MELEE-FC Tournament Ruleset Discussion

[DanteFox]

stop being whiny little ****. If the old school pros like Ken could consistently dominate with these stages then I think you guys will survive.

 

[omgwtfToph]

I like how all the players *****ing about the rule set are fox players. this stage set MASSIVELY benefits fox. you guys should just accept your free advantage and move on.

i love this rule set. we're going to find out very quickly how smart some players are at CPs. that said, I expect all of the California fox/falcos to CP to stupid **** like battlefield over autowin stages and they'll all get like 33rd or something awful.

Did it occur to you that this isn't personally about us (I'm assuming you're lumping me in with the Fox players you're insulting) or whether our character benefits, but whether it'll make the tournament better or not?

I'm not Californian, but me and SW are ridiculously good at weird stages LOL. We talked about the ruleset this morning and the fact that we're posting in here is because we want to keep the hype level for this event as high as possible and we're disappointed to see all the posts from people complaining about the ruleset. If we were strictly in it to win it, we'd be arguing in favor of even more "weird" stages, like Onett and Corneria, not arguing for a compromise.

But so much for keeping the discussion civil. Can't wait to get 33rd.

People need to stop relating the use of stages that aren't current community standard to bad players. It gives off a lot of negativity that our community could do without and helps propel elitist ideas about our community, however false they may be on the whole.

I've made bracket at most nationals and I plan to use a lot of the stages the Kishes have put on for FC. =/

I agree, the hostility is really getting us nowhere fast lol. Although to be honest it's not just "new school" players who are resorting to random low blows *coughumbreondantefox*

Anyway, whatever, we're running a local this weekend using the FC ruleset and if it ends up being truly horrible (I doubt it will) I guess I'll be back to post here LOL.

IMO people who are vehemently against the stage list (I'm not; I'm mostly in here because I don't agree with certain aspects of the ruleset) should post matchups and real situations (i.e. the list of stages that people would strike to and situations where it's unfair for a given player) in which the stage list makes the game worse, as in situations where even after both players use their 3 bans you're forced into choosing stupid stages and you don't have a way to counterpick something good against your opponent, because right now the discussion's pretty abstract.

 

[KishSquared]

Honestly, I'd love to see videos that back up people's opinions. Let's see the matches where someone successfully camps the edge on MK2 (note - where the other person plays intelligently, goes for eggs, etc... but still loses).

I'm excited to see several people say they'll be running these stages in local setting. Definitely record some matches and get them online. Been a while since I've seen anything from Japes posted

Can't wait for FC.

 

[Kal]

I'm just excited about Mute City. That stage is amazing.

 

[JonnyW]

Honestly, I've tried out this ruleset (not in tournament) with a friend, and it seems fine for the most part. With smart bans you end up with a fairly balanced list of stages to choose from. Some counterpicks do tend to be more "extreme," as in more one sided towards this character or that. The stage striked to usually was fairly "neutral" and each person had 2 solid counterpicks, some more extreme in their favor than others.

 

[omgwtfToph]

I'm excited to see several people say they'll be running these stages in local setting. Definitely record some matches and get them online. Been a while since I've seen anything from Japes posted

this 1000x, we need vidz

Honestly, I've tried out this ruleset (not in tournament) with a friend, and it seems fine for the most part. With smart bans you end up with a fairly balanced list of stages to choose from. Some counterpicks do tend to be more "extreme," as in more one sided towards this character or that. The stage striked to usually was fairly "neutral" and each person had 2 solid counterpicks, some more extreme in their favor than others.

Know where you should try out this ruleset? In Washington. At GC. We miss you Jonny <3

 

[1048576]

I remember playing a match on MK2 (I think it was Marth vs. Peach) where my opponent started on the side and I started in the middle. We both stood still for about 15 seconds, then I offered to move to the other end of the middle platform and let him come down so we could fight, then we pause quit.

IDK how it would go with good players or what options they have, but it concerns me right now.

 

[ORLY]

only noobs like orly who won't be anywhere near bracket are the ones saying "zomg can't wait to go ghey"

lol I don't know who you think you are calling me out like that but I made third round pools at genesis which is pretty solid for my first national. I hope you show up to this so I can destroy you with a smile.

