Norcal/Bay Area/DBR:NorCal Nevers: Everything in Moderation. Including Moderation.

[NintendoKing]

I don't want Justin to come. He's fat and asian and wears glasses.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Thanks Nemesis for reminding me, one more proposed rule:

Stage bans are done as part of advanced slob picks. This means that the counterpick process goes like this: Winner of previous match bans a counterpick, Loser picks a stage, winner picks character, loser picks character, go. Only one stage ban per set, so if best of 5 sets are done, the counterpick ban takes place only after the first match each player wins.

Why have this rule? So that a person may make their stage bans in response to the character the opponent is playing, and not have to have advanced knowledge of what character the opponent plays. I had considered an alternate version of this rule in which the loser picks the stage first, then the winner has the option of asking them to pick a different stage. However I feel that people should be expected to know (or work out in their minds) which stages are good/bad for whom. So if you forget that Fox can **** Corneria, you can't count on the opponent counterpicking to remind you.

This also means that more stages are open for the first random game, since stage bans will not have happened.

As for the "slower reaction people" regarding random reset, I said that you have to reset (or announce your intention to do so) by the time the announcer says "GO!"

And yeah, DK64 is an MLG legal stage, but you'll notice I have it in the random list, not the counterpicks

 

[Zoap]

I would REALLY like to do best of 5 sets, but if we can't cause of time, that's OK.

I also agree with this but yes time is a factor so 2/3

First stage is random from: YS, FD, FoD, BF, DL64, PS, and DK64.

This is not so bad but if were going to include DK64 on random why not Rainbow Cruise as well?

Each character gets one stage ban (can be any stage, not just non-neutral), and one random reset.

This is ok, I dont like it just due to the confusion it causes ppl. Also shouldnt if both ppl want to reset it, the lower seed must use their reset? Just a thought

Legal counterpick stages: Rainbow Cruise, Poke Floats, Corneria, Brinstar, Mute City. No Jungle Japes or Green Greens.

I disagree big time with this one, It just seems to me that you may not like those stages and that shouldnt be a good enough reason to ban. I think that you could make a case for any of these stages, but again then we have no counterpicks besides neutrals. So I say keep em and if you dont like them ban your most hated.

You may not counterpick a stage that you have won on (unless the opponent agrees to it).

This is another one I disagree with, again some ppl are new or still dont know rules very well. This could be taken advantage of on such players.

You may not counterpick the same non-neutral stage twice (this rule only would exist in best of 5 sets). This is not Dave's Stupid Rule. You may counterpick a neutral stage you have not won on regardless of whether or not it has been played before. So, if you countered with Battlefield and lost, or if you lost the very first random stage on Battlefield, you MAY legally pick it, but you may not counterpick, say, Mute City, if you lost on it on your counterpick (though if your opponent picked it and won on it, you could pick it).

This is fine I like doing it that way with sets of 5 because then we get diversity. I also like being able to go back to a stage you lost on.

Counterpicks are standard advanced slobs. I notice so many times people just immediately pick a character when it's their counterpick, and only then picking a stage, so don't be afraid to call people on that. Your character isn't set until they pick a stage and acknowledge your character counterpick. Take advantage of them showing you their hand if they don't go by the rules.

This is fine lol

You can call for a double-blind once per set, and it may be before ANY match, but must be after the stage is chosen (except in the first match of the set, where it must be called before the stage is set [and before random resets]), and before either player has selected a character. I would only include this rule in best of 5 sets.

I like this alot for 3/5. 2/3 no way totally agree on that.

The only other thing I saw was when you explained the banning after the first stage.

Stage bans are done as part of advanced slob picks. This means that the counterpick process goes like this: Winner of previous match bans a counterpick, Loser picks a stage, winner picks character, loser picks character, go. Only one stage ban per set, so if best of 5 sets are done, the counterpick ban takes place only after the first match each player wins.

Now to me this looks like it gives a distinct advantage to the winner. Mainly becuz lets say I play Jeff, we do our reset stuff. And then he wins and gets to ban. Ok nothing wrong there. BUT if I dont win the next match I dont get to ban any stage in the set? This why I think the Reset Rule also screws with sets.

I think we should do the reset rule after, the banning of stages. SO Peter Bans Yoshi Story and MY opponent(Jeff never bans) bans DL64. WE then go to random and then do our resets. SO Theoretically if both players ban a neutral and both get a neutral they dont like FD and Battlefield there would be only one stage left: FOD. BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF DK64 and Rainbow Cruise this will again be in balance with no matter the stage ban and resets there will still be 3 stages.

