Competitive Brawl Rule Set (NOT OFFICIAL)

[UTDZac]

I almost like the new rules set. I understand the purpose of it, but it needs a few changes/additions.

1) PS1 needs to be a starter so that we have five. The randomness factor really doesn't make that much of a difference (given with two stages you can just run away). In melee we PS1 which made 6 starters on Random. Going down to 4 is just nuts.

2) The small Counterpick list is cool being limited and such. Though Brinstar is the only one that doesn't seem to fit. Low ceilings and annoying lava. This is really the only stage on the list that can hurt you (unless you are just plain slow on Halberd). Yes I know you can avoid the lava but when it rises to the top platform it's REALLY hard for some characters.

3) Grab release infinites should be banned and limited only to two grabs (ie grab, release, grab, release, no grabbing again). Sheiks used to do this in ditto matches cause CG-ing all of the place is boring and lacks skill. This can also be applied to DDD's infinite.

4) The suicide rule is a good idea. The person who initiates the attack loses. This shouldn't apply if Port Priority matters (aka bowsercide).

5) Also removing Sudden Death completely is a great idea. However switching to damage taken should not be used as an accurate way to determine a more skilled player, especially when considering DK, DDD, and sometimes Lucario.

6) Stalling being more clearly defined to remove planking and other unnecessary abuses of invincibility frames is a good idea. Doing these tricks doesn't demonstrate skill.


EDIT: Just to be clear I would not adopt this ruleset as final. It's a cool set for skill development, but overall it removes a lot of the fun stages I like to use for my character counterpicks.

 

[Anth0ny]

Good ****. I agree with everything except Rainbow Cruise being banned (should be cp).

But other than that, it's pretty much perfect.

 

[WarranThad]

i'd say snake's up tilt and mk's tornado are boring and lack skill, I think we should limit them to two uses a game.

see I can impose ridiculous arbitrary restrictions to gameplay too!!

 

[salaboB]

4) The suicide rule is a good idea. The person who initiates the attack loses. This shouldn't apply if Port Priority matters (aka bowsercide).

Why not?

Shouldn't a suicide by a suicide, so if port priority matters for it the initiator still loses?

 

[cutter]

3) Grab release infinites should be banned and limited only to two grabs (ie grab, release, grab, release, no grabbing again). Sheiks used to do this in ditto matches cause CG-ing all of the place is boring and lacks skill. This can also be applied to DDD's infinite.

Now people want grab release stuff banned?

Good god. -_-

 

[Mmac]

The Stage Selection really displeases me, as it got rid of almost all of the Hard Counterpick Stages Yoshi had on MetaKnight. Really lame

Plus I don't see why some of the stages are banned anyways such as Luigi's Mansion and Jungle Japes. Plus why still an even amount of Neutrals? We really need an odd number of Neutrals and it's either going to be PS1 or LC.

Also why is Ganondorf not subjected to the Suicide rule? It's practically the same as Bowser in the sense that the opponent can't break out of it. Plus common sense will tell you that the fact that Ganondorf is on top of the player when doing it, he should win. People can abuse his recovery and purposely get themselves Ganoncided just to win. I don't think this is fair to the people who actually do use Ganondorf in Completive play

 

[InterimOfZeal]

I thought that April Fool's was a couple months away. Odd.

- Any suicide KOs on the final stock resulting in sudden death will result in a loss for the user of this tactic. If it would be a suicide KO and the match screen shows a decisive winner, go with that instead. A Bowsercide final KO results in a win for the Bowser player.

What about Ganon? Why not Kirbycides and D3cides, and the like? Kind of a bizarre line to draw.

- If the timer runs out, the victor is determined first by stock and then by percentage. In the event of a sudden death, both players are to suicide IMMEDIATELY. No fighting with bombs @ 300. At the results screen, regardless of what the screen says, the player with the higher DAMAGE TAKEN is the loser. No exceptions. In the result of a tie, the match will be discarded and played over, same characters and stage. For teams, if this should ever happen, add the damage taken instead for both teams.

And this is fair to the heavier characters, which both die later and kill earlier how? Surprise, Dedede will always outlive Sheik.

- DDD's downthrow infinite is banned. However, the chaingrab is still legal. The chaingrab is noticeably different from the infinite, as there is a dash between grabs.

IC infinites? Other standing grab infinites? Suggested way to enforce these rules?

