• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Controversial Tournament Ideas

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
I was thinking about hosting a couple melee tournaments in Tallahassee Florida, but I'm really quite bored with the current way people run them. So I'd like to fly a couple ideas by the tournament discussion people because there are legit players that post here.

CounterPicking and Stage Banning

I think this process is lame and crippling to a player's game. Green Mario's best stage, final D, always gets banned right off the bat because they know Kyle can use it so well. Also, when you choose a stage to counterpick a player, they can just switch characters and that double blind picking process is always sketchy to me.

Controversial Solution: Play all the neutral stages one right after the other and the player that wins the 2/3 or 3/5 is the victor.

For example: (order decided by players or TOs)
Round 1: Always Final Destination
Round 2: Always Pokemon Stadium
Round 3: (if needed) Always Yoshi's Story
Round 4: (if needed) Always Dreamland
Round 5: (if needed) Always Battlefield (or player's decide)

In this way, the tournament would be less about what character you always play, and more about what character you play best on a particular stage. And since the lineup of stages is predetermined there is no confusion involved with counterpicking and switching characters. So this would allow Kyle to choose mario right off the bat, but if he were more comfortable with another character on the other levels he could choose them without any confusion.

I'm not sure if this would be beneficial to Brawl as well, but it seems like it could be.

Pausing

I'm not that familiar with guilty gear but I know that there is a one use move to just stop the opponents combo or rush down. Kind of like a second chance. There are instances in a melee game where you know you are about to die (wobbling, ken combos, being waveshined against a wall, recovering with captain falcon or ganon) but there is nothing you can really do about it. In fact, there is alot of controversy surrounding wobbling currently.

Controversial Solution

The Thomas Tipman oops rule: A player should be allowed 2-3 one to two second pauses during a tournament match. This pause is used to distract/disrupt/throw off the other player while he is beating your character into the ground. Or it could be used to just get a better grip on the controller or fix some settings or just to highlight an excellent forward smash you just pulled off (calling your kill). The point being that you only have 2 or 3 of them, so use wisely. I think it would throw off a wobble or a guaranteed combo. This would allow wobbling to be used at tournaments and still let the other player have some sort of say of whether or not he/she died. If you use more than 3 that player would forfeit the match.

Granted- skilled players will not let a simple pause throw off their game. Adding another level of depth to this already multi-layered game.

Ridiculously Slow Joint Brawl/Melee Tournaments

Melee doubles then melee singles then brawl doubles then brawl singles = Starting a tournament at 12pm and ending at 2am.

Maybe not so controversial Solution

Waba Games in Georgia introduced me to this pretty sweet way of running an all encompassing smash tournament.

5 dollar door fee (if no setup)
15 singles tournament entry fee (must choose either brawl or melee)
10 dollar per person doubles entry fee (must choose either brawl or melee)
run both brawl and melee events at the same time
Top players enter a 64 crew battle for some bonus prize

Most fun I've ever had at a smash tournament and we finished in half of the normal time, so people can drive home from out of state and not devote their entire life to the tournament. And the emphasis was placed on getting the different communities to fight for who was the best all around smasher.

I'm curious to see if other people have been trying some ideas like this. I know they seem iffy compared to the laborious efforts of the smash back room, but I feel like tournaments are becoming much more interpretive rather than using such static rules. Lemme know what you guys think.
 

Oracle

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
3,471
Location
Dallas, TX
Well the first idea doesn't work well because some characters have advantages on FD and poke stadium.

Second one doesn't work because that takes a huge amount out of the game.
 

rehab

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
494
Location
Rockville, MD
On the pause thing:

- I thought wobbling was only banned by sissies anymore

- This could legitimately punish tech-heavy or fast play. The pauser DECIDES when to pause back in, so anybody could get thrown off by this. Anybody have a link to that video where M2K accidentally paused for half a second at most while Isai was in the middle of a combo, and Isai got thrown way the hell off?

-I don't see what this does that good DI doesn't do, and in a less stupid way
 

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
Well the first idea doesn't work well because some characters have advantages on FD and poke stadium.

Second one doesn't work because that takes a huge amount out of the game.
Yea so my argument would be to pick those characters that are best for FD and Pokemon when you play those stages and then play other characters that are better for the other stages. In essence playing to the level and not the player.


On the pause thing:

- I thought wobbling was only banned by sissies anymore

- This could legitimately punish tech-heavy or fast play. The pauser DECIDES when to pause back in, so anybody could get thrown off by this. Anybody have a link to that video where M2K accidentally paused for half a second at most while Isai was in the middle of a combo, and Isai got thrown way the hell off?

