[Wii] Super Smash Bros. Brawl Tournament Discussion

I've always been accustomed to the classic 3 stock survival matches. Of course the one draw back is the time limit not being there. But for small stages like Battlefield and Final Destination I don't think it's necessary.

I don't think there's much we can do about the lag, cheezeman. At best we can remind everyone to turn off any p2p programs and if possible, tell players to optimize their router settings. There is also investing into something like a LAN adapter for a more stable connection. But I don't think it will help everyone with their connection issues. Part of the problem is with Nintendo's (free) online service.
As for me, my connection has been pretty good overall. And I'm in Hawaii =D

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Keeps popping out of nowhere whenever I'm on the top tier. I only had to play on it once to determine how much I hate this stage.

And my personal ban list for the tournament:

Rumble Falls
Mario Bros.
Flat Zone 2
Hyrule Temple
Big Blue
New Pork City
75m

Just seven stages out of the 41. Agree to ban these? Disagree? Argue with me, dammit.

It's hard to argue against that .
I'm pretty much in complete agreement with those stage being banned. Mostly because I hate scrolling stages and humongous stages like New Pork City. I'm impartial to Flat Zone 2 and 75m though. Mostly because they're unique by design. I can also see why many players would hate playing on it too. So either way, I'm cool with it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Bleh, I forgot about Rainbow Cruise. As someone said earlier it is a heavy/slow character's worse nightmare. I vote to leave it out, since you know, I have a bias against fighting on scrolling stages .

Just a recap on what I think should be out of the picture:
Rainbow Cruise
Rumble Falls
Mario Bros.
Hyrule Temple
Big Blue
New Pork City

Again, I'm neutral on these two:
75m
Flat Zone 2

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I like Sprout's idea =D
It's kinda like the law cards from Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. Only more fun.
I don't know if you guys also want to incorporate wackier rules like:
- Rule A: Bob-ombs items only!
- Rule B: No Pokemon allowed (this includes the characters, stages and items.)
- Rule C: 8-bit mode (character and item selection is limited to characters originating from the 8-bit era.)

But yeah, doing something like that could prove fun.

How ya doing, buddy?

I don't see much reason to go for shorter matches for the sake of recording it. So I'll vote 4 stock/8 minutes too.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Sakabadger

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Slash

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

Or weekly laws!

Nevermind.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?