Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[BSP]

timer hit 0... samus wins.

That's what I would go with.

 

[Raziek]

If you're dying during the timer ending, I think you could make a legitimate argument for both sides.

You could argue for Samus to win because that's what we've established as the raw win criteria, whoever has more stocks/less percent when time runs out wins. She hasn't TECHNICALLY lost her stock yet. It's Lucas' fault for choosing a vertical kill so close to the time-out.

On the other hand, Lucas could argue that the deathblow had landed WITHIN the timer, so the fact that the game has a silly animation for dying vertically should not change the fact that off any other side of the screen, he/she would have died.

I'm torn, but I would probably give the win to Samus.

 

[-Vocal-]

If you're dying during the timer ending, I think you could make a legitimate argument for both sides.

You could argue for Samus to win because that's what we've established as the raw win criteria, whoever has more stocks/less percent when time runs out wins. She hasn't TECHNICALLY lost her stock yet. It's Lucas' fault for choosing a vertical kill so close to the time-out.

On the other hand, Lucas could argue that the deathblow had landed WITHIN the timer, so the fact that the game has a silly animation for dying vertically should not change the fact that off any other side of the screen, he/she would have died.

I'm torn, but I would probably give the win to Samus.

You realize that giving the win to Lucas would just be buffing Lucas' Usmash

 

[BSP]

If you're dying during the timer ending, I think you could make a legitimate argument for both sides.

You could argue for Samus to win because that's what we've established as the raw win criteria, whoever has more stocks/less percent when time runs out wins. She hasn't TECHNICALLY lost her stock yet. It's Lucas' fault for choosing a vertical kill so close to the time-out..

Pretty big point right there. Lucas is totally aware that his Usmash will take more time to fully KO the opponent.

 

[Raziek]

Yes, -Vocal-, I'm well aware of that, that's why I said I would probably give the win to Samus. It's a little silly, but I can't deny the logic.

 

[-Vocal-]

Yes, -Vocal-, I'm well aware of that, that's why I said I would probably give the win to Samus. It's a little silly, but I can't deny the logic.

Btw, what on Earth is that in your avatar? I liked Joshua a lot more, if for no other reason than I actually knew who he was

 

[Raziek]

Btw, what on Earth is that in your avatar? I liked Joshua a lot more, if for no other reason than I actually knew who he was

Just so this isn't a completely off-topic post, BAN MK.

Now that my *** is covered, it's Terumi, Hazama's ghost incarnation. (He's the main villain of BlazBlue)

I'm considering going with another Fire Emblem character sometime soon, but I'd probably opt for Klein, or Zihark or Nolan or something.

I likes me the swordmaster n' such.

 

[-LzR-]

I don't think the suicide rule like matters. It doesn't matter if chars like Ganon or Bowser don't like it. They aren't viable to begin with.

 

[-Vocal-]

I don't think the suicide rule like matters. It doesn't matter if chars like Ganon or Bowser don't like it. They aren't viable to begin with.

Don't let them hear you say that or they'll throw a fit, with good reason. The ruleset is created to be as fair as possible to all characters, regardless of if they are tournament viable or not. (Plus they'll be quick to point out that there are a few who do somewhat alright with him anyways )

I'm on a FE avatar phase myself; before this one I had Lyndis, thinking I might make a Hector one once I tire of Florina

 

[Ganonsburg]

I don't think the suicide rule like matters. It doesn't matter if chars like Ganon or Bowser don't like it. They aren't viable to begin with.

I hope you play Z1GMA someday and he pwns you. When that happens, remind me to tell you how you lost to a nonviable character.

 

[-LzR-]

Hopefully I play Z1GMA as he lives reasonably near from me. I didn't mean that, but I know how it affects Ganon, I like Ganon myself too. It's just that competitively it makes no difference as Ganon already is so horrible that it doesn't make him any better or worse.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Hopefully I play Z1GMA as he lives reasonably near from me. I didn't mean that, but I know how it affects Ganon, I like Ganon myself too. It's just that competitively it makes no difference as Ganon already is so horrible that it doesn't make him any better or worse.