My thoughts on the issues

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Hi Zoap, thanks for your comments. Here is my defense of the rules.

I also agree with this but yes time is a factor so 2/3

I really really want to do 3/5....I think we can make it work if people are on the ball calling matches, and I'm willing to help out with that, and keep track of TV's used, etc. We wouldn't do it for teams, only singles. For a lot of sets, this would just mean only one more game played. I'll say this, if we have fewer than 6 TV's, then we won't do 3/5.

This is not so bad but if were going to include DK64 on random why not Rainbow Cruise as well?

I include DK64 and NOT Rainbow Cruise because I think neutral stages shouldn't involve too much "knowing the stage" type stuff. DK64 is also a similar shape to the other neutral stages.

This is ok, I dont like it just due to the confusion it causes ppl. Also shouldnt if both ppl want to reset it, the lower seed must use their reset? Just a thought

I don't think we should take "confusion" into much account; I mean if someone doesn't understand the rules, that's their problem. We're trying to make each set be fair but also give people enough options in it.

I disagree big time with this one, It just seems to me that you may not like those stages and that shouldnt be a good enough reason to ban. I think that you could make a case for any of these stages, but again then we have no counterpicks besides neutrals. So I say keep em and if you dont like them ban your most hated.

As for why no Green Greens and Jungle Japes. Personally I'm pretty well-versed in both of those stages. I play Peach on Green Greens most of the time with success, and Jungle Japes is pretty good for a defensive Puff, and has a high ceiling. I don't like Japes for 2 reasons: I really feel that Fox and Falco potentially break this stage. Aside for both of their spikes being insanely more lethal due to the water, they can both escape edge games just by dropping from the far platform and Fwd B to the middle platform's ledge. This allows the same kind of shoot and run camp tactics that led to Temple and Termina being banned. The other reason is the Klaptraps. Yes, they do come at regular intervals, but unlike say the ships in Corneria, the Klaptraps hit the two ledges on the middle platform, and if they hit you, it's a STOCK, again unlike the ships in Corneria.
As for Green Greens, a few reasons: The camera messes up when the tree shoots apples. The blocks fall fairly frequently and can save people from combos and kills. Not to mention the bomb blocks, which seem to be random. I actually really like the shape of the stage, and the platforms open up a lot of new combos, but I think that the above reasons bring too much luck into the game. I think the stage favors campy Foxes as well. Fox can laser from a far platform through blocks and hit anything on the ground of the middle platform and past it onto the other far platform. Some characters are able to recover through the blocks, and some can't, so there is some recovery imbalance. Of course, the stage has really small ceilings and sides as well. So basically there are a whole lot of minor imbalances and randomness that I think transgress the threshhold. Any one of the reasons by itself would not warrant it being struck, but IMO all of them put together do.

This is another one I disagree with, again some ppl are new or still dont know rules very well. This could be taken advantage of on such players.

Again, if someone takes advantage of your ignorance of the rules, that's your problem.

The only other thing I saw was when you explained the banning after the first stage.

Now to me this looks like it gives a distinct advantage to the winner. Mainly becuz lets say I play Jeff, we do our reset stuff. And then he wins and gets to ban. Ok nothing wrong there. BUT if I dont win the next match I dont get to ban any stage in the set? This why I think the Reset Rule also screws with sets.

I think we should do the reset rule after, the banning of stages. SO Peter Bans Yoshi Story and MY opponent(Jeff never bans) bans DL64. WE then go to random and then do our resets. SO Theoretically if both players ban a neutral and both get a neutral they dont like FD and Battlefield there would be only one stage left: FOD. BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF DK64 and Rainbow Cruise this will again be in balance with no matter the stage ban and resets there will still be 3 stages.

Well, the point of the rule is so that you get to make your stage bans with the knowledge of your opponent's character. If you want to do stage bans before the first stage, but after both players have selected their characters, I'd be alright with that.

So, we've got just one day before the tourney, how are we going to finalize the rules? I think it would be too hard to just put it to a vote right now, any ideas?

 

[Zoap]

I really really want to do 3/5....I think we can make it work if people are on the ball calling matches, and I'm willing to help out with that, and keep track of TV's used, etc. We wouldn't do it for teams, only singles. For a lot of sets, this would just mean only one more game played. I'll say this, if we have fewer than 6 TV's, then we won't do 3/5.

