EEVOlution

[DoH]

Laijin you've been inactive. When we whittled the stages down to only 6 there are now no bans in a bo5

 

[KrazyKnux]

What.
I'm 100% sure at every tournament I've ever been to in my life, you can ban in bo5 sets. But you only get one ban. So your statement is inaccurate.

I take it you didn't go to Apex 2013?

 

[Laijin]

I take it you didn't go to Apex 2013?

Nope

Laijin you've been inactive. When we whittled the stages down to only 6 there are now no bans in a bo5

And I was already really upset at the illegal stages list. Da fuq. Who the hell came up with the genius idea of taking out bans in BO5 sets? Before I go make another thread, can you explain the logic here for me?

 

[Nintendude]

lol

but seriously I'm up for trying Bones' ruleset. It definitely sounds better than the traditional rules.

 

[BigWenz]

Nope



And I was already really upset at the illegal stages list. Da fuq. Who the hell came up with the genius idea of taking out bans in BO5 sets? Before I go make another thread, can you explain the logic here for me?

I would like to know this too, cause in Bo5 you can still have bans and I see no problem with it.

 

[Laijin]

I'll be extremely blunt.
I'm not sure who is active in the melee backroom right now, but at the moment it seems like they are making the most ******** ****ing decisions ever(no offense to Nintendude :D)

 

[DoH]

There are no bans in a Bo5 because a) if both players ban a stage then you run out of stages and are forced to repeat one, and b) because the stages are so "neutral" that even if one does skew the matchup considerably it doesn't matter because you have to lose 3 games, so even if you get to go to stadium game 3 it won't determine the set like a bo3

Also MBR rules are a suggestion, not law

 

[Redd]

What.
I'm 100% sure at every tournament I've ever been to in my life, you can ban in bo5 sets. But you only get one ban. So your statement is inaccurate.

Except there are no bans in BO5 in both MBR and Sypher's rulesets.

 

[SypherPhoenix]

pls, there are bans in my ruleset. you ban once after your first win and you can't change it later in the set.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9704190



@Bones

Is there any form of DSR in your ruleset? If not, why put the limit on banning the same stage twice in a row? This just seems to promote the possibility of there being a heavy stage advantage games 4 and 5. The stage advantage problem is even exacerbated in the case of a matchup where only one character has a significant stage counterpick, say Sheik/Falcon.

And even when both characters have a notable enough counterpick — aren't stage-limiting rulesets supposed to prevent the stage from influencing gameplay too much?

 

[Laijin]

Except there are no bans in BO5 in both MBR and Sypher's rulesets.

Never knew that. I've been banning stages in BO5 at Syphers since I can remember lol.

 

[Nintendude]

@Bones

Is there any form of DSR in your ruleset? If not, why put the limit on banning the same stage twice in a row? This just seems to promote the possibility of there being a heavy stage advantage games 4 and 5. The stage advantage problem is even exacerbated in the case of a matchup where only one character has a significant stage counterpick, say Sheik/Falcon.

And even when both characters have a notable enough counterpick — aren't stage-limiting rulesets supposed to prevent the stage from influencing gameplay too much?

I think with his ruleset you won't ever get forced to play on the same stage more than once unless that stage was also the first stage in a set, so in a sense it's better than DSR where you can get counterpicked to your worst stage more than once.

 

[Bones0]

lol, I'm going to start advocating Bones's ruleset because I swear he's the only person that knows what he's talking about when it comes to counterpicking and the flaws behind DSRm. Does no one read his ruleset, or do people just not understand the current ruleset?

lol

but seriously I'm up for trying Bones' ruleset. It definitely sounds better than the traditional rules.

Thank you!

@Bones

Is there any form of DSR in your ruleset? If not, why put the limit on banning the same stage twice in a row? This just seems to promote the possibility of there being a heavy stage advantage games 4 and 5. The stage advantage problem is even exacerbated in the case of a matchup where only one character has a significant stage counterpick, say Sheik/Falcon.

