Another, different ruleset idea

[Life]

Opponent has a broken tactic on part of the stage? Don't approach them there. In RC's case, you avoid them until the stage moves on (does "don't get grabbed" sound familiar? ), and in DP's case you stay away and play catch with the pellets until it rains.

Also, the ghosts on YIB are FAR more likely to mess something up than the Bulborb.

 

[Akaku94]

When I mentioned MK, I was referring to Yikaur's comment 2 above mine. Should have been clearer in that regard.

As for DP, there's no aspect of it that causes degenerate gameplay or randomness, so I don't see what the problem with it is. The slope negates the walkoff in most situations, and pseudo-op tactics like I've seen mentioned about Pika aren't broken because the rain would force an approach from the slope. Bulb is laughable, and items actually help more than they hurt :/

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

I disagree. Allowing MK will completely defeat the purpose of the chara-lock and the stage selection is way too lenient. Also, not having DSP/stage bans will pretty much guarantee the set to whoever wins the first game. The other rules seem pretty good, though.

 

[xDD-Master]

Always those omniscent people ...

 

[xDD-Master]

Bump lets talk about it again !

 

[lordvaati]

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

IDC legal?

andI notice no items isn't in rules. could they be legal?

 

[xDD-Master]

I only said whats different to URC Ruleset.

 

[xDD-Master]

Bump bump :D

 

[Claire Diviner]

Any rules on the Ledge Grab Limit? So far, I do like the ruleset, although 10 minutes might be a tad bit lengthy, in my opinion.

 

[| Big D |]

I like the stage list and timer.

I do not like the idea of being character locked one bit, or having no stage bans.

People shouldn't have the option of springing a large counter pick on somebody without having any way of dealing with it.

Being able to pick up characters for problem match ups is a skill that is being taken away and in my mind decreases the skill gap.

Game one becomes that much more important and before you say. "Oh, people who win game one usually win the set" That's because they are they better player, not because of an existing counter pick system that over centralizes game one. Character diversity will go way down because characters who are easily counter picked have no way of switching game 2. This will literally kill all hype in a set as before people could adapt throughout the set.

 

[allshort17]

Not as much as in the ruleset now though. Because you get a stage CP or a character CP, it lessen the strength of a loser's CP. So, there shouldn't be too many big counter picks. Sure, you could possibly have to play a bad match or bad stage, but you picked the character at the start and knew what you were getting into. Unlike our system now, where you can get rid of all advantage for the loser just by switching character and possibly give yourself more of an advantage. For example, as a Dedede player I would CP ZSS to frigate because I like the stage and it works out in my favor. However, if you just switch to say MK then what was the point of me getting a CP?

 

[| Big D |]

I hate to break this to you but Meta Knight will do that no matter what...
On this rule set it's even more of a factor because he's the safest option now that you get character locked.

If he switches characters to cover the stage choice then you still have the option to pick your character second. This at least allows him to neutralize a the counter pick unlike before where it can have a huge effect and not having any way to deal with it.

Like say I win with Ice Climbers game one and I get counter picked to Frigate/Delfino.
Not only can I not ban either of those stages but I can't even switch characters putting me at a huge disadvantage.

And then next game you can't ban FD or switch characters either T.T

It makes game one way too over-centralized and like I said before cuts down the skill gap by punishing those who can play multiple characters which is a skill.

 

[allshort17]

MK was just an example. I know you can get screwed over many different ways by other characters, he was just the easiest to do at the moment.

You have a point with the bans. So, I'll say take away the no stage ban rule and possibly the no DSR idea and this could be a great ruleset.

 

[xDD-Master]

We dont buff Match Ups.

When ICs vs MK is bad on Fregate/Delfino then thats your problem, just like DK is bad vs DDD on every stage. We dont say "Lets ban picking DDD vs DK".

Mastering more than one stage is a equivalent skill to mastering characters, how it should be.
It is what makes Smash unique, the Stages.

This ruleset should strengthen that, you can either choose to stick to one chara and mastering all stages & MUs with it OR mastering multiple Charas.

In your example it could be like this:

ICs vs MK first match on CS or something.
Then the MK can pick Delfino / Fregate. But he could also pick Snake and they go to CS again. (Lets assume Snake counters ICs just for the sake of an example)
Then the ICs can either go to FD (If he prefers that) OR he could change the character.

MK is in BOTH systems the ultimate safe choice, no matter what ruleset you have.

I know that this system puts quite a big favor on Game 1, but thats not a problem, you have to see the set as a whole.
If you lose the first Match, thats your fault.

