MBR Official Rule Set

[KAOSTAR]

your random/predictable issue sveet.

that is dumb.

floats, I know exactly what I get before I pick it. same exact pattern. could write it out and it would always be true.

stadium is random, there is just a warning before a specific action. I don't know from the start the order is neutral rock neutral fire. I know its going to change, I know into what but its not the same thing every time. stadium is not predictable, its random and at some point you are told which stage it transforms to. you didn't predict ****.

now-im saying that its not actually predictable. floats/rainbow you know the exact timing of the stage. its the same every time. poke is not. you don't know what transformations the stage will do until you are playing on it. its random with warnings.

forget the 80 or 90 seconds thing, let's look at a slightly smaller, and therefore more relevant, window

5 seconds before the flash, can you predict what the stage will look like in 20 seconds?

at the start of a rainbow cruise match, i can tell you that in 120 seconds it's going to look the same again

pretty much equally relevant, because playing only the boat on rainbow cruise would be a very viable candidate for neutral

i know you insist on using your misguided definition of 'disrupt', but hyrule is by far the most orderly and straightforward stage in the game

as far as the REAL usage of disruption, 'confusing' is not a ban criteria, nor is anyone claiming that it is. 'disorder' wise, stadium is BY FAR more disorderly; 5 seconds before the flash, can you tell me whether there will be a giant mountain, a giant windmill, or a giant tree?

it doesn't even matter what i say in this sentence, or even the previous one, because you're just going to half-attempt to address the first point and then stop reading.

Competition is the most fair when you leave it up to the players playing, eliminating as many random or unknown events as possible.

So playing on BF/FD the player that plays the best will win.

DL has wind problems-tho the disruption is very subtle. Hardly effects gameplay at all. For one thing it only affects around 3/2-2/5 of the stage at once. If both players are on the same side of the stage, it will affect bother players equally.

If YS didnt have shy guys, it would also be completely neutral. Randal just rotates in a set pattern, direction, and speed. He is indiscriminate unless you are pc chris.

So there is FoD and Stadium-both have random aspects. As far as neutrals, these are the two least neutral stages.

So which one has the least drastic change? The one that affects the players the least? Which stage plays less of a part in how the players "react to the stage?" note: that is different than how each player utilizes the stage.

If stadium was randomly neutral fire neutral fire neutral fire, there would be an huge absence in fighting. Both players are put at some ADv/dis because of the stage. If stadium was neutral jungle neutral jungle the fighting would never cease as it does on most maps. Lets not ignore that 2 of the 5 stages have huge vertical walls in which it is realistic for fox to keep you locked in place against the wall for 30 seconds or so usually damaging you enough to guarantee a kill.

On FoD, does it really matter if the platform is up or down? The answer is yes it does. But it only requires a minor compensation on the players behalf to continue the match. Lets not forget that, there is still a warning b4 any platform movement.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Seems like the crux of the argument is something like pokefloats/cruise are unfair even though the stage is predictable.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I think the nature of the stage

lack of ledges, requires lots of jumping, smaller platforms, open area cater to foxes strong points and his ability to camp. I could be wrong on that but I think ppl feel fox gets a strong adv on that stage and it would not be conducive to neutrality. Not strong enough to where the stage is broken, but moved to cps.

Cps tend to play towards a characters/player strengths or opponents weaknesses.

Its really hard to try to accurately pinpoint a completely fair list of stages or neutrals. Discretion has to be used. I just think its pretty clear if you use common sense that rainbow doesnt deserve to be a neutral stage based on the general idea of what our most agreed upon neutral stages are made up of. The other issue from a player standpoint is diversity. Although, I can see BF being the most fair first round stage, alot of ppl dislike that stage. Id rather have the diversity, knowing that I have more options as a player in stage/viable first round character choice. ie I wouldnt want to play as mario because you cant hug the wall to recover/tech.

BF, YS, DL, FoD, FD, PS are all pretty similar. but FD, PS, FoD are the most different. PS FoD have more interruptions or unknown elements than FD.

FoD has less than stadium.

Im not against the stage. Its just the odd man out of 5.

 

[The Good Doctor]

BF, YS, DL, FoD, FD, PS are all pretty similar. but FD, PS, FoD are the most different. PS FoD have more interruptions or unknown elements than FD.

My question about horizontal blast zones was never addressed....


The other issue you guys are debating is meaningless. Some characters are better on the neutrals than others, so in theory they aren't any more "fair" than any other stage that gives certain characters advantages.

With stadium, it's not a problem being campy on the transformations, and it also doesn't force you to be campy. With Falcon approaching almost always puts you at a disadvantage, want to throw a cookie to him?