I agree completely. But again TV + Cube count will be a big factor.

I include DK64 and NOT Rainbow Cruise because I think neutral stages shouldn't involve too much "knowing the stage" type stuff. DK64 is also a similar shape to the other neutral stages.

Ok understandable, but the reason I threw Rainbow Cruise in was because of two reasons. 1 it used to be a neutral and 2 for the ban stage idea I had, I like the possbility of 3 stages rather than 2.

I don't think we should take "confusion" into much account; I mean if someone doesn't understand the rules, that's their problem. We're trying to make each set be fair but also give people enough options in it.

Again, if someone takes advantage of your ignorance of the rules, that's your problem.

Just trying to stick up for the new ppl and not so rule oriented ones, But as you said its their problem not mine so I agree.

As for why no Green Greens and Jungle Japes. Personally I'm pretty well-versed in both of those stages. I play Peach on Green Greens most of the time with success, and Jungle Japes is pretty good for a defensive Puff, and has a high ceiling. I don't like Japes for 2 reasons: I really feel that Fox and Falco potentially break this stage. Aside for both of their spikes being insanely more lethal due to the water, they can both escape edge games just by dropping from the far platform and Fwd B to the middle platform's ledge. This allows the same kind of shoot and run camp tactics that led to Temple and Termina being banned. The other reason is the Klaptraps. Yes, they do come at regular intervals, but unlike say the ships in Corneria, the Klaptraps hit the two ledges on the middle platform, and if they hit you, it's a STOCK, again unlike the ships in Corneria.
As for Green Greens, a few reasons: The camera messes up when the tree shoots apples. The blocks fall fairly frequently and can save people from combos and kills. Not to mention the bomb blocks, which seem to be random. I actually really like the shape of the stage, and the platforms open up a lot of new combos, but I think that the above reasons bring too much luck into the game. I think the stage favors campy Foxes as well. Fox can laser from a far platform through blocks and hit anything on the ground of the middle platform and past it onto the other far platform. Some characters are able to recover through the blocks, and some can't, so there is some recovery imbalance. Of course, the stage has really small ceilings and sides as well. So basically there are a whole lot of minor imbalances that I think transgress the threshhold. Any one of the reasons by itself would not warrant it being strucks, but IMO all of them put together do.

Like I said you put together 2 strong cases for why they could be ban, but then again you could do that for all of those counter pick stages, whether it be Mute City with Peach/Puff and the Cars and no Edges to Corneria with Campers and the cheapness of the Fin(If you dont know what I mean, Watch DA play on Corneria, especially Wes and tell me its a fair stage). So I say they stay and that again you strike one down if you really hate it, like I hate mute city .

Well, the point of the rule is so that you get to make your stage bans with the knowledge of your opponent's character. If you want to do stage bans before the first stage, but after both players have selected their characters, I'd be alright with that.

Ill agree to thats seeing as I usually Ban a stage b4 the char anyways.

 

[petoo0]

hey! yay my internet is back!!! yay!!! hey i think i can make it to this tomorrow. teammate!!!?!??

 

[whiteboyninja]

sigh...the tourny tomorrow better be lots of fun

 

[Havokbringer]

Hey whiteboyninja i feel like not plying with any of my regular teamates at this biweekly so did u want to team up since u said u don't have a team mate??Just let me know and if u want we can fight first.

 

[froz3ntear]

Now to me this looks like it gives a distinct advantage to the winner. Mainly becuz lets say I play Jeff, we do our reset stuff. And then he wins and gets to ban. Ok nothing wrong there. BUT if I dont win the next match I dont get to ban any stage in the set? This why I think the Reset Rule also screws with sets.

I think we should do the reset rule after, the banning of stages. SO Peter Bans Yoshi Story and MY opponent(Jeff never bans) bans DL64. WE then go to random and then do our resets. SO Theoretically if both players ban a neutral and both get a neutral they dont like FD and Battlefield there would be only one stage left: FOD. BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF DK64 and Rainbow Cruise this will again be in balance with no matter the stage ban and resets there will still be 3 stages.

My thoughts on the issues

I don't see the issue. How is there an advantage to the winner? You both play first round and use the resets for any unfair stages...

Winner bans a stage and loser gets to pick whatever stage he wants... 2 out of 3... if you lose again, your out... 3 out of 5, if you lose, you get to pick another stage.

