Australian Competitive Brawl Ruleset Discussion *Update: 15/05/08* *Spoilers*

[Mr. Phantasmo]

Could Peach still pull out beam swords and bombs in Melee with items turned completly off ?, It might still work in Brawl.

As for stage discussion and being fair.

AFL uses different sized grounds and it gives home teams an advantage , although not much. Still, teams that train on smaller grounds would use spinters well while teams that train on larger grounds would utilize big kickers and long distant runners instead.
Having the ground longer and/or wider wouldn't really affect the over all game much but I imagin the strategy used on each ground would change significantly. Overall though I have never heard anyone complain about how the grounds are unfair, only that it adds a depth that not many other sports do.

The reason I play smash over other beat-em-ups is because I like the whole approch to the different stages. If there is $250 on the line and I lost on a stage disadvantageous to my character I would see it as an inability for me to adapt and change my style and my opponent's greater skill rather than I got cheaped out because of a bad stage.

 

[CAOTIC]

I hope you guys are enjoying the ruleset discussions. I've read up on suggestions and I think the current model I'm using now satisfies the majority and I don't see too much reason in changing anything, other than the ones I've already changed. I'm running my second Brawl tournament in less than 2 weeks, so I'll see what I can do in further refining my rules.

Bjay - an answer to your question can be found in my last long-winded post on this thread. It can probably answer Plasia's question to an extent as well. That's if you can be bothered finding it.

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Scrubs: The issue with items is the ability of them to randomly screw you, and that some characters will simply not get them period. Final smashes are insanely broken in terms of balance also. If general consensus says otherwise then hey...consider giving them a shot. I know which characters I'll be using though .

Plasia: Before I say any of this I don't want you to feel as if I'm attacking you or anything - read wrong it could seem that way.

I know at least in my case I always choose the neutral stages, even if I'm losing. This isn't because I (somehow) find it hard to exploit counterpick stages but because I believe it's wrong. If I lose I believe it is because my skill level is less than theirs, if I think it's because of a disadvantageous matchup then I might switch to my secondary character. The extent of my stage counterpicking is picking a neutral stage that may favour me slightly more.

Basically I don't believe playing on a counterpick stage is a true contest of skill.

You're welcome to think honourably. I very rarely counter pick on a non-neutral stage....simply because I believe playing on a stage that favours my opponent is going to improve my ability to deal with the pressures of an up hill battle. What Redact said about if you choose to disadvantage or lessen your advantage being your decision holds true though - you're only responsible for your own decisions.

"If the game is a good one, it will become deeper and deeper and more strategic. Poorly designed games will become shallower and shallower."

This is because people like myself will grow, master new unseen techniques and explore the potential of overlooked scenarios. Pong was a great game in its time, but due to the limitations it had it never grew any deeper than the game allowed itself to be. PS: Don't bring Sirlin into this.

I wish Brawl to become a deeper game, not a shallower one. I do not believe bias in the contest of skill through elements like counterpick stages promotes a deeper game.

It could be said "i do not believe bias in the contest of skill through elements like counter-pick characters promotes a deeper game." Depth is measured by variance. Variance is a product of variables. Variables being the amount of different factors that can change a scenario. Limit the scenarios and you will ultimately favour one over the other.
Server in tennis being a good example. Often the commentators will predict the winner based on who currently holds serve. It's up to the player who would otherwise lose if both held serve to break the service game of the server to gain the upper hand. Up hill battles are a part of competition, and a good testament to skill - not otherwise.

Smash having different battlefields and scenarios doesn't limit skill at all - it promotes a broader understanding of the characters, stages, match-ups and the correlation between those three factors, and generally rewards the player with the better understanding of these.
/end Plasia focused rant.

I also only really play on Neutrals Plasia. If I win due to a crap stage like skyworld, it doesn't feel like I have achieved anything.

