Legality Bones' Ruleset (w/ a DSR alternative)

[Bones0]

Singles Stage List:
- Battlefield
- Dream Land
- Final Destination
- Fountain of Dreams
- Yoshi's Story
- Pokemon Stadium (excluded from the striking process)

Doubles Stage List:
- Battlefield
- Dream Land
- Final Destination
- Yoshi's Story
- Pokemon Stadium


Character & Stage Selection Process:

Striking:
- Alternating Character Selection* is used to determine the characters for game 1.
- Striking is done in the form A-B-B-A to determine the stage for game 1 (Player A strikes 1 stage, Player B strikes 2 stages, and Player A strikes 1 stage).
- If striking order and port priority cannot be agreed upon, one player should be randomly selected to choose the striking order or port selection order. The opponent gets to choose the order for the remaining option.

Counterpicking:
1. The winner of the previous game chooses their character.
2. The loser chooses their character.
3. The winner bans a stage.
4. The loser chooses a stage.

Bones' Stupid Rule:
- You can ban a single stage once per set, after character selection.
- You can only use your ban after either your first or second win in a best of 5.
- Bans are temporary and do not carry over to the next game's stage selection.


General Rules:
- Pause is disabled.
- Items are set to off.
- Stock count is set to 4 stocks.
- Time limit is set to 8 minutes.
- All other game rules are set to the default.
- 'Random' stage or 'Random' character are not legal selections.
- Stalling* is banned.
- Wobbling is legal up to 300%.
- Freeze Glitch is banned and results in a game loss whether it was intentional or not.
- For Doubles, Team Attack is On, and Life Stealing is allowed. Performing inputs on your teammates controller is banned.


Tiebreakers:
- If the game clock expires, the player with the most stocks wins.
- If both players have the same number of stocks when the clock runs out or if both players lose their last stock at the same time, the players should do a 1-stock, 3-minute rematch with the same characters and stage.
- If both players have the same number of stocks at the end of the tie breaker, the tie is broken by percent damage (least percent wins). In the event of percent tie, repeat the tie breaker until a winner is decided.
- Super Sudden Death does not count.


Other Rules:
- Either player may elect for a Neutral Start* at any time.
- Coaching and Harassment* are banned.
- Gentleman’s Agreements* are allowed under certain conditions.
- Players have 2 minutes to strike their stages for game 1, and 2 minutes between matches to make their character and stage selections.
- Warm-ups before a set may last no longer than a minute. Warm-ups between games are prohibited.
- Forfeiting or being disqualified may result in a player being eliminated from both Winner's and Loser's Bracket at the TO's discretion.
- If there is any dispute over which version of the game is to be used, the most common version in the region is the default (NTSC 1.2 in North America; PAL in Europe).
- In doubles, teams may request that their opponents change team colors in order to accommodate color blindness or characters becoming indistinguishable from the stage background. The team making the accommodation is given first choice of the other two team colors.


Crew Battles:
- Each crew must write down each member's character and the member they are sending in first (these cannot change once the match has begun).
- Striking is used to determine the first stage.
- The crew that lost the previous game sends in a new player. After the incoming player reveals their character selection, the opponent bans 1 of the 6 legal stages.
- The timer should be set to 9 minutes, and the winner of the previous game must finish SDing all of his necessary stocks before the 8-minute mark. Instead of doing a countdown, the player that won the previous game can begin fighting directly from his respawn platform with invulnerability.
- If a match goes to time, the player with the most stocks advances with the number of his opponent's stocks subtracted from his. For example, if a match times out with 3 stocks for player A and 1 stock for player B, player A starts the next match with 2 stocks. If both players have the same number of stocks, the player with the least % continues with 1 stock.
- Each crew is allowed to have one member at a time coach their active player mid-game.


*Alternating Character Selection: Players each select a character and can take turns altering their choice. Either player can accept the character selection at any time after their opponent's last alteration (and before their own). If this process begins to loop with neither player willing to accept any of the selections, then the players must do a double blind selection with a third party official. A double blind may not be requested as the initial means of selection.

*Neutral Start: At any point in a set, a player may request that each player gets a port that will result in neutral starting locations (this should not affect previously decided port priority). The neutral ports are 1 & 2 except for Dream Land (2 & 4) and Battlefield (3 & 4). For teams, all stages should use ports 1 & 4 vs. ports 2 & 3.

