Official BBR Recommended Rule List 3.0

[DaomarIsBear]

Props to Orion for being able to tell someone to eat a **** and then **** the opposing argument with logic.

 

[WindMajor]

Before anyone gets on my ***, I have actually taken the time to read the whole darn thread.

The few things I am really gathering here is:

1) That we should test things for you guys in a tournament setting, in which we can possibly lose a lot of money for incredibly stupid things.

2) If we don't like the stages and don't use them, we are apparently scrubs (said at most of the earlier pages but is sometimes still mentioned.).

3) Some of the things said make it out to seem we're thought of as guinea pigs instead of players.

When you get answers like these, no matter if you support or are against the ruleset, this is how the community is being treated and, to me, it just doesn't feel right.

Basically, we're either getting called lab rats/guinea pigs or scrubs.

I do agree proof should be provided before crying "BAN!", but I also agree it should work both ways.

I'm not saying I'm for or against this ruleset, in fact, I haven't mentioned my opinion about this ruleset at all.

Spoiler

Waits for the inevitable getting washed away by the rest of the posts.

Washed away? Naw...

Having the stages legal in a tournament setting is good because we get to see how the stage is played under a play to win mindset. With money on the line, players are gonna abuse things like crazy to get that win, just like in all competitive games.

The stages are put up because the BBR feels that they aren't bad enough to warrant a ban, and that healthy gameplay can come out of these stages. One of the reasons why they were banned in the first place was due to player preference, which is not a banning criteria. This is trying to be reversed now, by giving the stages a fair chance.

The issue comes in when a good chunk of the public is apparently outraged at the stage list. They don't want to give, what COULD be a viable stage in a competitive setting, a fair chance. They rejected the stage instantly, and a lot of the arguments were simply because they either disliked the stage, thought it was gay, believed that it wouldn't favor them, or that ridiculous strategies could work on them. All they're asking for is for these claims to be proven so that they can be taken into consideration, but by the amount of complaining I've seen in this thread, I doubt that's ever gonna happen.

Bringing up your 2nd point, it's really disheartening seeing how a lot of the players here are bringing up arguments with NO INTENTION of backing it up. The stages are gay, or that it's broken because theoretically, X can happen, and shouldn't be allowed. But when told to prove their points by playing a match on the stage and showing how said tactic is bad or how said stage is gay, people get angry because they feel like guinea pigs and get insulted, because apparently, it's an insult to prove a point by testing it out (ie. be a guinea pig).

Anyways, the BBR is currently open to constructive criticism. They want what is best for the game. If you have a good point and it's proven to be valid, they'll acknowledge it. If your argument looks like this...

"I don't like it, the stage is gay, this doesn't favor me"

...then you're being scrubby. If your argument holds no water, then they want you to make that argument hold water, so it can be taken into consideration.

So yeah, Hi Dusk!

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I actually have played matches on the Summit and can say, honestly, it's not quite as bad as most people think (the fish is predictable and can be used strategically), but the infinite run-away thanks to the hard loop is ultimately overpowering in a majority of matchups. It's a shame really since the stage is pretty fun otherwise. If you want to be legitimate about increasing our standard of evidence and want definite proof of how broken Summit or Hanenbow are (or New Pork City or any other stage!), I'm honestly completely okay with that. I regret to inform that I don't have much in the way of good videos to prove the way those stages play out at the moment, but I will happily get together with the locals and make such videos as soon as I see some proof that any stages we have legal here are broken from any of you. I'll make the videos of running in a circle for 8 minutes as soon as I see the videos showing whatever magical tactics break the stages we have legal here. I suspect such videos will be hard to produce given that these stages aren't actually broken so I suspect I'll be able to save 8 minutes of my life.

I highlight the weakest part of your post, the rest is invalid.

If this is sarcasm, it's in bad taste. If you're being serious, you should just be ashamed.

Just for the record, here.

Are you saying the majority of the community is in favor of this stage list?

Honestly, the majority is probably indifferent no matter how you look at it, and among those who care, it's a lot more split than you'd probably suspect. Most of the people who support more stages are quiet and mild mannered and generally disinclined to speak up, especially when dealing with a topic like this that is basically a total mess. Just look at this topic. A few people who posted in support of this rule set got attacked pretty viciously, and a few of us who posted strong support for it (such as myself or Alpha Zealot) got more or less ignored since our arguments were too good or something. Why would anyone who supports this rule set want to post in this topic? Most people don't find dealing with this nonsense fun; only BBR members who are invested in this rule set and a few gluttons for punishment are posting in support of this rule set not because they're the only supporters (VERY far from it) but because they're the only ones willing to put up with this nonsense.

