Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[ErikG]

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.

As a diabetic whose blood sugar has gone low at a tourney, I feel that pausing is necessary.

 

[Spelt]

As a diabetic whose blood sugar has gone low at a tourney, I feel that pausing is necessary.

Replay the match.
I think people would be willing to make an exception for something like that.
except cheese.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Replay the match.
I think people would be willing to make an exception for something like that.
except cheese.

Or you could just pause it and be exactly where you left off.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

There was also a match I recall where ally paused to deal with someone having to put a contact lense back into its place.

 

[Spelt]

but you're momentum would be pretty much gone. it would basically be like starting over anyways

 

[Kewkky]

but you're momentum would be pretty much gone. it would basically be like starting over anyways

No, not really. People wouldn't choose to pause right in the middle of a combo and ruin your momentum, they choose to wait until their character takes a breather before pausing the game for fear of the opponent crying foul play. Johns are johns, and people can act, but if you're respectful and prove that you're not just pausing the game to stop your opponent from winning, then the pausing is totally legit and I don't see why we should remove the pause.


Would it be okay to do long projects in one sitting? Because that's what you're suggesting. Either start and finish your project in one go, or restart your project every time you take a break... Or if you're jogging for 10-20 minutes and start walking, you're gonna have to jog again for the full amount of time because you paused your jogging to catch your breath... Or if you're explaining something to a friend and pause because your teacher just scolded you for talking in the classroom, I guess you should just start all over again from the start, am I right?

 

[Spelt]

if someone has diabetes they aren't going to wait to faint until they/their opponent finishes their combo...

and momentum can span past one single combo/string.

after even a short break you could be coming in with a completely different mindset, which could either be a bad or a good thing.

 

[ADHD]

if someone has diabetes they aren't going to wait to faint until they/their opponent finishes their combo...

and momentum can span past one single combo/string.

after even a short break you could be coming in with a completely different mindset, which could either be a bad or a good thing.

It is possible to_______ in between tourney sets if you haven't for a couple of days/weeks..

But then your diabetes could kick in before you finish.

 

[Kewkky]

Okay Spelt, I'm going to be direct. Removing the pause in games is stupid.

What is your COMPLETE and PERSUASIVE argument on why pause should be removed? What are the benefits to a tourney and what are the drawbacks? What made you consider it? Do people agree with your opinion, and if so, is it a majority?

Enlighten me.

 

[Brawlin]

Completely removing pauses does sound unnecesary. But there should be like rules and limits on where and when u can pause in a tournament.

 

[Kewkky]

Completely removing pauses does sound unnecesary. But there should be like rules and limits on where and when u can pause in a tournament.

It really is all up to a TO's discretion. In PR, if you pause the game during a tourney, you'd better have a good explanation because you just interrupted the flow of a match. If you don't have a viable excuse that the TO can accept, then either you forfeit a stock, the match, or you're simply disqualified from the tourney, depending on how many times you've paused during the tourney (if you pause because you're getting diarrhea cramps from eating too many hot dogs then you're excused, but if you pause simply because you wanted to get out of a string/combo/chaingrab or to throw off your opponent's groove, then you suffer penalties).


You can tell when they're not lying if they get cramps/are about to faint for whatever reason/other viable excuse, people usually sweat and their eyes show you the pain/consciousness drifting in and out/other viable excuse proof.

 

[Spelt]

It is possible to jack off in between tourney sets if you haven't for a couple of days/weeks..

But then your diabetes could kick in before you finish.

This is why you finish your business during tournament matches. two birds with one stone.

Okay Spelt, I'm going to be direct. Removing the pause in games is stupid.

What is your COMPLETE and PERSUASIVE argument on why pause should be removed? What are the benefits to a tourney and what are the drawbacks? What made you consider it? Do people agree with your opinion, and if so, is it a majority?

Enlighten me.

honestly idc enough, i'm neutral towards turning off pause. it's nice that you are so violently against it though.

bolded part made me lol though.
"brb using my superior polling powers to poll the entire smash community on whether or not turning off pause should be considered. "

 

[Kewkky]

honestly idc enough, i'm neutral towards turning off pause. it's nice that you are so violently against it though.