EDIT: Honestly, these "suggested rules" topics get more and more hilarioius as time goes on. The Brawl community is becoming more laughable by the day.

 

[salaboB]

And this is fair to the heavier characters, which both die later and kill earlier how? Surprise, Dedede will always outlive Sheik.

People seem to have a hard time getting this explanation, it's been brought up before and generally misunderstood.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I'm sure this sounds like a "scrub" position, but honestly, these rules just suck the soul out of the game. It seems like the main goal of this thread is not to eliminate unfair stages but to handpick a very small number of stages that are likely to never irritate anyone and to generally totally remove one of the major things that makes smash interesting (diverse stages).

The strangest thing is that most of these people seem to totally fail at using any sort of strategy when it comes to stage selection. I always am sure to clearly ask if they want to ban any stages, and so often I either hear a "no" or a ban of a stage that is obviously not that bad for them (usually Lylat Cruise). They then are shocked that I pick a stage like Green Greens and ask if it's really allowed. How could you even begin to approach a set without knowing the stage rules? How did you decide what stage to ban if you didn't even know what was allowed? I've even seen anger directed at me because I committed the horrible crime of playing to win, and maybe I'm even so crazy as to have more fun on those wacky stages I'm picking than the neutral ones. Even more, they never even try to "get back" with their stage pick, and they usually pick Final Destination or Battlefield or something dumb that obviously isn't really helping them. Why should any ruleset reward people who so adamantly, at every step, refuse to implement strategy?

I am in favor of allowing players more freedom in avoiding stages. That's why I support neutral strike out over random, and I'd support allowing two stage bans with the banning done after the first match so you can remove twice the bad stages for your character and have substantial information on your opponent. What "skill" really is is decision making, and I think a system of stage rules to emphasize making good choices is a far bigger test of skill than a stage system of stages with extremely little variance and relative unimportance in matchups.

Another important factor this pretty much kills is stage knowledge. Discovering the various quirks of a large pool of stages and how to exploit them optimally for your particular character has always been a big factor, and this removes it. Having a wide array of options to explore is a part of what is commonly known as "depth". With this list, you could probably just watch tournament videos and glean everything you need to know about the quirks of the stages, and in practice a player with any experience would never be seeing anything new in how to use the stages in a tournament.

It is hard for me to express how important diverse stages are to me. I seriously would probably be bored in tournaments if every game were on this same super restricted set, and the fact that I'm already really familiar with brawl's long stage list would just make it all the worse. I 100% doubt that most of the counterpick stages actually limit your ability to show "skill"; if anything, they give you an opportunity to show how adaptable you are. I suppose a stage that is "secretly" broken like Pirate Ship isn't going to show much skill, but the number of bans needed to fix that sort of problem is small, not huge...

 

[CaliburChamp]

With less stages to choose from means less strategies you can do. And most of the top tier characters are GREAT on most neutral stages. Snake doesn't have a single horrible stage for this rule set. I hope you can see my point, Umbreon.

 

[WarranThad]

post of the topic ^2

edit:
i got destroyed, AA got it right though

 

[UTDZac]

DDD's Infinite = Opponent holding his controller is the same as him not holding it.
Other Throw Infinites (Pika dthrow on Fox) = Opponent holding his controller is the same as him not holding it.
Grab Release Infinites (Aka Yoshi vs. Wario) = Opponent holding his controller is the same as him not holding it.

How many of these should be legal, ever? Sure it's true that it may apply only to one character matchup, but there are quite of few of these.

If i know a really good wario (or fox w/e) in my area I can simply just pick up a counter character for a few days and win EASY. Wtf competitive fun?

 

[Deleted member]

I'm sure this sounds like a "scrub" position, but honestly, these rules just suck the soul out of the game. It seems like the main goal of this thread is not to eliminate unfair stages but to handpick a very small number of stages that are likely to never irritate anyone and to generally totally remove one of the major things that makes smash interesting (diverse stages).

The strangest thing is that most of these people seem to totally fail at using any sort of strategy when it comes to stage selection. I always am sure to clearly ask if they want to ban any stages, and so often I either hear a "no" or a ban of a stage that is obviously not that bad for them (usually Lylat Cruise). They then are shocked that I pick a stage like Green Greens and ask if it's really allowed. How could you even begin to approach a set without knowing the stage rules? How did you decide what stage to ban if you didn't even know what was allowed? I've even seen anger directed at me because I committed the horrible crime of playing to win, and maybe I'm even so crazy as to have more fun on those wacky stages I'm picking than the neutral ones. Even more, they never even try to "get back" with their stage pick, and they usually pick Final Destination or Battlefield or something dumb that obviously isn't really helping them. Why should any ruleset reward people who so adamantly, at every step, refuse to implement strategy?

