MBR's Reasoning on the Stage List

[MT_]

Can someone post the discussions that the MBR have had to determine the MBR official stage list? The MBR Official Ruleset has significant influence on many tournaments but the reasoning for their rules haven't been published (to my knowledge). The stage list is particularly controversial. I feel that the MBR's influence on the smash community is simply too big to just allow them to post a standardizing ruleset without clearly outlining the reasoning behind their decisions.

 

[Pogogo]

What stage to you want added/banned? Then u can have tons of nubs comment and give there random opinions.

 

[Kal]

The problem is that, whenever we tournament organizers don't want to ban something, the scrubby scrubs run up to us and spout some bull **** about how unfair the stages are. When we explain to them that they're just being scrubby scrubs, and that there is no real proof that the stages are broken, they either respond with some absurd "it should be player vs. player not player vs. player vs. stage" argument, an argument about standardizing gameplay which makes absolutely no sense, or finally an appeal to authority: that we should follow the MBR ruleset.

MT has the right idea here. We shouldn't just take for granted that the MBR ruleset is reached fairly; they should provide some sort of explanation, outside of just voting results, for why they've chosen the released ruleset.

 

[Cactuar]

Lol. Scrubby scrubs.

 

[Strong Badam]

those scrubs
they are so scrubby

 

[Divinokage]

I love that we are supposed to be the illuminati of smash or something like that lol. Definitely conspiracy going on in the MBR. Just btw.. we definitely take into account what everyone says to some extent. lol.

 

[Massive]

Most official MBR releases are heavily peer reviewed, refined, and then determined by a vote.

Their decisions are really just the prevailing opinions of a sample of the most knowledgeable melee players.

 

[Stevo]

the scrubby scrubs want answers!

 

[MT_]

I love that we are supposed to be the illuminati of smash or something like that lol. Definitely conspiracy going on in the MBR. Just btw.. we definitely take into account what everyone says to some extent. lol.

I'm not trying to say anything like the MBR are superior decision makers or anything of the sort. But it is undeniable that the MBR Official Ruleset does set some sort of standard for the smash community when it comes to hosting tournaments and determining their own ruleset. All I want to see is the discussions that the MBR have had with regard to the more controversial stages, namely:

Brinstar
Corneria
Green Greens
Jungle Japes
Kongo Jungle
Mute City
Poke Floats
Rainbow Cruise

I know some stages are more radical than the others (comparing Poke Floats/Green Greens are more on one end of the spectrum than Rainbow Cruise/Brinstar) but I think it's important that the discussions be opened to the community, or at least a somewhat detailed summary of both sides of the argument (ban/allow).

I'm assuming the MBR does discuss the stages. I'm hoping that they don't just vote and then publish the vote results. (I have no idea how the MBR works lol)


Edit: And I think the MBR should also release some sort of statement about what sort of standard they are using to determine what is banned and what isn't. From the current stage list, it seriously just looks like a compromise between people that only want to play on the 5-6 neutrals and people that want to support having a variety of stages to play on.

 

[KishPrime]

The MBR is a group of largely well-reasoned individuals who make logical arguments, but individual opinions about how the game "should" be played are still the primary driver in most decision making. You can't logically resolve the difference in philosophical approaches to the game, thus there is no unifying ruleset philosophy.

I fought against an MBR stagelist since forever because I thought it would lead to exactly your problem, but there it is. The fact is, the smaller the community gets, the more devoted they get to what "they" want, the more single-minded "us vs. the world" the mentality gets, and there's going to be a coalescing of philosophies. That's where we are right now. New players aren't coming in because they're picking up a new game. More or less, everyone knows what they want and what they don't. Most people who are left have put a lot of time into the game, and I suspect that a good number of these same people subconsciously want to use and show off the skills that they've developed at least as much as they want to actually play the game of Melee.

I still should post my No Johns ruleset. Meh. Just haven't had the time to spend enjoying the topic to want to post it up. I already more or less wrote it with justifications.

 

[Massive]

There was a poll taken for each stage back in 2007 to try to make the game as balanced as possible before brawl was released.

This data is visible as the pre-brawl melee backroom is actually archived and viewable by all at the bottom of the forums.

Here are the links to the stages you asked about:

Brinstar
Corneria
Green Greens
Jungle Japes
Kongo Jungle
Mute City
Poke Floats
Rainbow Cruise

Additionally, here is a link to a discussion I believe led to our current stage-striking setup.

As for the more recent decisions of the MBR, I cannot speak for them (I'm not in the backroom, after all), but I assume their discussions were along similar lines. There had been talk of de-privatizing more recent closed threads on the MBR, but I suspect that sentiment is not widely shared or those measures have not yet been implemented.

I hope that answers some questions at least.

edit: More stage-banning debate.

