I don't see what's so difficult about just going "anything goes, but if players want specific bans/rules/what-have-you they can discuss it before their match." For example, team A and team B are scheduled to fight. Team B haaaaaaates stage Y and asks A if it's okay to skip it if it comes up. A says "that's cool" and the world moves on. I don't see how it gets any more simple than that.

Seriously, you guys keep saying "keep it simple" and all, but you also keep adding (interesting but undoubtedly complicating) ideas like "rule cards" or whatever. Which is it gonna be?

Because maybe there is a person in Team B who we can call Player Z who wants to play on Stage Y instead of stage X but the rest of the people, Player J, Player K and Player L don't like stage Y because Stage X is a better stage than stage Y while Player Z is extremely good at Stage Y and has a great strategy to use against Team A that want to play on stage X.

Or in other words, we can keep it simple, but make it interesting by adding our little rule cards in...which could make it interesting say one card is Items on high but the only one allowed are bob-ombs

That's a lot of letters, Slash.

But Saka, stages are randomized themselves also. Once the two players choose a stage, one stage is chosen out of the two and the players fight on there.

As Slash said, we wanna keep this simple, but I want this to be unique also. With sprout's idea, we can make these weekly battles more interesting by making them even more unpredictable with the implementation of the rule cards. They're basically the voice of the participants and each week, two voices are randomly heard. I honestly don't think that anyone has ever implemented a system like this in a tournament, so it could be interesting when it finally takes effect.

No one seems heavily against them and if everyone agrees to them, then we can finally get the ball rolling with this tournament.

Your example is really very unnecessarily complicated. Last I heard, clan matches were just a series of 1v1s so as long as the two players duking it out can agree, then it's all good.

Also the idea of rule cards adding in a random element seems to contradict all the other tourney-style rules considered (banning certain stages, items on low, etc) for a less random/more fair environment. Or did we get past that?

I had no intention of my example being real.

But we are making this fun and innovative. We were thinking that the rule cards don't have to explicitly ban a certain thing, but could instead say "This stage gets reopened" or something of the nature.

I guess the word "rule" can be a bit constricting eh? How about..."Weekly requirement" cards lol

Well, I thought it's there to more or less solve what we're trying to decide on. Going the card rule route would mean everything aside from match duration is fair game. But what makes it interesting is that (losing?) clans gets to choose the following week set of rules. Whatever rules that were used before would be replaced, I assume.

Though I am up for your suggestion of simply keeping everything unmodified for the first week. This will let everyone know what they will generally agree on banning certain stages, items or whatever. At least I hope so.

Or weekly laws!

Nevermind. :tpg:

I'm up for 4 stock/8mins.
I was thinking it'd be possible to make use of the banned stages in Brawl "risk". Clans have the option to pick one of the banned stages if they feel they can use it well. It'd be placed at the back of the line, sort of last territory to be taken. Adding the difficulty, randomness or hugeness of the stage would improve their odds of keeping it. Since it'd always be their last territory it'd be like a second chance to come back if they were quickly wiped out. Hopefully this would keep clans from being knocked out really early in the campaign.

So basically you agree with what I said while also insulting me, implying that I don't play the game (I will assume this based on the fact that I have not added you guys to my friend list). The more restrictive rules, the less fair it is.

Hey guys, just a suggestion here. Since you're making clans and stuff for this tournament, I think some doubles matches can also be done between groups. Also, make it a scoreboard style so that it's not tournament elimination, so that works as a way to keep the knocked out groups entertained, while providing a sort of competitive flavor around.

As a side note, the law card idea is awesome, but that just reminded me of the FFTA laws like "No Swords" and whatnot. No B button attacks anyone? =P

Uh, no, I disagree with your reasoning entirely and to infer I do agree with you is more of an insult than anything I've mentioned previously. And I didn't insult you, you're trying to read into things that aren't there. I made a general statement, if you feel it applies to you, then perhaps you should be evaluating yourself and how you feel about this issue.

You're generalizing. Tournament rules are formulated to even the playing field, not to "restrict it to the advantage of certain players."

