Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[Shaya]

Official BBR Recommended Rule List 3<hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />This is the official rule set version 3.1 of the Smash Back Room: Brawl (BBR). The rules at any particular tournament are always at the discretion of the tournament organizer, but we recommend this rule set as a base guideline for all tournament organizers to use.

<table id="bbr_menu" class="tborder" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2" border="0" width="200"><tr class="alt1"><td colspan="3"> BBR Ruleset
<table cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" border="0"><tr><td><a href="#bbr_intro">- Public Statement</a>
<a href="#bbr_gen">- General Rules</a>
<a href="#bbr_set">- Set Format</a>
<a href="#bbr_doubles">- Doubles Subset</a>
<a href="#bbr_optional">- Optional Rules</a></td></tr></table></td></tr><tr class="alt2"><td colspan="3"> Stage List
<table cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" border="0"><tr><td><a href="#bbr_start">- Starters</a>
<a href="#bbr_counter">- Counter Picks</a>
<a href="#bbr_ban">- Banned</a></td></tr></table></td></tr><tr class="alt1"><td colspan="3"> Extra
<table cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" border="0"><tr><td><a href="#bbr_notes">- Notes</a>
<a href="#bbr_con">- Considerations</a>
<a href="#bbr_add">- Addressed Issues</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

<table border="0" id="bbr_intro" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Foreword and Public Statement on 3.1</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />The negative backlash following the release of our latest rule set warrants a public statement and an alteration, so please read this thoroughly.

Let me start out by saying the entire rule set was made in good conscience and in that sense, a lot of the criticism is unjust and hardly exceeds malicious 4chan behaviour. People fail to realise there is no worldwide consensus because there are several, equally viable approaches to turning a party game into a competitive fighter. The BBR is a collection of individuals from all over the world, which is why no single philosophy has been chosen other than "to remove what is broken". The rule set project is an ungrateful one in the sense that people will shop for what they like and ignore or even condemn what doesn't fit their idea of how the game should be played. However, when enough people share the same opinion, that becomes a "truth".

A mistake we've been making with our rule sets and particularly this one, is that we haven't attempted to bridge the disconnect between what stages can be consistently played on and what stages are actually used. We succeeded in trimming the fat, but failed in making a stage list (new) TOs can copy and paste to at least a certain extent. While we strongly encourage TOs to think for themselves, we do want them to look at our rule set and trust it. We used to put more dubious stages in the counter/banned category, but this time around our voting process moved pretty much all of those in the counter pick category. We treated the counter/banned category as a place to put the stages the BBR itself was torn on, rather than the stages the community is torn on. To fix this, we went through several noteworthy rule sets looking for overlap and, while also considering the BBR votes, grouped counter picks into three tiers based on actual usage and BBR consensus.

The revamped stage list doesn't compromise on what we've established, but the typical TO seems to want a little more guidance regarding counter picks and that is something we as the BBR will have to acknowledge by changing our presentation. We strongly encourage TOs to go beyond the beaten path, but consider this our way of marking the difference between what is typically used and what could be used in a more liberal environment. It's very understandable that TOs cater to their respective scenes and it's impossible for the BBR to cater to all of them with a list that is set in stone. We can provide TOs with a range, but it is imperative (and not to mention, healthy) that they look into things for themselves. This is about as easy as we can make it, as you can slap the APEX stage list together by combining the starter set with counter pick tier 1, get close to MLG stages by adding tier 2 and have fun times throwing your opponent in front of cars with tier 3.

There are concerns about the amount of people who have actually voted on the stages. I'll start out by saying there's a somewhat skewed image as we've had many polls to narrow things down. The consensus order was constructed by including slightly older polls as well, effectively taking roughly 50 individual votes per stage into account. This is more than half the current membership. But yes, it's true that not all BBR members had a part in the creation of the rule set. The BBR frequently purges inactive members, but the weight lies with posts and reasoning rather than votes. The activity level isn't unhealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but it's always been true that there's a strong core group and that people don't join in on every project or ultimately vote when they do. Forcing the latter isn't expected to benefit the quality of debates and the decision-making process. Between the rule set, weekly character discussion, the upcoming tier list and other discussions without public releases, a large part of the member base does contribute frequently. We can only aim to remove the in-actives and draw in new active members.

Stages aside, I strongly encourage people to read the explanations alongside our choices T-Block is updating on a daily basis. There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding match up-specific infinites and suicide moves, the treatment of which has never been a widespread standard. Catering to individual characters is an arbitrary influence on the metagame the BBR does not want to partake in. If your scene at large feels Bowser should have a better match up against Dedede, you are free to restrict the usage of the infinite, but be warned that this is a very gray area and that it's close to impossible to be entirely consistent with this, considering the plethora of match up-specific exploits in Brawl. In the same vein, granting characters an auto-win because they forced a simultaneous death, rather than treating it as the tie it is, isn't something the BBR wishes to encourage. We listen and we care, but you can't expect us to feed back to you what you want to hear as some form of justification.