And even when both characters have a notable enough counterpick — aren't stage-limiting rulesets supposed to prevent the stage from influencing gameplay too much?

The limit on banning stages is simply to promote stage variety. I'd rather test players on 5 stages than 3. This was actually an issue I originally brought up when the MBR released their ruleset that had banless bo5s, but it has grown on me, and I think the best way of describing why it's good is how KirbyKaze put it. He essentially said playing those worst counterpicks forces players to play through the theory, and it prevents stagnation of certain characters on certain stages. I think the biggest example of this is Falcon. I think Falcon has a lot of potential to be good on FoD, but since Falcon mains have been banning it since the dawn of time, none of them have any incentive to really push the boundaries of the Falcon+FoD metagame. And sure, (some) Falcon players practice on FoD because it's left on during friendlies, but it's certainly not the same. I don't think any of the 6 legal stages are so bad that playing a match on them adds no value to the set, so allowing a player to indefinitely ban a stage just seems like a copout to actually learning how to cope with the game.

The whole reason I make it so you can't ban the same stage twice is to promote the same stage diversity of DSRm, but it works in all sets regardless of the win-loss patterns instead of only sets where players alternate wins. My ruleset also has players choose characters before stages. This gets rid of scenarios where players get screwed over because their opponent had a secret counterpick. Example:

Fox main vs. Falco main
- Strike to BF game 1; Fox wins
- Fox bans FoD; Falco cps FD
- Fox stays because he is fine with Fox vs. Falco on FD; Falco changes to Marth

Fox's ban was effectively pointless because he was making a ban based on a matchup that wasn't going to happen. People don't change what character they are using to fit the stage nearly as often as vice versa. Obviously having secondaries is a skill that should benefit the player, but I don't think the benefit should come with an impossible to anticipate character+stage combination. In that specific example, if characters were chosen before the ban and stage, it would look like this:

Fox main vs. Falco main
- Strike to BF game 1; Fox wins
- Fox stays; Falco changes to Marth because he thinks the Marth vs. Fox matchup will playout better for him vs. this particular Fox player
- Fox is able to ban FD now that he knows what the matchup is; The Falco player who selected Marth for game 2 cps YS (or whatever you think is the second best stage for Marth vs. Falco)

As you can see, the Falco/Marth player gets his second best counterpick game 2 regardless of whether he switches characters or not. It's also not a big deal, but this is just generally way more intuitive considering that's how the game naturally works. You don't pick a stage and then go to the character select screen. You pick your character, then you pick the stage. That's not really a driving factor, but I think it helps to drive home the point of how weird and obscure it is that this community has been picking stages before characters all these years. It is really just a relic from back in the day when you had a bunch of crazy stages to pick from. You kind of had to allow people to change characters after their opponent picked Rainbow Cruise or Mute City because those stages have such a large affect on the match. These days, a matchup is pretty much the same difficulty no matter what stage you're on, so choosing stages first doesn't make much sense. Even with the Sypher's biweekly stage list, I think choosing characters first makes much more sense and is more fair. RC, BS, and KJ will either be auto-banned for characters that suck on them, or they will be able to anticipate the matchup before allowing them to be chosen. I main a spacie though, so people with worse mains that suck on 2 or more of the counterpicks may be less okay with this (like a Ganon main being forced to KJ or RC).

 

[SypherPhoenix]

I think with his ruleset you won't ever get forced to play on the same stage more than once unless that stage was also the first stage in a set, so in a sense it's better than DSR where you can get counterpicked to your worst stage more than once.

Better than DSRm maybe, but better than no DSR with non-limited temporary bans?

text

>promote stage variety
>6 stage ruleset

You've created some arbitrary middleground between no bans and persistent bans, but your justification being metagame advancement is weak. I agree it's better than DSRm (only because I think there should be no limit on what you ban), but as I said — aren't stage-limiting rulesets supposed to prevent the stage from influencing gameplay too much?