Well, I gotta know my stance. I can't come into a debate and be halfway over the fence, you know what I'm saying?

bolded part made me lol though.
"brb using my superior polling powers to poll the entire smash community on whether or not turning off pause should be considered. "

You don't need a poll to do it. Just ask people. If the majority of those you ask say yes, then it's a simple "yes". If the majority says no, then it's a "no".

But seriously, there's absolutely not a single reason as to why we should consider turning off pause.

 

[Spelt]

Well, I gotta know my stance. I can't come into a debate and be halfway over the fence, you know what I'm saying?

I argued against one point one person was making, hardly "the debate".

Like you said though, it should really be called on a case by case scenario.
if pausing is turned on, then the most they should be penalized for accidentally pausing should be like, a stock. forfeiting a whole match because an accidental pause is just ********.

You don't need a poll to do it. Just ask people. If the majority of those you ask say yes, then it's a simple "yes". If the majority says no, then it's a "no".

But seriously, there's absolutely not a single reason as to why we should consider turning off pause.

Ok, i'll go ask nick riddle and will what they think. maybe i'll create a group called "people who think pausing should be turned off" and ask the people who join it.

 

[demonictoonlink]

but you're momentum would be pretty much gone. it would basically be like starting over anyways

Spelt, this is real talk time...lol. Have you ever played a serious match?

Like, here's the thing. I have two stocks really high damage and they have one stock zero damage. The games kinda almost even here, but I should be able to get some damage in before losing this stock. They **** them self. This needs to be taken care of so we pause the game.

Now...why would I want to restart? I don't have the momentum from the last kill...but I'm at an advantaged position, so why should I give it up?

Pausing is a necessary function and shouldn't be a problem. The real problem is the rule that makes you lose the entire game when pausing. If you EVER pause for an unwarranted reason, such as an accident or rage or to **** with somebody, they should decide whether you can keep that stock or not. Perfectly fair and that's all there needs to be.

 

[PD4FR]

But seriously, there's absolutely not a single reason as to why we should consider turning off pause.

Ice Climbers I agree, even though I had no stance yesterday. You have taught me well about the ways of the pause button and diabetes.

 

[Spelt]

Spelt, this is real talk time...lol. Have you ever played a serious match?

OH BOY! srs time?
-takes off pink glittery slippers-

let's do this.

Like you said though, it should really be called on a case by case scenario.
if pausing is turned on, then the most they should be penalized for accidentally pausing should be like, a stock. forfeiting a whole match because an accidental pause is just ********.

Pausing is a necessary function and shouldn't be a problem. The real problem is the rule that makes you lose the entire game when pausing. If you EVER pause for an unwarranted reason, such as an accident or rage or to **** with somebody, they should decide whether you can keep that stock or not. Perfectly fair and that's all there needs to be.

o wow, looks like we're in agreement. thanks for actually waiting to see/asking about what my actual stance on the problem was before trying to start a useless argument.

 

[Kewkky]

I argued against one point one person was making, hardly "the debate".

As soon as you made your opinion clear and i brought in my own clashing opinion, it became a debate over whose opinion would triumph. Else, why would you even come in here and throw it out? You know how people act in SWF, man. Internet is serious business.

Ok, i'll go ask nick riddle and will what they think. maybe i'll create a group called "people who think pausing should be turned off" and ask the people who join it.

You don't need a group either. Just ask people and come back. But just so you know, as with every status quo, unless the changes is necessary to save the game from an obvious danger (like a freeze glitch that has just been discovered that every character can do), you need a super majority to change the game (2/3 of the participating community in a viewable-by-all thread must be on your side).




Internet. It is serious business.

 

[Spelt]

As soon as you made your opinion clear and i brought in my own clashing opinion, it became a debate over whose opinion would triumph. Else, why would you even come in here and throw it out? You know how people act in SWF, man. Internet is serious business.

My opinion is that woman should be limited to a certain amount of pairs of shoes.
What is your take on this, sir?

