mio
Smash Ace
First of all, a little history (skip to bottom if you wanna get to the point)...
Street Fighter obviously has no problem with stages, but the imbalance of characters and match-ups is just as much of an issue as it is in smash. It's always been like that. However, since top-level competitive Street Fighter was born in the arcades as opposed to console (the 90s were the golden age of arcades, during this time they were possibly just as cool/popular as hookah bars and internet cafes are today; console was for ******* and little kids), the rule sets for tournament play formed around one concept: master your character. This is because at the arcade, when you win, you stay on with your same character, and keep playing until someone is able to knock you off. I'm sure there were plenty of people who picked more than one character for fun, but on average, serious competitive players tried to learn the ins and outs of a single character so that they could learn to dominate with that character (and that character alone) at the arcade.
Smash on the other hand (as we know) was designed on console as a 2nd grader's slumber party game and was never meant to be the masterpiece that we know and love today. As a result, the tournament rule sets developed from this concept: minimize the amount of randomness and imbalance. With the various imbalances in stages, characters and match-ups, it makes sense what the smash community has done with standardizing its counterpicking rule set.
Looking at the two communities, it's very interesting to see how vastly different the rule sets are. In smash, counterpicking is a well-known and accepted part of tournaments that is admirable if you can do it effectively. In Street Fighter (at least up until SF4), counterpicking is for f@ggots, and you'd better master your god**** character if you want to see yourself anywhere close to top 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So my point is, has anyone ever had two thoughts about this when it came to smash? Are we soooo accustomed to counterpicking stages and characters that we couldn't do without it? If we were to combine old school street fighter rule sets with the current smash rule sets, keeping the "master your character" and "no counterpicking" concepts in mind, this is what the rule set would look like:
2/3 double elim
3/5 semi/grand finals
Neutrals only
No character switching (i.e. pick your character at sign-ups, tell the organizer and that's the character that you are locked into playing for the entire tournament)
Let's think about it. If we ran a tourney with this rule set, would only top tier characters win the tournament (Fox, Marth, Shiek, Falco)? Or would people who have mastered their characters win? If every player went with their primary main: Mango Puff, Zhu Falco, Darkrain Falcon, Ka-master Luigi, etc... do you think worse players using a top tier character would win because of the imbalance of the match ups? Or do you think the best players with their primary mains would (for the most part) prevail?
I guess what I'm asking is, would this be a fair/good rule set to try out for smash, or would it simply not work well? If so, I will probably organize a tourney using this rule set just to see how it works.
Street Fighter obviously has no problem with stages, but the imbalance of characters and match-ups is just as much of an issue as it is in smash. It's always been like that. However, since top-level competitive Street Fighter was born in the arcades as opposed to console (the 90s were the golden age of arcades, during this time they were possibly just as cool/popular as hookah bars and internet cafes are today; console was for ******* and little kids), the rule sets for tournament play formed around one concept: master your character. This is because at the arcade, when you win, you stay on with your same character, and keep playing until someone is able to knock you off. I'm sure there were plenty of people who picked more than one character for fun, but on average, serious competitive players tried to learn the ins and outs of a single character so that they could learn to dominate with that character (and that character alone) at the arcade.
Smash on the other hand (as we know) was designed on console as a 2nd grader's slumber party game and was never meant to be the masterpiece that we know and love today. As a result, the tournament rule sets developed from this concept: minimize the amount of randomness and imbalance. With the various imbalances in stages, characters and match-ups, it makes sense what the smash community has done with standardizing its counterpicking rule set.
Looking at the two communities, it's very interesting to see how vastly different the rule sets are. In smash, counterpicking is a well-known and accepted part of tournaments that is admirable if you can do it effectively. In Street Fighter (at least up until SF4), counterpicking is for f@ggots, and you'd better master your god**** character if you want to see yourself anywhere close to top 8.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So my point is, has anyone ever had two thoughts about this when it came to smash? Are we soooo accustomed to counterpicking stages and characters that we couldn't do without it? If we were to combine old school street fighter rule sets with the current smash rule sets, keeping the "master your character" and "no counterpicking" concepts in mind, this is what the rule set would look like:
2/3 double elim
3/5 semi/grand finals
Neutrals only
No character switching (i.e. pick your character at sign-ups, tell the organizer and that's the character that you are locked into playing for the entire tournament)
Let's think about it. If we ran a tourney with this rule set, would only top tier characters win the tournament (Fox, Marth, Shiek, Falco)? Or would people who have mastered their characters win? If every player went with their primary main: Mango Puff, Zhu Falco, Darkrain Falcon, Ka-master Luigi, etc... do you think worse players using a top tier character would win because of the imbalance of the match ups? Or do you think the best players with their primary mains would (for the most part) prevail?
I guess what I'm asking is, would this be a fair/good rule set to try out for smash, or would it simply not work well? If so, I will probably organize a tourney using this rule set just to see how it works.