The ledge grab limit is commonly applied, which ironically makes it harder for us to judge whether it is warranted or not. It too is an influence on the metagame, as it not only nerfs Meta Knight and his planking ability, but also weakens the viability of several other characters. Banning something based on early fears destroys any and all chance of collecting proof supporting that ban. The LGL is very much pre-emptive, as only Meta Knight has potentially unbeatable planking when done perfectly (based on frame data). Intensive usage of the ledge by other characters might not fit in peoples' ideas of "fun", but has not been proven to be unbeatable. Taking all this into consideration, the majority of the BBR does NOT recommend a ledge grab limit, but this perspective is prone to updating in future revisions of the rule set. However, as long as people don't put our recommendations to the test, we can't say anything about them for better or for worse.

I'd like to conclude by saying that in the future we will update and fine tune this rule set rather than release a new one altogether, as is made evident by this first revision. We sincerely wish for a better relation with the public, but it has to come from both sides.

- Marc (BBR Co-Leader and Approver of Revision One)

<a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a>​

I would just like to add that through this revision we are saying to the public we not only see and read your issues, but we also want to justify our decisions to you. Classifications of stages in this revision also took into consideration past voting (we had several revisions of voting blocks for stages). I personally was not a big contributor to the later stages of 3.0, however there was, over all, more than half of the BBR active in this rule set at one stage or another. My work has been in separating counter picks into tiers and representing it all to you in this current format, I hope you like it.

Revisions are possible, and I hope you can see we're listening to the community. The issues brought up will be considered, and if appropriate further revisions will be made in due course. Further clarifications like those provided (below) will be made in the future if we feel they a required.

Also, finally, I would like to thank the following for their contributions in not just the rule set, but the revision in general.
Ankoku for managing stages to be discussed and voted on, as well as spear-heading the new rule set; Crow! for his hard work in finding and helping to resolve issues in the rule set (and like everything else too!); MetalMusicMan for bringing it all together; and T-Block for his excellent write ups and commentary. Kudos to both Marc and Pierce7d for their assistance in revision specific issues.
MetalMusicMan and T-Block are recent additions to the BBR, their hard work is most definitely admired.
Finally I would also like to credit the other 62 BBR members past and present who participated in discussion and voting required to release this to you.

- Shaya (BBR Scrub / Revision Manager)

<table border="0" id="bbr_gen" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">General Rules</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />

3 Stock
8 minute timer
Items are set to "off" and "none"​

• If the timer runs out, the victor is determined first by stock and then by percentage.
  
  
• Resolving Ties: If percents are the same or both players die simultaneously, there will be a 1 stock, 3 minute, same characters, same stage rematch.
  
  
• All sets with the exception of winner's finals, loser's finals, and the championship are best of 3 matches (best of 5 and above should be played out for any "finals" matches)
  
  
• In the event of a dispute, controller ports will be selected by Rock-Paper-Scissors.
  
  
• You are responsible for your own controller and name tag. Any malfunctions or errors that occur are your responsibility, so bring an extra controller if possible and always check to make sure you're using the correct settings BEFORE a match is played. If a match is to be restarted due to controller functions, it must be agreed upon by both parties.
  
  
• Extending Meta Knight's Dimensional Cape by leaving the ground and returning to it while invisible is banned. (For example, flicking the C-Stick up while holding down on the control stick during the move will cause this to happen.)
  
  
• Stalling is banned.
  Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling, while using an infinite to run out the timer rather than to score a KO is. As such, any infinite chain-grabs, locks, etc. cannot exceed 300%.
  
  
• Any action which prevents the game from continuing (i.e. by causing the game to crash or causing all characters to freeze indefinitely) is banned. If the Tournament Organizer or a judge can conclusively determine the player responsible for the failure, that player loses the interrupted game. Players are expected to know their characters and prevent this from happening.
  
  
• Some interactions (for example, a throw with a wind attack) can cause one character to become frozen until being hit. If this happens, the free character is expected to capitalize on this in a timely manner; a failure to do so is stalling.

<table border="0" id="bbr_set" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Set Format</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />

1. Opponents make their character select screen choices for the first match. *

2. Opponents start the stage striking procedure.

The stage striking order changes depending on the number of stages allowed. When reading this order, “1” is player 1 and “2” is player 2. The optimal striking orders are as follows:

• 3 Stages: 2-1
• 5 Stages: 1-2-2-1
• 7 Stages: 1-1-2-2-2-1
• 9 Stages: 1-1-1-2-2-2-2-1

3. Each player may announce one stage to be banned for counterpicks of the set.

4. The first game is played, using the stage chosen during step 2.

5. The loser of the previous match announces the next match's stage from either the Starter Stage List or the Counter Stage List. **

6. The winner of the previous match chooses their character.

7. The loser of the previous match chooses their character.

8. Repeat steps 5-7 for all proceeding matches.

*Double blind character selection may be called for the first match. Also, the choices made here include the character's color and whether the player will start as Samus or Zero Suit Samus, as Zelda or Sheik, or as a particular Pokemon for Pokemon Trainer.

**No player may choose a stage they have already won on in that set unless agreed upon by both players.​

<table border="0" id="bbr_doubles" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Additional rules for Doubles play</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />Team Attack must be set to ON.
Sharing stocks is allowed.

The controller ports will be determined in a 1221 fashion; whoever wins the RPS will choose first, then the opposing team will get their ports, and then the teammate of the RPS winner will get the last port.

If the clock expires in a team match and the total number of stocks of each team is equal, use the sum of the final percentage of players on each team as the tiebreaker; whichever team has a lower sum wins. (A player who has been eliminated has no stocks and 0%).