-I don't see what this does that good DI doesn't do, and in a less stupid way
I see how if the player decided when to pause back in it would mess the game up so what I'm suggesting it would have to be a pause on pause off very quickly
 

Oracle

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
3,471
Location
Dallas, TX
Yea so my argument would be to pick those characters that are best for FD and Pokemon when you play those stages and then play other characters that are better for the other stages. In essence playing to the level and not the player.
Well that unblances the metagame and makes the game even more defensive and campy and boring, as you would just pick the best character for FD (read: campy)
 

halcyon.days

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
485
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Okay, here's an idea.

This topic was started because YOU wanted to host some tournaments, right?
Just ban wobbling, ken combos, waveshine infinites, counter-picking, stage banning, and while you're at it, add that pausing rule and tell me how it goes. Oh, also make it so people can't edgeguard ganon and falcon.

What's to stop a TO (let's say he mains Marth) from making the neutral list YS -> FD -> PS or something like that? Nothing.

Also, you can't compare a game like GG's "second chance" to Melee. They're completely different.
 

metaphysicist

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
47
Location
California
The idea on the tournaments makes sense. Especially considering that the community still seems pretty polar on the matter of Brawl vs. Melee anyway, I'm sure you would have the support of most players if you ran it that way.

I'm not wild about the stages though. You said in essence you would be playing the level and not the player, and I think that sums up the problem perfectly. Sure there are some advantages for some characters on some levels, but that is that is why the counterpick system was developed. It's a good system.

I'm intrigued by the pauses idea though. I think that would actually be great, as all of the so-called "infinite" combos could effectively be outlawed since that gives a good chance of breaking them. Balanced with the face that you need to actually have the skill to get the person into the combo and sustain it, I think it would balance them combos enough to make them all tourney legal. Rehab argues that it may be unfair because one player decides when to pause back in... but I think it doesn't even necessarily be a quick pause/unpause as long as it's within reason (not stalling). Because as long as the other player is even remotely alert they should be able to react when the game "times in." There are two problems that occur to me though.
For one, the rule would have some potential for abuse. It's great when you think of it in the context of a combo breaker, but it could also be used, for example, to mess up somebody's recovery. It does seem a little cheap if you could gimp somebody just because you paused them out on their second jump/recovery special. So where do you draw the line? Will you make it that you can only use it to break infinites/wobbles? Or that it can only be used when both players are on the stage? What defines off the stages, if they're in the middle of a ledgehog are they "on the stage?" It may be hard to define what's legitimate use of the move.
To a lesser extent, the way this rule would be monitored may be difficult. You would need some kind of judge or official on every tournament screen to keep track of pauses. I think this is less important of an issue just because in my experience with tournaments everybody has been honest and seemed like they could be trusted to do things on an honor system, but there will always be johns.
Other than those two points, I think it's an exciting idea, as you can no doubt tell from the short essay I wrote on the matter :p
 

rehab

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
494
Location
Rockville, MD
First: Infinites? There are infinites?

Second: You underestimate how much a fraction of a second counts. Giving somebody who can execute a chance to mess up the other person, for a reason that is basically "just because," is unnecessary.

I don't see that much of a difference between this and allowing you to slap the other guy a couple of times a match
 

metaphysicist

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
47
Location
California
I meant chaingrabbing, wobbling, wall pinning, that kind of stuff. In fact, pausing could even allow stages previously banned be allowed.

I may be underestimating, I really don't understand the nuances of tourney play, especially for Melee. But the way he proposes it, it wouldn't be used "just because," it would have strategic value. The "just because" uses are the ones I have a problem with and what I think might make it unfeasible.

I still wouldn't shoot it down because it's a neat idea that could actually make some previously banned stages allowed, and some previously banned tactics valid. And I'm still not sure how I feel about those tactics myself, but I lean more in favor of those who use them, as they still require good strategy and tech to pull off. I'd also written the previous post and most of this post under the misconception that chaingrabbing was banned at tourneys, but I think the point still stands due to other tactics.
 

rehab

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
494
Location
Rockville, MD
Derp, I forgot wall infinites. That said, chaingrabbing, wobbling and wall infinites are not problems. They are all acceptable, situational ways to rack up damage. Anybody who bans them is wack and unnecessary.

Most banned stages have problems that I don't know how to fix. What are you getting at when you say pausing would fix them?

I know that in game somebody trying to gain an edge wouldn't pause "just because." I think it seems the rule is being suggested just to add one more thing. I think that one more thing is unnecessary and detrimental, and would discourage certain playstyles because it gives the opponent an OOPS WHERE DID YOUR TECH SKILL GO button.
 

