Official BBR Recommended Rule List 3.0

[Jim Morrison]

u all just mad cuz the BBR has only top tier players in it and they dun wanna lose to low tier character through a cheap trick. so they ban it, init?

 

[B!squick]

It was more for Ganon. You can't just let a bad character be bad. You have to make him awful.

Ganon is doing better in the character rankings list. I have more reason to be emo so,

You can still bowsercide. You just now have to make sure your opponent loses before you do - you no longer get a special "Aww, poor low tier! We'll make up some rules to help you out." treatment.

That's easier said then done. And if they're going to make rules to limit MK, why not make rules to make crap characters less crap?

EDIT: Also, why is dam with an 'n' censored and not crap?

 

[Life]

"Crap" is not a profanity.

Also, suicide rule makes sense to me either way. On one hand, it's called a suicide for a reason. On the other hand, it's tough to pull off.

 

[ADHD]

Inferiority complex, are you self conscious?

 

[Eddie G]

Inferiority complex, are you self conscious?

ADHD, do you have to pee when you play a match? <3

 

[MetalMusicMan]

doesn't the game go to sudden death when the time runs out?

I have already explained this in detail in my previous posts.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Ganon is doing better in the character rankings list. I have more reason to be emo so,

lol. Gotcha. But still, we're probably in agreeance that the SBR used some of the worst logic when thinking up this ruleset.

inb4smartalecSBRmemberscomeinandgetmadbecausetheyhavecraprebuttal

 

[B!squick]

"Crap" is not a profanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity#Severity

Wikipedia disagrees.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

doesn't bowser win when he is on port 1?

I'm not sure about when the bowser player does nothing, but bowser should be able to win every time regardless of port. This is because he can jump out of the bowswercide. He doesn't make it back to the edge, but it does guarantee that his opponent dies first.

 

[Raziek]

This thread is really entertaining. This list is also legit.

 

[Blacknight99923]

anyone who flames mikehaze for being human is obviously someone who has an inferiority complex and hits people below the belt to make themselves feel better about their lack of self worth.

 

[B!squick]

I'm not sure about when the bowser player does nothing, but bowser should be able to win every time regardless of port. This is because he can jump out of the bowswercide. He doesn't make it back to the edge, but it does guarantee that his opponent dies first.

We are currently seriously testing this, so unless the BBR actually did testing themselves and didn't tell anyone, the validity of that statement is subject to compromise. Right now it seems possible to always jump out with Kirby in tow with timing. Donkey Kong, not so much.

 

[Ganonsburg]

anyone who flames mikehaze for being human is obviously someone who has an inferiority complex and hits people below the belt to make themselves feel better about their lack of self worth.

Now you're just supporting slavery.

And yes, MMM, you're making him worse. Why shouldn't we be allowed to recover on our 3rd stock for fear of losing the game?

Not that it matters, because only your precious spammy high tiers matter in Brawl.

 

[B!squick]

Not that it matters, because only your precious spammy high tiers matter in Brawl.

They DO have the advantage of not sucking.

 

[Crow!]

That's easier said then done. And if they're going to make rules to limit MK, why not make rules to make crap characters less crap?

You will notice that the ledge grab limit is specifically recommended to not be in competitive rulesets, and that no reference is made to scrooging.

If you're referrring to the Dimensional Cape rule, I actually agree, I think it is very hypocritical of us to include a rule which is against our principles AND forbids many perfectly legitimate tactics just because it's more polite than telling TOs to man up and enforce the stalling rule and requires less guts than to eliminate the real problem. However, I seem to be alone in this opinion for now.

 

[Ganonsburg]

They DO have the advantage of not sucking.

That would be nice. Of course, they also have the advantage in a faulty rule about timing people out on their last stocks, which was given artificially by the very people who play those spammy characters.

BTW Crow, thanks for giving us at least half sensible answers. As far as I've seen you to be, you're consistently logical.

 

[B!squick]

You will notice that the ledge grab limit is specifically recommended to not be in competitive rulesets, and that no reference is made to scrooging.