In team play, causing both characters of a team to become frozen (i.e. by interrupting a throw with a wind attack) is to be treated the same way as freezing the opponent in singles. Leaving only one of your opponent's characters frozen is legal since the teammate can work to undo the freeze.​

<table border="0" id="bbr_optional" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Optional Rules</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />

• Port slob picks: On a player's counterpick, that player may opt to redo the port selection process with that player or team picking their port first.
  
  
• The Mages DQ rule: After a match has been called, if a player is 2 minutes late he will receive a warning. At 4 minutes late, he will be given a loss for the first game of the set. After 6 minutes, he will be given a loss of the entire set.
  
  
• Color Blind Rule: In team games, it may be requested that certain characters be assigned a specific team color in order to prevent any unnecessary confusion. For instance, Sonic, Lucario, or Falco may be requested to be assigned the blue team color.

<div id="bbr_start">Recommended Stage List</div>
The below Starter/Counter list has a list of three stages, followed by three sections of two stages each. In order to use this, start with the top three stages in the list, and adjust the starter list between 3 and 9 stages by going down the list and adding the next two stages until the desired number of stages is reached. Keep in mind that "Battlefield, Yoshi's Island, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Pokémon Stadium" is a correct use of this, but "Battlefield, Yoshi's Island, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Final Destination" is not. Go down the list; do not mix and match. Any remaining stages not used in the Starter list will be moved to the tournament's Counter list.

The Counter pick list is split into three "tiers" of stages. All counter picks listed should be considered and are preferably universally used. However stages of a higher tier (i.e. Frigate Orpheon / all unused starters) should be more prioritised in your tournament's rule set. The higher tier stages are more commonly seen in tournaments, each individual tier is explained further below.

The Banned list is a list of stages that should be universally banned from tournament play.

<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Starter / Counter Stages</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />

• Battlefield
• Yoshi's Island
• Smashville
  Recommended for 3+ stage starter list
  
  
• Lylat Cruise
• Pokémon Stadium
  Recommended for 5+ stage starter list
  
  
• Final Destination
• Castle Siege
  Recommended for 7+ stage starter list
  
  
• Delfino Plaza
• Halberd
  Recommended for 9 stage starter list

<table border="0" id="bbr_counter" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Counter-pick Stages</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />Counter Pick Group One

These stages are typically used as counter picks, alongside any starters that might not have been in the starter list. TOs looking for a reliable set of counter picks are recommended to at least include these.​

• Frigate Orpheon
• Brinstar

Counter Pick Group Two

These counter picks are less of a standard, but still relatively commonly used. They are considered to be perfectly playable in a competitive environment in the sense that they provide consistent results when used properly. However, they typically require extensive stage knowledge more so than the stages not in this category and have interfering or perhaps over-centralizing hazards which don't suit everyone's tastes. Note that they have been ordered in terms of overall acceptance in the BBR, which also holds true for tier three.​

• Pictochat
• Rainbow Cruise
• Pokémon Stadium 2
• Jungle Japes
• Norfair

Counter Pick Group Three

These stages vary in the amount they're used in the competitive scene today. While some are adopted by MLG and the Midwest, others are rarely seen, if at all. The BBR itself is as split on their competitive viability as the scene at large. Otherwise, the same applies as with tier two stages.
​

• Green Greens
• Distant Planet
• Luigi's Mansion
• Pirate Ship
• Port Town Aero Dive
• Yoshi's Island (Melee)

<table border="0" id="bbr_ban" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Banned Stages</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />

• Mushroomy Kingdom 1
• Mushroomy Kingdom 2
• Mario Circuit
• Rumble Falls
• Bridge of Eldin
• Spear Pillar
• Wario Ware
• New Pork City
• Summit
• Skyworld
• 75m
• Mario Bros.
• Flat Zone 2
• Hanenbow
• Shadow Moses Island
• Green Hill Zone
• Temple
• Onett
• Corneria
• Big Blue

<div id="bbr_notes">Further Information</div>
<table border="0" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Notes</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />This ruleset is the recommendation of the Brawl Back Room for how to run competitive Super Smash Brothers: Brawl tournaments. We do not condemn TOs for holding tournaments with alternative or even noncompetitive rulesets. It was through experimentation and open but critical thinking that we reached these recommendations, and we encourage TOs to continue the search for improvements and novelties.

However, there are rules which, after debate, we do not recommend for competitive tournaments:

• Except as noted in the definition of stalling, the BBR is opposed to the banning or restriction of any character's infinites.
  
  
• The Bowser suicide klaw rule present in the SBR Ruleset 2.0 has been removed.
  
  The BBR now recommends that the game's verdict should always be honored; a victory screen should decide the winner. Any Sudden Death (excluding time-outs) should be treated as a tie; which are resolved with a 1 stock, 3 minute, same characters, same stage rematch.
  
  
• The BBR is opposed to the institution of a Ledge Grab Limit of any number (for any character) for use in determining the winner of a match by time out.
  
  
• Athough the BBR disapproves of players "coaching" other players during a tournament match, the universal and fair enforcement of a rule to prevent it appears to be improbable.

