Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[SaveMeJebus]

yeah, but in order for that to work, you have to get at least one legit win against the opponent which is more than you can say about the current rule set in which you can win all your matches by time out. If someone wins a match without having to resort to those tactics, then there should be no reason for them to have to resort to them on the second game unless the timeout is what they were aiming for from the beginning.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Part of the problem is that those things can happen on normally acceptable stages. Smashville for example has no problems besides really helping out Wario time out people, and helping MK scrooge. Even on starter stages you have stalling/near stalling issues. The stage list, with all stages that had problems like that removed, would be incredibly small. You might have a stage list of under 5 stages, including CP's. Most people can't live with that, so here we have starters and CP's with these problems legal.

Some of it is blatantly obvious, and IDK why the stages aren't removed by now. Brinstar for example is gross for both "regular" timing out and strategies like sharking or planking opportunely where you don't need to grab the edge as much to stay safe because of how the stage works. As much as I love stages like that, I don't see how in the world we can allow it if we also allow those things to happen freely.

Then you have stages which are quite gay and have issues, but most people have a hard time visualizing them. Japes, Green Greens, and Norfair for example. Most people don't see the problems with clustered multi edges, safety under the stage, platforms or stage gaps forcing people to jump/be airborne to get over there which allows you to outmaneuver them with a faster character, etc. I don't completely blame people for not seeing this, or not believing it until it happens set after set. Most people see non gay sets on most stages anyways, we're not conditioned to expect the gayest all the time even when it comes to MK.





Yes there is something wrong with the stage list. Our CP list is probably too long sometimes, and our starter lists can include stages that have no place as being starters. Delfino for example is in no way starter material unless you use so many stages that eventually you have to include it. Even then, there are probably better alternatives to it. 9 stage starter list for example should probably include Frigate over Delfino. MK on Delfino is Lol, there is no comparable for Frigate. Most people though say "Well that's just MK" and include Delfino because they think it balances out ground and air stages when in reality it probably shouldn't be a stage anyone with a gay mindset should start out on.

Our stage list, a lot of times, seems collaborated on based on the notion that people won't play gay, or THAT gay, or that often, etc. Sure, Brinstar can be gay, but how many people will abuse it? Not that many? Ok add it in. Stuff like that. Oh Delfino is gay, how many times will the first game be played out there? Not that many cause you can strike it? Ok add it in Lolz.

There's also a problem with MK, even if you think he needs to stay. He's too powerful when left alone. No LGL or stalling rule encompassing planking well means that he is auto win against everyone (Even after posting the Frame Data and going over a ton of Hitbox stuff with some people, everyone seems to have the mentality of "Well I'll believe it when I see it"). As bad and arbitrary as LGL can seem, having that around is better than "LOL HERE YA GO MK COOKIE FOR YOU, NOW GO ****".

If we want MK in the game, and make him not a problem, make the stage list more conservative. "But I love Brinstar, now Peach can take Diddy or Falco there and win!" "Oh well sure diversity would be nice, if MK wouldn't come along and IDK, say Shark and time you out with no good response to it from the entire cast. Yay for auto win stages for the best character in the game already?" That's the problem with expanding the stage list. You can get diversity of character usage (In a NON-GAY world where not everyone picks MK and plays gay), at the expense of making MK grow in power. If you want MK to stay in the game, please at least don't cater the stage list to him. I'd rather play on FD all day with MK allowed than watch more of this nonsense of him elsewhere.

Fix MK, Fix stages, or Fix both. Either way, both of them have problems.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Of course you didn't.

*reports*

 

[-Vocal-]

@Jebus: First, the only reason MK's timing out is a problem is because he's so lethally good at it; if MK starts to plank someone, it's ouright dangerous to try to stop him - even MK himself has trouble stopping it. Timing out isn't the problem - it's the way in which he is able to do it that is.

as for your rule, it's still pretty silly; if a timeout occurs on the first game, who counterpicks? Don't even say "that won't happen cuz ppl won't try;" I rarely try to time people out and it still happens. Time outs are fine; it just seems like you personally don't like them, but that's just your personal opinion, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.

I'd post longer but I'm on my phone

 

[SaveMeJebus]

where do you go to make suggestions about rules sets? I'll just write it down here.

what do you guys think about this rule. If you are playing under a ten min timer and the match ends in a time out, both players get a win. This rule seems to work well especially against those people who choose certain broken stages for the sole purpose of timing someone out. When using this rule, no one benefits from trying to time another person out and it lets the players play any way they want to without interfering with their play style.

