Preferred rules should take turns

[Loochietoochie]

If I get my rules on the first game. The next game my opponent should get their rules. This should make it fair but what we have is if I get my rules I may get my rules twice or maybe three times in a row

 

[Crystanium]

If I get my rules on the first game. The next game my opponent should get their rules. This should make it fair but what we have is if I get my rules I may get my rules twice or maybe three times in a row

It sounds good, until you take the game seriously and risk playing against someone who has one stock, three minutes. It happens. It'd be better if the timer could be set as low as five minutes, but not any lower. There are bad players who cheat their way into Elite Smash.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

You know what would be even better? Getting matched only with people who share your exact same ruleset. Then no one would be complaining about ruleset discrepancies.

 

[meleebrawler]

It sounds good, until you take the game seriously and risk playing against someone who has one stock, three minutes. It happens. It'd be better if the timer could be set as low as five minutes, but not any lower. There are bad players who cheat their way into Elite Smash.

This is not cheating. Cheating is hacking Brawl to get infinite Wario-Man. No matter how annoying you find a particular ruleset, you are just as able to take advantage of it as your opponent, so you really have no excuse for losing except for getting outplayed. Not to mention this whole ''cheesing to Elite'' doesn't seem reliable with that in mind, plus the whole 50-50 chance of actually getting your ruleset instead of your opponent's, and on the off-chance they get a lucky streak, they will get beaten down by players far more skilled than them. I don't see how anyone can consider that an efficient long-term strategy to climb the ranks, more likely they just want instant gratification from quick games.

You know what would be even better? Getting matched only with people who share your exact same ruleset. Then no one would be complaining about ruleset discrepancies.

Arenas.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Arenas

Arenas have their flaws. If I could go onto Quickplay knowing I'd always get my ruleset, I would much rather do that than arenas.

 

[Coolboy]

yeah i do see something in this!

this might sound silly but i rather have my prefered ruleset with a variety in GSP opponent wise, then some matches might be easy and others hard..but i can live with that ^^''
i prefer that instead of not getting my ruleset and doing matches i don't enjoy but getting people around my GSP
cause that just doesn't motivate me enough to play on my best..if i had to play a 1v1 on a day i honestly don't want to play it then i already start the match with a ''meh whatever'' attitude and i will probably not play on my best at all cause idc about it at that moment >~>

 

[meleebrawler]

Arenas have their flaws. If I could go onto Quickplay knowing I'd always get my ruleset, I would much rather do that than arenas.

Well, it just seems way easier and more plausible to fix those arena flaws than try to overhaul Quickplay in the way most people want, which won't happen unless they remove arenas from the game to give a stronger reason for matchmaking to be more strict.

 

[Crystanium]

This is not cheating. Cheating is hacking Brawl to get infinite Wario-Man. No matter how annoying you find a particular ruleset, you are just as able to take advantage of it as your opponent, so you really have no excuse for losing except for getting outplayed. Not to mention this whole ''cheesing to Elite'' doesn't seem reliable with that in mind, plus the whole 50-50 chance of actually getting your ruleset instead of your opponent's, and on the off-chance they get a lucky streak, they will get beaten down by players far more skilled than them. I don't see how anyone can consider that an efficient long-term strategy to climb the ranks, more likely they just want instant gratification from quick games.

Well, that's one way of cheating, but that's not what it's limited to. I call players who play this way "frauds" because when they end up fighting me, they get their ass kicked. There's always a risk of having the timer run out. At that point, it comes down to "luck", for lack of a better word.

 

[meleebrawler]

Well, that's one way of cheating, but that's not what it's limited to. I call players who play this way "frauds" because when they end up fighting me, they get their *** kicked. There's always a risk of having the timer run out. At that point, it comes down to "luck", for lack of a better word.

Cheating means giving yourself an unfair advantage others don't have or crippling them before the match starts. What does a low timer grant one person that the other can't also do? This is even true of items and stage selection; you can't control the latter outside of Battlefield and Final Destination so it's too unreliable to cheese, and while items can introduce a luck factor that potentially upsets the skill balance, it's still something that can potentially backfire on those counting on it if opponents take advantage of them.