If you're referrring to the Dimensional Cape rule, I actually agree, I think it is very hypocritical of us to include a rule forbidding many perfectly legitimate tactics just because it's more polite than telling TOs to man up and enforce the stalling rule and requires less guts than to eliminate the real problem. However, I seem to be alone in this opinion for now.

I was, actually.

 

[T-block]

Now you're just supporting slavery.

And yes, MMM, you're making him worse. Why shouldn't we be allowed to recover on our 3rd stock for fear of losing the game?

Not that it matters, because only your precious spammy high tiers matter in Brawl.

We are not making him worse.

First of all, a rule saying "Ganondorf wins if he lands a suicide on last stocks" WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED BY THE BBR. Some TOs took the Bowsercide rule and extended it to Ganondorf, but our previous rulesets never stated anything about Ganondorf.

Now, even if that rule DID exist previously, it's not so much a nerf as it is removing a buff. The effect is the same, but removing a buff is much more agreeable than applying a nerf.

 

[ADHD]

I play better when I have to pee.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I play better when I have to pee.

this is a top quality post

 

[B!squick]

The effect is the same, but removing a buff is much more agreeable than applying a nerf.

I HATE this logic. Why? Why is applying a nerf to, say, MK more agreeable than removing a buff to a character no one plays or cares about? Bowser- and especially Ganonciding is not enough of a buff to matter to anyone who doesn't play them and makes the people who do play them happy.

 

[vVv Rapture]

We've found his weakness.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

IDC ban is a scrub rule

 

[ADHD]

IDC ban is a scrub rule

Why does anyone go to your tournaments?

 

[Tmacc]

I'm not speaking for or against the ganoncide rule...but removing a buff and applying a nerf accomplish the same means. You are using different words to say the same thing. I don't think that point is really arguable...

 

[vVv Rapture]

I'm not speaking for or against the ganoncide rule...but removing a buff and applying a nerf accomplish the same means. You are using different words to say the same thing. I don't think that point is really arguable...

I agree. Removing a buff is essentially nerfing the character, no matter how you put it.

Let's say, in Melee, Mario's fireballs became two times faster than they were in 64. Then, in Brawl, they went back to how they were in 64. He was buffed, than nerfed, since he was brought down to where he originally was. Brought down, as in nerfed. Downgraded, as in nerfed.

Even though the BBR never said it applied to Ganoncides, the fact that they would then mention it and, at the same time, nerf it, is sort of odd. They might as well have left it as is and not mention it again.

 

[T-block]

I HATE this logic. Why? Why is applying a nerf to, say, MK more agreeable than removing a buff to a character no one plays or cares about? Bowser- and especially Ganonciding is not enough of a buff to matter to anyone who doesn't play them and makes the people who do play them happy.

It wasn't really presented as logical justification for the decision.

Anyways, it's okay to remove this buff (that we never applied) because the reason for applying it originally was arbitrary. We don't care that Ganondorf is not a good character - we would make the same decision if Meta Knight or Falco had a similar move. And applying a nerf is different from removing a buff in that applying something is changing the game from its original state, while removing a buff is restoring it.

 

[Red Arremer]

Ganoncides never were covered specifically by our past rulesets.

 

[B!squick]

It wasn't really presented as logical justification for the decision.

Anyways, it's okay to remove this buff (that we never applied) because the reason for applying it originally was arbitrary. We don't care that Ganondorf is not a good character - we would make the same decision if Meta Knight or Falco had a similar move. And applying a nerf is different from removing a buff in that applying something is changing the game from its original state, while removing a buff is restoring it.

So... why don't we play out sudden deaths again?

 

[T-block]

We have an option that's obviously more competitive in a 1-stock rematch, and still upholds the game's decision that the original result was a tie. Yeah, you could say we are overriding the game's method of resolution, but in this case we have an option that's clearly better.

Is giving Ganondorf the win clearly the better option? The fact that there's been so much debate suggests that it isn't. Since there is no obvious answer, we default to the game's decision.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

So... why don't we play out sudden deaths again?

