Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[Luxor]

But what if someone is off of their game during Game One? For some characters it becomes nearly impossible to recover after that...is this even fair? Wouldn't it be better to play on a stage where they at least stand a chance of showing that they are a better player even though they didn't show it during the first match?

No johns, you've got 3 stocks to get it together, chances to warm up before, the losers bracket, etc. Plus it's not an instant loss on your opponent's CP, you can switch characters or just get it together. "Instant win/loss" stages are banned by definition. Basically, I think you're saying "Some CP stages realistically offer a nearly insurmountable hurdle. If you lose Game 1 where the stage is neutral and you win Game 2 where you're helped, you're GG'ed Game 3 where they have a slight skill advantage and stage advantage."
If you have a bad day Game 1, you're gonna lose. It will happen. And you CAN make it up Game 3 on their CP. If you don't, tough luck. You practice more and move on.

 

[Shaya]

P.S. My HTML hacks bring all the EC to the yard.
And they're like "omg, this ruleset looks better than ours"
**** RIGHT [ignoring a keyword] its better than yours.

I will teach you, and I won't charge.

 

[-Vocal-]

No johns, you've got 3 stocks to get it together, chances to warm up before, the losers bracket, etc. Plus it's not an instant loss on your opponent's CP, you can switch characters or just get it together. "Instant win/loss" stages are banned by definition. Basically, I think you're saying "Some CP stages realistically offer a nearly insurmountable hurdle. If you lose Game 1 where the stage is neutral and you win Game 2 where you're helped, you're GG'ed Game 3 where they have a slight skill advantage and stage advantage."
If you have a bad day Game 1, you're gonna lose. It will happen. And you CAN make it up Game 3 on their CP. If you don't, tough luck. You practice more and move on.

So our competitive scene requires that we not only learn secondary characters for matchups against other characters but also for matchups against counterpick stages? I have more to think about yet.

P.S. My HTML hacks bring all the EC to the yard.
And they're like "omg, this ruleset looks better than ours"
**** RIGHT [ignoring a keyword] its better than yours.

I will teach you, and I won't charge.

Dude, if I hadn't just gotten a new signature this would totally be going in it

 

[Luxor]

So our competitive scene requires that we not only learn secondary characters for matchups against other characters but also for matchups against counterpick stages? I have more to think about yet.

No, because you'll win on the neutral if you're the better player. If you win the neutral, barring the odd event of losing on your CP, you win. The tournament Brawl CP system is built so that one mistake never costs you the win. However, if you make enough mistakes, you aren't the better player and don't deserve to win.

Secondaries are a cost-benefit thing. If investing the time in a brand-new character for a matchup or two is worth it, great. For many people (especially at high levels) it's better just to progress with your main. And no, you don't need a secondary for one stage. You need either stage knowledge or a ban, and at least one of those you have.

 

[Spelt]

why doesn't everyone just main mk.
it's gonna happen eventually anyways.

 

[ADHD]

Is this really what the nature of our competition is supposed to reflect? Someone has out-played you, so you take them somewhere that their character must overcome mountains to succeed?

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and I still have to solidify exactly what it is that I'm trying to say, but when using a quirky stage to beat someone as opposed to beating them in combat becomes a large focus, we must ask ourselves what is really competitive here. I've begun to think that our stage lists run the risk of placing less importance on being the best player and more importance on knowing how to abuse a unique stage's qualities (as opposed to qualities common between them, such as ledges and platforms). I'm just beginning to question all of this...

NO ****ING **** WHAT THE **** DO YOU THINK I WAS TRYING TO GET THE THEORY CRAFTER SCRUBS TO SEE
<3's uz

 

[demonictoonlink]

No it won't.

ninja'd

 

[-Vocal-]

No, because you'll win on the neutral if you're the better player. If you win the neutral, barring the odd event of losing on your CP, you win. The tournament Brawl CP system is built so that one mistake never costs you the win. However, if you make enough mistakes, you aren't the better player and don't deserve to win.

Secondaries are a cost-benefit thing. If investing the time in a brand-new character for a matchup or two is worth it, great. For many people (especially at high levels) it's better just to progress with your main. And no, you don't need a secondary for one stage. You need either stage knowledge or a ban, and at least one of those you have.