<table border="0" id="bbr_con" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Considerations / Other Notes</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />

• Tournament Organizers should make their policy regarding the use of codes, file replacements, and the like clear. The BBR suggests that larger scale tournaments should have little to no tolerance for the use of cosmetic hacks. Those permitting use of such hacks should be advised that the uninformed use of even cosmetic changes might cause unintended gameplay changes, and even informed uses can affect the outcome of the game whenever the DVD's loading time becomes a factor.
  
  
• Also, to avoid legal repercussions, to avoid loading time changes, and to deal with the uncertainty as to the existence of changes to the game, USB/SD loaders and DVDs not manufactured by Nintendo should not be used at tournaments.
  
  
• Whenever time permits, pool play should precede double elimination bracket play. Pool results can eliminate players as necessary and should be used to seed the bracket. Also, the semi-final and championship sets should be in at least best of 5 format.
  
  
• The use of wireless controllers should be discouraged because of interference, unreliability, and time hindrance, but wireless controllers should not be banned.
  
  
• Wiimotes and Classic Controller users should know to take the batteries out of their controllers after finishing a set; not only will this save battery life, but it prevents accidental intereference and delay for tournament matches.
  
  
• Drugs and alcohol should be prohibited due to minor involvement and potential legal issues.
  

A tournament whose rules follow these guidelines may include a note in its opening post (suggested beneath the tournaments title in smaller font) that reads "Follows BBR Recommended Ruleset 3.1".

<table border="0" id="bbr_add" width="100%"><tr><td align="left">Addressed Issues / FAQ</td><td align="right"><a href="#bbr_menu">[ Top ]</a></td></tr></table><hr size="1" style="color:; background-color:" />Please note that comments posted here are below are PERSONAL VIEWS, unless otherwise DIRECTLY STATED. They are from individuals who are in the BBR and are not necessarily BBR policy.

New Suicide Ruling

The new suicide rule complies with a gap in our previous rule set which did not properly cover the occurrence of a draw in the two standard victory conditions.
For clarification, the two victory conditions that exist in competitive brawl are to take three stock from your opponent before they do the same to you or being further away from death (decided by stocks/percentage) than your opponent when a match reaches the 8 minute timer.

This rule covers any possible time out with two players at the same stock and percent, as well as the more common sudden death occurring due to the last stock of both players being lost at the same time. The BBR feels that this rule fairly applies to all situations which result in sudden death that the previous ruleset did not cover. Arbitrarily giving Bowser an advantage was deemed inappropriate, regardless of his position on the tier list. Ignoring the result of the end-game screen through a character specific rule in the case of Ganondorf follows suit.

~Shaya

The BBR's LGL Ruling

Some tournaments have adoputed rules known as "Ledge Grab Limits," the most common form of which punishes players for snapping to ledges greater than some number of times by giving the player an automatic loss if the game goes to time. The BBR's formal stance is that Ledge Grab Limit rules should not be used in any of their various forms.


-SOME COUNTERPOINTS-
Most arguments that were made in favor of instituting a Ledge Grab Limit essentially appeal to the entertainment factor; it is alledged that extensively utilizing the ledge is either "gay," "boring," "stupid," or something similar. This, of course, is a matter of opinion, and similar allegations could be made regarding chaingrabs, projectile spam, and other strategies. In terms of competitive play, the BBR does not believe that any of these factors constitute bannable offenses.

A more serious allegation is that ledge play breaks the game; debate here continued, for example through the stage discussions, with the degree to which Meta Knight is (un)beatable when playing near each ledge consistently appearing in the discussions. However, the BBR finds that ledge based play is not fundamentally any different or "worse" than stage based play, and there is no reason for tournaments to prefer one type of play over the other. If ledge based play breaks Meta Knight, then that means that Meta Knight is broken, not that the ledges themselves are broken, and as such attempts to ban the use of the ledges is out of line.

Even if the above points are ignored, the BBR disapproves of Ledge Grab Limits as a practical matter; if too small, one can achieve victory by forcing his opponent to grab the ledge and then running the timer, even if he is behind in stocks. If it is too large, it is ineffective at its goal, allowing ledge play to continue for minutes. Some of us believe that these thresholds overlap, such that the "ideal" number causes both problems rather than neither.

Worse still are editions of the rule which target all characters rather than Meta Knight specifically; we do not find any other character to be unfair when repetitively regrabbing the ledge, and subjecting those characters for whom ledge-based play is an essential part of their game (notably ROB and Pit) to harsh penalties for playing properly is unacceptable.

~Crow! (Co-Manager of Version 3.0)

"Infinites"

Infinites:

Infinites are defined as a sequence of moves performed against an opponent which, once initiated upon said opponent, may be continued indefinitely regardless of the opponent's actions. The BBR's formal stance on infinites, determined by a majority of greater than 90%, is that they should not be banned. All forms of infinites are legal, but must end before 300%.

The only problem the BBR sees with infinites is their capacity to be used for stalling purposes. To combat this, we maintain the condition that infinites must end before 300%. There was discussion about lowering the damage cap or adopting a new anti-stalling system altogether, but the majority view was that the 300% limit works well enough not to warrant a change.

The technical difficulty of an infinite is not a factor to be considered in rules discussions; whether the infinite "takes skill" is irrelevant, and "it's too easy" is not a legitimate reason to ban infinites. Nor do we support catering to the spectator with the creation of this ruleset - we do not believe that changing the game so that matches will be more enjoyable to watch is, in general, justified. They are part of the match-up, and should not be removed for the sake of making the player work harder for a win, or for the sake of making it easier on the victim. Within the context of the game, a win through use of infinites is still a legitimate win.