You don't need a group either. Just ask people and come back. But just so you know, as with every status quo, unless the changes is necessary to save the game from an obvious danger (like a freeze glitch that has just been discovered that every character can do), you need a super majority to change the game (2/3 of the participating community in a viewable-by-all thread must be on your side).




Internet. It is serious business.

somehow, i think banning meta knight is a larger change to the game than turning off pause.

 

[da K.I.D.]

only reason I would ever turn off pause is if I have to fight cheese.

 

[Kewkky]

My opinion is that woman should be limited to a certain amount of pairs of shoes.
What is your take on this, sir?

We're on a Smash Bros website! I can refuse to answer!

somehow, i think banning meta knight is a larger change to the game than turning off pause.

I agree, but we could also argue that MK is hurting the game more than pausing the game is.

 

[Choice]

pause at worst should result in a stock loss. i dont get why it made sense to cost the entire match.

 

[Kewkky]

pause at worst should result in a stock loss. i dont get why it made sense to cost the entire match.

That's just PR's way of doing things. Still, no one has ever paused the game mid-match here, so we've never even heard about people complaining, much less give up stocks for pausing the game.

MLG, well, I dunno what crossed their minds. It was just a first offense too.

 

[Shaya]

Generally pausing is "okay" as long as you give fair warning... to myself, at least.
"Random" pausing is against rules though.

But that's for small tournaments... Larger ones like MLG really need simple standards...

 

[~ Gheb ~]

1.) What's the logic behind the stage-ban? I know it's been done ever since but I recently came to question the rule because I don't see the point of it. Like, why would you specifically recommend to use it? If the stage ruleset is balanced a stage ban isn't needed.

2.) The win condition in case of a time-out should be changed as it's not balanced. I've been told by a BBR member [swordguard] that arbitrary rules are bad but going by percent is arbitrary [the game itself never considers the player with less percent the winner]. But it's also very inbalanced because the winner is not the one who's closer to victroy. If Snake with 111% fights MK with 110% then Snake is closer to victory than MK is but the time-out rule arbitrarily gives MK the advantage because he can just go to the timer. The rule caters for characters that have the ability to make themselves unattackable via planking [MK, Pit, G&W, Marth] or scrooging [MK, Pit] - it rewards an inherent attribute of a character instead of giving the win based on a player's performance.

It also happens that said tactics [planking and scroongig] are only effective because of the way time-outs are handled at the moment. If we assume for a moment that a time-out isn't an option then you'll see that planking are scooring are not effective tactics because they don't get you closer to the win - they only do so with this specific ruleset because the time-out rule caters for these tactics;

Planking and scrooging are not inherent problems - the current ruleset turns them into problems. Japan and Mexico have no issues with planking, scrooging or similar tactics even though they are not banned. But they use time-out rules that favour the players and not the characters.

Change these rules for a better, healthier metagame.

(And change the timer to 9 or 10 minutes for god's sake!!!)

 

[Luxor]

But 9-10 minutes is as arbitrary as 8.
Stage ban keeps you from having to go to an absolutely overwhelming CP, like Falco or DK on Japes. That way you still have a chance, unless you're playing MK who just goes RC when Brinstar is banned and vice-versa. Some tourneyS with large, liberal, (bias) good stagelists give you two bans a set to compensate, which sounds great to me.

 

[DMG]

1. A timer is needed. Whatever number you pick will be subjective.

2. What change to the timeout rule would you suggest? Go by weight/fall speed? There's no good alternative to using %. Like I explained earlier, stocks are "blocks" of your meter, and your % is how far you are stretching that block. Zangief at 50% and Akuma at 51%, match goes to time. Zangief loses, even if he could take 1000 damage and Akuma could only take 755 more damage. Same thing with Brawl; MK at 100% and Snake at 101% on the same stock MK wins cause he has more of his meter left despite his stamina/weight/etc. Frankly, going by % is the way to go, there is no better alternative at all.

3. Stage bans it doesn't really matter. The more stages you use, for both starters and CP's, the stronger MK gets. He's already pretty strong with just a single ban in a traditional list of Brinstar, Delfino, RC. Falco, Diddy, etc would only get stronger CP wise because FD would always be available. If you want to run no stage bans, you gotta run a pretty conservative list.

