Competitive Brawl Rule Set (NOT OFFICIAL)

[petre]

Starter:

Battlefield
Final Destination
Smashville
Yoshi's Island

- 1st match, characters are chosen with double blind picks, and the stage is chosen on Random with the 3 available neutrals, or if 2 neutrals have been eliminated, the stage will be the last remaining neutral.

this was just bugging me. you should fix this now that there's 4 neutrals.

 

[Deleted member]

this was just bugging me. you should fix this now that there's 4 neutrals.

okay. fixed and resurrected since everyone was mad @ norfair being legal in cot4.

 

[Kamikaze*]

I lieks this list. all the stupid stages are gone. if only this were real...

 

[DAlegendarysamus]

Ummmmmmmmm, Ummmmmmm These Some Good Rule Sets Here

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=223956

These rule sets in the link above is a rule set that might just balance the game its still in progress before tournament day but by early next week it should be finalized.
People should take a look at it. this rule set takes away the bull**** that players/characters have to deal with.

 

[rehab]

Wow, that ruleset is something different.

 

[Four Leaf]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=223956

These rule sets in the link above is a rule set that might just balance the game its still in progress before tournament day but by early next week it should be finalized.
People should take a look at it. this rule set takes away the bull**** that players/characters have to deal with.

I lol'd.

Also Mow is gay (not literally, just his hair)

 

[Kage Me]

Your stage list kinda blows. Being conservative is fine, but at least be consistent about it. Meaning, ban Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar as well. Either that, or allow Luigi's Mansion, Norfair and Distant Planet.

Likewise, be consistent about banning infinites. Take the IC's standing f-throw infinite on heavyweights for example. Why is that legal when Dedede's standing d-throw infinite isn't? And what about Marth's grab release on Ness and Lucas? Or Dedede's infinite against a wall?

 

[AlphaZealot]

I agree with Kage. At least be consistent with your logic, there is no reason to keep Cruise or Brinstar if you are likewise going to ban Japes/Mansion/Pirate Ship. Like it or not, both those stages have just as much an effect on gameplay and do just as much as some of the stages you banned.

Inui has even noted this inconsistency by changing his last ruleset to finally have all of those stages removed.

- If the timer runs out, the victor is determined first by stock and then by percentage. In the event of a sudden death, both players are to suicide IMMEDIATELY. No fighting with bombs @ 300. At the results screen, regardless of what the screen says, the player with the higher DAMAGE TAKEN is the loser. No exceptions. In the result of a tie, the match will be discarded and played over, same characters and stage. For teams, if this should ever happen, add the damage taken instead for both teams.

This is still one of the worst things in this "competitive" rule set.

Diddy vs Bowser.

Diddy deals 180% each life on average
Bowser deals 130% each life on average

Time runs out with each character on their last stock, 100%
Diddy has taken: 360% damage
Bowser has taken: 460% damage

OR
2 attacks collide with Diddy @ 130% and Bowser @180% and they die on the same frame
Diddy has taken: 390% damage
Bowser has taken: 540% damage

Diddy Kong wins, even though in reality Bowser was likely "winning" at that point in time, having Diddy closer to KO percent then himself. Either way, determining a winner based on damage given/taken in a game where such a statistic is MEANINGLESS is bad form. All this rule does is degrade the ability of people to END STOCKS QUICKLY, which, funny enough, is something this ruleset is obviously trying to promote.

"Hmm, I could go and get a footstool on him at 40% right now, but geez, if I do that and we tie at the end of the game I would lose because that is 100% damage I ended up not doing! ****, I guess I'll just stay on the stage and fight him some more so I can make sure I give more damage than he does."

Seriously, it is about the loss of life, not the percent given. In the event of the time running out, the only reason we look at percent is because not all 3 stocks had been removed. In the event of a tie when both players lose all three of their stocks at the same time (not looking at suicide rules) then it would be dumb to reward a win to someone who was exactly as efficient at removing 3 stocks from the opponent as the opponent was.

---

- At the beginning of a set, each player may strike 2 stages from the available 12. Of the 2 strikes, only 1 can be from the 3 Neutrals listed above. You may however choose to strike 2 counter pick stages.

