Evo 2013 Ruleset

[Bones0]

Players must agree on a starting stage by eliminating 4 starter stages in 1-2-2-1 order.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I'd say just go with 1-2-1 order, since there are only 4 stages.

 

[Bones0]

1 and 2 signify which player is striking a stage not how many stages each player is striking, but I could see how yours would also make sense.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Players take turns striking from the 5 starter stages in P1-P2-P2-P1 order; the remaining stage is the first stage of the set.

From what I've seen in the FGC, typically winner isn't allowed to change character. Character changes by the winner don't happen that often in Melee so it might not be a big deal to keep it that way for the sake of simplicity, although part of the reason character changes aren't too common is that people can ban the stage that's most disadvantageous for the character matchup.

 

[Bones0]

I see winning players change characters all the time, especially when their opponent has both a stage and character counterpick ready. It wouldn't be as big of a deal in my rule set () because characters are chosen before stages, which means at least the winning player could ban an appropriate stage without worrying about their opponent changing characters to make their ban almost worthless.

 

[KrIsP!]

If you don't allow M2K to change characters after a win, you don't allow M2K to win. I doubt anyone is going to go call a judge when it's generally allowed in our tournaments.

 

[Fortune]

Well there will probably be some new players there who aren't familiar with standard rules and are just trying to follow evo rules.

 

[pokemongeof]

1. Wobbling should be allowed! Free da Wobble

2. More CounterPicks! Also I think Fountain of Dreams should be a counterpick. I feel that the disappearing platforms make it uneven.

3. Apex 2013 Rulest with MDSF.

 

[Bones0]

Modified DieSuperFly

I like it.

 

[KrazyKnux]

1. Wobbling should be allowed! Free da Wobble

2. More CounterPicks! Also I think Fountain of Dreams should be a counterpick. I feel that the disappearing platforms make it uneven.

3. Apex 2013 Rulest with MDSF.

Wobbling is allowed. There won't be any new counterpicks. Though, I can see why you would think the moving platforms make FoD "uneven".

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

So.. I just went to a tournament this weekend with the evo ruleset and they said there's no bans...couldn't find anything in the rules about it

so is there?

 

[Bones0]

It's the Apex ruleset with Wobbling legal.

 

[KrIsP!]

I think Bans in a bo3 is much mor eimportant than pseudo DSR. Saying it's apex ruleset doesn't exactly make it so, road to evo events are using the evo ruleset and I think bans are crucial and everything else isn't really necessary.

edit: attempt at consdensing ruleset. Thoughts?

-Game version: US Nintendo Gamecube
-Game Settings: 4 stock, 8 minutes, no items, pause disabled, 2/3 games
-Stages allowed: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
-Stage of the first game is decided by banning four of the five stages in 1-2-2-1 format until one stage remains.
-Loser of a game may counter pick a stage after the winner bans one of the six legal stages (Pokemon Stadium legal for counter picking)
-Wobbling is legal, Freeze-glitching is not.

Note: general rules cover a lot of stuff like port priority, blind start and the event of a draw.
This is purely for discussion, notice I left out DSR. Thoughts on it? Is it necessary for bo3s? When do players play bo5s (if at all)? I mean it does say 2/3 games.

 

[Zankoku]

This is all I see on Melee-specific rules for EVO:

Super Smash Brothers Melee

• Game version: US Nintendo Gamecube
• Game Settings: 4 Stock, 8 Minute Time Limit, 2/3 Games
• Items are not allowed in tournament play.
• Stages allowed: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
• Stages for counter-picking: Pokémon Stadium.
• Wobbling is legal.
• Pause option is disabled in the game menu.
• You may not choose a stage you have already won on.

http://evo.shoryuken.com/evo-player-guide/evo-additional-rules/

 

[Revven]

Yes, that's the very simplified rule set for everyone to understand. Mr.Wizard doesn't want to post up our entire laundry list of very specific and detailed rules that could scare away potential new players and/or other fighting game players.