I do like the idea of picking characters before stages...even though I dislike your reasoning. I might be apt to try it in my next tournament alongside temporary bans.

Never knew that. I've been banning stages in BO5 at Syphers since I can remember lol.

All you *****es seem to be confused as ****, so just for some clarification, in my ruleset:

Pokémon Stadium, Kongo Jungle 64, and Brinstar are counterpicks in singles
KJ64, Brinstar, and Corneria are counterpicks in doubles
REGULAR DSR - you can't CP a stage you've won on for the rest of the set
You get one ban after your first win in the set, regardless of the set size

the banning rule might change if i decide to experiment with bones' slob pick order though, though i would ofc announce it if i made any changes

 

[Laijin]

Never knew that. I've been banning stages in BO5 at Syphers since I can remember lol.

Actually, I just thought about this. But I'm pretty sure its not like that at Syphers since he has Brinstar, Corneria and KJ64 legal.

Edit: Oh. Max posted above me. lol nvm

 

[Nintendude]

Better than DSRm maybe, but better than no DSR with non-limited temporary bans?

Does non-limited temporary bans basically mean Bones ruleset with traditional DSR? That doesn't really make sense.

 

[Bones0]

>promote stage variety
>6 stage ruleset

Sets under my ruleset will typically play 5 different stages, the same number of unique stages that you typically get under your ruleset. It's true the stages are less radical, but this is not a direct reflection of the stage list. The number of bans and what type of Stupid Rule you are using has just as much, if not more of an impact on how much stage variety any given set will promote.

You've created some arbitrary middleground between no bans and persistent bans, but your justification being metagame advancement is weak. I agree it's better than DSRm (only because I think there should be no limit on what you ban), but as I said — aren't stage-limiting rulesets supposed to prevent the stage from influencing gameplay too much?

I do like the idea of picking characters before stages...even though I dislike your reasoning. I might be apt to try it in my next tournament alongside temporary bans.

the banning rule might change if i decide to experiment with bones' slob pick order though, though i would ofc announce it if i made any changes

Advancing the metagame isn't the justification for no bans. My justification is that the skill introduced by stage variety outweighs any potential skill marginalization incurred by forcing players to play on certain stages. Of course my entire stage list is an arbitrary line drawn in the sand, but that's no different than yours or anyone else's. Even someone who leaves all stages legal is drawing a line because there is the option to disable stages. By not banning stages, you are directly saying that certain types of gameplay are relevant to the skills you are testing. I also don't think mine is terribly arbitrary since I pretty much just ban any stage that moves or has hazards that do damage. I understand a lot of people think that's overdoing it in some fashion, but I'm not inconsistent about it. I think it's much more inconsistent how certain rulesets, not to call you out specifically, include Brinstar but not Mute City, Green Greens, or Jungle Japes which are all stages that I would argue are less likely to actually interfere in player vs. player scenarios.

I'd be really happy to see character before stage selection and temporary bans put into practice. I think that actually goes a long way to making counterpick stages less broken since they're no longer being used almost exclusively to screw players over or pin players into absurdly awful matchup+stage combinations. If you really want to test it, you'd probably have to extend bo5s to more sets outside of semi's.

Does non-limited temporary bans basically mean Bones ruleset with traditional DSR? That doesn't really make sense.

Well non-limited bans would not mean BSR because I have it set up so bans are limited (you can't pick the same stage twice). I think Max is suggesting temporary bans, but you are still able to stick with a single ban throughout an entire set if you want to (which makes sense given his stage list is a bit more radical in terms of counterpicks). Maybe he's talking about something else though.

 

[TheTantalus]

GIMR- the internet here is horribad. Like less than 1MB. No stream.

 

[SypherPhoenix]

Does non-limited temporary bans basically mean Bones ruleset with traditional DSR? That doesn't really make sense.