I can't wait for my first FC. The hype is boiling over in my pantsss

Y'all need to come so we can play

 

[Divinokage]

Honestly, I'd love to see videos that back up people's opinions. Let's see the matches where someone successfully camps the edge on MK2 (note - where the other person plays intelligently, goes for eggs, etc... but still loses).

I'm excited to see several people say they'll be running these stages in local setting. Definitely record some matches and get them online. Been a while since I've seen anything from Japes posted

Can't wait for FC.

That's not really the point why that stage should be on or not. Like I said depth is removed on that stage by a lot.

 

[Shai Hulud]

please read

i would really really hate to not see players go because of the stage list, including my friend ciz. kish, any chance you could make it so BOTH players have to agree on this rule set to use it, whereas otherwise, if one person disagrees with it, they would play using the normal MBR rule set? that way players who dont mind or want to try out this rule set, for whatever reason, can, while others will not be forced to.

this rule set seems like it would be fun for a lot of match ups, but also much too different for others to want to travel and compete.

Requiring both players to agree would be ridiculous. It would reduce the ruleset to MBR5 because anyone preferring MBR5 would be granted his preference automatically. People who prefer the FC ruleset are shafted.

And many tournaments based on MBR5 already allow people to play on other stages if both players agree, so there would be little difference.

This is not a "compromise" in any sense of the word. It's one side getting its way, in a roundabout manner.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

wow. the ****storms gotten bigger. i've been playing smash all day, so i haven't been keeping up with the thread.

people who haven't seen mahones posting style but try to react to it at face value are hilarious.

toph, you made the same points i did earlier (start with mbr5 strike, and leave the full 11 as cp's, with some bans). i approve of the fact that you came to a similar conclusion.

as the reunion tournament that this really is advertised to be, i really think that's about as much of a compromise as we will end up getting. and i think that's okay.

edit: really, in a bo3, DSR vs no same stage doesn't really matter. but when you DO get to a bo5, does that mean you'd want to use to second best stage first and save your real best stage as the cp if you lose game 2? sounds...interesting indeed...

 

[Divinokage]

agreed. only noobs like orly who won't be anywhere near bracket are the ones saying "zomg can't wait to go ghey"

Well then scrubs like you should stfu about people better than you. Gtfo.

 

[Shai Hulud]

I understand your response to him and agree that your presence should not affect the validity of your argument. And I agree with most of it. You're being a little to objective for my tastes, as I feel that there should be some human aspect to our decisions, but its absolutely a position that needs to be argued.

I'm just sayin like, maybe chill out a bit mang

I think it's rather hilarious that you've criticized Kal's responses for being too objective and logical. As if we should all try to limit objectivity and logic when making arguments, and instead just make random assertions.

Just sayin.

 

[Strong Badam]

Well then scrubs like you should stfu about people better than you. Gtfo.

oooohhhh the callout

 

[Deleted member]

Did it occur to you that this isn't personally about us (I'm assuming you're lumping me in with the Fox players you're insulting) or whether our character benefits, but whether it'll make the tournament better or not?

No, I didn't even consider it in passing. And I still don't.

 

[FoxLisk]

I've read probably 1/3 of this thread, but I've noticed the same theme recurring a lot and I'd like to make it clear so that it's obvious to everyone that there are two arguments going on here. If someone else has already said this I apologize.

There are two arguments going on here:

Argument 1: Whether or not the ruleset is fair, based on evidence or, failing that, compelling arguments.

Argument 2: Whether or not the rulest is desirable, based on community opinion.

I've seen a lot of conversations go like this:

Argument 2 Player - this ruleset is dumb I'm not going
Argument 1 Player - you have no evidence why the ruleset is dumb
Argument 2 Player - my evidence is that my friends and I aren't going

It's clear that Argument 2 Player in fact does not have any evidence as to why the ruleset is dumb, but in the end we are trying to make an event that smash players want to go to and will enjoy being at. So if your interest is in having a fair, reasonable ruleset, you reject Argument 2 Player's assumptions, and if your interest is in having a widely-attended tournament, you reject Argument 1 Player's assumptions.

It's not up to me which position is deemed more important in the end, but I would love to see this thread arguing coherently. Right now people are trying to argue as if we're discussing one subject when we are in fact discussing two, which leads only to frustration and confusion.

