MBR Recommended SL+RS Discussion

[Cactuar]

Why should consideration for low tiers be given? They are an uber minority of the matchups played at any given tournament.

Also, I am cactus. Of course I'm calling falcon a low tier.

 

[Marc]

Motion to remove Captain Falcon from the metagame.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Why wouldn't consideration for low tiers be given? You label them "low tiers" but refer to like "underplayed characters". While i agree that they may be the minority of tournament match-ups, I don't see why low tiers should actually be blatantly ignored simply because they are unpopular. Some characters are serious parts of the metagame, such as falcon. To a lesser extent you also see ganondorfs, docs, pikachus and samuses. I would like to see a tournament where there wasn't at least one of these characters played. More likely there is at least one in the top 10. Kage in canada, Axe in AZ, Rat in IL, Duck in MI, Shroomed in CA, Linguini in FL, the list goes on.

 

[Cactuar]

Viable vs non-viable. Players using low tiers are accepting the challenges of playing that character. It is a waste of time to try and balance a game around non-viables. There are always outlier players who will progress a character to that point, but the issue is that they are generally in the low low single digits (1 or 2). We are not going to balance a stage list around individual players.

 

[Strong Badam]

lol honestly though, the less janky/odd stages there are the better bad characters will be. e.g. only random ones like Pikachu have mobility enough to traverse stages like Rainbow Cruise well. the closer we are to a YS/BF/FD/FoD/DL/PS only ruleset the less bull**** stage-wise those characters will have to deal with. as much as I love CPing Brinstar in like 2 or 3 match-ups, it's almost negated by the fact that SOME people think that Brinstar/RC "balance" each other (even though RC is way more bull****) and have to either be illegal or legal together.
it's whatever

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Viable vs non-viable. Players using low tiers are accepting the challenges of playing that character. It is a waste of time to try and balance a game around non-viables. There are always outlier players who will progress a character to that point, but the issue is that they are generally in the low low single digits (1 or 2). We are not going to balance a stage list around individual players.

I just disagree with assuming that RC and Brinstar balance each other out just by looking at the peach vs fox matchup

 

[Cactuar]

Gonna reword this.

You are changing your argument significantly because your prior argument is a failure or you don't know where else to go with it. Stating "you just" and dropping your position to pursue a different one is telling me that I'm wasting my time because you aren't spending enough of it to fully think it through. Please don't do that. If you do want to segue between arguments, close your previous one properly. I am not the end all and be all of opinion. I want to know your stance after reading and comprehending my argument so that I can reflect on it as well. As is, you quoted my statement and didn't actually address it at all.

Peach vs Fox in particular, I feel that Fox benefits from RC, but, as with everything, that is an opinion. I feel that Fox already has a slight advantage vs Peach based on neutrals. The advantage gained from rainbow cruise is minor, while the disadvantage added by Brinstar is major, creating a middle point between ad/disad. Hence the bundle.

Keep in mind that there being a middle point does not indicate that the stages are fair for competitive play.

I'm going to play vs Peach on BS and RC a bunch tonight to feel it out. I'll update on the morrow. I am delaying releasing this to continue this discussion for as long as you all feel it is necessary.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

My original statement was something along the lines of "some characters are good on all stages" which, in hind sight is a poorly worded argument. For the most part, I thought we were keeping this discussion fairly light so i tried to steer clear of this monotone beast that i choose when doing somewhat formal debate.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you are saying a) RC and Brinstar balance each other out and are linked in such a way that removing one requires removal of the other and b) consideration will not be made for "low tiers" when determining the rule-set since they are "non-viable".

For a) i have given an example where this is not true. Namely, Capt. Falcon who is very good on both stages. You then submit argument b) and quickly lump falcon into the category of "low tier". Since my argument against a) revolves around the outcome of b) i addressed that and will expand upon it now.

The key word in this issue is "viable". A quick google search on the word gets me the definition "Capable of working successfully; feasible". By this definition I would definitely say characters such as falcon are viable, because they are capable of winning tournament matches and tournaments. At MIST I watched one of IL's star Falcons, ORLY, beat one of the best players there, a Fox/Falco/Sheik player named Matt. At that same tournament I watched a Ganondorf player tear his way through the bracket and get 2nd place. "Capable of working successfully"... definitely.

You also said you didn't want to balance the rule-set around individual players, and thus low tier characters with only 1 or 2 players should be disregarded. To an extent i agree, but that is neither here nor there. Falcon is not a low tier character by this definition either as there are plenty of falcon players at all skill levels. The same is true for basically every character ranked ~12 and above. On the current tier list that is approximately where pikachu/samus is.

tl;dr falcon is not a low tier character and is an exception to the brinstar/rc balance rule.

