PDA

View Full Version : The Diversity Rule: a discussion.



Archimedes
09-22-2010, 07:39 PM
The Diversity Rule: UFS's tournament rule stating that only 1 of a character can be represented in any top 8 of an event. A player will be knocked from top 8 in favor of a lower ranked player if there is a player ranked above them using the same character.

Frankly, I am of the opinion that the diversity rule needs to be done away with. It's a relic of an old era that allowed Sabertooth and FFG to ignore problem characters because they could point out to players how diverse and varied their top 8's were. Which is silly because it was more often the cards within the deck that broke the game, not the characters being used. (I know this doesn't apply globally, but look to the time when you could play almost any Void character, then any Evil character, and win.)

Not only does this blind the owners of the game, it also robs players of top eight berths. In a competitive environment, players will play the best decks with the best characters. It's wrong to punish them for doing this just because someone has a stronger SoS/tiebreakers than them. It's incredibly disillusioning to go 7-1 at a tournament and make top 8 only to be told that you are being knocked in favor of a 6-2 because someone with your character went 8-0.

Forced diversity also prevents a true meta game from developing. The meta game is defined by its most dominate decks, which are the ones that consistently put the most players into the most top 8's. By preventing dominate decks from statistically revealing themselves not only are the players deprived of critical information, but the developers of the game won't be able to identify problems as clearly.

I see absolutely no reason for Jasco games to keep the diversity rule around.
Discuss.

ScottGaines
09-22-2010, 07:43 PM
This is the godfather checking in and I approve this message.

Hatman
09-22-2010, 08:20 PM
In a proper environment, people will play whatever they feel like and you will not see the same character twice in any top 8 or barely one or two.

We currently do not have a proper environment. Too many characters still suck major balls.

Still, I suppose the better record should be rewarded. 'cause it's the better record and all.

Link
09-22-2010, 08:26 PM
I disapprove! I personally like diversity. It keeps the top cuts... diverse. Regardless of power characters I dont want even the chance of having 1 or 2 powerful chars being all of top cuts

Shinguyi
09-22-2010, 08:30 PM
The point of the diversity rule says it all; use characters people will most likely won't end up using and you will be rewarded. Clear word, REWARDED.

I still believe the diversity rule should stand or some tournaments might end up with a lot of the same characters on top. It'll end up like many popular Card Games out there like YuGiOh! and Magic The Gathering (unless times have changed).

rAn
09-22-2010, 08:43 PM
The problem with diversity has been and will always be that instead of letting you see the problems with the game, it masks them. Instead of seeing hey, there are 8 decks playing this character off this symbol in every top 8, you see a nice balance of characters in top8s ranging from bad characters to the overpowered ones. Sure it seems nice on paper, but that's not what the game is. There will always be a set of 'best decks'. With diversity, like Archimedes said, you do not get a real meta game at all. I mean..theoretically, the top 8 could be 8 of the same deck...7 people get diversified, then you end up with like 4-3 records in the top8..it's absolutely the worst thing in UFS right now. I know a lot of people from other card games who refuse to play UFS because of the diversity rule. In the end though, diversity should not exist because it rewards inferior records to enter the top 8, it's like giving every kid in the field day festivities a badge that says FIRST! You didn't really accomplish what you're being rewarded for.

B-Rad
09-22-2010, 08:49 PM
Arch while I always appreciate your opinions, I really don't want to see US Nats top 8 being nothing but Jin and Hilde. The diversity rule, especially in a format with a nice chunk of the small character base suck.

NJBrock22
09-22-2010, 08:55 PM
only problem with diversity... is people can sandbag into the character that they are trying to avoid diversity with, i'm personally FOR diversity, mainly because i know many people would not like to see 8x Hilde in the top 8 last year all with maybe 2-3 cards difference, then it's just who has the most BROKEN build of the 8 that ends up winning, it's being lazy to just say nah lets do away with diversity, only way to make sure that people will play what they want is to just go and keep diversity and make it to where you cannot pack more than ONE character per deck, but then that takes away SOOOO many builds that it's not even remotely viable, and to those who complain about being screwed by diversity, maybe you made a small mistake in a game that cost ya, get over it, see Gaines for example, his deck was as good, maybe better than Kennan's deck at SEC last year... but because of cpu problems and diversity and the fact that he had 1 bad game(not round) he ended up getting KOd out of top 8, his fault, maybe, diversity's fault, NO. If diversity goes then we may as well just do it as a single eliminaton tourny for Worlds next year till we have 1 person left standing... now think of it that way, if ya REALLY wanna make Diversity better though and yeah it's gonna be hard to do... then i propose this idea, it's used in Raw Deal and works very well.

Alex
Chun Li
Chun Li
Dhalsim
Cody
Cassy
Makoto
Astaroth

say ya have 3 rounds of swiss this is how they'd be paired

R1
Chun1 vs Cassy
Makoto vs Chun2
Astaroth vs Dhalsim
Alex vs Cody

say chun1 wins, chun2 wins, Dhalsim wins and Alex wins, and ya go to redraw it'd be like this

R2
Chun1 vs Dhalsim
Chun2 vs Alex
Cody vs Astaroth
Cassy vs Makoto

now both chuns win, cody and cassy win here's what ya'd do to ensure pure diversity

R3
Chun1 vs Cody
Chun2 vs Cassy
Makoto vs Dhalsim
Astaroth vs Alex

yeah it looks odd but i've run tournaments like this and it works VERY well to determine tiebreakers for duplicated characters, by forcing people to only play against a character 1 time per swiss part of the tournament, yeah it leaves it to chance but how many times have some of you sat there and just got in a row 4 Astrid or Akuma decks in a row and just wanted to play against multiple deck types in a tournament, i'm just saying... dismiss my idea if ya want but it's a viable option and i have run it by Jason and he is thinking about implimenting this once in a while.


*edit*

damn you rAn and Brad, ya ninja'd me...

N.J.

Birch
09-22-2010, 10:53 PM
Idk diveristy always seemed like a rly good thing to me, but i have never been in a tournament where it matters. If i was playing my best deck and someone else had the same character id wanna be in. if i lose one less game and lets say go 6-2 and he goes 7-1 but im better than a bunch of others id be extra pissed. The way i see it, if there is some kinda discression and multiple characters have rly good records it should be some kinda playoff to see who makes it in. Whould this work, probably not. But i know if i got screwed id be kinda mad. And im sure alot of you would be too.

