Scar
#HarveyDent
good **** tope
pakman we should prob just team from now on, get ready for GENESIS even tho i suck @ spoc..
pakman we should prob just team from now on, get ready for GENESIS even tho i suck @ spoc..
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
SMASHPOCALYPSE:: SPOC IX in February? Link to SPOC VIII results in OP
- Thread starter Scar
- Start date
Cia
das kwl
you and your beard should team w/ meee. (unless you're bringing a partner.. then
)Eggm
Smash Hero
What do you guys think about this rule that hat made up? I like it.
and, oh yeah, i'm introducing a new rule:
"HAT'S intelligent rule: the third game of any set must be played on a neutral.
Whats everyone else think?
Edit : I think its cool cause the guy who won r1 still has an advantage (as he should for winning r1) but its not an overwhelming advantage as if you won r1 you won the whole set.
and, oh yeah, i'm introducing a new rule:
"HAT'S intelligent rule: the third game of any set must be played on a neutral.
Whats everyone else think?
Edit : I think its cool cause the guy who won r1 still has an advantage (as he should for winning r1) but its not an overwhelming advantage as if you won r1 you won the whole set.
Scar
#HarveyDent
i hate cp stages and don't think they should be tournament-legal.
i hate characters who win the set if they win r1 (peach/jiggs)
i also hate that they have a really likely chance of tying up the set if they lose r1
i hate characters who win the set if they win r1 (peach/jiggs)
i also hate that they have a really likely chance of tying up the set if they lose r1
SwiftBass
Smash Hero
Eggm
Smash Hero
Absolutely. And scar I agree but thats kinda not realistic. But hat's is. I think its a good compromise.
no no no no no.
my rant in the other thread isn't enough. ****ing listen to yourselves, this is ********. if you hate cps so much and want to impose your hatred on the rest of the smash community, ****ing ban all NONneutrals. This is not a compromise, it's a way to give people who lost round 1 an unfair advantage while taking away the winner's. They have no edge. They get gayed on Mute City and then they have to beat Jiggs on a neutral again. god**** it just hearing this rule is pissing me off.
P.S. I <3 HAT, but this is really the stupidest rule I've heard suggested in a long while.
my rant in the other thread isn't enough. ****ing listen to yourselves, this is ********. if you hate cps so much and want to impose your hatred on the rest of the smash community, ****ing ban all NONneutrals. This is not a compromise, it's a way to give people who lost round 1 an unfair advantage while taking away the winner's. They have no edge. They get gayed on Mute City and then they have to beat Jiggs on a neutral again. god**** it just hearing this rule is pissing me off.
P.S. I <3 HAT, but this is really the stupidest rule I've heard suggested in a long while.
pockyD
Smash Legend
if you think CP stages are inherently that unfair, they should be removed altogether
it's a little bit ridiculous to give one player more options than the other, especially when you're punishing someone for a victory
it's a little bit ridiculous to give one player more options than the other, especially when you're punishing someone for a victory
Cia
das kwl
that works both ways. spacies and falcon can do the EXACT same thing, but with different stages (and more than the normal peach/ puff cps)
Eggm - i HATE that rule. it's ******** and just another way to stack the already dominant space animals. VaNz rule is better IMO.
also, good **** mogwai
Sensei
Smash Lord
All FD. Fox only. No items.
edit: I'm not a big fan of HAT's rule. I still <3 his pianos.
edit: I'm not a big fan of HAT's rule. I still <3 his pianos.
CT Chia
Smash Obsessed
i also agree vanz rule is better
I like the rule that if you ban a non-neutral you get a stage strike for round 1.
But Hat's rule is inherently unfair. Winning round 1 where the stage is neutral and random, is a disadvantage in this sense. Losing round 1 lets you play on your CP and if you win, you get guaranteed a neutral for match 3. The only way this would be even remotely fair is if you eliminate Dave's stupid rule, but even then I would still deem it unfair.
This rule is much more applicable in Brawl, where cp stages have a much bigger role in the game. Although I would still be against it, the rule makes more sense in that game.
I know Peach and Jiggs have a strong advantage on Mute. Guess what.... YOU CAN BAN IT. Strike Dreamland. There you go.
