Why wouldn't this rule set work?

[z00ted]

Thanks for expanding and explaining better on some things I've already hit.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

what does having a smaller post count have to do with anything? just because I recently got my account doesn't mean that I haven't been in the smash scene longer that most of the people that are here. The first day that I got my account, I posted something up and someone who thinks like you, told me that I was wrong. That same day, I proved that he was wrong and I posted up a bunch of information that was previously unknown.

It has a lot to do with anything. I was pointing out your inexperience with the forums. When you come on here with a low post count and post an insane argument, you are more likely to be a n00b.

Now let's say you had a low post count and posted a THOUGHT-OUT argument that you actually had evidence for. I wouldn't have posted that would I?

It isn't bias, it is logic. Numerous n00bs have low post counts. I don't see why that assumption cannot be used given all of the things you have said.

Hey, with your logic we might as well elect some random guy as Prime Minister. Just because he has never been in politics doesn't mean he won't completely destroy the country.


Also, good explanation Flayl!

 

[Mr.-0]

Clearly Flayl has no understanding of the current metagame. Dumbledore is a HUGE counter on Voldemort because Voldemorts side B cannot compaer with Dumbuldores. In addition, Dumbledores CG on Voldemort makes the matchup an easy 85-15.

Joking aside, I agree with Flayl, Illmatic, and everyone else saying what they've been saying.

 

[Blacknight99923]

I personally perfer this method

In the current rulest I have the problem of wanting to counterpick RC or brinstar as marth, however Because they get to chose their character AFTER the stage selection I would very likely have to fight MK on these stages which would realistically be counterpicking ME.

The loser should be given a clear advantage on his counter pick not be put in a situation that screws him over.
For example take me and vatobreak (we haven't played in a set) he uses MK and diddy and I use marth and snake
he beats me game 1 with metaknight. and knowing I will probably switch to snake and go halberd he bans halberd. so know I can't counterpick FD (the stage with the best shot of me beating MK) because I will AGAIN be counterpicked by diddy if I go here.

abiet that example relied on us knowing each others characters it still illustrates the point that the current ruleset can give to much advantage to the winner due to MK breaking the current CP system. At the very least THIS method does not break the counterpicking system since you know what your opponent will pick

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The best situation would be to give no player an advantage somehow.
I'm sure many people:

1. Win the first game.
2. Lose the second.
3. Win the third.

Due to counter-picking.

We need a system where it is determined more by skill than characters/stages. But Smash is a difficult game for rulings like that.

 

[moomoomamoo]

Going back to the example Illmatic provided (Ultimate Razer and Illmatic). Assuming Razer beats Illmatic, Razer is at a far worse position if he picks Snake again because of both the stage sucks for him and other character has a better MU. Illmatic said that in our current rule set, Razer can just side MK when the stage becomes clear that it would be a bad for snake. Your response was that with your rule set, Razer should just pick MK anyways.

This logic doesn't work! With your ruleset, picking snake will always mean a bad MU when his opponent counterpicks. With the current ruleset, picking snake (after the stages are set) doesn't have to be a bad MU. This means that the winning player will have much more options in our current ruleset than your ruleset. Players need to be able to know what stages are being picked first before picking a character because when they are being counterpicked against, there are at least 2 stages that don't work against them, and there are always a character that has a better MU (other then... MK... maybe).

It should be obvious that your ruleset favors the loser much more than the current one. The argument should be clear on whether or not this idea of counterpick should be allowed. That being, should the match be as close to fair as possible during counterpicks, or should the winner be forced to have very small options during counterpicks. If you believe that the winner should always have some kind of options, our current ruleset makes more sense. If you believe that the winner should be limited and forced to have a disadvantage during the loser's counterpicks, your ruleset makes more sense.

Personally I believe that the sets should always be as close to fair as possible and have as many options as possible; which is why I don't believe your ruleset works.

tl;dr: Your ruleset makes it almost impossible for the winner to have a fair MU during the loser counterpick by making characters like snake having to always come to his first or second worst stages, and having to fight one of his worser MUs like dedede. The current ruleset makes the winner have much more options to avoid both a stage disadvantage and a bad MU at the same time.

 

[z00ted]

Thanks for just explaining furthermore how this ruleset does not work lol.

 

[UltimateRazer]

Why me?! And stage/character is not an issue for me since I ban the one I don't want to go to.

