Atlantic North [Nov 8, 2014] SypherPhoenix's Boosted Biweeklies! - Northern VA (Fairfax, VA, USA)

[SypherPhoenix]

which is in ur tourney info... but i was assuming apex stagelist

Yeah, this is only wholly applicable to my tournament ruleset. Playing with a few less stages would require adjustment of the banning rules.

1. What's the logic behind reducing the timer? If going past 6 minutes is rare, then why is there a need to reduce it more? It should be increased to 10 (or so) so the timer and time outs in general play LESS of a role in sets, not MORE.

In smash, the timer serves the specific role of forcing the players to engage one another on some level. People who are going to try run the timer out are going to try run the timer out regardless of how long the match goes on. There's no reason to have 8 minutes when 7 minutes provides indistinguishable results.

2. Bans shouldn't last all set. Example:
- Falco vs. Marth
- I win game 1
- I ban FD (obvious)
- My opponent cps YS, switches to Falco, and wins.
- He bans DL.
- Why can't I take him to FD for Falco dittos? He gets two bans if he can use my own ban against me by changing characters, PLUS adding in DSR on game 1 cuts me down even more, effectively giving him 3 bans to my 1 just because I won game 1 (not to mention I usually won't want to go back to the stage I lost on)... It's not only unfair, but illogical.

This example is flawed simply because your opponent has more tools than you from the start. Perhaps if you played more characters, you could overcome ban limitations.

The real problem is that you banned FD assuming the only matchup you were playing was Marth vs. Falco, which is something you had no way of knowing. You are complaining about your opponent knowing more characters than you and being more adaptive.


That said, I'm on the fence about whether you should be able to CP your own bans or not.

 

[Wenbobular]

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to CP to your own ban ~_~

 

[EPsilon933]

GUYS! GUYS!

TiMEOUTS ARE NOT A PROBLEM

Especially on the 5 starter stages (Pokemon has rock/fire which delays the fight by up to like 30 seconds per transformation which is why that neutral doesn't apply)

Drop it to 5 or 6


Think about it this way; why does a game that's too much campier and takes 2x as long with 25% less stocks have the same timer?

 

[Mahone]

because they want timing out to be a viable strategy...

 

[Bones0]

In smash, the timer serves the specific role of forcing the players to engage one another on some level. People who are going to try run the timer out are going to try run the timer out regardless of how long the match goes on. There's no reason to have 8 minutes when 7 minutes provides indistinguishable results.

The reason to have 8 minutes instead of 7 is that you have one more minute of game play where the timer isn't forcing a player to approach just because he is losing. The timer only serves the role of forcing engagements if you make it too short. There is absolutely no down side to making it too long (so long as it won't slow down the tournament, which it won't because like you said so few matches go past 6 minutes, and the few that do will take an insignificant 1-2 minutes longer).

If the timer were on 2 minutes, almost every match would have the timer forcing the losing player to approach, allowing the winning player to simply gain the lead and play patiently. Using 7 or 8 minutes has the same detriment; it just doesn't occur as often as playing on 2 minutes would. If matches that go to 8 minutes are outliers, why do they need to be shortened? Peoples' hatred for long games makes them want to shorten the timer. If Armada vs. Hbox played on a 4 minute timer, yeah, the games wouldn't be excruciatingly long, but they'd also mean a lot less because the winner would be largely based on whoever can abuse their lead the best. If they played on a 20 minute timer, most matches would finish before that limit implying that there would be less abuse of the clock (a mechanic that is only implemented due to logistics; not as some sort of element of the game that should be considered when playing).

This example is flawed simply because your opponent has more tools than you from the start. Perhaps if you played more characters, you could overcome ban limitations.

The real problem is that you banned FD assuming the only matchup you were playing was Marth vs. Falco, which is something you had no way of knowing. You are complaining about your opponent knowing more characters than you and being more adaptive.


That said, I'm on the fence about whether you should be able to CP your own bans or not.

