Competitive Brawl Rule Set (NOT OFFICIAL)

[OverLade]

People, the whole point of a CP stage is to give a character an advantage over his or her opponent. What's the point of CPing if I don't get an advantage? "Neutral" stages still favor certain characters, just not to the degree of CP stages, but that's why they are CP stages, not Neutral stages.

FD heavily favors fast moving characters with fast, effective projectiles over large, slow moving characters. (i.e. pit/zelda/ROB/pikachu against Ganon, Bowser, DK) They can force their opponent to approach and easily rack up 25% before their opponent can reach them.

Powershielding anyone? Reflectors? Crawling? Jumping mabye? There's NOTHING broken about FD....at all. Like there's no possible good arguement to ban it. The only plausible reason you didn't even list, which is the lip....which you can learn to get around.

Battlefield gives an advantage to characters with good range on their attacks. Marth and Snake have a huge advantage on this stage partly because they can stand in the middle of the stage and hit anyone that's not standing on the very edge (about 30% of the length of the bottom platform).
This stage gives only a slight advantage to those characters, and TONS of characters can platform camp...and tons of characters can get around it. There's NO legit reason to ban BF.


I can easily find a petty reason to ban every single stage, BUT THAT's NOT THE POINT! The reason you are banning these stages are really, really bad...

Horrible reasons.

Corneria??? Yes, that's one of G&W's best stages, BUT THAT'S WHY WE COUNTERPICK IT. That lasers from the small aircraft don't do crap and getting the laser from the big one is suicidal.

The lasers from the "small" aircraft do damage if I'm not correct. And you can infinite people here.

Rainbow Cruise??? There's nothing random to this stage...it moves in a pattern. If your an Oli use and a G&W CP's this stage, use a different character. If you can use more than one character, you bound to get screwed over no matter what.

You said BF gives a huge advantage to snake and marth but its NOTHING compared oto the edge certain characters get on this stage. Get out.

Pictochat?! Um...There are hazards, but they barely inflict any damage/knockback at all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcojcb7ZMxc nuff said.

Pokemon Stadium 2?!?! Can someone explain to me why this is banned?

Your arguements are...bad.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

People, the whole point of a CP stage is to give a character an advantage over his or her opponent. What's the point of CPing if I don't get an advantage? "Neutral" stages still favor certain characters, just not to the degree of CP stages, but that's why they are CP stages, not Neutral stages.

FD heavily favors fast moving characters with fast, effective projectiles over large, slow moving characters. (i.e. pit/zelda/ROB/pikachu against Ganon, Bowser, DK) They can force their opponent to approach and easily rack up 25% before their opponent can reach them.

Battlefield gives an advantage to characters with good range on their attacks. Marth and Snake have a huge advantage on this stage partly because they can stand in the middle of the stage and hit anyone that's not standing on the very edge (about 30% of the length of the bottom platform).

I can easily find a petty reason to ban every single stage, BUT THAT's NOT THE POINT! The reason you are banning these stages are really, really bad...

Corneria??? Yes, that's one of G&W's best stages, BUT THAT'S WHY WE COUNTERPICK IT. That lasers from the small aircraft don't do crap and getting the laser from the big one is suicidal.

Rainbow Cruise??? There's nothing random to this stage...it moves in a pattern. If your an Oli use and a G&W CP's this stage, use a different character. If you can use more than one character, you bound to get screwed over no matter what.

Pictochat?! Um...There are hazards, but they barely inflict any damage/knockback at all...

Pokemon Stadium 2?!?! Can someone explain to me why this is banned?

this is my thinking for why PS2 and PC are banned, and could be made CP. and most people are upset RC is banned for these rules anyway.

PS2 changes tend to favor air fighters highly like the one where you float around for a while, and then the treadmill one isn't exactly the best things since unless you've got multiple jumps or are positioned in the middle of the stage at that time you'll keep sliding to the edge. i thought it was banned normally anyway cause its effect alter the playing field more than PS1.

most things on pictochat are benign but its hazards can spawn on you and they are very damaging like the skateboard. or if you were landing and the flower spawned on you. random walls, and some things like the whale can give an instan shield to a camper. i say iffy CP/ban stage for that.

