The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[ぱみゅ]

By "starter" is implied no one has any kind of advantage, so, if the one who just lost wants to play in the first stage they played (where he had no real advantage), why to impede him to?

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

DSR is in effect if they don't agree, if both players agree to play on whatever stage they want, no one is going to stop them.

 

[Heartstring]

DSR is in effect if they don't agree, if both players agree to play on whatever stage they want, no one is going to stop them.

this, we had a tournament match played on a custom stage at the last tournament i attended, it was great fun and many lulz were had XD

 

[DMG]

Pbt.

I had 2 full sets of Random Characters Banned stages back to back last weekend. Have you ever played Squirtle vs Link on Hyrule to decide who advances in bracket?

 

[DMG]

By "starter" is implied no one has any kind of advantage, so, if the one who just lost wants to play in the first stage they played (where he had no real advantage), why to impede him to?

Being a starter stage does NOT imply that neither character will have an advantage, or that players will strike down to the "optimal" stage. It also assumes that starters themselves are never optimal or strong CP stages (FD being a prime example that that's not true. BF and others to a lesser degree). That also assumes that the characters will be the same on that stage when the rematch is done. I might be fine with YI if I'm Wario and he's Diddy, but I definitely won't like that stage if he switches to MK or DK the next time through.

DSR is mostly there for larger sets, but it can still reasonably apply to best of 3 sets.

Edit: Sorry double post. Forgot I posted in here earlier, assumed someone had responded by now.

 

[Ghostbone]

Having DSR apply to the game 1 stage doesn't make sense.

The person who lost game 1 has a choice of 12 different stages to counter-pick, while the person who won game 1 only has a choice of 11.

That's not fair, as you get an advantage for losing the first game.

So in effect it shouldn't apply to Bo3s, and it should only apply to the counter-picked stages in Bo5s.

 

[John12346]

The person who lost game 1 also has to deal with the opponent's counterpick on game 3. That alone is a big enough disadvantage to make DSR acceptable, imho.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The person who lost game 1 also has to deal with the opponent's counterpick on game 3. That alone is a big enough disadvantage to make DSR acceptable, imho.

If they have two bans instead DSR, they can decide whether to use that extra ban to ban the stage the opponent won the first match on or two other harder CP stages.

 

[Ghostbone]

It's still a flawed rule.

The person who won game 1 has to deal with their opponents counter-pick on game 2, their opponent ends up getting a counter-pick that may be stronger than their counter-pick. Which isn't fair.

And basically, the rule shouldn't be needed, as the game 1 stage shouldn't have to be counter-picked, otherwise the starter list isn't doing its job right. If DSR is applied in Bo3 sets, its only purpose it to cover up a flaw in the starter list.

And when you end up with smaller stagelists/starter lists, you can end up having to counter-pick a stage that's worse for you than the game 1 stage, which doesn't make sense.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

It's still a flawed rule.

The person who won game 1 has to deal with their opponents counter-pick on game 2, their opponent ends up getting a counter-pick that may be stronger than their counter-pick. Which isn't fair.

And basically, the rule shouldn't be needed, as the game 1 stage shouldn't have to be counter-picked, otherwise the starter list isn't doing its job right. If DSR is applied in Bo3 sets, its only purpose it to cover up a flaw in the starter list.

And when you end up with smaller stagelists/starter lists, you can end up having to counter-pick a stage that's worse for you than the game 1 stage, which doesn't make sense.

How? Both players get two stage bans. If they don't like the stage that they lost in, they can always ban it.

Example:
MK vs Fox
Fox wins the fist match on Smashville and bans Brinstar and RC
MK chooses Delfino and wins
MK can now Choose whether to ban Smashville or two other stages that might be worse than smashville.

If both players choose to ban the stage they lost in, this rule will basically be doing the same thing that DSR does.

 

[Ghostbone]

^ Your rule is fine, I actually agree with it.

DSR in general is a flawed rule, and should be replaced with more stage bans. (perhaps as the set progresses or something in Bo5s)

 

[DMG]

You don't "have" to counterpick the game 1 stage. It just so happens that plenty of game 1 stages are top picks for the character/MU in question. If Halberd is banned, what other stages would Snake excel on? FD, BF, SV, maybe even Lylat depending on the MU? Olimar/Marth/Falco/IC's/Diddy/Peach/ROB/Wario/Lucario might prefer FD/BF/SV/etc over other CP's if their strongest option is banned.