Nelson defeated Napoleons superior naval force by attacking them in the night while they slept.
Honour is a virtue and a personal decision - though it's not necessarily a prerequisite to victory.
On a kinda related note: I'd love it if the Iraq war recently was decided by a punch-on between Bush and Sadam - but sadly it didn't happen, and much innocent blood was spilled.

-----
To the main point of late;

If the concept of having to consider two factors that will outcome the match is too much for people to handle then please say so. I don't mean this to sound insulting, but it almost seems to me as if the concept of one counter existing that will upset balance isn't the issue, but a second that can serve to either neutralise this imbalance or further accent it is what bothers people. Please clarify.

 

[Sloth]

Shaz. You and your crazy analogies.

By stating we don't like using counter-picks due to 'honour' doesn't mean we won't ever use them.
I'll abuse to win. I like winning. I'm a competitive person.
The example I was giving is why I highly dislike counter-stages. They place little skill in winning.

If I won because a stage gimped my opponent twice. It doesn't mean I played it better. It doesn't mean I am better. It also doesn't mean they played the stage worse. It means that STAGE is not suitable in showing the potential in who is better.

People grow not by playing more stages. But by playing people around their level on a fare stage in which they can both produce there greatest play. There is nothing to say that having extra stages has allowed for a greater growth.

Variables and variation also don't work in creating a deeper game. By that principle alone we should have items. In fact many games would allow a lot more in tournaments then they currently do.

I understand the view point you and Phil are taking. But to me that view-point doesn't seem resemble in terms of a competitive nature. To me it seems too appeal to a more casual-outlook.
Trying to include more stages to help people have an advantage because they just suck. And this so called strategic value needed actually requires so little skill for the advantage you get.

My bother is that counter-stages upsets the balance to begin with. This bother is also great because if you look at our numbers.
9 neutral stages
18 counter-picks
1 ban.

You can't even help yourself to not get counter-picked on a horrible stage, because there are too many options. It actually eliminates any strategic value or concept that you guys are preaching.

There are too many stages. I think the time to start banning more counter-picks should come soon.

*edit* Plasia posted about as soon as I did. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE SAID <3 Especially the last part

 

[Plasia]

edit: I'm not taking any offence guys, I just want to make this game as competitive as possible.

I will try and explain my position with maths. Hopefully this will make what I am attempting to say easier for people to understand.

Before I start, I would like people to note that 3D fighting games like Tekken 5 have stage counterpicking to a lesser extent, ie: if someone picks a wall-less stage against my Lee in Tekken 5.0 they'll have an easier time. My fighting game experience is not limited to Street Fighter, this isn't new to me, the main difference is that the stages in those 3D fighters are way less game defining than the ones you find in smash.

Here we go:

w = player skill
x = character A (in relation to character B)
y = character B (in relation to character A)
z = stage

variables exempted because of current rules: luck

Normal fighting games are:
wx vs wy

Character * Player Skill (with character)

Conclusion: The outcome is determined by the players' skill with their character and how the characters compare with eachother.

Smash is:
wxz vs wyz

(Character * Player Skill (with character)) * stage

This is inevitable, smash doesn't have constant stages like most other fighting games.

The thing about this addition of the stage element is that it is different to every character. While Stage A may have a small multiplier for Character A, for Character B it may have a large multiplier (because of some aspect of the stage Character B can exploit).

Conclusion: The outcome is determined by how the characters compare with eachother, how the stage benefits the characters and the players' skill with their character.

This is a problem because some of the stages clearly favour some characters (these are generally the counterpick stages), this makes skill less important for that particular match. For smash to be a better competitive game we need to make it more a contest of skill.

So what I propose is that we be more careful about this stage counterpicking element and try to retain as much of the contest of skills as possible.

 

[Scrubs]

Scrubs: The issue with items is the ability of them to randomly screw you, and that some characters will simply not get them period. Final smashes are insanely broken in terms of balance also. If general consensus says otherwise then hey...consider giving them a shot. I know which characters I'll be using though .

I wasn't suggesting we should play with items.......I don't think you took it that way but it kind of sounded like you did.