NJBrock22
09-22-2010, 10:58 PM
well also look a few years ago to see what they did at worlds they at least had the forsight to put characters that WOULD have had Diversity as an issue against eachother in mirror matches to ensure only 1 got in, yeah it cant ALWAYS be done but if ya have to to ensure 1 of each char gets in do it that way...

N.J.

Birch
09-22-2010, 11:04 PM
well also look a few years ago to see what they did at worlds they at least had the forsight to put characters that WOULD have had Diversity as an issue against eachother in mirror matches to ensure only 1 got in, yeah it cant ALWAYS be done but if ya have to to ensure 1 of each char gets in do it that way...

N.J.

That seems lke the only way, but then you have every person playing mirror matches until the top eight, and lets face it that doesnt solve anything. If anything that would actually just make people aggravated that they rly only had to prepare for mirrormatchs if they play a poprular character

rAn
09-22-2010, 11:09 PM
One of the players in my play group has been diversified out of top 8 @ Worlds twice, it's pretty lame.

Judas225
09-22-2010, 11:39 PM
Personally I like what the rule does to spread out the decks/characters you would see at any given tournament. However I can also see why people don't like being simply dropped out of top 8 because some program randomly assigned you to play against weaker players or you had a single bad game.

What I'd suggest, is instead of simply dropping the lower ranking player directly, have some sort of playoff between those with the same character to decide who gets into top 8 and who gets dropped. This would probably have to be adapted somewhat in the event of three of a character in top 8, but I think it would help to stop having players feel cheated when they are diversified out, at least you'd have a chance to stay in.

Simply removing the rule runs the risk of half the field coming in with a single character and having multiple copies of that character in the finals simply because more showed up.

RockStar
09-23-2010, 12:22 AM
I think diversity is needed at this point in UFS, as it helps avoid some of the complaints i've heard about YGO and Magic: only one or three archtype decks win, and if you aren't running those at real tournaments, why bother?

I would hate for Top 8 to have the same character ran by multiple players, as it would make for a boring Top 8.

I DO think information and deck lists need to be recorded and cataloged, and Jasco needs to be aware about which decks are winning tournaments so as to circumvent any potential NPE or too-OP characters from being dominant. And especially, accurate records need to be kept about what the potential Top 8s looked like BEFORE diversity. If certain characters keep showing up with regularity, then you know which ones are higher tiered than others.

I also think that if a player goes to a tournament with a popular character, then he needs to bring his A-Game and try to win every match (not that this doesn't already happen). Knowing there's a possibility that you might get diversified adds a sense of urgency to every match that i think IS healthy for the game.

My 2 Cents,
RockStar

Yoko Charming Fox
09-23-2010, 12:28 AM
I'm not a fan of diversity. I don't realy care if there are multible decks of one type making top eight. It's a TCG, the best decks are going to do better, it happens in Yu-Gi-Oh and MTG, and they seem to be doing fine. Rather than try to "hide" that fact I would rather see Jasco Games print answers/ban cards accordingly, so that diversity is not necessary. I also think that, because we would see less diversity in swiss if there was no diversity in top 8, people could main deck answers to that deck and have it help them in most of their games. Although, this probably would not have helped much this meta, because of the limited meta and a lack of adequate answers and characters. I guess I would just rather see the game become healthyer through the printing and banning of cards, rather than manipulation of the tournament rules, that don't realy change anything.

But, my main problem with diversity is that I don't see a backing for it in the rules. Your character is part of your deck until the begining of the game, at which time you may chose any character form your deck to start with. If you have 2 or more characters in your deck you can start with either one regardless of what game it is, so who's to say which type of deck it is. Just going by just the game rules one could just main deck any random character and claim that the deck is based regardless of who they actualy play. For example, if I wanted to declare I was running an Amy deck, but also main Hilde, the game rules have to problem with me selecting Hilde as my starting character for every match. The point is that there is little to no base for having to declare what character your going to run in a tournament, since, in theory, your character should remain a mystery until the begining of each game, and you have every right to start with who ever the hell you want, in what ever game you want, as long as they're main decked.

If diversity is to be used, Jasco Games needs to change the rules on starting characters, so that they are not considered part of your main deck, and must be selected before the start of a game. This way game and tournament rule would not "colflict".

Tagrineth
09-23-2010, 12:33 AM
Diversity doesn't mask anything at all. The final standings still go up in the "correct" order. You can still see exactly which characters get diversified, and which characters are "overplayed".

It encourages a more varied arena. Okay so Hilde is the #1 deck in the format. Every good player brings Hilde... and only one makes the top cut. Good players are thus encouraged (not forced, encouraged) to playtest different strategies and devise a way to succeed without relying on the #1 "crutch" deck.

I'd say the UFS meta is as "true" as it needs to be. Not every CCG has to follow the same damned tournament structure backbone. The idea that the non-diversity path is the only path to a valid/"true" meta is bull:):):):).

I'll also point out that the assertion that diversity was a tool used to ignore problem characters is proven false pretty easily, considering there's more than a dozen banned/errataed characters. A character being good does not make the character broken.

Last thing here - complaining about sandbagging? Really? You do realise that's NEVER been used to win a tournament right? Such a laughable red herring...

RockStar
09-23-2010, 12:50 AM
I'm not a fan of diversity. I don't realy care if there are multible decks of one type making top eight. It's a TCG, the best decks are going to do better, it happens in Yu-Gi-Oh and MTG, and they seem to be doing fine.

Uhm...i do care, actually. As of right now, creativity in UFS is rewarded. I'm not a fan of having more than half of my deck pre-listed for me because i'm either going to run the Meta or the Anti-Meta cards, as was the case the last 2 Blocks, which ended up having a heavy influence on why this game died a horrible horrible death in the first place.

One of the loudest complaints i've heard about the 2 card games you named is simply that there are ONLY 2, maybe 3 or maybe 4 arch-type decks that stand a chance of winning on a competitive level. And simply rationalizing this by saying "...well, it is a TCG, and it's going to happen" doesn't take away from the fact that real problem is real. Why should that be expected, or even accepted as okay in UFS?

It shouldn't.

I still say the onus is, literally, on us (word pun intended), the players. If you (or, I) bring a popular deck/character to compete, you should expect there to be other players playing the same deck/character, and you better compete to win every match. Bring your A-Game, son, or go home! A good deck piloted by a good player shouldn't worry overmuch about diversity.

