A Random Ruleset

[Grim Tuesday]

GENERAL RULES:​

• 3 Stock
• 10 Minute Timer
• All items are turned off and the frequency is set to “None”.
• In the event of a “Sudden Death” finish (due to time running out), victory is awarded to the player who possesses the highest ‘Longest Drought’.
• All sets with the exception of winner's finals, loser's finals, and the grand finals are best of 3 matches (best of 5 and above should be played out for any "finals" matches)
• In the event of a dispute, controller ports will be selected by Rock-Paper-Scissors.
• You are responsible for your own controller and name tag. Any malfunctions or errors that occur are your responsibility, so bring an extra controller if possible and always check to make sure you're using the correct settings BEFORE a match is played. If a match is to be restarted due to controller functions, it must be agreed upon by both parties.
• Extending Meta Knight’s Dimensional Cape is banned.
• Any action which prevents the game from continuing (i.e. by causing the game to crash or causing all characters to freeze indefinitely) is banned. If the Tournament Organizer or a judge can conclusively determine the player responsible for the failure, that player loses the interrupted game. Players are expected to know their characters and prevent this from happening.

SET FORMAT:​

1. Players make their character select screen choices for the first match.*
2. Players start the stage striking procedure (Striking order is 2-1-2).
3. The first game is played on the last stage remaining after striking.
4. The losing player may request that steps 1 and 2 are repeated.
5. If step 4 is skipped, the next game is played on the last stage striked by the winner of the previous match. Otherwise, the next game is played on the last remaining stage after re-striking.
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 for each subsequent match.

*Character selection is double-blind. Also, the choices made here include the character's color and whether the player will start as Samus or Zero Suit Samus, as Zelda or Sheik, or as a particular Pokemon for Pokemon Trainer.

ADDITIONAL RULES FOR DOUBLES PLAY:​

• The controller ports will be determined in a 1221 fashion; whoever wins the RPS will choose first, then the opposing team will get their ports, and then the teammate of the RPS winner will get the last port.
• If the clock expires in a team match and the total number of stocks of each team is equal, use the sum of the Longest Drought of players on each team as the tiebreaker; whichever team has a higher sum wins.

LEGAL STAGE LIST:
Battlefield, Final Destination, Delfino Plaza, Luigi's Mansion, Pirate Ship, Norfair, Frigate Orpheon, Yoshi's Island (Brawl), Halberd, Lylat Cruise, Pokemon Stadium 2, Port Town Aero Dive, Castle Seige, Smashville, Distant Planet, Pictochat, Yoshi's Island (Melee), Jungle Japes, Onett, Green Greens, Rainbow Ride, Brinstar and Pokemon Stadium.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinions?​

 

[Ghostbone]

Bawwwwww drought time rule bawwwwww

Lets see what other people's opinions of it are though.

 

[Tesh]

I need to ask why on that. Perhaps I don't remember correctly what drought time is. What would that have to do with Suicide KOs?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I need to ask why on that. Perhaps I don't remember correctly what drought time is. What would that have to do with Suicide KOs?

It has nothing to do with suicide KOs.

The Longest Drought is the longest amount of time a player went without attacking another player.

I've made it so that in the event of a sudden death (a tie), the player with the longest drought wins. So if you want to time your opponent out on the same stock, you aren't allowed to attack them for a reasonable amount of time. In that time, your opponent should have ample time to either deal heavy damage or KO you, both of which make timing out more difficult.

The extended time limit is so matches don't go to time unless someone is deliberately trying to force a time out.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Sort of like....
I'll make a detailed analysis later...

 

[-LzR-]

So in case of a timeout, the player who stalled the most wins. I see...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

It nerfs characters who typically don't link attacks together but use single hits at a time, also boosts projectile camping since those still hit people.

Also I hate the stage list.

 

[Veel]

GrimFandango is smarter than I.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So in case of a timeout, the player who stalled the most wins. I see...

No...