DeDeDe, Diddy, Game and Watch.... maybe a few others, can produce Items when they use their special moves.

If you turn items to OFF rather than just the frequency to NONE this rules this out.

I was wondering whether we should make it a rule that items be turned to OFF rather than just the frequency turned to NONE. I think it should be the former.

The reason that people might say otherwise is that Peach could do this in Melee and it was still allowed.

Oh and yes another ban..... 2 bans fo' sho

 

[Redact]

i already mentioned the dedede item thing to caotic, i made sure each of the smashes had it like that for the ranbat, worked good
randomly throwing a smashball during a match =/= cool in any way

also neither sloth nor plasia have answered this
how is marth VS ganon a true display of skill?
im saying character counter picks are more broken than stage counter picks

if stage counter picks were as broken as you say, show me how a ganon can **** a marth due to it

PS: im still for 2 bans after all this time

 

[sLibs]

....we like ike

 

[Sloth]

To Redact:
And are you choosing to ignore everything else we've stated?

You seem to have this ideal image that counter-stages and counter-characters are on equal footing. I have already said why that is wrong. you did not dispute my claim.

It is a higher display of skill for what the basic maths that Plasia produced. If you don't understand that, I am doubtful I could change your opinion. But I'll try.

Of course I agree at times certain matchups are worse then counter-stages. That is why people generally didn't go IC vrs Peach in Melee. Competitively nature and placing high generally means you use a few characters and generally the top-tiers.

Now lets put characters without really any bad matchups verse each other. Add a counter-stage then you get an imbalance.

Now add up everything we've said. I can put this in more common knowledge of melee for my own personal sake.. This is pure hypothetical.

Lets say for example: A Fox and a Peach of equal skill.
On FD win ration is: 50/50
On Dreamland win ration is: 40/60
On FoD win ration is: 60/40

Generally it would be quiet close between the two players. But add in the Z FACTOR. ie counter-stage. Now suddenly:

On Mute City win ration is: 20/80
On Rainbow Cruise win ration is: 10/90
On Pokefloats win ration is: 95/5

Remember this is a pure hypothetical using melee as the foundation of what I am talking about. If you think I was too extreme, I can replace a few characters and make it accurate to what I said.

In that sense the true estimate of a players ability shouldn't be because of the stage. It would be a more accurate result if all of it was done on neutral stages.

I also said why counter-picking doesn't take skill. Simply put, counter-picks lowers the games depth. Understand my viewpoint at least Redact? I want them removed, but that simple won't happen.
They are basically the handicap of smash.

From a further look back since smashboards didn't post my first reply, I am including this as well:
Your perspective is basically that counter-characters is worse then counter-stages? Your trying to include stages to produce greater separate into characters abilities to give yourself a benefit.

Counter-characters is also giving yourself a benefit, but considering that you can take up two characters and be well rounded against everyone in the cast is subject enough that it actually doesn't create the dynamic environment of inconsistencies that your after. Hey its just like neutral stages in a way!

If your conclusion then is that counter-stages help the non-top tiers characters, that by definition eliminates the purpose of a competitive game. Your fundamentally condemning it to remaining casual

I hope this will be one of my final posts about the subject. If people don't see where I am coming from after everything I've posted, then nothing further posting will change your mind.

Edit *one more thing* You can pick and choose your characters. You can't pick and choose what stage that they will take you on The purpose of a ban was to help, but seeing as that is now utterly useless with our amount of stages, it is just made counter-picks worse!

---
Onto something important now.

Scrubs I also vote two bans. The only problem I see is once more and more stages do get removed - if they do - then getting rid of the two ban idea might be a bit hard. But until it actually gets to around Melee's level it would still be more beneficial. (Please no one comment on that defeating the whole point of counter-stages, I already posted a bit about that and no one has chosen to rebuttal my claims.)