So to answer directly, I claim the majority of the community isn't really that concerned with this rule set versus others. They were fine with the MLG's rules, they'd be fine with these rules, but they're also probably fine with more restrictive rules. I suspect some of these people may have posted in this topic out of a herd mentality (it's fun to join in a bandwagon!), but I doubt they really care. People who actually care are a minority, and among them, it's probably pretty close to evenly divided with the side wanting more restrictive rules definitely having the advantage in terms of grandstanding. These grandstanding individuals who have for years been shamelessly ignoring the rules of common civility and electing to use shameful appeals to the lowest common denominator via weak to non-existent logic and repetition thereof could definitely be fairly categorized as a vocal minority. This group should definitely be condemned by the greater community (regardless of what you believe about this rule set) and not taken seriously in any way.

 

[WindMajor]

planking is proven unbeatable yet you still allow no ledge limit. we havent fully tested if you can stop circle camping either, "it was never given a fair chance"

allow stages like hanenbow and summit. there is literally no argument you could make that doesnt contradict your cuurrent bull****

Are you sure that circle camping wasn't tested or given a fair chance? Or are you just claiming that?

 

[DaomarIsBear]

Are you sure that circle camping wasn't tested or given a fair chance? Or are you just claiming that?

If it was, where are the results or data recorded?

 

[Orion*]

Are you sure that circle camping wasn't tested or given a fair chance? Or are you just claiming that?

i lurk a LOT and i havent seen a scrap of evidence other than it was deemed ban worthy in the games predecessors (fox on hyrule in melee example). the stage however WAS played in NJ locals in 08, and was abused by spam, and we deemed it banworthy. however apparently since 08 isnt enough for the bbr to deem crappy stages banworthy:

let me see viable characters, projectile, horizontal air speed, fast fall speed, jump height and frame date, hitbox frame date and dash speed frame data compared. is it possible for there to be absolutely NO interaction the entire match after a % lead is taken? you also have to include possible frame data for mindgames for momentum cancelling moves such as fox's shine, breversaled specials (aka diddys popgun cancel), items (snakes tools in conjunction with diddys bananas), pits curvable arrows, specials that allow really fast horizontal or vertical air movement (shuttle loop, falcos side b, ect) i could go on and on. i have not seen a lick of testing on these boards, and im sure if there was, it wasnt to the level that the bbr is asking be required for these other stages to be deemed banworthy. in fact, ive looked at the bbr stage discussion and its completely lack luster LOL so you can use that as an excuse either.

also: even when the stage was abused there was (on occasion) contact, which means the player with the lead was forced at some point to take a risk, however little it was. which should be more than enough for the bbr, who allow planking considering there is NO risk according to frame data.

let me informative videos, let me see videos of this being abused at HIGH LEVEL PLAY (nothing else matters).

because if i have to deal with fishes, and cars and crap. i may as well deal with a stage that has zero hazards and promotes camping.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

^^^ I wouldn't mind playing a tournament to see..but we both live in NJ, so i don't see a rule changer coming up soon.

 

[DusK-The-Stray]

Washed away? Naw...

Give it time, it will happen soon.

Having the stages legal in a tournament setting is good because we get to see how the stage is played under a play to win mindset. With money on the line, players are gonna abuse things like crazy to get that win, just like in all competitive games.

Though I appropriately agree with this line of thinking, during this time, those who do get screwed by these strategies potentially lose money, depending on the situation where this happened, it could be as negligible as $5 or past the $100 mark (Way past) for any large tourney that this would happen. People won't like this (as shown) and well whine about it, with or without good reason.

The stages are put up because the BBR feels that they aren't bad enough to warrant a ban, and that healthy gameplay can come out of these stages. One of the reasons why they were banned in the first place was due to player preference, which is not a banning criteria. This is trying to be reversed now, by giving the stages a fair chance.

Yes, but I feel this could have been more productive if we had the community (read as "people willing to give a ****") have a say in this by providing the information requested during the making of this ruleset instead of making the ruleset and posting it, then asking for the info for why it shouldn't be like this. I'm not doubting this ruleset was tested, but I think that having more communication with the community itself would have had a helping hand.

Of course, it could have just as easily devolved into what this thread has become, only before the ruleset was announced.