But what about players who are quite evenly matched? This wouldn't be hard to find for 50:50 matchups. Things often come down to last-stock-last-hit scenarios. In this situation, one mistake could cost you game one, and then leave you with a downhill battle on game two and an uphill battle on game three. Why not have a relatively even battle throughout? I could go further into this, but I plan on making a large post in the next couple days about this so you'll be sure to see it then In addition, I remember seeing a video of Logic playing against an Ice Climbers player and he lost the game because he tripped and was grabbed as a result. How can you say that the better player is winning here? Because of that trip, he was forced to fight a tough battle in game three (if it got that far, I can't remember).

edit: Lol, thanks for the support ADHD; while I don't think I'll be going quite as far as to believe as conservative a stagelist as you prefer to be the optimal stagelist for competition, I am beginning to more clearly see where you are coming from.
<3z bak

double edit: Wow, is this even possible? I've agreed with both BPC and ADHD in the same day...

 

[Spelt]

NO ****ING **** WHAT THE **** DO YOU THINK I WAS TRYING TO GET THE THEORY CRAFTER SCRUBS TO SEE
<3's uz

i'm a theory crafting scrub, but this post still made me laugh.

No it won't.

oh wow, you're logic is so solid. i have clearly been between in this extreme battle of wits.

 

[sunshade]

Lets use a bit of logic here. What makes a player better? Winning the match of course.

A players ability to guarantee a victory is what determines how skilled he or she is and as a result if he is better than his or her opponent. If player A is better at guaranteeing a victory than player B is then player A is a better player.

Abusing stages is a good thing. The players who abuse stages and win are examples of how you should play the game if you want to become better. Taking every advantage available to you and capitalizing on them is the essence of competitive play.

 

[Luxor]

Sunshade wins.
ADHD stays true to his name.

 

[Spelt]

but in a world without counterpick stages, abusing stages doesn't exist (to a certain extent), so adding counterpick stages essentially changes the rules of the game. Now not only do you have to outplay your opponent in general but you have to outplay the stage.

 

[sunshade]

But in the actual world counterpick stages do exist.

 

[Spelt]

Well my post was just an example.
i was just bringing up the fact that adding different CP stages, or even starters, changes the rules of the game.

 

[deepseadiva]

Wouldn't it be that removing different CP stages or starters changes the rules of the game?

 

[Spelt]

well yeah, that's also true but in this case, we're adding stages, not taking them away.

 

[ADHD]

Lets use a bit of logic here. What makes a player better? Winning the match of course.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. This is brawl bro, bull**** happens. I can recall plenty of matches where the better player lost. It's narrow-minded to think winning determines the better player when you support lots of random happenings.

Abusing stages is a good thing. The players who abuse stages and win are examples of how you should play the game if you want to become better. Taking every advantage available to you and capitalizing on them is the essence of competitive play.

It doesn't require skill when it's handed to them, but I suppose that might be competitive. I guess..

 

[sunshade]

What meno said only I will go further and say that you cannot add stages to the game unless you are speaking of custom stages. You can only remove stages as all stages are legal until proven bannable.

 

[deepseadiva]

well yeah, that's also true but in this case, we're adding stages, not taking them away.

Originally, we're only removing stages.

It's narrow-minded to think winning determines the better player

oh god lol

 

[ADHD]

Originally, we're only removing stages.



oh god lol

--when you support random happenings.

 

[Spelt]

I think you're missing my point entirely.
I'm talking about adding stages to competitive brawl, in this case the ruleset. Adding green greens, port town, etc

 

[lordhelmet]

You just look like a ******* when you only quote a portion of what someone said.

And it's really pointless arguing here since it's filled with thick-skulled wifi Brawl Minus players.

 

[sunshade]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. This is brawl bro, bull**** happens. I can recall plenty of matches where the better player lost. It's narrow-minded to think winning determines the better player when you support lots of random happenings.

I do not encourage randomness and I have a very low tolerance for it. I support green greens being banned, I despise pictochat, and I wish tripping was never added. Dont try to write me off as budget player cadet.

I fail to see how winning does not determine who is the better player. It may take more than one match to find a consistent winner so that random factors such as tripping dont negatively influence our quest for consistency.