Every single one of your reasons to ban stadium is either bull**** or it's just johning about not being able to adapt to a stage...
FoD is ********, the only thing i like about it is the ceiling...

@Kao
Are you sure your not a Taj multi that he posts on when he gets wasted?

 

[pockyD]

**********

 

[pockyD]

a stage like hyrule indeed tests the players' skill 100%. the issue is that it mostly tests the skill of running in circles, which we as a community have subjectively decided should not be a key skill tested in competition

such is the nature of evaluating the 'skill' requirement on ANY stage... is reacting to a mountain as good of a skill as edgeguarding without a platform over your head?

this is pretty much how we all subconscously compare and evaluate stages

no stage can be said to require 'more skill' than the others... it's just different types of skill - some we deem important, others less so, and others not at all. A neutral stage should aim to primarily test the core skills while having a relatively low presence in forcing a reliance on the less important ones

 

[Strong Badam]

i'm not surprised pockyd didn't respond to my post, haha. =P

 

[FalseFalco]

@KAOSTAR: the criteria has always been to leave something "legal until proven broken" and it's a small jump to apply as "neutral until proven counterpick". The criteria for a neutral stage has never been stated but I can guarantee an agreeable criteria cannot be formed which includes the current 5, but excludes Pokemon.

This is one of the reasons why I'm questioning the movement of Pokemon to the counterpick list. So far the sole rationale for banning it has been to leave 5 stages for stage striking and that's blatant discrimination.

Thus an argument about how obstructive the changes of the map arises. I'd like to note that pokemon was neutral from something like 2003 to 2009. During that time I didn't hear a peep about how "disruptive" those two transformations were, only around 2008 did people start b!tching about it. I attribute this to a dwindling stage list leaving less and less to complain about until it gets as outrageous as present day where we are arguing over the impact of such minimal stage changes as FoD and Pokemon (yeah and make FD counterpick cause some characters are good on it! durrr).

The fact that we are arguing over this is an indication that skimming the stage list has been taken much too far. Stage striking was designed so your character doesn't get boned by the maps on round 1, and I would have thought this would have if anything LESSENED the amount people complain about maps.

All we are doing by skimming the list is appeasing the johners. It's a "that's cheap" attitude toward maps instead of movesets or playstyles. New players will easily jump on the bandwagon instead of taking the time to learn how to play on a map that changes. It's bad for the game and bad for the community.

tl;dr learn to play noobs

 

[pockyD]

i'm not surprised pockyd didn't respond to my post, haha. =P

I'm on my phone

if it wasn't a post from today though (meaninh I haven't read it), then it's fairly safe to assume I found it stupid or an uninteresting repetition of something already addressed

edit: i looked back and i couldn't find any relevant posts from you that would've demanded my attention

feel free to point me to it

 

[KAOSTAR]

KAOSTAR, the criteria has always been to leave something "legal until proven broken" and it's a small jump to apply as "neutral until proven counterpick". The criteria for a neutral stage has never been stated but I can guarantee an agreeable criteria cannot be formed which includes the current 5, but excludes Pokemon.

This is one of the reasons why I'm questioning the movement of Pokemon to the counterpick list. So far the sole rationale for banning it has been to leave 5 stages for stage striking and that's blatant discrimination.

Thus an argument about how obstructive the changes of the map arises. I'd like to note that pokemon was neutral from something like 2003 to 2009. During that time I didn't hear a peep about how "disruptive" those two transformations were, only around 2008 did people start b!tching about it. I attribute this to a dwindling stage list leaving less and less to complain about until it gets as outrageous as present day where we are arguing over the impact of such minimal stage changes as FoD and Pokemon (yeah and make FD counterpick cause some characters are good on it! durrr).

I think this discussion is an indication that skimming the stage list has been taken much too far. Stage striking was designed so your character doesn't get boned by the maps on round 1, and I would have thought this would have if anything lessed the amount people complain about maps.

