FL Suggested Ruleset

[Fenrir VII]

I wasn't aware Yoshi's was in any way not-neutral... >.>

And Lylat is freakin good...just leave it.


I'm amazed that people don't like the striking idea. I thought it was the best thing in the complete load of garbage known as the SBR ruleset.

Dguy put it really well. the Neutral is meant to be, well, neutral... both player on even footing. The striking system allows the players to play on a stage that neither player hates...so I like it.

Manko's system works too, but I really don't see the reason behind leaving it up to a 3 stage random, instead of just deciding on one, to be honest.... it's also much more complicated to try to explain at a tournament...which I was already worried about explaining the striking.. : /

I agree that a player should be able to play on all neutrals well... but also some stages benefit ONE of the chars in that match...and the other should have the choice to not play on it...imo anyway....and remember, striking is not banning, so you can still CP a striked stage.




And Ruuku, I agree with you. I'll reword it better tonight or tomorrow or sometime....I pasted the SBR part of that and added onto the end of it...They made it ambiguous like that, yeah...so I'll fix it as well as I can later. Good call on that one.

 

[Fenrir VII]

psst... lets add no tripping to the rules...

first trip= loss of stock, second trip=loss of set

/case closed

They apparently patched out tripping, actually...check Brawl discussion. it's a hack...and until it's a lot easier to do, it won't happen at tourneys, but you never know.

 

[chckn]

Yeah I saw it, problem is unless all the wii's have it then people will complain theyre playing on a wii that trips lol.

 

[Queen B. Kyon]

Again I say just leave it the way it is. =)

 

[Mankosuki]

ok, I'll use Melee as an example and say your opponent is Marth. The neutrals available were FD, BF, YS, DL, and PS.

BF & YS are arguably his best stages so of course those would be the two you strike.
PS & DL are the two that are actually fair vs Marth, so he strikes them.

That leaves FD only. If you're a space animal (which half of FL was) then you get chain grabbed into death combo each stock. Of course you could strike FD instead of one of the other two, but regardless Marth has an advantage no matter what.

You go from a 2 out of 5 chance of being a fair 1st round, to an auto disadvantage every time. Yeah, you're getting rid of "randomness" but at what price?

I'm sure there'd be a similar situation for Brawl, but it's easier to get my point across with Melee.

*edit* I'll also add, that in my system it'd come down to a 1 in 3 chance of being fair since only 1 stage each is striked, not two. (normal 2/5=40% - mine 1/3=33% - striking=0% chance of fairness)

 

[Fenrir VII]

Space animals had good matches against Marth on both YS and BF...so take your pick of those. Not unfair at all, really... BF was my favorite neutral in that match...including DL and PS

but I'm just arguing a side point here.

 

[chckn]

This part should be phrased in a different way. It admits that stalling is accepted to certain extent while it is stated earlier that the set of rules that stalling is banned. Now, I don't know how long an infinite chain grab from 0% to 300% would take but I'm pretty sure that if necessary, someone can stall a match using one. I think it should last up to a lower percentage.

You definately need to be a lawyer .

 

[Mankosuki]

just an example.

I know I'd be screwed as a Samus player against Marth if that rule was around during Melee. I hate FD since I pretty much need platforms and she doesn't stand much of a chance on YS or BF.

 

[SLyNKee]

I also banned Yoshi's Island. I grew to hate that stage due to all my playing was spent against Riot and Sighrax (Ganon and C Fal)

So I didnt wanna deal with it, I banned it. Case closed. Then if anyone picked anything like Rainbow Cruise i would just ask them why they dont pick a MANS STAGE!

 

[chckn]

Then if anyone picked anything like Rainbow Cruise i would just ask them why they dont pick a MANS STAGE!

because why waste your counterpick on a stage that doesn't give you an advantage......

 

[Frames]

At least with random, you have a shot of getting a favorable stage. With stage striking, while it would seem that both players are in control, really it seems like they're just fighting over the first stage, and would probably wind up with a stage neither one would prefer, but would be unwilling to put themselves at a disadvantage as well.

idk, either way is fine i guess that's just my opinion

edit

They apparently patched out tripping, actually...check Brawl discussion. it's a hack...and until it's a lot easier to do, it won't happen at tourneys, but you never know.

the no trip hack is a lot easier to do then people realize, and once it's done, you just start brawl and bam! it took me about 5 minutes to set up, and now i never have to worry about tripping again. it'll probably never make it into tournies because people would be paranoid about other hacks being snuck in, or making sure that everybody had it on, but at least you could have the finals of a tournament on a "no trip" tv.

