MELEE-FC Tournament Ruleset Discussion

[PEEF!]

Darkrain completely dominated me at all national tournaments and he is easily the best player and best looking man in smash, one day I wish to be as great as him and live in the Midwest myself.

That's better.

 

[Divinokage]

Ya but Cpt.America is a power on his own. Trying to be as great as someone will never happen, you can't catch up to someone. =P

 

[Juggleguy]

Strong Bad is mistaking PP for Colbol at TO4... Darkrain beat Kage, Hbox, and Colbol to take that tourney.

This is still one of the greatest combos I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFsQ9oxPGdI#t=4m55s

 

[omgwtfToph]

The new ruleset *****. We used it at a BC local this past weekend. It's also incredibly similar to the ruleset a lot of tournaments ran as recently as 2009-2010. It doesn't lead to jank, and if anything, 2 bans makes it MORE, not less, "modern"/"legit" than a lot of rulesets that big tournaments have used.

I seriously, seriously doubt this ruleset will cause any stupid victories/losses.

The Kishes are dope and FC is gonna be amazing lol.

Also, Rainbow Cruise isn't as bad for characters like Ganon as people think imo. I think it was choknater that already discussed this for IC's, but... Fighting isn't too bad on the boat/top section of the stage, and for the platforms, you don't have to directly engage them; just stay below your opponent and try to maintain a good position because approaching is generally bad, so even if your opponent is a Fox or something, he's putting himself at a disadvantage by stupidly approaching you from above at that area.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

I don't generally mind RC and MC as ICs. I'll still probably ban them often, but if I have to leave one of them on against some people, it's not a huge deal to me.

 

[C!Z]

Lol took the two weird stages I didn't mind out =/

 

[Mike G]

Darkrain reminds me of Ryu.


EDIT: I don't mind the rule set

 

[Battlecow]

Ruleset is better, not optimal. If the kishes want a throwback tourney, great for them and it'll be fun. If they want a national... good luck with that, guys. Lol.

 

[KishSquared]

This ruleset is legit for a National. Like Toph said, the throwback isn't even to 2007, but more like 2010. If this isn't National-quality, then there's no such thing outside the MBR5+PS.

But maybe that's the point.

 

[PEEF!]

This ruleset is legit for a National. Like Toph said, the throwback isn't even to 2007, but more like 2010. If this isn't National-quality, then there's no such thing outside the MBR5+PS.

But maybe that's the point. TOs have no flexibility anymore with rules, they've all been set in stone and can never do anything else ever? That isn't Smash - that's every other fighting game community. But then again, there are people who seem to want that for some reason.

Although I think there is plenty of good reason to want to centralize around a solid and progressive ruleset, I think the ruleset is legit for a National, and it certainly won't break the tournament or anything like that. It just causes some characters undue hardship, but its FC and tournaments are not all about rulesets. It's about the intangibles that I'm sure the Kishes can and will bring as they always have.

 

[Battlecow]

This ruleset is legit for a National. Like Toph said, the throwback isn't even to 2007, but more like 2010. If this isn't National-quality, then there's no such thing outside the MBR5+PS.

But maybe that's the point.

Yeah, there's pretty much no such thing outside MBR5+PS. That's just the way people feel, nothing you can really do about it.

 

[Kal]

Although I think there is plenty of good reason to want to centralize around a solid and progressive ruleset, I think the ruleset is legit for a National, and it certainly won't break the tournament or anything like that. It just causes some characters undue hardship, but its FC and tournaments are not all about rulesets. It's about the intangibles that I'm sure the Kishes can and will bring as they always have.

In what way is this hardship "undue?" Just because there exists another ruleset where there is less of it?

 

[Smasher89]

Nah, it´s just that the strategy of politics to get the rules in ones favor is currently very valid in this scene sadly.

 

[PEEF!]

In what way is this hardship "undue?" Just because there exists another ruleset where there is less of it?

Well, yes. It is completely within our power to use a stagelist that aids character balance and promotes players winning via skill rather than stage/character choice. Melee is pretty imbalanced at this outside of the best chars and mirrors, but rulesets like MBR help.