Rules against infinites also raise enforceability questions. If we were to ban infinites, what happens if a player is in a position to initiate one? Is he allowed to perform the infinite for five seconds? For 20%? Or is he allowed no iterations at all? Banning infinites would either leave too much to interpretation for a ruleset, or would involve setting arbitrary stop points or limitations. Neither of these is something we wish to do.

~ T-Block

 

[T-block]

This post will contain summaries for some of the more controversial stages - more will come over time. Credit to AmazingAmpharos for several of these.

Vote counts reflect number of votes from the entire revision process.


<hr />
Pokemon Stadium 2

Counterpick Group Two
Vote: (7-24-18)

We feel that Pokemon Stadium 2 was banned in many regions without being given a fair chance. The votecount clearly shows that we do not think this stage should be banned.

The most common issue brought up with this stage is that it forces players to deal with changes in the game's physics, such as icy floors or low gravity. However, the majority consensus was that these changes do not degrade play, but instead open up new options that can be used to the advantage of the player that takes the time to become familiar with the stage.

The tendency for transformations to lead to stalling was raised as a concern, as several characters can stall the entire duration of Flying transformation, and both Electric and Ground transformations tend to discourage approach. For this we look at the precedent set by Pokemon Stadium 1, for which there are no qualms about its legality. As Rock and Fire transformations also have a tendency to halt battle, it is clear that the 30 second intervals of ceasefire is not a banworthy quality for Pokemon Stadium 2.

A strong point for its legality lies in the fact that no characters seem to consider this stage a strong counterpick, and no characters seem to consider this one of their worst stages. This leads us to believe that this is a very fair stage overall. In fact, with no characters currently considering Pokemon Stadium 2 as a strong counterpick, there was a movement to allow Pokemon Stadium 2 to be considered as a Starter stage.



<hr />
Jungle Japes

Counterpick Group 2
Vote: (0-28-18)

In place where this stage was banned, Falco's performance was sometimes cited as a reason. However, there was a strong consensus that his strength here was overestimated, and is certainly no reason to ban the stage.

The Klap Trap was raised as a concern, but we decided it was a non-issue. Although it kills at low percents, it occupies space away from the main part of the stage. Combined with the fact that the timing of its appearance is completely predictable, this makes the Klap Trap a stage feature that can be incorporated into a strategy, rather than a hazard that interferes with gameplay.

The greater concern was for the stalling potential on the stage. The multiple ledges and the constant presence of water make running away significantly easier than on most other stages. Wario and Meta Knight in particular are two characters who could use these features effectively. While many of us acknowledge that this could be problematic, the fact that this stage has been legal in many regions, with no such strategy being proven to be overpowered or degenerate, is enough to allow this stage to remain legal until it is more conclusively shown that these stalling tactics are broken.



<hr />
Green Greens

Counterpick Group 3
Vote: (0-23-26)

We recognize this stage has been controversial in the past, and after considering the merits and problems with this stage, we concluded it was overall an acceptable counterpick.

The single most dominating aspect of the debate was the randomness issue; Green Greens has three random aspects. The first is that blocks randomly fall into incomplete columns and may or may not be bombs, the second is that apples occasionally fall and may randomly be throwable items, healing items, or self-detonating explosives, and the third is that the wind event occurs randomly. The consensus on the blocks was that, while they do contain a significant random element, it is small when players understand the rules governing the stage and play correctly to minimize risk. It is further limited as a problem by the fact that good DI prevents deaths to the bomb blocks except at fairly high damage so getting hit into a randomly falling bomb block should very seldom be fatal. The apples were agreed to be somewhat harder to predict, but apples fall rarely with the most deadly aspect (exploding apples) being the rarest issue of all. Again, very rare misfortune may occur, but the vast majority of problems randomness in apples cause can be avoided by all players using smart play. The third random aspect, the wind, was not raised as a significant point and therefore is likely considered irrelevant to the stage's legality by the majority of the BBR. While some BBR members did feel the randomness was significant enough to warrant a ban, the majority did not feel it was especially significant when informed players approached the stage.

The potential for wall infintes was another concern for this stage, but it was ultimately decided by the majority to be acceptable. The breakable nature of the blocks does much to limit the power of wall infinites on this stage.

The closeness of blast zones was another concern, but the majority dismissed this concern. Some feel that blast zone proximity should not be a large concern when deciding counterpick status at all, and others were quick to point out that Green Greens is not as extreme as it initially seems. The main ground on Green Greens is actually slightly further from the upper blast zone than the deck of the Halberd, and play on Green Greens is usually based around the center stage which is reasonably distant from the side blast zones.

The stalling potential of this stage with under the stage antics and ledge stalling was considered but ultimately dismissed. The majority felt that, while this was a potential concern, it was not significantly more dangerous than it is on Smashville, an uncontroversial legal stage.

Matchup balance was the last point considered, but no consensus was reached on how powerful this stage was for characters such as Meta Knight. The fact that few seemed sure of the character balance on this stage was highlighted by what a rare pick this stage was at both MLG events. This uncertainty led us to conclude that this stage should not be banned on that basis.