*Stalling: The following techniques are banned when used as a means of timing out the opponent: Sing Ledge Stalling (repeatedly putting the enemy to sleep), Rising Pound (no more than 2 consecutive Pounds without jumping when the intent is to reach the time limit), Peach Wall-Bombing, wall jumping on the bottom of Battlefield, Luigi Ladder (or similar techniques) in teams, and Wobbling past 300% (i.e. keeping the victim in a grabbed state). Wobbling is defined as keeping a victim in a grabbed state, and is not considered stalling in teams if the victim team has at least one player not in a wobble. The use of any of these techniques results in the immediate disqualification.

*Coaching and Harassment: Coaching includes any form of communication between a player and non-player (communicating with teammates in doubles is acceptable). Cheering from the crowd is permitted so long as it there is no form of advice or personal derogatory statements being conveyed (this does not include impersonal trash talk related to a player's gameplay). Players are not to receive coaching, including in between games, or to leave the station once a set has begun. This does not include back-to-back sets with the same opponent in Grand Finals.

*Flex Sets: A flexible set (flex set for short) is an optional character and stage selection process TOs can implement to ensure they can save as much time as possible while also having best of 5 sets when the skill levels of opponents is comparable. If a best of 3 set goes to 1-1, it is extended to a best of 5. For a more detailed explanation of flex sets, click here.

*Gentleman's Agreement: If both players can agree on a rule different from any of the above, they may play with that ruleset instead. Any rules not specifically agreed upon are assumed to be the default as dictated by this ruleset. A ruleset cannot be agreed upon if it changes the total number of games and/or makes it possible for a set to exceed 8 minutes per game. The TO should not enforce any agreements made between players; make gentleman's agreements at your own risk.

 

[EPsilon933]

Why do Smash games have so many rules?

 

[Beat!]

Bones's Stupid Rule

Hehe. BSR. BS. Hehe.

 

[Boat Mode]

I like the way you handle stage banning.

But I don't agree w/ discouraging timeouts like that.

 

[Juushichi]

Is this Best of 3 or Best of 5?

 

[Bones0]

I like the way you handle stage banning.

But I don't agree w/ discouraging timeouts like that.

Thanks.

What do you mean about discouraging timeouts though? The only thing I think you could be talking about is the fact that % is no longer a win condition. I believe characters who are designed to take damage and live longer (Ganon, Samus, etc.) are artificially hindered by % being a determining factor. % is used because it is supposed to represent who is closer to winning, but with a Ganon at 70% and a Jiggs at 60%, it's easy to see why this is flawed. This is my purpose for getting rid of % tie breakers.

As far as discouraging timeouts, I don't know if it even would. Using Hbox vs. Armada as the standard for "time out matches", I could see the player with higher % trying to run the last 30 seconds or so because even if they get hit they can force another match. I like this idea of balance for timeouts though. The player with lower % is at an advantage, not because his opponent has to approach recklessly, but because he is further from dying (the same as any other stock). So while I can't say if this would reduce timeouts, I am pretty sure it would reduce the time out feeling most Hbox vs. Armada matches have. You can just tell watching the vids that they're focused on racking up damage and not getting the kill. Forcing them to get the kill or have the damage be irrelevant means they're playing more similarly to a regular match where getting some damage is great, but you want to kill them asap. As it stands now, Armada is content to throw projectiles while Hbox is well over 100%, and Hbox is content simply shielding and dodging projectiles because he knows he doesn't even have to touch Armada again to win, even when Armada is at 100%+.

If you have another perspective I'm not considering, I'd be very interested.

Is this Best of 3 or Best of 5?

Sorry, it's for best of 5s. Thanks for pointing that out. What's nifty is that even if you adapted the rule for bo3s, players only ban once throughout the set so the rule would basically have no affect on bo3s. They would be played as an equivalent with the current MBR Ruleset's where each player bans a single stage after they win. If they win a second time, obviously the set would be over so they wouldn't have to worry about banning a different stage.

 

[EPsilon933]

Timers are stupid. A lot. Also, there is nothing wrong with camping on the neutral 5 stages

Also, I'm pretty sure Ice Climbers can kill Captain Falcon off the top with an up smash on Dreamland64 at 200% or less. The wobbling limit should be dropped to there

 

[Bones0]

If you don't have timers, sets can last way too long. Rare and unlikely, but if the situation comes up there's no way to address it other than let them continue playing for as long as it takes.