Haha, that's why I chose Z1G instead of Verm or Kalm. Your point is noted, although it still doesn't stop people like Clai from Warlock Punching people like M2K (I don't know if it was a friendly or what, but who cares?).

 

[-LzR-]

I am not talking biased stuff, it's just like Ganondorf being nerfed very slightly doesn't matter at all. You shouldn't be playing Ganondorf competitively in the first place unless for personal preference which isn't competitive.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I am not talking biased stuff, it's just like Ganondorf being nerfed very slightly doesn't matter at all. You shouldn't be playing Ganondorf competitively in the first place unless for personal preference which isn't competitive.

But by the same token, Ganon being buffed slightly doesn't matter at all.

 

[-LzR-]

Why doesn't it matter? Why isn't it unfair to buff Ganon while it's unfair to buff DK?

 

[-Vocal-]

But by the same token, Ganon being buffed slightly doesn't matter at all.

So we won't do either and stick to a solid philosophy ^_^

 

[Ganonsburg]

Why doesn't it matter? Why isn't it unfair to buff Ganon while it's unfair to buff DK?

Why is it unfair to buff Ganon and suicide characters when it's fair to buff spammy characters with the current percent rule?

 

[Spelt]

...What percent rule?

 

[Noa.]

I for one agree with the SBR on the stance of suicides.

 

[Ganonsburg]

...What percent rule?

If the time runs out, and both characters are on the same stock, winner is determined by percent. This heavily favors characters who deal out damage quickly, regardless of how much trouble they have KOing. I'm not suggesting a change in the rule (although it would be fair to treat all Sudden Deaths with the same mini match rule), but it is a buff to one set of characters.

So why can those characters get such a large buff, but another set can't get a small one?

 

[-Vocal-]

If the time runs out, and both characters are on the same stock, winner is determined by percent. This heavily favors characters who deal out damage quickly, regardless of how much trouble they have KOing. I'm not suggesting a change in the rule (although it would be fair to treat all Sudden Deaths with the same mini match rule), but it is a buff to one set of characters.

So why can those characters get such a large buff, but another set can't get a small one?

From what I gather, the BBR has a philosophy of only removing what is detrimental to competitive play. Overly long matches are detrimental because not everyone has days to spend on a tournament (just look at how long they can last right now). To remove this, the BBR places in a time limit.

This is not put in place as a buff to anyone. It is put in place to make tournaments a possibility; with time limits, tournaments would go on for far too long for people to be able to see them through to the end.

It's not there to give a buff, so using it as justification to give a set of characters a buff is illogical.

At least I'm fairly certain that's how the reasoning goes.

 

[Noa.]

The time limit is put on to give players a motive to actually approach.

If there was no timer and I was losing, I still wouldn't need to approach. My opponent also might not approach, and then the match would not move at all.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Yes yes yes, but you missed a key point. Why not just have all time outs or anything that ends with SD just go to the minimatch? That's fair. Instead, we have some winning, some losing, and some getting the rematch.

 

[Spelt]

even the characters who have a hard time koing would need to KO the opponent just as much as the opponent kills them for that rule to go into effect.

it's not a buff at all. to any characters

 

[-Vocal-]

even the characters who have a hard time koing would need to KO the opponent just as much as the opponent kills them for that rule to go into effect.

it's not a buff at all. to any characters

This.

As far as "why treat different situations differently," it's because they're different. In the case of a timeout, both players still have a stock, so we can determine a winner by percentage. If we can't, then we go to the next step: the rematch. In the case of concurrent death, neither player has a stock, so we can't determine a winner by percentage, so we go to the next step: the rematch.

In the end, this may be slightly aribitrary - I'd have to think about it some more. However, it isn't a character specific buff or nerf because it applies equally to all characters, so it still can't be used as justification for a suicide rule.

 

[Raziek]

The percentage argument is simply based off of the fighting game tradition that whoever has more health (or less damage, in this case), when time runs out, wins.

Yes, it is not as easy to apply because some character die at 210 and some die at 90, but it's the easiest form of measurement we have.

If you have a better idea, I'd like to see it.