<hr />
Distant Planet

Counterpick Group 3
Vote: (0-20-25)

We feel Distant Planet is another stage that was banned without proper justification.

The Bulborb was brought up as a ban reason because it instantly kills players regardless of percent. However, it was generally agreed that the lethal zone is too far removed from the main area to affect play to any significant degree. The creature is more likely to influence the match by providing a platform to recover than by taking a stock from a player.

Another concern was the presence of the walkoff. Although it is a sloped walkoff, some characters such as King Dedede and Pikachu can still use it to score early kills, but we deem it reasonable to expect the player to avoid such situations when playing against these characters, since taking your opponent to the blast zone generally has to be initiated facing the near blast zone while on the slope; this is a very specific situation that can reasonably be avoided.

It was also argued that the stage promotes camping strategies too heavily, with a very strong defensive position at the bottom of the slope and two ledges between which most characters can travel easily. In response, it was noted that the stage itself helps to combat abuse of such features. The rain flushes players out from the bottom of the slope, and the pellets provide even characters without projectiles with a means to combat camping. All in all, when considering that this stage was never given much of a chance to show that camping tactics are indeed overpowered, it was decided that Distant Planet should not be banned.



<hr />
Luigi's Mansion

Counterpick Group Three
Vote: (0-22-27)

There were several issues raised over the legality of Luigi's Mansion. One was the claim that Olimar and Meta Knight are overpowered here. Meta Knight was brought up as being too strong, with Mach Tornado being the claimed overpowered move. Olimar's strength was also raised with heightened camping ability and u-smash chains. Another was that the solid ceilings created a cave-of-life effect, shifting the reason for death from "being hit by a KO move" to "failing to tech a KO move", which tends to lead to variance in results. Lastly, it was argued that running the timer is too easy on Luigi's Mansion. The layout of the mansion is such that faster characters could easily avoid combat while it is standing, and when it is destroyed, the runner needs to avoid combat for only twenty seconds before it respawns.

In response to all of these concerns, strategic breaking of the mansion was raised. Both the cave-of-life and the path for running away become less effective as the mansion is destroyed. While some claimed that attempting to attack the pillars left you unfairly open to attack, it was generally agreed that each player's interactions with the house with respect to the most desirable state for each player led to very strategic gameplay, rather than degenerate gameplay. The player who wants the cave-of-life, or who wants to run away naturally wants the house to stay standing. By destroying the house, the other player can either force a response, or remove the feature that enables the opponent's strategy in the first place. It should also be noted that it is not obvious that Mach Tornado and Olimar's u-smash are overpowered on Luigi's Mansion. Through smart use of teching and get-up options, many claimed that it was very possible to escape any sort of attempt to chain these moves into themselves.



<hr />
Pirate Ship

Counterpick Group 3
Vote: (0-22-28)

Pirate Ship was one of the most controversial stages discussed, and due to the tie in the votecount we have placed it in the Counter/Banned category.

Some felt the bombs were too strong of a hazard, with the potential to deal over 50% damage and KO at lower percents than most hazards, and that their trajectory was too difficult to follow. Others claimed that it was reasonable to expect the players to avoid the bombs, and that following the trajectory was just a matter of practice, and did not think the bombs were an issue despite the severe punishment inflicted when they connect.

Other minor concerns raised for this stage were the catapult and the period of low gravity while falling from the whirlwind. However, it was generally agreed that the catapult is not an issue as characters will only be killed by it with poor DI, and that low gravity is a tolerable change in physics that does not degrade gameplay.

The most controversial aspect of this stage, however, was the camping enabled by the presence of water, and in particular swimming under the rudder, or "rudder camping". Because not all characters have a way of forcing the opponent out from under the rudder, many matchups can see the game decided as soon as a stock lead is obtained. 31.7% of all matchups in the game see rudder camping as a problem. Some felt that rudder camping should be banned under stalling to allow the stage to be legal, while others felt that it should be Pirate Ship that is banned rather than rudder camping. Still others felt that even with rudder camping the stage should be legal. We have decided to leave the issue of whether swimming under the rudder should be labelled as stalling to the discretion of the TO. The TO's decision on the matter will likely be a major factor in placing the stage into the Counterpick or the Banned category.



<hr />
Port Town Aero Dive

Counterpick Group 3
Vote: (0-24-32)

One concern raised for Port Town Aero Dive was the power of the cars. Despite the fact that every stop has at least one, and often two zones that are safe (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=217615), it was argued that killing many characters at ~60% is too powerful of a hazard for competitive play. However, it ultimately decided that they would not be a reason to ban the stage, as the existence of safe zones is enough to ensure that smart play on this stage would see very few car kills not resulting from one player outplaying another. Experience backs this up; many confirmed through testing the stage that avoiding the cars is a reasonable expectation. The opportunity for one player to force the other into the cars' path changes the risk-reward balance slightly, but the consensus was that it is not a banworthy change. In fact, some even said that the power of the cars could be seen as a counterpick quality for characters such as Samus, who have trouble killing in general.