If starters were actually as tame as you suggested, then yes there would basically be no harm in letting people re-CP the game 1 stage that led to 50-50 ish MU's for the whole cast. But that's simply not the case, and because of that DSR is fine. Just about any starter possible is a top 3 to top 5 CP for a number of characters. Plenty of characters like FD, BF, SV, PS1, Lylat, etc given certain MU's to face.


The alternative if you REALLY don't want DSR to apply to starters, is to make the starter list incredibly small. Like 3 or less. If you make every game 1 start on YI or something, sure you could probably get rid of DSR. But at what cost?

 

[Ghostbone]

The alternative if you REALLY don't want DSR to apply to starters, is to make the starter list incredibly small. Like 3 or less. If you make every game 1 start on YI or something, sure you could probably get rid of DSR. But at what cost?

I don't understand this.

I'm saying that the game 1 stage shouldn't be biased for one character over another, and if it isn't biased, why should the person who won on that staged not be allowed to counter-pick it?

And character changes is another flaw with DSR, if I won on smashville in Diddy vs Snake, why should I not be allowed to counter-pick smashville in Falco vs MK or something?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Banning RC for Apex was a great idea. A moving stage like RC messes with a player's spacing.You take away a players ability to properly space, you take away a huge part of competitive Smash.

Jebus sucks at smash. Just sayin'. Like, really sucks. Beyond awful. Really, really quite terrible. Obviously can't adapt to anything. Johns like a mofo.

...

...At least, that's what I'm getting from his posts here.

Having DSR apply to the game 1 stage doesn't make sense.

The person who lost game 1 has a choice of 12 different stages to counter-pick, while the person who won game 1 only has a choice of 11.

That's not fair, as you get an advantage for losing the first game.

So in effect it shouldn't apply to Bo3s, and it should only apply to the counter-picked stages in Bo5s.

...You get an advantage for losing the first game? Yeah, maybe that'll balance out the incredible distadvantages present in losing the first game.

Furthermore, if you lost a crucial counterpick because you can't pick the first stage of the set, then either your opponent is beyond awful at striking, or the starter list was designed by ******** monkeys. If you lost to ICs on SV on round one and then banned FD for round three, and they're stuck with "only" BF, I really have to wonder: why the **** did you let them go to their second-best stage in the game on round one?!

It's still a flawed rule.

The person who won game 1 has to deal with their opponents counter-pick on game 2, their opponent ends up getting a counter-pick that may be stronger than their counter-pick. Which isn't fair.

"May be stronger" in the case that the starter list is incredibly ****ed or the opponent sucks.
If the former, then the person who's "losing" a counterpick already has a gigantic advantage: two counterpicks in round one.
If the latter, then we should probably make sure people ban the right stages; otherwise that guy who bans FD against MK as Diddy Kong was "unfairly" cheated out of their stage ban.

Sorry, try again...

And basically, the rule shouldn't be needed, as the game 1 stage shouldn't have to be counter-picked, otherwise the starter list isn't doing its job right. If DSR is applied in Bo3 sets, its only purpose it to cover up a flaw in the starter list.

...No ****. But here's the thing: if that flaw isn't there, it doesn't matter. If that flaw isn't there, then you shouldn't be relying on the DSR'd stage as a top counterpick anyways, so the issue is completely moot.

And when you end up with smaller stagelists/starter lists, you can end up having to counter-pick a stage that's worse for you than the game 1 stage, which doesn't make sense.

Neither does the game 1 stage being your best or second-best stage.

Look, let me make this as clear as I can, ignoring the possibility of ****ty striking.

If the starter list is poorly made, then any advantage gained by DSR is neutralized by the fact that the person getting ****ed by it had two counterpicks. As in, he already won on his "counterpick", and being forced to the next-best stage is not a huge loss for him because he was already there on round one.
If the starter list is not poorly made, and both players strike well, then nobody should be relying on the round 1 stage as anything more than a third or fourth backup counterpick.

In short, DSR on round one is an important safety net for ****ty TOs, and removing it is essentially pointless because it'll only cause harm, but never really help anyone. Capisce?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu-4W0fkQEo

I suck? At least I know the basics of this game. YOU CAN'T EVEN CANCEL YOUR ****ING SHUTTLE LOOP!!! Now I understand why you focus more on stages rather than the actual game play.

 

[F A N G]

He canceled it at 2:17

 

[Conviction]

Well damn

 

[Judo777]

you can cancel SL in 3 different ways.

 

[Steam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu-4W0fkQEo

I suck? At least I know the basics of this game. YOU CAN'T EVEN CANCEL YOUR ****ING SHUTTLE LOOP!!! Now I understand why you focus more on stages rather than the actual game play.