Say the opponent is planking, and you rush over and get hit by there attack (say... MK's up air, or Pit's arrows). If they want to win by timing out, they now have to approach you because you have a longer gap between attacks.

It nerfs characters who typically don't link attacks together but use single hits at a time, also boosts projectile camping since those still hit people.

Also I hate the stage list.

Ryu, you should know that the "nerfs/buffs" argument is kind of silly when the exact opposite could be said if we were changing from the Drought clause to the percentage clause. "It buffs characters who typically don't link attacks together but use single hits all the time, also nerfs projectile camping."

Ignoring that though, it doesn't nerf characters who don't link attacks at all. This rule will only come into play when someone is trying to time the match out. You could say that the percentage rule nerfs characters who commonly end up with more damage than others (MK vs. Snake), but that doesn't really come into play in a normal match, does it?

The same applies with the projectile camping buff.

Why do you hate the stage list?

You forgot Sky World in the stage list.

That would result in an even number of stages.

 

[Tesh]

You know matches can time out without intentional stalling right? Sonic V Peach/ROB is one of my most common matches for timing out just because of how hard it is for these characters to kill each other.

I really think the percent rule for timeouts works out best overall because at all times during the game you can see who is winning. With all these other rules its not really fair to have some unseen counter deciding who will win. Especially with unintentional timeouts.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

WTF is this.... Grim, can you please stop posting? You're like the Jebus of our side-you're not helping, you're just making us look more ridiculous than we already are.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You know matches can time out without intentional stalling right? Sonic V Peach/ROB is one of my most common matches for timing out just because of how hard it is for these characters to kill each other.

I really think the percent rule for timeouts works out best overall because at all times during the game you can see who is winning. With all these other rules its not really fair to have some unseen counter deciding who will win. Especially with unintentional timeouts.

The extended time limit is so matches don't go to time unless someone is deliberately trying to force a time out.

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.

 

[Tesh]

That doesn't really help that much. 2 minutes doesn't mean a match won't ever go to time unintentionally. Long slow matchups are still long slow matchups and it will STILL happen. And then you are going to punish characters for something irrelevant.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

That doesn't really help that much. 2 minutes doesn't mean a match won't ever go to time unintentionally. Long slow matchups are still long slow matchups and it will STILL happen. And then you are going to punish characters for something irrelevant.

The chance of it happening is very rare.

VERY rare.

The current rule punishes players for something irrelevant as well, by the way. Percentage is considered no more important by the game than Drought time is.

 

[Tesh]

Okay, well good luck.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Basically, you can't win a timeout unless you attempted to....
That's clever.... except because people wouldn't like it....
But let's face it, people wouldn't like any change, most of them want a "choose you character", FD/SV only, and manage from there.
u timeout, u gay
u MK, u gay
u low tier, u scrub
u whatever they don't like, u a bad player

And that's what makes any idea not good nor bad, just sad....


Back on-topic, stagelist is probably too large (cosidering is planned for a full-striking system)... But I like it.


EDIT: After re-reading set format, there's no proper counter-picking then? Every match would be played in a sort of "neutral" stage....

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Basically, you can't win a timeout unless you attempted to....
That's clever.... except because people wouldn't like it....
But let's face it, people wouldn't like any change, most of them want a "choose you character", FD/SV only, and manage from there.
u timeout, u gay
u MK, u gay
u low tier, u scrub
u whatever they don't like, u a bad player

And that's what makes any idea not good nor bad, just sad....

Back on-topic, stagelist is probably too large (cosidering is planned for a full-striking system)... But I like it.

EDIT: After re-reading set format, there's no proper counter-picking then? Every match would be played in a sort of "neutral" stage....

Yep, the community is stubborn. God, you should've heard the argument I had with one of my local smashers on MSN this morning about why Wobbling should be legal in Melee... >_>

What would you recommend cutting from the stage list? I've never attempted striking with more than starters before so I have no idea how much time it takes xD

And yeah, no counter-picking.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

First off avoid the insults.

Second, I'll get to your post in a sec.