The other concern is the lack of ledges on the main platform, and the implication for characters with poor recoveries, and tether recoveries in particular. Ultimately, we decided to label the lack of ledges as a strong counterpick quality instead of a cause for a ban. The justification for this is aided by the fact that the track is present for the majority of the course. It is reasonable to expect characters with poor recoveries to save their double jump and instead use the track to bounce themselves back towards the stage, especially when you consider that it is not uncommon for some characters to take upwards of 30% trying to recover against an edgeguarder even on static stages. Again, testing has shown that the lack of ledges is not as detrimental to balance as one might first think.



<hr />

 

[UTDZac]

Moved to Brawl Tactical Discussion.

 

[Shaya]

For the most part, what has changed is the stage list in classifying counter picks.
No other rule alterations have applied (LGL, Deathmatch, etc)
However there is a growing new section right at the bottom (Addressed Issues / FAQ) that has some further insight into the things questioned in the last topic.

 

[Browny]

"Arbitrarily giving Bowser an advantage was deemed inappropriate"

But bowser needs to be in an advantageous position, with a rather large % lead for this to work.

how is that an 'arbitrary' advantage, he has clearly earned it.

 

[Shaya]

"Arbitrarily giving Bowser an advantage was deemed inappropriate"

But bowser needs to be in an advantageous position, with a rather large % lead for this to work.

how is that an 'arbitrary' advantage, he has clearly earned it.

Smart ***.
Perhaps I should add "Side-B" somewhere in there.

 

[bigman40]

Inb4 this explodes out of proportion like last time.

Anyways, I wanted to try the stages out regardless. So I'm hoping to get some decent footage on the stages ppl say are completely stupid.

 

[lordhelmet]

I approve for the most part. Though I still don't agree with giving MK two strong counterpicks (seeing as most TOs will use CP set 2).

It's not a huge deal but I think RC should be switched with Brinstar. Further more I'd like to see Brinstar in group 3 but it's w/e

 

[Shaya]

Inb4 this explodes out of proportion like last time.

Anyways, I wanted to try the stages out regardless. So I'm hoping to get some decent footage on the stages ppl say are completely stupid.

I advocate Pokemon Stadium 2 as a starter, by the way.
So people better start playing it so I can force it down your throats to replace the lame PS1 in the starter list.

 

[lordhelmet]

I'm not a fan of anything greater than a 5 starter list. But PS2 is actually a pretty legit stage and I support it being a counterpick.

 

[Lore]

Thank you for redoing the list and explaining it a bit more in-depth for this super conservative community.

Maybe now we'll see some testing instead of pointless arguing?

 

[StarLight]

I approve of RC being in CP g-2

 

[Shaya]

I approve for the most part. Though I still don't agree with giving MK two strong counterpicks (seeing as most TOs will use CP set 2).

It's not a huge deal but I think RC should be switched with Brinstar. Further more I'd like to see Brinstar in group 3 but it's w/e

I feel this may be worth mentioning in the future, so thanks for bringing it up.
The BBR in general feels that classifying stages primarily due to Meta Knight is dangerous. Many stages are already categorised as "MUST BE BANNED BCOZ OF MK".
A lot of stages not even used are thrown out purely because "MK MUST BE **** THERE". Many people with experience on the stage claim this isn't entirely true (as in other characters can play the stage better).

The reason we wouldn't want to classify CPs because of MK is that the removal of those stages also strengthen and weaken other characters. Characters such as Falco and Diddy are "seen" as doing badly on many CPs, and when you remove those stages because of trying to balance the game to cater to the high tiers combating MK, what is actually happening is, is that many OTHER characters now have harder times against the likes of falco/diddy/etc within a set.

Rainbow Cruise is banned in my region as it is seen as "MK-centralised". However before this it was a great stage that people would take ICs, Olimar, etc too
and of course was commonly picked by ROB, G&W, Pit.
People can draw conclusions that as the stage list (those used publicly, not exactly BBR recommended) has been reduced, several characters, like those listed above, have either gone up or down the tier list.
Sure we know Diddy is top tier now, but he'd probably be less feared against a lot of other characters if they could always get him to RC/Brinstar/something. And in counter, even if we see ROB as "not top tier now" as he used to be, he would be more feared in a set still if he had some extremely good CPs still available to him.

Revision 2, when/if started will probably re-look at brinstar/RC.

 

[Mota]

This is a lot better, and how the v3.0 should have been formatted, explained and released.

Interesting take on LGLs, if the data does deem MK too be broken on the ledge, LGL will not be applied instead a ban will occur?

The suicide rule I understand where you're coming from, but I still feel the old rule was fine as well.

 

[Kole]

I like this better


and the format=sexy!

 

[Shaya]

Refer to second post.

 

[sunshade]

Was anything actually changed or is this just a sugarcoated version of the last ruleset?

 

[Kofu]

Sugarcoated version, some things were moved around in the CP section though.

 

[Shaya]

WAR IS PEACE
(-making, to find the issues)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
(people misunderstood the "freedom" 3.0 was meant to imply)

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
(to troll; and we don't like trolls).

Take that as you will.

Let's just say new tallies were considered. For example, PTAD as a whole is considered "worse" than Pirate Ship, unlike before.

 

[uhmuzing]

I really like this ruleset and all that the BBR is doing, but I do have one problem. MK is literally the only viable character here, providing a player is willing and capable of PPlanking the whole match. Ban him already if it's what's best, but something needs to happen if you really want people to use this ruleset. You can't expect TO's to run this exactly with MK as potent as he is.

