Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[Tesh]

But, he can already throw gordos randomly? Whats wrong with DDD taking a calculated risk with the possibility of the big reward. Its one thing to turn items off to stop random spawn locations, but DDDs projectiles options shouldnt be nerfed. We don't try to remove the 9 hammer from GnW.

 

[SuSa]

Because with items set to ON and ALL we get to use items.

Have you seen Ganon with items?

I wish I could still embed vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbVnEm2biwU&feature=related

 

[Tesh]

No no, I'm saying they should be set to NONE, but they should be on so peach and ddd can still pull them.

 

[Raziek]

Because removing as much randomness as possible is what we do.

And those capsules kill at like 40, EARLIER if they explode.

Also, Peach pulls hers anyway.

 

[SuSa]

I can't remember if G&W's 7 still leaves food if set to none/off... yea for not playing for like... 10 months. <_<

If G&W's hammer still produces a food item, I would agree with your sentiment.

@Raziek
What's the difference between the capsule and the Gordo is what he's getting at... the move is still random, you're just removing one variable.

 

[Tesh]

It still produces food. If you want to remove as much randomness as possible, then ban all stages except battlefield, castle seige, FD, brinstar. And Ban Luigi, Peach, DDD, GnW etc. But don't nerf them with arbitrary rules.

 

[MacNCheese.]

Ok, let's say we had items on, Sonic vs. Falcon...Sonic gets the SmashBall, kills twice, he gets a pokeball, throws it at you, gets a Moltres... and wins.

Now... let's imagine YOU were the falcon -_-

Point is, I'd be pissed

 

[ADHD]

It is your fault for being killed by a bomb-omb in sudden death mode.

PvS is an essential factor for Brawl.

 

[Tesh]

Darkstar that is an argument for another time. I am talking about setting the spawn ratio to none. But leaving items on so DDD and Peach can still pull them with their specials. Its not fair to arbitrarily limit which random options they get.

Nothing PvS about it. DDD chose to use his projectile toss and he may get a useful waddle and get punished for it. Or he might get a bomb, hothead, capsule and YOU get punished. It also might spawn a ray gun, turning the tables on DDD. Its a calculated risk, much like getting a 1 or 9 with GnW or dashing despite the risk of tripping.

 

[Spelt]

Peach can still pull items with items set to off and none.

and letting DDD pull his items would be an arbitrary change too, so if that's your only argument you got nothing.

 

[SuSa]

Still produces food?

Then we should play with spawns off, and I forget what things you can control - but capsules on... (if nothing for capsules, I know there is for crates...). Capsules would be empty, so bringing up the argument of smashballs and ray guns isn't worth noting. The capsule is either explosive or it's not.

IIRC Peach pulls Beam Swords and Bob-ombs even with items off? (Or is this just Bob-ombs?) So it seems like an unneeded nerf to King DDD with no real good backing to support it other than "Because we can control this random factor unlike the others", which boils down to

"We can control it"

Which, if given that logic, means we should play 2 stock and 1.1 Knockback Ratio.

EDIT:
I don't see how capsules could be worse than Gordo's - in fact this can be seen as a Nerf to DDD by adding in another random variable. But then again, we relinquished our control over the Ganoncide/Bowsercide variables... so why not this one?

 

[Tesh]

By that logic, we could remove anything from the game for no good reason. THEN we could say trying to put this thing back in (because it made no sense to remove) is an arbitrary change.

Lets ban smashville, then say it cant be added back because it would be an arbitrary change.

If thats your only argument against mine, then you got nothing.

The main reason items are off, is because of random spawning. Obviously we are okay with random rewards for a calculated risk, or you wouldn't allow anyone to choose peach, luigi, DDD or GnW. A Peach beat M2K once by taking all 3 of his stocks with bombs pulled.

 

[Raziek]

Let me ask you a practical question then:

What do we GAIN from enabling hyet another random variable in an already random move?

 

[Spelt]

.... that's my point.
you can't go around saying things are arbitrary as the only reason why it should or shouldn't be allowed, derp.

 

[SuSa]

Let me ask you a practical question then:

What do we GAIN from enabling hyet another random variable in an already random move?

What do we LOSE from enabling yet another random variable in an already random move?

 

[Spelt]

Control over the outcome of the match.
it trots over towards more of the random spectrum as opposed to an outcome based off of skill.
and even in a situation where items are legal there are still commonly deemed "banned" items (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=164675), and DDD can pull all of these. So unless you're going to make a whole new rule list and counterpicking system for one move on one character there's no need to even argue about this.

 

[Raziek]

Pick something IMPORTANT to argue about. Dedede ALREADY has a high-risk high-reward element to the move, so adding this does nothing but cause additional and un-necessary complications.

 

[Tesh]

What do you GAIN by letting peach pull bombs, or gnw throw a nine?

@ Spelt, you can't just remove things because you don't think they are important. There is no good reason DDD shouldn't be allowed what he was designed to have. If you think it would be lame to get killed by a capsule, tough luck, it was a variable you should consider. Just like getting killed by a misfire, bomb, 9 or tripping.

Its perfectly fine for DDD to throw things randomly? But its not okay for him to throw certain things randomly? Peach can throw bombs. DDD can't though. They both CAN, but you think DDD shouldn't.

 

[Raziek]

It's NOT ok for Peach to randomly get an item that can kill you as low as 20%, but WE CANT CONTROL IT.

That's like saying because one criminal escapes, we should just let all the others go because it makes no difference at this point.

 

[SuSa]

ignore this

 

[Spelt]

What do you GAIN by letting peach pull bombs, or gnw throw a nine?

