Option counterpicking

[Raziek]

I don't disagree with Gheb's solution, only allowing one CP option, but I feel that reduces Game depth. Since you're restricting either the character variety, or the stage variety. so I disagree with it on those grounds, opting instead to keep the current system.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Raziek: the CP system right now also has the problem where Meta Knight is basically the answer to every problem. If people aren't willing to ban him, then we have to account for him or every game 2 is going to be an MK ditto (or should be, ideally).

 

[Raziek]

That's not a problem with the system, SFP, that's a problem with the character.

I don't shape the system around the character. Learn to deal, or counterpick safer stages. MK will always be the best choice in ANY system.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Except that is never going to happen. If every game 2 is an MK ditto, the problem is either the game or the system we have created. We can't get the community to agree that it's the game. So what is it? There's just no problem at all? Fine, I guess.

I feel like I'm beating my head on a wall sometimes. Either MK is a problem or he isn't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Raziek]

Umm, most of the community (55%, last we polled) agrees the problem IS the game, so I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I agree MK is the problem, but I refuse the shape the system around him just to keep him tolerable, especially when it sacrifices depth.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Gheb: I guess that puts you on the opposite side of Raziek then, haha. Your method would have the weakest counterpicks out of the 3 rulesets discussed.

OK, let's be more specific then:

C beats B 1st game
C changes to A (with no character lock)
B then is "forced" to use his counterpick to change character.

How is that exactly a problem? It simply negates the fact that the loser gets a double advantage upon counterpicking [one reason why MK + RC / Brinstar is so powerful is because you get to pick both] but upon winning on his CP the same situation applies to the other player.
Try to picture a more concrete scenario with your formula [adding characters + stages] and tell me which examples turn out more problematic then the worst case possible with the current rules.

 

[Cook]

I just like the idea of forcing the winner of the first game to stay the same character. Allowing them to change kind of defeats the purpose of counterpicking. Like, if I play Falco and lose the first match to MK then I wanna go to FD the second game. But then my opponent picks ICs. I didn't know he played ICs, I was counterpicking based on who he just used. I think it's kind of dumb to have to think about all the possible characters he MIGHT pick on the second stage because the loser of the first match is supposed to have the advantage during the second match, but it's hard to have the advantage when you're basing your stage choice one what character you just lost to if they can just switch. Honestly, I don't even see the problem with letting you pick stage and character while the winner is locked because if you win the second match the other guy gets to do the same thing to you. Either way, whoever won the first match will probably win the set.

 

[Raziek]

On the contrary: Having to think about secondaries your opponent might use is EXACTLY the point, and is why they deserve an advantage for playing multiple characters.

If they put in the effort to have a backup plan, they deserve the advantage. If you still want the advantage over a possible switch, learn a counter to their counter.

I don't understand why people think learning multiple characters SHOULDN'T benefit you.

 

[Cook]

I don't see why people should be punished for only playing one character, especially if they have worked on a stage to which they can take any character and stand a decent chance of winning (but where a different character might **** them on that particular stage).

 

[Raziek]

He who plays more characters deserve an advantage. If you play less characters than your opponent, that's effort they put in to have an extra edge in competitive play.

How do you justify taking that away?

Being skilled with multiple characters is no different than being good on multiple stages. It's like you're saying someone else who practices Jungle Japes has an unfair advantage over someone who only plays Smashville.

Yeah, they have an advantage, but they earned it, that's the whole point.

 

[Flayl]

There is still an advantage to using multiple characters in this ruleset.

 

[NO-IDea]

Agree with Raziek on this one.

Your proposed CP system is taking away an instrumental part of today's competitive format. It opts to sacrifice tournament viability of many characters (any character with a hard counter) and mitigates one of the advantages of mastery over several characters (sides, dual mains, pockets, doesn't matter what you call it.)

What for? So Player B who lost match one isn't guaranteed a huge advantage in combining both stage and character counterpicking? This detracts from the whole idea of SMASH counterpicking.

And everyone, stop bringing up MK. MK will always be the safe option, no matter what competitive format we take on, as several people have stated. It doesn't bring forth a legitimate argument.