You have 11 available stages now that you have gotten rid of Norfair. So, each player can strike 2 stages...which brings the number of available stages in a set down to 7. In game 5 of a best of 5 where you have already won 2 games (and likewise lost 2 games) you essentially have a choice between just 3 stages for that last game (or 4 if your version of DSR is intentionally suppose to read "last won on".) Great, 4 choices for a CP, and chances are none of them are really any good unless you play a top tier character.

It feels like you want this to be a ruleset where you, essentially, only play on flat stages, yet you aren't quite prepared to make the bold statement of flat out saying: "there are only three stages, FD, Smashville, and Battlefield". Instead, you give people 2 bans and an incredibly small stage list with inconsistent logic for why some stages stay and others are gone, then you give them 2 stage bans which essentially makes the likely list of available stages just "flat with platforms". Since this it the case, why not just come out and say that your stagelist is "flat with platforms" instead of trying to hide that fact by giving people 2 stage bans when you know 99% of all sets are going to have RC/Brinstar/Orpheon banned (because those stages are some of the strongest counter stages for mid-high tier characters).

This ruleset is basically: lets buff the already amazing characters even more. To understand this more, Wes I think has a post similar to this sentiment in his ruleset.

 

[Kamikaze*]

This rulelist is: anything that is similar to FD/BF.
If it is not similar, it is banned.

This is a good thing. The more neutral the stage the better.

 

[Kamikaze*]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=223956

These rule sets in the link above is a rule set that might just balance the game its still in progress before tournament day but by early next week it should be finalized.
People should take a look at it. this rule set takes away the bull**** that players/characters have to deal with.

The fact that you support a list where the summit is allowed leads me to believe that you smoke crack on a daily basis.

 

[Pyronic_Star]

AZ has a point.... if i spike my opponent twice while they are at 50%... and timer runs out and we both are on our last stock same damae, i would more then likely taken more damage then him... why should i be declared the loser for killing my opponent at the earliest convenient time?

 

[Deleted member]

AZ has a point.... if i spike my opponent twice while they are at 50%... and timer runs out and we both are on our last stock same damae, i would more then likely taken more damage then him... why should i be declared the loser for killing my opponent at the earliest convenient time?

because damage is the easiest measure that your opponent outplayed you.

 

[AOB]

because damage is the easiest measure that your opponent outplayed you.

Very very strange. You punish low-% KOs as well as strong, heavy characters that way. Diddy could very well do more damage in a match but lose to Donkey because of the way the characters work.

 

[AvaricePanda]

because damage is the easiest measure that your opponent outplayed you.

Not really.

Fox can kill at 90%, while Diddy can kill at 130%. Fox doesn't need to get any more % than the kill percent, so he's most probably going to start looking for the kill at 90%. But what if he can't land a kill move, because the Diddy reads every one, or he just sucks at landing a kill move? The match ties, and Fox loses because of the above reason.

Neither person outplayed the other, yet the Fox still loses because he doesn't rack up as much percent as Diddy because he doesn't have to. What AZ said is pretty much right, it screws up certain characters (namely, ones who survive long or have early % kills) and can also change the mentality of the people playing.

The Ice Climbers are definitely screwed by this rule, because the damage taken applies for both of them. They basically lose in every case of a tie.

Also, the stage list is honestly too small for each person to get two bans. One ban each?

 

[Kamikaze*]

I dont just play low tier, I also main as G&W, but this rule set is hurting low tier more than anyother characters.

Then I guess you should stop relying on the stage from assistance and learn how to FIGHT your opponent. This is a FIGHTING game.

 

[AlphaZealot]

because damage is the easiest measure that your opponent outplayed you.

LOL. Way not to address my points...and this post itself is a very weak argument for the concerns mentioned.

I doubt you actually check your damage stats after games, I think I'm one of the only players in the country who looks RELIGIOUSLY after every game at my damage statistics. When I lose, 95/100 times I actually dealt more damage than the opponent.

The entire damage ratio at the end of a game is MATCH UP dependent. Assuming two equally skilled players and a tight game, then the damage ratio is essentially PREDETERMINED before the game even starts based on whatever the character match up is (per the example on this page, Bowser vs Diddy-it is highly unlikely that in the event of a tie Bowser outdamage Diddy, I would venture to say almost impossible). Basically if Ike, Bowser, or DK ever tie any character, other than themselves, they lose. Sounds fair to me.