I am in favor of allowing players more freedom in avoiding stages. That's why I support neutral strike out over random, and I'd support allowing two stage bans with the banning done after the first match so you can remove twice the bad stages for your character and have substantial information on your opponent. What "skill" really is is decision making, and I think a system of stage rules to emphasize making good choices is a far bigger test of skill than a stage system of stages with extremely little variance and relative unimportance in matchups.

Another important factor this pretty much kills is stage knowledge. Discovering the various quirks of a large pool of stages and how to exploit them optimally for your particular character has always been a big factor, and this removes it. Having a wide array of options to explore is a part of what is commonly known as "depth". With this list, you could probably just watch tournament videos and glean everything you need to know about the quirks of the stages, and in practice a player with any experience would never be seeing anything new in how to use the stages in a tournament.

It is hard for me to express how important diverse stages are to me. I seriously would probably be bored in tournaments if every game were on this same super restricted set, and the fact that I'm already really familiar with brawl's long stage list would just make it all the worse. I 100% doubt that most of the counterpick stages actually limit your ability to show "skill"; if anything, they give you an opportunity to show how adaptable you are. I suppose a stage that is "secretly" broken like Pirate Ship isn't going to show much skill, but the number of bans needed to fix that sort of problem is small, not huge...

I totally agree with everything you say for your reasoning, but with a differing opinion.

Way to be one of the only intelligent posters in here.

 

[Alopex]

Why did you ban Dedede's standing grab infinite, but not Marth's on the Mother boys?

Did you mean every standing infinite in general and just accidentally overlooked Marth, or do you actually only care about Dedede and omitted Marth on purpose?

 

[Deleted member]

Why did you ban Dedede's standing grab infinite, but not Marth's on the Mother boys?

Did you mean every standing infinite in general and just accidentally overlooked Marth, or do you actually only care about Dedede and omitted Marth on purpose?

I am told there is a way to escape Marth's. I also also told that Bowser has infinite grabs, and other infinite grabs work on wario and the like.

I would like to ban all of them, but I don't know enough about them. As of right now, D3's stands out with the most prominence. If there are others, please PM me with links that explain them fully.

 

[The Real Inferno]

DDD's Infinite = Opponent holding his controller is the same as him not holding it.
Other Throw Infinites (Pika dthrow on Fox) = Opponent holding his controller is the same as him not holding it.
Grab Release Infinites (Aka Yoshi vs. Wario) = Opponent holding his controller is the same as him not holding it.

How many of these should be legal, ever? Sure it's true that it may apply only to one character matchup, but there are quite of few of these.

If i know a really good wario (or fox w/e) in my area I can simply just pick up a counter character for a few days and win EASY. Wtf competitive fun?

Pikachu's Dthrow on Fox is not infinite. Fox can escape at about 80%, which is sooner than he can reliably escape a Shiek Tilt-lock.

I am told there is a way to escape Marth's. I also also told that Bowser has infinite grabs, and other infinite grabs work on wario and the like.

I would like to ban all of them, but I don't know enough about them. As of right now, D3's stands out with the most prominence. If there are others, please PM me with links that explain them fully.

Marth's is just an incredibly long and tedius chain grab (into a grab release into fsmash most likely). I don't know if the "Extra inch DI" or whatever silly name they gave it also applies to the release grab on Ness by Charizard or not. It seems unlikely to me due to Charizard's massive grab range, but possible. Other infinite grab releases are ZSS on Wario and Yoshi on Wario. I'm sure there are others but I don't remember. I don't think Bowser's are infinite on anyone, just a chain grab like I do in my signature down there.