 

[Slhoka]

Alright, so I managed to go through your proposition Cactus.

Regarding the stages... I'm still thinking that we should only have 6 stages (BF/DL64/FD/FoD/PS/YS), either in a 5 starters + 1 CP (PS) or better, 6 starters and no counterpicks with a gentleman's clause or a random selection to choose between the right two stages.
But I won't go further into details, as most of the pros and cons of every stagelist has already been discussed. Also it doesn't matter that much since this ruleset is a recommendation.

I'm just gonna nitpick a bit for some other things.

Regarding the port selection :
I'd sort the list of neutral ports according to the name of the stage, not of the port. If a player looks for it, he's gonna search the stage first.

What if a sudden death happens because of a kirbycide/koopa claw ? (I'm not sure it's possible with the koopa klaw, though, I pretty much always die first when I do it )

What about controversial topics like wobbling ? Or simply stalling ? Maybe we should add something saying these kind of decisions are up to the TO.

Should we add something about controller modifications ?
And by the way, I don't know how much it has been discussed around here, but what do you guys think of the trigger trick ? Same for this thing where you cut the directional stick to do better DIs (the one Manacloud used to rip people off )

 

[Cactuar]

@Sveet: Thanks for elaborating!

1) My Falcon statement was a joke. Falcon is obviously not a low tier. While he does better than Fox/Falco on Brinstar, Sheik, Peach, and Puff all do better than him there (imo). I think Falco and Fox both do better than Falcon on RC, putting Falcon in the middle, not making him an exception as you seem to be presenting.

2) Falcon jokes aside, saying I'm not balancing around low tiers is slightly inaccurate. I'm balancing around the top/high tiers, probably down to the #6 spot. Marth sucks on pretty much every counterpick stage, so I tend to exclude him from discussions involving counterpicks. I don't have enough experience with ICs to make relevant judgments on the topic.

@slhoka: Those are good points. I would rather have the 6 neutrals honestly, but including Pokemon Stadium just gives a freebie to spacies.

I don't know what you mean by changing the sort of the port boxes. Do you mean changing the location of that box to accompany the stage list or actually change the way the box is organized? You are more than welcome to edit that kind of thing in lol.

I would probably make kirbycide/koopaclaw endings force a 1 stock replay honestly, but others might vote that a kirbycide/koopaclaw means win for the suicider(kirby/bowser). It would need discussion, but I don't think it is important.

Wobbling is intentionally left out. Again, this is something I would ban if I was forced to include something, but it is a TO decision.

Stalling is also a TO discretion item. I don't think there have been any cases of extreme match stalling in recent history have there?

Controller mods... the trigger trick is not really a mod. I don't know that the manacloud mod actually works. Aside from macros and such, general controller modding doesn't affect gameplay enough to be considered (unless the manacloud thing does work, in which case it is extending the options of a character beyond what is actually possible with the standard controller and should be banned).

 

[ArcNatural]

Controller mods... the trigger trick is not really a mod. I don't know that the manacloud mod actually works. Aside from macros and such, general controller modding doesn't affect gameplay enough to be considered (unless the manacloud thing does work, in which case it is extending the options of a character beyond what is actually possible with the standard controller and should be banned).

From what I know Manacloud's Mod works. The housing of the control stick prevents the stick from certain positions, his mod basiccally gave more range (I believe it was simply by filing the housing to being more circular). TBH I don't really see whats wrong with it (never done it), I do believe they started doing it as a way to make new controllers feel broken in much faster (we wear the housing down over time). As long as it's made public knowledge I don't see a problem with this mod.

As for the trigger trick, do you mean depressing it so that when you start the game it acts with no light shield? Or do you mean removing the spring. Either one I'm fine with really, just wanted clarification.

 

[Slhoka]

@slhoka: Those are good points. I would rather have the 6 neutrals honestly, but including Pokemon Stadium just gives a freebie to spacies.

Wobbling is intentionally left out. Again, this is something I would ban if I was forced to include something, but it is a TO decision.

Fair enough

I don't know what you mean by changing the sort of the port boxes. Do you mean changing the location of that box to accompany the stage list or actually change the way the box is organized? You are more than welcome to edit that kind of thing in lol.