 

[T-block]

I could see a Wario air camping and never attacking.

Then even if you get him down to 1-stock high percents after 10 minutes, and you're at 3-stocks 0%, you still lose.

Hell, we don't even have to do that. I could take Jigglypuff and 100-0 most of the cast on stages I can float under?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I could see a Wario air camping and never attacking.

Then even if you get him down to 1-stock high percents after 10 minutes, and you're at 3-stocks 0%, you still lose.

Hell, we don't even have to do that. I could take Jigglypuff and 100-0 most of the cast on stages I can float under?

Whaaa-?

Please explain how you lose when he is at 1-stock 100% and you are on 3-stocks 0%.

And it may still be possible to air camp without attacking, but this makes it more difficult.

And how do you intend to 100-0 the cast as Jigglypuff?

 

[Tesh]

Eh T-Block, your point is valid to an extent, but you could only win on the same stock. His rule says only on sudden death finishes. Why did you word it like that? You realize kamikaze knockouts can result in sudden death right? Do you really want a short 3-5 minute match that ends with a suicide move to be decided by drought time? Thats completely irrelevant.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Eh T-Block, your point is valid to an extent, but you could only win on the same stock. His rule says only on sudden death finishes. Why did you word it like that? You realize kamikaze knockouts can result in sudden death right? Do you really want a short 3-5 minute match that ends with a suicide move to be decided by drought time? Thats completely irrelevant.

• In the event of a “Sudden Death” finish (due to time running out)

Spoiler

ithinkofeverything

 

[T-block]

Ah okay... I did read the entire ruleset but I overlooked that. Ignore the Wario example.

But take Jigglypuff and go to Smashville. Grab the ledge. Jump under the stage towards the other ledge when they approach you. You don't have to hit them this way, and even if you get hit a few times, as long as you don't lose a stock, you'll win.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Ah okay... I did read the entire ruleset but I overlooked that. Ignore the Wario example.

But take Jigglypuff and go to Smashville. Grab the ledge. Jump under the stage towards the other ledge when they approach you. You don't have to hit them this way, and even if you get hit a few times, as long as you don't lose a stock, you'll win.

And... Why can't you do that with the current ruleset?

I know what you're going to say "Because it's hard to keep a stock lead".

Pro tip:
1. Don't hit the Jigglypuff.
2. This will either lead to a stale-mate, or the Jigglypuff wil hit you.
3. If the Puff hits you, they can't time you out.

It's not ideal, but that is assuming that you can't take a stock off a non-attacking, planking puff in the first place.

 

[Tesh]

Wait so which ever character most recently scored a hit has to approach or risk losing? How does that NOT screw up normal play?

This seems REALLY far from ideal. How exactly does that rule actually help. Seems like it just ruins everything for the sole purpose of making it hard to plank.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Wait so which ever character most recently scored a hit has to approach or risk losing? How does that NOT screw up normal play?

This seems REALLY far from ideal. How exactly does that rule actually help. Seems like it just ruins everything for the sole purpose of making it hard to plank.

"Wait so which ever character has the lower percentage has to approach or risk losing? How does that NOT screw up normal play?"

 

[Tesh]

Lower percentage makes sense. Its just common sense. Over the course of this match, I've hit you more and/or hit you harder. Therefore I'm winning.

With your rule its just.... Over the course of the game, you hit me first, so YOU are losing. Thats stupid. You know at some point you DO have to factor in common sense. Like the fact that I should be able to look at the screen and know who is winning.

I see what you are trying to get at here. There is no way to get the lead without either getting hit (your opponent's choice) or taking a stock. But this rule is still horrible. You are ruining too much just for that one ideal.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Lower percentage makes sense. Its just common sense. Over the course of this match, I've hit you more and/or hit you harder. Therefore I'm winning.

Maybe in your opinion, but speaking objectively from the game's point of view, percentage is ONLY an indicator of how far you will be knocked back when you get hit. It has absolutely nothing to do with who has the "lead", as Lucario mains will no doubt agree with me.