Not sure how my example is flawed. I agree that my opponent has more tools, but his ability to cp a character shouldn't be arbitrarily buffed by whether or not his second character's matchup vs. my main is good or bad on whatever I banned for a completely different matchup. It's easy to add in extraneous rules and say they can be overcome by the player preparing better, but that doesn't make the rule logical or useful. We could add in the rule that if you change characters you get to ban 3 stages. The rule would be fair in the sense that it is available to both players, and anyone who gets screwed over by the rule can be told to just play a secondary, but the rule is still some dumb complication added in arbitrarily. If Mahone had a Marth secondary I'd have to either beat his Marth on FD or his Jiggs on Brinstar. Not sure how that's a healthy cp system. Yeah, good **** to him for having two characters, but that doesn't mean he should get super radical cps where I am not even guessing what matchup I will play because he will just cp based on my ban.

 

[Mahone]

The reason to have 8 minutes instead of 7 is that you have one more minute of game play where the timer isn't forcing a player to approach just because he is losing. The timer only serves the role of forcing engagements if you make it too short. There is absolutely no down side to making it too long (so long as it won't slow down the tournament, which it won't because like you said so few matches go past 6 minutes, and the few that do will take an insignificant 1-2 minutes longer).

If the timer were on 2 minutes, almost every match would have the timer forcing the losing player to approach, allowing the winning player to simply gain the lead and play patiently. Using 7 or 8 minutes has the same detriment; it just doesn't occur as often as playing on 2 minutes would. If matches that go to 8 minutes are outliers, why do they need to be shortened? Peoples' hatred for long games makes them want to shorten the timer. If Armada vs. Hbox played on a 4 minute timer, yeah, the games wouldn't be excruciatingly long, but they'd also mean a lot less because the winner would be largely based on whoever can abuse their lead the best. If they played on a 20 minute timer, most matches would finish before that limit implying that there would be less abuse of the clock (a mechanic that is only implemented due to logistics; not as some sort of element of the game that should be considered when playing).

ya, a longer timer would honestly better overall, i think people are just afraid of the edge case where people DO try to time out with 20 minute times and the set holds up the whole tournament lol....

i think its fine at 8, no real reason to change it one way or the other imo.


Not sure how my example is flawed. I agree that my opponent has more tools, but his ability to cp a character shouldn't be arbitrarily buffed by whether or not his second character's matchup vs. my main is good or bad on whatever I banned for a completely different matchup. It's easy to add in extraneous rules and say they can be overcome by the player preparing better, but that doesn't make the rule logical or useful. We could add in the rule that if you change characters you get to ban 3 stages. The rule would be fair in the sense that it is available to both players, and anyone who gets screwed over by the rule can be told to just play a secondary, but the rule is still some dumb complication added in arbitrarily. If Mahone had a Marth secondary I'd have to either beat his Marth on FD or his Jiggs on Brinstar. Not sure how that's a healthy cp system. Yeah, good **** to him for having two characters, but that doesn't mean he should get super radical cps where I am not even guessing what matchup I will play because he will just cp based on my ban.

gotta agree with sypher on this one, the whole point of the system IS to reward having more characters, the same way the old stagelist was encouraging that... now the stagelist seems to be heading in a direction where having multiple characters is less of an advantage but the ban system hasn't caught up... HOWEVER, i say i agree with sypher, because i want to go to tournaments that use the national/international tournament ruleset so i can prepare... you should explain this **** to the mbr or whoever does that stuff (and i'm pretty sure u do, but my point is that until it changes i would like to practice this even if i don't like it, rather than be unprepared at a national).

answers in yellow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hot$]

looks like their in yellow to me.

 

[Bones0]

Counterpicks were never implemented to encourage multiple character usage. It was just the easiest way to choose stages. Agree on the first through stage striking. Loser picks the next stage. Bans were a courtesy added in to prevent players from having to play on their worst cp.