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
yea Im an arsehole so I use pauses all the time to try and gimp people's recoveries in friendlies (never works though) but I can see how it could definitely get out of hand and especially be hard to draw the line of whats legal or not in matches. If it were allowed I think there would be no restrictions as to when you could pause so gimping recoveries would be fair game, mind you if you only pause once and instantaneously, that alone should not destroy a recovery.

its sort of an unspoken rule that the players are not allowed to pause the game during tournament play but it ends up happening sometimes anyway, this rule would just let 2 pauses slide, but anymore and the match is forfeited
 

Banks

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
5,861
Location
Maine (NSG)
lol @ the pausing thing, that's the most horrible idea ever...you might as well have a free nut slap or something. Basically it's just messing up the game.

The stage thing is a cool concept i suppose, but it would need to be tweaked from the way you have it written. imo, just striking neutrals and banning a counterpick-only works pretty well. The striked neutral can still be used as a counterpick, that way green mario could use FD if he lost the first game.
 

TheManaLord

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
6,283
Location
Upstate NY
i've seen wife and scar in teams always turn off pause so lifesteal doesnt *** **** up

its good

i dont know if thats what were talking about at all but i saw banks use the word pause so i offered my input on it

||

pause

edit: wait some ******* is talking abotu using pausing as a strategy? thats ********, thats the worst thing ive ever heard youre a scrub noob 12 year old
 

metaphysicist

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
47
Location
California
Derp, I forgot wall infinites. That said, chaingrabbing, wobbling and wall infinites are not problems. They are all acceptable, situational ways to rack up damage. Anybody who bans them is wack and unnecessary.

Most banned stages have problems that I don't know how to fix. What are you getting at when you say pausing would fix them?
Ah yeah, the one's with "circles" or other camping tactics still would be banned. I had thought Alpha's old list with "Stage banishment and reasoning" had listed some some stages that were banned for there wall infinites, but I dug up the topic and it wasn't there. Either it was a similar list, or my memory was just playing tricks on me. :laugh:

If chaingrabbing, wobbling, and wall infinites aren't problems (which is what I've always believed to begin with) I can't see a reason for strategic pausing, as it was only to try to legitimize those tactics that sparked my interest
 

TheManaLord

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
6,283
Location
Upstate NY
A guy running fast in football... he can't be caught! It's some sort of infinite, he'll just score, he's way too fast. WAIT, pause, maybe that will change something, everyone stop. Mostly to the shock and dismay of the runner, resume quickly and tackle his *** while he's still wondering what the hell just happened.

Pausing is ****ing ******** and you are stupid, this better not get modded because it's true.

EDIT: sorry I'm angry right now and taking out in a random topic v some random scrub about something really ********....
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
i like this thread

turning pause off in teams
choose first stage by alternating bans
continuing sets from winners to losers

all of these IMO should be incorporated into tournaments
 

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
i like this thread

turning pause off in teams
choose first stage by alternating bans
continuing sets from winners to losers

all of these IMO should be incorporated into tournaments
turning pause off in teams sounds like something everyone can agree with, what do you mean by alternating bans though? Is that like striking?

Also how do you continue a set from winners to losers? Are you saying to combine loser's and winner's finals?

I like this controversial tournament idea. Metaknight only used once sounds like a nice compromise from either banning him or letting him dominate.
 

TheManaLord

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
6,283
Location
Upstate NY
continuing sets means the set is extended if you play the same person twice

imo that rule is awful and impossible for the loser to come back from.
 

Dark Sonic

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
6,021
Location
Orlando Florida
By alternating bans he means stage striking. For the first match both players continue striking neutral stages until there's only one left and they play on that one (requires an odd number of neutral stages). After that stage is decided they get to ban stages like normal (obviously they can't ban the one they're playing on, this is strictly so that they don't get counterpicked to a specific stage that they don't want)

And by continuing sets from winners to losers he means that if the two players have played previously in the tournament (like one of them knocked the other into losers and now they're playing each other again), then the amount of wins/loses should be carried over from the previous set. The reason people want this is because with the current system, the player that gets to advance through the tournament is currently decided by the order in which they lose. I.E
Player A beats player B in winners bracket by 2-0
Player A loses some other set.
Player A loses to player B in losers bracket by 1-2
Player B advances.

In this case player B advances because he lost first, rather than second. Even if player A had won more matches between them (player A won 3 matches, while player B only won 2)

I'm not sure, but I think what Scar is talking about is using the following method.