 

[Ruuku]

You definately need to be a lawyer .

That's what my parents want for me but I'll be a counselor for inmates, teens, and/or couples. I'm still probably going to get into law at some point.

 

[Gingerr]

Why even bother with all of this garbage like stage bans and then stage striking, too. Why don't you just make everyone play on Battlefield every single game. No other neutrals, no counterpicks, all other stages banned. Just make things easier if everyone's gonna cry about NEUTRAL stages.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Why even bother with all of this garbage like stage bans and then stage striking, too. Why don't you just make everyone play on Battlefield every single game. No other neutrals, no counterpicks, all other stages banned. Just make things easier if everyone's gonna cry about NEUTRAL stages.

...some people hate Battlefield. xD

Nah, I'm not trying to cry about stages or anything of the like. I personally think this is a preferable alternative to a random stage...and it would allow players to stop crying, as well. That's all I'm seeing. I wasn't ready for this kind of negative feedback on it, so I'm a bit surprised by all that. Manko makes a really good point on it, though.

I'm still in favor of this system...talks will continue, I would say. Nobody get heated or anything here...this is good discussion.

 

[chckn]

Why even bother with all of this garbage like stage bans and then stage striking, too. Why don't you just make everyone play on Battlefield every single game. No other neutrals, no counterpicks, all other stages banned. Just make things easier if everyone's gonna cry about NEUTRAL stages.

I BAN battlefield. Its terrible for me lol. Thats the problem, even with nuetrals you need some sort of variety to account for the slight advantages/disadvantages of the entire cast.

 

[nevershootme]

look... if you lack all the neutrals... make a gigantic sized FD (with super high ceiling) on stage builder and you're done, not to mention a giant sized Battlefield

 

[GDX]

man, gingerr has been wrecking face in her posts lately.

did someone slip her a cup of testosterone?

 

[Master Raven]

I miss the minimalistic look of Melee Battlefield. I like it more than the Brawl one. Brawl FD however ftw. STAGE SPIKES! <3

 

[petey_did_it]

stage striking idea kicks major ***. random can really ruin match ups imo

 

[petey_did_it]

so...stage striking is when each person strikes off stages in turn until theres 1 left, and you play the 1st game on the stage remaining?

that sounds...kinda cool, i guess. but how is that a much better method than random?

randomness is exactly what tourney rules are supposed to avoid.

 

[Finch]

stage striking is cool idea that I think should be tried.

 

[AfroQT]

In my opinion, we should stay random, i dont want to have to do even more **** before the match starts.

But w/e happens in the end is fine with me, i do agree with Gingerr and Slynkee. This is just people crying because they didnt get their favorite neutral stage random'd at the beginning of the match last tourney.

 

[chckn]

In my opinion, we should stay random, i dont want to have to do even more **** before the match starts.

But w/e happens in the end is fine with me, i do agree with Gingerr and Slynkee. This is just people crying because they didnt get their favorite neutral stage random'd at the beginning of the match last tourney.

Yeah, that ****s gonna be another headache to take care of before every match. Especially playing ppl that dont know the nuetrals/striking system. Also how would a ban work if you want to ban a nuetral? Would you have to strike and well as ban it f irst match?

 

[AfroQT]

See, **** just gets more complicated.
There is NOTHING wrong with the current system, why change it?

 

[chckn]

Agreed. Afro we gotta play sometime. You going to anything this weekend?

 

[AfroQT]

Seibriks and PnT

 

[Fenrir VII]

Also how would a ban work if you want to ban a nuetral? Would you have to strike and well as ban it f irst match?

This is covered in the first post, although probably not that well...the thread is needing a little bit of an overhaul.

Bans are handled after the stage strike...and yeah, strike does not equal ban...your opponent can still CP it. if that's just terrible for you, you'll have to use your ban, as well

And just to state it more clearly, you can NOT ban the one stage the striking process gave you.