The only other ways to fix the issue is to continue with 1 ban which.. well. doesn't fix the issue
Ban counter-stages, which fixes the issue but would cause too much controversy
Ban more stages, which would be more ideal, but we would have to cut the number by a fare bit for one ban to have any effect.

To SLibs. I don't like Ike much

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Everything Plasia says is absolutely correct and in line with what Cats and I have been saying all along (except his conclusion on what it means). This says to me that the only thing standing in the way of agreement is not a lack of understanding on either side, but a totally different view on what constitutes skill. You guys are concentrating all your effort on few stages and perhaps one or two characters. If you choose to do this, then power to you. We choose otherwise, and so will be at an advantage under the Rambo rule-set. I'm done with this convo now though - my analogies are getting no wub xD. If you want broken characters face off in plain stages hit up SF like Plasia said

 

[Sloth]

I don't need to hit up SF if I can do it in smash. This is an adaptive conversation to consider a standard tournament ruleset but it is no subject to be followed.

If the QLD ppl want neutral stage only tournaments/anything else that goes on, I'll run them for us to enjoy!

I thought brawl singles = swiss system = one match = no counter-picks?

Also Shaz, do you have any input on ban's?

 

[CAOTIC]

Brawl and Melee singles for Rambo will now be:
- Swiss System
- Best of 1 match per round
- Rounds maximised within a 2.5 hour timeframe (estimating 6-8 rounds possible)
- Random select only, with 1 stage cancel
- Random stages are set to the the 9 currently set for Rambo
- Double blind enforced at will

The top 4 will forego an DE Finals bracket with the rules I previously designed.

 

[Plasia]

Since it's just one match per round would you consider double blind character picking? It's a common SF tourney practice.

(if you don't know what it is: http://www.evo2k.com/playerGuide/rules.php#doubleblind )

 

[CAOTIC]

Double blind is common practice in Smash too - only if someone decides to enforce it. *Edited*

 

[Scrubs]

Everything Plasia says is absolutely correct and in line with what Cats and I have been saying all along (except his conclusion on what it means). This says to me that the only thing standing in the way of agreement is not a lack of understanding on either side, but a totally different view on what constitutes skill. You guys are concentrating all your effort on few stages and perhaps one or two characters. If you choose to do this, then power to you. We choose otherwise, and so will be at an advantage under the Rambo rule-set. I'm done with this convo now though - my analogies are getting no wub xD. If you want broken characters face off in plain stages hit up SF like Plasia said

You shouldn't be rewarded for knowing how to play lot's of different stages. Because that is not the point of the game. The point of the game is out think your opponent.

This is my theory behind TWO bans....

ONE ban favors those people who have learned to use different aspects of different stages to their advantage. This is a part of Brawl and I like it( I don't want to play on FD only) however this should not be the focus of the game.

TWO bans level the playing field AND due to this the result of a match based on who has more skill. Not who knows how to play on the most stages.

 

[Mic_129]

You shouldn't be rewarded for knowing how to play lot's of different stages. Because that is not the point of the game. The point of the game is out think your opponent.

And if your opponent hasn't practiced on a stage, choosing that stage to me, would be out thinking them. they didn't think of 'training' on it, and because they're then unfamiliar, they are then at the disadvantage.

TWO bans level the playing field AND due to this the result of a match based on who has more skill. Not who knows how to play on the most stages.

To me it seems more like it's covering for a players lack of skill on certain stage types.

 

[Darkwing SykeDuk]

This game just keeps getting noobified >_>

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Sloth - Bans? Well there was the Dedede rule I suggested earlier. As for banning particular stages on counter picks - I think one only. I mentioned earlier that certain terrain types and such exist only in two stages on the allowed stages. Two bans would eliminate them totally. Assuming it's true that Marth does well on stages with a platform he can attack up through, and Puff does well on a water stage. Two bans would not totally remove Marths attack up through platforms - there are still one or two really well suited to him. Removing Delfino and Great Sea would remove the water Puff needs. Removing one however will allow you to take the one of those that suits them best (or you least...your choice) away. Assuming your character can reach through platforms well on Deflino and you feel this works in your favour...you then ban Great Sea and make your stand on the ground platform of Delfino. Hope thats understandble xD

Scrubs - Your input is always welcome - but the CAPS and 'facts' are hurtful. Friends not foes bud - round table it up a little - like King Arthur said "All for one and one for all" (lol) xD

Plasia can I ask something? We've been holding tourneys for years and years with much success...you've been there for a lot of it. Where on earth did this sudden lack of faith come from?