All we are doing by skimming the list is appeasing the johners. It's a "that's cheap" attitude toward maps instead of movesets or playstyles. New players will easily jump on the bandwagon instead of taking the time to learn how to play on a map that changes. It's bad for the game and bad for the community.

tl;dr learn to play noobs

ive already addressed most of this or said it myself.

the point is that random is garbage. it can be manipulated. I actually can predict dreamland about 65 percent of the time

stage striking is more fair because its an agreement between the two parties.

you need an odd number for reasons previously stated. its also already been stated why you can't use the entire legal stage list.

the way i see it-you have to take away the least neutral or add the most neutral. imo taking off stadium is better than adding kongo. I think kongo promotes camping and allows fox to run away while also making it hard to edge guard.( not too good so not worth banning)

as far as neutrality, I think most people agree ps and fod are the least neutral (liked) of the "accepted" neutral stages. so one of them would go.

stadium isn't terrible or even that bad. but for the purposes of implementing a more fair first round choice it was moved to cp.

as is, ppl are familiar and comfortable on stadium because of its history as being neutral, but the same can't be said for kongo. it changes the status quo more to learn kongo then to not have ps as neutral. you don't have to un learn to play on stadium.

its still there, you can agree to go there, it is still often cp by fox players.

a few changes needed to be made for striking, if you can come up with a reason a different stage should be moved off neutral then ague that. idk how you can beat we needed an odd number so something is coming off. your best bet is to argue which stage stadium should replace.

hence the arguments about ps vs fod and random/level of disruption.

 

[pockyD]

@KAOSTAR: the criteria has always been to leave something "legal until proven broken" and it's a small jump to apply as "neutral until proven counterpick". The criteria for a neutral stage has never been stated but I can guarantee an agreeable criteria cannot be formed which includes the current 5, but excludes Pokemon.

the criteria is pretty much "the 5 most popularly agreed upon fairest stages"

and as long as you get the top 3 stages right, the other 2 don't even matter

This is one of the reasons why I'm questioning the movement of Pokemon to the counterpick list. So far the sole rationale for banning it has been to leave 5 stages for stage striking and that's blatant discrimination.

i don't think that word means what you think it means

Thus an argument about how obstructive the changes of the map arises. I'd like to note that pokemon was neutral from something like 2003 to 2009. During that time I didn't hear a peep about how "disruptive" those two transformations were, only around 2008 did people start b!tching about it. I attribute this to a dwindling stage list leaving less and less to complain about until it gets as outrageous as present day where we are arguing over the impact of such minimal stage changes as FoD and Pokemon (yeah and make FD counterpick cause some characters are good on it! durrr).

it's fairly natural that as players refine a certain set of skills, they prefer to play in environments where the impact of those skills is maximized

is this bad? maybe... but this is a discussion about NEUTRALITY, not LEGALITY. nothing's getting banned

the new stage select system (which btw I can't tell whether you think it's preferable to the old system of hitting 'random'; if you don't think so, maybe that's an issue you should try and tackle first) 'requires' a set of 5; thus, one stage necessarily had to be excluded. it could have been any of them (like i said, FCD removed battlefield, even though it wasn't even using stage striking, and was still one of the most successful tournaments of all time)... why stadium? why not?

The fact that we are arguing over this is an indication that skimming the stage list has been taken much too far. Stage striking was designed so your character doesn't get boned by the maps on round 1, and I would have thought this would have if anything LESSENED the amount people complain about maps.

All we are doing by skimming the list is appeasing the johners. It's a "that's cheap" attitude toward maps instead of movesets or playstyles. New players will easily jump on the bandwagon instead of taking the time to learn how to play on a map that changes. It's bad for the game and bad for the community.

i actually somewhat agree that the paring down of the CP system has gone too far, but that's beside the point

once again, 'neutrality' and 'legality' are wildly different conditions

if we accept that a CP stage is meant to give the CP-er an advantage, sometimes significant (since you want to legalize the more drastic stages), then that strongly implies that the stage used for game 1 must be as fair as possible, since a good percentage of the time, it will be deciding the outcome of the set (i'd guess that [with made up numbers] 95% of the time, the player that wins game 1 wins a Bo3 set, and that 75% of the time, a 2-1 set is won by the player that won game 1). Why should we compromise and include more stages for no reason? If anything, we should be removing stages [from the neutral list]! There should only be one! (and frankly it doesn't even matter what 'one'; it can be any stage from the 'legal' list, and it would be an equally fair setup)

 

[FalseFalco]

the criteria is pretty much "the 5 most popularly agreed upon fairest stages"

And it shouldn't be. We could have 50 neutral stages and stage striking would still give the players an agreeable map. Any player "uncomfortable" about forsee-able map changes which I've already shown do not and will never drastically affect the outcome of the match is either playing for the first time, or johns like a ho. Taking a map off the neutral list in order to get a particular number of maps is just plain unnecessary no matter how many weak-azz justifications are given.

as players refine a certain set of skills, they prefer to play in environments where the impact of those skills is maximized

Skill sets like combos with platforms, map control, edgeguarding and other things unique to smash bros? or did you mean reading, spacing, dragon punches and things you can find in 20 other traditional fighters? Sorry, I forgot what game we were playing.

the new stage select system (which btw I can't tell whether you think it's preferable to the old system of hitting 'random'; if you don't think so, maybe that's an issue you should try and tackle first) 'requires' a set of 5; thus, one stage necessarily had to be excluded. it could have been any of them (like i said, FCD removed battlefield, even though it wasn't even using stage striking, and was still one of the most successful tournaments of all time)... why stadium? why not?

