SuSa
Banned via Administration
EDIT:
IGNORE THIS OP, READ PAST FEW CURRENT PAGES OF DISCUSSION INSTEAD
Until I can get a summary from each side of the argument (which seems to change every 5-10 pages) there won't be a relevant OP.
Read the OP if you wish, but please note it has little to do with current discussion.
Currently, this is how a full stage striking system would work:
END EDIT
If you are currently staff, read this next bit - as it concerns you.
Now on with the debate!
____________________________________________
Part 1 - Stages
Stage counterpicking has become an important, but not essential, factor of determining the outcome of a match. It allows you do place your opponent at a disadvantage by picking a stage that they are not familiar with, picking a stage their character gains a disadvantage on, or picking a stage your character gains an advantage. Two of these factors are not competitive.
Why are these two points uncompetitive?
The only disadvantage your opponent is placed at depends on the character whom they choose to use. They have control over this factor so they are willingly placing themselves ata disadvantage. However...
When you control the stage your opponent plays on, you are placing them at a disadvantage that is largely out of their control. Players only get to select 1 ban, and most characters are at a disadvantage on more than 1 stage. It does not matter if you are weakening their character, or strengthening yours - it is a disadvantage to your opponent.
Why does this matter?
The stage counterpick system is not competitive. It is there because we feel it is important. Would you consider the weakening of an opponent competitive?
___________________________________________
Part 2 - Characters
The second part to our counterpick system is the ability to counter your opponents character. This is also an uncompetitive rule, that has become a standard for our community. Most every other competitive game, you pick your characters and that's it. You can't swap, you're stuck until you win or lose. This means choosing a viable character is an important factor in winning.
Without a character counterpick system, many characters become unviable. Characters whom are easily infinited by DDD for example. Would you take the risk of double-blind picking your character?
The double-blind system is actually competitive and essential to keeping tournaments run in time. Without it, people may constantly be trying to counterpick eachother before the match even starts. It often doesn't happen like that, but it occasionally does so they agree on a double blind.
However let's take two mains. A DK main and a DDD main. They agree on a double blind.
The DDD main is at an advantage if he stays DDD, while he could be countered - the DK main is a DK main. He will not be as skilled with his secondary as his main, and going his secondary may be a huge risk for him. Without a counterpick character system, DK becomes less viable. You can't counterpick your opponent the next round if you lose, and you essentially get locked into an "unwinnable" matchup.
So why is a rule in place, when the only purpose it serves is making characters more viable? Why don't we have other rules in place to make a large portion of the cast more viable? Banning infinites? Banning small-step CG? Banning Meta Knight? It's essentially because we are living a double standard.
Without a counterpick system for characters - the undisputable best character, Meta Knight, would be the best choice to be locked into a match with. He essentially becomes the center of the metagame. To best avoid ever being countered, go MK. This centralizes the metagame around one character, and may eventually lead to further changes taking place.
With a counterpick system, with Meta Knight allowed - our current system - the best option to counter your opponent, is to switch to Meta Knight. Your opponent, whom may switch their character before you counter them, may also switch to Meta Knight to avoid the counter - and instead go in an even matchup. This centralizes the counterpick system around Meta Knight.
With a counterpick system, but with Meta Knight banned, every character can be counterpicked. The system does not revolve around picking Meta Knight to counter your opponent. The system is now revolving around soft counters and being the better player.
_____________________________________________
Joining the 2 counterpick systems
When you join our two counterpick systems, you have a system centralizing around one character. This character breaks both counterpick systems. Systems that we have decided our important enough to be a standard, although neither is competitive.
In a matchup that is a soft counter in general, there may be certain stages that turn the tables. This creates a complex system about knowing matchups and how stages effect characters. However, when you add Meta Knight to the mix - you can no longer counter him. You cannot counterpick Meta Knight to place yourself into an advantageous situation. The best you get is a neutral match. To do this, you must also choose Meta Knight - and then the stage doesn't matter at this point.
Meta Knight is the only character in the game that you may not counterpick. He alone, breaks the counterpick system. The BBR agrees he breaks the counterpick system but has made no comment as to why we have the counterpick system.
The counterpick system was established a long time ago, in a different game entirely. It was established in a game that there was not a character whom broke the counterpick system. There was also a character you could go, that wasn't a ditto, or a stage you may take the enemy to - to place yourself at an advantage. Upon changing games, the very foundation that we have built our competitive rules need to be relooked at.
