A Random Ruleset

[Ghostbone]

That would take potentially even longer than full stage list striking though.

Anyway people overestimate the time it takes to strike from all the legal stages, people take longer to counter-pick sometimes.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Let's propose someting else:
With a 17-stage striking (that's just a random number), for game 1 player A strikes 4, then B strikes 4, then A strikes 3, then B strikes 3, A 1, B1.
For game 2, the loser strikes TEN stages, then the winner strikes 3, then loser 1 and winner 1 and then, the loser strikes the last one.

Toughts?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So... 4 stage bans? Why not just have the winner strike three and then the loser pick? Seems very time-consuming, in addition to basically telling the other person what to ban.

 

[John12346]

I tend to ask this a lot about new proposed rules, but

How warranted would this sudden death drought rule be without MK in the game? Were there any other factors that may have caused this rule to come to be?

As far as the stagelist; w/e, I'm fine with any stage, but make sure you keep the striking and banning process at a level where it doesn't consume too much time.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I tend to ask this a lot about new proposed rules, but

How warranted would this sudden death drought rule be without MK in the game? Were there any other factors that may have caused this rule to come to be?

As far as the stagelist; w/e, I'm fine with any stage, but make sure you keep the striking and banning process at a level where it doesn't consume too much time.

Old thread is old. People are talking about different things now.

 

[John12346]

Old thread is old. People are talking about different things now.

Kwah?

I made a mention about the stages, the newer topic, as well. I'm on the side that supports more stages and more bans because it does imo introduce a bunch of depth to the game.

As far as the sudden death thing, I just want to make it a point to affirm that MK is/is not the sole or primary reason for these kinds of changes. There's a reason, and it involves data collection on my end, okay?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Sorry, I'm tired, didn't read your post properly.

 

[John12346]

So... how about that 'data,' then?

I don't plan on debating it in any way. I just need an opinion from you... an official statement, if you will.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Huh? What data?

 

[Akaku94]

I suggested this before as a hybrid between full striking and the CP system:

Game 1: 2 Bans, P1 CPs
Game 2: 2 Bans, P2 CPs
Game 3: Full strike

This would also eliminate some of the problems in the current system with the overimportance of game 1if I'm not mistaken. Thoughts?

 

[Ghostbone]

I suggested this before as a hybrid between full striking and the CP system:

Game 1: 2 Bans, P1 CPs
Game 2: 2 Bans, P2 CPs
Game 3: Full strike

This would also eliminate some of the problems in the current system with the overimportance of game 1if I'm not mistaken. Thoughts?

I can't remember the exact arguments against it but mainly that because the first two games are on counter-picks that affects how you adapt to your opponent or something.

Like P1 has to counter-pick without knowledge of the opponent's playstyle.
P2 does have knowledge of the other player's playstyle, so P2 would have a slight advantage overall.

 

[John12346]

Grim, this is part of my own personal project, and the "data" I speak of are official statements from the proprietors of new rulesets to answer this:

How warranted would this sudden death drought rule be without MK in the game? Were there any other factors that may have caused this rule to come to be?

And remember to answer truthfully. I don't intend to debate whatever you say. I just need stuff.

 

[ぱみゅ]

IMO, I like the trhee-game striking, since it offers balanced games for every match and all of them are equally important.

So, BPC, what's your ideal system?