The wins and loses from the previous set (assuming they played each other in tournament already) are brought to this set and you play a best 3 out of 5 instead of 2 out of 3. So in my example

Player A beats player B 2-0
Player A loses some other match
Player A now plays player B, but is up 2 matches (in best 3 out of 5, he's already won 2). A significant advantage to the player who won first.

Now for a closer example for what would more commonly happen

Player A beats player B 2-1
Player A loses some other match
Player A now plays player B and is up 2-1 in the 3 out of 5 set. A much smaller margin to overcome, but still makes it impossible for player B to win without winning more matches overall.


I've definitely heard of this method before, I'm just not sure what it's called. If Scar would confirm or deconfirm that this is what he's talking about, it would be most appreciated. I haven't analyzed this method long enough to come to any conclusions about it though. On the surface it certainly does look more fair imo, but I have to look at what its effect would be over the course of a whole tournament, when compared to others who don't fight each other multiple times and thus are not subject to this rule.
 

TheManaLord

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
6,283
Location
Upstate NY
first set in winners lets say round one its a best of 3

player y beats player x 2-0

then later they face in lets say losers finals

it WOULD be a set of 5, but instead its extended to thenext interval

so it becomes a set of 7

and it begins with player y starting with 2 wins

extended sets

its dumb and puts the original loser at a massive disadvantage or at least thats how it happened to me in tournament
 

Ballistics

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
2,266
Location
Tallahassee Florida State, what WHAT!
first set in winners lets say round one its a best of 3

player y beats player x 2-0

then later they face in lets say losers finals

it WOULD be a set of 5, but instead its extended to thenext interval

so it becomes a set of 7

and it begins with player y starting with 2 wins

extended sets

its dumb and puts the original loser at a massive disadvantage or at least thats how it happened to me in tournament
I like this way the best, upping the set. Then your previous bans still apply. Ive had to play people twice in tournament and its awkard to do two separate sets I think.

I like the idea of striking for first stage but then I would modify it to have the players play on the neutrals in the order of their very last striked stage, so the first stage that someone strikes is saved for the end or not used at all.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
its dumb and puts the original loser at a massive disadvantage or at least thats how it happened to me in tournament
imo you absolutely positively SHOULD BE at a massive disadvantage for HAVING ALREADY LOST TO THAT PERSON IN A TOURNAMENT SET

say for example i **** you 2-0 in winners then you beat me 2-1 in losers, the set for the overall tournament is 3-2 me beating you but still you walk away with a higher placement? that is wrong to put it quite simply.

edit: sorry for the caps lol but i do rather strongly believe in this rule. don't lose on your counterpick.
 

TheManaLord

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
6,283
Location
Upstate NY
Why not have another set?

I don't see why you should be at a disadvantage if you lost to the person.

So you beat me when we first met in brackets, which makes you (in most cases...) the better player, especially since you 2-0'd me. Then we meet up again in losers and I win 2-1. Why not have ANOTHER set? If we're tied in sets after all, one more set, since you're the better player (having 2-0'd me then still won a match) the odds are in your favor... this is completely fair and doesn't give unnecessary advantages or disadvantages to either player and thats the whole point of competitive play... we made the gameplay disadvantageous for people so now lets make the tournament format that way too.

also set extensions are just who/what char has more counterpick stages. And starting with losses you basically insta lose. Playing the losers set regularly with a neutral is completely fair, and then playing the final set again in the same regular way is completely fair.
 

TheManaLord

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
6,283
Location
Upstate NY
continuation sets are cool, but often people don't remember what stages have already been played, etc
This and eventually (if same stage can't be played twice rule is applied or same stage can't be PICKED twice rule) the list of playable stages runs so thin you're forced to make a choice out of bad decisions, that defeats the purpose of counterpicking for an advantage...
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
the rule is that you can't cp the stage you last won on

or you can't cp the stage you just played

depending on which version is in effect

so you need to have 3 legit stages. out of a stage set of, what, 12-15?

that's plenty acceptable. if your character doesn't have 3 good stages, that's your character being bad, not your character being screwed by the system
 

TheManaLord

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
6,283
Location
Upstate NY
The retardedness of character matchups and counterpick stages (green greens... floats... mute city... corneria... japes...) disagree with your statement. But it's not the real issue so lets move along.
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
The retardedness of character matchups and counterpick stages (green greens... floats... mute city... corneria... japes...) disagree with your statement. But it's not the real issue so lets move along.
that's an incredibly vague statement. care to elaborate?

there's nothing else to move on to. I have no interest in debating whether we should legalize strategic pausing :laugh:
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,926
Location
San Francisco, CA
you could either give an example or give a general description of why lopsided matchups on specific stages should be relevant to an argument against that ruleset
 
Top Bottom