The only problem that I see with this rule is if both players each win one game and the third game goes to time out. This can be solved by having a 1 stock rematch. The only way this will happen is if a timeout happens on the third game because a winner will be declared if there is a timeout on the second game. If a timeout happens on the first game, since both players won, then there is no way to choose a counter pick, so they can either choose to play on the same starter stage or restart the stage striking procedure. Since neither player actually beat the other, both players will have to stick to the character they chose when the time out occurred.

just read this

 

[PK-ow!]

Yeah, Vocal didn't read carefully, but

how do they decide whether to Retry the first stage or stage strike again?
If one player wants that stage, and the other player wants not that stage, whose desire gets priority?

Would you make retrying get priority? Then you'd repeat game 1? Weird.
Making stage-striking have priority makes more sense.
EDIT: Since it looks like you missed it: If you just make stage-striking the automatic procedure, then the players can agree to retry anyway, since they can strike identically to round 1. OH WAIT, CP bans. Hmm...


And all the objections from the first time, are being ignored by you. Even though the game won't go to a win screen off a percent lead alone, Pokemon Stadium 1 does show that the game believes in a percent lead indicating who is "winning" ("leading").

*~*~*~
All this said, I must say my interest has been piqued lately regarding additional loss conditions in regard to stalling.
I thought the fact that total air time is recorded by the game is... quite a godsend, and the notion of using it, in some way, struck me as clever. "Air time" in this launcher-R.O. fighter is clearly the 'bad thing' in this game. In a system that is, due to developer idiocy, broken by off-stage play (ledge abuse, air camping, "playing the platformer game" (Mario World-ing Rainbow Cruise and letting it kill your opponent)) with the basic construction of it being an emphasis of staying on the stage, YOU MUST RECOVER, using the statistic calculated by the game could save everything, in my eyes.


If this timeout-draw idea does actually get some attention despite "Wario at 150% not losing to Lucario at 9%," I want to know why the air time rule couldn't be used instead. I see only the argument that SaveMe's proposal here is closer to "what the game does."

I'll ask myself: What makes the players want to fight each other in the one stock overtime? Do you have percent lead at timeout matter there?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Yeah, Vocal didn't read carefully, but

how do they decide whether to Retry the first stage or stage strike again?
If one player wants that stage, and the other player wants not that stage, whose desire gets priority?

Would you make retrying get priority? Then you'd repeat game 1? Weird.
Making stage-striking have priority makes more sense.


And all the objections from the first time, are being ignored by you. Even though the game won't go to a win screen off a percent lead alone, Pokemon Stadium 1 does show that the game believes in a percent lead indicating who is "winning" ("leading").

*~*~*~
All this said, I must say my interest has been piqued lately regarding additional loss conditions in regard to stalling.
I thought the fact that total air time is recorded by the game is... quite a godsend, and the notion of using it, in some way, struck me as clever. "Air time" in this launcher-R.O. fighter is clearly the 'bad thing' in this game. In a system that is, due to developer idiocy, broken by off-stage play (ledge abuse, air camping, "playing the platformer game" (Mario World-ing Rainbow Cruise and letting it kill your opponent)) with the basic construction of it being an emphasis of staying on the stage, YOU MUST RECOVER, using the statistic calculated by the game could save everything, in my eyes.


If this timeout-draw idea does actually get some attention despite "Wario at 150% not losing to Lucario at 9%," I want to know why the air time rule couldn't be used instead. I see only the argument that SaveMe's proposal here is closer to "what the game does."

I'll ask myself: What makes the players want to fight each other in the one stock overtime? Do you have percent lead at timeout matter there?

they should only play on the same stage if they agree on it. This shouldn't be too much of a problem since they agreed to go to that stage in the first round. IF both do not agree then they should go through the stage striking procedure. the one stock rematch would only happen if both players win one game and the third goes to time

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I read therefore I am Good stuffz DMG!

seems like an interesting idea jebus, but would it be a universal timeout idea? Or just against MK?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

It should be a universal time out rule and the timer should be set to ten min.

 

[Steeler]

timing out is okay, but some of the methods people use to time out are not.

 

[-Vocal-]

I stand by what I said earlier. There's nothing wrong with timing someone out as a victory condition. It takes effort to do it, and it's not game breaking at all, so there's no reason to do away with it. (MK can do it considerably easier, but he loves being the exception anyways so...oh well. Time out victories are still valid. Have been and will be.)

 

[SaveMeJebus]

certain characters in this game were built to approach. These are characters like Marth, MK and like. These characters are given fast, strong and disjointed attacks at the cost of a projectile. The thing is that these characters specialize in head to head combat. When you add a timer to the rule set and at the same time add a rule that rewards the person that times the other, you are basically buffing these characters. This is because once these characters get the lead, there is nothing that is really forcing them to approach.