How are we going to factor in play times? Are the two combatants just going to discuss in private and figure out what works? I know that my free time varies, but I'm always available late at night (11PM EST and on).

I vote for 3 minutes, 3 stock. I wanna see replays.

Hmm, that'd be interesting, but I think it would be better if we kept banned stages out completely. People are already talking about how complicated things are getting and adding the possibility of 'banned stages that may not be completely banned' just adds to the complexity.

...Not sure if that came across as well as I would have liked.

I'm torn between 3/3 and 4/8 because I don't mind either... but I guess I like recording the match so I'll choose 3/3.

As for everything else, for the most part I don't know what's going on. Just keep it fun and insane like this (ignore the part where I won lol >_>).

immp's SSBB Risk is a completely different side project. o_o

The idea was tossed up, but I don't actually think we're implementing it into the league battles or anything.

But for anyone who still doesn't get how I wanna implement the Rule Card system...

Week One is finished, and here are the standings:

Incredible Crisis: 10 pts. [1-0] [Incredible Crisis win all 5 of their matches in a sweep]
Weeaboos: 6 pts. [1-0] [Weeaboos win in a 3-2 match]
Warp Stars: 4 pts [0-1] [Warp Stars lose in a 2-3 match]
Drill Dozers: 0 pts [0-1] [Drill Dozers get sweeped in all 5 of their matches]

Oh! The Drill Dozers are in last place. They get to choose two rule sets randomly out of the pool or rule sets!



The Drill Dozers would send a PM into me choosing two numbers between 1 and 6. In this case, let's say, they chose 3 and 6.

In this case, next week's rule set would be restricted to only using Melee Characters and Brawl Stages.