 

[<π]

:/ Tripping isn't that bad, honestly. I'll spare the huge rant but, as a profesional player you should understand and except the risk of any things you do. I understand the weight difference here but GaWs don't complain when they hit with a 1 instead of a 9. They understand the risk and accept they failed. If you are at 300% and they are at 300 percent and they whiff, go for a tilt instead of a smash. I promise you you won't trip the game away.
Man up, adjust, be better.


The stages in brawl, I think, are more than varied enough so that one character has a hudge advantage over any other on 3 out of 5 stages.

While I never really voiced it on the boards a big problem I had with melee was how similar all the stages; the "neutrals" espeacially; were to one another. I think brawl did that better all the stages are very very different from one another, and break away from the three platform staple of melee.

I think that is why for brawl at least stage striking can and will work, and adding more stages to the nuetral pool would only make it better.

As far as time is concerned it takes all of three seconds for you and your opponent to name two or three stages.
Thats a horrible john.

 

[AfroQT]

Yeah but im incredibly impatient ask anyone whos played me (especially people i've teamed with).

Im not for or against this, what i am for though is this being decided so its one less thing to surprise me at a tourney.

 

[mkGmoney]

I agree with most of this, but the stage striking idea is just extremely unnecessary and only serves to further complicate things. In most matchups, any of the neutral stages (original 5) will be perfectly fine. Otherwise, the player is still given a ban if he wishes to use it. Some people just need to man up. You can hate a stage, but you still can't deny that it's neutral enough.

8 minutes is mad long... I prefer 7 minutes, but this is the dumbest thing to argue over.

I still disagree with Rainbow Cruise being banned. It does serve a purpose for matchups other than those involving MK. It's probably one of Gdub's best stages and is a viable pick against many characters (mainly tethers and Snake). There are no random aspects or true hazards to the stage. It just requires you to be more aware of your positioning. Just ban it against garbage MKs if you don't like it. It's a shame to not allow this stage but let in others that are far worse with very random events and hazards. By the way, I don't even counterpick Rainbow Cruise any more, so don't act like I'm biased.

Oh, and I was wondering this too... Does anyone think that any of the banned stages would be suitable as counterpicks for doubles only? This just adds more variety (if the stages are suitable). The only stage I can think of that might be is Hanenbow, but that's a big MIGHT... Thoughts?

 

[Mankosuki]

Corneria for dubs only.

you have a teammate to save you if you get infinited on the wall.

 

[Finch]

In most matchups, any of the neutral stages (original 5) will be perfectly fine.

lol, try playing a non top tier character for awhile and then make the same statement. Stage striking is a really good way to even out the playing field. Everyone should definitely learn to play on all of the neutrals, but character matchups seem to be getting pretty ridiculous as the metagame evolves and this can help tone it down a bit. It's a great idea on paper and takes 5 seconds to do so I see no reason not to try it out.

 

[Linguini]

u ppl make this too complicated, play the ****ing stages and be done with it, lol we complain about rainbow cruise, take it for granted in ny they got delfino on neutrals and jungle japes/pictochat on counterpicks

 

[chckn]

lol, try playing a non top tier character for awhile and then make the same statement. Stage striking is a really good way to even out the playing field. Everyone should definitely learn to play on all of the neutrals, but character matchups seem to be getting pretty ridiculous as the metagame evolves and this can help tone it down a bit. It's a great idea on paper and takes 5 seconds to do so I see no reason not to try it out.

In that case just make smashville the only nuetral...

 

[QDVS]

Why don't we cut the crap and just play melee???

 

[Linguini]

i know right, haha

 

[Gingerr]

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it."

Which is like, the most hilarious saying to EVER be used in regards to Brawl, anyways.

 

[<π]

: (

 

[petey_did_it]

dude fighting a snake as MK on battlefield is A LOT harder than fighting one on FD. oh and for ppl complaining about adding complication, counterpicking is way more complicated and in depth than this

 

[dguy6789]

7 minute rule is ********. 8 minute was acceptable for a game of Melee's pace. Brawl takes longer than Melee, shortening the time allowed makes absolutely no sense. Brawl matches should be 8 minutes at the least. /offtopic