Why are you so mad?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

@Cadet

This just in: Player preference means absolutely nothing when deciding which stages to pick/ban. A player will always counter-pick the stage that is absolutely best for the traits of their character in the match-up no matter what.

 

[Player-1]

^^^^that smiley at the end is making me question if serious...

 

[Steam]

It better not be. I main lucario and almost always CP lylat.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Of course it's serious, just read BPC's last post.

If what I said isn't true, his post wouldn't make any sense at all.

Spoiler

*hintmother****inghint*

 

[WindMajor]

I'm just gonna throw out an arm here for BPC and say that I'm pretty sure he's expressed a dislike for the TL matchup multiple times.

Not that that's an excuse for much, I'm just sayin', lol.

 

[Ghostbone]

Of course it's serious, just read BPC's last post.

If what I said isn't true, his post wouldn't make any sense at all.

Spoiler

*hintmother****inghint*

It also ignores the fact that the metagame can develop, what might have been a good starter list before might not be now, due to a character becoming better/worse on certain stages.
And like you said there's player preference, I personally don't mind FD as MK, and would rather ban Halberd, Castle Siege or YI(B) in most match-ups.

If the latter, then we should probably make sure people ban the right stages; otherwise that guy who bans FD against MK as Diddy Kong was "unfairly" cheated out of their stage ban.

Erm, this is what DSR pretty much does.

You're helping players who strike badly.

I basically agree with Jebus, we should get rid of DSR, and instead give each player two stage bans. (probably 3 for the second counter-pick of a Bo5)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu-4W0fkQEo

I suck? At least I know the basics of this game. YOU CAN'T EVEN CANCEL YOUR ****ING SHUTTLE LOOP!!! Now I understand why you focus more on stages rather than the actual game play.

Way to completely miss the point of my post, which was that you making such a huge deal about RC ****ing with your spacing when the stage does so to such an absolutely minimalistic extent makes it seem like you're incredibly bad at adapting to the stage. Yeah, I know, you're PR'd in SoCal. But this should not excuse you making an argument about the stage that is defused by "learn how to deal with incredibly miniscule spacing changes". Yes, I'm not exactly a top player. This isn't news to me. FFS, Ramin 3-stocked me in winners at BiB2 (although I did bring it back a little on game two), and I lost to an absolutely horrible ZSS in losers mostly because I killed myself by cancelling my glide too early. I'm not a top player. But do you really want to claim that makes an iota of difference when I'm pointing out that your argument makes you look like you must be fairly bad at the basics?

I'm just gonna throw out an arm here for BPC and say that I'm pretty sure he's expressed a dislike for the TL matchup multiple times.

Not that that's an excuse for much, I'm just sayin', lol.

Nah, I actually pretty consistently beat all of the good TLs in Germany and the Netherlands. It's one of my more proficient matchups, like against ICs.

@Grim: again, you already got that stage this set. Think about this for a damn minute!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Hypothetical situation: Meta Knight dittos against Osama Bin Laden. Starter list is: FD/SV/BF/YI/LC

I strike FD, Osama strikes YI and LC, I strike BF. First match is played on SV, I win.

Now Osama takes me to Brinstar and beats me by scrooging in the name of Allah, so we move onto the third and final game.

Now I can't pick Smashville (a stage which is completely neutral, unless you want to argue that White MK does better here than Black MK) and I can't pick the stage that Osama banned.

Please explain why it's fair that he got 2 stage bans against me just because I won the first game, while I got only 1 ban against him.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...Hmm, fair enough. Dittos kinda break the mold.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So... a much better solution that wouldn't mess with dittos would just be to give everyone two stage bans =D

 

[Gifts]

Hypothetical situation: Meta Knight dittos against Osama Bin Laden. Starter list is: FD/SV/BF/YI/LC

I strike FD, Osama strikes YI and LC, I strike BF. First match is played on SV, I win.

Now Osama takes me to Brinstar and beats me by scrooging in the name of Allah, so we move onto the third and final game.

Now I can't pick Smashville (a stage which is completely neutral, unless you want to argue that White MK does better here than Black MK) and I can't pick the stage that Osama banned.

Please explain why it's fair that he got 2 stage bans against me just because I won the first game, while I got only 1 ban against him.

Because you won the first game on sv. Why would it be fair to cp someone to a stage you had already won on? You have other neutrals to choose from. In the u.ity ruleset atm we only have what 13 stages 7 of them being neutral. Having 2 stage bans per person and not being able to cp a stage you already won is rediculous especailly in a best of 5. Not to mention best of 3s, it still limits one player because hed have 3 banned stages by game 3 instead of what we have right now where he has 2. I dont understand how you are fixing this by giving 2 stage bans.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Um... I was saying 2 stage bans INSTEAD of DSR. Herp.