 

[Mr.E]

On the CG/infinite business, what about ZSS's DSmash chain on Wolf and Fox? Wolf not so much but Fox is stuck in it for so long that it puts him in killing range by the time he can get out of it and, since he's stunned at the end of it... Also, I assume this doesn't apply to the Ice Climbers since their infinite throws are unbiased (...except agaisnt other ICs) and really, their entire metagame is based on it. ;/

I voiced my own disagreement about the suicide rules in the original SBR rules topic. :/ The chance Ganon can actually force a Ganoncide in his favor is pretty slim, since he can hardly use it as an edgeguard (crappy mobility plus entering freefall after a Side-B). The majority of the time he Ganoncides, it's because the opponent really screwed up edgeguarding him. It might be a bit lame for a Kirby or Dedede to auto-win at 100% after just forcing their opponent to their last stock, but no more lame than them doing it any other time. (e.g. Dedede takes the first stock but is at 130%, then is able to suicide kill his opponent's fresh stock and go up a solid 2-1.) An opponent needs to be wary of this kind of cheese at all times but you're basically giving them a free pass to sometimes ignore it (when they have the lead on final stock). However... Bowser gets an exception.

I don't even care that the game decides it based on controller port because really, who the hell cares what the game shows in this instance? We don't use the game's sudden death rules, either. But a good reason Bowser could be excepted is that control of his suicide is based on the relative percentage between him and his opponent, where other suicides are not. i.e. If Bowser is behind on damage, he can never suicide kill from on-stage and he can rarely kill off-stage (depending on how far offstage he grabs them and how behind on damage he is). All other suicide methods are flat-out kills regardless of relative damage levels. In other words, Bowser can usually only suicide when he's already winning.

That said, I'd just prefer a consistent ruling: Suicide kill = win. Period. (Or lose, or draw, or playoff. The point is that all suicides are treated equally.) If you don't want to get Ganoncided, then don't **** up edgeguarding him. If you don't want Dedede or Kirby to swallowcide you on final stock, then just don't handle them stupidly when they're hovering just barely off-stage. This is less complicated than making a special exception for Bowser, discourages blind stupidity around other suicide options, and doesn't punish certain otherwise valid recoveries (Ganon's Side-B namely).

Ever seen someone camp on Luigi's mansion / stall? I throw you up and unless you mastered teching every time I get free jab locks. Pillars will refresh my moves. I will hit you as you stand above the floor you can't drop through. I won't let you break the house by hitting you through the floor too...

Basically there are too many factors in Luigi's mansion to make it legal.

As a defender to Luigi's Mansion, I think the pillars refreshing stale moves is one of the more strategic aspects of the stage. Brinstar is probably the only other example where such a technique is relevant to a match but it's such a small stage in comparison. There's no real way to avoid somebody breaking down the house if they really want and you'll just break it yourself if you keep trying to attack someone else through the floor, already standing on top of the thing. And destroying the mansion halts pretty much everything "broken" about the stage people complain about...

I feel the best justification for some of these bans is what someone else mentioned earlier: They measure a type of skill we're not really looking at. Luigi's Mansion (among others) is as much gaming the stage better than your opponent as it is actually playing your opponent. But is that a bad thing? It's one of the unique traits of Brawl I don't think should fall by the wayside, else we might as well just play every match on the consensus "most neutral" stage (likely Smashville). There's nothing inherently "broken" about Rainbow Cruise (indefinite loops, permanent walls, etc.) and it offers a completely different gameplay from most any other stage out there. If you gimp yourself on disappearing terrain, you should've been more careful since it's never random. Learning to not get yourself killed for stupid reasons is no different on the rising part of RC than it is for, say, the ledges of FD / PS1 / Lylat.

I'm not going to cover every stage I disagree with in this list, though, I'm just saying there's a good reason the stage list doesn't have to be (perhaps shouldn't) so conservative. Two stage bans per player should especially encourage a more liberal stage list, as multiple stage bans drastically reduces the chance of being forced to ban one bad CP only to be forced into another. (If your character has even more horribly bad stages, then either the matchup just sucks or the character itself does... loltiers) But hey, I'm not an SBR member and I'm never going to TO a competitive tournament either, so what does my opinion matter?

Also, it'd obviously be nice to have an odd number of stages for stage-striking purposes.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Rainbow Cruise, Pirate Ship, Japes and Yoshi's Island (Melee) should be allowed.

 

[lonelee]

- Any suicide KOs on the final stock resulting in sudden death will result in a loss for the user of this tactic. If it would be a suicide KO and the match screen shows a decisive winner, go with that instead. A Bowsercide final KO results in a win for the Bowser player.

What if i am Ike and i used aether and killed the other person while i was already falling down?

 

[Luigi player]

What if i am Ike and i used aether and killed the other person while i was already falling down?