 

[Mr.E]

If a hazard spawns on you, it's your own **** fault. That's like complaining the ledge on [FD / PS1 / Lylat] gimped you or a flying carpet on RC disappeared as you tried to recover to it. Don't be stupid, problem solved.

 

[Wobby]

People, the whole point of a CP stage is to give a character an advantage over his or her opponent. What's the point of CPing if I don't get an advantage? "Neutral" stages still favor certain characters, just not to the degree of CP stages, but that's why they are CP stages, not Neutral stages.

FD heavily favors fast moving characters with fast, effective projectiles over large, slow moving characters. (i.e. pit/zelda/ROB/pikachu against Ganon, Bowser, DK) They can force their opponent to approach and easily rack up 25% before their opponent can reach them.

Battlefield gives an advantage to characters with good range on their attacks. Marth and Snake have a huge advantage on this stage partly because they can stand in the middle of the stage and hit anyone that's not standing on the very edge (about 30% of the length of the bottom platform).

I can easily find a petty reason to ban every single stage, BUT THAT's NOT THE POINT! The reason you are banning these stages are really, really bad...

Corneria??? Yes, that's one of G&W's best stages, BUT THAT'S WHY WE COUNTERPICK IT. That lasers from the small aircraft don't do crap and getting the laser from the big one is suicidal.

Rainbow Cruise??? There's nothing random to this stage...it moves in a pattern. If your an Oli use and a G&W CP's this stage, use a different character. If you can use more than one character, you bound to get screwed over no matter what.

Pictochat?! Um...There are hazards, but they barely inflict any damage/knockback at all...

Pokemon Stadium 2?!?! Can someone explain to me why this is banned?

I agree with pretty much everything you have said. The thing with PS2 is the wind and the conveyor belts are really dumb, and make it just too random. The 0 gravity lasts way too long and the conveyor belts spell doom to anyone using any down moves.

 

[Hylian]

XD @ Umbreon adopting my list .

<3.

 

[Skyflyer]

Congrats Umbreon, you just started a fad.

 

[Deleted member]

Congrats Umbreon, you just started a fad.

good. the official list is terrible IMO. any sincere steps to fix it are good.

 

[WarranThad]

The rule list is:
any stage that potentially breaks or ruins game play is banned. There is a reason for every single stage.

You keep posting stuff like this, but you aren't even pretending to reason out my conclusions, nor are you offering anything better. This is part of why I want Hylian to post his rule set so bad, so at least someone is trying to fix the problem besides me and Marc.

what's 'ruining' gameplay? personally I would ledge camp 7 minutes in a match vs falco with my ROB and not think anything is 'ruined'. if he's unable to punish me then it's just his poor play. Why does jungle japes 'ruin' gameplay if rainbow cruise or brinstar not?

 

[SothE700k]

Sorry, I do NOT feel like going through 23 pages for this question incase.

The seeing of Luigi's Mansion and Corneria banned shocked me. What's the reasoning for that? (if we're talking about the cave of life effect on LM, I can understand that, but why Corneria?)

edit: Other than that, fine. Ban the infinite, but thank you for at least keeping the chain grab.

 

[CaliburChamp]

Come on guys. Don't you realize all stages are counter pick stages? Why can't you people understand that? With this rule set, tournaments will become boring, and the top tier characters will keep on dominating, this will just make people grow tired of brawl faster. Allowing more stages increase the depth of this game building up the strategic elements, and this is Super Smash Bros. Brawl, its not like any other fighting game.
The other competitive fighting games have mostly flat stages you fight around. However in the smash bros. games characters have recoveries to get back onto the stage, it's the element of super smash bros, its not a traditional fighting game, these stages were MADE to be good for certain characters and bad for others.