I agree there is nothing wrong with camping on any of the legal stages. That's why I have no rules addressing circle/platform camping or general refusal to engage the opponent (with the exceptions listed above, which are already accepted by large as illegal).

I could drop the wobbling limit, but it's not a major concern. Most ICs won't wobble past more than they need to anyway, so I just set it to 300% to prevent anyone from trying to stall with it. I want to avoid having to DQ someone who just wanted to be sure their opponent would die or wanted to wait for Stadium to transform or something.

 

[Mahie]

Why add time to the original 8 minutes?

 

[Boat Mode]

I can agree w/ how you rationalize getting rid of the percent tie breaker. But, it would cause more ties in situations where timeouts would come into play. It also promotes camping for the loosing player.

A longer timer discourages time outs. In conjunction w/ no percent tie breaks, I feel that very few players would want to go for a time out.

The idea of having to sit through another 10 minute match if you can't get a stock lead on your opponent would probably be disheartening. And, most matches that come to time now usually end on the last stock. Another two minutes would almost definitely cause these matches to end normally.

I understand that the circumstances for this are fairly rare, and I don't necessarily disagree w/ discouraging time outs.

 

[t3h Icy]

There are a few things that I disagree with, but I'm in support of people throwing out their ideas so we can get a universal ruleset going.

 

[kd-]

Without a timer, if you're a strong 'camping'/walling/defensive character you aren't ever going to approach even if you don't have a lead. Definitely a necessary thing, although how much time is debatable.

I'm a fan of random so I'd like to see it as legal :]

 

[Bones0]

Why add time to the original 8 minutes?

I think the clock has extremely negative effects on game play when it gets near the 1 minute mark because it forces players to play differently. I added a 2 minute buffer just for those matches that take long when both players are playing the same they always do in regards to aggressiveness/defensiveness. They are rare, but there's almost no downside except for the matches where players are intentionally trying to time out, and frankly I am not worried about nerfing a strategy based around marginalizing skill.

I can agree w/ how you rationalize getting rid of the percent tie breaker. But, it would cause more ties in situations where timeouts would come into play. It also promotes camping for the loosing player.

A longer timer discourages time outs. In conjunction w/ no percent tie breaks, I feel that very few players would want to go for a time out.

The idea of having to sit through another 10 minute match if you can't get a stock lead on your opponent would probably be disheartening. And, most matches that come to time now usually end on the last stock. Another two minutes would almost definitely cause these matches to end normally.

I understand that the circumstances for this are fairly rare, and I don't necessarily disagree w/ discouraging time outs.

Yes, getting rid of % tie breakers means more ties, but if the tie breaker is meaningless then you might as well be breaking ties with a coin toss. So with that mindset, you either choose between no ties with shaky win conditions, or more frequent ties that get settled properly. I prefer the second by a landslide. *shrug*

A longer time limit does make it more difficult for players who are avoiding engagements to win, but I don't see how that's bad. The point of the game is to see how good someone is at engaging their opponent. I added more time so that even people who run away all game still have to be outplaying their opponent for a full-length game. Getting the game to end normally is the goal of the ruleset. Otherwise there'd be no argument against 2-minute time matches where we just break ties with %s all day.

As far as having to go through another 10 minute match, that is a pretty good point. I don't want timing out to be an appealing shortcut, but I also don't want to make sets that do time out unnecessarily gruesome. I will change it so players skip straight to the 5 minute, 2-stock match if the first one times out. Not sure if that's what you were going for, but other than that I feel pretty happy with out the rules handle long matches.

 

[Oracle]

Why exactly is wobbling banned in pools but legal in bracket?

 

[Construct]

Why is wobbling banned in pools? You lost me there. And is that the current definition of wobbling? Two tilts doesn't seem like very many.

Replace the rock-paper-scissors with both players choosing G&W and side-bing at the same time. Rewarding players that are good at a non-smash related skill is pointless; the first strike in a contested striking order should be left to chance. And yes, you can be good at RPS, somehow.

Can you explain the thought process behind the alternating character thing? It seems like it sort of removes the point of training secondaries for bad MUs.

Interested to see how the time-limit thing works out. It'd probably make for better matches, and it wouldn't extend the tournament all that much anyways.

Hahaha, good call on the warmups. Was about to suggest adding that.


Of course, the biggest change is the BSR. Honestly, it sounds really good. Might play around with it.