Sometimes the player who wins more often loses, I understand this however that victory is an indication of who at that given moment is the better player.

It doesn't require skill when it's handed to them, but I suppose that might be competitive. I guess..

Reread the following.

A players ability to guarantee a victory is what determines how skilled he or she is and as a result if he is better than his or her opponent. If player A is better at guaranteeing a victory than player B is then player A is a better player.

By the way please respond to my entire posts. I try and keep them short and to the point so that people dont have to dig through to find the message.

 

[deepseadiva]

--when you support random happenings.

Random happenings that are an intrinsic and irremovable part of the game.

If you can't simply accept the results screen as measure of skill, you can't measure it at all.

I think you're missing my point entirely.
I'm talking about adding stages to competitive brawl, in this case the ruleset. Adding green greens, port town, etc

The ruleset is subtractive, not additive. We're never "adding" stages, we're just revising our thinking to remove less.

I do not encourage randomness and I have a very low tolerance for it. I support green greens being banned, I despise pictochat, and I wish tripping was never added. Dont try to write me off as budget player cadet.

Hahahahaha

 

[Spelt]

The ruleset is subtractive, not additive. We're never "adding" stages, we're just revising our thinking to remove less.

Umm, that's just the same thing worded differently... Now matter how you put it it's still just stages being "added" to competitive play. Not "added" to brawl the game, but the brawl we've formed as the basis for tournaments.

 

[-Vocal-]

Lets use a bit of logic here. What makes a player better? Winning the match of course.

A players ability to guarantee a victory is what determines how skilled he or she is and as a result if he is better than his or her opponent. If player A is better at guaranteeing a victory than player B is then player A is a better player.

Abusing stages is a good thing. The players who abuse stages and win are examples of how you should play the game if you want to become better. Taking every advantage available to you and capitalizing on them is the essence of competitive play.

If two players are near evenly matched, then it is entirely possible that the lesser skilled player will win. Players make mistakes that are out of character, not to mention random tripping can greatly affect the outcomes of matches. Are you willing to say that a better player will win every game vs. a lesser skilled player 100% of the time? Such an opinion would be silly, especially considering a random variable (tripping) is present in all Brawl matches, among other things.

But in the actual world counterpick stages do exist.

Something you must realize is that they only exist because we have said they exist. Here, read a post I made to BPC the other day. Parts of it will be out of place, but that's simply because it was an ongoing conversation between us. To fill you in, I had recently asked BPC if he thought that 75m should be allowed, and he replied something along the lines of "Of course not." If you believe that 75m should be allowed in competitive play, I have lost all respect for your opinions. If you believe that it should not, then I invite you to read my post.

75m is not the point here. The point is that you are removing a stage based upon subjective standards.

This would mean that removing a stage on subjective standards is both ok and something you support in moderation.

While 75m is at the extreme end of the competitive continuum, other stages fall into a grey area in the middle. This is the point at which debating about whether a stage should be banned or not is bound to occur, and you are entirely unjustified in saying that someone cannot argue against you. Different people have different opinions about where to draw the line, and while everyone can agree that 75m is bad, that grey area in the middle of the continuum is going to cause disagreement.

You have a solid opinion of where the line should be drawn, and anyone who disagrees with your opinion is wrong. Your belief that your opinion is superior and that you are inherently a better judge of what stages should be subjectively banned is self-righteous, conceited, and frankly cannot be discussed with. That's the reason I gave up.

I would also like to clarify a few things that may not be clear with just this one quote.

1) Banning ANY stage is a subjective decision. Many stages, like 75m and Temple, would be an insult to competitive play, but this is because of what we subjectively define competitive play as. According to our definition, nearly all Brawlers can agree on the statement "Circle camping and excessive intrusion of hazards is detrimental to competitive gameplay." However, even if we all agree, THIS IS STILL A SUBJECTIVE DECISION. Nothing in Brawl says that there is anything wrong with these stages, and when we ban them (this is where I merge with the quote) we are accepting that it is ok to ban a stage based upon subjective criteria.