We're trying to throw in a one liner about stage striking I think and... how character counterpicking and stage bans work?

 

[AXE 09]

My main question is...

Can I use 1.0?

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

Yes, that's the very simplified rule set for everyone to understand. Mr.Wizard doesn't want to post up our entire laundry list of very specific and detailed rules that could scare away potential new players and/or other fighting game players.

We're trying to throw in a one liner about stage striking I think and... how character counterpicking and stage bans work?

You say it's simplified, but it's exactly what people are gonna reference to for the rules. I don't think there is a special page for a more specific ruleset, this is it.

 

[MrWizard]

I think Bans in a bo3 is much mor eimportant than pseudo DSR. Saying it's apex ruleset doesn't exactly make it so, road to evo events are using the evo ruleset and I think bans are crucial and everything else isn't really necessary.

edit: attempt at consdensing ruleset. Thoughts?

-Game version: US Nintendo Gamecube
-Game Settings: 4 stock, 8 minutes, no items, pause disabled, 2/3 games
-Stages allowed: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
-Stage of the first game is decided by banning four of the five stages in 1-2-2-1 format until one stage remains.
-Loser of a game may counter pick a stage after the winner bans one of the six legal stages (Pokemon Stadium legal for counter picking)
-Wobbling is legal, Freeze-glitching is not.

Note: general rules cover a lot of stuff like port priority, blind start and the event of a draw.
This is purely for discussion, notice I left out DSR. Thoughts on it? Is it necessary for bo3s? When do players play bo5s (if at all)? I mean it does say 2/3 games.

Those look good, any objections?

 

[lordvaati]

Wobbling is allowed. There won't be any new counterpicks. Though, I can see why you would think the moving platforms make FoD "uneven".

with the talk about people getting salty over Randall on YS and saying FD is unfair to characters W/O projectiles, if we make any more then BF will be the only neutral left... and I'm sorry but f*** that.

A bit of an off topic tangent mind,but still geez...

 

[Bones0]

Those look good, any objections?

- Game version: US Nintendo Gamecube
- Game Settings: 4 stock, 8 minutes, no items, pause disabled, 2/3 games
- Stages allowed: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
- Stage of the first game is decided by banning four of the five stages in 1-2-2-1 format until one stage remains.
- The order of character and stage selection is as follows: winner bans stage, loser selects stage (the loser may not select a stage that he previously won on, and Pokemon Stadium is a valid counter pick), winner selects character, loser selects character
- Wobbling is legal. Freeze glitching is not.

I specified the character and stage selection order since it varies from the default for other games, and added back in the fact that you cannot repick a stage you have won on. Aside from that, it's perfect.

 

[Revven]

Don't you mean "winner bans stage" before the loser selects a stage, Bones0?

 

[Yeroc]

Edit x2: The issue I have with this selection order is it gives the loser of the previous game a lot of power in choosing the specific matchup for the next game. The reason we dictate stage selection first is so that character choice trumps stage selection, and the winner can make a character choice based on the stage picking. Now they have to choose the character they want to play, then try to ban the stage their opponent is hoping to take them to, guaranteeing they get the 2nd worst stage for their matchup instead of shifting the focus of the counterpick away from potent stages like our existing ruleset. The wording you used is succinct enough to follow the normal order, so why not just do that?

 

[Bones0]

Don't you mean "winner bans stage" before the loser selects a stage, Bones0?

Whoops, yeah, "selects" isn't very clear. Thanks.

Edit x2: The issue I have with this selection order is it gives the loser of the previous game a lot of power in choosing the specific matchup for the next game. The reason we dictate stage selection first is so that character choice trumps stage selection, and the winner can make a character choice based on the stage picking. Now they have to choose the character they want to play, then try to ban the stage their opponent is hoping to take them to, guaranteeing they get the 2nd worst stage for their matchup instead of shifting the focus of the counterpick away from potent stages like our existing ruleset. The wording you used is succinct enough to follow the normal order, so why not just do that?

Take a look at my ruleset. I have it so characters are selected first, and then stages are banned/chosen afterwards specifically to fix this problem.