You can't compare the same rule sets for super smash bros like you can for other games like Soul Calibur, Tekken, Marvel vs Capcom, Guilty Gear, etc. The rule sets should be different because Super Smash Bros is a different kind of fighting game, not only do you have to know your character well, you have to know your stages well too to get the advantage.
I hope that makes sense, if it doesn't I'll play these rules my way and won't give up this argument to any of my opponents I play at tournaments.

 

[WarranThad]

actually for those arguing that ruleseets in other games suggest more restriction necessary in that one I'd argue the opposite considering any decent fighter I've played does very minimal stuff as far as restricting gameplay or banning **** on basis of power level. I mean, look at marvel vs capcom 2, that manages to work somehow despite the infinite number of infinites.

 

[M15t3R E]

I like how, on this list, Pictochat is banned. Some say Pictochat is right to be a CP, but to me it's a definite no-brainer that it should be banned...

 

[Deleted member]

Come on guys. Don't you realize all stages are counter pick stages? Why can't you people understand that? With this rule set, tournaments will become boring, and the top tier characters will keep on dominating, this will just make people grow tired of brawl faster. Allowing more stages increase the depth of this game building up the strategic elements, and this is Super Smash Bros. Brawl, its not like any other fighting game.
The other competitive fighting games have mostly flat stages you fight around. However in the smash bros. games characters have recoveries to get back onto the stage, it's the element of super smash bros, its not a traditional fighting game, these stages were MADE to be good for certain characters and bad for others.

You can't compare the same rule sets for super smash bros like you can for other games like Soul Calibur, Tekken, Marvel vs Capcom, Guilty Gear, etc. The rule sets should be different because Super Smash Bros is a different kind of fighting game, not only do you have to know your character well, you have to know your stages well too to get the advantage.
I hope that makes sense, if it doesn't I'll play these rules my way and won't give up this argument to any of my opponents I play at tournaments.

I'm working on fixing them this week, I'd like to see your input more when I'm done.

 

[_umbra_]

I love this ruleset, especially the stage list. I can't say I disagree with a single part of it.

 

[aJerk]

what's 'ruining' gameplay? personally I would ledge camp 7 minutes in a match vs falco with my ROB and not think anything is 'ruined'. if he's unable to punish me then it's just his poor play. Why does jungle japes 'ruin' gameplay if rainbow cruise or brinstar not?

if there's nothing my character can do to stand even the slightest chance to a certain character on a certain stage then it has nothing to do with poor play.
simply put, i'd rather play a match with a slightly filtered list of usable moves than to play one with no moves at all.

 

[CaliburChamp]

if there's nothing my character can do to stand even the slightest chance to a certain character on a certain stage then it has nothing to do with poor play.
simply put, i'd rather play a match with a slightly filtered list of usable moves than to play one with no moves at all.

You do know that you will also be able to counterpick a stage too if you lose, and not only that, you get to strike out 2 stages that you think your opponent might bring you to. So if we treated all stages as counterpicks, it would be fair, as long as you know what stages your character does well on. Even on this Neutral stages, some people are REALLY good on FD, since thats the only stage they play on, I know a guy near me that does this, he always chooses FD, even if its a friendly match, but when I take him to brinstar, he starts losing there. I keep telling him he should play on other stages so he can adapt better, and now thats what I'm telling you guys, ADAPT.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

@Calibur champ
yeah its funny seeing when some peoples play ability drop drastically on stages other than FD. i've seen people start doing really poorly on BF, than they do on FD and BF isn't even a couterpick. lol

 

[Deleted member]

You do know that you will also be able to counterpick a stage too if you lose, and not only that, you get to strike out 2 stages that you think your opponent might bring you to. So if we treated all stages as counterpicks, it would be fair, as long as you know what stages your character does well on. Even on this Neutral stages, some people are REALLY good on FD, since thats the only stage they play on, I know a guy near me that does this, he always chooses FD, even if its a friendly match, but when I take him to brinstar, he starts losing there. I keep telling him he should play on other stages so he can adapt better, and now thats what I'm telling you guys, ADAPT.

I could allow 24 stages and afford each player 10 counterpicks.