2) People are bound to hold different opinions about what subjective criteria is sufficient to ban a stage. This is part of my quote, but I want to make this absolutely clear. Everyone agrees that fireballs and springs on 75m are too intrusive to gameplay to allow competition to occur within the environment of 75m. This is the extreme end of the spectrum. When we move towards the center, we encounter hazards like the bombs on Green Greens and various transformations on Pictochat; while some may not see these as too intrusive to competitive gameplay, others will. To phrase it more succinctly, PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN IDEAS ABOUT WHAT SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED TO BAN STAGES.

3) Because stages are banned by using subjective criteria, WE GET TO CHOOSE WHICH STAGES ARE APPROPRIATE TO BE COUNTER PICKS. The very meaning of subjectivity requires this of us. Therefore, to say "counter picks do exist" is very misleading, since we have complete control over which stages we designate as counter picks, or legal at all for that matter.

 

[ADHD]

I do not encourage randomness and I have a very low tolerance for it. I support green greens being banned, I despise pictochat, and I wish tripping was never added. Dont try to write me off as budget player cadet.

Okay, fair enough.

I fail to see how winning does not determine who is the better player. It may take more than one match to find a consistent winner so that random factors such as tripping dont negatively influence our quest for consistency.

Sometimes the player who wins more often loses, I understand this however that victory is an indication of who at that given moment is the better player.

Well, brawl isn't the best measurement for who is the "better player," and quite often there are alot of "flukes." The better player is entirely subjective, though, but adding stages that promote randomness and interacting interferences is drawing away from what most players would subjectively say is the better player.

Reread the following.


By the way please respond to my entire posts. I try and keep them short and to the point so that people dont have to dig through to find the message.

I understand what you're saying, but smash does not contain the amount of depth to make it completely evident. I'm just rambling, but I really don't agree that the better player is the one who "abuses the stage as much as possible" when stage abusage is entirely character dependant.

 

[ShadowLink84]

stuff

I don't believe anyone has ever disagreed with you on that sentiment ADHD.
The disagreement comes in terms of degrees, is this stage hurting competitiveness?
Honestly skill is hard to quantify, and honestly, the better play will win out in the end. Its nowhere near as bad as you so often like to say.
Frankly, I think you're just mimicking AN's knee jerk reaction at the idea of anything outside of a flat stage since they're so **** frightened of the winged bat.

honestly I do not understand it since its contradictory.
People don't believe MK to be ban worthy, but do everything in their power to make the best character, no longer the best and do everything in their power to make him weaker.

It's like they admit MK is ban worthy but are too ****s cared to say it outright and go about dancing round the subject.

 

[-Vocal-]

Okay, fair enough.



Well, brawl isn't the best measurement for who is the "better player," and quite often there are alot of "flukes." The better player is entirely subjective, though, but adding stages that promote randomness and interacting interferences is drawing away from what most players would subjectively say is the better player.




I understand what you're saying, but smash does not contain the amount of depth to make it completely evident. I'm just rambling, but I really don't agree that the better player is the one who "abuses the stage as much as possible" when stage abusage is entirely character dependant.

Oh my. I addressed the first issue in my post (that of subjectivity) but I totally forgot to lead from that into stage interaction Well that's for the best anyways. I haven't entirely figured out what my opinions on stage interaction are quite yet; all I know is that I'm now questioning things that I previously accepted as unquestionable. As such, I'll just withhold my opinion for the time being.

And I'm glad to see your avatar and character icon back to normal

 

[Spelt]

honestly I do not understand it since its contradictory.
People don't believe MK to be ban worthy, but do everything in their power to make the best character, no longer the best and do everything in their power to make him weaker.

It's like they admit MK is ban worthy but are too ****s cared to say it outright and go about dancing round the subject.

This.
This this this this this.

 

[ADHD]

I don't believe anyone has ever disagreed with you on that sentiment ADHD.
The disagreement comes in terms of degrees, is this stage hurting competitiveness?
Honestly skill is hard to quantify, and honestly, the better play will win out in the end. Its nowhere near as bad as you so often like to say.
Frankly, I think you're just mimicking AN's knee jerk reaction at the idea of anything outside of a flat stage since they're so **** frightened of the winged bat.

