Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[DMG]

You are assuming he has to grab the edge when he scrooges. He doesn't have to do so on Smashville, and he certainly doesn't have to on Norfair. He can do what he usually does on Smashville. Go to the platform, or go back onstage if they are on the platform. OR Shark them as they are on the platform and then either continue the pressure or go to safety.

Now, even if you put a scrooging rule on him, he has some blurry line stuff that would need to be addressed. What line is established/where, how many times, and what not. After all of that, you might have some still pretty gay stuff like hanging out near the center of the bottom platform after gliding down, and from there picking some safe onstage or delayed edge grab options. Even then, a limit of 40 would probably be too high. Something like 30ish and a scrooging rule could stop most of that probably. Now just hope that onstage running from people or getting under them and sharking isn't too strong or dull either, or else all hope is lost lol.

 

[theunabletable]

Well, then...

I have really no argument against what you're saying. You win

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Ok, I am going to pick up MK and start playing as "gay" as I possibly can. But how would I know the difference between playing "gay" and stalling as they both look the same to me? Can I scrooge an entire match? can I just hit the opponent once then just grab on to the ledge? I want to play as "gay" as I possibly can, I just don't want to get disqualified for mistakenly stalling. any help?

 

[DMG]

Nope

THERE IS NO LINE HUZZAH!

I... HAVE... THE POWERRRRRRRRRRRR

Dunno what else to say. Good luck

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ok, I am going to pick up MK and start playing as "gay" as I possibly can. But how would I know the difference between playing "gay" and stalling as they both look the same to me? Can I scrooge an entire match? can I just hit the opponent once then just grab on to the ledge? I want to play as "gay" as I possibly can, I just don't want to get disqualified for mistakenly stalling. any help?

Follow the tournament rules. MK doesn't really have a "stalling" tactic other than Planking and IDC, and every tournament bans those. Good luck, have fun getting your *** kicked.

 

[Gea]

You have the power until someone runs an event with purposefully loose rules decided by judge. Basically "If you are avoiding conflict for extended periods of time you will get a warning then a DQ by a judge."

I agree that some stages encourage this type of play, but you've also made it clear that perfectly "good" stages can also have this kind of gameplay. Honestly it is pretty obvious when someone is trying to stall out the match from the start. Stalling as a whole is not really enforced in the community. Of course you can just not attend those events...

 

[SaveMeJebus]

So as long as a tournament doesn't have a LGL, I could run away, plank and scrooge all I want? At DMG, what stops Pit from scrooging? not planking but, scrooging. MK?

 

[theunabletable]

Ok, I am going to pick up MK and start playing as "gay" as I possibly can. But how would I know the difference between playing "gay" and stalling as they both look the same to me? Can I scrooge an entire match? can I just hit the opponent once then just grab on to the ledge? I want to play as "gay" as I possibly can, I just don't want to get disqualified for mistakenly stalling. any help?

You won't get DQ'd for stalling for scrooging, however in SoCal we always have LGLs, so you wouldn't really be able to plank.

 

[-Vocal-]

So as long as a tournament doesn't have a LGL, I could run away, plank and scrooge all I want? At DMG, what stops Pit from scrooging? not planking but, scrooging. MK?

Hmmm

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

I'm glad you finally got what I told you days ago.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If ledge grabbing is broken only when it is done by MK, then why do some places like The west coast put a limit on it or all charcters?

 

[theunabletable]

Because the TOs here are stupid and limit characters like G&W and Pit for planking; 'cause it's gay, apparently. It's stupid that the TOs here limit characters like G&W and Pit by attempting to nerf MK, tbh.

 

[da K.I.D.]

because they are scrubs. thats why

 

[-Vocal-]

Anyone else want a turn at the dead horse? Here, take my baseball bat

 

[-LzR-]

**** right

 

[Dastrn]

I approve of this ruleset. I wish my job changes in 2010 hadn't gotten in the way of my activity in the Brawl scene, but it's good to see that these projects are being completed so well.

You guys should revisit my Stage Striking system.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I approve of this ruleset. I wish my job changes in 2010 hadn't gotten in the way of my activity in the Brawl scene, but it's good to see that these projects are being completed so well.

You guys should revisit my Stage Striking system.

What is it? I'm curious.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I believe it is this. However, I might be wrong. All I did was a name search for all posts under his username.

You could try Dastrn's Stage Striking System:
There's 1 stage list.
there are no counterpicks
You strike down from your total stagelist until theres either 3 stages left (5 for championship sets) or 4(6) if you have even number of stages. Then play first game on either the stage highest on the list, or random select from those. Loser picks the next stage from the remaining stages. Same for game 3(4+5).

No more ridiculous swings. MKs can't play on rainbow cruise any more. Diddy can't play on FD anymore. You end up with really good sets on stages that work for both players.

You can either double blind every game for characters, or else let loser pick character after winner like 2d fighters. Personally, I like double blinding each game.