 

[Yeroc]

See, the point that I'm making is that your "solution" is in fact that problem. The reason that the current order exists is to prioritize character selection over stage selection, to prevent the loser of the previous match from gaining a disproportionately powerful stage/character counterpick combination, effectively making sets best of 1. In the existing ruleset, stage selection is mitigated by the ability of the winning player to avoid having to play their same character on a particularly bad stage, while still allowing the losing player to gain character advantage. In your ruleset, this matchup is chosen independently of stage, while then allowing the loser to try and pile on extra advantage. This is somewhat mitigated by the stage ban, but really all it does is ensure that this matchup will occur on the 2nd most favorable stage for the loser. I don't like that the winner's most effective choice in avoiding a comparably adverse matchup (character selection) is the very first decision made.

 

[DippnDots]

Guys, guys, Mr Wizard doesn't have time to count the posts of everyone who's for or against ice climber wobbling, if you have anything to bring to the conversation actually provide arguments for or against.

Personally I think it should be allowed, Ice Climbers can still infinite a large number of characters (all even?) with the Nana dair tactic, which after it becomes muscle memory is just as hard to do as wobbling is. To say that wobbling is easier and shouldn't be allowed is basically saying "They haven't invested enough time in the game to be able to infinite combo."

To further my argument, I haven't seen national tournament results where a large portion of relatively unknown or "undeserving" (I use that term very loosely) ice climber players cluster in the higher rankings. Showing that while it is a very strong tactic it's not by any means game breaking.


Edit: Bones0, unless I've missed an update to the ruleset shouldn't it be...

Winner bans stage, Loser announces stage, Winner selects character, Loser selects character?

 

[lordvaati]

agreed. at this point people just want it banned just cause. it's an overpowered tactic yes, but very hard to do, can only be done by one character, and doesn't guarantee tourney wins.

Compare it to the Other Tactic named after a player Planking in Brawl, which is an overpowered tactic that is easy to do, can be done by pretty much everyone(most infamously by the best character in the game), and can greatly assist in wins. that be OP,but Planking is no more broken then most infinites in Marvel(pre TAC, btw).

 

[DippnDots]

Wobbling or other Ice Climber infinites aren't too difficult, and even if they were -extremely difficult- the difficulty of execution shouldn't play into the argument, as it's the effects of the tactic that are actually important to discuss. But after reading more it seems wobbling will be legal at Evo, I hope it stays this way.
-Not an ice climbers player

 

[lordvaati]

well yeah I kinda worded it wrong, but the basic drive of what I was saying is there has never been any scenario I know of where an IC main got to GF and won solely due to wobbling. It isn't like the Peach Wallbomb where can camp after taking a stock, and it isn't like the Waveshine that got about half the stages in the game banned, It's not even like the Freeze Glitch in that it screws the game up, so I fail to see the issue with the Wobble people seem to have beyond the "it's kinda annoying" thing.

 

[Bones0]

See, the point that I'm making is that your "solution" is in fact that problem. The reason that the current order exists is to prioritize character selection over stage selection, to prevent the loser of the previous match from gaining a disproportionately powerful stage/character counterpick combination, effectively making sets best of 1. In the existing ruleset, stage selection is mitigated by the ability of the winning player to avoid having to play their same character on a particularly bad stage, while still allowing the losing player to gain character advantage. In your ruleset, this matchup is chosen independently of stage, while then allowing the loser to try and pile on extra advantage. This is somewhat mitigated by the stage ban, but really all it does is ensure that this matchup will occur on the 2nd most favorable stage for the loser. I don't like that the winner's most effective choice in avoiding a comparably adverse matchup (character selection) is the very first decision made.

I don't get what you're saying at all, honestly. It sounds like the stuff you are complaining about ("to prevent the loser of the previous match from gaining a disproportionately powerful stage/character counterpick combination") is a problem with the current ruleset. If you select stages before characters, the loser gets a greater stage advantage (if he changes characters than the winner's ban was pointless). The winner can change characters to suit the stage, but then the loser can change to a character that makes that stage less in his favor than a normal counterpick.