 

[Kal]

Of course, I'm not denying that discussion is had, or that the people in the MBR are necessarily unqualified. I'm simply pointing out that we don't want to just take the MBR's word for it when it comes to a ruleset. For a tier list, I don't think it's an issue, but when it's directly impacting which stages are legal, and when the MBR ruleset must be followed in order for your tournament to have a decent turnout, I think it's only fair.

Thanks Massive for posting those links.

And KishPrime, what you've mentioned is essentially why I dislike the idea of an MBR ruleset. Getting together and making a tier list is fine, but I think the ruleset should be left up to the community. MBR tries to account for this by suggesting that their ruleset is just a set of "guidelines," but in practice it's necessary for a tournament to follow it pretty closely in order to be regarded as "legit."

I would like to see your "no johns" ruleset. My guess is that it's pretty conservative in terms of banning stages, i.e., that the more "controversial" stages are left unbanned.

 

[KishPrime]

Yeah, you can even see me post a lot in those links above. Back then, a lot more of us were around that thought the stages were almost as integral to Melee as characters.

Maybe I'll post it up later today.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

There was a poll taken for each stage back in 2007 to try to make the game as balanced as possible before brawl was released.

This data is visible as the pre-brawl melee backroom is actually archived and viewable by all at the bottom of the forums.

Here are the links to the stages you asked about:

Brinstar
Corneria
Green Greens
Jungle Japes
Kongo Jungle
Mute City
Poke Floats
Rainbow Cruise

Additionally, here is a link to a discussion I believe led to our current stage-striking setup.

As for the more recent decisions of the MBR, I cannot speak for them (I'm not in the backroom, after all), but I assume their discussions were along similar lines. There had been talk of de-privatizing more recent closed threads on the MBR, but I suspect that sentiment is not widely shared or those measures have not yet been implemented.

I hope that answers some questions at least.

edit: More stage-banning debate.

Funny because I was reading that Cornelia thread right before I went to this thread.

 

[Kal]

Yeah Kish, I feel that people are forgetting that it's unfair to force personal preference on other players. The entire reason for minimal banning is to prevent unjustified limitations on gameplay; what some people find fun, other's don't, and so banning only things which are provably broken gives everyone as much opportunity as possible to play as they like.

Part of the problem, I think, is the way we've practiced Melee for the past half-decade. We've played friendlies exclusively on "neutral" stage (though it's more appropriate to call them "starter" stages), and so whenever we would lose on a counterpick stage in tournament, our immediate response was to call the stage "janky" and complain about its unfairness, rather than to simply learn the stage. This probably doesn't apply as much to top players, but for the overwhelming majority of the community, this is certainly true, and I feel this influences the tendency for most players to want these stages banned.

For example, at a recent tournament I beat a Peach of close skill to myself on Brinstar with Marth. Conversely, I feel the rest of the city, were they to lose to this Peach player on Brinstar, would respond by simply calling the win "unfair" or surmising that the stage is "janky," without even considering whether they exercised the appropriate strategy during the matchup, or whether the opponent was simply the better player.

I even see players make this sort of leap in logic with regards to beating better players. If a better play ever loses to a worse one on a non-neutral stage, they attribute it to the stage. But rarely do they do this for stages like FD and Battlefield. This happened at a local tournament as well, where I lost to a drastically worse player by losing the first match on FD, then the third match on RC. The player actually had the gall to claim that RC is unfair because it cost me the set, as though the loss on FD were completely irrelevant.

 

[KishPrime]

It's been the same way since 2004. Though back then, the case was being made that it should be FD-only, no items. Same philosophical split, though.

STAY OUT OF MY COMBOS, YOU STAGE

 

[Kal]

I think there is at least some valid, not necessarily sound, argument to be made in favor of banning items (particularly the "random vs. bad random" concept I've see put forth). I do agree though that there's been a trend since 2004 to pretend that the way the majority wants to play is the way the game "should" be played.

If it were up to me, I'd ban Falco. **** that little blue bird.

 

[KishPrime]

If it were up to me, I'd ban Falco. **** that little blue bird.

I'm not taking you seriously, but this is, in fact, the way most people seem to make their stage decisions.

But yeah, here majority does rule. That's kind of how these things work in independent communities. Doesn't mean they're more "right" than anyone else about how to play the game, but that's just realistic. You want people to go to tournaments.

 

[Kal]

At the same time, I would prefer to maintain the game's integrity. I suppose it's a question of whether you are willing to sacrifice attendance for fairness. I do feel that convincing people to read "Playing to Win" and just educating them about these issues at least helps minimize the bias, which is why I'm disinclined to use a ruleset just because the majority wants it. That is part of your responsibility as a tournament organizer. To quote 1776, and make a completely absurd analogy (in terms of degree) between this and the Congressional vote for American independence: "a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."