 

[z00ted]

Briiiinstaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ;D

 

[SaveMeJebus]

the old rule set favors players who main more than one character. With the old rule set, players who main only one character are put in a situation in which they might get countered in their own counter pick. most people would say that thats the players fault for only maining one character. I don't think that someone should have to pick up a character just because his character doesn't do well against a few characters in some stages. with my rule set, the player gets a chance to see what character the opponent is going to choose before he chooses his stage.This way, he can make a better decision on what stage to choose


at Flayl I think that was a bad example as the DK player is basically skrewed in both scenarios. DK(and I am sorry to say this) is ****ed no matter what rule set you use

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Because neutrals are intensive counterpicks for certain characters and instead we should add stages to make aerial based characters have an even better advantage when they were initially already a nuisance! Then we can claim that the characters were not better off suited for competitive play in the first place, yay.

DUH

(sarcasm but realistically the truth)

**** smashboards.

Yes, because starters are intensive counterpicks for certain characters, and because handing diddy, ICs, and falco a counterpick game one is going directly against the function of game one-a level (this does not mean FD) playing field.

Why would he be afraid of Grindelwald, he can just CP Dumbledore.

I'd be careful of dumbledore, Snape has a really nasty grab release OHKO on him.

<****>

Lock plz

Oh...

1. the old rule set favors players who main more than one character. With the old rule set, players who main only one character are put in a situation in which they might get countered in their own counter pick. most people would say that thats the players fault for only maining one character. I don't think that someone should have to pick up a character just because his character doesn't do well against a few characters in some stages. with my rule set, the player gets a chance to see what character the opponent is going to choose before he chooses his stage.This way, he can make a better decision on what stage to choose

Wait hang on. You don't think that the better player, the one who put time into a second character, deserves to win if his second character gets time to shine. What?

Your strategy takes ALL strategy out of counterpicking too. Like, say this snake is great on FD. He should check if his opponent has a pocket DDD If they do, then he might have to pick another character after he announces his counterpick-one that can deal with DDD. Or, maybe the opponent doesn't have a pocket DDD. Who knows. The snake has to think about a stage where he isn't only good, but his bad matchups are lousy (unless he knows he's facing a player like most top players who only ever use one character).

 

[DaomarIsBear]

double post whoops.

 

[DaomarIsBear]

At BCP, if having a 5-stage starter list helped ICs, Falco, and Diddy against MK thus helping to over all balance the top tiers, shouldn't you be for it?

 

[z00ted]

This thread's virginity is offically lost.

 

[DaomarIsBear]

This thread's virginity is offically lost.

Lol, if we really want this thing closed, it's going to have to devolve into an MK discussion.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

the old rule set favors players who main more than one character. With the old rule set, players who main only one character are put in a situation in which they might get countered in their own counter pick. most people would say that thats the players fault for only maining one character. I don't think that someone should have to pick up a character just because his character doesn't do well against a few characters in some stages. with my rule set, the player gets a chance to see what character the opponent is going to choose before he chooses his stage.This way, he can make a better decision on what stage to choose


at Flayl I think that was a bad example as the DK player is basically skrewed in both scenarios.

Why shouldn't a player who mains more than one character get an advantage?

That's like if you had an olympic runner who was also an olympic swimmer, and after winning the running event they just said "Nope, you've had your share. No swimming events for you".

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Why shouldn't a player who mains more than one character get an advantage?

That's like if you had an olympic runner who was also an olympic swimmer, and after winning the running event they just said "Nope, you've had your share. No swimming events for you".

I disagree with this completely. How hard is it to tilt lock wolf or fox with sheik? how hard is it to chain grab DK with wario(I could go on with these)? Do these people really deserve these wins when they use these characters for those reasons alone?

 

[DaomarIsBear]

I disagree with this completely. How hard is it to tilt lock wolf or fox with sheik? how hard is it to chain grab DK with wario? Do these people really deserve these wins when they use these characters for those reasons alone?

Yes. Welcome to competitive gaming.

 

[z00ted]

More like welcome to Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Yes. Welcome to competitive gaming.