Well it's obvious... if you die first you lose, if your enemy dies first you win.


I really hope we won't only have those stages >.<

The stages that are banned now should really be banned and are definitely really really bad stages, like Spear Pillar, Hyrule Temple, Bridge of Eldin, the DK stages, etc.

They really are obvious totally bad stages where you can always run away and such and they're REALLY annoying and bad.

But all other stages are okay. Yeah, some people don't like some stages, but everyone has stages he doesn't like, that doesn't mean you have to ban them.

Hell, I absolutely hate BF and always ban it (sometimes I don't... but then I regret it).

Norfair is really fun and most of those cp stages are.

Many people were really happy that so many stages would be tourney legal.

It's part of the game and they aren't really bad. I like many of the cp stages...
You can't just take all of them out... it will get boring...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Also why is Ganondorf not subjected to the Suicide rule? It's practically the same as Bowser in the sense that the opponent can't break out of it. Plus common sense will tell you that the fact that Ganondorf is on top of the player when doing it, he should win. People can abuse his recovery and purposely get themselves Ganoncided just to win. I don't think this is fair to the people who actually do use Ganondorf in Completive play

Because regardless of port, Bowser's suicide has priority. It just takes longer to show with certain ports.

Ganondorf on the other hand, the best you can do is break even.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

*looks at ruleset again.*

*ponders and scratches head*

hmm. I really do like this ruleset. realy I truly do, so we'll skip all I agree with and move onto where I think some problems arise:

-CP stages. they are probably too limited. Stages that could be on there like mansion and pictochat should be. they are NOT perfectly balanced, however, they aren't supposed to be. CPs never are. I understand a few of Pictochat's transformations perhaps have too much of a random effect on the game, but most do not, and even the harmful transformations can normally be waited out very effectively.

-Mansion has no random occurances. The stage has a cave of life (which is far less effective than most caves of life) and pillars that block projectiles. but those are just nifty features that should be utilized with a CP option. Mansion doesn't really wreck any charcter nor does it make any charcter a god (metaknight can abuse his horizontal KO ability maybe... but what stage CAN'T he abuse?) It affects the outcome of the game, but not in a way that any CP shouldn't be able to do. Heck, pokefloats was a CP in melee and it has a HECK of a lot of a bigger bearing on outcome.

CPs aren't SUPPOSED to be fair and balanced as long as they aren't gamebreaking.

as for the "we need 5 starters" movement. do we? and if we do, which should it be?
PS1, Lylat, Castle Seige or Delfino?
IMO NONE of those stages meat the definition of neutral. why screw something up for the arbitrary reason of wanting 5 neutrals?

 

[takeurlife2]

finally, a stage list that doesnt make the game about "who can be the most gay on this stage?"

 

[Alopex]

as for the "we need 5 starters" movement. do we? and if we do, which should it be?
PS1, Lylat, Castle Seige or Delfino?
IMO NONE of those stages meat the definition of neutral. why screw something up for the arbitrary reason of wanting 5 neutrals?

It's not arbitrary.

For Stage Slashing, which is part of this ruleset, you NEED to have an odd number of starting stages so that each player slashes the same amount of stages, leaving only one which is where the first match takes place.

With only 4, one player can slash two while the other only slashes one. This would obviously not be fair and would be a problem with any even number of starters.

So Umbreon has kind of made a contradiction that needs fixing.
Stage Slashing should stay because it's the fairest way to select the first stage, but if it stays there needs to be either 3 or 5 Starter stages. So either you remove one (I vote FD), or you add one (I vote PS1).

Because regardless of port, Bowser's suicide has priority. It just takes longer to show with certain ports.

Ganondorf on the other hand, the best you can do is break even.

What he's saying is this:

Both players are at last stock. Ganon uses his SideB to try and recover back to stage and the opponent purposely jumps right in front of Ganon so he would suicide. The opponent would win, but who REALLY committed the suicide here?

Ganon used the move, but the opponent was the one who committed the true suicide. And it says that whoever commits the suicide on the last stock is the loser.
So why are we letting Ganon get "framed" and take the fall?


This is only a problem with Ganon. You can't frame an Inhaler or Bowser. You can't frame Diddy or Wario.

Ganon can get framed and exploited like this, so he should be granted Bowser's status to prevent players from forcing last stock suicides for the win.

 

[adumbrodeus]

In general, I have an issue with one major section of the rules.