I merely meant this :

Spoiler

Stage|Port 1|Port 2|Port 3|Port 4
BF|||*|*
DL||*||*
FD|*|*
FoD|*|*
PS|||*|*
YS|*|*

I assume this ruleset will often be copy pasted by TOs, and be used by players at tournaments so choose their ports. Ordering the stages this way makes it easier to find the stage you're looking for.
It doesn't change much considering how many stages we have, but as I said in my previous post, I'm nitpicking.

I would probably make kirbycide/koopaclaw endings force a 1 stock replay honestly, but others might vote that a kirbycide/koopaclaw means win for the suicider(kirby/bowser). It would need discussion, but I don't think it is important.

Let's get rid of it by saying it's up to the TO to decide ?

Stalling is also a TO discretion item. I don't think there have been any cases of extreme match stalling in recent history have there?

Nah, it seems that Tero didn't play that much recently.

Controller mods... the trigger trick is not really a mod. I don't know that the manacloud mod actually works. Aside from macros and such, general controller modding doesn't affect gameplay enough to be considered (unless the manacloud thing does work, in which case it is extending the options of a character beyond what is actually possible with the standard controller and should be banned).

I'm not sure if the Bananaclown thing actually works. If it doesn't, I'm really impressed by him. He'd really be top tier on the scam list.
But yeah, if it works it should be banned.

However for the trigger trick, I'd tend to be fine with it. But the only time I tried, I was able to powershield pretty much everything all of a sudden. Considering I'm absolutely aweful at powershielding (except vs Samus), I really saw that as a big help, and I think that if we don't ban it, we should encourage people doing it.

@ ArcNatural : your first supposition is correct.

 

[Cactuar]

I would ban manacloud's mod if it improves the ability to DI by allowing you to DI further in a direction, but if it just makes it feel nicer, then it doesn't matter much.

I sorted it by port because it was visually pleasing. I originally had it sorted alphabetically. It doesn't matter much either way.

 

[Strong Badam]

what about DK cargocide with a cargo dthrow at the blast zone? it seems to be determined by port in my experience (I could do some tests later) though I wouldn't be surprised if it were determined by character size and animation. Sometimes I get sudden death, sometimes I lose, sometimes I win.

On Manacloud's mod: There are cases where perpendicular DI is suboptimal because of the octagonal nature of the control stick housing, and going into a nearby notch is more optimal (more absolute distance from the original trajectory). I'd seriously doubt it'd ever make a significant difference. I also doubt there are any controller mods out there that would cause a worse player to beat a better player, so IMO it's pretty silly to mention.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I believe the manacloud trick only influences SDI, and as such is very minor. I have no issues with it.

As for DK's cargo, i believe its based on animation and character sizes; whoever enters the blastzone first loses. If they enter on the same frame its a tie.

For suicides in general, I think we should make the rule part of our standard. It is something so minor that making it up to the TOs will more than likely cause them to inadvertently not specify; it'd be better to just have a rule and if they disagree they can change it. My vote is that the suicider wins, though its really not that big of an issue either way.

 

[Strong Badam]

what i want to know is who gets to post the thread this time?!
dibz if i can call dibz

also I just noticed Jungle Japes is on the doubles stage list o_O why is that cactus?

 

[Cactuar]

Because no one has said anything otherwise. I have pointed this out several times now.

Also, there is no dibz.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

is it just whoever copy pastes it first? :D

 

[Cactuar]

Its more like:
Cactus did all the actual work involved in putting the new ruleset together, so he gets to pick.

 

[Strong Badam]

anyway I was asking for your justification for Jungle Japes, lol. it'd help me understand and perhaps argue against it if I knew.

 

[Cactuar]

The biggest issues with Jungle Japes are the claptrap, the HIGH AS **** ceiling, and the way it promotes camping. In teams, camping strategies are not nearly as effective as in singles. If a team goes to Jungle Japes playing Marth+Marth (or any duo of characters that has no answer for projectile induced camping weakness), they deserve to lose. Most team compositions will have ways to counter camping.

The claptrap is highly situational, but in my opinion promotes play that is aggressive towards getting the opponent into the water for as much time as possible, as well as reduces ledgestalling options by threatening with a stock loss.

The extremely high ceiling also encourages play towards killing the opponent off the bottom or sides.

Control of the right side of the stage is valued over control of the left due to water flow.

On stage, there are no random variables to account for.

Overall, I don't really see anything wrong the the stage for teams. Anyone care to counter/discuss?

 

[Teczer0]

I more or less agree. Its interesting because I sorta feel that camping is kind of a weak strategy on this stage. Having your partner get double teamed and then having to help your partner from one of the side platforms on this stage places you at a disadvantage.