Sometimes I would like the ability to play on the same stage I just lost on.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, that sounds not only reasonable, but it's what AA was suggesting (albeit he added that the entire stagelist should be striked from). It's ridiculously fair, in fact, and what I am suggesting using in my originalist ruleset.

 

[-LzR-]

Stage striking will last a while.

 

[Spelt]

I like that rule, but i'd really rather not strike from the whole stagelist though, just starters/counters would be fine imo

 

[Luxor]

It's a pretty balanced system. You benefit from viability on a number of stages rather than on a select few starters/CPs, and I'm good with that.

 

[-LzR-]

The problem is that striking last like the whole day.

 

[Deleted member]

Me and Hilt were chatting about it, and we both agreed that Onett needs to be rediscussed.

I think it could be a counter-pick, despite it lacking an offstage play area and being a walkoff. The room to walk off is pretty slim for one thing. The houses take up most of the edge of the stage. Infinites can't be pulled off up against them either due to the cars. And while the cars are a hazard, they are very minor and easy to avoid.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Me and Hilt were chatting about it, and we both agreed that Onett needs to be rediscussed.

I think it could be a counter-pick, despite it lacking an offstage play area and being a walkoff. The room to walk off is pretty slim for one thing. The houses take up most of the edge of the stage. Infinites can't be pulled off up against them either due to the cars. And while the cars are a hazard, they are very minor and easy to avoid.

All I have to say is fear Olimar on this stage. With no pit to abuse his recover he is even more deadly. Besides, how does one deal with the whole ability to live forever on that stage? If you can DI and tech everything to insane percents should that be seen as a reason to ban it or use it as a method to counterpick?

 

[DMG]

There are a few problems with Onett. It definitely should not be legal unless you think allowing stages that grossly enhance the ability to run away for extended periods of time are A-OK. The cars aren't an issue, but the layout is awful. How many characters do you think, if they are standing anywhere on the stage, can chase and punish MK for Tornadoing them and then running away with it? Onett has a lot of stage breaks, where your character HAS to be airborne for quite a bit to get to the next break. People who usually could punish it fairly well on the ground, now completely fail to it. Even characters like Wario and Jiggs can't keep up with it in the air.

Any stage that basically allows MK to Tornado freely with no reasonable expectations of punishment besides anything you can do in close quarters when he first reaches you... well just put down the controller.

 

[Eagleye893]

Okay... I have one thing I'm wondering about.

The current rule of tiebreaks on timeout consists of one character having a higher percent than the other or lower stocks in order to lose. Looking at the situation where it is only percent, there is something that annoys me about the percent. One character only needs a minor amount of percent in order to claim victory near the end of a match. They can continue to just camp the entire rest of the match in the safest way possible and gain the win.

To counter that problem, is it possible to, rather than judge based on lower percent wins, have some type of difference in percent needed to win? It restricts characters such as mk from being able to just hit with one safe attack and camP with aerials and other things the rest of the game. It also gives the person who is down more of a chance to capitalize on their opponent needing to gain tha extra percent.

I thought that it could possibly be based on the weight of a character, because a character like snake will live for a long time and gain much more percent, while a character that is light like kirby will die at lower percents, and while the time drags on, the weightier character who survived the many kill attempts and has higher percent will probably lose to that character with lower weight when timed out.

Just a thought. It might not seem as reasonable though...

 

[T-block]

The intention behind it is good, but your suggestion does have a few problems. Basing it on weight introduces a lot of subjectivity into the ruleset, which is never good. More importantly, what happens if it times out and the required percent is not reached? Just replaying the match would mean that sets could go on forever.

 

[-LzR-]

What is wrong about having a % lead?

 

[Tesh]

Clearly if jiggly puff is @ 90% vs a Snake @ 91%, the puff is probably closer to losing the stock, but with your suggestion, there might have to be an individual percent gap noted for each and every matchup.

 

[DMG]

1 problem with that is Weight can get in way of Living. Link is pretty heavy, and his fall speed makes recovering a joke with him. Weight can't be the "center" of attention for timeouts because being heavier isn't exactly like having more stamina in another game like Street Fighter. Weight is both a pro and a con for a character, not an outright standard.

It would be kind of like trying to come up with something related to how tall a character is. Say you gave Taller/Bigger characters more leeway because they were easier to hit. This doesn't factor in that usually bigger taller characters have larger hitboxes on their attacks or that there are exceptions like MK having a ton of range. Or that bigger characters also tend to do a buttload of damage per hit compared to the smaller ones. If it was a standard like stamina, it would work better. But what we got is % and stock.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually DMG, that's not true. A character's weight (related to knockback) and their gravity (related to falling speed) are controlled by totally different aspects. Like how Wario and Samus are ridiculously floaty but are really hard to KO, momentum cancelling included or not. In link's case, it's an issue because he falls ridiculously fast and has a terrible recovery, but we could mess with his weight stat to make him as easy to kill as pichu and he would still drop like a rock.