Now Marth and Ike in my opinion, are balanced characters because while they do have an exceptional close combat game, they do not have the tools to time characters out. These include multiple jumps, great aerial mobility and having no blind spots under you. Both these characters are lacking at least two of the three things that I mentioned above.

Now MK is a totally different story. MK has the tools to approach and has the tools to time people out. He has 5 mid air jumps, a great D-air to attack people below him and a glide attack that makes up for his poor aerial mobility. This is a really dangerous combination when you reward a player for timing another player out. In order for an MK to win, all he has to do is get the lead and either stand near the ledge or stand on a platform and jump around. Using this strategy, the opponent is forced to approach because if he doesn't, he will get timed out. If he tries to approach in the air, the MK can just tornado because no air attacks can go though the tornado from the sides. If a player is waiting for him next to one ledge to punish his landing, he can just land in another platform. Rewarding the player that times the other player out makes it so that an MK that plays this way is almost unbeatable(I am not even going to mention the planking).

How many of you are actually going to tell me that what I just told you right now takes skill? It is not stalling since the player is not doing anything that makes it so you can't hit him(if you have an attack that goes through tornado). The player is just putting himself in a situation were if you approach you're skrewed and if you don't approach you're still skrewed. There is nothing wrong with the stage list and there is nothing wrong with MK. MK is just broken with the rule set that you are using.

just read this

 

[-Vocal-]

just read this

*reads*

just read this

@Jebus: First, the only reason MK's timing out is a problem is because he's so lethally good at it; if MK starts to plank someone, it's ouright dangerous to try to stop him - even MK himself has trouble stopping it. Timing out isn't the problem - it's the way in which he is able to do it that is.

I stand by what I said earlier. There's nothing wrong with timing someone out as a victory condition. It takes effort to do it, and it's not game breaking at all, so there's no reason to do away with it. (MK can do it considerably easier, but he loves being the exception anyways so...oh well. Time out victories are still valid. Have been and will be.)

 

[SaveMeJebus]

So what do you suggest?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRUQj9ma-s

how do you win MK when he uses a strategy like this? He always has an advantage because you have to approach him and every time you approach him and try to fight him head to head you are going to get beat because your characters were built differently. I would also like to mention the fact that almost all of his aerials have transcendent priority meaning you are going to get beat if you try fighting him in the air

 

[-Vocal-]

So what do you suggest?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRUQj9ma-s

how do you win MK when he uses a strategy like this? He always has an advantage because you have to approach him and every time you approach him and try to fight him head to head you are going to get beat because your characters were built differently. I would also like to mention the fact that almost all of his aerials have transcendent priority.

just read this

I stand by what I said earlier. There's nothing wrong with timing someone out as a victory condition.

When it comes down to it, time outs have a greater right to be in the game than Meta Knight does. If he is truly so broken with them, then he should be the one to leave, not them.

No one's gonna ban him, so at the end of the day just cry yourself to sleep over how dumb it is

 

[Luxor]

Vocal hit the nail on the head with a sledgehammer. The only chance you have against a play-to-win-knight is to guilt him into honorable play. Even that's unreliable.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

just read this


When it comes down to it, time outs have a greater right to be in the game than Meta Knight does. If he is truly so broken with them, then he should be the one to leave, not them.

No one's gonna ban him, so at the end of the day just cry yourself to sleep over how dumb it is

You could do that or you could just change the rule set. I mean there is more of a benefit to using my rule set than using the old rule set. By using my rule set, more stages become less broken because they lose there ability to be used for the sole purpose of timing someone out. The matches will be faster because the timing people out will not be as effective as before.

Can you give me some benefits to keeping the old time out rule?

 

[da K.I.D.]

jebus, the fact of the matter is that you are making a rule specifically to weaken metaknight. and if you are making a rule specifically to weaken metaknight than you need to just flat out ban the character.

 

[DMG]

Nope. That's not an option. We must allow him and not let him air camp or ledge camp.

OUR FATE... IS SEALED!

 

[SaveMeJebus]

It's not just for MK. DMG said himself that Wario can time out characters like Lucario and basically make the match up almost unwinnable. It goes for all players that try to play and run the clock.

 

[da K.I.D.]

so youre trying to weaken characters from using their best strategies in certain matchups. why?

I personally dont have a problem with timeouts in smash, so I fail to see why your rule is so necessary.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

so youre trying to weaken characters from using their best strategies in certain matchups. why?

I personally dont have a problem with timeouts in smash, so I fail to see why your rule is so necessary.