Stage striking does not require 5 stages. Stage striking down to one map with 6 neutrals (or a million) leaves you in the worst case with your second most favoured map. If you aren't comfortable playing on at least 2 of your most favoured maps in any given matchup (and with any map list) then you need to learn how to play smash bros; not have the rules catered to you.

I've already given alternatives such as randoming with the last 2 maps, stage striking with 6, running through 6 neutrals until it's a 'fair' random, etc. On a side note, when has anyone strategically 'rigged' random? 9 times out of 10 you're called to a station you haven't been playing at already, and chances are if you're playing at that station beforehand you've played at least 6 matches before your actual set.

I hope my position is more clear now.

once again, 'neutrality' and 'legality' are wildly different conditions

So far the only thing wildly different about neutral map from a banned one is that MBR says there should be 5 of them.

You consider the same things about a map (map conditions, how broken a character might be on it, exploits of the map, etc.) when evaluating things for legality and for neutrality. You then decide what's 'fair' in both cases.

I am here to tell you that the current interpretation of 'fair' for a particular neutral (Pokemon) is way out of whack and I've given my reasons why. Evaluation of a stage (for both neutrality and legality) should be independent of any attempt to make it cater to some other rule. In the past it always has been (there have been tons of different map sets in the past). One 'fair' thing shouldn't depend on another.

i don't think that word means what you think it means

You be hatin cause I'm stylin all over you

 

[Pink Reaper]

Having an odd number of striking stages was necessary to not give too much power to any one player when striking stages. With six stages one player gets 3 bans, meaning they have more control over which stage gets played on. Not having PS results in a more fair first match, is there something unnecessary about that?

 

[FalseFalco]

Show me an example where stage striking with 6 completely bones a character in a matchup.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

a stage like hyrule indeed tests the players' skill 100%. the issue is that it mostly tests the skill of running in circles, which we as a community have subjectively decided should not be a key skill tested in competition

such is the nature of evaluating the 'skill' requirement on ANY stage... is reacting to a mountain as good of a skill as edgeguarding without a platform over your head?

this is pretty much how we all subconscously compare and evaluate stages

no stage can be said to require 'more skill' than the others... it's just different types of skill - some we deem important, others less so, and others not at all. A neutral stage should aim to primarily test the core skills while having a relatively low presence in forcing a reliance on the less important ones

Yep. The only thing i have to add is that hyrule is banned for a reason. There is a single strategy that is unbeatable.

I'm not sure how you can't react to a stage change without ignoring it. The screen literally flashes in the background for 10 seconds.

The skill of camping a location indefinitely is apparently a skill we test, seeing how we have an 8 minute timer, so i'm not sure how stadium's 1/4 transformation even changes the skillset of neutrals. FoD, on the other hand makes people fight more because its small, in fact making it more different than the other neutrals.

Also, you still haven't addressed this:

While you accuse me of ignoring half of the argument, you are ignoring half of the argument as well. I'm focusing on the random aspect and you're focusing on how fair the changes are.

What you're completely ignoring and have never once addressed is the fact that there are two types of fairness. One type is fair like a mountain comes out and you can "infinite" on it. The other is what i call competitively fair, when the result of the game is completely resultant on the players' skills.

You only want to judge based on the first type, while i am saying the only valid "fair" to consider when developing a ruleset is the second.

The thing is, floats has no reason to be banned and the only reason floats and cruise aren't neutrals is because there are more flat and 3 platform stages to group together to form the neutral list. If the game had been made with more stages like cruise and floats, we could be playing them on neutrals and the game would be no less fair. We would simply have a different tier list.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Stop bring the timer into this. the 8(or 7 depending on where you are) minute time limit is only so that matches HAVE to end, nothing more.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Different wording to mean that the currently-losing party must approach the currently-winning party. Except in our metagame, 8 minutes is almost impossible to reach even if you try to do it and the opponent doesn't really approach you.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I don't particularly like this idea, but its an idea.(plurals, just lazy)

use all 6 neutrals and roll a die, each stage corresponds to a number. so put a die at each setup. possibly but too much work imo.

use 6, strike down to two. flip a coin, or roll a die (even/odd)

the TO could roll a die for each round so the stages are all pre set (but random). other things need to be implemented.