 

[Stevo]

interesting ideas

I like Bones' Stupid Rule especially

 

[Bones0]

I also added a rule about versions (1.0 or 1.1 takes priority over 1.2).

There are a few things that I disagree with, but I'm in support of people throwing out their ideas so we can get a universal ruleset going.

Please post what you disagree with and why! Even if you don't want to engage in some wall-of-text marathon even brief disagreements can provide a perspective I might have overlooked.

Without a timer, if you're a strong 'camping'/walling/defensive character you aren't ever going to approach even if you don't have a lead. Definitely a necessary thing, although how much time is debatable.

I'm a fan of random so I'd like to see it as legal :]

Random is too... random.

But in all seriousness, the fact that people are allowed to pick random in the MBR Ruleset is scary. It promotes nothing but luck, and there's nothing to stop someone from getting a lucky counterpick that the opponent couldn't have done anything about.

Why exactly is wobbling banned in pools but legal in bracket?

Why is wobbling banned in pools? You lost me there. And is that the current definition of wobbling? Two tilts doesn't seem like very many.

Replace the rock-paper-scissors with both players choosing G&W and side-bing at the same time. Rewarding players that are good at a non-smash related skill is pointless; the first strike in a contested striking order should be left to chance. And yes, you can be good at RPS, somehow.

Can you explain the thought process behind the alternating character thing? It seems like it sort of removes the point of training secondaries for bad MUs.

Interested to see how the time-limit thing works out. It'd probably make for better matches, and it wouldn't extend the tournament all that much anyways.

Hahaha, good call on the warmups. Was about to suggest adding that.


Of course, the biggest change is the BSR. Honestly, it sounds really good. Might play around with it.

@Wobbling
I think wobbling is completely fair at mid to top skill levels because you are expected to be able to avoid IC's awful grab with decent consistency. It is banned in pools so noobs don't skate through over other noobs because they can shield grab. I will actually change it so that it only applies to the first round of pools because that's what I had in mind and I forgot most tournaments have more than 1 round of pools (aside from Apex 2012, the only tournaments I have attended that had pools were both Zeniths, which only had one round of pools into bracket; this is why I was thinking that way).


@Number of tilts
Maybe I will make it two. I am unaware of how it's currently defined. Two tilts is fine though, I wasn't thinking too carefully when I chose that.


@Judgement Hammer
I was going to do this, and I figured no one would actually go through the trouble of doing it. Then I was going to add a stipulation that someone could force JH decisions as opposed to RPS, and then went "ehhhh... no one will bring it up." So **** you! lol Now I have to go change it knowing people out there actually care... How does it even work? I know there are certain numbers you can't get on the first throw, so I want to make sure whatever determines order is equal in probability. Could I just have each player call evens or odds?


The alternating characters doesn't affect secondaries at all, really. Basically, it would go like this.
P1 is a Falco main. P2 is a Puff main.
P1 selects Falco.
P2 selects Puff.
P1 changes to Fox (b/c he prefers the matchup, obv).

At this point, the Puff main can change their character or accept the proposal of Fox vs. Puff. He CANNOT force the Falco player to play Falco. The only way that would happen is if the rotation continued:

P2 changes to Marth (as a Fox counter).
P1 changes to Falco (more comfortable with his main except vs. Puff).
P2 changes to Puff.

So as you can see, they went full circle so at this point the players would just revert to their default characters. The Falco main could set his Fox as default despite it not being his main, but that means he has to be comfortable enough with his Fox to play other matchups. Also, if P2 was bluffing about having a Marth secondary, P1 could potentially accept the Fox vs. Marth matchup and **** him up. For this reason, I doubt there'd be much crazy mindgames going on. The majority of sets would probably stop after the first 3 lines. One player has a secondary to deal with the opponent, and the opponent just accepts the matchup. You very rarely see people playing secondary vs. secondary, and double blind has nothing to do with this because no one goes through the trouble of double blind. I think most players with secondaries honestly just wait to see who their opponent is using and then picks their secondary, or they already know because of word of mouth.

I know that probably reads really complicated, but I think if you just sit down with people and cp each other's characters you'd get it really quickly. That awkward cping of each other's characters usually happens now anyway. The only difference is that once the players realize the opponent is trying to cp both of their characters, they call a double blind and it becomes a guessing game of who will they pick. All I've done is removed the guessing and made it a standard throughout the tournament that your "double blinds" now result in the same character every time.

