A Random Ruleset

[Grim Tuesday]

Well it's mentioned nowhere that drought matters either. The % matters more as it's actually mentioned in the game.

Well, that is soooooooooooooooo legit.

Just kidding, props on digging that up.

Honestly, it hardly makes a difference. And if this way is better than the percentage way, I don't think that this should be the deciding factor.

 

[Browny]

hahaha... nice user title grim

 

[Damix91]

Percentage isn't any more viable than Drought Time when it comes to determining who should win, you should stop suggesting it is.[/QUOTE]


Drought Time just reverses the situation, people get hit then plank. Also changes the whole dynamic of Brawl. People who are hit by the opponent are now at an advantage. Should projectile characters have to re-learn the metagames because projectile camping becomes obselete when it means your opponent is at an advantage and doesn't need to approach. A huge disadvantage compared to reducing planking potential. Still can't see why everyone can't just have an MK only LGL. He's the only broken planker and he can't be planked effectively by anyone else.

So... Why can't you do this with our current rule? Your making it seem like Puff is un-touchable once she starts planking, which, if the case, would obviously be a problem right now.

Assuming she can still be hit, you have TEN MINUTES to try and KO her. Doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem for any viable character.

Take the Jiggly example away and just put MK back. Going offstageto chase MK for over 3/4's of the cast is extremely risky. He can gimp you and then the rule plays no importance because he is a stock up.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Fair enough, I expected there was something wrong with the rule, that's why I posted it here for critique.

Now then, does anyone have opinions on the Set Format? Ghostbone designed it and I couldn't see any real, major faults with it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh, and **** you BPC. I realize that it makes you feel better about yourself when you constantly reply to everything I say with "This is stupid, and because I am trying to sound condescending, I won't explain why", but you aren't helping anyone.

Neither are you. This has nothing to do with stages. Things like the stagelist and the drought time limit are going to make people group you in as a "stage kook"; I'm trying to distance myself from that. You want to know why it's stupid? You're tinkering with rules that have no place being tinkered with. Drought time rule? Seriously? That's not a smart idea; it's been explained why. And the stagelist is enough to make most people ignore it.

 

[ぱみゅ]

He's somewhat right, in the sense it could've been posted here.

Now, personally, I do not think the Drought idea is bad, it is just different; and instead of being theorized as bad, I'd like someone to PROVE it bad and make me change my mind.

As a side note, BPC also was right about the stagelist being too much to be even considered for most people...

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Now, personally, I do not think the Drought idea is bad, it is just different; and instead of being theorized as bad, I'd like someone to PROVE it bad and make me change my mind.

Does it really matter? Every rule that is used will alter the game in some way and will favour a few characters over others.

The percentage rule has a basis in that it's used in more traditional fighters at least, if you want to stay true to Brawl play a 1 stock, 2 minute SSD or something.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Indeed. Every game-ending rule (regardless of what it is!) will change the win condition of the game. The fact that we simply can't think of one that fits better for any sensible reason than %, and that most of the others leave us with actual problems, means that % is the goto default, and there's no reason to change that massively established norm.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Does it really matter? Every rule that is used will alter the game in some way and will favour a few characters over others.

The percentage rule has a basis in that it's used in more traditional fighters at least, if you want to stay true to Brawl play a 1 stock, 2 minute SSD or something.

I asked for someone changing my mind, and you couldn't.
You attempted to mock me for liking the idea, and you couldn't either.

It matters because the percentage rule has proven to have flawls during these 3 years (the silliest and most effective camping in the entire fighters' history), but nobody seems to will on change it, mostly because most people wouldn't like to...
Yes, a new idea involves change, but changing isn't necessarily bad.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

I asked for someone changing my mind, and you couldn't.
You attempted to mock me for liking the idea, and you couldn't either.

It matters because the percentage rule has proven to have flawls during these 3 years (the silliest and most effective camping in the entire fighters' history), but nobody seems to will on change it, mostly because most people wouldn't like to...
Yes, a new idea involves change, but changing isn't necessarily bad.

It was neither my intent to change your mind, nor to mock you. I merely stated the fact that regardless of which rule you install, there will be characters that are favoured by it.
Unless you wish to favour a specific subset of characters, it doesn't really matter which one you use... of course you could argue that some rules make "more sense" than others, but it doesn't change the outcome.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I asked for someone changing my mind, and you couldn't.
You attempted to mock me for liking the idea, and you couldn't either.

It matters because the percentage rule has proven to have flawls during these 3 years (the silliest and most effective camping in the entire fighters' history), but nobody seems to will on change it, mostly because most people wouldn't like to...
Yes, a new idea involves change, but changing isn't necessarily bad.

This.

Yes, the drought idea had flaws.