The issue comes in when a good chunk of the public is apparently outraged at the stage list. They don't want to give, what COULD be a viable stage in a competitive setting, a fair chance. They rejected the stage instantly, and a lot of the arguments were simply because they either disliked the stage, thought it was gay, believed that it wouldn't favor them, or that ridiculous strategies could work on them. All they're asking for is for these claims to be proven so that they can be taken into consideration, but by the amount of complaining I've seen in this thread, I doubt that's ever gonna happen.

I see how some of these could be thought of as a viable stage in a competitive setting, but when one of the main arguments is to test it out while in a tournament where one cruddy tactic or incredible incident that can be abused by your opponent by a CP YOU picked can cost you your money, one would tend to avoid this as much as possible, no? I know I wouldn't take an opponent I'm comfortable with on say, Delfino Plaza, to Norfair unless I know it can definitely help me and hinder my opponent.

But it would be nice to be able to test these stages out without having to lose money with the sole intention of seeing what breaks if one thing or another is done. Of course, imo, this should ask top players for help on this.

Bringing up your 2nd point, it's really disheartening seeing how a lot of the players here are bringing up arguments with NO INTENTION of backing it up. The stages are gay, or that it's broken because theoretically, X can happen, and shouldn't be allowed. But when told to prove their points by playing a match on the stage and showing how said tactic is bad or how said stage is gay, people get angry because they feel like guinea pigs and get insulted, because apparently, it's an insult to prove a point by testing it out (ie. be a guinea pig).

I agree this is disheartening, but some people seem genuinely interested in proving their points. Like YI:M and DP for example, some people seem to have genuinely gone out of there way to use a character they don't use normally to prove if what they say does indeed happen, but don't quite have the tools to bring this evidence to light. Wouldn't it be fair to say that if some people say it can happen, but can't really provide proof, that the BBR should at least look into this, test it out themselves and bring whatever evidence they find for or against the stage to light? I mean, if some people say it can be done but can't show the proof, but the BBR does nothing to disprove this (which some individual members keep saying it squarely falls on those who are mentioning it and apparently not the group who SHOULD have the tools for this), then what? We just do whatever we want with the stage list instead of checking if these claims are true or false before a select few potentially lose money for what was true or we completely ignore a stage for a false claim?

Anyways, the BBR is currently open to constructive criticism. They want what is best for the game. If you have a good point and it's proven to be valid, they'll acknowledge it. If your argument looks like this...

"I don't like it, the stage is gay, this doesn't favor me"

...then you're being scrubby. If your argument holds no water, then they want you to make that argument hold water, so it can be taken into consideration.

And that's all well and good. But certain things I feel should be proven by the BBR or some similarly reliable source like a tactic that is said to be exploited quite easily or something, that way they should be able to quell these argument, just saying they (as in, the ones who are complaining) should prove it seems more like "We don't believe you, you do it 'cause we don't want to."

I would prefer to hear something more like "We have tested what you have mentioned, we have found that these things do not happen or are not as exploitable as you say, here is why:
Data that proves this.

You are more than welcome to prove us wrong by testing these things, among others, yourself and please let us know if you find anything relevant for discussion."

Or something like this.

So yeah, Hi DusK!

Hey ACTION PANDA, fixed that K for ya. =)

 

[LooksLikePit]

you should all play melee. brawl sucks.

 

[AllyKnight]

you should all play melee. brawl sucks.

NWit that avatar, I think you shouldnt play either.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

you should all play melee. brawl sucks.

Most ironic avatar-post thing I have ever seen, LOL.

 

[Orion*]

looks like pit is amazing son

 

[GimR]

there is no LGL, MK can plank all day.

what are you talking about? Almost every tournament in America applies the LGL

 

[ADHD]

what are you talking about? Almost every tournament in America applies the LGL

The Ethipoian smash scene's best player mains link..

And he also was eaten by a Zebra.

 

[smashmachine]

only midwest would follow this

 

[Juushichi]

what are you talking about? Almost every tournament in America applies the LGL

Hilariously enough, the Midwest doesn't really enforce or support a ledge grab limit on the whole.

EDIT: At least the MW:E doesn't.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

what are you talking about? Almost every tournament in America applies the LGL

This really isn't true. It's probably about half, if not less.

 

[Crow!]

And, with any luck, will soon be present in even fewer tournaments. The rule is competitively unsound, and hopefully more people will realize this with a high profile ruleset explicitly addressing it in this way.

 

[demonictoonlink]

111 pages of flaming the BBR.