I would be extremely disappointed if this rule was implemented at spoc.
But Hat's rule is inherently unfair. Winning round 1 where the stage is neutral and random, is a disadvantage in this sense. Losing round 1 lets you play on your CP and if you win, you get guaranteed a neutral for match 3. The only way this would be even remotely fair is if you eliminate Dave's stupid rule, but even then I would still deem it unfair.
This rule is much more applicable in Brawl, where cp stages have a much bigger role in the game. Although I would still be against it, the rule makes more sense in that game.
I know Peach and Jiggs have a strong advantage on Mute. Guess what.... YOU CAN BAN IT. Strike Dreamland. There you go.
I would be extremely disappointed if this rule was implemented at spoc.
pockyD
Smash Legend
you should be using the strikeout for game 1 anyway
yea, strike for game 1, ban for cp is the best way to go.
I was more referring to a rule where if you ban a neutral you don't get a strike.
pockyD
Smash Legend
i was referring to the thing where you take turns striking game 1 stages until only one is left instead of doing random anyway
and for the most part, i've always just done
winner bans stage
loser picks stage
winner picks character
loser picks character
for CPs
and for the most part, i've always just done
winner bans stage
loser picks stage
winner picks character
loser picks character
for CPs
CT Chia
Smash Obsessed
melee should adopt the stage strike system as its been mentioned here. it would get rid of a lot of the things ppl are complaining about and make everything a lot better.
ppl pick characters
each player takes out a neutral stage till one is left
play on the last stage available
next match - winner bans any stage
loser picks stage and plays on it as long as its not banned
if theres a third match - 2nd match winner bans a stage
loser picks a stage
only prob with this is that you need an odd number of neutrals for the stage strike system to work right, and there are 6 neutrals right now, so either elect to have one removed or elect to have one added. (this isnt a problem in doubles, only singles). it would prob be best to make dk64 a neutral for singles in this situation.
ppl pick characters
each player takes out a neutral stage till one is left
play on the last stage available
next match - winner bans any stage
loser picks stage and plays on it as long as its not banned
if theres a third match - 2nd match winner bans a stage
loser picks a stage
only prob with this is that you need an odd number of neutrals for the stage strike system to work right, and there are 6 neutrals right now, so either elect to have one removed or elect to have one added. (this isnt a problem in doubles, only singles). it would prob be best to make dk64 a neutral for singles in this situation.
I really don't like this rule. By making this rule you have to alter other rules. DK64 is a bad neutral stage. Every time you play the same person you are probably going to play on the same stage r1. If a player has an advantage on 3 out of 5 stages, he is guaranteed a stage where he has advantage rather than have a 60% chance. Also, whoever gets last pick gets final choice out of 2 stages.
IMO this puts way too much power into the hands of the player.
Scar
#HarveyDent
Or remove a neutral. I've always liked that way but cp stages are ******ry and if I could I would ban all of them. Spacies being dominant is BS, you have to beat them at least once on neutrals to win the set and if you can't do it twice considering you have your ban and cp a neutral yourself IMO you deserve to lose the set.
pockyD
Smash Legend
Maybe, maybe not. Make icicle mountain the 7th "neutral". The beauty of the system is you won't ever have to play on it unless both players agree that it's one of the 2 fairest stages for them.
And honestly, I'm not even convinced you need an odd number... you could sequence the bans in some order such that the 2 bans are as powerful than the 3 bans
R1 isn't about providing variety; it's an attempt to provide fairness. That's why we use the limited stage set on random to begin with, instead of all legal stages
This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
...so they have a little bit more power than the other player (which btw already exists even if each player only gets one neutral strike, since someone has to go first). However, each player has at least twice as much power as in the random system.
You might be overthinking it. One stage strike per player (what you're proposing) is better than 0 stage strikes, right? Is there a specific reason two stage strikes isn't better than one?
that is exactly how it should be! We go to enormous lengths to eliminate randomness in the game, so the more power we give the players, the better. Put the more cliche way, despite our efforts to eliminate randomness, we start our sets by hitting a big button tagged "RANDOM"
Scar
#HarveyDent
The symbolism in that last sentence really swayed me. And I agree, guaranteed stage w opponent having a slight advantage is way better than a % chance of a huge advantage, i.e. Jiggs and dl64 when I ban fod
teh_spamerer
Smash Master
The only people complaining about Melee are dumb and the stage strike system is an idiotic idea.