Something like that. Although, just to prevent two rule sets from contradicting each other, I'll probably seperate all the rule sets in to categories (items, stages, characters)...

~~~~~~~

Yay, another edit.

Anyway, I was talking to Slash a little while ago. He said that he wanted to use the 3/3 rule set for his tournament. Just so whoever earns the clan leader positions can look back on these videos and then review who they want to draft for their clans and stuff... Since he has that point system that gives you points based on how many KOs occured, his system works for that kind of thing.

Following the tournament, we could either switch to the 4/8 or stick to the 3/3. Keep in mind, we have to account for lag that happens during league matches. Should we have only 3 minutes, the lag could get a little shaky and you might/might not be able to get a KO off in time. I'm not basing my system off on how many KOs you get, but rather who wins the matches themselves (in a best of 3 match). So as of now, the poll is for the league matches. If anyone needs to reconsider, please do so.

But if you wanna keep the 3/3 format for the League matches, so be it. I might even reconsider. Who knows?

Player B, C, and Z all want to play Fox only, no items, Final Destination, but Stage T and Items Q, F, and Z are requirements that team J all really want. So how do we fix this situation? We have a rule card where Team J can say Item Q is turned on, but only with Item J isn't and the rule card is nullified if the other team plays an anti-Item card. All Team J has to do is pull Card 8 out and use that to nullify the anti-Item card and also turn on Game Mode P. After that, character K, M, and Z aren't usable because to use them one of the teams had to play the Tier 4 Characters card.

Speaking of which, is Metaknight or Kirby Tier 3? Metaknight could be Tier 4 because his Up+B isn't all that good but some people might have mastered it so we'd have to move it to Tier 3 because he's actually better than we thought so it can be more fair to the people who only know how to use Fox.

Oh, and before I forget, you should also make sure that everyone gets the last right of lag refusal. Any and all matches can be nullified if someone feels they lagged for longer than .5 seconds at any point during the match, unless it's on Final Destination, where any lag is unacceptable and nullifies the match entirely and it has to be replayed.

And one more thing, if Character K...

YOU ARE THINKING TOO MUCH. THIS IS A GAME, NOT A GOVERNMENT RESEARCH PROJECT. STOP ELIMINATING VARIABLES.

Additional Spam:
You know what's fun and innovative? Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

You know what's a clear indicator that people are too insecure to admit that their inability to win every match DOESN'T have anything to do with the features of the game and instead has to do with their insistence on learning one particular set of actions over and over? Setting so many fucking rules that 90% of the game is turned off.

I propose a Government Research Project on creating a video game tournament.

http://www.pacificislandbooks.com/JP...0Governing.jpg

:forscience: :forscience: :forscience: :forscience: :forscience:

While I agreed with and propped the hell out of your post, Mo0, I don't think the rule card thing is that complicated... I saw it less as a way to "eliminate variables" and more of a way to do things differently and keep things interesting throughout the duration of the tourney, while not succumbing to being complete fags.

The problem is we're getting tons of different opinions from tons of different people. "This is too complicated" or "we MUST ban these levels" and whatnot.

Chaotic, if you want to run this thing, you need to just set the rules, wipe your hands on your pants, and get this shit going. I think we need to honestly just close this clusterfuck of a thread, close the other sign-up thread, and make a brand new one that says "HERE ARE THE RULES, SIGN UP HERE"

No more bureaucracy, lets get this shit GOING!

Well, I wasn't really saying that the rule card thing WAS that complicated. I was just baffled by the use of 8 different letters to refer to different items. If you have to go beyond A, B, and C, your example/situation is TOO COMPLICATED.

I wholeheartedly think the idea is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, though. If your tournament has rules for determining rules, you've gone too far into the meta.

Sprout has the right idea. Man up, DECIDE on something, and start the tournament. Otherwise the discussion will fall into a Wikipedia administration-style endless loop of circlejerk.

Especially for something like this, the more opinions we get, the more time we wait for the actual tournament to start since we'll be too busy sifting through everybody's opinions and criticisms, no matter how valid they are.

Chaotic, I'm not trying to undermine you or say you're doing a bad job, but I definitely think you need to just cut the bullshit and say "here's what we're doing, fuckers" and if people don't agree, they can simply not do it and miss out on all the fun.

I'm just going to cross post this in here, as I posted it in Mo0's journal.

I'm extremely dismayed that we are 3 days and a A HUNDRED AND TWENTY POSTS into the damn thread and there's shit all to show for it.

Look, I'm really appreciative of the effort you're going to. It's community minded, you guys mean well, and I don't want to discourage organized play here, but this is...not working.

Jeez, fine.

League Format:

4 stock, 8 minutes
Items On - Low
All Stages

Happy? Forget the rule card system. Forget doing replays. We'll just do battles normally. We'll just run the rule cards in on another tournament. Don't like it? I tried, but everyone's getting at me for trying to make this a people's tournament.

Personally, I don't want items or certain stages on. People beg to differ, so I'll take a part of what I want, and a little of what everyone else wants.

:mad:

If you want me to record matches, please tell me some sort of program I could use or something, besides the replay system, since I'm finding it a bit restrictive.

Rome wasn't built in a day. How long was the interest held in that? I THREW THE MOTHERFUCKING PROTIP UP, YOU FAGS JUST HAD TO TRY AND SPICE THINGS UP.

Rome also wasn't a tournament involving less than 100 people in a medium that exists entirely for leisure.

Additional Spam:
The problem with making it a "people's tournament" is that no matter how many ways you give people to be in control of their own fate, someone is going to want more or less control. Like sprout said, the problem with trying to make a tournament that EVERYONE is happy with is that you have to balance 30+ people's opinions on almost 75 items, 30 stages, 30 characters, multiple ways of running a tournament, ways to handle lag, etc.

And like Skills pointed out, GFF is not really known for having people with long gaming attention spans. I would just love to see the tournament succeed before everyone moves on.

This thread is not a bad idea, but you guys seem to be applying more weight on input from Smashboards and other tourneyfag sources than the people actually posting in the thread. There simply is no need for that much planning for a friendly competition between GFFers. Did you even read Skills' post earlier in the thread?

Perfect. See? This is the sort of grabbing things by the balls that I was hoping for. Seems to be a good general consensus seeing as how people have responded, and it's simple.

Now all you guys need are some matches.

I fail to see how picking out which maps you don't like based on a bias towards one character (or type) is fair. I bet I could find on EVERY map an advantage that certain characters have. The only rule that works in terms of being "fair" is no items.