The klaptrap also only hits characters from in between the middle giant portion of the stage and the side platforms.

I personally like it. Seeing something new in this day and age to me is actually kinda refreshing.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yeah this is one of those stages that I think are fine in teams.


You might want to limit the number of neutrals that can be banned in teams if you are giving multiple bans, though

 

[Strong Badam]

I'll test out the ruleset at my college's monthly and see how things go. Not going to bother with neutral start & those things, but the stage lists and some other things I plan to use

 

[Cactuar]

@Sveet: I think limiting neutral bans to one per team is actually a really good idea. I will add that in when I get a chance.

Each team has two bans. Teams may ban up to one neutral stage, allowing them to ban one neutral and one CP, or up to two CPs.

@Strong Bad: Does Jungle Japes make sense now?

 

[Slhoka]

I gave it some more thoughts and I came up with the following points :

• Matches that time out will be determined by the remaining number of lives, then percentage of the current stock. In the event of a percentage tie, the match should be replayed in full. Sudden Death is not to be played, and will not count.

I would make explicit that the game has to be replayed with the same characters on the same stage.
Also, I know I discussed this with Boback and Sheridan this summer, but assuming this tied game isn't the last of the set, couldn't we just give one win to both players ? It may be something that will never happen, but the first game of Armada-Hungrybox came close to it, and I'm pretty sure that not many people would have wanted another one like that (not to mention it would have saved a huge amount of time).

What is our aim with this ruleset ? Right now, it mixes actual rules, advices for TOs and orders for players, and it doesn't really feel homogeneous.
In my opinion, it should be a basic ruleset that TOs can copy and tweak a bit to post in their tournament thread. The advices, regardless of for who they are, should be separated from it, even if they are in the same thread.

With this idea in mind, I would add two sections, named "pools" and "brackets", in which would be the explanation for the ranking within the pools and the seeding in the bracket, as well as the details regarding the length of each set.

I would also not use a numbered list for the player recommendations, since the other list isn't numbered.

 

[Cactuar]

Who would get to choose the counterpick in that case? Would they have to strike to a stage? How does DSR apply to that?

I don't really like the idea of giving a win to both parties, but if you want to really explain the pro vs cons of doing something like that, I'm more than willing to think it out.

 

[Strong Badam]

@Strong Bad: Does Jungle Japes make sense now?

Yeah. I just wanted to hear your thoughts/justification behind it; my only real issue with it (which isn't really an issue) is that most TO's will probably leave out Jungle Japes just because it's been gone for so long. Not 100% sure on it but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

How does this ruleset deal with sudden deaths from things other than a timer? If two players die on the same frame, however rare that may be, sudden death will activate. Should it be the player with the lower percent wins or should the match be replayed?


Sorry if this is already in the ruleset i will be honest i didnt check before this post

 

[Slhoka]

Who would get to choose the counterpick in that case? Would they have to strike to a stage? How does DSR apply to that?

I don't really like the idea of giving a win to both parties, but if you want to really explain the pro vs cons of doing something like that, I'm more than willing to think it out.

The main pro is simply that it saves time.
I didn't really think about counterpick and DSR, but I guess that some sort of neutral stage selection (another stage striking procedure) could work.

How does this ruleset deal with sudden deaths from things other than a timer? If two players die on the same frame, however rare that may be, sudden death will activate. Should it be the player with the lower percent wins or should the match be replayed?


Sorry if this is already in the ruleset i will be honest i didnt check before this post

I think the game should be replayed (or both players should get a win). Why should be reward the player who was less efficient to kill his opponent (he had higher percent) ?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I dont see why both players would get a win though... seems very artificial since neither player had even won.

 

[Cactuar]

If both players die at the same time, it was supposed to be a 1 stock match on the same stage, but it could be argued to a full match replay. The more I think about giving both players a win, the worse an idea it seems to be.

 

[Slhoka]

The more I think about giving both players a win, the worse an idea it seems to be.

Actually, so do I. I just gave the idea like that, as it would have been very convenient for a TO.

 

[Strong Badam]

yeah it just seems like a meh way to turn a Best of 5 into a Best of 3/a Best of 3 into a Best of 1 :/

 

[Cactuar]

I'm releasing this tomorrow as a beta. I'm going to be openly fielding questions/concerns from the community and asking for feedback from players and TOs. As such, if anyone from the general population has a legit suggestion or provides sufficient evidence behind a disagreement, I have no problem with modifying the ruleset. Nothing is concrete. I fully encourage any of you to actively participate and help spot useful comments. If I happen to miss it, feel free to PM me and point it out.