 

[DMG]

Yes, but either of the two can determine whether you get stuck in a CG/something nasty or not. Or if you can recover as well as you could have if the values were tweaked. Dedede can CG someone floaty like Wario (although he does fall pretty fast from a fast fall), and someone heavy like Link. MK gets out, Peach doesn't. You can CG to Spike Olimar, as well as Dedede and Snake. Marth can Fthrow Dair tipper light, but fast falling characters.

You can't just base whether someone wins on timeout or not by weight because Weight alone is not a solid standard for how long someone can last. Especially when fall speed is in play.

 

[Tesh]

There isn't only one way to score a knockout in smash, so nothing based on percent (or anything else) would really determine how close each character was to a stock loss.

 

[DMG]

This is the way I see it:

You start off with a bar, divided into equal parts or stocks. 3 stocks = 1/3rd of your bar per stock. Now, %'s just indicate how far you are stretching that part. Let's say you lost a stock. So 1/3rd is definitely out of the picture. Now, in one case you have only 20%. In the other, you have 200%. What it translates into is that while the 200% person is closer to the next 3rd of life, you both haven't gone past the one you are on.

So player 1 has (imagine) 60% of his meter left, and Player 2 has 35% left. They are both inbetween the stock section of 33% and 66%, both have 2 stocks left. But 1 clearly has more damage than the other. So, the idea of going by Stocks and then % makes as much sense as you are gonna get for Smash since there are no other good standards you could go by. Yes, MK may be at 90% and Snake at 91% and MK is "probably" closer to death than Snake, but his health is still above Snake's.

Zangief at 50% health, Akuma at 51% health. Zangief can take more damage overall because of his stamina level, yet Akuma IS technically ahead in health. Instead of giving Zangief the win in that scenario, you go by how much health they have and Akuma wins, even if with Stamina factored in Akuma would die sooner with enough damage than Zangief would.

 

[uhmuzing]

Isn't the biggest problem with stages with walk-offs, like Onett, the whole camp-the-side-blastzones issue? If players are willing to take the risk, then the matches are only going to last a minute or so, and normal gameplay is completely irrelevant.

 

[PD4FR]

The only thing I never understood about Brawl rules is why we don't just turn off pausing. As far as I remember, you can, and I don't see why we don't. I searched the thread and no one mentioned this, so maybe I'm being stupid, but can someone explain this to me?

 

[Kewkky]

What if you have a REAL emergency? I guess we have to either let the match roll while you take care of it, or give the game more importance over the priority.

We're playing a match, and all of a sudden I vomit and there's blood on my vomit. My opponent is now spooked as hell, but to me that's completely normal and doesn't interfere with my daily life... I think this would be a good moment to pause the game and explain to everyone, or pause the game and ask the one who vomited if he's okay and if I should worry.

A more mundane example... What if I'm playing, and all of a sudden my sugar levels drop, and I'm close to fainting? I won't be able to pause the game and lay down on the floor because the timer will be rolling and the match won't stop for anyone. This is a good time to pause the game, say that you need to lay down, and do so.

Or a non-health example... You're playing the game all normal, trading hits, you're winning/losing... And all of a sudden your employer/military recruiter/missing brother calls you. You have to take the phone, else face consequences later on, but at the same time, you can't stop the game because the pausing has been deactivated. What now?

 

[Tesh]

If its more important than the game, then forfeit and deal with it. If its not more important than the game, it can wait 8 minutes.

 

[PD4FR]

If its more important than the game, then forfeit and deal with it. If its not more important than the game, it can wait 8 minutes.

That's basically along the lines of what I was thinking, but...

What if you have a REAL emergency? I guess we have to either let the match roll while you take care of it, or give the game more importance over the priority.

We're playing a match, and all of a sudden I vomit and there's blood on my vomit. My opponent is now spooked as hell, but to me that's completely normal and doesn't interfere with my daily life... I think this would be a good moment to pause the game and explain to everyone, or pause the game and ask the one who vomited if he's okay and if I should worry.

A more mundane example... What if I'm playing, and all of a sudden my sugar levels drop, and I'm close to fainting? I won't be able to pause the game and lay down on the floor because the timer will be rolling and the match won't stop for anyone. This is a good time to pause the game, say that you need to lay down, and do so.

Or a non-health example... You're playing the game all normal, trading hits, you're winning/losing... And all of a sudden your employer/military recruiter/missing brother calls you. You have to take the phone, else face consequences later on, but at the same time, you can't stop the game because the pausing has been deactivated. What now?

This seems to make sense. Although you could argue that they should just forfeit, it does make it more fair. Thanks for explaining it!

 

[Kewkky]

If its more important than the game, then forfeit and deal with it. If its not more important than the game, it can wait 8 minutes.

That's your opinion. In my opinion, if it's more important than the game, you can't make it wait, and you don't want to end your tourney simply because of a single event that lasts for a minute or less then you're back to normal, then pausing the game should be your option.

Pausing means stopping to continue later. You won't allow anyone to be able to pause their game ever? That's not a cool rule at all.