 

[Flayl]

I really don't understand why people keep bringing up character viability as a counter argument.

In the ruleset we currently have, the player that won game 1 with Donkey Kong has no idea you're going to pick Dedede game 2. He banned a stage thinking you were going to use the same character as in game 1. If the DK player loses game 2 he can't counterpick your Dedede, because you can just switch back to your main. The current ruleset actually hurts character's viability more than the ruleset I'm proposing.

 

[MK26]

except now he's playing as dk on his stage against your main (whom he beat on game 1 on the neutral) rather than playing as his secondary against your secondary on the same neutral for the third game in a row...

having the option of playing dk two games out of three > not being able to play dk game 2 or 3

 

[Raziek]

Again, Flayl.

If the DK player in your hypothetical sees you switch to Dedede, he should be aware that he's probably going to need a secondary to cover his *** if they switch.

If he doesn't take that step, it's his fault for expecting to be able to solo as a character with a hard counter.

 

[Flayl]

except now he's playing as dk on his stage against your main (whom he beat on game 1 on the neutral) rather than playing as his secondary against your secondary on the same neutral for the third game in a row...

having the option of playing dk two games out of three > not being able to play dk game 2 or 3

The question (that most of you seem to be missing) is if the DK's opponent is willing to risk getting hard CP'd game 3 by CP'ing DK game 2.

Raziek: You might want to revise your post as it currently doesn't make sense. Loser chooses character last.

 

[Laem]

if the loser chooses to cp character instead of stage, is the stage of game 2 then the same as game 1 or chosen trough stagestriking starters or godforbid starters+cps?

 

[Flayl]

It's the same as game 1.

 

[Raziek]

The question (that most of you seem to be missing) is if the DK's opponent is willing to risk getting hard CP'd game 3 by CP'ing DK game 2.

Raziek: You might want to revise your post as it currently doesn't make sense. Loser chooses character last.

In the ruleset we currently have, the player that won game 1 with Donkey Kong has no idea you're going to pick Dedede game 2. He banned a stage thinking you were going to use the same character as in game 1. If the DK player loses game 2 he can't counterpick your Dedede, because you can just switch back to your main. The current ruleset actually hurts character's viability more than the ruleset I'm proposing.

Again, Flayl.

If the DK player in your hypothetical sees you switch to Dedede, he should be aware that he's probably going to need a secondary to cover his *** if they switch.

If he doesn't take that step, it's his fault for expecting to be able to solo as a character with a hard counter.

I don't see any problem with my post, Flayl. The DK wins Game 1, and banned a stage according to your current character.

You, who happen to play a second character (Dedede), character counter-pick him, after he chooses to stay DK.

This is what the point of my post was: Why is DK expecting to be safe as a character with a hard counter? Staying DK on your opponent's counterpick is a ballsy move, and of COURSE he can't CP your Dedede.

Why not? Because you play two characters to cover your weaknesses!

 

[Flayl]

I don't see any problem with my post, Flayl. The DK wins Game 1, and banned a stage according to your current character.

You, who happen to play a second character (Dedede), character counter-pick him, after he chooses to stay DK.

This is what the point of my post was: Why is DK expecting to be safe as a character with a hard counter? Staying DK on your opponent's counterpick is a ballsy move, and of COURSE he can't CP your Dedede.

Why not? Because you play two characters to cover your weaknesses!

DK isn't expecting to be safe in a counterpick in any ruleset. DK players cover their weakness by learning a character that beats Dedede.

 

[Raziek]

So then what's wrong with everyone else doing the same?

/confused

 

[Flayl]

Your posts are going in such a roundabout way that I cannot see the point you're trying to make. Hopefully somebody else has the mental stamina to continue this discussion because I don't.

 

[Raziek]

You seem to have a problem with people carrying pocket secondaries, yet you expect the DK in your hypothetical to also have a pocket secondary.

I'm not seeing much of a difference here, and I still don't understand why you want to take away the advantage earned through playing multiple characters. :/

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's the same as game 1.

I really wish I didn't have such a big problem with this... But it's an issue.