If you do win a match in the set... then you get to ban a stage... wheres the advantage?

Also, rules are meant to make the game as fair as possible to accurately represent who is the better player... Not to make it easy for the guy who can't comprehend the concepts.

I still don't think a stage should be banned for first round also... the resets make it fair enough.

Bout green green and such... I'm divided on the issue, because I'd like the rules to be as close to MLG as possible... since it is the main/biggest event just like how tournements will use exact evo rules and all friendly CS scrims follow Caleague rules.

 

[ender]

When's the next biweekly? The title still says the 20th, and there's no way I'm going back 20 pages to find it

I agree. Is it definitly confirmed for the 27th?

 

[Zoap]

So how is one player getting to ban and the other not, Fair? I thought fair was each player gets the same option right! So dont tell me its fair when it has the potential to be unfair. I like what Sheridan said the altered version of what I stated

 

[whiteboyninja]

so who is gonna team with me? ^_^

 

[froz3ntear]

So how is one player getting to ban and the other not, Fair? I thought fair was each player gets the same option right! So dont tell me its fair when it has the potential to be unfair. I like what Sheridan said the altered version of what I stated

because its the same thing.

How bout both players ban a stage after first round... the reason it doesn't matter is because the loser who is picking the stage... doesn't ban a stage... cuz why would the guy CHOOSING THE STAGE want to ban a stage anyways... and once he wins, THEN he can ban a stage...

I don't think banning of stages during first round is ok... it should be resets only for first round and banning for the rounds after.

 

[Delphiki]

The entire reset thing is completely new to me, I've never heard of it before nor have I seen it used. Also, I would like to have a good number of neutral stages left after resets. But I fail to see why we should not ban first round (after resets).

If we ban during the first round after resets, it allows the player who uses a ban a chance at getting a stage on which he is at least adequate. Banning after random stages removes this option, and reduces banning to a guess: "Is my opponent likely to pick said stage, or are there better options for him? Do I know enough of my opponent, the characters he plays, and their stage disadvantages?"

Most players cannot answer these qeustions, and in fact I would be willing to bet there are very few who can do so against a wide pool of players. Banning neutrals in the first round, after resets allows players who do not know their matchup incredibly well an opportunity to still make use of their one ban.

 

[Art?]

i think you guys should keep the standard mlg ruleset until there's no more debate and the rules are set in stone, at least for this biweekly.

 

[StarrMan]

CenCal will be represented

It's pretty much confirmed now that Myself, Pest, Bane, and Shadow will be making the drive up to this biweekly; which is fairly big news for Pest and I, as we haven't really gotten a chance to smash with you guys at all yet. Us being in Cali's armpit and all.

So feel free to introduce yourselves; and since we really can't match faces to names, maybe take advantage and do some MMs. Though I do need a little money for gas on the way back...

 

[Delphiki]

That idea holds a lot more weight because this is to be the last biweekly for perhaps some time. Wouldn't it be best to try out these rules elsewhere? All the same arguments back this up which some of you used to bypass Swiss format.

 

[Zoap]

no ur missing the point nemesis, the point is the winner gets to ban, where as the loser doesnt. SO Lets do an example maybe it will help:
(If we do it your way)
SS v Zoap.
They select chars, no bans, the stage come up as PokeStadium, Zoap says no way, next stage is DL64 SS says no. The final stage is FD.
So the play SS wins, SS bans DL64, So wow Zoap get douped anyways he plays FOD, And loses . HE never got to ban a stage, maybe he woulda baned FD but no he didnt get to cuz SS was the only one who got to ban(Essentially ensuring he doesnt have to play a stage)

now you could argue that the winner deserves this advantage, but what if after the reset it came up to another stage that one of the two hate.

Ok wit Zoaps Proposal wit Sheridans Revision

Both people pick their chars, Then they both ban any stage(neutral or counterpick) and then proceed with random resets.

SSvZoap
They Select chars, then Zoap being lower seed says no PokeStadium, SS says no DL64. Then they go and first random stage is FD, Zoap says i reset. Next is FOD, SS doesnt dislike the stage so he says that he wont reset. Now if you look at this not only does it give Zoap a chance to not get DL64 but FD at the same time where as the other example doesnt.

The thing I'm trying to stress is with the ban comin after the char select and then the resets, BOTH players get 2(Stage Ban and a Reset) to not play a stage at least first round, going towards even more fairness. CUZ as most smashers know most neutrals FAVOR some chars over others.