 

[-Vocal-]

The percentage argument is simply based off of the fighting game tradition that whoever has more health (or less damage, in this case), when time runs out, wins.

Yes, it is not as easy to apply because some character die at 210 and some die at 90, but it's the easiest form of measurement we have.

If you have a better idea, I'd like to see it.

Makes quite a bit of sense. I guess it is arbitrary in a sense, but it doesn't hurt the game in anyway. I'm satisfied.

It does suck for lighter characters, but that's life *shrugs*

*wishes Olimar was heavier*

 

[da K.I.D.]

Honest question.

The way I am reading the stage list, I am led to believe that the BBR feels lylat cruise to be, in a sence, more neutral than final destination. And also they feel that a 5 stage nuetral tourney list should not include FD.

I would like to know the reasoning behind this. As a person thats been playing smash competitively since 06' the idea of FD not being an automatic neutral is kinda alien to me.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's not neutral, it's "starter".

(this is all speaking from personal experience; I could be wrong)

The point of stage striking in round 1 is to have a more or less balanced stage between characters for the first match. FD is by no means a balanced stage. It is one of the most ridiculously polarizing stages in the game. It's the best for projectile spam, stationary shutdown (think shuttle loop OOS camping; due to lack of platforms), grabbing in general and therefore chaingrabs (again, no platforms), and the worse for aerial options. It is, in fact, like having Brinstar in the starter list. Sure, you can strike it, but when you are forced to strike and ban a stage in so many matchups, it should be kind of telling as to how balanced of a stage it is for the starter list.

 

[-Vocal-]

I almost beginning to think the explanation for FD needs to be added to the second post

 

[da K.I.D.]

not disregarding the rest of your post, I just want to comment on this part first.

I usually find stationary camping to be not only much more effective, but much easier as well, on BF than FD, since standing under the 2 side platforms can limit aerial approaches far more than fd.

edit

I almost beginning to think the explanation for FD needs to be added to the second post

i was expecting it honestly.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@Vocal: Yes. Also, why is it already in the 7-stage starter list? Frigate is a more balanced starter, seriously.

EDIT: Well there you go, 3 stages that falco is really good on in a 5-starter stage list. Bad idea. The other points still stand though-FD is a very polar stage.

 

[da K.I.D.]

1. maybe it is, ill need to test this myself
2. whether falco/wario/(insert non-broken character here) is good on your stage list really isnt, nor should it be a criteria for said stage list.


ps. my post count is so win right now

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

1. Kay, good plan
2. Of course not. However, when you look at a character and realize "holy **** all of this guy's best stages except for like one are in this starter list", something is wrong. When you can say the opposite ("holy **** all of this guy's worst stages are in this starter list") about the same list, it's time to revise your stagelist. What does matter, if not character balance in the stagelist? If a character is good on the stagelist, it's one thing if he's good on it because he happens to be good on over half the stages in brawl. It's another thing if he's good on it because almost all of his best stages are in the starter list (like with falco, or ICs, or Diddy Kong). I'm an advocate of full-list striking, tbh, but I'm aware that's not really ever going to be widely accepted.

 

[-Vocal-]

@Da Kid: Yes it is so win :D

@BPC: I think it's less of a focus on character and more of a focus on playstyle, as in the stage list should be balanced between ground intensive and air intensive (as opposed to saying between MK, Wario, Pit and Falco, Snake, ICs).

 

[Shaya]

The amount of starters used in a tournament, and what the starters are used is important to balance over all.

For a long time the "3 starters" were fd, bf, sv.
This overly favoured characters like diddy kong and falco.

The goal of the starters is to have, once stricken down, the most "even" match up possible.

Yoshi's Island over FD at least gives a higher probability of Battlefield, which for those "amazing FD/SV" characters balances them out. YI can also be a good starter for two characters who one does well on SV the other does well on BF

Another point is that, between two characters, when is a match up more neutral between them on FD than SV? SV generally provides the same archetype of characters advantages, resulting in the starter list not being diverse in finding the "fairest starter".