Let's say we have a Fox main vs. a Puff main. Here is how the set goes when stages are selected first:

Game 1: Strike to BF; Fox wins
Game 2: Fox bans DL; Puff counterpicks FD; Fox changes to secondary Falcon or stays and prays

Fox can either stay Fox and hope Puff doesn't have a secondary that does well vs. Fox on FD (Marth, Peach, etc.), or he can change to a secondary of his own, such as Falcon. This leaves the Fox player's fate up to chance. He had no way of knowing that banning DL would be a wasted ban, and no matter what secondary he could possibly choose from his opponent is able to counterpick character. The Puff main could go Marth if Fox stays or Falco if he changes. Instead, the same set should go like this:

Game 1: Strike to BF; Fox wins
Game 2: Fox stays; Puff changes to a secondary; Fox bans a stage appropriate for the new matchup; Puff picks a counterpick of regular strength (second best stage)

Changing characters should not give a player a double advantage by negating the opponent's ban as well as giving him the choice of which matchup will be played. When characters are selected first, the loser still gets the advantage of picking his desired matchup, but the winner will be able to ban his secondary's best stage instead of his irrelevant main's best stage. As you can see in the example, the Fox main wasted his ban for no reason leaving him open to a "disproportionately powerful stage/character counterpick combination".

If you're still not convinced, simply look at how we decide the first game. Why do we select characters before stage striking? Surely, if picking characters first leads to radical cps that inflate the importance of game 1, we should strike stages before players select their characters. Of course, that notion is ridiculous because striking stages without knowing the matchup you're striking for is comparable to playing blindfolded darts. The same holds true for selecting counterpick characters and stages.

Edit: Bones0, unless I've missed an update to the ruleset shouldn't it be...

Winner bans stage, Loser announces stage, Winner selects character, Loser selects character?

Whoops again. lol I meant to put the MBR order and put my own by accident (though mine is better and I think it should be used).

 

[DippnDots]

I believe the counter picking system in place is meant to give the losing player slight advantage. As you say, it does indeed give the loser the ability to essentially negate a stage ban directed towards their current character. Keep in mind though, if the loser wins the second match, the original winner will then also have this advantage, essentially negating the advantage.

With your situation, where the winner selects character, loser selects character, winner bans stage, loser picks stage; I believe it gives the winner who is already, in advantage by being up one match (let's ignore merit for the time being), a further advantage to win in the second match by avoiding a distasteful matchup.

Suppose the loser of the first round wins the second with your ruleset, the original loser would not have the same advantage when the score is 1-1 that the original winner had after he won the first set, so to me it doesn't seem that this is balanced when taking the whole set into consideration.

However, by the simple process of selecting stage first and allowing the loser to take an advantage, regardless of the score during the set, you give this advantage to the loser in both the second and third match, which gives the advantage to both players evenly, and overall makes the set more even.

 

[Bones0]

You can't (or rather shouldn't) artificially introduce advantages and disadvantages into rulesets. We could prevent the winner from changing characters at all, or we could get rid of bans and DSR, or we could just give the loser a 1-stock advantage the next game by forcing the winner to SD. The problem with all of these, like Yeroc said himself, is that it simply increases the importance of game 1. There is no logical reason to give players advantages or disadvantages in different games of the set. The only reason advantages are being introduced at all is so that stage selection provides more variety than a single stage the entire set. The goal of counterpicking shouldn't be to give the loser an artificial comeback tactic; it should be a way of determining which 3 or 5 stages get played in a ruleset with 6 legal stages. The system of counterpicking should not be designed intentionally to encourage unbalanced matches. I think it was put best by a Smasher at the last tourney I attended when he was explaining why my selection method was better (because we used it and one player complained about not being able to trick spacies into going FD vs. his Doc). He said, "It's the TOs job to prevent as many advantages as possible. It's the job of the players to make their own advantages in the rulesets."