Since you said yourself these rules do not compensate for skill discrepancies, isn't it possible people set these because, oh I don't know, they find things more fun that way or want a change of pace? Why is everything that isn't the competitive standard is treated as though there's malicious intent behind it?

 

[Crystanium]

Cheating means giving yourself an unfair advantage others don't have or crippling them before the match starts. What does a low timer grant one person that the other can't also do? This is even true of items and stage selection; you can't control the latter outside of Battlefield and Final Destination so it's too unreliable to cheese, and while items can introduce a luck factor that potentially upsets the skill balance, it's still something that can potentially backfire on those counting on it if opponents take advantage of them.

Since you said yourself these rules do not compensate for skill discrepancies, isn't it possible people set these because, oh I don't know, they find things more fun that way or want a change of pace? Why is everything that isn't the competitive standard is treated as though there's malicious intent behind it?

Fine, I won't say it's cheating, but what I will say is it makes ranking a joke. By this point, the preferred rule set going half and half would be pointless, since people who don't feel like ****ing around or having a "change of pace" will block those who do. There won't be a rematch. I also didn't say "rules do not compensate for skill discrepencies". I don't even know what you mean by that. Anyway, if you're not competitive, you're not worth my time.

 

[meleebrawler]

Fine, I won't say it's cheating, but what I will say is it makes ranking a joke. By this point, the preferred rule set going half and half would be pointless, since people who don't feel like ****ing around or having a "change of pace" will block those who do. There won't be a rematch. I also didn't say "rules do not compensate for skill discrepencies". I don't even know what you mean by that. Anyway, if you're not competitive, you're not worth my time.

GSP may not necessarily be a good indicator of how one would do in a tournament setting, but we are long past the days where anybody could get and stay in Elite. To raise GSP, you have to consistently outplay your opponents. It doesn't matter what rules or modes you play, you're not climbing and staying at the top unless you practice and up your game, however you decide to play it. Whatever worth you assign to it is purely up to you, but there's no denying it is effective at matching up and placing players based on overall skill (just so long as you understand the middle areas are more volatile in numbers than the ends. The gap between 4,500,000 and 4,700,000 is just as big if not bigger than 2,000,000 to 3,000,000).

 

[Crystanium]

GSP may not necessarily be a good indicator of how one would do in a tournament setting, but we are long past the days where anybody could get and stay in Elite. To raise GSP, you have to consistently outplay your opponents. It doesn't matter what rules or modes you play, you're not climbing and staying at the top unless you practice and up your game, however you decide to play it. Whatever worth you assign to it is purely up to you, but there's no denying it is effective at matching up and placing players based on overall skill (just so long as you understand the middle areas are more volatile in numbers than the ends. The gap between 4,500,000 and 4,700,000 is just as big if not bigger than 2,000,000 to 3,000,000).

I don't think we're past that day. You can actually watch people on YouTube who intentionally lose GSP just to gain it all again. I would say your GSP will be higher the better you are, but it's not a good indicator of skill when you could lose four matches and be placed lower than 8k players.

Skill can only go up, provided you are consistent, but just because you lose to one person doesn't suddenly mean you're worse than 2k players. The Elo system is flawed, but I'm curious as to what would be a better ranking system. I heard Tekken 7 has an excellent ranking system, but never was told why or how.

 

[pupNapoleon]

yeah i do see something in this!

this might sound silly but i rather have my prefered ruleset with a variety in GSP opponent wise, then some matches might be easy and others hard..but i can live with that ^^''
i prefer that instead of not getting my ruleset and doing matches i don't enjoy but getting people around my GSP
cause that just doesn't motivate me enough to play on my best..if i had to play a 1v1 on a day i honestly don't want to play it then i already start the match with a ''meh whatever'' attitude and i will probably not play on my best at all cause idc about it at that moment >~>

I have to agree. I get pretty agitated playing on a team and having my rank drop a half million points when it takes me seven or more matches to get it back up.