Either
A) A neutral is fair
or
B) The neutral is not fair
If A is true, there should be no problem playing it on the random. If B is true it shouldn't be a neutral. It's that simple.
pockyD
Smash Legend
ok
which neutrals are "fair"? any character matchup should have approx the same outcomes on any of the stages you deem "fair"
fact is, "fair" varies by matchup, so the "fairest" stage would vary too
Scar
#HarveyDent
Yeah spam pocky is right. Even though that was a good argument.
CT Chia
Smash Obsessed
sure the last person gets to pick between 2 stages, but its not rly much of a advantage. both players get the same # of bans anyway. thats why its odd number, so both players get the same amount of bans. you could do like, the person who was the lower seed in the tourney picks second (so they pick last) or w/e. do rock paper scissors for all i care lol.
as for someone having a chance to play on a stage they arent bad on, its this way for both players. instead of having a random ailment as pocky said, the stage that is best for both players is chosen. and you really dont end up playing on the same stage most of the time. in brawl the majority of the players hate lylat cruise. the 5 neutrals are fd, bf, yoshis, smashvile, and lylat. iv actually had a good amount of first matches be on lylat. it just depends on the characters. iv also played the same person twice in a row (from winning losers finals i think it was or it was a MM then a tourney set) and the first match ended up being different as we changed our minds from the first time we played a set because of how that game turned out.
you can also ban stages based on if u think theyr good for ur opponent or bad for u, so there is a little bit of strategy involved. like i may hate FD, but i kno scar is a beast on yoshi's, so in a way i might rather use a strike on yoshis instead of FD.
edit after seeing spam pocky and scars post -
yea we pick all the stages that are the most neutral, but it changes depending on the matchup, like scar has mentioned countless times - jiggz or peach on dreamland lol. weve already determined not every stage is 100% neutral from allowing players to have stage strikes. this is just a more evolved form of that rule in a way.
as for the odd # of stages. u could easily remove a stage, but i personally see all the current stages as being quite neutral. when u look at the CPs, DK64 rly isnt bad (or rainbow cruise as mlg had that as neutral lolol) but again it depends on the matchup, so i think it could be neutral with a stage strike ruleset.
as for someone having a chance to play on a stage they arent bad on, its this way for both players. instead of having a random ailment as pocky said, the stage that is best for both players is chosen. and you really dont end up playing on the same stage most of the time. in brawl the majority of the players hate lylat cruise. the 5 neutrals are fd, bf, yoshis, smashvile, and lylat. iv actually had a good amount of first matches be on lylat. it just depends on the characters. iv also played the same person twice in a row (from winning losers finals i think it was or it was a MM then a tourney set) and the first match ended up being different as we changed our minds from the first time we played a set because of how that game turned out.
you can also ban stages based on if u think theyr good for ur opponent or bad for u, so there is a little bit of strategy involved. like i may hate FD, but i kno scar is a beast on yoshi's, so in a way i might rather use a strike on yoshis instead of FD.
edit after seeing spam pocky and scars post -
yea we pick all the stages that are the most neutral, but it changes depending on the matchup, like scar has mentioned countless times - jiggz or peach on dreamland lol. weve already determined not every stage is 100% neutral from allowing players to have stage strikes. this is just a more evolved form of that rule in a way.
as for the odd # of stages. u could easily remove a stage, but i personally see all the current stages as being quite neutral. when u look at the CPs, DK64 rly isnt bad (or rainbow cruise as mlg had that as neutral lolol) but again it depends on the matchup, so i think it could be neutral with a stage strike ruleset.
teh_spamerer
Smash Master
I put pockyD on my ignore list loooooooooooong ago. I'll wait for someone who doesn't blindly ignore what you're saying 99% of the time in arguments and then proceed to make awful analogies and restate the same garbage to respond.