 

[-LzR-]

Disable pausing so that you don't accidentally pause when you mash out of grabs, but in case of an emergency, use a wiimote's home button to pause the game, since every wii needs a wiimote or you can't play brawl in the first place.

 

[demonictoonlink]

OH BOY! srs time?
-takes off pink glittery slippers-

let's do this.







o wow, looks like we're in agreement. thanks for actually waiting to see/asking about what my actual stance on the problem was before trying to start a useless argument.

If you're going to get pissy about it, why not just state your stance rather than trying to give the image you want pausing off?
Is it an attention thing?

 

[Brawlin]

It really is all up to a TO's discretion. In PR, if you pause the game during a tourney, you'd better have a good explanation because you just interrupted the flow of a match. If you don't have a viable excuse that the TO can accept, then either you forfeit a stock, the match, or you're simply disqualified from the tourney, depending on how many times you've paused during the tourney (if you pause because you're getting diarrhea cramps from eating too many hot dogs then you're excused, but if you pause simply because you wanted to get out of a string/combo/chaingrab or to throw off your opponent's groove, then you suffer penalties).


You can tell when they're not lying if they get cramps/are about to faint for whatever reason/other viable excuse, people usually sweat and their eyes show you the pain/consciousness drifting in and out/other viable excuse proof.

Yea that seems fair imo. Another thing it isn't over the pausing though. R u only allowed to use gamecube controllers in tournaments? That's what I heard.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I really like the way that DMG put it a page or two back.

Giving one player the win based on percent. Its valid, because its not rewarding the person because he is farther away from death, but because he is closer to the Ideal percentage that the game starts you out at. (0%)

 

[-Vocal-]

I really like the way that DMG put it a page or two back.

Giving one player the win based on percent. Its valid, because its not rewarding the person because he is farther away from death, but because he is closer to the Ideal percentage that the game starts you out at. (0%)

That was actually me

 

[da K.I.D.]

was it? my bad son, I could have sworn it was DMG who said that. but i apologise for the mixup lol

 

[DMG]

We both said it

HNNNNNG

 

[-Vocal-]

We both said it

HNNNNNG

I think I said it first :X

 

[Spelt]

If you're going to get pissy about it, why not just state your stance rather than trying to give the image you want pausing off?
Is it an attention thing?

Like you said though, it should really be called on a case by case scenario.
if pausing is turned on, then the most they should be penalized for accidentally pausing should be like, a stock. forfeiting a whole match because an accidental pause is just ********.

I did. Not my fault people read one sentence and think of it however they want. You just find any reason you can to argue with me, is it an attention thing?




Anyways, I would add something to the % conversation so this post isn't completely worthless but it seems like it's pretty much done. I agree with how DMG/vocal put it, though. Yay for agreement~

 

[PD4FR]

Keep it productive, guys.
I agree with Vocal.
We don't do it by weight because it would be troublesome to memorize all the life-expectancy comparisons. Or we could make a sticky telling all the different possibilities, and we would check that after every match. Does that sound fun? No.
That's yet another reason why we do it by lower percentage, besides the fact that 0% is ideal.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

2. What change to the timeout rule would you suggest?

After talking to Pierce for a while he said that this rule is probably the most agreeable for the BBR [out of my suggestions]:

"In case of a timeout, the winner is chosen by stocks [more stocks win]; if stocks are tied then the winner will be the player who dealt the most damage over the whole course of the game [can be checked at the results screen]."

I don't think it's a particularily good rule but it's still clearly a lot better than the one that is in use right now. It also goes better along with your idea of how % affect the win of a game, correct? There are other rules that I have thought of and I find even better but there's no way that this BBR would make up their minds for these suggestion. I'd be surprised if they even consider using this rule but I'd consider it a change for the better if it actually became standard.

 

[Spelt]

But wouldn't that be buffing characters who are good at dealing damage and nerfing the ones that are good at killing?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

But wouldn't that be buffing characters who are good at dealing damage and nerfing the ones that are good at killing?

N o