MBR Official Ruleset Revisions

[Zankoku]

Well, with what ends up occurring, it's either an odd number of stages (six stages minus the one that got auto-struck, then technically starting with the losing player) or it's going to be down to the last stage that was played on plus one stage left unstruck (assuming you didn't force auto-strike of previous stage and neither player manually struck it later)...

iirc the "odd number rule" is attempting to negate the first strike advantage with the second player being able to have the final say on stage pick, but for the case of not forcing auto-strike, the second player is already essentially forcing the first player the choose between the previous stage and a counterpick stage, when he had had the option of simply forcing the counterpick stage.

Like, say game 1 was won on BF. Then it'll either be
BF FD YS PS FoD DL, P2 picks first
or
BF FD YS PS FoD DL, P1 picks first
If for some reason P2 did not force auto-strike, it stands to reason he wants BF to remain a possibility. There shouldn't be any logical reason to P1 now striking the stage he just won on, so progression should be similar...
BF FD YS PS FoD DL, P2 struck FD and PS, P1 struck (BF and) YS and FoD, DL is played.
OR
BF FD YS PS FoD DL, P1 struck YS and FoD, P2 struck FD and PS, P1 may select either BF or DL.
In both cases P2's proposed "counterpick" should be identical, and the only difference should be that P2 willingly gives P1 the choice of either P2's "counterpick" or returning to the previous stage.

Of course, to maintain this sort of balance, the stage list technically needs to have an odd number of both starters and counters, to ensure that the total number of stages is even. Conveniently, our current stage list does just that with 5 and 1.

 

[Skler]

I'd be super happy if we did strike for all.

It might be easier to just say "loser gets a bonus strike, and PS becomes a stage for striking for all games after game 1)." It basically allows for two bans that can be switched around, and produces matches that are very similar to the current system (loser still has an advantage in stage choice).

I think striking for all rounds except the first should go LWLWL (L for loser, W for winner). This also lets you get rid of DSR, because you can always just strike the stage they had won on previously. Not striking it means you're fine with them going back there.

I admit LWLWL does make the loser more powerful than going (W forced last stage)WLLW, but people might get really upset if you take away the "loser advantage."

 

[Zankoku]

Wait, we're doing WLLW now? I'd always been under the impression that we were just doing WLWL etc.

Also bonus strike would be silly because that's essentially implementing stage bans into stage striking.

 

[Deleted member]

I kind of dislike the "strike for all" if only because it encourages players to stay on the same stage for the set. I'm not sure that's worth anything as an argument though. Otherwise it's probably fine.

Frankly I think we should go back to 9 stages with 4 CPs like we had before. The lack of stage diversity takes away from any adaptive talent that goes into stage selection, and the list we had before wasn't really ruining anything results-wise. It's just kinda....stale.

Just IMO.

 

[Lovage]

adaptive talent for stage-selection lol i'll pass

edit: CP stages blow

 

[unknown522]

Yeah screw cp stages

 

[Skler]

I kind of dislike the "strike for all" if only because it encourages players to stay on the same stage for the set. I'm not sure that's worth anything as an argument though. Otherwise it's probably fine.

Frankly I think we should go back to 9 stages with 4 CPs like we had before. The lack of stage diversity takes away from any adaptive talent that goes into stage selection, and the list we had before wasn't really ruining anything results-wise. It's just kinda....stale.

Just IMO.

I dunno, if I just lost on Battlefield and think I don't stand a chance I might switch it up just because I can. If both players want Battlefield then yeah, that's all you'll get. I feel that's a good thing. The last tournament I went to 90% of my first games were on Battlefield or FoD, and that was fine by me because those are great stages. I don't think it's stale, I think it's fair.

I'd be cool with the 9 stage list if so many of those stages weren't ****. KJ64 is laser camping. Brinstar is Brinstar. Mute city is...less bad than those two. The only CP I actually think is worth bringing back is RC, but everyone else hates it. If you brought back Mute City and RC I think people wouldn't complain TOO much, but they'd be banned almost every set.

@aisight: I misread your post, you're right, it'd be (W)WLWL for all games but the first. Makes more sense that way.

 

[Cactuar]

CP stages are not up for discussion. They will not be added back in.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yoshi's Story 64 needs to come back.

 

[Skler]

Cactuar's avatar needs to be explained.

 

[unknown522]

CP stages are not up for discussion. They will not be added back in.

I wish I could like this post

 

[Lovage]

if umbreon's fevorite stage is mario stadium II, then my favorite stage is Corneria


dope music, interesting layout, spacies can do a special taunt there, etc

 

[Pink Reaper]

Mario Stadium 2, unlocked by KOing exactly 69 wireframes in Cruel Melee with Sonic

 

[Deleted member]

if umbreon's fevorite stage is mario stadium II, then my favorite stage is Corneria


dope music, interesting layout, spacies can do a special taunt there, etc

as much as you like bashing others' ideas without actually adding anything meaningful, i really don't think corneria is that bad.

there's a lot of questionable ideas in here. let me be perfectly clear:

the only point of a rule set is to act as a commonly accepted medium of competition. if every player in attendance considers hyrule temple a legitimate stage, it can be legal for that tournament.

anything past the premise of the rules being a commonly accepted medium of competition should be questioned immediately, particularly statements like "Instead, we say we want to choose the stages that, regardless of character choice, the players have equal opportunity to win." Well, no, that's just not true. It's not even feasible.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think how many viable characters and strategies there are in a particular ruleset is a good metric to judge that ruleset by. So far all I've heard is "we pick rules by what we want to measure skill by" which may sound good, but doesn't give any method to choose rules to pick. It has no metric, nothing to measure one ruleset against another in anything resembling a logical fashion.

