The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Gifts]

Haters gonna hate

 

[Ussi]

CPing what you banned just sounds like a dirty play. But we have pocket MKs, so this is a moot point.

Whateves, play to win so to speak, just adding a stage CP mindgame. Just be ready for anything.

 

[Gifts]

Why does how many people make it matter? If both players know don't want to go to RCruise, they can both ban it, but that's not the problem I'm seeing.

Why should I not be allowed to play on a stage banned because I didn't want to be CPed there? It can make a HUGE difference depending on whether or not I have the second character selection.

The last line is complete bull**** because generally accepted is a vague term that apparently doesn't apply to anywhere I've traveled in the Southeast or the one tournament I attended while in CO. Not only that, but saying that it is does absolutely nothing to explain WHY it is.

When you say i ban x stage. It is suppose to be banned for the entire set. That is how i always enterpreted the rule and that is how i have always seen the rule played out. Did you ever think that the people you where playing didnt call you out on it because they either didnt know or didnt have the balls to call you out on it?

 

[Ussi]

They probably didn't care enough to give a damn

 

[Gifts]

They probably didn't care enough to give a damn

Possibly but it still seems lime a really cheap thing to do to try and win a set. :/

Ryker, if you check the rules in set procedure you can see that when you ban a stage neither player can select the stage.

 

[Ussi]

I'll say the only reason saying its cheap is not scrubish is because its not in the game :x


Anyways, we need some clarity on whether CPing your own stage ban would be allowed or not oh BBR-RC~

Personally i can think of reasons for both sides :x

 

[Gifts]

I'll say the only reason saying its cheap is not scrubish is because its not in the game :x


Anyways, we need some clarity on whether CPing your own stage ban would be allowed or not oh BBR-RC~

Personally i can think of reasons for both sides :x

Wait am i just blind or does it say in the op that

any stage named as a "stage ban" may not be selected by either team

Or its something alomg the lines of that. Rule 8 under set procedue.

 

[Ussi]

Oh then nvm me~ i'd rather the rule there too

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

And still no response to why it's there.

 

[Zankoku]

Probably because it is the most widely accepted interpretation of a personal stage ban?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Here in Mexico has always been "ban a stage for the next match", not the entire set...

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Probably because it is the most widely accepted interpretation of a personal stage ban?

Okay, so the most widely accepted interpretation apparently has no specific reasoning to back it? I don't care if that is, in fact the rule, I can cope with it, but I do want to know why it is the rule as it would make more sense to me to have it apply to only the next match.

 

[Zankoku]

Possibly to save time and simplify rules?

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

The fact that I can hold this conversation right now means that it wastes time. And why does simplifying rules even apply here?

 

[Zankoku]

The fact that I can hold this conversation right now means that it wastes time.

The last time I attempted to invoke "CPing your own ban" there was a good 5-minute period of "you can DO that?" Anything can be questioned, especially since it's a set of rules that take place outside of the actual gameplay. Your point is irrelevant with regards to time wasted.

And why does simplifying rules even apply here?

You act like I am the final authority on everything the RC's writing even though I actually have zero say in it. I'm under the impression that simplifying rules is good for growth of the tournament community because new players don't have to spend as much time familiarizing themselves with it then.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

The last time I attempted to invoke "CPing your own ban" there was a good 5-minute period of "you can DO that?" Anything can be questioned, especially since it's a set of rules that take place outside of the actual gameplay. Your point is irrelevant with regards to time wasted.

You just cited an example of wasted time. Wasted time was your point to begin with.

You act like I am the final authority on everything the RC's writing even though I actually have zero say in it. I'm under the impression that simplifying rules is good for growth of the tournament community because new players don't have to spend as much time familiarizing themselves with it then.

Simplifying them at the cost of clarity is certainly not better.

I'm not upholding you as the final authority or else I would be gone by now. I don't hang around here too often. However, I do see you posting things aimed at me that I don't see having any relevance to my original question.

 

[DMG]

Clarity? What's more clearer than "I ban this stage for the remainder of the set. Neither of us can use it"?

 

[Zankoku]

What's not clear? I'm pretty sure

Any Stage named as a "Stage Ban" by the either Team may not be selected.

is rather easy to understand.

I don't quite remember your original question, but the one I had happened upon was asking for why a rule that was already given in the ruleset was the way it was. Well, given that the title applied is Unity, and it's trying to reach as close of an unbiased compromise between the various regions of the country as it can...

There are plenty of rules that are implemented without specific reasoning, other than "this is what by far the majority plays by." It is therefore somewhat odd to ask for why something is the way it is, and respond to that reasoning with "nuh uh, this is how WE do it over here!" and then claim that it is invalid and ask for more. If you would like the rules to be changed, I think the burden would be on you to cite the potential improvements of not just deviating from, but outright altering the standard. Normally, just being something different would be fine if there were people who preferred it, but in this case your rule adds an extra layer of complexity to how a (>ft2-game) set plays out - a player must announce a ban between each game of a set, rather than only once per set, so there'll have to be some actual real benefit there, as well, rather than "well it makes more sense to me to do it this way."

 

[Reizilla]

"You can't counterpick this stage against me."