 

[| Big D |]

We dont buff Match Ups.

Switching rule sets buffs/nerfs match ups compared to other rule sets...

When ICs vs MK is bad on Fregate/Delfino then thats your problem, just like DK is bad vs DDD on every stage. We dont say "Lets ban picking DDD vs DK".

No, you're just banning let the opponent have no option of switching from DK T.T
If my problem is getting screwed over by this rule set then yes it is, so let me deal with it right here.

Mastering more than one stage is a equivalent skill to mastering characters, how it should be.
It is what makes Smash unique, the Stages.

I agree, having a mastery of different stages is a great skill to have. However some characters are just inherently better/worse to an extent where we have bans so that the effect of the counter pick is turned down. You aren't adding the skill of using stages, you're just taking away the skill of using multiple characters.

This ruleset should strengthen that, you can either choose to stick to one chara and mastering all stages & MUs with it OR mastering multiple Charas.

The rule set doesn't strengthen it at all, or should you be punished for being able to play multiple characters and stages. Here's an analogy.
We're in a fight, you have a gun, and I have a glass of water. Sure it takes way more skill to use that glass of water but at the same time the person with a gun has such a large advantage that you're taking away skill required to win. With character/stage combinations is a vastly wider variety of scenarios to be able use.
In your example it could be like this:

ICs vs MK first match on CS or something.
Then the MK can pick Delfino / Fregate. But he could also pick Snake and they go to CS again. (Lets assume Snake counters ICs just for the sake of an example)
Then the ICs can either go to FD (If he prefers that) OR he could change the character.

So in other words you have a large counter pick when you lose... See above.

MK is in BOTH systems the ultimate safe choice, no matter what ruleset you have.

He is safe, but he is much much safer now that you are character locked, whoy would I bother playing Falco? I'll just get counter picked by Ics/Pikachu. Mk had no bad matchups before but why pick any character with a bad matchup when I know I'll just lose game 2.

I know that this system puts quite a big favor on Game 1, but thats not a problem, you have to see the set as a whole.
If you lose the first Match, thats your fault.

I see the set as game one right now, why? Because game 1 gives the victor a huge advantage that is extremely hard to come back from. There is no set here, just game one. People lose game one all the time and come back because they are able to adapt. Adapting is what makes brawl. Adapting is reads, getting through walls, learning you're opponents play style. This rule set destroys all of that and will literally kill brawl as we know it. The only characters you will see is MK, Marth, Diddy, and maybe Olimar. A set shouldn't just be game one.

 

[xDD-Master]

Thats not true (The last part), in our actual ruleset its "Oppenant goes to Delfino -> pick MK because he will most likely pick MK too", and in this one its "You have to stick to your chara (which can be non-MK) and play vs MK on Delfino", therefore you wont see only MK and more around.

You can still win Game 1 vs MK on a pretty neutral stage (Which it will be for game one), then loose, and then win again.

Its not thaaaat different from how it is now.


That Rulesets always influence match-ups is correct, but what I meant to say, that MU-reasons arent an indicator if a ruleset is good or bad.

When creating a ruleset, it doesnt matter how the MUs will be at first. A good ruleset is good, when it makes sense.

This one makes sense.


I basically copied the character lock from OTHER traditional fighting games, where you are character lock. Maybe it doesnt work for Smash. I know your complaints, but I'm not sure how to fix this...

If we just remove this rule, then the loser of the last match has a bad situation as he can either only change character or change stage, while the other player can always change character. This system would make sense then.

Right now its good, it gives the looser always an advantage, but not a double advantage (Stage+Chara CP).

 

[allshort17]

We have to consider what we get from both rulesets.

Current one: Loser has the ability to create almost unwinnable CP's due to stage and character CG. Winner can completely cancel this out due to his ability to character CP. Loser is not guaranteed an advantage with a CP. Stage selection loses strength due to bans, DSR, and the ability for the winner to character change.

XDD-Master's one: Loser's CP ability is not as strong because you can only CP stage or character. The loser will be guaranteed an advantage because the loser has no way of canceling it. Stages gain importance because the loser has the ability to CP any legal stage.

With the current one, there's more risk in CP'ing incorrectly. The loser can set up situations to almost guarantee him game two. For example, an DK player beats someone. The loser CP's him to Delfino with Dedede. That's near unwinnable for the DK. However, the DK can always cancel this by picking a better character to deal with Dedede, such as Falco. So, now the CP is useless and you gave advantage to the winner. There is a new level of strategy because you either have to CP what is seen on screen or CP what the other is hiding. This goes for bother sides. So, ultimately you get more neutral matches because both players usually take precautions to not get a disadvantage. This also promotes character diversity, but if not at the top level this character switch often causes all the characters a player chooses to be worse than if they just choose one.