 

[Construct]

Ah, I misunderstood the alternating character thing. That's actually a cool idea on no wobbling first round pools.

For the judgement hammer, we just see who can get the higher hit, best of one. Both players count down then side-b at the same time, whoever is higher wins it, not much room for argument or shenanigans.

Spoiler

People get less salty when they lose this than RPS as well

 

[Bones0]

Oh yeah, lol. I couldn't remember how that worked. Okay, seems good.

 

[Ørn]

I think the idea of banning wobbling during pools is pretty damn stupid. While it is an extremely powerful tool at low to mid level, there are many other moves that are also extremely good at this skill level... Like say, Falco's lasers. While they're not 'take a full stock' powerful, they still control the pace of the match at said skill level and keeps you from ever being in danger of losing a match.

You may or may not disagree with the above, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the top tier characters have really strong and easy fundamentals that can easily be abused against less skilled players. Ice Climbers shouldn't be treated any differently.

You shouldn't have to cater to people at a lower skill level, especially when you might be in a pool with a top level player and you might have a decent shot at taking 1st seed. Even if it's only 1st round pools, that doesn't mean you'd only be fighting newbies.

I think the alternating character selection rule is needlessly complicated when it's fairly easy to do a double blind, which would usually produce the same result. Being forced to play a certain character in some instances also seems like a disadvantage to people that play multiple characters.

The rest of the list is pretty standard, so I don't really have anything else to add. Except for the fact that I think KJ64 is a pretty cool doubles stage (but only doubles!) and I'd totally be okay with that being a neutral or a counterpick.

 

[kd-]

Random is too... random.

But in all seriousness, the fact that people are allowed to pick random in the MBR Ruleset is scary. It promotes nothing but luck, and there's nothing to stop someone from getting a lucky counterpick that the opponent couldn't have done anything about.

I assume the reason anyone would normally random is that you're random-ing through the opponent's ban and character counterpick (not allowing a stage ban and character change). Otherwise the 'lucky counterpick' doesn't really exist.

You could add stipulations to the random that:
-winner bans a stage, loser can random the remaining legal stages of the loser's choice
-winner is forced to stay characters after random stage/winner can change character before random stage is selected/winner can change character after the random stage has been random'd

Whenever I random I at least honor the opponents ban. It can get kinda sketchy whether or not it forces a bad character matchup on the random stage, but for the most part no one's switching characters anyway. If my opponent wants to switch characters after seeing the random stage I let them change anyway, not a giant deal to me. I realize that won't be the same for everyone, which is why I said there could be stipulations to make it fair, but it's probably more work just the same.

 

[Bones0]

I think the idea of banning wobbling during pools is pretty damn stupid. While it is an extremely powerful tool at low to mid level, there are many other moves that are also extremely good at this skill level... Like say, Falco's lasers. While they're not 'take a full stock' powerful, they still control the pace of the match at said skill level and keeps you from ever being in danger of losing a match.

You may or may not disagree with the above, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of the top tier characters have really strong and easy fundamentals that can easily be abused against less skilled players. Ice Climbers shouldn't be treated any differently.

You shouldn't have to cater to people at a lower skill level, especially when you might be in a pool with a top level player and you might have a decent shot at taking 1st seed. Even if it's only 1st round pools, that doesn't mean you'd only be fighting newbies.

I think the alternating character selection rule is needlessly complicated when it's fairly easy to do a double blind, which would usually produce the same result. Being forced to play a certain character in some instances also seems like a disadvantage to people that play multiple characters.

The rest of the list is pretty standard, so I don't really have anything else to add. Except for the fact that I think KJ64 is a pretty cool doubles stage (but only doubles!) and I'd totally be okay with that being a neutral or a counterpick.

You pretty much summed it up for me when you admitted no other tactic is 'take a full stock' worthy. I just don't like the idea of new players going in and getting shield grabbed 4 times and losing to players who are just as bad, but took 30 minutes to figure out how to hold shield, grab, and wobble. As far as fighting for 1st seed, I've don't think I've ever heard of a 1st seed getting upset in the FIRST round of pools... Except maybe Ken at KoC.