 

[omgwtfToph]

Ruleset is better, not optimal. If the kishes want a throwback tourney, great for them and it'll be fun. If they want a national... good luck with that, guys. Lol.

it's a legit ruleset lol

 

[Kal]

So, more generally, you're willing to ban things in the interest of character balance (ignoring the fact that there hasn't been much of a solid argument for any significant changes in balance between the two rulesets)? Either:

1) You're ok with banning Sheik, because she is cause for far more imbalance than any stage that isn't overtly broken, or
2) You're ok with banning stages for this, but not characters

If your justification is the latter, there isn't much progress we can make with regards to this topic. I'd say "imbalance is imbalance; how it arises is irrelevant" and you'd reply "nuh uh." If that's not the case, why aren't you complaining about Sheik's legality?

I should also mention that this notion you have of players winning "via skill rather than stage/character choice" is complete nonsense. You have it ***-backwards if you think there is less skill involved in a more inclusive ruleset.

 

[PEEF!]

So, more generally, you're willing to ban things in the interest of character balance (ignoring the fact that there hasn't been much of a solid argument for any significant changes in balance between the two rulesets)? Either:

1) You're ok with banning Sheik, because she is cause for far more imbalance than any stage that isn't overtly broken, or
2) You're ok with banning stages for this, but not characters

If your justification is the latter, there isn't much progress we can make with regards to this topic. On the other hand, if your justification is the former, why aren't you complaining about Sheik's legality?

I think I have been over this already. Protecting characters is far far more important than protecting stages. If you want some objective reason why, I cannot give you one, but this is intuitively obvious. Removing a character would be the last thing we would want to do. Playing with stages and rulesets should be the first line of defense against imbalance and removing characters the last (because what we are trying to promote here, in the end, is character playability.)

So, I have never been impressed with the "ban Sheik" argument (not to mention the fact that Sheik is not really as invincible as she is made out to be in vs. low tier matchups.) And I believe "2)" is as obvious and elemental as the belief that we should care about character balance in the first place (which similarly cannot be objectively argued for.) I believe that the valuing of characters above stages is exemplified by the fact that nobody would rather their favorite character be banned than their favorite stage.

 

[omgwtfToph]

Well, the reasoning for banning stages and not characters is obvious. Because you "play/main a character" but you don't "play/main a stage." You're outright excluding people by doing the former but not the latter.

 

[Kal]

It's clear that what should be "protected" is subjective, and there are those of us (specifically, those of us who aren't total scrubs) that don't feel a need to "protect" anything. If something is broken, it should be banned, but we don't feel the fact that poor little Ice Climbers are bad on Rainbow Cruise justifies getting rid of it. Don't pretend it's "intuitively obvious."

Why do we even need a "line of defense" against imbalance? Even if we assume all of this nonsense about "protecting characters," where do we draw the line? Sheik severely impacts balance in a far more meaningful way than Rainbow Cruise, so what exactly makes us ban Rainbow Cruise before banning Sheik? More specifically, at what point can we even reach a conclusion that a character should be banned? This entire stance of yours hides behind vagueness, so that we can always ban stages, but we can never ban characters. When you write "removing characters [should be] the last [line of defense]" you obviously mean "we shouldn't ban characters, period," because you've provided no criteria for why a character would ever be banned. Moreover, how do we even define this notion of imbalance? Some characters do better, and some do worse, on every stage. Some characters are bad on every stage. Fox and Falco are good on almost every stage. So please, before you go on about how some stages have such a negative impact on balance, provide some real evidence and argument. Not just anecdotes and singular examples of character weaknesses.

With regards to character balance: if you were to ban Fox, Falco, Sheik, Marth, Peach and Jigglypuff, how many additional characters do you think would reach "viable" status? We could possibly get more "character playability" (this is a profoundly stupid term) when we make some characters bans. I think you're kidding yourself if you think "character playability" is the reason for these bans. It's because you don't want to struggle on a few stages and overcome obstacles by either improving your abilities on these stages with your character, or by switching characters. Or, more likely, you just don't like the stages because they are "janky."