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

The point of the counterpick system is to limit the amount of "what-if" situations. If you main Ice Climbers, you probably don't want Rainbow Cruise legal, for fear that someone will just jump around for eight minutes. If you have Meta Knight to deal with Rainbow Cruise, then why ban it? Pocket characters are supposed to be to ensure that you don't get lamed out in such situations.

The idea that it benefits the game comes from the fact that it causes people to think about where the opponent would most benefit, as well as how much you would benefit on such stages. Like, if you have a character that doesn't do well against Meta Knight (which is very common), but you have a pocket Game and Watch, you might not mind Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise as much. You have to think about what potential assets of your opponent's would be messed up by losing a stage, as well as your potential liabilities. It prevents it from being as simple as "Of course I'll ban -this- stage against your main," and it makes counterpicking take more thought in general.

This is the only reason for it I could fathom and Reflex said it when I brought it up in the Alabama social.

The problem with this is that, yes, it does encourage more strategic thought for one side. However, it means there is a less strategic decision to be made in the second stage ban. I would figure you would want CPing to benefit the player who lost as opposed to the player who won, so I'm still looking for the explanation of why it's better.

The subject has never been broached where I can see a conclusion being made, so the burden of proof falls equally.

 

[Zankoku]

What exactly is the "second stage ban"? Does that mean you're banning a second stage and both stages are no longer selectable, or only the most recent? If it is the former, then that benefits the winner even more than ever. If it is the latter, it's still benefiting the winner - the only time a second stage ban would be relevant would be an ft3 set or greater, and in the case of an ft3, the one who has most recently won suddenly has the option of changing his ban based on having more information on the opponent's play. In the case of there being no more information than before, there is no change and the previous stage remains banned, but there is still that extra layer of complexity.

So, I'm really confused as to where you're getting the benefits of your system from.

Again, the burden of proof doesn't quite apply to something that's already a widespread standard when you're the one trying to change it. Advocates for going down to 2-stock games discuss the potential benefits compared to the current norm - they don't start with "why do you play on 3-stock?"

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The winner is always going to benefit from winning. Not only is he that much closer to winning, but he also gets to choose the last stage they get to play on if he loses on his opponent's counter pick. I don't really even understand the counter pick system. Why would you want to give an advantage to a player that lost his match? An extra ban would make the counter pick stage much more even. In longer sets, it gives players the option to either ban the stage that their opponent won on or ban two worse stages.

A player gets two bans for their first win and an extra ban for each additional win. This rule is simple and it works.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The point, IIRC, is to create comeback scenarios, but... well, why do we have a CP system, again? Is it to promote stage diversity? If so, two bans and DSR should suffice for that. Do any other fighting games use counterpicking? Is it actually necessary for anything? Or is it just tradition, a relic that we've carried over from previous SSB metagames (like, considering FD a "starter")?

 

[-Ran]

Street Fighter 4 uses character counter-picking.

 

[Zankoku]

Pretty much all traditional fighters follow the "arcade" style of counterpicking, where the winner is forced to stay his character and the loser can reselect.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

two stage bans balances out the cp system. Players can still have a strong counter pick even after a player bans two stages. Not only that but they still get to choose their character after their opponents.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, and so, why is our CP system different from every other game's system? What is the use, benefit, or need to have a different CP system from every other fighter? These are honest questions, btw.

 

[san.]

2 stage bans seem nice, but it only makes sense to implement if we have more stages than are currently allowed.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

2 stage bans seem nice, but it only makes sense to implement if we have more stages than are currently allowed.

Legalize Japes

 

[MK26]

@Jack: odes every other fighter have different stages you can play on?

 

[Ghostbone]

@Jack: odes every other fighter have different stages you can play on?

Yes

Spoiler

Different backgrounds ftw

 

[Jack Kieser]

@Jack: odes every other fighter have different stages you can play on?

Not the point, MK. What I am asking for is justification, not because I think it doesn't exist or because I think it's somehow wrong, but just so everyone in the discussion is on the same page. And, well, if we can't come up with the justification in the first place...

...that's tells us information, too. So, don't be smarmy and answer the question properly. Like I said, the questions I'm asking are serious questions, and I'm asking them for a reason.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Not the point, MK. What I am asking for is justification, not because I think it doesn't exist or because I think it's somehow wrong, but just so everyone in the discussion is on the same page. And, well, if we can't come up with the justification in the first place...

...that's tells us information, too. So, don't be smarmy and answer the question properly. Like I said, the questions I'm asking are serious questions, and I'm asking them for a reason.

It's different from every other game because we need a way to decide which stage to play on. Most other fighting games either do not have different terrains (Street Fighter, TvC, etc.) or don't make it very far (Tekken 4, anyone?). Smash is one of the few remaining, and we needed a way to decide where to play. Stage counterpicking seemed like a fairly logical extension of the counterpicking system present in other games. Alternative systems were really not explored until the current system had established itself fairly thoroughly.

(Hmm, how does Soul Calibur deal with it?)

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Soul Calibur uses counter-picking iirc.