It seems the entire point of this rule is to prevent sudden death or 1 stock "overtime". The premise I believe is likely that you could have infinite overtimes, which is a stupid argument (I don't know if you have made it, but others have), because you can raise the same concerns about any professional sport. There were 6 overtimes in an NCAA game last season. That's the second most EVER in NCAA history, and repeated ties are far, far more likely in Basketball than in Smash. The idea of infinite ties is simply far fetched and not true to the reality of the situation.

 

[Deleted member]

you forgot DDD.

I check my % every match.

I don't play basketball.

I acknowledge your points, but I sincerely don't feel that there is a better solution. We are going to end up punishing someone regardless of the outcome. This is purely opinion.

Ike/DK/Bowser/DDD are going to have a difficult time stalling the timer to 8 minutes against faster lighter characters in the first place, so hopefully this minimizes the likelihood of the general situation.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I acknowledge your points, but I sincerely don't feel that there is a better solution. We are going to end up punishing someone regardless of the outcome. This is purely opinion.

Sudden death and/or 1 stock overtime doesn't punish anyone.

Ike/DK/Bowser/DDD are going to have a difficult time stalling the timer to 8 minutes against faster lighter characters in the first place, so hopefully this minimizes the likelihood of the general situation.

So if they do manage to stall it they are rewarded by automatically losing. Nice. And this doesn't apply to just those characters, it applies to pretty much every match up, those characters are simply the easiest example because they represent the extreme outliers.

Even so, D3 can stall the clock mad easy because your opponent is gonna be camping platforms half the time to avoid getting CG'd. Not to mention he doesn't die until gruesome percents (ie LONG LIVES).

This is a bad rule. I don't see why you can't just admit it and say 1 stock overtime. What do you have against 1 stock overtime?

 

[Deleted member]

the basis of the rule set is that it focuses primarily on a tournament setting. I refuse to believe that sudden death is the best solution to anything, which leaves the other alternative to the 1 stock overtime. Unfortunately, there is a loser to this system: the tournament host. Ideally, we want to discourage stalling as much as possible so that tournaments, now reaching record numbers of entrants, can be sure to finish on time.

I took off any stages with viable means for stalling. I lowered the time limit, allow 2 stage strikes, banned any inherent means of stalling. The idea of the rule set gets tournaments done on time such that the better player is more likely to win. Everything I have is based on this.

 

[TheManaLord]

I would go to a Brawl tournament if they had logical rulesets. This is definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[AlphaZealot]

the basis of the rule set is that it focuses primarily on a tournament setting. I refuse to believe that sudden death is the best solution to anything, which leaves the other alternative to the 1 stock overtime. Unfortunately, there is a loser to this system: the tournament host. Ideally, we want to discourage stalling as much as possible so that tournaments, now reaching record numbers of entrants, can be sure to finish on time.

So you would advance a potentially worse player simply in the interest of saving time? That is the antithesis of a competitive ruleset. That is also not evidence of creating a ruleset that lets the better player win (going against your thesis).

Not to mention 1 stock overtime wouldn't delay the tournament long, chances are it wouldn't delay the tournament at all. We are talking about a fraction of a percent of actual matches that ever tie and time out. I can only think of less than a handful of examples where it has ever occurred in both Melee and Brawl. So, whatever percent 5 out of thousands of matches I've witnessed in tournaments since 2003 is how often you would ever have to worry about delaying a tournament in 1 stock overtime.

If you are so interested in time, you should probably instill a time limit between matches, so then I don't have to deal with a player who take 5+ minutes because they can't figure out which of your flat stages doesn't suck the most against my Diddy (answer, Diddy destroys on every stage in this ruleset because you get TWO stages bans, I <3 influencing tiers toward top tier characters based on rulesets). I'm not saying this sarcastically, time limits between games are sorely needed.

I took off any stages with viable means for stalling. I lowered the time limit, allow 2 stage strikes, banned any inherent means of stalling. The idea of the rule set gets tournaments done on time such that the better player is more likely to win. Everything I have is based on this.

What do you base tournaments running long on? Because from actually going to large tournaments, and RUNNING large tournaments, the prime determinant in whether a tournament ends on time or not isn't the ruleset, its the ability of a TO to actually do what he is supposed to: organize.