The infinites, and I know that I've vocalized this before, but infinites just make for disadvantageous match-ups, sometimes. Granted, they create large disadvantages, but they are not a tactic that's good enough to not do any other tactic (picking MK in general is superior) except in certain match-ups.

A very big disadvantage=/=gamebreaking.

What he's saying is this:

Both players are at last stock. If Ganon uses his SideB to try and recover back to stage and the opponent purposely jumped right in front of Ganon so he would suicide. The opponent would win, but who REALLY committed the suicide here?

Ganon used the move, but the opponent was the one who committed the true suicide. And it says that whoever commits the suicide on the last stock is the loser.
So why are we letting Ganon get "framed" and take the fall?

It's the risk that you take when using the move, a number of moves have properties that a smart opponent can use to his/her/it's advantage, any move with a hitbox can be countered, projectiles can be reflected, your opponent can lure you into destroying something destructible, a move can change the hurtbox of your character allowing the opponent to hit when he/she/it/potato otherwise couldn't, etc.


It's really not about letting ganondorf take the fall, it's about what the game registers. The only reason the suicide rule is in place is to A. lessen the controller port advantage effect and B. avoid sudden deaths. If you use side-b and suicide somebody you didn't mean to, tough luck. That's why I avoid recovery with it when I'm below in lives (and the fact that recovering with it is very situational).

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

ganondorf should KNOW that could happen and use different means to recover. it's not like that's not an option.




As for the stages. Don't take my list as anything but an example. But if you want to put freedom in the hands of the TOs perhaps you should provide a stage list that GIVES them that flexibility without feeling like they are using a non-official rule-set

I'm not suggesting my stage list for anything. I'm just saying a format LIKE this puts a flexability in the hands of TOs without feeling that stage lists are too varried.

Starter

• Smashville
• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Yoshi's Island

Teir 1 CounterPick
(be sure to include these. they are very balanced and if you are using the strike rule you may choose to make one of them a random starter)

• Pokémon Stadium 1
• Castle Siege
• Lylat Cruise
• Delfino

Teir 2 Counterpick
(only lightly affect the outcome of a game. should almost certainly be on the list)

• Halberd
• Brinstar
• Frigate Orpheon

Teir 3 Counterpick (range from irritating to abusable, but not gamebreaking. make sure you have good reasons for excluding a stage before you take it off, but know that these stages have aspects which people can use to their advantage to win a match. None of the stages mentioned here is broken in the way banned stages are, but a smart character can make use of the terrain to gain a tactical advantage. I personally believe that's what a CP should be and if none of these are included then what a dull game we have going on, but c'est la vie)

• Green Greens - (it was removed for wall infinites no? well if wall infinites are banned that issue isn't so big so all we need to deal with are bombs and close blast zones)
• Luigi's Mansion - (cave of life and projectile blocking pillars. hardly banworthy IMO)
• Norfair - (the platform layout is interesting and makes for a fun stage, but the lava comes quite often and gameplay may focus on it while it's on the stage)
• Pictochat - (very random. most of the drawings are benign, but bad enough luck could be detrimental)
• Pirate Ship - (water is fine, but the ridiculously powered of bombs too makes it more iffy.)
• Pokémon Stadium 2 - (every stage transformation save "ground" hugely affects gameplay. And generally speaking, all of these transformations favour characters who make the air their home)
• Rainbow Cruise - (sidescroller which is detrimental to relatively non-mobile charcters and campers)
• Yoshi's Island (Pipes) - (close blast zones and one angled walkoff)
• Corneria - close blast zones and a camp back area
• Distant Planet - (rain and one angled walkoff)
• Jungle Japes (swift moving water and devestating klaptraps)

 

[hyperstation]

Two things:

Why is Bowsercide on the final stock considered a win for Bowser, but there's no mention of what happens with a Ganoncide on the final stock? Am I to assume it's a loss for Ganon? Lame.

I just read some of the posts on this topic, and the rationale is incredibly lame. Determination via controller port? That's basically saying "yep, there's some bad coding in this game, but we're going to adhere to this poor coding in making a decision about what happens on the final stock when ganoncided." Double standard. This needs to be addressed...As if Ganon needed another strike against him in tournament viability, anyway.

Second, I think the idea of determining the winner by "percentage given" when necessary is not a balanced idea. It inherently is sh*tty for the heavy punching bag characters who often take significantly more damage in a match even when they win.