No DSR at all, just bans after a win that you aren't forced to stick with and can change next time you win. This is specifically for 6-stage rulesets.

I think it's much more inconsistent how certain rulesets, not to call you out specifically, include Brinstar but not Mute City, Green Greens, or Jungle Japes which are all stages that I would argue are less likely to actually interfere in player vs. player scenarios.

My reasoning, at least: How many bans would I have to expend to keep the matchup the same on the available stages? Once the number reaches 1 or less for all competitive matchups I figure we're in a good place.

 

[Lobos]

Hmmmmmm

 

[KageMurphy]

Yeah GIMR, internet isn't the best, sorry about that dude.

Also as far as Melee goes, I don't see what's so bad about the APEX rule set.

Hmmmmmm

OMG COME *******!!!!

 

[DoH]

Will this be run efficiently enough for me to get back to the district like 8:30ish? I have a sans pants party that I can't miss

 

[Laijin]

Will this be run efficiently enough for me to get back to the district like 8:30ish? I have a sans pants party that I can't miss

>Melee tournament
>Runs efficiently.

Choose one.

 

[Wenbobular]

I was panicking for a second because I thought this tourney was Feb 9 and I didn't know somehow

 

[KageMurphy]

Will this be run efficiently enough for me to get back to the district like 8:30ish? I have a sans pants party that I can't miss

I can't imagine this being much of a problem, we just need set ups, we've got plenty of room and me n Tant are good at getting **** done.

 

[Mew2King]

can we add some PRoject M?

and/or 64?

 

[Nintendude]

64 please (if possible, lol). I actually know of a bunch of players who would probably come just for 64.

 

[Mew2King]

I just went to Michigan and they had Melee singles/teams, brawl singles/teams, Project M, and 64, and it was AWESOME

so many different people are attracted to events like that. It was stacked.

 

[Nintendude]

I'd be willing to TO it too (I TO ssb64 at Apex).

 

[KageMurphy]

Project M fo sho happening. As far as 64 goes, we could since again we will have a lot of room to work with but I don't have a 64 set up or know anyone with any soooooo that be up to you Mr. Nintendude lol

 

[KageMurphy]

Also if you are bringing a full set up(tv,game,system) or any one of the three then let me know please

 

[Nintendude]

Project M fo sho happening. As far as 64 goes, we could since again we will have a lot of room to work with but I don't have a 64 set up or know anyone with any soooooo that be up to you Mr. Nintendude lol

I made a post in the SSB board. If people show up and bring n64s then I'll run it. Thanks!

 

[SypherPhoenix]

I can bring a 64+SSB, but I probably won't be able to bring a TV for it.

 

[Seagull Joe]

I can bring a 64 setup.

 

[Mew2King]

yea SETUPS are REALLY IMPORTANT

so everyone bring them plz

 

[Deez.]

Hmm. seems like it'll be a legit turnout. most likely going.

 

[Wenbobular]

I can bring 2 TVs and a cube + Melee
And possibly a N64 + SSB <_<

 

[KageMurphy]

JC should have PM covered, the set up king.

I made a post in the SSB board. If people show up and bring n64s then I'll run it. Thanks!

I can bring a 64+SSB, but I probably won't be able to bring a TV for it.

I can bring a 64 setup.

I can bring 2 TVs and a cube + Melee
And possibly a N64 + SSB <_<

Excellent gentlemen, excellent, I thank you greatly, lets keep it cookin.

 

[KageMurphy]

**** you Smashboards, this layout is TRASH

 

[Wenbobular]

Yo Smashboards give me back my DEFILER AVATAR

 

[TheTantalus]

Bringing a Brawl, Melee and 64 setup. I think I can handle TO'ing 64 in addition to melee. Phil can handle the P:M and Brawl Tio stuff on his laptop and I'll have melee and 64 on mine.