Under XDD-Master's ruleset, the loser is guaranteed an advantage no matter what. So, prepare to see more bad MU's played. However, the loser also can not set up as devastating as a CP. Back to my situation above, the loser vs the DK can now only CP Dedede or Delfino. This means he has less to overcome, but will definitely have to overcome something. Stage choice will take more of an effect. I could see the tier list radically changing in this ruleset single-handedly due to stages. That is a level of depth brought out more in this ruleset. Character diversity will decrease and will be more focused about characters with little or no major CP flaw, however the character will often be better because players only have to focus on one person.

There are two things that break both systems. The first is MK. Whether you pick him at the beginning or in the middle of the set it doesn't matter. You lose most all character advantage you could have and lose all stage advantage. The second is player skill. I tried not to consider it too much when debating this. The better player will win for the most part. So, you can overcome any bad match-up if you are better. However, the point of a CP in any game is to give the loser to have some advantage over the winner to even it out. The two rulesets are just different ways to approaching it.

Personally, I like and am fine with both ideas. I would like to see how XDD-Master's ruleset more just because it hasn't been used. I would also like to see it in a MK ban environment because I feel it would be more balanced.

 

[xDD-Master]

^ I couldnt have said it better, thx a lot for this post
(English isnt my mother tongue, thats one reason why I couldve never said it better than you did, well done!)

 

[| Big D |]

We have to consider what we get from both rulesets.

Shoot

Current one: Loser has the ability to create almost unwinnable CP's due to stage and character CG. Winner can completely cancel this out due to his ability to character CP. Loser is not guaranteed an advantage with a CP. Stage selection loses strength due to bans, DSR, and the ability for the winner to character change.

No you pick the stage first then character. Allowing the winner to switch means you can play a character with better MUs to cover the weak MUs from before. The loser picks their character second so they don't get character counter pick >.> I have no clue what you're trying to say here, you begin by saying that the loser gets to create a completely winnable MU when he doesn't then you say he doesn't get any advantage at all.

XDD-Master's one: Loser's CP ability is not as strong because you can only CP stage or character. The loser will be guaranteed an advantage because the loser has no way of canceling it. Stages gain importance because the loser has the ability to CP any legal stage.

While normally it wouldn't be as strong, you are forgetting you are character locked and can be counterpicked to extreme cases, both with stage and character. It is a huge advantage to have, and you are tipping the scales way too much.

With the current one, there's more risk in CP'ing incorrectly. The loser can set up situations to almost guarantee him game two. For example, an DK player beats someone. The loser CP's him to Delfino with Dedede. That's near unwinnable for the DK. However, the DK can always cancel this by picking a better character to deal with Dedede, such as Falco. So, now the CP is useless and you gave advantage to the winner. There is a new level of strategy because you either have to CP what is seen on screen or CP what the other is hiding. This goes for bother sides. So, ultimately you get more neutral matches because both players usually take precautions to not get a disadvantage. This also promotes character diversity, but if not at the top level this character switch often causes all the characters a player chooses to be worse than if they just choose one.

You pick your character second. If you pick Dedede when he goes Falco, you CP'd yourself. This does not promote character diversity at all I can't stress this enough and I can't conceivably grasp how you can have such a view. Why pick a character with MUs that can be completely taken advantage of game 2? This just promotes characters with mostly even MUs like Pit, Diddy, Marth, and MK, especially MK. Why should DK players be forced into that MU when they can lessen the blow with pockets. I agree with the ability to counter pick but now there is literally no skill involved here.

Under XDD-Master's ruleset, the loser is guaranteed an advantage no matter what. So, prepare to see more bad MU's played. However, the loser also can not set up as devastating as a CP. Back to my situation above, the loser vs the DK can now only CP Dedede or Delfino. This means he has less to overcome, but will definitely have to overcome something. Stage choice will take more of an effect. I could see the tier list radically changing in this ruleset single-handedly due to stages. That is a level of depth brought out more in this ruleset. Character diversity will decrease and will be more focused about characters with little or no major CP flaw, however the character will often be better because players only have to focus on one person.

