Another, different ruleset idea

[xDD-Master]

As it seems to be cool to post rulesets, I will do the same thing now ;D

- mk allowed
- 11 Stages

Spoiler

• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Lylat Cruise
• Smashville
• Yoshi’s Island (Brawl)
• Castle Siege
• Delfino Plaza
• Frigate Orpheon
• Halberd
• Pokémon Stadium 1
• Pokémon Stadium 2

- striking from every stage for first match
- winner of the last match is chara locked
- loser of the last match choses new stage OR new chara (Not both)
- No bans, no DSR
- 3stocks, 10mins, bo3 for all sets

discuss

 

[Life]

This... this might work, actually. Barring the usual things I complain about (the stagelist, one-stock food, etc) of course.

Mainly I like the locking idea.

 

[Flayl]

I like it. I personally don't have the mental endurance for bo3 10 minute games against Toon Links or IC for example, but if the majority likes it I'll concede.

 

[Steam]

What would the stage be if they cp'd character? Same stage?

 

[Arcansi]

Yes it would be same stage.

I support this.

 

[xDD-Master]

Yep same stage, if he changes Chara.

If he changes Stage, he has to stay same Chara. (Both have to stay same Chara then)

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Other than the character lock for the winner, this looks good.

 

[xDD-Master]

Other than the character lock for the winner, this looks good.

Without Chara Lock this would be kinda senseless...
Oh the winner can always change chara, while loser can only change chara if he doesnt want to change the stage. if he wants to change the stage, the oppenant can change chara but he cant? That doesnt seem correct to me, as it would give the winner of the last match a CP option...

The loser of the last match should ALWAYS have the option to get a small adv. if he wants to.

Lets say its DK vs Snake first match, and after the DK lost, the Snake player goes to DDD, now the DK player only has the option to either change the stage (Which doesnt do that much in this MU) or he is pretty much FORCED to change his character.
Doesnt seem very correct to me.


The general idea behind this ruleset is to encourage sticking to your main and just choosing the best stages for a MU, instead of using cheap Chara-CPs.

 

[Akaku94]

The loser has a huge advantage here.

If you ever lose to DK, go D3 and there's nothing the opponent can do about it.

Opponent beat your ICs? Go to FD.

You get free hard counters for losing :/

 

[xDD-Master]

The loser has a huge advantage here.

If you ever lose to DK, go D3 and there's nothing the opponent can do about it.

Opponent beat your ICs? Go to FD.

You get free hard counters for losing :/

But then you are stuck to your chara (& possible the stage)

You lose to a DK, you choose D3, and then you could get countered by ICs, Pika or Falco.
Stick to your Main is the best, as long as your main doesnt get hard countered in the first match.

You lose with ICs, go to FD, and afterwards he can bring your ICs to Delfino/Halberd or whatever.

First match is always as much neutral as possible.
Second match always favors the loser of the first match.
Third match always favors the winner of the first match.

Seems pretty balanced to me.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The loser of the second match is still at a disadvantage since they are forced to play on their opponent's CP with a different character or switch stages but be forced to stick to their character.

 

[Flayl]

That's not a disadvantage.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I choose MK, you choose char, I choose stage

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I don't get what you are trying to solve with this. Players are still going to be able to hard CP other players. It's just going to be a little harder.

 

[Akaku94]

But if you pick MK, you won't get to pick anything, because you'll never lose

But then you are stuck to your chara (& possible the stage)

You lose to a DK, you choose D3, and then you could get countered by ICs, Pika or Falco.
Stick to your Main is the best, as long as your main doesnt get hard countered in the first match.

You lose with ICs, go to FD, and afterwards he can bring your ICs to Delfino/Halberd or whatever.

First match is always as much neutral as possible.
Second match always favors the loser of the first match.
Third match always favors the winner of the first match.

Seems pretty balanced to me.

I think one of the biggest problems with the current system is that it puts too much emphasis on Game 1. This doesn't help it, and arguably makes it worse. Whoever wins g1 is fairly sure to lose g2, and fairly sure to win g3 because of how strong the cps are under this system. It may as well be a 1-game set.

What we need is some way to have games 2 and 3 have more weight, while preserving the ability to counterpick after a loss. Of course, at this point I'm even sure if that's possible :/

EDIT: Ninja'd by Jebus... it's not often we make the same point!

