Potential Ruleset Idea

[omegablackmage]

Gotta give credit to dastrn for coming up with this.

Im essentially looking for thoughts on this, and to possible spark discussion on ruleset ideas for brawl modifications

It's a new stikeout system that trys to take out the advantage for losing a match.

There is no such thing as a neutral.
There is no such thing as a counterpick.
There is one stagelist. Stages are either legal or banned.
You strike from your full stagelist until there are 3/5/7 stages left, depending on where you are at in the tournament.
You play 1 game on each stage not struck, in the order that they are listed on the stagelist.
No more free advantages for losing a game.
No more ridiculous counterpicking advantages.


If you want to main 1 character with no secondaries, you'll have to focus your striking on all your bad stages.
If you want to main 2 characters, or have 1 main and 1 secondary, then you can focus a little more on striking away your opponents BEST stages, since you can be flexible with what comes up.
I've found that most people prefer SV/BF to any other stages in the game. More often than not, we'd end up playing similar stages anyways.

If people wanted to strike the flat/plats, then a set of 3 will probably end up on lylat, delfino, and PS1 or castle siege. Does that sound like a bad set of stages? I don't think so. If you're an IC's player, then you'll probably see a drop in yoru character's overall viability, since you don't have awesome stages handed to you on a silver platter. Same with falco. But these characters suck anyways. Finally, we won't have stages built to allow their gay **** instead of other character's gay ****. (it's brawl.....)

So we'll see a decrease in the opportunity for an odd character/stage combination to break a stage/character/matchup. And we'll see more balanced sets, even if we have to put up with more games on stages like PS1/Delfino.

Here's an example set:
I'm a Metaknight/Pikachu player, with G&W/Snake in my pocket.
My opponent is IC's/DDD.

Let's say here's the stagelist:
FD
SV
BF
Lylat
halberd
Castle Siege
PS1
yoshis island
brinstar
frigate
rainbow cruise
delfino
pirate ship


I'm not going to think about pulling out my Snake, because I suck at the DDD/Snake matchup, and none of my other character's get chain grabbed. I'm not afraid of castle siege or delfino giving my opponent walkoffs.
I expect my opponent to play mostly ICs in this set, since he knows his DDD will lose to my MK/Pika on most stages, and he knows I won't go snake.
He knows I can go either MK or pika safely against either of his characters, so that's a tossup. He'll strike assuming I'm playing MK most likely, since MK is better on more stages than pika.

I'd ban FD.
He'd ban RC.
I'd ban SV.
He'd ban Pirate ship.
I'd ban yoshi's island.
He'd ban Brinstar.
I'd ban BF.
He'd ban PS1.
In a 5 game set, we now have our stages, in order: Lylat, Halberd, CS, frigate, and delfino
If it's a 3 game set:
I'd ban halberd (personal choice. I'm bad there.)
he'd ban frigate.
Our 3 game set is now played out in order on: Lylat, CS and Delfino.

Plenty of opportunity for all 3 likely characters (ICs, MK, and Pika) to do what they do best with this stage list. No completely flat/plat stages to make the match imbalanced towards the ICs. No rainbow cruise/brinstar/pirate ship that would make it an easy MK win.

Now, i pulled this from the brawl back room, so i would expect that all of you would keep this to yourselves, since this is a restricted forum on its own, i assume it would be alright showing it to a select few in the wbr.

 

[GHNeko]

So basically it turns the stage list into a big game of Jenga.

You pull out stages until you have what you need and play from top to body, basically forcing a player to pick his character around the stage (how his character does on said stage, how his opponent does on said stage, how well does he know the MU on said stage, how well does he know the stage, how he can make the stage work for him, etc etc.)

Am I right? If so, I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's interesting and I'd definitely try it out, but it seems like a drastic change designed more specifically for Brawl, and the system for Brawl+ has been fine, so the need for this is slim.

 

[omegablackmage]

im on the fence about it as well. As brought up in the br, this method really can give a huge advantage to characters like mk (or other high maneuverability characters). Its all really dependent on the stages you put into the mix.

 

[GHNeko]

To give the whole roster a fair chance, you would have to be liberal about the stage list, and make sure that the neutrals are extremely well spread, in BOTH games.

I'm all for it as a test, but we'd need to personally establish a stage list.

 

[Plum]

This could either be better or worse than the current system.
It all depends on the stage list.
The whole idea seems interesting though.
Once we establish a stagelist and set boundaries this would be something worth giving a shot at Smashfests. The only thing about this is that people are bound to be put off by it automatically because its different. Let's be honest, people don't like change ._.

 

[Thunderhorse+]

I like change. ._. I'm suffering the opposite of change fatigue -I'm getting bored of + because there's no new **** to try. It's getting to the point where BBrawl has piqued my interest merely by adding walljump IASA to Falco's side B and up B (though he doesn't get FH/SH IASA as well like Fox does >_<).

That being said, I'd love to try out this new method, though whether or not it'll work better than what's established I couldn't say. Seems like an interesting idea nonetheless.

 

[Shell]

If you're getting change-fever then I'd try out P:M much sooner than BBrawl, personally... join the team.

I will say that this method is really intriguing, however, as our number of neutral or otherwise competition-worthy stages grows rapidly in number due to hacking, if we wanted to really use them all then striking down to 3/5/7 would take ages... I wouldn't be surprised if the average tourney got an hour+ longer

 

[JCaesar]

If you're getting change-fever then I'd try out P:M much sooner than BBrawl, personally... join the team.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I like change. ._. I'm suffering the opposite of change fatigue -I'm getting bored of + because there's no new **** to try. It's getting to the point where BBrawl has piqued my interest merely by adding walljump IASA to Falco's side B and up B (though he doesn't get FH/SH IASA as well like Fox does >_<).

That being said, I'd love to try out this new method, though whether or not it'll work better than what's established I couldn't say. Seems like an interesting idea nonetheless.

There is no project with more absolutely crazy radical changes than Brawl-.

 

[Thunderhorse+]

I am very much intrigued by Project M (though saddened that Falco utilt went back to Melee's instead of the B+ one, but I can see why). Unless I missed something though, there is no public beta out unlike BBrawl. I'd love to try it out though, because that really seems like the project that would benefit from these little tricks like jump/walljump IASA on phantasm.

But that is neither here nor there, so it's the last time I'll bring it up.

As far as extending the length of tournaments, I can't see individual sets extending for more than a minute at most. Unless it's a very large-scale regional tourney, I don't think it'll make tourneys last an extra hour or more.

 

[Veril]

The current system works though.

I mean, this system looks "interesting" not "better'. I think we should make a good stagelist in the standard form that has worked for so long. Don't fix what ain't broken is obviously a silly phrase, but "don't radically alter what currently works just fine" is pretty reasonable imo./

Its a cool idea that is totally unnecessary and not even desirable if you like the current system (which I do).

/conservative standpoint that I think in this case is correct.

 

[Yeroc]

Yeah, I'd say go with what the rest of the community goes with. If they adopt Dastrn's system, then we should consider it as well. Until then, I think we should just stick with what we've got.

 

[GuruKid]

While I I really like the idea of giving more power to determining stages so that a simple stage counterpick doesn't decide the match, I'm also against limiting the stage pool to just neutrals (which is what this ruleset would do, essentially). Variety in stages is good, and the current ruleset works just fine.