 

[Redact]

You shouldn't be rewarded for knowing how to play lot's of different stages. Because that is not the point of the game. The point of the game is out think your opponent..

the debate taking place here is just opinions against one another
at this point, we're not really making too much progress, its just opinion VS opinion, i think the way sloth put it, is best
qld people want less stages? their tourneys can be like that if they wish
melb people like the variety of stages? our tourneys will stay like this

its just my view, that knowing everything about the game your going to play competitively, is one of the main things. having the ability to play in many situations that aren't screwed up due to luck (items) is a great skill, but this is what separates our opinions.

sloth/scrubs: it just seems to me you guys don't think that playing in all forms of situations, even the bad ones, and turning them around to be good, is a skill. this isn't exactly wrong, but it just seems to be in my opinion

it seems we have a somewhat different view on what the game should be about, yes it should be about being able to enout think your opponent, and then out think your opponent on how he is going to win, then countering that

a peach chooses dreamland? go for the up-kill, not the side kill. its just personally that i think being able to know what to do in each situation is a skill





also this might just sound like a dodge proposition, but maybe we can employ something like the ability to say before the match that you want random neutrals only, so no one can counter pick, but then you forfeit your ability to strike out a stage, while your opponent, has the ability to strike out twice or once, maybe even ban 1 of the neutrals.
dont know if that would work, but its just something that could please both crowds, it just seems pretty even to me as even if you choose the set of stages that are considered "neutral", your opponent still has the ability to ban/stop what could have been worst for them within that set. making the so called "neutral stages" have a slight favor to your opponent possibly.

either way im just trying to think of a solution that could be acceptable for everyone rather than having melb vs qld

 

[CAOTIC]

qld people want less stages? their tourneys can be like that if they wish melb people like the variety of stages? our tourneys will stay like this

Melbourne's rules will affect every state in Australia once GotGames and Gamerthon kicks in. I think the implications will be stronger than what you think.

 

[NG7]

sloth/scrubs: it just seems to me you guys don't think that playing in all forms of situations, even the bad ones, and turning them around to be good, is a skill. this isn't exactly wrong, but it just seems to be in my opinion

The difference between the amount of skill it takes to turn a match around on a bad stage and the and the amount of skill it takes to just counterpick that stage is so big, to me counterpicking takes no skill at all.

Character matchups = imbalances
Stage matchups = imbalances

You may say it takes skill to know these imbalances and exploit them, but the more imbalances we take from the game the more skill it will take to win.

After that, you may say NONE of the stages in smash are truly neutral, and that i would agree with. Smash is eeeeemmmmbaaaaaa. Stage imbalances will always exist on every stage, but like i said before, the more imbalances we take from the game the more skill it will take to win. That is why i think 2 bans would be better than just 1.

Vote: 2 bans.

 

[Plasia]

Plasia can I ask something? We've been holding tourneys for years and years with much success...you've been there for a lot of it. Where on earth did this sudden lack of faith come from?

You have to remember that I ragequit playing melee seriously after SEAT1 where I got totally gayed out by the swiss system. So really after that I only ever played for the lols and didn't really take notice of things or care overly much.

 

[Redact]

stop ragequitting everything imo plasia, first it was tf2 ragequits, then cod4 ragequits, turns out melee was a ragequit too, i sense a brawl ragequit coming up imo

and cao, i mean Melbourne hosted tourneys will be melb rules, and qld (not got games/anything interactive, thats like aus hosted tourneys) will host their own rules

 

[Plasia]

stop ragequitting everything imo plasia, first it was tf2 ragequits, then cod4 ragequits, turns out melee was a ragequit too, i sense a brawl ragequit coming up imo

How can I ragequit something where I can play Charizard?