When it comes to 5 starters... FD being within the 5 still gives those same characters who cause problems with 3 the same advantage.
PS1 was somewhat meant to be the counter-balance FD, due to it's general structure. However, personally, I feel that because of the transformations that resolve in timing out... PS2 is a better starter than PS1 in 5 stages (PS2's transformations never "block" horizontal view except in one; I can argue this in depth quite a bit if you want).

tl;dr characters having two amazing counter picks available out of three starters, and even having THREE out of five (a lot of regions pick PS1 over lylat...) is just over bearing.

 

[-Vocal-]

The amount of starters used in a tournament, and what the starters are used is important to balance over all.

For a long time the "3 starters" were fd, bf, sv.
This overly favoured characters like diddy kong and falco.

The goal of the starters is to have, once stricken down, the most "even" match up possible.

Yoshi's Island over FD at least gives a higher probability of Battlefield, which for those "amazing FD/SV" characters balances them out. YI can also be a good starter for two characters who one does well on SV the other does well on BF

Another point is that, between two characters, when is a match up more neutral between them on FD than SV? SV generally provides the same archetype of characters advantages, resulting in the starter list not being diverse in finding the "fairest starter".

When it comes to 5 starters... FD being within the 5 still gives those same characters who cause problems with 3 the same advantage.
PS1 was somewhat meant to be the counter-balance FD, due to it's general structure. However, personally, I feel that because of the transformations that resolve in timing out... PS2 is a better starter than PS1 in 5 stages (PS2's transformations never "block" horizontal view except in one; I can argue this in depth quite a bit if you want).

tl;dr characters having two amazing counter picks available out of three starters, and even having THREE out of five (a lot of regions pick PS1 over lylat...) is just over bearing.

Hmm. PS2 as a starter, can't say I've thought of that much

How do you feel about such large changes in physics being available in the first game of a set? I love an informed opinion and you always have thought behind your posts ^_^

 

[Shaya]

I feel like the physics changes on PS2 can be akin to "skilled usage" as platform cancelling is on SV and Lylat.
None of them mean stupid insta death at all.

Dedede is probably the only character who can do silly things on it... but as a starter... just strike it. Like you would YI for DK and Sonic.
(Treadmill inhale to exhale understage reverse bair/suicide; down throw to dsmash on some characters on the ice, cg against wall on the earth section; however... the first one should... honestly never happen, last two may happen but are unlikely to, ice one only costs you a stock if you're at kill percent... I don't think it works on heaver characters though).

The physics changed can be used by different characters skilfully, and because of that I believe players can learn to handle them and use them effectively.
Worst case scenario is, you camp on the transformations.

I really can't think of anything the stage forces you into that drastically changes the result of the match.

Air transformation is bad for MK
Treadmill transformation is bad for MK.
Stage is large, larger than PS1. MK doesn't like that.
Has large horizontal blast zones; but a lower roof in comparison (even though it is a larger roof than say; FD - as Marth i've survived fresh snake utilts at final percent of 130%; but that's more of the horizontal blast zones than the roof).

Ice transformation at worst requires you to walk on it. There are also platforms available.
Wind transformation doesn't get you freely ***** at all by anyone on the ground (bar ... like... sonic )
Treadmill has so many tricks and strategies on it, it's ridiculous.

All transformations last 30 seconds. In an 8 minute match there will be 5 transformations, 3 will be unique, 2 will show up twice (but not before all the others show up too).

Air transformation can be "stalled" at the top off screen (but they're gainin 1% a second for it) by the likes of Fox, Marth, ROB. Fox is probably the worst here, he can stay up there after the transformation goes for a pretty long time. People should strike this against fox.

 

[Spelt]

Jigglypuff's rising pound gets a huge boost during the wind transformation. Using all second jumps and then rising pound spamming during the majority of the transformation and continuing to after the stage goes back to the original transformation can grant jigglypuff at least a few minutes of stall time.

I haven't actually tested this thoroughly though, only used it randomly during a friendly a few months ago (after the wind transformation had already been in place for awhile before I started it). Used properly it's a viable stalling tactic.

 

[Shaya]

arr yes, jiggs.