Oregon+ Talks Ladder And Lols (Update: 199X)

Welcome to the Oregon+ Ladder thread!
Last updated 6/06.

This thread is for the organization and discussion of the ladder system for Oregon, centered on Portland and including all nearby cities, including players up in Southern Washington.

Oregon+ Ladder Player Rankings

  1. R_Panda
  2. PDX Jive
  3. G-Effect
  4. Metal Health
  5. Outlawbooboo
  6. Khronus
  7. A Murder of Crows
  8. Wedge_Antilles
  9. KINUE acid
  10. Truespark
  11. Xeris
  12. SlayU2
  13. de BLOO
  14. Yangsing
  15. Yurial
  16. Pasqual
  17. FMRoss
  18. Jeromie
  19. SamB

Challenges to the tie are for ninth. The player not challenged becomes tenth. I hope this makes sense.
Please contact me by phone or forum pm to be added to the ladder if you are not yet a participant. You will be added to the bottom of the ladder, tied with the lowest other players that have not played yet, so you can challenge the four active players above you. (Ex: There are twenty players, and you want to be a part of the ladder. You become tied with last place, so as to give you any lowest level players to challenge, or the four lowest active players)

Bracket Rules

Players are free to challenge anyone up to four ranks above them (So first place can be challenged by up to fifth place, second by sixth, so on and so forth).
If Champion loses, he switches place with Challenger.
You may only play another specific player once per session. You may challenge once a session. You must defend up to two times if challenged up to two times, but you may go beyond that if you wish.
Challenges to first place through fifth place are first to three games, two out of three rounds. All other challenges are first to two games, two out of three rounds.
These numbers are Angel’s suggestion to keep the challenge time down, I think they are too short, but I’d like the community’s thoughts on this. My suggestion would be 1st-5th playing ft5, everyone else ft3.
Players are free to play their challenge game anywhere. It does not have to be at the Soul Purpose house. You can challenge anywhere you can find a station. Even GameWorks. :wink:
As a substitution, you can play challenges out during tournament matches.( ex: R_Panda vs Fatbear are up in a tourney match. R_Panda makes the challenge request to Fatbear before their tourney match. Instead of playing a FTwhatever, the tourney results will determine the winner.)
Matches may be played online, if both players accept that method.
Upon challenging someone via SRK, cell, in person, etc., the challenger has one (1) week to find time to make the challenge. If the challenge is not resolved within the week, the challenger automatically wins the match and moves forward. This is to keep the ranking chart fluctuating constantly and not bottle necking player advancement. It also forces top players to be active players.
If there is a station ready to use and both players are present, you CAN NOT refuse a challenge. Champion must always defend. These challenges override challenges planned for a later time.
There are not to be any challenges at Ground Kontrol. It’s a casual and intoxicated environment. :slight_smile:

Any new player not on the ranking chart can freely enter their name at the bottom of the list and begin to challenge.You will be added to the bottom of the ladder, tied with the other lowest player(s), so you can challenge the four active players above you. (Ex: There are twenty players, and you want to be a part of the ladder. You become tied with last place, so as to give you any lowest level players to challenge, or the four lowest active players)
Please understand that these rules will change over the course of the year. We need to mold it to fit our community’s style in hopes to help improve our game. So please feel free to comment and make suggestions to make this system unique and solid!

Good luck, players.

Pending Challenges

No pending challenges at this time

Recent Challenge Results

Metal Health succeeded over Outlawbooboo by default for fourth place (challenge expired)

Well this looks familiar… :karate:

you CAN NOT refuse a challenge.

So, if i dont feel like doing something, i just show up to a event just to kick it, you can lose your spot........ What kind of gayness is that? 

I can show up to arcade downtown on a last wednesday and lose my spot cause the last thing on my mind is SSF4. What if you dont have your own stick there, am i forced to play on somebody else's shit for a sake of a ladder?

This no online thing is wack. There shouldnt be any problem of playing on live. WE ARE ALL IN OREGON. if it lags, it lags. If you cant find out the difference of losing to a player and losing to lag and keep a head about it, then you have issues.

About the online stuff.
What if someone challenges me, of Kevin or slash for example.
We all live in Salem and might not able to make it out to events to take on a challenge (especially me because i get rides from both of those gentlemen).
playing via live between p town and Salem is fine lag wise as far as i can tell. then again i play online a lot.
prease ret me know when this is figured out.