Art?: You do know that standard MLG rules state, 3/5 for each match , the current reset rule under arguement, continuation of sets and a bunch of other **** were trying to work out right?

 

[KevMoney]

Since Today is my birthday can i get freeeee entry

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

i think you guys should keep the standard mlg ruleset until there's no more debate and the rules are set in stone, at least for this biweekly.

That's what people say EVERY biweekly and I think it's becoming too restrictive. There have been distinct disagreements with the ruleset nearly every biweekly, be it legal stages, stage bans, resets, etc. The fact is that we don't use "MLG rules" in the first place. In the pro bracket (essentially what a 32-man biweekly bracket is), all sets are 3/5, and in addition there ARE neutral resets, AND a variation of that double blind rule I mentioned, AND the whole thing about continuing sets, which we didn't do last week.

Speaking of which, the more I think about it, the more continuing sets makes sense to me. I kind of feel like having to win 2 sets just puts an arbitrary stop in the middle of a set. The biggest problem I had with it was that stages would run out, however if we used my stage counterpick rule that I proposed, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

The entire reset thing is completely new to me, I've never heard of it before nor have I seen it used. Also, I would like to have a good number of neutral stages left after resets. But I fail to see why we should not ban first round (after resets).

If we ban during the first round after resets, it allows the player who uses a ban a chance at getting a stage on which he is at least adequate. Banning after random stages removes this option, and reduces banning to a guess: "Is my opponent likely to pick said stage, or are there better options for him? Do I know enough of my opponent, the characters he plays, and their stage disadvantages?"

Most players cannot answer these qeustions, and in fact I would be willing to bet there are very few who can do so against a wide pool of players. Banning neutrals in the first round, after resets allows players who do not know their matchup incredibly well an opportunity to still make use of their one ban.

I don't see why you would do stage bans AFTER neutral resets, given that neutral resets may not necessarily even take place if both people find the first stage agreeable. A neutral reset is NOT a "neutral ban." You reset AFTER the random option selects a stage, but before the match starts. I stated why I like this in an earlier post.

Furthermore, if we do counterpick bans after the first game, I would think it would allow people a better opportunity to make use of their stage bans if they don't know the matchups very well.

no ur missing the point nemesis, the point is the winner gets to ban, where as the loser doesnt. SO Lets do an example maybe it will help:
(If we do it your way)
SS v Zoap.
They select chars, no bans, the stage come up as PokeStadium, Zoap says no way, next stage is DL64 SS says no. The final stage is FD.
So the play SS wins, SS bans DL64, So wow Zoap get douped anyways he plays FOD, And loses . HE never got to ban a stage, maybe he woulda baned FD but no he didnt get to cuz SS was the only one who got to ban(Essentially ensuring he doesnt have to play a stage)

now you could argue that the winner deserves this advantage, but what if after the reset it came up to another stage that one of the two hate.

Ok wit Zoaps Proposal wit Sheridans Revision

Both people pick their chars, Then they both ban any stage(neutral or counterpick) and then proceed with random resets.

SSvZoap
They Select chars, then Zoap being lower seed says no PokeStadium, SS says no DL64. Then they go and first random stage is FD, Zoap says i reset. Next is FOD, SS doesnt dislike the stage so he says that he wont reset. Now if you look at this not only does it give Zoap a chance to not get DL64 but FD at the same time where as the other example doesnt.

The thing I'm trying to stress is with the ban comin after the char select and then the resets, BOTH players get 2(Stage Ban and a Reset) to not play a stage at least first round, going towards even more fairness. CUZ as most smashers know most neutrals FAVOR some chars over others.

Art?: You do know that standard MLG rules state, 3/5 for each match , the current reset rule under arguement, continuation of sets and a bunch of other **** were trying to work out right?

I don't understand why you think this gives the winner such an advantage; the only difference between your two scenarios really is that more neutrals are knocked out. The fact is that both people get to ban anyway, I don't see why it's suddently an "advantage" because the guy did it AFTER the first game as opposed to before.

One other thing that I think makes the banning after the first stage is better is that you don't have to "show your hand" as early on. When you ban a stage, you give away what character you intend to play the rest of the set. Again, the whole point of banning after the first stage is so that the players can ban with knowledge of the opponents character. The difference between my original rule and what Zoap calls my "revision" is that potentially up to 2 more stages are removed from the possible first random stage.