Unlike Melee, Brawl does not have a working counterpick system. It's flawed, it's broken - and it is not needed. It's an established standard that needs to be looked at for how it effects Brawl, independantly from it's predecessors.
Brawl does not need a counterpick system. If we choose to keep it however - we are admitting that it is okay for one character to not follow the system. We are saying the system is not important enough to be fixed.
We are to keep the system, or fix the system? Are we competitive? Or do we care about balance?
_____________________________________________________
The TL;DRThis is about the counterpick system, and how it's not competitive. Read it.
IGNORE THIS OP, READ PAST FEW CURRENT PAGES OF DISCUSSION INSTEAD
Until I can get a summary from each side of the argument (which seems to change every 5-10 pages) there won't be a relevant OP.
Read the OP if you wish, but please note it has little to do with current discussion.
Currently, this is how a full stage striking system would work:
Full stage list, no currently banned stages + Pipes is banned. (It's a tough choice for the 1 stage to remove for a 21 stage list and this is where some discrepancies could occur... but I find pipes the least liked by the community as far as the current legal stages go)
That said, I don't believe Pipes is banworthy - it's just what I'd ban to have a 21 stage list... ban whatever stage you like. Alternatively you can "unban" 1 stage as well.
Stages:
Game 1 will have both characters strike down until a single stage has been chosen. Each player get's 10 strikes.
Currently, since I'm bad with striking logic, I don't know the most efficient (but fairest) way to strike would be... so I'd go with:
Player with lower port strikes 5 stages first.
Opponent strikes 5 stages.
Player with lower port strikes 3 stages.
Opponent strikes 3 stages.
Player with lower port strikes 1 stage.
Opponent strikes 1 stage.
Player with lower port strikes 1 stage.
Opponent strikes 1 stage.
So 5-3-1-1. I know there is a better way, but I'm to stupid to figure it out. =P
It's done this way for efficiency, although I'm also deciding on if It should be 3-3-2-1-1.... little slower but how your opponent strikes will effect your strikes (so optimally 1 by 1 would be the best IMO... but that's just... time consuming)
So once only 1 stage remains, that's the stage for Game 1.
Characters are decided before the stage and of course can be double-blind picked if requested.
So there's game 1.
So the only real modification is the stage list, game 1, and the # of bans (due to such a large stage list)BBR rules modified said:3. The first game is played, using the stage chosen during step 2.
4. Each player may announce three stages to be banned for counterpicks of the set.
5. The winner of the previous match chooses their character.
6. The loser of the previous match chooses their character. **
7. The loser of the previous match announces the next match's stage from the Stage List *
8. Repeat steps 5-7 for all proceeding matches.
OPTIONAL:
*May not be a banned stage, is chosen AFTER characters due to the optional rule of Step 6.
**If the loser switches characters, the winner is allowed to switch which 3 stages are banned. This is to ensure that the loser does not start off as a character to try and trick you into not banning stages easily abusable by another. EG: Losing as Yoshi only to switch to MK and play Brinstar
Again 3 bans is the number that me and a few people I spoke to deemed to be fair to avoid any "sure win" stages. The goal of the full stage list is to not break characters and allow Wario to ALWAYS get a CP he's practically guaranteed a win at if he plays correctly.
The stage list (Striking the way you do + # of bans) does it's best to avoid degenerative gameplay.
** is optional, seeing as the goal of a full stage list is to NOT heavily favor any 1 character starting Game 1, and to NOT give any character a "sure win" on a STRONG counterpick.
The counterpick system is in place to give you an advantage, not to give you a free win.
Characters are chosen before the stage, just like Game 1. This allows you to CP your opponent based on matchup - but since they have more bans and can change their 3 bans if you swap characters, you cannot easily abuse this system.
:leek:
END EDIT
If you are currently staff, read this next bit - as it concerns you.
After speaking with forum support I was told my last thread was closed because of a specific paragraph. I asked if I removed said paragraph, if I could post the thread. I was given the OK. Just to be on the safer side however, I removed further parts and even changed how one part was worded just to be safe. If this thread is closed due to the content in the original post - I was lied to by an admin. That wouldn't look good, now would it?
Now on with the debate!