I also don't know how this works with stage bans.

idk if you are suppose to ban after a loss or if you can ban a stage b4 first round. I think I could argue for either being fair.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

then u might as well just use MLG rules, random stage but 1 ban and 1 veto per player

 

[Eggm]

Scar's original neutrals only spoc rules were the best.

The one with all 6 neutrals and DK 64 + stage striking and those are the only stages. Period.

 

[Strong Badam]

I'd have preferred KJ64 be added to the stage striking than PS removed.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

inb4thatwonthappenbecauseEClikestostriketoBFeveryset

 

[FalseFalco]

adding stages? unheardof!

 

[john!]

Scar's original neutrals only spoc rules were the best.

The one with all 6 neutrals and DK 64 + stage striking and those are the only stages. Period.

that was def. my idea lol

i support this

why do we even have counterpicks anyway? real question. what's stopping us from just having a slightly larger neutral stage set? stage striking, imo, renders conterpicks obsolete.

 

[TheManaLord]

lets get rid of it all and just do fd. right?

 

[KAOSTAR]

I like scar's rule the best. why was it turned down.

current rules 2nd. I just could care less about cp stages. thats just a personal opinion without thought into how it impacts the game.


or why are the cp stages so valued. was it the stage diversity mbr was trying to protect?

 

[dudutsai]

Something that wasn't addressed in the opening post that happened at a tournament two days ago..

Halfway through the match, the TV goes off. Not having an official rule that people remembered, we restarted the match each time. This happened multiple times during the tournament, and we restarted each time. I remember a similar situation at a Canadian tournament between RaynEx and someone else.

Is there an official rule for situations like this?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think the official rule is to stop using the TV for tournament matches after it happens. CONGRATS YOUR TOURNAMENT JUST GAINED A FRIENDLIES TV!!!!

 

[Strong Badam]

if it isn't mentioned in the MBR Rule Set, then it's officially up to the TO to determine a ruling.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I thought it was if somebody remembered the percents and stock counts then you could start from there.

otherwise you would reset the game.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

the TV went off not the cube... unless i read it wrong

 

[dudutsai]

It was both.

 

[DJRome]

we ran into an incident this past weekend in which i played someone and lost game 1. game 2, i won. the opponent proceeded to take time away from the match. despite several attempts to finish the set, it still took 15 minutes to start game 3. by then, i had lost momentum and lost game 3. the to finally decided after deliberation that a new set be played. i won game 1 and lost games 2 and 3

what do you guys think? should the ruling be a forfeit by the opponent? a dq? rematch game 3 or the whole set? or just nothing?

 

[KAOSTAR]

well if you mean what should be don't if it happened again.

I think matches should be played immediately. once the set starts at least. in my book its a dq for stalling in between matches.

in your case you lost both sets so he may have just out played you the latter games. idk tho.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Theres no official rule though there is usually a 15 minute rule to show up for the match before you get DQ'd for stalling, so i think most TOs would agree a 15 minute stall between games in a set would be a DQ.

But since you agreed to replay the set and you lost the 2nd set, i would say you lost.

 

[Skler]

we ran into an incident this past weekend in which i played someone and lost game 1. game 2, i won. the opponent proceeded to take time away from the match. despite several attempts to finish the set, it still took 15 minutes to start game 3. by then, i had lost momentum and lost game 3. the to finally decided after deliberation that a new set be played. i won game 1 and lost games 2 and 3

what do you guys think? should the ruling be a forfeit by the opponent? a dq? rematch game 3 or the whole set? or just nothing?

How do you take time away from the match? Deliberately delaying the tournament is not allowed, especially because it makes running a tournament obnoxiously difficult. All tournaments should have a DQ rule based on time. It's usually somewhere around "if you aren't at the game within 5 minutes of being called you forfeit."

Between games is no exception, if you can't play your match within a reasonable amount of time you get DQed for delaying the tournament. DQ rules are completely up to the TO though, as different TOs have different ideas of how long you should have to reach your match.

 

[DJRome]

well replaying wasn't up to me. i wanted a dq but the to wouldn't give that

 

[Skler]

I'd take the issue up with the TO. Stalling results in forfeit, stalling in person is still stalling.

 

[Republican0fHeaven]

Yeah I think the stalling rule is more for the tournament's sake. You can't really blame momentum for losing the match. Gotta be prepared for NEthaing

 

[The Good Doctor]

Yeah I think the stalling rule is more for the tournament's sake. You can't really blame momentum for losing the match. Gotta be prepared for NEthaing

Way to bump a thread over a month idle....