I see what you are trying to get at here. There is no way to get the lead without either getting hit (your opponent's choice) or taking a stock. But this rule is still horrible. You are ruining too much just for that one ideal.

Please list the things I am "ruining".

I can almost guarantee they will be no worse than the problems with our current ruleset.

 

[Tesh]

So your point is that we chose something thats "irrelevant" to victory and turned it into a victory condition. Thats bad right?

You want to pick something ELSE thats also as irrelevant (as you said) and turn that into a victory condition? Except its one that isn't readily apparent to anyone in a normal match. No one really knows for sure in a normal match exactly how long its been since someone landed a hit. Yet you want that to be a deciding factor in a match?

If both of those are just irrelevant details that was are using for a last resort win condition then....... it just comes down to what people prefer. Which is percentage. Its the best clearly. For OBVIOUS reasons. You have no evidence of your rule being effective or useful in any way. Your only arguement is that it "could" work sometimes under the circumstances you want it to. You also can't seem to understand that weak characters playing safe can time out without trying to from the start.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So your point is that we chose something thats "irrelevant" to victory and turned it into a victory condition. Thats bad right?

You want to pick something ELSE thats also as irrelevant (as you said) and turn that into a victory condition? Except its one that isn't readily apparent to anyone in a normal match. No one really knows for sure in a normal match exactly how long its been since someone landed a hit. Yet you want that to be a deciding factor in a match?

Learn to count. It will only come into effect in the situation that someone is trying to time someone else out, and I'm pretty sure you'd be focused on counting the drought time in that situation.

If both of those are just irrelevant details that was are using for a last resort win condition then....... it just comes down to what people prefer. Which is percentage.

Really? What's the point in arguing for Onett to be legal then? I mean, the community would prefer if it was banned. >_>

Its the best clearly. For OBVIOUS reasons. You have no evidence of your rule being effective or useful in any way. Your only arguement is that it "could" work sometimes under the circumstances you want it to. You also can't seem to understand that weak characters playing safe can time out without trying to from the start.

Not only do I perfectly understand that weak characters can time out from the very start, I addressed it earlier:

It's not ideal, but that is assuming that you can't take a stock off a non-attacking, planking puff in the first place.

Notice how I questioned whether you can time someone out like that? Rather than just out-right denying it?

Stop acting as if I claimed this way was obviously better. I'm offering an alternative for discussion, not proposing we immediately change the way we've been playing since the game's release.

And just as I have no evidence that my rule works, you have no evidence that it doesn't. We aren't working under a "bad until proven good" system here.

 

[Tesh]

Hey guys I know you have triple chocolate cake already but I'm just here peddling my double chocolate cake with the shoe-print on it. Its obviously worse but I think you should taste it. It probably won't be THAT bad.

Also your comment about Onnet is silly. The fact of the matter is that we NEED a way to determine a winner with even stocks. Determining which stages should be legal isn't a matter where we NEED to pick a certain one.

And yes there is obvious evidence that your rule doesn't work. Its clearly less ideal than what we already have. It would be pointless to switch to it. Why not offer something thats at LEAST better in theory.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Hey guys I know you have triple chocolate cake already but I'm just here peddling my double chocolate cake with the shoe-print on it. Its obviously worse but I think you should taste it. It probably won't be THAT bad.

Also your comment about Onnet is silly. The fact of the matter is that we NEED a way to determine a winner with even stocks. Determining which stages should be legal isn't a matter where we NEED to pick a certain one.

And yes there is obvious evidence that your rule doesn't work. Its clearly less ideal than what we already have. It would be pointless to switch to it. Why not offer something thats at LEAST better in theory.

Your entire argument now relies on the fact that my rule is "obviously worse".

Tips:
1. Stop being so god-damn antagonistic, I'm not looking for a fight here.
2. Answer my question about why it's "obviously worse". You have no reason to not answer other than trying to sound condescending or laziness.