If both players agree to play online, I don’t see the reason why they shouldn’t. Especially since you guys are all within vicinity.

I think accepting online matches for the ladder would be fine, as long as both players agreed to it. I don’t think you should be able to force someone to fight you over online, especially when there are such opportunities every week for all players to see each other. However, if two players wanted to play online, that should be fine. This was Angel’s comment to the system, so I’d like to hear his thoughts and/or rebuttals, but with the amendment that such matches do not have to be accepted, I think that would work. The inability of LIVE and PSN players to play each other, and some players’ lack of any online gaming at all should not force them to lose their spot, is all I was thinking. Yes, I think that should work. I’ve changed the post.

If you don’t want to do any challenges at all on a certain day, for whatever reason, then you should be able to say so. However, you have to accept any challenge itself and schedule it for within the week, as those are the rules for any challenge, whether there is a system there or not. Also, unless the system is seriously lacking in proper equipment, someone in a hot spot (last place in any bracket) should have to accept challenges there, to keep the list from bottlenecking. I want everyone to keep having fun, and I don’t think vacation days like this will really be abused, so I think that’s a really good idea.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, that’s half of what this thread is for. OP updated.

  1. Of course you cant refuse a challenge wtf. EX: Im #1 so Im just gonna keep refusing challenges so I can keep my spot. OR BBH just challenged me. I know I cant beat him so I’ll just keep refusing his challenge. Refusing challenges is just gonna cause uneeded drama. There is no need to sweat this. If you look at how the system is set up, more than likely the only people who are gonna be challenged will be the ones on the top and bottom of the bracket anyways. Why would you challenge someone in the middle if you have a chance to pass them and move to the top?
  2. I don’t have a problem with challenges online IF BOTH PLAYERS AGREE TO IT. Even with a perfect connection there will ALWAYS be some input lag. It may not make a difference for some characters, but for others who have strict timing on BNB combos (like Akuma), Online is pointless. I’ll tell you upfront I will not accept any chalenges online. As much $$$ as I spend on gas traveling to casuals every week, why would I play my ladder matches online? Im not really worried about this though since the only serious online players are on LIVE and Im on PSN muahahaha. One other thing any online match should be uploaded and confrimed by a third party.
  3. Just a suggestion, no challenges at Ground Kontrol? We go there to have fun get drunk and meet girls with missing fingers not play seriously. Plus there are usually alot of casual players who attend to just have some fun.

Panda: You might wanna include a link to SOLE PURPOSE for those who dont know where its at. Also we need an epic thread title. Any suggestions?

i agree with online being an option, and the stipulation of BOTH players having to agree on it.

i dont know how i feel about a “vacation day” tbh. its one thing to show up someplace literally just to kick it but i could see how that situation could easily go from just kicking it, to waiting in line for the rotation. i feel like it should either be YOU CANNOT REFUSE, or limit the number of times a person can be challenged/let the person being challenged defend once and then reschedule any additional challenges for within the 1 week grace period. of course if you were to choose to reschedule a challenge then it would be 99% up to you to make it happen, if you slack on communication you should lose by default imo.
Also i think sanctioning a specific place(s) as a casual place and thus allowing you to refuse challenges(or reschedule?) would be a better option then to just give out the ability to claim a vacation day.

the only other opinions i have is that there should be an agreed upon # of rounds, either agreed upon by everyone here. or agreed on by the 2 players involved at the time of the challenge. 2/3 is the only way to go imo, and players should be aware that they can only change characters if they lose. unless this has been changed, also to maybe reconsider the amount of matches again. i know we discussed this already but i dunno, every time i look at the tiers 5, 5, 7, 10, 10+2 just dosent seem right to me. maybe…
2/3, 3/5, 5+2, 10, 10+2?
2/3, 5, 5+2, 10, 10+2?
if no one agrees ill just accept it, but the first the 7 bugs me for some reason and i think the last tier should have less matches shrug it might just be me.

Not being able to refuse a challenge seems kind of odd. First time I’ve heard of that for a ladder.

(Googling: Ladder Cannot Refuse brings up this thread in the top three hits. laughs)

I like the idea of the challenger and challengee deciding between themselves the number of rounds as having what could be 19 games for a potential single challenge at a casual event could certainly eat up a hell of a lot more time than I think people are anticipating.