 

[Redact]

because he doesnt have a long range projectile like snake

you complain about snipers in cod4
you complain about snipers in tf2
you complain about uhh...... roy doesnt have projectiles in melee
now that charizard doesnt have like imba fireball of ****, youll ragequit too soon imo

 

[NG7]

It is possible for different states to have their own rules, but this topic is for the discussion of a Competitive Brawl Ruleset for the whole of Australia not for individual states.

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

NG7 - having one factor that is imbalanced makes a game more imbalanced than if there were multiple. I know it's not the same with other things. Like a string of equations summing up to an answer. It's one of the cases though that two wrongs can make a right.

Eg. Imagine playing Melee and Marth is the only character that can chain throw. Other characters can't chain or tech chase and Fox can't wave-shine. If this were the case Marth would be the only played character by pros because he is so heavily advantaged compared to the rest of the cast. Other characters having OP options similar in 'power' to this however makes more characters viable.

The more characters that 'can'(not will) dominate makes for a less obvious outcome and as such a more interesting game to participate in and watch.

Battleships would be a lot less fun were it a 2x2 grid. You could argue luck is less of a factor this way or that it's more...depends how you look at it. Either way though, you can't argue that the game takes more understanding and a better memory using a larger grid and more ships.

Plasia - Perhaps stick around and play for a while. Why try influence a system that you haven't experienced enough to understand?

 

[goukakyuu]

Ive got the game for a while and played quite a bit (I do live in Australia, any other aussie brawlers PM me with your FC and I will reply with mine (: ). When I play 1v1 with my friends I usually have Smash ball on low setting. Even though there is some luck with the spawn location of the smash ball, i still beleive its mostly skill when it comes to breaking the ball (or maybe I just like to see flashy final smashes).

ANyway how do you do dededes downthrow chain throw or whatever

 

[Plasia]

Plasia - Perhaps stick around and play for a while. Why try influence a system that you haven't experienced enough to understand?

Just because I didn't care about melee doesn't mean I haven't been stage counterpicked. I just didn't care enough to raise the issue. Also as I said, stage counterpicking has been in games that I have played seriously before so it isn't some new foreign concept.

 

[Sloth]

Shaz no point attacking Plasia's view just because of his lack of melee experience. I also share the exact same view as him and I am pretty sure I know how to play melee.

Also I can't see how anything of what you said has any counter-argument against NG7. *shrugs*
But I'm not going to argue it, just to see it go around again like a circle.

Two bans would be best suited if you consider the amount of counter-stages available. If you can somehow relay that every character has only two possible viable counter-stages for every conceivable matchup in the game, then one ban would suffice. However I doubt that is the case.

Anyways. Hi goukakyuu! Breaking the ball doesn't really require any skill and its random spawn placement at alternative intervals means it can becoming very one-sided quick. Not to mention how over-powered it is But I do admit, it can look flashy!

 

[Scrubs]

As for banning particular stages on counter picks - I think one only. I mentioned earlier that certain terrain types and such exist only in two stages on the allowed stages. Two bans would eliminate them totally.

This sums up the whole argument FOR 2 bans. There are so many stages that often the aspects of a stage that you wish to eliminate are mirrored exactly on another stage.

There is really no point in banning one stage when you are just going to get counterpicked on a stage that is exactly the same....

It makes banning pretty much useless. Just a token, like "Here you go, but it's not gonna help you any.....have fun."

 

[Mic_129]

Shaz no point attacking Plasia's view just because of his lack of melee experience. I also share the exact same view as him and I am pretty sure I know how to play melee.

I think the point is that if you're not going to play the game, why propose big rule changes?

 

[NG7]

Because he feels he can help us make a better ruleset with his experience in competitive gaming?