However, I think we all agree that stage bans should come after characters are known. The real question is: Should players be able to potentially eliminate TWO STAGES EACH from the very first game? I personally see good arguments for either side, and though I prefer doing stage bans as part of advanced slobs, I would be happy with either arrangement.

 

[ShadowBTZO]

Okay, I could go on and on about my opinion of the ruleset and everything, but I feel that I could get my point across much better in person. Also people tend not to read large posts. From the looks of it, I'll be showing up around 10:45 to 11:00, so if Hyuga and Zoap could show up around that time to discuss rules I would appreciate it (anyone else is welcome to share their opinions as well xP). I don't really wanna type a huge post right now anyways, sorry XD. So yeah, if that's fine with everyone I would like to discuss the rules tomorrow, BUT THE TOURNAMENT WILL NOT START UNTIL THE RULES ARE SET kthx =P

 

[Zoap]

LOL btzo so lazy... ill try

 

[SuperRad]

yeah..... i think you should try to finish it now. im not going tomorrow (another biweekly missed ) but you probably are going to want to have the rules written out, so everyone can read them and be clear. if you do it now you could get something typed and printed out (make a couple copies) and then everyone can take a look.

 

[NintendoKing]

Quote whores......

 

[ender]

NintendoKing, Kev$, Simna ibn Sina, Geovanni and myself will be attending tomorow, and hopefully arrive a little before 11.

 

[froz3ntear]

no ur missing the point nemesis, the point is the winner gets to ban, where as the loser doesnt. SO Lets do an example maybe it will help:
(If we do it your way)
SS v Zoap.
They select chars, no bans, the stage come up as PokeStadium, Zoap says no way, next stage is DL64 SS says no. The final stage is FD.
So the play SS wins, SS bans DL64, So wow Zoap get douped anyways he plays FOD, And loses . HE never got to ban a stage, maybe he woulda baned FD but no he didnt get to cuz SS was the only one who got to ban(Essentially ensuring he doesnt have to play a stage)

now you could argue that the winner deserves this advantage, but what if after the reset it came up to another stage that one of the two hate.

Ok wit Zoaps Proposal wit Sheridans Revision

Both people pick their chars, Then they both ban any stage(neutral or counterpick) and then proceed with random resets.

SSvZoap
They Select chars, then Zoap being lower seed says no PokeStadium, SS says no DL64. Then they go and first random stage is FD, Zoap says i reset. Next is FOD, SS doesnt dislike the stage so he says that he wont reset. Now if you look at this not only does it give Zoap a chance to not get DL64 but FD at the same time where as the other example doesnt.

The thing I'm trying to stress is with the ban comin after the char select and then the resets, BOTH players get 2(Stage Ban and a Reset) to not play a stage at least first round, going towards even more fairness. CUZ as most smashers know most neutrals FAVOR some chars over others.

If most smashers know that most neutral stages favor SOME over others. then it must be true vise verse so either way, one person is getting the advantage and its best to stay as close to mlg (big major tourney) rules as possible... I think its more FAIR to most characters if the first stage has more neutral stages open as well... I still think its more fair to NOT ban stages until 2nd round...

Your scenario could've gone in thousands of ways... Say we didn't have the resets and you banned FD, you would've got pokemon stadium... you can't say NO way to both stages. What if you did have the resets? Then you resetted pokemon stadium, ss reseted dk64, you banned FD, it goes to FOD, SS banned fod, then what... now its just dreamland and yoshi story?... There's alot of ways it could've gone, with SS getting the worse side


Here is MY point:


The reset is only to prevent you from getting the MOST devastating NEUTRAL stage, so pick PS or FD, can't have everything your way...


The ban is only to prevent you from getting the MOST devastating NON-NEUTRAL stage or just STAGE period... so neutral is fine as well... but look

MLG has thought this out... Thats why they add even more preventions like you can't play on the same stage twice. One prevention is enough... If you get your WORST neutral stage first round, you can reset... Then afterwards, you can ban your most possible worse stage (weather it be neutral or non neutral... preferable non-neutral since neutral stages should be well... neutral, but its fair either way.)

In my opinion, this is a competitive tournament and the rules should be as true to the BIGGEST major held tournament as long as they are fair... if there are equal arguments for both sides.

So the only changes from the MLG rules would be 2/3 instead of 3/5, and everything else should be the same to MLG which would mean the neutral stages, resets, banning after first round, and all of that.