 

[xDD-Master]

I dont think its that bad if game 2/3 are in favor of one player.
I see a set as a whole, therefore I suggest using Bo3 for all sets in a tournament, because I dont like the idea of having different outcomes depending on either Bo3 or Bo5 because of the system.

IMO a standarized set-progress is something that we lack.
In nearly every prof. sport they play with the same rules, not depending on what level they play.

So I see a set as a whole.
You want to win? Win g1, and you have the best shot for winning it.
Or if you lose g1, and do some really good stuff to still win the set.
Well, its just a personal preference, but I dont mind people not agreeing on this


If you want a system where you have no weigths on the matches then use this:
Every game is double blind character pick and full stage striking.
The problem I have with this, that its nearly impossible to EVER see stages like FD, Delfino and others. (Not saying that it'll never happen, but it'll be rare)

But I think this would work pretty good as well, I'd like it ^^

 

[SaveMeJebus]

So I see a set as a whole.
You want to win? Win g1, and you have the best shot for winning it.
Or if you lose g1, and do some really good stuff to still win the set.
Well, its just a personal preference, but I dont mind people not agreeing on this

How is this any different from what we have now?

 

[xDD-Master]

Did I say that its different from now?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Did I say that its different from now?

Then there is no reason to change it to your rule set.

 

[Luigi player]

character lock is so bad

 

[xDD-Master]

Then there is no reason to change it to your rule set.

Woot.

Well, whatever.


I posted another alternative in my post, you can use the idea if you want and do whatever you want with it ~

 

[xDD-Master]

character lock is so bad

Character Lock is standard in pretty much every other fighting game. And I think its pretty obv. why.

But as we have Stages AND characters in Brawl, we obv. cant just copy their way, and need to develop our own rules, that fit our game.

And I think, my suggested ruleset comes pretty close to it.

 

[MegaRobMan]

I like this ruleset because I really only play one character (unless someone goes sheik )...

However, I have a hard time thinking that this solves the problem of
"The winner of game 1 is going to win the set (I think it's)71% of the time". This actually kinda strengthens the person who wins game 1.

 

[xDD-Master]

However, I have a hard time thinking that this solves the problem of
"The winner of game 1 is going to win the set (I think it's)71% of the time". This actually kinda strengthens the person who wins game 1.

Who says this is a problem?

And btw. its obv. that the winner of game 1 will win more.

a) In a Bo3 set, if you have already won game 1, your chance to win the set is 75%. Thats because the chance to lose/win one match is 50%, and to lose twice would be 25%.

b) The better player will obv. win Game 1 more often, therefore its obv. that the winner of game 1 is more likely to win the set.

 

[Life]

How about this?:

Strike all legal stages game 1.
To counterpick, loser can choose between locking the opponent's character and the stage (thus only CPing character) or re-doing both character and stage selection.

Just throwing it out there, haven't really thought it through.

 

[Arcansi]

Actually InCom, it seems like this ruleset isn't bad at all due to the fact that game 1 isn't overcentralized in any way.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Please elaborate what "Apex + PS2" means.

 

[xDD-Master]

Please elaborate what "Apex + PS2" means.

• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Lylat Cruise
• Smashville
• Yoshi’s Island (Brawl)
• Castle Siege
• Delfino Plaza
• Frigate Orpheon
• Halberd
• Pokémon Stadium 1
• Pokémon Stadium 2

 

[Flayl]

How about this?:

Strike all legal stages game 1.
To counterpick, loser can choose between locking the opponent's character and the stage (thus only CPing character) or re-doing both character and stage selection.

Just throwing it out there, haven't really thought it through.

That would be fine, but I really don't think it's necessary. If you're striking from an 11 stage list for the first game, you're not going to leave any stages you get horribly countered by for game 2, no matter what character. What stages you leave behind obviously changes with the matchup but it will never be strong enough to make the opponent's cp a free win.

Honestly more sets need to be played out with this ruleset before examining if it needs the change you're suggesting or not.

 

[Kink-Link5]

• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Lylat Cruise
• Smashville
• Yoshi’s Island (Brawl)
• Castle Siege
• Delfino Plaza
• Frigate Orpheon
• Halberd
• Pokémon Stadium 1
• Pokémon Stadium 2

Thanks, I didn't follow Apex Brawl, so it was getting irksome since I couldn't find the stage list used.


Looks alright, some of the stages (Lylat) are kind of dumb though. Not for any character, just dumb in general like Brinstar depths.