Already explained in my previous posts. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=10893707#post10893707

Honestly there wouldn't really be a huge problem with playing out Sudden Deaths, though it is far less than desirable.

 

[John12346]

MK vs Ganon:

Scenario 1
- SUDDEN DEATH GO!
- Lots of spacing ensues
- MK hits Ganon with Dash Attack/Utilt/Uthrow; Ganon goes over the top boundary for a Star KO
- A bob-omb lands on MK and kills him off the side before Ganon dies

Scenario 2
- SUDDEN DEATH GO!
- Both players grab the ledge
- *30 minutes later*
- "Wtf guys are you still doing this?"

Alternate Scenario 2
- SUDDEN DEATH GO!
- Both players grab the ledge
- MK glides under the stage and ****s Ganon's **** or at the very least forces him onto a bob-omb filled stage

 

[ADHD]

We have an option that's obviously more competitive in a 1-stock rematch, and still upholds the game's decision that the original result was a tie. Yeah, you could say we are overriding the game's method of resolution, but in this case we have an option that's clearly better.

Is giving Ganondorf the win clearly the better option? The fact that there's been so much debate suggests that it isn't. Since there is no obvious answer, we default to the game's decision.

So we rely on randomness? This metagame jus keeps on advancin.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

why on earth would you be recovering with PKT on the side of the stage?

The balloon can reach pretty much anywhere above the plane of the stage (just not below it). Sometimes you are out of jumps and with an opponent in hot pursuit, you are forced into using PKT at inopportune times and locations.

 

[mikeHAZE]

edress when was the last brawl tournament you entered?


edit: just curious, not flaming.

 

[Tmacc]

SUDDEN DEATH GO!
Lots of spacing ensues
MK hits Ganon with Dash Attack/Utilt/Uthrow; Snake goes over the top boundary for a Star KO
A bob-omb lands on MK before Ganon dies and kills him off the side

Ganon turned in to Snake then back into Ganon.

GanonSnake for top tier.

But srrsly, Sudden Deaths would be pretty dumb...as the above example depicts. The system we have now is quite good IMO...

 

[MetalMusicMan]

So we rely on randomness? This metagame jus keeps on advancin.

Do you know what metagame means? Do you know what advancing means? Just because something random exists does not mean that "the metagame isn't advancing".

If something is random, that does not always make it bad. If that were so, we would ban G&W's side-b, peach's turnip pull (several different turnips, bombs, beam sword, mr. saturn), DeDeDe's side-b (3 different minions), etc. etc. etc.

 

[Veggi]

Why would anyone want to honor a game's decision? The game doesn't care.

 

[B!squick]

We have an option that's obviously more competitive in a 1-stock rematch, and still upholds the game's decision that the original result was a tie. Yeah, you could say we are overriding the game's method of resolution, but in this case we have an option that's clearly better.

I would have to disagree with you there. Playing out the sudden deaths would totally negate the problem of planking and whatnot. I mean, as I recall, they play them out over in Japan. Different strokes for different folks, yeah, but Japan is the source of all Smash.

Is giving Ganondorf the win clearly the better option? The fact that there's been so much debate suggests that it isn't.

Debate implies both sides arguing for and against so why does it default to no?

Since there is no obvious answer, we default to the game's decision.

Ah. I guess the same can be said of banning MK, too. Still, was anyone REALLY concerned with Bowser and/or Ganon winning from a suicide move?

 

[Crow!]

So we rely on randomness? This metagame jus keeps on advancin.

Whenever possible, we rely on the game to say who won.

It's not really different from relying on the game to say who grabbed who when they get grab bubbles out at the same time. Or relying on the game to tell us whether Game and Watch got a 9 or a 3 with is side-B. Or whether player A or player B or both or neither trips when they both start dashing at about the same time.

Sometimes there's randomness involved, sometimes there isn't. And it's not actually clear in this case whether it is random at all, btw: Amazing Ampharos has done some study and doesn't think the Ganoncide result is truly random, though it is chaotic enough (depending on the exact height of the grab) that players aren't usually going to know ahead of time in Ganon's case what the result will be.