What do you mean by the last sentence when you say players are forced to play a certain character? Players are never forced to play any character until after they've refused every other possible matchup with their opponent. As far as it being more complicated, I just think people need to try it. When you actually do it you're not really thinking about each step. You guys just keep changing characters until you're both happy or you both go "oh, we will have to go with our defaults." It takes less than 20 seconds to figure it all out, and that's only when both players have secondaries. If only one player has a secondary, then they just change their character and their opponent gives the go-ahead to start striking.

I assume the reason anyone would normally random is that you're random-ing through the opponent's ban and character counterpick (not allowing a stage ban and character change). Otherwise the 'lucky counterpick' doesn't really exist.

You could add stipulations to the random that:
-winner bans a stage, loser can random the remaining legal stages of the loser's choice
-winner is forced to stay characters after random stage/winner can change character before random stage is selected/winner can change character after the random stage has been random'd

Whenever I random I at least honor the opponents ban. It can get kinda sketchy whether or not it forces a bad character matchup on the random stage, but for the most part no one's switching characters anyway. If my opponent wants to switch characters after seeing the random stage I let them change anyway, not a giant deal to me. I realize that won't be the same for everyone, which is why I said there could be stipulations to make it fair, but it's probably more work just the same.

Randoming through someone's ban is based on luck because you're basically hoping you get the stage they would have banned. In the MBR Ruleset, going random did not stop your opponent from changing characters (like it used to). The way you honor their ban and let them switch characters is equivalent to putting a random number generator on your phone and just picking the stage that way. It's really just not appropriate for competition. If you want to gentleman's agree to it, by all means, but it obviously is unsuited as an actual rule for matches with money on the line.

 

[Ørn]

I just don't like the idea of new players going in and getting shield grabbed 4 times and losing to players who are just as bad, but took 30 minutes to figure out how to hold shield, grab, and wobble.

This has also never happened ever. You can't just pick up ICs and win against lesser skilled players like that -- seriously, have you ever seen this happen? Even if it did, it doesn't matter if you get 4-stocked comfortably by an ICs player or 2 or 3 stocked comfortably by a different high tier character abusing some of their other strengths, Ice Climbers don't deserve this kind of special treatment because they're slightly more powerful against lesser skilled players. If people are dumb enough to not adjust to any match-up, then they obviously aren't going to win. Doesn't matter if it's ICs or anyone else.

Limiting ICs like that has a real chance of affecting seeding points between better players. Why don't we just disallow Falco from using his lasers, or Marth from using his fsmash, or Sheik from using her chain grab, or Fox from using his uthrow uair, or Jigglypuff from using her rest (GASP! A OHKO MOVE!) during first round pools? They're really strong fundamentals that are bound to make a huge difference in who will be the winner in a match between lesser skilled players. Disallowing wobbling because of an arbitrary idea that it's 'too strong' is pretty dumb.

In all honestly, the wobbling ban almost always boils down to people thinking it's 'lame', and it sounds like that's mostly your reasoning too. At least come out and say it instead if that's what is bothering you.

I think I misunderstood your alternating character selection, but after reading your explanation, I think I understand. I don't really like the idea, but I think I understand.

 

[Gea]

Yeah, banning someone in R1 of pools but legal everywhere else is completely arbitrary. Bad players are going to lose to a myriad of things they cannot handle like dashdance camping, CGs, waveshine combos, etc. You can't try to soften the blow of the game, that's silly.

Ontop of that ICs are so few in number that this is pressing an issue that hasn't been a prevalent issue to begin with. I lost last stock of a tournament because it had no wobbling rules and the TO put it on me to decide if my opponent could wobble. I said yes. I'm definitely not experienced enough in the MU to never get grabbed. It was pretty obvious I would have won had wobbling been banned. Do I think wobbling should be banned? Nope. I needed to step it up and show how weak the player was without wobbling, and I failed to seal the deal.

My only other issue with this ruleset is the stagelist but I know that's another can of worms entirely. That and I'm confused why Bones' Stupid Rule somehow gets rid of the need for Dave's Stupid Rule.

Edit:

- Players may request to play on a 1.0 or 1.1 version of the game in place of 1.2 (for the beneficial changes most low tiers receive).

I don't think this is really feasible.

Edit2: I also don't agree with allowing warmups in the middle of a set. If I win and my opponent switches characters, he does so at his own peril, not to the detriment of my momentum.