I suppose a tournament organizer isn't really a representative, so maybe I should avoid quoting musicals for argument.

 

[KishPrime]

I fought all my battles for something similar to that reasoning, but the "integrity of the game" is kind of a meaningless concept when the game itself gives you so many options and there's no actual authority.

My personal concept dug back to "preserve as much of the original game as possible in a competitive setting." Because I like Melee.

I posted my No Johns ruleset for you. Good work - I was being very lazy about it. Now we'll see if anyone reads the massive wall of text or cares at all.

Oh also, most people aren't interested high-minded ideals and idealogical warfare, they just want to play what they like.

 

[Cactuar]

I'm just going to make up a whole new ruleset.

GaW is the only legal character.

Why?

Why not.

 

[KishPrime]

Cactuar gets it.

 

[Cactuar]

That's why they give me the big $$$'s.

**

 

[Jolteon]

I'm just going to make up a whole new ruleset.

GaW is the only legal character.

Why?

Why not.

This is genius.

 

[Kal]

G&W only sounds like an awesome tournament. First one to L-Cancel bair wins.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Isn't the stage list just recommended and TO's can still do what they want?

 

[Kal]

Technically, yes, but at the very least it's arguable that going against the MBR ruleset can very negatively effect turnout.

 

[Strong Badam]

yes. but make a stagelist including PokeFloats/Green Greens outside of the MW this day and age and you'll get a ****ty turnout

 

[DoH]

Has anyone ever actually tried to do so? No, people capitulate to the whining of the community who hasn't even played on half the stages they want banned outside of a handful of tournament matches. So many tournaments I see have originally posted "liberal" rulesets but then two people complain and the host's balls shrivel up and they default to whatever the "current standard" is.

Grow a pair TOs.

 

[KishPrime]

Grow a pair TOs.

Or even a triad.

 

[Kal]

In my defense, Landon, the tournament I ran wasn't really mine, so I didn't have much of a choice. =/

However, I think I will use Kish's ruleset for the next tournament.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Technically, yes, but at the very least it's arguable that going against the MBR ruleset can very negatively effect turnout.

Depends on the people I would assume.

I dunno why people would get so mad over a local for running a different ruleset.

 

[DoH]

It's a recommended ruleset, you aren't obligated to use it, etc

 

[Roneblaster]

sample of the most knowledgeable melee players.

Debateable.

MBR ruleset is the single biggest influence any TO can be under.

I hate to be so blunt, but if you disagree, youre wrong. That doesnt mean the TO has to do mbr rules, but they must take them into account when make the rules. They must also know going against MBR rules will have consequences 99% of the time, even if its as simple as one car of people decide not to come.

 

[Massive]

Debateable.

MBR ruleset is the single biggest influence any TO can be under.

I hate to be so blunt, but if you disagree, youre wrong. That doesnt mean the TO has to do mbr rules, but they must take them into account when make the rules. They must also know going against MBR rules will have consequences 99% of the time, even if its as simple as one car of people decide not to come.

This isn't brawl, the ruleset is not enforced with yellow cards or other league silliness.

I've yet to encounter a melee tournament where the TO was so anal about the rules that gameplay was impeded. I don't think allowing or disallowing some random stage would be a deal-breaker, especially since most people go to a tournament based on how close it is and who else is going. I doubt anyone will really care what stages are allowed, as long as they are still able to play on the familiar ones they're used to.

A lot of people I've run into don't even care if you do stage striking or the old random pick either. Hell, most people would prefer to just play on FD or Battlefield if you ask them. It's not a huge deal.

 

[Roneblaster]

You just made valid points, but it actually just doesnt matter. Just because its logical doesnt mean thats the way it is.

 

[Kal]

Roneblaster, is arguing like a grown up entirely out of your skillset? You haven't made a point against him except to surmise that he's wrong; have you any examples where a different ruleset does effect turnout? What he's arguing is that having a different ruleset does not effect turnout, at least at the local level, in any significant way. Your response is nothing but a denial of his claim, with absolutely no argument whatsoever.

I'm not saying I agree with him. In fact, I think that it varies from region to region (some regions, like Texas, don't get a lot of tournaments, so we'll go just about anywhere as long as the ruleset isn't totally absurd). But you're not doing anything here but telling him that he's wrong because that's just the way it is.

 

[Roneblaster]

I dont argue in MD everyone is wrong all the time and no1 gives a **** about anything but their own opinion. You didnt even read my posts im guessing. I wish massive was correct, BUT HE ISNT.

 

[Lovage]

Technically, yes, but at the very least it's arguable that going against the MBR ruleset can very negatively effect turnout.

couldn't be more wrong lmao

 

[KirbyKaze]

People care about the MBR ruleset? I thought you guys just wanted tier lists...

[/mind=blown]