When you ban something that is not broken, you altogether prevent its further development, destroying the potential for discovery of relevant strategies. Those who ban for "balance" (especially when this notion isn't even well-defined in the first place) are exactly the scrubs Sirlin warns against; the players who cry foul when you grab more than twice in a row. You ban for brokenness to preserve the game's depth. But there is nothing of this sort being done here. You haven't shown that any sort of additional depth is acquired via these bans. At the end of the day, all you want is to eliminate scenarios where switching characters becomes an optimal strategy sometimes. If you main Pichu, you should always switch characters, because none of the stages are good for you. But, if you main Ice Climbers, you sometimes should switch. And that's bad. It's perfectly ok for a character to not be usable altogether, but for a character to be not usable sometimes, man that grinds your gears.

 

[john!]

^ how do you decide what is "broken" and deserves to be banned (in order to "protect" the metagame)?

or is it intuitively obvious to you?

 

[KishSquared]

To summarize, the underlying problem is the law of unintended consequences. You can make one character more viable by banning/adding stages, but doing so affects the metagame as a whole, and as such affects every character matchup. When you focus on a single problem and try to bring resolution to it, you end up messing with more than intended.

The intention of the rules was not to bring ultimate balance to the character roster. That's never been the intention behind stagelists. The intention of stagelists is to ban any stage that gives a character unfair advantage, not unfair disadvantage. If we tried to bring every character down to exactly 1 bad stage that's bannable by the player, we'll be left with 0 stages.

Ultimately, this discussion will never end, even if we decided on a single stage for playing Smash. Deciding on a stagelist of any kind will favor certain character over other characters, whether it's FC stages or MBR5 or MBR+PS or 0C3 stages. The tier list changes with each one, if you will. If we played on a single stage, depending on the stage selected, certain characters will benefit and others will lose out. There's no line in the sand for this discussion. There's no point at which we can say "that's it, we've obtained perfect balance". And, I would argue, there's no such thing as "close as it gets". That metric will change with the metagame, which is evolving constantly.

 

[omgwtfToph]

I started reading Kal's post but Kal can't seem to make points without resorting to a derisive tone, puls it was incredibly long, so I didn't.

I mean, I think the current ruleset is really solid so whatever lol.

 

[Kal]

^ how do you decide what is "broken" and deserves to be banned (in order to "protect" the metagame)?

or is it intuitively obvious to you?

As a rule of thumb, you assume it's unbroken 99% of the time and wait for some real evidence in the form of results. If something isn't being used to hugely impact results, it's probably not broken.

 

[Smasher89]

Can someone dig some results from when Corneria got banned, I´m pretty sure Jiggs rised alot around that period of time. I know the bans is the reason I go jiggs in teams.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

i'm 74% sure corneria has been legal at every FC.

 

[ORLY]

i wanna put this out here now, but i will only be MMing people on ALL stages or the original FC stagelist.

none of this compromise, half-way nonsense.

kishes for prez

 

[Bones0]

New rule set is great. Only other suggestion I would make is to not make bans permanent. Having a ban last through the whole set is dumb because if either player changes character then the ban no longer makes any sense. This only really affects best of 5 sets though (which you should also do).

 

[Kal]

Do you mean that bans should only be for the first match, or do you mean they should change from match to match? I do think this new ruleset is a good compromise (though I thought the previous one was fine as well).

 

[Strong Badam]

bans should be chosen any time an opponent goes to CP a stage, not just once in the set.

 

[Kal]

That's probably a good idea. It would just take longer for players who win 3-0 to have to choose their bans.

 

[omgwtfToph]

i wanna put this out here now, but i will only be MMing people on ALL stages or the original FC stagelist.

dude I'll do both LOL

so hype to play you again lol you were one of the funnest people to play at G2. our pools set was so intense

 

[Juggleguy]

That's probably a good idea. It would just take longer for players who win 3-0 to have to choose their bans.

What? It would actually save time in sets that go 2-0 or 3-0, because the winning player would never have to ban any stages.

EDIT: Nevermind, I think you're saying the same thing but worded your post strangely.

 

[Deleted member]

This ruleset is legit for a National. Like Toph said, the throwback isn't even to 2007, but more like 2010. If this isn't National-quality, then there's no such thing outside the MBR5+PS.

But maybe that's the point.

The fundamental purpose of a rule set is that all entrants "agree" that the results from said competition are legitimate. If we played only Hyrule Temple and all parties agreed to the pure nature of the competition, then those results would be honored and acknowledged by those in attendance.

I am a little disappointed that much of the experimental element of the rules was withdrawn. It would have been an excellent example to show that rules are a practical condition that fulfills the above statement and not some absolute like it has become.