 

[Stevo]

Bones' Stupid Rule doesn't really get rid of the need for DSR, but the idea is that if someone won on stage A, then Stage A obviously was not banned, so then with BSR you could then ban stage A later in the set, effectively not allowing them to win twice there. (but then again, they could then go there for their 3rd win I guess... since you would then not be able to ban it again, which would make it more similar to MDSR I guess?)

I'm not arguing that it does replace it, but that would be the closest way I guess.

that of course then opens up the stage you innitially wanted to ban again.

 

[Mahone]

Lot of cool ideas but if i were you bones i would take out the pools/wobbling thing because it will detract from the rest of it

I can see your reasoning and i have had similar ideas, but I am just afraid that this thread will just turn into arguing about that...

and honestly it should be since its the only super biased rule u have...

If you are going to ban wobbling, u might as well ban jigglypuff because when people are low level and can't lcancel they will get upthrow rested as a spacie and die at 0 because their di is awful

i talk from experience, when i was low level i just stomped everyone else low level with just upthrow rest and uptilt rest because when both players are missing lcancels left and right, jiggs will come out on top every time...

all im saying is that u could get this awesome ruleset standardized and then make a different thread about wobbling in the future, too much change at once scares people

 

[R2_GP]

imo wobbling should be allowed in the last stock of each match ONLY!!! nobody want to see that s*** for the entire f***** match,...... come on guys!!? wobbling??? that technique is the closest thing to cheating in this game!
don't make non smashers see that in tournament play for Christ sakes!

 

[Stevo]

and wavedashing!
that's the second closest thing to cheating in this game!
don't make non smashers see that glitch stuff in tournament play ffs!

Wavedashes only allowed between stocks as a victory dance techskill showoff

 

[Gea]

Wobbling is no worse than being jab -> rested. One missed tech or one failure to not get grabbed. Get better, get over it.

 

[GhllieShdeKnife]

If i wanted to win easily against a noob with ic's its actually easier than wobbling to just wd-dance into dsmash. if your not going to win your not going to win. im also advocating for letting the ic player through the bracket to support char diversity, even if he just shields every approach and tries to shield grab into wobbling every time. also real talk ganon is THE newb slayer, he can take a stock with 2 moves and if you are not familiar with the matchup as a newb even my scrubby ganon will do the job.
@mahone i acually enjoyed posting about ics in a thread that has nothing to do with ics, and you dont want scrubby climbers mains to give their imput

 

[Mahone]

THIS WAS MY POINT BONES!!!!!!!!

put a stop to this madness

 

[Bones0]

My only other issue with this ruleset is the stagelist but I know that's another can of worms entirely. That and I'm confused why Bones' Stupid Rule somehow gets rid of the need for Dave's Stupid Rule.

Edit: I don't think this is really feasible.

Edit2: I also don't agree with allowing warmups in the middle of a set. If I win and my opponent switches characters, he does so at his own peril, not to the detriment of my momentum.

My reasoning for Wobbling was honestly not based on "lameness" or "cheapness". I honestly just thought it would make results less accurate because of an OP tactic, but w/e I guess you guys are right that I'm trying to protect the newbs from the game.

The issue with DSR was that depending on the order you won your games in (and subsequently, which stages you won on), you would be able to cp different stages a different number of times. This was first brought to my attention at Zenith when PP had to play on FD vs. M2K twice in GF2 because M2K "broke serve" by winning on PS. This basically meant that it was more important to win on your own cps than it should be. Winning on the opponent's cp and losing on yours should leave the rest of the set playing the same as winning on your cp and losing on theirs.

So the root of the problem is DSR is based off of what stages you win on. BSR addresses the issue by basing stage selection off of the independent choice of the player regardless of whether they win the cp or not. If M2K wins on PP's cp, it doesn't mean he instantly gets to repick because PP can still ban it (unless he banned it last time). The number of times you can play a stage is limited because players are in control of when they play the harder cps. Here's a test set of Falco vs. Marth to show how it would play out based on each ruleset (cps based on my personal beliefs of which stages are best):

DSR
- They strike to BF and Falco wins [1-0]
- Marth cps FD and wins [1-1]
- Falco cps DL and wins [2-1]
- Marth cps PS and wins [2-2]
- Falco cps FoD, and they play it out (slight favor for Falco because he won game 1)

No problem when they alternate wins, but when they don't however...