The stage list getting smaller doesn't just nerf cping characters; it nerfs cps in general. If you have Fox vs. Jiggs, for example, and Fox wins game 1, he doesn't have to ban Brinstar anymore, meaning he can ban DL. Cping characters is less effective with the smaller stage list, but relative to cping with your main, character cps are still one stage better.

Let's say you have 9 stages ranked in order from best to worst for each player (1 is Fox's best stage, 2 is his second best stage... 5 is neutral... 8 is Jiggs's second best stage, 9 is Jiggs's best stage, etc.). With 9 legal stages and no one changing characters, you play: 5, 2, 8 (strike to 5; 1 and 9 were banned). If someone changes characters, their best stage probably won't be banned anymore, meaning they will play: 5, 2, 9 <--- 1 stage advantage gained because the Jiggs changed characters.

When you reduce the stage list from 9 to the 5 neutrals (stages 1-5), the stage advantage is still present.
No char changes: 3, 2, 4
Changes char for cp: 3, 2, 5 <--- still there



Other than that, I can completely understand wanting to use the standard rule set so that you are better prepared for nationals (though didn't even enter Apex! lol). Also, it doesn't seem like nationals will still use non-PS cps since Genesis and Apex didn't and because it's the new standard, so by that line of reasoning Sypher should get rid of the cps. :3

 

[Mahone]

looks like their in yellow to me.

lol, i edited, bold didn't stand out enough

Counterpicks were never implemented to encourage multiple character usage. It was just the easiest way to choose stages. Agree on the first through stage striking. Loser picks the next stage. Bans were a courtesy added in to prevent players from having to play on their worst cp.

The stage list getting smaller doesn't just nerf cping characters; it nerfs cps in general. If you have Fox vs. Jiggs, for example, and Fox wins game 1, he doesn't have to ban Brinstar anymore, meaning he can ban DL. Cping characters is less effective with the smaller stage list, but relative to cping with your main, character cps are still one stage better.

Let's say you have 9 stages ranked in order from best to worst for each player (1 is Fox's best stage, 2 is his second best stage... 5 is neutral... 8 is Jiggs's second best stage, 9 is Jiggs's best stage, etc.). With 9 legal stages and no one changing characters, you play: 5, 2, 8 (strike to 5; 1 and 9 were banned). If someone changes characters, their best stage probably won't be banned anymore, meaning they will play: 5, 2, 9 <--- 1 stage advantage gained because the Jiggs changed characters.

When you reduce the stage list from 9 to the 5 neutrals (stages 1-5), the stage advantage is still present.
No char changes: 3, 2, 4
Changes char for cp: 3, 2, 5 <--- still there



Other than that, I can completely understand wanting to use the standard rule set so that you are better prepared for nationals (though didn't even enter Apex! lol). Also, it doesn't seem like nationals will still use non-PS cps since Genesis and Apex didn't and because it's the new standard, so by that line of reasoning Sypher should get rid of the cps. :3

i wasn't very clear, i didn't mean that the mbr or whoever is in charge encouraged it, i meant it was naturally encouraged by the stages legal


8-9 does NOT equal 4-5 for most characters though

fox vs jiggs

yoshis (4) vs stadium (5) is not nearly as bad as back in the day...
corneria (8) vs GREEN ****ING GREENS (9)

but that doesn't really matter... i thought we were talking about counterpicking character....

honestly the way i feel is that once we get rid of fd the problems will go away lol... all the examples people use are fd and for good reason... i told KP (marth main) to counterpick fd against sheik and play his secondary ics when wobbling is legal lol... that seems pretty broken, but most non-fd examples don't really seem that advantageous

 

[Omni]

less arguing about rulesets
more getting better at Melee

 

[Plairnkk]

who gives a shiet

just **** *****es

 

[Bones0]

I was talking about cping characters. Basically, I think being able to circumvent a ban with a secondary's best neutral is more than sufficient reasoning to have a secondary. Completely subjective so it's whatever.