But if no one suggested it, we might have been missing out on a way of determining who wins in the case of ties flawlessly.

It's like... As soon as I suggest an idea everyone suddenly thinks I'm a radical extremist out to change the rules of the game to suit myself.

I.
just.
suggest things.

 

[Tesh]

But if no one suggested it, we might have been missing out on a way of determining who wins in the case of ties flawlessly.

Nope, we wouldn't be missing out. Its a bad idea, which is why no one else suggested it while looking over the things that are measured on the results screen.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Nope, we wouldn't be missing out. Its a bad idea, which is why no one else suggested it while looking over the things that are measured on the results screen.

Why it is a bad idea, according to you:
• You can't tell who's winning as easily.
• It allows for planking, but it is more difficult than with the percentage rule.
• It allows for other kinds of stalling, but it is more difficult than with the percentage rule.

Why the percentage rule is a bad idea, according to me:
• It allows for planking.
• It allows for other kinds of stalling.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.
THAT IS SUCH A BIG DIFFERENCE.
I'M SORRY, MY SUGGESTION WAS OBVIOUSLY SO MUCH WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tesh]

But it are not more difficult, it are just different.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

But it are not more difficult, it are just different.

How?
One of them allows you to attack while stalling.
The other doesn't allow you to attack while stalling.

It's a pretty obvious, objective nerf >_>

 

[chaosmaster1991]

I wouldn't necessarily say either rule is better or worse than the other, Japan is using a different rule (I think?) and they're doing fine. The game doesn't tell us what happens in case of time-outs (it kinda does but no one likes SSD), so in the end most rules are equally "bad".
In the end it's a matter of perception when deciding which one is installed.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I wouldn't necessarily say either rule is better or worse than the other, Japan is using a different rule (I think?) and they're doing fine. The game doesn't tell us what happens in case of time-outs (it kinda does but no one likes SSD), so in the end most rules are equally "bad".
In the end it's a matter of perception when deciding which one is installed.

http://gametheorybootcamp.blogspot.com/2010/12/arguing-against-subjectivity-crafting.html

 

[chaosmaster1991]

http://gametheorybootcamp.blogspot.com/2010/12/arguing-against-subjectivity-crafting.html

Please spell out for me what exactly I'm supposed to argue against here, I'm just guessing it's about subjectivity being bad, but maybe you could specify a bit in how far that applies to the case at hand.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Please spell out for me what exactly I'm supposed to argue against here, I'm just guessing it's about subjectivity being bad, but maybe you could specify a bit in how far that applies to the case at hand.

You were using the argument that neither rule is better or worse than the other, they are both bad and different from each other, so it is subjective over which one is superior. So we should just use the more popular one. At least, that's what I've gleamed from your posts.

But if I remember correctly (haven't read it in a while), that link explains that one way WILL be objectively deeper/more competitive/etc... than the other way.

 

[Tesh]

The rules aren't equal. The percent rule is better. I just explained it to you. Don't argue just scroll back up and read it again. Your rule is a step down.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If you're talking about this post, I refuted that here.

My rule isn't clear-cut worse, it has the advantage of making camping more difficult.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

You were using the argument that neither rule is better or worse than the other, they are both bad and different from each other, so it is subjective over which one is superior. So we should just use the more popular one. At least, that's what I've gleamed from your posts.

But if I remember correctly (haven't read it in a while), that link explains that one way WILL be objectively deeper/more competitive/etc... than the other way.

In regards to most things, I believe that to be more or less correct.
However, when you look at timeout rules it is to be noted that unintentional timeouts are avoided (you increased the timer to 10 minutes for that here), so that leaves the intentional ones. As I stated earlier, regardless of what rule you use, a different subset of characters will be favoured by it and I'm pretty sure you cannot find a criteria that makes one rule objectively better than the other one(s), unless you wish to favour a specific subset of characters over others (feel free to prove me wrong).
In other words, in a void all those rules are equally good/bad, this might change when a certain goal is attached to the rule though, then you'd have to show that that goal makes the game better first though.

 

[Tesh]

Your rule makes camping more difficult my making core gameplay more difficult. I could suggest we play giant brawl. Ledge camping would be useless because everyone would just be to big to not get hit.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

In regards to most things, I believe that to be more or less correct.
However, when you look at timeout rules it is to be noted that unintentional timeouts are avoided (you increased the timer to 10 minutes for that here), so that leaves the intentional ones. As I stated earlier, regardless of what rule you use, a different subset of characters will be favoured by it and I'm pretty sure you cannot find a criteria that makes one rule objectively better than the other one(s), unless you wish to favour a specific subset of characters over others (feel free to prove me wrong).
In other words, in a void all those rules are equally good/bad, this might change when a certain goal is attached to the rule though, then you'd have to show that that goal makes the game better first though.