EDIT:
Peach and Jiggs are not good characters. DL64 isn't even that good for them. They are slow characters that have difficulty killing vertically. You can camp the top platform. What are they going to do, use their VICIOUS upair to kill you off the top at 300%? The stage is big and gives you MASSIVE room to run around and outmaneuver them. If they win, it's because the Jiggs/Peach player is more skilled than his opponent and outplayed them or the other person is using someone COMPLETELY AWFUL like Roy.
No, YOU have claimed to have determined that without giving any proof of that and then suggested that there be stage strikes for that reason.
pockyD
Smash Legend
the irony is delicious
you can't debate if you just ignore the opposition, you know
The stages that are available are considered neutral, but in reality are just more "neutral" than the others. There are still inherent advantages and disadvantages for each character on each "neutral" stage.
The goal of eliminating randomness is to create a situation that is fair.
In this situation, I feel that random is more fair than the striking system.
Example: 5 stages. 3 of which I have a disadvantage.
System 1: Stage strikes.
I take out two of the 3 stages where I have a disadvantage. My opponent takes out the other two. I HAVE to play with a disadvantage 1st round even though 40% of the stages would have given me an advantage.
System 2: Random with bans. After bans- 3 Stages. 2 of which I have a disadvantage. I have a 33% chance of getting a stage where I have an advantage.
I contend that if I am GUARANTEED a stage where I have a disadvantage in one system when in another I have a 33% chance of getting a stage where I have a better chance of winning, the second option is more fair.
40% of the neutral stages favor me, but because it is less than half I have no choice but to play on the a stage where the opponent has an advantage.
Unfair and random are not always the same thing.
Any huge advantage should make the stage non neutral. Jiggs on dreamland is really the only character-stage pair that is unfair because of the stage.
Aside from this specific example, there are no "huge advantages" on any of the neutrals, because of solely the stage.
Eggm
Smash Hero
I like this idea for picking the neutral. I would vote to remove FOD over adding DK 64 (although I have no problem with this being a neutral as long as the new rule is in place). Lower tiered char should get the last pick lol. If its a ditto then rock paper scissors I guess.
teh_spamerer
Smash Master
I'm shocked you said FD over FoD
CT Chia
Smash Obsessed
so spam can see it
pockyD
Smash Legend
agreed. which is why spam is wrong.
but he'd never admit it
That's not necessarily true; it's to create a situation that is deterministic.
Items are "fair"; both players have a chance of getting them... but it's an element that can skew the results of an individual game/situation drastically.
Maybe, maybe not
Let's say you have an advantage on 2 stages, whereas your opponent has an advantage on 4. It's fairly safe to say that your opponent would have an advantage in a hypothetical completely neutral stage, due to him having the advantage in more situations. Therefore, I consider it "fair" to preserve the advantage.
"Fair" isn't a stage where sheik and bowser go even; it's a stage where sheik ***** bowser the appropriate amount
Correct...
but consider that there are 3 stages...
Stage A: You have the advantage. For the sake of argument, let's say it's huge, like 70%.
Stage B: It's relatively even. 50%
Stage C: You have a large disadvantage. 30%
Now, if you random, your expected percentage (whatever the hell that means) is 50%. If you stage strike, your expected percentage is also 50%. However, I propose that since only one game will actually be played. it's far better to guarantee you play on stage B, where you are on equal footing, than simply having an equal chance of stage A or C, which while "fair", ensures that someone will have a substantial advantage, leading the game potentially being decided by the randomizer
anyways, a bigger misconception is that our set of starter stages is innately "fair". In an optimal world without logistical constraints and despite it being a total waste of time, I would propose stage striking from the set of ALL stages to get the "fairest" result.
CT Chia
Smash Obsessed
pakman - what matchup is there in the game where someone has a disadvantage on 3 out of 5 neutrals (u also have to determine which neutral of the 6 was taken out in the first place). and by this i mean a disadvantage where the stage determines it (obviously there are character counterpicks, especially for a mid tier character lol, but were talking stages here). neutral stages dont hinder matchups too much, which is why we have deemed them to be neutral.
spam - lol i literally read it as fod knowing eggm hates that stage so much and was already prepared to say u cant just take it out cause u personally dont like it lol
also i like eggms way of determining who strikes first
spam - lol i literally read it as fod knowing eggm hates that stage so much and was already prepared to say u cant just take it out cause u personally dont like it lol
also i like eggms way of determining who strikes first
JonaDiaper
Smash Champion
people are making this too deep. MLG rules have been used for a long time now, and are widely accepted right? i dont see people like chu or mango or anyone else using non-top tier/hightier characters complaining. this is all about skill level, if your better you win.. thats it. play whatever stage and do your best.
be better on neutrals and youll win.
be better on neutrals and youll win.