 

[Lord Chair]

Admittedly haven't read much past page 3, just jumping in to say:

If your reasoning behind our current CPing system is that so long as you can play every single character, you'll always end up with a free win on your CP, our CP system is terribly flawed.

Brawl's counterpicking is too strong in the ideal situation, because you will always end up hard countering your opponent (provided he isn't Meta Knight). In the ideal current situation, people are always forced to cover their opponent's counterpick with Meta Knight. Any other pick will result in an unwinnable matchup.

Inb4 counterpicking is meant to give you an advantage. 'Advantage' shouldn't mean 'free win'. Every single character except for MK in this game can be freewinned with the current - American - ruleset.

Counterpick RC:
Snake countered by MK.
Diddy countered by MK.
Falco countered by MK.
Wario countered by DDD.
Marth countered by MK.

etc.

CP Delfino, pretty much the same thing only DDD ***** more often.

CP FD, your opponent can be a smartass and pick Falco, you pick Pikachu (because obv you're super pro with Pikachu). Your opponent can pick IC, you pick Snake, etc. Nothing except for MK is safe.

These MUs on these stages are freewins between equally skilled players.

@Raziek: theory =/= practice. We don't have viable pocket Pikachus. The proposed system means you are certain of an easier time. Freewins are less likely to happen.

 

[Blacknight99923]

I like flays idea although I must admittedly say on RC if I lose and can't change characters I'm going to get CP'd pretty damm hard LOL

as degenerate as it is I don't even have the OPTION of the mk ditto unless I went mk game 1 , which isn't much of an issue for me but....I don't think its fair to put people through that.


I'd be down for this is it was on the apex ruleset though where you could ban RC and have an amazing stage list with tons of fair cps =D

 

[Laem]

reading all this I still think permabanning FD, RC and Br is a good idea LOL
remove flaws from system, remove broken stages. WIN WINNN

even a ridiculous rule like you can't cp FD and then go ics/falco/diddy or cp RC/Br then go MK would fix the current problem by a significant amount.

I just wonder just how important theoretical eyecandy is in the face of practical adversity.

 

[Flayl]

Any TO besides Raziek want to give their opinion on this?

 

[san.]

Is it possible for someone to be locked on a counterpick stage?
Game 1 it is only possible to be locked on a starter, but for game two, counterpicks are available.

 

[Flayl]

If the loser of game 1 counterpicks a stage (very likely for people who are comfortable in the matchup) and wins, the winner of game 1 can then choose between sticking on that counterpick stage and choosing a more appropriate character (you might call this locking the stage) or choosing his own stage.

 

[Browny]

No matter how many times I read the OP, it doesnt make sense to me

Is this solely regarding teams? Going by the replies, a lot of people are citing 1vs1 examples, but you always use the word 'team' in the op >_<

 

[Flayl]

Because it works for teams too. Did you get confused reading the unity ruleset?

 

[xDD-Master]

tbh this idea doesnt seem that bad, would require some testings ofc, but I think if this would get enough attention it could turn out to be a really great ruleset change.
So you get my support for now.


Btw. @ the MK pocket thing, I dont think many would want to stay MK for multiple matches, just to be able to use him on a strong CP one game out of 3.

 

[Ussi]

I think this ruleset helps with the mk problem :x but its killing stage variety

Can't we just strike from starters if we CP a different character? It'll remove hard character CPs like going to FD game 1 as Falco vs some character then being stage locked to FD as the loser switches to Pikachu or IC. Or remove/replace FD from the starters.

 

[xDD-Master]

Btw. Flayl, did you think about "the equality" of both options?
I think it might be better to not use Stage Bans... or introduce Character Ban as well (Which would be stupid tbh)

I just think that this would work better without stage bans, as you can hard counter someone with Character CP, just like you can with a stage CP and it would only be "fair" if both options have the same strength... even though it could turn it to be kinda broken, we should look for options :X

 

[Flayl]

Yeah this can work out fine without stage bans, I just didn't say so because it would be a bigger jump from the current ruleset and this one.

The best way to pick a starter stage for this would also be to do a full stage list strike, but again, I didn't say so because it would be a bigger change and thus would make people resist this ruleset harder.