 

[Kal]

I'm pretty much the only one who's argued for any sort of fairness in a ruleset. The Kishes have consistently addressed people's concerns, and, with the exception of people's issues related to character balance and diversity, it's definitely not as though they simply said "no evidence, sorry."

For the most part, the argument looks more like this:

Argument 2 - Explain that ruleset is bad because [randomness or stage hazard]
Argument 1 - Explain that randomness and stage hazards can be accounted for because they are positional
Argument 2 - Reiterate how bad randomness and stage hazards are

I don't think using a "desirable" ruleset is really the issue, because you don't see anyone lobbying for anything based on preference alone. Most of the people who dislike the ruleset (with the exception of Silent Wolf and Lovage) seem to be arguing that these rulesets are better, regardless of whether the majority agrees. And only a few posters (the two previously mentioned and baka, from what I remember) insist on bringing up how many, at least proportionally, prefer either ruleset.

 

[FoxLisk]

I'm pretty much the only one who's argued for any sort of fairness in a ruleset. The Kishes have consistently addressed people's concerns, and, with the exception of people's issues related to character balance and diversity, it's definitely not as though they simply said "no evidence, sorry."

For the most part, the argument looks more like this:

Argument 2 - Explain that ruleset is bad because [randomness or stage hazard]
Argument 1 - Explain that randomness and stage hazards can be accounted for because they are positional
Argument 2 - Reiterate how bad randomness and stage hazards are

I don't think using a "desirable" ruleset is really the issue, because you don't see anyone lobbying for anything based on preference alone. Most of the people who dislike the ruleset (with the exception of Silent Wolf and Lovage) seem to be arguing that these rulesets are better, regardless of whether the majority agrees. And only a few posters (the two previously mentioned and baka, from what I remember) insist on bringing up how many, at least proportionally, prefer either ruleset.

See, when I see "ruleset is bad because [randomness or stage hazard]," I interpret that as lobbying based on preference alone. And despite only a couple posters explicitly mentioning how many people prefer one ruleset or the other, everyone who has said "stab won't go to this" and leffen saying he wont go to this, and so on and so forth, are all talking indirectly about how many people prefer one ruleset.

 

[Kal]

If it were based on preference alone, would they bother justifying anything? They would just write "I don't like these stages." But the only people writing that are Lovage and Silent Wolf; even Leffen has tried explaining his view. Eventually, everything falls down to some form of preference, so you're certainly not wrong in a sense. But I think, if you're trying to establish some sort of canon for the discussion in this thread, your "argument 2, argument 1, argument 2" point is not a very apt one. It's terse and does not really summarize the wide spectrum of complaints and counter arguments being made in this thread.

 

[KishPrime]

See, when I see "ruleset is bad because [randomness or stage hazard]," I interpret that as lobbying based on preference alone. And despite only a couple posters explicitly mentioning how many people prefer one ruleset or the other, everyone who has said "stab won't go to this" and leffen saying he wont go to this, and so on and so forth, are all talking indirectly about how many people prefer one ruleset.

While you're 100% correct in splitting it into two different conversations in one way, it's ultimately the same conversation, which is essentially "how good is the FC tournament going to be with this ruleset?" You've got one side making the case that it will be great, and you've got another side saying it won't.

The best news is that everyone clearly wants it to be great. At least we're all on that page. And ultimately, I hope we've got a way to push it into the middle where both sides can buy into the fact that it will be.

And it will be.

 

[KishSquared]

Don't worry FoxLisk, we're considering two issues here. First is what's fair from a competitive standpoint, and second is what the community wants to see, regardless of competitiveness.

From a competitive standpoint, our stance is that there are many competitive stages that aren't even on our stagelist, that we've preemptively struck. With the stage-striking system, we've afforded some luxury in the neutral selection to include stages less-than-neutral, because the presumption is a player with severe disadvantage on certain stages not only has 5 strikes, but also 3 bans. A lot of the reaction is from people who want to strike all 6 non-MBR5 stages, but they don't have enough strikes to do so.

As for community desires, considering this thread is for rules contention, it's not a surprise that 80% of posters want to see a change. People who like or are content with the rules aren't posting much, so reading this thread will give you a skewed stance on the true level of dissent. But that said, we want FC to be an event everyone will enjoy, which is why we made this thread to begin with. If we didn't care what people wanted and insisted on our rules (as some people keep claiming), we would never have opened it to discussion.