I am often disappointed with how this community acts, but right now I couldn't be more proud.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Not all of us are flaming. Some of us are asking questions to get a better understanding.
So I don't contradict myself, If MK's planking was proven to be unbeatable, what are you going to do about it if you are against a LGL?

Classify it under stalling?

 

[Raziek]

You guys really can't understand why there's no ledge-grab limit? Jeez, ok, I'll explain my interpretation for you.

Of the characters who can plank, only one is unbeatable within human capabilities, and that is MK.

For all the other characters, playing on the ledge is completely legitimate, and a strong, but not unbeatable tactic.

If the BBR were to implement a ledge-grab limit, it would have to be for MK only, otherwise the other characters are unjustly penalized.

If they implement yet another MK-specific rule (IDC being the other), then really, all that proves to us is that MK needs to be banned.

I forget who said it earlier, but putting in rules deliberately designed to hinder MK to keep him from being ban-worthy is catering to him, which is something that we don't do.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Translation:

**** low tier characters, they are trash and people that play them should not be allowed to have fun when playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the Nintendo Wii.

No, proper translation: We shouldn't be remaking an entire ruleset just to make one or two characters that already lose to the entire cast lose slightly less.

Yes, but I feel this could have been more productive if we had the community (read as "people willing to give a ****") have a say in this by providing the information requested during the making of this ruleset instead of making the ruleset and posting it, then asking for the info for why it shouldn't be like this. I'm not doubting this ruleset was tested, but I think that having more communication with the community itself would have had a helping hand.

The thing is, the majority of us did ask for information and request opinions while the process was occurring, we just didn't ask it as a group or in a "recommendations for the next ruleset" thread, and seeing what this thread is right now, I think the reason for that is obvious.

I see how some of these could be thought of as a viable stage in a competitive setting, but when one of the main arguments is to test it out while in a tournament where one cruddy tactic or incredible incident that can be abused by your opponent by a CP YOU picked can cost you your money, one would tend to avoid this as much as possible, no? I know I wouldn't take an opponent I'm comfortable with on say, Delfino Plaza, to Norfair unless I know it can definitely help me and hinder my opponent.

And how is that different from any other case where you lose because of lack of knowledge of a stage or lack of MU knowledge?

This happens, and it's wrong to remove a stage because people don't know how to utilize it properly, otherwise you can literally make that argument for any stage in the game.


If you're talking about new info... then that happens all the time for every stage.

I agree this is disheartening, but some people seem genuinely interested in proving their points. Like YI:M and DP for example, some people seem to have genuinely gone out of there way to use a character they don't use normally to prove if what they say does indeed happen, but don't quite have the tools to bring this evidence to light. Wouldn't it be fair to say that if some people say it can happen, but can't really provide proof, that the BBR should at least look into this, test it out themselves and bring whatever evidence they find for or against the stage to light? I mean, if some people say it can be done but can't show the proof, but the BBR does nothing to disprove this (which some individual members keep saying it squarely falls on those who are mentioning it and apparently not the group who SHOULD have the tools for this), then what? We just do whatever we want with the stage list instead of checking if these claims are true or false before a select few potentially lose money for what was true or we completely ignore a stage for a false claim?

Actually you're incorrect, a number of people in the BBR DO go out of their way to test claims.


The thing is, I don't necessarily know the exact conditions that caused something to occur, so if you find something it's usually a lot easier for you to reproduce it then it is for me.


Thats why we generally say "vids or it didn't happen".

 

[Flayl]

Raziek: Then just ban him instead of pretending it's not a problem. If they're going to pull off controversial moves with the stage list might as well go the whole mile.

 

[xzx]

Lol @ the stagelist...-_- So I can argument about why Skyworld should be neutral? Seriously, the Smash Back Room needs better members!

 

[Crow!]

Ledge camping is not stalling because you can fight a player who is at the ledge - even a Meta Knight. The debate is whether or not you can win when you fight Meta Knight there. And BTW, not everyone agrees that the Meta Knight is guaranteed the win here - M2K is, ironically enough, is one of the ones who disagrees strongly.

Hanging out at the ledge as Meta Knight vs a Falco isn't really any different from hanging out in the middle of FD as Olimar / ICs vs Ganon. The odds are stacked very strongly in your favor, but not because you're doing anything wrong - you're patiently waiting for your opponent to approach you, then when he/she does, you are just playing smart enough that you will almost always win.