The point I was trying to make was that I would rather use a rule set that helps out an honest player who wants to get his main to the highest level possible than to use a rule set to help someone out that just wants an easy win

 

[DaomarIsBear]

And the point that I was trying to make is that a win is a win, and that's all that matters.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

And the point that I was trying to make is that a win is a win, and that's all that matters.

and that's the difference between me and you. I care about advancing the metagame and all you care about is winning

 

[z00ted]

Lol you and your "the difference about me and yous"

Look - this game is competitive MONEY IS INVOLVED.
I would love if your ruleset would be incorporated into Brawl but it won't.

Cause Metaknight da bess.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

lol you and your "This is the last time I post heres"
I know money is involved but does that mean that everyone should just pick MK and time every body out?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

At BCP, if having a 5-stage starter list helped ICs, Falco, and Diddy against MK thus helping to over all balance the top tiers, shouldn't you be for it?

EC is still the most MK-dominated region.
And it's less "balancing the top tiers" and more "handing certain top tiers a big fat unwarranted advantage". We aren't allowed to nerf MK, why are we artificially buffing these guys by handing them two counterpicks per round?

 

[DaomarIsBear]

Lolol, BPC, I didn't realize this would happen. Let's keep this discussion in one thread.

 

[Flayl]

The point I was trying to make was that I would rather use a rule set that helps out an honest player who wants to get his main to the highest level possible than to use a rule set to help someone out that just wants an easy win

Your ruleset doesn't do this.

 

[AvaricePanda]

The point I was trying to make was that I would rather use a rule set that helps out an honest player who wants to get his main to the highest level possible than to use a rule set to help someone out that just wants an easy win

Like Flayl said, your ruleset doesn't do this.

Your ruleset gives people their worst counterpick and their second worst stage. Yes, the winner gets to know what stage to ban, but any character that does bad or mediocre on more than one stage (which is pretty much every character) doesn't get many benefits from that, at least not enough that offsets the loser's ability to strong CP you.

This makes mid-low tiers even less viable, because in your system, since I know what character you're going, I can CP your worst character and your second worst counterpick. In the current system, I can CP a bad counterpick for you or good counterpick for me, yet you have the option of switching to a better character on the stage. I then have the option of switching characters, but if I switch to a character that beats whatever character you pick, at least you're not on a horrible stage for your character.

For example, let's say I'm a Snake player against an opponent's Diddy. In the current system, let's say I lose game 1 and CP Halberd, and you switch to a pocket Fox. Now I can stay Snake, but my advantage isn't as good as if you stayed Diddy. If I tried to be "dishonest" and CP Fox's worst match-ups (ICs, Pika, Sheik) they wouldn't be as effective because Halberd is one of Fox's best stages.

However in your system, say I lose game 1. You have to then tell what character you're going before I do. So if you decide to go Fox, I can decide to go say ICs. Now since you know I'm going ICs, sure you can ban FD but I'm still taking you to BF and SV. If you decide to stay Diddy, I can stick with Snake, and go to Halberd (or maybe SV or Frigate or somewhere if you ban Halberd). OR because I know you're sticking with Diddy, I can be "dishonest" again and pick MK and CP Brinstar or RC.

Your system makes it easier to be "dishonest" and CP not only hard character counterpicks but bad stage counterpicks as well.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

that wouldn't happen because both of those stages would never be allowed at the same time with my rule set. In my opinion, characters like DDD and MK make it so that you are basically ****ed for counterpicking the wrong stage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

that wouldn't happen because both of those stages would never be allowed at the same time with my rule set. In my opinion, characters like DDD and MK make it so that you are basically ****ed for counterpicking the wrong stage.

So wait.

1. You'd change the rules to make it more impractical for lower tiers.
2. You'd ban stages to make the rules work
3. You'd consider this an improvement

Folks, I think we're done here.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

how would it make it impractical for low tiers? A character like link is going to have bad MUs no matter what the rule set is. In fact I think this rule set helps out low tiers. lets say I just main link and I won my first match. Since I only main link, the first rule doesn't effect me because I only main link. Whoever my opponent chooses to use against me is completely up to him and all I can do is wait for him to choose his character so I can ban his best stage and then we can have our match. with your rule set, I only get too see the stage that we are going to play on. This means that I have no clue as to how badly I am going to get countered on that specific stage. My rule set makes It so that you can know what character your opponent is going to choose against you before you choose what stage to ban.