That and it's proved inconsistent results. I mean, I don't think anyone can disagree that Mew2king is better than random R.O.B., but he was still beaten by that random R.O.B. he three stocked the previous game on Luigi's Mansion.

honestly I do not understand it since its contradictory.
People don't believe MK to be ban worthy, but do everything in their power to make the best character, no longer the best and do everything in their power to make him weaker.

You're not understanding that that issue is really very strong and passionate to some people. If we are going to have him remain legal, then at least we can try to not improve his already monstrous self.

It's like they admit MK is ban worthy but are too ****s cared to say it outright and go about dancing round the subject.

He's alright. There's nothing to lay down on the table that will solidify him being banned.

Oh my. I addressed the first issue in my post (that of subjectivity) but I totally forgot to lead from that into stage interaction Well that's for the best anyways. I haven't entirely figured out what my opinions on stage interaction are quite yet; all I know is that I'm now questioning things that I previously accepted as unquestionable. As such, I'll just withhold my opinion for the time being.

And I'm glad to see your avatar and character icon back to normal

I'm still trying to become good with Metaldyke

 

[-Vocal-]

honestly I do not understand it since its contradictory.
People don't believe MK to be ban worthy, but do everything in their power to make the best character, no longer the best and do everything in their power to make him weaker.

It's like they admit MK is ban worthy but are too ****s cared to say it outright and go about dancing round the subject.

Screw it. This is the FOURTH SIGGABLE THING I'VE SEEN TODAY. I love this peanut themed one, but this one is just too great to not sig.

edit@ADHD: No one can blame you for that, I suppose. He's the best, and he's still here so...I guess it just makes sense

 

[Shaya]

mew2king losing on luigi's mansion against a rob just shows that Mew2king got outplayed...

What you consider a measure of skill isn't the same for everyone else ADHD, I hope you can understand that.

What you're really meant to be arguing here is, stages like Luigi's Mansion have skill sets required that shouldn't be apart of competitive brawl

not

Luigi's mansion is gay, your gay, it takes no skill to win on this stage

You can argue that LM has over bearing and unbeatable circle camping properties that weaken the competitive nature of brawl to have it available... but saying "mew2king lost to a rob on LM when he 3 stocked him the match before, hence LM requires no skill" is stupid, M2K got outplayed, fair and simple. There's nothing "random" about Luigi's Mansion.

 

[-Vocal-]

I'm glad to hear you say that Shaya So, now, what do you have to say in reponse to this post?

 

[Shaya]

You are over all correct. Nice post.

The whole ideal of the way we play smash now in "sets" was invented for smash. It didn't come from anywhere official.

The way you see things is the way things are, some stages are "obvious" as too detrimental, but that in itself is subjective. You're somewhat getting into philosophy that can't exactly be argued with so I'll leave it there.
Of course the BBR's stage list is meant to reflect "all possible stages",
the grouping of counter picks now also shows this in more depth in terms of perception/subjectivity on legality.

 

[-Vocal-]

You are over all correct. Nice post.

The whole ideal of the way we play smash now in "sets" was invented for smash. It didn't come from anywhere official.

The way you see things is the way things are, some stages are "obvious" as too detrimental, but that in itself is subjective. You're somewhat getting into philosophy that can't exactly be argued with so I'll leave it there.
Of course the BBR's stage list is meant to reflect "all possible stages",
the grouping of counter picks now also shows this in more depth in terms of perception/subjectivity on legality.

Interesting. Like I said, I've been doing a lot of thinking on this lately and haven't finished yet; you just gave me a bit more

 

[Spelt]

Vocal is amazing at wording things.



But on another note, i would still like a reply to my point i was trying to make.

 

[Shaya]

I'm a skimmer. If you have a question let it be asked.
Preferably in bold if it's mixed in a big paragraph of back information.

 

[-Vocal-]

Vocal is amazing at wording things.



But on another note, i would still like a reply to my point i was trying to make.

Thanks, I try I'm a firm believer that words can mean different things to different people, so I try to be as thorough as possible.

 

[Spelt]

I'm a skimmer. If you have a question let it be asked.
Preferably in bold if it's mixed in a big paragraph of back information.

Oh, it was more of a counterpoint to sunshade's point, so blatantly bringing it up out of nowhere would seem weird and out of place. xD But thanks.