So let me know if I am understanding this correctly. Since player A has a advantage on 60% of the stages, that advantage should be carried over into match one by means of forcing the game into a stage where he is at an advantage.agreed. which is why spam is wrong.
but he'd never admit it
That's not necessarily true; it's to create a situation that is deterministic.
Items are "fair"; both players have a chance of getting them... but it's an element that can skew the results of an individual game/situation drastically.
Maybe, maybe not
Let's say you have an advantage on 2 stages, whereas your opponent has an advantage on 4. It's fairly safe to say that your opponent would have an advantage in a hypothetical completely neutral stage, due to him having the advantage in more situations. Therefore, I consider it "fair" to preserve the advantage.
"Fair" isn't a stage where sheik and bowser go even; it's a stage where sheik ***** bowser the appropriate amount
Correct...
but consider that there are 3 stages...
Stage A: You have the advantage. For the sake of argument, let's say it's huge, like 70%.
Stage B: It's relatively even. 50%
Stage C: You have a large disadvantage. 30%
Now, if you random, your expected percentage (whatever the hell that means) is 50%. If you stage strike, your expected percentage is also 50%. However, I propose that since only one game will actually be played. it's far better to guarantee you play on stage B, where you are on equal footing, than simply having an equal chance of stage A or C, which while "fair", ensures that someone will have a substantial advantage, leading the game potentially being decided by the randomizer
I mean this disparity is the core of our argument. I just want to make sure I am understanding your point of view correctly so I am not jumping all over the place as much.
I just think this argument is going to turn into deterministic versus fair.
Niko45
Smash Master
You aren't changing the actual advantages you're just limiting variance completely from the game. With random you have the same exact situation just spread out over more sets. Say you play 3 sets and each of those 3 neutrals come up in r1 for each set. Lets say you lose the set where you had r1 at 30%, win the set with r1 at 70%, and it's decided by the set you played on at 50%. Same as the stage strike but it took 3 sets to achieve this where as the stage strike takes only 1 set.
However say you had an 80% chance instead of 70% on one of the neutrals. Now over 3 sets you are looking at an average advantage of 53.33% (80 + 50 + 30/3). So if you play with stage strikes your advantage is only 50% always and you are not benefitted by this system.
However say you had an 80% chance instead of 70% on one of the neutrals. Now over 3 sets you are looking at an average advantage of 53.33% (80 + 50 + 30/3). So if you play with stage strikes your advantage is only 50% always and you are not benefitted by this system.
Well I removed stadium. Luigi vs Marth. On FD and Dreamland I have a better chance of winning as opposed to Battlefield, FoD, and Yoshi's.
I used numbers and generic names so people wouldn't start arguing about the stage I picked and all that stuff, but this is what I was thinking about when I posted.
Not saying Luigi has an advantage on those stages, I am saying that he is at less of a disadvantage.
I think not giving me the chance to get one of my stages first round gives more of an advantage to Marth then if it were random. Since the stages are deemed "neutral" then I should have a chance to get them first round.
stage strike rule is godly for Pocky's reasoning. Spam is an idiot for ignoring the best debater on smashboards in a debate.
pockyD
Smash Legend
close, but not exactly
What I am meaning to say is that player A has a "60% advantage" on some hypothetical perfectly even stage. Why is it a percentage? I honestly have no idea, aside from the fact that character matchups are always defined as like "60-40" or "70-30" or something, so it's already in my head. Sorry if that was misleading
If player A has that innate advantage on the imaginary perfectly neutral stage, then it stands to reason that the closest thing we have to neutral for that matchup should also provide player A with a "60% advantage"
I think I am biased because I am main a somewhat stage dependent character. I can't say I like the system, but I can't really argue against it. Therefore I am going to red herring this *****:
Why do we need to change what has been working for years?