I really do not see a reason for naming a winner after the match goes to time other than to make tournaments end in time. Adding this to the game gives an advantage to players that specialize in head to head combat or characters with mutiple jumps and great aerial mobility.

Our current rule set is not even stopping this from happening in tournament http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phRs10GVwvg

 

[Browny]

jebus, the fact of the matter is that you are making a rule specifically to weaken metaknight. and if you are making a rule specifically to weaken metaknight than you need to just flat out ban the character.

Ok so I know this has been discussed a lot but I havent paid attention to this aspect of rule set debates.

Why exactly do we believe that if we are forced to introduce a single rule to limit one character, we are admitting they are broken and must be banned? I dont see the logical argument there at all, all I see is the philosohpical belief that this idea of limiting one character proves they must be banned. What exactly is the downside to having a rule in place to limit MK? Outside of something ridiculous like supposedly harming the legitmacy of brawl as a competitive game, I can't see any real negative result of doing so. As oppose to screwing over all the MK mains who spent 000's of hours practicing, or resulting in people getting timed out and losing to stupid mk tactics over and over, creating mass discussions like this non stop for years...

Also, lol @ all the stages banned in melee solely coz of fox (apparently)

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Iv'e had to repeat myself these last 5 pages because people just don't listen.

 

[Luxor]

Savemejebus, why shouldn't timeouts be a valid win condition? Encouraging actual combat is an arbitrary and subjective goal. Besides, without victory by timeout, matches will last too long, since there's no way to force them to fight.

Browny's points are good.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Savemejebus, why shouldn't timeouts be a valid win condition? Encouraging actual combat is an arbitrary and subjective goal. Besides, without victory by timeout, matches will last too long, since there's no way to force them to fight.

Browny's points are good.

Are you serious??? I don't think a match can last longer than one that goes to time. Also, I like what it says on your location.

 

[DMG]

It becomes a question of why. Why do you want to impose a limit on MK? Because he is too powerful and needs one, or because you think competitive gameplay would be more enjoyable? If he is too powerful, why limit him instead of ban him? If you want to do it to make gameplay more enjoyable, why not expand on that and nerf other characters or aspects that other people might prefer not to have in play? Why not limit how much time characters can spend in the air, or limit how often they can shoot projectiles, or limit CG's/infinites/grab releases/footstool infinites/jab locks/tripping/etc?

Let's assume he's too powerful, and needs the nerfs to make gameplay fair. Why nerf him instead of just removing him? We literally may be the only community sans MVC2 (because of the prominence of infinites for the entire cast, as well as the community not really caring. ITS MAHVEL!) that will take about ANY measure possible to balance MK/Character out besides removing him completely. I've had people admit they would rather turn on items before banning MK outright. No other community I can think of thinks this way or goes to great lengths to purposely NOT ban a character that probably warrants it. Look at Street Fighter. They could have said "Don't air fireball with Akuma" and "Don't frame trap people into Raging Demon/etc", but they didn't do that. They could have balanced and nerfed Akuma to acceptable levels, but decided screw that let's just remove the problem.

Every community can come up with their ban criteria or solutions to face potential problems like that. Not every fighter has exactly the same criteria for x character to meet. I'm surprised to see how far some of the Brawl community varies from "regular" beliefs or answers. Sure we don't have to follow everyone else around like a stalker, but now you know why other communities sometimes look at us and go "Wtf are you guys doing" when we suggest stuff like "Hey let's NOT remove this character, let's try to nerf him to acceptable levels through rules aimed specifically at him".

 

[SaveMeJebus]

you guys keep ignoring my question about the reason for a timer that is not "to finish tournaments on time". Somehow it always goes back to MK. Can you guys just answer the question? also a question to DMG. Did they remove Akuma 2 years after the game came out?

 

[da K.I.D.]

Hypothetically. If there were no time limit, if you and me were to play a tournament match. And I wanted to make sure I would win. I could possibly run away from you forever. (I play sonic, so this is entirely possible) Nobody wants to see, play, watch, or even hear about a game that took 30 minutes to end simply because I was that adamant about not getting hit.

Part of it is for the sake of running a tourney within acceptible limits. But with a time limit in place, and with the victory condition of "whoever is winning when time runs out, wins" in place. there is an easily discernable way to identify a winner in a game without going to such extreme lengths.

It also encourages physical combat, when one needs to fight to take back the lead from the other.

Also. Id like to state that the point you made before about characters like ike and marth not being able to time people out is grossly incorrect. Ganon and Zelda are probably the only characters that cant actively time somebody out if the person behind the controller so chooses. And zelda can transform into shiek so thats moot anyway.

 

[-Vocal-]

DMG kind of said everything I was going to say.