Judas225
09-23-2010, 01:44 AM
Uhm...i do care, actually. As of right now, creativity in UFS is rewarded. I'm not a fan of having more than half of my deck pre-listed for me because i'm either going to run the Meta or the Anti-Meta cards, as was the case the last 2 Blocks, which ended up having a heavy influence on why this game died a horrible horrible death in the first place.

One of the loudest complaints i've heard about the 2 card games you named is simply that there are ONLY 2, maybe 3 or maybe 4 arch-type decks that stand a chance of winning on a competitive level. And simply rationalizing this by saying "...well, it is a TCG, and it's going to happen" doesn't take away from the fact that real problem is real. Why should that be expected, or even accepted as okay in UFS?

It shouldn't.

I still say the onus is, literally, on us (word pun intended), the players. If you (or, I) bring a popular deck/character to compete, you should expect there to be other players playing the same deck/character, and you better compete to win every match. Bring your A-Game, son, or go home! A good deck piloted by a good player shouldn't worry overmuch about diversity.

Pretty much have to second what you said here. Although I'm sure I can counter the argument against Magic this is neither the time nor the place for that. As far as this game goes, yes, having to pack your deck with a ton of predetermined cards has more of a negative effect on the game than anything. So is having to plan your deck to focus against one exceedingly popular deck, which leaves you open to other deck types as a result. Diversity helps keep this aspect quite balanced.

Although my single complaint about diversity is the way players are dropped from top 8 without having a chance to defend the position they have earned. 7-1 against 6-2 isn't a contest, the 7-1 automatically should advance for having the better performance. It's when two players have a near identical record and one gets dropped because of strength of schedule, which is more the result of random pairings and not necessarily a good measure of skill in relation to other players.

At least have a playoff between the two players so nobody feels cheated. I'm sure some people might do it that way, but I have seen people diversified out simply on SoS with identical records, and it's not a pretty feeling. It leaves you feeling more like 'i got screwed by a coin flip' rather than 'I did my best and was defeated in a fair fight'.

Trip Se7ens
09-23-2010, 03:35 AM
This is the godfather checking in and I approve this message.

I support Scottie.

Zzasikar
09-23-2010, 06:14 AM
There will always be a character who performs statistically better than every other character out there. Now due to the nature of this game's mechanics and the pool of cards available, there will not necessarily be sufficient support to metagame against said character. This of course means that there will always be that 'best' character.

UFS has always had a 'best' character, and it has always been specifically a character, not a type of deck. One deck fielding that character will be statistically more effective than a carbon copy deck with a different character on top of it.

I was going to follow on into a small essay about why this means diversity is necessary, but I have faith that you guys are smart enough to either already know that or swiftly come to that conclusion if you think about it for a little while.

The only way I can see diversity not being necessary in the near future is if each new set brings hate cards specifically aimed at the top offending power decks (in this case specifically characters and/or symbols) of the format before its introduction, which is what other games without diversity either do, or don't do and really suck.

Hatman
09-23-2010, 09:19 AM
Last thing here - complaining about sandbagging? Really? You do realise that's NEVER been used to win a tournament right? Such a laughable red herring...
Mostly because when it's done correctly, it's called "Toolboxing".

Which, in hindsight, is probably even WORSE than "Sandbagging".

failed2k
09-23-2010, 10:31 AM
Diversity doesn't mask anything at all. The final standings still go up in the "correct" order. You can still see exactly which characters get diversified, and which characters are "overplayed".

It encourages a more varied arena. Okay so Hilde is the #1 deck in the format. Every good player brings Hilde... and only one makes the top cut. Good players are thus encouraged (not forced, encouraged) to playtest different strategies and devise a way to succeed without relying on the #1 "crutch" deck.

I'd say the UFS meta is as "true" as it needs to be. Not every CCG has to follow the same damned tournament structure backbone. The idea that the non-diversity path is the only path to a valid/"true" meta is bull:):):):).

I'll also point out that the assertion that diversity was a tool used to ignore problem characters is proven false pretty easily, considering there's more than a dozen banned/errataed characters. A character being good does not make the character broken.

Last thing here - complaining about sandbagging? Really? You do realise that's NEVER been used to win a tournament right? Such a laughable red herring...

Um, Can Nats was won by Kirk Polka sandbagging Chun-Li , so maybe you should rethink that statement a bit.

Also, I like diversity, I feel like it encourages creative deck building(and playing your favorites) and masks nothing if 5 yun-seongs get diversified, it is no secret that the dude is really really good.

dutpotd
09-23-2010, 11:08 AM
Um, Can Nats was won by Kirk Polka sandbagging Chun-Li , so maybe you should rethink that statement a bit.

Also, I like diversity, I feel like it encourages creative deck building(and playing your favorites) and masks nothing if 5 yun-seongs get diversified, it is no secret that the dude is really really good.

I agree with Jeremy, and this is coming from someone who has been diversified, and recently. Diversity is good, it adds another element to deck design/ character choices, and the in tournament rivalry is kind of cool. Of course it sucks to get diversified, but if you can't win diversity you can't honestly say you could have beat your diversifier in the top 8... Well, that logic is flawed, but you get my point. Diversity is cool!

- dut

PaulBittner
09-23-2010, 11:25 AM
My friends and I have all had our share of being diversified in the past. Jon Herr with Ukyo, Matt with Chun Li, and Myself with Alex.

Speaking personally, Jeremy Ray and I got so fed up with the diversity fight between one another for Alex that we actually agreed to take turns playing him at major tournaments. Funny side note, Jeremy and I each got third (Worlds and Nats respectively) that year.

However, despite all this history I still very much enjoy diversity and feel it should continue to be part of UFS. Not only does it make the top 8 diverse, but i contend it even diversifies the entire tournament.

Jon, Matt, and I have sat around and discussed "Should we play this guy? We know he'll be popular at the tournament." And almost always we came to the same conclusion, if you want to be the best you have to play the best characters and perform the best. Jon proved this when he took Dhalsim into the largest worlds tournament to date and went 8-0, to beat out other Dhalsims.

It also makes sense form a thematic standpoint. Akuma fighting Akuma in the final cuts? What sense does that make.

Another dynamic I really like about diversity is it creates another layer of competition. Players can basically stake claim to a character (As Matt did with Tira, Jeremy/Paul - Alex, Voldo - Omar, Andrew - Andrew) and say if you wanna challenge me in diversity come and get some at your own risk.

