Denti
Smash Master
As somebody who attends tournaments left and right, as well as somebody who hosts many tournaments, I've got quite a bit of exposure to rule sets. In my opinion regarding rule sets, there is a difference between being somebody who runs tournaments and somebody who plays in those rule sets at the tournament winning level.
If the majority of Texas smashers agree to forming a Texas Brawl Rule Set (TBRS), this thread could be a great reference material of our collective opinions for the people making the TBRS.
In the community right now there are a lot of different opinions on what the rules should be. Listed below are my opinions regarding a lot of controversial rule set questions.
Q1. What is your opinion on the metaknight ban?
A1. If anyone knows my tournament series 'Revolution', it is MK legal.
I've had a lot of influence regarding the MK ban from the video Mike Haze created; I highly recommend it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD11l3omQzM
As somebody who attends tournaments all the time, I have noticed all the metaknight mains have all started placing the same, or in some cases better with MK banned. It shouldn't go unnoticed that Infinity has beaten Illmatic, Infern, and I in a set WITH MK banned. Infinity's MK got 2-0'd by Infern the one time they played before. Also Pwii has defeated me this weekend with MK banned (though he has yet to beat me with his MK). Dojo has defeated Megafox and I with MK banned. ALSM, with MK banned, has beaten PJ and has taken me to the last game (even in finals) before.
With this in mind, why are we banning MK? The players are obviously winning with or without MK. Nobody is stealing wins solely because of this character!
Also, all the MK ban has done is make some players within the scene quit or stop trying as hard. I've noticed this particularly in the Dallas scene with Dphat and D4BA. I've also noticed Infinity has stopped training like he use to after the ban. I know some MK mains debate on whether or not to enter MK banned tournaments. With the Amarillo and Lubbock scene, (the panhandle of TX) they don't ban MK because it would kill their region. Anybody who argues that MK banned increases turnouts in Texas is wrong; it is killing some scenes. Also Kon just posted in here saying how he's stopped trying and traveling near as hard since the ban.
Q2. In your opinion, should double metaknight be allowed in doubles?
A2. This is the one character ban I agree with. After the Apex teams results, I think everyone should agree double MK is too broken. I can't think of any non-MK characters that could team together and defeat a top double MK consistently. And if there turns out to be a character or two who can compete against double MK is that all doubles should be? In other words, I think double MK literally ruins the competition in doubles.
Double MK
- has the best stage control in the game
- regains stage control easily and KEEPS IT.
- There are moments when they don't have to assist each other to stay safe . A single MK can reset any situation for himself in doubles at almost anytime.
Q3. In your opinion, what should be the legal stages?
A3.
Q4. In your opinion, how long should the timer be? (Also including the ledge-grab-limit)
A4. I think Brawl needs a 10 minute timer. We need to take a lesson from the Japanese and put a 10 minute timer to use. Now this doesn't mean that I want super long games or something, because games almost never go to time anyways. Brawl just naturally takes time. I've felt like there are some matches that I've played that required more time to end with a kill blow. I'm not saying that time outs aren't legit wins, I'm saying that Brawl is a slow game and some MUs require more time to end without a timeout.
For people who will throw data at me and say time outs rarely happen- you are forgetting one detail. People have to start running in recklessly at the last moments. Of course, very few matches actually end in a time out.
Everyone should have their own universal LGL (50). Also I think MK still needs his own LGL (35) too, as well as a rule discouraging scrooging. This is with a 10 minute timer.
Q5. In your opinion, what should a universal ruleset be?
(Tournament Organizers' Discretion versus Mandatory for Power Ranking Systems)
A5. When I first came into the scene the rule set had options in its recommendations, unlike today.
For example, which neutrals you had used to be an option.
It would be like this:
Final Destination (Neutral)
Battle field (Neutral)
Smashville (Neutral)
Yoshi's Island (Neutral)
Lylat Cruise (Neutral/Counterpick)
Pokemon Stadium 1 (Neutral/Counterpick)
Castle Siege (Neutral/Counterpick)
This means that if you wanted 5 neutrals you would have to choose 1 of the (Neutral/Counterpick) stages to be the extra neutral. Or say you wanted 7 neutrals, then you would have all of them included.
This same system goes for counter pick stages:
Delfino Plaza (Counter pick)
Halberd (Counter pick)
Frigate (Counter pick / Banned)
Rainbow Cruise (Counter pick / Banned)
Brinstar (Counter pick / Banned)
This basically states that it's the TO's decision to have certain stages as a counter pick or as banned.
I think a rule set should be flexible to the TO.
Now what I want from you! YES, YOU!! The reader!
Please post your opinions regarding questions 1-5 whether or not you agree or disagree. Also, please add references to support your arguments.
If anyone has any viable questions for discussion, I can put it up on the OP for easy viewing.
If the majority of Texas smashers agree to forming a Texas Brawl Rule Set (TBRS), this thread could be a great reference material of our collective opinions for the people making the TBRS.