I'm a heavy advocate for adaption. Even then, I realize that in this game there are some things you just can't adapt to. It's no longer a matter of player skill. I'm just looking for the best rule set to reward player talent.

 

[OverLade]

The only thing that bothers me, is I dont think the initiator of a sudden death should lose. I think it should either be based on damage percentages, or who initiates the SD wins.

 

[SothE700k]

The only thing that bothers me, is I dont think the initiator of a sudden death should lose. I think it should either be based on damage percentages, or who initiates the SD wins.

Or how about if both stock and percent are tied, play a one stock rematch on a neutral stage both players agree to? Winner of that tie breaker takes the match.

 

[Alterhalo]

I like these rules alot hopefully they can be used in a tourney i play in

 

[CaliburChamp]

I could allow 24 stages and afford each player 10 counterpicks.

I'm a heavy advocate for adaption. Even then, I realize that in this game there are some things you just can't adapt to. It's no longer a matter of player skill. I'm just looking for the best rule set to reward player talent.

I do like that idea, better. As long as your opponent has a choice as to what counterpick stages you cant use on them, I think its fair. And in my opinion, always choosing starter stages in the first round seems less fair. In my opinion, all stages are counter stages, and if you add available stage strikes it makes it much more fair than always choosing a starter stage for the first round. Starter stages is a flaw in these tournament rules.

 

[pockyD]

it's not logistically practical to strike stages down from like 20 stages

 

[CaliburChamp]

it's not logistically practical to strike stages down from like 20 stages

How is it not logical? Your getting rid of your opponents 2 best stages, plus you can't choose the same stage that you played on before, which makes 3. And it the whole set your opponent bans 4 stages in a set. 2 each for a round and those stage bans last throughout the set. It's actually very logical and its not really that complicated. Its a win, win situation.

 

[pockyD]

it's not logistically practical to strike stages down from like 20 stages

How is it not logical?

you're trolling right? or maybe English isn't your first language?

 

[OverLade]

it's not logistically practical to strike stages down from like 20 stages

How? Seriously, what does the initial number of stages have to do with anything? >_>

 

[pockyD]

How? Seriously, what does the initial number of stages have to do with anything? >_>

ok, striking down from 5 stages is pretty trivial, and done commonly

now imagine striking down from 15... not only does it necessarily take 3-4x as long directly (simply because each person bans 7 stages instead of 2), but also by the end, each player will be hard pressed to remember what stages have already been banned and which ones are still available, which adds time and confusion

that aside, striking down from all legal stages would be the optimal approach from a 'fair' standpoint (or as close as we can reach for such an arbitrary definition of "fair"). In this case, it seems that he wants to still include randomness, while giving each player 2-3 bans? how is that helpful? in the 40% chance that the randomed stage is one that is banned, are you going to reset every time? and if banning 2 stages is necessarily better than banning one, then why isn't banning 3 better than 2, or even banning 5, 6, etc. until we approach a full strike-down (which as I mentioned, I believe is quite fair but simply impractical)?

 

[CaliburChamp]

ok, striking down from 5 stages is pretty trivial, and done commonly

now imagine striking down from 15... not only does it necessarily take 3-4x as long directly (simply because each person bans 7 stages instead of 2), but also by the end, each player will be hard pressed to remember what stages have already been banned and which ones are still available, which adds time and confusion

that aside, striking down from all legal stages would be the optimal approach from a 'fair' standpoint (or as close as we can reach for such an arbitrary definition of "fair"). In this case, it seems that he wants to still include randomness, while giving each player 2-3 bans? how is that helpful? in the 40% chance that the randomed stage is one that is banned, are you going to reset every time? and if banning 2 stages is necessarily better than banning one, then why isn't banning 3 better than 2, or even banning 5, 6, etc. until we approach a full strike-down (which as I mentioned, I believe is quite fair but simply impractical)?