And lets face it, isn't that what fighting games are all about?

PaulBittner
09-23-2010, 11:29 AM
Also it's a built in control. If you are going to play the stronger characters in the format, it means risking that you'll fight for diversity. This is fair as with added reward comes added risk.

Finally, I personally don't want to make top 8 and only have 3 unique characters to battle.

Yoko Charming Fox
09-23-2010, 11:35 AM
Last thing here - complaining about sandbagging? Really? You do realise that's NEVER been used to win a tournament right? Such a laughable red herring...

For the record, my only problem with sandbagging is that I think that, in theory, it causes a disconcord between tournament rules and general game rules. I don't care about it in practice.

brislove
09-23-2010, 12:03 PM
My friends and I have all had our share of being diversified in the past. Jon Herr with Ukyo, Matt with Chun Li, and Myself with Alex.

Speaking personally, Jeremy Ray and I got so fed up with the diversity fight between one another for Alex that we actually agreed to take turns playing him at major tournaments. Funny side note, Jeremy and I each got third (Worlds and Nats respectively) that year.

However, despite all this history I still very much enjoy diversity and feel it should continue to be part of UFS. Not only does it make the top 8 diverse, but i contend it even diversifies the entire tournament.

Jon, Matt, and I have sat around and discussed "Should we play this guy? We know he'll be popular at the tournament." And almost always we came to the same conclusion, if you want to be the best you have to play the best characters and perform the best. Jon proved this when he took Dhalsim into the largest worlds tournament to date and went 8-0, to beat out other Dhalsims.

It also makes sense form a thematic standpoint. Akuma fighting Akuma in the final cuts? What sense does that make.

Another dynamic I really like about diversity is it creates another layer of competition. Players can basically stake claim to a character (As Matt did with Tira, Jeremy/Paul - Alex, Voldo - Omar, Andrew - Andrew) and say if you wanna challenge me in diversity come and get some at your own risk.

And lets face it, isn't that what fighting games are all about?

Wow. Compelling AND fluffy, unfair :).

honestly I think diversity is fine, but I wouldn't miss it if it was gone. I scooped up at worlds last year because I would get diversified out (might as well give the other guy a chance on breakers!), but I feel it does promote creative deckbuilding, which is always cool.

SMazzurco
09-23-2010, 12:12 PM
I'm not a fan of diversity. I don't realy care if there are multible decks of one type making top eight. It's a TCG, the best decks are going to do better, it happens in Yu-Gi-Oh and MTG, and they seem to be doing fine. Rather than try to "hide" that fact I would rather see Jasco Games print answers/ban cards accordingly, so that diversity is not necessary. I also think that, because we would see less diversity in swiss if there was no diversity in top 8, people could main deck answers to that deck and have it help them in most of their games. Although, this probably would not have helped much this meta, because of the limited meta and a lack of adequate answers and characters. I guess I would just rather see the game become healthyer through the printing and banning of cards, rather than manipulation of the tournament rules, that don't realy change anything.

But, my main problem with diversity is that I don't see a backing for it in the rules. Your character is part of your deck until the begining of the game, at which time you may chose any character form your deck to start with. If you have 2 or more characters in your deck you can start with either one regardless of what game it is, so who's to say which type of deck it is. Just going by just the game rules one could just main deck any random character and claim that the deck is based regardless of who they actualy play. For example, if I wanted to declare I was running an Amy deck, but also main Hilde, the game rules have to problem with me selecting Hilde as my starting character for every match. The point is that there is little to no base for having to declare what character your going to run in a tournament, since, in theory, your character should remain a mystery until the begining of each game, and you have every right to start with who ever the hell you want, in what ever game you want, as long as they're main decked.

If diversity is to be used, Jasco Games needs to change the rules on starting characters, so that they are not considered part of your main deck, and must be selected before the start of a game. This way game and tournament rule would not "colflict".

I am fairly certain the rules state you have a "starting" character and game 1 you MUST begin as that character. Games 2-3 you are free to swap to any character in your deck (or SB)

SMazzurco
09-23-2010, 12:21 PM
also diversity allows for a "mid level" deck that maybe has a good matchup vs top tier decks, but a bad matchup against mid to low decks, to get a chance to place and bump out the top tier decks.

I think that a "diverse" top 8 is a lot more "fun" and "revealing"; however i am not sure that the current way diversity is handled is the best ( i don't have a better solution, but just saying )

Probably wouldn't really work but maybe you take the top 8 DIVERSE characters, and all in between. In other words, you might cut to a top 12 (8 unique characters + 4 characters already represented)

Yoko Charming Fox
09-23-2010, 12:26 PM
I just want there to be a rule separating your main character from the other characters in your deck, so that regardless of the policy on diversity one has to start with the same character in each game. Then you could switch all you want in game 2 or 3. I'm pretty sure this is how it works with diversity in big tournaments anyways. I just want to see some, consistency so that it would work this way in small tournaments and pick up games too. I know that I'm being pretty picky here, but it bothers me none the less.

As far as the rest of diversity goes, I would preffer if we didn't have it, but its not a big deal to me, so if the majority of players are happy with diversity, then I'm fine with keeping it. Although, if diversity remains Jason needs to set up some sort of "playoffs", to ensure that no one gets screwed out of top 8 by diversity.

On a side note, I think diversity should distinguish between different copies of a character, so that both Astrid. and Astrid.. could make top 8.

Tagrineth
09-23-2010, 12:27 PM
Um, Can Nats was won by Kirk Polka sandbagging Chun-Li , so maybe you should rethink that statement a bit.

Also, I like diversity, I feel like it encourages creative deck building(and playing your favorites) and masks nothing if 5 yun-seongs get diversified, it is no secret that the dude is really really good.

Okay fine, it's succeeded one single time to date, and it only happened because the sandbagged character was outright BROKEN, further proving the system works because in the end that character wound up banned.

SMazzurco
09-23-2010, 12:28 PM
I just want there to be a rule separating your main character from the other characters in your deck, so that regardless of the policy on diversity one has to start with the same character in each game. Then you could switch all you want in game 2 or 3. I'm pretty sure this is how it works with diversity in big tournaments anyways. I just want to see some, consistency so that it would work this way in small tournaments and pick up games too. I know that I'm being pretty picky here, but it bothers me none the less.