I see no reason that players fighting on the stage should be considered preferable to them fighting off the stage or at the ledge. Different characters do better or worse at different zones, and the player in the lead gets to pick where the fight will continue.

For more discussion on this matter, see an exchange between myself and Kewkky in the following thread (before he was admitted to the BBR):

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=275153

 

[Shaya]

And BTW, not everyone agrees that the Meta Knight is guaranteed the win here - M2K is, ironically enough, is one of the ones who disagrees strongly.

Just for clarification, Mew2King has stated to me that without an LGL, MK's planking is broken and he cannot be beaten. MK can be beaten on the ledge when there is an LGL (forcing him to regrab it).

He compares this also to jigglypuff's planking in melee.

 

[Crow!]

If he now says this, that is in contradiction to some of his previous claims. I wish that surprised me more than it does.

 

[Shaya]

M2K can't and won't deny frame data.

 

[Blacknight99923]

without a LGM and MKs perfect planking with the current rulset ISSUED BY THE BBR why isn't MK banned on the BBR ruleset?

 

[lordhelmet]

No, proper translation: We shouldn't be remaking an entire ruleset just to make one or two characters that already lose to the entire cast lose slightly less.

?

You remade the ruleset to include absolutely ludicrous stages that mitigate player skill.

IE:

Game 1: Falcon vs D3, Falcon wins

Game 2: Falcon bans Green Greens, D3 still can take me to FD, Castle Siege, PTAD, AND Distant Planet. Whatever stage he feels most comfortable on.

Before I could just Castle Siege and play on FD (which isn't as bad as most people think).

 

[Nidtendofreak]

without a LGM and MKs perfect planking with the current rulset ISSUED BY THE BBR why isn't MK banned on the BBR ruleset?

Probably waiting for someone to actually perfectly plank with MK as the final bit of proof. Currently, it hasn't been done to win a tournament as far as I know.

 

[Flayl]

It's been done to win important tournament sets. Nobody is going to do it the whole tournament, only when they feel they really need to.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

It's been done to win important tournament sets. Nobody is going to do it the whole tournament, only when they feel they really need to.

Then somebody go out and use this for a whole tournament (preferably a very large, public tournament), so we can end this already.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

for anyone thinking that MK isn't broken as f*** when running away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHQZBcLb5Z8

Now imagine this match, with no grab limit.

 

[Raziek]

Just throwing this out there, since a lot of people seem to think having several strong CPs is game-breaking.... There are such things as secondaries.

Furthermore, I've been using this ruleset for a few months now, and I've moved to 2 stage bans because of the numbers of counter-picks.

2 is very much a valid and viable option, though I feel 3 would be too much.

 

[lordhelmet]

Multiple stage bans are acceptable if you cannot ban neutrals. How am I supposed to play a Meta Knight if he bans FD and SV? I can't.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Multiple stage bans are acceptable if you cannot ban neutrals. How am I supposed to play a Meta Knight if he bans FD and SV? I can't.

You can't ban neutrals? Are you saying the character you main is that bad that he does worse on every counterpick?

Say hello to 5000 Falco's, Wario's, Diddy's, and IC's.

By preventing the banning of neutrals, well you know.

On another note, if you have never seen this video for why there is a ledge grab limit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHD54aUDcAw&feature=related

 

[lordhelmet]

You can't ban neutrals?

Say hello to 5000 Falco's, Wario's, Diddy's, and IC's.

By preventing the banning of neutrals, well you know.

Ah you got me there lol, brain skipped on me.

I still say minimize the stage list, 20 is just way too much. I shouldn't have to say these stages are absolutely ******** either because everyone knows that.

 

[Cubone]

If EC is so worried about MK having so many counterpicks then why are Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar still both legal?

 

[da K.I.D.]

?

You remade the ruleset to include absolutely ludicrous stages that mitigate player skill.

IE:

Game 1: Falcon vs D3, Falcon wins

Game 2: Falcon bans Green Greens, D3 still can take me to FD, Castle Siege, PTAD, AND Distant Planet. Whatever stage he feels most comfortable on.

Before I could just Castle Siege and play on FD (which isn't as bad as most people think).

I still say minimize the stage list, 20 is just way too much. I shouldn't have to say these stages are absolutely ******** either because everyone knows that.

Everyone also "knows" that falcon vs D3 on fd is a horrible terrible idea.

BUT you just said that its not as bad as people think.

Did you ever think maybe its possible that PTAD and Dist. arent as bad as YOU think they are? Just like how Fd according to you isnt as bad as everyone else thinks it is?