 

[JustKindaBoredUKno]

Counterpicking stages was half the fun at tournies.

although i love everything else, the CP stages are just way too limited. Rather then ban an obscene amount of stages, why not just allow a ban on two stages instead? Afraid of getting locked on corneria or RC? ban them both.

Not to mention this just benefited all MK mains...

 

[JigglyZelda003]

the only thing that doesn't benefit MK mains is to ban MK, so not much we can do to that anyway. i still think Ganoncide should count as a win for ganon, saying that its ganons fault for doing it in the first place as a recovery isn't right, escpecially if the opponent isn't edgeguarding right.

 

[pootTheBox]

Add lylat/or pokestad 1 to neutrals, make it stage strikes, support ganoncides, and limit grab releases and it'd be the best i've seen

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Ganoncides counting as a win for Ganon except in the cases where he doesn't die on Brinstar and Norfair would be horribly abusive of the rules. Allow me to explain the mechanics of the two suicides to the best of my knowledge.

Bowser's forward special: If Bowser is the lower numbered player, he dies second. If Bowser is the higher numbered player, they die simultaneously. Bowser never dies first.

Ganon's forward special: This is controller port independent. My testing with this concludes that the most probable cause of the differing results is that Ganon and his opponent can only move a quantized distance each frame. It is possible that death detection does not occur on every frame , and in that case the quantized distance moved would be considered as the distance moved in n frames where n is the number of frames between death detections (for practical purposes, we don't need to distinguish). Ganon is lower than his opponent while doing this suicide, but he is less low than the degree of quantization of the fall. Therefore, depending on the starting height, either Ganon dies first or they die simultaneously.

If that's confusing to you, let me construct a simple parallel example. Let's say I have two bags of marbles from which I will remove three marbles at a time from each or as many as possible if there are fewer than three remaining. I will give the owner of the bag that has marbles left in it at any time his opponent's does not a prize. If one bag has 21 marbles while another has 20, there will be no winner. Six rounds of marble removal will leave me with 3 marbles in one bag and 2 in another. Attempting to remove three from both bags leaves them both empty, and the competition is a tie. However, if they have 21 and 22 instead of 20 and 21, then after six rounds I have 3 and 4 left respectively. Then when I remove three from each I am left with 0 in one bag and 1 in another bag with a clear winner.

Of course, the size of a "marble" in the case of the height difference Ganon needs to be at to produce a different result with his suicide is very small. If you always go about causing his suicide in the same way (like grab them off a platform from a ledge dropped double jump with particular timing), you should be able to get the same consistent result, but in general it's way too fine to be able to manipulate and will be unpredictable.

With the Bowser rule, there's the legitimate motivation of minimizing the impact of controller ports, and in all cases where Bowser does not win, we must judge sudden death. Going with the general trend of the tournament scene in regards to sudden death, we are not really claiming much authority in this judgment.

With Ganon, we are not removing a material advantage by making a rule. All players have equal opportunities to select Ganon and perform his suicide with equal expected outcomes. Furthermore, a rule whereby Ganon always wins is not just an interpretation of sudden death. It is directly contradicting a non-sudden death match result which is incredibly radical. Big fans of predictable outcomes would have some argument to define Ganon as always LOSING out of his suicide, but given that it's slightly possible to intentionally cause a sudden death result, that no players have unfair disadvantages regardless of what is decided (in the sense that one player has a situation that the other had literally no opportunity to obtain; all players have equal access to Ganon), and further that Ganon is a completely horrible character, I think just treating it like any other sudden death situation is the best.

 

[Iwan]

I stopped reading when you suggested we ban Japes and Green Greens.

Fail.

Nothing Random about either stage and both take practice and strategy to succeed and win on.

Again.
Fail.

Two best counter picks in the entire game: fact. **EDIT-Also, I'm lying...I read the whole thing . Still, Japes and Greens are stages that should be tournament legal.

 

[ssbbFICTION]

What in the world were you thinking banning japes and rainbow cruise....

 

[Flayl]

I don't get it, do people not understand that Bowsercide is a suicide move?

The reason it was given the advantage in the old ruleset was because SUICIDES DID NOT = INSTANT LOSS.

 

[Shaya]

The stage ruleset seems to be nothing but a thumbs up for Metaknight. All the stages that are even remotely advantageous against him; Eldin, Shadow Moses [they're "seperate" though], Corneria, Green Hill, Pirate Ship, Green Greens, Onett and Yoshi's Pipes. All stages that I consider picking against MK, and stages that I dread when picked against me using MK. All banned.