As far as the rest of diversity goes, I would preffer if we didn't have it, but its not a big deal to me, so if the majority of players are happy with diversity, then I'm fine with keeping it. Although, if diversity remains Jason needs to set up some sort of "playoffs", to ensure that no one gets screwed out of top 8 by diversity.

On a side note, I think diversity should distinguish between different copies of a character, so that both Astrid. and Astrid.. could make top 8.

I think the 1-dot vs 2-dot thing is a good idea..and like i said (but maybe not clearly, lol) i THINK there is a rule stating that you pick a "starting character" and must begin EVERY ROUND as that character. If you have players playing mitsu game 1 round 1 then kisheri game 1 round 2 i think that is "against the rules" (of course house rules can be whatever you want, if everyone wants to play that way go right ahead, but that is not the "official" rules)

I could be wrong on the rules, maybe it is an "implied" rule

Yoko Charming Fox
09-23-2010, 12:31 PM
I am fairly certain the rules state you have a "starting" character and game 1 you MUST begin as that character. Games 2-3 you are free to swap to any character in your deck (or SB)

If thats the rule then I can't find it. If someone can please tell me, because thats exactly what I think the rules should be.

ShadowDragon
09-23-2010, 12:33 PM
Yep, you have to wait til game 2 to start sandbagging.

I'm a supporter of diversity, but there's little I can say about it that hasn't already been said. Also, I disagree with it masking problem characters. TOs can still compile a list of the characters run in a tournament and how many of them there were. In cases like the US Nats where Gill and Spiral Arrow were everywhere, nothing was 'masked' just because of diversity, it was obvious to anyone watching that the card was a problem.

Yoko Charming Fox
09-23-2010, 12:35 PM
I think the 1-dot vs 2-dot thing is a good idea..and like i said (but maybe not clearly, lol) i THINK there is a rule stating that you pick a "starting character" and must begin EVERY ROUND as that character. If you have players playing mitsu game 1 round 1 then kisheri game 1 round 2 i think that is "against the rules" (of course house rules can be whatever you want, if everyone wants to play that way go right ahead, but that is not the "official" rules)

I could be wrong on the rules, maybe it is an "implied" rule

Ya, I'm pretty sure thats the rule if your in a tournament with diversity. What I'm saying is that I would like to see this become a rule in the UFS rule book.

JinKazama
09-23-2010, 12:50 PM
On a side note, I think diversity should distinguish between different copies of a character, so that both Astrid. and Astrid.. could make top 8.

This is silly to me.

Tagrineth
09-23-2010, 12:55 PM
So uh... Sephiroth is actually right, the AGR doesn't explicitly say anything about your registered character. Oops.

Birch
09-23-2010, 01:55 PM
This is silly to me.

I agree. Thats like 8 difrent ryu's in the top eight. Shiz makes no sense.

Tifer
09-23-2010, 02:08 PM
My friends and I have all had our share of being diversified in the past. Jon Herr with Ukyo, Matt with Chun Li, and Myself with Alex.

Speaking personally, Jeremy Ray and I got so fed up with the diversity fight between one another for Alex that we actually agreed to take turns playing him at major tournaments. Funny side note, Jeremy and I each got third (Worlds and Nats respectively) that year.

However, despite all this history I still very much enjoy diversity and feel it should continue to be part of UFS. Not only does it make the top 8 diverse, but i contend it even diversifies the entire tournament.

Jon, Matt, and I have sat around and discussed "Should we play this guy? We know he'll be popular at the tournament." And almost always we came to the same conclusion, if you want to be the best you have to play the best characters and perform the best. Jon proved this when he took Dhalsim into the largest worlds tournament to date and went 8-0, to beat out other Dhalsims.

It also makes sense form a thematic standpoint. Akuma fighting Akuma in the final cuts? What sense does that make.

Another dynamic I really like about diversity is it creates another layer of competition. Players can basically stake claim to a character (As Matt did with Tira, Jeremy/Paul - Alex, Voldo - Omar, Andrew - Andrew) and say if you wanna challenge me in diversity come and get some at your own risk.

And lets face it, isn't that what fighting games are all about?
Quoted for truth

Hatman
09-23-2010, 02:18 PM
Honestly, the only reason it "masked" the problem is that it was presented as such. Now that we actually reveal actual Top 8s before Diversified Top 8s, the data remains unchanged.

Also, I stand by my "toolbox" comment. People consider decks to be toolboxes if the sandbagging actually worked. And I'm pretty sure Kirk Polka won games with Mignon and didn't always sandbag into Chun-Li (my lackluster performance at that event means I never played against him).

Yoko Charming Fox
09-23-2010, 02:40 PM
I agree. Thats like 8 difrent ryu's in the top eight. Shiz makes no sense.

If the point of divertsity is to encourage people to play unique and original decks, then its missed the boat of differenct character copies.

For examle, last year it was almost impossible to top 8 with Zi Mei.., because you would have to fight through diversity against decks that greatly differ from yours, and are running a much better character. Its not fair for the person running the less played copy, and just dicouages playing them, which is the opposite of what diversity is suppose to do.

Sure it would be silly from a realy life stand point, since Ryu can't face himself, but it makes sence form a TCG stand point, because a Zi Mei. deck and a Zi Mei.. deck are completly different decks with unique character abilities, cards, mechanics, and strategies.

RockStar
09-23-2010, 02:52 PM
Sure it would be silly from a realy life stand point, since Ryu can't face himself, but it makes sence form a TCG stand point, because a Zi Mei. deck and a Zi Mei.. deck are completly different decks with unique character abilities, cards, mechanics, and strategies.

Actually, he does so all the time in the Udon Comics. It's supposed to be an internal struggle, but it's drawn beautifully as an all-out fight! So, there IS precedent, flavor-wise.

But, i agree that maybe an addendum be added to diversity, or at least considered, that different versions of the character wouldn't necessarily be diversified, but would be seen as a separate entity/avatar.

Loon
09-23-2010, 03:00 PM
I like diversity for all the reasons stated, particularly the need to consider what other people will be playing.

I think an exception should be made so that Ryu is never diversified out. Because he's just that awesome.

Grizzlegrom
09-23-2010, 04:17 PM
Honestly, the only reason it "masked" the problem is that it was presented as such. Now that we actually reveal actual Top 8s before Diversified Top 8s, the data remains unchanged.