We're talking, we're listening, and we're trying to have some fun while we're at it. As we've emphasized many times, FC will be amazing. We have things that we've yet to even announce. It's going to be very good times.

 

[stelzig]

If it were based on preference alone, would they bother justifying anything?

If they want to avoid you calling them scrubs, and comparing them to people wanting to ban characters and whatnot... Then yes. At least I think that has alot to do with people trying to defend neutrals only.

 

[PEEF!]

It really sounds like this ruleset is being forced. Some people are chill with any ruleset, they could care less. Those who feel like their characters are affected or don't want to lose silly matches on silly stages are all voicing their discontent. Others are arguing but probably won't be going. I think that the players who are going should be taken seriously, because they are the people that are going to pay the venue fee/ make the tournament a tournament, and make the time and money investment.

Those non-attenders playing theorybros should continue, but the tournament would not be possible without those who are actually attending, and if almost none of them want this ruleset/many people are discouraged by the ruleset, the ruleset should probably be changed. The tournament is said to be a celebration of smash, featuring the best players, etc. If the players don't want it, I'm not sure what else could matter more! It really seems that the fact that people don't want it isn't really being taken seriously... Saying "oh it isn't that random" doesn't touch on the fact that many players simply don't want to play on these stages because of the randomness, and that should matter in itself.

KishPrime, you are talking about "pushing it into the middle." Do you have a proposal here? Did you like Silent Wolf's?

 

[KishPrime]

It is 100% that adjustments will be made in response to the feedback that we've received. I'm refraining from proposals because I've already made mine, and for me to keep throwing out proposals will confuse the issue when both sides are making plenty good arguments without me involved directly. There will be one more revision and it will be final, because it doesn't help anyone to have a super-prolonged situation with uncertainty.

However, please refrain from generalizing that every single person is dead-set against it when that is clearly not the case. Hyperbole doesn't help anyone. There are plenty of people both intrigued and excited, even if you don't personally consider them important. There are plenty of people against it. That makes it a polarizing ruleset, not a TOs vs. the world ruleset.

We thought the first go was a good compromise between putting all of the stages back in and going straight MBR5. It was clearly not good enough, so we're going to give it another shot.

 

[Silent Wolf]

Requiring both players to agree would be ridiculous. It would reduce the ruleset to MBR5 because anyone preferring MBR5 would be granted his preference automatically. People who prefer the FC ruleset are shafted.

And many tournaments based on MBR5 already allow people to play on other stages if both players agree, so there would be little difference.

This is not a "compromise" in any sense of the word. It's one side getting its way, in a roundabout manner.

yea i know. try reading my other posts instead of just picking out one and attacking me lol

Regarding Jungle Japes...

I can deal with most of this rule set, but this just bothers me. i just sat on japes on fixed camera mode and watch the klap-trap for like 2 minutes and it seems its purely random. It would appear in intervals ranging from 5 seconds to 13 seconds, changing each time. That in addition to it not being able to be reacted to if hit towards it should be enough for that stage to be one of the ones considered for removal if some sort of compromise is made.

I've played on this stage quite a bit and it is far too common for someone to get hit by something so minuscule as the end of a peach dash attack or a Fox shining in the air and then land helplessly into the klap-trap and die. I hope this isn't countered by something like "don't get hit" either. We may as well put big blue on and use "don't get hit" as the logic for defending the illegitimacy of the track. At least you know when the track is there lol.

I think a simple solution would be to replace Japes with kong jungle 64 on the stage list. That way you would still have just as many stages but less crucial of a random factor (the barrel) edit: id also like to hear the logic for not including that stage in place of others in the first place.

 

[Divinokage]

Ya I am really surprised that KJ 64 isn't on, it's weird.

 

[Lovage]

why isn't kongo jungle on but mushroom kingdom is LOL i'm so confused =/

 

[KishPrime]

Stage debates are never unanimous, guys. Many people I've talked with have agreed that KJ contains a number of properties that are worse than MK2 and JJ. The barrel and klaptrap are fairly similar in that you know the general geographic area, and both are responsible for saving/taking stocks. People make a lot out of 0% deaths, but how often are people actually at 0 when the klaptrap gets them? An average of 40-50% sounds reasonable. By saving a stock, a barrel gives the player a chance to last another 10, 30, or 50% (or longer, given that stage). They're pretty comparable.