Alright.

The different rules will favour different characters, but assuming we take that out of the equation (as every rule, every stage, every single thing we introduce or take away from the game will do this), the rule which adds the most competitive depth to the game will be the objectively better one.

And I didn't really have a goal in mind, I just thought "hmm, here are some interesting rules, might as well put them together and see what people think".

Your rule makes camping more difficult my making core gameplay more difficult. I could suggest we play giant brawl. Ledge camping would be useless because everyone would just be to big to not get hit.

I don't see what I am making more difficult about core gameplay.

And playing Giant Brawl, while legitimate, is something that will most likely end up having less depth than our current system and will require re-writing our entire meta-game to change to it. Unlike this rule which would only result in some small meta-game changes and may end up making the game competitively deeper.

I'll say this again: I'd love if I could get some critique for Ghostbone's Set Format system.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Alright.

The different rules will favour different characters, but assuming we take that out of the equation (as every rule, every stage, every single thing we introduce or take away from the game will do this), the rule which adds the most competitive depth to the game will be the objectively better one.

And I didn't really have a goal in mind, I just thought "hmm, here are some interesting rules, might as well put them together and see what people think".

I'm assuming I got my point across and we're in agreement then.

I'll say this again: I'd love if I could get some critique for Ghostbone's Set Format system.

When I understand it right, it'd mean neither player would gain a siginficant advantage through stages, right? I dunno, when you're striking from the full list a lot of the stages seem to be superfluous. I mean, most of them won't be used anyway in that system, so you could just eliminate stages from both sides of the spectrum in order to shorten the process.
Furthermore, the counterpick system is supposed to add depth and you would remove quite a bit of that, no?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm assuming I got my point across and we're in agreement then.

Sure.

When I understand it right, it'd mean neither player would gain a siginficant advantage through stages, right? I dunno, when you're striking from the full list a lot of the stages seem to be superfluous. I mean, most of them won't be used anyway in that system, so you could just eliminate stages from both sides of the spectrum in order to shorten the process.
Furthermore, the counterpick system is supposed to add depth and you would remove quite a bit of that, no?

Yeah, every game is relatively even.

And I agree that a lot of the stages are pointless, I wanted to be safe though. Which ones do you think I should remove?

And yes, it sacrifices depth to be more even. Unlike normal striking though, this method ensures that you'll have a different stage for every match. I can't really think of any other way to maintain SOME depth while still removing counter-picking.

 

[_Dice]

Okay so i'm wading into this thread as a newbie, out of curiosity, and once i understood what the time win condition was i immediately thought it was bad. It introduces No win scenerios late in the game, it adds a unimportant barrier to entry in the scene (requiring each player to have a timer in their head that resets every time they hit/get hit does not increase skill required to win, only adding a monotonous chore to doing so).

The no win scenerios are annoying: Let's say we have two players, extremely adapt at DI and avoiding being gimped, these players take 5 minutes to have the first stock. taken off. the player who just lost their first stock now has 5 minutes to take 2 stocks from a player who is just constantly avoiding fighting. even if you drop down and immediately kill the other player, you both have only lost 1 stock, and yet you are losing, because you got the kill later (and thus will have a shorter drought if you both time out by sitting there) even though to anyone watching the game, it appears very equal. now the player who killed second HAS to kill again or will automatically lose the game. and given the skill of both players, it will be even more difficult to get that kill as it took 5 minutes to kill an opponent who is actually playing the game and not just running away.

Pretty much this drought system rewards the player who got the first stock lead, and rewards the player who spent the most of the match stalling. as opposed to the current % system which seems to impose a greater risk on the player who begins stalling sooner. It's easier to come back from a 10-20% deficit compared to a 50-70% one. where with the drought system, there is no middle ground to coming back, it's either a full stock or broke. thus rewarding stalling by reducing the risk for implementing it earlier.

It presents a situation where the best move is to avoid fighting for as long as you can. the game will at the higher levels turn into who can chase the best and who can run the best. stock one will be played out and whomever gets the stock lead now gets to run away until the opponent gets the stock lead (2 kills), who then gets to run away until the first player gets the stock lead again (2 kills). is that really preferable to the current system which clearly cuts the time it takes to get the lead back. thus making the game have many segments of chase and run after the first stock as opposed to only 2 segments?

just some thoughts from a newbie brawl player who plays other competitive games.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Eh, I'm bored of arguing that.

What do people think of the set format?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://gametheorybootcamp.blogspot.com/2010/12/arguing-against-subjectivity-crafting.html

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11848733&postcount=222

I'll see you my magnum opus and raise you an addendum.
YES, it is possible to see which is, objectively speaking, competitively better. However, demonstrate it. It's pretty obvious with, say, Pokemon Stadium 2. Or Jungle Japes. Or Green Greens. But in a case like this? No way to tell. Or rather, when you're saddled with the burden of proof because you're going against the status quo, you are ****ed. And in this case? We've presented reasons as to why it's very poor.