This isn't in our control.
Again, peach can pull items no matter what the settings are.

@ Spelt, you can't just remove things because you don't think they are important. There is no good reason DDD shouldn't be allowed what he was designed to have. If you think it would be lame to get killed by a capsule, tough luck, it was a variable you should consider. Just like getting killed by a misfire, bomb, 9 or tripping.

we're not removing anything, we're simply changing the setting the game allows. Whether or not D3 can throw items is in our control, therefore we have every right to take it. This isn't a valid argument.

What is a valid argument is showing why D3 having access to his items is a healthy addition to the meta game and that it isn't over-centralizing or degrading. This is what the BBR considers when discussing these types of matters.

^ This paragraph is also aimed at SuSa, because if 1.1 DR and 2 stocks were to be consider as an acceptable addition to the recommended ruleset, this is the stuff you'd have to present to them.

 

[Tesh]

You can control it by banning Peach.

I don't need to prove its healthy for the metagame. There are dozens of things already legal that arguably AREN'T healthy for the metagame.

If you let one criminal free because his crime "isn't bad enough" then obviously you need to let everyone else go for committing the same offense. Why would you give special treatment to one criminal?

Spelt are you mad because you main....Bowser and DDD would wreck him even harder with an awesome kill move?

Raziek, the mods said we can't discuss important things anymore. They are watching.

 

[Raziek]

Tesh, we don't let the criminal go because his crime "isn't bad enough", we let him go because WE CAN'T STOP HIM WITHOUT KILLING HIM.

Banning Peach to remove one MINOR factor is ****ing stupid and you know it. You don't shoot someone because they stole a pack of gum and got away with it.

And yes, you DO need to prove it is healthy for the metagame. If you want to make a change, the burden of proof lies upon YOU, not the status quo.

Also, nice ad hominem on attacking Spelt. His main has NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER.

 

[Spelt]

You can control it by banning Peach.

I hate repeating myself so you can just have this:

I don't need to prove its healthy for the metagame. There are dozens of things already legal that arguably AREN'T healthy for the metagame.

Everything is arguably NOT healthy for the metagame.
Next.

If you let one criminal free because his crime "isn't bad enough" then obviously you need to let everyone else go for committing the same offense. Why would you give special treatment to one criminal?

I fail to see how this is relevant.

Spelt are you mad because you main....Bowser and DDD would wreck him even harder with an awesome kill move?

I change my character icon every few days.

 

[Tesh]

So its within your control, but you think it would be dumb to ban something that isn't broken?

Thats my point too.

 

[Raziek]

No, the point is you don't ban AN ENTIRE CHARACTER FOR A MINOR OFFENSE.

You remove that offense if you CAN, and continue on.

You don't permit the offense just because you CAN, and you don't ban a character JUST BECAUSE OF ONE THING.

You're arguing like you have no common sense.

 

[Tesh]

Then why not just Ban Peach from pulling things with down B like you ban IDC?

 

[Spelt]

You're arguing like you have no common sense.

This. 10000000000000000x this. Just stop.

 

[Raziek]

Then why not just Ban Peach from pulling things with down B like you ban IDC?

 

[Tesh]

I'm just pointing out, that you are sayings its dumb to make bans over little things.

You are also saying its smart o make bans over little things.

I know DDD isnt a very well liked character, but thats not reason to limit his options.

 

[Spelt]

That's not what we are saying at all.

In fact I have explained exactly why that is incorrect. Multiple times.

 

[Raziek]

There is no reason NOT to control a random aspect of the game if we can REASONABLY DO SO without impacting too much else.

Banning Peach because she might pull a bob-omb is NOT ok.

Setting items to off/none is FINE, because it limits that random factor to an extent, while still maintaining the risk/reward qualities thanks to the Gordo.

 

[Tesh]

But I'm saying you can BAN a tactic that abuses random variables in a competitive match. Its the same exact thing. Pulling a bomb takes no more skill than getting a misfire or throwing a capsule with DDD. Yet you want to limit only one of them.

 

[Raziek]

****, do you read at ALL?

I said, REASONABLY, WITHOUT CHANGING MUCH ELSE.

One of these solutions involves the mere flick of a switch.

The others involve banning a RECOVERY TOOL, and a character's ENTIRE PROJECTILE GAME.

JUST GIVE UP.

 

[Spelt]

We are NOT banning anything.
If I have to make this clear one more time... .___.

 

[WindMajor]

You can ban it if it's clearly broken. It isn't broken though.

You should always be dodging those types of attacks regardless of what actually comes out, especially since you can see it coming. Assume that Peach will always pull out bombs, or that DDD will throw the spiky thing.

Adapt man, adapt.

 

[Tesh]

Okay so its not a "ban" because you flicked a switch. Its the same thing. You can choosing for something to "no longer be there" for competitive play when its obviously no more broken than what we already have.

Its a RANDOM recovery tool. If DDDs over N helped his recovery would you see things my way then?

 

[Spelt]

bob-ombs are actually bad for peach, what she wants is a stitch face or mr. saturn.

 

[Raziek]

I'm not GOING to make it clear another time, we've explained it enough.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill, and this isn't the kind of thing that really even warrants discussion, since it changes NOTHING ELSE that I know of.

 

[Tesh]

And that is exactly my point, its a calculated risk. Do you think DDD would WANT to throw a ray gun at your and have you out camp him with it? All of these are calculated risks based on their situations and you aren't giving DDDs the chance to make a good or bad decision based on those situations because you have limited a very diverse projectile.