 

[xDD-Master]

Btw. Another Idea that I got and probably could be added... (Not sure) ???

"The winner of the previous match can change his character, but he then loses all of his Bans (1 or 2 bans whatever)."


But I think I'd prefer the way without any Bans (Because I dislike the idea of indivdual bans in general).



And yeah, flossing is nice, but it gets kinda bad when you strike of to many stages...

So I think sticking to 5 stages (Without FD) would be better for that ruleset to work. Probably...

 

[DMG]

The reason Brawl's CP system is not like other fighters is because of the stage aspect. We have a wider variety of stages, and they tend to impact gameplay more than "different" stages in fighters like Tekken/SC do. Having the option of switch characters or switch stages, but not both, and winner locked in actually makes CPing stronger than before because you will have to choose between getting rid of the stage for another stage, or switching characters but going back to that stage. If I get boned vs MK on RC, Switching characters to anything besides MK/Wario/something along those lines is basically giving my opponent another free CP. I can switch the stage, but I still might not get the MU I wanted. I might prefer Marth vs MK instead of x character, but I have to settle with not getting ***** on RC at the cost of not having the character I want for him.





Basically, this system would be fine if you didn't have an immense array of CPing influences based on stage. MU's can easily swing from 6:4 one person's favor to 6:4 other guy's favor based on the stage, and having scenarios like that pop up while limiting player options doesn't sound appealing. At least in the current system, if my opponent picks RC and intends to go MK, I can at least switch characters to give me a reasonable shot instead of sitting there waiting for him to kill Nana again.

 

[B.A.M.]

^^^^ okay.... and in this system if you opponent didnt go MK the first game, then he could only pick MK or go RC not both. You dont need to have the option to switch your character because you arent getting super hard countered. And unless he was actually good with MK, it would behoove him to CP a stage with his game 1 character so hes locked with the character hes actually good with.

DK may get hard counter by D3, but the brilliance of this system is that the loser of the first game who countered with D3 and won game 2 gets to take **** on game 3 when you counter him with D3 counter. This means you have to think twice if you are going to bs counter.

@ Raziek: if you actually contemplate this system, it actually rewards people that actually learned to play other characters and not people who learned how to chaingrab with pika or D3. If you truly know how to pay multiple characters,ull still get a good size advantage. What this does is weed out auto-win situations in terms of a set. You gonna CP D3? you better be ready to deal game 3. Oh you went MK game 2? Well i hope you actually know how to use MK cuz your opponent is bringing out diddy or Falco.

The current system means i can either BS you with MK + RC or we MK ditto. This system means if you CP you actually have to think about it; if you actually have to know how to transverse RC; not just pick MK and do whatever. You have to actually know how to play D3, not just LOL chaingrab WIN.

Another thing, I dont understand why people hate changing the ruleset instead of banning MK. First off, MK isnt ban worthy compared to other fighters. Secondly and most important, when characters get banned its usually in a system that cant really change or it was back in the day when games couldnt be patched. We cant patch this game (stupid balanced brawl) but we have a ruleset system that if tweaked could provide a solid system for everyone to work in. As far as im concerned, you perma ban Brinstar AND put this ruleset into effect we would have a MUCH better game and a greater competitive scene.

I mean seriously, imagine Vinnie actually being able to CP RC, without fear of a pocket MK, or imagine PEOPLE ACTUALLY LEARNING HOW TO PLAY RAINBOW CRUISE BECAUSE THEY CANT JUST PULL OUT A POCKET CHARACTER! Maybe people would actually LEARN the stage isnt as bad as they think ( my boy SuSa used to take names with snake there). People learning how to actually play other characters, not just LOL CP WIN.

I really think that people need to look into this.

 

[Razmakazi]

I like this system and agree w/ everything that BAM just said (except the bit about RC not being a ******** gay piece of **** stage).

The issue I have with this though is that character auto-win match-ups like pika vs spacies, DDD vs low tiers/DK aren't a very big deal. It's really just RC and Brinstar that hold back Brawl's competitive play. The threat on Metaknight on those stages **** with the CP system and tournament scene more than anything.