, in fact, be removed.

 

[-ACE-]

What is wrong with being able to choose from 5 stages instead of 6? If there aren't 2 stages you feel comfortable on in a particular matchup you probably just need to get better. I don't see how one ban is excessive.

I also disagree with the "pick another character" argument. I can't help but feel like, as soon as this game takes a step toward being fox dittos, it takes 2 steps toward its demise.

 

[Bones0]

For people suggesting we get rid of bans, the purpose of bans is to prevent players from playing radical stages. Bans encourage players to play on the 3 most fair stages while still maintaining an amount of variety to require skill on different stages (DL is played differently than YS, even with the same characters). Otherwise game 1 is the deciding factor in every set (which is stupid).

 

[TheZhuKeeper]

In Norwalk, we don't play FoD / FD on random.

That's when you know.

 

[-ACE-]

With this list (and stage striking/bans), it doesn't actually matter as much which stages are labeled as "neutral" and "counterpick". The only real difference is that FD would never be played the first time.

I would also probably be down for all 6 of these stages being considered neutral, having the coin flip (or if players agree to RPS), then having stage striking go 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. So at worst you have preferred port and 2 strikes, with FD being a possibility as first stage (but it will most likely get struck). After all, neutral and counterpicking are just words lol, and I think some people look too far into the meaning of the word counterpick. It really just means that you're choosing the next stage, it doesn't necessarily mean you're countering your opponents character (choosing which stage to counterpick involves a lot more than that anyway).

Basically I'm just throwing out ideas randomly, but I will say I like Europe's ruleset (although bo7's are too time consuming sometimes).

 

[EPsilon933]

What is wrong with being able to choose from 5 stages instead of 6? If there aren't 2 stages you feel comfortable on in a particular matchup you probably just need to get better. I don't see how one ban is excessive.

Taking away counterpicking options takes away part of the players skill/strategy. Imagine a player who's best stage is stage x. Then when someone wins a game vs him, they ban FD. Some of or a lot of that player's skill/strategy will be taken away. Or imagine a player who's worst stage is stage x. Banning it let's him get away with that flaw. Sure you could say he should get better if he's only good on 1 stage, but shouldn't he be rewarded for his skill on that stage? Or conversely be punished for his weakness on a stage? I think players need to be a bit more accepting of what's in the game, gameplay-wise, like Fox vs Marth on FD

Isn't the original intent of the stage banning idea to prevent broken counterpicking from happening? Without counterpick stages (Pokemon Stadium is debatable), I don't see how too much of that is going to happen. What are FD's skewed matchups?
Marth vs Fox
Fox vs Falco
Ice Climbers vs 26 characters (if Ice Climbers count)
Sheik vs 12 characters?
[Add anything I might have missed if you want]
Then compare that to all the other matchups in the game (ignoring repeats like Marth:Fox and Fox:Marth). There are 350 possible matchups and only about 40 are skewed. And if you look only at tournament viable character matchups, less than half that number is skewed.

[possible extrapolation warning]

For people suggesting we get rid of bans, the purpose of bans is to prevent players from playing radical stages. Bans encourage players to play on the 3 most fair stages while still maintaining an amount of variety to require skill on different stages (DL is played differently than YS, even with the same characters). Otherwise game 1 is the deciding factor in every set (which is stupid).

Maybe, regarding those 40 matchups where maybe about 15 (or even less. More than half that number is because of Ice Climbers and look at how popular they are) of them have a significant impact. Does any other stage skew matchups like FD does? And do other matchups on those other stages bring near guaranteed wins? I don't think the best counterpicks for everyone are broken. But back to my original point; a character's no-platform game is still part of a character's game, just like their platform game, even if it changes that character's game significantly

 

[-ACE-]

UsurperKingZant, I stand by my post that you quoted. It's just one stage, either way.

 

[Strong Badam]

The presence of chain throws on FD in most cases don't skew the match-up any more than other stages do in other ways (Dreamland & Pokemon Stadium against Marth, for example). Falco has an edge over Fox on nearly every stage, while Fox is only advantaged on Rainbow Cruise and Final Destination.

I also don't see how a chain throw advantage on FD is any different from other inherent advantages a character has on a stage (Fox's superior movement options on platforming stages, Jigglypuff's enhanced survivability on stages such as Kongo Jungle 64 and Dreamland 64, etc.).

 

[-ACE-]

I agree, StrongBad.

 

[EPsilon933]

UsurperKingZant, I stand by my post that you quoted. It's just one stage, either way.

I was thinking any amount still takes away something that shouldn't be taken away. But if you want numbers, the number of stages that can be played with DSR in effect gets limited fast with 6 legal stages

I also don't see how a chain throw advantage on FD is any different from other inherent advantages a character has on a stage (Fox's superior movement options on platforming stages, Jigglypuff's enhanced survivability on stages such as Kongo Jungle 64 and Dreamland 64, etc.).

I always hear Marth vs Fox as the prime example, so I tried to discus no-platforms vs platforms

 

[pockyD]

wouldn't support it since there's zero reason to believe it's better than what we have now

a big mountain appears from nowhere

 

[-ACE-]

wouldn't support it since there's zero reason to believe it's better than what we have now

a big mountain appears from nowhere

Yet there is no lava, and no stages that are almost auto-win for spacies (rc), and other stages where camping can prevail easily (kj).

 

[Strong Badam]

That would be the idea of a Counterpick as opposed to a Neutral. "A big mountain appears from nowhere" is why Pokémon Stadium is a Counterpick rather than a Neutral.

 

[-ACE-]

But with this system...

1. The first stage doesn't matter (striking)
2. The worst stage (to the loser) is banned
3. see 2

with only 6 stages, that mountain is hardly a factor.