Also, I stand by my "toolbox" comment. People consider decks to be toolboxes if the sandbagging actually worked. And I'm pretty sure Kirk Polka won games with Mignon and didn't always sandbag into Chun-Li (my lackluster performance at that event means I never played against him).


Mignon worked out as she was the best character in the meta that was not Chun Li to feline spike I debated for hours whether to use her or just start as Chun Li as it happened there are times when Mignon is better than Chun Li for instance Chun Li can only feline spike if she has cards to get her momentum, Mignon has 2 momentum no matter what on your opponent's second turn if they attack on turn two you can half block using her E to play Feline Spike on a 6 multipled out on thier turn 2. At Path of the Master I top 4'd without using Chun Li every time game 2 at Canada Nationals I think I didn't switch to her maybe 3 times.

However if diversity were not in effect I bet that maybe 10 people at that event would not have started with Chun Li and if they didn't start with her they would playing the one deck that beats her more than 50% of the time

People complain now that they had to play X of this deck and X of that deck and how much they dislike it well how would you like to play in the tournament of all Chun Li, Akuma, Tycho, Hilde, Dhalsim, Cassandra or Zhasalmel? Those tournaments would be no fun, the price of the game would go up because everyone would need the same ultra rares

There also is a problem with saying that say Ryu* and Ryu** are different as a starting character because if your starting character is registered as Ryu you can in game one if both are in your deck start as either one so that would be useless and even now in standard I think only one character has 2 versions currently legal

Baranor
09-23-2010, 04:21 PM
I'm surprised that there isn't anyone who has said anything related to this, but perhaps I am in the severe minority here. I have always been in favor of SYMBOL DIVERSITY in the Top 8. I think diversity is absolutely a good thing and encourages creativity, but as Hatman and others have said, it also allows people to sandbag. If Diversity was setup to be based on the symbols, you could have at most 3 of the same character in the top 8, but most likely at least one of those would be a suboptimal build and as such would not be able to compete. The first complaint that everyone brings up is that many decks do not rock a single symbol. This is not a problem because the rule would simply be written to state that the symbol that appears on the most number of cards in the deck is the deck's symbol. If you have two symbols that are exactly even, you get to pick. This solves many of the biggest problems that people see with the game related to a single symbol being over powered. There was a recent poll that asked who people thought was the best character. Many people just wrote "A Fire Character" What if only one Fire deck could make it to the top 8? You could have two people playing the same character, but they would have to have different deck builds to get around diversity. Just my two cents.

Grizzlegrom
09-23-2010, 04:23 PM
I'm surprised that there isn't anyone who has said anything related to this, but perhaps I am in the severe minority here. I have always been in favor of SYMBOL DIVERSITY in the Top 8. I think diversity is absolutely a good thing and encourages creativity, but as Hatman and others have said, it also allows people to sandbag. If Diversity was setup to be based on the symbols, you could have at most 3 of the same character in the top 8, but most likely at least one of those would be a suboptimal build and as such would not be able to compete. The first complaint that everyone brings up is that many decks do not rock a single symbol. This is not a problem because the rule would simply be written to state that the symbol that appears on the most number of cards in the deck is the deck's symbol. If you have two symbols that are exactly even, you get to pick. This solves many of the biggest problems that people see with the game related to a single symbol being over powered. There was a recent poll that asked who people thought was the best character. Many people just wrote "A Fire Character" What if only one Fire deck could make it to the top 8? You could have two people playing the same character, but they would have to have different deck builds to get around diversity. Just my two cents.

Honestly if the game was based on symbol diversity half the field would be cut from top 8... and that makes it worse than by character

KodiakZero
09-23-2010, 04:32 PM
If the diversity rule didn't exist, this game would be another less-popular (unfortunately :( ) Yugimonz or Magic where everyone would just look up the best deck or use a deck posted here that got top-8. People need to make a character they like to use good. There are many characters better than others, but i find the fun of any game is beating the best, not using it.

Hatman
09-23-2010, 04:53 PM
Mignon worked out as she was the best character in the meta that was not Chun Li to feline spike I debated for hours whether to use her or just start as Chun Li as it happened there are times when Mignon is better than Chun Li for instance Chun Li can only feline spike if she has cards to get her momentum, Mignon has 2 momentum no matter what on your opponent's second turn if they attack on turn two you can half block using her E to play Feline Spike on a 6 multipled out on thier turn 2. At Path of the Master I top 4'd without using Chun Li every time game 2 at Canada Nationals I think I didn't switch to her maybe 3 times.

Thanks for the clarification.

And to Baranor - Symbol diversity does not do jack for one single reason : At the Canadian Nationals, I was playing a deck that landed me in top 8 at a regional. Tri-Symbol Remy.

How do you diversify a tri-symbol deck? "Sorry, one of your 3 symbols is higher than you, so you're out."

Shinguyi
09-23-2010, 06:35 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

And to Baranor - Symbol diversity does not do jack for one single reason : At the Canadian Nationals, I was playing a deck that landed me in top 8 at a regional. Tri-Symbol Remy.

How do you diversify a tri-symbol deck? "Sorry, one of your 3 symbols is higher than you, so you're out."

I'd say more that if you tri-symboled, the highest number of cards that shares a certain symbol with your character is the symbol it counts. I think it may work, but it needs to be put to be tried out first and see for ourselves if it actually works.

And if it turns out two symbols have the same amount of cards in your deck, then we'd have to think on how to judge that afterwards.

Yoko Charming Fox
09-23-2010, 09:15 PM
There also is a problem with saying that say Ryu* and Ryu** are different as a starting character because if your starting character is registered as Ryu you can in game one if both are in your deck start as either one so that would be useless and even now in standard I think only one character has 2 versions currently legal

Umm... that can be fixed just by registering your character as Ryu. or Ryu.., rather than just Ryu. Then you would have to start as the one you originaly registered.

As for Astrid being the only character with multible versions in standard. Yes, this rule would make almost no difference in standard, but I for one am hoping some character get released in sets to come. Meaning we might start see multible copies of one character agian. Also, saying that only one character has 2 versions currently legal is only true for standard. There are still plenty of multible character copies in extended and legacy.

DabalRowRaizah
09-23-2010, 10:23 PM
i miss Ryu :(

B-Rad
09-23-2010, 10:31 PM
Always informative Danny

Shinguyi
09-23-2010, 10:46 PM
i miss Ryu :(

I am sure by the next big set with Starter Decks, Street Fighter should be back... even though it may be wishful thinking.

