Tom Brady on accommodating a tournament rule standard for Injustice: Gods Among Us

[Zoidberg747]

HOWEVER, there is no way to pick a different area on those two games outside of training mode settings. Injustice is different from those two in that aspect.

Yes but what I am saying is those games deal with that aspect, so can we.

You could even do a 50/50 with p2 random and p1 random. ANYTHING but that counterpicking and 50/50 nonsense.

 

[KDZ]

Why is this so hard? The community wants 3/5 matches for tournaments. SO:

- 1st match is random or players agree to 50/50
- 2nd match, loser picks stage or changes character and stage is 50/50
- 3rd match, loser picks stage or changes character and stage is 50/50
- IF 4th match, loser picks stage or changes character and stage is 50/50
- IF 5th match, loser picks stage or changes character and stage is 50/50

This game was designed with 50/50 stage selection BUILT IN. And if we go 3/5 for tournaments, you get WAY more chances to pick stages that MIGHT benefit you.

How is this so hard?

Why should the loser be allowed to pick a stage?

 

[RONALD ROGAN]

Why should the loser be allowed to pick a stage?

Choosing stages adds another level to the metagame. I dont think losers should be able to pick the stage in a 2/3. BUT, in a 3/5 there's more matches for leeway. These are Smash rules for tournaments, you've stated SCV rules for tournaments. That's fine. Just saying that not all games where stages matter follow the same rules.

Loser picks stage but cannot change character in a 3/5 is totally fair. If it stays 2/3, I agree--it should be always random.

 

[KDZ]

Choosing stages adds another level to the metagame. I dont think losers should be able to pick the stage in a 2/3. BUT, in a 3/5 there's more matches for leeway. These are Smash rules for tournaments, you've stated SCV rules for tournaments. That's fine. Just saying that not all games where stages matter follow the same rules.

Loser picks stage but cannot change character in a 3/5 is totally fair. If it stays 2/3, I agree--it should be always random.

Every game BUT smash does NOT allow you to pick stages because of the inherent skew in tiers and matchups they cause. And Smash lets you do it because they BAN a huge number of their stages to prevent that unbalance from happening.

When you say "not all games", you must mean just "Smash". And you didn't take into account rules they change around it.

So again I ask, with that in mind, why would it be fair to allow loser to pick stage?

 

[Xero_Gravity]

no items Fox only final destination

 

[Zoidberg747]

Every game BUT smash does NOT allow you to pick stages because of the inherent skew in tiers and matchups they cause. And Smash lets you do it because they BAN a huge number of their stages to prevent that unbalance from happening.

When you say "not all games", you must mean just "Smash". And you didn't take into account rules they change around it.

So again I ask, with that in mind, why would it be fair to allow loser to pick stage?

Because this community is dildos

Edit: But seriously though, There are 6-4 matchups that become 8-2 on certain stages. No joke.

 

[RONALD ROGAN]

Every game BUT smash does NOT allow you to pick stages because of the inherent skew in tiers and matchups they cause. And Smash lets you do it because they BAN a huge number of their stages to prevent that unbalance from happening.

When you say "not all games", you must mean just "Smash". And you didn't take into account rules they change around it.

So again I ask, with that in mind, why would it be fair to allow loser to pick stage?

Maybe folks feel random all the time is boring. That's why people want loser to pick--besides they can't change characters AND pick a new stage. I'm not proposing a new method, I'm simply pointing out that the current method becomes FAR less flawed if you play 3/5 vs 2/3. I don't have a problem with all random, just saying that it's not a big deal if we're playing best of 5.

I dont think this would be a huge deal if interactables did 12-15% damage instead of 18-20%...

 

[Zoidberg747]

Maybe folks feel random all the time is boring. That's why people want loser to pick--besides they can't change characters AND pick a new stage. I'm not proposing a new method, I'm simply pointing out that the current method becomes FAR less flawed if you play 3/5 vs 2/3. I don't have a problem with all random, just saying that it's not a big deal if we're playing best of 5.

I dont think this would be a huge deal if interactables did 12-15% damage instead of 18-20%...

How is it more boring to play on every stage, then watch everyone play the same two-three stages over and over and over?

 

[KDZ]

Maybe folks feel random all the time is boring. That's why people want loser to pick--besides they can't change characters AND pick a new stage. I'm not proposing a new method, I'm simply pointing out that the current method becomes FAR less flawed if you play 3/5 vs 2/3. I don't have a problem with all random, just saying that it's not a big deal if we're playing best of 5.

I dont think this would be a huge deal if interactables did 12-15% damage instead of 18-20%...

^

Also you're talking about random is boring (somehow) on one hand. Which would eventually cause every stage to be picked.

On the other hand you bring up Smash as an example, when they literally can only pick between 3-4 stages. Because that makes it more exciting?

Fair and balanced isn't "exciting" (see UMvC3).

And I'm no longer sure you understand what's going on right now.

 

[RONALD ROGAN]

How is it more boring to play on every stage, then watch everyone play the same two-three stages over and over and over?

I agree with you 100%. However, many ppl like the hype of "oh he lost... so he counterpicks by choosing stage x. he's go this!" Although, that mentality might be more player specific/player loyalty.

The more I think about it the more "all random" sounds like a good idea. But community likes the comeback factor and counterpicks.

 

[RONALD ROGAN]

And I'm no longer sure you understand what's going on right now.

Ive state repeatedly this is the sentiment I've noticed, and then I couple it with my opinion.
I don't think your argument makes a ton of sense in regards to Smash, but I'm not gonna talk down to you. Chill out bro.

 

[Juggs]

Just like I've been saying from the beginning, all random is the way to go. First match random, loser can stay on the same stage or re-random. The stage being able to be seen in the background doesn't matter, you both can see the stage so it's not an advantage for either player.

This is what the standard should be. 50/50 is not made for tournaments, it doesn't do anything but INCREASE the chance of you getting screwed and/or your opponent getting an easy advantage.

 

[Konqrr]

Is this thread not about changing the rules?

I think we are misunderstanding each other, nm