And it's fair to CP them back to Smashville because it's a NEUTRAL STAGE. It doesn't favour either player, if your opponent was worried about you winning again, they should use their stage bans.

 

[Gifts]

Um... I was saying 2 stage bans INSTEAD of DSR. Herp.

And it's fair to CP them back to Smashville because it's a NEUTRAL STAGE. It doesn't favour either player, if your opponent was worried about you winning again, they should use their stage bans.

You are still missing the fact that you won game 1. Obviously even if its a ditto mu on a neutral stage you won and shouldnt be able to cp there. Even though stages are neutral they still play out diferently like any other stage.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So... my opponent gets, no, deserves an advantage because they are a worse player than me?

That's ridiculous.

 

[Gifts]

So... my opponent gets, no, deserves an advantage because they are a worse player than me?

That's ridiculous.

if you are indeed te better player why did you loose game 2 in the first place? If it was because of a gimmick like you stated you should be able to win game 3 on any other neutral. That is if yu are indeed the better player. If you loose game 3 to your opponent on another neutral you have to ask yourself are you really the better player? Or are you just a better player on sv than your opponent.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I could win on any other neutral, but I want to win on Smashville again.

And the only reason I can't is because there is a rule punishing me for out-playing my opponent on Smashville for... no adequate reason.

 

[Ghostbone]

^This

So what if you won on the stage?

With two stage bans your opponent can ban the stage you won on if they really want to. It's more fair as both players can pick out of 11 stages.

Two stage bans also solves the problem of the Brinstar + RC combo, and without DSR, the two stage bans doesn't really do much to characters like Diddy or Falco.

 

[Gifts]

I could win on any other neutral, but I want to win on Smashville again.

And the only reason I can't is because there is a rule punishing me for out-playing my opponent on Smashville for... no adequate reason.

no adequet reason? You WON on sv. You lost on brinstar. Are you really the better player? Maybe on neutrals yes. But this game isnt just based on being a one trick pony and playing sv 2 out of 3 games in a set. If you can win on any other neutral i dont see why you are complaining.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Okay then, how about this. I play against my opponent regularly, he is my training partner of sorts.

So I *know* that I am better than him on Smashville and Rainbow Cruise, and he is better than me on Brinstar and Final Destination (we are even on every other stage). So when I win on Smashville (he struck incorrectly cause he's dumb) I ban FD. My opponent takes me to Brinstar and I lose.

What's this? He can now ban my two best stages when I could only ban one of his? That doesn't seem fair at all. Because it isn't. Giving a player a disadvantage for no reason other than to increase stage diversity (this same goal could be accomplished without disadvantaging either player) is STUPID.

 

[Gifts]

Okay then, how about this. I play against my opponent regularly, he is my training partner of sorts.

So I *know* that I am better than him on Smashville and Rainbow Cruise, and he is better than me on Brinstar and Final Destination (we are even on every other stage). So when I win on Smashville (he struck incorrectly cause he's dumb) I ban FD. My opponent takes me to Brinstar and I lose.

What's this? He can now ban my two best stages when I could only ban one of his? That doesn't seem fair at all. Because it isn't. Giving a player a disadvantage for no reason other than to increase stage diversity (this same goal could be accomplished without disadvantaging either player) is STUPID.

I dont understand your logic yet again. If your opponent knows you are better than him on sv why the **** would he let the striking take you guys there on game 1? If game 1 ended up on on bf, yi, lylat, ps1,or castle siege wouldnt it be even? You keep telling me you are better than your opponent so whats the problem? Shouldnt you beat him on any other neutral?

You are throwing in so many factors its started to get dumb. Hes you training partner also? Seriously stop complaining and learn how to actually debate. When you debate you dont say. "Oh hey guyz#&.# mai oppunent knos i better dan him os smashies ville. We stage struck ad mi opponent luts us g0 2 smashies ville game uno."

Use logic when you post please. It helps a bunch when actually trying to debate.

 

[Conviction]

Grim he is right about you throwing in a lot of variables that doesn't make your argument valid and sometimes detracts from it, not from a contradictory standpoint though.

I'm neutral on the dsr and 2/3 stage ban thing.

Idk anything on how the latter would turn out because I haven't seen it put to action or any form of consistenticy from it but the best argument I can see coming from the former is, "the rule is effect if you guys don't agree on going back to the stage."