 

[Strong Badam]

Your "metric" allows people to use the ruleset as an opportunity to balance the character roster. This is bad for obvious reasons (bias, subjectivity, balance not being measurable, etc.). Thankfully we're all logical here, otherwise I'd see really ******** things like hypothetical situations where Yoshi's Story would be a banned stage without stage bans within sets because of how good Ganondorf is on that stage.
Overcentralization, however, is something that we should indeed be looking to remove. But we already have, and we won't ever be re-introducing it, so it's a fairly useless thing to mention at this point.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Either you think you aren't biasing the metagame with every rule or you think its better to choose the rules arbitrarily without concern for their actual effects. If you aren't measuring in some way, then every choice is arbitrary. The best choice is to find as many metrics as possible and weigh the pros and cons, not disregard every metric.

 

[Strong Badam]

Calling things "arbitrary" doesn't accomplish anything, because any change or even not making any change is arbitrary. Don't Kal it up back here, it's a waste of my time.

I haven't disregarded every metric. The ones we currently use are fine. I just pointed out that yours are terrible.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

If you aren't basing your decision on anything, then it is by definition arbitrary. I am not saying everyone has the same opinion, but to do anything other than judge the effects and weigh the pros and cons is just foolish. If that is not what you are advocating, please say so.

Overcentralization is definitely a bad thing, I agree, but I don't think it is as black and white as you make it seem. If you really only saw the issue in black and white, you wouldn't think hyrule was bannable since fox doesn't have 100-0 matchups with the entire cast. Hyrule is banned because it is not "fair", as judged by inspection and experience of those in charge of the rules. Even if you can't measure something with a ruler, you can still compare it with other things of its type. Do not mistake subjectivity for arbitrarity.

Also, just because something can't be measured with a ruler, that doesn't mean properties of math and logic don't apply to it.

 

[Deleted member]

If you aren't basing your decision on anything, then it is by definition arbitrary. I am not saying everyone has the same opinion, but to do anything other than judge the effects and weigh the pros and cons is just foolish. If that is not what you are advocating, please say so.

It is what we are advocating. By changing the rules, we are naturally picking winners and losers. We do not pick these winners and losers, nor do we judge the effects of potential changes. We make the rules simply to foster what is deemed "competitive" play at any given point in time. For our time right now, that means a very restricted stage list, with restricted implications and restricted character viability. Is it arbitrary? That's debatable, but yes probably.

Our job in changing the rules this time is merely to prevent the issues that have come up in the last two months. Realistically, this could be solved by recommending the TOs to be more vigilant and forceful with their rulings, but it's probably the better solution to make it more explicit to take a stance on splitting and forfeiting and all that. We don't need to do anything else at this point.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

It is what we are advocating. By changing the rules, we are naturally picking winners and losers. We do not pick these winners and losers, nor do we judge the effects of potential changes. We make the rules simply to foster what is deemed "competitive" play at any given point in time. For our time right now, that means a very restricted stage list, with restricted implications and restricted character viability. Is it arbitrary? That's debatable, but yes probably.

ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Adjective
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

So are you advocating method or random whims? Do you honestly believe there isn't even a loose methodology to how the rules have been created? What are rules that "foster competitive play"? How is that any different than a subjective "competitive fairness"? How do we know it fosters competitive play unless we look at what the effects of the decision are?

I don't know about you, but the decisions for my rules have been anything but whimsical. I have spent many hours thinking about and discussing how each change would affect the metagame and such. This thread itself wouldnt exist if people didn't care about some sort of progression.


I do want to focus on one quote in particular:

"By changing the rules, we are naturally picking winners and losers. We do not pick these winners and losers, nor do we judge the effects of potential changes."

Does that mean you make choices without considering all the potential effects? I think not. As you said, every rule change affects the outcome. To ignore how the rules will change the outcome would be foolish.


I am really baffled by you right now, and how you are willfully opposing logical decision making. I am hoping I am misreading something somewhere.


edit-
and I think this discussion reaches farther than anti-splitting rules. There have been many suggested changes recently.

 

[Pink Reaper]

I need to verify something, because honestly im not 100% certain i understand anything you just wrote.

Are you saying we should be making rules based on how those rules will affect individual characters and their metagames?

Real question.

 

[Deleted member]

sveet i'm out of conviction for this type of stuff, i made my stance pretty clear. it is not our job to balance the game, we simply want tournaments to run smoothly. you're making this way more difficult than it needs to be.

you seem interested in this stuff, try project m or sd remix. they're actually looking for this type of help iirc. it's not really the place of the MBR to push any kind of agenda.

i'm not trying to discourage your critical thinking, but it's really not what we're going for in this particular instance. that is, unless choking inui has something to do with rebalancing characters.

 

[Zankoku]

If Fox wasn't such a good character Inui never would've been choked by Unknown.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

sveet i'm out of conviction for this type of stuff, i made my stance pretty clear. it is not our job to balance the game, we simply want tournaments to run smoothly. you're making this way more difficult than it needs to be.

you seem interested in this stuff, try project m or sd remix. they're actually looking for this type of help iirc. it's not really the place of the MBR to push any kind of agenda.

i'm not trying to discourage your critical thinking, but it's really not what we're going for in this particular instance. that is, unless choking inui has something to do with rebalancing characters.

For me, this discussion has a real purpose, it is not simply academic. I have not said balance the list, that would imply choosing stages for their best strategy or character. I am preaching along the lines of equal opportunity, choose stages based on how many characters/strategies can perform on equal footing.

I think I understand where you are coming from. "anything past the premise of the rules being a commonly accepted medium of competition should be questioned immediately". But this is just circular logic, saying that all choices are completely arbitrary, and that is frankly not true. The fact that we have any discussion on the matter is proof of that.