EDIT: Oh yeah and Dice: that is a really good post for someone who only has 6 posts.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'll see you my magnum opus and raise you an addendum.

Touche my good sir.

And I agree with BPC, good post Dice!

 

[_Dice]

Eh, I'm bored of arguing that.

What do people think of the set format?

The theory behind the Set format is that the match is played on the least objectionable stages?

Doesn't seem like there is any bad side to that competitively, however it does hurt the spectator aspect of the game. If every game is played on the least objectionable stages then by definition it is played on the most neutral stages.

I come from Starcraft 2, where the ideal in a tournament ruleset and map set is that every single match will be won by the more skilled player. we make compromises on this point for the sake of spectators, as starcraft 2 has a huge spectator following, including TV channels (in korea) coverage on the national TV station (in sweden i believe) and numerous internet streams and VoDs (video on demand, pretty much youtube'd games for brawl). So while as competitors we want the best player to win always, and thus produce games on neutral stages, and neutral rulesets, we have to adapt to gain fans, which ultimately benefit the sport by increasing viewers, which increases sponsership and advertising $$ and ultimately increasing the reach and possibility of a career with the game. It is this aspect that starcraft and starcraft 2 have beyond any other competitive game, and it is this aspect i see as the most important one for the growth of any competitive game. For instance i have a $100 supplemental income per week for 5 hours of "work" teaching starcraft 2. i am far less known than others, some players make 1000-1200 a week from teaching starcraft and are able to live comfortably off of it. our reach to sponsers and larger groups of players allow us to have an ever increasing stake in MLG, players with salaries living in korea, (2k a month + winnings for being in the top 64 ranked players) and huge prize pools in events. Ideally this would be possible with brawl as well if created as a bigger spectator sport.

So as a competitive gamer, yeah the set format is near-ideal. but as a spectator and a fan of brawl i'd say it's less than so.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Yeah, I was trying to find a middle point between our old counter-picking system (not neutral at all) and a standard stage striking system (not deep at all).

I'm trying to further adapt the rule to allow for more variety.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

You could just ban all the polar stages for CPing?
On a slightly different note, regardless of whether you have +1 and -1, or +100 and -100, when you sum them up the result will be 0.

 

[Ghostbone]

The set format still allows for stage diversity.
It's just the total amount of stages played on is fewer.
But you still have 3 different stages being played on generally.
And I've seen entire sets just on SV, so our current counterpick system still can have minimal stage depth.
So it's not like this will greatly decrease the stage variety.

Plus with this method it takes a lot of weight off the first game and distributes it to the other games.

Oh and Grim the stage clause where if the players agree they can play on any stage is still in right?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Oh and Grim the stage clause where if the players agree they can play on any stage is still in right?

I didn't think it was worth mentioning. I mean, the players can play with their eyes closed if they want, they don't need a rule to say it.

 

[-LzR-]

In Brawl there is no "best" stagelist. Every single stage list favors different character and is equally crappy.

What you are trying to do in your ruleset is limit a perfectly fine victory condition for no reason.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

In Brawl there is no "best" stagelist. Every single stage list favors different character and is equally crappy.

What you are trying to do in your ruleset is limit a perfectly fine victory condition for no reason.

Eh, I'm bored of arguing that.

What do people think of the set format?

10characters

 

[Ghostbone]

lol

Made me think of a tournament with all the players blindfolded.

Anyway if you don't think it's worth mentioning don't worry about it.

Edit: Who cares what the actual stagelist is really -_-
That's just all the legal stages + Onett for it to be odd.
Plus for the questionable stages you can just strike them.
(yes I realize you could legalize every stage except WarioWare with that attitude but meh, takes too much time)

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

In Brawl there is no "best" stagelist. Every single stage list favors different character and is equally crappy.

What you are trying to do in your ruleset is limit a perfectly fine victory condition for no reason.

I'm pretty sure people can objectively say having all stages legal is worse than most other stage lists.

So why couldn't people say the same for other lists against each other?

 

[ngfc_0]

(just throwing this out here, wasn't sure where should i post it)

The full legal stage striking system as a lot of arguments against it as games would be played on only a few stages or taking too long and people just agree to go to smashville...

This argument made me think if, instead of taking turns striking stages, the players would take turns suggesting a legal stage to be played. If the opponent refuses, the stage won't be played and is his turn to suggest one. This process continues until one proposed stage is accepted (or they are left with only one stage). I believe it would have a bit of strategy.

If this was already proposed somewhere, too bad