Jebus, what do you have against time outs? Really, what is your issue with them?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Hypothetically. If there were no time limit, if you and me were to play a tournament match. And I wanted to make sure I would win. I could possibly run away from you forever. (I play sonic, so this is entirely possible) Nobody wants to see, play, watch, or even hear about a game that took 30 minutes to end simply because I was that adamant about not getting hit.

Part of it is for the sake of running a tourney within acceptible limits. But with a time limit in place, and with the victory condition of "whoever is winning when time runs out, wins" in place. there is an easily discernable way to identify a winner in a game without going to such extreme lengths.

It also encourages physical combat, when one needs to fight to take back the lead from the other.

Also. Id like to state that the point you made before about characters like ike and marth not being able to time people out is grossly incorrect. Ganon and Zelda are probably the only characters that cant actively time somebody out if the person behind the controller so chooses. And zelda can transform into shiek so thats moot anyway.

That is my point. You guys couldn't think of any other reasons besides the "to end tournaments on time" excuse. My rule set fixes time outs that were meant to be played that way for the sake of not playing the match out and still allows tournaments to finish on time. I do not agree that time encourages physical combat. If anything it encourages people to stall more as it sets a limit to the amount of time you have to stall. You said it yourself, If you have the patience to play someone for 30 min, you definitely have the patience to time someone out for 8 min

 

[sunshade]

Does nobody understand the purpose of the timer? It is not to make tournaments end on time.

A timer is used to force an approach from one of the players in the match.

 

[-Vocal-]

That is my point. You guys couldn't think of any other reasons besides the "to end tournaments on time" excuse. My rule set fixes time outs that were meant for the sake of not playing the match and still allows tournaments to finish on time.

There's also the point "it's been a victory condition in nearly every fighting game ever." Many things that are borrowed from other fighting games is a mistake due to the different nature of the battles that take place, but this one transfers nicely.

But that doesn't matter.

Give us a reason why they are bad.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

That is my point. You guys couldn't think of any other reasons besides the "to end tournaments on time" excuse. My rule set fixes time outs that were meant to be played that way for the sake of not playing the match out and still allows tournaments to finish on time. I do not agree that time encourages physical combat. If anything it encourages people to stall more as it sets a limit to the amount of time you have to stall. You said it yourself, If you have the patience to play someone for 30 min, you definitely have the patience to time someone out for 8 min

added more to my post.

To answer vocal: The SSB series, when played using a timer determines a winner by stock not percent. This means that no one should get a victory over another player when it comes down to percent. This rule makes it so that when you are behind on percent, you are forced to approach when in reality, it should be the character that has the better approaching game and/or is better at head to head combat that should be approaching. You have characters like MK, that can rack up damage like crazy but, can't really kill if the opponent doesn't approach them. Then you add a rule that makes it so that if you don't approach that character that gets his kill by you approaching(and him punishing your approaches) him, you will lose the match.

 

[sunshade]

Lets say we have two players. Player A and player B. Look at the following four scenarios.

1. If it is in A's advantage to approach and it is B's advantage to approach then conflict will occur.
2. If it is in A's advantage to approach and it is B's disadvantage to approach then conflict will occur.
3. If it is in A's disadvantage to approach and it is B's advantage to approach then conflict will occur.
4.If it is in A's disadvantage to approach and it is B's disadvantage to approach then conflict will not occur.

Adding a timer causes scenario 4 to not exist.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Lets say we have two players. Player A and player B. Look at the following four scenarios.

1. If it is in A's advantage to approach and it is B's advantage to approach then conflict will occur.
2. If it is in A's advantage to approach and it is B's disadvantage to approach then conflict will occur.
3. If it is in A's disadvantage to approach and it is B's advantage to approach then conflict will occur.
4.If it is in A's disadvantage to approach and it is B's disadvantage to approach then conflict will not occur.

Adding a timer causes scenario 4 to not exist.

using ssbb characters, can you give me an example of scenario #4?

 

[sunshade]

Metaknight vs Falco.

Although brawl as a whole is an incredibly defensive game where approach options are limited and counter approach options are plentiful.

 

[Browny]

every character without a projectile (or with in the case of luigi and others) vs Metaknight when mk has a % lead lol...

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Metaknight vs Falco

In this MU, MK can not approach Falco for the first 40% of the stock of the match because of the chain grab. Falco can not approach because MK's options are far superior to falco's. The only sure way for MK to avoid any damage in this MU is to plank(my rule set would include a LGL but I don't know how many). If MK is ever going to win this MU he is going to have to approach as eventually all those lasers will add up and end up costing him a stock.

 

[DMG]

Even though you can jump over lasers, or Shield/PS them?