UMBC smashfest tomorrow? Maybe MD will be able to compete with VA in crews if DJ and I get some damned practice. Let's GOOOOOOOO!

 

[SypherPhoenix]

bones, if you want to use falco, just ban brinstar

problem solved


fyi you're not just talking about cping characters, you're talking about cping characters in conjunction with cping stages

stages are almost irrelevant to most matchups anyways, even marth/fox on FD is still at worst 55-45. all tournament-relevant characters can ban a single stage in my ruleset and be set. falco's ban is brinstar. stop banning around matchups and start banning based on your characters and skills.


anyways i don't feel like arguing on the internet, bring it up in person and we'll talk

 

[SypherPhoenix]

rules changed to being able to cp your own ban

also something can be banned by both players, just to clear it up

 

[thesage]

Doesn't Rainbow Cruise lag in doubles?

 

[SypherPhoenix]

framerate drops if things get REALLY intense but it isn't noticable unless you have 4 ICs

 

[Bones0]

Falco does worse vs. Marth on FD than on Brinstar, imo. I just hate Brinstar due to randomness, and it's easier to deal with the lava as Marth than as Falco (just to explain why I switched to Marth for Brinstar vs. you at UMBC). But yeah, not much point debating it. I do think it's dumb we're running cps when nationals don't anymore, but it's w/e. I will just ban Brinstar, and I can pwn Marths on any stage. ;D

 

[Kaffei]

brinstar/rc =(

 

[Redd]

Get those stages outta here

 

[Plairnkk]

such fkin jank

 

[TheTantalus]

if brawl can ban rc and brinstar, so can melee

 

[Omni]

yo get those ****ing stages off. wtf

 

[Ghostype]

rainbow cruise/brinstar in doubles? let's goez

 

[telemaster]

midwest jank yoooooo

+ MK2, PF, GG, corneria, PPC, MC

lolllllllllll

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Such disrespect for jank.

Entire smash careers have been built on jank.

 

[thesage]

There's too many good Fox stages in the cp list. I don't want to go up to Nova to be camped on RC or DK64. You can leave one on, but not both. You guys still have Dreamland.

 

[SypherPhoenix]

sup guys, maybe you could host your own tournaments and then you could make the rules

 

[Bones0]

FoD only at my next tournament guys. Falcon players, leave your johns at home.

 

[DuckPimp]

FoD only tournament? im leaving myself at home

:D

 

[EPsilon933]

sup guys, maybe you could host your own tournaments and then you could make the rules

Will do. But the cost is it's free

 

[Ghostype]

Yo is anyone near/in Baltimore willing to provide a ride for DOSV/me for this?

 

[Bones0]

If my car seated more than 2 peeps I totally would.

 

[hova]

Yo is anyone near/in Baltimore willing to provide a ride for DOSV/me for this?

got u

 

[thesage]

sup guys, maybe you could host your own tournaments and then you could make the rules

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=318539

>_>;

Mine are not free like epsilon's though. Also requesting that nobody schedules a tournament around this period of time. Thanks. Idk where else md/va'ers post.

 

[g-regulate]

if you are a fast faller, just ban brinstar every set vs non fast fallers

 

[EPsilon933]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=318539

>_>;

Mine are not free like epsilon's though. Also requesting that nobody schedules a tournament around this period of time. Thanks. Idk where else md/va'ers post.

Well, at least I'm capable of making mine into a monthly series and it's in NOVA

 

[thesage]

I have triweekly smashfests at my apartment

 

[EPsilon933]

I fold. You win

RU Smash is probably dead

 

[KageMurphy]

Yo is anyone near/in Baltimore willing to provide a ride for DOSV/me for this?

got u

perhaps mEE too? =D

 

[CTL17]

Also requesting that nobody schedules a tournament around this period of time. Thanks. Idk where else md/va'ers post.

Define "around this period of time."