 

[Akaku94]

• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Lylat Cruise
• Smashville
• Yoshi’s Island (Brawl)
• Castle Siege
• Delfino Plaza
• Frigate Orpheon
• Halberd
• Pokémon Stadium 1
• Pokémon Stadium 2

This is a pretty good list, but it's still too small imo... RC, Brinstar, Japes, PTAD, Distant Planet, etc. They have nothing really wrong with them, but the general attitude towards legalizing stages is "zomg MK too good, stage is gay and cheap, FD da bess."

 

[Yikarur]

this stage list da bess in an MK allowed environment.

 

[Roller]

I think no bans with a mildly liberal ruleset is the only problem.

I would like this with 1 ban.

I'd like it more if it didn't have PS2+ 1 ban. But yeah, still better than Unity imo. lol



and akaku. If you do not see what is wrong with distant planet, god have mercy on your soul.
inb4pikachubecomes#1

 

[Akaku94]

MK will dominate regardless of the stagelist. Heck, one of his most broken tactics is on SV for pete's sake! I hate how, in the absense of a good argument, everyone just falls back on "MK too good here, ban it 'cause it's gay/cheap"

And by all means, let me know what's wrong with Distant Planet...

 

[Yikarur]

Distant Planet <3 :D

 

[Kink-Link5]

MK will dominate regardless of the stagelist. Heck, one of his most broken tactics is on SV for pete's sake!

I hate how, in the absense of a good argument, everyone just falls back on "MK too good here, ban it 'cause it's gay/cheap"

But, Roller never once said the name Meta Knight.

And by all means, let me know what's wrong with Distant Planet...

Inconsistent stage events, random items popping up that do upwards of 25!%, Bulborb camping, inherently campy design overall, multiple abuses of rain, and the hill-side ledge are plenty enough things wrong with a stage to ban it for me.

 

[Yikarur]

the items are good and very balanced.

 

[Flayl]

The problem with Distant Planet is that it doesn't rain often enough to discourage walkoff camping (which is somewhat mitigated by pellets) and circle camping-lite IMO

Kinklink has obviously never played on it competitively =/

Anybody who cites the Bulborb and "rain abuse" as reasons to ban it is silly.

 

[Roller]

MK will dominate regardless of the stagelist. Heck, one of his most broken tactics is on SV for pete's sake! I hate how, in the absense of a good argument, everyone just falls back on "MK too good here, ban it 'cause it's gay/cheap"

And by all means, let me know what's wrong with Distant Planet...

But, Roller never once said the name Meta Knight.

^^^ This. I don't care about mk there. I can go pika on rc and beat them unless they have a lot of pika experience on that stage. But the fact that my character just can NOT feasibly be used there is ********. None of the other legal stages (other meaning not rc/brin) invalidate characters or lower/raise them by multiple tiers.

But characters like Game and Watch, Pikachu, Wario, etc are all at least as broken as mk is on that stage. Walls for infinites and locks, moving field of battle and disappearing as well as recovery blocking platforms, rising carpets increasing combos such as allowing pika to cg mk to MUCH higher percents; all of this crap interferes with the PvP aspect of the game. It is a handicap for severely limiting characters options when the player can't do so on their own merit/skill.

There are multiple problems with Distant Planet. The random items are one, but I don't believe that makes the stage unviable. However aspects such as the sloping walkoff giving characters like pikachu guaranteed walkoffs against characters he normally can't even fthrow cg (which is already a LOT of the cast), the right side of the stage promoting circle camping, sharking, scrooging, etc. The rain forcing characters onto a constantly sharkable side of the stage, the random creature that comes up on the far right and can kill you if you get hit down their at given times, yet other times you can just get hit down there and be fine. All of those are ******** aspects of the stage, and when combined with the randomly generated items, makes for a completely noncompetitive environment.

 

[Juushichi]

I dunno, stuff like moving carpets extending combos seems kinda synonymous to the edge of a screen allowing for combo opportunities that you don't get mid screen. Not a huge deal, imo. Everything you mentioned about DP seems pretty okay actually (in my mind at least). Rain isn't a problem and certainly the projectiles aren't, especially by themselves. I mean, there's Pika stuff, but there's probably a lot of stuff for a lot of characters. Overall, though think all of that together makes it a not-okay stage. Not nearly "completely uncompetitive" like people like to throw around. Unless one also thinks like Brinstar, RC, PS2 and other stages that interrupt "pure PvP" are completely uncompetitive.

Having Lylat compared to Brinstar Depths made me throw up in my mouth a little.