Edit: @below post: +1 respect for Shaya
I still hope the BBR tries to clear this issue up in the near future.

This IS a beautiful ruleset though. Good job. :D

 

[Shaya]

I really like this ruleset and all that the BBR is doing, but I do have one problem. MK is literally the only viable character here, providing a player is willing and capable of PPlanking the whole match. Ban him already if it's what's best, but something needs to happen if you really want people to use this ruleset. You can't expect TO's to run this exactly with MK as potent as he is.

Because of the lack of a ledge grab limit?

I can say right now that an LGL probably won't be "completely" recommended as a rule by the BBR any time soon. And another thing to consider is this is the first (3.0) official publication we've made that has actually commented on the LGL. The common standard for the LGL now, I would never recommend.

I am a tournament organiser, and my opinion on the LGL is that it should only apply to Meta Knight. This is because of frame data. Other character's planking has not been shown to be dominating (through frame data).
I mentioned in the BBR that I wanted to talk a bit more about how one would implement an LGL and why, but I held off showing that in the official publication because of what I mentioned in the previous paragraph (first publication on the LGL).

As an individual, a tournament organiser and a researcher of this game;
if Meta Knight is legal at your tournaments, I would personally recommend a ledge grab limit for Meta Knight only.

The number? I can't honestly recommend a definite fair number. But I personally have one set to 25. This only applies in a time out. LGL's unfortunately do NOT fix all the issues that MK planking can create (as in waiting until the end of a match to grab the ledge to time out).

I feel an LGL applying to any other character is induced by fear or anti-competitive notions only.

 

[Blacknight99923]

formatting is done significantly better

 

[Triforce Of Chozo]

This thread looks very nice, and the new presentation of the stages makes worlds of difference.

Question:
Why not just rule PPlanking as stalling, if that's what people are worried about?
It clearly makes the game unplayable as long as they choose to do it. Give it a certain amount of time before it's ruled as stalling.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

Very nice guys, I'm glad the BBR didn't cave-in on any ruling from their first attempt and instead just polished it up. The new clarifications will hopefully prevent knee-jerk reactions of the previous magnitude. Hopefully.

Much like the previous one, I'm a huge fan; the options presented are well thought out and helpful for TOs, and the BBR took a very smart approach on the LGL rule/several previously neglected stages. This really helps set up our community to work towards a more optimal and enlightened rule set down the line, and I don't think you guys did a too shabby job in the here-and-now

Good job. You guys should take pride in all of this!

 

[Shaya]

T-Block, when there is the chance, I think I'll have you take second post.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Great work, it just gets better and better

I'm out of town and only have access on my phone, so I may not be able to keep up with this thread. However, I'm hopeful that this formatting makes the options available in this rule set more clear.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh my goodness, this is so pro, guys. I'm glad you didn't actually compromise any of your decisions because of the backlash, but the formatting changes you made look incredibly professional and seem like they would help new TOs immensely. A++, would read again.

 

[WindMajor]

Thanks BBR, for clearing everything up! I hope everything is calm when morning strikes.

Although I wonder why Rainbow Cruise isn't in the first class of counterpicks...

 

[Shaya]

Thanks BBR, for clearing everything up! I hope everything is calm when morning strikes.

Although I wonder why Rainbow Cruise isn't in the first class of counterpicks...

Whilst rainbow cruise is generally seen as more common than pictochat; pictochat ended up having a slightly better tally
(And it's probably the worst MK stage in group 2, maybe PS2 is worse, haha)

Thank you for your compliments.

 

[Hobobloke]

This looks like it should definitely lower the flaming quite a bit, good work BBR.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Excellent job. This should stop the flaming except for ADHD.

 

[Karp-0S]

Vyse here:
Good stuff on releasing this so quickly Shaya

 

[Hobobloke]

Should definitely edit T-blocks stage write-ups in to the first or second post imo, they do a great job clarifying for those who may be skeptical about some of the more out there stages.

 

[TheMike]

Good job, Shaya. <3

 

[The Real Inferno]

In record time!

Edit: I'm very sad not to receive a personal mention for fighting the good fight in the public threads I'mma go cry.

 

[Juushichi]

Excellent job, guys.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Heh, it's quite interesting to see the order of CPs in terms of acceptedness(sp?) within the BBR, though I would have imagined Rainbow Cruise being a Tier One CP. I've heard more complaints about Brinstar than Rainbow Cruise.

Still, this should hopefully stop most of the crying. Good job.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Why does the BBR say it's entirely opposed to the thought of LGLs? The frame data has been presented and it's been proven that Meta Knight's planking is entirely unbeatable. You should at least show neutrality on the subject or at least recommend to newer TO's that if you do run an LGL it should be Meta Knight only, apply to time outs, etc.

 

[Shaya]

Why does the BBR say it's entirely opposed to the thought of LGLs? The frame data has been presented and it's been proven that Meta Knight's planking is entirely unbeatable. You should at least show neutrality on the subject or at least recommend to newer TO's that if you do run an LGL it should be Meta Knight only, apply to time outs, etc.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10912565&postcount=21

 

[rPSIvysaur]

I know, but in my opinion, if we're ever going to meet the requirement that only Meta Knight has an LGL, the BBR needs to release an official statement that says that if you do indeed intend on using an LGL, then you should only place it on Meta Knight instead of a global LGL.