Edit: Also forgive me Shaz but i didn't really understand what you were trying to say lol. I'd post my own interpretation but it's probably wrong.

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

I'm not saying it's a foreign concept. I'm saying you aren't experienced enough to be able to do something about it - not that you can't see it coming. Heck my brother c-sticks as Falco once a year and he'd know if he were counter stage picked.

Why do you guys think everything has to be a counter argument? You guys tend to see in black and white when we live in a world full of gray areas.

Stages are not exactly the same - there is no identical cloned stage in Smash. You are welcome to investigate and confirm this.

Every character doesn't just have two viable counter picks in the game- but that's exactly the point! With the stages that are and aren't allowed, Marth has a good 5-6 stages he is king of. If you consider Jigglypuff wanting water to be its only 'viable' counter pick - then if there were only two water stages and both could be banned - it isn't worth playing. Marth having 5-6 though could take 4 stage bans and still maintain a smirk on his face knowing he's still at the better position.

If you think one stage ban is making banning useless realise that 2 bans makes counter picks useless for most characters. It's just as workable to take out banning altogether rather than bumping it to 2 if one really is useless as you say.

 

[Mic_129]

Stages are not exactly the same - there is no identical cloned stage in Smash.

Outside of Stage Editor, anyway

 

[Sloth]

Debating about what rulesets should be implemented are black and white. Simple. Its a Yes we have it, or no we don't.

The problem arises because with one ban, banning is actually worthless. The point of banning is to help narrow down the over-powered aspect of counter-stage picking as much as possible. One ban doesn't suffice for this. 18 counter-stages.. 9 neutral... One ban...

You can pick and choose matchups which would benefit, others wouldn't but there is so many characters that you have to make a universal choice.

Infact it would add to your opinion that counter-picks have skill. You would have to know more stages, and if they ban certain ones, know others which may give you a slight adv or dis adv for there character.

In Melee one banned worked as you had less counter-stages. Sometimes this could remove the main one for your character, sometime it would narrow it down to just one bad one. The problem begins with counter-characters in the first place.

And if you add in playstyles, certain stages would suit you and not just your character.

Mic.. 129 O_O. Um yeah, NG7 covered what I meant. The conversation was aiming towards competitive nature. A fundamental skill level of melee shouldn't be a direct requirement if you know how competitive games work in correlation to casual.
As Plasia said a few times he wants to see Brawl have depth. If he can help it form in its right direction, its only a good thing^^

 

[Scrubs]

2 Ban's doesn't make counterpicking useless. There are 20-something other stages you can choose from.....

Thats the point of the Ban to eliminate a stage/s that you don't want you opponent to play on...They can do it straight back to you.....

As for the Marth/Jiggs comparison.... TERRIBLE choice.... The reason Marth is better on more stages that Jiggs is because he is a significantly BETTER character....


Get creative... Jiggs has good stages besides water stages.

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Sloth: Yes we have what?
I wouldn't consider anything worthless - just lacking in value.

Infact it would add to your opinion that counter-picks have skill. You would have to know more stages, and if they ban certain ones, know others which may give you a slight adv or dis adv for there character.

In Melee one banned worked as you had less counter-stages. Sometimes this could remove the main one for your character, sometime it would narrow it down to just one bad one. The problem begins with counter-characters in the first place.

And if you add in playstyles, certain stages would suit you and not just your character.

Glad we're starting to speak in the same vein. The problem though is this is still a double edged sword. All it comes down to in the end is removing two stages or one, and the pros and cons involved with each.
Perhaps we should brainstorm on those, and give it a look from a different but joint point of view.

2 Ban's doesn't make counterpicking useless. There are 20-something other stages you can choose from.....

Thats the point of the Ban to eliminate a stage/s that you don't want you opponent to play on...They can do it straight back to you.....

As for the Marth/Jiggs comparison.... TERRIBLE choice.... The reason Marth is better on more stages that Jiggs is because he is a significantly BETTER character....