Maybe Street Fighter with ShadoWar or Red Horizon.

Reminds me of the ShadoWar vs Red Horizon battle pack talks that have been around. Would be good as it could bring some interesting pieces.

Da_ghetto_gamer
09-24-2010, 03:42 PM
Many people have said this before but the biggest reason that diversity is helpful is that its a risk/reward factor you cant run the best deck just automatically make it into top 8 or have a great record..you have to fight for it by beating out all the other players who are playing your character. But you still have an advantage over someone who is playing a worse character because he knows that he wont get diversitied out since nobody else is playing that character.

I wouldn't play in a tourney now if i know that half the field could be playing hilde because she is the best character...I have tried to play that deck and i hate it its not my playstyle at all so playing her wouldnt be an option either

Who here wants to play in an 100-man tourney were there are 30 of Anderws Hilde deck, 30 of Jeremys Jin deck, 10 Amys, 10 Kings, and maybe 20 other decks to round out the rest of the decks? And yes i might be exaggerating a bit but thats basically how things would end up being....

ARMed_PIrate
09-24-2010, 03:48 PM
Aight, I'm reading four valid complaints here. (Some work in opposite directions.)

1) Diversity masks the true strength of particular decks and (sometimes) particular characters. This makes the game appear more balanced than it is, it prevents designers/developers from accurately assessing (or even spotting) problem cards or interactions, and it prevents some players from accurately assessing the dominant builds (which makes it harder to figure out what and how to build around or against).

2) Diversity punishes some players for playing a very good character or deck, or for playing well with a good deck. It rewards some players for being different, despite inferior deck construction or inferior play.

3) The kinds of metagames/play environments that are dominated by a few decks or very similar decks (sometimes seen in MtG or YGO) is seen as boring or un-fun by a certain (possibly large) subset of players. These players feel that such an environment does not reward creativity or exploration of the card space.

4) The diversity rule does not do its intended job in any case, because of the "sandbagging rule": you can swap your character for a different character between rounds. This lets you play the first game as a less-played character to use diversity to your advantage, but play the second and third games of each round as a stronger character, upping your chances of winning.

Now I'm going to add my own argument to go along with argument 4:
5) The sandbagging rule does not do a good job of mirroring fighting games, in which you can change characters matches, but never between two rounds of the same game (barring tag modes in Tekken Tag and DOA2, and tag games like MVC2).

So now, my comments:

#1) I agree completely. I see this as the most damaging aspect of Diversity for the game.

#2) I agree. I don't care about winning, but a lot of people do. It is weird to set one player/build above another that was demonstrably better in Swiss.

#3) I agree that a lot of players can see that kind of metagame as un-fun. In fact, I am one of those players. But what that really shows is the _game_ is un-fun. Only a few tournaments a year are big enough for Diversity to even be an issue. If a non-Diversity tournament isn't fun, then most small tournaments are probably just as stale. The answer is to fix the game (bans or errata), not to reward people for losing in an interesting way.
Also, it's false to claim that a non-Diversity environment doesn't reward creativity or exploration. Archimedes himself (and many other big winners) had a lot of tournament success in part _because_ of their creativity. There have been several points in UFS where surprising new decks were shown to be viable. No, they didn't use bad characters. They used powerful characters with powerful combinations of symbols. But they often used combinations others hadn't thought of, or used them in creative ways. (I personally believe that creativity in deck design doesn't matter as much as _care_ in deck design, or as much as careful play, but it definitely matters.)

#4) and #5) I agree. This is a loophole in the Diversity rule that completely undermines its intended purpose. Whether or not Diversity is kept around, I think this should be fixed. I propose that the character selection rule is modified in the following way:
* In the second and third games of a match, each player's starting character must be the exact same character revealed at the beginning of the first game. So if you played as Sophitia*** in Game 1, you will have to play as Sophitia*** in Games 2 and Game 3. (You could use a different character in a different match.)

(I was going to propose that different versions of the same character would be acceptable in Games 2 and 3--so Sophitia* or Sophitia** would be legal in the example above--but that keeps the same problem around. In fact, it keeps it around only for the few characters who have multiple versions available in a given format. The more versions, the more flexible the character. So it would arbitrarily strengthen those characters. It's just a bad idea.)

The argument against this tightened character rule is, "But some characters have bad match-ups."
Well, boo-hoo! That's the whole point! Characters have bad match-ups in fighting games; the best players can overcome their bad match-ups. The very possibility of bad match-ups also makes the game stronger in a non-Diversity environment: you can play a character that will be hard on the dominant character, without the opponent sandbagging into a different character just to hose your counter-character.

"But what about characters who have no bad match-ups? What about characters who only have _good_ match-ups?" Well, in a non-Diversity environment, we'd be able to see who those characters are (with accurate statistics), and ban or errata them. There should be no S-tier or God-tier characters. Strong is okay. Completely dominating is not.


Look, is a big diversity tournament more fun than a big non-diversity tournament for most players? Probably yes. (Though I think you'd see a really diverse play field even without diversity, because in reality most players actually play who they like, not who they think is the strongest.)
Is a big diversity tournament better for the game than a big non-diversity tournament? Absolutely not. If you want to get the game to a point where it's always interesting, fun, and fair, then you have to get away from diversity. Once the game has been balanced, diversity won't be necessary at all.

dutpotd
09-24-2010, 03:48 PM
Who here wants to play in an 100-man tourney were there are 30 of Anderws Hilde deck, 30 of Jeremys Jin deck, 10 Amys, 10 Kings, and maybe 20 other decks to round out the rest of the decks? And yes i might be exaggerating a bit but thats basically how things would end up being....

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this what Yugioh and some other CCGs basically are and have always been? So boring. To answer your question. NOT ME.

- dut

Da_ghetto_gamer
09-24-2010, 03:56 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this what Yugioh and some other CCGs basically are and have always been? So boring. To answer your question. NOT ME.

- dut

Basically yeah ive played both of them competitively at one time or another and i quit magic because i kept having to play against the same boring decks all the time and i havent play yu-gi-oh competitively for a while since a playset of cards that you need to compete cost just about as much as i make in a week

Hatman
09-24-2010, 04:35 PM
I'd say more that if you tri-symboled, the highest number of cards that shares a certain symbol with your character is the symbol it counts. I think it may work, but it needs to be put to be tried out first and see for ourselves if it actually works.