EDIT: I'd also like to know what people think of the set format.

 

[Tesh]

Can't see who is winning. Even if you want to underrate it, it still makes your rule no better than those god damned bonus stars at the end of each mario party round. You think you were kicking some *** but then the guy in 2nd place gets 3 stars.

Even if you want to argue that your rule could be sort of "equal" to our current time out rule. Then what? It sure isn't better in any way. And if 2 things are equal there is one thing left to do. Just ask people which is more convenient. The current on is. Its still common sense here. Its a fighting game. You gain a lead by hitting your opponent, not by being hit by your opponent.

I guess you already know that no one would use this rule, so I guess you just want another thread to trash our puny preconceived notions about brawl. Well there you go. We want percents. Deal with it.

 

[T-block]

And... Why can't you do that with the current ruleset?

I know what you're going to say "Because it's hard to keep a stock lead".

Pro tip:
1. Don't hit the Jigglypuff.
2. This will either lead to a stale-mate, or the Jigglypuff wil hit you.
3. If the Puff hits you, they can't time you out.

It's not ideal, but that is assuming that you can't take a stock off a non-attacking, planking puff in the first place.

This just seems like a classic case of trying to fix a problem without taking into account new problems that the solution causes.

Are you really going to be wary of hitting Jigglypuff at the beginning of the match? What if Jigglypuff doesn't make her intentions obvious from the beginning? What if she "accidentally" lets herself get hit and then proceeds to hop from ledge to ledge under the stage?

The Jigglypuff doesn't have to hit you. Even if you manage to catch her (a lot of characters won't be able to) she air dodges and doesn't attack. Maybe you should show how you would take a stock off a Jigglypuff employing this strategy?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Can't see who is winning. Even if you want to underrate it, it still makes your rule no better than those god damned bonus stars at the end of each mario party round. You think you were kicking some *** but then the guy in 2nd place gets 3 stars.

I still don't think that players will be too inattentive to notice who has the drought lead, but whatever, I guess it is a slight disadvantage.

I will counter this disadvantage by stating an advantage: Standard planking is made much less effective.

Even if you want to argue that your rule could be sort of "equal" to our current time out rule. Then what? It sure isn't better in any way. And if 2 things are equal there is one thing left to do. Just ask people which is more convenient. The current on is. Its still common sense here. Its a fighting game. You gain a lead by hitting your opponent, not by being hit by your opponent.

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

I guess you already know that no one would use this rule, so I guess you just want another thread to trash our puny preconceived notions about brawl. Well there you go. We want percents. Deal with it.

The Jigglypuff doesn't have to hit you. Even if you manage to catch her (a lot of characters won't be able to) she air dodges and doesn't attack. Maybe you should show how you would take a stock off a Jigglypuff employing this strategy?

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.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Its a fighting game. You gain a lead by hitting your opponent, not by being hit by your opponent.

This is probably the only comment/argument I agree with.
Now Grim, why you consider determining the winner with the lowest Drought Time isn't viable?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

This is probably the only comment/argument I agree with.
Now Grim, why you consider determining the winner with the lowest Drought Time isn't viable?

Percentage isn't a win condition because it doesn't indicate how close you are too dieing.

It indicates things like how far attacks will knock you back, Lucario's aura, breaking out of grabs, etc... But two players, equal stock, one at 100% and another at 0% is considered "equal" by the game.

Conversely, a player with 0 drought time and a player with 100 drought time is also considered "equal" by the game.

Neither is an indicator of who is winning, whether common logic agrees or otherwise.

 

[-LzR-]

Pokemon Stadium sez the player with the least % has the lead. Your argument is invalid. And it's in the game!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Pokemon Stadium sez the player with the least % has the lead. Your argument is invalid. And it's in the game!

Touche. I'd love to hear BPC's response to this.

I don't think it really counts, because the score board on PS doesn't actually mean anything or affect gameplay in anyway, unlike the results screen and sudden death, which both say that percentage doesn't matter.

 

[-LzR-]

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