I think that our discussions are focused too much on our opponents choosing the right character for the right situation. If I am playing a player like M2K and I choose too take him to Delfino for some crazy reason, I don't think he would switch to DDD just because it would be a better MU. What I am trying to say is that with both of our rule sets, just because our opponents have a chance to counter pick our characters, it doesn't mean they will. However I do think that it is a lot easier to **** someone over once the stage has been selected than is before the stage is selected. This is because a lot of the MUs in brawl are vary stage dependent. Characters like Diddy kong, Falco, DDD, MK G&W and snake to name just a few are characters that come to mind when you think of stage dependent MUs.

 

[UzakiuzuG]

A while ago I posted up a change in the rule set that might make the entire rule set better. My idea was to change the rules 5, 6 and 7 around and and have them in this order:

5. winner chooses his character
6. loser chooses his character
7. winner bans a stage
8. loser chooses a stage.

I had a lot of people tell me that this rule set was dumb and that it favors the player who loses the match. I gave them examples on how this rule set change was in some cases, better than the regular rules we have and I also told them to put up examples about why this rule set doesn't work. Then they just kept repeating themselves over again without giving me any examples. Now, all I ask of you guys is to tell me what you think of this change and to give me some examples of why this change works or doesn't work.

keep in mind that in order for this rule set to work, we also have change the stage list to this:

Neutrals:
FD
Battlefield
Yoshi's Island
Smashville
PS1/Lylat cruise

Counter picks:
PS1/Lylat cruise
Frigate orpheon
Delphino plaza
Halderd
Castle siege
Brinstar/Rainbow cruise(one or the other. Never both at the same time)

This stage list means that no character will have more that one good(broken) stage and It will be fair for all the characters.

This wouldn't work at all, I mean If the guy loses all he has to do is pick pika at least know how to be somewhat good and CG if he chooses Fox. So pretty much it would be a free win fo rthe loser.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

This wouldn't work at all, I mean If the guy loses all he has to do is pick pika at least know how to be somewhat good and CG if he chooses Fox. So pretty much it would be a free win fo rthe loser.

what is stopping that from happening with the regular rule set?

 

[Mr.-0]

Lol, you don't know much about Brawl, do you?

Okay, so I main Ice Climbers (just to get away from harry potter). My opponent mains MK. I beat him in the first match and decide to main Ice Climbers again. After all, I killed his MK and he mained MK. Why wouldn't I pick Ice Climbers again? Now he picks Snake. Uh-oh. I ban RC, since so many Snakes do well on that stage and I don't. It's terrible for CGing too. Now he picks Brinstar. Even though he doesn't like that stage too much, if he stays to the ground and plays it right, he can still camp and beat me. He know has the advantage. And he switched characters. Your ruleset did the opposite thing you said it would do. Owned.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Lol, you don't know much about Brawl, do you?

Okay, so I main Ice Climbers (just to get away from harry potter). My opponent mains MK. I beat him in the first match and decide to main Ice Climbers again. After all, I killed his MK and he mained MK. Why wouldn't I pick Ice Climbers again? Now he picks Snake. Uh-oh. I ban RC, since so many Snakes do well on that stage and I don't. It's terrible for CGing too. Now he picks Brinstar. Even though he doesn't like that stage too much, if he stays to the ground and plays it right, he can still camp and beat me. He know has the advantage. And he switched characters. Your ruleset did the opposite thing you said it would do. Owned.

you obviously did not read what I said. In my rule set brinstar and rainbow cruise should never be on the stage list at the same time. It's one or the other. It's up there on UzakiuzuG's quote in case you don't believe me. Owned

 

[Grim Tuesday]

you obviously did not read what I said. In my rule set brinstar and rainbow cruise should never be on the stage list at the same time. It's one or the other. It's up there on UzakiuzuG's quote in case you don't believe me. Owned

Riddle me this. Why should we limit the number of stages we can play on JUST to make your ruleset work?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I already talked about this. You can ask any pro player and they will agree that most of the stages that are on the MLG rule set are dumb/ broken.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I already talked about this. You can ask any pro player and they will agree that most of the stages that are on the MLG rule set are dumb/ broken.

And that was already responded too. The MLG stage-list is completely fair, some people just hate losing and were annoyed that because they didn't know the stage they lost. Their fault.

 

[sunshade]

SaveMe you are trying to suggest a change to the current system. Before you make a suggestion you need to first identify a flaw with the current system. Once you identify that flaw you may then suggest your system but while suggesting it you must provide reasons to why it solves the issue and why its better then other possible solutions.

Please read this.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

^Ditto....