I think its hard to argue to use any other set of rules than the biggest tournament. For the competitive player, their record at MLG mean the most right? so if no rule is CLEARLY unreasonable and unfair... We should keep it as true to MLG as possible, a tournament that tests the skills of everyone nationwide with standard rules...

Wouldn't it be sad to go to an MLG, the biggest tournament there is and lose from people picking stages like rainbow cruise and dk64?... I mean, yeah alot of people don't like the stages, and I can see why... but I wouldn't be happy if our local high level tourneys didn't fully prepare us for the biggest tournaments of the year.


Yeah so I'm just going on and on... and in the end, this is JUST my opinion... I will follow whatever rules are set with respect, but I just want everyone to take this into consideration... not just the most influencial norcal smashers, but everyone

cause the goal is to make norcal the strongest competitive community there is right?... and improve the level of every player... and yeah... I'm not the best player or even considered a good player in the eyes of many... but that doesn't change the fact that I want norcal to improve in the best and most efficient way...

 

[SuperRad]

The only problem with using EXACT mlg rules is that as soon as you change from 3/5 to 2/3 you lose some of the balance that the rules are tested for. they are designed around playing 3/5s, so stage selection rules are balanced towards that. overall i dont think it makes a big difference, but there is some. for example, you cant ban neutrals under MLG rules. this is more suited to 3/5 because if one neutral stage is so unbalanced (like ICs on FD, marth on YS, etc) then its only one of the three wins they have to get. Where as in a 2/3 set they can win the neutral and then have their unbalanced stage still for their counterpick.

 

[SuperRad]

****. double post.

 

[HylianLord]

SAT's then biweekly. **** what a messed up day.

i must play everyone in friendlies ^^. wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzz (just drank some bawls !!)

 

[froz3ntear]

The only problem with using EXACT mlg rules is that as soon as you change from 3/5 to 2/3 you lose some of the balance that the rules are tested for. they are designed around playing 3/5s, so stage selection rules are balanced towards that. overall i dont think it makes a big difference, but there is some. for example, you cant ban neutrals under MLG rules. this is more suited to 3/5 because if one neutral stage is so unbalanced (like ICs on FD, marth on YS, etc) then its only one of the three wins they have to get. Where as in a 2/3 set they can win the neutral and then have their unbalanced stage still for their counterpick.

I know that you lose SOME balance, but it's still as balanced as it can get. Adding more restrictions in the rules just because its 2/3 isn't helping anyone. Plus, on every stage, there will be sort of an advantage to one character or the other... The one ban and one restriction just makes the most sense to me.

but actually, its still the same thing, the only reason that we can't do 3/5 is because of time restraints, and the reason 3/5 is important is because the more rounds you play, the more accurate the skill difference is between the two people... so I think its still best to stay as true to the competitive mlg format. Unless you can find some rule change that will make it fair for 2/3 thats clear and distinct with NO arguments on the other side, i dont see why anyone would agree on non-mlg rules.

 

[Delphiki]

TeamScape better kick some *** today. Go TeamScape!

 

[MangoFalco]

haha no ride ftl. i couldnt take the lightrail or bus cuz my parents wouldnt let me. no ride cuz nick was already at san jose. its cool nick not your fault. but yah..SOMEONE TELL ME WHEN THE NEXT BIWEEKLY IS. IF I DONT MAKE THAT ONE IM QUITTIN -_- thanks for tryin nick.

 

[Delphiki]

There are still the Sacramento Biweeklies, which are about 2 hours as the car drives north of San Jose. There is one next Saturday.

 

[darkatma]

(just drank some bawls !!)

WOW did you die from the diuretics? I hadda go piss at section 6 >< That was so bad

 

[LunInSpectra]

There are no more biweeklies, quit Mr. Mango.

 

[Zodiak-Lucien]

looks like I am going to have to host a lot more smashfests then. I would host biweeklies but if you have ever been to my house it is pretty small.

 

[SuperRad]

There are no more biweeklies, quit Mr. Mango.

wait.....
what?

****

NO

 

[petoo0]

results anytime soon?

 

[Ian]

results anytime soon?

Lunin>Jeff>King


zomg I had fun GG zhu

uhm

mad props to...Zelgadis'es GF who solved the wooden ball thing which...isai couldn't

 

[whiteboyninja]

1st, lunin. 2nd, spectre. 3rd, king. thats what i know for sure

EDIT: ****, ian beat me to it.