The loser gets to pick the next stage.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, from a quick and dirty survey of upcoming SCIV tournament rules, it seems like they don't really care about stages; it's either "players agree on a stage" or "random stage". That's just what I'm seeing from a quick search, though, so I may be wrong.

Ok, so, we have character CPs because everyone else does, and we have stage CPs so that we can decide on stages better? Is that really it?

 

[DMG]

Our CP system is different from other fighting games because of 2 reasons:

1. We have numerous, different stages/terrains to chose from that have clear, distinguishable features that can broadly make an impact on gameplay/MU's/etc. Hence, we have stage CPing.

2. Because we have different stages/terrains to chose from, the ability to choose a stage/terrain that's extremely bad for the opponent WHILE also saying they cannot switch characters would give an incredibly significant (and arguable unwarranted or undesirable) advantage, so we seek to minimize that by giving the opponent the chance to switch once the stage is selected.


Other fighting games tend to not have different stages, and the ones that do tend to not impact gameplay as significantly and as broadly as Smash stages. We have so many factors and features that can vary from stage to stage as opposed to say SC. Edges, platforms, uneven terrain, hazards, blast zone sizes, etc. That's why our CP system is different, because our game is different and if we adopted a CP system like other fighting games we would either end up not using most other stages (Play on FD/starter throughout the whole set, winner has to stay character loser gets to switch) or we would give an even stronger advantage to the person CPing (you win first game. I CP RC/Brinstar/other stage, you HAVE to stay character and I get to switch)

 

[Jack Kieser]

Quick question, then, DMG:

Other games have CP'ing that locks the winner's character and lets the loser switch. Our stages are diverse, so we have loser pick stage, as well. You said that we could either have a CP system where one player is locked into character and the other chooses both a new character AND next stage, or one where the loser picks stage and could possibly get an advantageous character pick.

I'm not saying we should, but theoretically, would a CP system where the loser chooses either the next stage OR a new character (but not both) and the winner is character locked either way be a viable system?

After all, it would be less complex and be more accessible, both by new players and by people of other fighting game communities. Just asking a hypothetical (so no one blow up on me).

 

[Bizkit047]

DMG pretty much summed it up perfectly. Those CP systems would be far too unfair for this game. CPing should never be considered near free wins IMO. Our current CP system rewards players who know more than one character. If you learned a secondary to pick up a bad stage/MU for your main, you deserve to switch to that character. Stages just interfere with MUs too much to force people into potential unwinnable MUs. Of course MK sort of breaks the CP system, but in general you don't CP a stage unless you're fully prepared to deal with pocket characters that are good on that stage. In some cases players purposely try to force out the pocket characters, which is a legit tactic.

 

[Reizilla]

Hurry up and add more stages. I have a lot of custom music I want to use.

 

[DMG]

Eh, I could see that system with some nasty situations. Mostly for larger sets. I think it gives the CPing player more of an advantage if the opponent does not play MK, and much less of an advantage if the other guy plays MK. Your system limits people to where MK is not only the best choice because he's good on most stages, BUT because of the stipulation that you cannot switch if you wanna switch stages, which is something you'd like to do against MK to avoid his CP over and over and over lol. While our current system lets people pick RC, see the character select, and go MK, it also gives the other guy a fair chance to switch to something. Being able to switch when your opponent CP's a stage is GREAT for non MK characters because, well chances are the stage they picked is gonna suck for your character or for that MU.


1. Say under regular rules, I win game 1 while he is MK. Opponent picks RC and wants to stay MK. I can at least try to go MK/Wario/another character and hope I win. Then, if I lose that game, I can take him to a starter/more neutral stage and switch to the appropriate character.

2. Say under your rules, I win game 1 while he is MK. He picks RC and I'm stuck with character. I probably get *****. Now, unless I have a strong RC character, I'm probably not gonna stay there. So I pick a different stage. But here I might not have the character I want, since I picked him originally for Game 1 where there were a multitude of possibilities (double blind, opponent plays other characters, MK is locked in for Game 3, etc) and now maybe I don't want Falco vs MK on BF. Maybe I want Snake or Marth or Olimar.


Or say I lose to the guy who goes MK round 1. He probably will stay MK for game 2 even if the switch rule wasn't there. But now I can't switch to try and counter him. I can pick a different stage, but MK's good on most stages. I can pick a different character to counter him on that starter, but what happens when he CP's me to Frigate RC Brinstar etc and I'm stuck with that character? Now I'm boned even harder than under regular rules.



TL:DR

Your system would shift character usage more towards MK because he becomes a stronger/safer choice due to not being able to switch. It would also lead to situations where people who win Game 1 might be at more of a disadvantage than the other guy simply because they get stuck on a janky CP stage against a strong character and can only remedy either the stage or their own character choice. And if that scenario occurs, leading off with MK solves it since winning Game 1 with MK means you get a CP that they can't switch characters on.

Even with stages like RC and Brinstar gone, MK would still be used prominently in that system to avoid scenarios where say you go to FD by countering Diddy with Falco, only to have his IC's come out and **** your Falco, when you could have just stayed MK and taken the characters to Delfino or Frigate or whatever, and they can't turn and counter your counter with another counter.