In the community right now there are a lot of different opinions on what the rules should be. Listed below are my opinions regarding a lot of controversial rule set questions.
* * * * *
Q1. What is your opinion on the metaknight ban?
A1. If anyone knows my tournament series 'Revolution', it is MK legal.
I've had a lot of influence regarding the MK ban from the video Mike Haze created; I highly recommend it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD11l3omQzM
As somebody who attends tournaments all the time, I have noticed all the metaknight mains have all started placing the same, or in some cases better with MK banned. It shouldn't go unnoticed that Infinity has beaten Illmatic, Infern, and I in a set WITH MK banned. Infinity's MK got 2-0'd by Infern the one time they played before. Also Pwii has defeated me this weekend with MK banned (though he has yet to beat me with his MK). Dojo has defeated Megafox and I with MK banned. ALSM, with MK banned, has beaten PJ and has taken me to the last game (even in finals) before.
With this in mind, why are we banning MK? The players are obviously winning with or without MK. Nobody is stealing wins solely because of this character!
Also, all the MK ban has done is make some players within the scene quit or stop trying as hard. I've noticed this particularly in the Dallas scene with Dphat and D4BA. I've also noticed Infinity has stopped training like he use to after the ban. I know some MK mains debate on whether or not to enter MK banned tournaments. With the Amarillo and Lubbock scene, (the panhandle of TX) they don't ban MK because it would kill their region. Anybody who argues that MK banned increases turnouts in Texas is wrong; it is killing some scenes. Also Kon just posted in here saying how he's stopped trying and traveling near as hard since the ban.
Q2. In your opinion, should double metaknight be allowed in doubles?
A2. This is the one character ban I agree with. After the Apex teams results, I think everyone should agree double MK is too broken. I can't think of any non-MK characters that could team together and defeat a top double MK consistently. And if there turns out to be a character or two who can compete against double MK is that all doubles should be? In other words, I think double MK literally ruins the competition in doubles.
Double MK
- has the best stage control in the game
- regains stage control easily and KEEPS IT.
- There are moments when they don't have to assist each other to stay safe . A single MK can reset any situation for himself in doubles at almost anytime.
Q3. In your opinion, what should be the legal stages?
A3.
I think the counter pick system is too broken. I understand that it is supposed to be a "counter", but sometimes winning game 1 is too important, especially regarding MK. For example, this weekend Pwii beat me on game 3 by pressuring me to choose between two poisons, GaW on Brinstar or ICs on FD, probably the strongest counter picks anyone might have to face. I think Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar are too broken, period, also MK dominates on these stages to the point where they get easy wins. Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar shouldn't be legal."If there is anything stealing the wins, it's the stages." -ALSM
Q4. In your opinion, how long should the timer be? (Also including the ledge-grab-limit)
A4. I think Brawl needs a 10 minute timer. We need to take a lesson from the Japanese and put a 10 minute timer to use. Now this doesn't mean that I want super long games or something, because games almost never go to time anyways. Brawl just naturally takes time. I've felt like there are some matches that I've played that required more time to end with a kill blow. I'm not saying that time outs aren't legit wins, I'm saying that Brawl is a slow game and some MUs require more time to end without a timeout.
For people who will throw data at me and say time outs rarely happen- you are forgetting one detail. People have to start running in recklessly at the last moments. Of course, very few matches actually end in a time out.
Everyone should have their own universal LGL (50). Also I think MK still needs his own LGL (35) too, as well as a rule discouraging scrooging. This is with a 10 minute timer.
Q5. In your opinion, what should a universal ruleset be?
(Tournament Organizers' Discretion versus Mandatory for Power Ranking Systems)
A5. When I first came into the scene the rule set had options in its recommendations, unlike today.
For example, which neutrals you had used to be an option.
It would be like this:
Final Destination (Neutral)
Battle field (Neutral)
Smashville (Neutral)
Yoshi's Island (Neutral)
Lylat Cruise (Neutral/Counterpick)
Pokemon Stadium 1 (Neutral/Counterpick)
Castle Siege (Neutral/Counterpick)
This means that if you wanted 5 neutrals you would have to choose 1 of the (Neutral/Counterpick) stages to be the extra neutral. Or say you wanted 7 neutrals, then you would have all of them included.
This same system goes for counter pick stages:
Delfino Plaza (Counter pick)
Halberd (Counter pick)
Frigate (Counter pick / Banned)
Rainbow Cruise (Counter pick / Banned)
Brinstar (Counter pick / Banned)
This basically states that it's the TO's decision to have certain stages as a counter pick or as banned.
I think a rule set should be flexible to the TO.
* * * * *
Now what I want from you! YES, YOU!! The reader!
Please post your opinions regarding questions 1-5 whether or not you agree or disagree. Also, please add references to support your arguments.
If anyone has any viable questions for discussion, I can put it up on the OP for easy viewing.