 

[DippnDots]

The only logical reason I see is that in terms of the entire set any advantage is negated with the current selection rules, where yours introduces an advantage for the winner of game 1 but not the winner of game 2 (supposing it goes to 3).

 

[Bones0]

Could you elaborate? I don't see how the winner of game 1 receives any advantages at all. The disadvantage he receives (picking character first) is present for both games 2 and 3.

 

[DippnDots]

Looking back on it, I was seeing 'Avoiding a disadvantage' as being an advantage.

I think though, you're likely right. By having the stage selection first you allow for players to force a disadvantage onto the winner.

By having character selection first this can no longer be systematically forced, or at least can be done much less than currently where it's essentially a necessary tactic at tournaments.

I stand by my point that the current ruleset fairly applies the advantage to both players, but agree it's not necessary to have it structured this way.

 

[lordvaati]

You can't (or rather shouldn't) artificially introduce advantages and disadvantages into rulesets. We could prevent the winner from changing characters at all, or we could get rid of bans and DSR, or we could just give the loser a 1-stock advantage the next game by forcing the winner to SD. The problem with all of these, like Yeroc said himself, is that it simply increases the importance of game 1. There is no logical reason to give players advantages or disadvantages in different games of the set. The only reason advantages are being introduced at all is so that stage selection provides more variety than a single stage the entire set. The goal of counterpicking shouldn't be to give the loser an artificial comeback tactic; it should be a way of determining which 3 or 5 stages get played in a ruleset with 6 legal stages. The system of counterpicking should not be designed intentionally to encourage unbalanced matches. I think it was put best by a Smasher at the last tourney I attended when he was explaining why my selection method was better (because we used it and one player complained about not being able to trick spacies into going FD vs. his Doc). He said, "It's the TOs job to prevent as many advantages as possible. It's the job of the players to make their own advantages in the rulesets."

well that explains the reasons why there are pretty much no counterpick stages left at least, since CPs are pretty much stages that give advantages to certain character archetypes. I was wondering how we went from5 CPs to 1 former Nute CP in barely over a year.

 

[Bones0]

Stages themselves are not advantageous for either player. The people that view them that way believe in balancing the cast artificially by getting rid of stages that make matchups less radically in the favor of certain characters. We went from 10 or so stages to 6 so easily because people only play on 6 stages 99.9% of the time. Have you ever even once played on someone else's setup and had RC, BS, or KJ64 come up on random? I haven't. All removing the stages did was get rid of stages nobody practiced on regularly, and were, consequently, abused and gimmick-ridden whenever they came up in tournament. Whatever reasons people may have for not wanting to play on them, the removal of counterpicks from the ruleset was frankly long overdue based on what the community obviously considered worthwhile stages from the years of 6-stage list friendlies.

 

[KrazyKnux]

with the talk about people getting salty over Randall on YS and saying FD is unfair to characters W/O projectiles, if we make any more then BF will be the only neutral left... and I'm sorry but f*** that.

A bit of an off topic tangent mind,but still geez...

Actually I like the stage list as it is. I was just making a remark on someone's accidental play on words that FoD's platforms makes the stage "uneven", since the platforms themselves are not even lol.

 

[Warchamp7]

• Game version: US Nintendo Gamecube
• Game Settings: 4 Stock, 8 Minute Time Limit, 2/3 Games
• Items and pausing turned off in options
• Starter stages: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
• Counterpick Stages: Pokémon Stadium.
• Wobbling is legal. Freezing is not
• First stage is decided by banning from the Starter Stages in 1-2-2-1 order
• Following stages decided by winner banning one stage from all stages and then loser choosing
• You may not choose a stage you have already won on unless mutually agreed to.

 

[MrWizard]

The rules have been updated. Hopefully we have either solved it, or are super close.

http://evo.shoryuken.com/evo-player-guide/evo-additional-rules/

 

[lordvaati]

^that outta do it!

I mean it doesn't have to be mirror perfect, just as long as it has the main details.

EVO ruleset,let's go!