But the loser can be set up to a devastating counter pick because they are character locked. Before the person could switch off DK and not have to deal with that horrendous MU which is practically a free win. What you don't seem to grasp is that picking up different characters is just as much, if not more of a skill then just defining one character. Limiting a players abilities just to ensure that the winner of game 1 wins is ridiculous.

There are two things that break both systems. The first is MK. Whether you pick him at the beginning or in the middle of the set it doesn't matter. You lose most all character advantage you could have and lose all stage advantage. The second is player skill. I tried not to consider it too much when debating this. The better player will win for the most part. So, you can overcome any bad match-up if you are better. However, the point of a CP in any game is to give the loser to have some advantage over the winner to even it out. The two rulesets are just different ways to approaching it.

But now MK is just that much safer since you are character locked. It's not really buffing MK, it's making everyone else that much worse so that MK becomes to an even larger extent the safest, and most dominant character.

Personally, I like and am fine with both ideas. I would like to see how XDD-Master's ruleset more just because it hasn't been used. I would also like to see it in a MK ban environment because I feel it would be more balanced.

If by "balanced" you mean whoever wins game one will win and that is played on the most neutral settings >.>
I literally think this rule set would kill brawl.

 

[xDD-Master]

^ what about DK is a bad character and you shouldnt play him, unless maybe game 3?

At the moment its mostly "Pick DK game 1, change game 2 if you won the first match, MAYBE change back game 3". (Or change Game 3 is you lost the first and you dont get CPed game 2)

Now it would be more like "Dont pick DK game one, dont pick him Game 2, pick him game 3 if you can and the match up is acceptable/good"
OR "Pick him game 1 on your own risk and change game2/3 (Depending on if you won the first match or not)"

This system kinda promotes using good characters that are MU-safe, thats very likely true, but thats not a bad thing, and you can still use a different character at times.

Its just a different system where different characters can shine. Maybe less/more, but THATS not important. A ruleset is good when it makes sense / is logical, this one makes sense and is logical, while the current one isnt. In our current system the point of giving the loser a small advantage is completely taken away as you dont know what your oppenant will do.

This ruleset idea (I didnt create it on my own btw, thats why I dont refer to it as mine) promotes the usage of all stages in this game (As you strike from ALL stages game one -> You will most likely get SV/YI/LC/CS/PS2 probably) and better counterpick stages on game 2/3 (FD, DP, FO).

This can also lead into cool upsets (If an ICs player wins vs a MK on FO/DP for example or vice versa) as you actually HAVE to learn to deal with those stages, instead of relying on probably worse pocket characters, which I see a lot in the current system.

But all of this is JUST theory, we would actually have to test this rulset, to see what it will be like...

 

[| Big D |]

Main things are...
>Kills character diversity (Character diversity is a good thing btw...)
>Punishes those that play multiple characters
>Sets up for extreme counters
>Over centralizes game one to an extreme
>MK is in another league than he is now
>Forcing someone to remain their character in smash is not "logical"
>Our current system still ensures a slight advantage
>While it takes more skill for one player to deal with those hard stages, this is completely negated by the fact it takes much less skill for the opposing player, and this means that the best player does not necessarily win.

 

[xDD-Master]

negated by the fact it takes much less skill for the opposing player, and this means that the best player does not necessarily win.

Thats not true, the better player always wins.

Who is better is decided by who is better at this specific Ruleset-XY and not who is better at one specific Ruleset.

Just because people that are good under our current ruleset might be worse at this one, doesnt mean that this ruleset makes the better player loose.

Thats like saying LTs doesnt show who is the best player, because not every character is allowed.
It still shows who is the best in LTs.
Therefore the best LTs player wins.

You assume that our current ruleset already is the best in showing the best player, which isnt true, it just shows who is the best under THIS specific ruleset.

 

[| Big D |]

Ok, you severely limit which skills are tested and completely reduce the skill gap between two players.

This specific rule set allows for these skills to be tested under a relatively even playing ground.

In yours you take the winner of game one then make it extremely hard to come back.

You could say it takes more skill to come back but it takes a lot less skill to win the set once you've one game one.

Only a fraction of skills are being tested here and that is why the best player won't always win, because you take away their ability to switch characters and adapt.

 

[The Ben]

Only a fraction of skills are being tested here and that is why the best player won't always win, because you take away their ability to switch characters and adapt.

By definition the best player is the player who wins under a given rule set. That means that if there is a difference of performance between rule sets that one player is better given a different set of circumstances, not that the better player is losing.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Character lock is really bad, especially in a game where stages play an role in individual matchups. Most other competitive fighters don't have the stage element involved, which is why character lock seems more reasonable there.