I'll give you an example: at COT4 I tried to step up and help even though coming into it I wasn't any part of organizing it. One thing I tried to have Chibo do was NUMBER all the TV's. Apparently at the time this was thought of as an unnecessary step, so I went and did all the numbering for him. Unfortunately, the idea of actually USING the numbers didn't seem to get across to the person calling out the matches (it wasn't Chibo) and so for teams pools it was basically a chaos of people trying to find their pools and figure out which tvs they could play on. The delay from this mistake alone was likely 1.5-2 hours (far more then the extra 2 minutes you are worried about from 1 stock overtime, a number so small and rare in occurrence its negligible). The simple error of announcing pools with no station assignments delayed the tournament far longer than any stalling in a match would, especially since STALLING would all occur within your already predetermined match time limit.

When you plan a tournament you don't assume a match will last HALF of your time limit, which is what you seem to be insinuating by the logic that PREVENTING stalling will make tournaments finish on time. No. You plan tournaments based on the MAX time limit a set can take.

Since I'm with MLG helping run their Halo tournament this weekend I'll use Halo as an example. They have a set tournament schedule that assumes max time limit per round, in their case a best of 3 round should last 45 minutes, because each individual game has a max limit of 15 minutes. The average length of a Halo game is probably about 10 minutes, but that doesn't mean they make a schedule based on 30 minute rounds, because then they would be screwed if any single best of 3 went the full, allowed, time limit. If at any point just ONE set in ONE round goes the time limit, then for all purposes every set that occurred in that round went the time limit.

I gotta make a post one of these days teaching people how to run tournaments, because some of the stuff that gets said is...well...not at all how you should expect to run a tournament (in your case putting a time limit on a match, and then saying you remove tactics because you are worried about matches taking to long, when the time limit exists for the VERY REASON of not letting a match last forever-in other words its basically hypocrisy).

If you succeed in creating the ruleset you want (no stalling, fast matches, whatever), then you should remove the time limit completely since its clear you aren't expecting people to actually plan the tournament based around time limits. ROFL.

 

[Deleted member]

sure, so let's just make it easier.

I don't see where you arrive at the conclusion that the inferior player advances for the sake of time.

 

[AlphaZealot]

sure, so let's just make it easier.

I don't see where you arrive at the conclusion that the inferior player advances for the sake of time.

1. You advance a player based on damage given/taken percents. We have already pointed out that this statistic simply bases advancing a character on the match up, not on who was better. Poor old Bowser gets screwed in a tie against Diddy. Oh well.

2. The game was played to a tie. By definition a tie insinuates that the jury is still out on which player actually performed better.

3. Since you don't know if the person you advanced was actually the better player, you could just as likely have advanced the inferior player as the superior player.

4. Since you don't know which player you advanced, you created an inherently uncompetitive rule.

Was that simple enough?

If you want to know how to run a tournament on time view this: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=208631

More importantly, view this:

Schedule with 8 TVS
-Double elimination doubles bracket
-8 pools of 4 with 2 people advancing into a 16 person double elimination singles bracket
11:00AM: Doors open-registration for singles and doubles begins
12:00PM: Registration closes
12:30PM: Doubles bracket - WR1
12:54PM: Doubles bracket - WR2 & LR1
1:18PM: Doubles bracket - LR2 & WR3 (2 tvs available for free play)
1:42PM: Doubles bracket - WF & LR4 (5 tvs available for free play)
2:06PM: Doubles bracket - LR5, WF continue & pools 1 (2 tvs), 2(2 tvs), and 3(1 tv) start
2:30PM: Doubles bracket - LF & pools 1, 2, and 3 continue play
2:54PM: Doubles bracket - GF & pools 1, 2, and 3 finish
3:18PM: Singles pools - pools 4 (2 tvs), 5(2 tvs), 6(2 tvs), 7(1 tv), and 8(1 tv) begin play
3:42PM: Singles pools - pools 4 (2 tvs), 5(2 tvs), 6(2 tvs), 7 (1 tv), and 8 (1 tv) continue
4:06PM: Singles pools - pools 4 (2 tvs), 5(2 tvs), 6(2 tvs) finish - 7 (1 tv) and 8 (1 tv) continue
4:30PM: Singles pools - pools 7 (2 tvs) and 8 (2 tvs) finish -(4 stations available for free play)
5:00PM: Singles bracket - WR1
5:24PM: Singles bracket - WR2 & LR2
5:54PM: Singles bracket - LR2 & WR3 (2 tvs available for free play)
6:18PM: Singles bracket - WF & LR4 (5 tvs available for free play)
6: 42PM: Singles bracket - LR5 and WF continues (7 tvs available for free play)
7:06PM: Singles bracket - LF (7 tvs available for free play)
7:46PM: Singles bracket - GF (7 tvs available for free play)
8:45PM: tear down and pack up - then we can all eat dinner at wings and brew to discuss the event

That is how you make sure a tournament runs on time. Not by making a time limit you don't even intend to use to organize the tournament and then rules to perpetuate this mentallity (laughable).