- They strike to BF and Falco wins [1-0]
- Marth cps FD and wins [1-1]
- Falco cps DL and LOSES [2-1] <-------- Because of this match...
- Falco cps DL and wins [2-2]
- Marth cps FD AGAIN and wins [2-3] <--- ...Marth gets to cp FD twice

This means not only did Falco fall behind in the cps for losing, but he guaranteed his opponent can repick his best cp. This IS a fair ruleset because Falco got to cp his best cp twice, so Marth did as well. The problem with this is that DSR does nothing to influence the set. The set is played identically when you have no bans at all. Players going back on forth on the hardest cps not only makes the first match disproportionately more important, but it has less stage diversity because each player is just scrambling for their best cp.


With BSR:

- They strike to BF and Falco wins [1-0]
----- Falco bans FD
- Marth cps PS and wins [1-1]
----- Marth bans DL
- Falco cps FoD and wins [2-1]
----- Falco bans PS <------------ Can't reban FD
- Marth cps FD and wins [2-2]
----- Marth bans FoD <---------- Can't reban DL
- Falco cps DL

Set 1's Stage Order w/ DSR: BF, FD, DL, PS, FoD
Set 1's Stage Order w/ BSR: BF, PS, FoD, FD, DL

Same stages, but the order is swapped (the +2 cps get swapped with the +1s).



Second set with BSR:

- They strike to BF and Falco wins [1-0]
----- Falco bans FD
- Marth cps PS and wins [1-1]
----- Marth bans DL
- Falco cps FoD and LOSES [1-2]
----- MARTH bans FoD <------------ Can't reban DL
- Falco cps DL and wins [2-2]
----- Falco bans PS <---------- Can't reban FD
- Marth cps FD

Set 2's Stage Order w/ DSR: BF, FD, DL, DL, FD
Set 2's Stage Order w/ BSR: BF, PS, FoD, DL, FD

MORE stage diversity, but the cps are still balanced, and the order of victories and the stages they take place on are no longer relevant. Hopefully this is all laid out clearly enough. This stuff can get really confusing even if you already understand it, so if anyone needs clarification, lmk. Disclaimer: I realize these are just hypotheticals and that stage choices don't usually play out this way, but even when players have differing opinions about what stages are the best for them, their inherent value to the player making the choice are the same so a player will never be able to complain about the stages that got played.

 

[Gea]

Oh so you're going by the Dave's Stupid Rule modified or whatever. I agree that is a flawed rule. I was referring to the "can't cp a stage you previously won on" variation.

 

[mhenlo]

Sometimes while playing with my friends we stage strike for each game of a set, but the last game you played on isn't on the list.

 

[KrIsP!]

Real talk, I'm not letting axe change melee versions unless he has the disc handy. 1.0 should have a burden on whoever requests it. Find a tv with it beforehand/make sure it's freed up. I have no other problem with it though, just not waiting around for a request. I only say axe cause he supports it most, I just feel like it could fall under stalling if someone says "one sec, let me find a tv with 1.0 and wait for that set to finish". Not saying axe would do this, I just feel all rules at this point need to be specific.

 

[Popopidopop]

Really like the BSR. It would be like DSR but u have to get to game 3 before you can counterpick your best stage, which helps with not getting demotivated in the beginning of a set cuz of 2 stronk CP's. Also it would cause more stages to be played on then DSRM, with potentially 2 Ps and FD (m2k vs PP). Also it would be good to see Bo5 like in Europe right after first round bracket... really part of why Apex gets So many upsets is cuz of the short sets... Long sets favor adaptability and reduces the strength of gimmicks, gimps and weird playstyles.

 

[Mahone]

Whats ur reasoning behind not getting rid of ps, that stage is wack yo

 

[Bones0]

Whats ur reasoning behind not getting rid of ps, that stage is wack yo

Everyone freaked out when I had wobbling banned in first round pools. I'm sure you can imagine the ****storm that would ensue if I tried to change the stage list.

Also, if I ever run a tournament I will go around to each setup with my AR and boot up codes to disable random elements so PS would become a legit stage. :D

 

[Mahone]

ya, fair enough, i guess that can wait until a better ruleset is in place

 

[odinNJ]

Everyone freaked out when I had wobbling banned in first round pools. I'm sure you can imagine the ****storm that would ensue if I tried to change the stage list.

Also, if I ever run a tournament I will go around to each setup with my AR and boot up codes to disable random elements so PS would become a legit stage. :D

I keep forgetting that on my practice setup i have ps hacked to not transform, I should change that back.