The Counterpick System is NOT competitive
Part 1 - Stages
Stage counterpicking has become an important, but not essential, factor of determining the outcome of a match. It allows you do place your opponent at a disadvantage by picking a stage that they are not familiar with, picking a stage their character gains a disadvantage on, or picking a stage your character gains an advantage. Two of these factors are not competitive.
- Placing your opponent at an uncontrollable disadvantage.
- Placing yourself at an advantage uncontrollable by your opponent.
Why are these two points uncompetitive?
The only disadvantage your opponent is placed at depends on the character whom they choose to use. They have control over this factor so they are willingly placing themselves ata disadvantage. However...
When you control the stage your opponent plays on, you are placing them at a disadvantage that is largely out of their control. Players only get to select 1 ban, and most characters are at a disadvantage on more than 1 stage. It does not matter if you are weakening their character, or strengthening yours - it is a disadvantage to your opponent.
Why does this matter?
The stage counterpick system is not competitive. It is there because we feel it is important. Would you consider the weakening of an opponent competitive?
Part 2 - Characters
The second part to our counterpick system is the ability to counter your opponents character. This is also an uncompetitive rule, that has become a standard for our community. Most every other competitive game, you pick your characters and that's it. You can't swap, you're stuck until you win or lose. This means choosing a viable character is an important factor in winning.
Without a character counterpick system, many characters become unviable. Characters whom are easily infinited by DDD for example. Would you take the risk of double-blind picking your character?
The double-blind system is actually competitive and essential to keeping tournaments run in time. Without it, people may constantly be trying to counterpick eachother before the match even starts. It often doesn't happen like that, but it occasionally does so they agree on a double blind.
However let's take two mains. A DK main and a DDD main. They agree on a double blind.
The DDD main is at an advantage if he stays DDD, while he could be countered - the DK main is a DK main. He will not be as skilled with his secondary as his main, and going his secondary may be a huge risk for him. Without a counterpick character system, DK becomes less viable. You can't counterpick your opponent the next round if you lose, and you essentially get locked into an "unwinnable" matchup.
So why is a rule in place, when the only purpose it serves is making characters more viable? Why don't we have other rules in place to make a large portion of the cast more viable? Banning infinites? Banning small-step CG? Banning Meta Knight? It's essentially because we are living a double standard.
Without a counterpick system for characters - the undisputable best character, Meta Knight, would be the best choice to be locked into a match with. He essentially becomes the center of the metagame. To best avoid ever being countered, go MK. This centralizes the metagame around one character, and may eventually lead to further changes taking place.
With a counterpick system, with Meta Knight allowed - our current system - the best option to counter your opponent, is to switch to Meta Knight. Your opponent, whom may switch their character before you counter them, may also switch to Meta Knight to avoid the counter - and instead go in an even matchup. This centralizes the counterpick system around Meta Knight.
With a counterpick system, but with Meta Knight banned, every character can be counterpicked. The system does not revolve around picking Meta Knight to counter your opponent. The system is now revolving around soft counters and being the better player.
Joining the 2 counterpick systems
When you join our two counterpick systems, you have a system centralizing around one character. This character breaks both counterpick systems. Systems that we have decided our important enough to be a standard, although neither is competitive.
In a matchup that is a soft counter in general, there may be certain stages that turn the tables. This creates a complex system about knowing matchups and how stages effect characters. However, when you add Meta Knight to the mix - you can no longer counter him. You cannot counterpick Meta Knight to place yourself into an advantageous situation. The best you get is a neutral match. To do this, you must also choose Meta Knight - and then the stage doesn't matter at this point.
Meta Knight is the only character in the game that you may not counterpick. He alone, breaks the counterpick system. The BBR agrees he breaks the counterpick system but has made no comment as to why we have the counterpick system.
The counterpick system was established a long time ago, in a different game entirely. It was established in a game that there was not a character whom broke the counterpick system. There was also a character you could go, that wasn't a ditto, or a stage you may take the enemy to - to place yourself at an advantage. Upon changing games, the very foundation that we have built our competitive rules need to be relooked at.
Unlike Melee, Brawl does not have a working counterpick system. It's flawed, it's broken - and it is not needed. It's an established standard that needs to be looked at for how it effects Brawl, independantly from it's predecessors.
Brawl does not need a counterpick system. If we choose to keep it however - we are admitting that it is okay for one character to not follow the system. We are saying the system is not important enough to be fixed.
We are to keep the system, or fix the system? Are we competitive? Or do we care about balance?
The TL;DR