 

[| Big D |]

By definition the best player is the player who wins under a given rule set. That means that if there is a difference of performance between rule sets that one player is better given a different set of circumstances, not that the better player is losing.

I've heard an analogy and I'll use it here.

Let's say that the NBA adopted a new rule set and became the NNBA.

In this game the basket is extended to 20 meters wide and you can't play defense up to the foul line.

Now the game becomes whoever can win the jump ball has a large advantage as it is almost impossible to come back.

Now what you're saying is that the better team which was defined by team work, athletic ability, and form is now defined as who can jump higher in one round.

There are many, many skills to test which can be used to define the better player but when you completely restrict those with the abilities to change characters, you aren't finding the "better" player anymore.

 

[The Ben]

There are many, many skills to test which can be used to define the better player but when you completely restrict those with the abilities to change characters, you aren't finding the "better" player anymore.

Yes you are. Your example fails to take into account the fact that you're not playing by the same rules and are therefore not meant to measure it the same way. The team that can jump higher is still the better team because that is what the rule set is meant to measure.

 

[| Big D |]

In both a different rule set and my analogy you are playing by different rules.
The team that has the highest jumper may be the best at that particular rule set, but compared to before, the skill gap is severely reduced and you take away skills that were needed before. In a competitive environment the idea is to widen the skill gap.

 

[The Ben]

I agree with the first part of the statement, that by changing the rules you're changing the rules. The rest of your post is pretty far off the mark. Perhaps the skill gap isn't reduced and there really is a large gap between who jumps highest and who doesn't. Secondly you're misusing the word competitive in an a pretty extreme way. A rule set can't be more competitive than another, and the purpose of competitive play isn't to widen the skill gap. The purpose of competitive play is to play competitively, skill gap be damned. Competitive is a mind set, not a measurable value.

 

[| Big D |]

What makes a game function at a competitive level is the measure of skill gap between players. Skill gap is extremely important to even have a competitive scene. The skill gap is reduced in this rule set because you are taking away many attributes of the game and restricting people's ability to use their skills.

It is all about the skill gap, this is why we limit random factors, ban stages, and have a rule set to begin with.

That is what my analogy tried to compare.

Everything you know about anything competitive what so ever comes down to skill gap, I can not emphasize this enough.

Skill gap.

One more time.

Skill gap.

 

[xDD-Master]

You know, that you kinda contradict yourself?
After what you said, we shouldnt ban stages, items etc., as we limit skill tests with this. On the other hand you criticize that we take out changing chara after every game.

But to make it clear to you: If you have skill in a game is ALWAYS related to the specific ruleset you play with. One player might have more skill in ruleset A while he is worse in Ruleset B.

WE decide what skill we want to measure, and the ruleset should support this.
In Brawl we want to test who is the best player, which by default has NO statement on the question if we want to test skill of playing multiple characters or playing on multiple stages.
We never said, we want to know who plays the most characters, or best multiple characters. Otherwise we should limit picking a character to once per round.

The ruleset decides which skills to test. Thats true.
This ruleset tests the same skills just like the current one. (You can still change chara or stage)
This ruleset might test game-one skills more than before, but you have to see a set as a whole.
Game 1 always is and was the most neutral. No matter which ruleset you use.
That doesnt make it worse or anything, it just makes this ruleset different.

This ruleset just strengthens the idea of actually being able to have an advantage after losing. If this is good or bad is another topic, which we also already discussed before, but now we are on a different topic, so I want go into detail now.

The better player still wins.

 

[The Ben]

What makes a game function at a competitive level is the measure of skill gap between players. Skill gap is extremely important to even have a competitive scene. The skill gap is reduced in this rule set because you are taking away many attributes of the game and restricting people's ability to use their skills.

What makes a game competitive is some number of people wanting to compete. Their skill doesn't matter, and the gap in skill is only a factor because they're competing. It's really that simple. In fact, there's an annual Rock Paper Scissors world championship, and that game is 100% luck, 0% skill.

It is all about the skill gap, this is why we limit random factors, ban stages, and have a rule set to begin with.

Adapting to randomness is a skill therefore you're still limiting a skill. The difference is what skills you choose to measure. Just because a rule set shifts the focus doesn't mean it doesn't measure some number of skills better, and at the end of the day the best player in a given rule set is still the person who wins.

Everything you know about anything competitive what so ever comes down to skill gap, I can not emphasize this enough.

I already kinda explained this, but nope. If two people want to compete at flipping a coin it's still just as competitive as any other competition.