In the meantime, the geography of the stage is extremely susceptible toward encouraging non-conflict and run-away techniques. At least Japes doesn't have the additional vertical dimension making this easier.

It's not cut-and dried, and I'm not going to die for it. Ultimately I just thought Japes/MK2 fit a little bit better in this particular collection of stages. If I had kept going, Corneria, KJ, and GG were all in play, and maybe even a few more. They're all pretty similar in the effects they can have on matches.

I don't think I'll ever understand why people have a problem with MK2, but I've already written that one off to me being weird. At least with other stages I usually understand why people are saying what they're saying.

 

[Lovage]

even if you the hazards are the same on japes and kongo jungle i still don't get why you decided to go with the stage the community hasn't played on in 3 years as opposed to the one we still have in our ruleset. experimentation wheeeee.

 

[Strong Badam]

i don't see the reasoning here. if the MBR ruleset was starters: Corneria/RC/PokeFloats/GreenGreens/Venom starters with Pokemon Stadium and Jungle Japes as CPs, and the kishes were to propose what the actual MBR ruleset is, you could easily go " i still don't see why you decided to go with stages the community doesn't play on as opposed to the ones in our ruleset." essentially, you assume that the trends in stagelist are accurate and go in order based on which stages are most problematic first. KishPrime has explained why he feels KJ < JJ. if you disagree, why don't you try to explain why, rather than going the obviously fallacious route of "It's better because it was banned later"?

 

[KishPrime]

Also, KJ isn't on the MBR list for singles:

Starters/Neutrals:

Yoshi’s Story
Fountain of Dreams
Battlefield
Final Destination
Dream Land

Counterpick:
Pokemon Stadium

 

[Lovage]

if you disagree, why don't you try to explain why, rather than going the obviously fallacious route of "It's better because it was banned later"?

OK NVM not interested in this dental-surgery stage theory crafting if that's all the TO is interested in ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz cya

 

[Violence]

I did what Otto did and came to the same conclusion.

Also, Kongo Jungle's Barrel is a random factor that gives you another chance at life, but once you're in it, you can react to it. It's also usually the case that people stall around that height to try and get to the barrel. It is a positive stage hazard. Whenever someone gets into the barrel, the opposing player tries to cover the options of the barrel's shooting angles. In many cases this results in the barrel player's death. It adds depth to recovery as people can go for the barrel, I've seen Foxes barrel hog to kill people, for example. It also adds another mindgame for the recovering player to get back to safety. It is by no means an extra free 50%, and is still a reactable factor most of the time.



In contrast, you cannot react to klap traps. You cannot predict klap traps. It is a negative stage hazard. It causes people to avoid that part of the stage. There is no vision of the area where the klap trap appears that would allow you to see where the klap trap is and where it is going like the barrel. It lowers depth because it discourages play below a certain height threshold. It is not dependent on the opponent or the player what happens when the stage hazard occurs, the outcome is 100% fixed, unlike the barrel.



This would be my argument against JJ in favor of KJ64.

 

[KishPrime]

It's a good argument. Anything to the non-conflict portion of it?

 

[Divinokage]

Both stages can allow for someone to run away and the other not being be able to do much about it like either Fox can run around on KJ while a slow character like Jiggs cant really get him because her jumps are too slow, or spacies can Side-B on the platforms and avoid things really fast by getting some invincibility frames on JJ. So I mean you can't really argue that, in this case, you'll just have to choose your bans wisely. But the above argument is pretty good though.

 

[Lovage]

btw i'm really glad everyone decided to ignore dantefox's ******* post LMAOOOO

 

[Strong Badam]

dantefox's post was about as terrible as "****ty stages suck," so yeah it was ignored

 

[Lovage]

damn ***** alright strongbad ur cool too dam greezin

 

[Strong Badam]

HERE COMES THE GREEz

 

[ant-d]

who says you cannot react?
klaptrap is the new randall

i think 'kish' explains it quite well in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTofgs5Q3H0