Elsewise, I pretty much support everything going on here. I’d like to add a statistic for whatever the inevitable spreadsheet for the rankings is: last game played (could be divided into Last Challenge/Last Defense). Then a specific time period could be determined before a points loss or position loss would go into effect for stagnancy.

My 2 cents…

1: There should be more opponents allowed to challenge players in a higher tier, possibly 3 instead of one. This will alleviate some issues if a player is not available for the match. 3 > 1.

2: The number of games played to achieve a new rank seems to be too high, especially if someone will take in multiple challenges during a session. Somewhere between 3-5 matches instead of 1st to 10. I wouldn’t want to see 2 evenly matched players go through 19 matches to see who becomes #1 for the week.

3: I’d keep this offline only. There are people with only a 360/Ps3. You could always start an online-only ladder as well.

Here’s a system I’d use:

1: 1st place can only be challenged by those ranked between 2nd and 5th. This eliminates unnecessary matches. 1st place can accept a match vs the 32nd rank player, but can also decline it for any reason.

2: No tiers, just allow players to challenge people up to 4-5 ranks above. This gives each player 4-5 choices to level up instead of fighting the ranked 10/20/30 player in the current tier system.

3: Challenge limits per session? Everyone wants to be the champ, but it isn’t fair for the champ if he/she has to play 10 ladder matches a night to defend their title. This isn’t an Iron Gamer competition.

4: Assign a challenge to the rank, and not the player. Ranks will change hands daily. I don’t want to challenge someone next week (who is #5 now), only to see they are ranked #32 later.

You completely missed the point. The rule is saying, if you are challenged you can’t back down from it, BUT it’s not saying you have to do it right then and there.

Example: I challenged Ceramic Sugar, and I didn’t even play him until a week later.

Just set up a date to play, how hard is that? Honestly about the stick issue, when would not bring your stick if you’re planning on playing SSFIV?

Thanx for everyone’s input so far. But again, UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY SHOW UP AND DISCUSS THINGS ON SUNDAY, THEN YOU CANT REALLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SYSTEM WE USE. Kinda like talking shit about politics without actually taking the time to go out and vote. We will read everyone’s suggestions and can make the changes we like most this Sunday after the tourny. Ranks should be posted by Monday.

^I like Ray’s system better to be honest. It makes things much simpler and it will be way less time consuming. Also I think a seperate ladder system for online players would better as well. I have a feeling online play mixed with our offline system is gonna cause alot of drama.

I agree about the vacation day. Honestly it seems like a cop out and I dont even remember discussing this on Sunday. Not sure where it came from…

Hmm. I really like some of these things. I think challenging based on a few ranks above you is a good idea, and challenging the rank and not the player is a natural progression of that. Allowing players to challenge four spots above them gives them up to four options, and only up to four people could ever challenge them, to keep people from being pressured by too many challenge matches. This would fix the second #3 Ray posted.

As far as the number of games you need to play, I based the numbers off of Seattle’s, and then lowered them, but we could lower them even more, I suppose. I’d be OK with first to five for everyone except #1, who could be first to seven.

It’s copied over from how Seattle does it. So Seattle would be the first time I’ve heard of it.

I don’t think vacation days would be abused, and as long as the top five can’t use them, I don’t think it’s a bad idea. Just trying to appease everyone, I guess. :slight_smile:

But yeah, I like the way Ray’s ladder would work. Simple and elegant. We should discuss it more on Sunday.

Other things to consider:

1: By posing a limit to the number of times one player can challenge someone else, I’d suggest using a “Challenge Card” for 1 to 2 times per session, then call it a day.

2: Some players don’t care about rank, they just want to beat someone specific. In this case, this turns into a “Grudge Challenge Match” which may benefit the challenger rank-wise or not. Rivalries are necessary =)

3: A player should also be able to accept more challenges in a night if he/she desires, but should never be forced to do extra matches after “opting out for the night”.

4: Create a Challenge queue. What order will you guys be doing the matches? Again, it might be wise to apply a limit to the number of challenges a player can do for the night. One Rank Attack (gain rank/grudge), and one or two Rank Defense matches.

Below is a challenge card result I just drew up. Only Nutter Butter and Starburst played 2 games, Nutter Butter defended his rank 2 times:


I like this but on the real Oreo would flat out wreck Nutter Butter. Just saying.

So is this just ssiv or HDR too?

^Just SSIV. Not too many HDR players around here

I challenge everyone