Oh well, seems like a great stage list for a post-MK banned world. Except the lack of IC and Olimar (forgive the ban on Delfino) counters. Oh, and don't get me started on the lack of high/top tier counters full stop.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

if the logic is "X stage is gay" then not just frigate orpheon and brinstar should be banned that logic bans everythiing but FD BF SV and possibly YI(brawl). not very good logic imo, but im sure thats not what umbreon was going for.

 

[Calixto]

Ganondorf suicides should result in a win for the Ganondorf player, and here is my reasoning:


Dude, really? He's like, on the low end of the tier list man. I mean, he could use a hand. Don't need to kick a man when he's down ya know?

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

ganondorf should KNOW that could happen and use different means to recover. it's not like that's not an option.




As for the stages. Don't take my list as anything but an example. But if you want to put freedom in the hands of the TOs perhaps you should provide a stage list that GIVES them that flexibility without feeling like they are using a non-official rule-set

I'm not suggesting my stage list for anything. I'm just saying a format LIKE this puts a flexability in the hands of TOs without feeling that stage lists are too varried.

Starter

• Smashville
• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Yoshi's Island

Teir 1 CounterPick
(be sure to include these. they are very balanced and if you are using the strike rule you may choose to make one of them a random starter)

• Pokémon Stadium 1
• Castle Siege
• Lylat Cruise
• Delfino

Teir 2 Counterpick
(only lightly affect the outcome of a game. should almost certainly be on the list)

• Halberd
• Brinstar
• Frigate Orpheon

Teir 3 Counterpick (range from irritating to abusable, but not gamebreaking. make sure you have good reasons for excluding a stage before you take it off, but know that these stages have aspects which people can use to their advantage to win a match. None of the stages mentioned here is broken in the way banned stages are, but a smart character can make use of the terrain to gain a tactical advantage. I personally believe that's what a CP should be and if none of these are included then what a dull game we have going on, but c'est la vie)

• Green Greens - (it was removed for wall infinites no? well if wall infinites are banned that issue isn't so big so all we need to deal with are bombs and close blast zones)
• Luigi's Mansion - (cave of life and projectile blocking pillars. hardly banworthy IMO)
• Norfair - (the platform layout is interesting and makes for a fun stage, but the lava comes quite often and gameplay may focus on it while it's on the stage)
• Pictochat - (very random. most of the drawings are benign, but bad enough luck could be detrimental)
• Pirate Ship - (water is fine, but the ridiculously powered of bombs too makes it more iffy.)
• Pokémon Stadium 2 - (every stage transformation save "ground" hugely affects gameplay. And generally speaking, all of these transformations favour characters who make the air their home)
• Rainbow Cruise - (sidescroller which is detrimental to relatively non-mobile charcters and campers)
• Yoshi's Island (Pipes) - (close blast zones and one angled walkoff)
• Corneria - close blast zones and a camp back area
• Distant Planet - (rain and one angled walkoff)
• Jungle Japes (swift moving water and devestating klaptraps)

*looks at list*

hmm.... maybe in addition to thestandard ban people get, they can ban an extra teir 3 counterpick? you could use both CPs on a tier 3 if desired. Iunno how they would decide which teir 1 is a starter possibility though. the TO probably has to preset that

 

[Luigi player]

if the logic is "X stage is gay" then not just frigate orpheon and brinstar should be banned that logic bans everythiing but FD BF SV and possibly YI(brawl). not very good logic imo, but im sure thats not what umbreon was going for.

BF is the gayest stage >.< (after the other banned stages from the normal official ruleset of course)

 

[JigglyZelda003]

Ganondorf suicides should result in a win for the Ganondorf player, and here is my reasoning:


Dude, really? He's like, on the low end of the tier list man. I mean, he could use a hand. Don't need to kick a man when he's down ya know?

problem is no one except those who main them, usually, care about low tiers. its the reason idc if corneria is banned or not, i always ban it anyway to save JP. and besides if its legal it just means it helps out the ganon mains. i mean hes not easy to use already so whos gonna pick ganon in a tourney, unless you main him, to try and do a suicide to win? if it fails your dead and really its just a threat of "if your going for a gimp you better do it right otherwise we die" . i support ganon