And if it turns out two symbols have the same amount of cards in your deck, then we'd have to think on how to judge that afterwards.
That's the whole thing - it's so much trouble for what will amount to a metric ton of diversification over what could stand as a mana color or even a deck type.

I'd like to add the following about diversity : Most of the time, you will be diversified for someone who had the same record as you, just with a lower tiebreaker. Tiebreakers being such a bad system (they've been screwy across UFS history, after all) that it doesn't really change anything.

Honestly, I like the idea of having a metagame within a metagame (being the best at X character, being the best in the tournament). The more I think about it, the more I find that's a fun part of UFS. Of course, I often never even attempt beating the character metagame, mostly concentrating on finding new ways to screw you over, but if nothing else, it creates a whole new level of thought, and doesn't really change things - the best players get rewarded. They just happen to be the best of the best X deck at the tournament rather than the best of the best players in general.

Nubian God
09-24-2010, 04:49 PM
Why not go for a combination of the two? Allow for same characters in the Top 8, but only if they primarily run off of different symbols. That way it cuts down on the same-character deck builds only.

As for tri-symboling, one would be hard pressed to make a deck that has a solid 33/33/33% split between all 3 symbols AND be competitive enough to Top 8, so at least one symbol would have to be more. Then again, it could always be a two-way tie. At any rate, if symbol diversity is ever adopted (in any form), there would have to be a clause for tri-symbol decks.

Granted, it's not a perfect system, but it'd be a lot more effective than what's currently on tap.

Off topic: I'd like to see something done about strength of schedule in regards to having dropped players on your record.

Hatman
09-24-2010, 04:53 PM
As for tri-symboling, one would be hard pressed to make a deck that has a solid 33/33/33% split between all 3 symbols AND be competitive enough to Top 8, so at least one symbol would have to be more. Then again, it could always be a two-way tie. At any rate, if symbol diversity is ever adopted (in any form), there would have to be a clause for tri-symbol decks.
A LOT of cards had two symbols in common with the character.

Funny story - in that tournament I was told I was sandbagging Chun-Li after a foundation turn off of All.

Nubian God
09-24-2010, 04:56 PM
A LOT of cards had two symbols in common with the character.

Funny story - in that tournament I was told I was sandbagging Chun-Li after a foundation turn off of All.

You're such a rebel! Did you use the Assets of Power to actually add symbols to your character, too? =O

Yoko Charming Fox
09-24-2010, 09:38 PM
Ok, so after about this, talking to my friend, and reading your posts my views on this have changed alittle, so I thought I would share.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need diversity, because the game would be completly balanced with many equaly viable decks, but that will never happen. I have never heard of a TCG that doesn't have 2-3 uber deck that everyone knows will top (and probably win) at all the major tourniments. This is mainly because its in the intrest of highly competitive players to make the most broken deck they can. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but its a bummer to less competitive players who just want to have fun and play deck they like. Diversity encourages the latter players to come to big tournaments, because they know they will not have to face Andrew Hilde in 5 of their 7 rounds of swiss. Instead they get to have fun (which is the whole point of the game), and play more entertaining games, and they might even make top 8. In that respect I have to say that diversity is good for the game, since it make tournamets fun for everyone, not just the people in it to win it.

That said, diversity doesn't do crap to help the meta game. In the end the same uber decks still win the big tournaments. I know that big tournaments have been won by less played characters and decks before, but that usualy because the build already high teir, but for some reason was over looked, and whoever thought of the deck was not going to reveal it until a big tournament. For instantce, had you asked anyone at my store if they thought a 3 attack deck would when worlds they would have said hell no, but that didn't make Andrew's Hilde any less broken. Anyways, I digress, diversity only stops uber deck from being over played a big tournaments. As for the people who bring uber deck, diversity mainly just moves a couple of their important matches out of top 8 and into swiss. Once in top 8 the people who fought through diversity have a sizable advantage, since their playing 0 tier decks, while those who got in due to diversity are playing teir 1 decks. Sure a bad match up can happen, but lets face it, if your good enough to fight through diversity, beating the top players, you probably planed for a bad match up or two. So, we still end up with Hilde, Ibuki, and Tira winning world, despite the fact that only 1 made top eight.
Note: I realize there are exception, in part due to sandbaging, but in general I don't see diversity having much of an effect on what character win the tournament.

Diversity doesn't make S-teir deck less broken, or (in my opinion) less likely to win it all, what it does do is allow casual players to have more fun, and allow interesting deck to get some props by getting diversied into top 8.

As for people getting screwed by diversity, if you went 7-1 and someone else went 8-0, you didn't get screwed. You got legitimatly beat. Diversity is no secrect, if your going to play and over played character, be ready for the toughest swiss of your life, and be prepared to not make top 8 because of one mistake or a bad check. On the other hand, if two players are tied at 7-1 there needs to be a playoff, or games in the last two rounds of swiss need to be set up so that people with the same deck and record play eachother. At very least the first tie breaker needs to be the head to head (which is something Jason already told me he is inacting). I just don't think pure luck should decide who goes to top 8 if you only lost one match in swiss.

My final issue with diversity is that (as I've said before) it contradicts the ARG. I have a personal problem with all the major tournaments enforcing game play rules that are not in the rule book. I would prefer if the rules were changed so that your starting character is chosen before the match, but this does not pose a practical problem, so I can't blame people for not giving a rat's ass about it. I'll just have to take it up with Jason next time I'm in Lubbock, living 1.5 hours from HQ is great!!!

Shinji Mimura
09-26-2010, 08:03 PM
I do agree with diversity, if only because I've only rarely seen it matter, while by the same coin, there have been tournaments that were overtaken by -certain- characters at the time...

I don't, however, agree that diversity should affect the character's entire name.

For example, if a *Yun-Seong* gets 3rd, and a ***Yun-Seong*** gets 5th, the promo version should not be diversified out. It isn't fair, given that they play completely and entirely different, and really, their only comparison is their name.

That, and it really does make top 8s that much more interesting, and more true to the fighting game spirit, that you either never face your own character, or you only face them once.

JinKazama
09-26-2010, 08:27 PM
In the end the same uber decks still win the big tournaments.

I dont believe their are uber decks in this format. Astrid can be hella hard to beat, but you cant just make a popular deck and expect it to beat everyone like yugioh or magic.

I do see diversity as something that was meant to force balance in the meta and make the game more fighting game ish.
It just sounds better than it actually works.
I dont have a problem with it though.