That said, the rule set is obviously fine as you have it currently.

Really impressive and thoughtful responses from Toph and Kal in the duration of this thread. Kal, I don't know your situation with smash in general, but if you applied for the MBR I would advocate for your admission.

 

[omgwtfToph]

Same here, Kal posts a lot of good points. My last post about not wanting to argue with him wasn't because I thought he wasn't making good points; I'm just satisfied with the current ruleset, I think most others are as well, so I don't see any point in continuing to argue for no reason lol.

 

[Kal]

What? It would actually save time in sets that go 2-0 or 3-0, because the winning player would never have to ban any stages.

EDIT: Nevermind, I think you're saying the same thing but worded your post strangely.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was saying that, if you pick your bans when your opponent loses, rather than at the start of the match, it would save time. There is also some possible debate to be had regarding what time choosing your bans requires more skill (i.e., if I ban two stages at once vs. banning them after wins), but I doubt it would have any significant outcome on results.

Thanks for the show of support, Umbreon. I don't really think the MBR should exist, though, so I haven't applied and don't really plan to in the future. I have nothing against any of the members in the group, I just don't like the idea of some group of people calling themselves "qualified" determining who, in turn, is qualified to enter the group. And I especially don't like the idea of this group creating a ruleset. Again, nothing against any of the people in the group, I just don't like the idea.

This summarizes my Smash career, more or less, by the way.

Toph, I actually was holding off any arguing until after things became settled. I was worried that any sort of argument from my end (since I can be abrasive and condescending) could potentially deter people from engaging in useful discussion towards reaching a compromise, and thus potentially reduce turnout for Kish's event. However, now that a final compromise has been reached, I am more than happy to engage in debate that is, more or less, completely academic. At this point, I don't think my tendency to deride people I disagree with will negatively affect attendance. In other words, now that the argument is pointless, I am happy to debate. >_>

 

[HoChiMinhTrail]

Discussion's probably over, but...



You're stating the obvious. I play a top tier character, which could well be defined by having flexibility. Fox and friends have very few counterpicks, both from a stage and character perspective. Top tiers have disadvantages, sure, but they're rarely faced with a situation where they'll get decimated.

Not only are ICs rated lower, they're a completely unique character. You have an AI on your team! You place your fate partially in the hands of a CPU every single match. ICs will face even harder challenges when the CPU can't handle a situation. That practically mandates a secondary character, doesn't it?

Well, unless you ban every stage where an IC CPU has a hard time, which is what you're suggesting Isn't it objectively better to leave a character behind rather than banning a bunch of stages on his behalf?

Not that I particularly care. I play Fox, after all. I don't need a secondary.

jeff i think you're getting too old for the boards, ur eye sight is goin. i dont think i said any of this **** lol. i want them off for the initial game of the set, not banned from the tourney u nub.

prob. one of the more useless posts in this thread, still <3 u tho

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Kal, you're thinking about the MBR the wrong way. Pretend you're a teenage girl at high school. The MBR are the popular girls, who everyone wants to be like. They do all this cool stuff, like sleepovers, nail painting, and smash bros. tournaments. Because they're popular, and you're a teenager so lack any sense of self-worth, you want to be part of their group. That way you'll feel like everyone likes you, because you're popular, and it'll cause you to pretend you have some sense of worth.

I think this post went way off track at some point. Anyway, if you're actually a teenage girl, join the MBR.

 

[Beat!]

Do you have what it takes, Kal? Do you have what it takes to be a popular teenage girl? DO YOU?!

 

[KishSquared]

jeff i think you're getting too old for the boards, ur eye sight is goin. i dont think i said any of this **** lol. i want them off for the initial game of the set, not banned from the tourney u nub.

prob. one of the more useless posts in this thread, still <3 u tho

I'm the one getting too old for this? That's your second response to my post. You're apparently already having memory lapses.

And I believe there were far, far more useless posts in this thread, lol.

<3 Trail

 

[The Star King]

@Kal If you feel the MBR is not a good idea, maybe you should join to maybe help check its potential negative impact

But TBH I'm probably mostly saying this because I was the primary opponent to the creation of the 64BR and I joined after I lost that battle, and I'm trying to justify my actions to myself