Get creative... Jiggs has good stages besides water stages.

Scrubs - I mentioned earlier that your input is welcome though your expression leaves a lot to be desired. From this point on I'll be personally disregarding your comments until you apply some well needed and deserved tact.
I will however field the above this once.
1st win is the most important and the greatest boost to morale as you know if you lose the first match you will be able to counter pick on the last. A lot of weight is placed on the first match, which is played on 'neutral' stages. In the case of Marth vs Jiggly - neutral means Marths advantage - because as you mentioned he is a better character if we consider stages like BF and FD neutral. Give him two bans and he will likely win the second match with little effort also - making Jiggly a character no longer viable for tournament play and thus eliminating depth.

Jiggs does well in many varied scenarios. So does Dedede. It doesn't change that they're likely most useful in there preferred situation (water for Jiggs and flat/wall for Dedede).

If water stages were considered neutral - Puff suddenly becomes high tier.

If wall stages, Dedede.

If moving, Peach/ Robot etc.

and so on.
(Note that most of the banned stages are water/moving/wall. :})

NG7 - Take more letters away from the alphabet and you'll get more boring stories.
Q and Z aren't anywhere as common as A and E, but they're still valuable and have their place. Banning all words they're a part of is much easier a task than those of A and E.
I don't know how else I can explain this really. I've mentioned earlier using the actual case as example - and I've gone through half a dozen metaphors. Hope the culmination of the lot at least has one part you can look at and say "hey I think I know what the loony toon is on about now xD"

 

[Scrubs]

Get over yourself Shaz.... My opinion is welcome??? Oh thank you great one for letting me post here.

There is nothing wrong with the way I present my opinion.

Jiggs becoming high tier because of water stages is a huge exaggeration plus has nothing to do with 2 bans or 1.

Jiggs would be still viable in tournament play. There are plenty of other stages that Jiggs can use to her advantage. Marth being good on more stages is part of the challenge of using a lesser character against one of the better characters in the game.

This game isn't about playing on a bunch of different stages to make it 'interesting' it is about fair and level competition.

Pros of 2 bans:

- Reduces the extremely large number of counter stages
- Many stages contain similar aspects, this allows you to completely remove a stage hazard/layout/size that you do not wish to play on
- Levels the playing field. Less stages = Less variables = More consistent results (don't want the counterpick to become an overpowered tool)

Cons of 2 Bans:

- Can be used to remove Water hazard completely

Pros of 1 Ban:

- More options for the losing player to challenge the winner.
- Reduces the gap between some of the better and lesser characters.

Cons of 1 Ban:

- A large number of stages = Less consistency in results
- Moves the game away from Player vs Player


I would argue that removing the water hazard completely isn't that much of a Con. Water benefits Jiggs because of her Rest, and also anyone with a good spike, Which is about 50% of the cast. There fore water not being included will not disadvantage anyone ONE character disproportionately.

I.e. it will disadvantage Jiggs in the same manner with will disadvantage Ganon..... and so on.

Jiggs rest kills at 70-90. Character with a good spike can kill people in the water from about 50-60 onwards.

SO focusing on Jiggs as an example is not a compelling argument as it doesn't disadvantage her any more than any other character.

I would also argue that reducing the gap between lesser character and better characters (as you would like to propose) is actually not true at all.....

I will use the Jiggs vs. Marth example. Marth's Dair is a reasonably good spike. It is just as easy if not easIER (because of the disjointed hitbox) to hit on a character floundering in the water than Jigglypuff's rest. It kills at a lower percent (around 60) than Jiggs' rest. '

The match up is still in Marth's favor. Jigglypuff's ability to land a rest without being punished for it is negated by Marth's ability to do the same with Dair.

I am not saying that counter picks do not affect a matchup at all. Just that the example you (Shaz) are infatuated with i.e. the removal of water hazards. Is not catastrophic.

 

[Scrubs]

Lag double post.....