Who said anybody was striking off 15 stages? You must of misread something. And stage striking 2 stages each round sounds fair enough, and if it goes to the 3rd round, you won't be able to choose the past stages you went to, and the previous stage bans are still in effect, so that's a total of 5 stages banned from the whole set. 2 for first round and one more because you can't play on the same stage in a set which makes 3, and if it goes to the 3rd round, you get 2 more additional stage bans, 3+2= 5. Five stage bans is good enough to make it fair in the final 3rd round match.

 

[Deleted member]

you're trolling right? or maybe English isn't your first language?

The purpose of this thread is to better the competitive community. Calm down.

 

[pockyD]

Who said anybody was striking off 15 stages? You must of misread something. And stage striking 2 stages each round sounds fair enough, and if it goes to the 3rd round, you won't be able to choose the past stages you went to, and the previous stage bans are still in effect, so that's a total of 5 stages banned from the whole set. 2 for first round and one more because you can't play on the same stage in a set which makes 3, and if it goes to the 3rd round, you get 2 more additional stage bans, 3+2= 5. Five stage bans is good enough to make it fair in the final 3rd round match.

what makes it "fair enough"?

The purpose of this thread is to better the competitive community. Calm down.

I don't appreciate someone countering a point i didn't try to make, while ignoring the one that i did

 

[Deleted member]

I don't appreciate someone countering a point i didn't try to make, while ignoring the one that i did

I fail to see how accusing your opponent of trolling advances a solution for your problem in much the same way that you feel he did not advance a solution for you.

Just saying.

 

[pockyD]

I fail to see how accusing your opponent of trolling advances a solution for your problem in much the same way that you feel he did not advance a solution for you.

Just saying.

kind of hard to decipher what you're 'just saying', but by making sure he understood what i was originally trying to say instead of something that uses a word that sounds kind of like what i was trying to say, the conversation progresses

 

[WarranThad]

umbreon likes his straw men as he does being dismissive in the face of adversity

 

[Deleted member]

a straw man argument requires an argument, then a comparison that is easier to refute that can then be shown as similar to the initial argument in a way of indirectly refuting it easier. since neither person had an answer for the other, the circumstances are the same and there is no easier refutation to link it to, therefore no straw man can exist. however, you last post about mvc2 is an excellent example of a straw man.

actually for those arguing that ruleseets in other games suggest more restriction necessary in that one I'd argue the opposite considering any decent fighter I've played does very minimal stuff as far as restricting gameplay or banning **** on basis of power level. I mean, look at marvel vs capcom 2, that manages to work somehow despite the infinite number of infinites.

you're trying to sound smart but it's not working. I can dismiss your adversity because you've already stated that you don't like the rule set, so I don't particularly care what you think. at the end of the day, pocky can maintain a solid argument. he can cover himself from my ridicule, and doesn't need your help. your idea of an argument is to post a mock thread that is essentially spam and personal attacks. your posts are a locus of hypocritical attacks on yourself.

This rule set was made to introduce something new and conservative for tournament players. If you don't like it, don't play it. I haven't forced this on anyone. Go away.

For those with serious concerns, I will be addressing them later this week. I have seen several arguments that I cannot refute, which means that a few revisions will be necessary. That's a good thing though, I would like this rule set to be the best it can possibly be.

 

[CaliburChamp]

pockyD: I was just trying to help you understand.

Umbreon: I'd like for all stages to be counter stages. Starter stages are counterpick stages. Also, MK can stage spike on these starter stages more so than the current counter pick stages. You can tell these stages are helping MK and some other characters.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I'm assuming Pokemon Stadium 2 remains banned due to the transformations creating effects like walls and such? If this is the reason then I fail to see what justifies Rainbow Cruise's return as a CP without Stadium 2 as well.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

the only stage that doesn't help MK so much is greengreens. lol

 

[The Real Inferno]

I don't know about that, he has a pretty tough time on Mario Bros.

 

[CaliburChamp]

the only stage that doesn't help MK so much is greengreens. lol

You must be joking. Sarcasm is hard to detect over the internet. Shadow Moses and Yoshi Island Pipes are good anti MK stages, isn't it obvious to see why? lol.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

i forgot about the those other 2 mmk? lol