BTW, even with some "weird" stages and allowed infinites, the tournament ran exactly as scheduled, we finished early actually, and we all had drinks and food and a crew battle afterward. Everyone I talked to said my tournament was the best they had even seen run, and it basically involves two mains steps (there are others too):
1. Make sure you know how many people are coming and how many setups you have
2. Create a schedule and plan accordingly. Don't plan on having resources you don't expect to show. Have a worst case and best case scenario (if you click the link I provided you will see a schedule that assumes 32 people and 4 tvs, and 32 people and 8 tvs).

---

I'm mainly writing all of this not for your benefit but for people reading this post (though you should probably listen to people who have experience running tournaments, of which I'm probably among the most experienced in this area). I fully expect to get a one liner response and you not to see the logic in how bad this rule is. Other people reading though will realize one thing: you should run a tournament based on good organization and you should assume the max time limit. If you want a tournament to run faster, you should lower that max time limit, not try to create rules to lower the average match time (ROLF). You also shouldn't advance a potentially worse player to save yourself 2 minutes of time (that could easily be saved in other areas) in a situation that occurs .001% of the time. Honestly, with how long you have been around Mow, this is obvious stuff you should already know.

I'm not critiquing your stages or anything (well, a little, but I don't really care, different strokes for different folks in this case). I'm critiquing a bad rule that goes against your premise, and I'm critiquing your premise because you actually don't seem to realize you can't run a tournament by lowering the average match time, but instead by lowering your maximum allowed match time (the 500th time I've said this).

 

[AvaricePanda]

AZ basically said everything I wanted to say with tournament overtime...and then a lot, lot more.

Thanks for that post because over the summer I might try helping organize something...and well...that helped a lot.

 

[clowsui]

Kinda off topic but AZ how do your grand finals last 24 mins max o_O if they're coming from LB max games any team/player is going to do is 10 (3-2 victory in the loser's final round, then in the grand finals round you have another 3-2 victory unless I'm remembering/thinking incorrectly)

 

[AlphaZealot]

Kinda off topic but AZ how do your grand finals last 24 mins max o_O if they're coming from LB max games any team/player is going to do is 10 (3-2 victory in the loser's final round, then in the grand finals round you have another 3-2 victory unless I'm remembering/thinking incorrectly)

7:06PM: Singles bracket - LF (7 tvs available for free play)
7:46PM: Singles bracket - GF (7 tvs available for free play)
8:45PM: tear down and pack up - then we can all eat dinner at wings and brew to discuss the event

Losers finals = best of 5 = 5 * 8 = 40 minutes (7:06PM - 7:46PM) so losers finals is fine time wise
Grand finals = best of 5 possibly twice, so you are right, I don't alot enough time here. I gave the grand finals an hour to complete when I should have allotted an Hour and 20 minutes.

I need to make some small adjustments based on what you said, what other people have said, and other things I want to have more clear (for example specific station assignments I think).

Note though, at the tournament, I lost to Nope 3-1 in the winners finals, then I beat him 3-2 in the 1st set of grand finals and then lost 2-3 in the second set. So we had a max 10 game finals and we STILL finished early. Lol, I'm to good at running tournaments. (btw we ended roughly at 8:15PM).

This entire thing is a process of refinement (based on my observations and observations from others like you). This schedule is a great template that I plan to improve and expand on for 64/128/256/higher person tournaments.

 

[clowsui]

No, I was referring a bit of the teams part XD;

btw chris if i ever run a tournament you're running it w/ me =P

 

[AlphaZealot]

Ahhh...

Okay. That isn't a mistake, teams finals runs while the first pools are likewise starting. That way you don't have dead time, which I define as simply having open stations and potential matches to be run that aren't running. In this case, during the teams finals, there would be 7 open stations, and since its pools, its okay that 4 people are still playing in teams, since they don't have to play right away in pool play.